THE SECOND PART OF THE DEFENCE OF THE REFORMED CATHOLIC. Wherein the Religion established in our Church of England (for the points here handled) is apparently justified by authority of Scripture, and testimony of the ancient Church, against the vain cavillations collected by Doctor Bishop Seminary Priest, as out of other Popish writers, so specially out of Bellarmine, and published under the name of The marrow and pith of many large volumes, for the oppugning thereof. By ROBERT ABBOT Doctor of Divinity. Tertul. de prescript. adver. haeret. Haereses de quorundam infirmitatibus habent quod valent, nihil valentes si in benè valentem fidem incurrant. ANCHORA SPEI LONDINI, Impensis Georg. Bishop. 1607. TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY MONARCH, MY MOST DREAD and Sovereign Lord, JAMES by the grace of God King of great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the faith. MOST puissant and renowned King, albeit my quality and gifts are of meaner sort and worth, then that I should thereupon presume thus often to solicit your majesties acceptation of my foretimely and undigested fruits: yet sith this business was by your majesties appointment first commanded, and one part thereof is already become sacred unto you, the remainder could not in duty be recommended to any other then to the same most benign and fosterous aspect of your Royal Grace. In the former part I have endeavoured to clear those mists and clouds which Doctor Bishops malevolent breath, out of the foggy vapours of their Romish filthy lakes, had blown amongst us in his Epistle Dedicatory to your Highness, whereinto he had contrived in a generality very many malicious and blind cavils, whereby he would persuade your Majesty, that the Religion by your laws established is not consonant to the ancient and first approved truth. In this latter part I have laboured the examination and confutation of his whole book, wherein as he hath taken upon him more particularly to oppugn the doctrine of our Church in divers and sundry points which are questioned betwixt us, so I have studied according to the talon which God hath given me, to make it plainly appear in the same points, that the cause which he maintaineth hath very slender and weak support, that his fortifications of defence are but earth and clay, and his offensive weapons but as straws and rushes, and that he had more care to write a book, than conscience to weigh the force and truth of that he wrote. Which that it may not be imputed to any inability of his, but to the badness of the cause itself, he himself professeth that he giveth to his Reader therein a Preface to the Reader. the marrow and pith of many large volumes, having indeed transcribed the greatest part thereof out of Bellarmine's disputations, who is now become their common oracle, and the chief fountain whereat they all draw. Which may well be wondered at in Doctor Bishop, that he being a secular Priest, and with the rest lately carried with that importunate fury against the jesuits, and having been in that cause a principal undertaker above the rest, should notwithstanding now be content to grace them so far as to furnish himself out of their armoury to fight against us. But it hath well enough appeared, that their quarrel was but to serve a turn, wherein failing of their purpose, albeit they have discovered the jesuits to be so wholly composed of fraud and villainy, as should justly cause all men to shun and detest them, yet they have yielded to be gathered with them again to the feathering of one wing, and though haply they be no otherwise tied together but like b judg. 15.4. Samsons foxes, tail to tail, their rancour inwardly continuing such as that they can hardly one with good countenance behold the other, yet they agree together to carry fire betwixt them to burn and consume the heritage of the Lord. Which fire notwithstanding we hope by the mercy of God, through your majesties religious and godly care, shall be but as the fire of gunpowder against the wind, returning upon the faces of them by whom it was kindled. For although the endeavours of these malignant spirits seem apparently to tend to the detriment and danger of the Church of Christ, yet that God who in the beginning c 2. Cor. 4.6. commanded the light to shine out of darkness, and when he had made all things very good, and nothing but good, yet gave way to sin and evil, that thereout he might draw some further good, the same God even now turneth to the good of many, that which they intent for evil, it coming hereby to pass that the Scriptures are more diligently searched, the truth more instantly preached and defended, the Pastors of the Lords flock occasioned more carefully to stand upon their watch, the desires of many people enkindled to find certain resolution of the things which are so greatly questioned; and though some fall away, who being but d Tertull. de praescr. Auolent quantum volent paleae levis fidei, etc. chaff of light belief, have but wanted wind to blow them out of the floor, yet many more by the displaying and laying open of the treacheries and deceits of such impostors are confirmed in the faith, and do learn the more deeply to detest the mystery of iniquity, whilst they see the poisoned and deadly fruits that grow out of that ground. Which since they have been grown to so full and perfect ripeness, could not but have their time to fall, and the fall thereof having been hitherto so happily begun, we hope shall under your majesties government much more prosperously succeed, and that God will go forward to shake off e Deut. 32 32, 33. the bitter and cruel grapes of the vine of Sodom, that men may no longer gather thereof to their own destruction. In the mean time your Majesty hath seen and must expect yet further to see f Apoc. 12.7. the dragon and his angels fight against Michael and his Angels, and g ver. 15. out of his mouth as it were out of a brimstone lake, casting out malice & slander as floods of water, to drown the woman and her seed, and so much the more enraged, because he conceiveth in likelihood h ver 12. that he hath but a short time, and that the day is at hand which the Lord hath promised, which shall i jere. 51.6.11. bring upon Babel the vengeance of the Lord & the vengeance of his temple. The Lord make good his word; the Lord hasten his work, that we may see it, that that k Apoc. 17.4. purple harlot first founded in blood and parricide, and having since by an unquenchable thirsting after blood made herself the slaughter house l Ibid. 18.24. of the Saints and Martyrs of Christ, may of her own children drink blood her belly full, that m ver. 20. the heavens may rejoice and the holy Apostles & Prophets, seeing the judgement of God upon her, casting her with violence into the sea, never to rise again. And you, most noble King, in whom God hath turned the period of time which threatened alteration and danger to our state & government, to the further strength and establishment thereof, and hath lifted your throne far above the thrones of your royal Progenitors, and hath made you in a manner the balance of the Christian world, consider that it is undoubtedly for some great work that in his providence he hath so disposed it, and thereto apply those singular ornaments and endowments of the mind, wherein you excel all that have been before you. God hath made your highness able to espy and discern the coney-catching devices of those bastard Catholic seducers, & we assure ourselves, that in yourself & in your royal posterity it shall be found, to the great advancement of the faith and kingdom of jesus Christ. Wherein that our hope may not be frustrate, we most humbly beseech almighty God to put into your majesties heart not to be too secure of them who account it a martyrdom to die for the murdering of Christian Princes, and in the shedding of your sacred blood would think themselves to have gained the one half of their desires, content perhaps by instructions for a while to temporize, and to make show of meaning no harm, till the memory of their late villainy being somewhat overblown, they may be the less suspected, but having already given to understand what your Majesty shall look for at their hands if opportunity should second their designs. The Lord avert and turn that judgement from us, and n 1. Sam. 25.29. bind your majesties soul in the bundle of life with the Lord your God, that your eyes may long behold that noble Imp of grace, the branch of our hope, together with the other branches of your royal line, growing before the Lord to the further dismay and terror of your enemies, and the greater security and assurance of the church of Christ. As for the service which according to your majesties commandment I have here performed, albeit it be far from that perfection which the weight of the cause requireth, yet I doubt not but it is sufficient to show on whether part the truth is to be found, and to justify the proceed of your Majesty against the cavillations of wilful men, desperately shutting their own eyes, that the light of the Gospel may not shine unto them. Whatsoever it is, it most humbly craveth your majesties acceptance and royal protection and favour, whereto with all loyal duty I recommend it and your highness self to the protection of the most high God, whose cause it is that is defended thereby. Your majesties most humble and dutiful subject ROB. ABBOT. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. GEntle Reader, thou wilt I hope impute it in some part to the condition of the time, that I give thee this answer not altogether so well featured and shaped as thou haply wouldst desire it. Though it be a fruit that may seem to have been long in growing, yet as the case standeth with me, the length of time hath but served to bring it to his greatness, and therefore howsoever it cometh forth with defiance to the adversaries, yet I confess it seemeth to me not so thoroughly digested and seasoned as I would have wished it, to content thee. In this defence of God's truth, the things that are specially to be respected against the importunity and advantage of our adversaries, are strength and expedition. I have had care, as the matter would permit, to satisfy thee in both these respects, and let my care herein obtain pardon of thee, if I seem unto thee to fail in some compliments otherwise. If thou think this my answer needless because another man hath already taken pains therein, thou must remember that no man's private prevention could yield me dispensation to be free from doing that which public authority required of me. I doubt not but in the reading of either, it shall appear unto thee what spirit it is wherewith these Romish factors are led in their opposition against us, and that it is not truth and saving of souls whereto they bend themselves, but only the upholding of their faction; whether by truth or falsehood, by right or wrong, it skilleth not, so that that may be performed. That thou mayst the better see and judge of all, I have inserted the whole text of Doctor Bishop's book, altogether condemning that falsehood and guile which he hath used towards M. Perkins, and they all use in their pretence and show of answering our books, in that they never set down the copy of that to which they answer. Which policy serveth them to blind the Reader, and to gain liberty to themselves to conceal and dissemble what they list, to pervert, to vilify, to falsify, and by absurd imputations to calumniate without being controlled. As our fidelity and good conscience of the cause which we handle, manifestly appeareth in that we never forbear to publish our adversaries books to the world, when we have adjoined an answer to them; so their guilt and guile is manifest by the contrary, for that they fear to put forth our books with their answers, as doubting lest the books being at hand should bewray and show the unsufficiency of the answers. As for Master Perkins book, being loath too much to increase the greatness of the volume, I have forborn to put it in, the rather for that the substance thereof for the most part may appear by that that Master Bishop hath set down, and where he faulteth, I have taken occasion in my answer to declare, if not the words yet the sum and effect of it, the book itself also being easily had by any that is desirous more exactly to compare them. The author's conceit for the form and manner of that work was greatly to be approved, and whereas it hath had the liking of very many for the brief and plain delivery of our controversial grounds, they shall see now that it was not without cause that they carried so good opinion of it, inasmuch as the malice of an enemy out of their many large volumes can find so little matter of weight and substance to say against it. I doubt not but it had been well that in some places he had given it some better strength, but it is to be considered, that as the midwife judgeth better of the birth than the mother that traveleth with it, and in gaming, the slander by sometimes seethe more than he that playeth, so it is in writing of books, that the Reader and examiner seethe sometimes a defect, where the busied and entangled mind of the writer observed none: and therefore of well-willers and men indifferent, it is to be expected that that which it somewhat unperfectly delivered in one place, be no impeachment of that which is sufficiently fenced and fortified in another. Thou shalt find it (gentle Reader) to have been so written, as that Master Bishop is feign to use very shameful and miserable shifts to give show of answer to it. Do thou learn hereby to love the truth, which thus triumpheth in the adversaries own camp, and even in their own books insulteth over them, whilst either perforce they subscribe it, or show themselves so exceedingly distressed to resist or stand against it. Take no offence whosoever thou art at the continuance of this fight, because the order must stand which God set down in the beginning betwixt the Woman and the Serpent, a Gen. 3.15. I will put enmity betwixt her and thee, betwixt her seed and thy seed; and therefore there shall never want b 2. Thess. 3.2 absurd or unreasonable men, * 1. Tim. 4.2. having their consciences seared with a hot Iron, with whom no evidence of truth shall prevail to make them desist from oppugning the seed that is contrary to them. The beginning of which absurdity is to be seen in wicked Cain towards his brother Abel, whom the voice of God personally speaking to him could not divert from that malice whereby he had intended the destruction of his brother. The succession whereof we may behold in the Scribes and Pharisees, and Elders of the jews, whom neither the innocency of the life of Christ, neither the authority of his doctrine, neither the glory of his miracles, nor any evidence of the hand of God working with him, could any way move, but that they were still cavilling and quarreling against him, still accusing and condemning him, and never ceasing even against their own consciences to fight against him. What marvel is it then that the voice of God speaking to us in the scriptures, and testifying what the faith and religion is that we are to yield unto him, doth not end the quarrel and appease the fury of our adversaries against us, but that in a mad conceit of themselves and of their Church, they go on still to make of religion what they list, and with impudent faces labour to persuade men, that howsoever in plain words the Scriptures seem to make for us, yet in meaning they are against us. And surely incredible it were, but that we see it, that men having use of wit and will, should dare in that sort as they do to mock and delude the word of God. At their pleasure they bring in their abominations into the Church, and when the Scriptures are alleged against them, they tell us by lame distinctions which stand one leg in the Scriptures the other quite beside, that the Scriptures mean thus or thus, but in no sort touch that which is done by them, though the very letter of the text do apparently contradict them. As if the adulterer should say, that the Scripture condemneth not his adultery with a Christian woman, but only that which is with Infidels and Pagans; or the drunkard should allege that it meaneth nothing of his drunkenness, but only of the drunkenness of them who have not wherewith to maintain their drinking. How many distinctions have they, whereof there is no greater reason to be given then may be given of these answers? Now what heresy, what idolatry, what damnable fancies have there ever been in the world, which may not find means for their defence if this licentious kind of distinctions and devices may take place? If these mockeries be deemed intolerable in the laws of men, what impiety, what wickedness is it thus to dally with and to mock the word of God? But the light of the Scripture doth plainly discover the vanity of these shifts, and that is the cause why they hate and shun the Scriptures, as the thief doth the gallows and the Bear the stake. What a work do they make, how many devices do they use, how ready are they to apprehend every pretence, to discourage the people from meddling with the Scriptures, and to breed in them an uncertainty and doubt of resting their faith there? But there is no cause for thee to be moved at such bugs and scarecrows, wherewith these malignant adversaries seek to fright thee out of the garden of jesus Christ, desiring to have thee rather to continue upon their stinking dunghills, then to gather the sweet and delightsome flowers that yield the savour of life unto eternal life. Assure thyself, that the most absolute assurance of truth is in the voice of truth itself, and thou mayst be secure, that howsoever men may speak partially, and may deceive thee, yet God who speaketh to thee in the Scriptures, which the adversary himself dareth not deny, will never deceive thee. They pretend great difficulties and obscurities in the holy Scriptures, but is it a reason for thee to forbear to drink and to wash thyself in the shallow places of the rivers of God, because there are also gulfs and depths, the bottom whereof thou art not able to search or sound? c August. epis. 3. In ijs quae aperta sunt tanquam familiaris amicus sine fuco loquitur ad cor indoctorum atque doctorum. In those things which are manifest in the Scriptures, saith Saint Austin, d Idem de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 9 In ijs quae apertae posita sunt in Scriptures inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. In which are contained or found all things that belong to faith and behaviour of life, God speaketh as a familiar friend, without glozing or guile to the heart both of the learned & unlearned; e Hieron. in Psal. 86. Non ut pauci intelligerent, sed ut omnes. not that a few, saith Hierome, but that all may understand, the Scripture being f Gregor. ad Leand. de exposit. lib. job. Flwius in quo agnus ambulet & Elephas natet. a river, saith Gregory, wherein both the lamb may wade and the Elephant may swim, g August. de util. cred. ca 6. Planè ita modificata ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est, si modo ad hauriendum devotè ac pie ut vera religio poscit accedat. the doctrine thereof being so tempered, saith Saint Austin again, as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him, so that he come to draw with devotion and piety, as true religion requireth he should do. When they then seek to bar thee from the use of this heavenly light, what canst thou conceive but that they are the agents and factors of the Prince of darkness? The h Tertul. contra Martion. Sepia or Cuttlefish, Tertullian saith, when he is in danger to be taken, casteth about him a black inky matter, wherewith he darkeneth the water that the fisherman cannot see him. What is the reason why those men in that sort seek to compass themselves about with the black and dark clouds of ignorance of the scriptures, but that their own consciences tell them that their devotions must needs be descried to be superstitious and damnable if they come to be viewed and surveyed by the light thereof? Now albeit this be the true light i Ephes. 5.13. which maketh all things manifest, and the only sure foundation whereupon we can rest our faith (for what is it what the whole world saith if God say not the same? yet against the importunity of the adversary, and for thy better satisfaction, thou shalt see our assertions and expositions thoroughly munited and fenced with the acknowledgement of the ancient Church. Wherein although we cannot but say, that by the Fathers and Bishops of those times, many things were conceived and delivered amiss (and are not our adversaries forced, will they, will they, to confess the same?) yet God hath so provided, that his truth ex abundanti is justified by them, and no antiquity or authority of human error hath so defaced it, but that still the tract thereof even by them who sometimes have deemed somewhat against it, is plainly to be discerned. Yea in sundry articles of our faith the whole stream of antiquity runneth so oppositely & directly against the doctrine and practice of the Roman church that now is, as that we may wonder at their extreme impudence and wilfulness, who against so clear and evident testimony do still persist in the maintenance thereof. Which, in some part thou shalt see in the treatise here following, and shalt understand according to the occasion here offered, that howsoever they cry with wide mouths, The fathers, the fathers, yet their cry is greater than their strength, and that the Fathers have not left us unfurnished either of armour to defend ourselves, or of weapons to conquer them. And the more to secure thee hereof, I have set down the testimonies of the Fathers for the most part in their own words, either in Latin or translated into Latin, or in the Greek tongue sometimes where I had the copy at hand, and saw the Latin translation not fitly to express the Greek. I have had a sincere and faithful care to deal uprightly herein, and not to trouble thee with impertinent allegations, but only such as are pregnant and clear to that purpose for which they are alleged. That God (by whose providence this service hath befallen unto me) make the same profitable both to thee and me, and grant us by writing and reading to increase in the light and assurance of his truth, that we may more and more see and discern the frauds of these Mountebanks and juggling Sophisters, who by insolent ostentation of words, and casting of false and deceitful colours, take upon them to be able to charm the world, and by their wits to juggle all other men beside their wits, treading under foot the word of God, pretending the father's names, and betraying the faith of the fathers, subjecting all religion to their own fancy, and saying after the manner of wicked men, k Psal. 12.4. With our tongues we will prevail, we are they that ought to speak, who is Lord over us? And thou, O merciful Father, who only art the refuge and dwelling place of thy poor and maligned Church, l Psal. 68.18. establish for thy name's sake the thing that thou hast wrought in us, go forward with the work which thou hast so graciously begun, to dissolve the captivity of Babylon, and to free the remnant of thy Church from the yoke of the slavery and bondage of Antichrist, that all stumbling blocks of Popish profanations and idolatries being removed, there may be a way prepared for the return of the forlorn seed of Abraham into the society of thy people, that thenceforth we may expect and look for the coming of thy Son jesus Christ to make an end of these evil days, and to gather us everlastingly to that hope which in him thou hast set before us. m Apoc. 22.20. Amen, Lord. Come Lord jesus, come quickly. The special Contents of this Book. THat the Church of Rome maketh Christ in effect no Christ. pag. 14. etc. That Rome is Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist. pag. 39 Of . Chap. 1. pag. 86. Of original sin after Baptism. Chap. 2. pag. 163. Of the certainty of Salvation. Chap. 3. pag. 255. Of justification. Chap. 4. pa. 379. in which are handled these points: 1. That righteousness before God is imputed, not inherent. pag 387. 2. What manner of faith it is whereby we are justified. p. 434. 3. That Faith only doth justify. pag. 468. 4. How we affirm it unpossible to keep God's commandments. pag. 550. 5. That our good works are not free from stain of sin. p. 573. 6. That true faith cannot be without charity & good works. pag. 605. Of Merits. Chap. 5. pag. 629. Of Satisfaction. Chap. 6. pag. 729. Of Traditions. Chap. 7. pag. 839. Of Vows, and namely of the Monkish vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. Chap. 8. pag. 992. Of Images. Chap. 9 pag. 1105. THE PREFACE TO THE READER, BY DOCTOR BISHOP. GEntle Reader, I mean not here to entertain thee with many words: the principal cause that moved me to write, was the honour and glory of God, in defence of his sacred verity, than the employing of his talon bestowed upon me: as well to fortify the weaker sort of catholics in their faith, as to call back and lead others (who wander up and down like to lost sheep, after their own fancies) into the right way. I took in hand particularly the confutation of this book, not only for that I was thereunto requested by a friend of good intelligence and judgement, who thought it very expedient: but also because perusing of it, I found it penned more scholarlike than the Protestants use to do ordinarily: For first the points in controversy are set down distinctly, and for the most part truly. Afterward in confirmation of their opinion, the chief arguments are produced from both Scriptures, Fathers and reason: Which are not vulgar, but culled out of their Rabbins, Luther, Peter Martyr, Caluin, Kemnitius, and such like, though he name them not. Lastly, he placeth some objections, made in favour of the Catholic doctrine, and answereth to them as well as he could. And (which I speak to his commendation) doth perform all this very briefly and clearly. So that (to speak my opinion freely) I have not seen any book of like quantity, published by a Protestant, to contain either more matter, or delivered in better method. And consequently more apt to deceive the simple: especially considering, that he withal counterfeiteth to come as near unto the Roman Church as his tender conscience will permit him, whereas indeed he walketh as wide from it as any other noveller of this age. Wherefore I esteemed my spare time best employed about the discovering of it, being (as it were) an abridgement of the principal controversies of these times, and do endeavour after the same Scholastical manner, without all superfluity of words, no loss to maintain and defend the Catholic party, then to confute all such reasons as are by M. Perkins alleged for the contrary. Read this short treatise (good Christian) diligently, for thou shalt find in it the marrow and pith of many large volumes, contracted and drawn into a narrow room. And read it over as it becometh a good Christian, with a desire to find out, and to follow the truth, because it concerneth thy eternal salvation: and then judge without partiality, whether Religion hath better grounds in God's word more evident testimony from the purest antiquity, and is more conformable unto all godliness, good life, and upright dealing (the infallible marks of the best Religion) and speedily embrace that. Before I end this short preface, I must entreat thy patience to bear with the faults in printing, which are too too many, but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered, that it was printed far from the Author with a Dutch composer, and over seen by an unskilful Corrector, the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the book. Before the printing of this part was finished, I heard that M. Perkins was dead. I am sort that it cometh forth too late to do him any good. Yet his work living to poison others, a preservative against it, is never the less necessary. R. ABBOT. IF you had respected the glory of God, M. Bishop, it should have appeared by your respect to yield sovereign honour and authority to the word of God. God is in heaven, and we are upon the earth: we have no knowledge of him, no acquaintance or dealing with him but by his word. Therein we seek him, and find him; therein he speaketh unto us, and thereout we learn to speak to him. If we have the word of God, God is present with us; if we be without the word of God, God himself is absent from us. Therefore by our honour and obedience to the word of God, it must appear, that we truly and sincerely intend and seek for the glory of God. Hereby it appeareth that you, M. Bishop, in this your book, have not fought for the glory of God, but rather to glorify a Extravag. joan. 12. Cum inter. in glossa Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam sic non potuisse statuere, etc. haereticum censeretur. your Lord God the Pope, as your Gloss of the Canon law most blasphemously hath styled him. You have in this work of yours used all manner of untruth and falsehood, to uphold and justify his wicked proceed against the word of God. Whatsoever God hath taught us, whatsoever Christ and his Apostles have delivered, all is nothing if your Lord God the Pope, and your master Bellarmine his proctor general, do say the contrary. Howsoever simply and plainly they speak, yet they mean not as they speak, if the Pope and Bellarmine will tell you another meaning. As for your talon, we take it to be greater in your own opinion and the opinion of your fellows, than it is indeed. But whatsoever it is, you have abused it to the wrong of him that gave it, not to edification, but to destruction, not to fortify any in the faith, but to nourish and harden them that depend upon you, in error and misbelief; not to lead any into the right way, but to entice men to b Prou. 2.15. crooked ways and lewd paths, which c Ch. 7.27. go down to the chambers of death, and the end whereof is confusion and shame; not to withdraw men from fancies, but to draw them to other fancies, from fancies in conversation, to fancies in religion; that so being fed wholly with fancies, they may perish in the end for want of true food. And indeed men that wander in fancies, are the subject for your malice and treachery to work upon. Many that live in the opportunity of the knowledge of Christ, yet neglect and despise the same. The light shineth into their eyes, and they regard it not: God offereth himself unto them, and they say in their hearts, We have no delight nor pleasure in thee. Therefore being empty and void of truth, they lie open to be filled with error and lies; and having unthankfully withholden themselves from God, God by just judgement giveth them over to the hands of impostors and deceivers, that it may be verified which the Apostle saith, d 2. Thess. 2. 1● Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, therefore God shall send them strong delusion that they may believe lies, that they may be damned which believed not the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness. Your friend of good intelligence and judgement, that thought it very expedient that you should take in hand the confutation of M. Perkins book, spoke thereof haply as Caiphas did of the death of Christ, meaning it one way which was to fall out another way. I doubt not but it will fall out to have been very expedient which you have done, because you give hereby occasion of discovering your false doctrine, and of justifying the truth of Christ, which M. Perkins was careful to maintain. I doubt not but many by this occasion will take knowledge of your corrupt and treacherous dealing, your patching and shifting, your cozening and deluding of men, and will discern the weakness and absurdity of that bad cause, which with glorious and goodly words you labour so highly to advance. As for your commendation of M. Perkins book, it is but the imitation of some vainglorious captains, who to grace their own victories, do set out to the uttermost the adversaries power and prowess, thinking their glory to be the greater, by how much the greater men shall conceive the might and valour of them to have been whom they have overcome. You dreamt of a victory here, and you thought it to be much for your commendation, that your adversary should be deemed of as great strength as any is to be found amongst us. But we would have you to understand, that the Church of England never took M. Perkins book to be a warrior in complete harness, or a challenger for the field, but only as a captain training his soldiers at home, where he wanteth much of that munition and defence wherewith he should endure the brunt of battle. He wrote it very scholarlike indeed, for an introduction only to the true understanding and judgement of the controversies betwixt us and you, but knew well, that it wanted much that might have been added, to give it full and perfect strength. You have taken hereof some advantage, as you conceive, and yet how pitifully are you distressed many times both to uphold that which he objecteth for you, and to answer that which he allegeth for us. Now if for the compiling of his book he bestirred himself as the Bee, going into other men's gardens for the gathering of honey into his hive, yet he made no Rabbins of them, to take any thing for honey, because it grew in the garden of such or such a man, but used careful and advised consideration of that which he wrote, esteeming the weight of his arguments and of his answers, that he might faithfully perform what he did undertake. But far otherwise have you dealt, M. Bishop, in your marrow and pith as you call it of many large volumes contracted and drawn into a narrow room. You have made Bellarmine specially your rabbin, your magister noster; you take all upon his, word; if he say it, you will swear it: if he have once written it, you will write it again without any further examination whether it be true or false. We are beholding to you for translating so much of him into English for their sakes that do not understand the Latin tongue. But Bellarmine mocketh and abuseth you M. Bishop, as he doth every one that giveth him any trust. He was a man of corrupt and evil conscience, wholly prostituted to Antichrist, and sold to his deceits, by which means he maketh you to lie many times when you do not think ye lie. For which cause I would advise you, when you will write any more books out of Bellarmine, to make due trial of that which he saith. It may haply do you good, to make you detest his fraud and falsehood, and to hate that profession which cannot be upholden but by such means. There is cause you should so do, who from many large volumes can gather no better marrow, no sounder pith, then that which you have sent us for the marrow and pith of many large volumes. Your marrow is but dust, your pith is but rottenness: there is nothing in your book fit to satisfy the conscience of a man desirous to be instructed in the truth. It will I hope sufficiently appear, that you have neither grounds from the word of God, nor any approved testimony of antiquity, to warrant any man to embrace that which you maintain. He that readeth your book as it becometh a good Christian to do, and conferreth it with M. Perkins book and our defence thereof, to judge without partiality, I presume he will take you for a lewd and naughty man, impudent and unshamefast, regarding only to uphold a side, without any entire regard to learn or to teach the truth. In your postscript you tell us that you are sorry M. Perkins being dead, that your book cometh forth too late to do him any good. Whereby we conceive, that you have a good opinion of it, but we must tell you as touching doing him good in your sense, he was not a man so weak as to be moved with such a toy. Indeed if he had lived, we need not doubt but it would have done him much good, and been great joy to him, to see that in the marrow and pith of many large volumes there should be so little matter of moment to be said against that which he had written, so little and so bad, as that we hope that your preservative will become your own poison, and the bane of that which you thought to strengthen thereby. M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO MASTER PERKINS HIS EPISTLE DEDICATORY. MAster Perkins in his Epistle Dedicatory saith, It is a policy of the devil, to think that our religion & the religion of the present church of Rome, are all one in substance, or that they may be united. Before I am to deliver my opinion concerning this point, I had need to be informed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion: For there being great diversities of pretended Religions currant in the world, all contrary to the Church of Rome, how can I certainly know whether of them he professeth? Wherefore (good sir) may it please you to declare what religion you understand when you say our Religion? Is it that which Martin Luther (a licentious Friar) first preached in Germany? or rather that which the martial minister Zuinglius contended with sword and shield to set up in Switzerland? or perhaps that which john Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneva, expelling the lawful magistrate thence, and by the aid of Beza (a dissolute turnecoate) spread into many corners of France? Or if by your Religion you mean only to comprehend the Religion now practised in England, yet are you farther to show, whether you understand that established by the State, or the other more refined (as it is thought by many) and embraced by them who are called Puritans, for of their leaven savoureth that position of yours, That the article of Christ's descent into hell crept into the Creed by negligence, and some other such like in this book. These principal divisions of the new Gospel (to omit sundry subdivisions) being famous, and received of divers in England according to each man's fantasy, it is meet you express whether of them you speak of, that it may be duly considered how the Roman Religion and it agree, and what union may be made between them. Now if you mean the hodge-podge and confusion of all these new Religions together, as by the opposition here unto the Church of Rome, and by the articles following may be gathered, than I am clear for you in this, that there can be no more concord between these two Religions, than there is between light and darkness faith and infidelity, Christ and Belial. Notwithstanding I think that the reason by you produced to prove the impossibility of this 〈◊〉 is of no value, to wit, that they of the Roman church have razed the foundation, for though in words they honour Christ, yet in deed they turn him into a PseudoChrist, and an Idol of their own brain. A very sufficient cause (no doubt) of eternal breach and division, if it could be verified. But how prove you, that we Roman Catholics, who believe jesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, and the only Redeemer of mankind, make him a false Christ and an idol? or before you go about to prove it, tell me (I pray you) how this can well stand with your own definition of a reformed Catholic in your Preface? There you affirm him to be a Catholic reform to your liking, that holdeth the same necessary heads of Religion with the Roman Church. Now can there be any more necessary head of Religion, then to have a right faith in Christ? can any other foundation be laid besides jesus Christ? 1. Cor. 3. If then your reformed Catholic must agree with the Roman Church in necessary heads of Religion, as you hold he must: either the Roman Church razeth not the foundation, and maketh not Christ a PseudoChrist, as you say here, or else you teach your disciples very perniciously, to hold the same necessary heads of Religion with it. But to leave you to the reconciliation of these places, let us examine briefly how you confirm your paradox, that the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ, which you go about to prove by four instances: The first is, because the servant of his servants may change and add to his commandments, having so great power that he may open and shut heaven to whom he list, and bind the very conscience with his own laws, and consequently be partaker of the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Here are divers reasons huddled up in one, but all of little moment: for all these everal faculties which the Pope enjoyeth, being received by the free gift of Christ, and to be employed in his service only, and to his honour and glory, are so far off from making Christ a PseudoChrist, that they do highly recommend his most singular bounty towards his followers, without any derogation to his own divine prerogatives. The particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter. Now I say in a word, that Christ's Vicar cannot change any one of God's commandments, nor add any contrary unto them, but may well enact and establish some other conformable unto them, which do bind the conscience: for that power is granted of God to every sovereign governor, as witnesseth S. Paul, saying, Let every soul be subject to higher powers, Rom. 13. And that (as it is in the fift verse following) of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. So that to attribute power unto one that is under Christ, to bind our consciences, is not to make Christ a PseudoChrist, but to glorify him, much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to give unto men. In like manner, what an absurd illation is that, from the power to open and shut heaven gates (which all, both Catholics and Protestants confess to have been given to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles) to infer, that Christ is made a PseudoChrist, as who should say, the master spoiled himself of his supreme authority, by appointing a steward over his household, or a porter at his gates: he must be both master and man to, belike. And thus much of the first instance. R. ABBOT. We may well think that M. Bishop did not well enjoy his wits, that would write a book, and not know what it is whereof he writeth. He hath written a whole book, such a one as it is, purposely against our religion, and yet will seem here in the beginning not to know what our religion is. But he knoweth it well enough, and although by an apish limitation of the foolery of some of his companions, he would make it seem of many fashions and sorts, by diversity of names, and by terms of divisions and subdivisions, yet he seethe and they all see, and by the harmony of confessions of all the reformed churches it appears to their exceeding great grief, that there is amongst them as great uniformity and consent of religion, as ever was to be found in their confederacy and banding of themselves against religion. Yea there are many more material differences to be found amongst them, then can be reckoned amongst us. He that would follow M. Bishop's vein, might demand of him, what they mean by the religion of the Church of Rome, whether it be the religion of Pope john the 23. who publicly maintained that a Const ●●tiens. Council sess 11. Per●n●cu●● dixit, asseruit, dogmati zavit & adstruxit vitam aeternam non esse, neque aliam post hanc, etc. there is no eternal life, no resurrection, and that the soul of man perisheth with his body, as doth the soul of the bruit beast: or whether it be the religion of Pope b Bale de Act. Rom. Pontif. in Leo 10. Quantum nobis ac coetui nostro profuit ista fabula de jesu Christo. Leo the tenth, that held all the faith of Christ to be but a fable. Whether it be the religion of the Council of c Sess 4. Generali concilio quilibet cuiuscunq, status vel dignitatis, etiamsi Papalis fuerit, 〈◊〉 tenetur. Constance, maintaining the Council to be above the Pope: or the religion of the Council of Basill, decreeing the Pope to be above the Council. Whether it be the religion of them d Erasus. epist. ad oper. Hilar● Asseveraus virginem matrem immunem à peccato originis apud Dominicales haereticus est, apud Scoustas oribotanus. that hold the virgin Marie to have been conceived without original sin, or of them that hold her to have been conceived in sin. Whether it be the religion of Thomas Aquinas, that holdeth e Thom. Aquin; p. 3. q. 80. art. 3. ad 3 that a dog or a swine eating the Sacrament doth eat the very body of Christ: or the religion of the f Sent 4. dist. 13. Master of the sentences, who cannot tell what the dog eateth: or the religion of them that say, as g supra. Aquinas reporteth, that so soon as the dog or the mouse toucheth the Sacrament, straightways the body of Christ is taken up into heaven. Whether it be the religion of h Pigh. de peccato originali. Catharin. de lapsu hominis, etc. cap. 6. Pighius and Catharinus, who hold original sin to be a mere privation: or the religion of Dominicus a Soto, who holdeth it as his fellows do, to be a positive corruption. Whether it be the religion of the i Colon. in Antididag. Divines of Colein, who with k Pigh. de fide & instif. Pighius hold, that we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ as the Protestants, or of the rest that hold that we are justified by a formal inherent righteousness of our own. Whether it be the religion of l Osor. de Iust. lib 9 Osorius, condemning the doctrine of S. Austin concerning predestination: or the religion of m Baron. Annal. lib. 6. Caesar Baronius, who acknowledgeth the same to be true. Whether it be the religion of n Alfons. adver. haeres. lib. 1 cap. 4 & 8. Alfonsus de Castro, affirming that the Pope may err: or the religion of them that affirm he cannot err. Whether it be the religion of the jesuits, maintaining o Declarat. saecerd ad Clement. 8. pag. 29. that a man who is no Christian may be Pope, and that stews are as lawful at Rome as the Pope himself: or the religion of the Seculars, that condemn these for wicked and false positions. Whether it be the religion of p Dureus contra Whitaker. lib. 1. Dureus the jesuite, defending that the Church may make a book canonical Scripture, which from the beginning was not so: or the religion of q Andrad. defence. fidei Trident lib. 3. Andradius, affirming that the Church hath no such authority. I might lead him along through Bellarmine's controversies, and show how he allegeth two, three, four, and sometimes more opinions amongst them of sundry points of their religion, and in every of them I might question, whether or which we shall take to be the religion of the Church of Rome? Now if he will answer, that men may have private opinions and followers therein, which yet may not be urged as prejudicial to the currant and commonly received doctrine of the Church, in which sort their r Alfons. de Caestro adversus haer. lib. 1. cap. 7. Thomists, and Scotists, and Occamists have been divided one from another in the bosom of their Church, then let that little discretion that he hath serve him against another time to understand, that it is no prejudice to our religion, that there is in some matters some diversity of opinions amongst us, or that some men be exorbitant from that which is commonly amongst us approved for the truth. There is an universality of doctrine with them, for which men are esteemed of their religion, in the particulars whereof notwithstanding there are many differences for which they will not be thought to be one of one religion and another of another. What infinite variety of observation and discipline is there found amongst their Friars and Monks, and yet they take them to be all of one religion? There was of old a great dissension betwixt s Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 22.23. Polycrates the Metropolitan of the Asian Churches, and Victor Bishop of Rome, concerning the observation of the feast of Easter; betwixt t Cyprian. ad Pomptium. count epist. Stephani et Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. Cyprian and Stephanus Bishop of Rome, with their Churches on each part, about the rebaptizing of them that were baptised by heretics; betwixt u Socrat hist. lib. 6. cap. 13. chrysostom and Epiphanius first, and after betwixt x Hieron▪ adver. Ruffin. Hierome and Ruffinus, concerning the condemning of the works of Origen, betwixt y Socrat. lib. 7 cap 19 chrysostom and many other Bishops, concerning the often restitution of penitents to the communion of the Church; betwixt z August. epist. 18 Hierome and Austin, concerning Peter's dissimulation, and yet were they never taken to be of divers religions until this day. And what? are we then in worse case than all these, that because there is some variance betwixt some of us in some points of doctrine, or betwixt some others in matters of ceremony and circumstance concerning the discipline of the Church, therefore we must be sorted into so many Religions as M. Bishops idle head can devise differences amongst us? This is to be contemned, as a peevish and impertinent cavil of contentious and wrangling Sophisters, bewraying more malice than learning or wit, making show to the unlearned of objecting somewhat against us, when their objection maketh more against themselves than it doth against us. Now then if M. Perkins either concerning Christ's descending into hell, or some other like matters subject to variety of opinion, were otherwise minded then standeth with truth or the common judgement of our Church, we do not therefore account him a man of other religion, but a maintainer of our religion, and we will say of him as Austin said of Cyprian, a August. Therefore did he not see somewhat, that by him a greater matter might be seen, namely that in difference of judgement we are not to be contentious, but labour with all our might to preserve the public peace and unity of the Church, and with modesty and love to carry ourselves towards them that in opinion dissent from us. A notable example whereof we see in M. calvin, who when Luther upon some matter of question, behaved himself somewhat intemperately against him and some others alike minded as he was, was wont to say, b Caluin. epi. 57 Though he should call me devil, yet will I do him his honour, to acknowledge him an excellent servant of God. As for the imputations which here M. Bishop layeth upon him and the rest whom he nameth, we account them but as the barking of a cur dog against a Lion; they are stolen and threedbare cavils, and too well known to cause them that reproach that he desireth. If Luther were licentious for marrying a wife, what were their Popes and Cardinals, their Bishops, and Priests, and Monks, for keeping other men's wives, and retaining concubines and harlots of their own? If Zuinglius went armed into the field to give encouragement to his countrymen for their just and necessary defence, is he thereupon to be taxed for a martial minister, more than julius the second for a martial Pope, who himself went in person against the French, and going over the bridge of Tiber, cast his cross keys into the river, and took his sword in his hand, saying, c Bale. in jul. 23 Seeing Peter's keys will do no good we will try whether Paul's sword will serve the turn; or then Philip the French Bishop in the time king Richard the first, for a martial Bishop, who bare arms against king Richard, and was taken in battle, in whose behalf when the Pope wrote to the King, requesting favour for his son, the King sent to him the Bishop's armour with this message, d Matth. Paris. in Richard. 1. Vide an tunica filii tui sit an non, See whether this be thy sons coat or not? Nay it is no rare matter to find examples of martial Popes and martial Cardinals and Bishops in the Church of Rome, and therefore we need say no more to M. Bishop as touching this cavil, but only to bid him look at home. As for that which he saith of Caluins expelling of the lawful magistrate out of Geneva, it is a very malicious and false tale, it being very evident, that the Bishop of Geneva whom he meaneth, with his clergy, perceiving the people to be minded for the abolishing of Popish superstition and receiving of the Gospel, voluntarily fled from thence before Caluins coming to that place. Last of all, he calleth Beza a dissolute turncoat: but if a man should ask his wisdom, why he doth so, he cannot tell. All the matter of this dissoluteness is, that being under twenty years old, or a little above, he wrote a book of Epigrams, in which by imitation of Catullus and Ovid, he expressed some things more licentiously and wanton then was fit. The writing thereof he afterwards when God had called him to the knowledge of his truth e Beza Confess. Epist. Dedicat. repent much, and when he was requested that the same might be reprinted, denied it utterly, and wished the remembrance thereof to be wholly buried. In his conversation otherwise he was never to be touched with any blemish of that lightness, which in those poetical exercises he made show of. And is not this a great matter, that these men object so often to his disgrace? Surely if the lives of sundry of the ancient Fathers were looked into with such eyes, before they were come to Christ, there would be found worse matters to upbraid them with, even by their own confession, than this is. S. Austin when the Donatists dealt with him, as M. Bishop and his fellows do with Beza, gave answer to them thus: f August. const. lit. Petil lib. 3. cap. 10. Quantum cunque ille accus●t vinum meum, tantum ego laud medicum meum. Look how much they blame my fault, so much do I commend and praise my Physician. To which effect, I have heard that Beza himself answered one as touching that columniation: Hic homo invidet mihi gratiam Christi, This man envieth me the grace of Christ. Surely, that should have been no fault, though it had been much greater, if he had continued one of them. But what would they have said, if Beza had done as g Bale. Act. Rom Pontif. in julio 3. joannes à Casa their Archbishop of Beneventum did, who wrote an Italian Poem in commendation of Sodomy, and printed it at Venice, professing himself to be delighted with that horrible filthinsse, and that he knew no venery but that: or as h Jbid. in Sixt. 4 ex Orat. Heur. Agipp ad Lova. Pope Sixtus the fourth, who built a Stews at Rome for the exercise of that unnatural and monstrous lust? How many such filthy dogs are there found amongst the Roman Sages, who yet with them must go for sacred and holy Fathers, whilst Beza for a few verses written when he was yet but a boy, must be subject to their reproachful malice all his life, yea and after his death also. But the thing that troubleth M. Bishop indeed is, that Beza became a turncoate, for that he cast off the livery of Antichrist, the badge & cognisance of the man of sin, and betook himself to the profession and service of jesus Christ. Well and happy were it for him, if he had turned his coat in the like sort, if he had put on the garment of Christ crucified; which though it might seem base in the eyes of the proud harlot of Rome, yet should make him glorious in the eyes of God, and yield him acceptation before him. Now the Articles of our religion set down by M. Perkins, he calleth the hodge-podge of all those new religions, because he well knoweth, that we on all sides agree in the maintenance of these Articles, and therefore are indeed but one religion. Whereby the Reader may easily conceive, how idle his objection is of divisions and subdivisions. But of this hodge-podge he hath tasted, and by this time it hath made his stomach very sick, and I believe will cast him into a disease, from which he will never be able to recover again. Of the religion in these articles expressed, he confesseth, that it can admit no reconcilement with the Church of Rome, but he liketh not the reason which M. Perkins allegeth of the impossibility of this union. His reason is, because they of the Roman Church have razed the foundation, and though in words they honour Christ, yet indeed do turn him into a PseudoChrist and an Idol of their own brain. Against this reason M. Bishop allegeth the explication that M. Perkins maketh of his Reformed Catholic, to be any one that holds the same necessary heads of Religion with the Roman Church; whereto is added by M. Perkins which M. Bishop omitteth: Yet so, as he pares off and rejects all errors in doctrine, whereby the same religion is corrupted. Hereupon M. Bishop asketh, Can there be a more necessary head of religion, then to have a right faith in Christ? which is very clerkly and well applied, and showeth him to be a man of deep insight into dark points. Surely to have a right faith in Christ would not be understood for a head of religion, but for the whole effect (in a manner) and substance of it. M. Perkins by necessary heads of religion understandeth those generalities and principles whereof there is no question betwixt the Church of Rome and us, which for the points that he handleth, he hath set down under the name of our consents in the beginning of every question. These he will have his Reformed Catholic still to hold with them, but to detest the absurdities and errors, which they teach in the deduction and application of these generalities. Therefore he doth not say as touching those principles, that they raze the foundation; but the razing of the foundation consisteth in the indirect use and applying thereof. There is a generality doctrine to which Heretics accord, and under the cloud whereof many times they cover their heresies, even as the Pelagian Heretics hide the poison of their heresy under the acknowledgement of the grace and help of God, but be wrayed the same notably when they were urged to specify what they meant by the same grace. So doth the Church of Rome acknowledge the incarnation of Christ, his passion, death and resurrection, his ascension, and intercession at the right hand of God, but in assigning the use and effect of all these things and the rest, they make Christ in a manner no Christ at all. M. Bishop therefore might easily have seen, but that he was willing to show either his ignorance in not understanding, or his learning in cavilling, that M. Perkins might well say without any contradiction, that the Church of Rome had razed the foundation, and yet wish his Reformed Catholic still to hold those necessary heads of religion, which still remain in the acknowledgement and profession of the Church of Rome. Now M. Perkins g veth four instances of their justling of Christ out of his place. The first standeth in the Pope's usurping of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, by changing his commandments and adding to them: by taking upon him to open and shut heaven to whom he will; by binding men's consciences with his decrees. But M. Bishop telleth us, that Christ's giving of these faculties to the Pope, doth most highly recommend his singular bounty towards his followers, and is no derogation to himself. Which he telleth us upon his own word; but as for me I have read over the new Testament divers times, and yet could I never light upon any place where Christ hath made any mention of the Pope, or of any faculties that he would bestow upon him. We read of Antichrist the man of sin, that i 2. Thess. 2.4. he should sit in the temple of God, and take upon him to command as God; but we find not that Christ did ever appoint any man to execute any such place. Out of doubt Christ would somewhere or other have spoken of it, if he had intended any such course. But M. Bishop taketh it to be a great glory to Christ, to have a Vicar here upon earth with a triple Crown, clothed like Dives in purple and fine linen, and faring deliciously every day: bespangled with gold, and besparkled with jewels, and carried about like an Idol upon the shoulders of men, having Emperors, and Kings, and Princes to attend him, to hold his stirrup, to power him water, to kiss his foot, and all at his devotion, either to set them up, or to pull them down; yea having power over heaven, and earth, and Purgatory, (the only spite is, that he hath no power to keep himself from hell) and that he should make laws, and give dispensations against God's laws, and like a Lord of misrule, turn all things upside down. O what a goodly matter had it been, that Christ should have made all his servants like Popes here in the world, and all other people vassals and tributaries unto them? what a golden world would that have been, and how much would it have renowned the bounty of Christ? Well, M. Bishop, we wish you to consider thoroughly of the matter; we cannot see in the Gospel, but that you may as well take upon you to be a Pope as he that is Pope, and you may as stoutly allege for yourself, that your Popedom doth highly recommend the bounty of Christ. But it seemeth to us, that you do too much abridge the Pope's using of his faculties, when you mention the employing of them only in Christ's service, and to his honour and glory. Let him, M. Bishop, first serve himself, let him enlarge S. Peter's patrimony, and advance the glory of his own seat; let him proclaim jubiliees and Pardons, that he may gather gold and treasure; let him claw them that claw him, and wreak his anger upon them that resist him: as for Christ he is but a poor man, let him attend for the reversion, a little will serve him. This device of theirs is wholly to be derided: their words are the words of shameless hypocrites, not blushing to avouch the bounty of Christ in an authority, which though there were from time to time after five or six hundred years divers degrees and steps unto it, yet in that sort, as they now defend it, was not known in the world for the space of eight or nine hundred years after the time of Christ: which hath no warrant of the Gospel of Christ, nor favoureth at all of the kingdom of Christ: which the ancient Fathers never dreamt of, and could not have gone without most illustrious and clear testimony & witness amongst them, if ever it had been practised in their times. Let them in all antiquity parallel the Pope, and we will never open mouth further to speak against them: but because they cannot so do, let them confess themselves to be false wretches, and him to be a Pseudochrist, a false and counterfeit Christ, in truth very Antichrist himself, who by hypocrisy hath intruded himself to sit in the place of jesus Christ. But M. Bishop telleth us, that their Vicar cannot change any one of God's Commandments, nor add any contrary unto them. Where we see, that the Pope apparently doth that which they are ashamed to defend. They well know that he setteth nothing at all by the laws of God, and that whilst he taketh upon him to be the expounder thereof, he maketh what meaning he list thereof, and there by giveth himself liberty to do what he list, and yet to say, he doth nothing against the law of God. It hath been holden for a rule amongst them, as Bodin mentioneth, k Bodin de republs lib 1. cap 8. Qui a pont●si e maxim divinis legibus salutus sic huis apud deum immortalem satis cautum esse. Canonic. regula. That he is safe enough with God, who by the Pope is freed from the laws of God. Thus they have told us, and according to that they have told us they have practised, that l Decret. Greg. de concess. prebend. ca 4 Proposuit. secundum plenitudinem pocestatis de iure possumus supra in dispensare. the Pope above law can dispense of law by the fullness of his power; that m Ibid. in glossa. Papa●dispe sas contra Apostolun, & contra Canon's Ap stoli. & contra vetus Testamentum. he can dispense against the Apostle, against the Canons of the Apostle, and against the old Testament; that n 25. Sunt quidam in glossa. satis potest sustineri quod Papa contra Apostolum dispensat. it may well be maintained, that he doth dispense against the Apostle. Shall we not think that he changeth and thwarteth the commandment of Christ, who with a Non obstante taketh that away which Christ hath said, Drink ye all of this: o Concil. Constamiens. sess. 13. Hoc non obstante This notwithstanding the Church doth thus and thus? Doth not he contrary God's commandment, who requireth us to worship Idols and Images, when God hath forbidden so to do? When God hath charged subjects to be obedient to their Princes and Governors, doth he not cross the commandment of God, who taketh upon him to dispense with them p 15.7.6 Authoritatem. & ibid. Alius. for their oaths of allegiance, and giveth them licence to rebel? Doth not he make the law of God of no effect, who giveth licence of marriage in those degrees of affinity and blood, in which God hath forbidden any marriage to be accounted lawful, as was here done in England to king Henry the eight for the marriage of his brother's wife, and to Philip the late king of Spain, for the marriage of his own sisters-daughter? Many such other matters are there wherein this Vicar of Rome grossly and palpably bendeth himself against God, and yet these hypocrites are so impudent, as that either by expositions they will seem to defend them, or else if they can find no means for defence they utterly deny them. Thus M. Bishop will here make us believe, that the Pope maketh laws only conformable to God's laws, when as by that which he himself addeth, he proveth him therein presumptuously and arrogantly to put himself into the place of God. For to make laws and publish doctrines to bind the conscience, belongeth only to Christ, who in that respect is called the q jam. 4.12. one Lawgiver, r Ephes. 4.5. one Lord, s Mat 23 8.10. one Doctor and master. Yet M. Bishop maketh this a thing common to every Sovereign governor, and taketh upon him to prove it by S. Paul, saying, t Rom. 13.1.5. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, and that for conscience sake. But he abuseth the words of the Apostle, which have no intendment concerning their Vicar, but are spoken of the higher powers, that is, of the temporal and civil governors, either u 1. Pet. 2.13. the king as the superior, or other rulers that are sent by him, as S. Peter giveth us to understand the meaning thereof. Therefore chrysostom expoundeth the words thus; Let every soul be subject; x Chrysost. 14 Rom. hom 23. though thou be an Apostle, though thou be an Evangelist, though thou be a Prophet, thereby informing us that Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, are of the souls that are to be subject, and not the higher powers to which the subjection there spoken off is required. The Apostle did not write it to challenge thereby a subjection to S. Peter, or to himself, but to acknowledge a subjection due to be performed by them and others to the civil power. Again, the Apostle teacheth us for conscience sake to be subject to the higher powers; he teacheth us not, that the conscience is bound as touching the things themselves wherein we are to show our subjection to the higher powers. Laws are said to bind the conscience, when they tie the conscience to the things themselves which they command, as to be persuaded of a religious and necessary duty and service therein immediately performed unto God; the transgressing whereof to be a sin against God, not only mediately by not yielding subjection to the Lawgiver, but immediately, in the very thing itself, which it hath done or left undone. It is the prerogative of God only to tie the conscience in this sort, and whosoever else taketh upon him thus to do, he is an usurper against God. And thus doth the Pope bind men's consciences; he maketh his laws matters of religion, and of the worship of God, and will have men believe, that in the very doing of the things which he commandeth, they immediately please God, merit at the hands of God, make satisfaction to him for their sins, and purchase eternal life. On the other side, that in the trespass thereof, not only in respect of disobedience to the higher powers, but for the very not doing of the things themselves, there is sin against God, a breach and wound of conscience, and the guilt of everlasting death. This is one special matter for which we justly detest that Romish idol, and do challenge him, not only for sitting in the Temple of God, by usurping an outward superiority in the visible state of the Church, but also for y 2. Thes. 2.4. sitting as God in the temple of God by challenging to himself and possessing in such sort as hath been said, the consciences of men, in which God only ought to reign. As for Princes and temporal governors, if they keep them within their bounds, they make no laws in that kind: for causes seeming good unto them, they require outward conformity and obedience to their laws for conscience sake of the authority committed unto them of God, but they leave the conscience free from any inward opinion or persuasion of the things themselves wherein they require to be obeyed. Here therefore a man is outwardly bound and servant to the law, but inwardly he still continueth free to God, being persuaded, that the doing or not doing of such or such a thing, in and for itself, maketh him to God neither the better nor the worse, and therefore the thing in itself being either way indifferent to God, he yieldeth himself in the outward man upon conscience of giving obedience to the power serviceable and conformable to the law. And this is that Christian liberty which the Scripture teacheth; which is not, as some men would have it, a licentious immunity in outward things, to do every man what we list, but a freedom of the heart from any servile opinion of any thing that we do. The doctrine whereof Luther very excellently propounded in two paradoxes, as they seemed to them that understood them not, as touching conversation in outward things, that z Luther de libert. Christiana a Christian man is free from all men, a Lord and subject to no man; And again, that a Christian man is a diligent servant and vassal to all men, and subject to all. Inwardly in conscience he is free and bound to nothing, but saith, a 1. Cor 10.23. All things are lawful for me. Outwardly in conversation he is bound to that that is expedient and serveth for edification; whereby he may yield obedience to governors, love to neighbours, instruction to the ignorant, strengthening to the weak, comfort to the strong, good example to them that are without, avoiding all scandal whereby he should cause the liberty whereof he is inwardly persuaded, to be blasphemed and slandered. Now therefore Princes in their laws are to be obeyed upon conscience of their authority, being from God; but this hindereth not, but that the Pope is justly accused for thrusting Christ out of his place, by requiring obedience upon conscience of the things themselves which he commandeth. As for the opening and shutting of heaven, we doubt not but that the Pope, if he be the minister of Christ, may challenge the office and function thereof, according to the tenor of the commission wherewith Christ hath left it to his Church. But he not contented with that authority which Christ hath left indifferently to the ministry of the Church, immediately from Christ himself derived in common to the whole body of the Church, usurpeth unto himself a singularity in this behalf, making himself in Christ's steed the head from whence the power of binding and losing is derived to all the rest, and in that respect at his own pleasure reserving to himself a prerogative of special cases and causes, which are most for his advantage, wherein no man may meddle but himself. It is true, that the master by appointing afterward over his household or a porter at his gates, doth not divest himself of his supreme authority, but sith it is the peculiar honour of the Lord to give that power and to determine the offices and places of his servants, surely he who being left but afterward of a house, will lift up himself to be a Lieutenant general of a Realm, and of a porter will make himself a Potentate, and take upon him to be even as the Lord himself, he is to be taken for no other but a traitor to his Lord, and therefore is by his fellow servants to be resisted in his course. This is the Pope's case. He had the keys of heaven committed unto him in common with his fellow servants, to every man for his part and portion of the Lords house: and to the great disturbance and disorder of the house, he hath challenged unto himself the sovereignty and Lordship of the whole. He hath made himself master of the Church, and all the rest servants unto him. By this extravagant and exorbitant power he handleth all things as he list, and abuseth the keys to shut them out of heaven, so far as he can, who in the behalf of their master do seek to hinder his wicked and ungodly proceed. What then shall we adjudge him, but a traitor to his Lord and master jesus Christ, usurping that which is proper to Christ alone? In a word, M. Bishop must understand, that though the Popedom were drowned in Tiber, and Babylon were cast as a millstone into the sea, yet Christ needeth not to be master and man to, but without the Pope hath servants enough to attend him in his service. W. BISHOP. Come we now to the second: It is, that we make Christ an Idol, for albeit we call him a Saviour, yet in us, in that he gives his grace to us, that by our merits we may be our own saviours, etc. I marvel, in whom he should be a saviour if not in us: What, is he the Saviour of Angels or of any other creatures? I hope not, but the mischief is, that he gives grace to us, that thereby we may merit and so become our own saviours. This is a phrase unheard off among Catholics, that any man is his own saviour, neither doth it follow of that position, that good works are meritorious; but well that we apply unto us the salvation, which is in Christ jesus, by good works; as the Protestants avouch they do by faith only: In which sense the Apostle S. Tim. 4. Paul saith to his dear Disciple Timothy. For this doing thou shalt save both thyself, and them that hear thee. And this, doth no more diminish the glory of our Sovereign saviours infinite merits, then to say that we are saved by faith only: good works no less depending, if not more advancing Christ's merits, then only faith, as shall be proved hereafter more as large in the question of merits. Now that other good men's merits may stood them, who want some of their own, may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures, namely out of those where God saith, That for the sake of one of his true servants, he will show mercy to thousands, as is expressly said in the end of the first Commandment. In like manner I answer unto your third instance, that for Christ to have taken away by his blessed Passion the eternal pain due unto our sins, and to have left a temporal to be satisfied by us, is not to make himself a false Christ, but a most loving, kind, and withal a most prudent Redeemer, Wiping away that by himself, which passed our forces, and reserving that to us, which by the help of his grace, we will may and aught to do: not only because it were unseemly, that the parts of the body, should be disproportionalle to the head: but also because it is reasonable (as the Apostle holdeth,) Rom. 2. that we s ffer here with Christ before we reign with him in his kingdom. In your last instance you say, that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to God, thinking out of your simplicity, that therein we much magnify him, and sing Osanna unto him. Whereas we hold it for no 〈◊〉 ●●●agement unto his divine dignity, to make him our Int rcessor 〈…〉 to pray him to pray for us, who is of himself, right able to help in all we can demand; being as well God, as man.. And albeit one in thought singling out the humanity of Christ from his divine nature and person, might make it an intercessor for us; Yet that being but a Metaphysical conceit, to separate the nature from the person; since the Arian heresy (which held Christ to be inferior to his Father) it hath not been practised by Catholics, who always pray our Saviour Christ to have mercy upon us, never to pray for us. And consequently make him no mediator of intercession, but of redemption. R. ABBOT. The second instance given by M. Perkins, to prove that the Church of Rome maketh Christ but even as an Idol, giving him a name without the substance and effect thereof, is this, that they call him a Saviour, and yet make him a Saviour only in us and by us, not in himself or immediately by himself. For this is all that they attribute unto him, that he putteth us in case and state, to save ourselves, and to become our own saviours. The meaning of the instance being plain, M. Bishop's question is very idle, In whom he should be a Saviour if not in us. He should be a Saviour in himself, and by that that he doth himself, and not in us, or by that that we do for ourselves. But to the matter, he telleth us, that it is a phrase unheard of among Catholics, that any man is his own saviour. Which we confess as touching the phrase and word, but yet by their doctrine they do in truth make a man his own Saviour. If they should so say in words, they well know that all Christian ears would abhor them, and many that now admire them, would spit in their faces, and account them accursed and damnable hypocrites, who under pretence of doing honour unto Christ, do rob him of his honour, and bereave him of the truth of that name wherein the Sovereignty of his glory doth consist: therefore they forbear the words, though that which they teach is the same in effect as if they said so. It is commonly known, that the effect is always attributed to that which is the immediate and nearest efficient cause. We say in Philosophy, Sol & homo generant hominem, The sun and a man do beget a man, because by the vegetation and influence of the Sun and heavenly powers, it is deemed that a man hath power to beget a man. Yet we know that the Sun or the heaven is not called the father of the child, but only the man by whom the child is begotten. So is it therefore in the matter that we have here in hand. M. Bishop saith, that God a Of merits. sect. 1. freely bestoweth his grace upon us in Baptism, but all that arrive to the years of discretion must by the good use of the same grace either merit life, or for want of such fruit of it, fall into the miserable state of death. God then giveth us whereof to do it, but we ourselves of that which God giveth must effect and deserve our own salvation. Therefore M. Bishop again compareth the grace of God to a b Ibid. sect. 3. Farm, which the father bestoweth upon his son, who of the commodities that arise of the good usage thereof, groweth to be able to make a further purchase at his father's hands, even of any thing that his father will set to sale. In which case the father cannot be said to be the purchaser, or to make the purchase for the son, but the son is the purchaser for himself, though by that which his father gave him, through the well ordering of it, he became able to make the purchase. Seeing then that Christ doth only give us that whereof we ourselves are to raise merits to deserve and purchase salvation, as they teach, it must needs follow by their doctrine, that Christ is made the more remote and antecedent cause, but we ourselves are properly and immediately the true causes of our own salvation. Howsoever therefore they use not the phrase, yet they teach the thing itself, that Christ is not our Saviour properly, but we ourselves by the good usage of his gifts, are the saviours of ourselves. Which absurdity M. Bishop saw, that standing to their own grounds, he could by no means avoid, and therefore is content with Pighius (as it seemeth) for a present shift, to retire into our harbour; albeit I verily think, he understandeth not himself, nor can tell, what meaning to make or that he saith. The thing that followeth of the assertion of meritorious works, he saith, is this, that by good works we apply unto us the salvation which is in Christ jesus, as (saith he) the Protestants avouch they do by faith only. But he should here have told us, how his meaning is, that this salvation is in Christ. For if he mean, (as commonly he doth) that it is in Christ, because God for Christ's sake giveth us grace whereby to merit and deserve our salvation, than he dallieth altogether, and mocketh his Reader, as if he should say, It followeth not of the position of meritorious works, that we are our own saviours, but that we apply unto ourselves by good works, that whereby we are made our own saviours. But if he mean, as the Protestants do, when they avouch, that by faith only we apply unto ourselves the salvation which is in Christ jesus, that is, that this salvation is entirely in the merits of Christ, deserving and purchasing the same for us, and that merely and immediately for Christ's sake God bestoweth the same upon us; that we do but only stretch forth the hand (and that by his gift also) to receive that which freely and of his mere mercy he giveth unto us, than his meritorious works are come to nought, and he bestoweth a great deal of labour in vain for the proof thereof. We would gladly see which way he will shift. Surely if our good works do but apply unto us the salvation which is in Christ, than they cannot be said to merit salvation themselves. For that that applieth, doth not work the effect of that which it doth apply. The hand that apply the medicine, cannot be said itself to work the cure: for if it perform the effect itself, to what end doth it apply another thing for the same purpose? But if our works do merit salvation themselves, than they do more than apply unto us the salvation which is in Christ jesus, and we must be said according to the absurdity before mentioned, to be thereby our own saviours. Let the Reader well observe, how he stealeth away in a cloud of ambiguous words, which notwithstanding howsoever he expound, do work inconvenience to himself. But by his own words he giveth answer to the place which he objecteth of Paul saying to Timothy, that c 1. Tim. 4.10. so doing, he should both save himself and them that heard him, that he did not mean, that Timothy should do that for himself, by virtue whereof he should be saved, but only that he should apply unto himself the salvation which is in Christ jesus. He was to save them that heard him, not by meriting their salvation for them, but by preaching unto them d 1. Cor. 15.2, the Gospel by which they were saved. So was he also to save himself, by continuing in the same faith and doctrine of the Gospel, whereby the way of salvation is set forth unto us. In the same manner S. Peter exhorteth the jews, who were pricked in their hearts at the hearing of his preaching, e Act. 2.10. Save yourselves from this wicked generation: namely, by receiving and accepting the message of salvation by jesus Christ. We are said to save ourselves, as we are said to feed ourselves, and to cure ourselves. We feed ourselves, not by being food and nourishment to ourselves, but by receiving that which is our food. We cure ourselves, not by being a medicine to ourselves, but by taking and applying to us that whereby we are cured. So we save ourselves only by embracing jesus Christ, by whom only we are saved. And this we intent, when we say, that we are saved by faith only: namely, that faith only is the instrument whereby we lay hold of jesus Christ, in whose only merits our salvation wholly and immediately doth consist. Which doctrine of faith wholly advanceth the glory of Christ, because it referreth all entirely to him, not only for that we confess that faith is the gift of Christ, but also because we teach that it is not by any virtue of faith itself by which we are saved, but only by the merit and power of Christ, whom we receive by faith. How then doth M. Bishop say, that their assertion of our merits doth no more diminish the glory of the merits of Christ, than it doth that we say, that we are saved by faith only, when as they leave so much for man to glory of in himself, his assenting to grace, and working therewith by his own free will, and his well using thereof to merit and deserve salvation for himself; when as we say, that we are saved merely by the merits of Christ, and have nothing in any sort to attribute to ourselves, and they say, that we are not saved merely by the merits of Christ, but the merits of Christ do only make us able by free will to deserve our own salvation. But of this (as he saith) we shall have further occasion to speak in the question of merits. Now here M. Perkins noteth it for a further absurdity of their doctrine of merits, that they do not only make men their own saviours, but make one man also the saviour of another, whilst that in the want of our own merits, we may be partakers in the merits of the Saints. M. Bishop being a man of a wide throat to swallow, and of a strong stomach to digest without any trouble all the filth of the Romish Church, sticketh not at the matter, but plainly affirmeth, that other good men's merits may steed them that want some of their own, and saith, that it may be deduced out of an hundred places of Scripture, whereas of that hundred there is not so much as one, that will yield him ground of any such deduction. For as for that which he allegeth out of the first Commandment, that God showeth mercy unto thousands in them that love him, and keep his commandments, how he should draw man's merit from thence, where God professeth only his mercy both to the fathers and the children, no wise man can easily conceive. It is true, that God sometimes in the Scriptures is said for one man's sake to show mercy to another, it is never said, that it is for one man's merits that he shows mercy to another, but only for his own love and promise sake. Thus do the people of God sometimes make mention of f Deut. 9 ●7. Abraham, Isaac, jacob, g Psal. 132 10. David, not as to beg of God for their merits sake, but as to urge God with his covenant and promise, that he made unto these, who showed all that mercy and love unto their seed, h Deut. 7.8. & 9.5. because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto their fathers. And surely seeing it was only for his mercy's sake, that he respected the fathers themselves, it is unlikely that for the father's merits he should respect the children. i Oecumen. in Rom cap. 4. Siquis illum demostrare nita●urper opera dignum fuisse, etc. Vides quod nihil omninò h●beat, ne vestig●um qu●dem operum adhuiusmodi beneficia quae ipse à Deo accepit. unde ergo his dignus habitus est? Ex sola side. Abraham (saith Oecumenius) was not by his works worthy of the benefits of God: he had nothing at all, not any show of works, to the benefits that he received of God; but was accounted worthy thereof by faith only. The cause of all was that which Moses said; k Deut. 4.37. He loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed. And what, was it for their merits that he loved them? What merits had Abraham, when God called him from l josuah 24.2. seruìng other gods, and even at the first gave him m Gen. 12.1.2. an absolute promise of all that mercy and goodness that he showed him afterwards? It was therefore that which the same Moses also saith: n Deut. 7 7 8. He set his love upon you, because he loved you: there was nothing to move him to love but only love. To which purpose he saith by the Prophet Malachy: o Mal. ●. 2. Was not Esau jacobs' brother? yet I loved jacob and hated Esau; signifying, that there was no cause in jacob himself, why God should love him more than Esau; and yet of mere grace and favour he vouchsafed so to do. Here is nothing then to serve M. Bishop's turn, that one man's merits may steed another, because these had no merits to steed themselves, but whatsoever they were, they were of mercy, and it was only mercy whereby God bond himself to show mercy to others for their sakes. And well we may wonder, but that these are impudent and shameless men, that they should dare so far to advance the righteousness of man, as to make him able▪ not only to merit and deserve at God's hands for himself, but also for other men. Wherein their perverseness and iniquity is so much the greater, for that they attribute and yield that to the spotted and unperfect works and righteousness of man, which they wickedly deny to the immaculate and most perfect merits and righteousness of the Son of God. For they hold it absurd, that the righteousness and merits of Christ should be imputed and accounted unto us; and yet they blush not to say, that a man may have merits of his own, sufficient for himself, and an overplus beside to be reckoned and imputed unto others to supply their want. The Pope's dispensation can apply the merits of one man to another, but the faith of Christ cannot apply to us the merits of Christ. The Scripture teacheth the imputation of Christ's merits, and that they deny: it denieth the imputing of other men's merits, and that they affirm against the Scripture. Which, beside that it teacheth an unsufficiency and imperfection in all the works of men, and therefore bereaveth them of all power and ability of merit, doth also give us to understand, that p Ezech. 18.20 the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and therefore shall not be reckoned to another: that q Rom. 14.12. every man shall give account of himself unto God, and therefore shall have nothing to do with other men's accounts; that r Gal 6.5. every man shall bear his own burden, and therefore shall not have his burden borne by others: that the s Mat. 25.9. wise virgins have no superfluity of oil which they may impart to them that want. t Tertull de pudicit. Qu●● a●●nam mortem suâ soluit, ●●solus Dei filius● sipeccatores, quomodo oleum faculae tuae sufficere & ti●● & mi●● poteri●? Who hath by his death released another man's death, saith Tertullian, but only the Son of God? If thou be a sinner, how should the oil of thy little candle be sufficient both for thee and me? He spoke it truly in the proposition, though he misapplied it to a wrong conclusion, and therefore Leo bishop of Rome saith in like sort, that u Leo Epist. 81. Acceperunt quip●●●●ust●, non d●derunt coronas & def●r●●●dine fi●●lium exempla 〈…〉 iust●●●●, etc. nec alter●● quisquam de● 〈…〉 Domi●●●●●ster jesus Christus 〈◊〉, in quo o●nes crucifixi, etc. the just have received crowns, they have given none; and of the fortitude of the faithful are grown examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness; neither hath any man by his end paid the debt of another man, seeing it is only our Lord jesus Christ amongst the sons of men, in whom all have been crucified, dead, buried, and raised again. far was he from that blasphemous doctrine, which now prevaileth in the Church of Rome, that some men have merits and gifts of righteousness, whereby to be helpful to other men. But yet M. Bishop telleth us, that they that receive this help must be such as want but some of their own. For we must understand belike, that heaven is merited by piecemeal. Some merit it quarter part, and some the one half, and some all, and some more than all. By which means it must come to pass, that some, who have merits to keep them from hell, and yet not enough to bring them to heaven, must hang betwixt heaven and hell, unless the Vicar of Rome will do them a favour, out of his treasury to endow them with the merits of some of the Saints, or some of the Saints themselves will undertake out of their superfluities to make up that that is wanting unto them. This secret the Divines of Rheims uttered, that x Rhem. Testam. Annot. Mat. 25.8. if we have not our own merits▪ we shall not be helped by other men's deserts at the day of judgement, leaving it to be understood, that if we have merits of our own, we may then look for the supply thereof in other men's merits. Wretched hypocrites, impostors and deluders of ignorant men, who y Hieron. in Esa. lib. 6 cap. 14. Cum dies iud● cij ve●dormitionis advenerit, dissoluentur omnes manus, quia nullum opus dignum Dei justitia reperietur & non iustificabitur, etc. when all hands shall fail (as Hierome saith) because no work shall be found worthy of the justice of God, and no man living shall be justified in the sight of God, yet make men believe, that some shall have that superabundance of righteousness and merits, as that they shall be able to relieve them that want merits of their own. Is this the honour that they do to Christ, to thrust him out of place when we have greatest need of him, and to make men trust to the imaginary merits of sinful men? And what, shall not Christ be as ready then to secure us as the Saints? or shall his merits be found unsufficient to deliver us? or what should be the cause, that we should thus be put over one to be helped by another, rather than by him that is the helper and Saviour of us all? But this is the horrible apostasy and darkness of the Romish Synagogue, which hath made no end of multiplying her fornications, wherewith she hath bewitched men, and made them to dote upon strange and monstrous fancies, and hidden from them the true knowledge of jesus Christ, by which they should be saved. As touching the third instance, it shall not here be need to say much. We affirm that they derogate from the merit of Christ's passion, and do make him but a Parti-christ, in that they deny him to have made a full and perfect satisfaction for our sins, and say, that he hath left us in part to satisfy for the same. M. Bishop saith, that in the reserving of temporal satisfaction, he hath showed himself a most prudent redeemer, as if his foolish brains were the measure of the wisdom of Christ, or the self-will conceits of carnal men were to determine the power and effect of the cross of Christ. Christ is z joh. 1.29. the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, and if he take away our sins then they remain not by us to be satisfied for. The forgiveness of our sins by Christ is a 2. Cor. 5.19. the not imputing of our sins; but how are they not imputed, if satisfaction thereof be required? This falsehood of theirs he gloseth with a truth. We must be made b Rom 8.29. like unto Christ as members to the head. We must c 2. Tim. 2.12. suffer with Christ, that we may reign with Christ. But what of this? We deny not, but that by suffering, when God will and as he will, we must be conformed to Christ our head, but we deny this conformity in suffering to be any satisfaction for our sins. Which as it hath no show of proof out of those words of the Apostle, so that it cannot otherwise be proved, shall be showed God willing▪ in the question concerning that matter. In the third and last instance M. Perkins chargeth them, that though they be content to acknowledge Christ to be a Mediator of intercession, yet they reserve to his mother the blessed Virgin, their Queen of heaven, an authority to rule him and command him there. This M. Bishop thinketh to be a matter of simplicity in M. Perkins, that he should think it a magnifying of Christ to acknowledge Christ a Mediator of intercession, whereas they make him, as he telleth us, no Mediator of intercession, but a redeemer. Now in this we see his honest mind, that he is loath that M. Perkins should say better of them then they deserve, and will have us to know, that they bereave Christ of one special part of his office and Priesthood, which is to make intercession for us. The reason is, because they must have a dignity belonging to the Saints, and therefore because they know not how to do it otherwise, they divide the office of Christ's mediation, & reserving unto Christ, though not that wholly neither, to be our Mediator of redemption, do assign the mediatorship of intercession to the Saints. And yet the Scripture expressly telleth us, that Christ d Rom. 8. ●4. sitteth at the right hand of God to make intercession for us; that e Heb. 7.25. he is able perfectly to save them that come unto God by him. seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Thus S. Austin saith, that f Aug. in Psal. 85. Orat pro nobis, & orat in nobis, & oratur à nobis. Orat pro nobis ut sacerd●s nost●r, orat in nobis ut caput nostrum; oratur à nobis ut Deus noster. Christ prayeth for us, and prayeth in us, and is prayed unto of us. He prayeth for us as our Priest; he prayeth in us as our head; he is prayed unto of us as our God. Yea he saith, that g In Psal. 64. Solus ibi ex his qu● carnem gustaverunt i●terpell●● pro nobis. in heaven Christ alone of them that have been partakers of flesh maketh intercession for us, insomuch that h C●nt epist. Par●●en. li. 2. ca 8. Si Joan●es ●ta diceret, siquis peccaverit, aduocatum●ne habe ●is apud patrem; ego exore pro p●●cat●s vestris, quis eum sicut dis●●pulum C●risti & non sicut Antichristum ipsum iniveretur? if S. john should have said, If any man sin, ye have me for an advocate with the father, I make intercession for your sins, he should have been holden not for a Disciple of Christ, but rather for Antichrist himself. Thus he doth not only make Christ our Mediator of intercession, but also the only Mediator of intercession, and therefore condemneth M. Bishop of wicked sacrilege, that taketh away this part of his office from him, to bestow it upon the Saints. But this prayer and intercession Christ performeth not now by vocal words, as in the time of his humiliation here upon the earth, neither doth he infinitely busy himself by renewing his petitions & supplications to the Father when we call upon him, but his intercession for us is his i Heb. 9.24. appearing in the sight of God for us; whereby as k Cyprian. ser. de bapt. Christi & manifestat. Tr●nit. the sacrifice which he offered upon the cross is no less effectual now, than it was the day when water and blood issued out of his wounded side, still requiring our salvation as the reward of his obedience, even so the voice of his intercession in the days of his flesh, still soundeth aloud in the ears of God, and by the power thereof, both we ourselves, and all our prayers and requests are most effectually recommended to his mercy. Therefore we do not now pray to him to pray for us, but we l john 16.23. ask the father in his name, as he himself hath taught us, presenting still the memory of the merit and intercession that he hath performed for us. And because m john 5 27. the father hath given him power to execute judgement even as he is the son of man, even n Mat. 28.18. all power both in heaven and earth, and o Ephes. 1.22. hath made all things subject under his feet, and set him as head (and ruler) over all things, to the behoof of his Church, therefore we do not only pray to the Father, but we pray to him also, even as he is the son of man; we do not only p Bernard super Mis●us est. Hom. 3. Jpsum ocul●s patris; ipsum offeramus & suis. offer or present him to his Father's eyes▪ but we present him also to his own eyes, that for that intercessions sake which q August. in Psal. 34. In meipso humanitas in meipso divinitatem interpellat. in himself as man he made to himself as God, he will both God and man be merciful unto us. As for M. Bishops Metaphysical, or rather Nestorian-like and heretical conceit of singling out the humanity of Christ from his divinity, to make it an intercessor for us, let him bury it in his own brains where it was bred: but for us we know, that to pray to Christ to be our intercessor to the Father, according to that he promiseth, r john 14.16. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, doth no more require the singling or separating of the manhood from the Godhead, then do all other his works for our reconciliation unto God, in which the union of two natures doth always give force and strength to that which is properly acted but in one. W. BISHOP. And to come to your grievous complaint, that withal his Mother must be Queen of heaven, and by right of a mother command him there: Who can sufficiently marvel at their unnatural gross pates, who take it for a disgrace to the Son, to advance his own good Mother? or else who well in his wits, considering Christ's bounty to strangers and his enemies, will not be persuaded, that on his best beloved mother, he did bestow his most special favours? For having taken flesh of her, having sucked her breasts, and received his nuriture and education of her in his tender years, and being aswell followed of her, as of any other, Is it possible that he should not be as good to her, as to others, unto whom he was not at all beholding? Again, the very place of a mother, requiring pre-eminence, before all servants and subjects, of what dignity soever: doth not the right-rule of reason lead us to think, that Christ the fountain of all wisdom, replenished the blessed Virgin Marry his dear Mother with such grace as should make her fit for that place? it lying in his hands, and free choice to do it. And therefore is she truly termed of holy and learned Antiquity, Our Lady and Queen, exalted above all quires of Angels. That which you impute unto us farther, that she must in the right of a mother command her Son, it no doctrine of the Romish Church, nor said in all her service: We say, Show thyself to be a mother: but it is not added by commanding thy Son: that is your gloss, which is accursed, because it corrupteth the text, for it followeth in that place, Sumat per te preces, etc. Present our prayers to him, that vouchsafed to be borne of thee, for us. If any private person by meditation, piercing more profoundly into the mutual love and affection, of such a Son towards so worthy a Mother, do deem her prayers as forcible in kindness as if they were commandments, and in that sense call them Commandments, according to the French phrase. Vos pryers me sont des commandments, that may be done without derogation to Christ's supreme dignity, and with high commendation of his tender affection, unto his reverent and best beloved mother. Wherefore to conclude this Epistle, if there be no weightier cause than this by you here produced, why you and your adherents do not reconcile yourselves unto the Church of Rome: you may shortly (by God's grace) become new men. For we are so far off, from making our Saviour Christ a Pseudochrist, or from drawing one jot of excellency from his sovereign power, merits, or dignity: that we in the very points by you put down, do much more magnify him then you do. For in maintaining the authority by him imparted unto his deputies, our spiritual Magistrates, and of their merits and satisfaction: We first say, that these his servants prorogatiues be his free gifts, of mere grace bestowed on whom he pleaseth; which is no small praise of his great liberality: And withal affirm, that there is an infinite difference between his own power, merits, and satisfaction, and ours: wherein his Sovereign honour is preserved entire to himself without any comparison. Now you make Christ's authority so base, his merits and satisfaction so mean, that if he impart any degree of them unto his servants, he looseth the honour of all from himself. Whereupon it followeth invincibly, if you unfeignedly seek Christ jesus his true honour, and will esteem of his divine gifts worthily, you must hold out no longer, but unite yourselves in these necessary heads of Religion unto the Catholic Church of Rome, which so highly exalteth him, both in his own excellency, and in his singular gifts to his subjects. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop telleth us a goodly and a fair tale out of their old wives devotions, and showeth himself more absurdly and grossly superstitious, then were almost to be imagined in a learned man. It is strange to us, that the Evangelists and Apostles were not acquainted with this high point of religion, or if they were acquainted with it, that none of them should have regard to recommend it to the Church. Surely, if they had been of the Romish religion that now is, they would never have done the Virgin Mary that exceeding great wrong: but because they were not so, because their care was, that God only should be advanced according to his word, therefore M. Bishop thinketh them unnatural gross pates, in taking it to be a disgrace to the Son, to advance his own good Mother. As for us, we honour the blessed Virgin so far as God hath given us warrant so to do. We acknowledge her a most excellent instrument of the grace of God, and most highly blessed above all other, in that God by her would bring him into the world, that should be a blessing to all other. But yet we say, that this was a blessing only according to the flesh, it was no spiritual and heavenly blessing, and because spiritual blessings are greater than carnal, we hold the Virgin Mary to have been greater by that that she had according to the spirit, then by the honour that was done her according to the flesh. Therefore S. Austin saith, that a August. de sa●ct. Virg. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 Mari● 〈…〉 fi●● Christi, qu●● c● 〈…〉 etc. 〈…〉. Mary was more blessed by receiving the faith of Christ, then by conceiving the flesh of Christ. Her nearness to Christ in being his mother had nothing booted her, had she not more happily borne him in her heart then in her womb. This our Saviour himself confirmeth in the Gospel, when being told as he was preaching, that his mother and brethren were desirous to speak with him, answered as with indignation, b . Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He that doth the will of my Father which is in heaven. he is my brother and sister and mother. c My mother and brethren are these which hear the word of God and keep it: d Tertul● 〈…〉 He maketh these other of the greater worth, saith Tertullian, and showeth that the hearing of God's word is a thing to be preferred above being the mother and brethren of Christ. e J● 〈…〉, etc. Non ut v●●●●res su●stituit. sed ut dig●●●●res. He transferreth the names of kindred to them, whom he rather judgeth to be most near unto him, because of faith, whom he putteth in place of the other, not as more truly his mother and his brethren, but as being of greater worth. So again, when a woman amidst the company cried out: f L●k 1●. 28. Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck, to withdraw the minds of men from carnal fancies, he answereth, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it; g Tertul. de car●● Christi. Non ma●●●● v●●rum & v● 〈…〉 Not denying the womb and paps of his mother (saith Tertullian again) but signifying them to be more happy, that do hear the word of God. This happiness and heavenly bounty Mary was also partaker of, but he considereth her respectively only under the title of the mother of Christ. Therefore more plainly S. Austin delivereth Christ's answer: h Aug ● 〈…〉 My mother whom ye call blessed is therefore blessed, because she keepeth the word of God. not because the word became flesh in her. Epiphanius further observeth, that when Christ another time saith unto his mother: Woman what have I to do with thee, mine hour is not yet come? He therefore i E● 〈…〉 Virgi●●● 〈…〉 appella●●●, ve●u● propheta●● quae futura ess● 〈…〉 sectarum ac haeres●●● gratia, ut ne aliqud 〈…〉 sancta●●, in hanc haeres● 〈…〉. called her woman that none might think too highly of the holy Virgin; as prophesying what should come to pass in the earth by Sects and heresies, that none admiring her (saith he) should fall into this heresy and the dotages thereof: speaking there as touching the heresy of the Collyridians', who set up the image of the Virgin Mary, and thereto offered (Collyridem) a cake in the honour of her, and thereof they had their name. As touching all this blind devotion which the Papists have renewed to the full, he telleth us, that k Ibid Est ●●dibr●um tota r●s. & amcularum fabula it is a toy, and an old wives fable: and asketh as we do, l Quae Scripturae ae hoc na●●auit● What Scripture hath told us any thing hereof? And that we may understand how lewdly M. Bishop belieth antiquity, in saying, that Antiquity termed the Virgin Marie, Our Lady and Queen exalted above all quires of Angels, he reasoneth thus against that heresy: m Quis Prophetarum praecep●● hominem adorari, nedum mult●●rem? Which of the Prophets hath taught, that any man is to be worshipped? much less a woman. And again, n St Angelos adorari non●uli● quantò magis eam quae genitae est ab Anna. If God will not have the Angels to be worshipped, how much more will he not have the daughter of Anna to be worshipped? And again, o Mariam nem● adoret, non dico mulurem, imò neque utrum. Deo debetur hoc mysterium, neque Angelicapiunt talem glorificationem. Let no man worship Mary; I say, not a woman, no not a man: this mystery belongeth unto God, the Angels receive not any such glory. And again, as touching the name of the Queen of heaven, he addeth, p Ne turbent orbem terrarum: ne dicant, honoramus reginam coeli. Let not these women trouble the world: let them not say, We do honour to the Queen of heaven. We see how far Epiphanius was from the conceit of those superstitious fooleries, which M. Bishop here so solemnly discourseth unto us. We see how the Church of Rome walketh just in the path and steps of these heretics, which were of old condemned by the Church. They argued as M. Bishop here full simply, doth from the unright rule of crooked reason: she was his best beloved mother, he took flesh of her, he sucked her breasts, surely he would bestow upon her his special favours; he would without doubt do more for her, then for strangers, to whom he was not at all beholding: he would replenish her with such grace as should make her fit for that place which he never gave her. These are fantastical presumptuous of silly doting women, and blind ignorant dotterels: they have no savour at all of the spirit of God. They might upon these grounds argue for the brethren and cousins of Christ, and conceive, as the mother of james and john did, that being his kinsmen, they should be more respected than others, and as they were nearer him in blood, so should be preferred in dignity & place, and therefore should q Mat. 20. 2●. sit one on his right hand▪ and the other on his left hand in his kingdom. But the kingdom of Christ is not administered by such fancies, neither do carnal titles serve to give preferment there. And as touching the blessed Virgin, Epiphanius further against such conceits observeth, that Christ r Ibid. Non pe●● si● ipsidare baptisma, non benedicere discipulis, 〈◊〉 ●t terra ●mpera●●●ussit, sed & sola● ipsa● sa●ctificationem esse dignam factam esse regn● ipsius. permitted her not to baptise▪ gave her not power to bless his disciples, did not appoint her to reign or rule in the earth: but her only sanctification was, to be made worthy of his kingdom. It was therefore an heretical device, to make her Queen of heaven: and it hath been since one of the forgeries of Antichrist, to attribute unto her a power and authority to command the Son of God. But M. Bishop telleth us, that this is no doctrine of the Roman Church, nor found in all her service, yet knoweth well enough, that this was the doctrine of the Roman Church, and commonly found in all her service. Harlots that have little shame, yet blush at some things: and the harlot of Rome though of an iron forehead, yet saw some things to be so grossly blasphemous and inexcusable, as that she could not for shame but remove them out of the Church, when question began to be made of them. Such was that prayer concerning Thomas Becket, which before I mentioned in the answer to the Epistle: Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Fac nos christ scandere quò Thomas ascendit. That is: By the blood of Thomas which for thee he did spend, Make us, O Christ, to climb whither Thomas did ascend. Which prayer was found in all their Portesses, though now it be taken out. So they were wont also very solemnly to sing throughout the whole Church of Rome: jube filio, foelix puerpera jure matris impera Redemptori, etc. Bid thy Son, O blessed Mother, By mother's right command our Redeemer. This Duraeus the jesuite acknowledgeth s Duraeus contr. Whitaker. lib. 9 Ad libros Rituales confug●●, ex quibus obsoleta quaedam corradis. ex libris Ritualibus, out of their books of rites and ceremonies, by which their church-service was directed. Yea M. Bishop himself very well knoweth, that the words are not to be denied, and therefore as Duraeus doth, so doth he also make a favourable construction thereof, that the Author of that prayer, deemed the Virgin's prayers to her Son, to be as forcible in kindness, as if they were commandments, and in that sense called them commandments. Thus as M. Harding under a colour of t Harding. Confut. of the Apolog●● part. 2. spiritual sporting and dalliance; so these men under opinion of kindness, do labour to hide open blasphemy and spiritual idolatry. They stick not to speak apparently to the derogation of the Son of God, and then turn it to matter of jest, like him of whom Solomon speaketh, who u Pro. 26.18.19 feigning himself mad, casteth firebrands, arrows and deadly tools, and then saith, Am not I in sport? But how ill their sporting construction fitteth with the humour of those times, let it appear by another hymn of theirs, which will not be so answered: x Histor. secundum chorum Augustens●de commemor. Virgins Mariae. Gaude matrona coelica; exultando magnifica Deum tuum salutarem qui te fecit singularem. Tu ancillam jesu Christi te vocare voluisti: Sed ut docet lex divina, tu ipsius es Domina. Nam ius habet & ratio, matrem prae esse filio. Ergo ora supplicitèr & praecipe sublimiter, nos in mundi vespera ad regna ducat suprema. That is to say: Be glad O matron heavenly, and with rejoicing magnify Thy God, thy Saviour who thee hath singled out in dignity. The handmaiden of jesus Christ, thyself to call thou wast content: But thou his Lady mistress art, as teacheth God's commandment. For right and reason doth require, the mother be above the Son: Pray therefore as a suppliant, and command as a higher one: That in the end of this world's days, He bring us to his heavenly joys. Here is then right and reason, and God's Commandment to approve and justify, that the Virgin Mary as the Mother should have power over her son, and authority to command him. And to no other purpose soundeth that which M. Bishop acknowledgeth, as being yet in their use, y In hymn. Ecclesiastic. Monstrate esse matrem; Show thyself to be a mother. He saith it is not added, by commanding thy son, but he should have told us how otherwise it should be meant; because we know not, nor can conceive in what meaning they should request her to show herself to be his mother, but only upon opinion of some motherly superiority, and authority to command him. For as for that which he saith followeth in that place, Sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus; Let him by thee receive our prayers, who for us yielded to be thy son; it giveth us no light at all to the contrary, but that she should show her motherly command, by causing him to accept the prayers that are made unto him; which he seeing, translateth the words falsely, Present our prayers unto him, etc. And thus the common people were persuaded by them, and specially women, that they had better hope and readier access to God, and more assured safety by our Lady, than they had by the Son of God. And no marvel, when they lifted her up into the seat of Christ, and invested her in their public service, with all the titles of mercy and grace that are proper unto him. Now therefore, M. Bishop, there is cause sufficient for us to forbear to be reconciled to the Church of Rome, which under pretence of magnifying Christ, hath put the Pope and the Virgin Marie, and the rest of the Saints in the place of Christ, and coloureth her Antichristian presumptions, and usurpations under the feigned title of the gifts of Christ. You devise what you lift, and fill the Church with your abominations, and use the name of Christ as a cloak to cover your filthiness and shame. If they came naked in their own likeness, all men would detest them, and detest you for persuading them; therefore it is the policy of the whore of Babylon to offer the z Apoc. 17.4. filthiness of her fornications in the golden cup of the name of Christ, that the glory of the cup may bewitch them, not to suspect any poison to be contained therein. As for us, we esteem of the power, merits and satisfaction of Christ, as he himself hath taught us to esteem; we assume no part or parcel thereof to ourselves, because by the letters patents of his Gospel we have no warrant so to do. Because than we unfeignedly seek the true honour of jesus Christ, and cannot brook the dishonour that is done unto him in the Church of Rome, under the counterfeit terms of his divine gifts, we make choice to hearken to the voice of God, a Apoc. ●8. 4. Come out of her, my people, and be not partakers of her sins, lest ye be partakers of her plagues. M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. PERKINS Preface to the Reader. Upon your preface to the Reader I will not stand, because it toucheth no point of controversy: let it be declared in your next, what you mean, when you desire your reformed Catholic to hold the same necessary heads of Religion with the Roman Church: for if the Roman Church doth err in the matter of faith, and justification; in the number and virtue of the Sacraments; in the books and interpretation of the word of God; if she raze the foundation, and make Christ a Pseudochrist, and an Idol; to omit twenty other errors in substantial points of faith, as in this your small discourse you would persuade: there will remain very few necessary heads of Religion for them to agree in. And be you well assured, that you are so wide from winning Catholics by this your work, to a better liking of your Religion, that you have taken the high way, to lead them to a far greater dislike of it; by teaching, that in so many material points it differeth so far from theirs. For all Catholics hold for most assured, that which the most ancient, learned and holy Doctor Athanasius in his Creed delivereth in the 2. verse: Which Catholic faith unless every man observe wholly and inviolably (not omitting, or should inking from any one article of it) without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. If S. Basil that reverend and blessed Father of the Church, doth hold it the duty of every good Christian, rather to lose hi● life, then to condescend to the alteration of any one syllable in matter of faith: Theod. 4. his. cap. 17. you may be sure that we Catholics cannot but carry a very base conceit of your doctrine; who go about under the overworn and threedbare cloak of reformation, to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion: specially when they shall perceiu● the most points of your pretended reformation, to be nothing else but l ●otten condemned heresies, new scoured up and furbushed, and so ●●shew made more saleable unto the unskilful, as in this treatise shall be proved in every Chapter. R. ABBOT YOur demand, M. Bishop, is already satisfied before. M. Perkins by those necessary heads of Religion, understandeth such general grounds as stand unquestioned betwixt us and the Romish Church, which for the matters handled he commonly setteth down by the name of our consents in the entering of every question. There are some main points of doctrine to which the Church of Rome subscribeth as well as we. The Reformed Catholic is still to hold those, though he depart from the corruptions and abominations, to the maintenance whereof the same Church of Rome doth wickedly misapply them. As for his winning of Catholics to the liking of our Religion, I assure myself that you M. Bishop yourself, and your friend of good intelligence and judgement, were jealous and doubtful thereof. His plain debating of the points in question, laying open the absurdity of Popery, and clearing the doctrine on our part, from those lies and slanders wherewith in corners you labour to deprave it, might seem very likely to draw many to the knowledge and approbation of the truth. It should seem, there was some sore, for that both you and your friend were so careful to apply a plaster; but your plaster by the grace of God will make your sore a great deal worse, when men shall further see, how sincerely he hath dealt to deliver truth out of the word of God and doctrine of the ancient Church, and what base gear you have brought as the marrow and pith of many large volumes, for the contradicting and oppugning of it. The more and greater the points are of difference betwixt the Church of Rome and us, the more doth it concern your Catholics, if they tender their own salvation to look into them, which if they do, they will cease to think basely of our religion, and will begin to honour it, and embrace it as the truth of God. They will see, that there is in it a true reformation indeed, a just departure from the horrible idolatries and superstitions of the Romish Synagogue, and it shall grieve them that they have so long dishonoured God, by holding fellowship with him who hath no true fellowship with jesus Christ. That you think basely thereof, M. Bishop, we wonder not. He that doateth upon a harlot, is wont to scorn and think basely of honest matrons. The Scribes and Pharisees thought basely of our Saviour Christ: no marvel if you do the like of the Gospel of Christ, who live and thrive by traditions as they did. As for old rotten condemned heresies, how silly a man you have showed yourself in the objecting thereof, it hath appeared partly already in the answer of your Epistle, and shall appear further, God willing, in the answer of your book, and we will expect hereafter, that you learn more wit, then to babble and prate of heresies, you know not yourself what. THE THEME OF M. PERKINS Prologue. And I heard another voice from heaven say, Go out of her my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues. revel. 18.3. M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. Perkins Prologue. Sect. 1. THe learned know it to be a fault, Exordium Common. to make that the entry unto our discourse, which may as properly fit him, that pleadeth against us: but to use that for our poem, which in true sense hath nothing for us, nay rather beareth strongly for our adversary, must needs argue great want of judgement: Such is the sentence above cited out of S. john by M. Perkins: for it being truly understood, is so far off from terrifying any one from the Catholic Roman Church, as it doth vehemently exhort all to fly unto it, by forsaking their wicked company that are banded against it. For by the purple Harlot in that place is signified (as shall be proved presently,) the Roman Empire, as than it was, the slave of Idols, and with most bloody slaughter persecuting Christ's Saints: Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest unto it, so most subject to that sacrilegious butchery. Wherefore that voice which S. john heard say, Go out of her my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, etc. can have none other meaning, then that all they who desire to be God's people, must separate themselves in faith and manners from them, who hate and persecute the Roman Church, as did then, the Heathen Emperors, and now do all Heretics: Unless they will be partakers of their sins, and consequently of their plagues. This shall yet appear more plainly in the examination of this Chapter. Where I will deal friendly with my adversary, and advantage him all that I can; that all being given him, which is any way probable; it may appear more evidently, how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalypse, whereof all Protestants vaunt and brag so much both in their books and pulpits. Well then, I will admit that in the 17. and 18. Chapters of the Revelation by the whore of Babylon, is understood the Roman state and regiment: which in lawful disputations, they are not able to prove: the most judicious Doctor S. Augustine, and diverse others of the ancient fathers, with the learned troop of later interpreters, expounding it of the whole corpse and society of the wicked. And as for the seven hills on the which they lay their foundation, they are not to be taken literally: the Angel of God in the very text itself interpreting the seven heads of the beast, to be aswell seven Kings, as seven hills. But this notwithstanding to help you forward, I will grant it you, because some good writers have so taken it: and therefore omit as impertinent that which you say in proof of it. What can you infer hereunto? Marry that the Roman Church is that whore of Babylon. Fair and soft good Sir, how prove you that? Thus. The whore of Babylon is a state of the Roman regiment, ergo the Roman Church is the whore of Babylon. What form of arguing call you me this? By the like sophistication, you may prove that Romulus and Remus were the purple Harlot, which to affirm were ridiculous, or (which is impious) that the most Christian Emperors, Constantine and Theodosius, were the whore of Babylon, because these held also the state of the Roman Empire and regiment. To make short, the feeble force of this reason lieth in this: that they who hold the state, and govern in the same kingdom, must needs be of like affection in religion; which if it were necessary, then did Queen Marie of blessed memory, and her sister Elizabeth carry the same minds towards the true Catholic faith, because they sat in the same chair of estate, and ruled in the same kingdom. See I pray you what a shameful cavil this is, to raise such outcries upon. A simple Logician would blush to argue in the par●●ies so loafty: and yet they that take upon them to control the learnedst in the world, often fall into such open fallacies. Well then, admitting the purple Harlot to signify the Roman state, we do say, that the state of Rome must be taken as it was then, when these words were spoken of it; that is, Pagan, Idolatrous, and a hot persecutor of Christians. Such it had been a little before under that bloody tyrant Nero, and then was under Domitian: which we confirm by the authority of them who expound this passage of the Roman state. The commentary on the Apocalypse, under S. Ambrose name saith, The great whore sometime doth signify Rome, specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this, did persecute the Church of God: 〈◊〉 Cap. 178. but otherwise, doth signify the whole city of the Devil. And S. Jerome who apply the place to Rome, affirmeth, Libr. 2. cont. J●●●n. that she had before his days blotted out that blasphemy written in her forehead, because then the state was Christian, which before had been Heathen: so that unto the party Pagan, and not unto the Church of God, he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot: which also the very text itself doth convince: for it hath That she was drunk with the blood of the Martyrs of jesus. Verse 6. Now the Church of Rome had not then by the confession of all men, drawn any blood of Christ's Saints, but in testimony of his truth, had powered out abundance of her best blood. Wherefore it is most manifest, that the harlot could not signify the Church of Rome, so pure and free from slaughter: but the Roman Empire, which was then full gorged, with that most innocent and holy blood. Again, that whore is expounded, Verse 18. To be a city which had kingdom, over the Kings of the earth. But the Church of Rome had then no kingdom over the earth, or any temporal dominion at all; but the Roman Emperors had such sovereign commandment over many Kings: wherefore it must be understood of them, and not of the Church. Now to take kingdom not properly for temporal sovereignty, but for spiritual jurisdiction, as some shifters do; is to fly without any warrant, from the native signification of the word, unto the fantastical and voluntary imagination. And whereas M. Perkins saith, pag. 5. that Ecclesiastical Rome in respect of state, princely dominion, and cruelty against the Saints, is all one with the heathenish Empire; he both seeketh to deceive, and is greatly deceived: he would deceive, in that he doth apply words spoken of Rome, above 1500. years ago, unto Rome as it is at this day: and yet if that were granted him, he erreth foully in every one of his particles. For first, touching princely dominion, the Roman Empire held then, all Italy, all France, all Spain, all England, a great part of Germany, of Asia, and also of Africa: having their Proconsul's, and other principal Officers in all those Countries, drawing an hundred thousand millions in money, and many other commodities out of them: Wherefore in princely dominion, and magnifical state, it surmounted Ecclesiastical Rome (which hath not temporal dominion over the one half of that one kingdom of Italy) more than an hundred degrees. And as for persecution, the Empire slew, and caused to be slain, more Saints of God in one year, than the Church of Rome hath done, of reprobates and obstinate heretics, in 1600. years. R. ABBOT. WE see that M. Bishop hath some skill in Oratory, but it seemeth he hath learned one precept above the rest of extenuation or diminution, to give semblance of making light of his adversaries arguments, and not to be touched therewith, when notwithstanding he is galled with them, and wounded at the heart. Of this lesson he maketh good use throughout his whole book; but here in the beginning having his wit's ye● fresh, he goeth somewhat beyond it, and will make his Reader believe, that that text of the Apocalypse, which M. Perkins propounded for the matter of his Prologue, Go out of her my people, etc. is so far from making against them, as that it is an advertisement to all men to forsake the society and fellowship of all them that show themselves adversaries to the Church of Rome. The Apostle telleth us, a 1. Cor. 11.19. There must be heresies, that they which are approved may be known. Because there must be heresies, there must be heretics, men give up to reprobate sense, obstinate and wilful in their wicked fancies, even then when they are b Tit. 3 11. condemned in themselves. Otherwise such is the light and evidence of Scripture, in directing that admonition as a caveat against the Church of Rome, at least wise to every man's eyes and sight, there is that probability thereof, as that a man would not believe, but that the handling of this point should have made M. Bishop to tremble and fear, and to surcease from going any further in the rest, specially seeing that for the safeguard of his minion of Rome, he is feign to go so directly contrary to the evidence that stood against him. Yet we see how gloriously he carrieth himself here in the beginning, and maketh show of great largesse, and of giving his adversary all the advantage he can. But let him remember what Solomon saith, c Prou. 25.14. A man that boasteth of false liberality, is like clouds and wind without rain. His words show more courage than wisdom, and he giveth his adversary no advantage at all, but what he must have whether he will or not. The question is, whether Babylon and the whore of Babylon mentioned in the Revelation, be to be understood of Rome or not? He allegeth out of Austin, and some other ancient (though not indeed so ancient) writers, and out of a learned troop of later interpreters, as it pleaseth him to term them, that by Babylon is understood the whole corpse and society of the wicked. But his master Bellarmine having mentioned that exposition for answer to our objection, leaveth, it, and saith, d Bellarm de A●tichrist. cap. 13 secun●o dici potest. & me● iudiciomeliùs per merc●●●em intell gi●● mam. It may be said, and in my judgement better, that by the harlot is understood Rome. So had he before said, that S. john e Ibid. cap. 5. Explicat mulierem esse urbem magnamquae sedet super septem calls, id est, Roman●. declareth, that the woman is the city that sitteth upon seven hills, that is, saith he, Rome. The very clear light of the truth made him to confess, that in the description of the whore of Babylon Rome must necessarily be understood; he must shift otherwise as he might, but he saw that to deny this would be no shift. Yea and the exposition that M. Bishop bringeth, maketh nothing to the contrary. For although we understand that Babylon do import the whole corpse and society of the wicked, yet we are also to understand, that this corpse and society hath a head, from whence the name is derived to the whole body, and therefore the notification of the body, specially being a body so confused, must needs be by the description of the head. The affirming I say of Babylon to be the whole corpse and society of the wicked, doth not exclude Rome from being meant by the whore of Babylon, because the head is necessarily implied in the whole body, and Rome is described and set forth unto us, as being the head of that society. And that the head is here properly meant, is invincibly manifest, because the speech is here of f Apoc. 14.8. & 17.2. her that maketh all nations drunk with her fornications, and is therefore to be distinguished from the body of the wicked of all nations, which are made drunk by her. But for declaring of this point S. Austin in sundry places divideth the whole body of mankind by g August in Psal 26. & 61. two cities, Babylon and Jerusalem, comprehending under the name of Babylon all that live according to the flesh, and under the name of Jerusalem, all that live according to the spirit. h Idem in Psal. 64. Duas istas civitates duo faciunt amores: Jerusalem facit am●r dei; Babyloniam facit amer secul● The love of the world maketh Babylon, and the citizens thereof, The love of God maketh Jerusalem and the citizens thereof. This earthly city being the whole corpse and society of the wicked, taketh the name of it from Babylon the great City of Assyria, which was for the time the principal part thereof. i De civit dei. li. 16 cap. 17. In Assyria praevalucrat dominatus impiae civitatis: huius caput erat Babylon illa, cuius terr●genae civitatis nomen ap●issimum est, 〈◊〉 est, confused. In Assyria (saith S. Austin) prevailed the dominion of the wicked city; the head thereof was Babylon, whose name, that is, Confusion, fitteth the city of earthly kind and disposition. That Babylon wholly savoured of the flesh, affecting altogether the state and kingdom of this world, full of abominable idolatry, covetousness, pride, cruelty, unclean and filthy lust, persecution and hatred towards the people of God, whom it held a long time in subjection and bondage to itself. Now as that Babylon being the most ancient state of earthly minded men, was the head of that company and society of the wicked, not because all universally were outwardly subject unto it, but because all were joined inwardly in conformity of affection with it; so Rome arose up afterward to be another head of the same body, k Ibid. Roma co●●● velut altera 〈◊〉 Occide●te Babylonia. as it were another Babylon in the West, as S. Austin speaketh. l Ibid lib. 18 cap. 2. Babylonia quasi pr●m● Roma: Ip●● Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est●● cap. 22. velu● priori● filia Babyloni●. Babylon, saith he, was as it were a first Rome, and Rome is as it were a second Babylon, and as the daughter of the former Babylon▪ It was Babylon then even from the first original of it, though as did Babylon, so Rome also should in the latter states thereof grow to be in higher degree of confusion than it was in the beginning. All this the holy Ghost most plainly confirmeth in the description delivered by m Apoc 13.1. & 17.3. etc. S. john. First, it is to be observed, that S. john according to the example of the Prophet Daniel, doth by the term of n Dan 7.3. etc. a beast import some earthly kingdom, state, and government, therefore named a beast, to signify the same to be led wholly with beastly & carnal affection, to those things that concern the flesh, and savour of the flesh. Secondly, by o Cap. 17.1.3. a woman, a harlot, he noteth a city, which is the place and palace of such a state, given to fornications, both spiritual by idolatry, and corporal by luxuriousness, wantonness and filthy lust, which sitteth and hath advancement by the pre-eminence of that kingdom, state, and government. Thus the Angel plainly distinguisheth the woman and the beast, when he saith: p Ver. 7. I will show thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that beareth her, of which S. john had said before, q Ver. 3. I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast. Albeit, we are so to take this distinction, as that withal we understand that the same is not always precisely observed, but that the woman and the beast are used sometimes indifferently for the same, and either of them to signify the whole. Now of the woman the Angel saith, r Ver. 18. The woman which thou sawest, is the great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. Again, she is said s Ve●. 1. to sit upon many waters, which (saith the Angel) t Ver. 15. are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. But there was no city that reigned over the kings of the earth, and over those many nations and peoples, but only the city of Rome. Rome therefore is the woman that is there meant. This appeareth further by that he noteth of the situation of this city upon the seven heads of the beast, which (saith the Angel) are u Ver. 9 seven mountains or hills, upon which the woman sitteth. M. Bishop telleth us, that those seven hills are not to be taken literally; but that is a very witless shift. The Angel by way of exposition delivereth, that by seven heads are meant seven hills, & we must take it upon M. Bishop's word, that by seven heads are not meant seven hills, but somewhat else, but what, he cannot tell himself. What an absurd toy is this, that the Angel so expounding it, we should be sent to him again, to know what he meaneth by seven hills? But this toucheth them to the quick, because the city of Rome is famous for seven hills, for which Tertullian calleth the people of Rome x Tertul. Apol. cap 35. Ipsos Quirites, ipsam vernaculam septem collium plebem convenio. the native or home-born people of seven hills; whereof they had their y Idem de idololat. septimontium, which was z Jbid. in Annot. Ren. Liur. Septimontium dies festus appellatur mense Decembri, etc. quod in septem monubi● fierent sacra. a festival day in the month of December, upon which day they performed sacrifices and devotions upon those seven hills: and was so named (as Varro observeth) a Varro de ling. Latin. lib. 5. Dies septimontium nominatus est ab hu septem montibus in quibus urbs sita est. of those seven hills upon which the city stood. Seeing then there is no city in the world to which this mark of seven hills can be applied but only the city of Rome, they have no way to excuse Rome from being the whore of Babylon here described, but only by saying, that those hills are not properly to be understood; thereby bewraying the misery of their cause to every man that doth not wilfully yield himself to be blinded by them. The Angel further expoundeth those b Ver. 9 seven heads to signify seven kings, of which five are fallen, saith he, one is, and another is not yet come, that is, saith the Rhemish Divines, though they said it before they were aware, c Rhem. Test. Ann. Apoc. 13. ● five were before Christ, one present, and one to come. Whereby they cross that absurd shift of theirs used in the place which we have here in hand, that d Annot. Apoc. 17.9. seven is a mystical number, signifying universally all of that sort whereof he speaketh, and that the seven heads, hills, or kingdoms, are all the kingdoms of the world, persecuting the Christians, being heads and mountains, say they, for their height in dignity above others. For if the seven heads be taken in that generality of construction, than there is no place left for this division of five before Christ, one present, and one to come, because the meaning must be all that are past, all that are present, and all that are to come. The other exposition which they bring is as vain and ridiculous as that. For as they reckon e Ibid. five empires, kingdoms, or states, that were persecutors of God's people before the time of Christ, as of Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, the Persians, and Greeks: so they may reckon many more as cruelly minded towards them as these were, the Philistines, the Amalekites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Ismaelites, the Edomites, the Assyrians: and because there are so many more than five, therefore they cannot accord with the sum here, where there are but five. Yea and the text plainly rejecteth this manner of account, because the seven heads here spoken of, are heads of one beast, and therefore cannot be applied to divers states. But by one of these heads or kings, it shall appear what all the rest are. Of the king that was in the time of Christ and of S. john, there is no question but that it was the Emperor of Rome, who was in a manner the king of the world, and therefore f Luk. 1.2. gave forth commandment a little before the birth of Christ, that all the world should be taxed. There is no other king to be spoken of at that time, but only this king. Seeing then that the sixth king is head of the Roman state, and all the seven kings are heads of one and the same state, it must needs be, that those five kings, which were before Christ, were also heads of the Roman state. Now in this sixth head, we see that the name of king is not understood of them only who have the very title of kings, but of such as have the place and authority of kings, that is, the highest and supreme government of the state. And as the sixth head or king was not only one man, but the whole succession of the Emperors, so we must understand, that the other five heads or kings, were not five several men, but five several titles and states of the highest governors of the state. And fully so many we find in the Roman government before the Emperors and the time of Christ; which were kings so called, Consuls, Decemuirs, Tribunes, Dictator's; every of which for their times successively, were the supreme Officers in the Empire and kingdom of the Romans. Seeing then that this cannot be justified in any other state or city, but only in the city of Rome, it is hereby manifest again, that Rome must be the Babyl●● here intended by S. john. Furthermore this beast is described also to have g Verse 3. ten horns, and those ten horns are expounded to be h Vers. 12. ten kings, which shall grow out of the beast, that is, out of the same state or kingdom. Now there was no other state, but only the state of the Roman Empire, whence those kings might arise, yea and S. Jerome witnesseth, that i Hieron in Da. 7. Dicamus quod omnes Scriptores ecclesiastic● tradedirunt▪ etc. decem futuros reges qui ●●bem Roman●● inter se dividant. all Ecclesiastical Writers have delivered, that those ten kings shall divide amongst them the Roman Empire. Therefore Bellarmine also confesseth, that k Bellarm de Antichrist. cap. 5. Orientur quidem ex Romano imperio, sed non erunt Romani Imperatoris sicut ●ornua ipsa ortuntur ex bestia▪ sed bestia ipsa non sunt. the ten kings shall arise out of the Roman Empire, but shall be no Emperors of Rome, even as the horns grow out of the beast, but yet are not the beast. If then it be certain, as it is most certain, and cannot be denied, that the state of Rome is it whence those ten kings must grow, how can we make doubt, but that the State of Rome is it, which is here set forth unto us under the name of Babylon? To say nothing, that there was no other state or government to which it can so rightly be applied, that it was l Vers. 6. drunken with the blood of Saints, and of the martyrs of jesus Christ. The description fitteth so lively and apparently, as that the ancient Fathers Tertullian and Hierom have made undoubted construction thereof concerning the city of Rome. m Tertul. contra Judaeos, & lib 3 contra Martion. Babylon apud joannem nostrum Romanae urbis figuraem portat. Babylon with S. john (saith Tertullian) carrieth the figure of the city of Rome. n Hieron. ad Algal. q. 11. Romanum imper ●l aeternum putant. unde infronte purpuratae mere●●icis secundum Apocalyps●o joannis scriptum est nomen blasphemiae, hoc est, Romae aeternae. They think (saith Hierome) that the Roman Empire shall be eternal, whereupon according to the Revelation of S. john, in the forehead of the purple harlot is written a name of blasphemy, that is, Rome everlasting. In another place speaking of his dwelling in Rome, he saith: * Jdem praefat. in lib. Didymi de Sp. sancto. Cùm in babylon versarer, & purpuratae merciricis essem ce●onus, & iure Quiritum v●uerem. When I remained in Babylon, and was an inhabitant of the purple harlot, and lived after the law or fashion of the Romans. And again, writing to Marcelia in the name of Paula and Eustochium, to persuade her to come from Rome to Bethlehem, useth argument thereof from that which in the Revelation is written concerning Rome: o Jaem ad Marcellam Lege Apocalypsin joannis, & quid de muliere purpurata, & scripta in eius fronte blasphemia, septem mon●●bus, aquis multu, & Babylonis cantetur exitu contuere. Read (saith he) the Revelation of S. john, and he hold what is there said of the purple harlot, and the blasphemy written in her forehead, of the seven hills and many waters, and of the end of Babylon: and thereupon applieth to it the sentence here prefixed, Go out of her my people, saith the Lord, etc. Of which place Ludovicus vives giveth this observation, that p Ludo. vives in August. de civi. Dei. lib. 18 ca 22 Hieronymus ad Marcillam scribens non aliam existimat describi à joanne in Apocalypsi Babylorem, quàm urbem P●nam. Hierome writing to Marcelia, thinketh that there is no other Babylon described by john in the Revelation, but only the city of Rome. In another place also speaking namely to the city of Rome, he saith: q Hieron. adu. jovin. li. 2. Maledictionem tibi salvator in Apocalypsi comminatus est Our Saviour in the Revelation hath threatened a curse unto thee. Thus they conceived that all that is said of Babylon, of the purple harlot, of the name of blasphemy, of the seven hills, of the many waters, of the curse threatened to Babylon, and the final destruction of it, to be wholly understood of the city of Rome. We will therefore take nothing here of M. Bishop's courtesy and gift, but by the very light of the text we will wrest it from him whether he will or not. Now this M. Perkins setteth down indefinitely, that the whore of Babylon is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome, and appertain thereto: he concludeth not, ergo, the Roman Church is the whore of Babylon, but infers, that by other consequence afterwards, and M. Bishop shall see, God willing, that there is sufficient to be said for proof thereof. But whereas he saith, that of that assertion it followeth that Romulus and Remus were the purple harlot, he is much deceived therein, because the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome, cannot be strained to import all people that are the inhabitants of Rome. Yet we must let him understand, that Romulus was the first founder of Babylon, and in him was the beginning of the first of those seven heads of the beast, because he was the first king of Rome. For Rome was Babylon even from the first original of it, as before I noted out of A●stin, and as appeareth in that it is described to have seven heads, and therefore must be Babylon, not under one or two only, but under all those heads, though we indeed most commonly speak thereof, only in respect of Antichrist, which is the seventh head. So was she also from the beginning a purple harlot, being founded in blood and parricide, as S. Austin observeth, by r August de ciu. Dei lib. 15. cap 5 Romulus his slaughter of his brother Remus, that he might be king alone: established by s Tit Liu. Dec. 1. lib. 1. ravishment of virgins and maids, alured thither under pretence of sports and plays: increased by continualll slaughter and bloodshed, to that huge greatness which it attained unto: though the name of purple harlot be more specially given in respect of shedding the blood of the martyrs of Christ, and of the filthiness of Antichrist, wherein he should go beyond all other that had gone before him. As for Constantine, Theodosius, and some other such like godly and Christian Emperors, though they were heads of her that is the whore of Babylon, yet it followeth not that they were the whore of Babylon, or the purple harlot, because it is not necessary that simply all in that succession should be of the same affection. For even amidst the rank and succession of idolatrous heathen Emperors, when M. Bishop denieth not but that Rome was Babylon, there was t Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 33. Philip the Emperor, a godly and Christian Prince, so devoted to religion, as that he submitted himself to the censure of the Church. Yea and Valerian the Emperor in the beginning of his reign was so well affected to Christian religion, as that his v Idem lib. 7. ca● 9 Tota illius aula referta erat puns, et ecclesia dei facta. Court was full of godly and devout persons, and was become a Church of God. Therefore though Constantine and Theodosius were godly princes, yet Rome might still continue Babylon, both by the remainder of those impieties that were before, and by the seeds of that defection that was to come, which soon began to be sowed, and mightily to grow there. Whatsoever may be alleged of Rome for that time, it is easily to be understood, that some small interregnum, as I may term it, and intermission of beastly and Babylonish corruption and confusion, could not take away the nature and name of that which it had been so long before, and was soon after to be again. And indeed a small time it was, that Rome continued in the hands of those religious and godly Princes. Necessary it was in respect of those things that were afterward to be fulfilled, that Christian religion should publicly be established and advanced there, which could not be, but that the Emperors and Princes themselves must be professors of Christian faith. But the chief seat of the Empire being by Constantine translated to Constantinople in the East, Rome within a while fell into the possession of other Lords. For about threescore and thirteen years after the death of Constantine (in which time also for some part thereof it had been holden by Constantius and Valentinian the second Arian heretics, by julian the Apostata, and Maximus the tyrant) it was wholly taken by the Goths out of the emperors hands, and so continued as x Bellarm. de Antichristo cap. 5. Valens, Arcadius, Theodosius ●unior, & alij eorum successores usque ad justinianum omnes Roma caruerunt. Bellarmine also confesseth, unto the time of justinian the Emperor, which was about the space of an hundred and fourteen years: yea and soon after, it was distressed and taken again, and the Western Empire wholly overthrown, the providence of God by this confusion giving way by little and little to the Bishop of Rome to take upon him, as afterwards he did, to be the seventh head of the Roman State. Now then we hope M. Bishop can see, that we have no meaning to argue in that sort, that they are of like affection in Religion who govern the same kingdom, nay we are so far from arguing in that sort, as that we rather confess, that they who both are properly heads of the whore of Babylon, may yet be diverse in religion, as were the heathen Emperors that were of old, from the Popes that are now. Yet upon his lose imagination he censureth us, that with such fallacies we take upon us to control the learnedst in the world, of which whosoever they are, we are sure that he is none, nor do hold him a fit man to judge who they are. But M. Bishop, let us not contend who are the best learned. You know what we are wont to say, that the greatest Clerks be not always the wisest men. Solomon telleth you, y Prou. 26.12. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool then of him. Think humbly of your learning, and it will haply serve you the better to learn the truth. As for our learning, thanks be to God, it hath done you that sorrow, that ye have no cause to brag of yours, only losers must have their words, and he can do little, that cannot talk. But now he telleth us, that admitting the purple harlot to signify the Roman state, yet the state of Rome must be taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it, that is, pagan, idolatrous, and a hot persecutor of Christians. Here is all that he hath to say, and if this be nothing, there is no remedy but Rome must be Babylon, the Pope Antichrist, and then what shall become of him? Now we deny not but that Rome was the purple harlot under those heathen Emperors, but we deny that in the falling of those Emperors, she should thenceforth cease to be the purple harlot. For the purple harlot described by S. john, was so to be under seven heads, of which by S. john's account the Emperor was but the sixth. Sith then that Rome was the purple harlot under the Emperor, which was the sixth head, it followeth that there remained after the Emperor a seventh head of the Roman state, under which Rome was to continue to be the purple harlot. That Babylon spoken of by S. john, must be possessed by a beast as head thereof, in the time of those ten kings to which the Empire shall be divided, which z Apoc. 17.13. shall give their power and authority to the same beast. There was no such division of the Empire, nor any such ten kings in the time of those heathen Emperors. Therefore sith Rome was Babylon under the heathen Emperors, it must continue to be Babylon after them. Yea that Babylon must be destroyed, with that destruction which S. john describeth at large in the 18. Chapter. But Rome was not so destroyed in the time of those heathen Emperors. Therefore it abideth still under the name of Babylon, expecting the time of that destruction. To be short, it is without all controversy, and D. Sanders confesseth it, that a Saunder. visib. Eccles monarch. lib. 8. demonstr. de Antich. 38. Joannes in Apocalypsi dicit, Reges terraecum Babylone (quae sedes & civitas Antichristi est) fornicasas esse. Babylon mentioned by S. john, is the seat and city of Antichrist. Because therefore that Rome is that Babylon whereof Saint john speaketh, Rome must be the seat and city of Antichrist. Rome was not the seat and city of Antichrist in the time of the heathen Emperors. Therefore it remained afterwards so to be. It appeareth therefore how vainly these men please themselves with a shadow of an answer, that Rome was the purple harlot in the time of the heathen Emperors, inasmuch as thereof it followeth, that she is afterwards also the purple harlot, because it is apparent, that the purple harlot must be after the time of those Emperors, and there are not two purple harlots but only one. That therefore which M. Bishop allegeth under the name of Ambrose, is so far from making any thing for him, as that it maketh wholly against him, because it proveth, that Rome was that great whore at that time, when the Apostle did write this. So doth that also of Hierome, because it showeth, that it was Rome that had that blasphemy written in her forehead. As for that that he saith, that b Hieron adu. Iou●n. lib. 2. Scriptam in front blasphemiam Christi confessione delesti. by the confession of Christ, she had blotted out that blasphemy, it helpeth M. Bishop nothing. She had taken away the imputation thereof for the time, but that eclipse of the light, or rather of the darkness of the beast hindered not, as before was said, but that she might return to be the same that she was before. Yea when presently after he saith, that Christ in the Revelation had threatened a curse unto her, and in his Epistle to Marcelia hath applied to her, that which is said of the destruction of Babylon, as we have seen before, he giveth us plainly to understand, that his words yield no exception, but that Rome might still be Babylon, because that curse and destruction but under the name of Babylon, could not befall unto her. But M. Bishop hath yet some foolish reasons to persuade us, that these things cannot be meant of the Church of Rome. First, the purple harlot was then drunk with the blood of the Martyrs, but the Church of Rome had not then drawn blood of any. Absurd shifter, that will thus go about to delude the unheedie and ignorant Reader. Who would think him in his wits to argue thus, that the Church of Rome now cannot be the purple harlot, because the Church of Rome that then was, had shed no blood of any Martyr? The Church of Rome then had not that headship, wherein she should be the purple harlot. She was afterterwards to be the purple harlot, when she should be fallen from that that she was then, and should usurp the state and dignity of them, by whom the blood of Martyrs than was spilled, which having sithence done by her head the Pope, she hath played the butcher of God's Saints under him, aswell as the city of Rome did before under the heathen Emperor. Hereby his other exception falleth in like sort, because we speak not of the Church of Rome that then was, but of that that is grown since, by degenerating from that Church. That Church reigned not over the kings of the earth, neither was this latter Church of Rome to reign over kings in that sort as the city of Rome then did: it is sufficient, that by reigning then over the kings of the earth, the place is described where the purple harlot should afterwards sit, though her kingdom were to be of another kind. For that kind of government which was the Empire, was wholly to be abolished, and those ten kings before spoken of, were to arise out of the ruins thereof: but in the place of the Empire another kind of kingdom was to be set up, in name whereof those ten kings should submit themselves unto the beast, Some title the beast, that is, Antichrist must have whereby to challenge superiority over those ten kings, which, the title of Imperial jurisdiction being extinguished, should in likelihood be the spiritual jurisdiction which hath succeeded in the same place. Which M. Bishop would gladly seem to fasten upon the first Church of Rome, but alas, that Church knew no such matter; it is a mere usurpation long after presumed by the Pope. Now by this spiritual jurisdiction, he would not deny but that the Pope and Church of Rome hath reigned over the kings of the earth; only he will not have it to be called a kingdom, and thinketh it to be but shifting to take it so. Yet Thomas Aquinas, who we hope he will say was no shifter, was put to such a shift, as that he was feign to call it not a kingdom only but an Empire. Who perceiving it by constant agreement of all antiquity, that in the dissolution of the Roman Empire should be the arising of Antichrist, and seeing what the case of the Empire in his time was, asked the question, c Thom. Aquin. in 2 Thes. cap. 2. Lect 1. Quomodo est h●c, quia iamdus gente● à Romano imperio recesserunt, & tamen necdum veni●. Antichrist●● D●cendum est, qu● I● 〈…〉 cessavit, sed est comm●ta●●● de temporality spirituale; & ●deo d●cendam est quo● discessio à Romano imperio deb●● intelligi non solum à tempor●li sed à spirituali. How is it that the nations long since are fallen away from the Roman Empire, and yet Antichrist is not come? Whereto he answereth, that the Empire is not ceased, but is changed from temporal to spiritual, and that the falling away must not be only from the temporal Empire, but also from the spiritual. Whe●e if he had not been blinded with the doting love of his mistress, he would have seen that Antichrist certainly had been come, because the certain and infallible token of the coming of Antichrist, which was the ruin of the Roman Empire, was apparently fulfilled. For it was the temporal Empire that the ancient fathers spoke of, they never were so mad as to dream of a spiritual empire to be divided to ten kings. Of the temporal and civil state of the Empire, it was that Tertullian said; d Tertul. de resur. carnis Romani imperij abscessio in decem reges d●uisa Antichristum superduce●. The decay of the Roman empire divided to ten kings, shall be the bringing in of Antichrist. Of the fulfilling whereof Eberhard Archbishop of Iwavia, above three hundred and fifty years ago, spoke thus in an assembly of the states of B●uaria: e Auenc●●. Annal. lib. ● Ro ani maiestas populi qua o●●m orbis regabatur. subl●●● est do terr●●, etc. Imperator vana appella●●s & fol● umbra est Regen decem par●●●r existu●●, qu● orbem t●rrae, Romanum quondam imperium non ad regendum, sed ad consumendum par●●ti sunt. Decem cornua, Turcae, Graeci, Aegyptij, Afri, Hispani, Gall, Angli, Germani, Siculi, Itali, Romanas provincias possident, Romanosque in hi● excidere colonos. Cornu paruulum sub his sucerevit, etc. The majesty of the people of Rome, by which the world in times past was ruled, is taken out of the earth. The Emperor is a vain title, and only a shadow. There are ten kings being together, who have divided the world, which was sometimes the Roman empire, not to govern but to consume it. The ten horns, the Turks, Greeks', Egyptians, Africans, Spaniards, French, English, Germans, Sicilians, Italians do possess the Roman provinces, and have thence worn out the colonies of the Romans. A little horn is grown up under these, which hath eyes, and a mouth speaking great things. Thereof Lyra also saith; f Lyra. in 2 Thess. cap. 2 A Romano imperio recesserunt quaso omnia regna; negantia ei subijci & re●ditionem tributi. jam à multis annis imperium illud caruit imperatore. All kingdoms in a manner are gone from the empire of Rome, denying to it subjection and payment of tribute; now for many years hath that empire been without an Emperor. The empire of Rome then is long ago abolished and come to nought; all Bellarmine's devices cannot set it up again. The Empire that now is, is but a mere title; the name without the thing, and not to be accounted so much as the shadow of the Roman empire. Yea what it is, it is the German, not the Roman empire; for how should he be called Emperor of Rome, who hath nothing to do in Rome? For the Pope these many hundred years hath usurped Rome, and taken it for his own, wholly excluding the Emperor from thence. g Auent Annal. li 6. A●ulia nostra cum urbe Romana est, non Imperatoris. Romae nostra sede● est, Imperatoris est. Aquis. etc. The city of Rome is ours, saith Adrian the fourth, not the Emperors: our seat is at Rome, the emperors seat is at Aquez in Arduenna, which is a wood in France. h Theodoric. à Num. li 3. ca 43. Si ad Romam & Italiam respexeris. fuit illa quidam veteris Impe●●j sedes, sed nunc Imperator nihil de ea habet quàm titulum. If a man look to Rome & Italy, saith Theodoricus, it was indeed the seat of the ancient empire, but now the Emperor hath nothing thereof but a title only. So than it is but a mockery now to call him the Roman Emperor; he shall under the name of an Emperor, be only one of those ten kings, to whom the Empire should be divided. And hereby the Bishop of Rome is infallibly known to be Antichrist, because in the fall of the Empire he is risen up, and instead of the temporal majesty, he hath set up a spiritual empire and jurisdiction of his own. As for temporal dominion, he needeth not to make him Antichrist, to have any more but only the state and territory of Rome. The Emperor was the sixth, & Antichrist (the Empire being dissolved) must be the seventh head of that Roman state, which the Pope hath long time been, and i B●llar. de Rom. Pontif. l●b. 5. ca 9 Bellarmine defendeth him so to be. But to make him equal to the heathen Emperors in state and princely dominion, his spiritual jurisdiction hath been fully sufficient; in respect whereof k Blond instaur. Romae lib. 3. Omnes principes orbis terrarum pontificem ut summum deum honoram & colun●, etc. Maiora vel certè parta priscorum tem●●rum vect●g ●libus Eur papenè omn● tributa Romam mittit. all princes of the world, as saith Bloudus the Popes secretary, did honour the Pope as the highest God; and almost all Europe did send their tributes to Rome, greater, or at least equal to the revenues of ancient times. Yea, even out of this realm of England there went greater revenues to Rome, as l Math. Paris●●● Henr. 3. Matthew of Paris, and others have noted, then were the revenues of the Crown. Therefore a very simple evasion doth M. Bishop use, in saying, that by temporal dominion the Pope is a hundred degrees less than the Emperor was, when as he knoweth, that by his spiritual empire and kingdom, he hath been as great, and indeed greater than ever the Emperor was. Now I would have him to remember what his master Bellarmine saith, that m Bellarm. de Antichr. cap. 15. Exi● Antichristus ultimus rex qui tene● it Romanum imperium, tamen sine nomine Romani Imperatoris. Antichrist shallbe the last that shall hold the Roman empire, and yet without the name of the Roman Emperor. He would not see it, but indeed he doth thereby rightly describe the Pope, who without the name of the Emperor, hath under another name of spiritual jurisdiction, holden the Empire in subjection to himself. This he should do, because the temporal dominion was to be divided to ten kings. This he hath done, and hath holden those kings under his obedience, and yet these men stop their eyes, and will not see him to be that that indeed he is. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins seeketh to deceive, in that he apply to Rome at this day, that which was spoken of Rome 1500 years ago, he is therein much deceived himself, because those things which were spoken of Rome 1500. years ago, were spoken by way of prophecy, to discover Rome unto us as it is at this day. His last exception is, that the Empire slew more saints of God in one year, than the Church of Rome hath done of obstinate heretics in 1600. years. Where after the manner of the persecutors under the old empire, he calleth them reprobate and obstinate heretics, who were indeed the Saints of God. Of them the Church of Rome slew none at all, until by usurpation of the Pope, she became the seat and kingdom of Antichrist: but how she hath played her part since, it may be esteemed by that that Bellarmine himself reporteth, that by n Bellar de notis eccles. cap 18. eight thousand, which as Matthew of Paris noteth, were the Pope's o Math. Paris. in joanne. anno 1213. crosse-marked soldiers, there were slain at once in France a hundred thousand of the Albigenses, in the time of Innocentius the third. Matthew Paris again mentioneth, that not long after, in the time of Pope Gregory the ninth, there were slain of them in Almain p Idem in Henr. 3. anno. 1234. an infinite number, besides a great multitude of them destroyed in Spain. Now these Albigenses, although they will not have it so taken, were professors of the Gospel, even of the same faith and religion which we now profess, of whom it were infinite to record, how many hundreds and thousands they have slain under the names of Waldenses, Leonists, Lollards, Wiclevists, Hussites, Hugonots, and such like. But of later times Paulus Vergerius, who himself had been one of the Inquisition, & spoke upon good knowledge of his own, declared that by the same very Inquisition within the space of thirty years, there had been martyred q Bale. de Act. Rom. Pontif. lib. 7. in fine. ex Verge●o. a hundred and fifty thousand men and women, only for the Gospel's sake. The French massacres and butcheries will not be forgotten, wherein M. Stow mentioneth, that r Stows Annals. anno 1562. in mark the slaughters at Vassey, Paris, Sens, Tholouse, Blois, Tours, Angiers, and other places, by credible estimation reported out of France in the year 1562. were to the number of a hundred thousand persons, within the space of six months. After which about the space of ten years, followed the slaughter of Bart●emewtide, most barbarous and cruel, wherein some thirty or forty thousand were destroyed in Paris, and other cities of France, within a very short space, and thereupon great gratulations made at Rome, with processions, and other tokens of public joy. Thus they have made no end of martyring the Saints of Christ, and have equalled the cruelty of the heathen Empire to the uttermost: and yet this hypocrite being instructed by his master Bellarmine, and having sold himself to dub his lies, telleth us, that his Roman Church, or the Pope the head thereof, hath not at all shed so much blood, as by the heathen Empire was shed within the compass of one year. The blood that they have shed crieth for revenge, and they shall receive it in due time. W. BISHOP. Having thus proved, that the whore of Babylon, signifieth the heathen state of Rome, and not the Ecclesiastical: let us now hear what you say against it. Marry, that the distinction of the Empire of Rome, and Church of Rome is foolish, and coined of late to serve our turn: which to be far otherwise, I prove out of those very Authors, who do interpret that harlot to signify Rome; who are neither foolish, nor of late days: you have heard it before out of S. Ambrose commentaries. And farther, we gather it out of S. Hierome, in the Epistle which you cite: for he having resembled Rome unto Babylon, for the multitude of the wicked, which yet remained in it: pointeth out a more pure part, saying; There is indeed the holy Church, there are the triumphant monuments of the Apostles and Martyrs, there is the true confession of Christ, there is the faith praised by the Apostle, etc. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome? Again, Tertullian who lived in the second hundredth year, under those persecuting Emperors, saith in one place, Lib. count jud. Depraescript. cap. 16. that Babylon is a figure of Rome, in respect of her proud Empire, and persecution of the Saints. And in another, that Rome was most happy for her holy Church, unto which the Apostles with their blood had poured forth their whole doctrine. See a plain distinction between the Heathen Empire and the holy Church of Rome; ●. Pet. 5. which finally may be gathered out of the express word of God. Where the Church in Babylon coelect, is distinguished from the rest of that city, which was Pagan. You say (but without any author) that Babylon there doth not signify Rome, but either a city in Egypt, or Assyria: But Eusebius lib. 2. his. cap. 14. & S. Jerome de Eccles. script. verse. Marcus, with other Authors more worthy of credit, do expound it of Rome. And you yourselves take Babylon for Rome, where you think that any hold may be taken against it, as in the 17. of the Revelation, but in S. Peter's Epistle they will none of it, because it would prove too plainly, that S. Peter had been at Rome, R. ABBOT. We have here a frivolous and idle discourse, only to give a mock to the unlearned Reader. We doubt not but that there was a difference of old to be made betwixt the profane state of the Empire, and the state of the Christian Roman Church, and who would go about to make any question of that matter? Nay we say further, that there is exceeding great difference betwixt the Church of Rome that then was, and the Church of Rome that now is; because the church of Rome that now is, is become in dominion and princely state like to the Empire that then was. And in this respect is it that M. Perkins calleth that a foolish distinction, not because it putteth difference betwixt the heathen Empire and the church that was, but because it distinguisheth to no purpose the Empire of Rome that was from the church of Rome that now is, when as the Bishop's sea is now turned into the emperors court, and by pretence of spiritual jurisdiction, the beast that now is, is become the perfect a Apoc. 13.12.14. image of the former beast. Some difference there is in that the Empire was wholly Pagan, and the church in some sort professeth Christ, but in pomp and pride, in filthiness, idolatry and cruelty, the church is now the same that the Empire was. He bringeth a place of Peter needlessly to prove his distinction, and in that place will needs have it, that by Babylon must be meant Rome. We are well content at his offer to take it so; but so, as that he must remember that being once Babylon, it should never finally surcease that name until it carried Antichrist for the seventh head thereof, under whom the abominations of it shall grow to their full measure, that that heavy destruction may fall upon it, which God hath threatened for full vengeance. W. BISHOP Well, M. Perkins is content in fine, to allow of that distinction, of Heathenish and Ecclesiastical Rome, which before he esteemed so foolish: and then will prove; that not the Heathenish, but Ecclesiastical Rome is resembled to the purple Harlot. See what confidence this man hath in his own shutle wit, that now will prove this, and shortly after disprove it: but let us give him the hearing in the 3. v. The holy Ghost saith plainly, Cap. 1●. that she hath made all the world drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication, & yet addeth: that she hath committed fronication with the kings of the earth: But this cannot be understood of heathenish Rome, for that left all the kingdoms of the earth unto their own religion and idolatry: and did not labour to bring them to worship the Roman Gods. Ergo, it must be understood of Papal Rome. I answer. The Roman Empire being the head and principal promoter of all kind of Idolatry, and maintaining, and advancing them, that most vehemently opposed themselves against the Christian religion; who with any show of reason can deny, but they chief committed spiritual fornication with the kings of the earth, if not by persuading them to forsake their own false Gods, which the Pagan Romans worship as well as they: yet by encouraging and commanding them to persever in that filthy Idolatry, and to resist, and oppress the Christians wheresoever. Neither is that true, that the Roman Emperors did not labour to bring other nations to worship new Gods, when Nero and Domitian would be worshipped as Gods, and for fear of Adrian, one Antinous his servant, was worshipped as a God of all men: as justinus Martyr testifieth in his Apology to Antonine. ●●eb. lib. 4. hist. ca● 8. These words of the text then, agree very well with the Emperors, who both were Idolaters, and the chief patrons of Idolatry: but can in no sort be applied to the Roman Church, which was then (as the Protestants cannot deny) a pure Virgin, and most free from all spiritual fornication. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins admitteth the distinction, without impeachment of any thing that he hath before said. He granteth them that, whereby he giveth them to understand that they gain nothing. The argument which he allegeth to prove that Rome ecclesiastical is here to be understood, and not the heathen Rome, is very forcible & strong. For it is true that heathen Rome did not tie other nations, when they had conquered them, to their gods and rites of religion, but did rather entertain the religions and gods of other nations. Which was a thing that S. Austin derided in them, that a Aug. de e● 〈…〉 cap. 3. V● 〈…〉 ac 〈…〉, etc. Mag● 〈…〉 praesump●um non p●sse 〈◊〉 defens●●●● v●●●●s. they worshipped those Gods as their maintainers and defenders whom they themselves had overcome, and vainly presumed they could not be conquered, having before conquered them by whom they should be defended. They made not themselves any rule of religion; they thought it to be the way to gain both gods and men, to have a Pantheon for a receptacle of all strange gods, and to fashion themselves to the rites and ceremonies of other men. The instances that M. Bishop bringeth against this, are not to the purpose, because they are examples singular, and touch not the perpetual course of the Roman government. Nero and Domitian commanded themselves to be worshipped as Gods, but neither did any so before, nor did any afterwards uphold that which they commanded, neither grew any such worship universally or commonly to be received. Adrian being grieved at the loss of his paramour Antinous, whom he had abused to filthy unnatural lust, to do him some honour being dead whom he could not keep alive, named a city in Egypt of his name b Origen. contra Celsum lib. 3. Antinoupolis, and builded him there a temple, and commanded him there to be worshipped, but much further the worship of Antinous prevailed not. These examples are far from answering that which is said of the whore of Babylon, with special reference to the last state thereof, for the corruptions whereof she should finally be destroyed: c Apoc. 17.2. The kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the inhabitants of the earth are drunken with the wine of her fornication. d Cap 18.3. All nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornications: e Cap. 19 2. she did corrupt the earth with her fornication. But these things very apparently agree to the Church of Rome, in which it is fully verified which S. Hierome saith of Antichrist, that f H●●ron in Dan. 7. C●nct●● religionem suae sub●●cret po●●●●ati. he shal● bring all religion under his own power. The Pope hath made himself the master and commander of all religion; what he list to approve, must be followed; what he disliketh, must be rejected: no man must presume to contrary that which he saith. g Decretal de ●aer●●. cap. Ad al●o●ena●m. Vniversos que de sacramento cor●●●● & sanguinis Domini, vel de baptismate. se●● peccatorum confession, matrimonio, vel reliq●● ecclesiasticis Sacramentu, aliter s●ntire aut docere n●n me●●unt quam sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia praedicat & observat. vinculo perpetu● Anathematis ●nnodamus. We bind them all universally with a bond of a perpetual curse, saith he, who dare to think or teach otherwise then the Church of Rome teacheth and observeth of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, or of Baptism, or of confession, matrimony, or other sacraments of the Church. h 25. q. 1. Generali. Constitu●mus ut execrandum anathema sit, quicunque regum seu episcoporum, vel potentum de●●ceps Romanorum Pontificum decreterum censuram in quoquam crediderit vel permiserit violandam. We determine that he shall be highly accursed, whatsoever king, or bishop, or potentate, shall think that the sentence of the decrees of the Bishops of Rome may be violated in any thing, or shall suffer the same so to be. i De maior. & obed. cap unam sanctam. Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus, ●●mnò esse de necessitate salu●●, We denounce, that it is necessary to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome. Under this authority he hath sent abroad through the world his jubilees, his Pardons, his dispensations, his Masses, his Monkeries, his Relics, his Agnus This, his hallowed beads, his holy water, his holy oil, and a thousand such other witchcrafts and sorceries, and hath enchanted and besotted the nations to make them dote upon the opinion of these abominations. I need not amplify this point, the matter is plain enough, and they themselves require this obedience to be performed to that filthy beast. As for that M. Bishop saith of heathen Rome, encouraging and commanding the nations to persevere in their filthy idolatry, neither doth that satisfy the matter, because she could not be properly called k Apoc. ●8. 5. the mother of those fornications and abominations which she found among the nations, and only encouraged them to persevere therein. But the Church of Rome hath either been the deviser of her abominations, or if they have in any part been devised by others, yet she hath licked all those monstrous and ill-favoured bastards to their form. The Church of Rome, I say, that now is, we apply nothing to the Church of Rome that then was, which he fond inculcateth without cause. The mother we confess was a chaste matron, but the daughter is grown to be a filthy harlot. W. BISHOP. But that it is now become idolatrous, M. Perkins doth prove by his second reason, gathered also (I warrant you, right learnedly) out of the text itself, where it is said: that the ten horns which signify ten kings, Cap. 17. ver 16. shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked: which (as he saith) must be understood of Popish Rome. For whereas in former times, all the kings of the earth did submit themselves to the whore: now they have begun to withdraw themselves, and to make her desolate: as the kings of Bohemia, Denmark, Germany, England, Scotland, and other parts. In these his words is committed a most foul fault, by gross oversight and ignorance in the very text. What, be England, Scotland, Denmark, (as for Bohemia ruled by a Catholic Emperor, it must be omitted, as also many States of Germany,) be these Kingdoms your principal pillars of the new Gospel, comprehended within the number of the ten, mentioned there in S. john, which hate the harlot? Yes marry. Why then they are enemies of Christ, and Satan's soldiers; for in the 13. verse it is said of these, that they shall deliver their power unto the beast, (which signifieth either the devil or Antichrist) and shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. Is not this doting in an high degree, to infame so notoriously them, of whom he would speak most honour? and to make the special Patrons of their new Gospel, the devils captains, and fiercely to wage battle against Christ jesus. See, how heat of wrangling blindeth men's judgements. R. ABBOT. The direct conclusion intended by M. Perkins is, that S. john's prophecy was not accomplished in heathenish Rome, whereupon it remaineth to be understood of the Church of Rome. The argument which he useth to that purpose is invincible, and M. Bishop cunningly overslippeth it without saying any thing directly to it. He chargeth M. Perkins with most foul fault, and gross oversight and ignorance in the text, and with being blinded with heat of wrangling, when he himself, poor soul, knoweth not what he saith, or if he do know, then carrieth himself most impudently therein. The case is plain, if we do but consider that the beast and the harlot belong both to one, as S. john giveth us to understand, by describing a Apoc 17.3.7. the woman to be sitting upon the beast, in respect whereof the Rhemish Divines do name b Rhem. Testan. Annotat. Apoc. 131. the whore, and the beast, and Antichrist all as one. So Ferus their Preacher of Mentz saith: c Ferus in Mat. 24. Abhominationem disolationis quae est regnum Antichristi joannes in Apocalypsi nunc qu●dem per Bestiam cui draco potestatem suam dedit, nunc per mulierem best●● insidentem intelliga. etc. The abomination of desolation which is the kingdom of Antichrist, john in the Apocalypse understandeth sometimes by the beast to which the Dragon gave power, sometimes by the woman sitting upon the beast, and making all to drink of the wine of her fornication. S. john then giveth us to understand, that ten kings should arise out of the dissolution of the Empire, as hath been said. Of these ten kings he saith, d Ver. 13. These have one mind, and shall give their power and authority to the beast. Hereupon it shall follow, that together with the beast e Ver. 14. they shall fight against the Lamb, that is, against jesus Christ. Afterward it shall come to pass, that those ten kings▪ f Ver. 16. shall hate the whore that sitteth upon the beast, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For, that it may appear how they shall give their power to the beast, and yet hate the whore, that is, submit themselves to Antichrists state and government, and yet hate the Babylon wherein he hath reigned, he addeth: g Ver. ●7. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to do with one consent, for to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God be fulfilled. So then until the words of God be fulfilled, and he have performed what in his secret judgement he hath thereof decreed, those ten kings shall submit themselves to the whore, to the beast, that is, to Antichrist reigning in his Babylon. But when God hath finished his work otherwise, than the kingdom of Antichrist shall be overthrown: the kings that before were subject, shall withdraw their obedience from him; they shall hate the whore of Babylon, the city of the beast, of Antichrist, and having stripped her of the state and dominion whereby she was advanced and reigned over them, they shall furiously bend themselves against her, until they have utterly destroyed her. These things we see cannot belong to the days of the heathen Emperors, as before is said, because the division of the Empire, and these ten kings were not in those times. It remaineth therefore, that the prophecy belongeth to times afterwards succeeding. Now being so understood, as necessarily it must be, we see the same in part already fulfilled in the Church of Rome, and God in his good time will fulfil the rest. The Empire hath been divided into many kingdoms: those kings have all submitted their sceptres to the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome. He hath played the Lord and tyrant over them, and they have patiently suffered him so to do. Yet God at length hath opened some of their eyes already, and they have learned to see the deceits of Antichrist, and to hate the same. The like mercy he will show to the rest in his good time, and they shall jointly apply themselves to work the confusion of that wicked strumpet. So then they whom God hath already called, are not now as M. Bishop cavilleth, the enemies of Christ, and Satan's soldiers; they were so, so long as they gave their power and kingdom to the beast: but now they are God's army, and the captains of the Lords host, to fight his battles against the beast and the whore, until they have wrought his judgement upon them. Weigh the text (gentle Reader) and consider well how readily it yieldeth thee that that we say thereof: and hereby conceive, in what a pitiful case M. Bishop was, when he was feign to pass it over as he hath done. Yet his fellows are beholding to him, that he layeth lustily about him with words, and seemeth to have a good courage, howsoever if he weighed the place at all, it could not be, but that in his own bosom he was well privy, that his cause was quite undone. W. BISHOP. But you proceed and say, pag. 7. that we further hold, that the blood of the Saints and Martyrs was not shed in Rome, but in Jerusalem. Here is a confusion of men, and matters; for we say that the blood of many Saints rehearsed in the Apoc. was shed in Rome by the tyrannical Emperors, but the martyring of those two principal witnesses, Cap. 17. Enoch and Elias, (recorded in the eleventh of the same) shall be at Jerusalem, aswell, because the text is very plain for it; Ver. 8. specifying that their bodies shall lie in the streets of that great city, where the Lord was crucified; as for that the ordinary interpreters of that place do so take it. But M. Perkins holdeth, that the place where Christ was crucified, signifieth here not Jerusalem, but Rome; because Christ was crucified there in his members: so it might as well signify any other place of persecution as Rome: the reason therefore being nought worth, he fortifieth it with the name of S. Hierome, but citeth in the margin a letter of two virtuous matrons, Paula and Eustochium. Good sir, if S. Hierome had meant, that that Epistle should have had his authority, Epist. 17. Epist. 17. he would have set it out in his own name, which seeing he thought not expedient, set the authority of it aside, and urge his reasons, if you think it worth your labour, and you shall be answered. In the mean season (I hope) all sober Christians, will take the place where our Saviour Christ was nailed on the cross, to signify rather Jerusalem, than Rome. And consequently, all that you have alleged out of Scripture, to prove the whore of Babylon to figure the ecclesiastical state of Rome, not to be worth a rush. R. ABBOT. That which M. Perkins allegeth, is according to their common fancy, that Antichrist shall have his seat & kingdom at Jerusalem, & therefore shall there shed the blood of the Martyrs of Christ. For some of them perceiving, as M. Bishop might do, if his eyes were matches, that the Prophecy of S. john cannot be determined under the heathen Empire of Rome, do post us off to Jerusalem. there to find the whore of Babylon drunk with the blood of God's Saints, and so understand that which is said of the slaughter of a Apoc. 11.3.8. the two witnesses, whose bodies are said to lie in the streets of the great city, where our Lord also was crucified. Thus because Rome is most evidently described by S. john, they tell us one while that these things are indeed to be referred to Rome, but under the heathen Emperors: and because there are some things that cannot possibly be applied to the time of the heathen Emperors, they another while put all over to Jerusalem, and will by no means admit of Rome, albeit it be most manifestly pointed out for the place thereof. But as touching the place of the death of those two witnesses, M. Perkins rightly saith, that it is not meant of Jerusalem, but of Rome. It is called the great city, and what the great city importeth we understand by the mention of it afterwards, b Cap. 17.18. the great city that reigneth over the kings of the earth. That was Rome, and not Jerusalem, as hath been before declared. Jerusalem was destroyed 20. years or more before S. john saw this Revelation, and c Hieron. in jer. lib. 4. cap. 19 Civitas eorum in aeter●os caneres collapsa est: usque ad consummationem seculi ruinae Hierusalem permansurae sunt was fallen into dust for ever, as Hierome speaketh, the ruins or destructions thereof shall continue until the world's end. d Theodoret in Diu. cap. 9 Vsque ad finem seculi consummatio desolationis absque ulla mutatione permanebit Even to the end of the world, saith Theodoret, the consummation of her desolation shall continue without any change. The words of the Prophets are fully verified in her, e jerem. 19 11. I will break this city as a man breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again. f Mich 3 12. Zion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall be an heap, and the mountain of the house shall be as the high places of the forest. Save only for three turrets, and a part of the walls on the west side, left to show what a city the Romans had overcome, it was so destroyed g joseph. le bello Iudai●. cap. 18. & 2●. to the very foundations, as josephus recordeth, and laid so flat, as that men would hardly have thought that there had been any habitation there. h Arias Montan. in Mich. cap. 3. Ille quae nunc Hierosolyma dicitur 〈◊〉 Ael●o Adriano Athae nomin● construct●, ●●que antiquam faciem ne qu● situm etiam retinet. Quod & obscura quaedam ill●● quae extant vestigia & de scriptio ipsa manifestè arguunt, etc. Only Aelius Adrianus the Emperor built near unto it another city, which of his own name he called Aelia, which since hath gone with Christians under the name of Jerusalem, but hath indeed neither the fashion nor situation of Jerusalem, as Arias Montanus noteth for the justifying of that prophecy, and therefore is but wrongly and corruptly called by that name. Therefore there neither is, nor shall be any Jerusalem for Antichrist to reign in, nor streets of Jerusalem, wherein the corpses of those two witnesses should lie. To prove that Jerusalem is not there understood, M. Perkins bringeth the testimony of Hieromes epistle, written in the name of Paula and Eustochium, to Marcelia. M. Bishop answereth, that if Hierome had meant that that epistle should have had his authority, he would have set it out in his own name. He could not deny but that Hierome was the author of it, and if Hierome would not have had it to carry his authority, he would not surely have given it place amongst the rest of his epistles. But that he should keep it still under their names for whom he wrote it, there was a necessary cause, because there are some circumstances in it that are appliable to them only, and not to him. Now Hierome though he there deny that great city to be Jerusalem, yet doth not expound it to be Rome; but that is very manifest of itself, because it is i Verse 7● the beast that shall fight against those two witnesses and kill them, and the beast, as we have before seen, is the Roman state and government, and Rome the city of seven hills, the place and seat thereof. But to the contrary M. Bishop urgeth, that it is said to be the city where our Lord also was crucified; and that he saith, all sober Christians will take rather to signify Jerusalem then Rome. Thus no man must be taken to be sober that will not serve the Pope's turn. Yet we take ourselves to be sober, and because we are so, we know that the words are not to be understood of that that is not, but of that that is, and therefore not of Jerusalem, which neither is nor shall be, as hath been said, but of Rome, which is and shall be, until God bring upon it the destruction which he hath pronounced. For that we are not properly there to understand the place where Christ was crucified, beside that we conceive it by the course of the whole book, k Hieron. de 5. quaest. Marcellae. Omnis ille liber spiritualitèr intelligendus est. which as Hierome saith, is spiritually to be understood, the place itself plainly directeth us thereto. The great city, saith S. john, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord also was crucified. It is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, and it is spiritually the place where our Lord was crucified. Now the city where our Lord was corporally crucified being utterly perished, there is no other great city to which we have any reason in special manner to refer it spiritually, but only the city of Rome. l Rhem. Testam. Annot. Apoc. 17. 18. By authority of the Roman Empire, as the Rhemists rightly acknowledge, Christ himself was put to death, and by the same Romish authority the members of Christ were put to death, both in Rome itself, and throughout the whole world. The members of Christ are spiritually Christ; he reckoneth and accounteth them as himself. Of the members of his mystical body, he saith; m Math. 25.40. In as much as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. n Acts 9.4. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? o Origen. in jerem hom. 11. Per singulis martyrs jesus condemnatur. Si co●emnatur Christianus 〈◊〉: tantivy quod Christianus est, Christus est qu. condemnatur. In every of the martyrs jesus is condemned. If a Christian be condemned only for that he is a Christian, it is Christ that is condemned. Therefore those things that are done to the faithful for the name and faith of Christ, are termed p Phil. 3.10. Christ's sufferings, q 2. Cor. ●. 10. the death of the Lord jesus, r Heb. 13.13. the reproach of Christ, s Gal. 6.17. the marks of the Lord jesus, & therein they are said t Ibid. 2.19. to be crucified with Christ. Seeing then the blood of the martyrs hath been shed so abundantly in the streets of Rome itself, and by authority from Rome, the like blood hath been shed and spilled in the streets of all other cities and places throughout the world, which because they were under the dominion of the city of Rome, may well be called the streets of Rome, therefore Rome above all other is the place whereof it may be truly said, that it is the great city where spiritually our Lord was crucified, and in the streets whereof the Lords witnesses were slain. And that Christ was crucified at Rome, M. Bishop must not deny, because he must not deny that which Ambrose reporteth concerning Peter being crucified at Rome. He telleth, that u Ambros lib. 5. epist. 32. in Orat. cont. Auxent. when the Pagan infidels sought for Peter to put him to death, the faithful requested him that for a while he should go aside, and should reserve himself to instruct and strengthen the people of Christ. Whereupon at night he was going out, and seeing Christ to meet him in the gate, and to be entering into the city, he saith unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? x Respondit Christ●; venio Romam verum crucifiga. Intellexit ergò Petrus quod iterum Christus erat crucifegendus in seruulo, etc. Christ answered, I come to Rome to be crucified again. Peter then understood, that Christ was in his servant to be crucified again. Therefore he went back of his own accord, and when the Christians demanded the matter, he gave them this answer, and being straight ways taken he glorified the Lord jesus. Sith then that in the crucifying of Peter Christ was crucified, and Peter was crucified at Rome, it cannot be denied but that Christ also was crucified at Rome, and therefore that Rome is rightly called the city where our Lord was crucified. As for that that he saith, that the two witnesses there spoken of, are Enoch and Elias, it is a mere fable, and hath no probability or likelihood of truth. Some curious heads finding mention of two witnesses, must needs use their wits to devise to what two particular men they might apply that name. Arethas saith, y Areth. in Apo 11. Extraditione prae●●● Christi invariabilitèr in ecclesia receptum est Enoch venturum esse cum ●lia Thesbite. that it was constantly received that they should be Enoch and Elias. But Victorinus, who was far more ancient than Arethas, telleth us otherwise. z Victorin. in Apoc. 11 apud sixth. senens B blioth. lib. 6. annot. 34●. Multiputant unum ex hic testibus esse Elian, alterum aut Elizeum aut Mose●; sed utrique mortui sunt. Jeremiaes autem mors non invenitur, quia omnes veteres nostri tradiderunt illum esse jeremiam. Many think (they did but think) that one of these witnesses is Elias, the other either Elizeus or Moses, but they are both dead. Marry, the death of jeremy is not found; for all our ancients have delivered that that other is jeremy. Yet a Hilar. in Mat. can. 20 Mosen & Eliam duos prophetas intelligimus praeuementes adventum Antichristi, etc. Hilary thinketh, that he that shall come with Elias shall be Moses and no other. Such uncertainty is there in men's presumptions, when they will determine of that which God hath said, only by their conceits. Very probable it is, that it is an allusion to that b john. 8.17. that is written in the law, as our Saviour saith, that the witness of two is true, God thereby giving to understand, that notwithstanding the fury of the beast, & the cruelty of persecutors & tyrants, yet he will never want two witnesses, that is, sufficient for the justifying of his truth. We may otherwise though to the same effect refer it to the c Zach. 4.3.12. two olive branches spoken of by the prophet Zachary, which did drop oil into the lamp that was to burn and give light before the Lord, as to signify that God would provide always to have some by whom he would preserve the light of the Church, and no less uphold it, then by the two olive branches, that is, the kingdom and the priesthood, he did amongst the people of the jews. S. Austin in his Homilies upon the Apocalypse, if at least he were the author of them, expoundeth d August, in Apoc. hom. 8. Beda in Apo. 11. the two witnesses to be the two testaments, whom Beda also followeth therein, and that we may know the vanity of that tale of Enoch and Elias, he saith, that e August. ibid. Excluditur omnis suspicio quorundam qui putant hos duos testes, duos un o● esse, & ante adventum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse. Quomodo autem potuerunt habitantes terram de duorum nece gaudere, ●um in una civitate marerentur & munera invicem mittere, si tres dies sunt quo antequam gaudeant de nece contristentur de resurrectione. their conceit is wholly excluded, who think that those two witnesses shall be two certain men, and that they be ascended to heaven in the clouds before the coming of Christ. For how, saith he should the inhabitants of the earth rejoice of the death of two, when as they should die in one city; and how should they send gifts one to another, if there be but three days that before they can rejoice of their death, they shall have sorrow again of their resurrection. He gathereth out of the very text itself, that the place cannot be meant of two particular men, because the inhabitants through the world can have no such rejoicing of two men put to death in one place, who within three days must rise again, and therefore necessarily we must admit another construction thereof. That is briefly this, as more at large might be showed, if occasion so required, that the servants of God for the word of their testimony, the doctrine of jesus Christ, witnessed by the old and new testament, should be murdered and slain in the streets and cities of the Roman Empire, and their bodies dishonourably cast forth and left to the fowls and beasts, whom yet notwithstanding God after a time certainly determined, would challenge from that despite and reproach, and make their name glorious, so that they should seem even to rise from death to life, and as it were from hell to be raised up to heaven; which came afterwards to pass, when God by Constantine freed his Church from the persecution of that time. W. BISHOP. Now let us come to the ancient and learned men, whom you cite in favour of your exposition. The first is S. Bernard, who saith, that they are the ministers of Christ, but they serve Antichrist. Of whom speaketh that good religious Father? forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome. Good, who were (as he saith) the ministers of Christ, because they were lawfully called by the Pope to their places, but served Antichrist; for that they behaved themselves corruptly in their callings. And so this maketh more against you, then for you, approving the lawful officers of Rome, to be Christ's ministers. The second place is alleged out of him yet more impertinently, yourself confessing presently, that those words were not spoken of the Pope, but of his enemy: The reason yet there set down, pleaseth you exceedingly: which you vouch so clearly that it seemeth to bear flat against you; for you infer that that Pope, and all others since that time, be usurpers, out of this reason of S. Bernard. Because forsooth, that the Antipope called Innocentius, was chosen by the King of Almain, France, England, etc. and their whole clergy, and people. For if Innocentius were an Antichrist and usurper, because he was elected by so many Kings and people: then belike he that had no such election, but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome only is true Pope. This, your words declare, but your meaning (as I take it) is quite contrary. But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter, if need require; It sufficeth for this present, that you find no relief at all in S. Bernard, touching the main point, that either the Pope, or Church of Rome is Antichrist. And all the world might marvel, if out of so sweet a Doctor, and so obedient unto the Pope, any such poison might be sucked: specially weighing well, what he hath written unto one of them, Lib. 2. de Cons. ad Eugen. to whom he speaketh thus, Go to, let us yet inquire more diligently, who thou art, and what person thou bearest in the Church of God, during the time. Who art thou? A great Priest, the highest Bishop: thou art the Prince of Bishops, the heir of the Apostles, and in dignity Aaron, in authority, Moses, in Power, Peter, thou art he to whom the Keys were delivered, to whom the sheep were committed: There are indeed also other Porters of Heaven, and Pastors of flocks; but thou art so much the more glorious, as thou hast inherited a more excellent name above them: they have their flocks allotted to them, to each man one: but to thee all were committed, as one flock to one man: thou art not only Pastor of the sheep, but of all other Pastors, thou alone art the Pastor. And much more to this purpose, which being his clear opinion of the Pope, how absurd is it, out of certain blind places, and broken sentences of his to gather, that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheep, nor Pastor of Christ's Church, but very Antichrist himself. There is a gross fault, also in the Canon of Pope Nicholas as he citeth it: that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals, Bishops of Rome. As though there were some thirty or forty Bishops of Rome at once, but of the matter of election else where. R. ABBOT. I confess the places of S. Bernard do not serve directly to that purpose to which they are brought. In naming Antichrist, he did not intend thereby, that we should understand the Pope; yet M. Bishop without cause taketh advantage of his first words, because the Pope being Antichrist indeed, nothing hindereth, but that they who by office, and calling, and duty, are the ministers and servants of Christ, may in action and practise perfidiously and treacherously yield their service to the Pope. Antichrist shall a 2. Thes. 2.4. sit in the temple of God, and therefore the officers of the temple of God shall be subject unto him. That which by institution is the house of God, shall by his occupation become a den of thieves: they who by duty are subjects, shall in following him be rebels and traitors; pastors shall become beasts; watchmen shall be blind men, and they who have places for one use, shall turn them to another. Thus S. Bernard saith of the Clergy of Rome: b Bernard. in Cant. ser. 32. Ministri Christi sunt & serviunt Antichristo. They are the ministers of Christ, and they serve Antichrist: the true use of their places is the service of Christ, but they abuse the same to the helping forward of the kingdom of Antichrist. He describeth at large in that place the horrible corruption of the Church of Rome. c Ibid serpit hody putidatabes per omne corpus ecclesiae, et quo la t●u● eo desperatit●; coque perititiosius, quo inter●tis. A filthy contagion, saith he, is creeping through the whole body of the Church, by how much the more generally, so much the more desperately; and so much the more dangerously, by how much the more inwardly. He showeth how the Pastors of Churches, Deans, Archdeacon's, Bishops, Archbishops, got their places by Simony, and abused them to luxury and all excess. He complaineth that d Iut●sti●a & insinabilu est plaga ecclesia, etc. A turpi vita, à turpi questu, à turpi commercio, à negatio denique, perambulante in tenebris. the plague of the Church was inward and incurable, and that by filthy life, by filthy lucre, by filthy company, and by the matter that walketh in the dark, that is, by Simony. He concludeth thus, e Superest ut tam de medio siat daemonium meridianum, ad seducendos siqui in Christo residus sunt adhuc permanentes in simplicitate sua. Ipse est Antichristus qui se non solùm diem sed etiam meridiem menti●tur. It remaineth, that the noone-walking devil be brought forth to seduce, if there be any in Christ, yet continuing in their simplicity. The same is Antichrist, who shall counterfeit himself to benot only day, but noon day, and shall be exalted above all that is called God, etc. Again, having upon another occasion afterwards entered into the like discourse of the strange declination of the state of the Church, he endeth in like sort; f In Psal. Qui habitat ser. 6. superest ut reveletur homo peccati etc. It remaineth, that the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, etc. He saw not that the Pope was Antichrist, yet he saw that the Church was then by the government of the Pope as a horse saddled and bridled, and fully furnished for Antichrist to get up and ride upon. Yea and it appeareth by that that M. Perkins secondly citeth, that he did not think S. Peter's chair to be uncapable of Antichrist, in that he saith: g Idem epist. 125. Bestia illa de Apocalypsi cui datum est os locutus blasphemias & bellum gererecum sinctu Petri sedem occupat tanquam leo paratus ad praedam. The beast spoken of in the Revelation, to which is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make war with the Saints, possesseth the chair of Peter, as a Lion ready to the prey. He spoke this indeed of the Antipope, but yet it appeareth that he saw the time then fitting for the kingdom of Antichrist, and that Antichrist might be likely to sit in Peter's chair, and therefore was not far from seeing and deeming that the Pope was Antichrist. But what he saw not, others had seen before that time, when h Auent. Annal. lib 5. Plerique tum Hildebrandum pro contione Antichristum esse praedicant titulo Christi, inquibat, Antichristi negotium agitat. In Babylonia in templo dei sede●. Super omne id quod col tur extollitur quasi deus sit, se errare non posse gloriatur, etc. Quicquid dixerit, legem Dei putat, etc. many in their Sermons, as aventinus saith, did publicly deliver, that Hildebrand was Antichrist; that under the title of Christ, he did the business of Antichrist. He sitteth in Babylon, said they, in the temple of God; he is exalted above all that is worshipped, as if he were very God: he boasteth that he cannot err: whatsoever he saith, he taketh it to be the law of God. The same aventinus mentioneth, that i Ibid. Plerique omnes boni, aperti, justi, ingenui, simplices tum imperium Antichristi coepisse quòd ea quae Christus seruator noster tot annos antè nobis cantavit evenisse eo tempore cernebant, memoriae literarum prodidere. almost all good and plain men, that dealt justly, ingenuously, and simply, did then deliver in writing, that the kingdom of Antichrist was then begun, for that they saw that those things were then come to pass, which Christ our Saviour had spoken of so many years before. Long after that he bringeth in Eberhard the Archbishop of junavia, of whom I spoke before, saying, k Idem. lib. 7. Sub Pont. maximi titulo, pastoris pelle, lupum saevissimum nisi caeci sumus sentimus. Hildebrandus ante annos centum et septuaginta primus specie religionis Antichristi imperij jundamenta iecit. etc. Flamines illi Babyloniae soli regnare cupiunt: ferreparem non possunt. etc. Qui servus servorum est, dominus dominorum perinde acsi deus foret esse cupit. etc. Ingentia loquitur quasi vera Deus esset. etc. Under the title of the highest bishop, the garment of a shepherd, we perceive, if we be not blind, a most cruel wolf. Hildebrand, saith he, a hundred and seventy years ago, did first under show of religion lay the foundation of the Empire of Antichrist, etc. Those Priests of Babylon desire to reign alone; they can endure no equal. He that is the servant of servants coveteth to be Lord of Lords, even as though he were God. He speaketh great words as though he were God, even that wicked man, whom they are wont to call Antichrist, in whose forehead a name of blasphemy is written, I am God, I cannot err. Thus ˡ Matthew of Paris showeth, how Robert Grosthead bishop of Lincoln in the time of king Henry the third, being extremely afflicted and grieved, to see the desolation and confusion of the Church, by the practices of the Bishop of Rome, a little before his death called some of his Clergy to him, and by argument and reason informed them, that the Pope was Antichrist, for that he was ᵐ a destroyer of souls, for that he by his ⁿ Non obstante violated and overturned all the constitutions of the holy Fathers; for that he multiplied ᵒ mischiefs and inconveniences in the Church, etc. I omit many other that might be brought particularly acknowledging and testifying this point: but by these it may appear, that both before the time of S. Bernard, and after, it was a thing amongst good men commonly believed and spoken, that the Pope was Antichrist. Yea M. Perkins well observeth, that the reason whereby S. Bernard proved Anacletus the Antipope to be Antichrist, proveth all the Popes since to have been Antichrists, because they have not been elected according to that form whereby he then justified Innocentius to be the true bishop of Rome, that is, with consent of the Emperor, the Princes of Christendom, and the whole Clergy, being since chosen by the Cardinals only. And this he further confirmeth by a decree of Pope Nicholas the second, for the election of the Pope, that it shall be with the liking of the p Dist. 33. In nomine saluo semper honore & reverentia Imperae toris ista siant. Emperor, and performed by q Electio Romani Pontificis in potestate Cardinalium Episcoporum sit: ita ut siquis Apostolicae sedi sinc praemissae concordi & canonica electione eorum, ac deinde sequentium ordinum religioserun. Clericorum & Laicorum consensu inthroni. zatur. non Papa vel Apostolicus, sed Apostataeus habeatur. the Cardinal Bishops, but with the consent of the rest of the Clergy and Laity, and if any man, saith he, be set in the Apostolic seat without the foresaid concording and canonical election of the Cardinals, and the consent of the religious states following, the Clergy and Laity, he shall not be accounted Pope or Apostolical, but Apostatical, which is as much to say, as Antichristian. The Pope's then being not now, nor having been of long time chosen by this rule, but only by the College of Cardinals, are found to be Apostates and Antichrists, by the sentence and decree of the Pope himself. Hereto M. Bishop saith not a word, though he confess that he knew M. Perkins meaning well enough, which indeed was somewhat amiss set down, by putting the Antipope called Innocentius for the Pope called Innocentius. He had nothing whereby to excuse the Pope from being Antichrist even by his own decrees, and therefore putteth the matter over to another place, where he never meant to say any thing of it. Only in the end he chargeth M. Perkins with a gross fault in citing the Canon of Pope Nicholas, for saying that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals, bishops of Rome; as though, saith he, there were some thirty or forty Bishops of Rome. Belike it was dark, and his eyes did not well serve him, or else he might have seen, that M. Perkins did not say, by the Cardinals, Bishops of Rome, as he hath set down, and pointed amiss, but by the Cardinal Bishops of Rome, that is, by the Cardinals of Rome which are Bishops. For they are all Cardinals of Rome, but some are Cardinal bishops, some Cardinal priests, some Cardinal Deacons, and according to this distinction M. Perkins named the Cardinal Bishops of Rome, the Pope's Canon requiring the Cardinal Bishops to be the Electors of the Pope. As touching that which M. Bishop citeth out of S. Bernard for his opinion of the Pope, I answer him, that we doubt not, but that S. Bernard had a very high opinion of the Pope's place, but I answer him withal, that S. Bernard had a higher opinion of the Pope's place, than he had of the Pope himself. He knew well, that though the Pope's place were such in the Church of Christ as he describeth it to be, yet the Pope by the abusing of his place, might be very Antichrist himself. He wisheth Pope Eugenius to remember and consider, what person, what place and office, according to his conceit, he did bear in the Church, thereby to move him upon conscience thereof to the redressing of those intolerable enormities and corruptions, that were then grown in the Church and Court of Rome. For in those books De consideratione, he doth purposely bend himself to lay forth the deformities and abuses then prevailing: to show how the Bishop of Rome by temporal dominion and princely pomp, did degenerate from Peter and the rest of the Apostles, & did rather succeed Constantine then him; to note the defaults and corruptions of government, of judicial proceed, of appeals to Rome, of the Pope's dispensations, of the neglect of the punishment of offenders; to show the neglect of the Clergy in teaching the people, making themselves fitter for any other use, then for that. Yea such was the horrible apostasy and iniquity reigning at that time, as that by way of complaint unto jesus Christ, he saith thereof with exceeding grief in another place, r Bernard in convers. S. Pauli Ser. 1. Coniurasse contra te videtur universitas Christiani populi à minimo usque ad maximum: à planta pedis, usque ad verticem, non est sanitas ulla. Egressa est iniquitas à senioribus, judicibus, Vi carijs tuis qui videntur regere populum tuum, etc. Heu! heu! Domine Deus, quia ipsi sunt in persecutione tua primi qui videntur in Ecclesia tua diligere primatum, gerere principatum. Aus cem Sion occupaverunt, apprehenderunt munitiones, & universam deinceps liberè & potestatiuè tradunt incendio civitatem. Misera eortem conversatio plebis tuae miserabilis subversio est, etc. Dati sunt sacri gradus in occasionem turpis luer● etc. De animarum salute novissima cogitatio est, etc. Iniquè agit●r & caeteri eo ●ra Christum, multique nostris temporibus sunt Antichristi. The whole company of Christian people seemeth to have conspired against thee, from the least even to the greatest; from the sole of the foot to the top of the head there is nothing sound: iniquity is gone forth from the ancients, the judges, thy Vicars which seem to govern thy people. Alas, alas, O Lord God, for they are foremost in persecuting thee, who seem to love supremacy, and to bear principality in thy Church. They have taken possession of the tower of Zion, they have seized upon the munitions thereof, and thenceforth freely and by authority they betray the whole city to the fire. Their wretched conversation is the miserable subversion of thy people, etc. The sacred degrees and orders are yielded to opportunity of filthy lucre: the saving of souls is the thing last thought of. The rest also deal wickedly against Christ, and there are many Antichrists in our times. Now the due consideration of these words we suppose may somewhat qualify M. Bishop's opinion of the words by himself alleged, because hereby we plainly understand, not by broken, but by perfect sentences, that whatsoever S. Bernard conceived of the dignity and duty of the Pope's place, yet that he very well saw, that by evil usage thereof the Popes in his time were become the very enemies and persecutors of Christ, even they who (as he saith) were Christ's Vicars, and had the supremacy and principality in the Church of Christ. And so we find that the high Priest of the jews, who by Gods own ordinance and institution was a figure of Christ, and sat in the place of Christ, yet by Apostasy and iniquity became an Antichrist, a persecutor of Christ, and solemnly gave sentence against Christ. In like sort therefore nothing letteth, but that the Pope may now be Antichrist, albeit his place had been at the first appointed by Christ: but much more now, in that his place is no divine institution but only human presumption; affected by ambition, attempted by rebellion, yielded unto by superstition, established & possessed by tyranny and cruelty, by villainy and treachery: upholden by the devices of Sycophants and Parasites, who have used all manner falsehood and deceit to iniect into the minds of men an opinion of it. S. Bernard therefore by error attributed to the Pope that which indeed is none of his, and although for the credit of the Pope's authority, he allege some words out of the Gospel used to S. Peter, yet he bringeth no Scripture to prove, either that that which he giveth to the Pope in that description, did ever belong to Peter, or that that which in the Gospel is spoken to Peter, belongeth to the Pope. He attributeth to the Pope to be s Tues princeps Episcoporum, summus Pontifex prince of Bishops, and highest Bishop, directly against the decree of the African Council, one Canon whereof is, that t Concil. spiric. cap. 6. primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus the Bishop of the first sea (which was Rome) should not be called prince of Bishops, or highest Bishop, or such like, but only the Bishop of the first sea. His error therefore is apparent in this point, by the sentence of the Council, but it is more absurd in some other words that he useth, howsoever we presume that his meaning was more tolerable than his words. For to say as he doth, that the Pope is u Ordine Melchisedec, unctio. de Christus. by order Melchisedec, and by anointing Christ, what construction he would make of his own words we know not, and M. Bishop by omitting those words, showeth that he was ashamed of them, but we know that it soundeth little less than blasphemy against Christ. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins having lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholic Author, flieth to a late Heretic called joachim, and quoteth jewel for relator of it. A worshipful testimony of one Heretic, and that upon the report of another: and he the most lying Author of these days. As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easily be answered, but because he quoteth no place, I will not stand to answer it. But to close up this first combat, a sentence is set down out of the famous Martyr Irenaeus, that Antichrist should be Lateinos, a Roman. Here be as many faults as words. That learned ancient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name, out of these words of the Revelation, Cap. 13. the number of the beast is 666. and observing the letters of the Greek Alphabet, (by which they do number, as we do by cyphers) saith: that among others the word Lateinos doth contain those letters, which amount just to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might be Lateinos, but more likely it is to be Teitan, as he saith there, and lastly that it is most uncertain what his name shall be. See the place (gentle reader) and learn to beware of such deceitful merchants, as make no conscience, to corrupt the best Authors: and being often warned of it, will never learn to amend. Irenaeus leaveth it most doubtful what shall be Antichrists name: And among diverse words esteemeth Lateinos, to be the unlikeliest. And yet M. Perkins reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall be Lateinos: and then to make up the matter, turneth Lateinos, a proper name with S. Irenaeus into Roman, an appellative, which noteth only his country. Fie upon that cause, which cannot be upholden and maintained, but by a number of such paltry shifts. R. ABBOT. It followeth not that every man who in a point of doctrine conceiveth amiss, is presently an heretic, for so many should be heretics both of ancienter and later writers, who notwithstanding by M. Bishop himself are reckoned for good Catholics. joachim indeed delivered against Peter Lombard, a pernicious opinion concerning the godhead. The council of Laterane condemned his opinion, but because he was not wilful in his error, it made no heretic of him. Therefore in that council it is noted in the margin, a Concil. Lateran cap. 2. in mark Non ipse Joachim, sed eius liber damnatur. Not joachim himself, but his book is condemned. M. Bishop therefore is too presumptuous, to pronounce him an heretic, whom the council did not so pronounce. M. Perkins citeth the words of joachim out of Bishop jewels sermons, but he is also rejected as another heretic, yea and the most lying Author of these days. But we would gladly have M. Bishop to learn that point of honest civility and good manners, not to speak so rudely of them whom he knoweth not. I dare say he never read Bishop jewel, nor doth know whether he tell truth or not; only the Magistri nostri have told him that so he must say. And indeed it concerneth them that Bishop jewel be taken for a lying author, for if he have reported truth, then in miserable case are they. But his true & faithful dealing will sufficiently justify itself to them that are careful to learn the truth, even to the shame and confusion of these Sycophants, who labour by impeaching the truth of others, to gain opinion and credit to their own lies. But for this matter, if he will not take it to be true upon Bishop jewels report, I will do him the favour to refer him to another author, who is liable to no exception. That is Roger Hoveden, who writeth that joachim the Abbot in a discourse before king Richard the first of our land, b Rog. Houed. Annal. lib. 2. anno. 1190. De isto Antichristo dicit idem Ioachim quod ia● natus est in civitate Roman, & in sede Apostolica sublimaintur. did say concerning Antichrist, that he was then borne in Rome, and should be set up aloft in the Apostolic sea. Then was indeed the Bishop of Rome grown to that height of insolency and pride, as that he openly practised rebellion against the Emperor his Lord and master. Yea such was the incredible arrogancy and impudency of this Antichristian beast, as that soon after that speech of joachim, c Idem anno. 1191. Celestinus the third being to crown the Emperor Henry the sixth, took the Crown betwixt his two feet, and made the Emperor to bow down, that with his feet he might set it upon his head, which having done, with one of his feet he struck it off again, to give him to understand, that it was in his power again to bereave him of the Crown. As for Petrarch, I let him pass, because though freely uttering what he thought, he called Rome Babylon, & spoke many things to touch the triple crown, yet it seemeth that for fear of displeasure he was afterwards content to make the best of that he had said. There remaineth only Irenaeus, who setting down divers conjectures as touching the name of the beast, which S. john saith shall contain the number 666. bringeth this for one, that d λ. 30. α. 1. τ. 300. ●. 5. ι. 10. ●. 50. ο. 70. ς. 200. 666. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name imported by that number, and that Antichrist happily shall be known by that name. Against this M. Bishop hath sundry exceptions, and all to little purpose. First he saith, that Irenaeus amongst diverse words esteemeth Lateinos to be the unlikeliest. But whether that be true let the Reader esteem by Irenaeus his own words. e Jerenaeus li. 5. Sed & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen sexcentorum sexaginta sex numerum habens valdè verisimile est quomam ve●●ssimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum; Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant, sed non in hoc nos glo●●a●imur. The name Lateinos, saith he, containing the number of six hundred, sixty six is very likely, because the truest kingdom hath that name. For they are the Latins that now reign, but neither will we presume of this. Irenaeus himself saith, It is very likely: M. Bishop telleth us that Irenaeus saith, It is the most unlikely of all other: hereby let it appear who best deserveth the name of a lying author. Again, he saith that Irenaeus meaneth it to be a proper name, whereas we make it an appellative. But this appeareth to be false, by the reason that is given by Irenaeus of the likelihood of the name. For if he should have that name of the kingdom and country where he should reign, as the words of Irenaeus import, than it is manifest that it should not be his proper name. Thirdly, he allegeth that Irenaeus maketh f τ. 300. ς. 5. ●. 10. τ. 300. α. 1. υ. 50. 666. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more likely word. I mention not these things in the same order as he hath set them down, but as they yield themselves most conveniently to be spoken of. Now it is true that Irenaeus saith, that that name is g Omnium nominum quae apud nos inveniuntur magis side dignum est. most worthy to be believed, but that helpeth M. Bishop nothing, because that name by the Pope's own decrees lighteth fully upon himself. For Titan, as Irenaeus noteth, is the name of the sun, and the Pope maketh himself h Decretal. Gregor. de maiorit. & obed. ca solitae. Quanta est inter & Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & reges differentia. the Sun, and the Emperor the Moon, and will have us to think, that so much as the Moon is lesser than the Sun, so much is the Emperor inferior to him. Titan is a name applied to Idols, saith Irenaeus, and what is the Pope but an Idol, carried up and down upon men's shoulders like an Idol, bedecked like an Idol, publicly adored and worshipped like an Idol. Titan, saith he, is a name containing ostentation of revenge, and who hath ever more proudly vaunted revenge then the Pope hath done, whose style against such as offend him usually is this, i 25. q. 1. Generali. We decree that he shall be utterly accursed: k Decretal de haeret. cap. Ad aebolendam. we bind him with a bond of perpetual curse: l Extravag de office delegati cap. Sedes Apostolica, & passim. let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God, and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul: yea and not only by words, but by deeds hath made even the earth to groan, and the Princes thereof to stagger and fall under the burden of his revenge. But of this name also Irenaeus will affirm nothing, and therefore four M. Bishop saith, that Irenaeus leaveth it uncertain and doubtful what his name shall be. And so he doth indeed, but with this direction, that m Certius & sine periculo est sustinere adimpletionem prophatiae. the surest way and without danger, is to wait for the fulfilling of the prophecy. Now the fulfilling of the prophecy hath made that clear and certain to us, which some did conjecture then, and could but conjecture, being so many hundred years before the fulfilling of it. The number of the name of n Apoc. 13.18. the beast, that is, of Antichrist, is set down in the thirteenth chapter. Afterwards in the seventeenth chapter, many things are further added for the better understanding of all that went before. Now there we understand, that Antichrist shall be o Apoc. 17.9.10. a king, that is, as before hath been said, the highest governor of a state. We know also by experience, that a king taketh his name of the country, or place, or state whereof he is king. Thus are we wont to name kings, the king of England, the king of Denmark, the French king, the Spanish king. We must therefore conceive likewise, that Antichrist being a king, must take his name of his kingdom, of the city or country over which he reigneth. The place where Antichrist shall reign, is set forth to be p Ver. 9.18. the city upon seven hills reigning then over the kings of the earth, which is undoubtedly the city of Rome. Antichrist therefore must have his name from the inhabitants and people of Rome over whom he is to reign, and the name that he taketh from them, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Latin or Roman, fully expresseth the number six hundred, sixty, six. But to give us yet further light, it is noted that he shall be q Ver. 9.10. the seventh king of the Latins, and he shall be together with r Vers. 18. the ten kings, to which the Empire of Rome shall be divided. The sixth king of the Latines we have before seen was the Emperor. So then after the fall of the Emperor, and dissolution of the Empire, the Latin king shall be the certain and undoubted name of Antichrist, neither are we to make any question, but that he is Antichrist whosoever is Lord and king of the Roman state. But that the Pope hath ever since been, and therefore doth Turrian the jesuite call the Popedom, s Turrian. de eccles & ordinat. minist. lib. 1. cap. 2. Regnum Romanerum. the kingdom of the Romans, and Navarre the Canonist termeth the Pope t Navar. Manual. Confessar. in epist. dedicat. ad Gregor. 13. regem Latinorum, the king of the Latins or Romans, and it hath been before showed, that he wholly challengeth to himself the right and title thereof. The Pope therefore without all doubt is Antichrist, and we know him so to be, because after the Emperor he is become the Latin or Roman king, under the name of the Latin or Roman Bishop, by which he is renowned through the whole world. And because we see that the seventh king of the Latins is not one only man, but a succession of many, as in the other governments before, therefore we know that it was not meant that Antichrist should be one only man, but a succession of many in one government of the Roman state. Which is the thing wherein Irenaeus erred, being deceived as it seemeth by the traditions of Papias, by means whereof, both he himself, and others after him by his example more readily entertained sundry fables concerning Antichrist, the pretence whereof the Papists now abuse to make men look for another Antichrist, and not to know him whom the Scripture hath described so to be. W. BISHOP. Thus come we at length to the end of M. Perkins proofs, and reproofs in his prologue, where we finding little fidelity in his allegations of the fathers, bad construction and foul oversight in the text of holy Scripture, briefly great malice, but slender force against the Church of Rome, we are to return the words of his theme to all good Christians. Go out of her my people. Forsake the enemies of the Roman Church. And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperors, who drew out her most pure blood, so let us fly in matters of faith and religion, from all heretics that of late also spared not to shed abundance of the same most innocent blood, unless to your greater condemnation, you had leifer be partakers of her sins, and receive of her plagues. And because I purpose (God willing) not only to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholic doctrine, but somewhat also in every Chapter to fortify and confirm it: I will here deliver what some of the most ancient, most learned, and most holy Fathers do teach, concerning joining with the Church, and Pope of Rome, from whose society Protestant's labour tooth and nail to withdraw us. And because of this we must treat more amply in the question of supremacy, I will use here their authority, only whom M. Perkins citeth against us. S, Bernard is cited already, S. Irenaeus Scholar of S. Policarpe, and he of S. john the Evangelist, of the Church of Rome writeth thus. To this Church, Lib. 3. cap. 3● by reason of her more mighty principality, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful on all sides, do condescend and agree; in and by which, always the tradition of the Apostles hath been preserved by them that be round about her. Saint Jerome writing to Damasus Pope of Rome, saith: I following none as chiefest but Christ, do in participation join with thy blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter, I know the Church to be builded upon that Rock. Whosoever doth eat the Paschall Lamb out of this house, is a profane fellow, he that is not found within the Ark of Noah, shall when the floods arise perish: And a little after, I know not Vitalie, I refuse Meletius, I take no notice of Paulinus: he that gathereth not with thee, scattereth; that is, he that is not with Christ, is with Antichrist. Mark and embrace this most learned Doctor's judgement, of joining with the See of Rome, in all doubtful questions: he would not trust to his own wit and skill, which were singular; nor thought it safe to rely upon his learned and wise neighbours: he durst not set up his rest with his own Bishop Paulinus, who was a man of no mean mark but the Patriarch of Antioch: but made his assured stay upon the See of Rome, as upon an unmovable Rock, with which (saith he) if we do not communicate in faith and Sacraments, we are but profane men, void of all Religion: In a word, we belong to Christ, but be of Antichrists train. See, how flat contrary this most holy ancient Father is to M. Perkins. M. Perkins would make us of Antichrists band, because we cleave unto the Bishop of Rome. Whereas S. Hierome holdeth all to appertain to Antichrist, who be not fast linked in matters of Religion, with the Pope and See of Rome. And so to conclude with this point, every true Catholic must say with S. Ambrose: Lib 3 de Sacra. cap. 1. I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome. And thus much of his prologue. Afterward he taketh upon him to prescribe and show us how far forth we may join with the Church of Rome, by proposing many points in controversy between us and them, and in each showing in what points we consent together, and in what we differ. I mean by God's grace to follow him step by step, although he hath made many a disorderly one, as well to discover his deceits, and to disprove their errors, as also to establish the Catholic doctrine, the which I will endeavour to perform (by the help of God) with all simplicity of language, and with as much brevity as such a weighty matter will permit. Yet (I hope) with that perspicuity, as the meaner learned may understand it, and with such substance of proof, both out of the holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers, as the more judicious (to whose profit it is principally dedicated) may not contemn it. R. ABBOT. What the dealing of M. Perkins and M. Bishop on each part hath been, I leave it to the Reader to judge by examining of both, who I doubt not will acknowledge M. Perkins fidelity of allegations, true construction of holy Scriptures, and sufficient argument to make all men jealous of the Church of Rome. And seeing Hierom of old hath given light (as before hath been showed) that of Rome it is said, Go out of her my people, and there can be thenceforth no other Rome, to which we may apply it, but only the corrupted state of the Church of Rome: therefore he will take it (I presume) as a warning from God, to take heed of, and to eschew the filthy fornications, idolatries, and abominations of that unclean strumpet, and will deride the silliness of those collections, whereby M. Bishop laboureth to persuade the contrary. As for that which he saith of us under the name of heretics, that of late we spared not to shed abundance of their most innocent blood, it setteth forth the singular impudency, and remorseless malice of these notorious hypocrites. For whereas he talketh of abundance of blood, he well knoweth, that in five and forty years of Queen Elizabeth, there was not so much blood of theirs shed by us, as was of ours by them in five years of the reign of Queen Mary. And whereas he calleth it innocent blood, they themselves, M. Bishop I mean, and his fellow Seculars, by their Proctor a watson's Quodlibet●. Watson, have cleared the State, as having just cause to proceed against them that were put to death; against the jesuits as immediate actors of treason, against the Priests as being employed by them for the effecting thereof. It pleased God by that quarrel of theirs against the jesuits, to make them witnesses of the innocency of the State in the shedding of their blood: and by their own mouth to make it known, that the jesuits were still devising & practising for the death of the Queen, and for the ruin and overthrow of the Realm, and that the Priests were used by them as instruments for the compass and achieving of their traitorous designs, so that the nature of their fact could be no less than treason: and therefore what conscience may we think there is in this lewd hireling, contrary to their own confession, to renew a complaint against the State, of shedding innocent blood, as if there had been no cause but merely Religion towards God, why they were put to death. But if that had been the quarrel, many more would have been in like sort to be touched, being openly known to be professors of that Religion, who notwithstanding as we know, save only for a pecuniary mulct for trespassing the law, lived at their own liberty, and fully with us enjoyed the benefit of the State. To let this pass, M. Bishop will now tell us somewhat out of the Fathers, to warrant our joining with the Church and Pope of Rome. He hath alleged S. Bernard before, and he is answered before. Further, he bringeth Irenaeus, saying: b Iren. lib. 3. ca 3 Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter pote●ti●●em principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles; ●n qui semper ab 〈◊〉 qui su●t vnd que conseruata est, ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio. To this Church by reason of the more mighty principality, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful on all sides do agree, in which the tradition which is from the Apostles, hath been always preserved of them that are about her. Which words he allegeth, but draws no direct conclusion from them, nor indeed can do, but by begging that which is in question betwixt us. It was necessary in the time of Irenaeus, that every Church should accord to the Church of Rome, because therein the tradition and true doctrine of the Apostles had been faithfully preserved: but will M. Bishop hereof simply conclude, that it is now also necessary for every Church to accord with the Church of Rome? It is a question now, whether she retain the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles: nay it is out of question that she doth not so, and therefore her former commendation, is no argument, that we should approve her now. jerusalem was c 2. Chron. 6.6. the city which the Lord did choose to place his name there. She was a faithful city, & so long necessary it was, that all other cities should conform themselves to her. But d Esa. 1.21. of a faithful city, she became a harlot, and departed so far from her former steps, as that she crucified the Son of God, and killed his Saints, and in the end it was said of her by a voice from God, as josephus recordeth, e joseph. de bello Iudaico●●. 7. c. 12 Migremus hinc: Let us departed from hence. So the Church of Rome was a Virgin, the chaste and faithful spouse of Christ, continuing steadfastly in the doctrine by which she first became the Church of Rome, and so long as she so continued, it was necessary for all Churches to accord with her, as for her to accord with all other Churches that had done the like. But she is since become an unclean filth prostituted to all manner of fornications, imbrued & drunken with the blood that she hath spirit, so that now the voice of God calleth to us in like sort concerning her, Go out of her my people. Neither hath M. Bishop any better help by that that he will further allege, that Irenaeus mentioneth a potent principality of that Church. For that potent principality was not intended by Irenaeus for any supremacy of the Church of Rome, but imported only an honour yielded unto it in respect of the imperial state of the city of Rome; which we know men of inferior towns are wont to yield to them that are of high and honourable cities, only for the pre-eminence of the place. But if the Church of Rome had had any such potent principality as M. Bishop intendeth, in respect whereof all other Churches should yield subjection and obedience unto her, than would not f Jren. apud Euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 5. cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna have refused to yield to Anicetus the Bishop of Rome in matters of difference betwixt them, as Irenaeus showeth he did before his time: neither would g Ibid. cap. 22. & Hieron. in Catal. Script. Eccles. in Polycrate. Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of the Asian Churches have resisted Victor in the time of Irenaeus; neither would h Cypr ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephano. Cyprian have contradicted Stephanus, neither would Aurelius and Austin and the rest of the Fathers in the Council of Carthage, have i Concil. Carth. 6 & Aphrican. cap 101. etc. withstood the claim of the Bishop of Rome for authority to receive appeals made from them to him: neither would those six hundred and thirty Bishops in the Chalcedon Council, have yielded to the Patriarch of Constantinople, according to a former decree of a council of k Conc Constantinop. 1. cap. 2. Constantinople, an equality of privilege and prerogative with the Bishop of Rome. The matter is very plain. l Conc l. Cha●cedon Act. 15. ca 28. Antiquae Romae throno quòd urbi il●a imperaret, iure Patres priu●legiae tribuere. Et eadem consideratione moti 150 Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo novae Romae throno aequalia privilegia tribuere, rectè iudicantes urbem quae & imperio & Senatu honerata sit, & aequalibus cum antiquissimo Roma privilegijs fruatur, etiam in rebus ecclesiasticis, non secus ac illam extolli & magnificari secundam post illam existentem. The Fathers, say they, have yielded privileges to the sea of old Rome, because that was the Imperial city. And the hundred and fifty Bishops (of the Council of Constantinople) being moved with the same consideration have yielded equal privileges to the sacred sea of new Rome, (that is, Constantinople) rightly judging, that the city which is honoured with the Empire and Senate, and enjoyeth equal privileges with old Rome, should also in ecclesiastical matters be no less extolled and magnified then it is, being the next unto it. Thus they acknowledge the principality of the Church of Rome to be nothing else, but in respect that that city was the seat of the Empire, and therefore Constantinople being become the seat of the Empire, and in respect thereof being called New Rome, they gave to the Church of Constantinople equal dignity and principality with the Church of Rome, leaving to the Bishop of Rome only precedence of name and place. The Legates of the Bishop of Rome would feign have had it otherwise, but the whole Council approved the decree. Now by that that hath been said to Irenaeus, the answer is plain to that that M. Bishop further citeth out of Hierome. The true faith and doctrine of the Godhead of Christ, was then maintained by the Church of Rome against the remainder of the infection and poison of the Arian heresy. Hereupon Hierome writeth to Damasus Bishop of Rome, to be advertised of the use of some words that concerned that point. He commendeth the Church of Rome, m Hieron. ad Damasum. Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur haereditae. for that the inheritance of the Fathers (that is, the true faith) was preserved uncorrupt with them only. For this cause doth he bind himself to the communion and fellowship of Damasus. Upon the rock of that faith which the Church of Rome still held, he knew the Church to be built. In respect of this faith, he that went out of that house, that is, left the communion of that Church, because thereby he renounced the truth, he became profane. In the same respect, he that gathered not with Damasus, being a maintainer of the true faith, be must needs be a scatterer. He could not be of Christ, that refused them that took part with Christ, and therefore must be of Antichrist. In this respect he renounced Vitalis, Milesius, and Paulinus, because n Erasm. schol. ibid. they were all either known or suspected to be partakers of the heresy of Arius, and therefore very deceitfully doth M. Bishop allege, that he would not set up his rest with his own Bishop Paulinus, who was no mean man, but the Patriarch of Antioch: as hereby to add a superiority to the Bishop of Rome, when as there was otherwise so apparent cause, why he should refuse so to do. In all this therefore Hierome saith no more of the Bishop and Church of Rome, than he might have said of any other Bishop and Church, professing true faith and doctrine, as the Church of Rome then did: but very far was he from teaching or intending any perpetual necessity, that all Churches for ever should conform themselves to the Church of Rome. And that he never had any such meaning, let it appear by himself, when being urged with the example of the Church of Rome, he answereth: o Hieron. Epist. ad evagr. Quid mihi profers untus urbis consuetudinem? quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas? What dost thou bring to me the custom of one city? why dost thou maintain a paucity (or fewness) whence hath grown proud usurping upon the laws of the Church? He had said a little before, p Ibid. Si autoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est urbe. Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubij, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegij, sive Alexandria, siue Tanis, eiusdem meriti est, eiusdem sacerdotij. Potentia divitiarum, & pauperiatis humilitas s●l linuorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit, caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt. If we demand authority, the world is greater than the city. Wheresoever a Bishop be, whether of Rome, or of Eugubium; whether at Constantinople, or at Rhegium; whether at Alexandria, or at Tanes, he is of the same worth, and of the same office of Bishopric. Power of wealth, or baseness of poverty, maketh a Bishop neither higher nor lower, but they are all successors of the Apostles. Thus he spoke purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome, charging the same with proud domineering over the laws of the Church: affirming the authority of the Churches through the world, to be greater than the authority of the Church of Rome: attributing to every Bishop of whatsoever place, equality in office with the Bishop of Rome, because all are alike successors of the Apostles. Yea and to show that the Church of Rome received no more by Peter, than other Churches did by the rest of the Apostles, he saith in another place: that q Idem adu. jovin lib. 1. At dicis. super Petrun fit datur Ecclesia; liceta idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelerum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur. the Church is built upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and the strength of the Church is equally grounded upon them. Whereby it plainly appeareth, that Hierome never meant to make the Church of Rome any such perpetual Mistress and ruler of other Churches, as M. Bishop dreameth her to be. Yea but S. Ambrose further saith: I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome. But why did M. Bishop give over there, & not add also that that followeth: r Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. cap. ● In omnibus cupio sequi Roman●m Ecclesiam, sed tamen & nos homines sensum habentus: ideo quod alibi rectiùs servatur, & nos rectè custodimus. I desire (saith he) in all things to follow the Church of Rome: but yet we are also men that have understanding: and therefore what is more rightly observed otherwhere, we also justly observe the same. S. Ambrose being Bishop of Milan not far from Rome showeth, that he yielded a reverend respect unto the Church of Rome, but yet professeth, that things might be better in other places than they were at Rome, and that his Church of Milan had understanding to judge what was fit aswell as the Church of Rome, and therefore that they held not themselves tied by any necessary duty to the example thereof, but would do what they thought more rightly performed in any other Church. Now than what shall we think of M. Bishop, who thus shamefully seeketh to blind his reader, by alleging one part of a sentence for his purpose, when the other part thereof expressly crosseth that for which he allegeth it. And thus much concerning M. Bishops answer to M. Perkins Prologue. For the rest I will (God willing) follow him in like sort step by step, according to his own words, in more honest and faithful manner than he hath dealt with M. Perkins, and that in such sort I hope, as that the meaner learned shall understand, that the learning which he would teach them is nought, and the more judicious shall be able to judge, that it is a very bad cause, to which the marrow and pith of many large volumes can yield no better defence than he hath brought. CHAPTER. 1. OF FREE WILL. 1. W. BISHOP. THat I be not thought captious, but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath said agreeable to the truth, I will let his whole text in places indifferent, pass, paring off only superfluous words, with adding some annotations where it shall be needful, and rest only upon the points in controversy. First then concerning Free will, wherewith he beginneth, thus he saith: Free will both by them and us, is taken for a mixed power in the mind and will of man, whereby discerning what is good, and what is evil, he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same. Annot. If we would speak formally, it is not a mixed power in the mind and will, but is a free faculty of the mind and will only, whereby we choose or refuse, supposing in the understanding, a knowledge of the same before. But let this definition pass as more popular. M. Perkins. 1. Conclusion. Man must be considered in a fourfold estate, as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renewed, as he shall be glorified. In the first state we ascribe unto man's will liberty of nature, in which he could will or will either good or evil; note that this liberty proceeded not from his own nature, but of original justice, in which he was created. In the third liberty of grace, in the last liberty of glory. Annot. carry this in mind, that here he granteth man in the state of grace to have Free will. R. ABBOT. Master Bishop here dealeth as jugglers are wont to do, who make show of fair play, when they use nothing but legerdemain. He will not be thought captious, and yet for two whole pages here in the beginning, is nothing but captious. His ●●●ing the text of M. Perkins his book to pass whole in places indifferent, is nothing but a dismembering and mangling of the text. His paring off only of superfluous words, is the paring off of such arguments and authorities as he knew not how to answer. His adding of annotations, the sophisticating of his reader with idle and frivolous corrections. His resting only upon points of controversy, the wresting of those things to controversy whereof there is no controversy at all. M. Perkins defineth free-will to be a mixed power of the mind and will of man, whereby esteeming what is good and what is evil, he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same. A little to please himself he giveth a snatch at this definition of Free will, as not formal enough, only to show himself more formal than wise, the definition being more fitly expressed then that which he hath put in place of it, and he honestly is content because it is more popular, to let it pass. Whereas M. Perkins in his first conclusion, affirmeth in the first estate of man as he was created, a liberty of nature, M. Bishop giveth thereof this learned note: that this liberty preceded not from man's own nature, but from original justice wherein he was created, as if he should say, that the shining of the Sun proceedeth not from the nature of the Sun, but from the light of it; whereas the light is a part of the nature of the Sun, as was original justice a part of the nature of man, being the a Ephes. 4.24. image and likeness of God, in which and according to which he was created. And to say that Free will did proceed from original justice, is wholly against himself, because it must thereof follow, that in the fall of original justice, must needs be implied the loss of Free will, which cannot stand without that from which it doth proceed, so that man in his fall must necessarily be said to have lost his Free will. But he should rather have said, that God gave unto man Free will, as the steward and disposer of original justice and righteousness, and as b Tertul adu. Martion lib. 2. Libertas & potestas arbitrij quasi ubripens emancipatia deo boni. the balance to turn either to or fro, the benefit that God had put into the hands and power of man. In the third estate of man, as he is renewed, M. Perkins affirmeth liberty of grace. Carry this in mind, saith M. Bishop, that here he granteth man in the state of grace to have Free will. As though either he, or any of us had made question thereof, who all acknowledge by the Gospel that it is the work of Christ c john 8.36. to make us free, d Rom 6 18. free from sin, e Cap. 8.21. free from the bondage of corruption, that in holiness we may be servants unto God. Nay that the reader may the more clearly conceive the truth of this whole matter, we deny not Free will in any estate of man. For it is true which S. Austin saith, f August. de civit dei. lib 5. cap. 10. Necesse est esse ut cùm volumus libero velimus arbitrio. that whatsoever we will, we will the same by Free will, because the will is not subject to compulsion, but willeth always freely, and of it own accord, or else looseth the nature and name of will. Which freedom of will, by original institution stood indifferent either to good or evil; yet was not to continue so, but upon election once made to be free only in that whereto of itself it should betake itself: free only in evil, if it should apply itself to evil: free only in good, if it should make choice to continue therein. Therefore the Angels which kept their original habitation and estate, have their g Bernard. de great & li● arb. Angeli sancti ita sunt boni ut non possuit esse & ●●ali. Free will by God's election and grace established in goodness, so that it is not inclinable to any thing that is evil. But the Angels which sinned and abode not in the truth, have their Free will by itself, and of itself h Ibid. praevaricatores angeli ita sunt mali ut 〈◊〉 non valeant esse boni. obdured and hardened in that that is evil, so that it is not at all appliable to any thing that is good. Man therefore by sin hath not lost Free will, for by i August. count 2. epist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap 2 Liberum arbitrium usque a●●o in peccatore non perij● ut per illud peccant, maximè omnes qui cum delectatione peccant & lib. 3. ca 8 Non nisi ad peccatu● v●let. Free will it is that now he sinneth, yea and can nothing but sin. But this Free will that is thus free in sin, hath no freedom at all, as S. Austin in sundry places expresseth, to righteousness and to the service of God, until it be rectified and made free by jesus Christ; no freedom or power at all, but what is newly and merely k Idem. de peccat. mer. & rem. lib. 2. cap. 6. Ipsum liberum arbitrium ad dei gratiam hoc est ad Dei dona pertinere non ambigens. etc. the grace and gift of God. Therefore having affirmed the freedom of the will to sin, he addeth that l Count 2. epist. Pelag. l. 3. cap. 8. Ad justitiam nisi divinitùs liberatum advitumque non valet. to righteousness, but as it is made free and helped of God, it availeth nothing. m Ibid. lib. 4 ca 8 Quid mihi obi●●d●s liberum arbitrium quod ad faciendam justitiam liberum non erit, nisi ovis fuerit? Qui facit igitur òues homines ipse ad obedientiam pietatie humanas liberat voluntates. What tellest thou me of Free will, saith he, which to the doing of righteousness shall not be free, except thou become a sheep of Gods? he then who of men maketh his sheep, even he maketh the wills of men Free to the obedience of godliness. n Epist. 107. Liberum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum primi peccati granditate perdidimus: & antea: Gratia nostrum ad de. linandum à malo & faciendum bonum liberatur arbitrium. We lost free will to love God by the greatness of the first sin, saith he, but by grace our will is made free to decline from evil and do good. So then we do not deny Free will to be righteousness, but yet we have regard to that caution which S. Austin giveth against Pelagians and Papists, o Ibid. si verè volumus defenders liberum arbitrium non oppugnemus v●de ●ic liberum. if we will defend Free will aright, not to oppugn that whence it is made free. What p Cont. 2. ep. Pelag. l. 4 cap. 9 Nunquid liberum arbitrium negat hominibus quia Deo totum tribuit quòd rectè vivimus? doth a man deny Free will, saith he, because he attributeth it wholly to God that we live well: q Retract. lib. 1● cap 9 Tale est. ut sine illo rectè vivere nequeamus. without freedom of will we cannot live well; (for how should a man do well without his will?) but yet this Free will to live well is r Count 2. epist. Pelag. lib. 3 cap. 7. Hominis non libera sed Dei gratia liberata voluntas. a will not free (merely & of itself) but made free by the grace of God. For then is s De civit. Dei. lib. 14. cap. 11. Arbitrium voluntatu tunc est vere liberum, cùm vetijs peccatisque non seruit. Tale datum est a Deo quod amissum proprio vitio, nisi à quo dari potuit reddi non potest. the will of man free indeed, when it is free from sin: and such a free will God gave to man in the beginning, but he lost it by his own default, and being lost it cannot be restored, but by him that was able first to give it. In Christ therefore it is restored unto us, who by his t Esai. 51.12. free spirit giveth u Esa. ●1 1. liberty to the captives, and openeth the prison to them that are bound, and x Col. 1.13. delivereth us from the power of darkness, and maketh us y 1 Cor. 7.22. freemen unto him. But yet so, as that having received but a Rom. 8.23. the first fruits of the spirit, by whom this freedom is wrought, according to the words of the Apostle, b 2. Cor. 3.17. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, the same is yet but begun in us, so that c August. in joan. tract. 41. Ex part libertas, ex part servitus; nondum tota, nondum pura, nondum plena liberias. there is partly freedom, and partly bondage, not yet whole and pure and perfect freedom. For no further is the will freed than it is renewed; and it is renewed as yet but in part, continuing still d De peccat. mer. & rem lib. 2. cap. 7. Animus qui est homo interior nondum totus est renovatus, & in quantum nondum est renovatus, intantum adhuc in vetustate est. in part in the old estate. Therefore it is so made free, as that in some part we have cause still to complain with the Apostle, e Rom. 7.14. I am carnal, sold under sin, and to pray with the Prophet David: f Psal. 142.7. Bring my soul out of prison, that I may give thanks unto thy name. Hence is that heaviness and dullness, that waywardness and untowardness, that retention and holding back, that still we find in us in the applying of ourselves to spiritual and heavenly things. And as touching that wherein we are renewed and made free, it is not sufficient to uphold us and keep us in the right way, but we have still need of the grace of God, to be assistant and helpful unto us. g Hieron. ad Ctesiphont. Non sufficit mihi quòd semel donavit, nisi semper donaverit: Peto ut accipiam, & eum accepero rursus peto. It is not enough that God hath once given, saith Hierome, except he still give: I pray to receive, and when I have received, I pray again. Therefore the ancient church required of Pelagius to confess, that h August epist. 106. Fateatur gratiam Dei & ad●utorium etiam ad singulos actus dari. the grace of God is given us to every act that we do. i Enchirid cap. 32. Nolen●em praevenit ut velit; volentem subsequitur ne frustra velit. He preventeth us to make us willing, & followeth us when we are willing, that we do not will in vain. And if his hand do not hold us and uphold us, it cometh to pass by the burden of corruptible flesh, that we are still relapsing to our selves, and still ready with the k Exod. 14.11.12. israelites to yield ourselves to become bond again. l Bernard. in Cant. ser. 84. Non est aliud anima nostra quàm spirits valiens & non rediens●●, ita fuerit derelicta. Our soul, saith Bernard, is no other but as a wind that passeth and returneth not again, if it be left unto itself. Now M. Bishop do you carry this in mind, thus expressed by the phrases and speeches of the ancient Church, and leave to calumniate our doctrine, who affirm Free will as far as they affirmed it, and deny it no otherwise but as they denied it against the Pelagian heretics. But you will hardly leave your wont, because you see well enough, that if you take our doctrine as we deliver it, you can devise nothing plausibly or colourably to speak against it. 2. W. BISHOP. M. Per. 2. Conclusion. The matters whereabout Free will is occupied, are principally the actions of men, which be of three sorts, Natural, human, Spiritual. Natural actions are such, as are common to men and beasts, as to eat, sleep, etc. In all which we join with the Papists, and hold that man hath free will even since the fall of Adam. M. Per. 3. Conclusion. human actions are such, as are common to all men, good and bad, as to speak, to practise any kind of art, to perform any kind of civil duty, to preach, to administer Sacraments, etc. And hither we may refer the outward actions of civil virtues, as namely justice, Temperance, Gentleness, and Liberality, and in these also we join with the Church of Rome, and say (as experience teacheth) that men have a natural freedom of will, to put them, or not to put them in execution. S. Paul saith, The Gentiles that have not the law, Rom. 2.14. do the things of the law by nature, that is, by natural strength: And he saith of himself, Phillip 3 6. Mat 6 5. Ezech. 29.19. that before his conversion touching the righteousness of the law, he was unblamable. And for the external obedience, natural men receive reward in temporal things. And yet here some caveats must be remembered. First, that in human actions (he should say moral) man's will is weak, and his understanding dim, thereupon he often fails in them. This caveat is no caveat of the Protestants, but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines. Sum. 12 ●. 109. art. 4. & 8. And in all such actions with S. Augustine (you might have quoted the place) I understand the will of man, to be only wounded or half dead. 2. That the will of man, is under the will of God, and therefore to be ordered by it: Who knows not this? R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop giveth us some more of his learned notes, and telleth us, that M. Perkins for human should have said moral, whereas the name of moral actions doth not so properly comprehend all those which he meant to import by human actions. As touching the first caveat given to the third conclusion, that in human actions man's will is weak, and his understanding dim, etc. he noteth that this caveat is no caveat of the Protestants, but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines. He was desirous it seemeth to have it thought, that he had looked into Thomas Aquinas, but he was willing withal to show that he did not well understand what he read there: for he that looketh into a Thomas Aqui. 1 2. q. 109. art. 4. & 8. the places which he quoteth, shall easily see, that there was little cause for him to say, that that is a caveat taken out of Thomas Aquinas, there being nothing directly tending to the matter of the caveat expressed by M. Perkins. But the Protestants might well learn that caveat out of their own experience, and if we had not observed it of ourselves, we could have learned it of Philosophers, and Poets, & Historians, to say nothing of eccelesiastical Writers, so that we need not to seek to Thomas Aquinas to borrow it from him. But what is that to the purpose, seeing we profess ourselves well content legere Margaritas ea coeno, to gather Pearls even out the dirt, and from M. Bishop himself to take knowledge of any thing worthy our learning, if any thing worthy our learning had been written by him. M. Perkins saith, that in human or moral actions, with Austin he understandeth the will of man only wounded or half dead. M. Bishop saith, he should have quoted the place: the place to which M. Perkins alludeth, I take it to be Hypognost. lib. 3. where Austin saith that man was wounded and half dead, b August. Hypognost. lib. 3 Rectè dictus est sentiviws: habebat enim vitalem motum, id est liberum arbitrium ●uburatum (morum scilicet ornamentis & bono pos●i●litatis liberi arbitrij perdit●) quod ei solum ad vitam aeternam quam perd derat red●. 8 non sufficiebat. because his Free will had still vital motion, but he was wounded in the ornaments of moral actions, and lost the benefit of the possibility of Free will, to return unto everlasting life. To the other caveat, that the will of man is under the will of God, and therefore to be ordered by it, M. Bishop saith, Who knows not this? As if men in delivering precepts and rules of any kind of learning, did not set down even trivial and common things, because howsoever they be common yet they be necessary to make a perfect work, and always necessary for learners, when the whole works are needless to them that are already learned. And why might not M. Perkins bring in this caveat in a writing against the Papists, as well as Hierome did against the Pelagians? c Hieron adu. Pelag. lib. 2. scramus non ex nobis, sed ex Dei cunct● pendere judicio, veniam, inquit, etc. Qui enim dicit, veniam ad vos, ostendit se velle, mostrat cupere, promittit adventum: sed ut cautiùs haec lo qu●tur, infert; si Dominus volverit. Si quis enim putat si quid nosse necdum novit sicut 〈◊〉 Jeoportet That we may know, saith he, that all things depend, not upon us, but upon the discretion and will of God, the Apostle saith, I will come unto you speedily, if the Lord will. When he saith, I will come unto you, he showeth his good will, he declareth his desire, he promiseth his coming. But yet to speak with a caveat, he saith, If the Lord will. For if any man think he knoweth any thing, he knoweth not yet as he ought to know. Yea and S. Austin also thought this point worth the noting against the same Pelagians, that d August de great. & lib ●bit. cap. 20. Scriptura intendit non solù̄ bonus ●ominum voluntates, etc. virum●tiam quae conseruant seculiore ●turamita esse in Dei potestate, ut eas quo volverit, quando volverit, facial inclinary, etc. the wills of men not only for spiritual and eternal life, but as they concern the preserving of the creature of the world, are in the power of God, so as that he causeth them to incline whither he will, and when he will, either for benefit to some, or for punishment to othersome. And he thought it not unfit to exemplify this matter out of the e Ibid. cap. 20, 21 books of josuah, of the Kings and Chronicles, how God ordereth the wills of men, for the constituting of earthly kingdoms, and maketh profitable use and application thereof, that it should be absurd f De Praedest. sanct. cap. 20. Cogitate quale sit, ut credamus ad constituenda regna terrena hominum voluntates operari Deum, & ad capessendum regnum c●elorum homines operari voluntates suas. to think that God frameth the wills of men for the settling of earthly kingdoms, and that men frame their own wills for the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven. And will M. Bishop now turn off Austin and Hierome, as he doth M. Perkins, with Who knows not this? But his notes yet are but to whet his wit: when he is well awaked out of his sleep, haply we shall have some wiser stuff. W. BISHOP. M. P. 4. Conclusion. The third kind of actions are spiritual more nearly, and these be twofold: good, or bad. In sins we join with the Papist, and teach that in sins man hath freedom of will. Some perhaps will say, that we sin necessarily, because he that sinneth, cannot but sin, and that Free will and necessity, cannot stand together. Indeed the necessity of compulsion and Free will, cannot stand together, but there is another kind of necessity (or rather infallibility) which may stand with Free will: for some things may be done necessarily, and also freely. Annot. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose, for it puts necessity in one thing, and liberty in another. The solution is, that necessarily must be taken for certainly, not that a man is at any time compelled to sin, but his weakness and the craft of the devil are such, that he is very often overreached by the devil, and induced to sin, but with free consent of his own will. R. ABBOT. The comparison of a prison used by M. Perkins, is most pregnant and fit. A man walketh up and down in close prison, and freely moveth and stirreth himself; yet he hath no power to get out of prison, but for aught he can do for himself is necessarily there. Even so, man is free in sin, and freely willeth whatsoever he willeth thereto: but sin is his prison, and he cannot free himself therefrom; nay because the will itself is imprisoned, he hath no will to be free, and therefore of necessity remaineth still a prisoner to sin, till God do change his will to make him free. But M. Bishop disliketh the comparison, because it puts necessity in one thing, and liberty in another, whereas to that purpose it was used, and to that purpose most fitly is applied, and therein nothing contained, but what is agreeable to the truth. For whereas he taketh upon him to correct that term of necessity, and will have it to be called infallibility and certainty, he malapertly taketh upon him to teach them that are more learned than himself. It is a word which S. Austin often useth upon the like occasion, both against the Pelagians and Manichees. b August. de perfect. justit. Rat. 9 Quia peccavit voluntas secula est peccantem peccatum habendi dura necessitas. Man sinned by his will, saith he, and thereupon followed a cruel necessity of having sin. c Retract. lib. 1. cap. 1 Naturae nostrae dura necessitas merito praecedentis iniquitatis exortae est. A cruel necessity (of sin) grew upon our nature by the desert of the first sin. d De nat. & gra. cap. 66 Ex vitijs naturae, non ex conditione naturae est quaedam peccandi necessitas. Not by creation, but by corruption of nature, there is a certain necessity of committing sin. e Count Fortunat. disput. ●. Post quam libera ipse voluntate peccavit nos in necessitatem praec●pitati sumus After that Adam sinned by free will, we were thrown headlong into a necessity (of sin) all that have descended of his race. And that this necessity doth well stand with liberty, S. Bernard showeth, in calling it f Bernard. in Cantic. Ser. 81. Ipsa sua voluntas necessitatem facit, ut nec necessitas cùm voluntaria sit excludere valeat voluntatem, nec voluntas cùm sit illecta excludere necessitatem. Et post● Anima sub voluntaria quadam & malè libera voluntate tenetur. Et iterum post. Voluntas inexcusabilem & incorrigibilem necessitas facis. a voluntary and mis-free necessity, wherein neither can necessity excuse the will, because it is voluntary, nor the will exclude necessity, because it is entangled with delight therein; wherein will taketh from him all matter of defence, and necessity bereaveth him of possibility of amendment, and in a word, the will itself in strange wise causeth this necessity to itself. Now then because the state of sin is such, as that there is one way necessity by the habit of corruption, and another way liberty by the free motion of the will, very rightly did M. Perkins to express the same, use the example of a prison, that puts necessity in one thing, and liberty in another. And thus in righteousness also necessity and liberty agree, and do not one exclude the other. For the Angels being by the grace and power of God confirmed in goodness, are thereby necessarily good, g Jdem de great. & lib. arist. sup. so and in such sort good, as that they cannot become evil, and yet they are freely and voluntarily good, because it is the will itself that is established in goodness. The same shall be the state of eternal life to the elect and faithful, h August de perfect. justitia. Bene vivendi & nunquam peccandi, voluntaria foelixque necessitas: A voluntary and happy necessity of living well, and never sinning any more. Let M. Bishop take knowledge now of this manner of speech, and learn not to find fault when he hath no cause. But he noteth, that we must not understand, that a man is at any time compelled to sin: where I may answer him with his own words before, Who knows not this? And again, that this is none of M. Bishop's caveat, but taken out of M. Perkins. M. Perkins had told him so much before hand, and therefore what needed this note? For this necessity groweth not of any outward force, but from inward nature, not by condition of the substance, but by accidental corruption, which being supposed, there is a necessity of sin, as in the palsy a necessity of shaking, in the hot fever a necessity of burning, in the broken leg a necessity of halting, so continuing till the malady and distemper be cured and done away. And whereas M. Bishop referreth this necessity of sin to the weakness of man, and to the craft of the devil, he speaketh too short in the one, and impertinently in the other. For we are not to conceive weakness only, which may be only a privation, but a positive evil habit and contagion of sin, whereby a man sinneth even without any furtherance of the devils temptations, by the only evil disposition of himself. Which evil disposition, because it is also in the will itself, therefore in the midst of that necessity, a man sinneth no otherwise, but as M. Bishop requireth to have it said, with free consent of his own will. W. BISHOP. M. P. 5. Conclusion. The second kind of spiritual actions be good, as Repentance, Faith, Obedience, etc. In which we likewise in part join with the Church of Rome, and say that in the first conversion of a sinner, man's Free will concurreth with God's grace, as a fellow or co-worker in some sort: for in the conversion of a sinner, three things are required: the word, God's spirit, and Man's will: for Man's will is not passive in all and every respect, but hath an action in the first conversion and change of the soul: when any man is converted, this work of God is not done by compulsion, but he is converted willingly, and at the very time when he is converted by God's grace, he willeth his conversion. To this end saith S. Augustine, He which made thee without thee, Se●. 15 de verb. Apost. will not save thee without thee. Again, that it is certain that our will is required in this, that we may do any thing well, (it is not only then required in our first conversion, if it be required to all good things which we do,) but we have it not from our own power, but God works to will in us. For look at what time God gives grace, at the same time he gives a will to desire and will the same: as for example, when God work faith, at the same time, he works also upon the will, causing it to desire faith, and willingly to receive the gift of believing: God makes of the unwilling will a willing will, because no man can receive grace utterly against his will, considering will constrained, is no will. But here we must remember, that howsoever in respect of time, the working of grace by God's spirit, and the willing of it in man go together: yet in regard of order, grace is first wrought, and man's will must first of all be acted and moved by grace; and than it also acteth, willeth, and moveth itself. And this is the last point of consent between us and the Roman Church, touching , neither may we proceed farther with them. Hitherto M. Perkins. Now before I come to the supposed difference, I gather first, that he yieldeth unto the principal point in controversy, that is, freedom of will, in civil and moral works in the state of corruption, and all good works in the state of grace: for in his first conclusion distinguishing four estates of man, he affirmeth, that in the third, of man renewed or (as we speak justified) there is liberty of grace, that is, grace enableth man's will to do (if it please) such spiritual works, as God requireth at his hands. Yet lest he be taken to yield in any thing, Pag. ●0. he doth in show of words contradict both these points in another place: For in setting down the difference of our opinions, he saith: that man's will in his conversion is not active, but passive, which is flat opposite unto that which himself said a little before in his first conclusion; that in the conversion of a sinner, man's will concurreth not passively, but is co-worker with God's grace. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop understandeth not the principal point in controversy, and therefore thinketh that M. Perkins yieldeth to the principal point in controversy, when he doth nothing less. It was never any point of controversy, whether man in the state of corruption have freedom of will in civil or moral works: for none of us ever hath denied it. Neither was it ever any point of controversy, whether man in the state of grace have freedom of will to good works: for there is not one of us but always hath affirmed it, so that M. Bishop knoweth not indeed what he disputeth of. As for that liberty of grace, he expoundeth it also out of his own blind fancy, and not out of our doctrine. For we do not mean thereby, that grace enableth man's will to do, if it please, such spiritual works as God requireth at his hands, but that grace worketh in the will of man to please to do such spiritual works as God requireth at his hands. For he doth not hang his work upon the suspended if of our will, but a Phil. 2.13. worketh in us to will, and b Ezech 36.27. August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 10 Ipse facit uti illi faciant quae praecepit. Et cap. 11. Promissit facturum se ut faciā●, quae ●ulci ut fiant. causeth us to do the things that he commandeth us to do. But M. Bishop here imagineth, that M. Perkins contradicteth in one leaf that which he yieldeth in another. He saith one where, that man's will in his conversion, is not active but passive. But let M. Bishop learn of S. Austin, that c August. quaest. ve●. Test. 14. Qui verba suppronit quaestionis aut imperitu● est aut tergiversator, qui calumniae magis studeat, quam doctrinae. he that concealeth the words of the point in question, is either an unlearned idiot, or a wrangling craven, that studieth more to cavil, then either to teach or learn. The words of M. Perkins are these: The Papists say, Will hath a natural cooperation; we deny it, and say, it hath cooperation only by grace, being in itself not active but passive, willing well only as it is moved by grace, whereby it must first be acted and moved, before it can act or will. Where he very plainly affirmeth the cooperation of man's will in his conversion, but saith truly, that it is of grace itself, that it doth cooperate with grace. He saith, that in itself it is not active but passive, but though in it self it be only passive, yet he acknowledgeth that it becometh active also, by being acted or moved by grace. Now how is this contrary to that which he saith in the fift conclusion, that man's Free will concurs with God's grace, as a fellow or co-worker in some sort, and is not passive in all and every respect? In some sort, saith he, it is a co-worker with grace, and is not passive in all and every respect. How is that? Man's will must first of all be acted and moved by grace, and then it also acteth, willeth, and moveth itself. How can M. Bishop devise to have a man speak more agreeably to himself? But he playeth the lewd cousiner, and whereas the whole point of the controversy lieth in these words, by itself, or in itself, he guilefully omitteth the same, and maketh M. Perkins absolutely to say, that man's will in his conversion is not active but passive, when he saith, that in itself it is not active but passive, declaring that by grace it is made active. So in the other place where it is said, that man's will is a co-worker in some sort, and is not passive in all and every respect, he leaveth out those terms of restraint, as if M. Perkins had made the will simply and of it self a co worker with grace, and not passive in any respect. The contradiction therefore was not in M. Perkins his words, but in M. Bishop's head, or rather in his malicious and wicked heart, which blind-foldeth him to make him seem not to see that which he seethe well enough. 5. W. BISHOP. The like contradiction may be observed in the other part of liberty in moral actions: for in his third conclusion he delivereth plainly, man to have a natural freedom, even since the fall of Adam, to do, or not to do the acts of wisdom, justice, Temperance, etc. and proves out of S. Paul, that the Gentiles so did: yet in his first reason, Pag. 19 he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the eight of Genesis, that the whole frame of man's heart is corrupted, and all that he thinketh, deviseth, or imagineth, is wholly evil, leaving him no natural strength to perform any part of moral duty. See how uncertain the steps be of men that walk in darkness, or that would seem to communicate with the works of darkness. For if I mistake him not, he agreeth fully in this matter of Free will, with the Doctrine of the Catholic Church: for he putting down the point of difference, saith, that it standeth in the cause of the freedom of man's will in spiritual matters: allowing then freedom of will with us in the state of grace, whereof he there treateth: for he seemeth to dissent from us only in the cause of that freedom. And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin, with other sectaries, in granting this liberty of will: so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholics, as appeareth by his own words. For (saith he) Papists say, man's will concurreth with God's grace by itself, and by it own natural power: we say, that man's will worketh with grace; yet not of itself, but by grace: either he understandeth not what Catholics say, or else accuseth them wrongfully: for we say, that man's will then only concurreth with God's grace, when it is stirred and helped first by God's grace. So that man's will by his own natural action, doth concur in every good work, otherwise it were no action of man: but we farther say, that this action proceedeth principally of grace, whereby the will was made able to produce such actions: for of itself it was utterly unable to bring forth such spiritual fruit. And this I take to be that, which M. Perkins doth mean by those his words: that the will must be first moved and acted by grace, before it can act or will. He mistook us, thinking that we required some outward help only to the will, to join with it; or rather, that grace did but as it were untie the chains of sin wherein our will was fettered: and then Will could of itself turn to God. Not understanding how Catholics take that Parable of the man wounded in the way, Luk. 10. between jerusalem and jerico, who was (not as the Papists only say, but as the holy Ghost saith) left half, and not stark dead. Now the exposition of Catholics is not, that this wounded man, (which signifieth all mankind) had half his spiritual strength left him; but was rob of all supernatural riches, spoiled of his original justice, and wounded in his natural powers of both understanding and Will, and therein left half dead, not being able of his own strength, either to know all natural truth, or to perform all moral duty. Now touching supernatural works, because he left all power to perform them; not being able so much as to prepare himself conveniently to them: he in a good sense may be likened unto a dead man, not able to move one finger that way of grace: and so in holy Scripture the father said of his prodigal Son, Luk. 15. He was dead and is revived. Yet as the same son lived a natural life, albeit in a deadly sin: so man's 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 having still that natural faculty of , capable of grace, and also able, being first both outwardly moved, and fortified inwardly by the virtue of grace, to effect and do any work appertaining to salvation: 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 seen in the Council of Trent, where in the Session are first these words in effect, concerning the unableness of man to arise from sin of himself. Every man must acknowledge and confess, that by Adam's fall we were made so unclean and sinful, that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature, nor the jews by the letter of Moses law, could arise out of that sinful state. After it showeth, how our deliverance is wrought, and how freedom of will is recovered in special, and wherein it consisteth, saying: The beginning of justification, in persons using reason, is taken from the grace of God, preventing us through jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any desert of ours we are called, that we who were by our sins turned away from God, may be prepared by his grace, both raising us up, and helping us to return to our own justification, freely yielding our consent unto 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, receiving that inspiration, who might also refuse it: neither yet can he without the grace of God, by his Free will, move himself to that, which is just in God's sight. And that you may be assured, that this doctrine of the Council, is no other than that which was taught three hundred years before, in the very midst of darkness, as Heretics deem: 12. q. 109. Art. 6. see what S. Thomas of Aquine one of her principal pillars, hath written of this point in his most learned Sum. Where, upon these words of our Saviour, joh. 6. No man can come to me, unless my Father draw him, he concludeth it to be manifest, that man cannot so much as prepare himself to receive the light of grace, but by the free and undeserved help of God, moving him inwardly thereunto. And this is all which M. Perkins in his pretended dissent averreth here, and goeth about to prove in his five reasons following: the which I will omit, as being all for us. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose, let him read the most learned works of that famous Cardinal, and right reverend Archbishop Bellarmine. R. ABBOT. Here is another contradiction framed upon the anvil of M. Bishop's ignorance, whilst he understandeth not, that works morally good may be spiritually evil, and whilst they a Luk 16.15. are highly esteemed with men for the substance of the act, yet may be abominable with God by the uncleanness of the heart. Which if he had duly considered, he might well have seen, that both these assertions may stand together, that man hath freedom of will to do the outward acts of moral virtues, and yet that all that man deviseth, frameth or imagineth is wholly evil, because his moral virtues without grace are in God's sight but so many corruptions of good works, being poisoned in the root of unbelief, and wholly diverted 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 mean time we see how simply he collecteth of this latter point, that M. Perkins leaveth a man no natural strength to perform any part of moral duty, and as if he had very wisely handled the matter, addeth his epiphonema: So uncertain are the steps of them that walk in darkness, very fitly agreeing to himself, who neither understandeth what the adversary saith, nor what he himself is to say for his own part. Whereupon it is that he conceiveth that M. Perkins fully agreeth with the Romish Church in this matter of Free will, whereas they are as far different one from the other, as heaven 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 own nature a power of Free will, which being only stirred and helped, can, and doth of itself adjoin itself to grace to accept thereof, and to work with it. This is it that we deny: we say, that freedom of the will to turn to God, and to work with him, is no power of nature, but the work of grace; that it is in no sort of man himself, but wholly and only the gift of God: that howsoever God do offer grace, yet that man hath no power in himself, or in his own will to assent and yield unto it, but it is God himself that withal worketh in him to accept thereof: that to the conversion of a sinner, there ariseth nothing from the motion of his own will, howsoever assisted and helped of God, but what God by his Spirit doth work in it. Upon this point only Luther and Caluin, and we all insist to challenge all wholly unto God. In this respect was it that Luther said, that Free will is, Res de solo titulo, a matter of name only, and a bare title, because of man himself it is nothing, and by it, or in it there can nothing be attributed unto him. For a August. de bono pursue. cap. 13. & count 2. ep. Pelag lib. 4. ca 6. we will indeed, it is true, but God worketh in us to will; we work, but it is God that worketh in us to work; we walk, but he causeth us to walk; we keep his commandments, but he worketh in us to keep his commandments, so that nothing is ours of ourselves, but all is his only. And this M. Bishop in some show of words here seemeth to affirm, but indeed he wholly overthroweth it. He saith, that man's will then only concurreth with God's grace, when it is first stirred and helped by grace, and therefore that M. Perkins either doth not understand them, or else doth wrongfully accuse them, in that he chargeth them to say, that man's will concurreth with God's grace by itself, and by it own natural power. But M. Perkins understood them well enough, and doth no whit wrongfully accuse them. For Andradius the expounder of the riddles of the council of Trent, doth plainly tell us, b Andrad. orthodoxar. explicat lib. 4. Libere nostri arbitrij motto atque ad institiam ap●licatio non magis a gratia Deipendet, quam à divina virtute stipitis exultio, etc. Cum divina gratia iacentem libertatem erigat & confirmet viresque illi addat quibus oblata justitiae ornamentae complecti possit, non secus quidem sui ad justitiam applicationis causa efficiens dicenda est ac ea quae natura constant earum omnium operationum ad quas naturae impulsione feruntur. that the motion of Free will, and applying of it self to righteousness, doth no more depend upon the grace of God, than the fires burning of the wood doth depend upon the power of God; that grace lifteth it up being fallen down, and addeth strength unto it, but that it is no less the efficient cause of applying itself to grace, than other natural things are of all those operations whereto by force of nature they are carried. Therefore he compareth c Ibid. Non secus ac ligneis sole● devincti qui incedendiquidem facultatem habent, etsi ingredi nullo modo possit ni vincula rumpantur priùs quae motum reprimunt ac retardam. Free will to a man made fast in the stocks, who hath a power and ableness in himself to go, if he be let go out of the stocks, and the bonds be broken that held him before that he could not stir. Whereby he giveth us to understand their mind, that as the fire and other natural things being by the power of God upholden in that which naturally they are, do of themselves work their proper and natural effects, and as a man unbound and let go out of the stocks walketh and goeth, not by any new work that is wrought in him, but by his own former natural power; so Free will though entangled in the delights of sin, and bound with the bonds thereof, yet hath a natural power whereby it can apply itself to righteousness, if grace by breaking the bonds, and abating the strength of sin, do but make way for it to use and exercise itself; so that grace having wrought what concerneth it, they leave it to the will by itself, and by it own natural power, to adjoin itself to work therewith. And this Bellarmine plainly testifieth, when he affirmeth, d Bellarm de great. & lib. arb. lib 6 cap 15. Sicut auxilium generale ita concurrit cum omnibus rebus in actionibus naturalibus, ut tamen non impediat libertatem & conti●gētiam, ita speciale auxil 'em ad●●uans ita concurrit ad omnes actiones supernaturales ut non impediat hominis libertatem: quoniam eodem prorsus modo auxilia ista concurrunt. that grace doth no otherwise concur to supernatural actions, then universal causes do to natural, so that it doth no more in the work of righteousness, than the Sun and heavenly powers do in the act of generation, or the producing of other natural effects yielding an influence and inclination, but leaving the very act to the will and work of man. All which in effect M. Bishop himself afterwards expresseth, teaching that man after the fall of Adam, hath still a natural faculty of Free will, which being first outwardly moved, and inwardly fortified by the virtue of grace, is able to effect and do any work appertaining to salvation; thereby giving to understand, that there is still an ability left in nature, howsoever for the present overwhelmed and oppressed, which being excited and stirred up, though in itself it be not sufficient to produce the effects of spiritual actions, yet hath a sufficiency to apply itself to grace for the producing thereof. Which Costerus the jesuite declareth, by the similitude of e Coster. Enchirid ca 5. Sit quispiam lapsus in foveam tenebricosam ex qua neque cogitete gredinec exire solus possit; sed in ea securus obdormiat: accedat ad eum amicus qui hominis miserius de somno exertatum ad egressum moneat multisque rationibus ut assintiatur inducat: tum ei manum vel funem potrigat & simul co●antem educat in lumen a man fallen into a dark and deep pit, whence he cannot get out by himself, nor hath care to get out, but sleepeth securely therein, till his friend come, who awaketh him out of his sleep, and wisheth him to get out, and by reasons persuadeth him to be willing thereto, and so giveth him his hand, or reacheth to him a cord, which he taketh and layeth fast hold on it, and yieldeth his own uttermost strength that he may be pulled out. To which purpose also he useth another example, of a man f Ibid. Homo languidus qui ab igne vel à lumine solis facie aversus se ipse solus non potest convertere; sed si accedat amicus qui iwet & languidus ipse conatum aliquens adhibeat sit tandem ut conversus calore solis aut ignis fruatur. extremely faint and weak, lying with his face turned away from the fire or the Sun, who is not able to turn himself to the fire or the Sun, but if he have one to help him, useth his own strength also for the turning of himself about to enjoy the warmth thereof. Which comparisons do plainly show, that they attribute unto Free will a proper and several work beside that that is done by the grace of God. Whereby we see how guilefully M. Bishop speaketh, when he saith, that the will is made able by grace to bring forth spiritual fruit, being of itself utterly unable thereto, because he meaneth not hereby, that grace doth work in the will that whole ability that it hath, but that to the ability which the will naturally hath grace offereth, and being accepted, yieldeth only an assistance and help for the accomplishment of the work. Which he implieth in that he saith, that the work proceedeth principally of grace: not wholly but principally; only because grace first occasioneth and beginneth the same, whereas otherwise they make Free will parallel-wise, and as it were side by side concur with grace to the effecting of that whereto it tendeth. Yet he will not have us think, that they require some outward help only to the will, to join with grace, or that grace doth but as it were untie the chains of sin, wherein our will is fettered, and then will can of itself turn to God, when indeed he cannot well tell what he would have us think. We hear him and his fellows talk of inward moving, and inward fortifying, but in truth they make all this inward but only outward, because they still deny, that grace worketh that intrinsical act of the will, whereby it first apply itself to God, and do leave g Andrad ut supra. Homini semper liberum relinquitur divinae operationi praebere impedimentum, eamque vel amplecti vel repudiare. the will of man to make up the work of grace, by that that merely and naturally is his own. In respect whereof Costerus compareth grace h Coster. ut supra. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis ut ea uti possit, & non uti retinere & abijcere: quemadmodum baculus in manu convalescentis, cuius auxilio si velit utetur, sin minus poterit eum removere. to a staff in a man's hand, which at his own will he either useth for his help, or throweth away, still excluding that work of God, whereby it is wrought in the will, to will and receive the grace of God, and not to reject the same. The necessity of which work herein plainly appeareth, for that man as touching spiritual life, i Ephes. 4.18. the life of God is wholly dead, and therefore as the dead man hath no faculty or power left, whereby to do any thing for himself for recovery of life again, but his life and the life of all his parts must wholly and newly be put into him, so man hath nothing left in nature, whereof with any help whatsoever he can make any use to return to God again, but this life must wholly and newly be wrought in him by the grace and power of God. Now in this point M. Bishop stutteth and stammereth, and knoweth not how or what to say. Man, he saith, is but half dead, not stark dead, and by and by after, he is half dead in his natural powers of understanding and will, but touching supernatural works, he may in a good sense be likened to a dead man, and yet presently saith again, that in this state there is a natural faculty of Free will, which is able being outwardly moved and inwardly fortified, to effect and do any work appertaining to salvation. Whereby he wholly overthroweth the comparison of a dead man, because where there is remaining an active power that needeth only to be stirred up and strengthened, there cannot be affirmed the state of death. But the Scripture pronounceth man absolutely dead: The k john. 5 25. dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear it, shall live: l Epes. 2, 1.5. Col. 2.13. Ye were dead in trespasses and sins; not m Luk. 10.30. half dead, like the man that descended from jerusalem to jericho (to whom S. Ambrose more fitly resembleth man falling after Baptism, m Ambros. de poe●tit. lib. 1. cap. 10. and in the state of grace) but plainly o Mat. 8.22. dead, like p john 11.39. Lazarus, four days dead, and now stinking in his grave, in whose raising up was q Aug in joan. trail. 49 Surrexes, protessit. In v●roqu● potentia Domin. erat, non vires mortut. the power of Christ, not any strength of the dead man, so as that the recovering of a man to faith and spiritual life, is by r E●nes. 1.19 the same working of the mighty power of God, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead. Which if M. Bishop did acknowledge, according to the plain evidence of holy Scripture, he would not thus halt betwixt grace and Free will, but would confess, that whatsoever the will doth in the work of salvation, the same is fully and wholly wrought therein by grace. But now he doth but dally with the name of Grace, as Pelagius the heretic did, only to hide the venom and poison of his false doctrine, s August. count Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 1. cap. 37. Gratiae vocabulo frangens invidiam effensionemque decli●ians. to abate the hatred, and avoid the offence that should otherwise arise against him. And no otherwise doth the council of Trent which he allegeth for his warrant, the doctrine whereof is the very same with the Pelagian heresy, being taken with those corrections and limitations wherewith Pelagius and his followers did abridge and explain themselves. For they denied not a necessity of the grace of God, Pelagius himself plainly saying, t Pelag. apud Aug. ibid. lib. 1. cap. 31. Liberum arbitrium habere nos dicimus quod in omnibus bonu operibus divino semper adiuuarur auxilio. We say that we have a Free will which in all good works is always assisted with the help of God; u Cap. 33. L●berum sic confitemur arbitrium ut dicamus nos indigere Dei semper auxilio. We so confess Free will, as that we say that we always stand in need of the help of God: x Cap. 35 Epistota nostra consitetur nos omnino nihil boni facere ●asse sine Deo. We can do no good at all without God: y Cap. 37. Inuemeni nos ita hominis laudare naturam ut Dei semper gratiae addamus auxilium. We so praise nature, as that we always add the help of the grace of God. And that we may see that he first trod the path for the council of Trent to follow, he sticketh not to pronounce z Cap. 1. A thema qui sentit vel docet gratiam Dei qua Christus vinit in hunc mun●um peccatores silu●s facere, non solum per singulas horas aut per singula momenta, sed etiam per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam, & qui hanc conantur aufer●e, paenas sortiuntur aeternas. Anathema to every one that thinketh or saith, that the grace of God whereby Christ came into this world to save sinners is not necessary, not only every hour and every moment, but to every act of ours, and they that go about to deny it shall be punished for ever. So doth the Pelagian heretic affirm to Hierome; a Hieron. adis. Pelag. lib. 3. Su●t plerique nostrorum qui omina quae agimus dicant fieri praesilio Dei. There be very many of ours who say, that all things that we do, are done by the help of God. By this acknowledgement of grace Pelagius deluded the Bishops of the Eastern Churches, before whom he was convented, and by that means was acquitted and dismissed, as having taught nothing against the truth. For as Augustin noteth, b August. epist. 95. His audius ver●is thommem Dei gratia adiunari, &.) Catholici antistit●● nullam aliam Dei gratiam intelligere potuerunt, nisi quam in libris Dei legere & populis Dei praedicare consueverunt. When they heard him confess the grace of God, they could imagine no other grace, but what they were wont to read in the book of God, and preach to the people of God. Which grace by this occasion the same S. Austin in diverse and sundry places, defineth to be that c Ibid. Gratiae qua Christiani & filii Dei sumus. Et postea: Qua praedesiinati vocamur, iustificamur, glorificamur. whereby we are Christians and the children of God; and being predestinate are called, justified and glorified: d Epist. 105. Qua justificati sumus ut homines justi essemus, whereby we are justified to be just men: e Epi. 107. Agnoscamus gratiam quae facit proasse doctrinam. which maketh the doctrine of God profitable unto us: f Cont. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 13. non ●stendat tantummodo veritatem, verumetiam impertiae charitatem. whereby he doth not only show us the truth, but also inspireth love: g Ibid. cap. 30. Qua iustificamur, id est, qua charitas Dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris, etc. whereby we are justified, that is, whereby the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is given unto us; h Cont. 2. Epist. Pelag lib. 4. cap. 6. Haec est gratia Dei bonos faciens nos. whereby we are made good; i Count Pelag, etc. ut supra. cap. 10. Istam aliquando fateatur qua futurae gloriae magnitudo non solum promittitur, verumetiam creditur & speratur; nec revelatur solum sapientia, verumetiam & amatur, nec suadetur solum omne quod bonum est, verumetiam pers●●ad tur. whereby the excellency of heavenly glory, is not only promised, but also believed and hoped for; nor wisdom only revealed, but loved, and every thing that is good is not only advised, but (fruitfully and effectually) persuaded. This only grace and no other did they understand to be the grace of Christ, whereby as touching the work of our salvation, God is all in all whilst of him and by him, merely by his gift we are whatsoever we are towards him, so that although k De great. & lib. arb●t cap. 16. Certum est nos velle cum volumus sed ille facit ut velimus, etc. Certum est nos facere cùm facimus, sedille facit ut faciamus, etc., we will, and we work, and we walk, and we run, yet it is God that worketh in us, to will, and to work, and to walk, and to run, and in all these things we have nothing but what we have of him, that there may be no exception to the Apostles question, l 1. Cor. 4.7. What hast thou that thou hast not received? and if thou have received it, why dost thou boast as if thou hadst not received it? But this grace Pelagius could by no means endure: he thought it absurd, that all should be ascribed to God, and therefore would needs devise a course of grace that might give way to the Free will of man. The contriving of which course, if we duly consider from point to point, we shall see, that it most fully correspondeth and accordeth to that doctrine of grace and Free will, which is now taught in the Church of Rome; only the specialties thereof their school divines have directed them to express somewhat more distinctly than he hath done. And first they tell us of grace preventing, exciting and stirring up, whereby saith the council, without any desert of ours we are called, that by his grace raising us up, and helping us, we may be prepared to return to our justification. Where we are to note M. Bishop's error in his own principles, who sundry times calleth the grace of first justification * Of justification. sect. 32. Of Merits. sect. 1 etc. the first grace, forgetting that there is a former grace, to which he himself referreth their works of preparation, and here bringeth the council describing it as precedent to justification. But of this preventing grace Costerus the jesuite saith, that m Coster. de lib. arbit Haec gratia praevenitas non est illa quae in anima nomina inhabitans usstū●onstitu●t & filium Dei efficit, sed impulsus tantùm & motio sp. sancti adhuc foris degentis, qui stat ad ostrum eordis pulsans nondum admissus ad eius domicilium. it is not that that dwelleth in the soul to make a man just, but it is only the impulsion and motion of the holy Ghost, being yet without, and standing knocking at the door of the heart, not being as yet let in. This he expresseth by the comparison of a friend finding a man in a deep pit, as before was said, and persuading him by diverse reasons to be willing to be pulled out. Therefore Bellarmine saith, that n Bellarm. de great & li arbit. lib 6. cap. 15. Nihil est aeliud n●si su●sio quae non deter●t nat voluntatem sed in●linat per modum proponentis obiecti. it is but only a persuading which doth not determine the will, but inclineth it in manner of a propounding object. This grace Pelagius describeth in this sort: o Pelag apud a August count Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 1. cap. 10. Operatur in nobis velle quod bonum est, velle quod sanctum est dum nos serrenis cupidit itibus deditor, mutorum more animalium taentummede presentia diligentes futurae gloriae magnitudine & prae●●orum pollicitatione succendit, dum revelatione sapientiae in desiderium dei stupentem suscitat voluntatem: dum nobis suadet omne quod bonum est. He worketh in us to will that that is good, to will that that is holy, whilst finding us given to earthly lusts, and like bruit beasts loving only present things (note that he excludeth all former merits as the council doth) he enkindleth our minds with the greatness of the glory to come, and with promise of reward: whilst by revealing his wisdom, he raiseth up our astonished will to the desire and longing after God; whilst he persuadeth and exhorteth us to all good things. And again to the same purpose he saith: p Ibid ca 7 Adiwat nos Deus per doctrinam & revelationem suam dum cordis nostri oculos aperit, dum nobis ne praesentibus occupemur futura demonstrat, dum diaboli pandit insidiat, dum nos multiformi & ineffabili dono gratiae caelestis illuminat. God helpeth us by his doctrine and revelation, whilst he openeth the eyes of our hearts, whilst he showeth us things to come, that we may not be holden with things present; whilst he layeth open unto us the snares of the devil; whilst he enlighteneth us with the manifold and unspeakable gift of his heavenly grace. Thus hitherto they agree as touching this preventing grace, both calling that by the name of grace, which the ancient Church disclaimed under that name, because they understood grace to be meant of that only, whereby God himself maketh us to be that that he calleth us to be, and here is nothing but propounding, persuading, exhorting, stirring, enkindling, enlightening, moving, knocking, but leaving it to us either to accept or reject that that is propounded and persuaded, and * Jbid. cap. 4. Nostrum est, quia haec omnia vertere etiam in malum possumus Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 5. Neque homo ip. c nihil omnino agit, inspirationem ill● recipiens qu● poe qui illam & abijcere potest. both resting the act and effect of all upon man himself, yielding to his motion when it is at his own discretion to do otherwise. For M. Bishop here telleth us out of their learning, that there is in us a natural faculty of Free will, to which this propounding & persuading is used, q Coster. ut supr. Relicta voluntati libertate, quae fieri potest, ut vel suscipiantur influxus divini vel repulsam patiantur. to which it is left to give to these motions either admission or repulse. r B llar de great. & lib arbit. lib. 5. cap. 29. In potestate voluntatis relinquitur consentire vo●āti & sua senti vel non consentire. It is left in the power of the will, saith Bellarmine, either to consent to God calling and persuading, or not to consent unto him. Now saith Costerus, s Coster. ib. Qui hanc gratiam admittit, cadem advitus progreditur ulterius, ut credendo. sperando, poenitendo, ad iustificationis gratiam se paret. ● Of justification. Sect. 21. He that by Free will admitteth of this grace, by the help of it (not being yet any spiritual renewing grace, but only as the friend (as before was said) reaching his hand, or giving a chord to the man in the pit) he prepareth himself by believing, hoping, repenting, and performing works of piety, to receive the grace of justification. So that before justification, and without any inward or inhabitant grace of regeneration, even by Free will receiving only a help which is without it, a man hath faith, hope, repentance, love, by which, and for which (as M. Bishop afterwards disputeth) God is induced and moved to bestow upon us his justifying grace. All this matter M. Bishop in the thirteenth Section of this question setteth down thus: God by his grace knocks at the door of our hearts: he doth not break it open, or in any sort force it, but attendeth, that by our assenting to his call, we open him the gates, and then lo he with his heavenly gifts will enter in. Whereby it appeareth, that with them the first intrinse call act of man's conversion is of himself, and an act of his own Free will, occasioned by God, but acted by man himself, because the act of grace on God's part being complete, there remaineth a distinct and several act of the will of man for admitting of that grace of God, upon admitting whereof followeth the endowment of the gifts of God, by which thence forth Free will worketh according to the will of God. All this Pelagius also taught as they do, affirming a power of nature consisting in Free will, t Pelag apud August. contrae Pelag & Ce est. lib 1 cap. 4. Jpsan possi●ilitatem gratiae suae ad. ●liat semper auxilio. which power (being not sufficient of itself) God always assisteth with the help of the foresaid grace. u August. Epist. 107. Per legem, per Scripturas suas Deus operatur ut velimus, sed eu consentire vel no consentire, ita nostrum est ut si velimus fiat: si autem nolimus, nihil in nobis operationem Dei valere faciamus. By his law, by his Scriptures, which we read or hear, he worketh that we may be willing; but to consent or not consent, is so ours, as that if we will, we do so; if not, we cause that the work of God availeth nothing. Now than x Contr. Pelag. ut supra cap. 32.33. Qui currit ad Deum, & ab eo seregi cupit, ad est, voluntatem suam ex eius voluntate suspendit, qui ei adherendo nigiter unus eum illo fit spiritus, non hoc nisi de arbitrij efficit libertate. Qua qui benè utitur, ita se totum travit Deo omnemque suam mort ficat voluntatem, ut cum Apostolo possit dicere, Vivo autem, etc. pontique cor suum in manis Dei ut illud quo volverit Deus ipse declinet. he that useth his Free will aright, saith he, he runneth unto God, and desireth to be guided and directed by him, and hangeth his will upon the will of God, to whom being joined by cleaning still unto him, he becometh or is made one spirit with him: he so committeth himself wholly to God, and mortifieth all his own will, that with the Apostle he may be able to say, Now I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: he putteth his heart into God's hand, that God may incline it whither it shall please him. Here is Free will yielding assent to God, and from thence (by assistance of grace which he also, as we have heard, acknowledgeth in his meaning, which is the same with the Papists, to be necessary always, and in all things,) there follow the works of preparation, which he expresseth by terms of running unto God, desiring to be guided by him, mortifying our own will, putting our heart into God's hand, hanging our will upon Gods will. Now hereupon will he have to ensue the justifying grace and gift of God, which he signifieth by becoming one spirit with God, by having Christ to live in us, by having God to incline our hearts whither it pleaseth him. y August ibid. Magnum profecto divinae gratiae adiutorium, ut cor nostrum, quo volverit Deus, ipse declinei: sed hoc tam magnum adiutorium, sicut ipse desipit, tunc mere mur, cùm sine ullo adiutorio nonnesi de arbitrij libertate ad Dominum currimus, etc. us his praecudentibus meritis sic eius consequamur gratiam, ut cor nostrum quo volverit, ipse declinet. A great help of grace indeed, saith Austin, that God incline our heart neither he will, but this so great help as he (Pelagius) doteth, we then merit (or obtain) when without any help only by Free will, we run to God, desire to be guided by him, etc. That these merits going before, we may so obtain grace, that God may incline our heart whither he will. And this is also the very self same dotage, that now possesseth the Church of Rome. For if M. Bishop will except, that they do not affirm their works of preparations to be without any help of grace, only of Free will, I answer him, that no more did Pelagius, who accursed them (as hath been said) who held not the grace of God to be necessary to every act. But yet in that meaning, wherein S. Austin speaketh of z See after in Sect 15. the help of God, as whereby the thing itself is wrought in us, wherein we are said to be helped, they say, as S. Austin chargeth Pelagius to have said, that their preparations are without any help of grace, and only of Free will, because there is for the time of this preparation no inhabitant or renewing grace, no habitual quality or gift of grace that should be the worker thereof. They only teach, as Pelagius did, a grace though internal in respect of the man, yet to the will only externally assistant, moving and directing it for the doing of these things, but merely the will itself is the doer of them. Which hereby also is apparent, for that if they were properly the effects of they should by their doctrine be meritorio us ex condigno, whereas now they are denied so to be, and thereby are denied to be the proper effects of grace. And hence M. Bishop thinketh to have another difference betwixt the Pelagians and them, because Pelagius affirmed merits before the grace of justification, and they do not so. But this will not serve his turn, because Bellarmine confesseth, as the truth is, that the Fathers in condemning Pelagius for affirming grace to be given in respect of merits, did understand merit a Bellar. de grati & lib. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5 Gratian Dei secundum merita nostra dari intolligunt Patres, cùm aliquid fit propri●s viribus ratione cuius datur gratia, etiamsi non sit illud meritum de condigno. when any thing is done by our own power, in respect whereof grace is given, though the same be not merit ex condigno. Such are their works of preparation, which are done by our own power in that meaning as the Fathers spoke, as hath been said, because they are no proper effects of renewing grace, and are defended by them to be the cause for which God bestoweth his grace upon us. They defend therefore that which was condemned in the Pelagians, that the grace of God is given according to our merits, b August. contr. 2. Epist Pelag. lib 4. cap. 6. Priores utique dore quod libet ex libero arbitrio ut sit gratia retribuenda pro proemio. that we first give somewhat by Free will, for which grace is to be rendered for reward. They say as the Pelagians did, c Ibid. Nos facimus ut mereamur, cum quibus faciat Deus. We work to merit that God may work with us. Yea they professedly teach, that their preparations are merits, though not ex condigno, yet ex congruo, because by the rule of their schools d Thom. Aquin. 1. 2. q 114. art 6. in Corp Congrutem est, ut dum homo bene utitur virtute sua, Deus secundum superexcellentem virtutem excellentiùs operetur, it is meet or standing with reason, that whilst a man well useth his own power, God according to his more excellent power do work more excellently. They think themselves well discharged, for that they put no merits before the first grace, as they call it, whereas therein they say no more than Pelagius did. He made the first grace e Aug. Epist. 106. Haec intelligitur doctore ipso gratia Dei, quae Paganis atque Christianis, napüs & pijs, fidelibus atque infidelibus communis est. a thing common both to the wicked and to the godly, to Pagans and Christians, to believers and infidels, consisting in motions and illuminations, offered to all, and left to every man's Free will, to accept or reject them, even f Bellar. de great. & lib. arbit, lib. 2 cap. 3. Lumine gratiae nemo omnine privatur. so do they. They say, that before that first grace there are no merits at all precedent; even so said he, affirming the calling of God, whilst he findeth us given to earthly lusts, and like bruit beasts loving only present things, as his own words have told us. But the first grace or preventing grace, before which the Fathers say there are no merits is justifying grace, g Aug contr. 2. Epist. Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 6. Ille facis ut ambulemus, ut obseruemus, ut faciamus. Haec est gratia bonos faciens nos: haec miscricerdia praeveniens nos. the grace whereby he maketh us to walk, to observe, to do what he commandeth; whereby he himself worketh the effect of that which either by outward instruction, or inward motion and illumination he doth commend unto us. Before this grace they place their merits or works of preparation, thereby to obtain it, contrary to the words of the Apostle, as S. Austin witnesseth: h Contr. Pelag. & Celestina lib. 1. cap. 23. Not of works, lest any man should boast: and again, If it be of grace, it is not of works. And herein their iniquity is the greater, in that they borrow the terms of a distinction of i Enchir. cap. 32 grace prevenient and subsequent from S. Austin, and apply it otherwise then he meant it, to the maintenance of an heresy, which he oppugned by it. Thus M. Bishop for his life cannot imagine a better accord, than there is betwixt Pelagius the Heretic and their Council of Trent, both avouching, and by fraudulent devices maintaining the power of nature and Free will against the truth of the grace of God. And to assure us that they attribute thereto as much as Pelagius did, k August dena. & grit. cap. 39 Polecat item humo●ae naturae ita ●●st●dis, ut homo per Liberum ar●●erium etiam sine Christi nomine salu a esse posse credatur. who so defended the power of nature, as that a man without the name of Christ might be saved by Free will, Andradius telleth us, out of the secrets of that Council, that they also hold, l Andrad. Ortho. expli aedi 3. Sine lege Mos● & Euangelit unobis per Christura data sola lige naturae perm●iltos puisse Dei gratia iustificatos & saluatos: & prius vmeum Deum religio●è venerati sunt; in ipso spes suas omnes collocarum; illi perpetuo placere studuerunt ab illo virtutum remunerationem sperarunt. that heathen Philosophers, having no knowledge of the law or of the Gospel of Christ, were justified and saved only by the law of nature; that they religiously worshipped one God, put all their trust in him, hoped for reward of their virtues from him, yet all this by the grace of God he saith, which Pelagius also would say, but both teaching no other grace but what the heathens themselves confessed, that m Arist. de mundo. Cic. de Nat. Deer. Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatud vino unquam suit. Neminem nisi invante Deo, talem fuisse creuō dum est. never any man proved great and excellent without some divine 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 impudency, that doubt not to affirm a thing so plainly absurd, and so resolved against by S. Austin in his defences against the Pelagians, concluding by imitation of the Apostles words, that n Aug de nat. & great. cap. 2. Se●er uniturum iull●●a sutilla f●d● assi●●s Christi & resurrectious inst●tans) cego C●●ss●● gratis ●●●●us est. if by the law of nature there be righteousness without the faith of the passion and resurrection of Christ, than Christ died in vain. And again; that o Ibid. cap. 9 Fece quod est crutem Chr sti eu●cuare sine illa quenquam per naturalem legem & voluntatis arbitrium justificari posse contendere. to affirm, that a man may be justified by the law of nature and Free will, is to make the cross of Christ of no effect. But by all this we see, that their speech of grace for converting of man to God, is but collusion and mere Pelagian hypocrisy, as whereby indeed they attribute no greater a work to God in bringing man to righteousness, then to the devil in bringing man to sin. Which being condemned in the p Frosp. de lib. arbit. Ostendere volun inter boni & mali contrarius suasiones, ita omnem h●minem proprie discretiom esse commissum ●t c●●mplus a Deo praesidij quàm a Diabolo fis periculi. Pelagians as a horrible impiety and blasphemy, yet by Costerus the jesuite in his Enchiridion, is manifestly acknowledged to be their meaning, q Coster. Enchirid. cap 5. Sicut daemon tentatione mentem nostram prava cogitation & concupiscentiae motu tangit ac pulsat afficereque conatur voluntatem vti● peccatum consentiat, quae sua libertate motiones has omnes & admittere potest & reijcere: tia sunt in nobis d●umi quidam insiuxus aliquddo quidem, aliquando constantiores qui cor nostrum pulsant relicta interim voluntati sua libertate qua fieri potest ut vel susciptan tur vel repulsam patiantur. that as the devil by temptation and suggestion toucheth our minds, and knocketh at the door of the heart, and seeketh to move the will to consent to sin, which notwithstanding is at it own liberty to admit or reject the same, so are the influences of Gods preventing grace, whether sudden or more constant, which do beat and knock at the heart, but so, as it is left in the liberty of the will to accept or refuse, even in as plain terms as Pelagius said, r August. Epist. 107. Consentire hominis libero arbitrio constitutum est. etc. Libertate: naturali si vult facit; si non vult, non facit. that to consent to God consisteth in man's Free will, and that by liberty of nature he doth so if he will. This pains I have taken to unhood M. Bishop and his Council of Trent, and to make good that that I have before affirmed, that the Church of Rome now maintaineth the heresy of Pelagius which anciently was condemned by the Church of Rome. That which he allegeth out of Thomas Aquinas is of the same stamp, neither can his antiquity of three hundred years add any grace to that which eight hundred years before him was universally condemned by the whole Church. Whether M. Perkins his reasons do destroy their assertion of Free will, upon determining the state of the question in the next section it shall appear. 6. W. BISHOP. Now the very point controversed, concerning Free will, M. Perkins hath quite omitted, which consisteth in these two points, expressed in the Council: First, whether we do freely assent unto the said grace, when it is offered us, that is, whether it lie in our power to refuse it; And secondly, when we concur and work with it, whether we could if we listed refuse to work with it. In both which points we hold the affirmative part, and most sectaries of this time the negative. Of which our Author is silent: only by the way in his fourth reason, toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul, which are commonly alleged against Free will. R. ABBOT. This true point of the controversy is contained in the proposition of the Pelagians, that a Aug. ep. 107. evangelio consentiamus non est donum Dei sed hoc nobis est à nobis, id est, expropria voluntate, quam nobis in nostro cord non operatus est ipso. to consent to the Gospel is not the gift of God, but that this we have of ourselves, that is to say, of our own will, which he hath not wrought for us in our hearts. For thus you have, M. Bishop, all this while affirmed, that grace having performed and done what appertained to it for the conversion of man, there is behind a distinct and proper act of the will, which either by consenting and yielding maketh good, or by dissenting and refusing maketh frustrate all that grace hath done. This you all inculcate & beat upon that, that when God hath wholly done his part, it is in man's will either to make or mar, and so do plainly teach with Pelagius, that God doth help b Idem de great. Certistis to it. Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 1. cap. 25. possibilitatem naturae, our natural power, that we may be able to consent and will, but actually to consent and will, is left still free to our own will and choice. And thus, M. Bishop, you yourself inform us, when propounding the first part of the question, Whether we do freely assent unto grace when it is offered us, that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it, you hold affirmatively, that by Free will we assent unto grace, having it in our power and choice to refuse the same. Whether this be so or not is the point, and we resolve with S. Austin, c Idem. ibid. Non solùm Deus posse nostrum donavit atque adiwat, sid etiam velle & operatioperatur in nobis. that God doth not only give us and help us to be able to will and to work, but also worketh in us to will and to work: he doth not so offer us grace, as to leave us to assent unto it if we will, but himself worketh also in us to be willing and to give our assent unto it, who d De praedest. sanct cap. 20. Cum Deus vult aliquid fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibus oportet fieri, incitnantur eorum cordae ut hoc ut l●t eo scid●cet incli●ante, qui in nobis ●urabilt modo & Ineffabili operatur & velli: & de bono persever. cap. 23. sic in potestate habet cor nostrum, etc. so hath our hearts in his power, as that in wonderful and unspeakable manner he worketh in us to will that good that we cannot have but with our will. And whereas you say that it lieth in our power to refuse the grace of God, you thereby subject e De Praedest. sanct cap. 10 per ho● ut promissi sua Deus possit implere non est in Dei sed in hominis potestate. the accomplishment of the promise of the grace of God, to the power and will of man; so that if man list, it shall take place: if man list not, it shall not take place. f Jbid. Filios, promisit Deus Abrahae quo ●idei c●us vestig●a sect ●rentur. God promised children to Abraham that should follow the steps of his faith. g Prosp. de ●ocat. gene. l b 1. cap. 3 Creditucos promisit, etc. recr●cidi●dos promisit, obilituros, persiuerat●●os. etc. He promised them forgiveness of sins, obedience, perseverance, the fear of him. He offereth grace to that purpose, where if it lie in man's power to refuse the same, than it must be in man's power whether the promise of God shall be fulfilled or not. But God did h August. ibid. Non di nostrae voluntetis potestate, sed de sua praedestinatione promisit. Promisit enim quod ipse facturus fuerat, non quod homines; quia etsi faciunt h●mines bona quae pertinent ad cele●dum Deum ipse facit ut illi facia●t quae praecepit, non illi faciunt ut ipse faciat quod promisit. not make that promise upon the power of our will, as foreseeing what we would do, but upon his own purpose, determining what he himself would do, causing men to do what he hath commanded, not having from men to perform what he hath promised, because he intended such i Jdem. de corrept & great. ca 11. Secunda plus potest, qua fit etiam ut velit. a grace, not as whereby man may attain to righteousness if he will, but whereby it is wrought in him to will and love the same; k Ibid cap. 14. Magis habet in potestate voluntates homi●um quàm ipsi suay. he having in his power the wills of men more than they themselves have. In a word, man by nature hath in him to resist and refuse the grace of God: to this his power serveth, and doth not serve to do otherwise. But God overruleth this power, and worketh in him not to refuse his grace, and when God worketh in man not to refuse, it cannot be said, that to refuse is in the power of man; not that God maketh man just against his will, but l De praedest, sanct. cap. 8. A nullo duro cord respitutur. edeo quip triburtur ut cordis duritia primitus auferatur. he taketh away from him hardness of heart, whereby he did refuse, and is m De great. & lib. arbit. cap 14. Cor lapideum adversus Deum omnino inflexibile est. altogether inflexible towards God, and giveth him a new heart, a heart of flesh willing to obey, whereby a man groweth to be as adverse to sin, as he was before to righteousness, and entereth to that state which S. john describeth, n 1. john 3.9. Every one that is borne of God sinneth not, neither can he sin, that is, serve sin, give himself altogether over to sin, because he is borne of God, which is here the happy beginning of the everlasting blessed state of Gods elect, o August. de corrept & great: cap. 11. Prima libertas voluntatis erat posse non peccare: novissima multò maior erit non posse peccare, etc. Non posse peccare, non posse bonum deserere, to be freed from all possibility of sin, or forsaking that good that God hath yielded unto us by jesus Christ. Now hereby we see how absurdly M. Bishop propoundeth the second part of this question, when we concur to work with grace, whether we could, if we listed, refuse to work with it. For who doubteth but if we list, we do refuse? but therefore the work of grace is that we shall not list to refuse the work of grace, but that our list shall be to submit ourselves unto it. p August de corrept. & great. cap 8, An audebis dicere etiam rogante Christone deficeret fides Petri, defecturam fuisse si Petrus eam deficere voluisset, hoc est, si came usque in sinem perseverare noluisset. Quasi aliud Petrus ullo modo vellet quàm pro illo Christus rogasset ut vellet. Name quit ignorat tunc suisse perituram fidem Petri, si ea quae fidelis erat voluntas ipsa deficeret, & permansuram si cadem voluntas maneret? sed quia praeparatur voluntas à Domino ideo pro illo non posset esse inanis oratio. Quando rogavit ergò nefides cius deficeret, quid aliud rogavit, nisi ut haberet in fide liberrimam, fortissimam, invictissimam, perseverantissimam voluntatem? Where Christ prayeth for Peter that his faith might not fail, will any man dare to say that it might fail if Peter list to have it fail, that is, would not have it to persevere unto the end? As if Peter could list or will in any sort otherwise then Christ had prayed for him that he might will. For who knoweth not, that Peter's faith should fail if the will of faith should fail in him, and continue, if that should continue. But because the will is prepared by the Lord, therefore the prayer of Christ for Peter could not be in vain, whereby he prayed that he might have in the faith a most free, most strong, invincible and persevering will. This is the work of grace to all the faithful: it standeth not upon their list to refuse the grace of God, for than they certainly give it owre, but q jerem. 32.40. he putteth his fear into their hearts, that they shall not departed from him. Now the question being truly and rightly propounded, whether God having fully done his part for the conversion of a sinner, it remain free to his own will, either to accept or refuse this grace: the reasons used by M. Perkins are very effectual and strong to prove the contrary, and it was M. Bishops cunning to pass by them, because he knew not any probable answer to give unto them. His first reason showeth the universal corruption of man's heart, r Gen. 6.5. the whole imagination whereof God testifieth to be only evil continually; so that s Rom. 8.7. flesh savoureth of nothing but enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. If man's heart be only evil and enmity against God, then can it not be truly said, that there is in it any natural faculty of Free will, to assent and yield itself to the grace of God. If it be not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be, shall we say by plain contradiction, that it hath in it whereby to assent and give itself in submission unto God? Free will requireth integrity in judgement of understanding, in election of will, in obedience of affection; but here man is utterly disabled in all these. What faculty of judgement hath he to conceive and approve the things of God, who in all his thoughts is only evil, and in his very wisdom is enemy unto God? t jerem. 10.14. Every man is a beast by his own understanding, his mind altogether u Ephes. 4.18. darkness and ignorance; and as he availeth nothing that offereth light to the blind, or bringeth him into the clearest Sunshine, unless he can make him see; so it booteth not that God doth set his light before man, and causeth it most clearly to shine unto him, unless he x Psal. 119.18.27. open the inward eye of the soul, and make him to understand; not leave him to understand if he will, but make him to understand. To this purpose is the second reason of M. Perkins, that y 1. Cor. 2 14. the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God; that they are foolishness unto him; that he cannot know them because they are only spiritually, that is, z Vers. 10.12. by the spirit, to be discerned. If there be no free will in spiritual things, without judging & discerning, and understanding thereof, and there be no discerning or understanding thereof, but only by the a Verse 16. spirit and mind of Christ, surely in nature there can be no Free will that can be helpful unto us, to the attainment of spiritual life, and the power thereof serveth but to condemn for folly the counsels and instructions thereto tending, the wisdom whereof it is not able to apprehend. Let grace do what may be done, yet nature perceiveth nothing of the spirit, if the same spirit of grace work not therein to perceive. Now where the understanding is capable, yet what perverseness and crossness still remaineth in the will? It hoodwinketh the mind, and maketh it seem to itself not to see when it doth see; it shutteth the gates, and intercepteth the passages of the understanding, shunning to admit any thing whereby it should be checked and interrupted in it course; b August. de verb. Apost ser. 13. Im●●a mens odit etiam ipsum intellectum, & homo aliquando nimium mente perversa timet intelligere, ne cogatur quod intellexerit facere. it hateth and is afraid to understand, that it may not he urged to do when it doth understand. Yea where the conscience is convicted by knowledge and understanding, yet the will being entangled with it own respects, how mightily doth it struggle and fight against God? and never ceaseth fight, till God do c Ose. 14.5. heal the rebellions of it, not by putting it in case to yield if it will, but working in it to will and to yield unto him. And when will hath now begun to yield, what unto wardliness doth it find in the affections, which as a swift and mighty stream, do every while ouerbeare both the judgement of the understanding, and the resolution of the will, so that d Gal. 5.17. we cannot do the things that we would. The perverseness whereof, if it prevail so much with men justified and in the state of grace, as that it causeth many bitter lamentations for oversights thereby committed contrary to the intendment of the will, how much more do they like flattering Dalilaes', bind all our strength, and overcome all the power of nature, when the will as yet hath received no fortification of inward grace to resist and fight against them? Seeing therefore the heart is on the one side so blind that it cannot see, and on the other side so perverse, as that one while it will not see, another while crosseth whatsoever it doth see, we may well say as S. Austin doth: e August coneduas epist. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 6. Quid potestis boni sacere de cord non bono? ut autem habeatis cor bonum; Daboinquit, etc. What good may a man do out of a heart that is not good? but to have our heart good, we must look to him that saith, I will give you a new heart, and will put into you a new spirit, so that till the heart be renewed and made good, there is no doing good, and therefore no assenting to the grace of God. The third argument of M. Perkins he omitteth with the rest, and yet lighting upon some idle device afterwards, he thought good to set it down in steed of an objection, which shall be examined in the place which he hath given it. The fourth reason is taken from that that the Scripture in the conversion of a sinner ascribeth all to God, and nothing at all to man's Free will, as appeareth from the terms of f john. 3.3. new birth, g Gal. 6.15. new creature, h Tit. 3.5. regeneration, etc. Whereby is argued, that as man conferreth nothing to his generation and birth; so neither doth he to his regeneration and new birth. As man doth nothing for himself in his creation, so hath he nothing whereby to steed himself to become a new creature. Whereto agreeth the definition of the ancient Church: i Fulge a ad Monimum lib. 1. Null itenus sinimus, immo salisbriter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quàm in nostro opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vin licare. We in no wise suffer, nay according to wholesome doctrine we forbidden, whether in our faith or in our works, to challenge to ourselves any thing as our own. We have to challenge nothing as our own; and therefore it is not our act of Free will, but God's work in us to assent to the grace of God. How then doth M. Bishop say, that this is nothing against him, who saith in effect the same that Pelagius did, k Aug. count Pelaeg & Celestina. lib. 1. cap. 25. Quod possumus omne bonum facere, dicere, cogitare illius est qui hoc posse donavit; quod vero bené vel ag●mus vel loquimur vel cogitamus nostrum est. It is of God that we are able to do or speak or to think any thing that is good, but to do, or to speak, or to think it is our own, because, if we believe him, the grace of God leaveth it to our own Free will, either to accept or refuse, to do or not to do, to work with it, or not to work. M. Perkins fift reason is taken from the judgement of the ancient Church; which how far it availeth we shall see anon: but he that well weigheth these reasons, and the circumstances of them, as M. Perkins hath set them down, will surely think, that either M. Bishop was not well awake, or his wits here in the beginning of his book were not yet well come to him, when he passed them over with this opinion, that they were all for them. But he thought he had a long way to go, and was loath in the beginning to put himself out of breath. 7. W. BISHOP. 1. Cor. 25. The first. I have (saith he) laboured more abundantly than all they, yet not I, but the grace of God, which is in me, attributing the whole work to grace. To which I briefly answer, that they do corrupt the text, to make it seem more currant for them: the Greek hath only, He son emoi, which is, with me, not, which is in me, so that the words in true construction, make much more for us then against us? S. Paul affirming the grace of God, which was working with him, to have done these things: And so S. Augustine whom they pretend to follow most in this matter, expoundeth it. Yet not I, De great. & lib. arb. cap. 15. but the grace of God with me; that is, not I alone, but the grace of God with me. And by this, neither the grace of God alone: neither he alone, but the grace of God with him, thus S. Augustine. The like sentence is in the book of Wisdom. Send that (wisdom) from thy Holy heaven, Cap. 9 that it may be with me, and labour with me. R. ABBOT. Corruption of texts is not wont to be but for advantage. It is no advantage more to us to read a Cor. 15.10. the grace of God which is in me, then to read the grace of God which is with me. The ancient father Hierome readeth it both ways: one where, b Hieron. adu. jovinian. lib. 2. the grace of God which is in me: another where, c Idem ad Princip. explanat. Psal. 44. & adu. Pelag lib. 2. the grace of God which is with me, as betwixt which in effect there is no difference. To read, the grace of God which is in me, though it do not here literally answer the Greek, yet hath no other meaning but what the Apostle elsewhere justifieth by the same phrase of speech; d Gal. 2.20. Now I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, yea and in the same place immediately before, we have literal example of it; e 1. Cor. 15.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His grace which is in me. The words in true construction, saith M. Bishop, make much more for us then against us. And why so? Forsooth because S. Paul affirmeth the grace of God which was working with him, to have done these things. But how is that for them? For if his meaning be, that because it is said, that grace did work with him, therefore it must be also understood, that he did work with grace, he must remember that he hath said before, f Ibid. By the grace of God I am that I am, and therefore that it was of grace itself, that he did work with grace. As if he should have said, I have laboured more abundantly than they all, yet I can attribute nothing to myself herein, but all to grace, because it is the work of grace in me whatsoever I have done, in working with grace. g Oecumen in 1: Cor. cap. 13. Veritus ne rectum opus sibi attribueretur, gratiae Dei ipsum fere acceptum. Fearing lest the work should be ascribed to himself, saith the Scholiast, he referreth it to the grace of God. To which purpose the same Apostle elsewhere saith: h Rom. 15.17. I have whereof to rejoice in Christ jesus, in the things that pertain to God: for I dare not speak of any thing which Christ hath not wrought by me, etc. Where Photius thus observeth; i Photius apud Oecumen. in Ro. cap. 15. Ostendit quòd nihil erat ipsius sed totum Christi. He showeth that nothing is his, but all wholly is Christ's. If all wholly be of Christ, then is no part to be ascribed to the Free will of man. The Pelagians urged this place to the Corinthians with the same pretence that M. Bishop doth. Let him take the answer of Orosius as spoken to him: k Oros. Apologet. de arbit. libert. Quid incaute praesumptor aspicis, quia dixerit, mecum attend quia praemiserit, Non ego. Qua propter tu haec a●o verba, Non ego, & mecum, gratia Dei media est; cuius est verè & velle & perfi●cre pro bona voluntate et tamen voluntate hominis. unde & ille confisus est ut diceret, mecum, quia dixerat, Non ego. In voluntate ergo hominis gratia divinae virtutis operatur, quae & hoc ipsum velle donavit. Ita conscientia hominis profitetur ut dicat, Non ego: gratia Dei largitur ut mecum. Thou heedless presumptuous man, what dost thou look at that he saith, with me? Mark well that he hath first said, Not I Betwixt, not I, and, with me, cometh in the midst, the grace of God, whose indeed it is both to will and to work for the making of a good will, albeit the will be the will of man. Wherefore he was bold to say, with me, because he had said, not I So then the grace of God's power worketh in the will of man, which hath given to it to will the same. Whereupon the conscience of man professeth and saith, not I, but the grace of God giveth him that he may say, with me. Paul then saith and may say, with me, but it is not by any proper act of his own Free will, but by the only gift and work of grace, whereby he attaineth to say, with me. And no otherwise would S. Austin have spoken, if he had not fallen into huckster's hands, who use him only for advantage, and not for truth. For having in hand to show, that God calling us, and justifying us only by his grace, useth thenceforth our will and work to accompany his grace, in going forward with the work of our salvation, giveth for example hereof the Apostle S. Paul, who professing that by God's mere grace he was all that he was towards God, showeth that having received this grace, it was not idle in him, but he laboured more abundantly than all the rest, but adding, yet not I, but the grace of God with me; l August. de great. & li. arbit. cap. 5. Id est, non solus, sed gratia Dei mecum; ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus sed gratia Dei cum illo. autem de coelo vecaretur & tam magna & efficacissima vocatione converteretur, gratia Dei erat sola, etc. that is, saith Austin, not I alone, but the grace of God with me; and therefore neither the grace of God alone, nor he himself alone, but the grace of God with him. Now the next words are; But that he was called from heaven, and by that mighty and most effectual calling was converted, Gratia Dei erat sola, it was only the grace of God. Which words M. Bishop hath fraudulently concealed, as being expressly against him, and cleared this whole point most manifestly on our part. Our conversion is only by the grace of God, as Austin saith S. Paul's was; Free will hath no part therein. We say as he saith, that the will of man being converted and renewed by grace, doth afterwards apply itself to work with grace, and so there is not only the grace of God, nor only the will of man, but the grace of God accompanied with the will of man, not as by any proper work of the will itself, but by the work of grace, by which it was first converted. Therefore the same S. Austin elsewhere mentioning those words, By the grace of God I am that I am, saith thereupon: m De praedest. & great. cap. 11. Haec est prima misericordia quam liberae voluntatis opera consequuntur. Sed ut Pauli vocationem bona opera sequerentur, quid ait; Et gratia eius, etc. This is the first mercy, after which do follow the works of Free will. But that good works might follow after the calling of the Apostle, what doth he say himself; And his grace was not in me in vain. There is no Free will then to righteousness, before a man can say, By the grace of God I am that I am. Thereby the will is made free, and thereby it worketh with grace to bring forth the fruits of all good works. So that Saint Austin leaveth us this place very strong to prove that both our conversion, and our working with grace, when we are converted, is altogether and wholly to be attributed unto grace. Hereby the other place is cleared, if it were aught worth. 8. W. BISHOP. The second text is. It is God that worketh in us, Phil. 2. v. 13. both to will and to accomplish. We grant that it is God, but not he alone without us, for in the next words before, Saint Paul, saith: Work your salvation with fear and trembling. So that God worketh principally by stirring us up by his grace, and also helping forward our will, to accomplish the work; but so sweetly and conformably to our nature, that his working taketh not away, but helpeth forward our will to concur with him. Again, the whole may be attributed unto God, considering that the habits of grace infused, be from him as sole efficient cause of them, our actions endued also with grace, being only dispositions and no efficient cause of those habits: but this is an high point of school Divinity, very true, but not easily to be conceived of the unlearned. R. ABBOT. S. Austin in express terms contradicteth M. Bishop saying, a August. de great. & li. arbit. cap 17. ut velimus sine nobis operatur: without us he worketh in us to will. And so S. Bernard also saith, that b Bernard. de great. & lib arbit. Creatio (in libertatem voluntatis) facta est & sine nobis. the creating of us to freedom of will, is wrought without us. Our will is the subject wherein it is wrought, but the efficient cause thereof is only the grace of God. This M. Bishop denieth, because the Apostle in the words immediately before saith, Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. But the Apostle when he biddeth them to work, biddeth them to do it with fear and trembling. And why is that? c Aug. in Psal. 65. Subiecit causam, Deus est enim, etc. Si ergo Deus operatur in te, gratia Dei benè operaris non viribus tuis. The Apostle addeth the cause, saith S. Austin: for it is God that worketh in you to will and to work, of his own good will. If then God work in thee, it is by the grace of God that thou workest well, not by thine own power. How perversely then doth M. Bishop deal, that when the Apostle useth the latter words to expound the former, he will take the former words to cross the latter. Men are to be called upon by exhortation to do good works, but yet they are to know, that the effect of exhortation, is the work of grace. True saith M. Bishop, it is of grace, but not of grace only: for Free will also hath a part. But S. Austin telleth, that d De bono perseveran. cap. 6 Tutiores vivimus, si totum Deo damus, & non nos illi ex part & nob●● ex part commuttimus. it is more safety for us to attribute all wholly to God, and not commit ourselves partly to God, and partly to ourselves: and e Tertul. adverse. Hermog. Veritas sic unum Deum exigit defendendo, ut solius sit quicquid ipsins est. ita enim ipsius erit si fuerit solius. true faith requireth this in the defending of one God, that whatsoever is his, we make it only his: for so shall it be accounted his, if it be accounted only his. If God do work in us to will, let us acknowledge it to be his only, and none of ours. God worketh principally, saith M. Bishop, by stirring us up by his grace, and also helping forward our will to accomplish the work, but so sweetly and conformably to our nature, that his working taketh not away, but helpeth forward our will to concur with him. Here is stirring up the will, and helping forward the will, and no more but what the Pelagians confessed, as I have showed before; but why doth he make it so dainty, to say as the Apostle saith, that God worketh in us to will? He nameth grace, which is but a grace if we will, but we require the grace which the Apostle teacheth, whereby God worketh in us to will. He saith, that God doth not take away our will. So did Pelagius say: f August. contr. Pelag. & Celestina. lib 1. cap 7. Dicimus eam sine voluntate nostra nequaquam in nobis perficere sanctitatem. that God doth not work holiness in us without our will. We answer, that our will is the subject wherein God worketh, as before was said, but it is no part of the efficient cause, whereby it is wrought in us to will. The Arausicane Council determineth, g Council Arausican 2. cap 4 Si quis ut à peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram, Deum expectare contendit. Non autem ut etiam purgari velimus per sancti Spiritus infu sionem & operationem in nobis fieri confitetur, resistit Apostolo, etc. that if any man do maintain, that God expecteth our will that we may be purged from sin, and doth not confess, that by the infusion and operation of the holy Ghost it is also wrought in us to be willing to be purged, he resisteth the Apostle, in that he preacheth according to wholesome doctrine, that it is God which worketh in us, both to will and to work, of his good will. This M. Bishop maintaineth: he saith that God offereth grace to that purpose, but expecteth our will to make good that grace to ourselves: he confesseth that God stirreth and helpeth forward our will, but cannot endure to say, that it is God that worketh in us to will. He answereth yet further, that the whole may be attributed to God, because the habits of grace infused, be from him as sole efficient of them, our actions endued also with grace, being only dispositions, & no efficient cause of those habits. But herein he absurdly trifleth, by altering the state of the question, For the controversy is not of the efficient cause of infused grace, but of the efficient cause of our receiving that grace. We say, that the holy Ghost worketh the same immediately in our will; they say, that the grace of God and the Free will of man make h Andrad Orth. explicat. li. 4 Ex gratia & libero arbitrio unica causa conflatur nostrae ad iustivam applicationis. one efficient cause of the receiving thereof. They say, that God offereth his grace with condition if we will; but we say, that God without putting us to condition of our will, worketh in us to will, and where he expresseth a condition doth himself perform the same, i Aug. Confess. lib. 10. ca 29. Da quod ●ubes. giving what he commandeth, and k De Praedest. sanct. cap. 11. Deus facit, ut illa faciamus. himself making us to do what he requireth to be done. The words of the Apostle are plain for us, and as plain against them. But I take it to be but a point of M. Bishops cunning thus to speak, yet his learning will gain but small credit thereby. 9 W. BISHOP. One other objection may be collected out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will, which is touched, as he saith, by the holy Ghost, in these words: When we were dead in sins. Ad Ephes. 2.2, If a man by sin become like a dead man, he cannot concur with God, in his rising from sin. Answ. Sure it is, that he cannot, before God by his grace hath quickened, & as it were, revived him, to which grace of God, man gives his free consent. How can that be, if he were then dead? Marry you must remember what hath been said before: that albeit man in sin be dead in the way of grace, yet he liveth naturally, and hath Free will in natural and civil actions: which will of his being by grace fortified, and as it were lifted up unto a higher degree of perfection, can then concur and work with grace to faith, and all good works necessary to life everlasting. (As for example) a Crabtree stock hath no ability of itself, to bring forth apples, & therefore may be termed dead in that kind of good fruit: yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it, and it will bear apples: even so albeit our sour corrupt nature of itself be unable to fructify to life everlasting, yet having received into it the heavenly graft of God's grace, it is enabled to produce the sweet fruit of good works: to which alludeth S. james: Cap. 1. Receive the engraffed word, which can save our souls. Again, what more dead than the earth? and yet it being tilled and sowed, doth bring forth, and bear goodly corn: now the word and grace of God is compared by our Saviour himself unto seed, Mat. 13. and our hearts unto the earth that received it: what marvel then if we otherwise dead, yet revived by this lively feed, do yield plenty of pleasing fruit? R. ABBOT. This objection M. Bishop saith, he collecteth out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will, whereas it is indeed the whole matter of that third reason. He would have kept due order, and have answered the rest as well as this, but that he doubted he should have answered the rest as badly as he hath done this. He propoundeth the objection at his own liking, and cutteth off what he list. If man by sin become like a dead man, he cannot concur with God in his rising from sin. For this the words of the Apostle are alleged by M. Perkins, a Ephes. 2.1. When we were dead in sins. M. Bishop answereth, sure it is that he cannot, before God by his grace hath quickened and as it were revived him, to which grace of God man giveth his free consent. Which answer, who is so blind as that he cannot see how absurdly it crosseth itself. Man must give his free consent to grace, that he may be quickened thereby; and yet man cannot consent or concur with God, before he be quickened by grace. If man cannot consent or concur with God before he be quickened, than the consent of of his own Free will cannot be the efficient cause of his quickening, because that that cometh after, cannot be the cause of that that necessarily goeth before, and the effect is never the cause of it own cause. And this is indeed the very truth, justified by M. Bishops own words, against his will. But his whole discourse driveth the other way, that a man not yet quickened, must by Free will give consent to grace, and concur with God, that he may be quickened; because though grace be offered, yet it taketh no effect until our Free will do make way for it, and do add it own endeavour and help to the work thereof. Which is all one as to require of a dead body to give consent, and to put to it own help for the restoring of itself to life again. Yet he thinketh to clear the matter of all impossibility: for ask the question again, How can that be, (namely, that man should give his free consent to grace) if he were then dead? he answereth, Marry you must remember what hath been said before, that albeit man in sin be dead in the way of grace, yet he liveth naturally, and hath Free will in natural and civil actions. But what is this to the purpose, seeing that spiritually he still continueth a dead man? Yea but this will of his being fortified and lifted up to a higher degree of perfection, can then concur and work with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life everlasting. Where he doth but run in a ring, and in other words repeateth the same answer, still sticking fast in the briers, wherein he was tangled before. For how is this will to be fortified and lifted up to a higher degree of perfection? He hath told us before, by grace, and that to grace man must give his free consent. So then he telleth us that Free will cannot concur and work with grace, except by grace it be first fortified and lifted up to a higher degree of perfection: and yet it cannot be fortified by grace, and lifted up to a higher degree of perfection, except it first concur with grace. I may here again justly return upon him his own words, See how uncertain the steps are of men that walk in darkness, etc. Now the Reader will observe that the objection is of man dead as touching Free will to righteousness, & he answereth of natural Free will only fortified and lifted up to a higher degree of perfection. What fortifying is there of a dead man, and how should he be lifted up to a higher degree of perfection, except he first recover life? Why doth he by babbling and trifling bob his Reader, and make show to say something, when indeed to the purpose he saith nothing at all? The argument still standeth impregnable. Man is not only weak and unperfect, but dead, not half dead, but wholly dead in sin, and therefore by S. Austin likened to the b Aug. contra duas Epist. Pela. lib. 4 cap. 5. & de verbis Apost. Ser. 11. Shunamites son being dead, whom the Prophet Elizeus raised from the dead. He must be made c Rom. 6.13. alive from the dead, before he can concur with grace. Which if M. Bishop confess, or because he cannot deny, therefore he must confess also, that as the dead man hath nothing whereby to help himself to receive life again, so man spiritually dead, d August. de verb. Dom. Ser. 18. Mortuos eos vocat. Vbi nisi intus in anima? inwardly in soul dead, hath nothing in him, no faculty or power of the soul, whereby he can any way further the recovery of his own life. But to fill up the measure of his folly, he will set forth this matter unto us by a comparison. A Crabtree flock (forsooth) hath no ability of itself to bring forth apples, and therefore may be termed dead in that kind of good fruit: yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it, and it will bear apples: even so (saith he) albeit our sour corrupt nature of itself be unable to fructify to life everlasting, yet having received into it the heavenly graft of God's grace, it is enabled to bring forth the sweet fruit of good works: Similes habent labra lactucas: as his doctrine is, so must his similitudes needs be, crabbed and cross. Is the Crabtree stock dead to the bringing forth of apples, which by it own natural life without alteration, continueth life, and giveth nouriture and increase to the siances and graffs of apples, that are engrafted and implanted upon it? which receiveth nothing at all of the graffs or siances, but ministereth unto them that, whereby they bring forth fruit? Is this the condition of the grace of God in us, that we give it sap and strength in us to bring forth good fruit unto God? And yet the Crabtree stock in the receiving of the new graffs is merely and wholly passive, and not active in any sort. The engraffing thereof is altogether the work of the gardener or husbandman. Yea and that they bring forth such or such fruit, they have it not of the stock, but altogether and only of their own kind. Therefore we must likewise say, that the nature of man in the receiving of the graft of grace, is altogether passive and doth nothing thereto, and when e jam. 1.21. the superfluity of maliciousness being cast away and cut off, the same grace useth our natural powers to the bringing forth of the fruit of good works, the commendation of the fruit ariseth only from the graff, from grace itself and the power thereof, not by the stock, but by itself, digesting and turning all to the nature and quality of itself. So that his own comparison doth most effectually serve to strengthen our part, and to overthrow his own. But as he useth it, it savoureth very rankly of the Pelagian heresy. For Pelagius made of the power of nature, f August. contrae Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 1 ca 18. Habemus possibilitatem utriusque partis à Deo insitam velut quandam, ut ita dicam, radicem fructiferam atque foecundam quae ex voluntate hominis diversa gignat & paeriat, & quae possit ad proprij cultoris arbitrium vel nitere flore virtutum, vel sentibus horrere vieiorum. Vbi non intuens quid loquatur unam eandemque radicem constituit bonorum & malorum concrae Euangelicam veritaetem, etc. a fertile and fruitful root, which out of the will of man did bring forth diversly, and might as the dresser thereof list, either be garnished with the flowers of virtue, or else grow wild with the thorns of vice. Whereby as S. Austin noteth, he made one and the same root, both of good and evil works, even as M. Bishop doth by his Crabtree stock, contrary to the truth of the Gospel, and the doctrine of the Apostle. For in the Gospel we read of g Mat 7.17.18. a good tree and an evil tree, and that the good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor the evil tree good fruit. h Quid est bonus homo nisi voluntaus bonae, hoc est, arbour raedicis bonae? Et quid est homo malus, nisi voluntatis malae, hoc est, arbour radicis ●ale? The good tree is a tree of a good root, and the evil tree a tree of an evil root, not both of the same root. The tree of a good root is the man of a good will; the tree of an evil root is the man of evil will, not growing both upon the Crabtree stock of M. Bishops Free will. Whereby we are given to understand, that for the bringing forth of good fruit, it sufficeth not to have any thing engraffed in us, but we ourselves must become graffs, to be implanted into a new stock, and to grow upon a new root. We must be engrafted into the i joh. 15.1. true vine jesus Christ, by him to be purged from the corruption that we have drawn from our old root, and to live wholly by his spirit, that we may bring forth fruit, not according to our own nature and kind, as other graffs do, but according to a new life and nature, that we receive by being joined unto him. M. Bishop is of another mind, he will have Christ to be engraffed upon the Crabtree stock of our Free will, he seethe no necessity to leave his old root to be engrafted into Christ. As for the place of S. james, k jam. 1 21. Receive the engrafted word, etc. it availeth him nothing at all: for it doth not import in any wise, that the word of God engraffed in our natural Free will, doth bring forth fruit unto God, but only telleth us in what sort the word of God is to be received of us, that it may save our souls: namely, that it must be inwardly wrought in our hearts, that it may become to us l 1. Pet. 1.23. the immortal seed, whereby through saith we are m jam. 1.18. begotten and borne again, and n Ephes. 2 10, created anew in jesus Christ, which is not done o joh. 1.13. by the will of man, that is, by Free will, but God p jam. 1.18. of his own will hath begotten us, and that so, as that though q 1. Cor. 3. ●. Paul plant, and Apollo water, yet God only giveth the increase, and neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth (which is in vain spoken if he that is planted or watered be any thing by his own Free will) but God only that giveth the increase. Another comparison he useth of the earth. What more dead, saith he, than the earth? and yet it being tilled and sown, doth bring forth and bear goodly corn. Whereof he maketh application thus: Now the word and grace of God is compared by our Saviour to seed, and our hearts to the earth that receive it. What marvel then if we otherwise dead, yet revived by this lively seed, do yield plenty of pleasing fruit? Where we see how loath he is that the Pelagians in any absurdity should go beyond him. As before he made one root, so here he maketh one ground of Free will, common and indifferent to good and evil, and which is strange, maketh it as natural to this ground or earth to bring forth fruit of the seed of God's word, as it is to the tilled ground to yield corn of the seed that is sown upon it. Moreover of grace he maketh no other matter but the seed, which is, the word of God, r August. contr. Pelag. & Celestina. lib 1. cap. 7. & Epist 107. Gratiam Dei po●●● in lege atque doctrina. the law and doctrine, and exhortation, even as Pelagius did; and that by this seed of God's word Free will is, revived, to bring forth plenty of pleasing fruit. But our Saviour Christ in the Gospel maketh four sorts of ground, and thereof one only good ground, which is not good of itself, but made good, having nothing in it whereof to bring forth fruit of the seed or God's word, s Esa 32.15. until the spirit be powered upon it from above, that of a wilderness it may become a fruitful field. So that the grace of God consisteth not in the seed of the word, but importeth a spiritual and heavenly influence of the blessing of God, altering and changing the nature of the soil of man's heart, that it may be fit to receive the seed, and to fructify thereby. For otherwise the Scripture teacheth us, that man's heart is a t Preach 36 26. stony heart, that his u Esa. 48.4. forehead is brass, and his neck an iron sinew, and that to bestow labour upon him by the word of God, is but as to wash x jerem. 13.23. an Aethiopian or a Leopard, to take away the blackness and spots of them, or to y Amos 6.12. blow upon the rock, where there is no entrance neither for plough nor seed. Therefore howsoever the seed be sown, it availeth nothing, neither can the will of man fructify thereby, until it do z joh. 6.45. hear and learn of the Father to come to Christ, a August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 8 Nihil est aliud quàm donum accipere à Patre quo credat in Christum. that is, until it receive a gift of the Father whereby to believe 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, etc. it being meant not of the very earth, saith Austin, but spiritually which is said: The Lord will yield his sweetness, and our land or earth shall give increase, as to note, that not by any power of our Free will, but only by his sweet and heavenly dew, c Ose 10.12. the rain of righteousness, d Ezech. 34.26. the rain of blessing, which he raineth upon us, we bring forth the seed of the word of God. 10. W. BISHOP. Having hitherto explicated the state of the question, and solved such objections as may be gathered out of M. Perkins against it, before I come to his solution of our arguments, I will set down some principal places, both out of the Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, in defence of our doctrine, because he proposeth but few for us, and misapplyeth them too. Genes. 4. First then, God saith to Cain: If thou do well, shalt thou not receive a reward? But if thou do evil, thy sin will presently be at the gates, but the appetite of it, shall be under thee, and thou shalt bear dominion over it. Here is plain mention made of the power, which that evil disposed man Cain, had not to sin, if he had listed; which was (no doubt) by the assistance of God's 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 seek out all manner of starting holes, wrist these words, of ruling and bearing sway, as spoken of his brother Abel, and not of sin: first, to see their iniquity, mark the text, where is no mention of Abel, neither in that verse, nor in the next before; but express mention is made of sin in the next words before: therefore those Pronouns, (that are to be referred to the words next before) must needs in true construction be referred to sin, and not to his brother. Besides this plain construction of the text, S. Augustine followeth, saying as it were to Cain: Lib. 15. de civit. Dei cap. 7. Hold thyself content, for the conversion of it shall be to thee, and thou shalt rule over it. What (saith he) over his brother? God forbidden, that so wicked a man should rule over so good: Over what then? but he shall rule over sin. See how manifestly that worthy Doctor hath prevented their cavil. And if it were need, I might join with him that most skilful 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 warn thee, that thou suffer not sin to overcome thee, but do thou overcome sin. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins he saith, proposed but few places for them, and misapplied them to; and therefore he will himself set down some principal places, both out of the Scriptures and fathers, in defence of their doctrine. But what ill hap had he at first to light upon an example, whereby as Austin noteth, it is so manifest, a August de civit. Dei. lib. 15. ca 16 Spiritus sanctus operatur intrinsecus ut valeat aliquid medicina quc adhibetur extri●fecus. A●equm etiamsi Deus ipse utens creatura sibi sub ect vinae●qua specie human● sensus alloquatur humanos, etc. nec interiore gratia mentem regat atque agate, nihil prodest homini omn●s praedicatio veritatis. Facit hoc Deus, à vasis misericordiae irae vasa discernens, etc. Et cap. 7. Hoc ipsum cùm Deus locutus esset ad Cain quid ei prosuit, etc. that howsoever God himself do speak to the sense of man, either to his outward or inward senses, yet if he do not by inward grace rule and work the mind, all the preaching of truth availeth nothing, and that it is the holy Ghost that must work inwardly, that the medicine may avail that is outwardly applied. Which is a work whereby God putteth difference betwixt the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath; so that the question why one receiveth the grace of God, and another doth not, b Prosper. de vocat gent lib. 1. cap 9 Pr●sun litas illius quaestionis per liberi arbitrij velle & nolle non soluitur quia licet ●●sit 〈◊〉 bonum nelle, tamen nisi ●●na●um non habet bonum velle. is not answered by the willing or nilling of Free will, as to say, one by Free will would when God offered grace, the other would not, but by Gods working that in the one which he worketh not in the other, who both have by nature to nill and refuse, but neither have to will but by the gift of God; whereas with M. Bishop, the work of God is the same to both, neither doth God make the difference betwixt man and man, offering himself alike to all, but man by Free will either receiving or refusing, maketh difference betwixt himself and other men. God himself spoke to Cain, yet was he not the better for it. M. Bishop telleth us, that the reason was in his own Free will, whereby he had it in his own power, at his own list to convert and turn to God, and that God did signify so much by saying unto him, that the desire of sin should be under him, and he should bear dominion over it. Where he should have had regard for proof of his doctrine, c Aug. de va●t. eccles cap. 5 Hoc prae●ico atque propono, ut qu●que aeperta & manifesta deligamus. & ca 16. Nec itae ut ea colligant & commemorent quae obscurè vel ambiguè vel figuratè dicta sunt quae quisque sicut volverit interpretur ad sensum suum. Talia enim recte intellige non possunt, nisi prius ea quae aperissimè dicta sunt firma fide teneantur. to make choice of plain and manifest places, as S. Augustine's rule is, not of such as being figurative or obscure, may be expounded and taken diversly. There are sundry expositions of this place delivered by the ancient fathers, and therefore there is no necessity to urge us to take that exposition which he allegeth. First chrysostom expoundeth the place according to the true meaning thereof, that God having by d Genes. 3.16. the same phrase of speech constituted before the superiorivie of the husband oner his wife, doth here yield to the first borne a superiority and kind of Lordship over the rest of his brethren, which here he signifieth to Cain, he would not infringe, to give him occasion that way of offence towards his brother, howsoever he accepted his brother's sacrifice better than his, albeit ready to accept his sacrifice also if he offered in the like sort as his brother did. e Chrysan Gen. hom. 18. Ne putes licet tuum aeduersatus sim sacrificium ob pravam mentem frat●sque oblationem acceptan hab●aer. in ob s●nā intentio nen quod ideo primatu te destituam et primageniturae dig●●t trem à te an●erant. Nam licet honore ego illum proficatus fuerins, acceptaque fu●●nt di●us do●●, veruma●●ē ad te conuer●io illi ● et in ipsi● dominabet●, Atque, post peccati●●● per. ●●●to ut primo. 〈◊〉 privile. 〈◊〉 gandeas, illunque sub tua potestate & dominio esse ●ubeo. Think not, that because I have refused thy sacrifice because of thy corrupt mind, and have accepted thy brother's sacrifice because of his upright and sound heart, therefore I will deprive thee of thy superiority, and take away from thee the honour of thy birthright. For albeit I have honoured him, and have accepted his gifts, yet his turning shall be to thee, and thou shalt have dominion over him. And albeit thou hast sinned, yet I yield thee to enjoy the privileges of thy birthright, and do appoint that he shall be under thy power and rule. Against this exposition M. Bishop giveth an exception, that there is no mention of Abel, neither in that verse, nor in the verse next before; but express mention is made of sin in the next words before: therefore those pronouns (that are to be referred to the next words before) must needs be referred to sin, and not to his brother. But if his skill had served him to consider, that the Hebrew word there for f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin. sin is in the feminine gender, and the pronoun relatives in the g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the desire of him, or his desire, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: over him. masculine gender, he would have learned thereby to except against this exception, and rather say, that the pronoun relatives must needs be referred to his brother, and not to sin. And so the Greek translators did take it, h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the turning of HIM shallbe to thee, etc. So doth Arias Montanus translate it, being himself a Papist, yet that way incomparably more faithful then commonly Papists are, The desire of HIM shallbe to thee, that is, in thy power, and thou shalt have rule over HIM. Another exception he taketh from S. Augustine's exposition of those words, who not acquainted with the Greek and Hebrew text, and finding in the Latin the pronouns eius and illius indifferent to the masculine or feminine gender, not thinking it fit in such meaning as he conceived thereof, to attribute to Cain a dominion over his brother Abel, construeth the place as touching sin, and delivereth two interpretations thereof, but no way according to M. Bishop's meaning, nor any way fit to serve his turn: the more lewdly doth he deal, to make S. Austin the patron of an opinion, which as appeareth in all this discourse, he did so highly and inwardly detest. One exposition of his is in the reading of the words thus; i August. de civit. Dei. lib 5. ca 7. Potestitae intelligi ad hominem conversionem esse debere peccati, ut nulli alij sciat quam sibi tribuere debere quod peccat, etc. Tunc enim dominabitur quisque peccato, si●d sibi non defendendo praesumpserit sed poenitendo subiecerit, etc. Ad te conversio cius sit: let the converting or turning of it be to thee, and thou shalt rule over it; as willing him to turn his sin upon himself, to accuse himself thereof, to know that he was not to attribute his sin to any other but himself, and therefore not to defend it, but to repent and to ask pardon of it, and that this was the way to subdue it, and to become master of it. Thus God left him not, as he saith, without a commandment just and holy and good, but in him giveth example, as was before said, how the commandment availeth nothing from the mouth of God himself, where he himself worketh not within, that which he commandeth. To this agreeth in effect the exposition of Ambrose, though taking the words by way of accusation, which Austin construeth by way of precept or exhortation. k Am●r, de Cain & Abel li 2. ca 7. In te revertitur crimen quod ae te c●pit. Non habes in quo necessit item magis quam mentem t●ā arguas. In te ret●rque tur improbitas tut, ●u princeps ill●us es: Ben? a●t, Tit princeps es illius. Et enim impretas matter quaedam est delictoram, etc. The sin, saith God, returneth upon thee which began of thee. Thou hast not wherein to blame necessity more than thine own mind, Thy wickedness is turned back upon thee; thou art the beginner of it. Rightly doth he say, thou art the beginner of it; for impiety is a mother of sins, etc. Thus he maketh God in those words to accuse Cain of sin, not to attribute to Cain Free will for converting unto God. The other exposition of Austin is in reading the place, l Aug. ut supra. Cum commota fuerit pars ipsa carnalis ad aliquid perperam committendum, si acquiescatur, Apostolo dicenti, Ne exhibeatu membra, etc. ad mentem domita & victa convertitur ut subditae ratio dominetur. Ad te conversio eius erit, etc. The converting or turning thereof shall be to thee, and thou shalt rule over it, understanding sin to be meant of carnal concupiscence or lust, and making the construction thus, that when carnal concupiscence is moved or stirred to commit any wicked thing, if a man rest and hearken to the Apostle saying, Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies; give not your members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin, than it being tamed and overcome, is converted and turned to be in subjection to the mind, that reason may have the rule and dominion over it. Therefore he taketh it, as if God had willed Cain to give over that which by his own wicked desire and lust he had intended, and if he did resist it, it should turn and yield to him, and whilst it was not suffered to work without, it might be the better accustomed not to stir within. Prosper bringeth these latter expositions all into one, as if God had said to Cain, m Prosper. de vocat. gent lib. 2. ca 4. Tuus hic error est, enumque peccatum; qui●sce & noli in insontem fratrem movert: ad te potius tua culpa reuo●itur. Noli peccato regnum in te dare●sed tu potius in ipsum sume dominatum. Paenitendo enim nec in manus facinus progredieres, & ab eo in quo te doles displicuisse mundaberis. This is thy error and thy sin; be quiet, and be not moved against thy harmless brother; rather let thy sin be charged upon thyself: yield not to it that it should reign in thee, but do thou take on thee the dominion & rule over it. By repenting thou shalt not go to any further wickedness, & thou shalt be reform in that wherein thou shalt grieve that thou hast offended me. Thus here is counsel and commandment to Cain, but no assertion of Free will, and by cain's going forward in his wicked course, we see that Free will availeth nothing to true obedience, and keeping of God's commandment. Now than that M. Bishop can find nothing in Austin, let us see what Hierome hath to justify cain's example to be the maintenance of Free will. Hierome hath indeed the words and exposition which he allegeth: n Hieron tradit. Hebrat. in Genes. Quia liberi arbitrises, monto ut non tibi peccatum sed tu peccato domineris. Because thou hast Free will, I admonish and warn thee, that sin do not overrule thee, but that thou overrule sin. But that this neither helpeth him nor hurteth us, it will easily and plainly appear, if we consider what was accorded before betwixt him and us. For we deny not Free will in moral and civil outward actions, as hath been before acknowledged by him. For in vain were education and laws, and exhortations, and all precepts and directions of life, if there were not left in man a power to conform himself outwardly to the prescriptions thereof. God hath left in nature o August. desp. & lit. cap. 28. Non usqueadeo in anima humana imago Dei detrita est. ut nullae in ea velut lineamenta extrema remanserint. Origen. count Celsum lib. 4. Impossibile ut eius imaginis lineamenta in totum delcantur. etc. some outward most lineaments, some unperfect shadows and portraiture of his image, for the preserving of public order and society amongst men, which could not stand, if men for fear or shame, or other respects could not contain and bridle themselves from those mischiefs and villainies, whereto corruption of nature doth incline them. To this the words of Hierome are to be referred. For Cain was p Chrysost in Gen. hom. 18. Sciebat ab initio quòd fratrem hic adoriturus esset, & ideo antea verbu repr●mit. now contriving and plotting the murder of his brother. There was now no law to terrify him from the accomplishing of that which he had intended, but God himself taketh upon him to set before him the horror of his fact, and to reclaim him from proceeding any further. If therefore we do with Hierome refer the words here questioned to sin, God speaketh to Cain to this effect: Why art thou so much offended that thy brother is better accepted then thyself? why art thou thus moved with envy towards him, and intendest mischief against him? If thou dost well as he doth, assure thyself thou shalt be accepted as well as he. But if thou do wickedly, if thou go forward with that horrible villainy that thou hast conceived, know for a surety, that thy sin shall lie waiting for thee at the door, and shall never cease to attend and follow thee till it have brought upon thee just revenge. Wherefore I advise thee to give over, bridle thy passion, be master thus far of thine own affections; let not envy carry thee forward to commit so monstrous and unnatural a fact: it is yet in thine own power, and therefore stay thyself, and give no further way to this bloody designment to be sorry when it is too late. Thus much and no more, do Hieromes words express unto us, and we doubt not but Cain had Free will as touching committing of this cruel act. For if some man had stood in his way with a sword drawn to slay him if he should attempt the kill of his brother, who doubteth but that it would have made him hold his hands; which he could not, if he had not had in him power and liberty to forbear. And if M. Bishop meant no more when he speaketh of cain's power not to sin, if he had listed, we would acknowledge the same with him, but he would hereby prove a Free will to good, whereto he saith Cain had the assistance of God's grace, which yet did not infallibly draw him to good, but left him to his free choice, whether he would follow it or not. For proof whereof there is no show of any syllable, either in the text, or in the other testimonies which he hath alleged. For as touching grace, we find here none but that which the Pelagians spoke of, to counsel and advise him, whereas the true grace inwardly worketh whatsoever outwardly is counseled or advised. And whereas he saith, that grace doth not infallibly draw to good, it is true indeed of his Pelagian grace, which consisteth only in the commandment, but the true grace of God doth infallibly draw to good. q john 6 44. No man, saith our Saviour Christ, can come unto me, r August. count duas epist. Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19 Venire ad me intelligitur credere in me. that is to say, believe in me, except my Father which hath sent me draw him, thereby importing that all that are drawn of the Father do come unto him, that is, do believe in him, because s De praedest. sanct. cap. 8. Nihil est aliud quam donum accipere a patre quo credat in Christum. to be drawn of the Father unto Christ, is to receive a gift of the Father whereby to believe in Christ; so that t Prosper. de vocat. gent. lib. 2. cap 9 Qui non credant nec trahuntur omni●ò. they which believe not are not drawn at all. Therefore our Saviour addeth in the next words; Every one that heareth and learneth of the Father, that is, every one that the father draweth, cometh unto me. Now M. Bishops drawing leaveth a man at his free choice whether he will follow or not. He saith as the Pelagians did; u August epist. 107. Libertate naturali si vult, facit; si nonuult non facit. Verse. 45. If he will, he doth so, if he will not, he doth not; or as the Donatists, x Idem de unit. eccles. cap. 9 Cum arbitrio libero homo creatus est & si vult credit in Christum, si non vult, non credit. if he will, he believeth; if he list not, he believeth not: if he will, he persevereth; if he will not, he persevereth not. These were the progenitors and predecessors of his faith. But the true drawing grace, finding a man y Hieron. a. li. Pelag. lib. 3 Qui trahitur non spote currit, sed a●t retrectans & tardus aut invitus adiucitur. resisting, drawing back, unwilling, persecuting the faith as Paul did, z August count duas epist. Pelag lib. 1. ca 19 Quis trahitur si tam volebat? Et tamen ne●io venit nisi velit. Trabitur ergo mires modis ut velit ab illo qui novit t●tus in ipsis hominum cordibus operari, non ut homines quod fieri non petest nolentes credant, sed ut volemes ex nolentibus fiant. Et lib. 4 cap. 9 Ex repugnantibus consentientes, ex oppugnant●bus amantes. converteth his will to the faith; of unwilling, it maketh him willing; of resisting, it maketh him consenting; of an oppugner of the faith, it maketh him a lover thereof. Let M. Bishop acknowledge this grace, if he will speak of grace as the Scripture speaketh: this is the only true grace; and this grace Cain was never partaker of, and therefore being left to his own will, he did not what he might have done, in giving ear to the warning and advice that was given him of God. 11. W. BISHOP. The second is taken out of this text of Deut. Cap. 30.19. I call this day (saith Moses) heaven and earth to witness, that I have set before you, life, and death, benediction, and malediction, therefore choose life, that thou mayst live and thy seed. Which words were spoken in vain, if it had not been in their power, by the grace of God, to have made choice of life: or if that grace would have made them do it infallibly, without their consent. R. ABBOT. Moses saith, a Deut. 30.19. I have set before you life and death, etc. Therefore choose life that thou mayst live. These words, saith M. Bishop, were spoken in vain, if it had not been in their power by the grace of God, to have made choice of life. Where he still goeth on with his Pelagian device, yielding no more to grace, but only adiware possibilitatem, to help the power of man, that whereas the power of man is not sufficient, it may by grace be made able to make choice of life, but yet so, as that still it resteth in the will, whether to make use of this power or not. But by the true grace of God man not only hath power to choose, but indeed doth choose the way of life. And although man have no power in himself whereof he can make use to make this choice, yet the words of God are not therefore spoken in vain, because the word & the preaching thereof is the instrument whereby God worketh in man to choose life, whilst through the spirit it taketh effect b 2. Tim. 1.9. according to the purpose and grace of God. He saith by the ministery of the word, Choose life, and by his grace c Act. 16.14. openeth the heart to attend to that which he saith, and in the mean while d 2. Tim. 2.25. giveth repentance, e Phil. 1 29. giveth faith, f Ephe. 1.17. giveth the spirit of wisdom and revelation, g Mat. 13.11. giveth to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, h Ezech. 36.26. giveth a new heart, i jerem 32.40. giveth the fear of God, and all things wherein consisteth the choice of life. He saith, Choose life, but so, as that he telleth us also, k john. 15.16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, as if he should say, that it is not by our Free will, but by his choosing of us that we make choice of him. l Prosper de voc●t. gent. lib. 1. ca 9 Ex Deo est ut homo 〈◊〉 Dei eligat & surgat à laps●s etc. Et post. Contra omnem electionem de ●●ero arbitri● vementens invictissime illa renitum sententia dir● 〈◊〉 Apostoli; Quis te discernit, etc. It is of God, saith Prosper, that man maketh choice of the way of God, and ariseth from his fall; and against all election or choice proceeding of Free will invincibly resisteth the sentence of the Apostle, saying, Who separateth thee? what hast thou that thou hast not received? M. Bishop saith, My Free will, my choice hath made difference betwixt me and another man; because when God made offer of life to us both alike, I by Free will made choice thereof, and he refused. But the Apostle telleth him, no. If he have made choice of life, it is no work of Free will, it is a thing received. m Aug. de praedest. sanct. cap. 5. A quo nisi ab illo qui te a● ceruit ab alio cui non donavit quod donavit tibi? Of whom, saith S. Austin, but of him who hath not given to another that which he hath given unto thee? Who, as he also answereth the Pelagian heretic objecting the same place, n ●acu●. de perfect. instit. prepe fi●em. ●●●p rat 〈…〉. inspireth the love whereby we choose. He addeth further, that vainly it should be said, Choose life, if grace would have made them do it infallibly without their consent. Where we may wonder at his absurd manner of speech. Who was ever so mad, as to say that God maketh a man to choose life without his consent, which is the same as if he should say, that he should make him consent without consent, for how should choosing be without consenting? We deny not consent, but we say with S. Austin, o Aug. ep●st. 107. Vacation illa alta atque secre●a si● eius agit se sunt ut eidem lege atque doctrin● accommodet assensum It is God who by his secret calling worketh the mind of man to give consent. We say with S. Bernard, p Bernard de great. ex l b arbit Non quod vel ipse consensus ab ip●so fit. etc. fecit volentem, no● est volunt ut: su● consentientem. Consent is not of man himself, but God maketh a man willing, that is, consenting unto his will. q In Cant ●er. 57 Illius disider●ū tuum create, & quod tu eius properas sermonem 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 receive his word, it cometh of his forwardness and hasting to enter into thee. 12. W. BISHOP. Unto these two places of the old Testament (one under the law of Nature, and the other under Moses law) l●t us couple two more out of the new Testament. The first may be those kind words of our Saviour unto the jews: jerusalem, Math. 23. jerusalem, etc. how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not: Which do plainly demonstrate, that there was no want, either of Gods help inwardly, or of Christ's persuasion outwardly, for their conversion: and that the whole fault lay in their own refusing, and withstanding God's grace, as th●se words of Christ do plainly witness, And thou wouldst 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 will to convert and turn to God, I suppose it would trouble him very sore. The words do rather import, that howsoever Christ himself be amongst us and speak unto us, yet our Free will availeth nothing to make us to hearken to him, but we still refuse and rebel, until God do work it in us to obey and to hearken to his call. And thus Moses to give a reason why the people of Israel profited not by the sight of so manifold signs and wonders, which the Lord had done before them and for them, saith, a Deut. 29.4. The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear unto this day. Christ speaketh those words out of his human affection; he showeth his love towards them as man, he signifieth his pains and labour bestowed amongst them, and what occasion he had to complain, as Esay had foretold, b Esa. 49.4. I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength in vain 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 man's nature against God. But yet M. Bishop telleth us, that hereby it is signified that God used all means that concerned him for the saving 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 help inwardly, or of Christ's persuasion outwardly, for their conversion. But they do not demonstrate so much, yea by diverse places of the Gospel we see they are very far from that demonstration. For if there wanted no inward help for their conversion, how was it said by our Saviour 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 given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven: e Mar. 4.11.12. all things are to them in parables, that they seeing may see and not discern, and they hearing may hear and not understand, least at any time they should turn, and their sins should be forgiven them. How was it said by the Evangelist S. john: f john 12.39. Therefore could they not believe, because Esay saith again: He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and should be converted and I should heal them? How doth S. Paul say; g Rom. 11.7. The election hath obtained, but the rest have been hardened, according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, etc. These things being so apparent and plain, how doth M. Bishop tell us that there wanted no help of God inwardly for their conversion, but the want was only in their own Free will? Surely h Aug. de corrept. & great. ca 14. Cui vol●nti saluu● f●cere nullum hominum resistit arbitrium. sic enim v●lle & nolle in volentis aut nolentis est potestate ut divinam volumtatem non impediat nec superet potestatem De his enim qui faciunt quae non vult facit ipse quae vult, etc. De ipsis voluntatibus hominum quod vult facit. where God is willing to save, 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 overruleth his power, because even of the wills of men he maketh what he will. i Euchirid. ad Laurent. ca 103 Dum tamen credere non cogamur aliquid omnipotentem Deum voluisse fieri factumque non esse qui sine ullu am●iguitatibus si in coelo & in terra quaecunque voluit fecit, profectò facere noluit quodcunque non fecit. In no wise may we think, saith he, that the Almighty God would have any thing to come to pass, and that the same doth not come to pass; who if he do whatsoever he will both in heaven and earth, as the truth instructeth us, surely had no will to do whatsoever he hath not done. If therefore God had willed the conversion of the people of jerusalem, and had inwardly yielded them grace for their conversion, it had followed infallibly that they had been converted, neither should the frowardness of their will have defeated the purpose of his will. k Esa 46.10. My counsel shall stand, saith he, and I will do whatsoever I will: therefore of the children of jerusalem, whomsoever God would gather, he certainly did gather. His will was to gather l Rom 11.5. a remnant according to the election of grace. jerusalem would not, but resisted the will of God, and hindered so much as in it lay, the gathering of this remnant of her children. m August. Euchir●● cap. 97. Vbi est illa omn●potentia, etc. si colligere filios Hierusalem voluit & non f●cit? An potius & illa quidem filios sis ●s ab ipso c●lligi neluit, sede: quoque relente filios eius c●llegit ipse quos voluit, quia in coelo & in terra non quaedam v●luit & fecit, quaedam vero veluit & non fecit, sedomnia quaecunque vol●●t fecit But though jerusalem would not, yet God gathered whom he would, and to them he yielded his infallible saving grace, whereby he worketh to will and to do, and giveth the gifts before mentioned of repentance, faith, knowledge and such like, without which there is no conversion, and the giving whereof is our conversion unto God. Which seeing God gave not to jerusalem, save only to his remnant, it is absurdly said by M. Bishop, that there was no want of Gods help inwardly for their conversion. Their refusing and withstanding was the fruit of Free will, which howsoever God do otherwise offer grace, hath nothing in itself, whereof to do otherwise. 13. W. BISHOP. Cap. 3. The last testimony is in the Revel. where it is said in the person of God: I stand at the door and knock if any man shall hear my voice and open the gates, I will enter in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Mark well the words: God by his grace, knocks at the door of our hearts, he doth not break it open, or in any sort force it, but attendeth, that by our assenting to his call, we open him the gates, and then, lo he with his heavenly gifts will enter in: otherwise he leaves us. What can be more evident in confirmation of the freedom of man's will, in working with God's grace? R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop doth somewhat plainly show himself, and assureth us that it is not without cause that we have hitherto accused him of the Pelagian heresy. The grace which for fashion sake he speaketh of, is no other but such as whereby God knocketh at the door of our hearts, but worketh nothing in our hearts, till we first of ourselves assent to let him in. He attendeth till we open him the gates, and then he with his heavenly gifts will enter in, which was the damnable error of the Pelagians, that God's grace and gifts are bestowed upon the precedence of our will and works. But we have heard before out of the Arausicane council, that a Arausican. Concil. 2. cap 4. Supra. sect 8. if any man say that God exspecteth or attendeth our will, and doth not confess that God worketh in us to will, he gainsayth the doctrine of the Apostle. Which is the same as to say, If any man say that God attendeth for our opening the gates unto him, and doth not confess that God himself openeth the gates unto himself, he is contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle. b August count duas epist. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 6 Aditus divinae vocationis ipsa Dei gratia procuratur. The entrance of God's calling is wrought or procured by the grace of God himself; he knocketh with one hand, & openeth with another, c Psal. 107.16. breaking the gates of brass, and smiting the bars of iron in sunder, and howsoever mightily he knock, we never hear, we never open till he open and make entrance for himself. It is he that d Act. 16.14. openeth the heart, he e Luk. 24.45. openeth the understanding, he f Psal. 119.18. openeth the eyes, he openeth g job. 33.16. the ears, he openeth h Psal. 50.15. the lips, he openeth i Act. 14.27. the door of faith, and why then doth M. Bishop say, that he attendeth till we open? He doth not attend our assenting to his call, but k August. de praedest sanct. cap. 19 Deus operatur in cordibus hominum vocatione illa secundum proposi●um, ut non inarater aud●●nt evangelium sed eo aud●to cont●er tantur & credant, exerpientes non ut verbu●a hominum, sed sicum est verò verbum Dei. by his calling which is according to his purpose, he worketh in the hearts of men, that they hear not the Gospel in vain, but do convert, and turn, & receive it not as the word of man, but as it is indeed, the word of God. And whereas he saith, that God doth not break open the doors, it is not always true. For God sometimes with great violence assaulteth the heart, & l Jude, vers. 23. by terror & fear pulleth men out of the fire, & as with a mighty hammer breaketh the pride & rebellion of the will, fight & stirring against him. When men are in the height of their insolency madly raging against him, he striketh them to the ground, as he did the Apostle m Act. 9.4. S. Paul, and by astonishment overcometh and subdueth them unto himself, thus, n August contr. duas Epist. Pel●. lib. 1 cap. 19 Non ait duxerit, ut illic ali quo modo intelligamus praecedere voluntatem. Quis trah●tur, etc. ut supra Sect 10 not leading them as upon their precedent will, but drawing them; not to believe against their wills which is unpossible, but of unwilling to become willing. In a word, when God knocketh, o Idem de Praedest sanct ca 20. Ostrum ergo apertum est in ●is, quibus datum est, adversarij autem multi ex eis quibus non est datum. the door is opened in them only to whom it is given, but they to whom it is not given are still adverse, and they never open: and therefore M. Bishop saith amiss, that God attendeth that we open him the gates, or otherwise leaveth us. Neither do the words alleged serve for confirmation of the freedom of man's will, telling us only what must be done that God may enter, but not importing, that we do it by any power of Free will. 14. W. BISHOP. To these express places taken out of God's word, let us join the testimony of those most ancient Fathers, against whose works the Protestants can take no exception. The first shall be that excellent learned Martyr justinus in his Apology, who unto the Emperor Antonine speaketh thus: Unless man by Free will could fly from foul dishonest deeds, and follow those that be fair and good; he were without fault, as not being cause of such things as were done. But we Christians teach, that mankind by free choice, and Free will, doth both do well and sin. To him we will join that holy Bishop and valiant Martyr Irenaeus, who of Free will writeth thus: Lib. 4. cap. 72. Not only in works, but in faith also, our Lord reserved liberty and freedom of will unto man: saying, Be it done unto thee according to thy faith. I will add to that worthy company S. Cyprian, who upon those words of our Saviour, joan. 6. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. Will you also departed? discourseth thus: Our Lord did not bitterly inveigh against them, which forsook him, but rather used these gentle speeches to his Apostles, will you also go your way: and why so? Marry observing and keeping (as this holy Father declareth) that decree, by which man left unto his liberty and put unto his free choice, might deserve unto himself, either damnation or salvation. These three most ancient, and most skilful in Christian religion, and so zealous of Christian truth, that they spent their blood in confirmation of it, may suffice to certify any indifferent reader, what was the judgement of the ancient and most pure Church, concerning this article of Free will: specially when the learnedst of our Adversaries confess all Antiquity, (excepting only S. Augustine) to have believed and taught Free will. Hear the words of one for all. Mathias Illiricus in his large, long lying history, having rehearsed touching Free will, the testimonies of justine, Irenaeus, and others, saith, In like manner Clement Patriarch of Alex. doth every where teach Free will, Cont. 2. cap. 4. col. 59 that it may appear (say these Lutherans) not only the Doctors of that age to have been in such darkness but also that it did much increase in the ages following. See the wilful blindness of heresy. Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church, to have taught Free will: yet had rather believe them to have been blindly led, by the Apostles and their best Scholars who were their Masters, then to espy and amend his own error. These principal pillars of Christ's Church were in darkness belike as Protestants must needs say: and that proud Persian, and most wicked Heretic Manes (of whom the Manichees are named) who first denied Free will, began to broach the true light of the new Gospel. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop held it to be the best course for him clanum clavo pellere, to drive out one nail with another, not answering the places which M. Perkins alleged out of the Fathers, but o●ely crossing them with other places. Nay, he so passed them over, as that fraudulently and falsely he would make his Reader believe, that they made all for him. But mark I pray thee gentle Reader, when M. Bishop driveth all to this, that when God hath done his work for man's conversion, it is left to man's free choice, whether to will the same or not, doth it make for him, or is it not against him which M. Perkins citeth out of Austin, that a Aug. de correp. & great. cap. 12. I●●o sic volunt, quia Deus operatur ut veli●t. man therefore willeth, because God worketh in him to will? Surely if man therefore will, because God worketh in him to will, than God's work doth not leave man to the free choice of his own will. When M. Bishop saith, that there is in man a natural faculty of Free will, which being stirred up and fortified is able to do any act appertaining to salvation, doth the same S. Austin agree with him when he affirmeth, b Epist. 107. L●cerum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum prin●s peccati gra● ditate per●●emu●, that man lost Free will to the love of God by the greatness of Adam's sin? When he attributed man's conversion but only principally to grace, and blameth us for that we attribute the whole work to grace, doth S. Bernard agree with him, when he saith, c Bernard. de great. & lib. arb. Totum ex gratia that it is wholly of grace that we are new created, healed, saved? By these it is easy to make application of the rest; but we may look for good answers at his hands hereafter, who in the beginning being so directly oppugned, would seek thus in a cloud to steal away. But if M. Perkins were able to say nothing against him, we must think he is able to say for himself exceeding much. Yet his first authority out of justinus Martyr, maketh nothing at all for him: for being written to an heathen Emperor, it toucheth only moral and external actions, in which we deny not but that God hath left some freedom and liberty to man's will, as before hath been declared. His very d Justin. Martyr Apol. 2. Ne quis nostra dicta sic acciptat, quasi Fati necessitatem asseramus, & quae fiunt ideò fieri, quiae praedicta sunt exp●ica bonus hoc quoque etc. drift there, is to condemn the wicked fancies of Astrologers and Stoic Philosophers, who did hang all upon e Aug. contra duas Epist. Pela. lib. 2. ap. 6. & in Psal. 100LS & de civit. Dei. lib. 5. cap. 1. destinies and constellations, and fatal necessity, and thence sought excuse of their lewd and abominable actions. And if we will more largely extend the words, yet are they nothing for M. Bishop's turn. f Hominem libero arbitrio, liberaque voluntate & peccare & rectè agere docemus. We Christians, saith he, do affirm, that by free choice, and Free will, mankind doth both do well and sin. And so much we affirm also, that man by free choice and Free will doth well, for there g Prosper de voc●t. Gent lib 2. cap. 9 Virius nolenuum nulla est is no virtue where a man hath no will to that he doth, but we say still against M. Bishop, that this is not that Free will that he requireth: it is not a power of nature, but wholly the effect of grace: h Aug. Epi. 107. ut supra Sect. 1. It is the grace of God whereby man's will is made free, both to eschew evil and do good, and they that teach any other Free will, they are i Idem de great. & lib arbit. cap. 14. Non defensores, sed inflatores & praecipitatores liberi arbit. not the defenders, but the puffers up and break-neckes of Free wil And no otherwise did justine Martyr conceive thereof, as appeareth by these words in the same Apology: k justin. ut supr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In like sort as God created us when we were not, so do we think that he vouchsafeth them of immortality and being with him, who willingly make choice to do those things that are pleasing unto him. But to have being at the first, it was not of ourselves. In like sort then to choose and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath given us, it is by his persuading and moving of us to the faith. In which words he plainly confesseth, that Free will to righteousness is wholly the gift of grace, and no more of ourselves, than it was at first to create ourselves. The place of Irenaeus availeth him as little, who disputing in like sort against them that held, that men by an immutable necessity of created nature, are some good and some evil, proveth, that good and evil consist in election and will, and that this appeareth, l Iren. lib. 4. cap. 72. Si non in nobis esset facere haec aut non facereq vam causam habebat Apostolus, & multo prius ipse Dominus consilium dare? by that the Apostle, and before him our Saviour Christ, did give counsel to do some things, and from some other things to abstain. Afterwards he showeth, that not in works only, but also in faith our Saviour reserved to man liberty and freedom of will, meaning that it is * Non de violentia cogens. not by any compelling violence that a man either believeth or worketh, but m August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 5. Posse habere fidem sicut posse habere charitatem naturae est hominum: hahere autem fidem sicut habere charitatem gratiae est fidelium. Vid. Prospide vocat. Gen. lib. 2. cap. 2. by condition of nature he is such, as may either believe or not believe; and when he believeth, it is by his will that believeth, and by a power of the will that he hath to believe: yet so, as that we must say with S. Austin, n August. Retract. lib. 1. ca 22 Sedea potestas nulla est nisi à Deo detur; but that power is none, except it be given of God. We may not take Irenaeus to be so gross, as to think faith to be of our own power, which the Scripture so plainly telleth us, is o Ephes. 2.8. the gift of God. And as the places that he allegeth are far from any such purpose, p Mat. 8 13. According to thy faith be it unto thee: q Mar. 9.23. All things are possible to the believer, so he himself elsewhere out of the words of the Apostle, r Rom. 7.18. I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing; plainly affirmeth, s Iren. lib 3. cap. 22. Significans quoniam non à nobis sed à Deo est bonum salutis nostrae. Et iterum: Miser ego homo, etc. Deinde insert liberatorem, Gratia Dei, etc. that the good which belongeth to our salvation, is not of ourselves but of God, and that the grace of our Lord jesus Christ is our deliverer, that is, the thing whereby we are made free. Therefore he prayeth for the Heretics, against whom he wrote, that t Ibid. cap. 46. Nos precamur non perseverare eos in fou●a quam ipsi foderunt, sed segregari ab nutusmodi matre, etc. & legitimè eos generari, converses ad Ecclesiam Dei, & formari Christum in eyes, & cognoscere eos fabricaetorem huius universitatu, etc. they might not continue in the pit which they had digged, but might be converted to the Church, and that Christ might be form in them, and that they might know the only true God and Lord of all. Whereby it appeareth, that he did not take repentance, and faith, and conversion to God, to be matters of our Free will and power, but the merciful gifts of God, and therefore by prayer to be begged at his hands. The place of Cyprian soundeth very harshly, but yet being taken in that sense wherein the Fathers commonly spoke before the Pelagian heresy, namely to affirm against the Manichees an act of man's will both in good and evil, so that by his will and election, it is that either he is good or evil, it importeth nothing against us, because we deny not the act and election of man's will, but only teach, that this act and election of the will is nothing at all of itself, as touching righteousness, but only what it is by being corrected & rectified by the grace of God. Our Saviour saith to his disciples, Will ye also go away? u Lib. 1. Epist. 3 Seruans legem qua homo libertati suae relictus, & in preprio arbitrio constitutus fi●●m●tipsi, vel ●●●rtem appetit, vel salutem. He observeth the law (saith Cyprian) whereby man left to his liberty, and put to his own will, not deserveth, (as M. Bishop falsely translateth) but desireth to himself either death or salvation, importing hereby, that man freely and by his own will maketh choice to continue with Christ unto salvation, but not affirming, that man's own will is herein free of itself, or hath of it own, whereby to make this choice. And that he was of far other mind then so to think, appeareth by his own words x Aug. contra 2. Epist. Pelag lib. 4 cap. 9 & de Praedest. sanct. cap. 3. & de bono pierce. cap 19 etc. often cited by Austin against the Pelagians: y Cypr. ad Quir. lib. 3. cap. 5. In nulla gloriandum quando nostrum nihil sit. We are to glory of nothing, (namely, as touching righteousness) because therein nothing is our own. z Lib. 2. Epist. 2. Dei est, Dei est omne quod possumu●● inde v●●●mus, inde pollemus. It is of God, saith he, all that we can do: of him it is that we live, of him it is that we have any power. But most direct to this purpose is it which he noteth as touching the petition of the Lords prayer, Lead us not into temptation, that we are thereby a Cyprian. in Orat. Dominic. Admonemur infirmitatu & imbecillitatis nostrae dum si● rogam●s ne quis se insolenter extollat, ne quis sibi superbè atque arroganter aliquid assumat● ne quis aut confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam dicat, etc. ut dum praecedit & submissi confessio, & datur ●●●um Domino, qu●quid suppli●●ter petitur, i●st●s pictate praest●tur put in mind of our own frailty and weakness, and that for persevering and continuing with Christ to the glory of confessing him, and suffering for his sake, it is wholly to be ascribed unto God, and we are not to assume any thing proudly to ourselves. Whereof S. Austin collecteth (as before) against the Pelagian heresy, that b Aug de bono persever. cap. ●7 Nihil nobi● reliqu●t, in qu● ta●quam in nostro gloriemu●. Siqu●dem & ut 〈◊〉 disced●mus à D●o n●n estend●t, da●dum esse nisi à Deo, cùm pascendum estendat à Deo. Qui enivi non in errur in tentationem, non disc●dit à Deo. Non est hoc omnino in viribus Liberi arbi●r● quales nunc sunt, fuera●us 〈◊〉 antequam caderet, etc. Post casum autem hominis nonnisi ad gratiam suam Deus voluit pertinere, ut hom● accedat ad eti●● neque nisi ad gratiam suam pertinere voluit, ut homo non recedat ab eo. Cyprian leaveth us nothing wherein to glory as our own; that he showeth, that not to departed from God, is no otherwise but given of God, in that he teacheth, that it is to be begged of God: for he that is not led into temptation, doth not departed from God. This saith he, is not in the strength of Free will as now it is. It was in man before his fall, but after the fall of man, God would not have it belong save only to his grace, that we come unto him; neither would he have it belong save only to his grace, that we do not departed from him. Thus he conceived and observed as touching Cyprians meaning out of Cyprians own words, and bereaveth M. Bishop of Cyprians warrant for that, which he would father upon him by some words obscurely uttered in another place. c Jbid cap. 6. T●●●res vi●●●us si totum Deo damus, non autem nos illi ex part & nobu ex part commutimus. Quod vidit iste venerabil● Martyr, etc. Cyprian that worthy Martyr saw well enough, saith he, that we live most in safety, when we ascribe all to God, and do not commit ourselves partly to God, and partly to ourselves. By these three therefore M. Bishop hitherto hath gained nothing, but by Cyprian whose words seem to make most for him, he gaineth least of all. But now he urgeth the confession of some of our best learned, that all Antiquity (excepting only S. Austin) believed and taught Free will. To this purpose he allegeth a place out of the Centuries, which he calleth a large long lying history, marry speaking but by roate as children do, or as the clown did of Aristides, who giving his voice to the banishment of the same Aristides, and being asked of him unknown, d Plutarch. Apophiheg. whether he knew him against whom he gave his voice, answered, that he knew him not, but it was trouble unto him to hear him termed a just man. For so M. Bishop knoweth not the Centuries, (alas poor man, what should he meddle with such great books?) but he hath heard that Protestants were the Authors thereof, and that is enough to warrant him to give his voice against them. But his fellows know, that they have good cause to speak well of the Authors of those Centuries, because by them they have been able to say more for themselves then ever they were before: so faithfully did those men deal in the compiling of that story. Now they say indeed, as he allegeth from his Author, that Clement Alexandrinus doth every where teach Free will, and that not only the Doctors of that age were in such darkness, but also that it did much increase in the ages following. Where taking the matter to be simply, as they say, and as M. Bishop doth object, what doth he gain more by that objection, than the Pelagians did? e Prosper. Epist. ad August. Obstinationem svam vetustate defendunt. A nullo unquam ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta ve nunc sentiuntur, affirmant. who defended their obstinacy by antiquity, and affirmed, that none of all the ecclesiastical Writers that were before, did so expound the Scriptures, as Austin did, namely, against the Free will and merits of man: and that examining the opinions of the more ancient Fathers, they were found to be in a manner all of one mind against him. But this he took to be no sufficient argument, but freely professeth of his doctrine, f Aug. de bono persever. cap 18. Hoc sc●oneminē contra istam Praedestinationem, etc. nisi errando disputare potuisse. I know that no man without error could dispute against it. He excuseth the ancients that were before him: g De Praedest. sanct. cap. 14. Priusquam ista Haeresis oriretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad soluendum quaestione versari, etc. unde factum est, ut de gratia Dei quid sentirent, breviter quibusdam scriptorum suorum locis & transeuntèr attingerent, immorarentur vero in eyes quae adversus alios inimicos Ecclesiae disputabant, etc. frequentationibus aut orationibus simplicitèr apparebat Dei gratia quid valeret. Non enim poscerentur à Deo quae praecepit fieri, nisi ab illo donaretur, ut fierent. that before the heresy of the Pelagians began, they had not any such need to deal much in that question, and therefore what they thought of the grace of God, they touched but briefly and by the way, in some places of their works, but stood more upon those things which they handled against other enemies of the Church. Yet he saith, that by their supplications and prayers it plainly appeared what grace doth, because they would not have asked of God those things which he hath commanded to be done, but that they held that the doing thereof is the gift of God: h De bono persever. cap. 23. No oraret Ecclesia, ut daritur infidelibus fides, nisi Deum crederet & aversas & adversas hominum ad se convertere voluntates; nec oraret Ecclesia ut perseveraret in fide Christi, nisi crederet Dominum sic in potestate habere cor nostrum, ut b●●um quod non tenemus nisi propria voluntate, non tamen teneamus, nisi ipsi in ●o●is operetur & velle that the Church would not have prayed to God, as it always did, to give men repentance, faith, obedience, perseverance, but that it believed, that God so hath our heart in his power, as that he worketh in us to will the good that we cannot have without our will. He further observeth, that i Ibid cap. 20. Didicimus singulas quasque haereses intulisse Ecclesiae proprias quaestiones: cotra quas di●igentiùs defenderetur S●riptura divina quam si nulla talis necessitas cogeret. Quid autem coegit loca Scripturarum, quibus Praedestinatio commendata est copiosiùs & enucientius i●●o nostro libere defendi, nisi quod Pelagiani dicunt, etc. all heresies have brought their several questions into the Church, by occasion whereof as touching those points, the truth of Scripture was the more diligently defended, and that by occasion of the Pelagian heresy, the places of Scripture concerning Predestination and grace of God, were by his labour more plentifully and plainly defended than they were before. And to conclude, out of all Antiquity before him, he bringeth only k Ibid cap 19 four or five testimonies out of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzene, whereby to justify what he taught. Now by this answer of Austin to the Pelagians, M. Bishop and his fellows must receive their answer. If it were no prejudice to him, that the Fathers before him taught otherwise then he did, it is no prejudice to us teaching the same that he taught. He professed himself l De nat. & gra. cap. 61 to be free in the writings of any such men, and that it was the Scripture only to which he was bound, without refusal to give consent: why then doth M. Bishop seek to bind us in a matter wherein S. Austin refused to be bound? Prosper being urged by the Pelagians with a sentence out of the book of the Pastor, rejected it m Prosper. de lib. arbit Nullius authoritatis testimonium de libello Pastoris. as a testimony of no authority, albeit Antiquity had n Ruffi●●n exposit. Symb. apud Cyprian. so accounted of that book, as that they had joined it to the books of the new Testament, & did read it publicly in their Churches, and doth M. Bishop think it much, that we reject some few testimonies alleged by him of far less authority then that was? But yet Austin found in these few testimonies of the more ancient Fathers, sufficient to justify both for him and us, o Aug. de bono persever. cap. 19 Istitales tantique doctores dicentes non esse aliquid de qu● tanquam de nostro, quod nobis De●● 〈◊〉 ●ed●rit gloriemur, nec ipsum cor nostrum & cogitationes nostrari● potestate nostra esse, & tetum dant●s Deo atque ab ipso nos acc●pere confitentes, ut permansu●● convertamur ad cum, ut id quod bonum est, nobis quoque videatur ●●●um, & quod velimus illud, ut honoremus Deum, & recipiamus Christum: ut ex indenotis efficiamur deu●●i & religiosi, ut in ipsam Trinitatem ●redamus, & confiteamur etiam voce quod credimus, haec utique gratiae Dei tribuunt, etc. that we have nothing whereof to glory as ours, which God hath not given unto us; that our heart and thoughts are not in our own power but Gods: that all is to be ascribed unto God, and that we must confess, that we receive all wholly of him, as touching our conversion to God, and continuing with him: that it is wholly the gift of grace, the gift of God, which of him we have, and not of ourselves to will that that is good: to receive Christ, to believe in God, and by voice to confess that which we believe. And surely howsoever those more ancient Fathers spoke obscurely of Free will, and some of them questionless meant amiss, yet for the most part their speeches being applied, as I said before, against heathen Astrologers, and wicked heretics, excluding man's will wholly from being any cause either of good or evil, they spoke worse than they meant, and if we will take their words with those qualifications and constructions, wherewith S. Austin cleared some speeches of his against the Manichees, as p Sect. 6. before was showed in the answer to M. Bishop's Epistle, they shall easily be reconciled to the truth. Therefore i●arhem also that speak most amiss, we find sometimes a right and true acknowledgement of the grace of God. Who was a greater Patron of Free will than Origen who yet notwithstanding confesseth, q Origen. contra Ceisum lib 7. Nostrum propositum non est sufficiens ad hoc, ut mundum cor habeamus, sed Deo est opus qui tale nobis crete: ide●rcò, qui scit precari dicit Cor mundum, etc. that our will sufficeth not for the having of a clean heart, but that we have need of God to create the same in us, and that therefore he that knoweth how to pray, saith, Create in me a clean heart, O God: r Jbid. Bonitate ac humanitate Dei, & divina ipsius gratia conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinat● sunt ut cognito Deo dignè vivant, etc. that the true knowledge of God by his mercy and grace is granted only unto them who are praedestinate to live worthy of him whom they know: s In Mat. cap. 13. Quod gloriatione dignum est, id nostrum non est, sed domon est Dei. that whatsoever is in us worthy our rejoicing, is not our own, but the gift of God. Yea where he affirmeth, that there is in every soul a strength of power and freedom of will whereby it may do every thing that is good: yet further to express his mind he addeth, t In Cantic. Homil. 4. Se● quia hoc naturae bonum praevaricationis occasione deceiptum, vel ad ignomimam, vel ad lasciviam fuerat inflexum, ubi per gratiam reparatur, & per doctrinam verbi Dei restituitur, odorem reddit sine dubio illum quem primus conditor Deus indiderat, sed peccati culpa subtraxerat. that this benefit of nature was cropped by means of sin, and was turned aside to shame and lasciviousness; but that the same being repaired by grace, and restored by the doctrine of the word of God, doth give that sweet savour which God the first Creator put into it but the trespass of sin had taken away. Where it appeareth plainly, that in speaking of Free will, his purpose was to show what man's will is by condition of creation, and to what it may be repaired by the grace of God, not what power it hath of itself in this state of corruption, to open to God when he knocketh, or to assent to God when he calleth. And thus Clemens Alexandrinus affirming Free will against the heretics Valentinus and Basilides, who thought that men by an essential state of nature were some good, some evil, some faithful and some unfaithful, so as that the will of man is nothing at all either way, yet reserveth due place to the grace of God, saying: u Clem. Alexan. Stromat. lib 5. Oportet mentem habere sanam, etc. ad quod maximè divina opus habemus gratia rectaque doctrina castaque & munda animi affectione, & Patris ad ipsum attractione. We have special need of God's grace, and true doctrine, and of chaste and pure affection, and of the Father's drawing us to himself. Where by affirming the Father's drawing us to himself, he plainly excludeth the voluntary opening and assenting, and yielding of Free will, because drawing (as before was showed out of Austin) importeth that there is no will in us, till God of unwilling do make us willing. Let one speech of Austin serve to clear all this matter, x Augu. de corrept. & great. ca 1 Liberum arbitrium & ad malum, & ad bonum faciendum confitendum est nos habere sed in ma lo faciendo liber est quisque justitiae, peccati autem seru●●m bono autem liber esse nullus potest, nisi fuerit liberatus ab eo qui dixit: Si vos filius, etc. We must confess (saith he) that we have Free will both to do evil and to do good. This is the common assertion of the Authors whom M. Bishop opposeth against us: but let us take the w●rds following withal, and by them expound the same assertion. For evil-doing every man is free from righteousness, and the servant of sin, (there he hath already Free will) but in that that is good no man can be free, except he be made free by him that saith: If the Son 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 think of the Apostles, or their best scholars, as M. Bishop idly talketh, but either borrowed it of heathen Philosophers, or presumed it of themselves. And whatsoever they thought or meant, their manner of speaking was not Apostolic, 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 form of doctrine, whereto the Church was first delivered. And if M. Bishop will say, that they learned these things of the Apostles, than he must condemn S. Austin, and the whole Catholic Church of that time in which Austin lived, for teaching otherwise then they taught: which if he will not do, he must perforce acquit us as well as him, and let the blame rest upon them to whom it doth appertain. Whom we account no further to be pillars of Christ's Church, than they themselves continued built upon the Gospel, which Christ hath made z Iren lib. 3. ca 1. evangelium nobis in Scriptures tradiderunt Apostoli columnan & f●●d amentum f●aci nostrae futurum. the pillar and fortress of our faith, neither doubt we to say of them that they were in darkness, where the a Esa. 8.10. word of the law and testimony did not give them light. Now for conclusion, he upbraideth us again with the heresy of the Manichees, only to show himself a perfect scholar of the Pelagian school. For so did the b Aug. contra 2. Epist. Pelag li 3 cap. 9 Excogitaverunt Ma●●chaeorū detestabili nomine imperitos quos potuerint d●terrere ne adversus eorum dogmata perversissima aures accommodent veritati. Pelagians object to Austin and other teachers of the Catholic Church, that they took part with the Manichees, and defended their heresy in the denying of Free will. They called them Manichees, and of themselves said, c Ibid. lib. 2. ca 1 Pro Catholica fide contra Manichaeorum sicut loquuntur profa nitatem consensionem Orientalium Episcoporum videntur exposcere, etc. that they dealt for the Catholic faith against the profane opinion of the Manichees, only to colour their own heresy and enmity against the grace of God by falsely upbraiding their adversaries with another. But S. Austin answered them: d Ibid. cap. 2. Manichaei negant homini bono ex libero arbitrio fuisse initria mal●. Pelagiani dicunt etiam hominem malum sufficienter haebere liberum arbitrium ad faciendum praeceptum bonum. Catholicae utrosque redarguit, etc. The Manichees deny, that to man being made good, Free will became the beginning of evil: the Pelagians say, that man being become evil, hath a will sufficiently free for the doing of the commandment of good. The Catholic Church condemneth them both, saying to the Manichees, God made man just: and to the Pelagians, If the Son shall make you free, then are you free indeed. Let M. Bishop turn the name of the Pelagians into Papists, and take this answer to himself. The Pelagians and Papists are not therefore to be approved, because they condemn the heresy of the Manichees, but are therefore to be detested, because they have set up another heresy of their own. e Ibid. possunt duo errores inter se esse contrarij, sed ambo sunt detestandi quia sunt ambo contrarij veritati. Two errors (saith S. Austin) may be contrary one to the other, and both to be detested, because they are both contrary to the truth. So is it with the Manichees and Papists, and we take the course that the ancient Church did to condemn them both. But of this matter I have spoken sufficiently before in answering his Epistle, and therefore need not here to stand upon it. 15. W. BISHOP. Here I would make an end of citing Authorities, 2. Inst. ca 2. q 4. were it not that Caluin saith, that albeit all other ancient writers be against him, yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth, is clearly for him in this point: but the poor man is foully deceived, aswell in this, as in most other matters. I will briefly prove, and that out of those works which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresy was a foot: for in his others, Caluin acknowledgeth him to have taught Free will. De spi. & lit 34. De gra. Chr. 14 Ad Simpli. q. 2. Tract. 72. in joan. Epi. 47. Of our Freedom in consenting to God's grace, he thus defineth: To consent to God's calling, or not to consent, lieth in a man's own will. Again: Who doth not see every 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 helped, if he do come. In another place, that we will (do well) God will have it to be his & ours; his, in calling us; ours, in following him. Yea more: To Christ working in him, a man doth cooperate, that is, worketh with him, both his own justification, and life everlasting: will you hear him speak yet more formally for us. We have dealt with your brethren and ours, as much as we could: that they would hold out and continue in the sound Catholic faith; the which neither denieth Free will, to evil or good life, nor doth attribute so much to it, that it is worth any thing without grace. So according to this most worthy Father's judgement, the sound Catholic faith doth not deny Free will, as the old Manichees, and our new Gospelers do; nor esteem it without grace able to do any thing toward salvation, as the Pelagians did. Lib 4. contr. jul. c. 8. And to conclude, hear S. Augustine's answer unto them, who say, that he, when he commendeth grace, denieth Free will. Much less would I say, that which thou lyingly dost affirm me to say, Free will to be denied, if grace be commended, or grace to be denied, if Free will be commended. R. ABBOT. Caluin indeed confesseth as the truth is, that the a Institut lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 4. ancient Writers save only Austin, have written so diversly and intricately, or obscurely of Free will, 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 far sometimes in extolling Free will, yet he dareth to affirm, that they aimed at this mark, to turn man altogether away from the confidence of his own strength, and to teach him to make the repose of his strength in God only. But whereas Caluin thinketh that Austin is clear for him in this point, M. Bishop saith, the poor man was foully deceived as well in this, as in most other matters. Where I cannot but smile to see, how every ignorant brabbler will have a snatch at Caluin, when he in the mean time going like a stately Lion, shaketh them off like curs, and dasheth them against the walls. If Caluin were so poor a man, alas what shall we think of M. Bishop? what shall we make of him but a beggar outright? Yet he taketh upon him to prove, and that out of those works which S. Austin wrote after the Pelagian heresy was a foot, that the same Austin taught Free will. And we deny not, but that he did so, and in that meaning wherein he taught it, we are ready to affirm it. Yea let him remember that Caluin professeth, that c Ibid. Sect. 8. if any man will use the name of Free will without the corrupt meaning of it, he will not gainsay him, only because it cannot be retained without danger of evil understanding, he wisheth it to be forborn, and in that respect we for the most part do forbear it. But this Free will in true meaning, is no faculty of nature, as M. Bishop will needs have it, but d Aug de pecca. mei & remiss. lib. 2 ca 6 Ipsum liberum arbitrium ad gratiam Dei, hoc est, ad dona Dei pertinere non amb●go, nec solum ut sit, sed etiam ut bonum sit, hoc est, ad facienda Domini mandata convertatur. it belongeth to the grace of God, to the gifts of God, not only the being of it, but the converting of it unto God. And very truly doth the same S. Austin argue, that e Ibid cap. 18. Si nobis libera quaedam voluntas ex Deo est, quae adhuc potest esse vel bona vel mala, bona verò voluntas ex nobis est, melius est id quod à nobis, quam quod ab illo est. if we have of God (by nature) a Free will, which may be either good or evil, and have of ourselves a good will (by consenting or applying it when God calleth to that that is good) then better is that that we have of ourselves, then that that we have of God. Which because it is absurd, we must needs acknowledge, that a good will, that is to say, Free will to faith and righteousness, is not of ourselves, but of God only. But M. Bishop allegeth Austin affirming, that f De spirit. & lit. cap. 34. to consent to God's calling, or not to consent, propriae voluntatis est, belongeth to man's own will. But rather he should say, propriè voluntatis est, that is, it concerneth properly the will: the place by changing of a letter being undoubtedly corrupted, S. Augustine's purpose there, being only to note the will to be the subject not the cause of this consenting. To consent he meaneth is an act of the will, which howsoever God worketh in the will to do, yet the will it is that doth it, but that the will consenteth by a power of it own, he meaneth not: yea he himself plainly evicteth the contrary in the words immediately going before. For what is it to consent, but velle credere, to be willing to believe? And g Ipsum velle credere Deus operatur in homine. God it is (saith he) that worketh in us to be willing to believe. Therefore it must needs be, that God worketh in man to give consent. Man's will consenteth, it is true: h Contra duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 1 cap. 18 & lib. 2. cap 8. & de Praedest. sanct. ca 5. sed praeparatur voluntas à Domino: but the will is framed or prepared of the Lord. Faith is in the power of man: i De spir & lit. cap. 31. sed nulla est potestas nisi à Deo, but there is no power but of God. It is in man's will, when God hath given him to will: it is in man's power, when God hath given him power. And more than this, howsoever we read the words, S. Austin intended not. For full and certain assurance whereof, M. Bishop should have remembered, that S. Austin himself reporteth it as an error which he had sometimes holden, k De Praedest. sanct. cap. 3. praedicato nobis evangelio consentiremus nostrum esse, & nobis ex nobis esse arbitrabar. Quem meum errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indicam ante Episcopatum meum scripta. that to consent to the Gospel when it is preached is of our own will, and that we have that of ourselves. From which error he professeth he was reclaimed by those words of the Apostle: l 1. Cor. 4.7. What hast thou that thou hast not received? For if it be of our own will that we consent, then somewhat we have of ourselves which we have not received. He should further have remembered, that S. Austin noteth it as the error of the Pelagians, that m Epist. 107 Consentire, vel non consentire, ita nostrum est ut si velimus. to consent, or not to consent is in ourselves, and of ourselves, so that if we will, we do so: or if we will not, we cause that the work of God nought availeth in us. M. Bishop therefore doth amiss, to make Austin a patron of that opinion which he reform as an error in himself, and condemned as an error in other men. The second place that he allegeth, in Augustine's true meaning is altogether against him. n Contra Pelag. & Celestina. lib 1. cap. 14 Quis non videat & venire quenquam & non venire arbitrio voluntatis? sed hoc arbitrium potest esse solum si non venit, non potest autem nisi aediutum esse si venit. Who doth not see (saith he) that every man cometh or cometh not arbitrio voluntatis, by his will? (Let it be as M. Bishop saith, by Free will:) But this will may be alone (saith he) if he come not; but it cannot be but helped if he do come. Where showing that our coming or not coming to Christ is acted by our will, he giveth to understand, that our will is of itself free to refuse to come: but that the Free will whereby we do come, is the gift of God, even as our Saviour Christ teacheth us, saying: o joh. 6.65. No man can come unto me, except it be given him of my Father. And therefore the same S. Austin elsewhere reasoneth with a man in this sort: p August. Quomodo venisti? etc. Veni, ●●quis, libero arbitrio: voluntate propria ven●. Quid turgescu? v● nosse, quod & hoc praestitum est tibi? Ipsum audi vocantem. Nemo venit ad me, etc. Thou sayest unto me, I am come to Christ by my Free will, I am come by mine own will. Why art thou proud of this? Wilt thou know that even this also was given thee? Hear him that called thee: No man cometh unto me except my Father draw him. For q De Praedest. sanct. cap. 20. supra Sect 6. when God will have a man do that which is not to be done but by the will, he in an unspeakable and wonderful sort worketh in him to will. But M. Bishop perhaps groundeth upon that that S. Austin saith, that the will of man is helped if he do come, as importing that man doth somewhat of himself, but yet is not fully sufficient without help. Whereto I answer again, that man doth somewhat, but not of himself, & God helpeth man doing somewhat, but so, as that that wherein he helpeth him is of God also, so that Gods helping of us doth always presuppose a work of his own in us, which he alone and wholly doth without us. r De great. & li. arbit. cap. 17 velimus sine nobis operaturicùm autem voluntus, nobiscum cooperatur. Without us (saith Austin) he worketh in us to will, and worketh with us, or helpeth us when we do will: s Jbid. cap. 20. Ex mala mutatur in bonam, & cùm bona fuerit adiu●atur. the will is changed from evil to good, and helped when it is good. t Enchir cap. 32. Hominis voluntatem bonam & praeparat ad iwandam. & adiwit praeparatan. He prepareth the good will that is to be helped, and helpeth it when it is prepared. u C●ntra duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 8. Ad justitiam nisi diunitùs liberatum adiutumque non valet. Free will to righteousness is first made free, and then helped. Herein then standeth M. Bishops error, that he joineth man to God in the first framing of the will to come to God so that for the performance hereof, as God is man's helper, so man is also God's helper, not by that that God hath now wrought in man, but by that that man hath naturally of his own: and therefore God helpeth man for his salvation, if man by his Free will help God for the saving of himself: but if man withdraw his help, the help of God availeth nothing. But the true help of God which S. Austin teacheth, is that whereby God himself worketh in us, that whereby we are helpful unto him, neither doth he help any thing in us, but what he himself hath wrought and prepared in us to be helped. And therefore he maketh a distinction of two kinds of help. x De corrept, & great cap 12. Aliud est adiutorium, sine quo aliquid non fit, & aliud est adiutorium, quo aliquid fit. There is a kind of help, without which a thing is not done, and there is another kind of help by which a thing is done. There is a help without which a thing is not done, but though that help be had, it followeth not thereupon that the thing is done, because some other help is wanting, without which that help availeth not. Without food we cannot live, and yet though food be had, he liveth not thereby that will die, or maketh away himself. Such was the help of God to Adam in Paradise, y Jbid. cap. 11. Adiutorium per quod posset (si vellet) & sine quo non posset per seueranter bonum tenere quod vellet. without which he could not continue though he would, by which he might continue if he would; but was left to his own will, either to continue by this help, or by foregoing it to fall away. Such the Papists say the help of God is to us, by which we come to Christ, and continue if we will: but both for coming and for continuing it is left to our Free will, either to use it, or refuse it: so that it is in us whether it shall be a help or not. But z Ibid. Est in nobis per hanc gratiam non solùm posse quod volumus, verumetiam velle quod possumus. the help of the grace of Christ is such, as whereby the thing is certainly effected, for which it is a help; not such as whereby we come to Christ, or continue with him if we will, but which maketh us to will: so that it is first a mere gift of that, of which afterwards it becometh a help. For example hereof Saint Austin saith, that a Cap. 12. Beatitudo cùm daia fuerit continuò fit beatus: adiutorium est enim non solum sine quo non fit, verumetiam quo fit propter quod datur. blessedness is a help by which when it is given, a man is forthwith blessed. Thereby giving to understand, that this help is the giving of the thing wherein God is said to help us. So that Gods help for our coming to Christ, is the gift of God whereby we do come: his help for our believing, is his very gift whereby we do believe: his b Ibid. Sanctis tale adiutotium perseverantiae datur, ut eis perseverantia ipsa donetur, non solùm ut sine isto dono perseverantes esse non possint, verumetiam ut per hoc donum nonnisi persiuerantes sint. help for our persevering and continuing with Christ, is his gift, whereby we do persevere, and no other but persevere and continue to the end. And this help doth Saint Austin mean in the place cited by M. Bishop. The will cannot but be helped, if a man come to Christ, meaning, that man's will cometh not to Christ, except God give unto the will to will and to come, that is, to believe in him. And therefore he addeth, c Et sic adiutum ut non solum quid facientum sit sciat, sed quod scierit et●am faciat. And so helped, as that he not only know what is to be done, but do also that which he knoweth: which in the Chapter before he hath thus expressed, that d Count Pelag. & Cel●st lib. 1. cap. 13 Si docet eos Deus qui secundum propositum vocati sunt simul donans & quod agant scire, & quod sciunt agere. to them which are called of purpose, God at once giveth both to know what they should do, and to do what they know. God's helping therefore is no other but his giving, and by this second place M. Bishop gaineth as little as he gained by the first. As little advantage hath he by the third place, nay, we see therein a notable piece of fraud and falsehood in concealing the former part of the words, which should clear the latter. e Ad Simplic. q. 2. Alitèr Dius praestat ut velimus, alitèr praestat quod voluerimus: ut velim●s & suum voluit esse & nostrum: suum vocando, nostrum sequendo. Quod autem voluerimus solus prae●●at, id est posse benè agere & semper beatè vinere. In one sort, saith Austin, God yieldeth to us to will; in another sort he performeth the thing that we will. That we will, he would have it to be his and ours: his in calling; ours in following. But the thing that we will he alone performeth, that is, to be able to do well, and for ever to live in bliss. Where plainly he affirmeth, that it is God that doth or performeth both the one and the other; he maketh us to will, and he maketh good to us the thing that our will desireth. How then will he have it to be ours that we will or are willing, but by his working it in us to be ours? It is the act of our will when we do will, and so ours, but yet it is Gods, because he worketh in us to will. It is his in calling, ours in following; but it is his also that we follow, because he maketh us to follow. For how do we follow when he calleth, but f Prosper. de v●cat gent lib. 2. cap. 9 sequaces fide & voluntate by willing and believing? And no man can believe, g August count duas epist. Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19 except it be given to him to believe, and h Ad simplic. q. 2. sit nutus voluntatis ille tribuit, ille largitur. that there is a yielding or assenting of the will, it is he that giveth it, saith Austin in that very treatise, it is he that granteth it; so that although we will, and we run, and this willing and running be ours, yet as the Apostle saith; i Rom. 9.16. it is neither of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. Concerning which words, it is worth the while to observe what Saint Austin writeth in the same discourse, whence M. Bishop taketh this objection, and within a very few lines after, and thought worthy to remember in diverse places of his works. M. Bishop saith as all his fellows, that all is not of God, but somewhat belongeth to man's Free will for his conversion unto God, which yet sufficeth not unless it be helped by the grace of God. But S. Austin saith, k Ad Simplic. q. 2 si propterea solum dictum est, Non volentis, quia voluntas hominis so●a non suffi it ut justè rectèque vivamus nisi adiwentur misericordia Dei. potest & hoc modo dici. Igitur non miserentis est Dei sed volentis est hominis, quia misericordia Dei sola non sufficit nisi consensus nostrae voluntatis addatur At illud manifestum est frustra nos vell nisi Deus misereatur. Illud. autem nesc●o quomodo dicatur frustra Deum misereri nisi nos velimus. If therefore only it be said, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, because the will of man alone is not sufficient, except it be helped by the mercy of God, it may be also thus said, that it is not of God that showeth mercy, but of man that willeth, because the mercy of God alone sufficeth not, unless there be adjoined the consent of the will of man. More effectually doth he express it in another place. l Enchirid cap. 32. Si propterea dictum est. Non volentis. etc. quia ex utroque fit, id est, ex voluntate hominis & misericordia Dei, ut si● dictum accipiamus, Non volentis, etc. tanquam diceretur non sufficit sola voluntas hominis si non s●t etiam misericordia Dei, non sufficit ergo sola misericordia Dei si non sit etiam voluntas hominis: ac per hoc si rectè dictum est, Non volentis hominis sed miserentis est Dei quia id voluntas hominis solae non implet, cur non & è contrario rectè dicitur, Non miserentis est Dei sed volentis est hominis, quia id miserecordia Dei sola non implet? Porro si nullus Christianus dicere audebit, Non miserentis est Dei sed volentis est hominis ne Apostolo apertissimè contradicat, restat ut propterea recte dictum intelligatur, Non volentis, etc. totum Deo detur qui hominis voluntatem bonam & praeparat adiwandam & adiwat praeparatam. If therefore it be said, It is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, because it is done by both, that is, by the will of man, and by the mercy of God, as if it were said, the will of man alone sufficeth not, if there be not also the mercy of God, then also the mercy of God sufficeth not, if there be not also the will of man: and by this means, if it be rightly said, It is not of him that willeth, but of God that showeth mercy, because the will of man alone availeth not, why is it not on the contrary rightly said, It is not of God that showeth mercy, but of man that willeth, because the mercy of God alone availeth not? Now if no Christian man will dare to say so, it remaineth that we understand it therefore said, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, totum Deo detur, that all wholly may be attributed to God, who prepareth or maketh the good will of man. What could be more notably spoken to overthrow all Popish assertion of man's Free will, which seeing S. Austin gave M. Bishop occasion to note in the very place whence he took his objection, we must needs think him a man of a seared conscience, that would thus wilfully bend himself against an apparent truth. In a word, I answer his objection out of Austin by the words of Hierome, having reference to the same sentence of the Apostle: m Hieron epist. ad Demetriad. Velle & nolle nostrum est, ipsumque quod nostrum est sine Dei miseratione nostrum non est. To will, and to nill (according to godliness) is ours; but even that that is ours, is not ours without the mercy of God. His fourth place of Austin, is that n August. in joan. tract. 72. operant in se Christo cooperatur sa●utem aeternam ac justificationem suam. Christ working in man, man himself doth cooperate, that is, worketh together with him his own justification and life everlasting. An idle objection, because by that very place, if it were discussed, it should appear which the same S. Austin for a full answer expressly saith elsewhere, o In Psal. 77. Dei gratia non solum operatur remissionem peccatorum, sed etiam cooperantem sibi facit spiritum hominis in opere bonorum factorum, that God maketh the spirit of a man to cooperate, or work together with him in doing of good works, so that this cooperating, or working together with God, attributeth nothing to the will of man, but what is the proper effect of the grace of God. In the fifth testimony he saith, that Austin speaketh yet more formally for them, but let him conceive of the form as he will, we are sure he is far from the matter of S. Augustine's speech. p Epist 47. Catholica ●ides ●●que liberum arb trium negat sive in ●itam malam, sive in bonam, neque tantum eitribuit ut sine gratia Dei valeat aliquid sive ut ex malo convertatur in bonum, sive ut in bono perseverantèr proficiat, sive ut ad bonum sempiternum perventat. The sound Catholic faith, saith he, neither denieth Free will, whether to evil life or to good, neither attributeth so much to it, as that it availeth any thing without grace, either to be converted from evil to good, or by perseverance to go forward in that that is good, or to attain to the everlasting good. Now we whom M. Bishop termeth new gospelers, but yet out of the old Gospel do affirm, according to the true meaning of S. Austin, that there must be a Free will either in evil or good life. For a man cannot be either good or evil against his will, and if he be willingly that that he is, it is by Free will, because the will is always Free, and cannot but be Free in that that it willeth. But the will of man is of itself Free in that that is evil; to that that is good, q Retract. lib. 1. cap 15. Intantum l●bera est 1 quatum liberata est. it is so far only Free, as it is made Free; r Cont. duas ep. Pelag. lib 1. ca 3. Et De corrept. & great. cap 1. Liberum in bono non erit quod liberator non liberaverit. In bono liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus. neither can any man in this respect be free, whom the purchaser of freedom hath not made free. We say therefore, that the Free will of man availeth nothing without grace, that is in S. Augustine's construction, availeth nothing but by that that grace worketh in it, either for converting unto God, or persevering in that whereunto it is converted. And therefore as S. Austin in the epistle cited speaketh, s Epist. 47. Boni ipsam bonam voluntatem per Dei gratiam consecuti sunt Et post; Gratia intelligitur voluntates hominum ipsus ex mala bonas facere, ipsas etiam quas fecerit custodire: & ante, Omnia quae ad mores nostros pertinent quibus rectè vivimus à patre nostro qui in coe●i● est do●uit esse poscenda, ne de libero praesumentes arbitrio à divina gratia decidamus. It is by grace that good men have obtained a good will, and grace must be understood to make the wills of men of evil good, and to preserve the same when it hath so made them; and of our Father which is in heaven we are to beg all things whereby we live well, least presuming of Free will, we fall away from the grace of God. If all things, then are we to beg of him to open, to yield, to assent, to receive his grace, and therefore these things cannot be attributed to the power of our own Free will. Now M. Bishop merely abuseth Austin, as if he had meant, that Free will hath a power and ability of it own to righteousness, but that this power is not sufficient, is not strong enough without grace adjoined to it, whereas S. Augustine's meaning is to challenge wholly to grace, whatsoever the will of man doth, so that it doth nothing but what grace worketh in it to do. t De verb Apos. ser. 11 Nihil ex eo quod aliqu●d sumus. si tamen in eius side aliquid sumus quantum cunque sumus ●ih●l nobis arrogemus, ne & quod accepimus perdamus; sed in eo quod accepimus, illi gloriam demus. Of that as touching which we are somewhat in the faith of Christ, how much soever it be, we may take nothing to ourselves, but we must give the glory of all unto God. The new gospelers therefore according to the doctrine of the ancient Gospel, detest the Manichees for denying Free will in sin and evil; and detest also Pelagians and Papists, for attributing to Free will an ability and power of it own, whereby to apply itself to righteousness, which whereas M. Bishop saith the Pelagians affirmed without grace, I have before showed, that he saith untruly, and that the Papists do now teach in that behalf the very same that the Pelagians did. To the last place the answer is ready by that that hath been said. Free will and grace, are not the one excluded by the other, neither is the one denied in the affirming of the other, if we make the one the cause of the other, as Austin doth, and teach it to be the work of grace to make the will Free. But grace is denied in the preaching of Free will, if as touching salvation it be affirmed to have any freedom which it hath not of grace, or any thing at all be attributed unto it which is not the effect of grace. For u De corrept. & great. ca 8. Voluntas humana non libertate consequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem. man doth not by freedom of will attain to grace, but by grace obtaineth freedom of will; and though it be in the will, and by the will, that we receive grace, yet x Prosper de vocat. gent lib. 1. cap. 5. Omnibus hominibus percipiendae gratiae causa voluntas Dei est. in all men the will of God himself is the cause of the receiving of the grace of God. 16. W. BISHOP. Now in few words I will pass over the objections which he frameth in our names. But misapplyeth them. First objection. That man can do good by nature, as give alms, do justice, speak the truth, etc. and therefore will them without the help of grace. This argument we use to prove liberty of will in civil and moral matters, even in the corrupted state of man, and it doth demonstrate it: and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth grant it. And his answer here is far from the purpose, for albeit (saith he) touching the substance of the work it be good, yet it faileth both in the beginning, because it proceeds not from a pure heart, and a faith unfeigned: and also in the end, which is not the glory of God. Answer. It faileth neither in the one nor other: for that alms may issue out of a true natural compassion, which is a sufficient good fountain to make a work morally good: faith and grace do purge the heart, and are necessary only for good and meritorious works: Again, being done to relieve the poor man's necessity, God his Creator and Master, is thereby glorified. And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular: yet God being the final end of all good, any good action of itself, is directed towards him, when the man putteth no other contrary end thereunto. R. ABBOT. It was a caution given by the Pelagians, a Prosper de lib. arbit. Proclamat cavendum esse ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctorum merita referamus, ut nihil n si quod malum est humanae ascribaemu● naturae. that we may not so attribute to God all the merits or good works of holy men, as that we ascribe to the nature of man nothing but that that is evil. This caution the Papists, not willing in any thing to serve from the Pelagian heresy, do very religiously observe. For the proving of Free will they object unto us that man can do good by nature, as give alms, do justice, etc. and therefore can will these things without the help of grace. M. Bishop saith they use this argument to prove liberty of will in civil and moral matters. But therefore very lewdly do they b Coster. Enchirid. cap. 5. use it against us, and exclaim that we by denial of Free will, make laws and exhortations and instructions of no effect, when as we deny not liberty and freedom of will in moral and civil actions. Yet of such works we say, that although in moral and civil life they stand for good, yet spiritually and with God they are not good works but evil, because howsoever there is the outward matter and substance, yet there wanteth the inward form and life whereby they should have the condition of good works. Hereof M. Perkins saith, that the good thing done by a natural man, is a sin in respect of the doer, because it fails both for his right beginning, which is a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith unfeigned, as also for his end, which is the glory of God. But saith M. Bishop, it faileth neither in the one nor in the other, for that alms may issue out of a true natural compassion, which is a sufficient good fountain to make a work morally good. Where I wonder whether he did well advise of that he saith. For if natural compassion be a sufficient good fountain to make a work morally good, then because bruit beasts have true natural compassion, and true natural affections, we must needs attribute to them virtuous and moral actions. But S. Austin was not of M. Bishop's mind when he said, c Aug in Psal. 31. Crede in cum qui justificat impium, ut possint opera tua esse opera bona: nam nec bona illa appellaverim, quamque non deradice bona procedunt. Believe in him that justifieth the ungodly, that thy works may be good works. For I will not call them good works, so long as they proceed not from a good root. Faith then by S. Augustine's judgement, is the good root whence good works must grow, and if they grow not from this root, they cannot be called good. And this he learned of the Apostle, teaching us that d Heb 11.6 without faith it is unpossible to please God, and that e Rom. 14.23. whatsoever is not of faith it is sin. And therefore of natural compassion, he saith, that f Aug contra julian li 4 ca 3. Etsi misericordia ipsa per seipsam naturali compassione opus est bonam, etiam isto bono malè v●●tur qui infideliter v●●●m, & hoc bonum malè facit qui infideliter facit. Qui autem in●s● pacit aliquid prefecto pec cat. Ex quo colligitur etiam ipsa bona opera quae● faciunt infi●e●es, non ipserum esse, sedillius qui benè v●●tur malis ipsorum autem esse peccata, quibus & bona malè faciunt, quia ea non fideli sed ●●fideli, hoc, est, stul●a & noxta faciunt voluntate although in itself it be a good work, yet he useth this good work amiss that useth it unbeleevingly, and doth it amiss that doth it unbeleevingly. Now he that doth any thing amiss, saith he, sinneth therein, and therefore the good works which unbelievers do are Gods, who useth to good purpose them that are evil: but to them that do them they are sins, in that they do good things amiss, because they do them with an unbelieving, that is, with a foolish and corrupt will. Wherein he accordeth with the Apostle saying, that g Tit. 1.15. to unbelievers all things are unclean, because even their mind and conscience is defiled. And thereto Prosper alluding saith, that h Prosp. de lib. arbit. Patet in impiorum animis nullam habitare virtutem, sed omnia opera eorum immunda esse atque polluta, etc. dum ea ipsa quae non haberent, nisi dante Deo subduntur ei qui primus recessit à Deo. Et post. Multa laudabilia reperiuntur etiam in ingenijs ●●●orum quae ex na●●a ●uidem prodeunt, sed quoniam ab eo qu●●aturam condidit, recesserunt virtutes esse non possu●t. in the minds of the ungodly albeit there be found many commendable things, yet there dwelleth no virtue, but all their works are polluted and unclean, whilst therein they are subject to him who did first fall by apostasy from God. Therefore M. Bishops distinction of good works and meritorious work, is an idle and vain presumption, there being no works meritorious at all, nor any works good, but only such as are done in the faith of Christ. The other circumstance required by M. Perkins in good works, is the end whereto they are referred. For Austin rightly saith, i Aug. count Julian lib 4 cap. 3. Noveris non officijs sed finib●s a vitijs d●s●e●nendas esse virtutes, etc. Cum itaque facit homo aliquid ubi peccare non videtur, si non propter hoc facit, propter quod facere debet, peccare convincitur. that works are not esteemed by the actions, but by the ends, so that when a man doth a thing wherein he seemeth not to sin, if he do it not for that end for which he should do it, that which he doth becometh thereby sin. Now the true and proper end of all good works, and which maketh them good, is the glory of God, of which the Apostle saith, k 1. Cor. 10.31. Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God, and of which Prosper telleth us, that l Prosp●r. de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap. 2. etiamsi in bonis moribus. agate, malè adhuc vivit, si non in gloriam Dei vivit, albeit a man live in good behaviour, yet he liveth still an evil life, if he live not to the glory of God. But hereto belongeth the knowledge of God, which is m Arnob. count gent. lib. 2. Cognitio Dei fermentum quoddam est vitae as it were the leaven that seasoneth the whole life of man. And this knowledge of God, must be by the word of God, so that n Clem. Alexand. in Protrepi. Qui absque verbo veritatis operantur aliquid vel loquuntur, sunt similes ijs qui conantur in gredi absque pedibus. they who without the word of truth do work or speak any thing, are as they that strive to go without feet. And it must breed the love of God, because o Jdem Stromat. lib. 3. Nec castitas est bonum & ex virtute, nisi fiat propter delectionem in Deum chastity, and so the like, are not virtues except they be done or observed for the love of God. And in the love of God consisteth the worship of God, p Prosper. de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Sine cultis veri Dei etiam quod virtui videtur esse peccatum est, nec placere ullus Deo sine Deo potest. without which worship of the true God, even that that seemeth to be virtue is sin, and therefore it offended Austin, and he retracted it as a thing mis-spoken, that he had said q August. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 3 Displi●et mihi quod philosophos non vera pietate praeditos dixi virtutis luce ful●●se. that the Philosophers shined with the light of virtue, who were not endued with true piety or religion towards God. A part of which piety it is in all our good works, to have a respect unto him, to do them for his sake, thereby intending to serve, and obey, and to please him, so that r Origen. in Numer. hom. 25. Inanis est omnis actus, & omnis sermo in quo non est intrinsecus aliquid pro Deo & pro mandato Dei. vain is every action, and every speech that hath not somewhat inwardly for God, and for the commandment of God, and s August. De civit Dei. lib. 19 cap. 21. Virtutes cum ad se ipsas referuntur, nec propter aliud expetuntur, etiam tunc inflatae & superbae sunt. when virtues are referred to themselves, and desired only for themselves, and not for some other respect (to God) they are swelling and proud, and are not to be accounted for virtues but vices. And this respect to God must acknowledge him to be the giver of all our virtue and goodness, and that we do but serve him with his own, so that t Idem. count julian. Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 3. Non quia per seipsum factum quod est operire nudum peccatum est, sed de tali opere non in Domino gloriari solus impius negat esse peccatum. Et ante: Cum non ad suum authorem referu●tur donae Dei hoc ipso mali his utentes afficiuntur iniusts although to clothe a naked man, or any other such like work, by itself be not a sin, yet of such a work not to glory in the Lord, and not to refer it to him as the author of it, none but a wicked man will deny it to be a sin. Now these conditions and circumstances being required to make a work good, u Arnob. in Psal. 26. Fieri poterit ut obsequendi voto offendam si qualitèr debeant ante non discam. it may be that a man minding to do a service may commit an offence, if he do not first learn in what sort he should do it. Which a man cannot learn by Free will, and by the law of nature, and therefore offendeth even in those things wherein he seemeth outwardly to do well. But M. Bishop telleth us, that in such works God is glorified, because albeit the man thought not of God in particular, yet God being the final end of all good, any good action of itself is directed towards him, when the man putteth no other contrary end thereunto. Where we may justly wonder, that so absurd a fancy should prevail with him, that God should be glorified there where he is neither thought of nor known, and that actions should be directed to God, where there is nothing to direct them; that men's actions are the directors of themselves, and that though a man have no meaning to glorify God, yet he doth glorify him so long, as he propoundeth not to himself a contrary end. These are M. Bishop's dreams, and upon the credit hereof we must believe that the Gentiles not knowing none but idol gods, yet did glorify God in those works wherein they did not put a contrary end, nay, the bruit creatures do direct their works of natural compassion to the glory of God, for their natural compassion is a sufficient good fountain to make their works good, and they propound no end contrary to the glory of God. But S. Austin telleth us, that x August. in Psal 31. Bonum opus intentio facit: imentionem fides dirigit. it is the intent that maketh the work good, and that it is faith that directeth the intent, and therefore where there is neither intent to glorify God, nor faith to direct the intent thereto, there cannot be any glorifying of God, neither can the work that is done be called a good work. M. Bishop therefore doth amiss to join with the Pelagians, y Cont. julian. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 3. Introducens 〈◊〉 hominum genus quod Deo placere pessit sine fide Christi lege naturae. Hoc est unde vo● maximè Christiana detestatur ecclesia. to bring in a kind of men, which without the faith of Christ, by the law of nature can please God. This is it, saith S. Austin to them, for which the Church of Christ most highly doth detest you. I will end this point with the resolution of Origen: z Origen. in job. lib 1. Omne opus bonum quod visi fuerint homin●e facere, nisi in Dei cultura, nisi in Dei agnitione atque confessione fecerint, sine causa faciunt & superuacuè. Audentèr dicam, omnia gratis faciunt, si non in fide fecerint: sine causa agunt nisi in agnitione unius Dei patris, & in confession filii eius Domini nostri jesus Christi, & illumination Sp. Sancti hoc fecerint. Omnem justitiam qui foris a vera Dei cultura atque vera fide fecerit, gratis facit, in perditione facit, non prodest ei, non adiwat eum in die trae, etc. Ad quod testis est Apostolus: Omne quod ex fide, etc. Quare? Quia bona fecisse videntur non quaesita fide, non quaesita agnitione eius propter quem hoc fecerint A quo enim accipiet mercedem? Ab eo quem non requisivit, quem non agnovit, cui non eredidit, quem non est confessus, non accipiet ab eo remunerationem nisi judicium & iram & condemnationem, etc. Sicut enim nihil est delectabile hominibus sine luce, sic nihil est delectabile neque acceptum Deo absque fidei lumine. Every good work, saith he, which men seem to do, except they do it in the worship of God, in the acknowledgement and confession of God, it is but bootless and vain. I will boldly say that they do all in vain, if they do it not in faith: they do all to no purpose, except they do it in the acknowledgement of one God the Father, and in the confession of his only begotten son jesus Christ, and by the enlightening of the holy Gbost. He that doth a work of righteousness being a stranger from the true worship of God, and from true faith, he doth it to no good, he doth it in destruction, it profiteth him not, it helpeth him not in the day of wrath. Whereof the Apostle is witness, saying, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Why so? because he hath not the faith and knowledge of him for whose sake he should do it. For of whom shall he receive reward? Of him whom he hath not sought after, whom he knoweth not, whom he believeth not, nor confesseth? He shall receive no reward of him, but judgement, and wrath, and condemnation. For as nothing is delightsome to us without light, so is nothing delightsome or pleasing to God without the light of faith. Only this I will add, that God to such actions amongst the Gentiles gave temporal rewards for temporal respects, not to show any approbation thereof in respect of himself, to whom the doers thereof had no respect, but only to entertain the liking thereof, for the common good of mankind, and for the maintenance of civil order and society, which God would use to such ends, and in such sort as pleased him for the benefit of his Church. And therefore even them who most excelled in the renown and commendation of these virtues, God sometimes gave over temporally also to such ends as to the world seemed unworthy to their former life, to show that he stood not in any sort bound to them for the virtues, if we so call them, wherein they had not respected him, in that he would neither be the defender of them in this world, nor the rewarder of them in the world to come. 17. W. BISHOP. 2 Objection. God hath commanded all to believe and repent, therefore they have natural Free will, by virtue whereof being helped by the spirit of God, they can believe. The force of the argument consisteth in this, that God being a good Lord, will not command any man to do that, which he is no way able to do. Answer. M. Perkins answereth in effect (for his words be obscure) that God commandeth that, which we be not able to perform, but that which we should do: Then I hope he will admit that he will enable us by his grace to do it, or else how should we do it? God surely doth not bind us by commandment to any imposble thing, he is no tyrant, but telleth us, that his yoke is sweet, and his burden easy. M●th. 1●. john 5. And Saint john witnesseth, that his commandments are not heavy. He was far off from thinking that God would tie any man by la, to do that which he was altogether unable to perform. This in the end M. Perkins himself approveth. R. ABBOT. Where they object that God commandeth all to believe and repent, and therefore that all have Free will to do that which he commandeth, M. Perkins answereth, that the argument is not good, because God by such commandments doth not show what men are able to do, but what they should do, though of themselves they cannot do it. Which answer why M. Bishop calleth obscure, I know not, but that his head haply fell out to be somewhat cloudy when he came to consider of it. Yet he replieth; then I hope that he will admit, that he will enable us by his grace to do it, or else how should we do it? We will admit, that God by his grace enableth whom he thinketh good, to do his commandments for the state of his life so far as he thinketh good, and to them only the yoke of Christ is sweet, and his burden easy, and his commandments not grievous, because of him a Aug. de perfect. justitia. Cui gravia sunt intelligat se nondum accepisse donum quo gravia non sint. they receive a gift whereby they become not grievous unto them. And to these the use of the law and commandments doth properly belong, which God did not deliver as expecting that any man could fulfil the same, b Ambr in Gaelat. cap. 3 Lex ad hoc data est, ut peccatores reos se scirent apud Deum. Manifestatu enim peccatis suis conclusi sunt ut se excusare non possent, sed quaererent misericordiam. etc. but thereby to bring men to the knowledge of sin, and of condemnation thereby due unto them, that by this means he might move them whom he would call, to apprehend that means of salvation which he had promised in jesus Christ; who by his spirit given unto them c Rom. 7.22. delight in the law of God as touching the inner man, but by the rebellion of the law of sin, are holden back in this life from attaining to the perfect righteousness of the law. To the rest the law is a conviction of sin, no help of righteousness; whilst God d August. de bono persever. cap. 14. by unsearchable, but just judgement, denieth to them that grace, which to others he vouchsafeth, because e Rom. 9.18. he showeth mercy to whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Albeit that man is unable to fulfil the law, it is not any default of God, but of man himself, and therefore there was no cause why f August. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit siquid erit si non divinitus iubeatur ut non sit. Et iterum, Quomodo non vetatur pe● justitiam si peccatum est? the just God should diminish any thing of the rule of righteousness, though unrighteous man had by sin disabled himself of the performance thereof; the righteousness of God I say required, that God should justify himself from seeming to approve any sin by the defect of the commandment, howsoever man could not justify himself from sin by the keeping of it. But of the end of Gods giving the law and the possibility of keeping it, there will be occasion afterwards to entreat more largely, and therefore with this brief answer I refer that point to his due place. 18. W. BISHOP. 3. Object. If man have no Free will to sin, or not to sin, than no man is to be punished for his sins, because he sinneth by a necessity, not to be avoided. He answereth, that the reason is not good; for, though man cannot but sin, yet is the fault in himself, and therefore is to be punished. Against which, I say that this answer supposeth that which is false, to wit, that a man in sin, 3. Pet. 3. cannot choose but sin: For by the help of God, who desireth all sinner's conversion, and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient; a sinner in a moment, may call for grace and repent him: and so choose whether he will sin or no, and consequently hath Free will to sin, or not to sin: And that example of a bankrupt is not to purpose; for he cannot when he will, satisfy his creditors, who content not themselves with his repentance, without repay of their money, as God doth. Now concerning the force of this argument, hear Saint Augustine's opinion. De duab. animab. count Manich. in these words. Neither are we here to search obscure books to learn, that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment, which doth not that, which he cannot do: for (saith he) do not shepherds upon the downs, sing these things? Do not poets upon the stages act them? Do not the unlearned in their assemblies, and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them? Do not masters in their schools, and Prelates in their pulpits, and finally all mankind throughout the whole world, confess and teach this, to wit, that no man is to be punished, because he did that, which he could not choose but do. Should he not then (according to S. Augustine's censure) be hissed out of all honest company of men, that denieth this so manifest a truth, confessed by all Mankind? How gross is this heresy, that so hoodeth a man, and hardeneth him, that be he learned, yet he blusheth not to deny roundly, that which is so evident in reason, that even natural sense doth teach it unto shepherds. God of his infinite mercy, deliver us from this strange light of the new Gospel. R. ABBOT. As touching civil and outward actions, we doubt not, as before is said, but that God hath left a liberty and power to the will of man, and therefore justly are they punished, who run wilfully into enormous actions from which it is in them to forbear. And this addeth much to the just condemnation of man, that even in those things wherein he hath power to do otherwise, yet he carrieth himself frowardly and rebelliously against God. And yet of outward actions in some degree, Hierome rightly observeth, a Hieron. count, Pelag. li. 3. Dicimus posse hominem non peccare si ve lit pro tempore, pro loco, pro imbecillitate corporea, quamdus intentus est animus, etc. Quòd si se paululum remiserit, etc. discit fragilitatem suam & multa se non posse cognoscit. that a man can forbear to sin if he will at a time or in some place, or by some let of bodily weakness, or so long as the mind is intent and heedy, but he soon findeth, that wholly not to sin it is not possible. To speak then indefinitely of sin, it is true that man left in the power of his own Free will cannot choose but sin. For how can he choose but sin, who of himself is nothing but sin? Yea we know, that the corruption of sin lieth as a punishment upon the whole nature of man, and therefore is said to have befallen b August. de nat. & great. ca 34. by the just revenge of God, and is called c Idem. de perfect. justit. Rat. 9 Poenalis vitiositas, a penal viciousness, or subjection to sin. Now if it be as it were a prison or punishment, it is not in our choice to be rid thereof, because a man cannot rid himself of a prison or punishment, which he hath drawn upon himself. And therefore doth Saint Austin affirm it to be d De nat. & great. cap. 67. ex lib. 3. de lib. arbit. cap. 18. Approbare falsa pro veris ut erret invitus, & resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis vinculà non posse à libidinosis operibus temperare, non est natura instituti hominis sed poen● damnati. the punishment of man by condemnation, to approve falsehood for truth, so as to err against his will, and being vexed with the grief of the bond of the flesh, yet not to be able to temper himself from libidinous actions. Thus have we heard him before to avouch e Sect. 3. a necessity of sinning, and this necessity he acknowledgeth in some part to continue still in the state of grace, f De nat. & great. cap. 66. alleging thereof the words of the Prophet David. g Psal. 24.18. De necessitatibus meis educ me: deliver me from all my necessities. And therefore vainly doth M. Bishop except, that by the help of God a sinner may call for grace and repent him, and choose whether he will sin or no. For in men converted it is true that they cannot choose but sin; in repentant men it is still true that they cannot choose but sin. For the forbearing of this or that action doth not put a man in case to choose to sin, but though he arise one way, yet the law of sin holdeth him still under a necessity to fall another way, until h August de not & great. cap. 66. Opitulante gratia, etc. & mala necessitas removebitur, & libertas plena tribuetur. this evil necessity be taken away, and full liberty granted, which shall i Idem. in joan. tract. 41 Quando plena atque perfecta libertas trit? Quando nullae inimicitiae, quando novissimae inimica destructur mors. then be, when we shall see him face to face. Or if M. Bishop will say otherwise, let him bring us forth the man that can choose to sin; the man that can do more than ever Patriarch, or Prophet, or Apostle, or Evangelist could do. For if they could choose to sin, why did they sin? or if they did not sin, why did they say, Forgive us our trespasses? If he will needs follow the Pelagian device, that k Hieron. epist. ad Cresiph: Licet alius non fuerit, tamen potest esse qui esse volverit. though no man be indeed without sin, yet a man may be so if he will, I will answer him with Hieromes words, l Ibid. Quae est argumentatio ista, posse esse quod nunquam fuerit, etc. & dare cui libet quod in Patriarchis & Prophetis & Apostolis nequ●as approbare. What a reason is this, that that may be that never was, and that he should yield that to I know not whom, which in the Patriarches, and Prophets, and Apostles he cannot prove? Repentance therefore and conversion so altereth the course of a man's life in the main, as that even in the way of righteousness it still leaveth in him a necessity of sin. Neither doth this conversion stand indifferent to all, as he dreameth, nor doth God afford to all sinners grace sufficient to bring them to repentance. He noteth for his purpose the place of Peter, that God would not have any to perish, etc. but let him take the whole words, and they will clear themselves, m 2. Pet. 3 9 He is patiented TOWARDS US, not willing that any (namely of us) should perish, but that all (of us) should come to repentance. He speaketh of Gods elect, of them whom he hath chosen to make up the body of his Church, of whom our Saviour Christ saith, n john. 6.39. This is the will of the Father that hath sent me, that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. Of these he will have none to perish, but doth patiently bear till he have accomplished the number that he hath decreed for himself. So did God say by the Prophet, o Ezech. 33.11. As I live, saith the Lord, I desire not the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted & live; but he said it to the house of Israel; he said it not to the Philistims; he said it not to the Babylonians, the Ammonits', the Moabits, etc. It was not for their sakes that he swore, but p Heb. 6.17. willing to show to the heirs of promise the stableness of his counsel, he bond himself by an oath. Therefore to those peoples he gave not the means of conversion, q Psal. 147.19. he gave his word unto jacob, his statutes and ordinances unto Israel; he dealt not so with any other nation. How then doth M. Bishop say, that God affordeth to all sinners grace sufficient for their conversion? Will he say that the beholding of heaven and earth, and such other natural motives, were sufficient to bring men to repentance? He may dally with us, that in themselves they were such as might sufficiently avail to move men; but what is that to the purpose, so long as to the state and condition of man they were not sufficient? The light of the Sun is a sufficient light, and yet it is not sufficient to make a blind man see. What were all those motives and occasions whatsoever they were, but even as a good lesson to a dead man? And what, will he term those means of conversion by the name of grace? Away, away with this Pelagian conceit, and let us acknowledge the truth as S. Austin doth; r August. de verb. Apost. Ser. 11. Communis est omnibus natura, non gratia: Nature is common to all, but grace is not so. It is but s Videre acumen sed vitreum. Qu●si lucet vanitate sed frangitur veritate. a glassy trick of wit, as he saith, to devise a grace that is common to all: it maketh a fair show, but it is soon cracked. Now M. Perkins, alleging that because it is by man's own default that he cannot choose but sin, therefore he is notwithstanding justly punished, bringeth for declaration thereof the example of a bankrupt, who is not therefore freed from his debts because he is not able to pay them, but the bills against him stand in force, because the debt comes through his own default. But M. Bishop saith, that this example is not to the purpose, because the bankrupt cannot, when he will, satisfy his creditors, who content not themselves with his repentance, without repay of their money, as God doth. How many miles to London? a poke-full of plums. What is this to the purpose, that God is content to remit his debtors without satisfaction? for so creditors also deal sometimes with bankrupts when they have nought to pay: but is this any thing against that which M. Perkins saith, that by the example of a bankrupt, it appeareth that a man may justly be punished for that which now he cannot help, because by his own default he is run into it? The creditor may remit all if he will, but otherwise the bills of debt are justly liable against him who by default and negligence is come to that pass that he hath nothing to pay. And yet in his exception there are two absurdities implied. For it is absurd that he saith that God doth remit and pardon his debtors without satisfaction. There is no man reconciled to God, but by tendering a full and perfect satisfaction, which because he hath not to do of his own, therefore by faith he pleadeth the payment of his surety jesus Christ, t 1. Pet. 2.24. who bore our sins in his body upon the tree; that in u Eph. 1.7. him we might have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins. Now x 2. Thess. 3.2. all men have not faith, and therefore all men cannot plead this satisfaction for themselves, and yet without this faith there is no repentance that can avail to bring us unto God. And seeing both y Ephe. 2.8. faith and z Act. 5.31. & 11 18. repentance are the gifts of God, which a Aug. de praedest. sanct. cap. 6 & de bono persever. ca 14. Alijs praeparatur, alijs non praeparatur voluntas à Domino. Illis qui veritatis exhortationem obedienter audiunt, ipsum donum Dei datum est, hoc est, obedientèr audire: illis autem qui non sic audiunt non est datum. he giveth to some, and to other some doth not give, it is another point of absurdity to subject the gift of God to the arbitrary will and power of man, as if man have in him to believe and repent whensoever himself will. But against this M. Bishop for conclusion bringeth a place of Austin against the Manichees, that b August. de duabus animab. count Manich. ca 11. Nemo vitu●●ratione suppliciouè dignus est qui id non faciat quod facere non potest. Nonnè ista cantant & in montibus pastors & in theatris poetae, etc. shepherds and poets, and learned, and unlearned, and schoolmasters, and prelates, and all mankind confess, that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment, which doth not that which he cannot do. Nay, to help the man somewhat, I will add more out of the next chapter to that which he citeth; c Ibid. cap. 12. Peccati reum teneri quenquam quia non fecit quod facere non potuit summae iniquitatis est & infantae. That a man should be holden guilty for not doing that which he could not do, it is a point of iniquity and madness to affirm. Now what a strange matter is this, that shepherds and poets, and all sorts of men, should see reason to affirm this, and yet M. Bishop perforce should be driven to deny it? For let us ask him in his own profession and doctrine what he thinketh of children dying unbaptized? He will give us a peremptory answer, that questionless they are damned. But what have poor infants done why they should be damned, or how could they avoid that for which they are damned? Tell us M. Bishop, how could they choose to be other than they be, and if they cannot choose but be that they are, how can it stand with your rule, that they should be condemned for being that which they cannot choose but be? Perforce he must take a fall in his own trip, neither can he give an answer as touching this point, which doth not yield us a full answer against himself. But S. Austin himself cleareth this point for us, who, using the words cited by M. Bishop to justify a definition of sin which he had set down against the Manichees, that d Ibid. cap 11. Peccatum est voluntas retinen di vel consequendi quod justitiae vetat est & unde liberum est abstinere. sin is a desire of retaining or obtaining that which justice forbiddeth, and whence it is in a man's liberty to abstain, telleth his Reader in the perusing of that place in his Retractations, that he spoke there of that e Retract lib 1. cap. 15. Id definitum est quod tantummodo pecca tum est, non quod est etiam poena peccati. Nam quando tale est ut idem sit & poena peccati quantum est quod valet voluntas sub dominante cupiditate, nisi fortè si piae est ut oret auxilium, etc. which is only sin, and is not also the punishment of sin. For in that sin which is also the punishment of sin, how little is it that the will can do against concupiscence or lust having dominion over it, and therefore by reason hereof a man cannot do that that he should do, neither can he but do that that he should not do, which yet ceaseth not to be a sin and subject to punishment, because he hath purchased this condition to himself, by the merit of a former sin. For Adam had it in his power not to sin, and yet did sin by doing that which he ought not to do, and was in his power and liberty not to do, and for this cause was given over as a prisoner to sin, that thenceforth he could not do what he ought to do, nor could choose but do what he should not do. Therefore the same Austin ask, if that rule that he hath set down be true, how f Ibid. Cur paruuli tenentur rei? Respondetur, quia ex eius origine tenentur qui non fecit quod facere potuit, divinum scilicet servare mandatum. infants become guilty, and are so holden, answereth that it is by being borne of him who did not that that was in his power to do. In a word, man is not worthy of punishment for not doing that which he cannot do, except he have disabled himself for the doing of it; but if he have disabled himself, as indeed he hath by the first sin, then is he justly punished, both for not doing that which he once could, but now cannot do, and for doing that which he once could, but now cannot choose but do. Which being a case very evident, and sundry times delivered by S. Austin, in retracting the like places against the Manichees, may we not wonder at the absurd folly of this man, who for conclusion braveth in his terms, as if he had carried the matter very clear, when indeed like an ignorant caviller, he himself understandeth not what he saith. We respect not what natural sense doth teach to shepherds, but we cannot but think him an ill shepherd over the flock of Christ, who taking upon him to be a doctor of Divinity, is so ignorant in a principle of religion, which by the word of God every shepherd should know. God make him wise to see his own folly, and then he will submit himself in obedience to that truth which now in his ignorance seemeth unto him a strange light of a new Gospel. CHAPTER. 2. OF ORIGINAL SIN. 1. W. BISHOP. M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLUSION. Pag 28. THey say, natural corruption after Baptism is abolished, and so say we: but let us see, how far forth it is abolished. In Original sin are three things. First, the punishment, which is the first and second death: second, guiltiness, which is the binding up of the creature unto punishment: third, the fault, or the offending of God: under which I comprehend our guiltiness in Adam's first offence, as also the corruption of the heart, which is a natural inclination and proneness to any thing that is evil, or against the law of God. For first we say, that after Baptism in the regenerate, the punishment of Original sin is taken away: Rom. 8.1. For there is no condemnation (saith the Apostle) to them that are in Christ jesus. For the second, that is guiltiness, we further condescend and say, that it is also taken away in them that are borne anew. For considering there is no condemnation to them, there is nothing to bind them to punishment. Yet this caveat must be remembered, namely, that the guiltiness is removed from the person regenerate, but not from the sin in the person, But of this more hereafter. Thirdly, the guilt in Adam's first offence is pardoned. And touching the corruption of the heart, I avouch two things. First, that the very power and strength, whereby it reigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate. Secondly, that this corruption is abolished (as also the fault of every actual sin passed.) So far forth as it is the fault and sin of the man in whom it is. Indeed it remains till death, and it is sin, considered in itself, so long as it remains; but it is not imputed to the person. And in that respect, is as though it were not, it being pardoned. Hitherto M. Perkins. Annotations upon our Consents. First, we say not, that the punishment of Original sin is in it, or any part of it, but rather a due correction, and as it were an expulsion of it: this is but a peccadilio: but there lurketh a serpent in that caveat; that the guiltiness of Original sin is removed from the person regenerate, but not from the sin in the person. The like he saith afterward of the fault, that it is a sin still in itself, remaining in the man till death, but it is not imputed to him, as being pardoned. Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine: the sin is pardoned, and yet the guiltiness of it is not taken away. Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned, all bond of punishment due unto it, and consequently all guiltiness belonging to it? Who can deny this, unless he know not, or care not what he say? If then Original sin be pardoned, the guiltiness of it is also removed from itself. Again, what Philosophy, or reason alloweth us to say, that the offendor being pardoned for his offence, the offence in itself remaineth guilty? as though the offence separated from the person, were a substance subject to law, and capable of punishment: can Original sin in itself die the first and second death, or be bound up to them? What senseless imaginations be these? Again, how can the fault of Original sin remain in the man renewed by God's grace, although not imputed? Can there be two contraries in one part of the subject at once? Can there be light and darkness in the understanding, virtue and vice in the will at the same instant? Can the soul be both truly converted to God, and as truly averted from him at one time? Is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial? and the holy Ghost content to inhabit a body subject to sin? All which must be granted contrary to both Scripture and natural sense, if we admit the fault and deformity of sin to remain in a man renewed, and endued with God's grace: unless we would very absurdly imagine that the fault & guilt of sin were not inherent and placed in their proper subjects, but were drawn thence, and penned up in some other odd corner. Remember also gentle Reader, that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power, whereby the corruption of the heart reigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate: which is clean contrary unto the first proposition of his first reason following, as shall be there proved. R. ABBOT. It was not M. Perkins intent here to set down any exact or formal description of Original sin, but only so to touch it, as might serve to lead him to the point that was to be disputed of. But out of that which he saith it ariseth, that original sin is a common guilt of the first sin of man, inferring as a just punishment, an universal distortion and corruption of man's nature, and everlasting destruction both of body and soul. Concerning the matter therefore he propoundeth three things in Original sin to be considered, the sin, the guilt, and the punishment. Where M. Bishop being like a man of glass, afraid of being cracked where he is not touched, would for more assurance give us a note, and I warrant you it is a wise one. We say not, saith he, that the punishment of Original sin is in it or any part of it, but rather a due correction, and as it were an expulsion of it. Where he putteth me in mind of a speech that I have heard concerning an outlandish Mathematic Reader, whose tongue having outrun his wits, and making a discourse of he knew not what, asketh his hearers at length, Intelligitisne? Do ye understand me? they answered him, No. Profectò nihil miror, saith he, neque enim ego intelligo meipsum: Marry I do not marvel, for neither do I understand myself. Such a lecture doth M. Bishop here read, which no man else understandeth, nor he himself. If he had understood what Original sin is, and that concupiscence being a part of Original sin, is also a punishment thereof, (corruption of nature which is one part, arising from the guilt of the first sin, which is the other part) he would not so unadvisedly have denied, that the punishment of Original sin is also a part thereof, especially finding S. Austin in so infinite places affirming, that concupiscence is in such sort a sin, as that it is also a punishment of sin; and of what sin, but that which Adam in person committed by action, and is ours originally by propagation? But that either this punishment of Original sin which is the corruption of nature, or the following punishment thereof, which is the first and second death, should be called expulsion of Original sin, we lack some Oedipus to resolve us: sure I am that M. Bishop understood not what he said, nor can give us any answer to make it good. Such learned men have we to do with, which are so deep in their points, that they know not what they say. Now he that uttereth such riddles himself, might easily pardon another man in a speech though distasting to him, yet in itself very easy to be understood. What a stir doth he make at that that M. Perkins saith, that in the regenerate the guiltiness is removed from the person, but not from the sin in the person. The meaning is plain, that the sin is pardoned to the man regenerate, and therefore cannot make him guilty, but yet in itself and in it own nature, it continueth such, as that setting aside the pardon, it were sufficient still to make him guilty and to condemn him, as shall be afterwards avouched out of Austin, to everlasting death. The pardon acquitteth the man, but yet it cannot alter the nature of the sin: it setteth a bar against the effect, but take away the bar, & the cause is as strong as it was before. His idle and waste words, and fight with a shadow, I let pass: if he were not a senseless man, that, that M. Perkins saith in the plain meaning thereof, would never seem to him any senseless imagination. But he goeth further; How can the fault of Original sin remain in the man renewed by God's grace, although not imputed? Why M. Bishop? what hindereth I pray you? Can there be two contraries, saith he, in one part of the subject at once? And why not? What? hath not his Philosophy taught him, that contraries are incompatible only in their extremes? Did he never read, that contraries when they strive to expel one another, do it not in a moment, but by degrees; and though one be stronger than then the other, yet the weaker still hath that latitude which the stronger hath not gained? Thus are there in the regenerate man, a Rom. 7.23. the law of sin and the law of the mind, the former rebelling against the latter; b Gal. 5.17. the flesh and the spirit the one contrary to the other, as the Apostle speaketh, and that in one part of the subject, as shall appear. Can there be light and darkness in the understanding, saith he? Why, did M. Bishop never read of c Zephan. 1.15. a dark day? or will he reason thereof, if it be day, it cannot be dark; or if it be dark it cannot be day? And if he can see that light and darkness may meet together in a day, can he not see that light and darkness may also be together in the understanding? One where our Saviour Christ commendeth the light of his Disciples; d Matth. 13.16. Blessed are your eyes, for they see: another where he condemneth their darkness, e Mark. 8 18. Have ye eyes and see not? By light of understanding Peter saith, f Matth. 16.16. Thou art Christ the son of the living God. Blessed art thou Simon, saith Christ, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. The same Peter by and by also bewrayeth darkness of understanding, giving Christ occasion to say unto him, g Ibid. vers. 23, Get thee behind me Satan; for thou understandest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. h Orig. in Mat. tract. 3. Contraria sibi adhu. erant in Petro, veritas & mendaecium. De veritate dicebat, Tu es Christus, etc. Ex mendacio dixit, Propitius tibi esto etc. Contraria erant adhuc in Petro: There were contraries as yet in Peter, saith Origen, truth and falsehood: he spoke by truth one way; he spoke by falsehood another way. In a word the Apostle telleth us, that i 1. Cor. 13.9.12 we know but in part, we prophecy but in part, we see through a glass darkly, or as the masters of Rheims translate it, in a dark sort. How can that be, but that there is still some darkness in the understanding which yet in part hath received light? He goeth further, Can there be virtue and vice in the will at the same instant? Yes M. Bishop, for whatsoever is wanting of perfect virtue, k August. epist. 29. Id quod minus est quàm debet, ex vitro est. ex vitio est, saith S. Austin; it is by reason of vice. So long therefore as there is not perfect virtue, there is vice remaining together with virtue. The inner man wherein is the will of man, is renewed as the Apostle telleth us, from day to day. S. Austin very rightly argueth thereof, l August. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 7. Qui de die in diem reneu●●ur, nondum totus est renovatus, & inquantum nondum est renovatus, intantum adhu● in vetustate est. that he that is renewed from day to day, is not yet all renewed, and therefore in part he is old still. Now from what is he renewed but from vice, and whereto is he renewed but to virtue? If then the will be not yet wholly renewed to virtue, than vice as yet in part remaineth with virtue in the will, from whence as yet in part the will remaineth to be renewed. Therefore our will carrieth us still contrary ways; m Idem in joan. tract. 81. Aloud volumus quia sumus in C●risto, & aliud volumus quia sumus adhuc in hoc seculo. One way we will because we are in Christ: another way we will because we are still in the world. Therefore the Apostle calling the Corinthians Saints, yet anon after telleth them, that they are carnal and walk like men. Therefore our Saviour saith to his Disciples one where, n john. 15 3. Ye are clean by the word that I have spoken unto you. Another where he saith: o Math. 7 11. You being evil do know to give good gifts to your children. Yet again, Can the soul be truly converted to God, saith he, and as truly averted from him at one time? No M. Bishop: but yet in the soul converted to God, remaineth a part of that infection, whereby p Gen. 19.26. Lot's wife being gone out of Sodom, looked back to the place from whence she came; so that q August. Enchirid. cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei excitantur & tanquam filii Dei prof●tiū● ad Deum ut etiam Spiritu suo maximè aggravante corruptibili corpore tamquam si●● hominum quibusdam moribus ●umanis deficiant ad seipso●, & ideb peccent the children of God albeit they be moved by the spirit of God, and as the children of God do go forward towards God, yet by their own spirit, as the children of men, through some human motions, they fall back to themselves, and thereby commit sin. Therefore they of whom we cannot doubt but that they were converted unto God, yet found somewhat in themselves, for which they saw that they had cause still to pray r Psal. 85.4. Lament 5.21. to be converted. Again, Is Christ, saith he, agreed to dwell with Belial? We answer him, No: s 2. Cor. 6.15. there is no agreement betwixt Christ and Belial, and therefore doth Christ come to dwell in us, that Belial may be dispossessed & driven out. And therefore t Bernard. in Cantic. Serm. 6. Vbi peccatum remittitur, ibi proculdubio diabolus de cord peccatoru expellitur. Et Aug. contra julian. lib. 6. cap. 8. Expulsio daemoniorum est remissio peccatorum, etc. where there is (by Christ) forgiveness of sins, the devil without doubt is expulsed out of the heart of the sinner. But yet there remain still the venomous feeds of his planting, u August. de nat. & great. cap. 66. Certamen est adversus tentatorem de ipsa contra nos necessitate pugnantem. a necessity of sin, by the advantage whereof this tempter fighteth against us: x Bernard. in Cantic. Ser. 58. Velu nolu, intra fines tuos habitat Ie●usaeus: subiugari potest sed non exterminari● will we, nill we, this jebusite for the time dwelleth within our borders: he may be subdued, but he cannot utterly be destroyed. Last of all, Is the holy Ghost, saith he, content to dwell in a body subject to sin? Again we answer him, No: for y Rom. 6.12. sin doth not reign in the bodies of the faithful, that they should be subjects unto it, in obeying the lusts thereof. z August. in joan. tract. 41. Quamdus vivit necesse est esse peccatum in membris ivis. For so long as they live, sin must needs have a being in them; it is tempting, it is enticing, it never ceaseth urging and provoking from day to day: but yet a Rom. 8.2. the kingdom thereof is abolished, because the law of the spirit of life hath freed them from the law (that is, the kingdom and power) of sin and of death. But if he mean subject to sin, of the having of sin, than the Apostle telleth him, b Rom. 7.14. I am carnal, sold under sin, c Vers. 23. a captive unto the law of sin that is in my members, so that d 1. joh. 1.8. if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us. So then some of his collections we deny, not being consequents of our doctrine, but his own vain and idle amplifications: the rest that are direct to the point we affirm, as I have declared, and whatsoever his natural sconce conceiveth thereof, the Scripture justifieth, that the fault and deformity of sin (though not in former degree) remaineth in a man renewed and endued with God's grace. And what doth he think of himself I marvel? is he a man renewed and endued with God's grace? What, and no fault? no deformity of sin remaining in him? no spot? no wrinkle? We wonder that a troop of Angels cometh not from heaven to applaud him, and to convey him as a great jewel out of the world. But had he grace to know himself, he would soon perceive, that this fault of sin is not penned up in an odd corner of him, but possesseth all his corners, and spreadeth itself as an infection over the whole man. And surely he that well considereth this book of his, will be of opinion, that doubtless there is some deformed matter in him, that could yield so much absurdity and untruth as he hath contained therein. As for his Remember, he telleth us that we shall meet with it again, and therefore I will refer it to his due place. 3. W. BISHOP. Let us now come unto the difference which is between us. The Catholics teach, that Original sin is so far forth taken away by Baptism, that it ceaseth to be a sin properly: the effects of it remaining, are an imperfection and weakness, both in our understanding and will, and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferior appetite unto reason, as was, and would have been, in Original justice: which make the soul apt and ready to fall into sin, like unto tinder, which although it be not fire of itself, yet is fit to take fire: yet say they, that these relics of Original sin be not sins properly, unless a man do yield his consent unto those evil motions. Master Perkins teacheth otherwise. That albeit Original sin be taken away in the regenerate in sundry respects, yet doth it remain in them after Baptism, not only as a want and weakness, but as a sin, and that properly, as may be proved by these reasons, 1. Rom. 7. S. Paul saith directly: It is no more I that do this, but sin that dwelleth in me, that is, Original sin; The Papists answer, That it is called there, sin improperly, because it cometh of sin, and is an occasion of sin. I approve this interpretation of S. Paul, as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Augustine, who saith expressly: Lib. 1 contr duas Epist. Pelag. c. 10 Concupiscence, (whereof the Apostle speaketh) although it be called sin, yet it is not so called because it is sin, but for that it is made by sin: as writing is called the hand, because it is made by the hand. Lib. 1. de nuptijs & Concup. c. 23. And in another place repeating the same, addeth: That it may also be called sin, for that it is the cause of sin: as cold is called slothful, because it makes a man slothful: so that the most profound Doctor S. Augustine is styled a formal Papist by M. Perkins, and shall be as well coursed for it by the plain circumstances of the place: For, saith he, that S. Paul there takes sin properly, appears by the words following, That this sin dwelling in him, made him to do the evil which he hated. How proves this, that sin there must he taken properly? it rather proves, that it must be taken improperly: for if it made him do the evil which he hated, then could it not be sin properly: for sin is not committed, but by the consent and liking of the will: But S. Paul did not like that evil, but hated it, and thereby was so far off from sinning, that he did a most virtuous deed in resisting and overcoming that evil. As witnesseth Saint Augustine, saying: Reason sometimes resisteth manfully, and ruleth raging concupiscence; Lib. 2. de Go●●. count Mani●●. cap. 14. which being done, we sin not, but for that conflict are to be crowned. The first circumstance than alleged by M. Perkins, doth rather make against him, then for him. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins alleging the words of S. Paul, a Rom. 7.17. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me, thereby to prove that concupiscence in the regenerate still retaineth the nature of sin, saith that the Papists answer that it is called sin there improperly, because it cometh of sin, and is an occasion of sin. M Bishop saith, that he approveth this interpretation, as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Austin, and addeth, that the most profound Doctor S. Austin is by M. Perkins styled a formal Papist. But he speaketh this out of a weak head and shallow wit, that cannot understand so profound a Doctor as S. Austin is. What S. Augustine's opinion was as touching this point, we shall examine hereafter in the ninth section, where occasion is more fully offered to speak thereof; in the mean time that S. Austin was no Papist, is plainly showed in the b Aphrican. Concil. cap. 101. 105. African Council, where were assembled two hundred and seventeen Bishops of those parts, and Austin one of them, to whom Boniface the first, then Bishop of Rome, sent his Legates, desirous to have an oar in their boat, and challenging to himself a supremacy over their Churches. But they all with one consent (let him remember that Austin was one of them) resisted this proud attempt, and whereas the Bishop of Rome alleged & showed the Nicene Canons yielding him that supremacy, they smelling his fraud, and perceiving that he had falsified and corrupted the Canons, sent as to others, so namely to the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, for the certain & undoubted copies thereof. Upon the sight whereof this piece of knavery being discovered, they wrote back first to Boniface, and after to Celestinus, that they would not admit any such jurisdiction; that they would end their causes within themselves; that they would allow of no appeals to the bishop of Rome; and wished him, that he would thenceforth forbear to trouble them any more with his Legates. Wherein they crossed a special point of Popery, which is the main prop of all the rest: and this act of theirs was held to be so prejudicial to the Sea of Rome and authority of the Pope, as that c Bonifac. 2. Epi. ad Eulal. Concil. tom. 2. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum collegis suis instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij atque Celestini contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit. Boniface the second affirmed, that in pride they did that which they did against the Church of Rome, by the instigation of the devil. It appeareth then hereby, that S. Austin was no Papist, neither was he so, as shall appear in that point which we have here in hand. In the mean time against the answer of the Papists, that sin is improperly taken by the Apostle, when he calleth concupiscence by the name of sin, M. Perkins allegeth the circumstance of the place, as first that S. Paul saith, that this sin dwelling in him, made him do the evil which he hated. Where to proceed orderly, and to give light to his whole disputation, it is first to be resolved what concupiscence is, and what sin is, for very uncertainly shall we argue that concupiscence is sin, unless by definition of both we make it appear how they accord in one. By concupiscence therefore we understand the remainder of the original corruption of nature, after baptism, in the state of regeneration and new birth. For man by nature is wholly unclean and sinful, there is nothing in him but that that is evil, nothing but d Rom. 8.7. enmity against God. Whence it is that chrysostom saith, that e Chrysost. op. imperfect. in Mat. hom. 3●. Omnis homo naturaliter non solùm peccator est, sed etiam totum peccatum. Idem habet ex varijs in Mat. locis homil. 23. man naturally is not only a sinner, but also wholly sin, and f Jbid. op imperf. homil 24. Homo omnia mala haebet in se. hath in him all manner of evil. Now this corruption which naturally overfloweth and drowneth the whole man, by the spirit of regeneration is abated, and the strength thereof broken, but so, as that still there remaineth a grievous infection of it, which continually crosseth and resisteth the work of the holy Ghost, and g 1. Pet. 2.11. fighteth against the soul, by soliciting & enticing it unto sin. In this remnant of corruption which we call by the name of concupiscence or lust, we are to consider both the habit, which is the confirmed evil quality, and also the immediate actions, and affections, and motions thereof. For h August. contr. Julian. Pelag. lib 6. cap. 8. Praeter istum motum inest ●omi●i malum, unde surgit hic motus. beside the evil motion, as S. Austin saith, there is within an evil, from whence this motion doth arise. And this evil continueth when there is no act or motion thereof; as when a man is asleep, and the mind & thought no way stirreth, yet the inward corrupt quality sticketh still, even as a man is truly said to be i Jbid. Sicut inest timiditas ho mini t●●ido etiam quando ne sumet timorous & fearful, when yet for the present time he feareth nothing. Now the question here is of both these, both the sticking evil quality, and the first and immediate motions and stir thereof, before they be apprehended and consented unto by the will. For many times evil cogitations and thoughts arise in the heart, which yet a man checketh, and for which he is grieved at himself, and reproveth himself, and by no means will yield way unto them. Of these therefore together with the fountain whence they spring, the controversy is, whether they do properly undergo the name of sin. Now what sin is, the Apostle Saint john briefly instructeth us, saying, that k 1. joh. 3.4. sin is the transgression of the law. His word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth all privation or defect, whereby we come short of that that is commanded or required by the law. To which purpose the Apostle Saint Paul telleth us, that l Rom. 3.20. by the law is the knowledge of sin, and that m Cap 7.7. he had not known sin, but by the law. For how is sin known by the law, but by that we understand it to be sin, whatsoever declineth or swerveth from the law, even as the Apostle for example addeth, that he had not known lust to be sin, except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust, presuming it as granted, that it is sin whatsoever is forbidden by the law. And this the Apostle Saint john further confirmeth, in that he saith, that n 1. joh 5.17. all unrighteousness is sin. For what is unrighteousness, but the transgressing of the law, which is the rule of righteousness? If then all unrighteousness be sin, and all transgression of the law be unrighteousness, than all transgression of the law is sin. The heathen Orator Tully could say, that o Tul. Paradox. 3. Est peccare tanquam transire lineas. peccare, to sin, is as a man would say, to go without, or beyond the bounds or lines. We are listed and bounded by the law of God: it draweth us lines, within the compass whereof we are to keep ourselves. What is it then to sin with us, but to break the bounds prescribed unto us, and to go beside that which we are directed by the law? Therefore 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 utrunque in idem commutavit. sin and transgression of the law do agree together, and that rightly S. john did make them both one. So r Grego. Moral. lib. 11. cap. 21. Inter peccatum & iniquitatem nihil distare perhibet joannes, qui ait; peccatum est iniquitas. Gregory 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. john doth witness that there is no difference. In like sort Bede saith, that s Beda in 1. joan. 3. Omne quod ab aequitatis ratione discrepat in peccatis numeratur. all that swerveth from the rule of righteousness is sin. Caesarius the brother of Gregory Nazianzene telleth us, that t Caesar. dialog. 3. apud Nazianz. Peccatum mihi esse videtur omnis adversus virtuum resistende co●atus & repugnantia. he taketh it, that sin is all assay of resistance, and all repugnancy against virtue. Saint Austin saith, that u Aug. de nat. & great cap. 14. Ideo est peccatum quia non debet fieri. therefore a thing is sin, because it ought not to be done, and that x Contra julian. lib. 4. cap. 3. Qui malè facit aliquid profecto peccat. to do any thing amiss, is to sin. Again he defineth y August. count Faust. Manich. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum, vel dictum, vel concupitum, aliquid contra legem aeternam. sin to be every thing that is said, or done, or coveted against the everlasting law of God. Yea Thomas Aquinas saith, that z Thom Aquin. 1. 2. q. 109. art. 4. in corp. Nihil est aliud peccare quàm transgredi divina mandata. to sin is nothing else but to transgress the commandments of God. In a word, the curse of God belongeth to nothing save to sin only. But the curse of God belongeth to every swerving from the law of God: for a Gal. 3.10. cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Therefore every swerving from the law of God is properly and truly reckoned to be sin. And surely this is a truth so apparent and evident, as that we may wonder, not at the blindness, (for undoubtedly they see it well enough) but at the extreme perverseness and impudency of the Papists, that so stiffly stand in the denial thereof. Now than the question being whether concupiscence or lust in itself be sin in the regenerate man, the resolution is very ready and plain, and the answer manifestly apparent, that because every diverting or swerving from the law is sin, therefore concupiscence must necessarily be sin, in as much as it is a declining from the law, saying: Thou shalt not lust. And therefore doth the Apostle say, that he knew lust to be sin, (as before was noted) because the law said, Thou shalt not lust. He calleth and termeth it sin again and again, so as that we may wonder, that he should call it sin, sin, and yet his meaning should be, that it is not sin. For as Tertullian saith: b Tertul. adverse. Hermogen. Acuius habitu quid divertit, pariter & à vocatu eius recedit: Look 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 sin, it should consequently also be deprived of the name. But now whereas M. Perkins alleged the words of the Apostle, that sin dwelling in him, made him to do the evil which he hateth, M. Bishop telleth us, that contrary to M. Perkins purpose and intention, those words do prove, that sin must be there taken improperly. And how so I pray you? For (saith he) if it made him to do the evil which he hated, then could it not be sin properly; for sin is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will. Where by equivocation of terms, he merely abuseth his Reader. For the committing of sin is properly understood of the external act and accomplishment thereof, and this indeed cannot be without the consent and liking of the will. But the doing evil of which the Apostle speaketh, is no external act, but only the internal c August. contr. duas Epist. Pela. lib. 1. cap. 10. Facere se dixit non affectu consentiendi & implendi, sed ipso motis concupiscendi. motion of concupiscence. For we may not understand the Apostles words of doing the evil which he hated, and doing that which he would not, d Idem de verb. Apost. Ser. 5. Non sic intelligamus quod dixit, Non quod volo, etc. tanquam velit esse castus, & esset adulter, aut velit esse misericers, & esset crudelis, aut velit esse pius, & esset impius, sed volo non concupiscere & concupisco. Vide Epiphan. haer. 64. as if he had said, he would have been chaste, and yet was an Adulterer; or would have been merciful and yet was cruel: or would have been godly, and yet was ungodly, or such like: but his meaning is, Volo non concupiscere, & concupisco: My will and desire is to have no act, no motion of concupiscence, and yet I have so. I would not have so much as any cogitation, any affection, any thought, any inclination or passion of desire tending to evil, and yet I cannot prevail to be without them. Now therefore M. Bishop did amiss to breed ambiguity by changing of the terms, and to put upon the Apostle a suspicion of other meaning then indeed he had. But if his meaning be as it should be, that no evil can be done, which may truly be called a sin, without the consent and liking of the will, he saith untruly, and doth therein but walk in the steps of the Pelagian Heretics. Saint Austin answered them, and we answer him, that e De perfect. justit. Rat. 15. Peccatum est, cùm non est chaeritas quae esse debet, vel minor est quàm debet, sive hoc voluntate vitari possit, sive non possit. it is sin, when either there is not charity, which ought to be, or it is less than it ought to be, whether it may be avoided by the will, or cannot be avoided: that is to say, whether it be with the will or against the will. And whereas he had defined sin against the Manichees to be f De duab. anim. contr. Manich. cap. 11. See of Free will sect 18 the desire of retaining or obtaining that which justice forbiddeth, and whence it is in a man's liberty to forbear, as if there were no sin but what the will by it own liberty doth approve and yield unto, he showeth that he there defined, g Retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. that which is only sin, and is not also the punishment of sin. So having affirmed h De vera reli. cap. 14. Vsqueadeo peccatum voluntarium ma lum est, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit voluntarium. that in no sort it is sin which is not voluntary, he giveth the same restraint again, that i Retract. lib. 1. cap. 13. Peccatum illud cogitandum est, quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod est etiam poena peccati. that sin only must there be understood, which is only sin, and is not also the punishment of sin: as thereby still giving to understand, that that sin which is the punishment of sin, as is concupiscence or lust, is rightly and truly so called, though it have not the consent and approbation of the will. It was k Jbid. Non absurdè vocatur etiam voluntarium, quia ex primi hominis mala voluntate contractum, factum est quodammodo haereditarium. voluntary only by the will of him, by whom sin was first committed, and from him it is become original and hereditary unto us. M. Bishop's exception therefore is nothing worth, neither doth it let, but that concupiscence being a part of Original sin, is properly called sin in the regenerate, though it be without the consent and liking of the will. He saith, that because the Apostle hated it, therefore it is no sin: but we say, that therefore the Apostle hated it, because it is sin. For the Apostle hated it according to God, neither would he hate any thing but what God hateth. And God hateth nothing in man but sin: that therefore which the Apostle hated in himself was sin: yea what is it to do evil, but to sin? The name of evil we know, is used of annoyances and inconveniences, of crosses & grievances, but the doing of evil is never affirmed but of sin. Now to lust, the Apostle telleth us, is to do evil. To lust therefore is to sin. And because the act and motion of lusting is sin, therefore the habit of concupiscence or lust is a habit of sin also, because the action always hath his nature and denomination from the habit and quality from whence it doth proceed. Yet M. Bishop saith, that the Apostle therein was so far from sinning, as that he did a most virtuous deed, in resisting and overcoming that evil. But the Scripture calleth the resisting of that evil, l Heb. 12.4. the fight against sin, and will M. Bishop say, that because we fight against it, therefore it is not sin? See what accord here is. The Scripture saith, that it is sin against which we fight: M. Bishop saith, that we do a virtuous deed in fight against it, and therefore it is no sin. As for the place of S. Austin, it helpeth him nothing at al. Reason sometimes manfully bridleth and restraineth concupiscence, being moved or stirred: which when it doth, non labimur in peccatum, we fall not into sin. Which is not a rule in the regenerate only, but also in the unregenerate, so that heathen Moralists for the avoiding of sins, have delivered it for a precept, m Tul. Offic. l. 1. Ratio praesit, appetitus obtemperet: Let reason rule, and let lust obey. Yea that moralisme which S. Austin prosecuteth in the place alleged, comparing pleasure or temptation to the tempting serpent, concupiscence to Eve the woman, & reason to Adam the man, was borrowed from the allegories of n Philo jud. Allegor. legis lib. 1. &. 2. Philo the jew, who would thereby show, that concupiscence should be kept in from being tempted, and though by temptation it were seduced, yet that reason should subdue it, that it might not run to any further evil, as it desireth to do. Now when this is done by 〈◊〉 ●nregenerate man, and either a jew or a heathen man bridle his passions and affections, that thereby he fall not into sin, will M. Bishop conclude hereof, that those passions and affections which he bridleth are no sin? He will not deny the same to be sin in the unregenerate man, and yet S. Austin's words so farrefoorth do indifferently concern both. He understandeth sin morally only, and as it is reputed with men, who account no sin at all, but either in the performance of the act, or in the resolution and purpose of the will. We fall not into sin, that is, into any moral or actual sin, into any outward sin, even in the like sort as S. james saith, that o jam. 1.15. concupiscence when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin, when yet he did not mean, but that concupiscence also itself is sin, as shall afterwards appear. 3. W. BISHOP. Now to the second. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? Here is no mention of sin: how this may be drawn to his purpose, shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it: so that there is not one poor circumstance of the text which he can find, to prove S. Paul to take sin there properly. Now I will prove by divers, that he speaks of sin improperly. First, by the former part of the same sentence: It is not I that do it, all sin 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: sin properly taken is seated in the soul: but that was seated in the flesh, ergo it was no sin 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 jesus, that walk not according to the flesh, etc. Whence I thus argue: there is no condemnation to them, that have that sin dwelling in them, if they walk not according unto the fleshly desires of it: therefore it is no sin properly: For the wages of sin is death, that is, eternal damnation. R. ABBOT. Now to the second, saith he, and when he hath done, saith nothing of it, but putteth it over to the handling of the argument, and therefore 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 poor circumstance of the text could be found to prove, that S. Paul took sin there properly, marry he will bring us divers, to prove that he taketh sin improperly. Well then, let us see what these divers proofs be: we doubt they are like his answers; the one very bad, and the other stark nought. First he will prove it by the former part of the sentence, It is not I that do it. All sin (saith he) is committed properly by the person in whom it is: but this was not done by S. Paul, ergo. But we deny his minor proposition, and it is altogether absurd and senseless. How should concupiscence do any thing in S. Paul, which is not done by S. Paul? Can the accident of the person be an efficient cause of any thing by itself 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. Paul saith, a Rom. 7.14.23 I am carnal sold under sin: I do that I would not: the law of my members leadeth me captive to the law of sin: I in my flesh serve the law of sin: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; even I myself in my mind serve the law of God, and in my flesh the law of sin. This S. Austin well observed: b August. de verb. Apost. Ser. 5. Adhuc concupisco, & utique etiam in ipsa part 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 unus homo. Igitur ipse ego, ego ipse ment seruio, etc. Even 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 myself, but because it is I in the mind, and I in the flesh, even one man of both these. Therefore I myself, even I myself in mind serve the law of God, but in my flesh the law of sin. But yet though being but one and the same person, he divideth himself 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 carnal and sold under 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 captive to the law of sin: of which flesh I say not I, because I account myself that that I joy to be, and which I shall ever be, not that which though it be myself, yet is that I would not be, and which I labour not to be, and therefore strive to destroy and put off, as being without it to live for ever. c Ibid Mens regit, caro regitur, & magis sum ego in eo quo rego, quàm in eò in quoregor. I may rather say, I, in that wherein I rule, then in that wherein I am overruled; therefore I say, it is not I that do it, and yet it is I in both. M. Bishop therefore by his first circumstance proveth just nothing, and even as little proveth 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: Sin properly taken is seated in the soul, but that was seated in the flesh, ergo it was not sin properly. Which is the same as if a man would argue thus, that the true Pope hath his consistory chair in Rome, but the Pope that now is hath his consistory in the Lateran 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 soul; the soul itself, so far as yet in part it is not regenerate? What, is M. Bishop so absurd, as to think concupiscence to be seated in the flesh, as the flesh is divided against the soul? Nay, the soul itself having cast off the yoke of obedience to God, and betrayed itself to the temptations of the devil for the gratifying and pleasing of the flesh, is become a servant to that that should have been a servant unto it, and being abjected to sensual, and carnal, and earthly desires, is wholly called by the name of flesh, to whose service it doth addict itself. Thus saith Origen, that e Origen. de princip. lib. 3. cap. 4. Anima cùm crassioris sensus fuerit effecta ex eo quòd corporis passionibus se subdit, etc. caro dicitur effecta, & inde nomen trahit, in quo plut studij vel propositi gerit. the soul being become of more gross disposition, by yielding itself to the passions of the body, is said to be become flesh, and taketh the name of that on which it bestoweth it most desire. And again: f Jdem in Psal. 38. hom. 2. Animas nostras incarnavimus: We have turned our souls into flesh. So saith Austin, that g August. de civit. Dei. lib. 14. cap. 2. Saepe ipsum hominem, id est, naturam hominis carnem nuncupat. Et post: In operibus carnis invenimus illa quibus animi vitia significantur à voluptate carnis aliena. the Scripture calleth man himself, that is, the nature of man, by the name of flesh: and calleth those the works of the flesh, which yet are the proper vices of the mind, and belong not to that which we properly call the flesh. And so doth God himself say of man wholly, that h Genes. 6.3. he is flesh, and our Saviour in the Gospel opposing flesh to the spirit, i joh. 3.6. That which is borne of the flesh, is flesh; and that that is borne of the spirit, is spirit, giveth to understand, that all goeth under the name of flesh, that is not borne again and renewed by the spirit. Now therefore as touching concupiscence, Saint Austin telleth us, that k Aug. de perf. justit. Rat. 17 & contr. Julian. lib. 5. cap. 5. Quia carnaliter anima concupiscit. it is said that the flesh lusteth, because that the soul lusteth according to the flesh. Yea Cyprian doubted not to say, l Cyprian. in Prologue. de cardinal. Christi operibus. Quód caro adverse. spiritum & spiritus adversus carnem contendere dicitur, & repugnare impropriè dictum arbitror, quia solius animae lis ista est qua secum rixatur, etc. Et paulo prius: Corpore sic utitur anima, sicut Faber malleo vel incude in qua format omnium turpitudinum idola, & fabricatur quaelibet quarumcunque voluptatum simulachra. Non est caro dictatrix peccati, nec inventrix malitiae, nec cogitatus format, nec disponit agenda, sed officina est spiritus, qui mea & per eam quaecunque affectaverit, peragit, & consummate. that he held it to be unproperly said, that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, because it is the soul only that is at strife with itself. For the flesh is no director of sin, no deviser of wickedness: it frameth not the thought, nor disposeth what shall be done, but is as the shop or workhouse of the soul, which in it and by it performeth whatsoever it desireth: using the body as the Smith doth his hammer or anvil, framing thereupon the idols of uncleanness and pleasure. Seeing therefore, as here it is plain, concupiscence is seated in the soul, which for the corruption thereof is called by the name of flesh, so that the Apostle by flesh in himself meaneth nothing but the soul according to the remainder of original infection, which still did stick fast unto him, M. Bishop by his second circumstance proveth nothing, but that concupiscence is truly & properly affirmed to be sin. Which had been very readily to have been perceived by any man, if he had framed his argument as he should have done: Sin properly taken is seated in the soul; but concupiscence is not seated in the soul: for this every man would have presently seen to be absurd. But he to blind his Reader chose rather to say, Concupiscence is seated in the flesh, whereas notwithstanding the flesh as it is the seat of concupiscence cannot have any reasonable understanding but of the soul. But now the third circumstance I trow will do the deed. That he taketh out of the first verse of the eight Chapter. Now there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus, that walk not after the flesh. Whence, saith he, I argue thus: There is no condemnation to them that have sin dwelling in them, if they walk not according to the fleshly desires of it, therefore it is no sin properly: for the wages of sin is death, that is eternal damnation. As if he should say, God for Christ's sake doth not impute this sin, therefore it is no sin. God to them that are in Christ doth pardon this sin, ergo, it is not properly sin. And so he might likewise argue of David's adultery, Peter denying & abjuring of his master, Paul's persecuting of the Church, that none of these were properly sins, because to them being in Christ, there is no condemation for any of these things. Such drunken sophistry are we troubled with, and drawn by the importunity of ignorant buzzards to spend time in the refuting of such arguments as rather deserve to be chastened with a whip, then to be graced with an answer. The matter is plain to them that are willing to understand. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus; it is true: and yet who is there of them that are in Christ jesus, but confesseth unto God, that there is that in him for which he might justly be condemned? To them that are in Christ, for Christ's sake it is forgiven and pardoned: it is not imputed unto them; but it is still such, as if it were imputed, it should be sufficient to condemn them to everlasting death. Therefore the Apostle saith of concupiscence, not for his consenting to it, which he disclaimeth, but for the having of it dwelling in him, that m Rom 7.11. it slew him, that n Vers. 13. by the commandment it wrought death in him, that by it he had o Verse 24. a body of death. How so, but that knowing that the wages of sin is death, he knew himself thereby in case of death, if God should deal with him for it as in extremity, and yet in justice he might do. Therefore doth S. Austin say, that even in the regenerate p August. count julian. lib 6 cap. 5 Tale ac tam magnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non teneret in morte & pertraheret in ultimam mortem, nisi & vinculum eius in ea quae est in Baptismo peccatorum omnium remissione solu●retur. concupiscence is such and so great an evil as that only because it is in them, it should hold them in death, and draw them to everlasting death, but that the bond of the guilt thereof is loosed in Baptism by the forgiveness of all our sins. It is therefore such in itself to which death is due, but yet to them that are in Christ it proveth not unto death, because it is forgiven unto them for Christ's sake. Thus we have seen an end of M. Bishop's circumstances, and nothing yet to prove, but that concupiscence by the Apostle is properly called sin. And to prove that it is so, because he saith there is not one poor circumstance to that purpose, I would have him to examine these. First that by the law the Apostle saith, he knew concupiscence to be sin. For it is sin properly whatsoever by the law is convicted to be sin. Secondly, that it wrought death unto him; and nothing but sin could make him to find himself thereby in case of death. Thirdly that he saith, sin that it might appear sin, wrought death in me, thereby affirming, that by working death it did appear to be that indeed which in name it is called, as Oecumenius expresseth those words, q Oecumen. in Rom. cap 7. ut 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 sin was exceedingly a sinner by the commandment: for so the words are according to the original, and so saith Irenaeus, by allusion to that place, that s Iren. lib. 3. cap. 20. Lex testificans de peccato quoniam peccator est. the law did testify of sin that it was a sinner. Now sin is not a person in itself, that it should be said to be a sinner, but hereby is signified what man is by this sin, namely of concupiscence; and that is, exceedingly a sinner. But a man cannot be a sinner, but by that that is properly sin: therefore concupiscence making a man a sinner by the first motions thereof, even without consent, is properly a sin. And thus much for circumstances of the place. 4. W. BISHOP. Now to M. Perkins Argument in form as he proposeth it. That which was once sin properly, and still remaining in man, maketh him to sin, and entangleth him in the punishment of sin, and makes him miserable, that is sin properly: But Original sin doth all these. Ergo. The Mayor, which (as the learned know) should consist of three words, contains four several points, and which is worst of all, not one of them true. To the first, that which remaineth in man after Baptism, commonly called Concupiscence, was never a sin properly: but only the material part of sin, the formal and principal part of it, consisting in the deprivation of Original justice, and a voluntary aversion from the law of God, the which is cured by the Grace of God, given to the baptised, and so that which was principal in Original sin, doth not remain in the regenerate: neither doth that which remaineth, make the person to sin, (which was the second point,) unless he willingly consent unto it, as hath been proved heretofore: it allureth and enticeth him to sin, but hath not power to constrain him to it, as M. Perkins also himself before confessed. Now to the third, and entangleth him in the punishment of sin: how doth Original sin entangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin, if all the guiltiness of it be removed from his person, as you taught before in our Consent? Mendacem memorem esse oportet: Either confess that the guilt of Original sin is not taken away from the regenerate, or else you must unsay this, that it entangleth him in the punishment of sin. Now to the last clause, that the relics of Original sin make a man miserable, a man may be called wretched and miserable, in that he is in disgrace with God, and so subject to his heavy displeasure: & that which maketh him miserable in this sense, is sin: but S. Paul taketh not the word so here, but for an unhappy man exposed to the danger of sin, and to all the miseries of this world, from which we should have been exempted, had it not been for Original sin, after which sort he useth the same word. ●. Cor. 15. If in this life only we were hoping in Christ, we were more miserable than all men: not that the good Christians were farthest out of God's favour, and more sinful than other men: but that they had fewest worldly comforts, and the greatest crosses, and thus much in confutation of that formal argument. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins his proposition consisteth of four points. M. Bishop saith, that of those four points there is not one true. Which if it be so, it was M. Perkins good hap to light upon such an adversary, as of four several points, all as he saith untrue, is not able to disprove one. The first point is, that Concupiscence was once properly sin, which M. Perkins presumed as agreed and granted, because the question betwixt us and them, is of Concupiscence after baptism, as if in the unbaptised there were no question but that concupiscence is sin. But M. Bishop here altereth the state of the question, telling us that Concupiscence was never properly sin, and thereby showing that he doth but colorably allege and merely abuse S. Austin, who before Baptism in no sense denieth but that Concupiscence is truly sin, and continually affirmeth it to be so. And thus he maketh the Apostle wholly to dally in naming sin, sin, where there is no sin indeed, neither after Baptism, nor before. But that which hath been said both of the nature of sin, and of the circumstances of the Apostles text, to prove that Concupiscence after Baptism is sin, doth much more prove, that the same is sin before Baptism, and it shall yet further appear, if God will, in that that followeth. In the mean time here we are to observe, how M. Bishop falsely charging M. Perkins with four untruths in his argument, in declaring the first of those four, doth himself deliver four untruths indeed. Concupiscence, saith he, was never properly sin, but only the material part of sin: the formal and principal part of it consisting in the deprivation of Original justice, and a voluntary aversion from the law of God. Where first he erreth, in that he maketh Original justice to consist only in the integrity of the will, and the form of sin to stand only in the aversion of the will from God, by the loss of the same Original justice, whereas Original justice was in truth the integrity of all the parts of man, not subjecting the flesh to the mind, and the mind to God, but the whole man to God, the image whereof is set forth unto us in the commandment, a Mat. 12.30. Luk. 10 27. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul, with all thy thought and strength. The form of sin therefore is not only in the aversion of the will, but in the aversion of any part, or power, or faculty of the soul: if in any of these there be a declining from the law of God, it is the sin of man. Now because b August. de perfect justis. Rat. 17. Cùm est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis quod velcontinendo fraen●tur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus. so long as there is any matter of concupiscence to be yet bridled and restrained, God cannot be loved with all the soul (for how can God have all the soul, so long as concupiscence hath any part?) therefore in the remainder of any matter of concupiscence, there is sin; because c Ibid. Rat. 15. it is sin when either there is not love at all, or it is less than it should be, and it is less than it should be, when it is not with all the soul. Therefore doth S. Austin define sin to be d Ad Simpl●●. quaest. 2. Est piccatu●a hominis mordinatio atque peru●rsita ●●d est, à prae ●amiore conditore aversio & ad con i●●ife. ●●ra conversio. hominis inordinatio atque perversitas: a disordered and perverted condition of man. Of man he saith, not only of the will of man, and therefore if in man there be any disordered, or mis-conditioned affection, the same is sin. But concupiscence which is a rebellion of the law that is in the members, against the law of the mind, is a disorder in man, and therefore necessarily must be holden to be truly sin. A second error he committeth, in that making concupiscence only the material part of sin, he appropriateth it to the inferior, sensual and brutish parts and faculties of the nature of man, and to the resistance thereof against the superior and more excellent powers of the will, and reason, and understanding, whereas concupiscence truly understood importeth the universal habit of aversion from God, and a corruption spread over the whole man, and defiling him in all parts and powers both of body and soul. And therefore doth the Apostle expound the conversation in or according to the lusts or concupiscences of the flesh, to be e Ephes 2.3. the fulfilling of the will of the flesh and of the mind, which he could not do, but that concupiscence signifieth also the pravity and corruption of the mind, even as the Apostle S. Peter also maketh it the fountain of all f 2. Pet. 1.4. the corruption that reigneth in the world. And thus amongst the works of the flesh, which are the fruits and effects, and as it were the stream of that fountain of corruption, are reckoned those things which have their proper seat and being in the highest parts of the soul, as are g Gal 5 20.21. idolatry, heresy, witchcraft, envy, hatred, pride, which being acts of concupiscence and sinful lust, yet are so far h August. de cui Dei lib. 14. cap. 2, & 3. from being tied to the inferior parts of the soul which have their occupation properly in the flesh, as that some of them, and that specially pride and envy are noted to be the sins of the devil, who hath no communion or society with the flesh, and therefore in the name and nature of concupiscences, are merely the vices and corruptions of the mind. Yea S. Austin acknowledgeth, that i Idem. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. Ipsae cupiditas nihil aliud est quam voluntas sed vitiosa peccatoque seruiens concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and serving sin, and that the temptation of concupiscence is nothing else but k De bono persever ca 6. Qui in tentationem suae mala voluntatis non insertur, in nullam prorsus infertur. unusquisque enim tentatur à concupiscentia sua, etc. the temptation of a man's own evil will. So saith S. Bernard, l Bernard. in Can●. ser. 81. Voluntate persisto agere contra legem. Nam mea voluntas ipsa est lex in membris meis, legi divinae recal●itrans. Mihi ipsi mea ipsius voluntas contraria invenitur. It is in my will that I continue to do against the law of God, for mine own will is the law in my members rebelling against the law of God; mine own will is found contrary to myself. Whereby it appeareth, that concupiscence which is that rebelling law of sin, is a depravation of the will also, and not to be restrained to the brutish and sensual affections of the inferior part. Nay Hierome noteth, that it signifieth m Hieron. ad Alagas. quaest. 8. Nos per concupiscentiam omnes perturbationes animae significatas putamus, quibus maeremus, & gaudemus, timemus & concupiscimus. all the passions or perturbations of the soul, whereby we joy or sorrow, fear or desire, which are holden to be n August. de civit. Dei lib. 14. cap. 3. Origines, omnium peccatorum atque vitiorum. the originals and beginnings of all sins and vices, which although Poets and Philosophers have taken to arise of the flesh, yet o Ibid. Non omnia vitae iniquae vitia tribuenda sunt carni, ne ab his omnibus purgemus diabolum qui no● habet carnem. Christian faith, saith Austin, teacheth otherwise, that we are not to attribute these vices of evil life altogether to the flesh, that is, to the sensual part, lest that of all the sins thereof we acquit the devil, because he is without flesh. Another error of his is, that he maketh the privation of Original justice, and aversion of the will to be the principal matter of Original sin. For the principal matter in Original sin, is the p 1. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. Peccatum eos dicimus ex Adam originalitèr trahere, id est, eius reatu implicatos & ob hoc poenae obnoxios deteneri. guilt of Adam's sin, q Bernard. in advent. dom. ser. 1. In Adam omnes peccavimus, & in illo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes. in whom we all have sinned, and in him have all received the sentence of damnation. For that must be accounted the principal which is the cause of all the rest; and it is the guilt of the first sin that is the cause of whatsoever further sin originally cleaveth to us, which together with death itself is the punishment of that first sin. His fourth error is as touching the cure of Original sin, which he maketh to be such, as if Original justice were wholly restored, and all aversion of the will from God wholly taken away. Which is so palpably false, as that we may wonder that he had so little feeling of conscience, as that for shame he would write it to the world. For if there be that cure that he speaketh of in the Baptized, how is it that there is so little effect or token thereof? How is it that after Baptism there remaineth so great crookedness & perverseness of nature, which we find commonly to be no less then from the beginning men have complained of? How is it that it is r Cyprian de Cardinal. Christi operib. in Prologo Ommno rarum est & difficile fieri bonum: facile & pronum est esse malum, & haec sine magi stro, sine exemplo doctrina statim à pubescent●bus annu imbuimur & docemur. so rare and hard a matter to be trained to goodness; so easy and ready a matter to become nought? that to the one we attain with much difficulty, albeit we use all the good helps thereto that may be used; the other is so familiar to us, as that without any teacher, without any example to instruct us, we can learn it of ourselves? Why doth he utter these absurd paradoxes so contrary to the common sense and experience of all men? It is true that in Baptism there is a medicine applied for the curing of this Original malady, which medicine taketh effect according to the purpose of the grace of God. It doth not by and by work in all; it worketh in some sooner, in some later, as he thinketh good to give it effect, by whom it was first applied. Sometimes after many years he maketh the same workefull by his effectual calling, which from infancy hath lain as it were fruitless, as if it never had been done. But when it doth work, it worketh not all at once; it worketh but by degrees; it hath still somewhat s 2. Cor. 4.16. to renew from day to day, and never effecteth a full and perfect cure so long as we live here. This followeth afterward to be proved at large, and therefore I will but briefly propound it in this place. Now all these fancies hath M. Bishop uttered in answering the first point of M. Perkins his argument. Let us now come to the second point. M. Perkins saith, that concupiscence maketh a man to sin. M. Bishop saith, it doth not make a man to sin unless he consent unto it. But the Apostle telleth us, that concupiscence doth make a man to do evil, and it hath been showed that that evil is sin, even before there be given any consent unto it. This evil consisteth in evil motions and thoughts, t Ephiphan. haer. 64 Origen. Obrepunt circa cor nostrum etiam non volentibus nobis, etc. which arise in us whether we will or not, neither u Ambr. de fuga seculi lib. 1 ca 1. Non in potestate nostra est cor nostrum & ●ostrae cogitationes quae improvitò offusae mentem animumque confundunt atque aliò trahunt quàm tis proposueris, etc. Ipso in tempore quo clevare mentem paramus, insertis inanibus cogitationibus ad terrena plerunque deijcimur. Et paulo prius; ut quod studeas vi tore, hoc cogites animoque volumes. are our hearts and thoughts in our own power for the avoiding thereof, but that even unawares they overcast the mind, and throw it down to the earth whilst it is tending towards heaven, and that runneth in the fancy which we make special labour to put out. Yea oftentimes they grow to that absurdity and wickedness, as that we could not believe but upon our own experience, that there were in us so corrupt a spring, as to yield so loathsome and filthy streams; which make the true faithful man ashamed of himself, and to condemn himself in the sight of God, howsoever nothing thereof appear to the eyes of men. But with M. Bishop these things are nothing; he will never cry God mercy for any such, because he hath therein done him no trespass; yea the Trent Council telleth us, that herein is x Concil. Trident Sess. 5. In renatis nihil odit Deus; nihil eos ab ingressu coeli ramoratur. nothing that God hateth, nothing that hindereth us from entering into heaven. Which seeing God requireth all the thought to be bestowed in his love, and thereby denounceth it to be a sin to have any of our thoughts wandering away from him, these men would never thus affirm and teach, but that y Rom. 11.8. a spirit of slumber hath closed their eyes, that they see not that truth, against which they have resolved to bend themselves. The third point of M. Perkins argument is, that concupiscence entangleth a man in the punishment of sin. This M. Bishop saith, is contrary to that that he had said before, that the guilt of Original sin is taken away in the regenerate. But here is no contrariety, because in the continual rebellion of concupiscence, a man's conscience seethe punishment, thereby due unto him if God should require the same, but yet by faith comforteth himself, that it is remitted unto him for Christ's sake. And that which M. Perkins spoke, he spoke it out of the Apostles words, who of concupiscence saith, that z Rom. 7.13. it wrought death in him, that is, made him in himself guilty of death, and thus entangled him in the punishment of sin, although in Christ he saw deliverance, because a Cap. 8.1. there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus. Let M. Bishop therefore discharge M. Perkins of the lie, and take the whetstone to himself, as being far more justly due unto him. The last point of the argument is, that concupiscence maketh a man miserable,, taken out of the words of the Apostle, b Rom. 7.24. Wretched man, or miserable man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death, or from this body of death? M. Bishop hereto answereth, that miserable is understood two manner of ways, either by being in disgrace with God, or by reason of the danger of sin, and the miseries of this world. But of the danger of sin the Apostle acquitteth himself, c 2. Tim. 4.18. The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom, and d Rom. 8.39. neither things present, nor things to come shall separate us from the love of God. As for the miseries of this world, they are here drawn in by head and shoulders, there being here no show of any matter that should move the Apostle thus to complain in respect thereof. But the thing is plain, that he calleth himself miserable, as S. Austin plainly teacheth, by reason of e Agust. con. julian. lib 6. cap. 7. No●nè●●onced●s hominem miserum quicunque ille fuerit adversus talem clamasse cue theatem, velle adiacet mihi, etc. (qua voluntas bona aut non ibi sit aut valere nihil possit.) an inward evil quality whereby the will being good could not avail to do the good that he would. He calleth himself miserable, by reason of that from which he desired to be delivered, which is the body of death. Now the body of death is that which before he hath called f Rom. 6.6. the body of sin, and elsewhere g Col. 2.11. the body of the sins of the flesh. By the body of sin is understood concupiscence, which is as a body consisting of many members and parts, which are the diverse lusts of diverse sins, and thereby is a body of sins, even consisting of all manner of sins. For we may not here understand the body properly as of the body which dieth, as if the Apostle had desired a dissolution and end of life, because h August. de perfect. justit. Rat. 17. De corpere mortis huius non omnis liberatur qui finit hanc vitam. every one that dieth is not thereby delivered from the body of death. For i De nat. et great. ca 55. De corpore mors corporis separat, sed contracta exillo vitia cohae●ent quibus justa poena debetur. the death of the body separateth (the wicked) from the body, when yet the vices and sins thereby gathered do stick fast, to which just punishment remaineth due. Therefore when he prayeth to be delivered from this body of death, k Ibid. De vitijs corporis dicit, he meaneth it of the vicious affections of the body. l De Temp. ser. 45. Per concupiscentiam dictum est hoc nostrum mortis corpus. By concupiscence is it that this our body of death is so called. So Oecumenius saith, that the Apostle desireth to be delivered from m Oecumen in Ro. ca 7. Ex corporalibus actio nibus spiritualem mortem inducentibus: à concupiscentijs quae in corpore sunt quaeque mors nobis sunt. the concupiscences which are in the body, and which are death unto us, and do cause a spiritual death. n Origen ibid. Corpus mortis appellatur in quo habitat peccatum quod mortis est causa. It is a body of death, saith Origen, wherein sin dwelleth which is the cause of death. Ambrose saith, that the Apostle calleth his body a body of death, o Ambros. apud Aug. count julian. lib. 2. Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est, etc. Ideò Pauli caero corpus mortis erat. etc. because we all are borne under sin and our very beginning is in trespass, acknowledging as touching the corruption of sin, that what it was in the beginning, the same in part it continueth still. Epiphanius or rather Methodius saith, that the Apostle here meaneth p Method. apud Epiphan. haer. 64. Non corpus hoc mortem sed peccatum inhabitans per concupiscentiam in corpore dicit etc. sin dwelling by concupiscence in the body from the bad imaginations & thoughts whereof he wished to be delivered, accounting the same death and destruction itself. Bernard saith, that it was q Bernard. in Cant. ser. 56. Jpsa est carnis concupiscentia, etc. Hoc sanè unointeriecto pariete non longè peregrinabatur à Domino. unde & optabas, clamans, Quis me liberabit, etc. the law of sin, even concupiscence standing as a wall betwixt God and him, that made him cry out, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? In concupiscence then standeth this body of death, and because by this body of death it is that the Apostle calleth himself miserable, it is concupiscence that maketh him miserable, which therefore S. Austin calleth r August. de Tempore ser. 45. miseram legem, the miserable law of sin, not as being itself capable of misery, but per metonymiam, because it maketh us miserable, or because we are miserable by it. Thus therefore the Apostle acknowledgeth himself miserable in himself, not as holding himself to be in disgrace with God, but as finding in himself that for which he deserveth so to be, and should be, but that God in Christ is merciful unto him, not to impute the same. And what is it but a misery, to have as it were a filthy carrion tied fast to him, still breathing out noisome stink? to be continually troubled with an importunate enemy, giving him no rest, & wearying his soul from day to day? nay, to carry about with him s Idem. count julian Pelag. lib. 2. Exercitum quendam variarum cupiditatum intra semetipsum debellabat. even an army of diverse and sundry lusts, drawing one this way, and another that way, fight against him on the right hand and on the left, bereaving him of his joy, whilst in most earnest meditations they carry him away whether he will or not from that wherein his delight is. If outward crosses do make a man miserable, much more this inward distraction & affliction, which galleth the strings of the heart, & vexeth the very spirit and soul, more than the bitterness of death itself. If M. Bishop knew this affliction, he would think there were cause enough therein to make him cry out, Miserable man that I am, etc. But his benumbed heart feeleth it not, and therefore he speaketh of these matters but as a Philosopher in the schools, without any conscience or sense of that he saith, and to a formal argument, as he calleth it, giveth these misshapen and deformed answers. 5. W. BISHOP. Now to the second. Infant's Baptized, die the bodily death before they come to the years of discretion: but there is not in them any other cause of death, besides Original sin, for they have no actual sin: and death is the wages of sin, as the Apostle saith, Rom 5. & Rom. 5. death entered into the world by sin. Ans. The cause of the death of such Innocents', is either the distemperature of their bodies, or external violence: and God who freely bestowed their lives upon them, may when it pleaseth him as freely take their lives from them, especially when he means to recompense them with the happy exchange of life everlasting. True it is, that if our first parents had not sinned, no man should have died, but have been both long preserved in Paradise, by the fruit of the wood of life, and finally translated without death into the Kingdom of heaven: and therefore is it said most truly of S. Paul, Rom. 5. Rom. 6. Death entered into the world by sin. But the other place, The wages of sin is death, is foully abused, for the Apostle there by death understandeth eternal damnation, as appeareth by the opposition of it to life everlasting: and by sin there meaneth not Original, but actual sin, such as the Romans committed in their infidely, the wages whereof, if they had not repent them, had been hell fire: now to infer that Innocents' are punished with corporal death for Original sin remaining in them, because that eternal death is the due hire of actual sin, is either to show great want of judgement, or else very strangely to pervert the words of holy Scripture. Let this also not be forgotten, that he himself acknowledged in our Consent: that the punishment of Original sin was taken away in Baptism from the regenerate: how then doth he here say, that he doth die the death for it? R. ABBOT. The example of infants dying after Baptism before they come to years of discretion, is rightly alleged to prove that sin remaineth after Baptism, because where there is no sin there can be no death. To this M. Bishop sendeth us a most pitiful and miserable answer, that the cause of the death of infants is not sin, but either the distemperature of their bodies or external violence. Thus he would maintain a privilege to infants against the words of S. john, a 1. joh. 1.8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves; that they may say, we say we have no sin, and we do not therein deceive ourselves: and though we die, yet it is not by reason of sin that we die, but either by the distemperature of our bodies, or external violence. But if M. Perkins had said as he might have said, Infants after Baptism are subject to distemperature of body, and external violence, and death following, all which are the proper effects of sin; therefore they are not without sin, in what a woeful case had M. Bishop been, and how had he been put to his shifts to devise an answer. Surely S. Austin saith, that b Au●ust. in Psal. 37. Non aliquid patimur in ista vita n si ex illa morte quam m●ruimus primo peccato. we suffer not any thing in this life, but by reason of that death which we deserved by the first sin. And so saith Origen very rightly, that c Origen. in Levit hom. 3. Nobis homini●us vel mors velreliqua omnis fragilitas in carne ex piccati conditione superducta est. death and all other frailty in the flesh, was brought upon us by the condition or state of sin. Therefore distemperature, and weakness, and sickness, and suffering of external violence, are no less arguments of sin then death itself, and how then doth he make these the causes of death without sin, when they are no otherwise the causes of death but by reason of sin? But he addeth further, that God who freely bestowed their lives on them, may when it pleaseth him as freely take their lives from them. But yet if there be no sin, and if it be as the Trent Council saith, that there is nothing in them that God hateth, nothing that hindereth them from entering into heaven, why then doth God without cause take away their life, and not rather without death receive them unto himself? why doth he not immediately d 2. Cor. 5 4. clothe them upon that mortality may be swallowed up of life? This is a mystery to M. Bishop, & he cannot tell what to say thereof. But the dying of baptised infants, showeth that there is still in them a corruption of flesh and blood, by which the sentence of the Apostle taketh hold of them, e 1. Cor. 15.50. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption inherit incorruption. The cause of their death is the putting off of this corruption, the dissolution & full mortification of the body of sin, that this slough being cast off, and mortality changed into immortality, & corruption into incorruption, they may be fit for the inheritance of the kingdom of God. Thus Epiphanius bringeth in Methodius disputing against Proclus the Origenist, that f Epiphan. haer. 64. ex Methodi●. In auxiliaris medicamenti modum ab auxiliatore nostro & verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumptae est mors, etc. Instar medicamentariae purgationis mortem Deus benè invenit quo sic omnino inculpabiles & innoxij inveniamur, etc. videtur velut siquis summus opifex statuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia à se constructam rursus conflet mutilatam repentè conspicatus à pessimo quodam homine, etc. God as the true Physician hath appointed death for a medicinable purgation for the utter rooting out and putting away of sin, that we may be made faultless and innocent; and that as a goodly golden image sightly and seemly in all parts, if it be broken and defaced by any means, must be new cast and framed again for the taking away of the blemishes and disgraces of it, even so man, the image of God, being maimed and disgraced by sin, for the putting away of those disgraces, and the repairing of his ruins and decays, must by death be dissolved into the earth, thence to be raised up again perfect and without default. Now if M. Bishop will not learn it of us, yet let him learn it of these ancient Fathers, that sin is the cause of death, even in them to whom notwithstanding it is forgiven & pardoned for Christ's sake. But he goeth further, True it is that if our first parents had not sinned, no man should have died, but both have been long preserved in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life: and finally translated without death into the kingdom of heaven. But since they have sinned, what? Marry it is most truly said by S. Paul, Death entered into the world by sin. Well then, if it entered by sin into the world, doth it continue in the world by any other thing then by which it first entered? Nay, as it entered by sin, so sin is the only cause of the continuing of it, and without sin there is no death: in the failing of the cause must needs be a surceasing of the effect. Now to show that death is the proper effect of sin, M. Perkins allegeth the words of the Apostle, The wages of sin is death. But M. Bishop saith, that this place is foully abused by him. And why so? Forsooth the Apostle here by death meaneth eternal damnation. And what then? Doth he therefore not mean bodily death also? Surely the Apostle alludeth to that that God said to our father Adam in the beginning: g Gen. 2.17. In the day that thou shalt eat of that forbidden tree, thou shalt die the death, thereby threatening unto him both the first and second death. And in that meaning hath the Apostle spoken of death in the chapter going before, that by sin came death, etc. Therefore M. Bishops great master Thomas Aquinas telleth him, that when the Apostle immediately before saith, the end of those things is death, he meaneth by death h though Aquin. in Rom. cap 6. Peccata ●e se nata sunt in●iucere m●●tem temporalem & eterna●●. Et ●o ●arg. finis peccati mori tam temporalis quàm aeterna. both temporal and eternal death. Another exception is, that sin is here taken only for Actual sin; which is a fiction merely absurd and vain. For it is a proposition universal concerning all sin, and so used universally by all writers; and if it be true of Actual sin, that the wages of sin is death, much more is it true of Original sin, which is the filthy and corrupt fountain whence all actual sins do spring. And that we may know that M. Bishop himself is of no other mind, he himself hath used it in the section next save one before this, concerning Original sin, arguing that if Original sin were properly sin in the regenerate, than it should cause death unto them, because the wages of sin is death. Whereby it appeareth, that he speaketh but at all adventure, and to serve the present turn, without any conscience or regard of that he speaketh, whether it be true or false. He hath been brought up in Bellarmine's school, and of him hath learned to care no further, but only to say somewhat, though it be stark nought. Now for conclusion of this point he saith, Let not this be forgotten, that he himself aknowledged in our Consent, that the punishment of Original sin is taken away in Baptism from the regenerate. True, and what then? How then, saith he, doth he say here, that he doth die the death for it? But he saith not so, neither is it so: for if he should die the death for Original sin, he should die also the eternal death, which notwithstanding by Christ is taken away. This death therefore to the regenerate is not in the nature of a punishment, but rather of a medicine, as hath been already said, for the utter dissolving, and mortifying, and destroying of the body of sin, that only righteousness may live in them. It followeth as a wages of sin according to the words of the Apostle in it own nature due unto it, though now paid for other end than it was before. 6. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins third reason: That which lusteth against the spirit, and by lusting tempteth, and in tempting enticeth and draweth the heart to sin, is for nature sin itself: but concupiscence in the regenerate is such: Ergo Answ. The first proposition is not true: for not every thing that enticeth us to sin, is sin: or else the Apple that alured Eve to sin, had been by nature sin: and every thing in this world one way or another tempteth us to sin: according unto that of S. john: 1. Epi. 2. All that is in the world, is the Concupiscence of the flesh, and the Concupiscence of the eyes, and Pride of life: So that it is very gross to say, that every thing which allureth to sin, is sin itself, and as wide is it from all moral wisdom to affirm, that the first motions of our passions be sins. For even the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish between sudden passions of the mind and vices: teaching that passions may be bridled by the understanding, and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason, and so made virtues rather than vices. And that same text which M. Perkins bringeth to persuade these temptations to be sins, proves the quite contrary. God tempteth no man; jacob. 1. but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own concupiscence, and is alured: after when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: Mark the words well. First, Concupiscence tempteth, and allureth by some evil motion, but that is no sin, until afterward it do conceive, that is, obtain some liking of our will, in giving ear to it, and not expelling it so speedily as we ought to do the suggestion of such an enemy: the which that most deep Doctor. S. Augustine, sifteth out very profoundly in these words: When the Apostle S. james saith, Lib. 6. in Jul. cap. 5. every man is tempted, being drawn away and alured by his Concupiscence, and afterward Concupiscence when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin: Truly in these words, the thing brought forth is distinguished, from that which bringeth it forth. The dam is concupiscence, the fool is sin. But concupiscence doth not bring sin forth, unless it conceive, (so than it is not sin of itself) and it conceiveth not, unless it draw us, that is, unless it obtain the consent of our will, to commit evil. The like exposition of the same place, and the difference between the pleasure tempting, that runneth before, and the sin which followeth after, Lib. 4. in johan. cap. 15. unless we resist manfully, may be seen in S. Ciril, so that by the judgement of the most learned ancient Fathers, that text of S. james cited by M. Perkins, to prove concupiscence to be sin, disputeth it very sound: to that reason of his, Such as the fruit is, such is the Tree: I answer, that not concupiscence, but the will of man is the Tree: which bringeth forth, either good or bad fruit, according unto the disposition of it: concupiscence is only an intiser unto bad. R. ABBOT. Against M. Perkins first proposition, M. Bishop saith, that not every thing that enticeth us to sin is sin. But therein he saith untruly, if he mean as he should do, of that that is in man himself. It is generally true that there is nothing that tempteth or enticeth to sin, which hath not itself the nature of sin, either as the subject or as the thing itself, so that concupiscence because it cannot be said to be the subject, must necessarily be holden to be sin itself. His exceptions to the contrary are very fond. First, that then the apple that alured Eve to sin had been by nature sin: and secondly, that every thing in the world one way or another tempteth us to sin. But where hath he ever read, that the apple, if it were an apple, tempted or enticed Eve? Did the apple any thing more than it did before, or was it any other than it was before? Surely there was no change in the apple, but the change was in herself, and therefore as it did not tempt her before, so neither could it be said to tempt her in that temptation. And what is this, but to make God the tempter, who was the maker of the apple, contrary to the words of S. james, that a jam. 1.13. God tempteth no man to evil? Which we must likewise say of all other things in the world, if it be true that M. Bishop saith, that they tempt us to sin. For though God himself immediately do not tempt us, yet if the creatures of the world do tempt us, the accusation redoundeth to him, because in the creatures there is nothing but his work. They are fair & beautiful, they are pleasant to sight and use, but do they therefore tempt to sin? Did the Sun tempt the heathen idolaters to worship it? Did b 2. Sam. 13.2. Thamar tempt Ammon to filthiness, or c Dan. 13.8. Susanna the wicked elders? Nay, as S. james telleth us, it is our own sinful lust that tempteth us to abuse the good creatures of God, which themselves tempt us not, but rather as S. Paul teacheth us, d Rom. 8.22. they groan and travail in pain, because e Vers. 20. they are subject to our vanity, and therefore f Vers. 19.21. wait when the sons of God shallbe revealed, that they may be delivered from the bondage of our corruption, into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. But he allegeth to his purpose the words of S. john: All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes and pride of life. Where if we consider the Apostles words as they lie, we shall see how justly it may be returned to himself, which a little before he said of M. Perkins, that either he showeth great want of judgement, or else very strangely perverteth the words of holy Scripture. The thing that he hath to prove, is that every thing in this world tempteth us to sin, The words of S. john are, g john. 2.16. All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world. He speaketh of the things of the world which are of the Father, because they are his creatures: S. john speaketh of the things of the world, which are not of the Father. He speaketh of the world, which is the creature and frame of heaven and earth, & all things therein: S. john speaketh h August. count julian. lib. 4. cap. 13. Novimus joannem non mundum istum, id est, coelum & terram & omnia quae in eo substantialiter sunt, reprehendisse cum diceret. Omnia, quae in mundo sunt, etc. not of the world in that meaning, but of the world of mankind corrupted & defiled with sin, according to which the unregenerate are called i Luk. 16.8. the children of this world, and as our Saviour Christ saith, that k john. 7.7. the world hated him because he testified of it, that the works thereof are evil. And doth he not then, think you, bring us a good proof, that every thing in the world tempteth us to sin? The meaning of S. john is plain, that in the world, that is to say, in the men of this world, there is nothing but corruption, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, and the following of all these, all which are not of the Father, nor have accord with him, but are of men themselves, & perish together with themselves. What is this then but profanely and lewdly to abuse the word of God, thus to cite it to prove a falsehood, when it hath not so much as any show of that for which it is cited? If it be gross to say, that whatsoever allureth to sin is sin, I am sure it is much more gross, that he hath said for the disproving of it. He addeth further, that it is as wide from all moral wisdom to affirm that the first motions of our passions be sins. But we judge not of these things by moral wisdom, which is the wisdom of this world, because l 1. Cor. 1.21. the world by it own wisdom knoweth not God in the wisdom of God; we esteem hereof, as God by the foolishness of the Apostles preaching hath taught us to believe. And out of their preaching we have learned to say as S. Austin did, that m August. count julian. lib. 4. cap. 2 Ipsa per se ipsam libido rectissimè omnino suis ipsis motibus accusatur quibus ne excedat obsistitur. lust itself by itself is very justly accused or blamed in the very motions of it, wherein it is resisted that it exceed not, and that n Ibid. li 5. ca 5. Quantumlibet in isto conflictu superiores simus, etc. tamen ipsis certè nostrae cogitationis motibus & affectibus si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, etc. howsoever in this conflict of the spirit against the flesh we get the better, yet if in the very motions and affections of our thought we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us. But saith he, heathen Philosophers could distinguish between sudden passions of the mind and vices. But what is it to us what heathen Philosophers have distinguished, seeing Christian Philosophers have taught us to call these passions, o See after Sect. 9 vices, inward vices, viciousness, vicious affections, vicious concupiscences, or lusts? Let M. Bishop follow Philosophers if he please; as for us we say in these questions of Divinity, as Tertullian said, that p Tertul de prescript. adu haeret. philosophia temeraria interpret divinae naturae & dispositionis. philosophy is but a saucy interpreter of God's nature and disposition, & that Philosophers are q Idem. count Hermogen. Haereticorum patriarchae philosophi. the patriarchs of heretics. We take our instructions out of Solomon's porch, not out of the porch of Zeno; from Jerusalem, not from Athens; and there we have learned to call it sin whatsoever swerveth from the law of God, as before hath been declared. Yea but M. Bishop will prove out of that very text which M. Perkins allegeth, that concupiscence is not sin. r jam. 1.14. Every man, saith S. james, is tempted when he is drawn away by his own concupiscence, and is alured: afterward concupiscence when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin. Mark well the words, saith he. First concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some evil motion, but that is no sin, until afterward it do conceive. But how doth he prove that by any argument out of S. james his words? What, is it not sin because S. james doth not expressly call it sin? Why then neither shall the consent be sin, because S. james expresseth the consent first, and afterwards inferreth the bringing forth of sin. But though S. james do not call it expressly sin, yet S. Paul doth. For what S. james speaketh of concupiscence, stirring up evil motions, and thereby tempting and enticing, the very same S. Paul expresseth in these words, s Rom. 7.8. Sin wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. Which is the same as if he should have said, that concupiscence which is the habit of sin, did stir up in him all manner of evil motions and affections to tempt him thereby. The same Apostle saith, t Cap. 6.12. Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof, calling it by the name of sin, where it reigneth not, nor is obeyed in the lusts of it. He distinctly noteth sin, and the lusts of it, and the obeying, that is, consenting to those lusts, and so plainly showeth, that in the root, and from the beginning it is sin. Thus the faithful elsewhere are warned to take heed not to be hardened u Heb. 2.13. by the seducing (or deceitfulness) of sin, where it is also plain, that it is sin which seduceth and enticeth, even as the Apostle saith, x Rom 7.11. Sin seduced me (or deceived me) and thereby slew me, giving to understand, that these seducing and entice, that is, the first motions of concupiscence, are so far sin, as that thereby he felt himself in himself to be but a dead man. Thus the Apostle S. Paul thwarteth all that M. Bishop gathereth out of S. james his words, but yet the most deep Doctor S. Austin sifteth out the matter very profoundly for him. And indeed he sifteth well, but leaveth to M. Bishop nothing but the very bran. y Aug. contra julian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Profectò in his verbis, partus à pariente distinguitur. Pariens est concupiscentia, partus peccatum. Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit. Nec concipit nisi illexerit, hoc est, ad malum perpetrandum obtinuerit volentis assensum. In these words (saith he) the birth is distinguished from that that bringeth forth. That that bringeth forth is concupiscence, the birth is sin. But concupiscence bringeth not forth except it conceive. So then, saith M. Bishop) it is not sin of itself. But we deny his argument: for a mother bringeth forth a woman, and yet she herself is a woman also. A woman bringeth not forth a woman, except she first conceive, and yet she is a woman before she do conceive, and sin bringeth not forth sin, except by consent it first conceive, and yet it is sin before conception. There is nothing in Saint Augustine's words, but standeth well with that that before hath been said, that concupiscence being the habit of sin, doth by gaining the consent of the will, bring forth actual and outward sins, which is the true meaning of that place of james. And that he did not otherwise conceive, but that concupiscence is sin, M. Bishop might very well have seen, if he had but read the words a few lines before the place which he citeth, where speaking of the same being in us, he saith, z Jbid. Non tan tùm inesset, verùm & granitèr obesset; nisi reaetus qui nos obstrinxerat per remissionem peccatorum solutus esset. It should not only be in us, but also greatly hurt us, but that the guilt thereof is acquitted by the forgiveness of our sins. We would have M. Bishop tell us, how it should hurt us if it be not sin: for we suppose that there is nothing in man that can hurt him, but only sin, especially the hurt being such, as S. Austin anon after speaketh of, a Tantum quis inest, pertraheret ad vltiman● mortem. to draw us, only by being in us, to everlasting death. The place of Cyril affirmeth the being of lust. b Cyril●● joan. lib. 4. cap. 51. Feruens cupiditas ante peccandi actum insidet. ante peccandi actum, before the actual sin, but hath nothing for M. Bishops turn to prove, that lust also is not sin, nay in the words immediately following, he proveth that it is sin, affirming, that c hoc anigmate perdiscamus nullo nos pacto mundos unquam futuros nisi omnem turpem ex animo cupiditaetem cijciamus. by circumcision we should learn, that we shall not be clean, unless we cast out of our mind all filthy lust. For if lust itself do make us unclean, it must needs be sin, because nothing can make a man unclean but only sin. That which M. Perkins addeth to illustrate this point, Such as the fruit is, such is the tree, was very fitly spoken to the matter in hand. For the fruit hath it whole nature and quality from the tree, neither is it any thing, but what it is by that that it receiveth from thence. If therefore the actions of concupiscence be sin, concupiscence which is the tree, must needs have the nature and condition of sin. But M. Bishop answereth, that not concupiscence, but the will of man is the tree. Which is all one as if he should have said, that not the will of man, but the will of man is the tree. For it hath been before showed, that concupiscence is nothing else, but the corrupted will of man, which doth not bring forth either evil or good indifferently, but is of itself an enticer only unto bad, until God do create it anew, and by his own hand do work in it to will that that is good. In a word, the holy Scripture as on the one side it calleth the motions of concupiscence, d 1. Pet. 2.11. the lusts of the flesh, so it calleth also the effects & deeds of those lusts, the works of the flesh; thereby showing, that concupiscence signified by the name of e Gal. 5.9. flesh, and importing the corruption of the whole mind and will of man, is rightly said to be the tree or evil root whence all evil works, and all wickedness do spring. 7. W. BISHOP. Lib. 5. contr. julian. cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith, That concupiscence is sin, because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind, etc. I answer, that S. Augustine in more than twenty places of his works teacheth expressly, that concupiscence is no sin, if sin be taken properly: wherefore when he once calleth it sin, he taketh sin largely as it comprehendeth, not only all sin, but also all motions and enticements to sin: in which sense concupiscence may be termed sin: but it is so called very seldom of S. Augustine, Lib. 6. cap. 5. but more commonly an evil, as in the same work is to be seen evidently, where he saith: That grace in Baptism doth renew a man perfectly, so farrefoorth as it appertaineth to the deliverance of him from all manner of sin; but not so, as it freeth him from all evil: so that concupiscence remaining after baptism, is no manner of sin, in S. Augustine's judgement: but may be called evil, because it provoketh us to evil. To this place of S. Augustine, Tract. 41. in joan. I will join that other like, which M. Perkins quoteth in his fourth reason: where he saith, that sin dwelleth always in our members. The same answerserueth, that sin there is taken improperly: as appeareth by that he seats it in our members: for according unto S. Augustine and all the learned, the subject of sin being properly taken, is not in any part of the body, but in the will and soul, and in the same passage he signifieth plainly, that in baptism all sins and iniquity is taken away, and that there is left in the regenerate, only an infirmity or weakness. R. ABBOT. That place of Austin doth very pregnantly show, that concupiscence is truly and properly called sin, and giveth a reason thereof out of the true nature of sin, which before hath been declared. a August. contr. Julian. lib. 5. ca 3. Sicut coecitas cordis & peccatum est quo in Deum non creditur, & poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur, & causa peccati, cùm mali aliquid coeci cordis errore committitur: itae concupiscentia carnis adversus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus, & peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis, & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis inobedientis: & causa peccati est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis. As blindness of heart (saith he) is both a sin whereby man believeth not, and the punishment of sin, wherewith the pride of the heart is justly revenged; and the cause of sin whilst any evil is committed by the error of the heart so blinded: so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit desireth, is both sin, because there is in it a disobedience against the rule of the mind, and the punishment of sin, because it was rendered to the desert of him that obeyed not, and the cause of sin either by the default of him that consenteth unto it, or by infecting of him that is borne of it. Concupiscence then is sin, as blindness of heart is sin. But blindness of heart is properly sin, therefore concupiscence is so also. Rebellion against the law of the mind, whereby is meant the law of God, is properly sin, as before is showed. But concupiscence is a habit of rebellion against the law of God: it is therefore properly to be accounted sin. And whereas Austin when he denieth concupiscence to be sin, saith it is therefore called sin, because it is the punishment of sin, and the cause of sin, here he affirmeth that it is not only the punishment of sin, and the cause of sin, but otherwise also sin, and therefore properly and truly sin. But M. Bishop telleth us, that Austin in more than twenty places of his works teacheth expressly, that concupiscence is no sin, if sin be taken properly. Yet S. Austin in those twenty places saith nothing of sin properly or unproperly taken, and indeed taketh sin unproperly, when he denieth concupiscence to be sin, as anon shall appear. He saith further, that when Austin calleth concupiscence sin, he taketh sin largely, as it comprehendeth not only all sin, but also all motions and enticements to sin, and so it may be termed sin And this large taking of sin, we say is the proper taking of it, and thereby concupiscence is properly called sin. But the motions and enticements to sin, being the same with concupiscence, we see what a proper secret he hath here delivered, that concupiscence may be termed sin, as sin is taken largely, so as to comprehend concupiscence. A learned note. But because the reason that he hath before delivered is stark nought, he should have given us here a better reason, why the name of sin is not properly to be understood, when concupiscence is called sin. He telleth us, that with Austin it is more commonly called an evil, and indeed it is true, that very often he so calleth it, but yet such an evil, as maketh a man evil, so that by reason thereof, a Hieron. adver. Pelag. lib. 3. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis, quamuis Propheta, quamuis Apostolus, dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore, Si vos cùm sitis mali, etc. though a man be a Prophet, a Patriarch, an Apostle, yet (saith Hierome) it is said unto them by our Saviour, If we being evil do know to give good gifts to your children, etc. Now there is nothing that maketh a man evil, but that which is properly sin. Concupiscence therefore is properly a sin. But of this shall be spoken more at large anon. Only here it is to be observed, how M. Bishop understandeth it to be an evil, because it provoketh us to evil. So he will have it no otherwise called an evil, than it is called sin. It is sin, because it provoketh to sin; and so evil, because it provoketh to evil, and so indeed properly shall be neither sin nor evil, whereas S. Austin acquitting it in some meaning from the name of sin, leaveth it simply and absolutely in the name and nature of evil, as shall appear. To this place he bringeth another testimony of Austin, which M. Perkins allegeth in the fourth reason, and giveth to it a very unproper answer. b August. in joan. Tract 41. Quamdiu vivis necesse est esse peccatum in membris tu●s. So long as thou livest (saith Austin) of necessity sin must be in thy members, sin is there also taken unproperly, saith M. Bishop. And yet S. Austin deduceth that assertion from the words of S. john: c 1. job. 1.8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, alleging the one, and concluding the other by occasion of the words of our Saviour Christ, d joh. 8.34. He that committeth sin is the servant of sin, and the servant abideth not in the house for ever. For hereupon he asketh the question, What hope then have we, who are not without sin? and answereth at large, that sin, though according to the words of S. john we cannot be without it so long as we live here, yet shall not hurt us if we do not by suffering it to reign, make ourselves servants unto it, because he only that committeth sin by course and practise of evil conversation, is the servant of sin, that is to say, of inward corruption. Now therefore if we will follow M. Bishop's construction, we must understand S. john also of sin unproperly taken, and affirm contrary to the ancient received Maxim of Christian faith, that if sin be properly taken, it may be truly said of some men, that they are without sin, because he saith it is not true of sin properly taken, that so long as a man liveth, it must needs be in him, as S. Austin speaketh. Now he will prove, that sin is there unproperly taken, because S. Austin placeth it in the members: For according to S. Austin and all the learned, the subject of sin properly taken, is not in any part of the body, but in the will and soul. Where we may justly smile at his ridiculous and childish ignorance, Why, M. Bishop, is concupiscence any otherwise in the members of the body, but only by the soul? julian the Pelagian was not so gross, but that he knew, that e Aug. contra Julian. lib. 6. ca 5 Quia carnalitèr anima concúpiscit. the flesh is said to lust, because the soul lusteth according to the flesh, which S. Austin confirmeth and saith, that f Ibid Motibus suis anima quos habet secundum spiritum adversatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem, & rursu● motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem, adversatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum spiritum, & ideò dicitur ●are concupiscere adversus spiritum, etc. it is the soul itself, which by it own motions which it hath according to the spirit, is contrary to other motions of it own, which it hath according to to the flesh: and by it own motions which it hath according to the flesh, is contrary to other motions of it own, which it hath according to the spirit, and that therefore the flesh is said to lust contrary to the spirit, and the spirit contrary to the flesh. Who knoweth not this, saith he to julian, which thou like a great Doctor so often tellest us? And what, doth not M. Bishop know it, that will be taken for so great a Doctor in the Church of Rome? Let me tell him once again, that the soul is the proper and immediate subject of concupiscence; that to lust is an act of a nature endued with life and sense, which the body is not of itself, but only by the soul: and therefore that that exception of his maketh nothing to the contrary, but that S. Austin by sin in the members, doth understand that that is properly and truly called sin, to say nothing of that I have before declared, that by concupiscence is also understood the will itself, thrall and subject unto sin. For conclusion of this point he addeth, that S. Austin in the same passage signifieth plainly, that in baptism all sin and iniquity is taken away, and that there is left in the regenerate only an infirmity and weakness. But it is his singular impudency to allege S. Austin so directly contrary to his whole drift and purpose in that place, which is as before was said, to show, that sin is in us whilst we live, only that it may not hurt us we must have care that we make not ourselves the servants of it. Whereas he saith, that iniquity is taken away, he meaneth it of the guilt thereof, which ceaseth in the regenerate by the forgiveness of their sins, but otherwise he himself affirmeth and approveth Ambrose affirming the same, that g Contra Julian. lib. 2 & lib. 9 cap. 8. Neque enim nulla est tui quitas cùm 〈◊〉 uno homine vel inferiora superioribus contumacitès reluctantur, etiamsi vincere non sinantur. it is an iniquity in us, that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, albeit it be not suffered to overcome. He saith, that the iniquity being taken away, there remaineth an infirmity, but not taking infirmity in that sense as M. Bishop doth, for a mere weakness: but for that that he himself elsewhere expoundeth it, when he saith, that h De peccat●●eris. & remis. li. 2. cap. 17. Ignorantia & infirmitas vitia sunt, quae impediunt voluntatem, nemoveatur ad faciendum opus bonum vel abopere malo abstinendum. ignorance and infirmity are the vices which do hinder the will, that it moveth not to do good, or to abstain from evil; which he calleth elsewhere i De nat. & grae. cap. 67. Omni peccati animae duo ista poenaliae, ignorantia & difficu●tas. the penalties of every soul of man. Whereby it appeareth, that by infirmity he meaneth that viciousness and corruption of man's nature, which ensued of the first sin, whereby it is disabled to the doing of good and forbearing of evil, which in part is cured in regeneration, but yet in part he saith is remaining still. Thus M. Bishop, we see, maketh the best shift he can with words, because in matter he can light upon nothing to serve his turn. 8. W. BISHOP. Aug. Epist. 29. M. Perkins 4. reason is taken from the record of the ancient Church: Charity in some is more, in some less, in some none, the highest degree of all which cannot be increased, is in none, as long as a man lives upon earth: & as long as it may be increased, that which is less than it should be, is in fault: by which fault it is, that there is no just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not, etc. For which also though we profit never so much, it is necessary for us to say, Forgive us our debts, though all our worst deeds & thoughts be already forgiven in Baptism. Answer. That here is never a word touching concupiscence, or to prove Original sin to remain after Baptism, which is in question: but only that the best men for want of perfect Charity, do often sin venially, which we grant. R. ABBOT. S. Austin saith, that a August Epist. 29. Plenissima charitas quae iam non possit augeri, quamdiu hic homo utter, est in nem●ne● quamdiu autem augeri potest quod minus est quàm debet, ex vitio est perfect charity which can now no further be increased, is in no man so long as he liveth here. And so long as it may be increased, saith he, surely that that it is less than it should be, EX VITIO EST, is by reason of some vice, corruption, default. M. Bishop answereth, that here is never a word of concupiscence, or to prove Original sin to remain after Baptism. But if he had meant honestly, he should have told us what is meant by that vitium, call it vice or blemish, or stain, or corruption, or default, or all these. If it be not understood of concupiscence and the continuing blot and stain of Original sin, he should have told us what we are otherwise to understand by it. But he could devise nothing else whereof to understand it, and therefore is content with a very homely and beggarly shift to pass it over, that forsooth there is nothing said of concupiscence, when yet that that is said, cannot be meant of any thing else. And that it is so meant, S. Austin himself plainly confirmeth unto us by the like sentence in another place. b De na. & gra. cap. 38. Si in Abeltusio charitas Dei adhuc erat, quo posset & deberet augeri, quicquid minus erat, ex vitioerat If in Abel (saith he) there were wherein the love of God might and ought to be increased, that that was too little, ex vitio erat, was by reason of some vice or corruption. And this he showeth to be the same that the Apostle speaketh of when he saith, Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, etc. This sin he termeth vitium, and saith: c Ex hoc vitio mittitur & oculus quonon oportet. By this vice or corruption the eye is cast whither it ought not to be, and if it go forward and prevail, adultery is committed. Again he addeth, Hoc peccatum, id est, hunc vitiosae affectionis appetitum, qui magna ex part frenarunt, etc. This sin, that is to say, this lust of vicious affection, they who have for the most part bridled, have deserved to be called just. And thus very often he calleth concupiscence a vice, and the motions thereof vices, as before was said. Now in the place cited, S. Austin addeth, as touching the effect of this vice: d Epist. 29. Ex quo vitio non est nisius super terram, etc. Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur. etc. By reason of which vice there is not a just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not. By reason of which vice no man living shall be justified, or found just in the sight of God. By reason of which vice, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. Which two latter clauses M. Bishop very treacherously and falsely hath left out, because he saw them wholly contrary to all that he saith. For if by reason of this vice of concupiscence, we cannot say that we have no sin, than it must needs follow, that concupiscence is truly sin. If by reason of this vice, no man living shall be found just in the sight of God, than this vice, that is to say, concupiscence, is sin, because nothing hindereth a man from being just in the sight of God but only sin. And this taketh away the other part of his answer, that S. Austin only saith, that the best men for want of perfect charity do often sin venially. For by their doctrine, venial sins hinder not a man from being just in the sight of God, whereas the vice of which S. Austin speaketh, is such as hindereth justice, so that by reason thereof no man living shall be found just in the sight of God. M. Perkins therefore rightly alleged this place, to prove that concupiscence is sin, and M. Bishop in answering it, showeth himself a man of wretched and evil conscience, who being so shut in with the truth, as that he knew not which way to resist, yet would rather by falsehood and collusion shift it off, then renounce the errors, to the maintenance whereof he hath wickedly sold himself. 9 W. BISHOP. M. Perkins having thus strongly (as you see) fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine (which hath also nothing for his purpose) in steed of all antiquity: confesseth ingenuously, that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sin: but expounds him to mean, that it is not sin in that person, but in itself: which is already confuted: for sin that is an accident, and so properly inherent in his subject, cannot be at all, if it be not in some person, and the sin of the same person. But if the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustine's opinion in this point: let him see what their Patriarch john Caluin saith of it: Lib. 3. Instit. cap. 3. num. 10. where thus he writeth: Neither is it needful to labour much in searching out what the old Writers thought of this point, when one Augustine may serve the turn: who with great diligence hath faithfully collected together all their sentences. Let the readers therefore take out of him, if they desire to have any certainty of the judgement of antiquity. Hitherto somewhat honestly: What followeth? Moreover between him and us, there is this difference: that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin, but to express it, is content to use the word of infirmity, then lo doth he say, that it is made sin, when the act of our consent doth join with it. But we hold that very thing to be sin, wherewith a man is in any sort tickled, Observe first good Reader, that S. Augustine's opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquity: Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them. Secondly, that he is flatly on our side: teaching concupiscence not to be sin, unless we do consent unto it. Lastly, learn to mislike the blind boldness of such Masters: who having so highly commended S. Augustine's judgement in this very matter, and advised all men to follow it, doth notwithstanding fly from it himself: presuming that some would be so shallow-witted as not to espy him, or else content to rely more upon his only credit, then upon the authority of all the ancient Fathers. For a taste of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question, I will here put the sentences of some few, that I need not hereafter return to rehearse them. S. chrysostom saith, Passions be not sins of themselves, Homil 11 in epist. ad Rom. but the unbridled excess of them doth make sins: And that I may for example sake touch one of them: Concupiscence is not a sin; but when passing measure it breaks his bounds, then lo it is adultery; not in regard of concupiscence, but in respect of the excessive and unlawful riot of it. S. Bernard (whom M. Perkins often citeth against us, Serm. de se● tribul. and therefore may sometimes be alleged for us) hath these words: Sin is at the door, but if thou do not open it, it will not enter in: lust tickleth at the heart; but unless thou willingly yield unto it, it shall do thee no hurt: withhold thy consent, and it prevaileth not. S. Aug. and S. Cirill, have been cited already, S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter: who with the confession of Caluin, may serve sufficiently to prove, that approved antiquity is wholly for us. And if any desire to know the founder of our adversaries Doctrine in this point, let him read the 64. heresy recorded by that ancient and holy Bishop Epiphanius: where he registereth one Proclus an old rotten sectary to have taught, that sins are not taken away in Baptism, but are only covered, which is as much to say, as sin remaineth still in the person regenerate, but is not imputed to him. Which is just M. Perkins, and our Protestants position. R. ABBOT. If M. Perkins had no better fortified his positions, than M. Bishop doth his answers, he should with us have been holden for too weak a man to meddle in controversies of divinity. But as Tertullian said, that a Tertul. de prescript. Nusquam facilius proficatur qu●●● in castris re●ellium, ubi ipsum esse illic pro●●reri est. it is no where more easy thriving then in the camp of rebels, where to be only, is to be in pay, so may we say, that it is no where more easy writing then amongst heretics and rebels against the truth, where to write only is sufficient to commend a man; it is no matter how or what he writ. Such a writer is M. Bishop; a bad one, God knows; but we can look for no better of him then the matter will afford him. He saith, that M. Perkins had but one sentence of S. Austin for the maintenance of his position, and that nothing for his purpose: but M. Perkins hath alleged more than he hath answered, and it seemeth, that that one sentence was to the purpose, which he could no otherwise shift of, but by loud dissembling and concealing of that, wherein S. Austin with main stream doth run against him. Again he telleth us, that M. Perkins confesseth ingenuously, that S. Austin in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sin, and we confess as much, and expound S. Austin's meaning as he doth, that it is not sin to the person, not that in itself it is not sin. But this, he saith, is already confuted, and we say that his imagined confutation is already reconfuted. But he giveth us a reason why it cannot be so. For sin that is an accident, and so properly inherent in his subject, cannot be at all, if it be not in some person, & the sin of the same person. And we answer him by S. Austin, that it is sin in the person, and the sin of the person by inherent quality and disposition, but it is not the sin of the person by account of guilt and imputation. For the approving whereof M. Perkins alleged two places out of Austin, which M. Bishop honestly passeth over, as if he had not seen them, but they will meet with him again anon. In the mean time he bringeth us in our Patriarch, as he calleth him, john Caluin, referring his Readers to S. Austin, to know by him the judgement of antiquity, concerning this matter of concupiscence. Where I answer him, that we honour Caluin indeed as a singular instrument of God, for the restoring of the light of his truth, and overthrowing of the throne of the purple whore of Rome, but we make him no Patriarch, we follow him no further than he approveth unto us, that he is a follower of Christ; we tie not ourselves to him, but use our liberty to dissent from him, and to censure him where he hath gone awry. But M. Bishop and his fellows have their Patriarch indeed, to whom they bind themselves, Antichrist the man of sin, the enemy of Christ, whose dirt they must be content to eat, and to brook all the filth of his abominations, and a Dist. 40. si Papae. though he lead them to hell, yet no man may dare say unto him, Sir why do ye so? Well, Caluin saith, that Austin hath diligently gathered the judgement of antiquity, and what then? forsooth he saith further thus: that b Caluin. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 10. between Austin and us there may seem to be this difference, that he dares not call the disease of concupiscence by the name of sin; but we hold it to be a sin that a man is tickled with any lust or desire against the law of God. Whereupon M. Bishop giveth his Reader these observations; first that S. Austin's opinion carrieth with Caluin the credit of all antiquity, which is the cause, saith he, that I cite him more often against them; which indeed he hath full clerkly and profoundly done, so as that I presume, I may assure the Reader that he hath scarcely ever read over one book of his. Secondly, saith he, that he is flatly on our side: but therein he reckoneth before his host; for Caluin saith to the contrary, that c Ibid. sect. 12. Austin differeth not so much from our doctrine, as in show he seemeth to do, and that he varieth but little from our opinion. Lastly, saith he, learn to mislike the blind boldness of such masters. But if Caluin were blind, alas for poor M. Bishop, what can he see? and yet though he can see but little, he is as bold as blind bayard, and doubteth not to vilify him, to whom he might very well be a scholar yet many years. Caluin justly commendeth Austin's judgement, and adviseth all men to follow it, and in substance flieth not from it himself, though in terms he somewhat differ. Neither did he presume upon shallow wits not to be espied, knowing well that the whole rabble of the court of Antichrist, would use their deepest wits for the sifting of that he should write, but in the conscience of integrity and faithfulness, he despised all their barkings and malicious fury, and with the invincible shield of truth beareth off all the poisoned darts of their reproaches. He never taught men to rely upon his authority, but by authority of the word of God and testimony of the ancient church, he laboured to establish the faith of Christ, yet making men witnesses only, not authors or dictator's of the truth, and therefore not doubting to censure them, where they serve from the authority of the word of truth. But now because M. Bishop will persuade us, that S. Austin is wholly on their part, let us somewhat more at large examine his opinion and judgement in this behalf. Which although it may be sufficiently perceived by those things that have been scatteringly alleged already, yet fully to remove this cavil, let us here lay together what shall be found necessary for the clearing thereof. And first, we are to observe, that sin is considered two manner of ways; one way as it is opposed to righteousness; another way as it is opposed to forgiveness of sins. Sin properly taken, as every man's understanding giveth him, is opposite to righteousness, and so whatsoever is contrary to righteousness, is sin. Thus have we before described the nature of sin, and according to this description concupiscence in the regenerate, being d Rom. 7.23. Gal. 5.17. contrary to righteousness is sin, neither ever came it into S. Austin's heart to think otherwise. But he considereth sin in the proper effect of sin, as it maketh guilty, so that whatsoever is forgiven is no sin, because forgiveness taketh away the guilt of sin. So long as the guilt remaineth, though the thing be past and gone, whereof or whereby the man is guilty, yet he understandeth the sin to remain still. If the guilt be taken away, though the thing still continue the same, by which the man became guilty, yet he taketh it not to be in the nature of sin, because the nature of sin is to make guilty. The occasion of which construction was given him by the Pelagian heretics, the predecessors of the Papists, who when he taught against them Original sin, and the remainder of that blot of natural corruption in the regenerate, as we do, took occasion to cavil against him, that he e August count duas epist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 13. Dicunt, inquit, baptisma no● dare omnem induldgentiam pecc●torum nec auferre criminae sed radere, ut omnium peccatorum radices in mala carne reneantur quasi ●asorum in capite capillorum unde crescant it●rum risecanda peccata. said, that baptism did not give remission of all sins, neither did take away faults, but only shave them, so as that the roots were still sticking, from whence other sins should grow again. S. Austin the better to clear this matter to popular understanding, affirmeth, that baptism doth take away all sin, because that albeit concupiscence of the flesh were still remaining, yet it did not remain in the nature of sin, because the guilt thereof in baptism was remitted. f De nupt. et concupisc lib. 1. ca 25. Dimittitur non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur. It is forgiven, saith he, not so as that it is not, but so as that it is not imputed for sin. g Ibid. cap. 26. In eyes qui regeneranturr in Christo, cum remissionem accipiu●t prorsus omnium peccatorum v●que necesse est, ut reatus etiam huius licet manenus ad ●uc concup s●entiae remittatur, ut in peccatum non impu●●tur Nam sicut c●rum peccatorum, qu● manner non 〈◊〉 sunt, quo●●am cum 〈◊〉 p●et●reunt 〈…〉, et ●isi remi●● ut 〈◊〉 in aeter●um ma●e●●; sic illius concupiscen●ic quando remittitur reatus aufertur. Hoc est e●●im non habere peccatum, non esse re●ym peccati N●● si quisqu●● ve●●● gratia fecerit adveterium etiam si nunquam de●●ces●● faciat 〈◊〉 est adulterij donec reatus ipsias 〈…〉 Habet ergo peccatum quamuis illud quod admis●●●am non sit, quia cum temp●re quo factum est praeti●●ijt, etc. Man●●t ergo (peccata) nisi remittantur. Sed quomodo manent si prae●●●ta sunt nisi quia praet●rterunt actu, manent reatu, Sic itaque s●●rie contra●● potest ut etiam illud maneat act●●●, aeterea● rea●●. In the regenerate, when they receive forgiveness of all their sins, the guilt of this concupiscence, though itself still continue, is remitted, so as that it is not imputed for sin. For as of those sins which cannot continue, because when they are done they are passed, yet the guilt still abideth, and except it be pardoned, shall abide for ever: so the guilt of concupiscence when it is pardoned, is taken away, though itself abide. For not to have sin is all one as to say, not to be guilty of sin. He that hath committed adultery, though he do it no more, is still guilty till it be pardoned. Therefore he hath his sin still, though that which he hath committed now is not in being, being passed with the time wherein it was done. Such sins therefore remain except they be forgiven. But how do they remain being now past, but because they are passed as touching their actual being, but remain still as touching the guilt. Even so, saith he, it may well be, that concupiscence of the flesh remaineth still as touching the actual being, but yet as touching the guilt is past and gone. He calleth this concupiscence h Ibid. cap. 23. Propter damnabile vitium, quo vitiata est natura humana damnatur. a damnable pollution and uncleanness, wherewith the nature of man is defiled, and for which it is condemned. And he saith thereof, that i Contra julian. Pelag. lib. 2. Est in homine aliquid mali, quod non ipsum sed reatus qui ex illo contractus fuerat, auferiu● in Baptismo. not the evil itself, but the guilt that is gathered thereof, is taken away in baptism; that this sin is k Jbid. Mortu● est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat. dead, as touching the guilt wherein it held us; that l Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 13. Reatus eius generatione tractus, regeneratione dimissus est: & ideo iam non est peccatum. the guilt thereof which we have drawn by generation, is pardoned by regeneration, and therefore now it is not sin. Thus when julian objected to him, that if concupiscence were evil, than the baptised should be without it, he answereth, that m Contr. julian. lib 6. cap. 5. Baptizatus caret omni peccato, non omni malo: quod plantùs ita dicitur, caret reatu omnium malorum non omnibus malis. the baptised is voided of all sin, not of all evil. Which, saith he, is more plainly spoken thus, He is void of the guilt of all evil, not of all that is evil, affirming the guilt only to be taken away, but that the evil that before made him guilty, remaineth still. Therefore he saith, that n Ibid. lib. 2. Non eodem modo appellatur paccatum quo facit reum, & priùs: Cuius manentis reatus in sacro font remissus est. concupiscence is not called sin, in such manner as sin maketh guilty, because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration. The places are infinite; wherein he speaketh to the same effect, that o De peccat. mer. & remissa ib. 1. cap. 39 Ipsa lex peccati solu●o reatus vinculo manet, etc. the law of sin, the bond of the guilt thereof being loosed, continueth still: that p Jbid. lib. 2. cap. 28. Manente ipsa lege concupiscentiae reatus eius soluitur. the law of concupiscence is still abiding, but the guilt thereof is released: that q Cont. julian. lib 2. Savet vitiatum à reatu statim ab infirmitate paulatim. God healeth the corruption of man, from the guilt forthwith, but from the infirmity by little and little: that r Ibid, Remittitur in baptismate lex peccati, non finitur. the law of sin is remitted and pardoned in baptism, but not ended: that s Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 5. Vitia ista curantur, priùs ut reatu non teneant, deinde ut conflictu non vincant: postremò ut omni ex part saenata nulla omnino remaneant. the vices of concupiscence are cured by the grace of Christ, that they hold us not in guilt, but that they remain for us to fight with and conquer, and last of all, to be perfectly healed: not to be at all, still beating upon this, that there is still remaining the same thing that was before, the law of sin before, the law of sin still; evil before, evil still: a vice or corruption before, a vice and corruption still, only the guilt taken away, and thereby only denied to be sin. Now in this we contend not with Austin, nor Austin with us: we shall easily accord with him, that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sin, as sin importeth and implieth guilt, because the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned. But setting aside the respect of guilt, and considering sin as it is opposite to righteousness, doth he in that respect acquit concupiscence from the condition of sin? No verily; for he acknowledgeth, that t Contr. Julian. lib. 2. Non eodem modo appellatur peccatum quo facit reum, sed quod sit reatu primi hominis faction, & quod rebellando nos trahere uttitur ad reatum. though it be not called sin in that sort, as that it maketh guilty, yet it is called sin, for that by rebelling it laboureth to draw us into guilt. And when julian the Pelagian took hold of that that he said, that concupiscence and rebellion of the flesh, was justly laid as a punishment upon the disobedience of man, and hereupon argued that then it was no evil, but rather a thing to be commended, as God's servant for revenge upon him that had deserved it, to refute his collection, answereth, that it is not only the punishment of sin, or the cause of sin, but also very sin itself, u Contr. julian. lib. 5. cap. 3. supr. sect. 7. because there is in it a rebellion against the law of the mind, and therefore that vainly he inferred, that concupiscence because it was a punishment was to be commended. Where to say that S. Austin taketh sin unproperly, as M. Bishop doth, is to make him to speak very absurdly, if we consider the occasion whereupon he speaketh. But to show, that concupiscence though in respect of guilt it be not sin, yet otherwise it is truly so, he calleth it in the regenerate x De pecca. mer. & remis lib. 2. cap. 28. Peccatum remissum superatum, peremptum. a pardoned sin, a sin conquered & destroyed; y De nupt. & concup lib. 1 ca 33. Peccatum illud quod remissum & tectum est, & non imputatur. Et lib. 2. cap. 34. a sin forgiven, covered, not imputed: and out of S. Ambrose z Con●r. julian. lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat, & donec sepulturae perfectione sanctur, rebellat & mort●um. a dead sin, because (saith he) it is dead as touching the guilt wherein it held us, and being dead, yet rebelleth until by accomplishment of burial it be healed. So then as touching guilt it is conquered, destroyed, dead, and it is not sin; but by rebellion it still liveth, & therein it is truly sin. And therefore doth he paint it out even in the regenerate, with such names and terms as do plainly convict it to be sin. He calleth it a De nat. & gr. cap. 38. Vitium, vitiosae affectionis appetitum. vice, lust of vicious affection, b De nupt. & concup. li. 1. cap. 31. Vitiosa concupiscentiae. vicious concupiscence, c Epist. 54. Ab omni vitiositate. viciousness or corruption, and what doth vitiate, defile, corrupt the soul, but only sin? He calleth it d De nup. & con. lib. 1. cap 29. In hoc m●●bo. Et cap. 31. Vbi est morbidus carnis affectus. Ab capeste morboque san●ta. a disease, a diseased affection of the flesh, a pestilence, e De Temp. Ser. 45. Vulnus taben. Et contr. Iul lib 6. cap. 7. Quodam operant contagio, id est, concupiscentia affectu. a wound and contagious filth, and what other disease, or pestilence, or wound and contagion of man is there, but only sin? He calleth this law of sin f De Temp. ibid. Legem foedam, legem miseram. a filthy law, a miserable law, not for that it hath a being by itself to be filthy and miserable, but because we by it are in ourselves filthy and miserable, which nothing can cause but only sin. He calleth it g Contr. julian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Anon est malunis quis neget esse malam? Et ibid. cap. 7. Qualitat mala. De nup. & concupis. li. 1. ca 25. Affectio malae qualitatis. an evil, evil concupiscence, an evil quality, an affection of evil quality, and what evil quality is there of the soul, what spiritual evil, but only sin? He calleth the first motions and affections thereof h Contr. julian. lib. 2. Civil bellum interiorum vitioruni. Aduersus ingenerata vitia bellum gerunt. Vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus. Desideria stulia & noxia. inward vices, vices borne and bred in us, vices from the guilt whereof we are freed, foolish and hurtful desires, i De nupt. & concup. lib. 1. ca 25. Vitiosa desideria. Et cap. 27. Desideria mala & turpia. vicious desires, evil and filthy desires, k In joan. Tr. 41. Jllicitae concupiscentiae in carne tua. unlawful concupiscences, and how do these terms agree to them if they be no sin? He calleth it l De Civit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 25. Illa concupiscentialis inobedientia, qua in moribundis membris habitat. a lustful disobedience, and saith that m Contr. julian. lib. 2. & lib. 6. cap. 8 supr. sect. 7 it is an iniquity that the flesh lusteth against the spirit: though the guilt thereof be acquitted, and all n Rom. 5.19. disobedience and o 1. joh. 5.17. iniquity is sin. He saith, that p Contr. julian. lib. 4 cap. 2. Desiderij malimatum est, etiamsi et non consentiatur. there is evil in an evil desire, though a man consent not to it for evil. And whereas there are two sorts of evils, q Tertul. count Martion. lib. 2. mala peccatoria & ultoria, evils of sin, and evils of punishment and revenge, that we may know that in naming concupiscence evil, he meaneth an evil of sin: he citeth the words of Hilary, that r Contr. julian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal. 118. Samech. Ipsis Apostolis verbo licèt fidei iam emundetis atque sanctificatu, non deesse tamen malitiam per conditionem communis nobis origenis docuit, dicens, Si vos cùm sitis mali, etc. though the Apostles were cleansed and sanctified by the word of faith, yet our Saviour teacheth, that there was not wanting in them evilness, illness by the condition of our common original, in that he saith, If you being evil do know to give good gifts unto your children. Where very evidently we are taught, that of Original sin there remaineth still in the regenerate such an evil, as whereby they are still evil; so that though they be s Epi. 54. Ipse Dominus quos dicit bonos propter participationem gratiae divinae, eosdem etiam malos dicit propter vitia infirmitatis humanae, donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam, ubi nihil omnino peccabitur. good by participation of the grace of God, yet they be still evil by reason of the vices of human infirmity, till all be healed à vitiositate, from corruption, etc. Now though sometimes the name of evil be otherwise used then of sin, yet never is a man called evil by any evil, but that that is sin. Crosses and afflictions are evils, but by these evils, or for these evils, no man is called evil. But concupiscence is such an evil, as whereby a man is evil, and for which the regenerate man is still truly called evil: and therefore is a sinful evil; an evil that is truly and properly a sin. Therefore Saint Austin maketh it an evil in the same kind and nature, as sin is evil when he saith, t Cont. Julian. lib 6. ca 5. Quis ita insa●u● & demens, qui cùm peccata maia esse fiteatur, neget esse malam concupiscentiam peccatorum, etiam si adversur eam concu●●sc●ntiam spiritu peccata concipere ac pareri non sinatur? Tale porrò ac tam magnum malum, tantum quia inest, quomodo non teneret in morte, & per traheret in ultimam mortem, nisi & eius vinculum in illa quae fit in baptism peccatorum omnium remissione solueretur? Who is so mad, as that confessing sins to be evil, he will deny the concupiscence of sins to be evil, albeit by reason of the spirit lusting against it, it be not suffered to conceive and bring forth sins? And to take away all exception, and at once to strike the matter dead, he addeth that it is such and so great an evil, as that only for being in us, it should hold us in death, and draw us to everlasting death, but that the bond thereof is loosed in baptism by the forgiveness of all our sins, even as he had said a little before, that it should not only be in the faithful, but also grievously hurt them, but that the guilt thereof which had bound us, is loosed by the forgiveness of our sins. Which only words might suffice to declare unto us S. Austin's mind, that he never thought, but that concupiscence is sin in that meaning, wherein we here dispute of sin. For if it be such an evil, as that save only that the guilt thereof is pardoned it should greatly hurt us, and so hurt us, as that it should draw us unto everlasting death, it cannot be denied to be truly sin, because nothing could bring us to everlasting death, but only sin. And yet more fully to show this, and to prove against julian the blot and stain of Original sin remaining after baptism, he allegeth further out of Hilary, u Contra julian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal. 118. Gimel. Nos in hoc terreni & morti c●● corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse. that we cannot be clean in the tabernacle of this earthly and carrion body; x Jbid. ex homil quadam de lib. sancti job. Memores & conscum illa ipsa corpora vitiorum omnium esse materiem, pro quae polluti & sordidi ni il in nebis mun●um, nihil innotens ob●inemus. that our bodies are the matter of all vices, by reason whereof being polluted and defiled, we have nothing in us innocent, nothing clean, not as to condemn the substance, of the body, die, but y Ibid. pugnandi necistias contra malum, non sub stantiam, sed sub stantie vitium. vitium substantiae, the vicious quality of the substance, and to signify that therewith we still continue in part stained and defiled, so long as we continue upon the earth. Now there is nothing whereby we are unclean, polluted, defiled, but only sin. Seeing therefore by the remainder of Original sin, that is, by concupiscence we continue after baptism unclean, polluted, & defiled, it followeth necessarily, that co cupiscence after baptism is properly and truly sin. And if concupiscence be not sin without consent, then by S. Austin's judgement the Apostles must be said to live without sin. For he affirmeth of them, that they were z Contr. duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap 11. Apostolos dicimus à pravorum libidinum consensione liberos, etc. free from any consent to evil lusts, meaning it after they had received that great measure of the holy Ghost. And so much he affirmeth particularly of the Apostle a Ju Joan. tract. 41. Faciebat ut concupiscentia non consentiret. Vide Bernard in Cantic. Ser. 56. Paul. But to affirm that the Apostles were free from sin, is b De nat. & great. cap 36. Omnes sancti si interrogari potuissent una voce clamassent, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habe●●●●, etc. contrary to the doctrine of S. Austin. Concupiscence therefore by S. Austin's judgement must necessarily be sin. And hereto agree also the judgements of the rest of the Fathers. Cyprian calleth it in the regenerate c Cypri. de rat. circumcis. Huius contagio corruptelae; Babyloniae fornax, domesticum malum, de quo ●ruhescent quicunque mundè cord regere in decore suo videre desiderant: insaniens bestia corrupti anhelitus catenis ferreis in ultimis animae recessibus alliganda. a corruption, the furnace of Babylon, a domestical evil, of which they will be ashamed, who desire with pure heart to see the king in his beauty; a raging beast of stinking breath, to be tied up with iron chains in the furthest passages of the soul. He saith again of the d Idem. de teiun. et tentat Christi. Nec originali nec personali nec personalicaeruere delicto. holy Prophets and Priests, that they wanted neither Original nor personal sin, and thereby confesseth that in holy men Original sin, continueth still. Ambrose calleth concupiscence even in the regenerate; e Ambros de Apol. David. ca 11. Deploravit in se david inquinamenta naturae. Et ibid. cap. 13. Iniquitas; operatrix cu●pae & delicti; radix & seminarium peccatorum, mala radix affectus erroris. a defilement of nature, iniquity, the worker of default and trespass, the seed-plot of sins, an evil root, an affection of error. Bernard in the like sort, calleth it f Bern. de sex tribulat. Quod in homine pimum ab hac macula, immune ab hoc contagio poterit inveniri? Tribulatio dum resistirur contaminationi, concupiscentiae repugnatur. De cord exit pestiferum virus. Huic multisariae pesti resistere. Foams totius nequitiae. Fornax ambitionis, etc., omnium denique vittorum affectibus vehementer acce●sa. a contamination, a blot, a contagion, a pestilent poison, a manifold pestilence, the cherishment of all naughtiness, a furnace strongly burning with the affections of ambition, avarice, envy, wilfulness, lewdness, and all vices. He again maketh it even by itself, g Bernar in Cant. ser 56. Pauli animae ab aspecta & complexu dilecti unus tantummodo paries obsistebat, videlices lex peccati. Ipsa est carnis concupescentia, etc. paries primus concupiscentia; secundus cons●nsus, etc. a wall which so long as it is in us excludeth and shutteth us out from God, as of Paul for example he saith, that this one wall hindered his soul from the sight and embracing of his beloved Saviour. By all which the Reader may esteem, what consciences they had in the Council of Trent, that set it down to the world as an article to be believed, that concupiscence is h Council Triden. Sess 5. In renatis nihil quod odit Deus, nihil ab ingressu coeli remoratur. not a thing that God hateth, that it is not a thing that hindereth from entering into heaven. These speeches cannot be thus applied to any thing but sin. We have no cause to be ashamed of any thing before God but only sin. God cannot but hate all spiritual corruption, all filthiness, all iniquity, all contagion and uncleanness of the soul, and seeing concupiscence is a wall that shutteth us out from God, it must needs be sin, because nothing can divide us from God but only sin. Now therefore as touching the two places which M. Bishop citeth in the second section, wherein S. Austin denieth concupiscence to be sin, the answer is plain by Austin himself: i De nupt. & Concupis. lib. 2. cap. 34. Quia remissa est in remissione peccatorum, non iam regeneratis in peccatum reputatur: because it is forgiven to the regenerate by remission of sins, it is not now reputed to them for sin. It is sin in it own nature, but because the guilt thereof is pardoned, therefore and in that respect only it is not accounted sin. And hereby the answer is plain to that other cavil which they borrow also from S. Austin, that k Epist. 200. Si nocti eorum adhiberemus assensum non esset unde diceremus patri nostro qui in coelis est, dimit nobis, etc. for concupiscence or the desires and motions thereof, we do not say, forgive us our trespasses so long as we give no consent unto them. For the reason that S. Austin giveth of that assertion, is l Cont. 2. epist. Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. Nec propter ipsam cuius iam reatus lavaecro regenerationis absumptus est dicunt in oratione Baptizati, dimit nobis, etc. Et cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. ca 103. Neque de his peccatis hoc petimus quae nobis in Baptismo taem dimissa sunt. because the guilt thereof is already taken away in Baptism: because the same are already forgiven and pardoned in Baptism, thereby insinuating, that concupiscence and the motions thereof in themselves are such, as for which we should say, forgive us our trespasses, but that therefore we do not say so, because we believe that they are already pardoned and forgiven unto us. Now it is one thing to say, that we ask not forgiveness thereof, because it is forgiven already; another thing to say, as M. Bishop and his fellows do, that it is such in itself as needeth no forgiveness. Whereby it plainly appeareth, that they wholly abuse Saint Austin, and wrest him to far other purpose and meaning than was intended by him. And yet this is a thing whereof he himself also made some doubt. He propoundeth it as his own private opinion. m In Psal. 118. conc. 3. Quantum quidem ego sapere possum. So far as I can perceive, saith he, it is so. It seemeth to me so. n De perfect. justi prope finem Quod nisi fallor non esset opus dicere. Nisi fallor: if I be not deceived, it is so, and dareth not, as he saith, o Non ande● reprehendere, quanquam nec defendere valeam. reprehend them, who did affirm, that just men might in this life be so far without sin, as to be free from consent to any desires of sin, who, because they should have nothing else for which to say forgive us our trespasses, must needs say so for the very first motions and lusts thereof. And surely we dare not altogether assent to Austin in this behalf, because he cannot conceive, but that the acts and motions of concupiscence being new from day to day, must be accounted new trespasses from day to day, and therefore from day to day give us occasion to say, forgive us our trespasses. Yet doth he advantage the Papists no whit at all, because by his very question hereof it appeareth, that he doubted not, but that evil concupiscences are in themselves such, as for which we should say, forgive us our trespasses, when propounding whether for evil concupiscences we pray so unto God, he maketh the ground of his question this, because in Baptism they are already pardoned. And thus I hope I have by this time made it appear to M. Bishop, that S. Austin in this point was no Papist, and that though in the signification of a word he differ from us, yet in the very matter resolved the same that we do, and that both he and the rest of the Fathers of the Church plainly agree with us, that concupiscence in the regenerate hath the proper nature and condition of sin. But yet he will not yield, because he hath yet somewhat further to allege out of the Fathers for the proof of that he saith. And first he allegeth chrysostom, saying, p Chrys ad R●hom. 13. Illi affectus peccatum haudquaquam erant sed illorum immoderatio effraenata hoc efficiebat. Verbi gratia, ut unum aliquem affectuum illorum pertractemus; Concupiscentia peccatum quidem non est, at cum ea ●●●dum non servat, etc. tum res ea in adulterium crumpit, non ab ipsa quidem concupiscentia sed ab illius immodica cupiditate. Passions be not sins of themselves, but the unbridled excess of them doth make sins. For example, Concupiscence is not a sin, but when passing measure it breaks his bounds, then lo it is adultery; not in respect of concupiscence, but in respect of the excess and unlawful riot of it. But here he playeth the juggler again, and by equivocation merely abuseth his reader. For chrysostom speaketh of passions as they are natural, and by God implanted in man in his creation, and common to all men; and not of passions as they are the remainder of Original sin in the regenerate. There were passions in Christ, anger, sorrow, fear, and such like, yet in Christ there was no sin. And thus doth chrysostom speak of concupiscence (which for distinction sake should rather be translated desire) as it is a natural affection, not as it is a human corruption; as it is God's creature, not as it is man's default; as it is q Ibid. unus aliquis affectuum, some one of the affections, not in that sort as we question it, as it is the common disorder of them all. The distinction of concupiscence, which Tertullian useth, serveth fitly in this place, that there is r Tertullian. de Animae. cap. 6. Rationale quod animae à primordio est ingenttum à rationali videlicet authore. Irrationale posterius intelligendum est, ut quod acciderit ex serpentis instinctu atque exinde ●●oleuerit & coadoleverit in anima ad instar iam naturalitatis, etc. non ex ea natura quae à Deo est, sed ex illa quam diabolus induxit. etc. Non semper ex irrationali censenda sunt indignatiu● & concupiscentiwm, etc. concupiscence reasonable and unreasonable. Reasonable he calleth that which is natural, which from the beginning was wrought in the soul by God the reasonable author and maker thereof. Unreasonable he saith, is that which befell by the instinct of the Serpent, and thenceforth crew into the soul, and became in a sort natural, not of that nature which is of God, but of that which the devil hath brought in Concupiscence as it importeth the natural act of desiring, he rightly affirmeth to have been in Christ, and that in us of itself it is no sin. And thus is chrysostom to be understood when he saith, that affections are not sin of themselves, but that it is the unbridled disorder thereof that causeth sin. Thus as he saith, concupiscence referred to the natural desire of the male to the female, is of itself no sin, because it is the work of the God of nature. But our question here is of that concupiscence or the remainder of that concupiscence which grew by the instinct of the serpent, whereby all our desires are by another nature grown disordered and evil, which disorder we say in part continueth still in regenerate, and is not by M. Bishop as yet freed from being sin. The place of S. Bernard answereth itself. s Bernard. ser. de sex tribulat. Peccatum inforibus est; nisi ipse aperias, non intrabit: appetitus in cord prurit, sed sub te est; nisi spontè cesseris, non notebit. Sin is at the door, but unless thou open it shall not enter in. If sin be at the door, why doth M. Bishop deny it to be sin? What he saith first, sin is at the door, he repeateth again in these words, lust tickleth at the heart. If lust tickling at the heart be sin at the door, how doth he conclude by this place, that lust is no sin? He saith, that M. Perkins often citeth S. Bernard against them, and therefore he may be sometimes alleged for them, but if he do allege him no better than here he hath done, his labour shall be better saved then so idly bestowed. But he doth not only cite him impertinently, but also very lewdly. For in that very sermon is it wherein Bernard so describeth concupiscence, as before was said, calling it a defilement, a contagion, a blot, a pestilent poison, etc. and saying thereof, What can there be found in man cleave from this blot, free from this contagion? thereby plainly convincing that it is sin, because as hath been before said, nothing defileth, blotteth, infecteth the soul but only sin. S. Austin & S. Cirill, he saith, have been cited already, & I hope he hath had a full answer to those citations. As for Hierome and Gregory, when we hear what it is that he will oppose out of them, he shall have our further answer, but neither they nor calvin's confession do prove at all that approved antiquity is wholly for them, as he fond presumeth without cause. But now forsooth to hit the nail on the head, If any, saith he, desire to know the founder of our adversaries doctrine in this point, let him read the 64. heresy recorded by that ancient and holy Bishop Epiphanius. And what shall he read there? Forsooth, he registereth one Proclus an old rotten sectary, to have taught, that sins are not taken away in Baptism, but are only covered; which is as much to say, as sin remaineth still in the person regenerate, but is not imputed to him, which, saith he, is just M. Perkins and our Protestants position. Now he that had stood by him when he read this matter in Epiphanius, might very well have said to him, Animus est in patinis; your mind is on your mustard-pot: ye read ye know not what. For that which he allegeth of Proclus was not delivered by Proclus, but by Epiphanius is recorded out of a speech of Methodius a Catholic and godly Bishop against Proclus. Yet this he thought a fit matter wherewith to delude his liege and sovereign Lord, having before mentioned it in his Epistle dedicatory to the kings most excellent Majesty, in the answer whereof I have set down the words of Methodius at large, and the heretical fancy of Proclus against which they were directed. Now because the words to which he alludeth, are the words of Methodius, and approved by Epiphanius, let it be remembered, that Methodius and Epiphanius two ancient and holy Bishops have taught, that sin is not taken away in Baptism, but is only covered, that is, that sin remaineth still in the person regenerate, but is not imputed unto him, and so as M. Bishop himself confesseth, have taught just the same that M. Perkins and the Protestants do now teach. 10. W. BISHOP. Now let us come unto the arguments, which the Church of Rome (as M. Perkins speaks) allegeth to prove Concupiscence in the regenerate, not to be sin properly. 1. Object. In Baptism men receive perfect and absolute remission of sin: Which being pardoned, is taken quite away, and therefore after Baptism, ceaseth to be sin: M. Perkins answereth, that it is abolished in regard of imputation, that is, is not imputed to the person, but remains in him still. This answer is sufficiently (I hope) confuted in the Annotations upon our consent: in confirmation of our Argument, I will add some texts of holy Scripture: First, He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, john. 13. for he is wholly clean. Take with this, the exposition of Saint Gregory the great, our Apostle; Lib. 9 Ep. 3● He cannot (saith he) be called wholly clean in whom any part or parcel of sins remaineth: But let no man resist the voice of truth, who saith, he that is washed (in Baptism) is wholly clean: therefore there is not one dram of the contagion of sin left in him, whom the cleanser himself, doth profess to he wholly clean. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Jerome affirm: saying. How are we justified and sanctified, Epist. ad Oc●●num. Psal. 50. if any sin be left, remaining in us? Again if holy David say, Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow: how can the blackness of hell still remain in his soul? briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong unto the precious blood of our Saviour, to hold, that it is not as well able to purge and purify us from sin, as Adam's transgression was of force to infect us. Yea the Apostle teacheth us directly, that we recover more by Christ's grace, than we lost-through Adam's fault, in these words: But not as the offence, Rom. 5. so also the gift, for if by the offence of one, many died; so much more the grace of God, and the gift in the grace of one man jesus Christ hath abounded upon many. If then we through Christ, receive more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam, there is no more sin left in the newly baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency, albeit other defects, and infirmities do remain in us, for our greater humiliation and probation, yet all filth of sin is clean scoured out of our souls, by the pure grace of God powered abundantly into it in Baptism: and so our first Argument stands insoluble. Now to the second. R. ABBOT. This argument as it was long ago urged by the Pelagians, so in them long ago hath received a full answer. It was rightly said by S. Austin to them: a August. count 2. epist. Pelag. li. 3. ca 3. Quisquis baptismati derogat quod modò per illud accipimus, corrumpit fidem: quisqu● autem tam nunc & tribuit quod quidem per ipsum sed tamen postea accepturi sumus amputat spem. Whosoever doth derogate or detract from Baptism that which now we receive by it, corrupteth Christian faith; but he that even now attributeth to it that, which by it indeed but yet hereafter we are to receive, cutteth of Christian hope. We confess that Baptism doth seal unto us the full remission and forgiveness of all our sins; that thereby we are engrafted into Christ, to become members of his body, and to be made partakers of his spirit, that by the sanctification of the same spirit sin may be destroyed and decayed in us from day to day, that the corruption of the old man being wholly put of in death, perfect righteousness may thenceforth take place for ever at the resurrection of the dead. But this doth not satisfy M. Bishop: he will have it, that Original sin is not only forgiven in Baptism, but also quite taken away, and therefore rejecteth M. Perkins answer, that it is abolished as touching imputation, but that otherwise it remaineth still. Yet the answer fully accordeth with S. Austin, that b Cont. julian. lib. 2. Mali● quod non ipsum sed reatut eius au fertur in baptismo. not itself, but the guilt of it is taken away in Baptism; that c Ibid lib 6. ca 8. Manet actu. praeterijt reatu. it remaineth as touching the actual being, but is taken away as touching the guilt. Now his confutation hereof must needs be a very poor one, that thus directly crosseth S. Augustine's assertion, and hath no further warrant but his own bare word. We have examined that before, but here in confirmation of his argument he will add some texts of holy Scripture. And first he allegeth the words of Christ, d joh. 13, 10. He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is wholly clean. Where we may wonder, that the man's wits should so much fail him, thus to cite a place directly against himself. For Peter, to whom Christ there speaketh, had been baptised before, and yet he needed to be washed still, insomuch that our Saviour saith to him, e Ver. 8. If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part in me. Therefore the uncleanness of sin was not wholly taken away in Baptism, but remained in part still to be taken away. Nay, in the very place itself the exception is plain. For it namely specifieth, that he that is washed hath still need to wash his feet, and that he is not in such sort wholly clean, but that his feet are still unclean. And what are these feet, but the corrupt affections and lusts of sin, whereby we still cleave to the earth, and have a remainder of fleshly and earthly conversation? Of these the Apostle saith, f Col. 3.5. Mortify your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, evil desire, covetousness. u Aug. count julian. lib 6. cap. 5. jam baptizatis dicebat Apostolus, Mortificate, etc. Quomodo ergò mortificat baptizatus fornicationem quam non iam perpetrat, n si cùm desideria eius quibus non consentit expugnat, quae in benefacientibus et omnino non fornicantibus nec consensione nec opere etsi non desunt tamen quotidiè minuentur? Thus did the Apostle speak to baptised men, saith Austin. How then doth the baptised man mortify fornication, which now he committeth not, but by fight against the desires thereof, and not consenting to them, which are not yet wanting, though daily they be diminished. Now if by reason of these earthly feet, these corrupt desires being a part of original infection, we have still need to be washed, it followeth, that by reason of these desires we are still unclean, even by the having of them, though we give no consent unto them. Now Ambrose expressly expoundeth this place of a remainder of Original sin, from which still after Baptism we remain to be cleansed. h Ambros. de ijs qui initiantur mist. ca 6. Mundus erat Petrus, sed plantam lavare debebat. Habebat enim primi hominis de successio●e peccatum quaendo eum supplantatut serpens & persuasit errorem. Peter was clean, saith he, but yet he was still to have his feet washed. For he had still the sin that cometh by succession from the first man, whom the serpent beguiled and persuaded him to error. Therefore his feet are washed, that those hereditary sins may be taken away: For our own sins done by ourselves are released in Baptism. Where speaking of men baptised in elder years, as Peter was, he plainly signifieth, that what sins they have by their own action, they are in Baptism wholly abolished, but that Original sin, as touching the matter and corruption of it, is still dwelling in us, and that we have still need to be washed and cleansed therefrom. And this S. Austin giveth to understand, who writing upon those speeches of Christ, asketh the question, i Aug in joan. tract. 80▪ Quis est in haec vita sic mundus ut non sit magis magisque mundandus? Who is there in this life so clean, as that he is not more and more to be cleansed or made clean? and so affirmeth that the faithful are here, mundi & mundandi; clean, but yet so as that in part they remain still to be cleansed, accordingly as the Apostle exhorteth the faithful, k 2. Cor. 7.1. Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, and grow up to full holiness in the fear of God. But here M. Bishop allegeth Gregory, affirming by those words of Christ, that he that is washed hath not any thing remaining of his sin, etc. Which words Gregory indeed hath, but altogether to other purpose then M. Bishop citeth them, disputing in that place against some who held l Greger. lib. 9 epist. 39 Siqui sunt qui dicunt peccata in Baptismo superficietenus dimitis, quid est haec prae●●catione enfidelius? peccata in Baptismo superficietenus dimitti, that sins in Baptism are but superficially pardoned. Against them he allegeth the words of Christ here spoken, and inferreth, m Si igitur peccata in Baptismate funditùs minimè dimittuntur, quomodo is qui totus est, mundus est totus? Totus enim mundus dici non potest cuide peccaeto aliquid remansit. Sed nemo resistit voci veritatit quae ait, Qui totus est, etc. Nihil ergò ei de peccati sui contagione remanet, quem totum fatetur mundum ipse qui redemit. Si igitur peccata in Baptismo funditùs minimè dimittuntur, etc. If then sins be not altogether forgiven in Baptism, how then is he wholly clean that is washed? For he cannot be said to be wholly clean, to whom any thing is remaining of his sin. And to that meaning he saith, that there is nothing remaining to him of the contagion of his sin, comparing the guilt of sin to a contagion or infection, wherewith the person is still touched after that the fact is past and gone, until by forgiveness it be taken away. Now let these words be referred to the drift whereto they were written (which being expressed in the next words before, M. Bishop hath very guilefully concealed) and they have nothing in them contrary to our assertion. For we deny not, but that sins are fully and wholly pardoned to the regenerate: we deny not, but that the guilt thereof is quite taken away, and therefore by Gregory's testimony M. Bishop availeth nothing. The very like doth Ambrose say, n Ambros. in Psal. 118. Ser. 18 Culpa in eo habere non potest portionem quem absorbuerit remissio peccatorum. Sin can have no portion in a man whom forgiveness of sins hath swallowed up, who yet plainly affirmeth the remaining of Original sin itself after the pardon thereof, as before is said. Now we may not think that Gregory was so simple, as that he saw not in the words of Christ, that he that is said to be wholly clean, hath an exception set down as touching his feet, and therefore could not intend any further, but that he is wholly clean, as touching the guilt, yet partly still unclean by remainder of corruption. To Gregory he addeth Hierome, but the words which he allegeth are a mere forgery. He hath borrowed them from Bellarmine of trust, and Bellarmine hath deceived him, as he will do any man that putteth any trust in him. Hierome in the o Ad Oceanum, epistle cited by him, speaketh somewhat of Baptism, in behalf of one who had had two wives, one before he was baptised another after, and was thereupon questioned whether he might be Bishop or not, because the Apostle saith, that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife. He disputeth at large, that if Baptism take away sins, much more it should take away the imputation of that that is no sin, but neither hath the words which M. Bishop allegeth, nor any other that can serve M. Bishop's turn. It is further alleged that David saith, p Psal. 51. ● Thou shalt wash me and I shallbe whiter than snow: how then, saith he, can the blackness of hell remain in his soul? But let me ask him, if Original sin be taken quite away in the regenerate, how then cometh it to pass, that David having received the effect of Baptism in the Sacrament of Circumcision, and now a long time continued in the state of grace, doth yet complain of Original sin, and doth mention it as the fountain of those enormous sins, which in that Psalm he bewaileth and bemoneth unto God? q Ver. 5. Behold, saith he, I was borne in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me. Why doth he thus r Ambros. Apoleg. David. ca 12. Peccatorum specialium atque communiem collwium confitetur. confess, as Ambrose saith, the filth both of special, and also of common, that is to say, Original sins, if there were now no Original sin in him to be confessed? And as for that which M. Bishop urgeth, the same Ambrose telleth us thereof, s Ibid. Suprae nivem dealbatur cui culpa dimittitur. that he is made whiter than snow, to whom the fault is pardoned, who yet affirmeth the continuing of Original sin in him that is pardoned, as we have seen before. He was therefore whiter than snow, as touching imputation and guilt, when the fault was pardoned, according to the saying of Austin, that t Aug. Retract. li. 1. c 19 Omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur all the commandments of God are reputed as done, when that is pardoned that is not done. But yet when he had heard it delivered unto him by the Prophet Nathan, that u 1. Sam. 12.13. the Lord had taken away his sin, he prayed notwithstanding, x Psal. 51.7.10. Create in me a clean heart; renew in me a right spirit, wash me and I shallbe whiter than snow, thereby acknowledging an uncleanness in himself, from which he had still need to be renewed and washed; from which when he should be washed he should be whiter than snow, but from which no man is so fully washed in this life, but that he hath need still to pray to be washed and cleansed more and more. For what is it by washing to be made whiter than snow, but to be made y Eph. 5.27. without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing? But to be made without spot or wrinkle, z August. de nu: & co●● p●● l●b ● cap 34 e●de a eam se● non in ●sto e culost in ●u●uco non hab●●ae ma●● t●t etc. befalleth to no man in this life, as S Austin well observeth. Therefore no man in this life becometh whiter than snow, by being free from all internal blot of uncleanness and sin. And therefore to take away from M. Bishop all matter of cavil, Basil plainly saith, that a Bast. in Esa. cap. 1. lib vs● qu● ideo situations per●et treg●neran uto lati tirum ut totum pro●●cutat ad al●●tem mu●s ad●●a ●; sed & op ri req●rutur; n c perf●scter● aut qua●. cunquc d li ●●t●a est opus adhoc ut lau●rum quidem sit ●ff●ctitium pucit etit & expu●gationis a lib a, etc. Et quem admodum in tincturis quod repetitis vicibus at multo cum labour in tinctum est, tincturam excipit pressiùs inhaerescentem, etc. Ad eundem se habet modum anima, sante peccatorum suppurata, & in habitudine consti●nta mal●●iae. Ista e nim m●th assuetudo vix ac multo negotio potest e●us, etc. the washing of Baptism sufficeth not to bring a man to the whiteness of snow, but that there needeth also great labour and diligence, and that as to make a perfect and abiding colour, there needeth often dipping & much pains, so it is also in the soul corrupted with the filth of sin, and being in a habit of evil, that hardly and with much ado it can be w●shed and cleansed from it. But saith M. Bishop, it is a notorious wrong to the precious blood of our Saviour Christ, to hold, that it is not as well able to purge and purify us from sin, as Adam's transgression was of force to infect us. And what doth he say therein more than we also say? We acknowledge as much, and not only so, but we say further as he saith, that we recover more by Christ's grace, than we have lost by Adam's fault, according to the words of the Apostle which he citeth to that purpose. What inferreth he now hereof? If then, saith he, we through Christ receive more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam, there is no more sin left in the newly baptised man, than was in Adam in the state of innocency. But this conclusion followeth not. For although we recover more in Christ then we lost in Adam, yet we do not presently receive the same. God hath b Eph 1.3. blessed us in Christ with all manner spiritual blessings in heavenly things, but we have not as yet the fruition thereof. Christ hath recovered for us immortality and incorruption, yet mortality and corruption hitherto continue still. The grace of Christ doth not only yield us the state which Adam had Posse non peccare, to have power not to sin, but also a higher perfection, c Aug. de correp. & great. cap. 11. non posse peccare, to be without possibility of sin, and yet who seethe not, that we have not attained to this perfection? God hath d Eph. 1.6. raised us up together with Christ, and made us sit together in heavenly places: e Aug. de bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. Nondum in re sed in spe, not yet indeed but in hope, saith S. Austin. Thus have we received more in Christ, than we have lost in Adam, not yet actually and indeed, but in assurance of hope. f Tertul. de resurrect. carnis. Contemplatio est spei tu hoc spatio per sidem, non praese●tatio, nec possessio sed expectatio. Our state here, saith Tertullian, is a contemplation of hope through faith, not a presenting of things to us: it is not possession but expectation. And this the Apostle confirmeth, saying, that g Rom. 8.24. we walk by faith and not by sight; that we are saved in hope, but hope which is scene is no hope; that h Vers. 23. we wait for the adoption, even the redemption of our bodies, i Eph. 1.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the redemption of possession, as it is rightly called, to the praise of his glory. How is it that having already received adoption, we yet look for the adoption; that being already redeemed, we yet look for a redemption; that being regenerate in Christ, we yet expect a regeneration, but because the fruit & effect & substance of our adoption, redemption, regeneration, the adoption, redemption, regeneration of possession remaineth yet unperformed unto us? We receive now k Rom. 8.23. a first fruits, and some small beginnings, as for a taste, so for a pledge & assurance of the rest, but l Aug. de Tempore. Ser. 49. In comparatione resurrectionis stercus est tota vitae quam gerimus. in comparison of that that shall be at the resurrection, the life that now is, is but even dung, as S. Austin saith. Therefore M. Bishop stretcheth the present effect of Baptism too far, when he saith, that in the man newly baptised, there is no more sin left then was in Adam in the state of innocency. This is no Catholic doctrine; it is mere heresy, it is but the dream of the Pelagians. So they said, that m Cont. duas epist. Pelag. lib 4. cap. 7. Dicunt Baptismo perfectè homines innovari. men in Baptism are perfectly renewed, and n Epist. 106. Filios Dei non pesse vocari nisi omninò absque peccato fuerint effecti. that they cannot be called the sons of God, unless they be made altogether without sin. And this by M. Bishop's doctrine, is not only gained by the Sacrament of Baptism, but also renewed every while by their Sacrament of penance. M. Bishop's absolution, if we believe him, will set a man for the present as free from sin as Adam was in the state of innocency. Fie upon these lewd paradoxes: why do they delude simple souls with these heretical positions, which they themselves in their own consciences must necessarily condemn? We have heard before, how Basil condemneth this assertion of perfect purity attained in Baptism. In the like sort doth Hilary teach, that o Hilar. in Psa. 118 Gimel. Siquis existimet sibi in Sacramenta Baptismi perfectam illam innocentiam & coelestis vitae dignam redditam puritatem, joannem Baptistam dixisse recolat, Ego quidem, etc. Est ergò quantum licet existimare perfectae illius emundatio puritatis est ut p●st Baptismi aquac reposita quae nos per mortis t●uriam à labe morticinae & societate purgabit, etc. we may not think that there is restored in the Sacrament of Baptism, that perfect innocency and purity that is worthy of heavenly life, but that there is remaining after the water of Baptism the cleansing of perfect purity, which by the grievance of death shall purge us from the blot and society of that carrion wherewith we are now blended. Thus Epiphanius allegeth out of Methodius against Proclus, that p Epiph. haer 64. Alioqui pest illuminationem non contingeret nos iniusta facere, ut pote peccato penitus synceritèr à nobis ablato, etc. Quare constat contrahi quidem ac sopiri per fidem nunc peccatum, ut ne fructus noxio producat; non autem radicitus tolls. sin by enlightening grace is not taken quite away, for then men should not sin after Baptism; it is therefore holden in and quieted (in the Baptized) by faith, but is not yet pulled up by the roots. But most notably of all other doth S. Austin determine this point against the Pelagian heretics, affirming still that in Baptism there is nothing perfectly yielded unto us but only the forgiveness of sins. q August. de peccataner. & rem. lib. 1. cap. 7. Renovatio incipit à remissione omnium pe●catorum ●t inqu●ntum quisque spiritu i●ta sapit qui tam sapit intantum renovatur, caetera verò in spe facta sunt donec etiam in resiant, etc. In Baptismo quamitis tota & plena fiat remissio peccatorum, tamen si in ipso aeninto qui est homo interior perfecta in Baptismo novitas fieret non diceret Apostolus, Etsi exterior, etc. Profectò enim qui de dic in diem renovatur nondum totus est renovatus, & in quantum nondum est renovatus intantum adhuc in vetustate est, etc. Et hoc ut faciant iam baptizatos fidelesque adhortatur, quod adhuc monendi non essent, si hoc in Baptismo iam perfectè factum esset. Our renewing, saith he, beginneth at the remission of sins, and so far as a man mindeth the things of the spirit, so far he is renewed, but the rest is done in hope for the time till it may be done indeed. And albeit there be in Baptism a total and full forgiveness of sins, yet if in the mind itself which is the inner man, there were in Baptism a perfect newness, the Apostle would not say, Though our outward man be corrupted, yet our inward man is renewed from day to day. For he that is renewed from day to day, is not yet wholly renewed, and so far as he is not yet renewed, so far is he yet in his old estate. Therefore the Apostle exhorteth the faithful baptised to put off the old man, etc. which they should not be warned to do, if in Baptism it were perfectly done already. Again he saith, that r Ibid. cap. 10. Homo totus in sptiam & tamin re ex part in regeneratione spirituali renovatus. a man by spiritual regeneration is wholly in hope, but in deed is yet but in part renewed, and proposeth it for a thing, s Jbid. cap. 27. Illud praecipuè titendere ac meminisse debemus taentummodo peccatorum omnium plenam perfectamque remissionem Baptismo fieri; hominis utrò ipsius quad tatem non totam contrivo mutal. sed spirituales primitias in benè proficientibus de die in diem noutate crescente commutare in se quod carnaliter vetus est donec totum renovetur. specially to be regarded and remembered, that only forgiveness of sins is full and perfect in Baptism, and that the quality of man is not forthwith wholly changed, but that the spiritual first fruits in them that go well forward by newness increasing from day to day, do turn or change to the same that which is old according to the flesh, until there be renewing of the whole. Now how doth this stand with that which M. Bishop affirmeth, that not only the guilt of sin is taken away by forgiveness, but also the whole blot and deformity thereof is quite abolished in Baptism, and full and perfect righteousness achieved therein? If only forgiveness of sins be full and perfect in Baptism, than there cannot be said to be a full and perfect abolishing of sin itself. It is false therefore which he saith, that in the man newly baptised there is left no sin, no more sin than was in Adam in the state of innocency. To which purpose he addeth further, that albeit other defects and infirmities do remain in us, for our greater humiliation and probation, yet all filth of sin is clean scoured out of our souls, by the pure grace of God powered abundantly into it in Baptism. Which now how far it is from truth, it appeareth by that that hath been already said. I will here add only the words of Hilary, who saith, t Hilar. in Psal. 118. Gimel. Habemus etiam nunc admixtam nobit materiam quae morus legi atque peccat: bonoxia est, & in huius caducae carius infirmaeque domicilio corruptionis labem ex eius consortio mutua●ur, ac nisi glorificato in naturam spiritus corpore vitae verae in nobis non potest esse naturae, etc. Scit hanc mundi istius sedem regionem no esse viventium: scit nos adhuc secundum praefiguraetionem legis emundandos esse. Nunc enim admiscemur morticinae & in lege quisquis mortuis contrectas, immundus est, etc. We have as now a matter mingled with us, which is subject to the law of sin and death, and that in the house of this mortal and weak flesh, we gather a blot of corruption by the society thereof, and until the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit, there cannot be in us the nature of true life; that this world is not the land of the living, but that we are here still to be cleansed by reason of being blended with the carrion (of concupiscence) and that this was the thing figured in the law, where a man was unclean for touching any dead body. Surely if in this life we remain still in case to be cleansed, if there be still a blot of corruption by reason of concupiscence still cleaning fast unto us, and it can be no otherwise till the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit, than it is utterly false, as indeed it is, to say that in Baptism all filth of sin is clean scoured out of our souls. But whereas all men find by experience both in themselves and others, that there is a wonderful pravity and corruption of nature still continuing, whereby we are all forward to that that is evil, and altogether backward and untoward to goodness, to prevent the objection hereof, M. Bishop acknowledgeth a remainder of somewhat, but he qualifieth the opinion thereof with favourable and gentle terms. He saith, that defects and infirmities remain in us marry, in no case must we think them to be sins. But these defects and infirmities are such, as for which it is true of us which Saint Austin saith, u August. in Psal. 37. Resumus adhuc filii irae, spe non sumus. By real state and being we are still the children of wrath; it is in hope as touching which we are not so. How are we yet the children of wrath, but by having in us the matter of x In Psal. 101. J●● cum qua omnes ●ati sum●●: ●ra de propagine ●aqudaetu, ●e massa ●eccati. that wrath wherewith we were all borne, which what is it but only sin? These defects then and infirmities, what are they properly and in truth but only sin? But M. Bishop in using these terms alludeth to S. Austin, who oftentimes so calleth concupiscence and the lusts and motions thereof, which if he did in the same meaning as S. Austin doth, there should be no matter of great question betwixt him & us. For S. Austin calleth concupiscence vitium, a defect, not as understanding thereby as the English word importeth, a mere privation and want of somewhat that should be but a positive evil quality that ought not to be, a vicious & corrupt condition of man, such a defect, if we will so call it (let us call it y De lib arbit. lib 2 cap 1. 〈…〉 ●e●tmi ●ites esse corruptio. a corruption, as he himself expoundeth it) as z F●●st to ●ispra Sect. 8. by reason whereof the same S. Austin saith, that no man living shall be found righteous in the sight of God, as we have seen before. It is vitium, such a defect, as whereby a De civit Dei lib. 12. cap. 3. the nature of man is vitiated and corrupted, and so far as it is corrupted is evil, and there is nothing that maketh an evil man, but only sin. It is b Cont. jul. li. 2. defectus à justitia, a defection or swerving from righteousness, hindering, that c De perfect just. Rat. 17. sup. sec. 4 we love not God with all our soul, d Cont. jul. l. 4 c. 2. Inquantum inest nocet etsi non ad perdenaun de sort sanctorum, tamen ad motuendam spiritualem delectationem sanctarum mentium, illam de qua dicit Apostolus, Condelector legi, etc. diminishing that spiritual delight that we ought to have in the law of God, and e De perfect. just Rat. 15. Supra Sect. 2. it is sin when there is not that love in us that ought to be, or the same is less than it ought to be. But it is not only after Baptism that S. Austin giveth to concupiscence this name of vitium, a defect, or rather a vice or vicious quality; he calleth it from the beginning f De nupt. & concup l. 1. c. 23. vitium quo vitiata est natura humana; a vice or vicious quality wherewith the nature of man is vitiated and defiled. Now before Baptism there is no doubt but S. Austin by vice importeth sin, because for it he saith, g Ibid. Propter quod damnatur, propter hoc & damnabili diabolo subrugatur. the nature of man is condemned, and is under the power of the devil, and the thing being still the same, how should it after Baptism be no sin? Albeit after Baptism he calleth it h Cont. Iul lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat. vitium mortuum, a vice or vicious quality that is now dead, because, saith he, it is dead as touching the guilt wherewith it held us, but otherwise it liveth still. He calleth the lusts thereof i Ibid. vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus: vices from the guilt whereof we are released, importing still, that save the guilt they are still the same that they were before. Therefore albeit he forbear the name of sin after Baptism, in respect that they have not the effect of sin to make guilty before God, because they are already pardoned, yet he cannot be supposed otherwise to exclude them from the nature and name of sin. They did make guilty before, and should make guilty still, but that they are pardoned, which cannot agree but to sin only. And this did Pighius a friend of M. Bishops see very well, k Pigh. de peccats Org. count 1. una eade nque manente aequitatis & justitiae regula, i●lē aliquid in se manens nunc propriè, primò verèque peccatum sic, nunc non sit fieriprorsus non potest. that it is impossible, that the nature of sin, and the nature of concupiscence abiding still the same, that concupiscence before Baptism should be sin, and after Baptism should be no sin. Now as both before Baptism and after Baptism, it is called by S. Austin a defect, so is it also called, infirmitas, an infirmity: languor, a faintness or weakness, not growing of a bare privation, as I said before, but of a vicious constitution, a corrupt and evil habit, which therefore he compareth to a l Aug. de nupt. & con u●●s l. 2 c. 34 Sicut utala in corpore valetudo etc. Et cont. jul. l. 6. c. 7. Quodam operamte contagio, id est, cocupiscentra affectir, sicut de ●tibus morbidis m●rbida soboles procreatur. corrupt and noisome distemper of the body, whereby diseases are propagated in generation from the parents to the children. The Apostle expresseth the whole corruption of man's nature by the name of infirmity or weakness, when he saith, m Rom. 5.6. When we were yet infirm or weak, Christ died for us. Whereas S. Austin witnesseth the Apostle, by n Aug epist. 59 Hos dixit infirmos que● impios: quos infirmos, eos peccatores, etc. infirm or weak, meaneth the same as he doth when he saith immediately, ungodly, sinners, enemies unto God. Infirmity therefore implieth and importeth sin, ungodliness, enmity against God. Thus doth Austin say, that o De Trivit. lib. 3. cap. 10. L●ue aliquid vinetur. infirmitas sed aliquando talis est ut impietas nomi●ciur. infirmity seemeth a light matter, but yet sometimes it is such as that it is called impiety. And thus doth he call the penal disease of Original sin, p D● peccat. mer. & remiss. lib. 2 cap. 17. an infirmity, as before was said. This is q De nupt. & co●cupisc. lib. 2. cap 34. languor quo benè vivendi virtus perijt, the fainting weakness whereby we lost the power of living well, otherwise by him termed, r Ibid. vulnus quod vulnerat ipsam vitam qua rectè vivebatur; a wound that woundeth that life whereby man should live aright. This infirmity S. Austin acknowledgeth every where to continue still, s De pecked mere & re●●ss l. 2 ●ap ● Non ex qua nota quisqu mi baptizatur omnis vetus infirmitas eius absumitur. It is not, he saith, wholly consumed in Baptism; t Cont. 2. epist. Pelag lib 3. cap. 3 Propter hoc dicens, miserere mei Domine quonium infirmus sum. of it and for it we have still cause to cry, Have mercy upon me, for I am weak; u Ibid. Haec infirmitas cum qua usque ad corporis mortem defectu & profectus alternante contendimus. with it we are still to wrestle and strive so long as we here live, which being the same that it was before, x Gal. 5.17. contrary to the spirit of God, y Rom. 7.23. rebeling against the law of God, though the guilt thereof be pardoned, must needs in itself be sin, as it was before. And thus much of M. Bishops insoluble argument, containing nothing in it against us, which the ancient Church doth not wholly disavow. 11. W. BISHOP. 2. Object. Every sin is voluntary, and not committed without the consent of man: but this concupiscence whereof we talk, hath no consent of man, but riseth against his will: therefore is no sin. M. Perkins answereth; That such actions, as are used of one man towards another, must be voluntary, but sin towards God may be committed without our consent. For every want of conformity unto the law, even in our body, although against our will, be sins in the Court of conscience. Reply: Full little knows this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience: the secret faults indeed be examined, but nothing is taken for sin by any one learned in that faculty, which is done without a man's free consent: all of them holding with S. Augustine: Lib. 3 de lib. ar●. cap. 17. That sin is so voluntary an evil, that it cannot be sin, which is not voluntary: And to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sin, is so absurd, that a man might (if that were true) be damned for a dream, how well soever disposed he went to sleep: if he chance to dream of uncleanness, whereupon doth ensue any evil motion in his flesh. This paradoxens of sinning without a man's consent, is so contrary unto both natural and supernatural reason, Lib de vera Relig. cap. 14. that S. Augustine averreth, Neither any of the small number of the learned, nor of the multitude of the unlearned to hold, that a man can sin without his consent. What unlearned learned men than are start up in our miserable age, that make no bones to deny this, and greater matters too? R. ABBOT To the objection here propounded, M. Perkins hath given a double answer. To the one M. Bishop replieth, making choice of that that his wit would best serve him to play upon; but to the other, which is the same that S. Austin still used against the same objection of the Pelagian heretics, he useth not a word. Let us ask M. Bishop himself, What, is there not sin in infants before they be baptised? He will tell us that there is. But then we urge him with their own rule, Every sin is voluntary; but that that is in infants unbaptized is not voluntary, because they have no act of will therefore that that is in infants unbaptized is no sin. Will he not here say as M. Perkins doth, according to S. Augustine's doctrine, which indeed is true, that the sin that is in infants is a Aug. Retra●t. lib. 1. cap. 13. Supra Sect. 2. voluntary by the will of him that first sinned, but not by the will of them to whom it is original; that it is now b De ciui●. Dei. li. 12. ca 3 Quod urtium consuetudine ●mio: è progressu roboratum naturaliter ●nolenit, à voluntate sumpsit exerdium. natural to man, but yet the beginning of it was by the will of man. Which answer when he hath given us, let him take it back again to himself, that the sin of concupiscence is voluntary by the will of him by whom it first came, not by our will; and that if he mean that to be voluntary which is by the act of a man's own will, his rule is true only in actual sins, and not in sin Original whereof we dispute. But of this point I have answered sufficiently before in the question of c Sect. 18. Free will, and need no further here to stand upon it; only I wish the Reader to observe, how M. Bishop hath here foisted in, that sin is not committed without man's consent, whereof M. Perkins mentioned nothing. And therefore as Austin said to julian, objecting how should sin be ascribed to that person, which hath neither will nor power to sin, so do I answer to this scholar of julian, that d Cont. julian, lib. 6. ca 4. Aliud est perpetratio propriorum, aliud alienorum contagio delictorum. it is one thing to speak of committing sins of a man's own; another thing to speak of he contagion that cometh by another's sin. Our speech is here of a sin, that without any consent or act of ours, is derived unto us by contagion from our father Adam, which though it be ours without any consent of ours, and against our wills doth tempt us and entice us, yet we confess cannot be perpetrated and committed, but by the consent and liking of the will. M. Bishop if he had meant honestly, should have accordingly propounded the objection, as M. Perkins did, that the answer might be seen to be direct and plain as indeed it is. But he thought that was not for his turn; he knoweth that by truth & simplicity he cannot thrive with bad wares, and therefore must use shuffling and shifting for the uttering of them. But let us now see what his reply is to M. Perkins answer to that objection. M. Perkins saith, that the proposition, that every sin is voluntary, is a politic rule pertaining to the courts of men, and doth not hold in the court of conscience, which God holdeth in men's hearts, in which every want of conformity to the law, is made a sin. To this M. Bishop answereth full wisely: Little knows this man, what belongeth to the court of conscience: there secret faults indeed be examined, but nothing is taken for sin by any one learned in that faculty, which is done without a man's free consent. Where when M. Perkins hath spoken of a court of conscience kept by God, he answereth, of a court of conscience kept by men, and those, as we must understand him his own fellows, and so to the purpose answereth nothing. In God's court of conscience, e Mat. 15.19. evil thoughts defile a man; what they do in their courts of conscience, it skilleth not. In God's court of conscience, f Rom. 7.7. to lust is to sin, because the law hath said, Thou shalt not lust: it is a sign that they have no conscience, that keep a court of conscience to judge against that that God hath judged, that to lust is no sin. In God's court of conscience, g 1. john. 5.17. all unrighteousness is sin, and therefore all transgression of the law, because it is unrighteousness, is sin: if their court of conscience determine otherwise, it must abide the censure of his court, and receive check and charm from thence. In God's court of conscience is required h Deut. 6.3. all the heart, and all the mind, and all the soul, and all the strength, and the true informed conscience for not giving all, resteth convicted of sin: what court of conscience do they keep, that give but a part in steed of all, and yet have a conscience to say, that they sin not therein? What court of conscience do they keep, that frame God's commandments to their conscience, and not their conscience to God's commandments? whose conscience is like the bed of Procrustes the giant; whatsoever God saith, that is too short for it, they have a rack to stretch it longer: whatsoever God saith, that is too long for it, they have an axe to cut it shorter. M. Bishop did amiss, in steed of a court of conscience kept by God, to tell us of a court of conscience kept by them. But if we will speak of a court of conscience for resolving cases of conscience, we may well esteem by that that we see, that M. Perkins did much better know what belongeth to the court of conscience then M. Bishop doth. As for those learned in that faculty, of whom he speaketh, all whelps of the same fox, what they think it is nothing to us, but more learned than they are do know, as hath been showed, that sin may be without consent of the will, nay against the will of him in whom it is sin. For evil motions and thoughts arise in the regenerate man against his will, and it hath been sufficiently proved, that such evil motions and thoughts are sin: and who is there that hath a feeling conscience, that doth not condemn himself in the arising thereof, and ask God forgiveness, that his mind hath been overtaken and carried away into such thoughts, howsoever he have prevented the consent and liking of them? But saith M. Bishop, to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body, is sin, is so absurd, that a man might if that were true, be damned for a dream, how well soever he went to sleep, if he chance to dream of uncleanness, whereupon doth ensue any evil motion in his flesh. Where he hath turned conformity to God's law, into conformity to reason; and maketh M. Perkins to talk of conformity in the body, who mentioneth nothing of the body, only that he may make way thereby to a dreaming answer of an unclean dream. Which dreams notwithstanding are a very strong argument, of a pollution and uncleanness of nature yet habitually remaining, and a very proper effect thereof, which it is God's mercy not to impute unto us, for i August. count julian lib. 4 ca 2. Cum sopitos deludunt omnia sensus nescio quomodo etiam casiae animae in turpes labun ur assensus; quae si imputares Altissimus, quis viveret castus? if the most high should impute the same, saith S. Austin, who should live chaste? M. Bishop maketh nothing hereof, but S. Austin saith that such dreams are breach of chastity, and therein sin, if God should impute the same. And therefore he saith, that when k Jbid. Si quando ab eis ullum vel in somnis furatur assensum, cum evigilaverint gemere compellit et inter gemitus dicere, Quomodo impleta est anima mea illusionibus? concupiscence thus in sleep stealeth a consent, when chaste souls hereby fall into consent of filthiness, they mourn and grieve thereat when they are awake. He teacheth his hearers l De Temp. ser. 45. Aliquando ista concupiscentia sic insidiaetur sanctis ut faciat dormientibus quod non potest vigilantibus: pudet hic immorari sed ne pigeat inde deü precari. not to think, much to ask God mercy for it, when concupiscence so snareth them to do that to them when they are a sleep, which it cannot do when they are awake. And this he himself bemoneth to God concerning himself, m Confess. lib. 10 cap. 30. In somnis occursant mihi talium rerum imagines non solum usque ad delectationem, sed etiam usque ad consensionem, factunque simillimum, etc. Potens est manus tua sanare omnes languores animae mea, etc. Perpetrat istas corrupielarum turpitudines, etc. Lugens in eo quod inconsummaetus sum, etc. not only the delight, but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleep, calling those lascivious motions a sickness of the soul, & saying that the soul therein committeth a filthiness of corruption, and lamenting that in this kind of evil he continued unperfect still. Whereby it appeareth, that whatsoever M. Bishop deem of these dreaming fancies & consents, yet that they are indeed a sinful corruption and uncleanness of the soul, such as God abhorreth, albeit to the faithful he imputeth them not. And this haply God would have to be considered in that, that by the law he was unclean, from whom by such fancies n Levit. 15.16. the seed of generation had issued by night, the outward uncleanness serving to advertise of that that is within. And to the clearing of this whole point, that sin may be where the will consenteth not, we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses, arising of those things which were either natural or casual, without any procurement thereof by the will. Which Gregory plainly approveth, when speaking of the woman's monthly disease, for which by the law she was unclean, he saith thereof, that o Gregor. apud Bedam hist. eccles. gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp. 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est, videlicet quia naturaliter accidit, sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est, ut etiam sine voluntatis study videature esse polluta, ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per judicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat, ut homo qui culpam sponte perpetravit reatum culpae portet invitus. it is no sin, because it cometh naturally, but yet because nature itself is so corrupted, as that without any furtherance of the will it is seen to be polluted, of sin came that infirmity, wherein the nature of man may take knowledge, in what case it is become by the judgement of God, whilst man that sinned by his will, doth now bear the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will, even by p Jbid. Resp. 11. in fix●. Captiws ex delectatione quam pertat invitus. the delight (of concupiscence) which he beareth in him against his will, as he expresseth it afterward. Let M. Bishop therefore learn, that there is a pollution and uncleanness which is not voluntary to him that is thereby unclean, but lieth as a punishment upon the nature of man for that sin, that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man. Which serveth him for answer to those two places of Austin which he allegeth, two as he citeth them, but indeed but one, and that in the book and chapter which he quoteth last; for in the other place Austin hath no such words. He saith indeed, that q August. de vera relig cap. 14 suprae. sect. 2. sin is so voluntary an evil, as that in no wise it is sin if it be not voluntary, and this is so manifest, as that neither the small number of the learned, nor the multitude of the unlearned do dissent therefrom. But as he saith so, so he himself telleth us in what meaning he saith it, which M. Bishops learning should not have been ignorant of. r Retract. lib. 1. cap 13. It must be understood of that sin, saith he, which is only sin, not which is also the punishment of sin; that is to say, of Actual, not of Original sin. But it is Original sin whereof we here dispute, and therefore by S. Austin's own interpretation, those words make nothing against us; albeit Original sin also was voluntary by the will of the first man, as before was said. Now therefore the unlearned learned men of whom he speaketh, are learned enough, to see that he wanted not only learning, but discretion also thus to urge against us a saying of Austin against the Manichees, which the same Austin to salve it against the Pelagians, hath expounded in our behalf directly against him. 12. W. BISHOP. The third reason for the Catholic is this: Where the form of any thing is taken away, there the thing itself ceaseth: but in baptism, the form of Original sin is taken away, ergo. M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong form: affirming us to say, that the form of Original sin is the guiltiness of it: which we hold to be neither the form, 1. 2. q. & art. 3. nor matter of it, but as it were the proper passion following it. See S. Thomas: who delivereth for the form of Original sin, the privation of Original justice, which justice made the will subject to God. The deordination then of the will, Mistress and commander of all other points in man, made by the privation of original justice, is the form of Original sin; and the deordination of all other parts of man (which by a common name is called concupiscence, as that learned Doctor noteth,) is but the material part of that sin, so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified, and set again in good order towards the law of God, the form of Original sin, which consisteth in deordination of it, is taken quite away by baptism, and so consequently the sin itself, which cannot be without his proper form, as the argument doth convince. R. ABBOT. Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question, because the essential form giveth to every thing to be that that it is. The question than is, wherein consisteth the form of sin; what it is that giveth to it properly the nature & name of sin. M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong form; yet he assigneth in their behalf the same form that S. Austin doth, and inasmuch as they make S. Austin the ground of their opinion, there is great reason, that they should understand sin in the same manner as S. Austin doth. But herein appeareth their singular falsehood, & they show plainly, that they allege him but only for a colour, knowing that if they take sin in the same meaning as he doth, their opinion cannot stand. Why do they bring us Austin to prove for them, that concupiscence is no sin, when in one meaning it is that he denieth it, and they deny it in another? S. Austin, as before I have showed, placeth the nature of sin in the effect of it, which is, to make a man guilty. When it doth not so, he understandeth it not to be sin, opposing sin not to righteousness, as we understand it in this question, but to remission and forgiveness of sins. He saith, that a August. de nupt. et concup. lib. 1. ca 26. supra. sect. 9 to be guilty of sin, is to have sin; not to be guilty of sin, is to have no sin. b Cont. julian. lib 6 ca 5. supra. sect. 9 The baptised is without all sin, but not without all evil, that is, saith he, he is without the guilt of all evil, not without the evil itself. And thus much in infinite places he giveth to understand. So far therefore as sin implieth guilt, he denieth concupiscence in the regenerate, to whom it is forgiven, to be any longer sin, because they are not thereby holden guilty, and in this we gainsay him not, because it is but as if he should say, that though in itself it be sin, yet to the faithful it is as if it were no sin, because it is not imputed for sin, whereto willingly we accord. But the question is, whether in it own nature it be not such, as that it should make guilty, save only that it is pardoned, and that did S. Austin never deny, as before hath been proved: he confesseth it to be c Ibid. ut suprae. such an evil, as should draw us unto everlasting death, only for being in us, but that the guilt thereof is remitted. Now this cannot be affirmed of any thing but that that is properly and truly sin, and therefore it cannot be doubted, but that S. Austin did take concupiscence to be sin, according to the true and proper understanding of the name of sin. This true and proper nature of sin, is before showed to consist in a defect, obliquity or swerving from the law of God. For the law of God is the true image and description, and perfect rule of righteousness, and every declining from the rule of righteousness is unrighteousness, and d 1. john. 5.17. all unrighteousness is sin; therefore every declining from the law of God, is sin. And this is so true, as that e Pigh. de peccat. origin. count 1. Proprian veramque peccati rationem joannes explicat; peccatum est iniquitas, etc. id est, obliquatio à rectitudine quae nobis lege praescribitur aut legu transgressio. Pighius in his time a main pillar of the church of Rome, doth fully approve it, and maintaineth it with all his might, that it is a true and perfect definition of sin, which S. john hath set down, that sin is the transgression of the law. Now because the law requireth not only outward actions, but also the inward fixed disposition and quality of righteousness; not only works of charity, but also the inward habit of charity, whence all such works are to proceed, it followeth, that if there be a contrary quality or habit, the same is sin, because it is a declining from the law. Seeing therefore concupiscence not only in the first acts & motions of it, but even habitually is f August. count Julian. lib. 2. defectus à justitia, a defecting or declining from righteousness, as S. Austin calleth it; seeing it is a very habitual g Rom. 7.23. et 8.7. enmity and rebellion against the law of God, all M. Bishop's learning cannot avoid it, but that it must necessarily be concluded to be sin. But yet to give some show of avoiding it, he sendeth us to Thomas Aquinas, to learn of him now in the end of the world another form and definition of sin, which is, the deordination of the will; so that howsoever other faculties and powers be distorted and corrupted, yet we must think there is no sin so long as there is an integrity and right disposition of the wil Which position is absurdly false, because the love of God requireth h Deut. 6.5. Luc 10.27. all the heart, all the mind, all the soul, all the thought and strength. i August de doct Christ. lib. 1. ca 22. Nullum ase riwlum duci extra patitur, cuius derivatione minuatur. It endureth not that any stream should be drawn from it, by the deriving whereof it should any way be diminished. But the will of man is not the whole man, and therefore albeit there be supposed a rectitude and integrity of the will, yet is not sin hereby excluded, if there be a defect or failing in any other part. Yet that being granted to M. Bishop, he is no whit the nearer to his purpose hereby. For if the deordination of the will be sin then concupiscence is sin, because concupiscence is the deordination of the will. For it hath been before declared, that k Retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. Jpsa capiditas nihil est aliud quam voluntas vitiosa. peccatoque seruiens. concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and serving sin, and therefore the remainder of concupiscence in the regenerate, is nothing else but a remainder of the corruption of the will, and according to that remainder, a serving of the law of sin. Whereas then he affirmeth, that in baptism the deordination of the will is taken quite away, it appeareth hereby that he is wholly deceived, because so long as concupiscence remaineth, so long still there remaineth in part a deordination of the will. And indeed that rectifying of the will which he affirmeth, is but an Idea, a mere fantastical speculation, contrary to the common sight and experience of all men. The defender thereof showeth a will naughtily resolved against conscience and truth. All men find, all men see and feel in themselves and others a great distortion, a crossness, a crookedness and untowardliness of will. And if there be that cure and healing of the will of which he speaketh, what hindereth that there is not perfect righteousness? For l De spir. e● lit. cap. 35. Fieret (perfecta justitia) si tanta ad●ib. retur voluntas quanta sufficii ●●aer●. there should be perfect righteousness, saith S. Austin, if there were so great will as sufficeth for so great a matter. And that the will is less hereto than it ought to be, m Epist 29. ex vitio est, it is by reason of n De lib arbit. lib. 3 ca 14. Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio. Quod perfectioni naturae deesse perspexeris, id vocas vitium. a corruption, an imperfection whereby there is somewhat wanting to the perfection of it. And if there be still a corruption, and a want of perfection in the will, than the will is not yet fully rectified; and because the will is not yet fully rectified, sin remaineth still, for sin saith M. Bishop, is the deordination of the will. But it is further to be observed, that to the perfect rectifying of the will, belong clear light of understanding, and perfect delight of love. For o De peccat. mer. et remiss. lib. 2. cap 17. Nolunt homines facere quod justum est sive quia latetan justum sit sive quia no delectat. Tanto enim quodque vehementius volumus quantò certuis quàm bonum sit novimus, eoque delectamur ardentius. Ignorantia igitur & infirmitas vitia sunt quae impediunt vsluntatemne moveatur ad faciendum opus bonum vel ab opere malo abstinendum. therefore have men no will to that that is just, either because they know it not to be just, or because they delight not in it. For so much the more earnestly do we will any thing, by how much the more certainly we know how good it is, and more earnestly are delighted therein. Therefore ignorance and infirmity (the one in the understanding, and the other in the will itself, being the p De nataet great. cap. 67. Paenalia omni animae, ignorantia & difficultas. two penalties of every soul of man) are defaults or corruptions hindering the will both in the doing of that that is good, and eschewing of that that is evil. So long then as these defaults of ignorance and infirmity do remain, so long there cannot be a perfect rectifying of the will. But ignorance and infirmity are not taken away in baptism. Therefore baptism doth not wholly take away the deordination of the will. Of the former of these, it is manifest which S. Ambrose saith, q Ambros. in Psal. 118. ser. 3. Omnes sanctem umbra sunt quamdus sunt in corpore: non perfectè videns sed ex part cognoscunt. All the Saints are in a shadow so long as they are in the body: they do not see perfectly, but know in part only. He learned it of the Apostle saying, r 1. Cor. 13.9. We know in part, we prophesy in part; we see through a glass darkly. And if it might be so said of the Apostles, how much more is it to be understood of the common condition and state of men? We cannot but acknowledge much blindness, much error, much imperfection of knowledge, and therefore resolve that the understanding cannot give due information to the will. And so long as we are thus weak in knowledge, all other things must needs be unperfect in us, because we cannot love beyond that we know, nor delight beyond our love. Therefore our love is unperfect, our desire is unperfect, our delight is unperfect, and yet not only because our knowledge is unperfect, but also because we have yet received not the perfection, but s Rom. 8.23. the first fruits only of the spirit, by whom all these things are effected in us. For this cause S. Austin every where acknowledgeth, that this default of infirmity continueth still in the regenerate, and that there is not perfect newness in the mind and inner man, as we have seen before; by reason whereof the will is distracted and divided in itself, and by one motion of itself fighteth against another, whilst t August. in joan. tract. 81. supra. sect. 1. we will one way, because we be in Christ, and will another way, because as yet we are in this world. Now sith there is not by baptism perfection of knowledge to direct the will, and the will itself by corruption yet remaining is infirm and weak to the love and delight of the law of God, it cannot be but absurdly said which M. Bishop saith, that the will in baptism is fully rectified and set in order again towards the law of God. Or if the meaning be, that it is rectified and set in order, but yet not fully and perfectly, than he saith as we say, that the deordination of the will continueth yet still in part, and because sin consisteth in the deordination of the will, therefore sin by baptism is not altogether and wholly done away. Thus we see him very hardly bestead, that making choice himself, yet he cannot find one corner where he can in safety shroud himself. 13. W. BISHOP. 4. Object. Lastly saith M. Perkins for our disgrace, they allege that we in our Doctrine teach, that Original sin after baptism, is only clipped or pared like the hair of a man's head, whose roots remain in the flesh, growing and increasing after they be cut as before. His answer is, that they teach in the very first instant of the conversion of a sinner, sin to receive his deadly wound in the root, never after to be recovered. Confer this last answer with his former Doctrine (good Reader) and thou mayst learn what credit is to be given to such Masters, no more constant than the wind. Here sin is deadly wounded in the root, there it remaineth still with all the guiltiness of it, although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sin, entangleth him in the punishment of sin, and maketh him miserable: All this be comprehended before in this first reason, and yet blusheth not here to conclude, that he holdeth it at the first: Neither clipped nor pared, but pulled up by the roots: In deed they do him a favour, who say that he holdeth sin to be clipped, and as it were razed for albeit hair razed grow out again, yet is there none for a season: but this Original sin of his is always in his regenerate, in vigour to corrupt all his works, and to make them deadly sins. But let this suffice for this matter. R. ABBOT. This objection they have borrowed of the Pelagian heretics, who altogether denying Original sin, and acknowledging only sins actual by voluntary imitation and custom, defended that those being pardoned and forgiven in baptism, a man was made fully and perfectly without sin. When therefore the Catholic Bishops and Pastors of the Church, did teach that after baptism there was concupiscence still remaining, whence did grow evil motions and lusts, tempting and enticing to sin and wickedness, they hereupon fell to cavilling in this sort, that a August. count duas epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. supra sect. 9 sins than were not wholly remitted, and that baptism did not take away sins, but only pair them and shave them so, as that the roots did still stick, whence other sins should grow again in like sort to be cut off. Now this Saint Austin denieth, and teacheth that baptism giveth to the regenerate b Dicimus baptisma dare omnium indulgentiam peccatorum & auferre crimina non radere, ut omnium peccatorum ra●ices in mala carne teneantur. remission and release of all sins, and doth not pair of faults (crimina, faults of behaviour and conversation) but doth wholly take them away, because of actual sins which only and no other they acknowledged, there remaineth nothing when the same are forgiven and pardoned. c Sed de ista carnis co●upiscentiae falli eos credo vel fallere cum qui necesse est ut etiam baptizatus et hic si diligentissimè proficit et spiritu dei agitur pea mente confligat. But as touching concupiscence, saith he, I hold that they are deceived and do deceive others, with which the regenerate hath still to fight, albeit he have well profited, and be guided by the spirit of God. Yet this he saith, is no sin to him, that is, it is not imputed for sin, because the guilt thereof drawn by generation, is remitted and forgiven by regeneration. Now this concupiscence, as S. Ambrose saith, is d Ambros. Apolog. David cap. 13. mala radix, an evil root; e August. de verb. Dom. serm. 12. radix omnium malorum, the root of all evils, saith Austin, even as charity is the root of all goodness: f Idem de verb. Ap●st. se● 〈◊〉 llo● peccati nomine appelat unde oriuntur cuncta peccata, id est, ex carnali concupiscentia. from which root of concupiscence he saith again, that all sins do spring and grow. Thus S. Austin confesseth, that albeit there be remission of sins in baptism, and nothing remaining of any actual sins, yet the root of Original sin continueth still, which being the same that it was before, must needs be sin as it was before, albeit in respect that the guilt thereof is released, he forbeareth to call it by the name of sin. But of this root M. Perkins further saith and that rightly, that though it be in substance the same that it was before, yet in extent and power and strength, it is not the same. It holdeth not the whole man captive as before; the yoke thereof is broken; the kingdom of it is dissolved; it is as an enemy conquered and disarmed, not having the g Rom. 6.13. members at commandment, to be the weapons of unrighteousness unto sin, as before it had. In the first instant of the conversion of a sinner, saith he, sin receiveth his deadly wound in the root, never afterward to be recovered. Now here M. Bishop though he knew not well what to say, yet to show both his wit and his honesty, would not forbear to say somewhat. He wisheth the Reader to confer this last answer of M. Perkins with his former doctrine, bearing him in hand, that he shall find him no more constant than the wind. And why so? Forsooth he saith here, that sin is deadly wounded is the root, and had 〈◊〉 before, that sin remaineth still with all the guiltiness of it, 〈◊〉 ●mouted. But what contradiction it there betwixt these 〈…〉 deadly wounded, and yet remaineth sti●? What hin●● 〈…〉 his deadly wounded, 〈…〉 may truly be said to 〈…〉 to had 〈◊〉 the guilt● wherewith it held us, and until it be healed by perfect burial it still rebelleth being dead. Yea, but M. Perkins saith, it remaineth s●ill with all the guiltiness of it, although not imputed. But I answer him, that he abuseth M. Perkins, who for this matter stopped this wranglers mouth in the answer last before, and he dissembleth it as though he saw it not. The guilt of sin he saith remaineth potentially, not actually, that is, it remaineth such as that in it own nature it is sufficient to make a man guilty, but yet it doth not so, became the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned, which S. Austin manifestly proveth, as I have said before. He doth not say then, that it remaineth with all the guiltiness of it, though not imputed, because it cannot be said to remain with all the guiltiness of it, but it must also be said to be imputed. Therefore in this whole disputation he confesseth with S. Austin as touching actual guilt, that Original sin is wholly and fully dead to the regenerate, but yet remaineth still to rebel though it be dead. And yet as touching rebellion, it hath also received a deadly wound, because it hath not now the same power to rebel, as it had before to reign, and if sometimes it do gather power again, yet doth it never totally or finally recover the kingdom that it had, or prevail utterly to separate the faithful from the love of Christ, as naturally it doth, but by the first stroke and wound that it received by the grace of Christ, becometh in the end every way and altogether dead, and is utterly abolished, never to be again. He further allegeth, that M. Perkins first saith, that concupiscence maketh a man to sin, entangleth him in the punishment of sin, and maketh him miserable, and yet here blusheth not to conclude, that he holdeth it at the first neither clipped nor pared, but pulled up by the roots. But where doth he find this conclusion in M. Perkins words? Surely the paper whereon he wrote this, would have blushed if it had had a forehead, for very shame, to carry the report of so manifest a lie. But let the paper do what it will, M. Bishop blusheth not; for if he had been a man of a blushing face, he had wanted the name of being the writer of this book. What, M. Bishop, is it all one to be deadly wounded in the root, and to be pulled up by the roots? M. Perkins saith not any where that concupiscence or sin is pulled up by the roots, but as a man having received a deadly wound, yet liveth afterwards for the time, and stirreth and moveth, even so concupiscence though it receive a deadly wound, whereof in the end it dieth, yet liveth, and struggleth, and rebelleth for the time, stirring up many noisome and evil motions and lusts, from the consent whereof no man can say that he is altogether free, and therein maketh a man to sin, and entangleth him in the punishment of sin, and maketh him miserable, in such sort as before hath been declared. I may here turn M. Bishop's words upon himself, Learn here gentle Reader, what credit is to be given to such masters as he is: to such Masters did I say? nay to such remorseless beasts, who make no scruple or conscience to lie, to falsify, to deprave those things against which otherwise they can have nothing to except. As for that which he glanceth at in the end, that concupiscence defileth all the works of the regenerate, so that though they be in themselves good works, yet they are stained with that, which though it be not imputed, yet is in itself mortal and deadly sin, it hath been in part already declared and proved in the i Sect. 19 answer to his epistle dedicatory, and shall be more fully handled in his due place in the question of justification, where he professedly disputeth of that matter. CHAPTER. 3. OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION. 1. W. BISHOP. M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLUSION. WE hold and believe, that a man in this life, Pag. 37. may be certain of salvation: and the same doth the Church of Rome teach. M. P. 2. Conclu. We hold, that a man is to put certain affiance in God's mercy in Christ for the salvation of his soul: and the same holdeth the aforesaid Roman Church. M. P. 3. Conclu. We hold, that with assurance of salvation in our hearts is joined doubting, and there is no man so assured of his salvation, but he at sometime doubteth thereof, especially in the time of temptation: and in this the Papists agree with us. Not so Sir. M. P. 4. Conclu. They go further and say, that a man may be Certain of the Salvation of men, and of the Church, by Catholic faith: and so say we. M. P. 5. Conclu. They hold, that a man by faith may be assured of his own salvation, through extraordinary revelation; In this sense only the first conclusion is true. M. P. 6. Conclu. The sixth, and second be all one: that we may be assured of our Salvation, in regard of God that promiseth it: though in regard of ourselves, & our own indisposition we cannot. THE DISSENT. 1. WE hold, that a man may be certain of his salvation in his own conscience even in this life, and that by an ordinary and special faith. They hold, that a man is Certain of his Salvation, only by hope, both hold a Certainty, we by faith, they by hope. 2. We say our Certainty is infallible: they, that it is only probable. 3 Our confidence in God's mercy in Christ, cometh from certain and ordinary faith, theirs from hope: False. Thus much of the difference, now let us come to the reasons, to and fro. R. ABBOT. In this first division M. Bishop giveth us only some brief notes, which need not to be stood upon. In the third conclusion, he denieth their agreement with us, but if he understand it as M. Perkins doth of ordinary assurance, he had no cause to deny it. For seeing in the first conclusion of dissent, he granteth Certainty or assurance by hope, and requireth therewith doubting, yea affirmeth still that it cannot be without doubting, what reason had he to deny the conclusion, being indifferently propounded of assurance afterwards more particularly to be distinguished, but that he well knew not what he was to say? But in that conclusion, he should have taken knowledge what manner of Certainty or assurance of Salvation it is that we teach, not such as whereby a man is merely secure, and made absolutely out of doubt, but such as many times is assaulted and shaken with many difficulties, and fears, and doubts, which oft do intricate and perplex the soul of the righteous and faithful man. Which notwithstanding arise not of the nature and condition of faith, as if it ought so to be, but of the frailty and corruption of our evil nature, by reason whereof faith is not such as it ought to be. For the true and proper work of faith, is to give to the believer a steadfast and unmovable assurance of the love of God, that he may fully enjoy the comfort thereof without interruption or let; and whatsoever is adverse and contrary to this assurance and comfort, is to be accounted the enemy of faith. Therefore it is not the office of faith to cherish and maintain such fears and doubts, but to resist them, to fight against them, and so much as is possible to expel them and drive them out. But yet by reason of the strength of our natural corruption and the weakness of our faith, we attain not to this, and how much the weaker our faith is, so much are we the further from it. So that the case standeth betwixt faith and doubting, as it doth betwixt righteousness and sin. For there is true righteousness in the faithful, and sometimes it mightily prevaileth, and the conscience even gratulateth itself, and rejoiceth in the use and practise thereof. But anon it beginneth to find defect, the temptations of sin justle it aside, the man stumbleth & falleth, and the light whereby he shined before as a star in the firmament, becometh eclipsed and darkened, and he seemeth to himself not to be the man that he was before. Neither doth this seldom fall out, but even daily is there a vicissitude and change by turns, every day bringing his griefs of infirmity and weakness, and sometimes giving occasion of great lamentation and mourning, by great and grievous trespass against God and men. But God that a 2. Cor. 4.6. commandeth the light to shine out of darkness, and can of a poison make a preservative, turneth these infirmities to their good, making them by experience of sin, to love righteousness the more, and to become more wise and wary against temptation, and in rising to take the better heed not to fall again. Even in like sort the case standeth with the assurance of faith, wherein is a comfortable testimony of the love of God towards us, which we receive as b 1. Kings. 19.7.8. Elias did his meat from the hands of the Angel, securing ourselves to go in the strength thereof unto the mount of God, and that c 1. Pet. 1.5. thereby we shall be kept through the power of God unto that salvation, which is prepared to be showed in the last time. But yet in the course thereof there is much variety and change, by reason that we apprehend not this assurance directly and immediately as a principle, but by consequence and collection as a conclusion, so that being subject to alteration in the apprehending of the premises, there must necessarily be an alteration in the apprehending of the conclusion. Our eyes are not always alike intent to the word of God; we do not always alike conceive the promises of God, nay temptation sometimes hideth them out of our sight. The effects of grace do not always appear the same, yea sometimes they seem to be quite overwhelmed with contrary effects. Moreover in nature itself is a voluntary shrinking and relinquishing of the comfort of faith, through the seeds of unbelief that originally are sown in us, so that the ground of our own hearts is every while casting up objections and questions, as mire and dirt, to trouble d john. 7.38. the spring of the waters of life, that they run not so pure and clear, as otherwise they should do. By all which occasions it cometh to pass, that the days of faith are as the days of the year, some fair, some foul; one while a sunshine summer, another while a long and tedious winter, sometimes no more but a storm and away; one while cast down as it were to hell, another while seeming to be as it were in the courts of heaven, where is assured standing and no falling; sometimes labouring and struggling, some other times triumphantly rejoicing; but in all perplexities and distractions conceiving still what it hath felt, and striving to attain to the same again. And as a child affrighted runneth to the father, looking for defence and help of him, even so in the midst of all fears and temptations faith, is still running unto God, still importuning of him, calling upon him, expostulating with him, casting itself still upon him, depending upon his aid, and expecting of him that things become otherwise then presently they are, and seldom going so far, but that it seethe a glimpse at least of light in darkness, of hope in despair, of comfort in distress, of life in death, of heaven in hell, or if it lose the sight thereof, yet recovereth it soon again. Of all which we see pregnant example in the distresses and temptations of the Saints, which for our instruction and comfort, are recommended unto us in the word of God. And this God doth, to the intent that being in some sort for the time put off from him, we may take the faster hold when we return again; that the taste of his love may be the sweeter, and our joy thereof the greater, when out of these floods of temptations we arrive unto it; that e Rom. 5.3. affliction may bring forth patience, and patience experience, and experience hope never to be ashamed, whilst by this means the love of God as touching the assurance thereof towards us, is more and more shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is given unto us. This have I set down the more largely, good Christian Reader for thy sake, that thou mayest understand hereby what manner of certainty and assurance it is that we defend; that thou mayest know that it is the property of true faith to give this assurance, and that our assurance is the greater, by how much our faith is greater, and the weakness of our assurance the weakness of our faith; that so thou mayest see what it is whereunto thou art to strive, rejoicing in that that thou hast attained unto already, and for that that is behind praying as the Apostles did, f Luk. 67.5. Lord increase our faith; not being discomforted at the feeling of thine imperfection, because it is the common frailty of God's children, and faith that it may be strong, must have time and occasion to grow, and haply seemeth weak to thee when it is strong to God; but always resolving, that those sparkles of true light which God hath kindled in thee shall never be quenched, and thy little grain of faith, even g Mat. 17.20. Mar. 11.23. little as a grain of mustardseed, shall yet be strong enough to cast all mountains into the sea that shall rise up to divide betwixt God and thee. As for M. Bishop, it is no marvel if being an enemy of faith, he be unacquainted with the secret of faith, the joy of the faithful being h Cant. 4.12. Bernard. Epist. 100LS. Eli fons signatus cui alienus non communicate: sol justitiae qui timentibus Deum tantùm oritur. etc. as a garden enclosed, and a spring and fountain shut and sealed up to be private to themselves; i Psal. ●8. 9. a gracious rain, which God hath put apart for the refreshing of his own inheritance. What marvel is it if he know not that k revel. 2 17. new name which no man knoweth but he that receiveth it, because the l john. 14.17. world knoweth not nor receiveth that COMFORTER the spirit of truth, by which it is written, yet grudgeth at the sheep of Christ, that they should feed in pastures which they know not, or should be said to know that which they cannot conceive or understand. And this is the cause that he talketh so rudely and absurdly of the hope of salvation in all this discourse, overthrowing the whole doctrine of the Gospel, crossing the whole use of faith and of the word of God, and speaking no otherwise of this question then a Philosopher, or jew, or Pharisee would do, as hereafter we shall see. In the mean time to go forward with his brief notes, he telleth us in the fift conclusion of consent, that only in the sense there expressed the first conclusion is true, that is, that only by extraordinary revelation a man may be certain of his salvation, which being the main point of the controversy, I refer to the process of this discourse. At the sixth conclusion he noteth, that the sixth and second are all one, but the tautology was in his head, not in M. Perkins writing. For the second conclusion serveth to note the efficient and material causes of salvation, whereupon our affiance resteth, which is the mercy of God in Christ; but the sixth serveth to note the manner of our apprehending thereof. To the third conclusion of dissent, he noteth that it is false, namely that our confidence in Christ cometh from certain and ordinary faith. But we say that it is true, and now he and I must join upon that issue. 2. W. BISHOP. Here M. Perkins contrary to his custom, giveth the first place to our reasons, which he calleth objections, and endeavoureth to supplant them: and afterward planteth his own. About the order I will not contend, seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he observeth none, but set down things as they came into his head. Otherwise he would have handled justification before Salvation. But following his method, let us come to the matter. The first Argument for the Catholic party is this. 1. Object. Where is no word of God, there is no faith, for these two are Relatives. But there is no word of God: saying, Cornelius believe thou Peter, believe thou that thou shalt be saved: therefore there is no such ordinary faith, for a man to believe his own particular salvation. M. Perkins answer. Although there be no word of God to assure us of our particular salvation: yet is there another thing as good, which countervails the word of God, to wit, the Minister of God applying the general promises of salvation unto this and that man. Which when he doth, the man must believe the Minister, as he would believe Christ himself, and so assure himself by faith of his Salvation. Reply. Good Sir, seeing every man is a liar, & may both deceive, and be deceived, and the Minister telling may err: how doth either the Minister know, that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect; or the man be certain that the Minister mistaketh not, when he assureth him of his Salvation? To affirm as you do, that the Minister is to be believed aswell as if it were Christ himself, is plain blasphemy: equalling a blind and lying creature, unto the wisdom and truth of God. If you could show out of God's word, that every Minister hath such a commission from Christ, then had you answered the argument directly, which required but one warrant of God's word: but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers word countervails God's word, I cannot see what it wanteth of making a pelting Minister God's mate. On the other side, to aver that the Minister knows who is predestinate (as it must be granted, he doth if you will not have him to lie when he saith to Peter, thou art one of the elect,) is to make him of God's privy Council, without any warrant for it in God's word: Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrary in these words. 2. Tim. 2.19. The sure foundation of God standeth, having this seal: our Lord knoweth who be his, and none else, except he reveal it unto them. M. Perkins then flieth from the assurance of the Minister, and leaves him to speak at random, as the blind man casts his club; and attributeth all this assurance unto the party himself, who hearing in God's word, Seek ye my face, in his heart answereth: Lord I will seek thy face: And then hearing God say, Thou art my people, saith again: The Lord is my God. And then lo without all doubt he hath assurance of his Salvation. Would ye not think that this were rather some silly old Woman's dream, than a discourse of a learned Man? How know you honest man, that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000 years passed to the people of Israel, are directed to you? Mine own heart, good Sir, tells me so. How dare you build, upon the persuasion of our own heart any such assurance? jerem. 17. When as in holy writ it is recorded: Wicked is the heart of man, and who shall know it? Are you ignorant, how Saul before he was Saint Paul, being an Israelite, to whom those words appertained, persuading himself to be very assured of his faith, was notwithstanding foully deceived, and why may not you far more unskilful than he, be in like manner abused? Moreover suppose that this motion cometh of the holy Ghost, and that he truly saith, The Lord is God, how long knoweth he that he shall be able to say so truly? Math. 22. When our Saviour Christ jesus assureth us that many be called, but few of them are chosen to life everlasting; how knoweth he then assuredly, that he being once called, is of the predestinate? M. Perkins saith, that he who believeth, knoweth that he believeth. Be it so; if he believe aright, and meddle no further then with those things, which be comprehended within the bounds of faith: But that the Certainty of Salvation is to be believed, is not to be begged, but proved, being the main question: he saith further, that he who truly repenteth, knoweth that he repeateth: he knoweth indeed by many probable conjectures, but not by certainty of faith: as witnesseth that holy person: If God come to me, job. 9 (as he doth to all repentant sinners;) I shall not see him, and if he depart away from me, I shall not understand it: Which is sufficient to make him thankful, yea if he received no grace at all, yet were he much beholding unto God, who offered him his grace, and would have freely bestowed it upon him, if it had not been through his own default. And thus our first Argument stands in his full strength and virtue, that no man can assure himself by faith of his Salvation, because there is no word of God that warranteth him so to do. R. ABBOT. He was beholding to M. Perkins, that their reasons being no better than they be, he did vouchsafe here to give them the first place. By the first of these reasons, they labour to defeat us of all profitable use of the word of God, denying us liberty to believe any thing particularly of ourselves, because the word of God doth no where speak namely and particularly to any of us. M. Perkins rightly answereth, that God hath appointed the ministery and preaching of his word, for the particular application thereof, whilst thereby it is laid to the heart and conscience of every particular man, so as that by the word of Christ delivered out of the Gospel by the minister, Christ himself in effect saith, Cornelius believe thou and thou shalt be saved, Peter believe thou and thou shalt be saved. M. Bishop somewhat deformeth the answer by his butcherly and slovinly handling of it, as his manner is, but though in more words, it is to the same meaning that I have mentioned. Now M. Perkins intended not in that answer, that the minister speaketh to every man particularly one by one, but that speaking to the assembly, he laboureth to make every man conceive of that that is spoken as particularly spoken to himself. For the word of God being as a Proclamation in writing common to all, the minister is as the voice of the crier, to give notice to that congregation, that the matter of the Proclamation concerneth them and every of them, saying in effect, a Act. 13.26. To you is the word of this Salvation sent. b Cap. 3 26. Unto you hath God raised up his son jesus, and hath sent him to bless you, in turning every one of you from your iniquities. c Cor. 5.50. Now than we are Ambassadors for Christ; as though God did beseech you through us, we pray you in Christ steed that ye be reconciled to God. d 2. Act. 2.28. Amend your lives every one of you, etc. Therefore as every man conceiveth the proclamation, according to the matter of it, no less to concern him, then as if it had been spoken in particular to him alone, so doth the minister leave every man alike interested in the message of Salvation; what he saith to all men, he saith to every man; what to penitents, to every penitent; what to believers, to every believer, what to sinners, to every sinner. Therefore sometimes he speaketh in the singular number as to one, that it may be known that he speaketh to any or every one. e Eph. 5 14. Awake thou that sleepest, and stand up from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. f Rom. 10.9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be safe, even thou, or thou, or thou, or whosoever it be amongst you. Thus God gave his law to all Israel, speaking to all, as if he had spoken namely and particularly to every one, g Exod. 20. ●. Thou shalt have no other gods; Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain, etc. every man was therein to conceive that he himself was spoken to. Thus the message both of life and death, both of Salvation and damnation is delivered, that thereby every man particularly may take knowledge of his own estate. Therefore a man duly hearing the word of God, and receiving it not as the word of the minister, h 1. Thes. 2.13. not as the word of man, but as it is indeed the word of God, and accordingly believing it as from God, from that which he believeth generally, frameth a conclusion to be believed privately as touching himself: The minister saith, i Luc. 13.3. Except ye repent, ye shall perish. This he believeth, and therefore believeth as touching himself, Except I repent, I shall perish. The minister saith, k Mar. 1.15. & 16.15.16. Repent and believe the Gospel, and ye shall be saved. This he believeth, and therefore also believeth of himself, If I repent and believe the Gospel I shall be saved. Now the minister sometimes hath occasion to speak to some one man alone, and then he himself out of the general deduceth a particular to that one man, as Paul doth to the jailer, l Act. 16.31. Believe thou in the Lord jesus and thou shalt be saved. For by what authority Paul spoke this to the jailer, by the same authority doth the minister in the like case speak the same to any other man. For Christ said nothing namely as touching the jailer, that if he did believe he should be saved, but only said, m john. 3, 15. whosoever believeth shall be saved. Thence the Apostle inferreth: Believe thou and thou shalt be saved, because whosoever believeth shall be saved. Upon the same warrant therefore the minister saith to any man upon the like occasion, Believe thou and thou shalt be saved. This whether spoken publicly, or privately, the conscience of the hearer apprehendeth, this he believeth, and therein believeth not the minister, but the word of Christ, and because he believeth in jesus Christ, and by the word of Christ believeth that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved, therefore he believeth concerning himself that he shall be saved. Thus much is implied though not expressed in M. Perkins answer; now let us hear what M. Bishop saith to the contrary, and there we shall hear not one wise word. Good Sir, saith he, seeing every man is a liar (as M. Bishop namely for example) and may both deceive and be deceived, and the minister telling may err, how doth he know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect? I answer him; Good Sir, M. Perkins no where telleth you that the minister taketh upon him to know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect, but doth only assure him, that if he believe in Christ he shall be saved; and therein the minister knoweth, and the man to whom he speaketh knoweth that be mistaketh not, when under this condition he assureth him of salvation, because he assureth him not upon any deceivable word or warrant of his own, but upon the undeceiveable word and warrant of Christ, that n Rom. 9.33. whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded. He goeth on: To affirm as you do, that the Minister is to be believed as well as if it were Christ himself, is plain blasphemy. I answer him again, To talk as you do, you know not what, is the part of a brabbling Sophister, not of a learned divine. For M. Perkins doth not affirm that the minister is to be believed as well as Christ himself, but that the word of the Gospel preached by the minister, is to be believed as if Christ himself did here personally speak, because it is the word of Christ himself, who when he saith, whosoever believeth shall be saved, doth therein say, Cornelius, believe and thou shalt be saved; Peter believe and thou shalt he saved, or if he mean not so, cannot truly say, whosoever believeth shall be saved. And for this he hath the warrant of God's word, and commission from Christ, because being for Christ a minister of the Gospel, his office is to preach the Gospel, and it is the word of the Gospel, that whosoever believeth in Christ shall have everlasting life. Therefore this is not to say, that the ministers word countervails God's word, or to make every pelting minister God's mate, as the paltry shaveling prateth, but it is to challenge assent and credit to the word of God, to the Gospel of Christ, upon which only and not upon the minister, the faithful believer doth rely himself. But to quit M. Bishop with a question we will ask him, Good Sir, may john a Style believe that you have authority from Christ to give him absolution of all his sins? You will undoubtedly tell him, Yes, that he must so in any case. But john a Style asketh again, I pray Sir, where doth Christ speak of you or of me? For I do not find in the Gospel that ever Christ made mention of either of us. M. Bishop will tell him, that Christ said to the Apostles, & to all Priests their successors, o john. 20.23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and because he is a Priest therefore this authority belongeth to him. So then because Christ hath said to all Priests, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, though he said it to far other purpose then M. Bishop practiseth it, therefore john a Style must believe that M. Bishop hath authority from Christ to absolve him from all his sins. Now will not M. Bishop be so favourable to us, as that from a general we may infer a particular, as well as he. Surely if when Christ said, Whose sin sye remit, they are remitted, he spoke in effect of M. Bishop and john a Style, we see no reason why we should not be permitted the like construction that when Christ saith, Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life, he saith, and by the minister may be reported to say in effect to this man or that man, Believe thou in the Lord jesus and thou shalt have eternal life. This matter need not so many words, but that we have to do with impudent wranglers, who being blinded with malice are as far from common discretion as they are from truth. Whereupon it is that in the next words he cavilleth again, as if M. Perkins had said that the minister knows who is predestinate, or did say to Peter, for example, Thou art one of the elect, whereas he hath not a letter or syllable to give any show hereof, but only expresseth a conditional assurance by the word of the Gospel to this man, or that man, or whomsoever, that if he repent and believe the Gospel, he shall be saved, the minister not taking upon him to know that any man truly repenteth or believeth, which God only can know, but leaving the man to apprehend the promise upon conscience of his own repentance and faith in Christ. Therefore all this idle talk of M. Bishops is but for want of matter, as his alleging of the words of the Apostle, to prove that whereof there is no question made, that the Lord only knoweth who are his, and none else but only as it is revealed from him. He goeth on and telleth us, that M. Perkins flieth from the assurance of the minister, and leaves him to speak at random as the blind man casts his club. Burr M. Perkins flieth from nothing that he had before said, but still leaveth the word of Christ only preached by the minister in Christ's name, to be the only assurance for the faithful to build upon. Neither doth the minister speak at random, but certainly and definitely he affirmeth by the same word to him that repenteth and believeth, that he shall be saved, though he know not who it is that shall repent or believe and so be saved, and therefore in that respect, if M. Bishop will needs have it so, speaks at random even as the blind man casts his club, not knowing whom he shall strike; as the fisherman casts his net, not knowing what fish he shall catch; no otherwise then the Apostles did, at whose preaching some believed, other some blasphemed and believed not, according to that which S. Austin saith, p August. de praedest. sanct. cap. 6. Many hear the word of truth; some of them believe it, some contradict and speak against it. So therefore the minister as touching the effect of preaching, speaketh uncertatnly, not knowing where the seed shall grow, but yet certainly delivering, that wheresoever it shall bring forth the fruit of faith, it shall also bring forth eternal life. Which assurance he giveth by the word of Christ, and the faith of the hearer thence apprehendeth, and thereof concludeth assurance to himself. Thus doth M. Perkins refer the assurance to the ministery of the word, and thus to the party, and no otherwise after then he had done before. But to distinguish true assurance of the heart from carnal presumption and floating fancies swimming in the head, he noteth it to be accompanied with the spirit of grace and of prayer, or rather to issue therefrom, by which the heart is so seasoned and conformed to the voice of God, as that his word doth still rebound from it by joyful acceptance and affectionate desire, and prayer, and purpose, and promise of that that is uttered thereby. So that when God saith, q Psal. 27.8. Seek ye my face, the faithful soul answereth to God, Thy face Lord will I seek. When God saith, r Z●ch. 13.9. Thou art my people, it soundeth from it back again, Thou art the Lord my God. When Christ saith, s Mar. 9.23. If thou believe, all things are possible to him that believeth, it answereth, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. When God requireth to t Psal. 40.7 8. do his will, it saith to him, Lo I come o my God, I am content to do it, yea thy law is within my heart. This is the fruit and effect of that u Rom. 8.16. spirit of adoption, which giveth witness to our spirit, that we are the Sons of God, & x 1. joh. 5.6. beareth record that God hath given unto us eternal life. Which we do not wonder, that to M. Bishop it seemeth rather an old woman's dream, than a discourse of a learned man, because y Act. 17.18. 1. Cor. 2.14. the things of God seem but babbling and foolishness to profane & carnal men. And out of that profaneness issueth that speech of his that followeth, How know you, honest man, that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000 years passed to the people of Israel are directed to you, etc. Where many an honest & faithful soul is ready to answer him, Good Sir, because z Rom. 15.4. whatsoever things were written before time, were written for our learning, that we through patience & comfort of the Scriptures might have hope, & because I find that the Scripture itself doth apply to every of God's faithful people, that that was said to josuah, a josuah. 19 Heb. 13.5. I will not fail thee nor forsake thee, & teacheth thereupon every faithful soul to say as David did, b Psal. 118.6. The Lord is on my side, I will not fear what man can do unto me, therefore I c 1. Cor. 7.27. having obtained mercy to be faithful, do in like sort take to myself whatsoever God hath any where spoken for the comfort of his elect, & the rather because I know that God d Eph. 46. being one Father of all, carrieth without respect of people, the like regard to all his children. Neither is it mine own heart that giveth me this assurance; for mine own heart could minister no such comfort unto me, but being cast down with the acknowledgement of mine own misery, God gave me a heart to harken to the voice of Christ, delivered by the minister out of the Gospel, e Mat. 11.28. Come unto me all ye that labour & are heavy laden & I will refresh you, & I found in him indeed that refreshing and joy f john. 16.22. that no man shall take from me. And though I be a sinner, yet that dismayeth me not, for g 1. Tim. 1.15. Christ came into the world to save sinners, repentant sinners, of which by the grace of Christ I am one. And though Paul were deceived when he builded himself upon himself, yet when he built upon Christ, as I do, he was not deceived. And whereas you ask me, Sir, whether I know how long I shall say so, I must tell you, that my assured trust & confidence is, that God will never forsake the work which he hath begun, because he hath said, that h Rom. 9.33. he that believeth in Christ, shall never be confounded or ashamed, that is, i August. in Psal. 36. conc. 2. Infra. sect. 20. john. 10. 2●. his hope shall not be deceived, & Christ hath taught me that his sheep which hear his voice, of which I am one, shall never perish, but that he will give unto them eternal life. And howsoever I know that the wickedness & corruption of mine own heart is such, that being left unto myself, I should soon fall away from God, yet I look unto that promise that God hath made to all his faithful servants, k jerem. 32.40. I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall not departed from me, resting myself not only in this, that I have apprehended Christ, but much more in that l Phil. 3.12. that he hath apprehended me; not only in this, that I know God, but much more in this, m Gal. 4.9. that I am known of God. Neither doth it touch me that you say, that many are called but few are chosen, for many are called which come not indeed though they seem to come, & thereby show that they are not chosen, but there is a calling, n August. de praedest sanct. ca 16. Ex vocante non quacunqut vocatione, sed qua vocatione, fit credens. whereby God so calleth, as that he maketh a man to believe, of which Christ saith, o john. 6.45. Every one that heareth and learneth of the Father cometh unto me, & of which S. Paul saith; p Rom. 8 30. Whom he hath predestinate, he hath called, & whom he hath called, he hath justified & glorified. Of which inward and effectual calling, he hath made me partaker, opening the ears of my soul to harken unto him, & subduing the affections of my heart to the obedience of his wil And because q Ibid. 11.29. the gifts & calling of God are without repentance, therefore I rest undoubted, that r Ibid. 14.8. if I live, I shall live unto the Lord, & if I die, I shall die unto the Lord, & whether I live or die, I am the Lords, s Ibid. 8.39. neither shall any thing separat me from the love of God, which is in Christ jesus our Lord. Thus many an honest faithful christian would answer M. Bishop, & stop his mouth as the poor t Ruffin. hist. lib. 1. cap. 3. simple man did the mouth of the proud philosopher in the council of Nice, that he could not tell for his life what to reply against him. But let us ask him in the behalf of this honest man, whereas he saith u Sect. 3. afterwards, that he believeth that he shall have life everlasting if he fulfil that which Christ taught the young man in the gospel, to wit, if he keep all God's commandments, how he knoweth that those words of Christ spoken to the young man so many hundred years past, are directed unto him, or that there is any such condition made with him, that if he keep the commandments he shall enter into life. Look by what rule he shall answer us, that that condition belongeth to him, that if he keep the commandments he shall enter into life, by the same rule doth the honest man take upon him to believe, that because he believeth in Christ he shall have everlasting life. By the same rule doth he hearken to all the promises of God as pertaining to him. By the same rule doth he interest himself in all the gracious & lovely speeches, wherewith God from time to time hath comforted his people, & therefore as occasion serveth he putteth himself into the person & condition of the saints & faithful that formerly have been, into their joys, & sorrows, & hopes, & fears, & prayers, & complaints, taking unto himself those answers and assurances that God hath at any time given unto them, resolving of all the rest that which in one case the Apostle exemplifieth of that that was written of the justification of Abraham, x Rom. 4.23.24 that those things were not written for them only, but for us also which believe as they have done, that we may be assured that God will be the same God to us as he hath been to them. As for certainty of perseverance & testimony of predestination & election, more followeth to be said hereafter. But here he confesseth, that he that believeth knoweth that he believeth; whereof we infer, that then he knoweth & believeth that he hath eternal life, because y 1. john. 5 13. they that believe in the name of the Son of God, are to know that they have eternal life: which is not to be excepted from being within the bounds of faith, because S. john hath so delivered by the word of faith, & therefore that the certainty of Salvation is to be believed, is not begged but proved, & shall yet further be proved if god wil M. Per. saith, that he that truly repenteth, knoweth that he repenteth. M. Bi. answereth, that he knoweth it indeed by many probable conjectures, but not by certainly of faith, as if we made our repentance & faith the matters of our faith to believe that we believe, or to believe that we repent, idly talking he knoweth not what. Our faith & repentance are not matters of faith, but matters of conscience & feeling, which in our affections we discern & know; & finding the same in ourselves, do believe the word of God, that he that repenteth & believeth in the Son of God hath everlasting life. As for that which he saith, that a man knoweth his repentance no otherwise but by probable conjectures, it is a ridiculous device. He that repenteth knoweth further than by conjecture the wound of his own heart, & the grievance that he hath towards himself, by the conscience of his own sin. Surely if he himself had ever truly repent, he would make it no question whether he that repenteth doth know himself to repent or not, but hitherto he hath been unacquainted, what either repentance or faith do mean; God give him the true knowledge thereof before it be to late. But to prove that a man knoweth not his own repentance but by probable conjectures, he bringeth a place of job most absurdly & impertinently: If God come to me I shall not see him, & if he depart from me I shall not understand it. Which words of job rightly translated, y job 9.11. When he goeth by me I see him not, & when he passeth by I perceive him not, do serve to set forth unto us the unsearchablenes of the ways and works of God, which we are not able to comprehend even in those things which are by us & before us, & wherein he seemeth most nearly to approach unto us. But let us take the words as he readeth them, & I pray thee gentle Reader to observe in what sort he useth them. The thing that he would prove, is that a man knoweth not his own repentance but by probable conjectures. And how is it proved? Because we see not nor understand God's coning to us or departing from us. Whereupon he inferreth, which is sufficient to make a man thankful: yea though he received no grace, yet were he beholding unto God who offered him his grace, & would have freely bestowed it on him, if it had not been through his own default. Now what is that that is sufficient to make the man thankful? That he knoweth not his own repentance? that he neither seethe nor understandeth Gods coming to him nor departing from him? If God's visitation be not perceived nor understood, what thanks can there be, or conviction of unthankfulness? Doth a man thank God & not know for what, or whether there be any thing or not to thank him for? How doth he know any default in this case, or can say that God offered him any grace, or that he would freely have bestowed the same upon him? Out of doubt his wits were a wool gathering when he wrote this, or else his hand out ran his head; yet haply he thought it good enough for them to whom he meant it, who must think of their ghostly father, that he speaks most learnedly when they understand him least. But let me answer him to the place, that indeed we see not God, nor perceive him coming to us, or departing from us, but yet we feel him working in us, & as Ber. noteth by the alteration that we find in ourselves, take occasion to say, a Bernard. Haec est mutatio dexterae Excelsi: This change cometh of the right hand of the most high. Of this visitation Cyprian speaks most fitly for our purpose: b Cypr. Prologue. de cardinalibus Christi operibus. Quomodo fulgur nubes disrumpit & repentina coruscaetio non tam illuminat quàm hebetat oculum, ita aliquando nescio quo motu tangeris & tangi te sentis, eum tamen quite tangit non intueris. Dicuntur tibi quaedam verba aercana intrinsecus quae efferre non sufficis ut dubitare non possis, quiae juxta te est iminò intra te qui te solicitat nec tamen sicuti est se tibi videndum concedat. As the lightning breaketh the clouds, & the sudden shining thereof doth not so much enlighten as dull the eye, so sometimes thou art touched with I know not what motion, & feelest thyself to be touched, & yet seest not him that toucheth thee. There are inwardly spoken unto thee certain secret words, which thou art not able to utter; so as that thou canst not doubt but that he is near thee, yea even within thee which doth solicit thee, & yet doth not yield thee to see him as he is. Which words plainly show, that though a man see not God either coming or departing, yet he certainly knoweth & perceiveth in himself the work of God. Therefore of the very words which M. Bish. citeth Hier. saith; that c Hieron. in job. cap. 9 Dicit quòd venientis Dei praesentia sit quando homini innotescit & quando occulitur quasi abeuntis absentia indicitur. the presence of God coming to a man, is when he becometh known to him, & his hiding of himself is termed the absence of him as going away; in neither of which we are able sufficiently to conceive or comprehend him. Whereby we may see with how great discretion this place was brought to prove that gods work in man's repentance, is not certainly known to him Now therefore the word of God is warrant to a faithful man to assure himself of his Salvation. For it biddeth him to d Mar. 1 15. believe the Gospel, & the Gospel is, that e joh. 3.15.16. whosoever believeth in Christ shall have everlasting life. He is therefore to believe, that whosoever believeth in Christ shall have everlasting life. He is therefore to believe of himself, that because he believeth in Christ he shall have everlasting life. Or if he do not believe of himself, believing in Christ that he shall have everlasting life, he believeth not the Gospel, that whosoever believeth in Christ, shall have everlasting life. And thus the strength of M. Bishop's argument is very feeble, neither is it only vain in itself, but he hath dealt as absurdly in the handling of it. 3. W. BISHOP. The second is. It is no article of the Creed, that a man must believe his own Salvation, and therefore no man is bound there unto. M. Perkins answereth. That every article of the Creed contains this particular faith of our own Salvation, namely three: First (saith he) to believe in God, is to believe that God is our God, and to put our trust in him for our Salvation. Answer. I admit all this, and add more (that M. Perkins be no longer ignorant of the Catholic knowledge of the Creed) that we must also love him with all our heart and strength: thus we understand it more fully than he: Yet find not out that thirteenth article, Thou must believe thine own particular Salvation. For albeit, I believe and trust in God, yet not being sure of my love towards him, I am not assured of Salvation, for as S. john testifieth, He that loveth not, 1. john. 3. abideth in death. So I answer to the second article named by M. Perkins, that is, I believe that God of his infinite mercy, through the merits of Christ's passion, doth pardon all those, who being hearty sorry for their sins, do humbly confess them, and fully purpose to lead a new life: that I myself am such a one, I do verily hope, because I have as far forth as I could, to my knowledge performed those things which God requires of me, but because I am but a frail creature, and may perhaps not have done all that so well as I ought, or am not so well assured of that, which by God's help I have done, I cannot believe it, for in matter of faith (as you shall hear shortly) there can be no fear or doubt. The like answer is given to the article of life everlasting. Mat. 19 I believe that I shall have life everlasting, if I fulfil that which our Saviour taught the young man, demanding what he must do to have life everlasting: to wit, if I keep all God's commandments, but because I am not assured that I shall do so (yea the Protestants (though falsely) assure us, that no man by any help of God's grace can so do,) I remain in fear. But (saith M. Perkins) the devil may so believe the articles of the Creed, unless we do apply those articles to ourselves. First, I say the devil knows to be true all that we do believe, and therefore are said by S. james to believe, but they want a necessary condition of faith, that is a godly and devout submission of their understanding unto the obedience of faith, and so have no faith to speak properly. Again, they trust not in God for Salvation, nor endeavour not any manner of way to obtain Salvation, as Christians do, and so there is great difference between their belief in the articles of the Creed, and ours. R. ABBOT. To this argument M. Perkins justly saith, that the pillars of the Church of Rome do not understand the Creed, who having corrupted all points of Christian faith, must needs frame the articles of the Creed to the same corruption. Whether they were the Apostles or other after them, that laid together this brief of faith, they intended not therein a narration of common history, but a profession of private hope. And that may appear by the phrase wherein they have expressed this belief; I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER; I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST; I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY GHOST. For well doth M. Perkins note that to say, I believe in God, is all one as to say, I believe that God is my God, and I have an assured confidence and trust in him to be saved by his mercy. M. Bishop mentioneth the answer in superficial and general terms, that to believe in God is to believe that God is our God, and to put our trust in him for our Salvation, and in this sort admitteth it, but to that purpose as M. Perkins spoke it, he will by no means admit it, because so to admit it, should be to grant the point in question. He can be content that we in common believe God to be our God by right of sovereignty and authority, but he will not endure that any man shall say as M. Perkins intended, I believe that God is my God, by affection of love. He will like well enough that we put our trust in him for our Salvation, so as to look to be saved by him if we be saved, and haply to carry some probable opinion that we shall be saved, but in no case will suffer us to conceive so of ourselves, as to say with the Apostle, a 1. Thess. 5.9. God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain Salvation by the means of jesus, as M. Perkins meant. To believe that God is our God, is to believe that he is our life, our peace, our strength, our deliverance and Salvation; not only that he is these things in himself, but that he is indeed the same to us, assuredly persuading ourselves, that because God is ours, therefore whatsoever is his is ours, that is, for us and for our use, his mercy, his power, his providence, to watch over us, and to preserve and keep us to himself both in life and death. This did God import when by his new covenant he bond himself to his heirs of promise, saying, b jerem. 31.33. I will be their God and they shall be my people, whereupon they shall be emboldened to say, c Esa. 25.9. Lo this is our God, we have waited for him and he will save us; we will rejoice and be joyful in his Salvation. And thus doth S. Austin teach us to make d August. in Psal. 32. conc. 2. An temerè dicimus faciendo nobu Deum possessionem? etc. Dicat anima, secura dicat, Deus meus es tu quidicit animae nostrae, salus tua ego sum, etc. God our God, to make him our possession, as he speaketh, and therefore without doubting to say unto God, Thou art my God, because he saith to our soul, I am thy Salvation. And indeed no man can with a true heart say unto God, Thou art my God, whose soul doth not with inward comfort hear God saying unto him by his word, I am thy Salvation. Seeing therefore that M. Bishop cannot deny, but that to say, I believe in God, is as much as to say, I believe that God is my God, he must grant, that for a man to profess to believe in God, is to profess the assured belief of his own Salvation. The first degree of faith is credere Deum, to believe that God is. The second degree is credere Deo, to believe God, that is to believe that his words and promises are true. But credere in Deum; to believe in God, addeth further to trust in God according to that word and promise, and to believe the same, not only generally and indefinitely, but particularly and to his own use, firmly resolving that God will do to him according to that that he hath promised, and therefore to his repentance and faith, according to his promise will give everlasting life. Thus Eusebius Emisenus distinguishing those phrases rightly, saith, that e Euseb. Emissen. de symb. hom. 2. no man is approved to have believed in God, but he that hath devoutly trusted in him, which is that that the Prophet David nameth, to put trust in his mercy, whereby we steadfastly expect at his hands, and of his mere goodness, to receive all things for our safety and Salvation. But M. Bishop making show to admit that which M. Perkins saith, addeth more, that he might not be ignorant of the Catholic knowledge of the Creed, that we must also love God with all our heart and strength, and thus saith that they understand it more fully than we do. Where we may observe what a wise construction he maketh for himself. For he telleth us by and by that he is not sure whether he love God or not, and afterward again that charity is seated in the dark corners of the will, and a man cannot be sure that it is in himself. So then because to believe in God, is to love God with all his heart and strength, and M. Bishop doth not know whether he love God or not, it must needs follow that for aught he knoweth, he doth but lie so often as he saith, I believe in God. This doth he gain by his understanding this point more fully than we do. But we respect not here any largeness or fullness, but rather propriety of understanding. It is true indeed that Saint Austin sometimes declareth believing in God by the love of God, and other such signs and tokens thereof, not as properly to define what it is to believe in God, but rather to show who they are that truly do believe in God, that men may not flatter themselves with opinion of believing, when indeed they do not believe. Thus doth he say, that f August. in Psal. 77. Adhaerere ad ●enè cooperandum bona operanti Deo. to believe in God is to cleave unto God, to work well with him, working that that is good in us; that g De verb. dom. ser 61 Jlle credit in Christum qui & sperat in Christum & diligit Christum. he that believeth in Christ both hopeth in Christ and loveth Christ; that h In loan. tract. 29. Quid est crederem eum? Credendo amare, credendo diligete, etc. to believe in Christ, is in believing to affect, in believing to love Christ. But it is one thing to describe a thing by adjoined properties and effects, another thing to define it out of the nature and propriety of itself. We doubt not but that faith and love are always conjoined, and true belief in God doth always infallibly bring forth the love of God, but yet as diverse members of the body necessarily concurring for the perfecting of the whole, have every one their several office, the eye to see, the ear to hear, etc. so these virtues of the soul, namely faith and love, though they always meet and never are divided, yet in office and act are distinct each from other, neither is to believe the same as to love, nor to love the same as to believe. For we do not make the question that Christ asked the man that had been blind, i john. 9.35. Believest thou in the Son of God; to be the same with that that he demanded of Peter, k Cap. 21.15. Lovest thou me? Now therefore to believe in God, is in itself to have a full affiance and assured trust in him that he will save us, and accordingly the sum of that that I profess to believe in the Creed, is that God is my God and Father by the mediation of jesus Christ, through the sanctification of the holy Ghost, whereby he hath made me a member of his Catholic Church, which is the communion and society of his Saints, to which, and all the members whereof, and so namely to me, he will give remission and forgiveness of sins, and a happy resurrection of the body, to be partaker with the soul of everlasting life. And that this is a matter of belief without any thirteenth article of the Creed, let him learn of David saying, l Psal. 27.13. I believe to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Which what is it else but to say, I believe mine own Salvation? And let him learn of Fulgentius, that it was not proper to say so; for m Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Justus ex fide vivens fiductaliter dicit. Credo ut lere bona Domini etc. the just living by faith, saith he, boldly saith, I believe to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, Let S. Austin also teach him this matter of belief: n August. in Psal. 148. Quid tibi promisti Deus ò homo mortalis? Quia victuri es in aeternum. Non credu? Crede, crede: Plus est tam quod fecit quam quod promisit. God hath promised thee, O man, that thou shalt live for ever. Dost thou not believe it? Believe it, believe it; for that that he hath already done for thee, is a greater matter than that that he hath promised. To the same effect Cyprian speaketh, o Cyprian. de mortalit. Deus tibi de hoc mundo recedenti immortalitatem pollicetur atque aeternitatem, & tu dabitas? hoc est Deum omnino non nosse; hoc est Christum credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere; hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fidem in domo fidei non habere. God hath promised unto thee when thou departest out of this world, immortality and eternity, and dost thou doubt thereof? This were not to know God: this is to offend Christ the master of believers with the sin of unbelief? this is for a man being in the house of faith to be without faith. So that by Cyprians judgement to have faith, is for a man to believe his own Salvation, and not to believe his own Salvation, is to be without faith. But Saint Bernard handleth this point most pregnantly of all other. p Bernard. in Annunciat. ser. 1. Necesse est primo omnium credere quod remissionem peccatorum habere non possis nisi per indulgentiam Dei, etc. postremò quòd aeternam vitam nullis potes operibus promereri nisi gratis detur & illa, etc. Verum haec non omnino sufficiunt sed magis initium quoddam & velut fundamentum fidei sunt habenda. Ideeque sicredis peccata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccasti benefacis; said add adhuc ut & hoc credas quia per ipsum tibi peccata donantur. Hoc est testimonium quod perhibit in cord nostro Spi. sanctus dicens, Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua; Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus gratis justificari hominem per fidem. Sic & de vita aeterna habeas necesse est testimonium spiritus quòd ad eam sis divino munere perventurus. It is necessary for thee to believe that thou canst not have forgiveness of sins but by the mercy of God, and that by no works thou canst obtain eternal life, unless it also be given thee. But these things are not sufficient, nay they are to be accounted but the beginning and as it were the foundation of faith. Therefore if thou believest that thy sins cannot be put away, but by him to whom only thou hast sinned thou dost well, but add hereto to believe, THAT BY HIM THY SINS ARE FORGIVEN THEE. This is the testimony that the holy Ghost giveth in our heart, saying, Thy sins are forgiven thee: for thus doth the Apostle define, that a man is freely justified by faith. So also as touching eternal life, it is needful that thou have the testimony or witness of the spirit, THAT THOU SHALT COME UNTO IT BY THE GIFT OF GOD. Here then it is plain, that without any thirteenth article of the Creed, the faith whereby the Apostle saith a man is justified, is such a faith as whereby I believe mine own Salvation; whereby I believe that my sins are forgiven me, and that I shall attain by the very gift of God unto everlasting life. But saith M. Bishop, I believe and trust in God; Yet not being sure of my love towards him, I am not assured of Salvation. Where he plainly showeth, that he hath no love towards God, because where love is, it cannot but be certainly felt and known, and if he loved God, he could not but assure himself thereof. Now therefore it is no marvel that he hath no assurance of Salvation, when there wanteth in him the certain and infallible effect of that faith whereby he should be assured of Salvation. For true faith is the fountain of our love towards God, whilst believing God to be such and so merciful unto us, it swalloweth up our affections, and draweth our love and devotion unto him. Which is not unfelt in us, but by the feeling thereof in ourselves, we gather a further confirmation and assurance to ourselves, that we are beloved of God. Both which S. Bernard well declareth, saying of the faithful man: q Bernard. epist. 107. Vermis vilissimus & odio dignissimus sempiterno, tamen confi lit amari, quia se sentit amare; immo quia se amari praesentit non redar●are confunditur. A vile worm and worthy to be hated everlastingly, yet assureth himself that he is beloved, because he feeleth himself to love; nay because he first feeleth himself to be beloved, therefore he is ashamed not to love again. So again he saith, that r Jdem in Cant. ser. 69. Amor Dei amorem animae parit etc. Ex eo quod se diligere sentit eti am diligi non ambigit. the love of God breedeth in the soul love towards God, and by feeling itself to love, it is also out of doubt that itself is beloved. Now what a miserable case is M. Bishop in, that neither is sure of his love towards God, nor dare assure himself of God's love towards him? If he had not a senseless and dead heart, he could not but much grieve and lament at his own estate. And yet forsooth he telleth us, that he doth believe and trust in God; but therein he lieth unto God. For s Cyprian. de duplici martyr. Non credit in deum qui non tu cosolo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam. he doth not believe in God, that doth not place the confidence of his felicity in God only; which he doth not place in God only, but partly in God and partly in himself. He doth not trust in God, that doth not rely wholly upon God's mercy, and thereby look for that at his hands for which he trusteth in him, so as to account himself deceived by him if he fail thereof, which never hath befallen to any, not shall befall that doth put his trust in God. M. Bishop divideth this trust betwixt God and himself, and so trusteth in God, as that he maketh that for which he professeth to trust in God, to hang chiefly upon himself, and therefore no marvel if he have no assurance of Salvation, because he incurreth rather the curse denounced by the Prophet, t jerem. 1●. 5. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm. For what doth he else when he leaveth the whole work of God, as we have heard before, to be confirmed and made good by his own free will? Now as touching that other article of believing in Christ, to have by his merits remission of sins, S. Austin teacheth us, that u August. in joan. tract. 29. & de verb. dom. ser. 61. Credendo in cum ire & membru ●ius incorporari. etc. Quoquo modo unitur in eum & menibrum in corpore ●ius efficitur. to believe in Christ is to be united unto Christ, to be made one with him, to be incorporated, to be members of his body. He expoundeth it to be all one with that which Christ saith in the Gospel, of x Idem in joan. tract. 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viwm. eating his flesh & drinking his blood, which whosoever doth, y john. 6.54.56. dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him; he hath eternal life, and Christ will raise him up at the last day. Thus the Gospel of Christ instructeth us, and he that believeth in Christ, because he believeth the Gospel, must believe that he is a member of Christ, one with Christ and Christ with him; that he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, that Christ hath given unto him eternal life, and will raise him up at the last day; being assured, that as a head will not suffer a member of it own body to perish, which it hath in his power to preserve; so Christ having made him a member of his body, and having power to save him, will not suffer him to perish, but as a faithful Mediator will perform that charge, which z john. 6.39. the will of the heavenly Father hath laid upon him, that of all that he hath given him he should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. Now M. Bishop saith, that he believeth that God for the merits of Christ's passion, doth forgive them that are hearty sorry for their sins, and humbly confess them, with a full purpose of a new life. And this he hopeth that he hath done, but he cannot assure himself that he hath done it, or that he hath done it so well as he ought to do, and therefore cannot believe the forgiveness of his sins. Where we see, that the merit of Christ's passion is not sufficient in his opinion, to purchase for him the forgiveness of sins, but it must further hang upon the sufficiency and perfection of his own repentance. It is not enough that he truly repent, unless he repent so well as he ought to do, that his repentance may deserve the pardon that he seeketh for▪ But we for our parts know and confess, that our repentance, our faith, our righteousness, are never such as they ought to be: we are short and unperfect in the sorrow for our sins; our purposes of new life and amendment of our defaults, prove often times like a Ose. 6.4. the morning dew that is quickly dried up. And therefore it is not the value and worth of our repentance that we rest upon to merit pardon and forgiveness, but we require a sincerity and truth thereof, faithfully to crave the same, being but as the pain and grief which maketh to seek the medicine whereby it is eased; as the hunger and thirst which maketh to crave the food whereby it is relieved; as the feeling of beggary and want, which maketh to seek the treasure and riches by which it is supplied. Which supply and relief spiritually we find in this, that b Rom. 3.24. we are justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ jesus, whom God hath set forth to be an atonement for us (not by the merit of our repentance) but by faith in his blood. c Rhem. Testam. Explicat. of certain words: in the end. Freely, for god a mercy, for nothing, as the Rhemists expound the word gratis, willing to show a little truth in giving the right signification of the word, but craftily suppressing the same truth, and plainly contradicting it by a colourable gloze devised against the text of the Apostle, and against the signification of the word, which force of truth hath wrested from themselves. d Ambros. in Rom. cap. 3. Gratit quia nihil operantes, neque vitem reddentes sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. Freely, saith Ambrose, because having no works, nor yielding any requital even of the gift of God, we are justified by faith only. e Chrysost. ni Rom. hom. 7. Nullu ad hoc usus operibus sed fidem tamum exigens. Freely, saith chrysostom, because he useth hereto no works of ours, but requireth faith only. And he requireth faith only, only as a hand whereby we receive, not as a work whereby we deserve this forgiveness of our sins, that so the true penitent may firmly expect it in Christ only by believing, not hang in suspense of it by being in doubt of unsufficiency in repenting; God having therefore appointed it to be f Rom. 4.16. by faith that it may be of grace, that the promise (thereof) may be sure (not in itself, not with God; who doubteth but in that respect it is sure enough? but) to all the seed, that is, to every one that believeth; the promise being that g Act. 10.43. through the name of Christ, every one that believeth in him shall have forgiveness of sins. Which faith, though it be yet but weak and little, and sometimes interrupted with fears and doubts, yet God accepteth it and cherisheth it, that by more experience it may grow to more strength, neither is it true which M. Bishop saith, that in matter of faith there is no fear or doubt, as anon after shall appear. In the mean time he further addeth as touching the article of Eternal life, that he believeth he shall have it, if he shall keep all God's commandments, but because he is not assured that he shall so do, he remaineth in fear. And very justly may he be in fear that looketh for eternal life upon no other condition than he doth. The Apostle indeed doth plainly debar him from all hope and expectation thereof, when he saith, h Gal. 3.10. So many as are of the works of the law; are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Where he plainly taketh it for granted, that no man continueth in all things that are written in the law, that is, that no man keepeth all God's commandments, and therefore concludeth, that he that for eternal life dependeth upon keeping all God's commandments, cannot avoid the curse. Yea, but Christ saith to the young man in the Gospel, i Mat. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. It is true; but Christ saith it to induce the young man to the knowledge of himself, and very ill is it applied to seduce men from the true acknowledgement of the faith of Christ. The young man asketh what he might do to inherit eternal life? Our Saviour Christ referreth him to the law, as k Gal. 3.25. the Schoolmaster to train him unto Christ; that finding it l Rom. 8.3. Gal. 3.21. a thing impossible for the law to give him life, and therefore casting off all vain confidence of the righteousness thereof, he might be fitted to embrace m Act. 4.12. the faith of that name, in which only life and Salvation is offered unto us. Which it plainly appeareth this young man conceived not, by reason of a presumption that he had by misunderstanding the law, that he had observed the law. The vain opinion whereof to discover, our Saviour biddeth him to sell all & give to the poor, promising him treasure in heaven, and willing him in the mean time to come and follow him, that it might appear how far he was from that love of God and his neighbour which the law required, in whose heart the love of riches bore so great a sway, as that he could not be content at God's commandment upon promise of heavenly treasure, to bestow the same to the necessity of his neighbour. Now if he had rightly esteemed of himself how far he was from being answerable to the righteousness of the law, he would have profited by the words of Christ, and have taken occasion thereby to come to Christ for the obtaining of eternal life, the true means whereof he directeth when he saith, n john. 17.3. This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Which knowledge of Christ seeing this man had not, without which M. Bishop himself I hope will say there is no eternal life, surely even by his own grounds it must be absurd, to say that Christ by these words did simply intend to direct him a way for the obtaining of eternal life. And if he will say, that he was indeed first to believe, and then by faith to keep the commandments, thereby to enter into life, the Apostle taketh exception against that, when citing the words of the Prophet, The just shall live by faith, he inferreth, o Gal. 3.11. Now the law is not of faith, but saith, He that doth these things shall live in them. For if the law saying, He that doth these things shall live in them, do not accord with the faith of Christ, than it is not for them that profess the faith of Christ, in the doing of these things, that is, in the keeping of the commandments to expect the obtaining of eternal life. Yea, p Tertull. de prescript. Euaetuatur gratiae evangelica si ad legem Christum redigit. the grace of the Gospel 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 justified by the law. Therefore he saith: r Rom. 4.14. If they which be of the law be heirs, than 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 given it by promise, and therefore faith believeth t 1. joh 5.10.11. that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is (not in our keeping the commandments but) in his son, and in him only we are to expect it, that from the beginning to the end we may still confess, that u Rom. 6.23. eternal life is the gift of God through jesus Christ our Lord. The commandments of God therefore are now laid before us, not as the condition for obtaining of eternal life, but as the way to walk in unto eternal life, assured unto us by the free promise and gift of God. And of this promise and gift of God the keeping of God's commandments is a part, who hath said, x jerem. 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 walk in my statutes, and to keep my judgements and do them. Whereto agree the words of the Apostle, z Ephe. 2.10. We are his workmanship, created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath prepared for us to walk in. Which workmanship when by the grace of God it is begun in us, albeit by reason of many imperfections it be not such, as that by the virtue thereof we may expect eternal life, yet our faith receiveth further confirmation and assurance thereby, that he that hath wrought this beginning of life, will go forward therewith to the end, and having made us partakers of one part of his promise, will make us also partakers of the other, taking these first fruits 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 commandments of God as we ought to do, yet we do not for that cause stand in doubt of eternal life, but finding our hearts truly affected towards God, a Mat. 5.6. hungering and thirsting after righteousness, unfeignedly hating sin, and groaning under the burden of it b Heb. 12.1. hanging so fast on, we comfort ourselves, that God hath made the light of his Salvation to shine unto us, resolving according to his promise, that this sun-rising though it be not yet fully clear, and may haply sometimes be overcast with clouds, yet shall never have any night, but that accepting our godly endeavours, pardoning our defects and wants, forgiving us all our sins, he will c Phil. 1.6. perfect the good work which he hath so graciously begun in us, so that the true faithful soul may always boldly say, d Psal. 23.6. Thy loving kindness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. Now because M. Bishop layeth no other but a rotten foundation, no marvel if he build no other but a tottering and shaking house; because he looketh to have life grow out of his keeping of the commandments, which is as a reed continually shaken with the wind, no marvel if he deny to himself any steadfast assurance and trust of attaining thereunto. But yet it is a falsehood of his to charge the Protestants with affirming, that no man by any help of God's grace can keep God's commandments. The Protestants only say, that God giveth us not that fullness of grace whilst here we live, as that we can fully and perfectly keep the commandments of God so as to be justified thereby, but they deny not, but that all the faithful according to the degrees and measure of grace received, do in a measure keep God's commandments, and as grace is increased, so they increase in the keeping of the commandments, and that this grace shall yet further renew and sanctify them, in such sort, as that in the end corruption & sin being wholly abolished for ever, they shall be fully conformed to that image of righteousness that God hath described in the law. But of this hereafter. In the mean time we see by that that M. Bishop hath told us of faith, that the Church of Rome indeed teacheth no other faith but the same that devils have. Which being objected by M. Perkins, he laboureth to clear, but saith nothing to serve the turn, but by overthrowing that which he buildeth otherwhere. He saith, that the devils know all to be true which we believe, but yet do want a necessary condition of faith, which is a godly and devout submission of their understanding to the obedience of faith, and so have no faith to speak properly. But if godly and devout submission of the understanding to the obedience of faith, be a necessary condition of faith, as he telleth us 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 godliness, what devotion, what submission or obedience can there be where charity is not? Godliness, devotion, submission, obedience, what are they but good works? If then faith properly so called, cannot be without these, than it is true which we say, that true faith can never be without charity and good works. But that he denieth in the other place, and with common consent they all deny it. Therefore he must deny that which here he himself saith, that godly and devout submission of the understanding to the obedience of faith, is a necessary condition of faith properly so called, and so, as yet there is no exception but that their faith is the same with the devils faith. But taking this which he saith, which indeed is true, though he by no means must stand to it, that godly and devout submission, etc. is a necessary condition of true faith, yet because it is but a condition adjoined, and not the very nature of faith itself, surely unless he describe faith in other sort than he doth, he answereth yet nothing as touching the very act of faith, but that the faith of devils is all one with their faith. His other exception is, that the devils trust not in God for Salvation, nor endeavour any manner of way to obtain it as Christians do. Which is even as vain as the former was, because he answereth nothing to put difference as touching faith itself, he himself still denying that trust in God for a man's own Salvation, is any part of faith. But he should have answered directly to the point, what there is in the very nature of faith itself, whereby their faith is to be distinguished from the faith of devils, whereof he is not able to give us any certain answer. And to be short, all that he hath here said is but framed for a show, to serve for present shift, because he dareth not deny but that there have been and are many desperate rakchels (yea of their Popes and Cardinals there have not wanted such) in whom there is no godly or devout submission of understanding to the obedience of faith, no trust in God for Salvation, no endeavour to obtain it, who yet have had their Catholic faith, to believe that Christ hath died, and risen again, and that by his blood there is forgiveness of sins, though not for them, yet for them that repent: so that in that which he saith hitherto, there is nothing at all whereby to put difference betwixt their faith & the devils faith, and hereafter we shall see, that he is able to say no more than here he hath said. 4. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins in his first exception grants: Pag. 54. That commonly men do not believe their Salvation, as infallibly as they do the articles of the faith (yet saith he) some special men do. Whereof I infer by his own confession, that our particular Salvation is not to be believed by faith: for whatsoever we believe by faith, is as infallible as the word of God, which assureth us of it. Then if the common sort of the faithful do not believe their Salvation, to be as infallible as the articles of our Creed, yea as Gods own word, they are not by faith assured of it. Now that some special good men, either by revelation from God, or by long exercise of a virtuous life, have a great Certainty of their Salvation, we willingly confess: but that Certainty doth rather belong to a well grounded hope, then to an ordinary faith. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins rightly saith, that the Scriptures in this matter of faith & assurance, do direct us the duty of faith, what it ought to do, and what we are to pray and labour for, though we do not all and always attain unto it. Secondly, that though commonly men do not with the like assurance believe their own Salvation, as they do the doctrine of faith expressed in the articles of the Creed, yet that some special men do so, as did Abraham, and the Prophets, and Apostles, and martyrs of God in all ages, who without doubting laid down their lives for the testimony of God, and for the name of Christ, assuring themselves to receive a better resurrection. And so we make no question, but that by the same spirit that certified them, many faithful also now do receive the like certificate of eternal bliss, and are thereby ready if occasion serve to do the same that they have done. Now because he saith that commonly men do not so infallibly believe their own Salvation, though some special men do, hereof, saith M. Bishop, I infer by his own confession, that our particular Salvation is not to be believed by faith. But of his confession followeth no such illation. For he cannot conclude, that therefore our own Salvation is not infallibly to be believed by faith, because men do not commonly so believe it, but rather that it is so to be believed by faith, because some special men do believe it so, for that in those special men is example to the rest what they ought to strive unto. But saith M. Bishop, Whatsoever we believe by faith, is as infallible as the word of God that assureth us of it. And we grant that it is as infallible in itself, but not always so in our apprehension & feeling. And if he will say that it is always as infallible to us and our understanding and conscience, he speaketh very falsely and absurdly: for there are divers degrees of faith, a Mat. 8.26. little faith, b Cap. 15.28. great faith, c Rom. 4.21. full assurance of faith, even as a weak eye and a strong eye. And as a weak eye seethe but weakly and unperfectly, and a strong eye seethe strongly, and more fully discerneth the thing seen, so a little faith believeth faintly, though truly, greater faith believeth more steadfastly; full assurance of faith d Ibid. ver. 18. believeth under hope even against hope. The disciples of Christ said unto him, e john. 6.69, We believe & know that thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Which in itself was infallibly true, and yet they did not so infallibly apprehend it, but that this faith was soon shaken: and because they did not yet infallibly believe it, our Saviour telleth them, that therefore he forewarned them of his death & resurrection, that f Ibid. ca 14.29. when it was come to pass they might believe, namely as S. Austin saith, g August. in joan. tract. 79. Quo vtso illud fuerant creditu ri quòd ipse esset Christus filius Dei vivi, etc. Creditur autem hoc no fide nova sed aucta, aut certè cum mortuus esset defecta, cùm resurrexisset refacta. Neque enim eum Dei filium non & ante credebant, sed cùm in illo factum est quod ante praedixit, fides illa quae tunc quando illit loquebatur fuit parva & cùm moreretur penè tam nucta & revixit & crevit. that he was Christ the Son of the living God. Which, as he addeth, they should believe not with a new faith, but with a faith increased, which was quailed in his death, but repaired in his resurrection. For they were not without this faith before, that he was the Son of God, but when it came to pass which he foretold, that faith which when he spoke unto them was little and small, and when he died in a manner none, both revived and increased. It was faith that made h Mat. 14.28. Peter upon Christ's word to step into the sea to go to Christ upon the waters, believing that he should be safe; but yet he believed it not infallibly, & the faintness of his faith made him begin to sink, so that being vehemently afraid, he cried out unto Christ for help, saying, Master, save me. Therefore our Saviour saith to him, i Ver. 31. O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? In which sort when another time the disciples were afraid, by reason of a tempest upon the sea, & awaked him being asleep, saying unto him, k Cap. 8.25. Master save us, we perish, he answered them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? in both these places showing that little faith, such as now the faith of the Apostles themselves was, doth not make a man so infallibly to believe, as that he is thereby wholly voided of fear and doubt; yet showeth itself to be true faith, in that the same fear & doubt maketh him always to run to Christ, as expecting succour and strength in him. Such is the faith whereby the common sort of faithful men do believe their own particular Salvation, truly and effectually to the comfort of their souls, yet not so fully and infallibly, as to be altogether freed from fear and doubt. For it is to be observed, which was intimated before, that matters of faith concerning our own Salvation, do consist partly in principles delivered by the word of God, and partly in conclusions thence derived to ourselves. Now albeit faith sometimes do waver & stagger, as touching the very principles themselves and immediate words of God, yet because the truth & Certainty thereof is more easily and better conceived, they are for the most part more familiarly & readily believed. But the conclusions, because of themselves they are unknown, and have their light only from the principles, are not so firmly apprehended as the principles themselves, whilst doubts haply may be cast, lest there be any error committed in the application & use thereof. It is a principle delivered for assurance of Salvation; l Act. 16.31. Believe in the Lord jesus Christ & thou shalt be saved. Hereupon the faithful man inferreth to himself, I believe in the Lord jesus Christ, therefore I shall be saved. In this either confusely or expressly inferred, he comforteth himself, & rejoiceth in God, & in hope hereof cheerfully serveth God, calleth upon his name, & in patience expecteth the revealing of his Salvation. And yet sometimes it falleth out that he questioneth his faith, and not seeing such effects thereof as he supposeth there aught to be, maketh doubt lest haply he be deceived, and though the principle be true by which he first believed, yet is jealous lest he have misapplied it to himself. Thus sometimes by other temptations true faith is assaulted and greatly shaken, so that he that greatly rejoiced in the Salvation of the Lord, by hasty cogitations is overtaken and brought to say as David in that case did, m Psal. 31.22. I am cast out of the sight of thine eyes. This was the manner of the Apostles faith at first, and this manner of faith and assurance do we teach, and do teach men to pray with the Apostles, n Luk. 17.5. Lord increase our faith, that from weakness of faith and slender assurance, we may grow to strength of faith and full assurance, as the Apostles did. In the mean while therefore it is false and contrary to the word of God which M. Bishop saith, that the faithful have not by faith assurance of Salvation, unless they believe it to be as infallible as the word of God itself. Now for conclusion he confesseth, that some either by revelation from God, or by long exercise of virtuous life, have a great Certainty of Salvation, but that, he saith, doth rather belong to a well grounded hope, then to an ordinary faith. But we answer him, that there is no well grounded hope, but that which is grounded upon ordinary faith and belief of that that is hoped for. For hope is the proper effect of ordinary faith, and nothing else, as we shall see hereafter, but a patiented expectation of that that we believe shall be, and if we do not believe that it shall be we cannot be said to hope for it in that sense wherein the Scripture teacheth hope. Of ordinary faith it is that the Apostle saith; o Rom. 5.1. Being justified by faith, we have peace towards God through jesus Christ our Lord, by whom we have access through faith unto this grace wherein we stand and rejoice under the hope of the glory of God; thereby showing, that to rejoice under the hope of the glory of God, is the effect of an ordinary faith, whereby we are assured of peace with God. Of ordinary faith S. john speaketh where he saith, p 1. john. 5.13. These things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life. By ordinary faith therefore the faithful are (not uncertainly to hope, but assuredly) to know, that they have eternal life. But it is here to be observed, that Master Bishop affirmeth not only of that Certainty that is gotten by long exercise of virtuous life, but also of that that s by revelation from God, that it rather belongeth to hope then to ordinary faith, writing he witted not what himself, because if he be asked the question, he will not deny, but that whatsoever God hath revealed is to be believed by ordinary faith, because he saith afterwards that it is the Catholic faith, that is, ordinary ●aith to believe all that to be true which God hath revealed. Howsoever the revelation be extraordinary, as we know he intendeth it, yet it is ordinary faith by which a man believeth such extraordinary revelation, so as that neither that assurance that is had by this extraordinary revelation, is altogether free from fears and doubts, shaking sometimes the confidence of that which a man hath received immediately from the oracle of Gods own mouth, or by special messengers directed from God for certificate in that behalf. Which is to be seen in the examples of Abraham, and Isaac, and David, and others, to whom God hath given special promise of his protection and favour, and yet upon occasions they have bewrayed great infirmity in the apprehension thereof. And if this befall to faith in those things that are extraordinarily revealed, much more we may assure ourselves that it befalleth there, where we have no other but ordinary revelation by the written word of God. Therefore on every side M. Bishop's assertion is false, that there can be no assurance by faith of our own Salvation, unless we believe it with the like infallible Certainty, as we do the truth of the word of God. 5. W. BISHOP. The th●rd reason for the Catholics, is, that we are bidden to pray daily for the remission of our sins. But that were needless, Math. 6. if we were before assured, both of pardon and Salvation. M. Perkins answereth, First, that we pray daily for the remission of new sins committed that day. Be it so. What needs that, if we were before assured of pardon? Marry (saith he) because our assurance was but weak and small, our prayer is to increase our assurance. Good Sir, do you not see how you overthrow yourself? If your assurance be but weak and small, it is not the assurance of faith, which is as great, and as strong, as the truth of God. We give God thanks for those gifts which we have received at his bountiful hands, and desire him to increase, or continue them, if they may be lost. But to pray to God to give us those things we are assured of by faith, is as fond and frivolous, as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Son, or that there may be life everlasting to his Saints in heaven, of which they are in full and assured possession. And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for us, are very substantial and sufficient, to assure every good Christian, that he may well hope for Salvation doing his duty, but may not without great presumption, assure him by faith of it. R. ABBOT. The comfort of the faithful man's prayer, is the same assurance that David had, a Psal. 4.3. When I call upon the Lord, he will hear me, it being a promise of God to his people, b 50.15. Call upon me and I will hear thee, in which sort our Saviour Christ giveth us encouragement to pray, saying, c john. 14.13. Whatsoever ye ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Therefore S. john saith, d 1. john. 5.14. This is the assurance that we have of him, that whatsoever we ask according to his will he heareth us, and if we know that he heareth us, we know that we have the petitions that we ask of him. Being therefore bidden to pray for the forgiveness of sins, and having the promise of God, e jerem. 31.34. I will be merciful unto them, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more, we believe and by faith stand assured, that when we do pray to have our sins forgiven us, God heareth us and giveth us pardon and forgiveness thereof. We do not then teach at random the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, but in such tenure and form as we are directed by the word of God, according to which S. Austin saith of himself, f August count julian. Pelag. lib 6. ca 5. Qua gratia liberor, ut scio, ne intrem in tentationem, etc. atque ut exaudiar cum confort●hat meis, dicens. dimit nobis, etc. By the grace of God I am freed, I know, that I enter not into temptation, and that I am heard saying with my fellows, Forgive us our trespasses. g Psa. 32.6. For this therefore, that is, h August. in Psal. 31. Pro hac: pro ipsa venia peccatorum. for forgiveness of sins, shall every one that is godly, saith David, make his prayer unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found, so being assured that in the great water floods they shall not come nigh him. Our faith then assureth us not of forgiveness of sins without prayer, but that God forgiveth us when we pray; so that his objection being framed to our doctrine aright, is as if he should say, Seeing faith assureth us of forgiveness of sins when we crave it of him by prayer, what need we pray? Which was one of wright's drunken reasons, whereby he would have laid an absurdity upon our Church, being himself an absurd blindasinus, and not understanding what we say. But to make the matter more plain, it is to be noted, that in three respects we continue daily to ask of God forgiveness of sins, of which M. Perkins hath noted two. First as S. Austin saith, i August. de vera & fals. paenit. ca 5. Quia quotidimana est offensio oportet ut sit quotidiana etiam remissio. because we daily commit offence, we have need daily to crave pardon. But what needs that saith M. Bishop, if we were before assured of pardon? I have answered him, that our assurance before hand and always is, that our prayer obtaineth it at God's hands. Therefore we pray, and by faith do rest assured, that undoubtedly we have that for which we pray. Secondly, we pray for forgiveness, not for that we have no assurance thereof, but for that we desire greater assurance and more comfortable feeling of it, that as forgiveness with God is full and perfect, so the same may accordingly be sealed in our hearts. Our faith being weak giveth but weak assurance, and therefore we beg of God that our hearts may be enlarged, that k Bernard. in Annunciat. ser. 1. supra sect. 3. the testimony of the spirit may more freely sound unto us, Thy sins are forgiven thee. Now here saith M. Bishop: Good Sir, do you not see how you overthrow yourself? And why so? Forsooth if your assurance be but weak and small, it is not the assurance of faith, which is as great and strong as the truth of God. But good Sir, we have already showed you, that therein you tell us a senseless and unlikely tale. The truth of God is always alike, not subject to alteration, never increased or diminished; but our faith is greater and less; sometimes hath a full and sometimes a wane, and to us the truth of God is according to our faith, and according to our apprehension & feeling of it. Wherein we are variable and diverse, even after the manner of Peter's faith, of whom S. Austin saith: l August. de verb. Dom. ser. 13 Illum vidite Petrum qui tunc erat figura vestra modo fidit, modo titubat; modò immortalem confitetur, modom timet ne moriatur. Peter was the pattern of us all; sometimes he believeth, sometimes he wavereth; one while he confesseth Christ to be immortal, another while he is afraid lest Christ should die. The poor distressed man saith in the Gospel, m Mar. 9 Lord, I believe, help my unbelief. n August. de verb. Dom. ser. 36. Credo inquit, ergò est fides. Sed adiwa incredulitatem meam; ergo non est plena fides. He saith, I believe; therefore there is faith, saith Austin: help my unbelief saith he; therefore there is not, yet full and perfect faith. If there be true faith, and yet with faith a remainder of unbelief, than the assurance of faith cannot be said to be as great and strong as the truth of God; yea the untruth hereof is so palpable and gross, and contrary to the common experience of all believers, as that we may justly marvel at the wilful absurdity of this man in the assertion of it. The third reason of our praying continually for forgiveness of sins, is for the obtaining of the fruit & effect thereof. For so long as we o 2. Cor. 5.7. walk by faith and not by sight, we still pray for the sight of that as touching which we have now but the comfort of faith and hope. We believe that we are redeemed both in body and soul, yet still we p Rom. 8.23. sigh in ourselves, waiting for the adoption even the redemption of our bodies. q August. in Psal. 37. Gaude te redemptum, sed non dum re: spe securu esto. Ece nim si no gemueris in spe, nomperuentes adrem. joy that thou art redeemed, saith Austin, but not yet in real effect; in hope, or as touching hope, be without all doubt. If thou shalt not now groan in hope, thou shalt not attain to the real effect. Thus then by prayer we sigh and groan for our redemption, who yet by faith believe that already we are redeemed. So therefore albeit we believe that God hath forgiven us our sins, yet still we pray for forgiveness of sins, that that may appear to us which we now believe. The Prophet David giveth us to understand, that r Psal. 32.1. forgiveness of sins is bliss and happiness, and therefore a freedom from all misery and sorrow. We still live in misery and sorrow, and seem wholly strangers to all title of blissful state. Therefore being still in case as if our sins were not forgiven us, we still pray for forgiveness of sins, that as we have heard so we may see, and by effects may discern and enjoy the same forgiveness. But here M. Bishop telleth us, that to pray to God to give us those things we are assured of by faith, is as fond and frivolous, as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his son, or that there may be life everlasting to his Saints in heaven, of which they are in full and assured possession. Which is so fond and frivolous a speech, as that well we may persuade ourselves that it never came from any wise man. For matters of faith are of divers sorts. Some are already fully acted and done, and those we only believe, we do not pray for them, as the creation of the world, the birth, and death, and resurrection of Christ, and other such like. Other some are believed, as designed and pronounced by God, but not yet fully acted and effected to us, which we so believe, as that still we pray for them till they be effected, prayer being nothing else but s August. de verb. Dom. ser. 36. Ostendit fidem fontem ●sse orationu●●e● posse ●re ru●ū vb. caput aquae siccatur. the stream or river of faith, & an issue of the desire of that which joyfully we believe. A notable example whereof we see in David, who when God had sent Nathan to him, to certify him that he would 'stablish the kingdom for ever in his house & posterity, albeit he believed & joyfully accepted the tidings hereof, yet forbeareth not therefore to pray that it might be so. t 2. Sam. 7.25. Now therefore, saith he, confirm for ever the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant and his house, and do as thou hast said. For thou O Lord of hosts hast revealed unto thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house; therefore hath thy servant been bold to pray this prayer unto thee. Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for ever before thee; for thou O Lord God hast spoken it. Where we plainly see him praying unto God, that that might be, whereof he was assured by faith upon the promise of God that so it should be, and not only so, but did therefore pray, because God had revealed unto him that it should be so. And do we not think that David believed the word spoken to him from God by the same Prophet, when he had admonished him of his grievous trespass, and he repent, u 2. Sam. 12.13. The Lord hath taken away thy sin; and yet afterwards he prayeth: x Psal. 51.1. Have mercy upon me, O God, after thy great goodness, according to the multitude of thy mercies do away mine offences. Our Saviour Christ believed that his y joh. 10 28. sheep shall never perish, and therefore that the Father would keep them, and none should take them out of his hands, and yet he prayeth, z Cap. 17.11. Holy Father keep them in thy name, even them whom thou hast given me. He was assured by faith that God would deliver him from death, a Psal. 16.10. that he would not leave his soul in hell, nor suffer his holy one to see corruption; yet b Heb. 5 7. in the days of his flesh did offer up supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to save him from death, and was also heard in that which he feared. He was assured by faith that God would glorify him; yet he prayeth; c joh. 17.5. Now glorify me O Father with thine own self. The Apostle S. Paul was assured by faith, that d 2. Tim. 4.18. the Lord would deliver him from every evil work, and preserve him unto his heavenly kingdom; yet he ceased not to pray, Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. We believe by faith, and are assured that Christ's kingdom shall come; yet we daily pray, Let thy kingdom come. Thus therefore albeit by faith in the promise of God, we now rest assured of the remission of sins, yet because it is not yet revealed, we still pray, Forgive us our trespasses, that we may enjoy by reality and possession, what we believe we already have in God's affection. Now albeit these three arguments hitherto be idle and vain conceits, yet for conclusion he commendeth them for substantial and sufficient, to assure every good Christian that he well may hope for Salvation doing his duty, but may not without great presumption assure him of it by faith. But it hath been already showed, that doing of duty can yield us neither faith nor hope truly so called, because we come so short of the doing of it. Therefore Hierome rightly saith, that e Hieron. in Esa. lib. 17. cap. 64. Si consideremu● merita nostra desperandum est. if we consider our own merits, we must needs desfaire. But God would have f August. in Psal. 88 Non secundum merita nostra sed secundum ill●us mi sericordiam firma est promissio. the promise to be sure, not according to our merits, but according to his mercy. He would have it to depend upon his promise and his oath, g Heb. 6.18. that by two immutable things wherein it was impossible that God should lie, we might have strong consolation, which can be but very weak, yea none at all, so long as we hang it upon any other thing. It is therefore a wicked presumption to hope for Salvation by virtue of our own doings, but the presumption that groweth of faith, is a commendable presumption. h Ambros. de Sacrament lib. 5. cap. 4. Praesume non de operatione su● sed de Christi gratia, etc. Bona praesumptio. It is a good presumption, saith Ambrose, to presume, not upon thine own work, but upon the grace of Christ. Such a presumption S. Austin teacheth, i August. in Psal. 85. Quicquid est circae te vel inte unde possit praesum●re, abijce à te & tota praesumptio tua Deus sit. Whatsoever there is about thee, or in thee to presume of, cast it from thee, and let God be thy whole presumption, or presume wholly upon God. Namely in that sort as S. Ambrose teacheth by occasion of David's words, k Psal. 119.116. Receive me according to thy word. l Ambros. in Psa. 118. Ser. 15. Intolerandae praesumptionis videretur Deo dicere, suscipe me nisi promissum eius adiungeret, hoc est, ut auderemus ipse feei●●i, tuo te chirographo convenimus. It were a matter of intolerable presumption, saith he, to say to God, Receive me, but that he addeth the promise of God, as if he should say, Thou hast caused us to presume, we challenge thee upon thine own bond. This is the presumption of true faith, whereby we withdraw our eyes from ourselves, and cast them wholly upon God, assuredly believing that we shall receive, because we believe in him that promiseth. Therefore Gregory saith, m Greg. Magn. in Ezech. hom. 22. Per praesumptionem gratiae & vitae caniant justi judicium quod ti justi omnes pertimescunt. By presuming of grace and life, the righteous sing of that judgement which all the unrighteous are afraid of. Let M. Bishop then learn, that there is a godly presumption of Salvation and eternal life, which because it cannot arise of any sufficiency of our works, must necessarily be grounded upon faith alone. Wherein notwithstanding faith receiveth comfort and strength by the good fruits and effects of grace, in the fear and love of God, in faithful care and conscience of duty towards God and men, because albeit of themselves they cannot be presumed of, yet being fruits of faith, even in their beginnings & imperfections, are n Bernard. de great. & lib. arbit. Occuliae praedestinationis indicia, future foep●citatis praesagia, tokens of Gods secret election, foretokens of future happiness, so that a man o Idem. epist. 107. Vocatus quisque per timorem, justificatus per amorem, praesumit se qu●que esse de numer● beatorum. called to God by fear, and framed to righteousness by love, presumeth that he is of the number of them that shallbe blessed. M. Bishop is not acquainted with true faith, and professeth that he knoweth not whether he have any fear or love of God, and therefore no marvel that he is a stranger to this presumption, & do take that to be an unlawful presumption, which indeed is nothing but true faith. 6. W. BISHOP. To these I will add two or three others, which M. Perkins afterwards seeks to salve by his exceptions, as he terms them. To his first exception, I have answered before. The second I will put last for order's sake, and answer to the third first, which is: The Catholics say, Pag 56. we are indeed to believe our Salvation on God's part, who is desirous of all men's Salvation, very rich in mercy, and able to save us, but our fear riseth in regard of ourselves, because the promises of remission of sins depend upon our true repentance: Unless you do penance, ye shall all perish. Luke 13. And the promises of Salvation, is made upon condition of keeping Gods commandments. If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. Again, No man shall be crowned, Math. 19.2. Tim. 2. except he combat lawfully. Now we not knowing whether we shall well perform these things required by God at our hands, have just cause to fear, lest God do not on his part, perform that which he promiseth upon such conditions. To this M. Perkins answereth, That for faith, and true repentance, every man that hath them knoweth well that he hath them. To which I reply, that for faith being rightly taken, it may be known of the party that hath it, because it is a light of the understanding, and so being like a lamp, may be easily seen: but true repentance requires beside faith, both hope, and charity, which are seated in the dark corners of the will, and cannot by faith be seen in themselves, but are known by their effects: which being also uncertain, do make but conjectures and a probable opinion, so that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith: Prove yourselves whether you be in faith or no. 2. Cor. 13. Because we accord that it may be tried by us, whether we have faith or no: although I know well, that Saint Paul's words carry a far different sense. But let that pass as impertinent. To the other. 1. Cor. 2.12. That we have received the spirit, which is of God, that we might know the things which are given of God. What things these are which the spirit revealeth to us, S. Paul teacheth in the same place, That which the eye hath not seen, nor ear hath heard, etc. God hath prepared for them, that love him: but to us, God hath revealed by his spirit: All this is true: but who they be that shall attain to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared, God only knoweth, and by his spirit revealeth it to very few. And will you learn out of S. Jerome that ancient Doctor, the cause why: In 3. caput. jon. Therefore (saith he) it is put ambiguous and left uncertain, that while men are doubtful of their Salvation, they may do penance more manfully, and so may move God to take compassion on them. R. ABBOT. The condition of repentance is required, not as whereby we work our Salvation, but whereby we seek it, and that not by the keeping of the commandments, wherein we all fail, but in Christ alone, by faith in him, whence followeth a measure of keeping Gods commandments, and of striving lawfully unto him, not as any proper cause of Salvation, but as parts and tokens and preparations of and to that Salvation which we receive and have by Christ alone. Now here M. Perkins bringeth in the Popish Doctors, affirming that we cannot be assured that we have true faith and repentance, because we may lie in secret sins, and so want that which we suppose ourselves to have. M. Perkins answereth, that he that doth truly repent and believe, knoweth that he doth so. To this M. Bishop replieth, that faith being rightly taken, may be known of the party that hath it, but true repentance cannot. But how must we conceive of faith when it is rightly taken. Forsooth he telleth us that it is a light of understanding, and so being like a lamp may be easily scene. But true faith is not only a matter of understanding, but a mixed action of the understanding and will▪ and consisteth not only in knowing, but in seeking, and desiring, and embracing the thing that we understand. Therefore Oecumenius observeth, that the faith recommended by S. Paul beside steadfast assent, importeth a O●cumen. in epist. jac. cap. 2. Consecutionem ex affectu procedentem cum firmo assensu no mine fidei vocamus. a further matter proceeding out of the affection. So we saw before that Bernard maketh it to be such as whereby a man believeth that his sins are forgiven him, Which M. Bishop might have learned also of Ferus one of their own Prophets, though a more faithful Prophet then commonly theirs are, who faith, that b Ferus in Mat. cap 27. Credere est confidere Deum per Chr●stum peccata non imputaturum. to believe is to trust that God for Christ's sake will not impute our sins. But that we may see the spirit of giddiness wherewith this man is carried up and down, he himself but a little before hath told us, that godly and devout submission of the understanding to the obedience of faith, is a necessary condition of faith properly so called. Faith than is not only a light of understanding, but implieth godliness, devotion, and submitting of the understanding to the obedience of faith, which because it cannot be without repentance, hope and charity, it necessarily followeth, that if a man knoweth that he hath faith, he knoweth also that he hath godliness, devotion, obedience, repentance, hope, charity, and so M. Bishops reply even by himself is utterly overthrown. And to this purpose S. Austin telleth us, that c August. de verb. Dom ser. 61 Qui fidem habet sine spe & dile●●ane Christum ess● cred●, non in Christum credit. a man cannot believe in Christ without hope and love, and S. Bernard, that d Ber●ard. in Cant serm. 24. Mors fi●es separatio esi charitatis. the separation of charity is the death of faith, and Origen, that e Ori●enan Ro. ca 4 Scie●s fidei spe● insen● ibiater conarere. hope cleaveth inseparably unto faith. Then if a man know that he hath faith, he cannot be ignorant that he hath also hope and charity, without which there is no true faith. It is therefore a mere fiction of M. Bishop, that a man may know that he hath faith, but he cannot know that he hath true repentance, because repentance requireth hope and charity, which forsooth are seated in the dark corners of the will, and cannot certainly be discerned. What a fond toy is this, that a man hopeth, and knoweth not that he hopeth; that he repenteth, and knoweth not that he repenteth; that he loveth, and knoweth not that he loveth? Surely where these things are, they are known; and if they be not known, it is because they are not. For f 2. Cor 2.11. the spirit of man knoweth the things that are in man; he discerneth what is in himself, though not always the measure and quantity thereof. Otherwise how doth S. john say: q 1 joh. 3.14. By this we know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren. How shall we know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren, if we cannot know that we love the brethren? h August. i● joan. epist. tract. 5. Attendat in cor: vidcat si habeat charitatem, & tunc dicat, natus sum ex Deo. Let a man look into his heart, and see if he have charity, and then let him say, I am borne of God, saith S. Austin, but to what end, if a man cannot see and know whether he have charity or not? The same S. Austin saith: i De ver. Apost. ser. 6. Si quis spiritum Christi non habet, non se fellat, hic non est eius. Ecce adiuu●n●e ipsius misericordia, spir●tum Christi habemus ex ipsa dilectione justitiae, integra fide, catholica fide, spiritum Dei nobis inesse cognoscimus. If a man have not the spirit of Christ, let him not deceive himself, he is none of Christ's. Behold saith he, by the help of God's mercy we have the spirit of Christ. By the love of righteousness and true faith, the Catholic faith, we know that there is in us the spirit of God. How shall we know by the love of righteousness that the spirit of God is in us, if we cannot know that there is in us the love of righteousness? But to infringe that idle device, M. Perkins allegeth the words of S. Paul, k 2. Cor. 13.5. Prove yourselves whether you are in the faith. For to what end is this spoken, if we cannot know whether we are in the faith or not? But M. Bishop saith, that they accord that it may be tried whether a man have faith or not, importing therefore that the place is nothing against them. But he may not so avoid; for the being in the faith whereof the Apostle speaketh, signifieth more than he intendeth thereby. Which appeareth plainly by the words which the Apostle addeth: Know ye not that Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? thereby showing that to prove a man's self whether he be in the faith, is to prove whether Christ be in him, because the faith of which he speaketh is that l Bernard. in oc●aua Pasch ser. 1 Eacommendatur fides per quam Christus in cordibus nostris habitat. lively faith, whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts. And m Rom. 8.10. if Christ be in you, saith the same Apostle, the body is dead as touching sin, but the spirit is life for righteousness sake, which cannot be without repentance, hope, charity, and such other virtues wherewith the spirit of Christ endueth them in whom Christ doth dwell. He therefore that knoweth himself to be in the faith, as the Apostle meaneth it, knoweth Christ to be in himself; he knoweth himself to be dead to sin, and alive to righteousness, and that he is not without repentance, hope, charity, and other virtues wrought in him by the spirit of Christ. As for that other meaning of the place which M. Bishop speaketh of, if he had set it down, I doubt not but we should have taken him tardy therein, as well as we do in all the rest. To the other place of the same Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.12. that we have received, not the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is in God, that we may know the things that are given unto us of God, he answereth, that the Apostle meaneth it of those things whereof he there speaketh, The things which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, etc. God hath prepared for them that love him, etc. but who shall attain to that blessed banquet, saith he, by God so prepared God only knoweth, and revealeth it by his spirit to very few. Which answer of his giveth him no evasion at all. For if we do understand the words concerning the joys of heaven, and that blessed banquet of which he speaketh, the Apostles words must import, that we know the same to be given unto us. For how shall we be said to know the things that are given unto us of God, if we do not know that they are given unto us? Neither may we conceive it as he doth, to know that such things are prepared for the faithful and righteous; for that the devils themselves also know. Balaam a wicked castaway knew so much when he said, n Numb. 23.10. Let my soul die the death of the righteous, and let my latter end be like unto his. Saul knew so much, when o 1. Sam. 10.10. he prophesied, as the p Hieron. tradit. Hebraic. in lib. Regum. Prophetasse eum ibi judaei dicunt de futuro seculo, de Gog & Magog, & de praemijs justorum & poena impiorum. jews say of the world to come, of the rewards of the just, and punishments of the unjust. We have therefore received the spirit of God, that we may know not only that such things are prepared of God, but that we may know that God hath given the same unto us. But the Apostle there meaneth not only the joys and bliss of heaven, but all the gifts of God, whereby the same are wrought and effected unto us. The original of all which gifts is the giving of Christ unto us, whereof the Prophet speaketh, q Esa. 9.6. Unto us a child is borne, and unto us a son is given, in whom r 2. Cor. 1.20. all the promises of God are yea, and are in him Amen, for his sake first made, and in him performed; whom the Father giving to us and for us, s Rom. 8.32. hath together with him given us all things, the gift of t 1. john 4.13. the spirit, the gift of u Act. 5.31. repentance, the gift of x Eph 2.8. faith, the gift of y Rom. 5.17. righteousness, the gift z 2. Tim 1.7. of love, the gift of a Phil. 1.29. suffering for Christ, the gift of b 2. Pet. 1.3. all things pertaining to life and godliness, the gift of c Rom. 6.23. eternal life. All these things Oecumonius compriseth when he expoundeth the things which eye hath not seen, etc. to be d Oecumen. in 1. Cor. ca 2. Quae praeparau● Deus? etc. Christum videlic●t & salutem quae per incarnationem facta est. Christ and the Salvation which is wrought by his incarnation, even as Chrysostom doth understand the same, of e Chrys. in Cor. 1. hom. 7. Quoniam per eam, quae videtur esse stultitia praedicationis orbem terrae superabit, & gentes allicientur, et Dei ad homines erit reconciliatio & tanta nobis accedent bona. the surprising of the world by the foolishness of preaching (as the world accounteth it) of the conversion of the Gentiles, of the reconciliation of God to men, and the great benefits that should come thereby, even as the Apostle saith, f Eph. 1.3. all manner spiritual blessings in heavenvly things. In a word we are to understand in the Apostles words, g Cap. 3.5.8.9. the unsearchable riches of Christ preached unto the Gentiles, a mystery which from the beginning of the world was hid in God, & not opened to the sons of men, eye had not seen it, neither had man's heart conceived it, nay to the very h Vers. 10. Angels, principalities and powers, it was not known, so that when it was done, i 1. Pet. 1.12. they did even desire and delight to look into it. The accomplishment of which riches is the glory & joy of heaven, which yet we know not nor can conceive, as the Apostle S. john saith, k 1. john 3.2. Now are we the sons of God, but yet we know not what we shall be, we know not the glory and happiness that he hath prepared for us; for we are l Col. 3.3 4. now dead, and our life is hidden with Christ in God, but when Christ which is our life shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory; for we know that when he shall appear we shall be like unto him, for we shall see him as he is. In the mean time the Apostle saith, that by the spirit we know the things that are (already) given us of God, not by speculation only of understanding, but by practic, and experimental, and effectual knowledge, m 2. Pet 1.3.4. whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature, and n Col. 3.10. renewed to the image of him who first created us. These things therefore we know in ourselves, when we know the things that are given us of God, and consequently do know our faith, repentance, hope, love, in which consisteth that newness and communion with God. As for the bliss and glory of heaven, though yet we know it not, yet we know that God hath given unto us the interest and title of it already, and by faith do stand assured through the spirit, that he will in due time give us the full sight and fruition of it. Which indeed none can know but they that have it revealed unto them from God, but God revealeth it by the spirit in his word to all those that do believe in him. As for the place of Jerome which M. Bishop allegeth to the contrary, it showeth his wretched unfaithfulness, but maketh nothing against us. jonas had preached destruction to Ninive within forty days. The king of Ninive calleth his people to repentance, to sackcloth and ashes, to fasting and mourning, and crying mightily unto God; for o jonas 3.9. who knoweth, saith he, if God will turn and repent and turn away from his fierce wrath? thereby signifying, that albeit God had by peremptory sentence threatened their destruction, yet by repentance and earnest entreaty they might haply find mercy. Hereupon Hierome saith, p Hieron in jon. cap. 3. Illud quod dicitur, Quis scit. etc. ideo ambiguum ponitur & incertum, ●t dum homines dis bij sunt de salute fortiùs agant paenitentiam & magis ad misericordi●m improvocent D●um. That that is said, Who knoweth if God will turn, is therefore set down uncertain and doubtful, that whilst men are doubtful of their safety, they may the more earnestly repent, and the rather move God to take mercy on them. Now what a reason is this, that because God threatening destruction to wicked and ungodly men, leaveth it in doubt whether he will spare them, that they may the more earnestly repent and call for mercy, therefore the faithful and godly man whom God hath delivered from everlasting destruction, and called to the hope of everlasting life, should stand in doubt of that Salvation that God hath promised unto him? The very place and occasion of the speech might have made M. Bishop to forbear to use the same to that purpose that he hath done; but that he is still like his master Bellarmine; so that it carry some show, it never skilleth whether it be right or wrong. 7. W. BISHOP. Another reason of this uncertainty, De cor. & gra. cap. 13. yieldeth Saint Augustine in these words: In this place of temptation, such is our infirmity, that assuredness might engender pride. To this agreeth S. Gregory, Lib. 9 moral. cap. 17. saying: If we know ourselves to have grace, we are proud. So that to strike down the pride of our hearts, and to humble us, and to make us travail more carefully in the works of mortification, God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their own Salvation: but to cheer up their hearts on the other side, doth put them in great hope of it, like to a discreet and good Lord, who will not at the first entrance into his service, infeofe his servant in the fee simple of those lands, which after upon his good deserts he meaneth to bestow on him. This is another kind of Doctrine, then that which M. Perkins in his last supply delivered, to wit: That if we regard our own indisposition, we must despair, because we be not worthy of his mercy. Not so good Sir: Because we know that he bestoweth mercy upon the unworthy, at the first justification of a sinner, but will not admit into the Kingdom of heaven any unworthy, but gives men grace while they live to work, that they are made worthy of his heavenly Kingdom, according to that: Apoc. 3.4. They shall walk with me in whites, because they are worthy, but of this more fully in the chapter of Merits. R. ABBOT. The place of Austin is true, as touching immediate and perfect assurance, such as is free from all assault and impeachment of doubt and fear. For this is a place of temptation and weakness, as he truly saith, by reason whereof as we never attain to a perfection of righteousness against sin, so we never attain to a perfection of assurance against doubting. But yet as we have a measure of true righteousness against sin, wherein we doubt not but God accepteth us, so have we also a measure of true and comfortable assurance against all fear and doubt, whereby our hearts do rest persuaded, that God for ever will preserve us. Thus God as a wise and careful father both giveth comfort to his children, and yet provideth to keep them within their bounds, that tasting the joy of his Salvation, and finding it thenceforth bitter and grievous unto themselves to be distracted by perplexities and fears from the quiet enjoying thereof, they may the more carefully endeavour to cleave fast unto him, and beware of doing any thing that should interrupt their joyful peace. He knoweth how ready we are by the corruption of our nature to abuse the comforts and assurances that he giveth unto us, and therefore so ordereth the same, as that sometimes out of our nature, sometimes by other afflictions they are nipped and sneaped, that they grow not proud and rank to the decaying and destroying of themselves. And as sometimes by his admirable wisdom he maketh sin the whetstone of righteousness, so by affliction and trouble of mind, by distrusts and fearful doubts, he whetteth & sharpeneth our faith and assurance, which by fight increaseth, and the longer it wrestleth the stronger it waxeth, whilst a August. de verb. Dom. ser. 36 Fides fundit erationem, fusaoratio impetrat fidei firmitatem. faith (specially when it is assaulted) poureth forth prayer, and pouring forth of prayer obtaineth further strength of faith. And as a man in danger of drowning catcheth for hold to save himself, so whilst the comfort of life maketh offer to go from us, we take the better hold thereof, and it becometh so much the more precious and dear unto us. But as we do not approve sin, for that it is used sometimes for a help of righteousness, so no more do we commend doubting, for that it is used for the increase of faith, but as against the one so against the other we fight and labour to abandon it wholly from us, that we may say, b Rom. 8.35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, & c? Nay in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither life, nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ jesus our Lord. Thus therefore we so take the words of Austin, as that we leave place for that which elsewhere he saith, that c August. in Psal. 32. Non est ista remeri●as: affectus est desiderij, dulced● spei. Dicat anima, omnino securam dicat, Deus meus es tu, qui dicit animae, salus tuaego sum. God saith to the soul of the faithful, I am thy Salvation, whereupon it is boldly to say to him, Thou art my God, which, saith he, is no rashness or presumption, but affection of desire and sweetness of hope. For that voice of God whereby he saith to our soul, d Psa. 35.3. as David for himself prayeth, I am thy Salvation, what is it else but e Rom. 8.16. the spirit that giveth witness to our spirit that we are the sons of God? The words of Gregory, if there be any such, for in the place by him cited they are not, may import, how ready our corruption is to misconuert the graces and gifts of God, but to deny to the faithful man the knowledge of God's grace in himself, is to bereave him of all steadfast hope, and to quench in him all true conscience of thankfulness towards God, because he cannot hope, that knoweth nothing whereupon to hope, nor heartily give thanks, that knoweth not whether he have cause to give thanks or not. And how doth S. john say, f 1. john. 4.13. By this we know that we are in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit if we do not know that he hath given us of his spirit? and how should we not know that we have received grace, if we know that we have received the spirit of grace? But of this matter sufficient hath been spoken in the former section. Now whereas M. Bishop saith that God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their own Salvation, if he mean that God doth not at the first offer any such assurance, he saith untruly. For God speaketh by the same word in the beginning and in the end, and therefore both in the beginning and in the end, giveth the same assurance, although our faith being perhaps weak, doth not by and by so fully & firmly lay hold thereof. Therefore whereas he compareth God to a master who will not at the first entrance into his service infeofe his servant to the fee simple of those lands which after upon his good deserts he meaneth to bestow upon him, he doth wrong to the majesty of God, thus to limit his bounty to the provident and wary courses of men, occasioned, partly by their ignorance & uncertainty of other men's future condition, & partly by their impotency and unableness to prevent & help that, that haply may prove amiss. For man knoweth not what the behaviour of his servants hereafter will be, whereas he intendeth his gift no otherwise to him but upon his good behaviour, neither is it in his power to better it, if he become of worse quality than he expected: but God from the beginning knoweth our mould and making, and that there is no good quality to be expected of us, but what the power of his own hand graciously worketh in us, and therefore his promise is what he will do for us, not what he would have us to do for ourselves, and as he freely giveth us the inheritance, so taketh upon himself g Col. 1.12. to make us meet to be partakers of his inheritance. To which purpose S. Austin notably speaketh, wholly overthrowing M. Bishop's comparison; h August in Ps l. 109. Promisit hominibus diu ●itatem, mortalibus immortalitatem, pe●catoribus iustifi●ationem, ab●xtis glorifi●ationē Quicquid promisit indigma promisit, ut non quasi operibus merces promitteretur sed gratiae à suo nomine gratis duetur; quia hoc ipsum justè vivere inquentum homo potest justè vivere non meriti humani sed beneficij divini est. God promised to men fellowship with God, immortality to us being mortal, justification to us being sinners, glorification to us being abjects and castaways. Whatsoever he promised, he promised to us being unworthy, that it might not be promised as a wages or reward for works, but being grace by name, might be gratis and freely given, because to live justly, so far as man can live justly, is not a matter importing man's merit but the benefit and gift of God. Let M. Bishop therefore learn hereby, that God doth not rest upon our good behaviour to infeofe us to the fee simple of the land of the living, but that good behaviour itself is a part of that blessing whereto by his free promise he hath infeofed us. The original of which infeofment consisteth in the grace of God's election, the livery and seisin in the grace of his adoption, wherein he hath made us his children, and i Tit. 3.7 heirs as touching hope of everlasting life, which therefore we expect by title of inheritance, not by purchase of merit, having received for k Ephes. 1.14. earnest and pledge thereof the spirit of Christ, sanctifying and preparing us thereunto. Which sanctification notwithstanding he so measureth out unto us whilst we live here, as that he leaveth us nothing whereof to glory in ourselves, but when we measure ourselves to his judgement, we see still that there is that corruption remaining in us, for which he might take occasion justly to condemn us, that therefore l Bernard. in Cant. serm. 50. s●ramus in die illa quia non ex operibus justitia, etc. we may know at that day, as Saint Bernard saith, that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us. Rightly therefore doth M. Perkins say, that in regard of ourselves and our own indisposition we have to despair of our Salvation, even to the very death, as being unworthy thereof. But saith M. Bishop, Not so good Sir, because we know that he bestoweth mercy upon the unworthy in the first justification of a sinner. But what is that to give us hope, to say that God in Baptism showeth mercy to us though unworthy, if it be true which he addeth, that he will not admit into the kingdom of heaven any unworthy; when as after Baptism we are all so far from being worthy thereof? Nay saith he, God gives men grace while they live to work that they are made worthy of his heavenly kingdom. But where is that man that hath received so great grace, as that he may be thought to be made worthy of the heavenly kingdom? john Baptist saith of Christ, m Mar. 1.7. I am not worthy to lose the latchet of his shoe; and who is he then of whom it may be said, that he is worthy to reign with Christ in his kingdom of glory? The Centurion of whom Christ gave testimony, that n Mar. 8.10. he found not so great faith, no not in Israel, yet confesseth of himself, o Vers. 8. I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof; who is he then of whom we may be persuaded that he is worthy to enter under the roof of heaven? p Chrysost. in Col. hom. 2 Nemo talem vitae conversationem ostendit ut regno dignus esse possit, sed hoc totum est donum Dei. No man showeth such conversation of life, saith chrysostom, as that he is worthy of the heavenly kingdom, but this is wholly the gift of God. How then shall we believe M. Bishop, that any man so worketh, as that thereby he is made worthy of the heavenly kingdom? As for the place which he citeth out of the Revelation, it is at large to be handled, as is this whole point concerning worthiness, in the question of Merits, and therefore thither I refer the Reader for the explication thereof. 8. W. BISHOP. The fift reason for our opinion is taken out of M. Perkins second exception, to wit; howsoever a man may be assured for his present state, yet no man is certain of his perseverance to the end. And therefore, although we might be assured of our justification, yet can we not be certain of our Salvation. For he only that persevereth to the end, shall be saved. M. Perkins answer is, that prayer doth assure us to persever to the end: for God bids us pray, that we fall not into temptation, and promiseth an issue forth: 1. Cor. 10. So than the assurance depends upon prayer, and not upon our former faith. What then if we do not pray so as we should? may not the enemy then, not only wound, but kill us to? it cannot be denied: and therein, as in diverse other works of piety, many have been too too slack, as the pitiful fall of thousands have taught us. Oh saith M. Perkins, it cannot be, that he which was once a member of Christ, can ever after be wholly cut off. O shameless assertion, and contrary to many plain texts, and examples of holy Scriptures: john 15. Doth not our Saviour say in express words, That every branch in me not bearing fruit, he will take it away? And again, If any abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as the branch, and shall whither, and be cast into the fire: which doth demonstrate, that some which were members of Christ, be wholly cut off, and that for ever. Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our adversaries own confession? and doth not our blessed Saviour say, expounding the parable of the sour, Luke 8. That the seed which fell upon the rock, doth signify them, who with joy receive the word, and these (saith he) have no root, but for a time they believe, and in time of temptation revolt. Doth not S. Paul in express terms say, 1. Tim. 1.19. That some having faith and good conscience, expelling good conscience, have made shipwreck of their faith: of whom were by name, Hymenaeus and Alexander. The like, 1. Tim. 4. That in the last days, some should revolt from the faith: Again, 1. Tim. 6. That some for covetousness sake, had erred from the faith. And for example amongst other, take Saul the first king of Israel, who was at his election (as the holy Ghost witnesseth) so good a man, 1. Reg. 19 that there was no better than he in all Israel, and yet became reprobate, as i● in Scripture signified. 1 Reg. 15. & 16. The like is probable of Solomon, and in the new Testament of judas the traitor, & Simon Magus whom S. Luke saith, that he also himself believed, Act. 8. and after became an arch-heretic, and so died: the like almost may be verified of all Arch-heretikes, who before they fell, were of the faithful. R. ABBOT. This argument were somewhat worth, if God having made us partakers of his grace did thenceforth leave us to ourselves and to our own keeping, for then there were not only casualty but certainty of our falling away from him. But look by what our faith assureth us of present standing, by the same and a● far it secureth us against future falling, the assurance of faith being that a Rom. 8.38. neither things present nor THINGS TO COME shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ our Lord. It looketh upon God as a careful father, who himself b Esa. 54.13. jerem. 31.33. teacheth all his children that they may be sure to learn; as a good shepherd that c jere. 23.3.4. so gathereth his fleck as that none of them shall be lacking: as a good husbandman, that so fenceth d Esa. 27.3. his vineyard and keepeth it night and day, that none assail or hurt it; as a e Mat. 16.18. rock strong and sure, so that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church of the faithful, that are founded and built upon it. It looketh unto God's promise, f jer. 32.40. I will put my fear into their hearts that they shall not departed from me, whereby it expecteth perpetual and assured establishment from him alone. It looketh unto the mediation of Christ, who hath not prayed for Peter only, that g Luke 22 32. his faith might not fail, but h joh. 17.11.20. for all that believe in him, Holy Father keep them in thy name, whereupon the Apostle Peter telleth us, that i 1. Pet. 1.5. we are kept by the power of God through faith unto Salvation. He that keepeth us by faith, must necessarily be understood to preserve and keep our faith, not by any power of ours, but by his own only power, k August. de bono persever. cap. 7. supra. Of Free will Sect. 14. who since the fall of man will not have it to belong to any thing but his only grace, that either we come unto him or do not afterwards departed from him. In a word, faith seethe in the word of God that the work of grace is irrevocable, and standeth fast and inviolate for ever, l Idem ad artic. Sibi falso impoes. art. 12. Nec qua illuminatu● obcaecat, nec quae aedificavit destrui●, nec quae plantavit evellit. Sine paenitentiae enim sunt dona & vocatio Dei. neither doth God blind them whom he hath enlightened, nor destroy what he hath builded, nor pluck up what he hath planted, because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, m De praevest. sanc. ca 16 tu est, sine mutatione stabiliter fixa sunt. that is, they are firmly established to be without any change, so that n Rom. 8.30. whom he hath called and justified, them he glorifieth, because o August. de prae●●st. sanct ca 17. Non a●t●s sed quos praedestinavit, ipsos & vocavit, etc. he calleth and justifieth none but whom he hath predestinated unto glory, and therefore it followeth, that he giveth them perseverance for the attainment of the said glory. p Ambros de jacob. & vit. beat. ●b. cap 6. Num Deus p●ior ipse qui comtilit potest dona ●ua resindere, e● quos adoptione ●u●cepit eos à paterni affect●● gratia relegere The Father, saith Ambrose, that was the giver cannot revoke his gifts, nor put away him from the grace of his fatherly affection, whom he hath entertained and received by adoption. q Chrys. in Rom. hom 9. ●alis ipsa Dei gratia finem nullum habet, t●rminum non novit sed & ad maiora sin. per propagatu● atque progreditur. Id quod non itam hominibus uswenit; verbi gratia, assecutus est quis magistratum, gloriam pri●ci●atum: tamen in eo perpetuus non manet, sed confestim ab●o excutitur. Nam ut honorem ilium humano ma●u● 〈◊〉 eripiat, certè superuenie●s mors omnin● ereptura est. At quae Deus bona largitur haudquaquam talia sunt, a quibus v● delicet non homo, non tempus, non rerum adversarum vu, non ipse diabolus, non mors ingruens deturbare nos p●t●● qui● vel mortici cum sumus, ium demùm firmiùs ea possidemus, atque adeo quo progredimur magis, eo ma●oribus effectis f●uimu●. For such is the grace of God, saith chrysostom, it hath no end, it never determineth, but still proceedeth to greater benefits. Which is not wont to be so in the gifts of men: for a man having obtained an office, an honour or principality, hath no perpetuity therein, but is soon bereft of it. For albeit the hand of man do not take it away, yet death will which speedily shall overtake him. But the good gifts which God giveth are not so, as from which neither man, nor time, nor any power of adversities, nor the devil, nor death approaching can remove us, yea when we are dead, we do more assuredly possess the same. In a word r Origen in jerem. hom. 1. Impossibi●e est quod semel vivificavit Deut aut ab eo ipso tut abalio occidi. it is impossible, saith Origen, that that which God quickeneth should be slain, either by himself or any other. It is true then that he (only) that persevereth to the end shall be saved, but it is true also that God giveth preseverance unto Salvation to all them to whom he hath given the true faith of Salvation, s Aug. de corrupt. & great. ca 12 Sanctis in regnum Dei per gratiam Dei praedestinatis tale adiutor●um perseu●rantiae ditur ut eis pers●uerantia ipsa d●netur, non solum ut sine isto d●no perseverantes esse no●●possint, verumetiam ut per hoc donum non nisi persiuirantes sint, & sides eorum non deficies usque insinem, nec eam nisi manent●m vitae huta invevit fi●●. such a gift of perseverance, as not only without which they cannot persevere, but by which they do no other but persevere, or by which they do certainly persevere, so as that their faith doth never finally fail, neither shall their end find it but continuing in them. As touching this point M. Perkins answered very effectually, that we pray that God would not suffer us to be wholly overcome of the devil in any temptation, when we say, Lead us not into temptation, and that to this petition we have a promise answerable, that God with temptation will give an issue, and therefore that the devil howsoever he wound the faithful, yet shall never be able utterly to overcome them. Whereto M. Bishop very idly replieth according to his manner, by a fallacy of division, that then the assurance dependeth upon prayer, and not upon our former faith. But let him take the same answer in effect again, that the assurance still dependeth upon faith, which t Aug. de verb. Dom Sir 36. Fides fo●s orationis faith is the fountain of prayer, which prayer beggeth of God as Christ hath commanded. Lead us not into temptation, which to whomsoever it is granted, u Idem de bono persever. cap. 6. Si conce●●tur ei quod orat ut non inferatur in tentat one● in sanctifi●●tione vti●ue qu●m Deo do●●nte percepit, Deo donante persi●tit. Et pa●lo prius. Neque●uisquam perseverare d●sistit nisi i● t●tati●tē pri●●●tùs infera●ur. he by the gift of God persevereth in that sanctification which by the gift of God he hath received, because no man faileth of perseverance but by being led into temptation, and concerning temptation the Apostles words import the promise of God to all the faithful, x 1. Cor. 10.13. God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above your strength, but together with the temptation will give the issue, that ye may be able to bear it. Whereupon S. Ambrose saith most notably to the purpose we have in hand. y Amb in 1. Cor. 10. I●eo fidelem dicit Deum, etc. qui● d●tucu● se promisit Deus dilig●●tibus se regna caelestia, & de● necesse est quia fidelis est. Propter●a ergo tribulatis pros●●●rit, 〈…〉 possit. sed faciet ut aut●stò cesset tentatio, aut si prolixa fuere●ti● 〈…〉 promisit quia ●●●cetur qui patitur. Homo est enim infirmitati subre●tu 〈…〉 promisit, subvenit ut impleat quod prom●sit, etc. Non plus per●●● 〈…〉 ●●●tatur qui scitur vl●ra not posse quàm tridu● to●e●●. Therefore doth the Apostle say, that God is faithful and will not suffer them to be tempted above their strength, because he hath promised to give the kingdom of heaven to them that love him, and must needs give the same because he is faithful. For that cause therefore he will be present to them being in trouble for his sake, and will not suffer so much to be laid upon them as is not to be suffered, but either will cause the temptation to cease, or if it be long, will give strength to endure it: otherwise he shall not give that which he promised, because the party suffering shall be overcome, being a man subject to infirmity, and so shall not be to receive the promise. But because God is faithful which hath promised, he helpeth him, that he may fulfil his promise, and no more is permitted to be laid upon him, than it is known to God that he is able to bear, so that he is not suffered to be tempted the fourth day that is known not to be able to endure beyond the third day. So then by this Father's judgement, the Apostle in those words giveth to understand, that God having promised to the faithful the kingdom of heaven, doth so provide, as that he may perform unto them his promise, which he should not perform, if either their own lightness or any adverse power should prevail to make them uncapable thereof, and therefore he suffereth them not by any temptation to be taken away from him, but giveth them constancy and perseverance, whereby they wade out of the floods thereof, that they never be drowned in them. This is the promise of God, and this promise faith apprehendeth, and accordingly prayeth and believeth according to the promise, that it shall obtain that which it prayeth for, & therefore shall not by any temptation be utterly overthrown. But what then, saith M. Bishop, if we pray not so as we ought? may not the enemy than not only wound but also kill us? We answer, Yes indeed M. Bishop, he would so, and both faith & prayer and all would fail, if God were not the keeper and maintainer thereof. But it hath been before said, that faith is the fountain of prayer, and therefore God in the keeping of our faith, continueth our prayer, because the stream cannot fail, so long as the fountain faileth not. Prayer is the breath of faith, which never ceaseth to breath, so long as it is alive. Prayers are the beams of faith; if the light of faith be not quenched, it certainly sendeth forth his beams of prayer. z August. de corrept. & great. ca 12. Prohit interpellante Christo ne deficiat fid●s eorum, sine dubio non deficies usque in finem. Christ therefore having prayed for his, that their faith may not fail, it shall never fail finally in any of them. And therefore they shall never utterly give over to pray unto him, that it may be fulfilled to them which is promised, a Rom. 10.13. Every one that calleth upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. And surely God wanteth not means whereby to preserve & continue both the one & the other, not only by instruction & advertisement of the word & sacraments, but also by correction and discipline of crosses and afflictions, and many grievances of temptations, by which as occasion serveth, he fretteth off the rust, & bloweth away the ashes of carnal security; by occasion whereof as children affrighted or grieved, run to their father for succour, so we are moved to go by prayer unto God, according to the saying of the Prophet Esay: b Esa. 26.16. Lord in affliction they have visited thee, they have powered forth a prayer when thy chastisement was upon them. Albeit therefore of ourselves we easily grow slack both in prayer, and in all other works of piety & godliness, yet God provideth to the contrary, to keep the fire of his spirit continually burning in our hearts, c job. 33.16.17. opening our ears by his corrections, to cause us to cease from our (evil) enterprises, and to heal our pride, and to keep back our soul from the pit, which is the same that the Apostle saith: d 1. Cor. 11.32. When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. And whereas M. Bishop allegeth, that thousands pitifully fall away, we answer him, that they which finally fall, did never truly stand, though they seemed to stand, nor ever did truly believe, though they seemed to believe, but even of their falls doth God also make use, to make those that are truly his to stand the faster, striking thereby a dread & fear into their hearts, whereby they abhor to think of that befalling in themselves, which hath befallen in the other, that they may the more instantly call upon him, and embrace the means whereby they should firmly apprehend & take hold of him. We say the same that M. Perkins doth, that it cannot be that he that is once indeed a member of Christ, can ever after be wholly cut off. But this disliketh M. Bishop much, so that he exclaimeth, O shameless assertion! Where we may more justly cry out of him, O shameless man, that maketh Christ l●sse affectionate & kind to the spiritual members of his mystical body, than he himself is to the earthly members of his own natural body. M. Bishop will not suffer any member of his body to putrify & rot away, if he can save it; and will he make us believe, that Christ suffereth his members to rot away from him? Shall we think that Christ doth less respect a faithful soul, than any of us doth respect a finger or a toe? e Ambros. de jacob & vit. beat. l. 1. ca 6. Poterit ergo ille te damnare quem red●mi● a mart, pro quo se ob●u●it, cuiu● vitam mortis suae mercedem esse cognoscit? Nun dicet, Qu● utilitas in sanguine meo, fidamno quem ipse salvage? Can Christ condemn thee, saith Ambrose to the true believing man, whom he himself hath redeemed from earth, and whose life he knoweth to be the reward of his own death? Will he not say, What profit is there in my blood, if I condemn him whom I have saved? He is faithful & will not deny himself; he will not undo that which he hath done, nor blot out his own name, or suffer it to be blotted out, which he hath written by his spirit, in the heart of every one that believeth. He will not dismember himself, or receive a maim in that f Ephe. 1.23. body which (generally in the whole, & respectively in every part) is the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Seeing therefore every true believer is truly a member of this body, & helpeth to make up this fullness of Christ, it cannot be that Christ should suffer any true believer to perish, but quickeneth & cherisheth every such member with his spirit of life, & healeth the wounds and sicknesses thereof, that it may never die. But of this point further in the section next save one, here it shall suffice to examine those texts & examples of holy Scriptures, which he saith are contrary to that that M. Perkins here affirmeth. Which if they be many and plain, as he saith, we may think him a very silly man, that of those many could make no better choice than he hath done. The first place is that of our Saviour Christ, g john. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit, he will take away. Wherein the Reader may easily see, that he doth but only abuse the simplicity and ignorance of such as cannot espy his fraud. He telleth us of taking away the branches that bear no fruit, whereas the matter in question is of the perseverance of those branches that do bring forth fruit. We doubt not but the branches which bear no fruit shallbe taken away, but we speak of branches, which as touching present state do bring forth fruit, & of them our Saviour addeth; h Ibid. Every branch that beareth fruit the Father purgeth that it may bring forth more fruit. The branch then that beareth fruit shall persever, & shall never be cut off, because the Father purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit. But M. Bishop will urge that Christ saith, Every branch in me, thereby to signify, that even those branches which do not bear fruit are in Christ, & yet are cut off & taken away. But there is no necessity of any such construction: the words are rather to be taken as we read than, Every branch that beareth not fruit in me. For every man is compared to a branch, & naturally we are all branches of a wild vine, as we grow from the corrupted stock of Adam, & bring forth none but sour & unsavoury fruit, so that to bring forth good fruit we had need to be transplanted & removed from the stock of Adam, to be engraffed into Christ. And this may the words of Christ import, that the Father taketh & destroyeth every branch that still continueth to bring forth fruit in Adam, and is not implanted into Christ to bring forth fruit in him. Which construction if we follow, as it carrieth most probability, than here is nothing said of any to be cut off that is a branch in Christ the true vine, but of branches taken and cast away that are not in him. But yet granting him that reading of the words which he desireth, yet he is no whit the nearer to his purpose thereby. For men are diversly understood to be in Christ; some by semblance & show, other some in deed and truth: some by outward calling & profession only; other some by grace and inward regeneration: some according to the flesh, and in the eye of the Church; other some according to the spirit and power of Christ, & in the eye of God. The Church is the floor wherein is both corn & chaff; the field wherein groweth both wheat and tars; the net that catcheth all sorts of fishes both good & bad; the pasture where feed both sheep and goats: the banquet house that entertaineth all guests that come both clothed & unclothed, all yet coming under the name of friends; all saying, Lord, Lord; all professing themselves to take part with Christ: i August. de v●●t. eccles. cap. 13. unde appellat s●nas nisi propter malignitatem morum? Et eas●ē unde filias nisi propter cemmunionem sacramentorum? & cap. 12. Propter sacramenta quae cum sanctis communiter habent in eu est quaedam forma pietatis cuius virtutem negant. all children by communion of Sacraments, whereby there is in them a show of godliness, but many thorns by malignity of behaviour, whereby they deny the power thereof: all sheep in outward complement & couplement to the Church, but k De bapt. count Donatist. lib. 6. ca 1. Characteren dominicum multi & lup● & lupis insigunt qui videntur quide● intus esse, veruntamen ad ●ll●m ovem quae etiam ex mul●●●na est non pertinere morum suoru●a fructibus ●●●●ncuntur. many wolves in sheep's clothing, lying in wait to make a spoil. Now we are to distinguish them that truly are in Christ, from them that are not so. Of them that truly are in Christ, & in present state of justification, our speech here is, that they can never wholly be cut off: the rest we know are cut off from that l Luc. 8.18. which they seemed to have, but indeed had not: which if they had had indeed as they seemed to have, m Mat. 13.12. they should have had more given, that they might have abundance, and not be cut off from that they had. It is therefore nothing against us, which M. Bishop allegeth, that fruitless branches, which indeed are not in Christ, though they will seem to be, are cut off from seeming any longer to be that which in truth they never were. Every one that truly is a branch in Christ, bringeth forth fruit in him, & every branch that bringeth forth fruit, the Father purgeth that it may bring forth more fruit. Every one therefore that is truly a branch in Christ, as every true believer is, shall continue a branch in him for ever, that it may be verified which the Prophet saith, n 〈◊〉 92. ●3. Such as be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God, They shall still bring forth fruit even in age, & shall be fat and flourishing. By this the answer is plain to the other place; If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and shall whither and be cast into the fire. For hereby is imported what befalleth to them, who carrying semblance to be in Christ, bear no fruit in him, who because they are not truly that which they seem to be, therefore abide not in that which they seem, and either by death or by other occasion become o August. epist. 39 Separantur multi ab ecclesia, sed cùm moruntur, qui tamen ●ùm viwnt per sacrame●torum commionem v●●tansque Catholicae v●●●●r ecclesia co●●lati. corporally separated from the Church, to which they before (but only) seemed to be coupled. It is true then, that if a man abide not in Christ, though for the time he seem to be in Christ, he is cast forth and perisheth; but it followeth not therefore, that any man that faithfully believeth in Christ, and therefore truly is in Christ, doth not abide in him. Nay our Saviour himself teacheth us the contrary when he saith; p Io n. 6.56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. For what is it to eat the flesh of Christ and to drink his blood, but q August. in joan. tract 25, 6 to believe in Christ; r De doct C●rist. l b 3 cap. 16. Fig●ra est praecipi●●s pa●liom Domini esse communicandum, & su●●itur atque vitatèr recodendum in mem●ria quòd caro eius pro nobis crucifixa & vubierata sit. to be partakers of his passion, and with comfort and use to lay up in our minds that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us? Every one then that truly believeth in Christ, eateth his flesh & drinketh his blood, and therefore abideth in Christ and Christ in him. No man therefore that truly believeth in Christ, is ever cut off or cast forth to whither or to be thrown into the fire. Now to an indifferent Reader I might allege, and it easily appeareth by the use of that term of abiding, that by abiding in Christ, is meant our very being in Christ, which is therefore so expressed, because no man is in Christ truly and indeed, but the same abideth in him for ever. So that the meaning of Christ's words shall be, If any man be not truly engrafted into me as the true vine, to grow upon me, and to bring forth fruit by me, he is cast forth as a dead and unprofitable branch, & shall come to nought. But it booteth not to allege this to a wrangler, who whatsoever appear otherwhere, will not here understand it otherwise then to serve his own turn. Against him therefore the other solution is plain, that whosoever believeth in Christ, the same abideth in him, and therefore shall never be cut off, so that yet he is far enough from any demonstration, to prove any who are truly members of Christ, are: wholly and for ever cut off from him. Let us see whether the rest will afford him any better demonstration. Are we not by faith, saith he, made members of Christ by our adversaries own confession? Yes, M. Bishop, but yet not by every kind of faith; for S. james saith, s jam. 2.19. The devils believe, and yet they are not thereby the members of Christ. We are made the members of Christ only by true and lively faith, whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts, of which it is that the Apostle saith, t Gal. 3.26. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ jesus. You will not say M. Bishop, that by every faith a man is spiritually made a member of Christ, because you say that there is faith without charity, and you dare not say that without charity a man may be a member of Christ. Which being so, how vainly doth he allege, that u Mat. 13.20. our Saviour saith in the parable of the sour concerning them that receive the word in stony ground, that with joy they receive the word, but have no root, and for a time believe, and in time of temptation revolt? For though it be said that they believe, yet it followeth not that they believe with that faith whereby they should become the members of Christ. For Herod in that sort believed the word preached by john Baptist, x Mat. 6.20. whom he reverenced as a lust and holy man, and heard him gladly, and did many things accordingly, and yet he was not therefore a member of Christ. By conviction of conscience men oft times receive the word, & cannot but believe and acknowledge the truth thereof, when yet they embrace it not with affection of love, and therefore have not that y Gal. 5.6. faith which worketh by love, which only is true faith. And how can he persuade us that true members of Christ are by Christ himself compared to the stony ground? We are persuaded that only the good ground are the true members of Christ; as for the rest they are z August. in joan. tract. 3. Infra. sect. 10. as bad humours in the body, as S. Austin saith, but members they are not. And how should there be true faith in them of whom Christ saith; They have no root? Can true faith grow where there is no root for it to grow upon? Nay S. Austin telleth us, that faith itself is a Idem. in Psal. 31. Laudo fructum boni operis sed in fide agnos. coradicem. the root whence all good fruit doth grow, and how then can they be said to have true faith, of whom it is truly said, that they have no root? To be short, these are said to believe (but) for a time, but of them that truly believe, it is said, b Rom. 9.33. Whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded, and therefore their faith shall never fail. The next place is lewdly falsified by him, alleging that some having faith and a good conscience, expelling good conscience have made shipwreck of their faith, whereas S. Paul saith not, that they had faith and a good conscience, but instructeth Timothy for the fight of a good fight, to c 1. Tim. 1.19. have faith and a good conscience, which (good conscience) some, saith he, rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith, of whom are Hymeneus and Alexander. Where by faith as Oecumenius observeth, he meaneth d Oecumen. in 1. Tim. 1 Fidem dicit quae est circa dogmata; conscientiam vero quae circa conversationem est. Quam inquit, conscientiam quae est de rectè vivendo repellentes non nulli. Vbi enim quis reprobè vixerit etiam circa fidem nan-fragium facit. Siquidem ne terrore futurorum crucientur, suo ammo persuadere nuuntur mendacia esse quaecunque apud nos de resurrectione ac judicio dicuntur. a faith or belief concerning doctrine, and understandeth conscience as touching conversation; which conscience of good life, saith he, they rejecting, made shipwreck of faith. For when a man liveth wickedly, he maketh shipwreck concerning faith. For men, that they may not be troubled with the terror of things to come, labour to persuade their own minds, that those things are lies which with us are spoken concerning the resurrection and judgement to come. S. Paul's words then import that they had professed the faith, that is, the doctrine of faith, the doctrine which in Christianity we believe and profess, but they held not e 1. Tim. 3.9. the mystery of faith in a pure conscience, they lived lewdly and wickedly in the profession of the faith; their consciences were fraught with the guilt of following their own ungodly lusts; and therefore they renounced the faith, the doctrine of God, that they might not thereby find any cross or check in their damnable and wicked courses. What is this to that true faith, whereby we believe in Christ to justification and righteousness; whereby we repose the trust and confidence of our Salvation in him, and do truly call upon the name of the Lord? That they had not this faith, it is plain, because S. Paul saith plainly, that they rejected a good conscience; for a f 1. Tim. 4 1. good conscience is always an inseparable companion of an unfeigned faith. The greater is the impudence of this brabbler, who saith as out of the Apostle, that they had a good conscience, whereas the words of the Apostle are directly contrary to that he saith. The other two places are of the same sort, g 1. Tim. 1.5. some in the last days shall revolt from the faith, and h Cap. 6.10. some for covetousness, have erred from the faith, meaning by faith the doctrine of the Church, as where it is said, i Act. 6.7. some of the Priests were obedient to the faith; and again, k Gal. 1.22. He preacheth the faith which before he destroyed, and again, l Tit. 1.13. Rebuke them sharply that they may be found in the faith, and therefore in the former of those two places, he opposeth to faith m 1. Tim. 4.1. the doctrines of devils, that so faith may be known to signify the doctrine which is of God. That revolt them is from the faith of public preaching, which wicked men make show to receive only by hypocritical & feigned faith; not from faith of private conscience, whereby only true believers make use of the faith of public preaching, to their own comfort and Salvation, which is therefore called n Tit. 1.2. the faith of Gods elect, because it is found in none but only the elect. Thus therefore his places serve not his purpose, let us see now the examples which he allegeth. First, he bringeth Saul, who he saith at his election was so good a man, as that there was no better than he in Israel, and yet became a reprobate. But his translation is false; for by the very circumstance of the place it is manifest, that the holy Ghost there describeth the goodliness of saul's person, not the goodness of his condition. Our translation readeth according to the truth of the text, that o 1. Sam. 9.2. he was a goodly young man and a fair, so that among the children of Israel there was none goodlier than he: from the shoulders upward he was higher than any of the people. Which last words do plainly show whereto the rest are to be referred. So Pagnine translateth it, and showeth that the Hebrew writers do so take it, neither doth there appear any thing whereby we may conceive spiritually any goodness in him at all, being from the first cross and thwart to the commandment of the Lord. The second example is of Solomon, of whom he saith, that it is probable that he also was a reprobate. But that is not probable; nay it is altogether unprobable, that so notable a figure of Christ, p 2. Sam. 19.24. whom the Lord loved, & in token thereof gave him a name q Ver. 25. jedidiah, that is, beloved of the Lord; of whom in figure of Christ he said, r 2. Chro 22.10. I will be his Father and he shall be my Son, whom it appeareth in the Canticles, he acquainted so inwardly with the riches and secrets of his grace, that he, I say, should after be utterly reprobate and cast away. For although God suffered him very grievously to fall, that by the distraction of that kingdom thereby occasioned, it might appear that the kingdom promised was not accomplished in him, yet it is more than probable by that that we read in his book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, that he wrote that book as a monument and token of his conversion and repentance, wherein he took upon him the person of a s Eccles. 1.12 Preacher, for redress of that which he had offended in the person of a King. Further, he citeth to his purpose the examples of judas the traitor and Simon Magus, of whom Saint Luke saith, that he believed. Where we may wonder at his notable impudency, or rather impiety, that he maketh judas and Simon Magus once members of jesus Christ. Of judas our Saviour Christ saith, when he was at the best, that t john. 6.70. he was a devil, and S. john out of the experience of his whole conversation, that u Cap. 12 6. he was a thief, thereby showing that it never was with any true heart that he followed Christ, but only to make a commodity to himself. Of Simon Magus S Luke saith indeed that x Act. 8.13. he believed, but so as that Peter perceiveth amidst his believing, that y Ver. 21.23. his heart was not right in the sight of God, that he was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity, whereby it appeareth, that his believing was no more but z Occumen. in epist. jacob. cap. 2. Et de simplici assensu fidem dicere solemus. a bare assenting, as Occumenius calleth it, to the doctrine of faith, and not that true and effectual believing whereof we speak. Such members of Christ doth he make, doing wrong to jesus Christ, only to hide his own shame, that he might not be thought to maintain a wrong. The like he affirmeth of all Arch-heretikes, the first they were of the faithful, expressly contrary to that which S. john saith, a 1. john. 2.19. They went out from us, but THEY WERE NOT OF US: for if they had been OF US, they would have continued with us. Which being so plainly affirmed by the Apostle, we may marvel that M. Bishop should say the contrary, but that he hath harnessed his face and his conscience, that it may be no blush nor scruple to him, to avouch one lie for the upholding of another. What his exception is to that place of john, we shall see in the next section but one, where he hath taken upon him the answer of it. 9 W. BISHOP. But what need we further proof of this matter, seeing that this is cosengerman, if not the very same, with one of that infamous heretic jovinians erroneous articles, condemned and registered by S. Hierome, Heres. 82. lib. 2. cons. jovin. and S. Augustine, who held, that just men after Baptism could not sin, and if they did sin, they were indeed washed with water, but never received the spirit of grace: his ground was, that he which had once received the spirit of grace, could not sin after, which is just M. Perkins proposition: so that to uphold an error, he falleth into an old condemned heresy. And which is yet more absurd, in the next confirmation, he letteth slip at once a brace of other heresies, these be his words: And if by sin one were wholly severed from Christ for a time, in his recovery he is to be baptised the second time. Where you have first rebaptizing, which is the principal error of the Anabaptists, and withal the heresy of the Novatians, who held, that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptism, there was no remedy left in God's Church for their recovery, but must be left to God; so saith M. Perkins, for that of rebaptizing he seems to bring in ex absurdo: so that the common saying is verified in him, (one absurdity being granted, a thousand follow after.) But doth he know no other means than Baptism to recover one cut off from Christ? hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet, wherewith they begin their Common prayer? What hour soever a sinner doth repent him of his sin, etc. With them repentance, and with us the Sacrament of Penance, serve a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ. R. ABBOT. We may here take knowledge of the absurd folly of this prater, who having before challenged M. Perkins for affirming that sin is always in the regenerate corrupting all his works, goeth about here to lay upon him an imputation of maintaining, that the regenerate cannot sin. Surely both these cannot stand together, and if M. Perkins hold the one, he must needs be a stranger to the other. But thus he babbleth without fear or wit, never regarding how one part of his speech hath coherence with the other. As touching jovinian, if he simply taught that which Hierome and Austin affirm, that the regenerate cannot sin, he erred greatly therein, and we join with Austin and Hierome in the condemning of that opinion. But if they did misunderstand his opinion, and that he held only this, as in likelihood he did, that the regenerate cannot finally and utterly fall away by sin, or sin that sin which is unto death, a 1 john 3.9. and only meant as S. john doth, Whosoever is borne of God sinneth not, neither can he sin, because he is borne of God, he erred no whit at all, nor affirmed any thing therein, but what Hierome and Austin have affirmed as well as he: and M. Bishop knew well enough, that it is this only that M. Perkins delivered; not that the regenerate cannot, or do not sin, whose falls we confess to be very many, and to themselves very grievous from day to day, but that the regenerate doth not so sin, as utterly to be cut off from Christ; that the faithful man doth never finally or wholly fall away from the grace of God. To which purpose S. Bernard saith: b Bernard. de implic. haerint. vincul. etc. No●● Dominus qui sunt etus. & propositum Dei manet immobile. Et si horrendorum crimirum nos: David muritur etsi Maria Magdalene sep ● saemonijs cumulatur, ets. priaceps Apostolorum in profundum negationis submergitur, non est tamen qui de manis Dei possit cruere. The Lord knoweth who are his, and the purpose of God abideth unmovable. Although David be branded with the brand of horrible sins, although Mary Magdalen be fraught with seven devils, although Peter the chief of the Apostles, be drowned in the depth of denying his master Christ, yet there is none that can take them (or pluck them) out of the hands of God; not that it is incident to the faithful, to walk in malicious and wilful sin, but when by occasion or temptation he falleth, the Lord c Luc. 22.61. looketh upon him as he did upon Peter, that he may repent; the d Psal. 37.24. Lord putteth under his hand, and lifteth him up again. We see therefore how little trust is to be given to him, who sticketh not to deliver so manifest and apparent untruth. He is like the carriers horse, that brooketh not to go out of his accustomed way: we had had no book of him, if he had been tied to speak nothing but what is true. Now M. Perkins for assertion of the perseverance of the faithful, addeth further, that if a man be a member of Christ, he cannot be wholly cut off, not so much as for a time, much less for ever. For if he could wholly be cut off for the time, then at his return he ought to be baptised again, which being absurd to affirm, it followeth that a man cannot wholly be cut off. In which confirmation M. Bishop saith, that he hath let slip a brace of other heresies. Where we may conceive, that he was mightily a-dreamed of heresies the night before he wrote this, and they ran so thick in his head, that he imagined every man that he met with, to be an heretic. Surely M. Bishop, if he have let slip a brace of heresies, he hath let them slip out of your collars, and therefore you must take them to yourselves; for his they are not. You say by and by after, that he bringeth in that of rebaptizing ex absurdo, and if he bring it in as an absurdity, than it is not likely that it should slip from him. Full wisely therefore do you say, that the common saying is verified in him, one absurdity granted, a thousand follow after, when the absurdity granted is yours and not his, that a man is wholly cut off from Christ, having been a member of his body, whereupon he inferreth, that there should then be a necessity of rebaptizing, as a consequence of your absurdity, not as an assertion of his own. A man would scant think you well in your wits, to handle a matter so crossly and untowardly as you do. As touching the matter, albeit literally it be true, that a man being wholly cut off from Christ, must necessarily be baptised to enter him again, yet in that sense, wherein we here speak of cutting off from Christ, namely concerning spiritual and inward grace, I confess ingenuously that there is no necessity of that consequence which Master Perkins inferreth thereupon. If a man be wholly cut off from Christ, he hath no interest in Christ, nor Christ in him; the bond of baptism is dissolved, neither doth there stand any relation thereby betwixt Christ and him. For if there stand any trial or bond betwixt Christ and him, then is he not wholly cut off. Supposing then a man after baptism to be wholly cut off, which cannot be till final impenitency have for ever divided him from the body of the Church, but this yet being supposed, there should be a necessity of baptizing him again, to give him admission into the society of Christ's Church. For that this cannot be done by M. Bishop's sacrament of penance, he himself must needs confess, because their sacrament of penance is as they call it, secunda tabula post naufragium; and he that is so wholly cut off, wanteth the first, without which the second hath no place. Or if he do not want the first, if he do not want the title of baptism, than he is not wholly cut off, which is the thing to be supposed. The Church of Rome holdeth, that baptism leaveth in the soul indelebilem characterem: a character or print that can never be disprinted. But suppose the same to be defaced and disprinted, and then I suppose that Master Bishop will grant, that there is a necessity to be baptised again. It cannot be, saith he, and so say we, that it cannot be, that a man baptised should wholly be cut off from Christ, but that by outward calling Christ and his Church hath interest in him during life, so as that by true repentance without any further baptism, he is restored again; yet upon supposal it followeth which we have said. Now if Master Perkins spoke upon this supposal, it should so follow indeed, but the drift of the matter in hand necessarily draweth us to another understanding. For when we say that the regenerate man is never wholly cut off from Christ, we mean it as touching inward and spiritual grace, that it never so defecteth, but that there is still e 1. john. 3.9. a seed thereof remaining, that shall grow again. Yet if we suppose it to be true, which the Papists say, that inward grace of regeneration may be utterly extermined for the time, I do not conceive that it should thereof follow, that another baptism should be needful for being restored again. For by the mark of Christ first set upon him, Christ shall still stand entitled to him, & it shall be his sin in the mean time, that he apply not himself to him, whose by right he ceaseth not to be. And if a man in hypocrisy receive baptism, so as that he becometh not thereby at all the member of Christ, yea and thenceforth for the time run into Paganism or heresy, we will not hold that if he be afterwards truly converted, he should need for the making of him a member of Christ, to be secondly baptised, but that baptism before received, now cometh to use and effect, and yieldeth that spiritual fruit which it did import before. So therefore though it be supposed that the grace of Christ in any man be utterly razed and defaced, yet shall it not follow, that he shall be baptised a second time, but baptism before received, shall return to the same use that it had before, not by the counterfeit Sacrament of penance devised by men, but by true and faithful repentance directed by God, whereof not by a corrupted sentence as this caviller objecteth, but by a true expressing of the Prophet's meaning, we say in the beginning of our Common prayer, f Ezech. 18.21.22. At what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sin from the bottom of his heart, I will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance, saith the Lord. As for the Sacrament of penance, it is a bastard salve of a false Surgeon: it closeth wounds, and healeth none, but leaveth them to fester and corrupt unto everlasting death. There is in it a special policy of Satan, to hold men in opinion of forgiveness of sins where it is not, that they may neglect to seek it where indeed it is. To come to an end of this matter, whether way M. Perkins meant this cutting off from Christ wholly, I will not precisely say; but whether way soever he meant it, it availeth M. Bishop nothing at all, if haply he did err in inferring a necessity on their part, to maintain an heresy or heresies of others, by maintaining a perverse opinion of their own. From which heresies (of Anabaptists and Novatians) he well knew that we are far enough; only he would name them, that we might understand that he had heard somewhat thereof. 10. W. BISHOP. But we must answer unto that of S. john: They went out from us, 1. joan. 2. but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. I answer. If they went out from us, they were before with us, which confirmeth our assertion, that men may departed from their faith and Christ's profession: but such men were not indeed of the number of the elect, of which Saint john was, for then either they would have continued with them in the Christian faith, or else by hearty repentance would have returned unto it back again, which is Saint Augustine's own exposition. De bono pierce. cap. 8. And these be the Arguments for the Catholics, which M. Perkins through his confused order toucheth here and there. To which I will add, one taken out of the words of S. Paul: Rom. 11.20. But thou by faith dost stand, be not too highly wise, but fear, if God hath not spared the natural boughs, lest perhaps he will not spare thee neither. Phil. 2.12. And again: Work your Salvation, with fear and trembling. There be above an hundred such texts in holy writ, wherein the Holy Ghost exhorteth us to stand in fear of our Salvation, out of which I thus frame my argument. No man must stand in fear of that, of which he is by faith assured. But the faithful must stand in fear of their Salvation. Ergo, they be not assured of it by faith. The Minor or second proposition is plainly proved by these places cited before: the Mayor is manifest: there is no fear in faith, he that feareth, whether the thing be assured or no, cannot give a certain assent thereunto: Dubius in fide infidelis est. Put the case in another article, to make it more evident: He that feareth, whether there be a God or no, do we esteem that he believeth in God? So he that feareth whether jesus Christ be God is he a Christian? hath he a true faith? You must needs answer, no. So he that feareth whether he shall be saved or no, can have no faith of his Salvation. R. ABBOT. The place of S. john doth fully overthrow that which M. Bishop laboureth to build, invincibly proving, that revolters and renegates wholly falling away from Christ, were never of the faithful, though for the time outwardly they held profession with them. For if they had been of us, saith he, they would have continued with us, therein implying this rule, that they that once are of the faithful, do certainly continue with them, so as that they never wholly and finally departed from them. For as falling stars were never stars indeed, though they seemed to be stars, so apostates and backsliders were never faithful indeed, though they seemed so to be. But here Master Bishop answereth, If they went out from us, they were before with us. Be it so, but yet as the gloss saith, a Thom. Aquin. in joan. ca 2. ex glossa. Erant de ecclesia, numero non merito; sacramentorum perceptione, non charitatis communione. by tale and account, not by worth; by participation of sacraments, not by fellowship of love. This place than proveth, that men may departed from the profession of the faith of Christ, but it confirmeth not his assertion, that the faith of any doth ever fail, that is truly faithful in the profession of the faith of Christ. And therefore it is but one of his jugglers tricks, to make his Reader believe that the place confirmeth his assertion, when in truth it doth directly contradict it. If those revolters had had true faith, Saint john would not have said, They were not of us; for he is of the faithful, whosoever is endued with true faith. But, saith he, S. john's meaning is, that such were not of the number of the elect, and this is S. Austin's exposition. And we acknowledge S. Austin's exposition to be true; b August. de bono perseu●●●a. 8. Non erant ex eis quia non erant secundum propositum vocant non erant in Chr sto electi ante constitutionē●undi, non erant in eo sort in consecuti; non erant praedestinavit secundum propositum eius qui universa operatur. They were not of them, because they were not called according to purpose, because they were not elect in Christ before the foundations of the world; because they had not obtained any lot (or portion) in him, because they were not praedestinate, according to the purpose of him who worketh all things. But because they were not such, therefore they were never truly faithful. For if they were not called by purpose, than did they never truly believe, because c Jdem de praed. sanct. cap 16. Qua vocatione sit credens. by that calling it is that a man doth believe. Now d J●● p. 17. Quos praedestinavit ipsos & vocavit, illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositum Non ergo alios sed quos praedestinavit, ipsos & vocavit; nec alios sed quos ita vocavit, ipsos & iustificavit, nec alios sed quos praedestinavit, vocavit, iustificavit, ipsos & giereficavit, etc. by this calling God calleth no other but whom he hath praedestinate; therefore only the predestinate do believe. And no other doth God justify, but whom he hath called with that calling, therefore only the elect are partakers of justification; and if only the elect be justified, than all that are justified do certainly persever, because the elect do never fall away. Now if backsliding reprobates were never partakers of justification, than were they never of the body of the faithful, howsoever in outward appearance they seemed to be. And this the same S. Austin very notably confirmeth, when he saith of reprobates; e Cont. julian. Pelag. lib. 5 cap. 3. Jstorum neminem adducit ad poenitentiam salubrem & spiritualem qua homo in Christo reconciliatur Deo, sive illis ampliorem patientiam (quàm electis) sive non imparem praebeat. None of these doth God bring to spiritual and healthful repentance, whereby man in Christ is reconciled unto God, whether he yield them patience for longer or shorter time. And as he excludeth them from true repentance, so doth he also from forgiveness of sins, saying, that f Cont. adversar. seg. & prophet, lib. 2 ca 11. Qui non omnium, sicut iste au, sedeorum quos ante praes●●on & praedestinavit delicta dimittit. God forgiveth the sins, not of all, but of them whom before he foreknew and predestinated. Origen yet goeth further, and saith, that g Origen. count Cells. lib. 7. Conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinati sunt ut cognito Dei dignè vivant. the knowledge of God (meaning the true and effectual knowledge of God) is granted only unto them, who are hereto predestinate, that knowing God they may live worthy of him. Now if reprobates never have any true knowledge of God, if they be secluded from repentance, faith, justification, & forgiveness of sins, than these things are proper only to the elect, which do certainly persever, and our assertion is true, that where there is true repentance, faith, justification, knowledge of God, there infallibly followeth perseverance to the end. Saint john therefore when he saith, They were not of us, as he meaneth that they were not of the elect, so he meaneth that they never were of the number of true believers, never true members of Christ, or of the spiritual body of the Church, which if they had been, he concludeth for us, that they should have so continued, and not in that sort have utterly fallen away. Therefore doth Saint Austin expound the words of them, h August. de corrept & great. ca 9 filii Dei propter sus●eptam vel temporaliter gratiam dicuntur a nobis nec sunt tamen Deo. who for grace temporally received, are of us called the children of God, but yet are not so to God, affirming plainly, that with God they are not children, though we call them so, because they seem no other to our sight. And to the same purpose he addeth soon after: i J●●d. Cum filii Dei dicunt, Non erant x nobis, etc. quod aliud dicum, nisi non erant filii, etiam quaendo erant in professt. 〈◊〉 & nomine siliorum. They were not of us, what meaneth it, but they were not children of God, when they went under the profession and name of children? Now if they were never children of God, then were they never truly regenerate; for by being borne of God, they must needs have been the children of God. Neither ever had they true faith; for k john. 1.12. to so many as believed in him, he gave a dignity (or prerogative) to be the sons of God. Therefore when he saith of such, that they were in goodness, they were in the faith, it must be understood as touching outward profession, and to the judgement of the Church, and by assent and approbation of judgement and understanding, but never by integrity & soundness of affection, or true regeneration of the heart. Which may appear by the exposition that he maketh thereof upon that epistle of S. john, where speaking of those apostates he saith; l Aug●●● in. 1. 〈◊〉 3. Sic sunt in corpore Christs quomodo hunores mal; qu in lo 〈◊〉 corpus. So are they in the body of Christ as evil humours in our body. No members then, no parts of the body, but as evil humours in the body, of which some are more kind & less offensive, other altogether unkind and hurtful, even as of these temporizers in the Church, some come nearer to the true faithful, other some are wholly wicked and dissembling hypocrites, but of them all it is true, m Ibid. Tentatio probat quia non sunt ex nobis. Quando illius tentatio venerit velut occasione venti volant foras quia grana non erant. Temptation proveth that they are not of us. When temptation befalleth them, even as it were by occasion of a wind, they fly out, because they were not corn. They might seem to be corn, but indeed they were but chaff; they had a semblance, but they had not the reality of the state of children. M. Bishop's exposition therefore availeth nothing, but that it still standeth true which we affirm, that true faith as it assureth of present state, so doth assure also of future perseverance, to the end that God may perform to every believer that which he hath promised, that he shall not perish but have everlasting life. But because he cannot prevail by answering, he will make further trial what he can do by arguing, taking for ground the words of S. Paul, first to the Romans, n Rom. 11.20. Thou standest by faith; be not high minded but fear: secondly to the Philippians, o Phil. 2.12. Work your Salvation with fear and trembling. And to make the better show he saith, that there are above a hundred such texts in holy writ, wherein the holy Ghost exhorteth us, to stand in fear of our Salvation. But if they be such texts as these which he hath here alleged, they are admonitions against carnal presumption, and no discouragements to true faith to stand assured of Salvation. The Scripture speaketh diversly of fear, and he doth but dally upon that equivocation. There is a doubting and distracting fear, which God forbiddeth, as being the enemy of all spiritual comfort and assurance of faith; and there is an awful and regarding fear, which God commendeth as the undivided companion of true faith. As we understand fear to he opposite to faith, we hear God appointing his ministers to call his people from it. p Esa. 35.4. Say unto the fearful, Be you strong, fear not; behold your God cometh with vengeance, he will come & save you. q Cap. 41.10. Fear not, for I am with thee; be not afraid for I am thy God; I will strengthen thee and help thee, and sustain thee with the right hand of my justice. And again, r Cap. 43.1. Fear not, for I have redeemed thee; I have called thee by name, thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee, that they do not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. s Cap. 54.4. Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed, neither shalt thou be confounded. t Vers. 14. In righteousness shalt thou be established, and be far from fear, for it shall not come near thee. u Vers. 17. This is the heritage of the Lords servants, whose righteousness is of me, saith the Lord. These gracious and comfortable speeches the Lord useth to the faithful, that under him they may rest in full assurance of safety, without all fear or doubt, because he promiseth to prevent all those occasions whence any fear or doubt should rise. Whereupon it is that Zacharie saith, that x Luk. 1.74. he hath delivered us out of the hands of our enemies to serve him without fear, and Christ is said to have died, y Heb. 2.15. that he might deliver them who for fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage, and the Apostle S. Paul accordingly saith, z Rom. 8.15. that we have not received the spirit of bondage to fear any more, but the a 2. Tim. 1.7. spirit of adoption to cry Abba, Father; that God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. There is no greater bondage than fear of death, which representeth to a man nothing but ghastliness and horror, when he is uncertain therein what shall become of him. Therefore Christ hath delivered his from this bondage of fear, and that they may rest established in the assurance of Salvation, saith unto them, b Luk. 12.32. Fear not little flock; for it is your Father's pleasure to give you the kingdom. The Church of Rome biddeth Christ's flock to stand in fear of their own Salvation; but Christ the master of the flock saith, Fear not, little flock; it is the Father's pleasure to give you the kingdom. Thus when he saith to his disciples, c Mat. 8.26. Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith, and to Peter, d Cap. 14.32. O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? he showeth that faith importeth an assured belief of a man's own safety, and forbiddeth fear and doubt, as contrary thereunto. Now therefore when the Scripture commendeth fear, it importeth not any such fear as should in the faithful shake the assurance of Salvation; nay the faithful man because he findeth in himself that fear, doth thereby gather the greater assurance to himself. It is with every faithful man as it was with job, e job. 31.23. the punishment of God is fearful unto him; he dreadeth the judgements and threatenings which God hath denounced against pride and unthankfulness, against rebellion and contempt of God, knowing assuredly that the same shall be performed, and that God will make it appear that he hath not spoken in vain. Therefore he abhorreth the courses of the wicked, and walketh not in their ways, but labouring in righteousness standeth fully resolved, that God will save him from that destruction that he hath provided for them. Neither doth he dread the sentence of God only in respect of eternal destruction, but also in respect of temporal plagues and judgements, wherewith he chasteneth his own children, when they behave themselves wanton and undutifully towards him. In the inflicting whereof God hath regard to make them by the smart thereof much more to dread his eternal wrath, that they may cease and shun the ways whereby they should be in danger to incur the same. Now in this sense doth the Apostle in the first place recommend fear to the Churches of the Gentiles, and specially to the Church of Rome, that whereas God had rejected the jews, because of their f Act. 13.46. rejecting the word of God, and they now by faith did stand, that is, by obedience to the faith and preaching of the Gospel, had received the calling and state of the people of God, & his Church, they should learn by the example of the jews to be wise and wary for themselves, trembling at the fearful wrath that was befallen upon them, and therefore not flattering themselves in the opinion of their outward calling as the other before had done, but labouring to do those things which might be correspondent to the grace and mercy which God had vouchsafed unto them. Which if they did neglect, God would g Mat. 21.43. take away his kingdom from them, as he did from the jews, and they should lose that glory wherein now they took upon them to rejoice. To the very same purpose doth he admonish the Corinthians, that the Israelites had the same calling, & in effect the same Sacraments that we have, and yet when they behaved themselves unthankfully and wickedly, God did not forbear to punish them, whereof he had made record in holy Scriptures for example unto us; and hereupon concludeth, h 1. Cor. 10.12. Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall. Whereby he giveth to understand, that outward standing and professing of the faith, without inward grace and fear of God issuing into a godly life and conversation, is not standing indeed, but seeming to stand, and therefore that he that glorifieth therein, if he be afraid to fall, must lay a better foundation for himself to stand upon. These advertisements true faith heareth, and apprehendeth the same to make use thereof; it is afraid to fall, and therefore shuneth that security and rejoicing in outward state, wherein they, that applaud themselves without correspondency of inward affection and godly conversation do merely delude themselves. Whereby it cometh to pass, that in the public desolations of Churches for the contempt of duty towards God, yet whosoever hath believed the word of God and feared his judgement, though lapped in the folds of outward calamities, yet is saved from that damnation which he was fearful by contempt to run into. To be short, as a man upon the top of a high tower, is afraid to fall, and trembleth to think thereof, when notwithstanding being environed with the battlements he is without danger of falling, and not afraid that he shall fall, so the true believer trembleth with the horror of the conceit of falling away from God, knowing the end of them to he most unhappy that so do, when yet he reposeth assured trust in God, that being compassed about with his protection, and dwelling under his defence, he himself shall be preserved for ever. Under whose defence that we may dwell, there is another fear necessary, whereby we are drawn away from presuming of our own strength, that we may be i Ephes. 6.10. strong in the Lord (only) and in the power of his might. And of this fear are we to understand the latter place cited by M. Bishop; k Phil. 2.12. Work your Salvation in fear and trembling. In fear and trembling, that is, in humility, in due acknowledgement of your own frailty, in fearing to be left to your own selves, in depending wholly upon God; For, saith he, it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, the adding of which reason plainly showeth, that fear and trembling is to be taken in that meaning as I have expressed. And in that sort S. Austin doth expound it: l August. de great. & lib. arbit. cap. 9 Ideo cum timore & tremore ne sibi tribuendo quod bene operantur de bonis tanquam suis extollantur operibus. Tanquam ergo interrogitur Apostolus & diceretur et, Quare dixisti cum timore & tremore, horum verborum rationem reddidit, dicens, Deus est enim, etc. Therefore doth S. Paul say with fear and trembling, least attributing to themselves that they work well, they should be proud of their good works, as if they were their own: therefore as if one had asked him, why dost thou say, with fear and trembling, he giveth reason of those words, saying, For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do. In sundry m De nat. & great. cap. 27. De Corrept. & great. cap. 9 in Psal. 65. & 118. conc. 31. other places doth he expound those words to the same effect. So doth Prosper also say, that the Apostle by those words n Prosper. apud Ambros. epist. 84. Vigilant tentatoris iusidiae ut ubi proficit devotio subrepat elatio & ut homo de bono opere in se potiùs quàm in Domino glorietur. Sed solicundo nos Apostoli contra hoc periculum monet dicentis, Cum timore & tremore, etc. doth admonish us against the danger of that pride, whereby a man of a good work rejoiceth in himself rather then in the Lord. Here is nothing then that the faithful should stand in fear of their own Salvation, but only that they should fear to commit themselves to themselves, in working to the accomplishment of the Salvation to which God hath called them, and should remember, that all is to be expected of God's mercy, whence only it is that either we will or do any thing that is good. Which fear is so far from giving us cause to doubt of Salvation, as that it much rather serveth to strengthen the assurance thereof, whilst it maketh us to rest only upon God, and not upon ourselves, knowing that our Salvation dependeth not upon any thing which we can do for ourselves, but upon him o Esa. 26.12. who hath wrought, (and so will work) all our works for us, and will not leave that unperfect which he hath begun. And when sometimes we forget this fear, and incline to trust in ourselves, and say with David, p Psal. 30.6. I shall never be removed, he leaveth us to the trial of our own strength, so as that wanting his support, we fall and run into enormous offence, thereby to be the better instructed how little safety we have in our own defence, and therefore how necessary it is for us to depend wholly upon his grace. Thus the Apostle Peter presuming too much of himself, and being left thereupon to himself, fell even to the denying and abjuring of his master Christ, that he in himself and we in him might learn, that q 1. Sam 2.9. by his own might shall no man be strong, and that evil would our state be, if our safety did not rest only and altogether in the Lord. Thus therefore in both places cited by M. Bishop, and in many other we read of fear; to fear the judgements and threatenings of God, which the faithful always doth, because faith believeth them; to fear to trust in ourselves, which every faithful man also doth, because faith itself importeth trust in God: but we no where read any thing whereof to gather that which he affirmeth, that the faithful aught to stand in fear of their own Salvation. Now therefore his argument is easily answered, for the minor proposition which he saith is plainly proved by the places cited, is merely false, and hath no proof at all, either by those places of any other. And how absurdly doth he abuse his Reader, that whereas the proposition by him to be proved is not expressed in the places alleged, he notwithstanding skippeth over with mere quoting of them, without showing how the matter to be proved is to be inferred thereof. But such pretty shifts do best become the cause that he hath in hand. About the mayor proposition whereof there is less question, he bestoweth a little pains to little purpose: No man must stand in fear of that of which by faith he is assured. Which we grant, as it importeth a duty, that no man ought to have any fear of that which he is taught to believe, but we deny that which he saith for the prosecution or explication thereof. For it is false, that there is no fear in faith, that is, that there is no faith where there is fear, or fear where there is faith. For when our Saviour Christ upbraideth his disciples with r Mat. 8.26. & 14.31. fearfulness & doubting, and yet attributeth unto them little faith, as before is alleged, he plainly showeth, that little faith it subject to fear and doubt, and yet ceaseth not thereupon to be faith. He saith that he that feareth cannot give certain assent. We answer him, that our assent is according to the measure of our faith; little faith yieldeth but weak assent, but yet it is a true assent, whereby we embrace that whereto we assent. The truth of which faith and assent hereby appeareth even in fear, because fear causeth it to fall to prayer, which what is it else, but as it were the casting forth of the arms of faith, to catch hold of him in whom it believeth, as expecting succour and help of him; for s Rom. 10.14. how shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? Thus the faith of the disciples appeared in the places even now cited, when their fear made them to go unto Christ and say to him, Master, save us, which they would not have said, but that they believed to have safety and deliverance by him. Whereas therefore M. Bishop allegeth the old said saw, Dubius in fide infidelis est, he that is doubtful in the faith, is an infidel or unbeliever, we tell him that it is true in him that wholly and absolutely doubteth. But there is a difference to be made betwixt him that absolutely doubteth, and him that weakly assenteth, and in assent is only interrupted with some fear or doubt. For which interruption I trow M. Bishop will not say, that the disciples of Christ were faithless, when Christ himself expressly acknowledgeth their faith. And thus, by reason the seeds of all impiety lie still hidden in the corruption of our nature, it cometh to pass, that faith sometimes is assaulted with doubts, even in the main and principal articles of our belief, and out of our own sinful condition we question upon occasion the godhead, the power, the wisdom, the providence, the justice and mercy of almighty God, when yet our faith doth not wholly relinquish the assent thereof. Which though in generality it more seldom come to pass, yet in application of our general faith to particular occasions, we many times go halting and lame, and stagger somewhat at that whereof our faith should give us full assurance by the word of God. Thus did t Gen. 18.12. Sarah cast doubt of God's promise as touching the having of a child, who yet is said u Heb. 11.11. through faith to have received strength to conceive when she was past age, because she judged him faithful that had promised. Thus did x Numb. 11.21.22. Moses call in question the power of God, as touching providing flesh for the people of Israel when he promised so to do. So y Psal. 73.2.3 David and z Habac. 1.2.13 Habacuk staggered as touching the providence of God, and his care of just and righteous men. So I showed before how the disciples upon the death of Christ were in a mammering concerning the godhead of Christ, and the hope of redemption by him, which before they had embraced. Yet we do not think, that such doubts and mammerings did in these men wholly extinguish the light of true faith. In like sort therefore we also resolve, that the faith whereby we believe our own Salvation, is not by and by overthrown, because sometimes the assurance thereof is shaken and interrupted with casting of fears and doubts. And thus the argument which he added for supply of those which M. Perkins brought, is found to be of as little, indeed less worth than all the rest, and it well appeareth that M. Perkins was better able to speak for M. Bishop, then M. Bishop is able to speak for himself. 11. W. BISHOP. To these invincible reasons grounded upon God's word, let us join some plain testimonies, taken as well out of the holy Scripture, as out of the ancient Fathers. First, what can be more manifest to warrant us, that the faithful have not assurance infallible of their Salvation, Eccles. 9 than these words of the holy Ghost: There be just (and therefore faithful) and wise men, and their works be in the hand of God, and nevertheless a man doth not know whether he be worthy of hatred or love, but all things are kept uncertain for the time to come. Where is then the Protestants certainty? And because one heretic cavilleth against the Latin translation, saying, that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned, hear how S. Jerome, Comment. in hunc locum. who was most cunning in the Hebrew text, doth understand it. The sense is (saith he.) I have found the works of the just men, to be in the hand of God, and yet themselves not to know, whether they be loved of God or no. R. ABBOT. To his former invisible reasons, we shall have now some further testimonies adjoined, that make as little for him as his reasons have done. And first he allegeth a place of Solomon, A man doth not know whether he be worthy of hatred or love, but all things are kept uncertain for the time to come. But he knew well that the translation of this place might justly be excepted against, which indeed is very false. He saith that one heretic cavilleth against it, but neither is he one only, nor an heretic, neither doth he cavil, but justly rejecteth it by warrant of the original text, so as that M. Bishops own friends do translate the words far otherwise than he allegeth them. The Hebrew word for word according to the Septuagint translated by Hierome, is thus; a Eccles. 9.1. Et quidem charitatem & quidem ●●lium no est cognoscens homo omnia in fancy eorum. Hieron. Also love, also hatred, a man knoweth not all in the face of them. The obscurity of which words hath caused men very diversly to conceive of the true meaning thereof. One construction is made by Olympiodorus, that b Olimpiod. in Eccles. ca 9 Qui adhuc sapit quae hominis sunt, neque planè Deo se tradidit, nescit discreto rudicio quae dilectione sunt digna quae odio. he that yet savoureth the things of men, and hath not sincerely given himself to God, knoweth not what things are worthy to be loved, and what to be hated. Another exposition he allegeth taken from the translation of Symmachus; c Ibid. Nescit homo si qu●m nunc maximè odit, mutatis vicibus amicum & beneficum sit experturus, contraque an timendum sibi quandoque sit abeo quem nunc amore prosequitur. A man knoweth not whether upon some change he shall find him loving or kind whom he now hateth, or shall have cause to be afraid of him whom he now loveth. With least mutation or change we translate the words thus, A man knoweth not love or hatred (that is, who is loved or hated) by all that is before them, and then the meaning is plain; that by outward things, by the things that are before our face, a man knoweth not whether he be beloved or hated of God; whereof the reason followeth, because all things come alike to all, and there is the same condition (outwardly) to the just and to the wicked, etc. And to this effect the translation of Symmachus tendeth, though Olympiodorus gathered otherwise thereof. d Symmac. apud Hieron in Eccl. cap 9 Insuper neque amicitias neque immicitias scit homo, sed omnia corarae eis incerta, proptereà quod omnibus eveniunt similia justo & iniusto. Moreover a man knoweth not love or hatred, but all things are uncertain before them, because the like things befall to all, both to just and unjust. Which translation as Hierome approveth, so he confirmeth also the meaning of it, saying, e Hieron ibid. Quod autem ait, eventus est unus omnibus justo & impio sive angustiarum sive mortis significat eventum, & idcirco nec charitatem Dei eos in se nosse nec odium. Whereas he saith that there is the same condition to all, he meaneth it of affliction or of death, and that therefore men know not the love of God or his hatred towards them. And thus indeed true it is as M. Bishop citeth out of Hierome, that a man cannot esteem by any outward state whether he be loved or hated of God; for neither do the righteous only prosper, neither are the wicked only crossed and afflicted, but the wicked flourish many times more gloriously than the just, and the hand of God often lieth heavier upon the just then upon the wicked and ungodly, and both are subject to death, both are laid in the grave without any appearance or show of difference betwixt the one & the other. But this maketh nothing against us; for although by the eye the believer cannot discern the love of God towards himself, yet that hindereth not but that by faith he apprehendeth and embraceth the same. And thus S. Bernard excepteth against that place, being so translated as M. Bishop readeth it. f Bernard. in dedic. eccles. ser. 5. Sed de possibilitate iam cert● de voluntate quid agimus? Quis scit si est dignus amore an edio? Quis novit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Hìc iam planè fidem nobis subvenire necesse est, hìc oportet succurrere veritatem ut quod de nobis latet in cord paetris nobis per ipsius spiritum reveletur & spiritus eius testificans persuadeat spiritut nostro quod filii Dei simus. Being sure of God's ableness to save us, how do we to be assured of his will thereto? for who knoweth whether he be worthy of love or hatred? who hath known the mind of the Lord, or hath been his counsellor? But here faith must help us; bear God's truth must be our succour, that that which lieth hidden concerning us in the heart of God our Father, may by his spirit be revealed unto us, and his spirit by the testimony thereof may persuade our spirit that we are the children of God, and that by calling and justifying us freely by faith. Thus though we take the place translated as M. Bishop allegeth it, yet by S. Bernard's judgement it availeth him nothing, because albeit otherwise we cannot know whether we be beloved or hated of God, yet by faith and by the spirit of God, that secret is revealed unto us, that we are the children of God and beloved of him. Only that we take that worthiness of the love of God, to be meant of God's acceptation and vouchsafing to think us worthy, because otherwise the place so translated soundeth a manifest untruth and contrary to the Scripture. For if we speak simply of worthiness, who doth not know himself worthy of hatred; what faithful man doth not say as Daniel said, g Dan. 9.7. To thee, O Lord, belongeth righteousness, but unto us (reckoning himself for one) belongeth confusion of face. David saith, h Psal. 143.2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight no man living shall be justified. i 130.3. If thou straightly mark what is done amiss, who shall be able to stand? It is false then to say that a man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or of hatred, for he knoweth or should know himself worthy to be hated, but yet by faith a man believeth himself in Christ to be beloved, though he know that in himself he worthily deserveth to be hated. And so S. Bernard again saith of the faithful, k Bernard. epist. 107. Supra scit. 3 A vile worm worthy of everlasting hatred, yet is confidently persuaded that he is beloved, because he feeleth himself to love. Thus S. Bernard both ways cotrarieth M. Bishop, affirming that the faithful man knoweth himself worthy to be hated, and yet by faith confidently presumeth that he is beloved of God. As yet therefore we have no proof that the faithful man ought to stand in fear of his own Salvation. 12. W. BISHOP. Another plain testimony is taken out of S. Paul, where he showeth that it is not in us to judge of our own justice, 1. Cor. 4. but we must leave to God the judgement of it, these be the words: I am not guilty in conscience of any thing, but I am not justified herein, but he that judgeth me is our Lord, therefore judge not before the time until our Lord do come, who also will lighten the hidden things of darkness, and will manifest the counsel of the heart, and then the praise shall be to every man, of God. So that before God's judgement by S. Paul's testimony, men may not assure themselves of their own justice, much less of their Salvation, Serm. 5. in Psa. 118. De constitut. monas. cap 2. how innocent soever they find themselves in their own consciences. See upon this place S. Ambrose, S. Basil, Theodoret on this place, who all agree, that men may have secret faults, which God only seethe, and therefore they must live in fear, and always pray to be delivered from them. For the rest let S. Augustine's testimony (whom our adversaries acknowledge to be the most diligent and faithful register of all antiquity) be sufficient. This most judicious, and holy Father thus defineth this matter: As long as we live here, we ourselves cannot judge of ourselves, I do not say what we shall be to morrow, De verb. Domini. serm 35. De civit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 12. but what we are to day. And yet more directly: Albeit holy men are certain of the reward of their perseverance, yet of their own perseverance, they are found uncertain. For what man can know that he shall persever, and hold on in the action and increase of justice until the end, unless by some revelation he be assured of it from him, who of his just, but secret judgement doth not inform all men of this matter, but deceiveth none: So no just man is assured of his Salvation by his ordinary faith: by extraordinary revelation, some man may be assured, the rest are not. Which is just the Catholic sentence. And because S. Bernard is by our adversaries cited for them in this point, Serm. 1. de Soptuag. take his testimony in as precise terms as any Catholic at this time speaketh. Thus he writeth: Who can say, I am one of the elect, I am one of the predestinate to life, I am one of the number of the children? Who (I say) can thus say, the Scripture crying out against him: A man knoweth nor, Eccles. 9 whether he be worthy of love or hatred? Therefore we have no certainty, but the confidence of hope doth comfort us, that we be not vexed at all with the perplexity of this doubt. The word of God (according to S. Bernard) crieth out against all them, that certainly assure themselves of their Salvation: whereon then do they build their faith that believe it? R. ABBOT. The sum of his argument in this place is, that we are uncertain of our own righteousness, and therefore can have no certainty of our own Salvation. To prove the uncertainty of our righteousness, he allegeth the words of the Apostle, a Cor. 4.4. Of this place see further the fourth Section of the next question, concerning justification. I am not guilty to myself in any thing, yet am I not therein justified. Where it is worth the noting, that whereas the Apostle saith by express negative, I am not justified thereby, he maketh as if the Apostle had meant, I cannot tell whether I be justified or not. It may be I am just, it may be I am not just. If I be, my justice shall merit heaven: if I be not, I know not what may haply become of me. But the Apostle never made any such doubt; he well knew, that the clearness of his conscience was not it that could yield him justification before God. He knew it to be true which S. Austin saith, that b August. de peccat. mer. & remiss. lib 2. cap. 19 Quantum ad integerronam regulam veritatis eius pertinet, non iustifibabitur, etc. according to the most entire rule of God's truth, no man living shall be found just in the sight of God, and therefore professeth, that c Phil. 3.8. he accounteth all things but loss for the excellent knowledge of Christ jesus our Lord, for whom, saith he, I have counted all things loss, and do judge them to be dung, that I might win Christ, and might be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is by the law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, even the righteousness which is of God by faith. Here is then a renouncing of his own righteousness, and an acknowledgement of justification and righteousness only by faith in Christ. A notable fruit of which faith it was so to walk as that he could say, I am not guilty to myself in any thing, in which sort he speaketh elsewhere, d 2. Cor. 1.12. This is our rejoicing, even the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly pureness, not by carnal wisdom but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world. Of which testimony of conscience S. john saith, e 1. john. 3.19.21. If our heart condemn us not (but that we are of the truth) then have we boldness towards God, and shall before him assure our hearts. Whereby we are taught, that to walk with a good conscience in the faith of Christ, ministereth great boldness and assurance towards God, and therefore that the Apostle in the place cited protesting the innocency of his conscience, was far from professing to stand in doubt of his own Salvation, yea and were not M. Bishop a man of an iron face, he would not attribute to the Apostle any such doubt. For the true understanding of the place we are to observe, as appeareth by the process of this epistle, that there were divisions and part-taking amongst the Corinthians, some magnifying one of their teachers, and some another, and they willingly accepting the applause and praises of their followers, and each thinking highly of himself above the rest. Now the Apostle under his own name, and the names of Apollo and Cephas, instructeth those teachers against this vain affectation of human applause: he wisheth them to be content to be reckoned each with other the ministers of Christ, and therein to have a care to deal faithfully towards him whose stewards they are, endeavouring to their uttermost to please the Lord, not thinking the better of themselves for that men magnify them above others, because men know them not, nor can duly esteem of them. Nay, how should other judge of us, when we cannot sufficiently judge of ourselves, who in our greatest innocency as seemeth us, yet cannot justify ourselves to God, and when to ourselves we are guilty of nothing, yet with him are found guilty many ways; because he seethe in as that that we see not in ourselves, and espieth iniquities and defaults where we by our sight can descry none, so that to his sight haply they are found superiors to us, whom we think to be our inferiors; & they are approved for the better, whom men's judgements take to be the worse, & therefore rejecting the vainglorious commendations of partially affected men, we are to refer ourselves wholly to the judgement of the Lord. And thus are those words expounded by those very authors whom M. Bishop citeth, not that men may have secret faults, which perhaps may hinder their being just, but that the best have secret faults at least, by reason whereof in themselves they are not just. Thus Ambrose taketh it; f Ambros. in Psal 118. ser. 5. Delicti conscius sibi non erat, sed quia homo erat, peccatorem se fatebatur, scieus unum esse jesum lumen verum qui peccatum, non fecit, etc. ipsum solii justificari qui verè alienus esset à lapsu. The Apostle was not to himself guilty of default, but because he was a man, he confessed himself a sinner knowing that jesus only is the true light who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth, and that he only is found just, who was indeed free from falling. The words of Theodoret are not so plain, but Basil evidently maketh the Apostle to say; g Basil. in Constit. monast. cap. 2. Hoc est, multa pecco quae non intelligo; unde & propheta dixit, Delicta quis intelliget? etc. Licet multa peccamus, plura tamen dilectorum nostrorum ignoramus. I offend in many things which I know not, as it is written, who knoweth how oft he offendeth? For although we sin many ways, yet we do not know (or we are not ware) of many of our sins. The Apostles words than import not a doubt, but an absolute denial of his being just, even by the testimony of M. Bishops own records. And this shall further appear in the next question, upon further examination of the same words. M. Bishop therefore must change his antecedent proposition, and not say, We are uncertain of our own justice or righteousness, but rather, We are certain and sure that in ourselves we are not just. And if hereof he will conclude, that we must therefore doubt of our own Salvation, we must tell him that his argument holdeth not. Indeed if our Salvation were to stand upon our own righteousness, we were not only to doubt, but wholly to despair of our own Salvation; because by inherent justice, as shall be showed, no man shall be justified in God's sight. Even in our greatest perfection, when we look unto ourselves and our own righteousness, we are subject to that amazed distraction which the Apostle describeth, even to say, h Rom. 10.6. Who shall ascend into heaven? as if Christ were not ascended to make way for us; and Who shall descend into the deep? as if Christ had not died to deliver us from thence: we can never satisfy ourselves how either to escape the one, or to attain the other. Therefore we according to the promise of the Gospel rest the assurance of Salvation upon faith in Christ, fully believing that his merit is our righteousness, and that by the virtue thereof we are accepted unto eternal life. Which sigh M. Bishop knew well enough, it was but an idle vagary of his, to allege this so impertinently for an argument against us. Now as touching the testimonies that he further allegeth, the first of them is nothing to the matter in hand, to say nothing that he quoteth it from a place where it is not found, & where it is found is not Augustine's, though it be in an homily amongst his. The author of those words speaketh to the same purpose as the Apostle did, to dissuade from taking delight in the praises and commendations of men, because they cannot know what commendation should be due unto us. Yea saith he, i Aug. homil. 35. Quamdus vivimus hic. de nobisipsis nosipsi judicare non possumus, non dico quod eras erimus sed quod hody simus. Quantè minus delemus moveri judicijs alienis quàm de conscientia nostra quae nobis perhibet testimonium? Nam gloria nostra debet esse conscientia nostra. So long as we live here we ourselves cannot judge of ourselves, I say not what we shall be to morrow, but what we are to day; how much less than should we be moved with other men's judgements then with our own conscience which giveth testimony unto us: for our conscience should be our glory? We are not then upon other men's opinions of us to swell in opinion of ourselves; we do not for the present sufficiently conceive our own imperfections and defaults, which with God may detract from us much of that which men attribute unto us; we know not whether God may suffer us to fall, as he doth many times his dearest children, to stain that commendation and vain glory that we take too great pleasure in; but all this hindereth nothing but that faith is assured by the word of God that God will never suffer it so to fail, or us so to fall, as to fall utterly away from him. The other place of Austin speaketh indefinitely of all, who k Aug de civit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 12. Quos videmus justè ac prè cum spe futurae immortalitatis hanc vitam ducere, etc. Licet de suae perseverantiae praemio certi sunt, de ipsa tamen perseverantia sua reperiuntur incerti, etc. to our sight live justly and godlily with hope of future immortality, who though they be (all) sure that there is a reward of perseverance, yet are not (all) sure to persevere, because all are not indeed the same that to our sight they seem to be. Only they are assured thereof, as he saith, l Quis sciat, etc. nisi aliqua revelatione ab illo fiat certus qui de hac re justo latentique judicio non omnes instruit sed neminem fallit. whom God assureth by revelation from him; who doth reveal it by faith, through the spirit in our vocation and justification, as we have heard before out of S. Bernard's words. The same S. Austin saith to his hearers; m De ver. Apos. ser. 16. Fidei quae per dilectionem operatur si est in vobis, iam pertinetis ad praedestinatos, vocatos, iustificatos. If there be in you faith which worketh by love, even now ye belong to them that are predestinated, called, justified. Now sith the faithful by S. Augustine's judgement do belong to them that are predestinated, called, justified, it followeth by S. Augustine's judgement, that they are to be assured that they belong to them that shall be glorified, and therefore shall certainly persever, because n Rom. 8.30. whom God hath predestinated, called, justified, them he hath glorified, as the Apostle saith. And therefore doth S. Austin will the faithful man o August. in Psal. 148. Supra Sect. 3. to believe that he shall live for ever, as before was showed, and if he must believe to live for ever, he must believe also to persever, not doubting thereof, because what Christ saith in the Gospel to one, belongeth to every one, p Mat. 9.29. According to thy faith so be it unto thee. Such is then the certainty and assurance that we teach, not as commonly we understand certainty and assurance by sense or by reason, by evidence and plain appearance, whereby directly and immediately we know the thing whereof we are assured (this certainty and assurance S. Austin denieth, and so do we) but an assurance of faith, whereby by signs & arguments we believe by the word and promise of God that so it shallbe, and rest assured that so it shall be, because we do believe. And this is ordinary faith, whereby God ordinarily in some measure revealeth the secret of his election to the faithful, neither is there any necessity to restrain S. Augustine's words to extraordinary revelation, as M. Bishop doth. That former certainty S. Bernard also denieth in the words alleged by M. Bishop, but we have before seen how he avoucheth the certainty of faith against the words cited in the place here alleged, A man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or of hatred. No man by any apprehension or light of flesh and blood can say, I am one of the elect, I am one of the predestinate: no man by judgement of reason or human knowledge can conceive it, but yet as he saith in the very place here cited, q Bernard. in septuag. ser. 1. Data sunt signa quaedam & indicia manifesta salutis ut indubitabile sit eum esse de numero electorum in quo ea signa permanserint. there are certain manifest signs and tokens of Salvation, such as that it is without all doubt that he is of the number of the elect in whom those tokens do remain. Of which signs he speaketh thus in another place: r Jdem id octava. Paschae. ser. 2. Quomodò sine testimonio electos suos deserat Deus? aut certè quaenam eis esse poterat consolatio inter spem & metum solicitudine anxia fluctuantibus, si nullum omninò electionis suae testimonium habere mereretur? Novit Dominus qui sunt eius, & solus ipse scit quos elegerit à principio. Quis verò scit hominum si est dignus amore vel odio? Quòd si ut certum est certitudo nobis omninò negatur, nunquid non tantò delectabiliora erunt siqua fortè electionis huius signa possimus invenire? Quam enim requiem habere potest spiritus noster dum praedestinationis suae nullum adhuc testimonium tenet, fidelis proinde sermo & omni acceptione dignus quo salutis testimony commendantur. How should God leave his elect without testimony (of their election?) or what comfort might there be unto them waving carefully betwixt hope and fear, if they did not find the favour to have some testimony thereof? The Lord knoweth who are his, he only knoweth whom he hath chosen from the beginning: but what man knoweth if he be worthy of love or hatred? But if, as certain it is, that certainty be denied unto us (in such sort as before was said) how much the more delightful shall they be, if we can find any tokens of this election? For what rest can our soul have, so long as it hath yet no testimony of it own predestination? Therefore it is a word to be believed, and worthy by all means to be received, whereby the witness and testimony of our Salvation is commended unto us. Thus he denieth that absolute certainty that before I mentioned, but denieth not that certainty of faith which is gathered from such signs and tokens as by the word of God are delivered unto us, which he giveth to understand is such as whereby we are kept from that waving and wavering betwixt hope and fear, which M. Bishop requireth to take place in every faithful man. And this certainty is such as that Bernard himself thus expresseth it in himself: s Idem de evang. sept panum. ser. 3. Tria sum n quae sic 〈◊〉 & confirmant cer 〈◊〉, ut nulla 〈…〉, meritorum, nulla const●● propriae vilitatis, nulla 〈◊〉 coelestis bratitudinis ib altitudine spes de scere possit in ea firmitèr radicatum, etc. Tria considero in quibus tota spes mea consistit, charitatem adoptionis, veritatem promissionis, potestatem redditionis. Murmur etiam quantum volverit insipiens cogitatio mea, dicens, Quis enim es tu, aut quanta est illa gloria, quibu sue meritis hanc obtinere speras? Et ego fiducialitèr respondebo, scio cui credidi & certus sum quia in charitate nimia adoptavit me, quia verax in promissione, quia potent in exhibitione, etc. There are three things which do so strengthen and 'stablish my heart, as that no want of merits, no consideration of mine own vileness, no estimation of the heavenly bliss, can cast me down from the height of my hope, being fast rooted therein; I consider three things, I say, in which my hope wholly consisteth: the love of God in adopting me, the truth of his promise, and his power to perform the same. Let my foolish thought now repine and murmur as much as it will, saying, Who art thou, and how great is that glory, and by what merits dost thou hope to obtain the same? and I will boldly answer, I know whom I have believed, and I am certain or sure, because he hath adopted me in great love, because he is true in his promise, because he is of power to make good the same. Thus Saint Bernard expressly affirmeth a certainty of faith, and speaketh so like a Protestant, as that if he were now alive he should at Rome be condemned for an heretic as well as we. He was not of the mind that M. Bishop saith, that the word of God crieth out against them that by faith take assurance of their Salvation, but only denieth that there is any assurance of Salvation to be taken from our own immediate and absolute knowledge and apprehension thereof, which we also confess as well as he. 7. W. BISHOP. If it may be permitted to join modern opinions with ancient, bad men with good, I could prove by the testimony of every principal sect of this time, that all other sectaries were deceived in this their persuasion of their Salvation. For both Lutherans, Caluinists, and Anabaptists (to omit the rest) do hold every one of themselves assured of their Salvation, and yet each sect holdeth every one not of his own band assured of damnation: so that by the sentence of the Lutherans, all Caluinists, and Anabaptists, are miserably deceived when they assure themselves of their Salvation: In like manner if the Anabaptists be true censurers, both Lutherans, and Caluinists, and all other, not of their heresy, err foully, when they bear themselves in hand that they shall be saved. Certain it is therefore by the consent of all the world, that very many who assure themselves of Salvation, are indeed assured of damnation. R. ABBOT. A fools bolt is soon shot. Bad men, saith he, with good, but of all those bad men are there any so bad as he & his fellow Seculars have described the jesuits to be, and the jesuits them? Let us turn the argument then upon themselves; The Secular Priests hope for Salvation, yet the jesuits hold them for proud men, contentious, irregular, scandalous, and in a word for schismatics, and therefore in case of damnation. So the jesuits hope for Salvation; yet the Seculars, though being brought in case to leap at a crust, they now dissemble it, hold them for very villains, the notable impostors and cosiners of the world, for very rakehells and devils incarnate, for heretics and what not? Thus M. Bishop hath been conceited; thus hath Watson in his Quodlibets discovered them, and thereby to be assuredly in state of damnation also. Their grounds therefore on both sides are false, whereby they conceive any hope of Salvation. Yea, and in the body of their unity amongst their Popes, their Cardinals, their Bishops, and the rest, there are many who upon false grounds do hope for Salvation. Is it an argument therefore that they have no true grounds, whereupon to build the hope thereof? The Turks hope for Salvation by their superstitions, the jews hope for Salvation by their traditions, and both take the Papists to be damned; and will M. Bishop take this to be any impeachment of their hope? So therefore although Papists and Anabaptists, and such other absurd heretics do think the faithful to be in state of damnation, yet this nothing hindereth, but that the faithful themselves upon the grounds that God hath laid before them, should stand assured of Salvation. As for that which he saith of Lutherans and Caluinists, it is but the casting of his gall, the bitterness whereof remaineth only to himself. We joy not in any such titles, nor love to divide ourselves as Popish Monks and Friars do, by the names of men. And in that difference of opinions that is betwixt them that are so called, there is none that is soberly minded, that doth prejudicate the others hope towards God, but rather by unity of faith in the main, learneth of the Apostle to say, a Phil. 3.15. If any be otherwise minded (than he ought) God will even reveal the same unto him. There may be difference of opinions betwixt good men, as it fell out of old betwixt Cyprian and Stephanus Bishop of Rome, betwixt Hierome and Austin, betwixt chrysostom and Epiphanius, and sundry others, yea and the same may grow to some eagerness and anger whilst each maintaineth his own conceit, but S. Austin's rule ought to be remembered: b August. in Psal. 33. Non possunt nisi existere rixae aliquae quomodo inter fratres & inter sanctos extiterunt, inter Barnabam & Paul● sed non quae occiderent concordiam, non qua interimerent charitatem. There may be brawls, as there have been sometimes betwixt brethren, betwixt Saints and holy men, as betwixt Barnabas and Paul, but not to break concord of heart, not to destroy charity and love. Which rule so long as we retain, and do c Ephe 4.15. follow the truth in love, as the Apostle exhorteth God doth pardon our error, and will in his good time bring our darkness into light, that in the end d Ver. 13. we may all meet together in the unity of faith and knowledge of the son of God, to be e 1 Cor. 1.10. of one mind and of one judgement, which we all ought to strive unto. This mind Cyprian bare in his private opinion of rebaptizing, saying to them that were assembled in counsel with him, f Cyprian in council. Carthag. De hac ipsa re quid singuli sentiamus proferamus, neminem iudicantes nec a iure communionis aliquen si diversum senserit ameventes. Let us every man deliver what we think of this matter, judging no man, nor severing any man from the right of our communion for being minded otherwise. With this mind Austin said to Hierome, g August. epist. 15. Si fieri potest ut inter nos quaeramus & disseramus aliquid quo sine amaritudine discordiae corda nostra pascantur fiat. Si autem non possum dicere quid mihi emendandum videatur in scriptis tuis nec tu in meis sine suspicione invidiae aut laesione amicitiae, quiescamus ab his, & nostrae vitae salutique parcamus. Minus certè assequatur illa quae instat, dum non offendatur illa quae edificat. If it may be that we may search or reason betwixt us any matter, whereby without bitterness of discord our hearts may be fed, let us so do. But if I cannot say what I think is to be amended in thy writings, or thou in mine, without suspicion of envy, and breach of friendship, let us give over these matters, and favour our own life and Salvation. Let knowledge which puffeth up have the less, that there may be no offence to love which edifieth. They who in the profession of one true religion, do prosecute their differences with other mind, do bewray their own corruption, and break that h Ephe. 4.3. unity of the spirit, that should be preserved by the bond of peace. Seeing therefore we bear this mind in some difference of opinions, it is nothing else but M. Bishop's malice to infer thereof, that we each to other deny the hope or assurance of Salvation. But his conclusion of all this babblement is a wise one, Certain it is therefore that very many who assure themselves of Salvation, are indeed assured of damnation. For what is it to the question, if any by carnal security dreaming of Salvation, have in the end failed of that, which rashly and without ground they have presumed of? We doubt not but many presumptuous hypocrites and heretics come to nought, who for the time by vain opinion have flattered themselves in the false hope of that which they never embraced by true faith. But the fall of them in whom there never was any true faith, no whit impeacheth the assurance of them, who truly and unfeignedly do believe. 14. W. BISHOP. With the testimonies of the ancient Doctors for us, Pag. 55. I pray thee gentle Reader, confer those which M. Perkins in his sixth reason allegeth against us. First, S. Augustine in these words: Of an evil servant, De verb. Domini. serm. 28. thou art made a good child, therefore presume not of thine own doing, but of the grace of Christ. It is no arrogancy, but faith to acknowledge, what thou hast received, it is not pride, but devotion. What word is here of Certainty of Salvation? but that it belongeth to a faithful man, to confess himself much bound to God, for calling of him to be his. Which every Christian must do, hoping himself so to be, and being most certain, that if he be not in state of grace, it is long of himself, and no want on God's part. The second place hath not so much as any show of words for him, thus he speaketh: Let no man ask another man, Tract. 5. in Epis. joan. but return to his own heart, and if he find Charity there, he hath security for his passage, from like to death. What need was there to seek charity in his heart for security of his Salvation, if his faith assured him thereof, therefore this text maketh flat against him. R. ABBOT. The words of Austin, or rather of Ambrose (for he indeed is the author of them) are these, a August. de verb. Dom. ser. 28. ex Ambros. de sacram. lib 5. cap. 4. O homo non audebas oculos tuos ad coelum attollere: oculos tuos ad terram dirigebas & subitò accepisti gratiam Christi. Omnia tibi peccata dimissa sunt. Ex malo servo factus es bonus filius. Ideo praesume non de operatione tua sed de Christi gratià. Gratia enim saluati estis, Apostolus ait. Non ergo hìc arrogantia est sed fides praedicare quod acceperis non est superbia sed devotio. O man thou didst not dare to lift thine eyes to heaven; thou didst cast them to the earth, and upon the sudden thou receivedst the grace of Christ: all thy sins are forgiven thee. Of an evil servant thou art made a good son. Presume therefore not of thine own working, but of the grace of Christ. For by grace ye are saved, saith the Apostle. Here therefore is no arrogancy, but faith; to speak of that which thou hast received, is not pride, but devotion. To which words Master Bishop answereth, What word is here of Certainty of Salvation, when as expressly against his assertion it is affirmed, that the faithful regenerate in Christ, doth presume, that his sins are forgiven him, that he hath received the grace of Christ, that he is made the child of God, and that this is no arrogancy, no pride, no unlawful presumption, but a matter of faith, a matter of devotion, and a good presumption, as he calleth it afterwards. Now all these things he comprehendeth under the name of Salvation, citing to that purpose the words of the Apostle, By grace ye are saved. For how doth the Apostle say, By grace ye are saved, as of a thing done already, but for that we are made partakers of the forgiveness of sins, have received the grace of Christ, and are become the children of God? Therefore in presuming of these things, as Ambrose willeth the faithful to do, we consequently presume, and stand assured of our own Salvation, because in these things our Salvation is begun, as appeareth by the words of Christ concerning Zacheus; b Luk. 19.9. This day Salvation is come to this house, because this man is become the son of Abraham. And whereas M. Bishop saith, we may not presume hereof, because we know not our own works or righteousness, S. Ambrose telleth us, that this is not to be presumed of our own works, but of the grace of Christ, the true calling whereof is such, as maketh us that whereunto we are called, because we are thereby called, not at the ear only, but inwardly, and in the heart. Therefore them that are thus truly called, S. Ambrose willeth not coldly to hope, according to the manner of M. Bishop's hope, where fear is as strong as hope, but faithfully and devoutly to presume that they are in the state of grace; not with doubting to think, that if they be not so, it is long of themselves, but to resolve that without themselves they are so indeed, only by the grace of God. We may well think that it was a frosty morning, that made M. Bishop to make so cold construction of so effectual and plain words. But in the next place cited out of Austin, he goeth beyond himself. Let us take the whole words as he hath them, upon these words of S. john; c 1. john. 3.14. By this we know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren. Hereupon saith he, d August. in joan. tract. 5. Quid nos scimus? Quia transivimus de morte ad vitam. unde scimus? Quia diligimus fratres. Nemo interroget hominem: redeat unus quisque ad cor suum. Si ibi invenerit charitatem fraternam se uros sit, quia transcit de morte ad vitam. jam in dextera est. Non attendat quia more lo gloria eius occulia est: cum venerit Dominus tunc apparebit gloria eius. Viget enim sed adhuc in hyeme: viget radix, sed qu est aridi sunt raini. Intus est medulli quae vigis tintus sunt solit arborum, 〈◊〉 fructus, sed aestatem expectant. Ergo nos 〈◊〉, etc. What do we know? That we are translated from death to life. Whereby do we know it? Because we love the brethren. Let no man ask of another man; let him return to his own heart: if he find there love to the brethren, let him be without doubt that he is passed from death to life. He is now on the right hand. Let him not regard that his glory is now hid; when the Lord shall come, than his glory shall appear. For he is alive, but yet as in the winter; the root is alive, but the branches are in a manner dry. Within is the pith that liveth, within are the leaves, within are the fruits, but they look for a summer. Therefore we know, that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren. Where we see both by the text itself, and by the exposition of this ancient Father, that by love towards them that are our brethren in the faith of jesus Christ, we are to take knowledge and assurance of our being translated from death to life, that is, of our own Salvation, and that so as to be without doubt thereof, and yet this wrangler doubteth not to say, This place hath not so much as any show of words for him. The point in question is affirmed, not in ambiguous and doubtful words, but evidently and apparently, and yet he goeth away with, This place hath not so much as any show of words for him, nay this text maketh flat against him. But why so, I pray you? What need was there, saith he, to seek charity in his heart for security of his Salvation, if his faith assured him thereof? But why doth he not answer to the point? Doth not S. Austin teach the faithful an assurance of Salvation, be it by faith, be it by charity, let not that here be the question? Is there to the faithful by S. Austin's judgement, any assurance of Salvation? He could not tell how directly to deny it, and yet with a Romish and impudent face passeth it over, as if there were no such thing. The only shift that he insinuateth, is this, that this assurance spoken of by S. Austin, is by charity, and not by faith. But what then, is there assurance by charity? No such matter; for he hath told us before, that charity is seated in the e Sect. 6. dark corners of the will, and we cannot tell whether we have it or not. And so whereas the Apostle, and by him S. Austin say, that we know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren, he contrariwise saith; We cannot know that we are translated from death to life, because we cannot know that we love the brethren, in both points absolutely contradicting both the one and the other. But to his foolish question I answer him, that the affirming of the assurance of faith, is no denial of the means and helps from which it gathereth and increaseth this assurance. Faith giveth assurance of Salvation by the word of God, not only by apprehending the promises of life & Salvation, but also by observing such marks and tokens as the word of God setteth down, to describe them to whom this Salvation doth appertain, which when a man findeth in himself, his faith thereby giveth him the comfort of Salvation, because it believeth that which the word of God hath delivered, concerning them in whom those signs & marks are found. Therefore it doth not only look to that which Christ saith, that f john. 3.16. whosoever believeth shall have everlasting life, but because Christ also saith, g john. 8.47. He that is of God, heareth God's word, therefore the faithful man delighting in the word of God, believeth concerning himself, that he is of God. Because the Apostle saith, h Rom. 10.13. Every one that calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, therefore the faithful man unfeignedly calling upon the name of the Lord, believeth of himself that he shall be saved. And so whereas S. john saith, that we know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren, it is our faith whereby we take this knowledge, that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren; for how should we know it, but that our faith believeth that which the word of God hath taught us in that behalf? How idly then doth he argue, that we need not seek for charity for assurance of Salvation, if we be assured thereof by faith, when charity itself is appointed for a help of that assurance which we have by faith; when from charity it is in some part that faith by the word of God, conceiveth a reason of that assurance? But by his answers to these places, the Reader may esteem of his wilfulness in all the rest. How miserable is the case of those men, who being so fast bound with the bonds of truth, as that they know not which way to stir, yet have no heart nor conscience, to give assent to that which they are no way able to resist? 15. W. BISHOP. Sup. 5. cap. Mat. The next Author he citeth is S. Hylarie, in these words: The Kingdom of heaven which our Lord professed to be in himself, his will is that it be hoped for, without any doubtfulness of uncertain will (at all, is an addition) otherwise there is no justification by faith, if faith itself be made doubtful. First, he faith, but as we say, that the Kingdom of heaven is to be hoped for, without any doubtfulness; for we profess Certainty of hope, and deny only Certainty of faith, as M. Perkins confesseth before. And as for faith, we say with him also, it is not doubtful, but very certain. What maketh this to the purpose, that a man must believe his own Salvation, when S. Hilary speaketh there of faith of the resurrection of the dead? His last Author is S. Bernard: Who is the just man, Epist. 107. but he that being loved of God, loves him again? which comes not to pass but by the spirit, revealing by faith the eternal promise of God, of his Salvation to come, which revelation is nothing else, but the infusion of spiritual grace, by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified, the man is prepared to the kingdom of heaven, together receiving in one spirit, that whereby he may presume, that he is loved and loves again. Note that he saith the revelation of the spirit, to be nothing else but the infusion of spiritual graces, and comfort, whereby a man hath some feeling of God's goodness towards him, by which (he saith) he may presume, but not believe certainly, that he is loved of God. But let S. Bernard in the same place interpret himself, there he speaketh thus, as I cited once before: It is given to men to taste before hand, somewhat of the bliss to come, etc. Of the which knowledge of ourselves now in part perceived, a man doth in the mean season glory in hope, but not yet in security. His opinion then is expressly, that for all the revelations of the spirit made by faith unto us, we are not assured for Certainty of our Salvation, but feel great joy, through the hope we have hereafter to receive it. R. ABBOT. The words of Hilary are very plain, that a Hilar. in Mat. cap. 5. Regnum coelorum vult Dominus sine aliquae incertae voluntatis ambiguitate sperari: alioqum justificatio ex fide nulla est si fides ipsa sit ambigua. without doubting we are to hope for the kingdom of heaven, and that it is the will of Christ that we do so. Whereof he addeth a reason, Otherwise there is no justification by faith, if faith itself become doubtful, which if we will accommodate to that that goeth before, it must import thus much, that we cannot by our faith be justified, to the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven, if we do not undoubtedly believe to obtain the same. M. Bishop answereth first, that Hilary saith but as they say. No doth? Why, do they say that without doubting we must hope for the kingdom of heaven? He saith yea, but forgetting the proverb, that a liar must bear a brain. For in the leaf b Sect. 10. before he hath set it down for a principle, confirmed as he saith, by above an hundred texts of holy writ, that the faithful must stand in fear of their own Salvation. There cannot be certain and undoubted hope, where there is a necessity of fear. If a man must stand in fear, then can he not hope without doubt. Thus he knoweth not what he saith, nor what to say; We must fear, and we must not fear; we must doubt, and we must not doubt: there is Certainty, and there is no Certainty. Whereas he saith that M. Perkins confesseth, that they profess certainty of hope, he speaketh to that purpose somewhat, but so as that he confesseth that certainty to be as they affirm it, only probable and conjectural, and not that which is here spoken of, which is without doubting. These words therefore are directly contrary to that which they say, because here it is said that we must without doubt hope for the kingdom of heaven, whereas they say, we must never so hope for it but that we must fear and stand in doubt. Whereas he maketh a difference betwixt certainty of hope, and certainty of faith, it is nothing to this place. For when Hilary for reason of that he saith, that we must hope without doubting, bringeth in, that faith if it be doubtful doth not justify, he plainly showeth that he confoundeth faith and hope, and taketh them here both for the same, and importeth that we are to believe to be made partakers of the kingdom of heaven, which is the same as to believe our own Salvation. But saith M. Bishop, Hilary there speaketh of the faith of the resurrection of the dead. Very lewdly and unhonestly: for there is not a word there spoken of the resurrection of the dead, but only to show how Christ confirmeth his to the undoubted c Confirmare nos in spem honorum aeternorum (fiduciam futurorum) laborat. confidence and hope of those good things which are to come, and shall continue for ever. And that he may yet further understand that Hilary by hope meaneth otherwise then they do, he saith in another place; d In Psal. 2. in fine. Non trepidam spem neque ambiguam perfectio beatitudinis exigit. Confidentia ad id opus est firmae opinionis scilicet & indemutabili voluntate; quia plùs sit confidere quam sperare. Confidendum ergo est ne nos à via justa exardescens brevi ira Dei deperdat. Fidelis enim est qui ait, Qui credit in me, etc. that the accomplishing of our bliss requireth a hope that is without fear or doubt. We have thereto need of the confidence of a firm and constant opinion, and an unchangeable mind, because to be confident is more than to hope. We are therefore to be confident therein, lest the wrath of God waxing hot, do suddenly destroy us from the right way. For he is faithful who saith, He that believeth in me, shall not be judged, but shall pass from death to life. By which words it appeareth manifestly, that the true hope is not, as M. Bishop taketh it, a probable and likely conceit joined with uncertainty and fear, but a confident hope, a settled and constant hope, believing steadfastly without fear or doubt to receive that life and bliss that Christ hath promised. At the next place of Bernard he again very wilfully shutteth his eyes, and refuseth to see that which he cannot choose but see. What can be more directly spoken to the matter in hand, then e Bernard. epist. 107. Revelante spiritu per fidem homini aeternum Dei propesitum super salute sua futurae. that the spirit by faith revealeth to a man the eternal purpose of God concerning his own Salvation to come? Why doth he deny to a man to believe his own Salvation, when the spirit by faith revealeth to him the purpose of God, that he shall be saved? Here is no ambiguity of words, here is an express affirming of the point in question, that the spirit by faith revealeth to a man the everlasting purpose of God concerning his own Salvation. What have we now for answer hereof? Note, saith he, that he saith the revelation of the spirit, to be nothing else but the infusion of spiritual grace. But what is that to the purpose what this revelation is? Why doth he not answer to the point, that the spirit of God by faith revealeth unto a man the purpose of God concerning his own Salvation? Let that revelation be howsoever, it is sufficient for us that God by his spirit revealeth to a man that, whence he hath to believe his own Salvation. Now Bernard indeed declareth this f Quae sanè revelatio no est aliud quàm infusio gratiae spiritualis, per quam dum facta carnis mortificantur, homo ad regnum praeparatur quod caro & sanguis non possident, simul accipiens in uno spiritu & unde se praesumat amatum, & unde redamet ne gratis amatus sit. revelation to be nothing else but the infusion of spiritual grace, by which whilst the deeds of the flesh are mortified, a man is prepared to the kingdom which flesh and blood inherit not, receiving together in one spirit, both whereby he may presume that he is loved, and doth also love again. But this impeacheth nothing that we say, nay it serveth wholly to strengthen our assertion. For how doth faith by the infusion of spiritual grace, apprehend the purpose of God concerning our Salvation, but in that it believeth by the word of God, that they to whom such and such graces are given, are the children of God, and shall be saved; that they who are called and justified, shall also be glorified? And thus S. Bernard at large declareth in that epistle, that g Sic adortum solis justitiae sacramentum absconditum a seculis de praedestinatis & beatificandis emergere quodammodo incipit ex abysso aternitatis, dum quisque vocatus per timorem, justificatus per amorem, praesumit se quoque esse de numero beatorum, s●iens nimirum quia quos iustificavit illos & magnificavit. at the rising of the sun of righteousness (in our justification) the secret that was hidden from the beginning, concerning them that are predestinate and shall be blessed, beginneth to appear out of the depth of eternity, whilst a man called by the fear of God, and made just by love, presumeth that he is one of the number of the blessed, knowing that whom he hath justified, them he hath also glorified: that h Habes homo huius arcani indicem spiritum iustificantem, ecque ipso testificantem spiritui tuo quòd filius Dei & ipse sis. Agnosce censilium Dei in justificatione tui. a man is to take for the declarer of that secret the spirit justifying him, and thereby testifying to his spirit, that he is the child of God; that i Id quisque accipit iniustificatione sui ut incipiat & ipse cognoscere sicut & cognitus est, cùm videlicet datur & ipsi praesentire aliquid de sua ipsius futura beatitudine, quemadmodum ab aeterno latuit in praedestinante, plenius appariturum in beatificante. in his justification he is to take knowledge of the counsel of God, and that therein he beginneth to know even as he is known, there being given to him to perceive somewhat before hand of his future bliss, accordingly as hath lain hid from everlasting in God by whom he was predestinate, and shall more fully appear in the same God, when he shall make him blessed. This is the revealing that Saint Bernard speaketh of by infusion of spiritual grace: this we approve and confirm, and hereof before I noted, that faith to strengthen itself in the assurance of Salvation, looketh to those fruits and effects of faith and of the grace of God, which are set down as signs and marks of them to whom the promises of Salvation do belong. But now M. Bishop overturneth all that Bernard speaketh in this behalf; for whereas he setteth down the fear of God, repentance, charity, prayer, purpose of new life, as the things whereby that revelation is performed unto us, he denieth that there can be any such revelation, because repentance, the fear of God, charity and such like are seated in the dark corners of the will, and a man knoweth not whether he have the same or not. A man, he saith, may hope that he is in the state of grace, and must think that if he be not so, it is long of himself, but he cannot know that he is so. Thus S. Bernard teacheth, that God of his great goodness bringeth the heart of man into his wonderful light; but M. Bishop keepeth him in horrible darkness, where a man awake and in his right wits, can conceive nothing but dread and fear. Therefore it is but for a shift that here he maketh Bernard to say, that by infusion of grace a man hath some feeling of God's goodness towards him; for how can he have any feeling of God's goodness towards him by infusion of grace, when he cannot know that he hath any infused grace? Albeit Bernard doth not say only, that a man hath some feeling of God's goodness towards him, but that to the justified man, it is given to have a fore-feeling of his own bliss. Therefore he so presumeth that he is beloved of God, as that he certainly believeth it. For a man is certainly to believe what the spirit of God revealeth. But the spirit revealeth to the justified man the purpose of God concerning his own Salvation. He is therefore certainly to believe, that he is beloved of God, and shall be saved. And so S. Bernard saith, that k Agnoscit se meritò quidem non tam ira sed gratiae filium, quip qui paternum erga se divinae bonitatis experitur affectum, etc. se considet amari, praesentit amari, etc. praesumit se esse de numero beaterum. he acknowledgeth himself to be the child of grace, that he hath the trial and proof of the fatherly affection of God's goodness towards him; that he perceiveth, & confidently resolveth that he is beloved of God, that he presumeth himself to be of the number of the blessed. And what is it to presume but to take for certain, and certainly to believe that that is true whereof we do presume? But saith M. Bishop: Let S. Bernard interpret himself in the same place. Be it so; but I will translate for him, unless he could translate more faithfully than he doth. l Datur ipsi praesentire aliquid de sua ipsius futurae beatitudine. It is given to the justified man, saith Bernard, to have some fore-feeling of his own bliss to come. And what? will M. Bishop deny him to believe that which S. Bernard saith he doth in part already feel? Yea, but it followeth: m De qua tamen tam percepta suimet ex part notitia, interim quidem glorietur in spe, nondum tamen in securitate. Of which knowledge of himself now already perceived in part, he for the time rejoiceth in hope, but not yet in security. And what of this? Marty, saith he, his opinion then is, that for all the revelations of the spirit made by faith unto us, we are not assured for Certainty of our Salvation, but feel great joy through the hope we have hereafter to receive it. But he hath a very wrong opinion of Bernard's opinion. What? because a man rejoiceth not in security for the present, doth it follow that he hath no assured Certainty of Salvation to come? And what? is there not assured Certainty to be conceived of that that is revealed by the spirit of God? Surely n 1. john. 5.6. the spirit is truth, and we are fully to assure ourselves of that that is revealed thereby, as before was said. And if there be no assurance, what glorying or rejoicing can there be? He saith, that we feel great joy through the hope we have hereafter to receive it. But what joy can there be of that, of which as he saith we must continually stand in fear? If there be no assurance, there can be no joying or glorying; if there be joying and glorying, it must arise from Certainty & assurance. S. Bernard in that phrase of rejoicing or glorying in hope, alludeth to the words of the Apostle, o Rom. 5.2. We rejoice or glory under the hope of the glory of God. Upon which words chrysostom observeth, that by the word of p Chrysost. in Rom. hom. 9 Gloriamur ait, ut intelligat quali animo praeditum eum esse oportet, qui fidem suam Deo obstrinxit. Neque enim illi solum plenam persuasionem factam esse oportet de ijs quae data sunt, sed de futuris tam quam tam datis. Gloriatur enim quis super ijs quae tam in manu habet. Quontam igitur rerum futurarum spes sic firma est atque evidens ut & tam datarum, aequè inquit & super illis gloriamur. glorying, the Apostle declareth what mind he is to bear that hath tied his faith to God. For he must have a full persuasion, saith he, not only of the things that are already given, but also of the things to come, as if they were already given. For a man glorieth or rejoiceth of these things which he hath in hand. Because therefore the hope of the things to come, is as sure and certain as the things already given, the Apostle saith, we alike rejoice thereof. So then Saint Bernard by the same phrase teacheth the justified man as touching Certainty of expectation to glory in hope of the bliss to come, as if the same were already given unto him. Therefore he saith of him in the same epistle: q Epist. 107. post med. Gloriari incipit praeter spem in spe gloriae filirium Dei quam tam nimirum e vicino revelata facie exultans nonc in lumine speculatur & dicit, signatum est, etc. He glorieth in the hope of the glory of the sons of God, which now even near at hand with open face he beholdeth, leaping for joy at this new light and saying, The light of thy countenance is sealed upon us, O Lord, thou hast put gladness in my heart. Now therefore whereas he saith he glorieth in hope, but not yet in security, we must not think that by denying security he overthroweth rejoicing in hope, but signifieth that much conflict remaineth for the attainment of that, which notwithstanding certainly & undoubtedly he hopeth for. He denieth him so to rejoice, as if there were no further dangers to be feared, no further opposition to be expected, no further temptations to be endured, no further enemies to be resisted, and importeth that there is much fight and wrestling, much care and sorrow, many perplexities and troubles yet to be forecast and looked for. We may not then be secure, as if there were nothing any more to trouble us, but we may be secure and without doubt of an happy issue and deliverance from all troubles, and this is the hope that we rejoice in. Therefore S. Austin saith, as before was cited: r August. in Psal. 37. Spe securus est. joy that thou art redeemed, but yet not in real effect: as touching hope be secure (be without fear.) So again: s Idem in epist. joan tract. 3. supra sect. 14. If a man have in his heart love towards the brethren, let him be secure (let him be without doubt) that he is passed from death to life. And thus doth Cyprian describe the condition of faithful Christians, t Cyprian cont. Demetr. Viget apud nos spes robur & firmitas fidei, & inter ipsa seculi libentis ruinas erecta mens, & immobilis virtus & nunquam nisi laesa patientia, & de Deo suo semper anima secura. There is with us strength of hope, and steadfastness of faith, and amidst the ruins of the decaying world a courageous mind, and constant virtue, and patience, always joyful, and a soul always secure (or without doubt) of God to be our God. To be short, how far Saint Bernard was from denying the security of particular faith and hope, appeareth by that that before hath been said in the twelfth section, whereby it is plain that it was not his purpose here to require that necessity that M. Bishop doth, of doubt & fear. 16. W. BISHOP. This passage of testimonies being dispatched, let us now come unto the five other reasons, which M. Perkins produceth in defence of their opinion. The first reason is, That in faith there are two things, the one is an infallible assurance of those things which we believe: This we grant, and therehence prove (as you heard before) that there can be no faith of our particular Salvation, because we be not so fully assured of that, Apoc. 3. but that we must stand in fear of losing of it, according to that, Hold that which thou hast, lest perhaps another receive thy crown. But the second point of faith, puts all out of question. For (saith M. Perkins) it doth assure us of remission of our sins, and of life everlasting in particular. Prove that Sir, and we need no more. It is proved out of S. john: As many as received him, john. 1. he gave them power to be made the sons of God, namely, to them that believe in his name. This text cometh much too short: he gave them power to be the sons, that is, gave them such grace, that they were able, and might if they would, be sons of God, but did not assure them of that neither, much less that they should so continue unto their lives end. I omit his unsavoury discourse of eating, and believing Christ, and applying unto us his benefits, (which he might be ashamed to make unto us, that admit no part of it to be true:) I confess that therein faith hath his part, if it be joined with charity, and frequentation of the Sacraments. This is it which S. Paul teacheth, That not by the works of Moses law, Gal. 3. but by faith in Christ jesus we receive the promises of the spirit, & shall have hereafter the performance, if we observe those things which Christ hath commanded us. But what is this to Certainty of Salvation? But (saith he) it is the property of faith, to apply Christ unto us, and proves it out of S. Augustine, Believe and thou hast eaten: Again, Send up thy faith, Tract. 25. in joh. and thou mayst hold Christ in heaven: etc. To which, and such like authothorities, I answer, that we find Christ, we hold Christ, we see Christ, by faith, believing him to be the son of God, and redeemer of the world, and judge of the quick and the dead: and we understand, and digest all the mysteries of this holy word. But where is it once said, in any of these sentences, that we are assured of our Salvation? we believe all these points and many more: but we shall be never the nearer our Salvation, unless we observe Gods commandments, The servant which knows his masters will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke. 12. joh. 15. Then you are my friends (saith our Saviour) when you shall do the things which I command you: which we being uncertain to perform, assure not ourselves of his friendship but when to our knowledge we go as near it as we can, and demand pardon of our wants, we live in good hope of it. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins affirmeth, that the nature of true faith standeth not only in an unfallible, but also in a particular assurance of remission of sins & life everlasting. Unfallible assurance M. Bishop acknowledgeth, but thence will conclude against particular assurance of our own Salvation, because, saith he, we be not so fully assured of that, but that we must stand in fear of losing it. This he saith he hath proved before, but his proof thereof is already disproved: only here for supply he bringeth the words of Christ to the Church of Philadelphia; a revel. 3 11. Hold that which thou hast, lest another receive thy crown. Which supply of his is even according to the manner or his former proof; he nameth a place and so leaveth it; be it right or wrong what is that to him? If ye ask him how he inferreth that that he would prove thereby you must pardon him, he cannot tell. It is very doubtful what may here be imported by the crown: whether the Angel, that is, the Bishop of the Church of Philadelphia be particularly warned to take heed of foregoing or losing any of them whom he should account, as S. Paul speaketh, b Phil. 4.1. 1. Thess 2.19. his joy and crown of rejoicing at the coming of jesus Christ; or whether the same Church be generally admonished to take heed of losing the crown of the public calling and grace of God. For so God to signify the establishing of his kingdom of grace amongst the jews, amongst other words saith, c Ezech. 16.12. I set a beautiful crown upon thy head. To which honour done unto them, when they yielded not correspondence of dutiful obedience and thankfulness to God, our Saviour Christ foretold them, that d Mat. 22.43. the kingdom of God (which was their crown) should be taken from them, and given to a nation that should bring forth the fruit thereof. The like we take to be the importment of the crown in this place, and that the Church of Philadelphia is admonished to take heed, least by relapsing from her goodness and virtue, she should lose the honour of the condition, and state of a Church which God had called her unto: even as the Church of Ephesus is before threatened; e revel. 2.5. I will come against thee shortly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent; the candlestick in the one place being meant of the same, which by the crown is intended in the other. But if Master Bishop will needs understand the crown to be meant of Salvation and life eternal, we answer him, that this crown being proper to Gods elect, cannot be lost by them to whom it is assigned; yet so as that withal we say, that God in his wisdom hath appointed a means, whereby he will preserve them that they may not lose the crown. To this end he useth many exhortations and admonitions, many terrors and fears, many corrections and chastisements, whereby he hedgeth and compasseth them in, that whereas by relinquishing their faith and obedience, they should indeed run into havoc and ruin of themselves, they may hereby be wrought to persever and continue therein, to the obtaining of the crown. Thus his Master f Bellarm. de great. & lib. arbit li. 2. ca 13. Reverà si non perseveraret, etc. amitteret coronam suam, sed hac admonitione perterritus, etc. sine dubio fortissime tenebit quod habet, & eo modo tandem perveniet ad coronam quam non habet. Bellarmine confesseth, that this place hath his use in respect of them who notwithstanding by God's predestination are holden that they cannot lose the crown. If then we do so understand the crown, yet the place availeth M. Bishop nothing: but being so taken, how one man should have the crown, and by his losing it, another should receive it in place of him, all his wit and learning is not able to resolve us. This place therefore maketh nothing against the particular assurance of faith, but for proof thereof M. Perkins hath brought that that is very pregnant and clear. First, he allegeth the words of Saint john, g john. 1.12. As many as received him, to them he gave power to be the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name. Where he argueth, that to receive Christ, and to believe in Christ, do both import the same thing, because the one of them is put for the exposition of the other. Now to receive, is to take in particulars a man's self, to apply to himself, to apprehend or lay hold of, for conveying a thing to himself. Because therefore to believe in Christ is to receive Christ, it followeth, that to believe in Christ is to take Christ, to apprehend him, and by hold of him with all his benefits, for conveying and applying of him particularly to a man's self; to believe particularly for himself, to make use of Christ, according to that the Scripture describeth him, to himself. True faith therefore according to the measure of it, assureth infallibly, not in the general only by principle, but in particular also by conclusion and application to itself. This being the collection that we make from this place, and plainly noted by M. Perkins, M. Bishop to it answereth nothing, either his eyes dazzling that he could not see, or his wits failing that he knew not what to say. But to delude the Reader, he will say somewhat to the place, though he say nothing to the purpose; yet that which he doth say, he saith out of the school of Pelagius the heretic, and not out of the doctrine of jesus Christ. He gave them power; that is, saith he, he gave them such grace that they were able, and might if they would be the sons of God. But what? did he give them to be able only, and did he not give them to will also to be the sons of God? Did he leave them to their own will, either to be or not to be the sons of God? Of them to whom he gave this power, he saith, that h john. 1.13. they are borne, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, who not of our will, but i jam. 1.18. of his own will begat us by the word of truth, that we should be as the first fruits of his creatures, and will M. Bishop go about to persuade us, that it is at our own will that we are begotten and borne again? The power here spoken of, should rather be translated a prerogative then a power, and therefore Cyrill expresseth it by the term of k Cyril. in joan. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ascendemus ad supernaturalem dignitatem per Christum. a supernatural dignity, and affirmeth, that thereby is meant l Cap. 14. the adoption and grace of God, which is not such as Master Bishop speaketh of, whereby it is only given unto us m August. de corrept. & great. cap. 11. Est in nobis per hanc gratiam non solum posse quod volumus, verumetiam velle quod possumus. to be able if we will, but also to will, not only whereby we may be, but whereby we are the sons of God, as before hath been declared in the question of Free will. And whereas he addeth: He did not assure them of that neither, much less that they should so continue unto their lives end; he should understand, that by n 1. Pet. 5.12. the true grace of God that comfort is ministered unto the faithful, to say as Saint john directeth them; o 1. john 3.1. Behold what love the Father hath given unto us, * filii Dei nomin●mur & simus. Vulgat. that we are called, and are the sons of God: Even new are we the sons of God, and we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like unto him, thereby teaching the effect of faith, both to give assurance of present state, and of perseverance also to future glory. But all this Master Bishop hangeth upon the will of man, having learned of his father Pelagius, to ascribe to God p August co●t. Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 1. ca 3. Possibilitatem (qua potest homo esse justus) datam confitetur à creatore naturae: voluntatem & actionem nostra esse asserit. the power whereby we are able to be or may be, but to ourselves the willing and acting of our adoption, whereby we are indeed the sons of God. But of this thus briefly, as being beside the matter here in hand, and the question of Free will being debated at large before. To show somewhat further that point of particular assurance, Master Perkins addeth, that Christ setteth forth himself, as the bread of life and water of life, and commendeth unto us the eating of his body, and the drinking of his blood, and maketh this eating and drinking the same as to believe in him. Hence he inferreth a proportion betwixt eating and believing, that as he that eateth receiveth and taketh to himself the meat that he eateth▪ and digesteth the same to the nourishment of every part, even so he that believeth doth by his faith as the hand, and mouth, and stomach of the soul, receive and take unto him jesus Christ with all his benefits, to become particularly his strength, and comfort, and nourishment unto everlasting life. Now all this speech of eating, and believing, and applying unto us the benefits of Christ, M. Bishop saith he omitteth as an unsavoury discourse, but the reason is because pearls are unsavoury to swine, and gross Capernaites know no eating of Christ but by the mouth, nor receiving of him but into the belly. But most ridiculous is that which he addeth, He might be ashamed to make (this discourse) unto us that admit no part of it to be true. For so might I briefly reject his whole book with the same words, that he might be ashamed to write the same to us that admit no part of it to be true. He should understand, that M. Perkins had in hand to write that that is the truth, and not that that they would admit to be true, who are sworn to Antichrist to maintain his untruths. And seeing he hath so pregnantly showed thereby the nature of true and lively faith, not by any invention of his own, but out of the very words of Christ, M. Bishop might himself be justly ashamed to answer it so childishly and simply as he hath done. I confess, saith he, that faith hath his part therein. But Saint Austin attributeth to faith not only a part therein, but to be the thing itself, even the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. q August. in joan. tract. 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viwm. To believe in Christ, saith he, is to eat the bread of life: he that believeth, eateth. Why doth he refuse to speak as Saint Austin speaketh, but that like a carnal Anthropophagus he referreth it to the mouth and to the belly to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood, not listening to that that M. Perkins had alleged unto him out of the same Austin, r Ibid. tract. 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? believe and thou hast eaten. But faith, he saith, hath his part therein, if it be joined with charity and frequentation of the Sacraments. Which if of his is very idle to us, who hold no true faith but that s Gal. 5.6. which worketh by charity, and seeketh after the Sacraments, as being t Rom. 4.11. the seals of the righteousness of faith, the very proper use thereof is to give particular assurance to the faithful of the mercy of God towards them in jesus Christ. For as in human contracts and gifts somewhat commonly is delivered by earnest or seal for confirming and sure-making of the main, so hath God thought good in his covenants and promises of grace, to appoint his Sacraments particularly to be used and applied to every man, that every believer knowing Christ by the same Sacraments to be figured and offered unto us, may take knowledge by the delivery thereof, that Christ is his to eternal life by faith in his name; it being in effect said unto him thereby; Thou believest the promises of God in Christ concerning grace and forgiveness of sins unto everlasting life: take this for seal and assurance, that by thy faith in Christ the whole benefit thereof appertaineth unto thee. Therefore Christ saith very effectually, Take, eat, this is my body, Drink ye, this is my blood, as by the Sacrament delivering himself unto us, and in himself the whole fruit and benefit of that that he hath done for us. Why doth he deliver these seals of the righteousness of of faith particularly unto me, but that he would have me know, that the promises of righteousness are thereby through my faith sealed particularly unto me? Thus therefore saith joined with frequentation of the Sacraments, doth so much the more effectually minister unto us this comfort of particular assurance towards God. All this is unsavoury to M. Bishop, but let us leave him to his acorns and draff, and let him leave this feeding to them who therein have learned to u 1. Pet. 2 3. taste how gracious the Lord is. Now to show that the use of faith is to receive, M. Perkins allegeth the words of S. Paul, that x Gal. 3.14. through faith we receive the promise of the spirit, importing thereby that faith is as it were the hand into which, being holden forth unto God, he giveth the spirit which he hath promised: that faith apprehendeth and embraceth the promise of God concerning this gift of his spirit, and that thereby we become partakers thereof. To this also M. Bishop answereth nothing, only he will seem to allege the words, and wholly perverteth them. For whereas the Apostle maketh the spirit the thing promised, he citeth the place, as if the spirit were named as the promiser. And whereas the Apostle speaketh as of a thing y Ibid. ver. 2. already performed to them to whom he wrote, he citeth it as of a thing futurely to be performed, and that with a condition, if we observe those things which Christ hath commanded, whereas the spirit is promised, not if we observe, but z Ezech. 36.27. to cause us to keep his statutes and observe his iudgemens' and do them. Yet hereupon he demandeth, What is this to the Certainty of Salvation? I answer that it is so strong to prove the Certainty of Salvation, as that against it he could find nothing more safe for himself then to say nothing to it. For if to believe in Christ be to receive Christ, and so to receive him, as that thereby we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, the believer hath this for a certainty delivered unto him by Christ himself, that he hath eternal life, and that Christ will raise him up at the last day. For a john 6.54. whosoever eateth my flesh, satih Christ, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. The believer therefore by his faith conceiveth a particular certainty and assurance of his own Salvation, and is thereby b 1. john. 5.13. to know that he hath eternal life. Now to show the effect of faith, M. Perkins bringeth sundry places of Austin, Ambrose, chrysostom, Tertullian, Bernard, that by faith we touch Christ, we lay hold of him, we find him, we see him, we eat him, we digest him. Whereto M. Bishop answereth full wisely, we find Christ, we hold Christ, we see Christ by faith, believing him to be the son of God, and redeemer of the world, and judge of quick and dead, thereby making this finding, and seeing, and holding, and digesting of Christ by faith, to be no other thing but what is incident to the devil, because all these things the devil believeth and knoweth as well as he. But to see the giddiness of his head reeling and staggering he knoweth not whither, he saith we find Christ, we hold him, and see him, we eat him, we digest him by believing thus and thus, when he hath plainly given us before to understand, that for all his believing he cannot tell whether he have any thing to do with Christ, whether he have received the grace of Christ, whether he have any true repentance, hope, charity, and such like, without which Christ is neither holden nor had at all. But such darkness is fit for them who leave the ways of God, and make choice to tread the Labyrinths and maze-rounds of their own brainsick imaginations. To his question where it is once said in any of these sentences that we are assured of our Salvation, I answer him, that it followeth of that for proof whereof these sentences were alleged. For if the office of true faith be not only generally to believe, but also particularly to apply that which it believeth, as hath been showed, and all those speeches alleged do import, than it followeth that according to the measure of it, it yieldeth a particular assurance of Salvation to every one that doth believe. We believe, saith he, these points and many more, but yet we shall be never the nearer our Salvation unless we observe Gods commandments. But if we believe as the Scripture teacheth us to believe, we are thereby the nearer our Salvation, though we do not observe God's commandments in that sort and to that end as he intendeth. For therefore do we believe in Christ, therefore do we seek him, take hold of him, eat him, drink him, digest him, that in him we may find the comfort of Salvation, which otherwise we cannot find for want of the keeping of God's commandments. Therefore saith the Apostle, c Gal. 2.16. Even we have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, (not by our keeping of God's commandments) because that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. And in this respect we are not uncertain of performing Gods commandments, as M. Bishop speaketh, but very certain, that we never do or can perform them, having continually cause to demand pardon of our wants, and therefore never finding any assured trust of Salvation, so long as we ground it hereupon. But although we deny any such keeping of God's commandments, as may serve for the purchase of our justification and Salvation, yet we acknowledge a keeping thereof as a fruit of our justification, and a part of the work of our Salvation, because d Ephes. 2.10. we are God's workmanship created in Christ jesus unto good works, which he hath prepared for us to walk in. And this keeping of God's commandments our Saviour hath recommended unto us, as M. Bishop allegeth, and of it S. john saith, e 1. john. 2.4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But this keeping of God's commandments cannot be severed from the finding, and receiving, and holding, and eating, and digesting of Christ, because no man receiveth or eateth Christ by faith, but who liveth by him, and in whom he liveth, that he may say, f Gal. 2.20. Not I now, but Christ liveth in me, and that I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the son of God, who hath loved me and given himself for me. Very idly therefore in this behalf doth M. Bishop tell us, that by the one we are never a whit the nearer without the other, when the one can no where be without the company of the other. Now of this keeping of God's commandments and perseverance therein, true faith, as before hath been showed, resteth assured, because God hath so promised, and so far are we from being doubtful of Salvation by any doubt thereof, as that we rather gather hence greater strength of assurance, by that we perceive the beginning of that good work of God in us, whereby he fitteth and prepareth his unto everlasting life. 17. W. BISHOP. The second reason is, Whatsoever the holy Ghost testifieth unto us, that certainly by faith we must believe: but the holy Ghost doth particularly testify unto us our Salvation: ergo. The first proposition is true. The second is proved thus, S. Paul saith, Rom. 8. the spirit of God beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. The Papists to elude this reason allege, that it doth indeed witness our adoption, by some comfortable feeling of God's favour toward us, which may often be mistaken, whereof the Apostle warneth us when he saith, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God or no. 1. john. 4. But saith (M. Perkins) by their leave, the testimony of the spirit, is more than a bare feeling of God's grace. For it is called the pledge and earnest of God's spirit in our hearts. And therefore it takes away all doubting, as in a bargain, the earnest given puts all out of question. 1. Cor. 1. I answer first out of the place itself, that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed, which M. Perkins thought wisdom to conceal. For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirit, that we are the sons of God, and coheirs of Christ, with this condition, If yet we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him. So that the testimony is not absolute, but conditional, and then if we fail in performance of the condition, God stands free of his promise, and will take his earnest back again. And so to have received the earnest of it, will nothing avail us, much less, assure us of Salvation. This is the direct answer to that place, although the other be very good, that the testimony of the spirit, is but an inward comfort and joy, which breedeth great hope of Salvation, but bringeth not assurance thereof. This M. Perkins would refute, by the authority of S. Bernard; in the place before cited, see the place, and my answer there. Epist. 107. R. ABBOT. To show that the holy Ghost doth particularly testify our adoption and Salvation, and therefore that we are by faith to believe the same, M. Perkins allegeth the words of the Apostle, a Rom. 8.15.16. We have received the spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The same spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. Which words so express and plain, might be sufficient to stop the mouths of these brabbling sophisters, but that they measure the portion of God's children by their own carnal sense and conceit, and being destitute of true faith and of the spirit of God, are no more fit to judge hereof, then blind men are to judge of colours. It is apparent that the faithful have a testimony of the holy Ghost, bearing witness with their spirit that they are the sons of God. Let him wrest and wry this testimony while he will, it will not serve the turn, unless he make it such as whereby the spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. He saith that it is a good answer of theirs which M. Perkins mentioneth, that the testimony of the spirit is but an inward comfort and joy which breedeth great hope of Salvation, but bringeth not assurance thereof. But this is no good answer, because it is not answerable to the words of the Apostle, who speaketh of such a witness of the spirit, as whereby it is witnessed unto us that we are the sons of God. Let him remember what S. Austin saith: b August. count julian. li 5. ca 2. Vbi manifesta res est scriptura divinae sensu● nositum sensum addere non dibemus: non enim hoc sit human● ignorantia sed praesumptione perversa. where the matter is manifest we are not to add our meaning to the sense of holy Scripture: For this comes not of human ignorance but of froward and wilful presumption. Here is a plain assertion of a witness given to our faith, that we are the sons of God. Now his comfort and joy is but a matter of perhaps, a matter of very uncertain and doubtful hope, wherein he confesseth it may be he mistaketh, and indeed hath no cause but to think that he doth mistake; which notwithstanding it be had, he thinketh it a presumption for a man to persuade himself that he hath thereby any certain witness that he is the child of God. But c 1. john. 5.6. the spirit that beareth witness, as Saint john saith, is truth, being d john. 14.17. the spirit of truth, and therefore being sent for e Vers. 16. a Comforter, surely in comforting he telleth or testifieth nothing but the truth. If then the spirit of God bear witness to us that we are the sons of God, we know that it is true, and we are sure that indeed we are the sons of God. Now this witness of the spirit, albeit by some it be taken to consist in the fruits of sanctification, as by Ambrose f Ambros. in Rom. cap. 8. Dignam vitam huic veci exhibemus, & hoc est testimonium filiorum, si in eu per spiritum videtur signum paternum. in leading a life fitting to the name of the sons of God, whereby through the spirit the father's mark is seen in us: and by Origen in g Origen. ibid. Confirmat spiritum nostrum quòd sumus filii Dei cùm tam nihil inest timoris, id est, nih l propter amorem patris poenam gerimus sed propter cuncta perficimus. doing all things (towards God) not for fear, but for love of him as a father, and by Bernard, h Bernard. epist. 107. Sic revera sic unici filii spiritus testimonium perhibet spiritus no●tro quod filii Dei sumus, & nos cùm suscitans ex operibus mortuis largitur opera vitae, etc. vocatus per timorem, etc. supra sect. 15. in that God raising us from dead works doth give us the works of life; in that he calleth us by fear, and frameth us to righteousness by love, yet most properly is declared by the Apostle himself to stand in the true spiritual invocation and calling upon the name of God, whereby upon all occasions as children to a father, we make our recourse unto him. i Gal. 4.6. Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. When therefore God doth send forth his spirit into our hearts, crying, and making us to cry, Abba, Father, the same is a witness to our spirit that we are the sons of God, because for no other reason doth God send forth this spirit into our hearts, but because we are sons. When God giveth unto us this light and feeling that he is our father, there followeth necessarily a certificate that we are his children, because these as relatives mutually depend one upon another. And this is a certificate and testimony that cannot be counterfeited, and wherein there is no error. For neither the spirit of man himself nor any other spirit can give him that spiritual eye of the inner man whereby to look upon God as a father; that sincere, and single, and pure affection, and invocation wherewith the faithful soul tendereth itself unto God, but only the spirit of God himself. It is no way incident unto us to have in heart and conscience that familiar and lovely access unto the throne of grace, k Hieron. in Gal. ca 4 Nunquam auderemus dicere Pater noster, etc. nisi de conscientia spiritus habitanus in nobis. but upon conscience of the spirit dwelling in us, as Saint Hierome speaketh. We know there is otherwise a formal course of praying, and we doubt not but M. Bishop daily mumbleth a task and ordinary thereof, as jews and heretics are wont to do, but that is rather saying of prayers then praying indeed: true and faithful prayer, and the crying of the heart unto God, Abba, Father is a further matter, and a thing peculiar only to the sons of God, and this l Zechar. 12.10. Tremel. spirit and prayer a true witness unto them, that they are the sons of God. But M. Bishop to take away the force of this proof, answereth further out of the place itself, that there followeth a condition on our part to be performed, If yet we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him. Which words the Apostle indeed useth in the next verse, but upon other occasion, and to other end, then as to impeach or question that testimony of the spirit, which by an entire and absolute assertion he hath here expressed. For having affirmed that the spirit testifieth with our spirit that we are the sons of God, he inferreth, If we be sons, then are we also heirs, even heirs of God, and joint-heires or fellow heirs with Christ. Now how this fellowship with Christ is performed, he declareth by adding those words; if yet we suffer with him, that we also may be glorified with him. Thus are we joint-heires with Christ, saith he, if we attain to our inheritance the same way that he did, being first partakers with him in sufferings, as we shall afterwards be in glory. M. Bishop therefore doth amiss to tie those words as a condition to the former words, which naturally serve for explication of the latter. But admitting the speech to be conditional, it doth nothing prejudicate the assurance of the faithful, because thereby God instructeth them which way he himself will bring them to himself, not what he will leave them at uncertainty to do for their coming unto him. He expresseth a condition, the performance whereof faith expecteth from himself, because m Phil. 1.29. of him it is given unto us for Christ's sake, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake, n Col. 1.11. being strengthened with all might through his glorious power, to all patience and long suffering with joyfulness. To this end, as o 2. Cor. 1.5. the sufferings of Christ abound in them, so he causeth their consolations to abound through Christ, and their p Vers. 7. hope is steadfast in this behalf, because they know, that as they are partakers of the sufferings, so they shall be also of the consolation, that the grievance of the one may be the more easily borne by means of the joy and sweetness of the other. In a word, faith resteth upon that that is written, q Heb. 13.5. He hath said, I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee: therefore we may boldly say, The Lord is on my side, I will not fear what man can do unto me. r Rom. 8.29. He hath predestinated us to be made like unto the image of his son, and therefore s Bernard. epist. 107. Habes spiritum huius arcans indicem. having received the spirit to reveal unto us, as Saint Bernard saith, this secret of his predestination, we stand assured that accordingly he will accomplish in us the image of his Son, that together with him we may bear the cross, and together with him also we may wear the crown, and therefore will so order all things, as that there shall be t Rom. 8. 3●. nothing to come that shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ jesus our Lord. Now the spirit as he is the revealer of the secret, so is he the earnest of the effect of God's predestination, by the gift whereof God giveth unto us the certain assurance of all the rest that remaineth to be given. u Tertul. de Titius. Hic est pignus promissae hae●●d tatis & quasi ●haregraph●nt quc●dam aeternae salutis, qui nos Dei faciciat temp●t●m & nos eius efficiat domum ●inh●bitator corperibus nostris d●tu● & sanctitatis effector, qui id agens in nobis ad aeternitatem & ad resurrectionem immortalitatis corpora nostra pro iucat dum illa i●se ass●. efacit ●●m ●oelesti v●ri●●te n●●eri, & c●u spiritus sanc●●●●●●taeto●●●tate ●●●ri. It is the pledge of the inheritance promised, and as a handwriting (or bond for assurance) of everlasting Salvation, not upon uncertainty, if we do thus or thus, but framing us to be and to do whatsoever belongeth to the attainment thereof, making us the temple and house of God; being the worker of holiness in us, that he may bring our bodies to eternity, and to the immortality of the resurrection, whilst in himself he accustometh them to be tempered with heavenly virtue, and to be accompanied with the divine eternity of the holy Ghost. Therefore God doth never take this earnest back again, because it is so x 〈…〉. the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of possession, as that it is an earnest also that in the mean time God y 2 Cor. 1.21.22 stablisheth us in Christ, and that z ●●r 5 5. he hath created us even for this thing, namely to clothe us with immortality and eternal life. To be short, God in giving earnest for assurance of the end, doth thereby undertake against all lets and impediments that should hinder the achieving of that that is earnested thereby, and therefore as chrysostom saith, a 〈…〉. the things present which thou hast attained already, do assure unto thee those things that are yet to come. As for the words alleged out of Saint john, that b ●●chn. 4.1. we believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God or not, as if we were willed to be distrus●tfull of the revelation and testimony of the spirit that we are the sons of God, least by any false spirit we be abused and deluded, they are very adsurdly wrested and forced to that purpose, being very apparently a caveat against false prophets speaking out of their own spirit, and yet pretending the spirit of Christ, as is very plain by the reason added in the next words, For many false Prophets are gone abroad into the world. And yet if we admit them as meant of this testimony of the spirit, they are so far from serving their turn, as that they make altogether against them. For if in that behalf we be willing to try the spirits whether they be of God or not, than it followeth that there is a way whereby to try the same. And if there be a means whereby to try whether the spirit that testifieth unto us that we are the sons of God, be of God or not, then there is a means for us to be assured that we are the sons of God. For if by trial we find that the spirit that so testifieth is of God, then because the same spirit is truth, we cannot make question but that we are indeed the sons of God. So therefore we resolve of that testimony whereof the Apostle speaketh, whereby the spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. Be it that some men by false opinions and imaginations of carnal security do herein deceive themselves, yet as it is no reason for a King to doubt whether he be a King, for that frantic and melancholic persons are falsely so persuaded of themselves, and as a goldsmith doth not therefore doubt whether gold be gold, for that some unskilful man taketh copper in steed of gold, so no reason is it that they who have received the undoubted testimony of the spirit, shining unto them out of the true light of the word of God, should therefore call in question the truth thereof, because many men are mocked with false presumptions, which they themselves have builded out of their own brains. The testimony of the spirit is certainly known and felt wheresoever it is found, neither can any spirit work in any man's heart any lively counterfeit thereof, as before was said. Therefore it standeth firm and sure against all M. Bishop's exceptions, that there is a testimony of the spirit, whereby according to the measure of our faith we stand assured that we are the sons of God. 18. W. BISHOP. The third reason is, That which we must pray for by God's commandment, that we must believe: but every man must pray for Salvation, therefore we must believe that we shall have Salvation. The proposition he confirmeth thus: In every petition must be two things, one a desire of the thing we ask, another a particular faith to obtain it, which is proved by Christ's words: Mar. 1●. Whatsoever you shall request when you pray, believe that you shall have it, and it shall be done. This Argument is so proper for their purpose, that we return it upon their own heads: We must pray for Salvation, therefore we are not yet assured of it: For who in his wits, prayeth God to give him that, whereof he is assured already? And a godly act of faith it is, in that prayer to believe that God will give that, which he is assured of before hand: such foolish petitions cannot please God, and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied, that any faithful man may pray for his Salvation, but rather thank the Lord for it. But to answer directly, he who prayeth, must believe he shall obtain that which he prayeth for, if he observe all the due circumstances of prayer, which be many, but to this purpose, two are required necessarily: the one that be who prayeth be the true servant of God, which first excludeth all those that err in faith, touched in these words, What you of the faithful shall desire when you pray, shall be given you: The other is, when we request matters of such moment, that we persever in prayer, and continue our suit day by day, of these suits of eternal Salvation, we must take these words of our Saviour to be spoken: We must always pray, Luk. 1● and never be weary: and then no doubt, but we shall in the end receive it. But because we are in doubt, whether we shall observe those necessary circumstances of prayer or no, therefore we cannot be so well assured to obtain our suit, although we be on God's part most assured, that he is most bountiful, and readier to give, than we are to ask. But saith M. Perkins, S. john noteth out this particular faith, 1. john. 5. calling it, Our assurance, that God will give unto us, whatsoever we ask according to his will. But where find we that it is Gods will, to assure every man at the first entrance into his service, of eternal Salvation? is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it, upon his faithful service and good behaviour towards him? R. ABBOT. The argument is very pregnant and clear. Christ hath taught us to a Mat. 11.24. believe that we shall have that that we pray for. We are to pray for forgiveness of sins and eternal life. We are therefore to believe that we shall have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. Nay saith M. Bishop, we must pray for our Salvation, therefore we are m● assured of it. He forbore to answer strictly by the very terms of the argument, because therein his notable impudency and w●●●ll contradiction to the word, of Christ had very notably appeared. For than he must have answered thus, We must pray for our Salvation; therefore we must not believe that we shall have Salvation, directly against the words of Christ instructing us to believe that we shall have that that we pray for. But to take that which he doth say, I answer him again, that our praying for Salvation is an argument that we are not yet assured of it by possession, but it hindereth not but that we are assured thereof in hope. We are not assured of it as a thing in present, but yet we are assured of it as a thing to come. As for his conceit, that we are not to pray for any thing that we have assurance to obtain, the folly and blind ignorance therein bewrayed, is sufficiently discovered before in the fifth Section. We believe the promise of God as touching our Salvation, not doubting but that he will make us partakers thereof, according to his promise to those that do believe in him, but as yet we enjoy not this Salvation. He leadeth us on in the hope and desire of it, and by our prayer we utter our desire, still resolving that he will effect it, but yet still begging and craving till he do effect it. So then we thank God that he hath called us to this hope, and we rejoice therein, but still we beg the accomplishment of that that he hath taught us to hope for. But to leave this as handled before, he will further give us, as he saith, a direct answer, and that is, that he that prayeth must believe he shall obtain that which he prayeth for, if he observe all the due circumstances of prayer. But we answer him, that it is not for the perfection of our prayers that God accepteth us but for the true affection of our hearts. We many times fail in the due circumstances of prayer, and much faintness and weakness we show therein, when yet we believe that God mercifully respecteth us therein by the intercession of jesus Christ. Now of these circumstances he setteth down two as necessarily required, the one that he that prayeth be the true servant of God: the other that he persevere in prayer. And what of these? Marry saith he, because we are in doubt whether we shall observe those necessary circumstances of prayer or no, therefore we cannot be so well assured to obtain our suit. Behold he is in doubt whether he be the true servant of God or not, and we may therein see the blindness wherein Popery holdeth men, not discerning the misery of their own estate. He knoweth no faith but what is incident to devils and damned men; he cannot tell whether he have any true hope towards God, any love, any true repentance, whether he be the true servant of God, whether God hear or regard his prayer, but walketh altogether in the dark, and knoweth not whither he goeth. But true faith yieldeth a man whereof to say, b Psal. 116.16. Behold, O Lord, for I am thy servant: c 119. vers. 125. I am thy servant, O give me understanding, that I may I keep thy commandments. d 143. ver 2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, etc. As for perseverance in prayer, saith expecteth it also of him that e Psal. 10.17. prepareth the heart, and f Zach. 12.10. poureth upon us the spirit of grace and of prayer, g Rom. 8.26. which maketh request for us (that is, h August. epist. 105. Quia interpellare nos facit, & nobis interpellandi & g●●nendi inss. rat affectum. maketh us to make request for ourselves, and inspireth into us the affection of prayer) with sighs and groans that cannot be expressed. If the faithful man in these things depended upon himself, he should have just cause to fear and doubt his own perseverance, but he saith with the Apostle, i 2. Tim. 1.12. I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day, even myself, my faith, my hope, my prayer, my soul, my life, knowing myself to be a very unsafe keeper of myself. Yea he prayeth also for perseverance, and because he is willed to believe that he shall have that that he prayeth for, therefore he believeth that he shall persevere, and the word of Christ assureth him that he shall so do, because he saith; k Mar. 11.24. Believe that ye shall have it, and it shall be done unto you. To which purpose Saint Bernard well saith; l Bernard. in Cant. ser. 32. In bonis Domini quatenus fiduciae pedem porrexeris, eatenus possidebis. In the benefits of God look how far thou treadest the foot of thy faith, so far thou shalt possess. For as Cyprian saith, m Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 6. Dat credentibus tantum quantum se credit capere qui sumit. God giveth to them that believe, so much as he that receiveth believeth himself to receive. He doth therefore undoubtedly persevere in faith and prayer, who praying for perseverance believeth that he shall receive the same. And this is further confirmed by the words of Saint john: n 1. joh. 5.14.15. This is the assurance that we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will he heareth us, and if we know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have desired of him. To which M. Bishop answereth; But where do we find that it is Gods will, to assure every man at the first entrance into his service of eternal Salvation? Where the limitation that he useth at the first entrance into his service before also delivered, is but an idle trick of his vagating wit. For the question is not of assurance at the first entrance into God's service, but whether first or last there be any assurance at all. For he denieth whether in the entrance or in the continuance that God by faith doth give any man assurance of his own Salvation. Or if that be not his meaning, but that though not at the first entrance, yet afterwards God doth by faith give that assurance, let him tell us, and we shall be glad that he hath so far forth forsaken the doctrine of his Romish mistress. But because that is his meaning, he must acknowledge his absurd folly, in make a show of exception in words where he intended none. As for us, we say indeed, that God even at the very first entrance into his service offereth us this assurance. For even at the very first entrance he saith, as he did to the jailor, o Act. 16.31. Believe in the Lord jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and from the beginning our faith as it is greater or less, so either strongly or weakly apprehendeth and embraceth this assurance. And in this assurance we labour and endeavour to grow, and to go on p Rom 1.17. from faith to faith, from q Psal. 84.7. strength to strength, till we learn to stand as it were upon the battlements of heaven, and to set the world at defiance, saying, r Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ, etc. But that answer of his is otherwise also a ridiculous and vain shift. Where do we find that it is Gods will to assure every man of eternal Salvation? Marry speaking of them that believe, even in the very place alleged, M. Bishop, if you dissemble it not. By other places we are taught to pray for forgiveness of sins, for Salvation, for eternal life, and you deny not but that we are thus to pray according to the will of God. By this place we have assurance and are taught to know that we have the petitions that we desire of him, and therefore that according to our prayer we have forgiveness of sins; we have Salvation and everlasting life. Speak strictly to the point, M. Bishop: let us have no shifting of words. We have assurance to know that we have what we ask of him according to his will. It is according to his will that we ask of him forgiveness of sins and eternal life. We have therefore assurance, and are to know, that we have forgiveness of sins and life eternal. M. Bishop is dumb, and to this hath nothing more to say; but goeth forward to ask the question, Is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it upon his faithful service and good behaviour towards him? I answer him, No, it is not sufficient; For God made that promise by the former covenant, s Gal. 3.12. He that doth these things shall live in them, and it availed not; t Heb. 8.9. for they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. Therefore God made another covenant and promise, not like the former, not conditional upon faithful service and good behaviour, but absolute and without exception, the performance whereof should depend wholly and only upon his mercy, so that he would not expect as of us, but did undertake to give us & to work in us whatsoever faithful service and good behaviour should be necessary thereunto. Therefore he saith, u Vers. 10. I will put my laws in their minds, and in their hearts will I write them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people; they shall all know me; for I will be merciful unto their unrighteousness, and I will remember their sins and their iniquities no more. So that although comparing the one part of the work of our Salvation with another, the latter is usually tied to a condition of the former, and God accordingly proceed in the execution thereof, yet if we entirely consider the whole, it issueth absolutely out of the purpose and promise of God, who intending the end, disposeth and worketh himself whatsoever belongeth to the accomplishment and attainment of the end. Inasmuch therefore as true faith expecteth all of God, and on God's part M. Bishop confesseth we are most assured, it must follow that by true faith we stand assured of Salvation, because God is never wanting to do that that appertaineth unto him. 19 W. BISHOP. The fourth reason is, Whatsoever God commandeth, that a man must and can perform. But God commandeth us to believe our Salvation: ergo, we must believe it. The proposition is true, yet commonly denied by all Protestants, for God commands us to keep his commandments, and they hold that to be impossible: but to the assumption: That God commands us to believe our Salvation, is proved (saith M. Perkins) by these words: Repent and believe the Gospel: Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis amici: Where is it written in that Gospel, believe your own particular Salvation? show us once but one clear text for it, and we will believe it. I do believe in Christ, and hope to be saved, through his mercy and merits, but know well, that unless I keep his words, I am by him likened to a fool, Math. 7. that built his house upon the sands. He commands me to watch and pray, Math. 26. lest I fall into temptation: and elsewhere, Math. 25. warneth me to prepare oil to keep my lamp burning against his coming, or else I am most certain to be shut out with the foolish Virgins. An hundred such admonitions find we in holy Scriptures, to shake us out of this security of our Salvation, and to make us vigilant to prevent all temptations of the enemy, and diligent to train ourselves in godly exercises of all virtue. R. ABBOT. The proposition, saith he, is true, and yet as he propoundeth and understandeth it, it is not true, nor was ever intended by M. Perkins to be true, and justly is it denied by all Protestants, that we can perform whatsoever God commandeth, as in the next question God willing shall appear in the handling of that point. But the proposition as M. Perkins expresseth it is, Whatsoever we are commanded in the Gospel, that we must and can perform. The reason whereof he taketh from a distinction of the commandments of the law and the Gospel, because the Gospel is the ministery of spirit and life, giving us to do whatsoever it doth command, which the law doth not. Now M. Bishop confoundeth Law and Gospel, and maketh the proposition general and without exception, being still desirous to show himself like himself. But that God in the Gospel commandeth us to believe the remission of our sins and life everlasting, Master Perkins showeth by the words of Christ, Repent and believe the Gospel, being the brief sum of the ministery and preaching of Christ, and the same in effect, as if he had said, Repent you of your sins, and believe the tidings that God hath sent unto you, of the forgiveness thereof by jesus Christ, through faith in his name. For the declaring of which point, he showeth, that to believe the Gospel, is not only generally to believe, that Christ is a Saviour, and that the promises made in him are true, for then the devils may be said to believe the Gospel, and we suppose that Master Bishop hath more wit and grace, then to say that Christ in saying, Believe the Gospel, did commend nothing to us, but what the devils may do, and therefore that the repentant is hereby willed particularly to believe for himself, to have the forgiveness of his sins by the blood of jesus Christ. Which declaration being very effectual to the point, this Hickscorner because he knew not what to answer to it, passeth over with Spectatum admissi? etc. and Where is it written in that Gospel, believe your own particular Salvation? show us once, faith he, but one clear text for it, and we will believe it; even as the jews said of Christ, a Mat. 27.42. Let him come down from the cross, and we will believe in him. Though he had come down from the cross, yet would they not have believed in him, because they had seen him do greater works than that, and yet they did not believe, and even so Master Bishop, whatsoever is showed him, remaineth still b Psal. 58.4. like the deaf adder, that stoppeth his ears, refusing to hear the voice of the charmer charm he never so wisely. But tell us Master Bishop in what sense it is, that the repentant man is willed to believe the Gospel? Do not make the believing of the Gospel a thing incident to the devil, because we shall then hold you a partaker with the devil. This you would have told us, and not only have recited the place, but spoken to that that was inferred upon it, had you not resolved to play the part of a lewd sycophant, and sought to carry the matter with bare words. The Gospel is c Luk. 2.10 1● the glad tidings of great joy, that unto us a Saviour is borne; d Esa. 9 6. unto us a child is borne, unto us a son is given, e Ambrosi. de●● de. lib 3 cap ● Propiciable, ●●●is, ho●ce●● cre●●● 〈◊〉 increa●●. that is, unto us that do believe. To believe the Gospel, is to believe this, and how do I believe, unto us, if I believe not unto me? Therefore by believing the Gospel, I believe that Christ is borne and given a Saviour unto me, f Mat. 1.21. to save me being one of his people g 1. Thess. 1.10. from my sins, and from the wrath to come. The Gospel is, that h Act. 10.43. through the name of Christ every one that believeth in him, shall have forgiveness of sins; i john. 3.15. every one that believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. If I believe the Gospel, I believe this, and therefore because I believe in Christ, I believe that I shall have forgiveness of sins, that I shall not perish but have everlasting life. If I believe in Christ, and yet believe not this, that I have everlasting life, I believe not the Gospel, because the Gospel saith, k Ibid. ver. 36. He that believeth in him hath everlasting life. l 2. john. 5.10. He that believeth not God, saith S. john, hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God witnessed of his Son, and this is the record, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Unto us, saith he, namely unto us that believe in the name of the Son of God, as afterwards he expoundeth. If then I believe in the name of the Son of God, and do not believe that God hath given unto me eternal life, I make God a liar, in not believing the record that God hath witnessed of his Son. Therefore he addeth, m Ver. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life. Where is now this pelting Sophister, that asketh us where it is written in the Gospel, to believe our own particular Salvation? It is written there, where it is written to them that believe, to know that they have eternal life. But saith he, I believe in Christ, and hope to be saved through his mercy and merits. But take heed you lie not, M. Bishop; take heed you lie not unto God. You have told us before, that n Sect. 3. to believe in God, is to love God with all your heart, and that you are not assured of your love towards him. How then can you dare to to say, that you believe in God? You have told us that o Sect. 6. hope and charity are seated in the dark corners of the will, and that you have but a conjecture and probable opinion thereof in yourself, & why then do you here tell us an uncertain tale of you know not what, that you hope to be saved through the mercy and merits of Christ. Again, whereas you say that you hope to be saved through the mercy and merits of Christ, you therein again dissemble with Christ, because notwithstanding the mercy and merits of Christ, you hang your Salvation upon that that you are to merit, and do for yourself, and make your own Free will the finisher and perfecter of that that by Christ is only but begun. You will have the mercy and merits of Christ to serve to make you able to save yourself, and it you do so, you will thank yourself, but you will have nothing further to thank Christ for. And so whereas you would avoid to be like unto the fool, you show yourself a fool outright, building so, as that you know not whether you build or not; you know not whether you have any foundation to build upon, or any matter to build with; you know not if you have builded any thing, whether the same be likely to stand or fall, and what is this else but to be a fool? As for us, we know that we must keep his words, that he commandeth us to watch and pray, to prepare oil to keep our lamps burning, and such like, but these admonitions serve not to shake our faith, but rather instruct and sharpen it. They do not propound conditions for us to perform to make up the work of God in us, but advertisements and instructions what those laws are, whereof God hath said, p jerem. 31.33. I will put my laws in their hearts, q Ezech 36.27. and cause them to keep my statutes, faith being hereby moved to beg of God, r August. de spir. & lit. ca 13. Lege operam dicit Deus, fac quod jubeo: lege fidei dicitur Deo, Da quod jubes. Ideo enim jubet lex ut admoneat quid faciat fides. to give what he commandeth, and assured that he will to the end perform what he hath promised, and seeing in his visitations and corrections, his fatherly providence and care to effect the same, whilst thereby he awaketh us out of our security, and causeth us to make use of the admonitions of holy Scripture, to fight against the devil and sin, and to exercise ourselves in all godliness and virtue. 20. W. BISHOP. The fift and last reason is this, The Papists teach assurance of hope, Rom. 5. even hence it followeth, that he may be infallibly assured, for the property of a true and lively hope, is never to make a man ashamed. Answer. Hope indeed of heaven, makes a man most courageously bear out all storms of persecution, and not to be ashamed of Christ's Cross, but to profess his faith most boldly before the bloody tyrants of the world, our hearts being by charity fortified and made invincible. And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place: and saith before, Ver. 2. that the faithful glory in the hope of the sons of God, and do not vaunt themselves of the Certainty of their Salvation. This Certainty of hope, is great in those that have long lived virtuously, specially when they have also endured manifold losses, much disgrace, great wrongs and injuries for Christ's sake, for he that cannot fail of his word, hath promised to requite all such with an hundred fold: But what is this to the Certainty of faith, which the Protestants will have every man to be endued with at his first entrance into the service of God; when as Saint Paul insinuateth, Heb 6. that godly men partakers of the holy Ghost, yea after they have tasted the good word of God, and the power of the world to come, that is, have received besides faith, great favours of God's spirit, and felt as it were the joys of heaven, have after all this so fallen from God, that there was small hope of their recovery? R. ABBOT. This last reason taken from the doctrine of the Papists concerning hope, I do not hold to have been fitly applied against them. For with them as there is not that faith, so neither is there that hope which the Scripture teacheth, neither can they be said to teach assurance of hope, who professedly deliver, that a man must always stand in fear and doubt of that that he should hope for, and that he hath no more but only a probable opinion of any thing in himself whereof to conceive hope. Therefore the Council of Trent saith, that a Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. cap. 9 Sicut nemo pius de Dei miserecordia etc. dubitare debet, sic quilibet dum seipsum suamque propriam infirmitatem & indispositionera respicit, de sua gratiae formidare ac timere potest. as no man may doubt of the mercy of God, and of the merit of Christ, so every man whilst he considereth his own infirmity and undisposednesse, hath to stand in fear of his own being in grace. So Andradius affirmeth, that their b Andrad. Orthod. explicat. lib 6. sub finem. Ita certa est spes ut semper cum metu & dubitatione coniuncta sit & copulata. hope is always joined and coupled with fear and doubt, not only meaning that it is so, but also that it ought so to be, accordingly as Master Bishop hath before delivered, though untruly, c Sect. 10. that there are above an hundred texts in holy writ, whereby to prove, that the faithful must stand in fear of their own Salvation. The Certainty of hope therefore that Master Bishop nameth, by occasion that it was named to him, is nothing else indeed but mere uncertainty, it being a thing senseless to reckon a Certainty, where a man is bound to stand in fear. So that their hope is but a conceit of selfe-seeming probability, whereby they imagine that haply ● may be 〈◊〉 them, but yet doubt lest it be otherwise; in 〈…〉 ●en vulgarly men talk of hope, where they hau● 〈…〉 for that they hope. But the hope which the Sc●● 〈…〉 of is another matter, importing a patiented and 〈…〉 of that that we believe we shall receive 〈…〉 the promises of God concerning forgiveness 〈…〉 ●●●erning our bliss and happiness to come. It 〈…〉 God undoubtedly will make good whatsoever he 〈…〉 used, but as yet we see not the effect, and performa●●●●ereof. Hope therefore expecteth and waiteth, looking 〈◊〉 the Lord to reveal his righteousness, and to make the truth 〈◊〉 his word and promise fully to appear, and in this expectation is content with patience to bear the cross, and to endure the afflictions and troubles that are incident to the faith and profession of the name of Christ. Thus saith chrysostom, that d Chrysost hom. de fide, spe & charit. Qui●quid fides credendo acquirit, hoc spes sustinendo praesumit. what faith getteth in believing, that hope presumeth of in enduring and suffering. This hope therefore is not uncertain and doubtful, but by the direction of faith, fully resolveth of the accomplishment of that that it hopeth for. It is not as Hilary well noteth, e Hilar. in Psa. 64. Spem oporiet non ex mani esse praes●mptam, ne mag● s●t incerr●rū praesumptio quam expectatio cognitorum. a presuming of things uncertain, but an expectation of things known unto us. For that cause is it that Saint Paul saith, that f Rom. 5.5. hope maketh not ashamed. Which Master Bishop not understanding, expoundeth as if the Apostle had said, that it maketh a man not to be ashamed of the cross of Christ; but Saint Paul respected a further matter, to signify the infallible assurance and Certainty of hope, that it never putteth a man to shame, it never giveth him occasion to be ashamed, as having hoped for that whereof in the end he is deceived. g August. in Psal 36. conc. 2. Confunditur quem fallit spes: qui dicit. quod sperabant non inveni. He is ashamed, saith Austin, that faileth of his hope. Who is put to shame but he that saith, I have not found that that I hoped for? h Theodo. in Rom cap. 5. They that hope, saith Theodoret, and are deceived of their hope, do blush and are ashamed thereof. Therefore, saith Saint Austin, i August. in Psal 37. Certi samus de spe: non est enim inceria spes nostra, ut de illa dubit●mus. We are certain of our hope: for our hope is not uncertain, that we should doubt thereof. Yea, so are we certain thereof, as that Saint Paul saith, k Rom. 5.2. We rejoice under the hope of the glory of God, as being no less assured thereof, then if we were already in possession of it, as l Sect. 15. ex Chrys●st. in Rom, hom 9 before I showed, that chrysostom expoundeth that place far otherwise then here Master Bishop doth. Which m Heb. 3.6. confidence and rejoicing of hope, groweth from that which the holy Ghost termeth n Cap. 10.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, full assurance of faith, whereby setting aside the respect of our own impeachments of ourselves, we believe with Abraham o Rom. 4.18. under hope even against hope, resting upon his promise who hath taken upon him to be p 1. Pet. 2.25. the shepherd and Bishop of our souls, and q Ephe. 3.20. is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us. Whereby as he hath already wrought in us the like great work as r Cap. 1.20. he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, in that he hath s Cap. 2.5. raised us up, being dead in trespasses and sins, unto the life of God, so we rest t Phil. 1.6. persuaded, that having begun this good work in us, he will perform it good until the day of jesus Christ. u Bernard. in Cant. ser. 68 Non est quòd iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona, praeserti●● cùm audias apud prophetam: Non propter vos. etc. Neither is it for any man to ask, saith Bernard, upon what merits we hope for this good, seeing we hear by the Prophet, x Ezech. 36.22. Not for your sakes, but for mine own sake will I do it, saith the Lord. Now Master Bishop admitting after his fashion, an uncertain Certainty of hope, demandeth, What is this to the Certainty of faith, which the Protestants will have every man to be endued with, at his first entrance into the service of God? Where again we see how prettily Master Bishop can busy himself with a feather: These terms of first entrance into the service of God, are but the playing of his brain; he would feign seem to say something thereby, when indeed he saith nothing. For not only at first entrance, but in the whole continuance of the service of God, he leaveth a man as a ship in a storm, and hanging betwixt heaven and hell, howsoever not doubting, but that God for his part holdeth him fast to draw him to heaven, yet still affrighted least himself should lose his hold and fall into hell, nay not knowing whether he have any hold of God or God of him, because he cannot certainly know whether he have any hope, or charity, or repentance, or prayer, which being seated in the dark corners of the will, cannot otherwise then probably be discerned. But as touching his question, what is Certainty of hope to Certainty of faith? I answer him, that being truly understood, it maketh much to the proving of it. For hope goeth not beyond faith, because as I have said, hope is but the patiented waiting for that, which faith believeth we shall have. What faith doth not assure us we shall have, we cannot by hope expect and look for. There can therefore be no Certainty of hope, but it must presuppose a Certainty of faith, assuring us of obtaining what we must hope for. But, saith Master Bishop, Saint Paul insinuateth, that godly men partakers of the holy Ghost, and having tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, yet after all this have fallen aw●y from God. But I answer him, that he saith more of them then Saint Paul did, for he calleth them not godly men, though haply for the time they seemed to be so. Men may be partakers of the temporary gifts of the holy Ghost, and may taste of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come, as judas did while he was yet an Apostle, of whom notwithstanding in the midst of these gifts our Saviour said, that y john. 6.70. he was a devil. The like is to be said of them who shall say at that day, z Math. 7.22. Lord have not we prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils, and done many miracles? who yet in the mean while, as our Saviour signifieth, have been workers of iniquity. And what less can we say of Balaam, who in the spirit saw so much concerning the state and hope of the people of God, as made him enamoured thereon, and to cry out, a Numb. 23.10. Let my soul die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like unto his; b Ver. 21. he seethe no iniquity in jacob, neither doth he see any transgression in Israel; c Cap. 24.5. how goodly are thy tents, O jacob, and thy habitations, O Israel; who notwithstanding bewrayed himself to have a wicked heart, bewitched with covetousness, willing for money to have cursed the people whom the Lord directed him to bless. Men may have great gifts, and much revelation and knowledge of the way of truth, and be touched far with the conceit of that they know, who yet are void of true faith and regeneration of the heart, and therefore in the end because d Mat. 13.21. they have no root, do certainly fall and slide away. Whose fall because they never truly stood, though they seemed so to do, is not to impeach or weaken the assurance of them to whom God hath given by true faith to stand indeed. As for that which Master Bishop saith of such, that they have received faith, and great favours of the spirit, etc. it is but his own commentary, and we accordingly regard it. He affirmeth of their faith, that which the Apostle affirmeth not, and though they received some favours of the spirit, yet they never found the favour to receive him as e Ephes. 1.14. an earnest unto them of the heavenly inheritance, or by him to be f Cap. 4 30. sealed unto the day of redemption, which if they had, they should never being once sealed have been unsealed again, because in this respect g Rom. 11.29. the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, and never subject to any change. CHAPTER. 4. OF JUSTIFICATION. 1. W. BISHOP. BEcause M. Perkins sets not down well the Catholics opinion, I will help him out, both with the preparation and justification itself, and that taken out of the Council of Trent. Where the very words concerning preparation are these: Sess. 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this justice, when being stirred up, & helped by God's grace, they conceiving faith by hearing, are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true, which God doth reveal and promise, namely, that he of his grace doth justify a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ jesus. And when knowledging themselves to be sinners, through the fear of God's judgements, they turn themselves to consider the mercy of God, are lifted up into hope, trusting that God will be merciful unto them for Christ's sake: and beginning to love him as the fountain of all justice, are thereby moved with hatred and detestation of all sins. Finally, they determine to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep all Christ's commandments. After this disposition, or preparation, followeth justification, and for that every thing is best known by the causes of it, all the causes of justification are delivered by the Council in the next Chapter, which briefly are these. The final cause of the justification of a sinner, is the glory of God, the glory of Christ, and man's own justification: the efficient is God: the meritorious, Christ jesus Passions: the instrumental, is the Sacrament of Baptism: the only formal cause, is inherent justice, that is, Faith, Hope, and Charity, with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost, powered into a man's soul at that instant of justification. Of the justification by faith, and the second justification shall be spoken in their places. So that we agree in this point, that justification cometh of the free grace of God, through his infinite mercies, and the merits of our saviours Passion, and that all sins, when a man is justified, be pardoned him. The point of difference is this: that the Protestants hold, that Christ's Passion and obedience imputed unto us, becometh our righteousness: (for the words of justice and justification, they seldom use,) and not any righteousness, which is in ourselves. The Catholics affirm, that those virtues powered into our souls (speaking of the formal cause of justification) is our justice, & that through that, a man is justified in God's sight, & accepted to life everlasting. Although as you have seen before, we hold that God of his mere mercy through the merits of Christ jesus our Saviour, hath freely bestowed that justice on us. Note that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule, when he attributeth the merits of Christ's sufferings to obedience; whereas obedience if it had been without charity, would have merited nothing at God's hands. R. ABBOT. The doctrine of the Council of Trent concerning preparation to justification, is the very heresy of the Pelagians, as may appear by that that before hath been said thereof in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will. Out of the free will of man only stirred up and helped by grace, b Coster. Enchirid. cap 5. Haec gratia impulsus tantum & motio spiritus s. adhuc foris degentis: liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed m●u●nus & adiunantis se praeparat ad justificationem. not any intrinsical or infused, but only outwardly assisting grace, which is no more but what Pelagius himself acknowledged, they derive faith, hope, love, repentance, the fear of God, the hatred of sin, and purpose of new life, whereby he prepareth and disposeth himself to receive in his justification another faith, hope, charity, and other gifts of the holy Ghost, then to be powered into his soul. Whereby though they will not seem so to do, yet indeed they run into the affirming of that, which if Pelagius had not denied & condemned, he had been condemned himself, c August. epist. 206 gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari, that the grace of God is bestowed upon us according to our merits. In which sort Bellarmine saith, that d Bellarm. de justificat. lib. 1. cap. 1●. Fides ●ustificat per modum dispositio●is & merin: meretur remissionem peccaterum suo quodam modo. faith justifieth by way of merit, that faith in it manner doth merit forgiveness of sins, applying thereto some spe●ches of Austin, which to that purpose were never meant. In se●●ing down the causes of justification out of the Council, he committeth an absurd error, in saying that the final cause of the justification of a sinner is man's own justification, as if itself could be the final cause of ●●e●fe, whereas the Council nameth in steed thereof eternal life, Where●● he saith, that they agree with us in this point, that justification 〈◊〉 of the free grace of God, through his in● 〈…〉 our saviours Passion, he doth but sop● 〈…〉. For if justification be of the free grace of God, than it is not of works, according to that of the Apostle, e Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no grace. But he afterwards professedly disputeth, that his works of preparation are the very cause of justification. It were odious to refuse the name of the free grace of God, and therefore formally he nameth it, but by the process of this discourse it will appear, that he meaneth nothing less than to make it free. That our justification and righteousness before God, standeth not in any inward virtues and graces powered into our souls, but in the imputation of Christ's obedience and righteousness made ours by faith, shall be proved unto him, God willing, by better arguments than he shall be able to disprove. But that we are not to expect much of him for disproouing, he himself here showeth us by a silly note, in which he telleth us, that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule, when he attributeth the merits of Christ's sufferings to obedience; whereas obedience, saith he, if it had been without charity, would have merited nothing at God's hand. Wherein what doth he but give check to the Apostle, in that he saith; f Rom. 5.19. By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. For to him he might likewise say, that he comes too short in attributing to Christ's obedience, that many by it are made righteous; whereas by his obedience, if it had been without charity, many could not have been made righteous. But the man's simple ignorance appeareth in this dividing of obedience from charity, whereas charity is the very mother of obedience, neither is there any true obedience, but what issueth therefrom. And therefore M. Perkins well noted, though Master Bishops narrow eyes beheld it not, that Christ in his obedience showed his exceeding love both to his Father & us. But we must be content to bear with many such idle and bootless notes. 2. W. BISHOP. And whereas M. Perkins doth say, that therein we raze the foundation, that is, as he interpreteth it in his preface, we make Christ a Pseudochrist, we aver, that herein we do much more magnify Christ, than they do, for they take Christ's merits to be so mean, that they do but even serve the turn to deface sin, and make men worthy of the joys of heaven. Nay it doth not serve the turn, but only that God doth not impute sin unto us. We contrariwise, do so highly esteem of our saviours inestimable merits, that we hold them well able to purchase at God's hands, a far inferior justice, and such merits as mortal men are capable of, and to them do give such force and value, that they make a man just before God, and worthy of the Kingdom of heaven, as shall be proved. Again, they do great injury to God's goodness, wisdom, and justice in their justification, for they teach, that inward justice, or sanctification, is not necessary to justification; Yea, their Ringleader Luther saith, That the justified can by no sins whatsoever, (except he refuse to believe) lose their salvation. Wherein, first they make their righteous man, like (as our Saviour speaketh) to sepulchres whited on the out side with an imputed justice, but within, full of iniquity and disorder. Then the wisdom of God must either not discover this mass of iniquity, or his goodness abide it, or his justice either wipe it away, or punish it: But (say they) he seethe it well enough, but covereth it with the mantle of Christ's righteousness. Why, can any thing be hid from his fight? it is madness to think it. And why doth he not for Christ's sake deface it, and wipe it clean away, and adorn with his grace that soul, whom he for his sons sake loveth, and make it worthy of his love and kingdom? What, is it because Christ hath not deserved it? So to say, were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits. Or is it, for that God cannot make such justice in a pure man, as may be worthy of his love and his kingdom? And this were to deny God's power in a matter that can be done, as we confess that such virtue was in our first father Adam, in state of innocency. Pag 77. And M. Perkins seems to grant, That man in this life at his last gasp may have such righteousness. If then we had no other reason for us, but that our justification doth more exalt the power, and goodness of God, more magnify the value of Christ's merits, and bringeth greater dignity unto men: our doctrine were much better to be liked then our adversaries, who cannot allege one express sentence, either out of holy Scriptures, or ancient Fathers, teaching the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto us, to be our justification as shall be seen in the reasons following, and do much abase both Christ's merits, and God's power, wisdom, and goodness. Now to their reasons. R. ABBOT. It is truly said by Master Perkins, that the Church of Rome in teaching justification by works, doth raze the very foundation of Christian faith, and maketh Christ but a counterfeit and false Christ, because as saith the Apostle, a Gal. 2.21. If righteousness be by the law, than Christ died in vain. Therefore peremptorily he denounceth, b Cap. 5.4. Ye are abolished from Christ; ye are fallen from grace whosoever are justified by the law. Yet M. Bishop telleth us, that they do therein much more magnify Christ then we do. But I answer him, that they do truly magnify Christ, who yield him that honour to say or teach nothing of him but what he hath revealed and taught of himself. They do not magnify Christ, who measure and describe him by the foolish presumptions of their own shallow and short wits. As for us, we do not make the effect of Christ's merits to serve only that sin is not imputed unto us, as this sycophant cavilleth, but affirm the same to be such, as that for his sake, and c Ephes. 1.8. in him God blesseth us with all manner of spiritual blessings in heavenly things, and that d 1. Cor. 1.30. he is made unto us of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that is, all in all, that he that rejoiceth may rejoice (only) in the Lord. But of his magnifying Christ's merits, we may rightly say as Saint Austin upon occasion said to the Donatists, e August. count lit. Petil lib. 2. ca 84. Verba sunt hominum extollentium glorians homini. sub nomine Christi, ut gloria minuatu● ipsius Christi. They are the words of men, extolling the glory of man under the name of Christ, to the abasing of the glory of Christ himself. Christ forsooth hath purchased for them justice and merits of such force and value, as that they make them just before God, and worthy of the kingdom of heaven. These are gallants, that think scorn to receive the reward of heaven as a poor man doth an alms, but will needs have whereof to say, I am just, I have justly and worthily deserved heaven. Foolish hypocrite, that affirmeth that of the merits of Christ, which neither he nor any of his can show to be performed in himself, nay which his own conscience controleth by experience of himself. The word of God teacheth us no such justice or merit: they themselves find it not in themselves; their jesuits and Priests, to say nothing of the rest, which are the teachers hereof, are men in the eyes of the world notorious for treachery, for villainy, for cozenage, for unclean and filthy life, and so one by another discovered to be; yea and of their followers a great number that prate of their merits, are known for extortioners, whoremongers, drunkards, swearers, profane and vile persons, and yet must we needs believe that they are endued with such justice and merits? Nay, we rather believe that the just judgement of God is upon them, to deliver them up to sin, who thus wilfully yield themselves to such palpable illusions of the man of sin. But by this means Christ with them after baptism is no otherwise a Saviour, but because he giveth such justice as whereby it is in their power by free will to save themselves, and by their merits to purchase and deserve heaven. This is it Master Bishop, for which we justly detest you, as wicked perverters of the Gospel of Christ, and subverters of true faith. Thus in seeming to set up Christ's merits, you pull them down, and set up yourselves in steed of Christ. But the Gospel teacheth us to acknowledge Christ immediately and wholly our righteousness and salvation, f 2. Cor. 5.21. in whom and not in ourselves, we are made the righteousness of God, that is, just in the sight of God, in that his obedience and righteousness performed and wrought in our name, and for our behoof, is imputed unto us g Rom. 3.25. by faith in his blood. But so, as that this salvation to which he entitleth us by faith in him, consisteth not only in the remission of sins, or in the not imputing thereof, but also in h Cap. 6.6. destroying the body of sin, and restoring in us the image of God, i Ephe. 4.24. in righteousness and holiness of truth, he having given himself k Tit. 2.14. to purge us to be a peculiar people unto himself, and l Ephe. 5.27. to make unto himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. And all this Christ will effect unto us, but he will do it according to his own will, not according to Popish fancy. All this is now in fieri, non in facto esse, it is begun and in doing, but it is not yet finished and done: it shall be fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead. In the mean time he bringeth us not to perfect righteousness in ourselves, nor giveth unto us a full immunity from sin, that he may take away from us all occasion of rejoicing in ourselves, that as Saint Austin noteth m August. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 3. cap. 13. dum non iustificatur in conspectu er●s vivens, actionem gratiarum semper in dulgenti●e ipsius debeamus, & si● ab illa prim● ca●sa omnium v●ticrum, id est, ae tumore superb●e sancta humilitate scruemur. whilst no man living is found just in the sight of God, we may always owe thanksgiving unto his mercy, and by humility may be healed from swelling pride, and n Bernard in Cant. ser. 50. sc●amus in die illa quia non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos sed pro misiricerdiae sua saluos nos fecit. that we may know, as Saint Bernard saith, at that day, that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us. Now therefore we do no wrong to God's goodness, wisdom, justice, in our justification, as Master Bishop fond chargeth us, because we teach justification in the same sort as God himself hath taught it us, inferring sanctification as an immediate and necessary effect, but not containing it as an essential part. We hold sanctification to be necessary to justification in this sense, that the one cannot be without the other, and that no man is justified by the righteousness of Christ, who is not also sanctified by the spirit of Christ; but we deny sanctification to be necessary to justification in Master Bishop's meaning, as to be any cause or matter of it. As for the place of Luther wretchedly falsified by him, the true purpose of it only is to show the work of God's grace to be irrevocable in them upon whom he hath set the mark of his election, and hath justified them by faith in Christ, to whom as Saint Austin saith, o August. Soli. loq. cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonum, etiam peccata ipsa. even their very sins do work for good, and thereof is made as it were a treacle and preservative against sin; so that, as Bernard saith, p Bernard. de triplici cohaer. clavor. vincul. & glutin. Of Certainty of Salvation. Sect. 9 though David be branded with the blot of horrible sins, and Peter be drowned in a depth of denying his Master, yet there is none that can take them out of the hand of God, who because he will preserve them, therefore preserveth their faith, and continueth in them his spirit of sanctification, and though by occasion they fall, yet they never so fall, but that q 1. john 3.9. his seed remaineth in them, and r Psal. 37.24. his hand is under to lift them up again. Now because we affirm the inward sanctifying of the heart to be always an infallible consequent of justification, there is no place for that objection of his, that we make the righteous man like to sepulchres whited without with an imputed justice, but within full of iniquity and disorder. The imputation of righteousness both outwardly and inwardly is our justification before God, and by sanctification the justified man both outwardly and inwardly becometh other in quality than he was before, so that although sin in part be still remaining to lust and rebel, yet it is brought into subjection that it reigneth not, and being checked and resisted that it may not bring forth fruit, a man is not by it reputed full of iniquity and disorder. But of this sufficient hath been said s Sect. 17. before, by occasion of the same cavil in his epistle to the Ring. Here as he giveth further occasion, we tell him, that that remainder of sin in the regenerate, is covered with the mantle of the righteousness of Christ, and so S. Austin as we have seen before, calleth it t August. de nupt. & concup. lib. 2. ca 34. peccatum tectum, sin covered or hidden. But saith he, it is madness to think that any thing can be hid from the sight of God. We answer him, that God seethe it well enough with the eye of his knowledge, but by reason of that coverture u August. in Ps. ●1. Noluit aduertire Tecta quare? ut non vide●●tur. Quid erat Dei videre peccata a●si pu●ire peccata? will not see it with the eye of his judgement: he seethe it with a discerning, but seethe it not with a revenging eye, even as it is said, x Numb. 23.21. He seethe no iniquity in jacob, nor beholdeth transgression in Israel. But he demandeth, Why doth he not deface it and wipe it away, and adorn the soul with grace? etc. He hath his answer before: I will here quit him only with Saint Augustine's words, y Augus. ●●nat. C●●grat. cap. 27. riot agit Deus ut ●a●ct on●●a, sed agit tu●licio suo, nec ordinem sana●di accipit ab aegreto. God is in hand to heal all, but he doth it at his own discretion, and receiveth not of the sick man an order for his cure. Again he asketh, Hath not Christ deserved it? We tell him, ye; Christ hath deserved it, and for his merits sake it shall be done, but we must expect the time that God hath appointed for the doing of it. Christ hath deserved for us to be wholly freed from mortality, corruption and death, as before was said, but mortality, corruption and death yet continue still. When mortality, corruption and death shall be abolished, then shall sin also wholly and for ever be taken away. Last of all he demandeth, Is it because God cannot make such justice in a pure man? I answer him out of Tertullian, z Tertul. adverse. Praxe●in Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hac sententia vtamu●, quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus, quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit. Potuit Deus pennis hominem ad volandun instrux●sse; non tamen quia potuit statim & fecit, etc. Probare apertè debebis ex Scriptures. If we will so abruptly in our presumptions conceive opinion, we may feign what we list of God, as if he had done it, because he could do it. He could have made man with wings to fly, but yet he hath not done it. You should prove plainly out of the Scriptures that he would so do. As for worthiness, it is but a matter of conceit and fancy. No creature can contend upon worth with the Creator. If Adam's worth were such as he speaketh of, he had been worthy to be preserved, and he may as saucily dispute with God, that he did him wrong in suffering him to fall. As for that which he allegeth as out of Master Perkins, that man in this life at his last gasp may have such righteousness, it is a device of his own, neither doth Master Perkins say any thing that should yield him any such construction. For conclusion, he telleth us, 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 goodness of God, more magnify the value of Christ's merits, and bringeth greater dignity unto men. Where the vain man seethe not, that by the one part of his speech he crosseth the other. The thing whereto the true doctrine of the Gospel tendeth, is entirely the honour and glory of God, but their doctrine forsooth serveth to bring dignity unto men. But in that it bringeth dignity unto men, it detracteth from the glory of God, whose light is most clearly seen in our darkness, a 2. Cor, 12.9. his power in our weakness, his goodness in showing mercy to us that are evil; his b Dan. 9.7. righteousness in the confession of our shame; the worth of Christ's merits in the true acknowledgement of our unworthiness and want of merits. God hath appointed us to be c Ephes. 1.6. for the praise of the glory of his grace, and therefore so disposeth d 1. Cor. 1.29. that no flesh shall rejoice in his presence, and e Esa. 2.11. that he only may be exalted at that day. Therefore f Aug. epist 29. Cùm rex justus sederit in throno quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor? etc. when the just king shall sit upon his throne, who shall glory that he hath a clean heart, or rejoice that he is free from sin? Our plea then must not be Merit and worth, but only g 2. Tim. 1.18. to find mercy with the Lord. But the thing that they seek for, as M. Bishop telleth us, is the dignity of man, as indeed it is. They labour to set up their own righteousness against the righteousness of God. They extol their own Merit, their own worth. The Merit of Christ only yieldeth matter of grace to their Free will to work upon, and thereby they work for themselves, they Merit for themselves, they save themselves; but in seeking this glory to themselves, they purchase their own shame. What we can allege for imputation of Christ's righteousness unto us to be our justification, will appear in that that followeth. 3. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins first reason is this, That which must be our Righteousness before God, must satisfic the justice of the law which saith, Do these things and thou shalt live, Gal. 5. but there is nothing that can satisfy that justice of the law, but the Righteousness and obedience of Christ. Ergo. This reason is not worth a rush, for when he requireth that our justice must satisfy the justice of the law, I demand what law he meaneth? If Moses law: of which those words, Gal. 5. Gal. 5. Do this and thou shalt live, are spoken. Then I answer with the Apostle, That you are evacuated, or abolished from Christ, that are justified in the law: that is, he is a jew and no Christian, that would have Christian justice answerable to Moses law. If M. Perkins would only that men justified, must be able to fulfil Christ's law, I then grant, that they so be, by the help of God's grace, which will never fail them, before they fail of their duties. But saith M. Perkins: That justice of man is unperfect, and cannot satisfy the justice which God requires in his law, Isay 6.4. and proves it out of Esay, who saith, All our righteousness 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 unto the righteous. That he speaketh of the wicked of that nation and of that time, appeareth plainly by the text itself. For he saith before, But lo thou hast been angry, for we have offended, and have been ever in sin, and after; There is no man that calleth upon thy name, and standeth up to take hold by thee. And although the words be general, and seems to the unskilful to comprehend himself also, yet that is but the manner of preachers, and specially of such as become Intercessors for others, who use to speak in the persons of them, for whom they sue: for if he had reckoned himself in that number, he had lied, when he said: There is none that call upon thy name, when as he immediately calleth upon him in most vehement sort for mercy, Luther and Caluin on this place. all which the best learned among them marking, confess that this sentence cannot be alleged against the virtue of good works. Hence gather, how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture. That which the Prophet spoke of some evil men, of one place, and at one time: that he apply unto 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 blindness of these men who take upon them to be the only masters of the world. That, saith M. Perkins, which must be our Righteousness before God, must satisfy the justice of the la which saith, Do these things and thou shalt live, inferring hereof, that because no Righteousness of ours doth answer the justice or Righteousness commanded in the law, therefore no Righteousness of ours but only the imputed Righteousness of Christ is our justification before God, For answer to this M. Bishop demandeth what law he meaneth, whether Moses law or Christ's law? But we make to him a counter-demand, What he meaneth by Moses law, and what by Christ's law? He should more plainly have declared his distinction if he would have made an answer of it, but that that we conceive of it is, that by Moses law he meaneth the ceremonies of the law, by Christ's law the moral law of the commandments commonly so called. But had he so little understanding of the law, as to think that of the ceremonial law it was said, Do this and thou shalt live? Surely the ceremonies of the law were but a Col. 2.14. a handwriting against us, because they were an acknowledgement of uncleanness, and sin, and trespass against that law that faith, Do this and thou shalt live; and because an acknowledgement of sin, therefore a conviction of guilt of death incurred thereby, and yet could yield no remedy against death, being afterwards b Heb. 7.18. disannulled because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof; so far should we be from thinking that of the ceremonial law it should be said, Do this and thou shalt live. The young man demandeth of Christ, c Mat. 19.16. What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? Now look of what law our Saviour answereth him, as M. Bishop hath cited before, d Vers. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, of the self same law doth he answer another to the same question, upon recital of a brief of the commandments, e Luc. 10.28. This do and thou shalt live, namely of the moral law, to which it hath reference f Levit. 18.5. where it is first spoken, as appeareth by that that followeth for declaration of it. Of which also it is rehearsed by g Ezech. 18.11.13. etc. Ezechiel the Prophet, and is by the Apostle Saint Paul further alleged to show the difference betwixt h Rom. 10.5. the Righteousness of the law and the Righteousness of faith. Moses, saith he, this describeth the Righteousness of the la, that the man which doth these things shall live thereby. i Gal. 3.12. The la is not of faith; but he that doth these things, shall live in them. Of which law he saith; k Rom. 3.20. By the la cometh the knowledge of sin: that it saith, l Cap. 7. ver. 7.16.22. Thou shalt not lust; that he consenteth to it that it is good, that he delighteth in it as touching the inner man; that the m Cap. 13. v. 9 Gal. 5.14. sum thereof is; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, all which do undeniably point out unto us the moral law, as both n August. de spir. & lit. ca 14. Saint Austin and o Hieron. epist. ad Ctesiphont. Saint Hierome out of the same and such like places have expressly affirmed. Of the same law therefore he saith, p Gal. 3.10. So many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. And because no man continueth in all, he concludeth hereof, q Ver. 11. & cap. 2.16. that by the law no man is justified in the sight of God; that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Now of the self same law doth he say that which M. Bishop hath cited for the cutting of his own throat, r Cap. 5.4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are justified by the law, thereby teaching us to resolve, that justification by Christ, and justification by the work, of the law, cannot possibly concur in one. Now whereas the Apostle for avouching justification only by faith in Christ, taketh it for a ground, that no man fulfilleth the Righteousness of the law, M. Bishop that he may be wholly thwart and cross unto him, affirmeth, that by the help of God's grace men are made able to fulfil the law to be justified thereby. Against which assertion, to prove that the Righteousness of the regenerate and faithful is not such as that it can answer the justice and Righteousness required in the law, M. Perkins allegeth the common confession of all indited by the Prophet Esay: s Esa. 64.6. All our Righteousness is as a menstruous or defiled cloth. For if the Righteousness commanded by the law be most exact and perfect, and no righteousness is performed by us but what by our weakness and corruption is blemished and stained, then can no righteousness of ours satisfy the commandment of the law. But M. Bishop answereth, that the Prophet speaketh these words in the person of the wicked of that nation and that time, and therefore that they are madly applied unto the righteous. Where a man would wonder that he should be so mad as to imagine that prayer to be uttered in the person of wicked men, or that wicked men should make mention or any their Righteousness unto God. And as for the time, it fitteth not the age wherein the Prophet himself lived, but was prophetically written in respect of a time long after succeeding. He foresaw in the spirit the desolation of jerusalem, and the temple, and that whole land, and thereupon putteth himself into the person of the faithful, and maketh himself as one of them that should live at that time. This is very apparent by the Prophet's words t Vers. 10. Thine holy cities lie waste, Zion is a wilderness, and jerusalem a desert; The house of our sanctuary and of our glory, where our fathers praised thee, is burnt up with fire, and all our pleasant things are wasted. This prayer than was to serve for a direction to the faithful that then should be, to make their moan unto God, and to entreat mercy at his hands. And very answerable to this prophetical prayer is the prayer of the Prophet Daniel made presently at that time. For whereas M. Bishop to prove that the Prophet speaketh in the person of the wicked, allegeth those words, u Esa. 64 5. Lo thou hast been angry, for we have offended, and have ever been in sin, the Prophet Daniel likewise saith, x Dan 9.5. We have sinned, and have committed iniquity and done wickedly, y Vers. 7. O Lord Righteousness belongeth unto thee, and unto us open shame: z Vers. 10. We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his ways etc. And whereas he allegeth the other words, a Esa. 64.7 There is no man that calleth upon thy name and standeth up to take hold of thee, the Prophet Daniel in like sort saith: b Dan. 9.13. We have not made our prayer before the Lord our God. Both of them say, We have offended, We have sinned, We have not prayed, as showing plainly that they so spoke of other men as that they implied themselves also. Nay saith M. Bishop, that is but the manner of Preachers, and specially of such as become Intercessors for others, who use to speak in the persons of them for whom they sue. Where he maketh the holy Prophets and servants of God as very hypocrites to God as he himself is, as if they took upon them to accuse themselves to God when they intended nothing less. But to drive him out of this hole, the Prophet Daniel saith of himself, that in that prayer c Dan. 9.20. he confessed his own sins, and the sins of his people, and why should Daniel the Prophet be said to confess his own sins, and not the Prophet Esay, or those just and faithful in whose person Esay spoke? Nay both the one and the other spoke out of the true affection of the faithful at all times, who always find in themselves defects and defaults, whereby they find just cause in confession of sins to join themselves with other men, even as the Prophet Esay elsewhere doth, d Esa. 6.5. Woe is me: I am a man of polluted lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of polluted lips. But saith M. Bishop, if he had reckoned himself in that number, he had lied in saying, There is none that calleth upon thy name, because he immediately calleth upon him in most vehement sort. As if they in whose name the Prophet speaketh, might not without a lie by words of the present time deplore the universal neglect of calling upon God, which had been amongst them, as Daniel acknowledgeth, and for the most part continued still, though God had stirred up some of their hearts now to make supplication unto him: or as if they that did pray might not find in themselves that faintness and want of heart and spirit, as might cause them in this behalf to accuse themselves unto God. We cannot doubt but that there were many faithful and godly amongst the jews in that time of their desolation, yet in those faithful and godly there was that default to be found, as that God said of them, e Esa. 51.18. There is none to guide her among all the sons that she hath brought forth; there is none that taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up. In a word, the Prophet in saying, There is no man that calleth upon thee, might note a public contempt of calling upon God, without exception against himself, as where he saith, f Esa. 59.4. No man calleth for justice, no man contendeth for truth, and such like, and yet could not say, We have sinned, we have all been as an unclean thing, without intendment of himself. Last of all, he allegeth that the best learned among us (quoting Luther and Caluin on this place) do confess that this sentence cannot be alleged against the virtue of good works. What Luther saith upon the place, I know not, not having the book at hand, but g Assert. artic. 31 otherwhere he doth allege it against the virtue of good works. Caluin giveth his opinion, that it doth not so properly serve to that purpose, but his reason is of less weight then that it should take from us a proof in the very words so clear and pregnant as this is. But if Luther and Caluin on our side do deny it, let him take h Pigh. controu. de fide & justificat. Pighius and i Ferus in Mat. cap. 20. Ferus of his own side confessing and acknowledging that this place doth make against the virtue of good works, both of them alleging it for an argument against the perfection thereof. Or if they bear no sway with him, let him hear them whose authority he may not well disclaim; Origen saying thus, k Orig. in Rom. cap. 3. Quis vel super justitia sua gloriabitur cùm audiat Deum per Prophetam dicentem, quia omnis justitia vestra sicut pannus mulieris menstruatae. Who will glory concerning his Righteousness, seeing he heareth God saying by the Prophet, All your Righteousness is as a cloth of a menstruous woman: Hierome thus, l Hieron. in Esa. cap 64. Quicquid videmur habere justitiae, panno menstrua●e mulieris comparatur. By thy mercy we shall be saved, who by ourselves are unclean, and whatsoever Righteousness we seem to have, it is compared unto a menstruous cloth. Saint Austin alluding to the same place sayeth: m August. soliloq. cap. 28. Nos omnes quasi pannus menstruatae de massa corrupta & immunda venientes maculam immunditiae nostrae in frontibus portamus, etc. Whatsoever he toucheth that is unclean, by the la it shall be unclean. But we all as the cloth of a menstruous woman, being come of an unclean and corrupt mass, do carry in our foreheads the blot of our uncleanness, which from God that seethe all things we cannot hide, thereby acknowledging that blot remaining in us which must needs stain whatsoever proceedeth from us. But Saint Bernard is most frequent both in affirming this stain of all our Righteousness, and in applying this place to the proof thereof. n Bernard. in Fest. omn. sanct. serm. 1. Quid potest esse omnis justitia nostra coram Deo? Nun juxta Prophetam velut pannus menstruatae reputabitur, & si destrictè iudicetur iniusta invenietur omnis justitia nostra & minus habens. What can all our Righteousness be, saith he, in the sight of God? shall it not as the Prophet saith be reputed as a menstruous (or defiled) cloth, and shall not our justice, if it be strictly judged, be found unjust and scant? And in another place: o Idem de verb. Esa. serm. 5. Nostra (siqua est) humilis justitia recta forsitan sed non pura; nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus quàm patres nostros, qui non minùs veracitèr quam humiliter atebant. Omnes justitiae, etc. Our base Righteousness, if it be any, is right perhaps, but not pure, unless haply we think ourselves better than our fathers, who no less truly then humbly said, All our Righteousness is as a defiled cloth. Again in another place he sayeth likewise: p Jdem in dedicat. eccles. ser. 5. Ipsae justitiae nostrae omnes ad lumen veritatis inspectae velut pannus menstruatae inveniuntur. All our very Righteousnesses being looked upon by the light of truth, are found as a menstruous cloth. Again, q Idem de verb. Apost. Qui gloriatur, etc. Perfecta & secura gloriatio est cùm veremur omnia opera nostra, etc. Et cum Es●ia Propheta omnes iustitias nostras non aliud qu●m pannum menstruatae reputandas esse cognoscimus. Our perfect and secure rejoicing is when we are afraid of all our works, as holy job witnesseth of himself, and with the Prophet Esay do know that all our Righteousness is to be no otherwise reputed but as a defiled cloth. Hereby then let M. Bishop now understand, that M. Perkins dealt no otherwise but dexterously in the handling of this place, and that that which the Prophet Esay spoke, did so concern the faithful of that time and place whereof he spoke, as that they have true application to the faithful of all times and in all places, because no reason can be given why the faithful of one time should so speak, but by the same it is enforced upon the faithful of all times. 4. W. BISHOP. 1. Cor. 4. But he will amend it in the next, where he proves out of Saint Paul, that a clear conscience (which is a great part of inherent justice,) can nothing help to our justification: I am privy to nothing in myself, and yet I am not justified thereby. Here is a very pretty piece of cozenage. What, doth the Apostle say that he was not justified by his clear conscience? nothing less: but that albeit, he saw nothing in himself to hinder his justification, yet God who hath sharper eye-fight, might espy some iniquity in him, and therefore durst not the Apostle affirm himself to be justified, as if he should say, if there be no other fault in me in God's sight, than I can find by mine own insight, I am justified, because I am guilty of nothing, and so the place proveth rather the uncertain knowledge of our justification, as I have before showed. But M. Perkins addeth, that we must remember, that we shall come to judgement, where rigour of justice shall be showed. We know it well, but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptism be purged from Original sin, Pag. 28. as he confesseth himself the Apostle to teach in our consents, about Original sin, what then needeth any justified man greatly fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge? And Saint Paul saith himself in the person of the just: That he had run a good race, etc. and therefore, there was a crown of justice laid up for him, by that just judge, and not only to him, but all them that love Christ's coming. And concerning both, Inherent justice, and the ability of it, to fulfil the law, and what law, hear this one sentence of S. Augustine. Serm. 18. de verb. Apost. He that believeth in him, he hath not that justice which is of the law, albeit the law be good, but he shall fulfil the law, not by justice which he hath of himself, but which is given of God, for charity is the fulfilling of the law, and from him is this charity powered into our hearts, not certainly by ourselves, but by the holy Ghost which is given us. R. ABBOT. There is none so ready to call harlot as is the harlot, none so ready to object cozenage to another as he that is the cosiner himself. I pray thee, gentle Reader, whether wilt thou rather think to be the cosiner, him that saith that the Apostle, saying, I am not thereby justified, doth mean as he saith, I am not thereby justified, or him that will make thee believe that the Apostle thereby meaneth, I cannot tell whether I be justified or no. Indeed cosiners commonly use colours, and labour for crafty and cleanly conveyance, but M. Bishop is none of those that make dainty of the matter; he sticketh not in every man's sight to cut the purse: that which in every man's eyes is expressly denied, he maketh no bones at all to turn into a matter of question and doubt. The place hath been sufficiently handled in the former question a Sect. 12. Of the Certainty of Salvation; here I will only set down what Gregory Bishop of Rome conceived of this place. b Greg. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 8 Sape ipsa justitia nostra ad examen divinae justitiae deducta iniustitia est, & sordet in districtiene judicis quod in aestimatione fulge● operantis. Oft times, saith he, our very Righteousness being brought to the examination of the Righteousness of God is unrighteousness, and it is loathsome in the severity of the judge, which in the opinion of the worker shineth bright. Whereupon Saint Paul when he said, I am guilty to myself in nothing, by and by added, but I am not justified thereby. Who forthwith insinuating the cause why he was not justified saith, But he that judgeth me is the Lord. c Acsi dicat: Idcirco in eo quòd nihil mihi conscius sum justificatum me abnego, quia ab eo quime judicat examinari me subtiliùs s●to. As if he should say, Therefore do I deny myself to be justified by my being guilty of nothing, because I know myself to be more nearly sifted by him that judgeth me, etc. d Quia & ipsa nostra perfectis culpa non caret, nisi hanc seue●us judex in subtle lance examine misericorditèr penset. Because even our perfection is not without fault, unless the severe judge do with mercy weigh it in the strict balance of his examination. Again he saith of the same place: e Ibid. cap. 23. Districtionem divinae justitiae contemplantes etiam de ipsis operib. iure pertimescimus quaenos fortia egisse putabamus. Ducta namque ad internam regulam nostra rectitudo si districtum in dicium invenit, multis tortitudinum suarum sinibus in intimam rectitudinem impingit. Beholding the strictness of God's justice, we are justly afraid of those very works, which we thought we did with strength. For our Righteousness being brought to the internal rule, if it find severe judgement, by many creeks of wrying and turnings offendeth against the most inward (or perfect) Righteousness. Whence the Apostle Paul seeing himself to have the bones (that is, even the strength) of virtues, and yet these bones of his did tremble at strict examination, saith, I am guilty to myself in nothing, yet am I not thereby justified. f Acsi diceret, Recta egisse me recolo, attamen demeritis non praesumo; quia ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur sub quo nostrae fortitudinis & ossa turbantur. As if he should say, I remember I have done the things that be right, but yet I presume not of any merit, because our life is brought to the censure of him before whom the very bones of our strength are troubled. Thus by the judgement of him whose judgement M. Bishop by no means may refuse, S. Paul plainly denieth himself to be justified, because though he knew nothing by himself, yet he had to do with him who in his very best works, much more in many secret sins, could find sufficient to condemn him. And this is the true meaning of those words, that howsoever a man, if it be so, know nothing by himself, yet the Lord hath matter enough against every man, that he may be justified in that which he hath said, g Psal. 143.2. that no man living shall be justified in his sight. But yet the same Apostle who here saith of himself, I know nothing by myself, namely as touching any unfaithfulness in the stewardship that God had committed unto him, which was the matter spoken of, yet in other respect found cause to say of himself, h Rom. 7.14. I am carnal; sold under sin; i Vers. 19 I do not the good which I would, but the evil which I would not that do I. k Vers. 23. I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death. So that here is a further fault committed by M. Bishop, in that he urgeth the words of the Apostle as simply and generally true, which were meant only respectively, as if he had absolutely said that he knew nothing at all against himself, when he meant it as touching any default in his service and charge that Christ had imposed upon him. Now M. Perkins to take away the opinion of our own Righteousness, and to show that we have no other but the Righteousness of Christ to rest safely upon, allegeth, as Gregory doth, the rigour and severity of God's judgement, which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect, according to the rule of justice prescribed unto us. Where M. Bishop showeth himself a very stupid and senseless man, not moved with the l 2. Cor. 5.11. terrors of the Lord, and the dread of that judgement which the very Angels tremble at. We know it well, saith he. Yea do? but what is then your refuge and defence? Marry, seeing there is no condemnation to them that by Baptism be purged from Original sin, as saith he, M. Perkins himself confesseth the Apostle to teach, what then needeth any justified man greatly fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge? Wherein he notably abuseth M. Perkins for the hiding of his own shame. For neither the Apostle, nor M. Perkins do teach, that by Baptism we are purged from Original sin, but only that in baptism it is remitted and pardoned, so that though it continue still in us, yet the faithful are not thereby holden guilty before God. So then by forgiveness of sins through the imputation of Christ's merits and obedience, it is that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, it is not for that there is nothing in them for which otherwise they might justly be condemned. Surely they that rightly know themselves, do know that in themselves there is that still being, for which God might justly cast them away, if he should judge them in themselves, but their comfort & hope is that for Christ's sake it is not imputed unto them, that they shall stand before God's judgement seat in the veil of his innocency and most perfect Righteousness, and in him shall have eternal life adjudged unto them. But with M. Bishop the case is far otherwise. There is no condemnation, because there is nothing worthy of condemnation, all justice, all innocency, no impurity or uncleanness, no more sin than was in Adam in the state of innocency, as he hath m Sect. 10 before spoken in the question of Original sin. May we not marvel that an hypocrite should thus securely flatter himself, being occasioned to bethink himself of that dreadful and fearful day? We are purged from Original sin, saith he: what needs then any justified man greatly to fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge? But far otherwise thought Saint Austin when he said, as we heard before, n August. epist. 29. Cum rex justus sederit in throne, quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor, aut quis gloriab●tur se esse immunem à peccato? Quae igitur spes est nisi superexultet miserecordia judicium? When the just king shall sit upon his throne, who shall glory that he hath a clean heart, or that he is free from sin? What hope then is there, saith he, unless mercy be exalted above judgement? And what? in the rest of his life hath the justified man no cause greatly to fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge? no sin, no trespass for the rigorous sentence of a just judge to take any hold of? We have seen before, that our best works will not endure severity of judgement, how shall we then quail by reason of our sins? S. Austin saith very well, o Aug. in Psal. 42. Qui●unque hic visit. quantum libet just viua● vae illi sicum illo in judicium intraverit Deus. Who so liveth here, howsoever justly he live, woe unto him if God enter into judgement with him. And fully answerable hereunto is that which Gregory saith, p Greg. Moral. li 8. c. 21 Quantalibet justitia polleant, nequaquam sibi ad iust●tiam vel electi sufficient si districtè in judicio requirantur. Not the very elect howsoever they excel in justice, shallbe able to approve themselves innocent if they be narrowly sifted in judgement. But most effectual to the purpose is that of Hierome, q Hieron. in Esa. l. 6. c. 13. Quum dies judicij vel dormitionis advenerit, dissoluentur omnes manus, quia n●llum opus dignum Dei justitia reperietur, etc. Omne quoque cor●siue anima hominis tabescet & pavebit conscientia peccati sui. When the day of judgement or of death shall come, all hands shallbe dissolved, because there shall no work be found worthy of the justice of God, neither shall any man living be justified in his sight. Whereupon the Prophet saith, O Lord, if thou markest iniquities, who shall endure it; every heart and soul of man shall faint and fear by reason of the conscience of his own sin. And will M. Bishop notwithstanding say, what needeth any justified man greatly fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge? The best is, that he leaveth no man to make use of that which he sayeth, because he will give no man leave to assure himself that he is justified. Yet to make his matter good, he allegeth that Sainr Paul saith, that he had run a good race, etc. and therefore there was a crown of justice laid up for him by that just judge, etc. Of which place we would gladly have known how he maketh application to his purpose. The Apostle maketh mention of a crown of justice laid up for him, and to be rendered unto him by a just judge, but he doth not say that he needeth not to fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge. God is a just judge as well when he judgeth by laws of mercy, as when he judgeth by laws of extremity; as well in the r Rom. 3.27. law of faith, as in the law of works; but the rigorous sentence of this just judge is only when he judgeth by the law of works. By the law of faith God forgiveth and pardoneth, he considereth with favour, and s 2. Cor. 8.12. if there be a willing mind it is accepted according to that a man hath, not according to that that he hath not, and all this he doth as a just judge, because by law he doth whatsoever he doth. But in the rigour of the law which is the law of works, he remitteth nothing but requireth all to t Mat. 5.26. the uttermost farthing; nothing pleaseth but what is exact, and perfect, and fully answerable to the rule. S. Paul then expected that God as a just judge would yield unto him the crown, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith, wherein God u Psal. 103 4. crowneth in mercy and loving kindness, because this crown is a crown of justice, x Bernard de great. & lib. arbit. sub finem. Corona justitiae sed justitiae Dei non suae. Justum est quip ut reddat quod debet: debet▪ autem quod pollicitus est. Et haec est justitia de quae praesumit Apostolus, promissio Dei. not of Paul's own justice, saith S. Bernard, but of the justice of God. For it is just with God to pay that he oweth, and he oweth that which he hath promised. And this is the justice, saith he, upon which the Apostle presumeth, even the promise of God. Now very much doth M. Bishop mistake, to think that God rendereth by the rigorous sentence of a just judge, that which as a just judge he rendereth by promise according to the law of faith. In a word it toucheth the Apostle Paul, which Saint Austin sayeth unto God: y August. in Psal. 129. Si nobiscum severus judex agere volveris, non miserecors pater, quis stabit ante ocul●s tuos? If thou wilt deal as a rigorous judge, and not as a merciful father, who shall stand in thy presence? The place of Austin by him cited maketh nothing at all against us, nor helpeth him at all. He would thereby prove Inherent justice, and we deny it not; only we say, that in this life we are far from the perfection of it. In this life we are z August. de verb. Apost. ser. 15. Vtatores, non habitatores, non possessores. travelers to it, not dwellers in it, not possessors of it, as Saint Austin speaketh in the same Sermon, misquoted by M. Bishop, the eighteenth for the fifteenth. a Ibid. ser. 16. Puto hoc esse dicere, justus sum, quod est, peccator non sum. I think it is all one for a man to say, I am just, saith he, as to say, I am no sinner, and who is there living that can so say? Therefore advisedly he saith, implebit legem, he shall fulfil the law, not he doth fulfil. He now fulfilleth it in part, but shall perfectly fulfil it when charity shall be perfect, which is b Rom 1.3.10. the fulfilling of the law, which c August. epist. 29. Plenissima charitas quamdiu hic homo vivit est in nemine. shall be in no man so long as he liveth here. Therefore in another place he bringeth in the Apostle himself, saying, d Idem de verb. Apost. ser. 5. Non implet legem infirmitas mea, sed laudat legem voluntas meae. My weakness fulfilleth not the law, but yet my will commendeth the law, referring it to the commandment, Thou shalt not lust. This is the state of our Righteousness here, rather a desire to fulfil the law, than any perfect attainment of our desire. And thus M. Bishops answer to the first argument is indeed not worth a rush. 5. W. BISHOP. Now to the second argument. He which knew no sin, 2. Cor. 5. was made sin for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God, which is in him: Hence M. Perkins reasoneth thus. As Christ was made sin for us, so we are made the Righteousness of God in him: but Christ was made sin by imputation of our sins, he being most holy: Therefore a sinner is made righteous, in that Christ's Righteousness is imputed unto him. I deny both propositions; the former, because it hath a comparison in the manner of our justification, with the sin which Christ was made for us: for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sin, as we are made just. That is then M. Perkins vain gloss, without any likelihood in the text. The other proposition is also false, for Christ was not made sin by imputation, for sin in that place is taken figuratively, and signifieth according to the exposition of ancient Fathers, An host or Sacrifice for sin: Which Christ was truly made: his body being sacrificed on the Cross for the discharge of sin, and not by imputation. How these words of the Apostle, justice of God, are to be understood, see S. Augustine. Tract. 26. in joh. Jtem Epist. 120. ad Honorat. cap. 30. Item in Psa. 30. Conc. 1. De spirit. & lit. c. 9 One place I will cite for all: The justice of God (saith he) through the faith of Christ jesus, that is by faith wherewith we believe in Christ: for as that faith is called Christ's, not by which Christ believes, so that justice is called Gods, not whereby God is just, both of them, faith and justice be ours, but therefore they are termed Gods, and Christ's, because through their liberality they are given to us. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. chrysostom, which M. Perkins citeth, saying: It is called God's justice, because it is not of works, but of his free gift. So that it is not that which is in God himself, but such as he bestoweth upon us, and that justice of itself is pure, and wanteth no virtue to work that for which it is given, to wit, to make a man righteous. S. Anselme a right virtuous and learned Catholic Archbishop of ours shall be answered, when the place is quoted. R. ABBOT. The words of the Apostle are plain; yet M. Bishop denieth that there is any signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sin as we are made just. M. Perkins, to approve that there is a similitude, alleged the exposition of Anselmus: a Anselm. in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Ille peccatum ut nos justitia, non nostra, sed Dei, non in nobis sed in illo, sicut ille peccatum, non suum, sed nostrum, nec in se, sed in nobis. He was made sin that we might be made Righteousness, not our own but Gods, not in ourselves but in him, as he was made sin not his own, but ours, not in himself but in us. M. Bishop answereth, that Anselme shall be answered when the place is quoted. He was loath of his labour to search for it, being left unquoted by M. Perkins, because he saw that all his wit could not devise what to say against it. But when he will answer, he must not answer Anselme only, but Austin also from whom Anselme borrowed that exposition, as he used to do very much. b August. Enchirid. cap. 41. Ipse ergò peccatum ut nos justitia, nec nostra sed Dei simus, nec in nobis sed in ipso, sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum similitudine cat●is peccati in qua crucifixus erat demonstravit. He then was made sin, saith Austin, that we might be made Righteousness, not our own but Gods, nor in ourselves but in him, even as he by the similitude of sinful flesh wherein he was crucified, did show forth sin, not his own sin but ours, not being in him, but in us. In which words we see it plainly affirmed, which M. Bishop denieth, that the Apostle in those words did intend a comparison betwixt Christ's being made sin, and our being made Righteousness, that as Christ not being a sinner, yet was reputed as a sinner for our sakes, and for the sin that is in us, so we not being in ourselves just and righteous, yet are reputed just and righteous for his sake, and for the Righteousness that is in him. To this purpose the exposition of Hierome was also brought in, and the place quoted. He omitted to answer to Anselme, because the place was not quoted; but why did he overpass the other place cited directly to the point, but because he intendeth nothing but treachery and falsehood, and wilfully shutteth his eyes against apparent truth? The words of Hierome are as clear as the sun: c Hieron. in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Christus pro peccatis nostris oblatus peccati nomen accepit, ut nos efficerem●r justitia Dei in ipso, non nostra, nec in nobis. Christ being offered for our sins, took the name of sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, not ours, nor in us. Where it is evident, that the Righteousness whereby we are justified before God, is not any Righteousness that is in us, but it is the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, even as our sin was imputed unto him. Now than it should seem that it was not M. Perkins his vain gloss to make this comparison, but it was some likelihood thereof in the text, that made all these to conceive thereof as M. Perkins did. As touching the other proposition, But Christ was made sin by imputation of our sins, he saith that it also is false, and denieth that Christ was made sin by imputation. But how then, if not by imputation? Forsooth by being made a sacrifice for sin. But how was he made a sacrifice for sin, if not by having sin imputed unto him. The ancient writers well observed in the description of the sacrifices of Moses law, that the sacrifice for sin was sometimes called by the name of sin. As where Moses saith, d Levit. 4.29, He shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin, that is, of the sin offering; and he shall slay the sin, that is, the sacrifice for sin. Now because they found the name of sin to be thus given to the sacrifice for sin, therefore where it is said of Christ that he was made sin for us, they took the meaning to be this, that he was made a sacrifice for sin. Which being admitted helpeth M. Bishop nothing, because there is yet question to be made, why the sacrifice for sin should itself be called by the name of sin? Surely it could be for no other cause, but because the sin of the man for whom it was offered, was imputed to the dumb beast in figure of Christ, and it was to die as if it had committed the sin. Therefore the man that had sinned was appointed e Levit. 1.4. to lay his hand upon the head of his offering, as it were there to lay his sin. So saith Theodoret, f Theod in Levit quaest. 1. Qui victimam offerebat, imponebat super caput eius manus tanquam suas ipsius operationes pro quibus hostiam offerebat. He that brought the sacrifice laid his hands upon the head thereof, as to lay upon it his own works for which he offered the sacrifice. Thus doth God himself express the meaning of that ceremony: * Leui●. 16.21. Aaron shall put his hands upon the head of the Goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their trespasses in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat: so the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities. Sith Christ then was made a sacrifice for sin, it followeth that the sin of them for whom he was sacrificed, was laid upon him, and imputed to him. Therefore Origen to apply that figure saith, that g Origen. in Leuit. lib 1 Peccata generis humans imposuit super corpus suum. Christ laid the sins of mankind upon his own body. And thus the Scripture teacheth us: h Esa. 53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray, etc. and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all. i 1. Pet. 2.24. He hath borne our sins in his body upon the tree. Thus Hierome bringeth in our Saviour Christ, saying, k Hieron. in Psal. 87. Ir●m & protellam furoru tui qu● in gentibus eff●surus eras super me induxisti qui peccata corum suscepi Thou hast brought upon me that wrath and storm of thy fury, which thou wast to power forth upon the nations, because I have taken upon me their sins. How are our sins laid upon Christ, how did he bear them, how hath he taken them upon him, but by having the same imputed unto him? Therefore Saint Austin saith: l August. in Psal. 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit, ut justitiam suam nost●an● justitiam faceret. He made our sins his sins, that he might make his Righteousness our Righteousness. God made him sin, that is saith Elias Cretensis, m Elias Cretens. in Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. 5. He suffered him to die as a sinner because of our sin. But chrysostom goeth yet further, not only n Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 11. he made him sin, that is, he suffered him to be condemned as a sinner, but also o Ibid. justum fecit peccatorem ut peccatores faceret justos. he made the just a sinner, saith he, that he might make sinners just. All which speeches can no otherwise be made good, but by granting the imputation of our sins to be laid upon jesus Christ, especially the last, which seemeth very hardly spoken, but yet the Fathers doubt not thus to speak to signify this imputation, as shall appear further hereafter in the eleventh Section. Now as touching that which he citeth out of Saint Austin to declare what Saint Paul meaneth by the justice or Righteousness of God, there is nothing in that exposition that maketh against us. For we also say, that the justice of God is meant, not that whereby God himself is just, but whereby he justifieth us. For Christ needed not for himself to be made under the la, so to perform the Righteousness thereof for his own justification before God, being otherwise simply and absolutely just; but what he did, he did it for our sakes, that we thereby through faith in him should be justified in God's sight. And this justice or righteousness we acknowledge to be given unto us by God's free liberality and bounty, even as Christ himself is given unto us, and therefore are we said therein, p Rom. 5.17. to receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness. Which cannot be understood of inherent justice, because we do not yet receive the abundance of that gift, but only q Cap. 8.23. the first fruits, it being such, as that S. Austin saith thereof so long as we live here, that r August. de civit. Dei, li. 19 ca 27. Jpsa justitia nostra tanta est in hac vita, ut potius remissione peccatorum constet quàm perfectione virtutum. it rather consisteth in forgiveness of sins then in perfection of virtues. Which being so, albeit his exposition contain nothing material against us, yet we hold the same not so properly applied to the thing which he there expoundeth. For we do not think that the justice or righteousness of God is so called only for that it is the gift of God, but because thereby we are justified, thereby we are just and righteous in the sight of God. Which because we are not by inherent justice, as S. Austin every where confesseth, it followeth that the righteousness of God must be understood of another kind of righteousness, which is that whereof the Apostle instructeth us, whereby s Rom. 4.6. the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, according to the words of David: t Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man whose unrighteosnesse is forgiven, and whose sin is covered. Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. Therefore the Greek Scholiast expounding the righteousness of God to be that that is given of God, further showeth what that gift is, u Oecumen in Rom cap. 3. justitia Dei est justificatio & absolutio seu liberatio à peccatis à quibus non potu●● lex li●erare The justice or righteousness of God is justification and release, or deliverance from sins, from which the law could not deliver us. And so chrysostom, though he say as M. Bishop citeth, that justification is of grace, that is, of God's free gift, yet withal saith, that x Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom. 11. De● est ista justitia quando non ex operibus, quando necessarium est etiam nullam maculam inuen●●. the righteousness of God is so called, because it is not of works, inasmuch as it is necessary that there be no spot sound. Where he presupposeth that there cannot be found any righteousness of works, but such as is spotted and defiled, and therefore importeth that the righteousness of God which must be without spot, can by no means be understood of the righteousness of works. Neither doth it help M. Bishop any whit, that inherent righteousness is pure of itself as it is the gift of God, because though it be pure of itself and in the work of God, yet it is soiled in the puddles of our corruption, and receiveth a blemish by our crooked and untoward using of it, and is neither given to that end, nor is sufficient to yield us justification in the sight of God. Hitherto therefore the argument standeth good: As Christ was made sin, so we are made righteousness. Christ was made sin by imputation of our sin. We are therefore made righteous by the imputation of his righteousness. 6. W. BISHOP. Rom. 5. M. Perkins third reason. As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous: mark here a comparison between the first and second Adam, hence I reason thus; As by the obedience of Adam men were made sinners, so by the obedience of Christ, are they made righteous: but men are made sinners by imputation of Adam's sin unto them, and not only by propagation of natural corruption, ergo: by imputation of Christ's justice we are made righteous. Answer. The comparison I allow, because it is the Apostles, and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adam's fault; and say, that every one descended of Adam by natural propagation, hath his own personal iniquity sticking in them, which is commonly called Original sin, and an high point of Pelagianisme is it, to deny it. For albeit we did not taste of the forbidden fruit in proper person, yet receive we the nature of man, polluted with that infection really, and not by imputation. And so the comparison serves not at all M. Perkins turn, but beareth very strongly against him, it being thus framed: As by Adam's disobedience many were made sinners, even so by Christ's obedience many shall be justified: This is his Mayor. Now to the Minor. But by Adam's disobedience they were made sinners, by drawing from him, every one his own proper inherent iniquity, in like manner we are justified by Christ, not by imputation of his justice, but by our inherent justice, which is powered into our souls, when we are in Baptism borne a new in him. See what penury of poor arguments they have, that to make some show of store, are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them. R. ABBOT. This argument Master Bishop could no way avoid, but by showing himself either impudently wilful, or absurdly ignorant: and surely if his knowledge be no better then be here expresseth, he hath ill bestowed those thrice seven years that he hath before spoken of, in the study of Divinity, and were best to set himself to school again. The case is very clear, that if we be sinners by the imputation of Adam's sin, then are we also righteous by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Therefore he denieth that we are made sinners by the imputation of Adam's sin. Yea, but M. Bishop, you should then have told us how it is true, that the Apostle saith, that a Rom. 5.19. by Adam's disobedience we are made sinners. For how should we be sinners by his disobedience, but for that his disobedience is imputed unto us? Bellarmine saith, and he therein saith truly, that b Bellarm. de Amiss. great. & statu peccati. lib. 4. ca 10. Peccat● Adami ita posteris omnibus imputatur, acsi omnes idem peccatum patrauiss●nt. Adam's sin is imputed to all his posterity, as if all had committed the same. He allegeth to that purpose Saint Bernard, saying, that c Bernard. Domin. prima post Epiphan. ser. 1. Nostra est culpa & nobis justo Dei judicio imputabatur licet occulto. Adam's sin is our sin, and by the just though secret judgement of God, is imputed unto us. He saith again in another place, that d Bellar. ibid. lib. 5. ca 17. Communicatur per imputationem. Omnibus enim imputatur qui ex Adamo nascuntur. Adam's sin is communicated unto us by imputation; that it is imputed to all that are borne of Adam, and calleth it the imputation of Adam's disobedience. If Adam then by disobedience were holden a sinner, and his disobedience is imputed unto us, as if we ourselves had disobeyed, it must needs follow, that by the imputation of the same disobedience, we also are sinners as well as he. Therefore doth the Apostle say, that e Rom. 5.12. in him, that is in Adam, all have sinned. If in Adam all have sinned, then in Adam all are sinners, in Adam all are guilty of sin. To which purpose Saint Bernard saith, f Bernard. de advent. Dom. ser. 1. In Adam omnes peccavimus, & in eo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes. In Adam we have all sinned, and in him we have all received the sentence of damnation. So Saint Austin also saith, that g August. de Trint. lib. 13. ca 12. Parentum priorum debito universos posteros obligante. the debt (or trespass) of our first parents, did bind all their posterity after them. Adam then bare the person of all mankind, either standing to stand for all, or falling to fall for all, being to beget children according to his own image, either wherein he should continue if he did continue, or whereto he should fall if he did fall. Therefore h Ibid. ut supra. when he sinned, we all being in his loins, as Bellarmine saith, sinned in him and by him, and his sin by imputation lieth upon us all. But saith M. Bishop, every one descended of Adam by natural propagation, hath his own personal iniquity sticking in him, which is commonly called Original sin. In which words he somewhat toucheth the reputation of his scholership, in that he hath not learned to put difference betwixt personal and Original sin, which writers commonly distinguish one from another. For personal sin is that which groweth from the person whose sin it is, and is taken to be that which we call actual sin; but original sin is that, which being actual and personal to the first man, is derived by propagation, and thereby becometh natural to all the rest. Thus Cyprian mentioneth them as divers, when speaking of the patriarchs and Prophets, and other just and holy men, he saith i Cyprian. de jeiunio & tentat. Christi. Nec originals nec personali caruere delicto. they neither wanted original nor personal sin. So Bellarmine M. Bishops good Master severeth them, in saying, that k Bellarm. ut supra. Originale peccatum non minus verè & propriè peccatum est quàm personale. In Adamo actuale & personale, in nobis originale dicitur. Original sin is no less truly and properly sin then personal, and that Adam's sin in him is called actual and personal, but in us original. It is wonder that so great a man as M. Bishop should be ignorant in this point. But now what will he make of this original sin? Marry, saith he, we receive the nature of man polluted with that infection really, and not by imputation. Indeed we receive the nature of man polluted with infection, but doth your learning serve you no better, but to make infection the whole matter of original sin? You should know, that original sin containeth l Bellarm. de Amiss▪ great. & statu peccati. lib. 4. cap. 10. reatum & maculam, first a guilt of actual transgression, and consequently a blot of infection. For of this infection or pollution of nature S. Austin in infinite places doth rightly observe, that it is m August. Retract. li. ●. ca 15. Peccatum tale ut idem sit & paena peccati. so a sin, as that it is also a punishment of sin. Now a punishment presupposeth a guilt of that sin whereof it is a punishment. For n Idem cont. julian. lib. 2. Non erat justum sine crimine transire supplicium it is no justice, as Austin saith, that the punishment should pass without the sin. Seeing therefore the punishment of the sin of Adam is lying upon us, it must necessarily follow, that there is lying upon us an imputation of the sin. And so the same S. Austin saith, that o Idem. Retract. li. 1. cap. 15. Dicimus eos reatu eius implicatos & ob hoc poenae ●bnoxi●● denneri. we are holden enwrapped in the guilt thereof, and thereby are holden subject to the punishment. M. Bishop then we hope will learn henceforth to see that it ariseth of imputation, that we receive the nature of man polluted really with infection. But by this means he is now become in a pitiful case, having no way left to avoid the argument, but that it standeth firm and sure, that as from Adam we are first sinners by imputation, and consequently sinful by corruption, so from Christ we are first justified by imputation, & consequently renewed to inherent justice by sanctification. In moment of time both these concur together, but in order of nature there is first righteousness by imputation, and thereby is way made to inward regeneration. At this argument they are all feign to hoodwink themselves, because they cannot truly describe the state of original sin according to their own grounds, but they give it way inevitably to proceed against them. They will have it, as M. Bishop here telleth us out of p Bellarm de great. & lib. arb. li. 1. ca 4. Bellarmine, that the Apostles meaning is, that we are made sinners by inherent corruption. But we tell them, and they can by no means avoid it, that the condition of being sinners by inherent corruption, because it is a punishment of sin; must presuppose us to be formerly sinners otherwise, and that is only by imputation. As therefore we are first sinners by imputation from Adam, so are we first justified by imputation from Christ, regeneration to inherent righteousness following of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, even as inherent corruption followeth of the imputation of Adam's sin, as before was said. And hereof S. Bernard speaketh most notably: q Bernard. epist. 190. Cur no aliundè justitiae cùm aliuna è reatus? Alius qui peccatorem constituit, alius qui justificat a peccato: altar in semine, alter in sanguine. An peccatum in semine peccatoris & non justitia in Christi sanguine? sed justitia, inquiet, si cuius est quid ad te? Esto, sed sit etiam culpa cuius est; quid ad me? An iust●tia justi super eum erit, & impietas impij no erit super eum? Non conueni● filium portare iniquitatem patris & fraterna fieri exortem justitiae. Why should not righteousness be of another, seeing guilt is of another? It is another that maketh me a sinner, it is another that justifieth from sin: the one in his seed, the other in his blood. Is there sin in the seed of a sinner, and is there not righteousness in the blood of Christ? But thou wilt say, If there be a righteousness of any ones, what is that to thee? Be it so: but then let the fault also be whose it is, what is that to me? shall the righteousness of the righteous be upon himself, and shall not the wickedness of the wicked be upon himself. It is not meet that the son should bear the iniquity of the Father, and be denied to be partaker of the righteousness of his brother. In which words we see that most clearly he affirmeth, both the imputation of Adam's sin to condemnation, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ accordingly to justification. I will conclude this point with the words of chrysostom: r Chrysost. in Rom. hom. 10. Si tibi judaeus dixerit, Quo pacto uno rectè agente Christo vniuersu● orbis saluus factu● est, possit illi respondere, Quo pacto uno non obedient Adam universus orbis condemnatus est? If a jew shall say unto thee (put case he had said, If a Papist shall say unto thee) How is all the world saved, it being only Christ that hath done righteously, thou mayest answer him, How was the whole world condemned, when it was only Adam that obeyed not? The matter of our condemnation then is in the one, and the matter of our salvation in the other, corruption of nature being consequently drawn by generation from the one, as a part of our condemnation, and sanctification to holiness consequently derived by faith and regeneration from the other, as a part of our salvation. And now he may well see that our arguments be not poor, nor make against ourselves, as he pretendeth, but his answers are such penurious and poor shifts, as that now they are once discovered, we expect from him no further maintaining of them. 7. W. BISHOP. His fourth reason. The Papists make Christ's obedience their satisfaction, but satisfaction is equal to justice, therefore they must make it as well their justice as satisfaction. For the Mayor he citeth Bellarmin. Lib. 2. de justif. cap. 7. I have read the Chapter, and find no such words, further I say, there is a great difference between satisfaction for mortal sins, and justification: for satisfaction cannot be done us; for the guilt of mortal sin is infinite, being against an infinite Majesty, and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it: wherefore the infinite valour of Christ's satisfaction is necessarily required, who having taken away the guilt of eternal punishment, due to sins, leaveth us his grace to satisfy for the temporal pain of it, as shall be in his due place declared more at large. Again, a man must needs have his sins pardoned, and grace given him, before he can make any kind of due satisfaction, for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfy, wherefore he must needs fly to the benefit of Christ satisfaction: There is nothing like in justification; for first to make a man just in God's sight, requires no infinite perfection, but such as a mere man is very well capable of, as all must needs confess of Adam in the state of innocency, and of all the blessed Souls in heaven who be just in God's sight. Neither is it necessary to be infinite, for to be worthy of the joys of heaven, which be not infinite as they are enjoyed of men or Angels, either of whom have all things there in number, weight, and measure. Briefly, it is a most easy thing for one man to pay the debts of another, but one man cannot bestow his wisdom or justice on another, and not credible, that God (whose judgement is according to truth) will repute a man for just, who is full of iniquity: no more than a simple man will take a blackmoor for white, although he see him clothed in a white suit of apparel. R. ABBOT. In true and right understanding, satisfaction is fully equivalent to justification, and that that is our satisfaction, is also our justification before God. For declaration whereof, it is to be observed, that sin consisteth partly in commission, partly in omission: partly in doing that that we ought not to do; partly in not doing that that we ought to do. Satisfaction then for sin must serve to acquit both the one and the other: it must take away what we have done, and supply what we have not done, or else it cannot be called a satisfaction. Therefore as on the one side in the evil that we have done, we are reputed as if it never had been done; so on the other side, in the good that we have not done, we are reputed as if all had been done. Accordingly S. Austin saith, that a August. Retract. l. 1. cap 19 Omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur. all the commandments of God are reputed to be done, when that is pardoned that is not done. Our satisfaction therefore is our justification with God, because thereby we are reputed as if we had performed all the righteousness of God. And so doth Bernard make them both one, when saying, b Bernard. ep. 190. Assignata est ei aliena justitia qui caruit sua. There is the righteousness of another assigned to him who wanted of his own, he addeth to express the same, c Satisfactio unius omnibus imputatur, etc. the satisfaction of one is imputed unto all, even as he alone hath borne the sins of all. But more clearly is it evicted by the words of the Apostle, who, where David pronounceth the man d Psal. 32.1. blessed, to whom the Lord forgiveth his sins, saith, that he e Rom. 4.6. describeth there the blessedness of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works; giving thereby to understand, that forgiveness of sins is the imputation of righteousness without works. If therefore in satisfaction there be forgiveness of sins, then is there also justification, that is, the imputation of righteousness without works. Now then sith Bellarmine confesseth, that the merit and obedience of Christ is our satisfaction, f Bellarm. de justif. lib. 2. ca 7. Si solùm vellent nobis imputari Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo patrè offer pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super s● onus satisfaciendi pro peccatis nostris, nosque Deo p●tri reconciliandi, recta esset eorum sententia. he must acknowledge it also to be our justification, that is, the thing whereby, and for which we are reputed just in the sight of God, because thereby we are reputed, as having perfectly fulfilled all the commandments of God. I have read the chapter in Bellarmine, saith M. Bishop, and find no such words. But he was drowsy belike when he read it, let him read it better when he is well awake, and then he shall find that Bellarmine saith, that in true meaning it may be said, that the merits of Christ are imputed unto us, for that they are given unto us of God, and we may offer the same to God the Father for our sins, in respect that Christ hath taken upon him the burden of satisfying for our sins. Where what doth he but acknowledge that Christ according to the burden taken upon him, hath in his merits made satisfaction for our sins? but in his folly like M. Bishop, because he understandeth not himself, will not have them imputed for our righteousness before God. His differences betwixt salvation and justification are impertinent, because that justification which he speaketh of, is not our justification before God, as shall appear. Briefly therefore to touch what he saith, the guilt, saith he, of mortal sin is infinite, being against an infinite majesty. But therefore the guilt of all sin is infinite, neither is there any sin but what is mortal, because all sin is against an infinite majesty. Therefore to all sin the infinite valour of Christ's satisfaction is required, which because it is infinite, is absurdly by M. Bishop restrained to the taking away only of the guilt of eternal punishment; for that that is infinite admitteth no restraint. Wherefore that which he addeth of our satisfaction for temporal pains, is a mere fable; neither without nor in the state of grace can we make satisfaction to God for any sin. justification he saith requires no infinite perfection, and it is true indeed as he meaneth it, but the true justification requireth an infinite perfection and worth, to purchase unto sinner's forgiveness of sins, atonement with God, regeneration of grace and everlasting life, which none could do but only the Son of God. And whereas he saith, that there is not any infinite perfection necessary to be worthy of the joys of heaven, he wonderfully deceiveth himself upon a false ground. There is no infinite perfection necessary to come to the enjoying or possessing of the joys of heaven, but there is an infinite perfection necessarily required to be worthy thereof, because that that is finite can have no proportion in worth to that that is infinite, and therefore the finite perfection of man cannot be worthy of the infinite joys of heaven. But saith M. Bishop, the joys of heaven are not infinite, as they are enjoyed of men or of Angels, either of whom have all things there in number, weight, and measure. Wherein he again mistaketh much, because the joys of heaven as touching time and continuance, are infinite, and come within no bounds or compass of number or measure, in which sort the damned bear the infinite wrath of God, according to the guilt of sin, being not thereof capable in any other sort. Which being so, it would be known of M. Bishop or some of his, how it should come to pass, that the perfections of men in the state of grace, should be of sufficient worth to purchase the infinite joys of heaven, and the satisfactions of men in the state of grace, should not be of the like sufficient worth to purchase deliverance from the infinite pains of hell. But in this we shall hereafter have occasion further to appose him. Here he goeth on and telleth us, that it is a most easy thing for one man to pay the debt of another, and we willingly admit it to be true. But than what we were in debt unto God for want of wisdom and justice, what hindereth but that Christ our surety might pay the same? If he pay for us what we want for ourselves, than his payment acquitteth us of all imputation of our want. And surely though a man bestow not his wisdom or justice upon another yet nothing is there to let, but that what one man by wisdom or justice doth for another, the same should stand good for him for whom it is done. But we would gladly know of M. Bishop, if his holy harlot mother have instructed him so far, how it should stand with reason, that they by the Pope's indulgences, should be made partakers of the merits and good works one of another, and that it should be against reason, that we by the ordinance of God should be partakers of the merits & righteousness of jesus Christ. The Abbots of the Cistercian Friars being gratified in a request by the King of France, are said by Matthew Paris. g Math. Parisan Henrico. 3. anno 1244. Sp●ciale suorum bonorum operum ei participium concesserunt. to have granted unto him the special participation of their good works. The Friars here in England made men believe, that they h Out of the copy of a pardon granted by the Carmelite Friars in London. anno 1527. gave them participation of all the masses, prayers, fastings, watchings, preachings, abstinences, indulgences, labours, and all good works that were done by the brethren of their order here in England. With what face do these wretches deny, that to the righteousness and merit of the Son of God, which thus blasphemously and lewdly they attribute to the blind devotions, and imagined righteousness of sinful and wicked men? Yea, but saith M. Bishop, it is not credible that God whose judgement is according to truth, will repute a man for just who is full of iniquity, no more than a simple man will take a blackmoor for white, although he see him in a white suit of apparel. And indeed it is not credible, that God will repute him to be inherently just, whom he hath taught to acknowledge himself a sinner, but credible it is & true, that God doth accept as just for Christ's sake, & by forgiveness of sins impute righteousness unto him, whom he seethe in himself to be unrighteous. i August. in joan. tract. 3. Omnes qui per Christum justificati, justi, non in se sed in illo Si in se interroges, Adam sunt: in illo si interroges, Christi suus. All that are justified by Christ, saith Austin, are just, not in themselves but in him. If a man ask of them in themselves, they are Adam: if in him, they are Christ's. It should not then seem so strange to M. Bishop, that men, though being unjust in themselves, yet by faith should be reputed just and righteous in Christ. And surely S. Bernard painely saith, k Bernar. in Cant. fer. 61. Et in me quidem operit (justitia tua) multitudinem peccatorum; n te autem quid nisi pietatis thesauros divitias bo●itat●? Thy righteousness covereth in me a multitude of sins, but in thee o Lord, what but the treasures of piety, the riches of goodness? Thus he is content to acknowledge himself a blacke-moore, black in himself, but clothed with the white suit of jesus Christ. So doth the Church the spouse of Christ say of herself, l Cant. 1.4. I am black, O daughters of jerusalem, but comely, that is, saith Theodoret, m Theod in Cant. Ego sum Aethiopissa. I am a Blacke-moore, not only for that she hath been, but also for that she still in part is: n Ambros. de ijs qui●nit. myster. cap. 7. Nigra per fragilitatem conditionis humanae, decora per gratiam: nigra, quia ex peccatoribus, decora fidei sacramento black (saith Ambrose) by frailty of human condition, comely by grace; black because she is of sinners, comely by the sacrament of faith: o justus in Cant. num. 8. Nigra co●fessione peccatorum; formosa gratia sacramenti. black (saith justus) by confession of sins, comely by the grace of the sacrament. This is the beauty of the Church for the time, not her being without sin, but remission and forgiveness of sins, testified by the sacraments of Christ, being pledges of the redemption that she hath obtained in him. And hereof Bernard well saith, that p Bernar. in Cant. ser. 25 P●test sponsa cum pulchritudine utique compositionis naevo no● career nigredinis, sed sanè in loco peregrinatiocus suae. Alioqum erit eùm eam sibi in patria exhibebit sponsus gloriae gloriosam, non habentem maculam aut rugam, aut aliquid huiusmodi. At verò nunc si d●c●ret quia nig●●dinem non haberet, seipsan seduceret, etc. in the place of her pilgrimage, with the comeliness of her feature, she wanteth not her mole or spot of blackness. It shall be otherwise in her country (saith he) when the bridegroom of glory shall make her to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. But now if she should say she hath no blackness, she should deceive herself, and there were no truth in her. And yet we see, that even now the bridegroom speaking to her, saith, q Cant. 1.7. O thou fairest among women: r Cap. 4 1. Behold thou art fair my love, behold thou art fair. She is s Ezech. 16.14. fair by his beauty which he hath set upon her, but remaineth yet still a Blacke-moore by that that she hath remaining of herself. Therefore he saith, O thou fairest, but yet addeth, amongst women. S. Bernard telleth the meaning, t Ber●ar. in Cant. ser 38 Ego te dico pulchram, sed inter mulieres, id est, ex part. I call thee fair▪ but amongst women, that is, in part or partly fair, thereby giving again to understand, that partly she continueth a Blacke-moore still. And what? doth M. Bishop think it amiss to confess so much of himself? doth he take it in scorn to be likened to a Blacke-moore? Let him be well assured, that if he think scorn to confess himself a blackmoor, he shall never be any of them that shall be clothed in white. Nay, because being a Blacke-moore, and very black, he setteth nought by the white garment of jesus Christ, let him know that his shame and nakedness lieth open, and his filthiness continueth loathsome and hateful in the sight of God. As for his exaggeration, I omit it, because it is but the running over of his unclean mouth, which ceaseth not to cry, full of iniquity, full of iniquity, of him whom Christ hath begun to purge from iniquity, and framed in conversation to departed from iniquity, as we profess of every one that is justified by faith in him. 8. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins last reason is taken from the consent of the ancient Church, and yet citeth (saving one two lines) nothing out of any ancient writer, nor out of any other, but out of only S. Bernard, who lived 1000 years after Christ, so that he signifieth that there is little relief to be had in antiquity. Which Caluin declareth more plainly, for he commonly setting light by all other in this question, rejecteth also S. Augustine saying: Lib. 3. Instit. cap. 11. num. 15. Ye● not the sentence of Augustine himself is to be received in this matter, who attributeth our sanctification to grace, wherewith we are regenerate in newness of life by the spirit. And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Council of Trent saith, We contend not how the Fathers take justification. And a little after: I am not ignorant that they spoke otherwise then we do of it. Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himself with some few broken sentences of later writers. But was S. Bernard (trow you) in this one point a Protestant? Nothing less. His words be these: The justice of another is assigned unto man, who wanted his own: Epist. 190. man was indebted, and man made payment, etc. But better let his own reason there cited, serve for exposition of his former words: which is this: For why may not justice be from another, as well as guiltiness is from another? Now guiltiness from Adam is not by imputation, but every one contracts his own, by taking flesh from him; even so justice is from Christ powered into every man that is borne again of water and the holy Ghost. In the second place he saith, That man's justice is the mercifulness of God: that is, by God's free grace and mercy it is bestowed upon us. With S. Bernard in the third place we acknowledge, that we have no justice of our own, that is from ourselves, but from the goodness of God, through the merits of our blessed saviours passion; read his first sermon upon these words of the Prophet Isay: Vidi Dominun, etc. Ser. 1. Super Isaiam. There you shall see him speak plainly of inherent justice, and how it is a distinct thing from the justice of Christ. Another broken piece of a sentence, In Psal. 22. there is cited out of S. Augustine: Christ made his justice our justice. That is, by his justice, he hath merited justice for us, as he expoundeth himself. Tract. 27. in joan. What is this, the justice of God, and the justice of man? The justice of God is here called that, not whereby God is just, but that which God giveth to man, that man may be just through God. R. ABBOT. S. Bernard may be sufficient to testify unto us the doctrine and consent of the ancient Church, unless M. Bishop can charge him to have departed therefrom, which because he dares not do, lest haply he should make an heretic of him, whom his holy Father hath made a Saint, he must needs yield, that antiquity hath acknowledged the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, because S. Bernard having so learned of antiquity, hath given express testimony and witness of it. Yea, but Master Bishop telleth us, that Caluin plainly declareth, that for this there is li●●le relief to be had in antiquity, who commonly setting light by all the rest, in this question rejecteth also Saint Austin. Now he citeth certain words of Caluin very lewdly falsified, and wrested from the purpose to which they were spoken. The thing that Caluin there speaketh of, is the signification of the name of grace. He taxeth the Master of the Sentences for his misconstruction of it, who, he saith, though taking upon him to follow Austin, yet varied from him, both obscuring and corrupting him. But the schoolmen that came after, he condemneth much more, for that they never gave over, till they were grown in a manner to Pelagianisme. Hereupon he addeth, a Caluin. Instit. lib. 3. ca 11. sect. 15. Ac ne Augustins quidem sententia vel saltem loquendi ratio per omnia recipienda est. Tametsi enim egregiè hominem omni justitiae laud spoliet ac totam Dei gratiae transcribit, gratiam tamen ad sanctificationem refert, qua in vitae novitatem per spir●tum regeneramur. And indeed the sentence of Austin, or at leastwise his manner of speaking, is not in all respects to be received. For although he do notably bereave man of all commendation of righteousness, and do ascribe it wholly to the grace of God, yet he referreth grace to sanctification, whereby through the spirit we are borne again to newness of life. Compare these words gentle Reader with those that M. Bishop hath cited, & consider whether thou mayest dare hereafter to trust him upon his word. Caluin noteth Austin, only for some unproper understanding, or using of the name of grace, as meaning thereby the grace of sanctification, as the Scripture by grace meaneth the free mercy of God, accepting us freely in Christ by the forgiveness of our sins, and this M. Bishop citeth, as if Caluin had affirmed, that Austin's opinion had been wholly against him, as touching justification by the righteousness of Christ. In like sort he abuseth Chemnicius, whose words in the former place are these, b Chemn. Exam. Co●cil. Triden. de iustific. Patribus l●cet verbum (iustificare) accipiant pro renovatione qua efficiuntur in nobis per spiritum opera justitiae, non movemus litem, ubi juxta scripturam rectè & commodè tradunt doctrinam quemodo et quare persona Deo reconcilietur, etc. We contend not against the Fathers, albeit they commonly take the word (justifying) for that renewing whereby the works of righteousness are wrought in us, whereas according to the Scripture, they rightly and conveniently deliver the doctrine, how and for what a man is reconciled unto God, receiveth remission of sins, and adoption, and is accepted unto everlasting life. In the other place he saith, c Patres quidem verbum iustificare in hac significatione saepe usurpare non ignoro, sed de proprietate linguarum quaestio est. I am not ignorant that the Fathers do often use the word (justify) in this signification, (namely to make inherently just) but the question is of the propriety of tongues. He confesseth that the Fathers sometimes do somewhat differ from us, as touching the signification of the word, but rightly & truly affirmeth, that as touching the matter & point of doctrine they teach the same that we do. Surely if betwixt the Papists and us there were no greater difference, then only about the meaning of a word, we would not lose our time nor spend our labour frivolously and idly to contend against them. But they abuse the Father's mistaking of a word, to the overthrowing of the doctrine approved by the Fathers. And yet the Fathers when they place justification in the forgiveness of sins, as many times they do, and teach that by the righteousness that is in us being defective and unperfect, e August. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 14. Vtique justum est ut debitores quos tenebat liberi dimittantur, credentes in eum quem sine ullo debito occidit: hoc est quòd justificari dicimur in sanguine Christi. d Psal. 143.2. no man living shall be justified in the sight of God, as they allege out of the Psalm, they do neither in matter of doctrine, nor meaning of the word depart from that that is maintained by us. S. Austin saith; Just it is that the debtor (or trespassers) whom the devil held, should be let go free, believing in him whom he slew without debt (or trespass.) This is it that we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ. f Jbid. cap. 16. justificati planè in eo quòd à peccatis omnibus liberati: liberati autem à peccatis omnibus quoniam pro nobis est Dei filius qui nullum habebat occisus. We are justified in his blood, in that we are freed from all sins, and freed from all sins, for that the Son of God who had no sin was slain for us. So Theodoret giving the meaning of the words of the Apostle, we are justified freely, etc. maketh it to be this, g Theodoret. in Rom. cap. 3. Sola fid● allata remissionem peccatorum consequimur. Bringing faith only, we obtain the forgiveness of our sins. Origen maketh these words, Thy sins are forgiven thee, h Origen. ad Rom. cap. 3. the pronouncing of the justification of the woman, who with her tears washed the feet of Christ. S. Bernard saith, that i Bernard. in An●unciat. ser. 1. Crede quia per ips●m tibi peccata do●antur. Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus g●atis justificari h●minem per fidem. our being justified freely by faith, which the Apostle speaketh of, consisteth in believing that our sins are forgiven us. But most fitly to the purpose he saith in another place, k Idem epist. 190 Vbi re ō●iliatio, ibi rem●ssio pec catorum, & quid ipsa nisi justificatio? Where there is reconciliation, there is forgiveness of sins, and what is that but justification? Now according to this construction of justification, they are wont to deliver, that l August. in Psa. 33. Iste est modus humanae justitiae, ut vita mortalis quantumlibet proficiat, quia sine delicto esse non potest in hoc non delinquat, dum speratin cum in quo est remissio delictorum. Jden de ciu. Dei. lib. 19 cap. 27. ut supra. Sect. 5. man's justice or righteousness, is to hope or put trust in him●●●● whom is forgiveness of sins; that our righteousness in this life is rather forgiveness of sins, than perfection of virtues; that m Idem. count 2. epist. Pelag. lib 3. cap. 5. Omnium piorum, etc. Spes vn● est quòd advocatum habemus, etc. the only hope of all the godly groaning under this burden of corruptible flesh in the infirmity of this life, is this, that we have an advocate with the Father jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins, as S. Austin speaketh: that n Hieron. adu. Pelag. lib. 1 Tunc justi sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur & justitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit misericordia. then we are just when we confess ourselves sinners, and our righteousness consisteth not of our merit, but of the mercy of God, as Hierome saith: that o Ambros. de Jacob. etc. Non gloriabor quia justus sum, sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum. Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum▪ sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata. Non gloriabor quia profui aut quia profuit mihi quisquam, sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est, sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est. we are not to rejoice that we are just, but that we are redeemed; not that we are without sin, but that our sins are forgiven us; not in the good that we have done, or that any other man hath done for us, but that Christ is our advocate with the Father, that the blood of Christ was shed for us, as Ambrose saith; that p Bernard. in Cant. ser. 22. justitia in absolutione peccatorum. Christ is our righteousness in the forgiveness of our sins, and that q Ibid. ser. 23. Hominis justitia indulgentiae Dei. God's forgiveness (or pardon) is man's righteousness, as S. Bernard saith. Now what do we teach otherwise then all these have taught, when we say, that we are reputed just by the forgiveness of our sins, and that this is our justification in the sight of God? For what are we but just in the sight of God, when there is taken from us the imputation of all sin? Surely r August. de verb. Apost. ser. 16. Puto hoc esse dicere. justus sum, quod est, Peccator non sum. to be just is the same as not to be a sinner; and s Idem in Psal. 118. conc. 3. Jovia fidei pro non peccantibus habentur quibus peccata non imputantur. in the way of faith they to whom their sins are not imputed, are accounted not sinners. Therefore it followeth that they are accounted just. Yea as was before alleged, t Idem Retract. lib. 1. cap. 19 ut supra sect. 7. all the commandments of God are reputed to be done, when that which is not done is pardoned. But he who is reputed to have done all the commandments of God, is reputed just. He therefore to whom God pardoneth, that which he hath not done is reputed just. u Idem in Psal. 118. con. 3. Siquid à deviante committitur propter viam non imputatur, & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur. In the way of faith if any thing be committed by stepping out of the way, for the ways sake it is not imputed, and a man is taken as if he had not done it. Yea, x Bernard. in Cant. 23. Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare decreverit sic est quasi non fuerit. all that God hath determined not to impute, is all one as if it had never been. Now he that is taken as if he had never done amiss, is reputed just. Whosoever therefore is in the way of faith, is reputed just. And thus much is included in the sayings of the Fathers, wheresoever they teach forgiveness of sins, who thereby to express our justification learned of the Apostle himself, who saith, that we are justified y Rom. 3.24. through the redemption that is in Christ, and expoundeth that redemption by z Ephe. 1.7. Col. 1.14. forgiveness of sins, and in the not imputing of sin, understandeth a Rom. 4.6.7.8. the imputing of righteousness without works, as before was said. Now forgiveness of sins is yielded unto us by virtue of the merit & righteousness which Christ hath wrought for us, who b Rom 8.32. was given for us, and c Tit. 2.14. gave himself for us; who was d Gal. 4.5. made under the law to redeem us, and therefore is e Bernard. in Cant. ser. 70. justus pro hominibus. just or righteous for us; who f Luk. 22.10. shed his blood for us, g 1. Thess. 5.10. died for us, h Act. 3.26. rose again for us, and whatsoever he hath done, hath done for us. And if for us the Son of God have i Mat. 3.15. fulfilled all righteousness and obedience to his Father, who had no need to undergo any such service for himself, should it not be strange that the same should not be reckoned and imputed unto us? Very justly it is accounted ours, whatsoever he hath done for us, no less then if we ourselves had performed the same for ourselves. And this is the imputation of Christ's righteousness which we maintain, by which our sins are covered and hidden, that is, pardoned and forgiven, and we are consequently reputed just, even by the justice or righteousness of Christ, because in the righteousness of Christ is the forgiveness of our sins. But why do they reject imputation of righteousness, which, as we have seen before, the spirit of God so expressly recommendeth unto us, & by the very phrase importeth that we are not righteous in ourselves? Surely it were k Origen. in Rom ca 4 Quid videbitur gratiae justo reputari justitiam ad justitiam? no matter of grace (or favour) as Origen well noteth, that to a just or righteous man his righteousness should be reputed for righteousness. But it is a matter of favour and grace that God reputeth us just. It must therefore of necessity be by other means then by the righteousness that is in us, which can be no other but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, that it may be verified of him which is written, l jerem. 23.6. This is the name whereby they shall call him, The Lord our righteousness. Thus saith Ambrose, m Ambros. in Psa. 118. ser 18. Ipse justitia est & nobis de suo dedit sui habere consorti●m Christ is righteousness, and of that that is his, he hath given unto us to have fellowship with him: n Idem de Abrah. lib. 2. cap 8. verè nos tegmine velleris sui vestivit & in demum introducit aeternae salutis he hath indeed clothed us with the cover of his fleece, and bringeth us into the house of everlasting salvation. And hereof he intimateth a comparison, which o Pigh. controu. De fide & justificatione. Pighius himself could not but approve, that as jacob received the blessing and inheritance in the garments and apparel of Esau his elder brother, to whom the same did properly belong, so we receive the blessing of God, and are accepted to eternal life in the garment of the righteousness of Christ by faith in him, whilst thereby we obtain the forgiveness of our sins. p Ambros. de jacob etc. li. 2. cap 2. Odoratus est odorem vestimentorum. Fortasse illud est quia non operibus iust●ficantur sed fi●e: quoniam carnalis infirmitas operibus impedimento est; fidei autem claritas factorum ●b umbrat errorem quae meretu● veniam delicto●ū. Isaac smelled the savour of jacobs' garments (namely which Rebecca his mother had put upon him of his brother Esau's.) Haply, saith he, it importeth this, that we are not justified by works but by faith, because the infirmity of flesh is a hindrance to works, but the brightness of faith overshadoweth the error of our works, as which obtaineth the forgiveness of our sins. This overshadowing is our safety; this hiding and covering of our errors and imperfections, which disgrace and blemish all our righteousness and works, and what have we to cover and hide the same, but only the fleece of the merit of jesus Christ? And this point Saint Bernard, as he was most abundant in spiritual meditation, so hath most clearly and divinely set forth unto us, and save that we know with whom we have to deal, we should hold it almost incredible, that there should be that impudency in any man, as with so wretched and beggarly answers, to go about to shift off so plain and manifest proofs. q Bernard. epist. ●90. ut supra. Sect. 9 There is the righteousness of another, saith Saint Bernard, assigned unto him that wanted of his own. The righteousness then that is assigned unto us, is another's and not our own. Yea, but let his own reason, saith Master Bishop, serve for exposition of his former words. Be it so, and what is that reason? Forsooth this, saith he, For why may not justice be from another, as well as guiltiness is from another? Indeed Saint Bernard useth these words, but how are they fitted to Master Bishops turn, when as it is expressly said r Ibid. aliunde justitia, aliunde reatus, righteousness is elsewhence or of another; guilt is elsewhence or of another? For if it be of another's justice that a man is just, and of another's guilt that he is guilty, then is there imputed righteousness and imputed guilt. Nay, saith he, guiltiness is not from Adam by imputation, but every one contracts his own by taking flesh from him. Babbling sophister, if every one contract guilt from Adam by taking flesh from him, tell us what it is whereof every one is guilty? Is it not of Adam's sin, s Rom. 5.12. in whom all have sinned? To be borne in sin is the punishment of sin, and there can be no punishment but by former guilt, and there can be no former guilt but of the sin of Adam. It remaineth therefore that our first guilt is by the imputation of Adam's sin, and consequently that our justification is by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, as on both sides hath been already more largely handled in the sixth Section. I say nothing here more, but what Austin saith as touching infants new borne, t August. de v●r●. D●m. ser. 3●. 〈◊〉 nihil adhuc commis●runt. said in radics perterunt. They have committed nothing in the branch, but in the root they are perished and lost. To the second place cited by M. Perkins, he hath somewhat to answer by means of M. Perkins disadvantage to himself: u Bernard. in Cant. ser. 2●. Suff●cit m●i● ad omnem justitiam solum habere propiti●●m ●llum cui s●li peccaus. It sufficeth me for all Righteousness only to have him merciful unto me to whom only I have sinned. But what is the mercy here intended by S. Bernard? That appeareth by the other words, x Ibid. Non peccare Dei justitia est; h●minis justitia indulgentia Dei. God's pardon is man's Righteousness. The mercy of God than that sufficeth for all Righteousness is in the forgiveness and pardon of our sins. But M. Perkins translating the words, man's Righteousness is the mercifulness of God, gave M. Bishop an advantage to say, as if Bernard had spoken of Inherent righteousness, that by God's free grace and mercy it is bestowed upon us. But S. Bernard doth not say that man's Inherent righteousness by the gift of God, but God's forgiveness of man's sins, is the Righteousness of man in the sight of God: and if the place had been rightly translated, he had been further put to his shifts for answer to it. In the third place he was quite graveled, and knew not which way to get out, and therefore mentioneth nothing of it, lest the Reader should plainly discern him to be a liar. But I will do him the favour to set it down once again. y Bernard. in Cant s●r. 61. Ego quoque misere●●ri●as Dom●ni in aeternum c●nta●o. Nunquid ius●it. as meas? Domine memor bor justitiae tuae s●●●us. Jp●a est enim & mea, nempe factu●es tu●●● iusti●ia a Deo. Nunquid verendum ne non v●a ambo●us sussiciat. Non est pallium breve qu●d s●cundum prophetam non possit operire duos. Et te paritèr et me ●p●rte● l●rgit●r l●●ga & aetern● justitia Et in 〈◊〉 quidem operit multitudinem peccatorum; in te quid nisi pietatis thesauros, divitias bonitatis? I will sing of the mercies of the Lord for ever, saith Bernard. Shall I sing of mine own Righteousness? Lord, I will remember (or will make mention of) thy Righteousness only: for that is mine also. For thou art made unto me Righteousness of God. Am I to stand in fear lest one (Righteousness) be not sufficient for us both? It is not a short cloak, such as cannot cover two. This Righteousness being large and everlasting, shall largely cover both thee and me. And in me verily it covereth a multitude of sins, but in thee what but the treasures of piety, the riches of goodness? Now what doth Saint Bernard here intend? Marry saith M. Bishop, that we have no justice of our own, that is, from ourselves, but from the goodness of God, through the merits of Christ's passion. Yea but what is that justice that he meaneth, that we have from the goodness of God? Forsooth he telleth us, that it is Inherent justice, and that Saint Bernard speaketh thereof elsewhere, as a distinct thing from the justice of Christ, What, and is that all that S. Bernard here saith? Give over, M. Bishop, give over for shame; strive no longer against your conscience: your own heart told you here, that you played the part of a lewd and wilful man. The Righteousness here spoken of, is but one, and only one: it is a Righteousness sufficient both for Christ and us; it covereth both Christ and us; it covereth in us a multitude of sins, and in him the riches of mercy, and is this meant of Inherent righteousness? Is our Inherent righteousness sufficient both for Christ and us? doth it cover both Christ and us? But why do I thus debate with a man altogether void of conscience & shame? S. Bernard expressly testifieth the one Righteousness of Christ, which only we are to make mention of, as being sufficient both for him and us, covering in us a multitude of sins, so as that by it we are accepted for just in the sight of God. But to make his matter seem the better, he referreth the Reader to the first Sermon of Bernard upon the words of Esay, Vidi Dominum, there to see somewhat of Inherent justice, whereas in that Sermon he hath nothing at all to that purpose, so that I should have thought it mistaken, but that the margin and the text have cited it both alike. And that it may appear that he doth but gull and abuse his Reader, it is in the fifth of those very Sermons that S. Bernard hath affirmed, that z Bernard. de verb. Esa. ser. 5 supra sect. 3. our Righteousness, if we have any, is not pure, and is by the Prophet compared to a defiled cloth, as before was showed, whence it followeth inevitably, that our Inherent righteousness is not that whereby we stand as just in the sight of God. The sentence of Austin was not cited broken but whole. a August. in Psal. 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit, ut justitiam suam nostram justitiam faceret. He hath made our sins his sins, that he might make his Righteousness our Righteousness. M. Bishop's honesty appeareth as it is wont to do, in leaving out that part of the sentence which should give light to the rest; otherwise S. Augustine's meaning would be plain, that as Christ hath made our sins his, so he hath made his Righteousness ours, which is only by imputation. As for his exposition it is altogether absurd, because Christ by meriting Inherent justice or Righteousness for us, hath not made his Righteousness ours, which is the thing that S. Austin affimeth, but hath given us, a Righteousness of our own. The exposition of the justice of God which he citeth out of Austin, is wholly impertinent, because the Righteousness of Christ, of which he saith that Christ made his Righteousness our Righteousness, is the Righteousness which Christ wrought for us in his own person, not that which God worketh in us for his sake. The sin was wrought by us, the Righteousness by him: he took to him our sin, and imparted his Righteousness unto us. And this Righteousness imputed unto us, is truly said to be that which God giveth to man, that man may be just through God, so that therein S. Austin howsoever saith nothing that is contrary to our defence. 9 W. BISHOP. Now let us come to the reasons of Catholics, which M. Perkins calling the objections, proposeth for them, to prove, that the justice which God bestoweth upon us, is Inherent, and not imputed. OF INHERENT JUSTICE. FIrst object. As one man cannot be made wise, valiant, or continent by the wisdom, valour, or continency of another, so one man cannot be made just, by the justice of another. M. Perkins answereth, That one man's justice cannot be made another's, no more than life or health, but Christ's justice may, who by covenant of grace is made every man's own, with all his gifts. Reply. This answer solueth not the difficulty any whit at all, for Christ's wisdom, power, and other gifts are not imputed unto us, as it is evident. Why then is his justice more than the rest? we confess that in a good sense all Christ's gifts are ours, that is, they were all employed to purchase our redemption, and we do daily offer them to God, that he will for his sons sake more and more wash us from our sins, and bestow his graces more plentiful upon us: thus are all Christ's riches ours, so long as we keep ourselves members of his mystical body, but this is nothing to the point which the argument touched, how one man may formally be made just by the justice of another, rather than wise by the wisdom of another. R. ABBOT. We have a Sect. 6. before heard it confessed by Bellarmine, that the sin of Adam is imputed to all his posterity, as if every man had committed the same himself, neither can they truly describe the state of Original sin out of the doctrine of their own schools, but they must confess so much. Now let them resolve us, how one man may be reputed to have sinned in the sin of another, and we will resolve them how we may be reputed to have wrought all Righteousness in the Righteousness of Christ. Surely as Adam did beat the person of all mankind, and b August. de peccat mer▪ & remiss. lib. 3. cap. 7 Adhuc omnes ille unus fuerunt. we all were that one man, as S. Austin saith, and therefore what he did was as done by all and every one, so did Christ bear the person of all the elect and faithful, and was accounted as them all in one, c Bernard. epist. 190 Non alter qui forefecit alter qui satisfecit, quia caput & corpus unus est Christus. not one that made the forfeiture, and another that made the satisfaction, because one Christ is both the head and the body, and therefore what he did, likewise was as done by all and every one. M. Perkins therefore rightly said, that Christ being made ours by the covenant of grace, we one with him, and he with us, albeit the Righteousness Inherent in him cannot be inherent in us, that we thereby should be inherently just, yet by imputation the same is derived unto us, and we thereby and for his sake are accepted, as if we were inherently just in most perfect and high degree. But saith M. Bishop, the wisdom and power of Christ, and his other gifts are not imputed unto us: why then his justice more than the rest? I answer him, that that only is imputed unto us which by the covenant of grace is to be imputed, which only hath reason of imputation. Although Christ be wholly ours, that is, for us and for our use unto Salvation, yet by imputation he is ours only, in that which by way of humiliation and obedience he hath undertaken and performed for us. That, I say, is imputed unto us of Christ, which Christ is merely and only for us; what he is absolutely of himself, it is not imputed unto us, albeit his infinite wisdom, and power, and prudence, and whatsoever he is of himself, have concurred to the doing of that that should be imputed unto us, and do concur to the effecting and maintaining of those benefits, which of that imputation are to arise unto us. But the wisdom and power of Christ, as they are in his human nature a part of the image of God, and of that Righteousness whereby man should be wise to know, and able to do what concerneth him towards God, are imputed unto us as a part of his Righteousness, & thereby he acquitteth our ignorances and errors, our weaknesses & frailties, that the same stand not against us in the sight of God. And thus one may be reputed wise by the wisdom of another, & just by the justice of another, because where any thing is in nature of duty and debt, it is at the discretion of him to whom it is due, to accept one man's performance thereof for discharge of the other. Yea, but saith M. Bishop, this is nothing to the argument, how one man may be formally just by the justice of another. And I answer him, that their objection is a formal foolery, grounded upon a witless supposal of that which no man is so witless as to imagine. We say that a man may be formally just two manner of ways. A man is one way formally just in quality, another way formally just in law. Formally just in quality, is he in whom is found the perfect inward form and quality of iustce and Righteousness without spot or stain, and thus it were absurd indeed, to say that a man may be formal just by the justice of another, because the inherent quality of one subject cannot become the inherent quality of another. But in course of law and judgement, the form of justice is, not to be subject to crime or accusation, and he is formally just, against whom no action or accusation is liable by law. Now it is true indeed that every one that is formally just in quality, is also formally just in law, but yet a man may be formally just in law, who by inherent form and quality is not just. For in this sort a man becometh just by pardon and forgiveness, because pardon being obtained, the law proceedeth no further, and all imputation of the offence in law is taken away as if it had never been committed. And this is the state of our justice and Righteousness in the sight of God, that through the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of jesus Christ our sins are forgiven us, and thereby no accusation is liable against us, either as having 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 quality, there is enough to charge him with, but by forgiveness of sins the same becometh as if it had never been. In a word therefore, we are not formally just in quality, if God judge us thereby, being stained and defiled in all the Righteousness that we have; but we are formally just in law, by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, for that thereby a satisfaction is interposed, and our sins are remitted and pardoned, so that there is no let but that God mercifully for his sake accepteth us unto everlasting life. 10. W. BISHOP. 2. Object. If we be righteous, or just by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, then is every just man as righteous as Christ himself, having the same justice his, which is Christ's, but that is too too absurd, Ergo: M. Perkins answer. Christ's Righteousness is not applied unto us 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 serve for his justification. And to help this answer forward, I will add his marginal note, even as any star partakes the whole light of the Sun, with the rest so far forth as the light makes it to shine. Reply. That which is applied of Christ's justice, to this or that man, is either infinite, and then the man is as just as Christ: for there can be no greater than infinite in the same kind. Or it is not infinite, but in a certain measure as he seemeth to grant, and then it is no part of Christ's infinite justice, for all the parts of an infinite thing are infinite, according unto true Philosophy. It remaineth then that a certain limited portion of justice is derived out of Christ's infinite justice, and powered into this or that man, as in his own example, The light of every star is received from the Sun beams: yet is not the light in the star the same which is in the Sun, for one accident cannot be in two subjects so far distant, neither is it of like virtue to lighten the skies, as it is evident: but is a far dimmer light, somewhat like unto that of the Sun from whence it came. Even so in our justification from the Son of justice Christ jesus, certain beams of particular justice are conveyed into this or that man's soul whereby it is both lightened by faith, and inflamed by charity: but there is exceeding difference between their two justices, more than there is between the light of the Sun, and the light of a star; which Saint Augustine in express terms delivereth, saying: Lib. 12. conf. cap. 15. How much difference there is between the light that doth lighten, and that which is lightened, that is, the Sun and the star light, so much difference is there between the justice that doth justify, and that justice which is made by that justification: to wit, between the justice of Christ, and that which is in every good Christian. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop's learning might here have informed him, but that his will outran his wit, that the Righteousness of Christ, as he is man is not infinite, because it is the Righteousness of a finite creature, which is not capable of that that is infinite. True divinity distinguisheth the things of the manhood, from the things of the godhead, the one finite, the other infinite, thereby to uphold the integrity of two natures in the one person of jesus Christ. Yea, and the Righteousness of the manhood of Christ, as I conceive, may two ways be considered; either absolutely as in himself, or respectively as for us. The absolute Righteousness of Christ, though it be finite, yet is next to that that is infinite, being above all the Righteousness of men and Angels, in that the a joh. 3.34. spirit was given him without measure, and therefore his perfections were the uttermost that a creature in any sort can be capable of. But the respective or dispensative Righteousness of Christ, is that whereby he is b Bernard. in Cant. ser. 70. justus pro hominibus. just for men, as S. Bernard speaketh; the righteousness which he performed for us in fulfilling the law, c Gal. 4.4. being made under the law to redeem us. According to this Righteousness therefore it is true, that by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ we are as righteous as Christ, not absolutely, but as Christ was for us in fulfilling the law. The infinite value and force of which Righteousness in Christ arose not from any infiniteness of itself, being but the Righteousness of the law, which is but the description of that image of God to which man was first created, and aught to be in man, but it arose from the infiniteness of the person of him by whom it was performed, being both God and man, and thereby is of that large extent to justify all, and to purchase everlasting life to all that do believe in him. Rightly the refore doth M. Perkins say, that the Righteousness of Christ is not applied to every particular man according to the infinite value of itself, because that infiniteness proceeded not of the nature of itself, but according to that measure whereby it appertaineth to us, which is described in the law. Neither is his comparison of the Sun and the stars further to be strained, but only to show that every thing that receiveth from another, receiveth according to the stint and measure of itself: he never meant that the Righteousness of Christ which is imputed unto us, is derived to us to be actually inherent in us, as the light of the Sun is derived from it to be actually inherent in the stars. Yet we deny not, but that the beams of inherent Righteousness are derived unto us by regeneration and new birth through the spirit of jesus Christ, but that is not the Righteousness here spoken of, and M. Bishop might take occasion out of his own words to call it a dim light, as indeed it is more dim and dark then that by it we can find the way to God and everlasting life. 11. W. BISHOP. The third reason for the Catholic party. If men be made truly and really just by Christ's justice, imputed unto them, in like manner Christ should be made really unjust, by the iniquity and sins of men imputed unto him. For there is no reason to the contrary, but one may as well be made unjust by imputation, as just; especially considering that evil is made more easily, and more ways then good. M. Perkins answer is, that we may say Christ was a sinner truly, not because he had sin in him, but because our sins were laid on his shoulders. That reason is nought, for he is not truly a sinner, that pays the debt of sin, which an innocent and most just person may perform: but he that either hath sin truly in him, or is so by imputation strooken, that the sins are made his own really, and he in all cases to be dealt with all, as if he sinned himself: as they hold that one justified by imputation of Christ's justice, is really in God's sight just, and is both loved in this life, and shall be rewarded in the next, as if he were truly just indeed: But to avouch our Saviour Christ to be so a sinner, is to say that he was averted from God, the slave of the devil, and son of perdition, which is plain blasphemy. That sentence out of the Prophet, Isa. 53. He was counted with sinners, is expounded by the Evangelists, that he was so taken indeed, but by a wicked judge, and a reprobate people. And therefore if you allow of their sentence, range yourself with them, as one of their number. S. chrysostom by him produced, confirmeth the same, saying, that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner, not that he was one truly. Christ I know is called sin by S. Paul, but by a figure, signifying that he was a sacrifice for sin, as hath been before declared. The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly, affirmeth in plain terms, that Christ was tempted like unto us, Heb. 4. in all things excepting sin. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins yieldeth, that as we are called righteous by the Righteousness of Christ, so Christ might be called a sinner by our sins, not by having the blemish and corruption thereof, but only the guilt and imputation, even as he becometh truly a debtor that undertaketh another's debt. M. Bishop saith, that an innocent and most just person may pay the debt of sin, and such a one do we acknowledge the Son of God to be, who yet being just and innocent, might by M. Bishops own confession, be termed (being rightly understood) a sinner, because he saith that he may be called truly a sinner, who is so by imputation strooken, as that the sins are made his own really, and he in all cases to be dealt with as if he had sinned himself. For thus was the case with Christ, who really though not inherently, took upon him our sins, by undertaking really as in our person the guilt thereof, and therefore being dealt with as if he himself had committed the same. Therefore doth Hierome apply these words to Christ, a Hieron. in Psal. 87. supra sect. 5. Thou hast brought upon me that wrath and storm of thy fury which thou wast to pour out upon the nations, because I have taken upon me their sins. So Hilary saith that b Hilar. in Psa. 68 Omnis in eum terror desaevientis in nos ●ēpestatis in cubuit. all the terror of the tempest that raged against us, lighted (or lay) upon him. Therefore in right meaning to say that Christ was made a sinner in the bearing of our sins, is not to affirm that Christ was averted from God, the slave of the devil, and son of perdition, as M. Bishop ignorantly collecteth, because these are consequents only of inherent corruption and sin, whereby a man is borne in sin, according to the depraved image of him of whom he is borne, and not every one to whom sin is imputed, but c 1. joh. 3.8. whosoever committeth sin is of the devil. Therefore the Fathers in that sense that here is spoken of, have not forborn to term Christ a sinner, in respect as he took upon him the imputation of our sins. So saith Oecumenius, d Oecumen. in Heb. cap. 9 Etenim Christus vehementer peccator erat, ut qui tot●●s mundi peccata assumpserat, sibique propria fecerat, etc. Quod enim Christus peccator fuerit, audi; Eum qui peccatum, etc. Christ was greatly a sinner, as who did take upon him the sins of the whole world, and make them proper to himself. For that Christ was a sinner hear the Apostle, He made him sin for us, etc. Upon which words of the Apostle chrysostom also saith, not only as M. Bishop citeth, that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner, but also as M. Perkins allegeth, though M. Bishop unhonestly dissembleth it, e Chrysost. ut supra sect. 5. He made the just a sinner, that he might make sinners just. In like sort Hierome as in one place he saith, that f Hier. in Psal. 21. Peccata nostra sua reputat. Christ accounteth our sins his sins, so in another place he affirmeth, that g Jdem in Psal. 37. Peccatorem se profi●etur qui peccata nostra portavit. Christ did profess himself a sinner, in that he bore our sins. So saith also Saint Austin, h August. in Psal. 37. Tanqu●m peccavit in infirmitate tua Christus. Modo enim peccata tua tanquam ex cre suo dicebat & ea dicebat suae. Christ after a sort sinned in thy infirmity: he mentioned thy sins out of his own mouth, and called them his sins. All this the Prophet Esay confirmeth when he saith, i Esa. 53.12. He was counted with the transgressors, which was not only by a wicked judge and a reprobate people, as M. Bishop mentioneth, but in that God made him sin, God counted him with sinners, and therefore laid upon him the curse of sinners, in that he was k Gal. 3.13. Act. 5.30. hanged on a tree, for the l Deut. 21.23. curse of God is upon him that is hanged. Therefore the Prophet in the same place saith, that m Esa. 53.6.10. the Lord did lay upon him our iniquities; the Lord would break him and make him subject to infirmities, that we may understand that God did not only leave him to the hands of men, but himself counted him with sinners, by the bearing of our sins, and therefore dealt with him himself accordingly, so that he had cause to cry out, n Psal. 88.6. Applied to Christ by Athana●. De interpret. Psal. by Arnob. and Hierome in Psal. 87. Thine indignation lieth hard upon me, and thou hast vexed me with all thy storms; o Vers. 14. Lord why abhorrest thou my soul, and hidest thy face from me; p Vers. 16. Thy wrathful displeasure goeth over me, and the fear of thee hath undone me. Yet as touching the person of Christ in himself, we acknowledge it as far as M. Bishop, that he was q Heb. 4.15. excepted from sin, that he was r Cap. 7.26. holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners: and because to apply unto Christ the name of a sinner in what sort soever is subject to misunderstanding and offence, we wholly forbear the same, and as though a man by taking upon him another man's debt be become a debtor, yet we call him not a debtor but a surety, and do name what befalleth him to befall him by suretyship, and not by debt, so do we content ourselves to say with safety, that Christ did bear our sins, and suffered for our sins, or with the Apostle, was made sin for us, but the name of sinner we do not give unto him. 12. W. BISHOP. 4. Object. If a man be righteous only by imputation, he may together be full of iniquity, whereupon it must needs follow, that God doth take for just and good, him that is both unjust and wicked: but that is absurd, when God's judgement is according to truth. Here M. Perkins yieldeth, That when God doth impute Christ's justice unto any man, he doth together sanctify the party, giving Original sin a deadly wound. And yet elsewhere he said, That Original sin, Of Original sin. Pag. 31. which remained after justification in the party, did bear such sway, that it infected all the works of the said party, and made him miserable, etc. But it is good hearing of amendment, if he will abide in it: Let us go on. R. ABBOT. It had been strange if M. Bishop could have set down this argument without full of iniquity, for it had not otherwise sufficiently filled his mouth. But we deny, that if a man be righteous only by imputation (speaking as we do of perfect Righteousness in the sight of God) it must follow that he is still full of iniquity as before, because justification in the sight of God by the imputation of Christ's merits is always accompanied with the sanctification of the holy Ghost, whereby the inward quality of the man, a August. de peccat. mer. & remiss. lib. 1 cap. 27. Hominis qualitatem non totam continuò mutari, etc. though not wholly, yet in part, is altered and changed, and is thenceforth further to be renewed from day to day. In part, I say, because together with this sanctification there is still a remainder of original corruption, by the touch and stain whereof the holiness and newness that is wrought in us is defiled, and standeth in need of mercy and favour to accept it, which made Gregory the Bishop of Rome to say; b Greg. Moral. lib. 9 cap. 11. Omnis humana justitia iniustitia esse convincitur si districte iudicetur. Prece ergo post justitiam indiget, ut quae succumbere discussa poterat, sola judicis pietate convalescat. All the righteousness of man is proved to be unrighteousness if it be strictly judged: therefore a man needeth prayer after Righteousness, that that which being sifted might quail, by the only mercy of the judge may stand for good. For although it be true that Original sin have received a deadly wound, yet it followeth not thereof that it is straightways wholly dead. It is dead indeed, c August. count julian▪ lib. 2. Mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat, etc. as touching the guilt of it, as Austin saith, but it is not yet dead as touching corruption and infection, and therefore doth indeed infect the works of the regenerate, and by lusting and rebelling giveth him occasion to cry out with the Apostle, d Rom. 7.24. Miserable man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? This M. Perkins uniformly teacheth: he doth not here amend what he had said before, because in the former place there was nothing to amend, and therefore it was but M. Bishop's dream, that made him imagine a contradiction there where all things well agree and stand together. 13. W. BISHOP. 5. Object. Or fifth reason, is inverted by M. Perkins, but may be rightly framed thus. Christ restored us that justice which we lost by Adam's fall, but by him we lost Inherent justice, Ergo By him we are restored to Inherent justice. Rom. 5. The Mayor is gathered out of Saint Paul, who affirmeth, that we receive more by Christ then we lost by Adam: Lib. 3. cap. 20. lib. 6. de gen. 24. ●6. 26. and is Saint Irenaeus, and Saint Augustine's most express doctrine, who say, How are we said to be renewed, if we receive not again which the first man lost, etc. Immortality of the body we receive not, but we receive justice from the which he fell through sin. R. ABBOT. This objection proveth nothing that we deny, being understood according to the meaning of Austin and Irenaeus whom he allegeth. Christ came to restore to us that which we lost in Adam. But in Adam we lost inherent justice. Therefore Christ came to restore the same. We affirm the same, and say that what Christ came to do, he beginneth to do and to bring to effect in every man that is justified, but in no man doth he perfect it so long as we continue in this life, and therefore inherent justice is not such in any man here, as that thereby he can be found just in the sight of God. Now therefore whereas M. Bishop saith, that Christ restored us that justice which we lost by Adam's fall, if he mean it as the Apostle doth when he saith, that a Ephe. 2 6. God hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ jesus, that is, b August. de bapt. count Donatist. lib. 1. ca ●. Nondum vn● sed in spe. not yet really, but in hope, as S. Austin speaketh, we admit the proposition to be true, and it is nothing against us. But if his meaning be, that Christ hath really and already in possession restored unto us what we lost in Adam, the proposition is absurdly false, and all this discourse tendeth to prove the contrary. 14. W. BISHOP. The sixth and last reason for Catholics is, The justice, of the faithful is eternal, dureth after this life, and is crowned in heaven, but Christ's imputed justice ceaseth in the end of this life. Ergo. M. Perkins answereth. First, that imputed Righteousness continueth with us for ever, and that in heaven we shall have no other. Secondly, that perhaps in the end of this life, inward Righteousness shall be perfect, and then without perhaps it shall be most perfect in heaven. So that one part of this answer overthroweth the other. Wherefore I need not stand upon it, but will proceed to fortify our party, with some authorities, taken both forth of the holy Scriptures, and ancient Fathers: The first place I take out of these words of Saint Paul. And these things certes, were you, (Drunkards, Covetous, 1. Cor. 6. Fornicators, etc.) But you are Washed, you are Sanctified, you are justified in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our Lord: S. Chryso. Ambr. & Theophilac. in hunc locum. Here justification by the best interpreters judgement is defined, to consist in those actions of washing us from our sins, and of infusion of God's holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name, and for the sake of Christ jesus. Tit. 3. The like description of our justification is in S. Paul. Of his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost, whom he hath powered into us abundantly, through jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by his grace, we may be heirs in hope (and not in certainty of faith) of life everlasting. Where the Apostle inferring that being justified by his grace, declareth that in the words before he had described the same justification, to consist in our new birth of Baptism, and the renewing of our souls, by the infusion of his heavenly gifts, which God of his mercy did bestow upon us for his Son Christ's sake. Many other places I omit for brevity sake, and will be content to cite few Fathers, because the best learned of our adversaries do confess that they be all against them, as I have showed before. De peccat merit. & remis. cap. 15. Epist 85. lib. 12. de Trinit. cap. 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit. First, Saint Augustine saith, That this justice of ours, (which they call Righteousness) is the grace of Christ, regenerating us by the holy Ghost; and is a beauty of our inward man. It is the renewing of the reasonable part of our soul. And twenty other such like, whereby he manifestly declareth, our justice to be inherent, and not the imputed justice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers. And Saint Cyril for the Greeks', who of our justification writeth thus. The Spirit is a heat, who as soon as he hath powered charity into us, and hath with the fire of it, inflamed our minds, we have even then obtained justice. R. ABBOT. a Eccles. 19.24. There is a subtlety that is fine, saith Ecclesiasticus, but it is unrighteous, and there is that wresteth the open and manifest law. M. Bishop is none of those that deal finely, that will cog by art, and will lie, and yet not seem to lie: what he doth, he will do outright, and will lie so as that every man may see him to be a liar, that he may not be taken for other then indeed he is. Tell us M. Bishop, where is it, that M. Perkins saith, that in heaven we shall have no other but imputed justice or Righteousness? where doth he make any show or semblance of saying so? Fie, M. Bishop, fie for shame; leave this lying and belying of men, a good cause needeth no such means for the upholding of it; they that in apparent untruth see you thus wilful and shameless, cannot but take you for a cosiner in all the rest. M. Perkins saith, that imputed Righteousness continueth for ever, but doth he say that in heaven there shall be no other, who plainly saith, that sanctification shall be perfect in the world to come? We shall for ever enjoy eternal life, by virtue of that whereby we are first admitted unto it, because thereby we are admitted to it to enjoy it thereby for ever. But he who by his merit purchased for us eternal life, purchased for us also to be made meet for the enjoying of it, and therefore shall then make us unto himself b Ephe 5.27. a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but c 1. Cor. 15.28. God shall be all in all. Whereas he maketh M. Perkins to say, that perhaps inward Righteousness shall be perfect in the end of this life, he again abuseth him: for he asketh the question only as a supposition, what if it be so, but maketh no perhaps that it is so; denying that if it were so we could be justified thereby. The rest of this Section as touching the main drift of it is altogether impertinent, tending to prove Inherent justice, which we deny not, but only the perfection thereof in this life. But whereas he seeketh to make good, that our justification consisteth therein, he cometh much too short, and one of his proofs directly proveth the contrary. For when the Apostle saith, d 1. Cor. 6.11. You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, undoubtedly he meant not by justification and sanctification to import one and the same thing. But there is no question, but that by sanctification is meant inherent justice. Therefore inherent justice cannot be understood in justification. And this is apparent by those very authors whom he himself citeth for exposition of the place, as namely chrysostom, saying, e Chrysan 1. Cor. cap. 6. hom. 16. Abluit nosmunquid igitur hoc solùm? Minimè sed sanctificavit: neque hoc etiam▪ sed iustificavit. Atqui liberari à peccatu magnum munus est, nunc autem te etiam innumeris implevit bonis. He washed us; and what, did he so only? Nay but he also sanctified us; and not this only, but also he justified us: very plainly putting difference betwixt justification and sanctification, and expounding justification in the next words to be this, liberari à peccatis, to be delivered from sins. So doth Theophylact also expressly refer justification to forgiveness of sins: f Theoph. in 1. Cor. ca 6. Vos ille sanctificat. Quo pacto? justificando inquit Cum enim prius vos abluisset & justitia condonasset, mox & sanctimoniam contulit. When he had first washed you, and by justification had pardoned you, forthwith also he bestowed sanctification. Oecumenius likewise severeth them as chrysostom doth: g Oecumen▪ ibid. Nec id solum verum etiam sanctificavit, neque hoc tantum sed & iustificaui●. He hath not only washed you, but also sanctified you; and not that only, but also justified you. He citeth Ambrose also, but Ambrose saith not one word, to import that justification should be construed of inherent justice. h Am●ros. ibid. Illic omnibus peccatis a●●uitur credens, iustificatur Dei nomine, & per spiritum Dei nostri De● filius ad●ptatur. In baptism all sins being done away, the believer is washed, is justified in the name of the Lord, and by the spirit of our God is adopted to be a son of God. Now we may see what credit is to be given to this gamester, who showing his cards in pack, telleth us he hath won the game, when he hath nothing at all to help for the winning of it. As for the other place to Titus, That being justified by his grace, etc. There is no argument to prove the contrary, but that the Apostle may comprehend the whole work of saving us, which he before mentioneth, under the name of justification, as the main point whereupon dependeth all the rest. But more properly we may take it in the third place, as in the former text to the Corinthians, distinguished from the sanctification and renewing of the holy Ghost, and expressing the other special effect of the washing of the new birth, consisting in the forgiveness of our sins. The places of Austin and Cyrill being spoken of inherent justice begun in this life, not denied by us, say nothing against us. How treacherously and falsely he dealeth in saying, that the best learned of our side do confess that the Fathers be all against us, hath been showed before, and it shall appear God willing throughout this whole book, that there is no cause for them so to say. 15. W. BISHOP. The second difference about the manner of justification. WE all agree in general, that faith concurreth to our justification, but differ in three points. First, how faith is to be taken. Secondly, how it worketh in our justification. Thirdly, whether it alone doth justify. Concerning the first point, Catholics hold a justifying faith, to be that Christian faith, by which we believe the articles of our Creed, and all other things revealed by God. The Protestants aver it to be a particular faith, whereby they apply to themselves the promises of righteousness, and of life everlasting by Christ. This to be the true justifying faith, M. Perkins saith he hath proved already: he should have done well, to have noted the place, for I know not where to seek it: but he will here add a reason or twain. 1 Reason. The faith whereby we live, is the faith whereby we are justified: but the faith whereby we live, is a particular faith, whereby we apply Christ to ourselves, as Paul saith, I live, Gal. 2 ●0. that is spiritually, by the faith of the Son of God: which faith he showeth to be a particular faith in Christ, in the words following: Who hath loved me, and given himself for me particularly. Answer. The Mayor I admit, and deny the Minor: and say, that the proof is not to purpose. For in the Minor he speaketh of faith, whereby we apply Christ's merits unto ourselves, making them ours, in the proof Saint Paul saith only, that Christ died for him in particular. He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christ's justice, and making of it his own, which are very distinct things. All Catholics believe with Saint Paul, that Christ died, as for all men in general, so for every man in particular, yea and that his love was so exceeding great towards mankind, that he would willingly have bestowed his life, for the redemption of one only man. But hereupon it doth not follow, that every man may lay hands upon Christ's righteousness, and apply it to himself (or else Turks, jews, Heretics, and evil Catholics, might make very bold with him) but must first do those things which he requires at their hands, to be made partakers of his inestimable merits: as to repent them hearty of their sins, to believe and hope in him, to be baptised, and to have a full purpose to observe all his commandments. Which M. Perkins also confesseth that all men have not only promised, Pag. 152. but also vowed in Baptism. Now because we are not assured that we shall perform all this, therefore we may not so presumptuously apply unto ourselves, Christ's righteousness, and life everlasting, although we believe that he died for every one of us in particular. That which followeth, M. Perkins, hath no colour of probability: that Saint Paul in this manner of belief, that is, in applying to himself Christ's merits, was an example unto all that are saved. See the places, good Reader, 1 Tim. 1.16. Phil. 3.15. and learn to beware the bold unskilfulness of sectaries. For there is not a word sounding that way, but only how he having received mercy, was made an example of patience. R. ABBOT. That the act of true faith is particularly to apply, hath been handled before in the question of the Certainty of Salvation; but yet the place so requiring, M. Perkins thought fit here to set down some few reasons for further proof thereof. The first whereof is grounded upon the words of S. Paul: a Gal. 2.20. I live by the faith of the Son of God, who hath loved me, and given himself for me. M. Bishop's exception is, that S. Paul speaketh not of faith, whereby we apply Christ's merits or justice unto ourselves making them ours, but saith only that Christ died for him in particular. But what? is not the death of Christ a part, yea and a principal part of the merit of Christ? With us it is so, and M. Bishop we suppose when he is well advised, conceiveth no otherwise. If then the Apostle speak of faith, apprehending and applying unto us particularly the death of Christ, he speaketh of faith, apprehending and applying unto us particularly the merit of Christ. And all parts of the merit of Christ, are parts also with us of the righteousness of Christ. As his obedience in b Ambros. in Ps. 118. ser. 8. Baptizatus pro nobis. being baptised for us was his c Mat. 3.15. righteousness, so his d Phil. 2.8. obedience in dying for us, was his righteousness also. Therefore faith applying unto us particularly the death of Christ, apply unto us particularly the righteousness of Christ. Now M. Bishop telleth us, that all Catholics believe with S. Paul, that Christ died as for all men in general, so for every man in particular, of his exceeding great love towards mankind. But tell us further M. Bishop, was that all that S. Paul meant, that Christ loved him as he loved all men; he died for him as he died for all men? Was this S. Paul's faith, Christ loved me as he loved judas the traitor; he died for me as he died for Simon Magus? It is written concerning Esau, e Rom. 9.13. I have hated Esau, and in him a pattern of all reprobates is set forth unto us; and might Esau say as well as Paul, Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me? Indeed as S. Austin saith, f ● August. ad articul. sibi falso imposit. art. 1 Quod ad magnitudinem et potentiam pretum, & quod ad unam▪ pertinet causam generu humani, sanguis Christi redemptio est totim mundi, etc. Redemptionis proprietas haud dubium penes illos est de quibus princeps h●ius mundi missus est foras, et ●am non membra diaboli, sed vasa sunt Christi. Cu●us mors non impensa est humano generi ut ad redemptionem eius etiam qui regerandi non erant pertinerent, etc. as touching the greatness and sufficiency of the price, and one common cause or condition of mankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world; but yet as he further addeth, there is a propriety of this redemption on their part from whom the Prince of this world is cast forth, and who are not now vessels of the devil but members of Christ, neither did he bestow his death upon mankind, that they also that were not to be regenerated, should belong to his redemption. Christ in his death intended a price of such extent in value and worth, as should be of power and ableness to save all, and therefore should be offered indifferently to all; but yet in love he paid this price only for them, to whom of love he intended fruit and benefit thereby, in love he gave his g Mat. 20.28. & 26.28. soul or life a redemption for many, he shed his blood for many, h Hiero. in Mat. 20. Non dixit pro omnibus, sed pro multis id est, pro his qui credere volverunt. not for all, saith Hierome, but for many, that is, for them that should be willing to believe, who are i Act. 13 48. so many as are ordained unto eternal life. If he had loved judas, he would have loved him to the end, because k joh. 13.1. whom he loved, he loved to the end. If he had loved universally all, he would have prayed for all, but now there is a world of men, of whom he saith, l Cap. 17.9. I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me m Ver. 6. out of the world; that we may know that there is n Cap. 3.16. a world which God loveth, even o August in 1. joan. tract 1. Propitiatio peccatorum totius mundi quem suo sanguine comparavit. the world which Christ hath gained by his blood, which is, p Act. 20 28. the Church of God, the same Church being reckoned q Prosp. de voc. Gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Populus Dei specialis quaedā●ensetur universitas, ut de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus, & de omnibus hominibus omnes homines vide●ntur assumpti. a special kind of universality, as it were a whole world redeemed or delivered out of the whole world; and that there is a world of which Christ saith, r joh. 8.23. I am not of the world, and s Cap 17.9. I pray not for the world, which therefore he cannot be understood to love. And according to this difference, the Church of Smyrna writeth, that t Euseb. hist eccl. lib. 4 cap. 15. Pro totius seruandorum mundi salute passus est. Christ suffered for the salvation of the whole world of them that are to be saved. Properly therefore to speak of the intendment of Christ's death, he died not generally for all, but only for them that were to be saved thereby. Therefore S. Austin having mentioned the words of the Apostle, u Rom. 8 3. Who spared not his own Son, but gave him for us all, asketh the question, x Aug. in joan. trac. 4●. Sed quibus nobi? Praescitu praedestinatis, iustificatis, glorificatis, de quibus sequitur, Quis a●cusabit. etc. But which us? Even us, saith he, whom he hath foreknown, predestinated, justified, glorified, of whom it followeth, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? So S. Ambrose, y Ambr. in Luc. ca 7 Etsi Christus pro omnibus passus est, pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est, quia pro Ecclesia passus est. Though Christ died for all, yet specially he suffered for us, because he suffered for his Church. For the elect then Christ hath died in peculiar and special wise, to give unto them the benefit that should arise of his death: for them only he hath given himself in love, with purpose to make them partakers of his love. And in this meaning it is, that the Apostle saith, Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me, which because it is the voice of faith, it followeth that by faith we have particular application of Christ's love towards ourselves, and do believe, that having given himself for us, and being given unto us, he is wholly ours; the merit and righteousness that he hath performed in giving himself to live and to die for us, is ours, to the forgiveness of our sins and everlasting life. Now than every true believing man, hath by the Gospel this boldness ministered unto him, to make application to himself of the death of Christ, and the benefit thereof; and yet it followeth not, that Turks, jews, heretics, lewd Catholics may make bold with Christ in that behalf, because they have not faith whereby to conceive this boldness; and we cannot but wonder, that so drunken a conclusion should proceed from him that carrieth the name and reputation of a learned man. They must first, saith he, do those things which he requires at their hands, to be made partakers of his inestimable merits, as to repent hearty of their sins, to believe and hope in him. First, saith he, they must do these things, but having so done, may they then apply unto themselves the merit and righteousness of Christ? If so, than he saith nothing against us, who teach no faith to salvation, but according to the rule of Christ; z Mar. 115. Repent and believe the Gospel; no remission of sins, but according to the like rule, that a Luk. 24.47. repentance and remission of sins are preached in the name of Christ; and again, b Act. 2.38. Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of jesus Christ for the remission of sins. We say with Austin, c August. in Psal 41. Nemo currit ad remissionem peccatorum n●si qui displicet sibi. No man runneth to the forgiveness of sins, but he that is displeasing to himself; and again: d Jdem. in Psal. 123 In eccl●siae corpus nemo intrat ●isi priùs eccisus: meritur quod fuit ut sit quod non fuit. No man entereth into the body of the Church, except he be first slain; he dieth as touching that he was, that he may be that that he was not. Now if having done these things, he may not yet apply unto himself the righteousness and merit of Christ, then M. Bishop doth but trifle and mock his Reader, in saying, fi●st he must do these things. And yet how doth he say that a man thus doing, is made partaker of Christ's inestimable merits, if he may not apply the same unto himself? Marry, saith he, we are not assured that we shall perform all this; therefore we may not so presumptuously apply unto ourselves Christ's righteousness. But what if we know that we have done all this, may we then apply unto ourselves Christ's righteousness? His meaning is, that we may not; because as we have heard, he denieth wholly the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; and therefore doth but spend his wit in assigning the cause, why we may not apply the same to be, because we are not assured of doing the things mentioned by him. But if he be not assured of his repentance, faith, hope, etc. no marvel if he fail of all other assurance towards God; yet let him not be like the dog in the manger: if he can make no use of Christ himself, let him not be snarling and biting at them that do. As for the places alleged by M. Perkins to show that Paul is unto us an example of believing, the former of them is plain: e Phil. 3.17. Brethren be followers of me, and look on them that walk so as ye have us for an ensample. If in the faith and doctrine of Christ we be to follow Paul, then by our faith we are to believe of ourselves as he believed of himself, and what he wrote in that behalf, we are to take it as written for our learning, not as a matter particular and peculiar to himself. The other place is most notable, where Paul first propoundeth it as f 1. Tim. 1.15. a true saying, and worthy by all means to be received, that jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. He addeth, Of whom I am chief, that is, of which sinners whom Christ would save I was a chief, I was the foremost man, g August. in Psal. 70 Primus non tempore, sed malignitate. not in time but in badness, as S. Austin expoundeth it. Notwithstanding for this cause I was received to mercy, saith he, that jesus Christ should show on me being the chief, all long suffering, to the ensample of them that should in time to come, believe in him unto eternal life. Now how doth the place import, that Paul should be an ensample to them that believe in Christ, but that all that believe in Christ, may learn in him not to be dismayed at the greatness and grievousness of their sins, whereof they have seen the like in him, but with him to receive that true saying, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, and therefore resolve that he would save them as he had saved him, that they should not fear to say even as he could say, Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me? h August. de Temp ser. 49. Talem se peccatorem consitetur fuisse ut omnis peccator propterea de se non despere● quia Paulus meruit indulgentiam. He confesseth himself such a sinner, saith Austin, as that therefore no sinner may despair of himself, because Paul obtained pardon. It was not therefore the unskilfulness of a sectary, but true divinity that made Master Perkins to make that use and application of the Apostles words, but it was M. Bishops absurdity, to say that the place importeth only, that Paul was made an example of patience, without expressing how or what patience he meaneth, there being no patience there spoken of, but the patience of Christ, bearing with men long in great and fearful sins, and yet at length of his own mercy, calling them to be partakers of his salvation. 16. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins 2. Reason. That which we must ask of God in prayer, that we must believe shall be given us: but in prayer we must ask the merits of Christ's righteousness to ourselves. ergo. Answer. Of the Mayor much hath been said before, here I admit it, all due circumstances of prayer being observed, and deny that we must pray, that our Saviour Christ jesus merits may be made ours in particular, for that were greatly to abase them: but good Christians pray, that through the infinite value of those his merits, our sins may be forgiven, and a justice proportionable unto our capacity, may be powered into our souls, whereby we may lead a virtuous life, and make a blessed end. But it is goodly to behold, how M. Perkins proveth that we must pray, that Christ's righteousness may be made our particular justice, because saith he, We are taught in the Pater noster, to pray in this manner: forgive us our debts, and to this we must say Amen, which is as much to say, as our petition is granted. I think the poor man's wits were gone a pilgrimage, when he wrote thus. Good Sir, cannot our sins or debts be forgiven, without we apply Christ's righteousness to us in particular? we say yes. Do not then so simply beg that which is in question, nor take that for given, which will never be granted. But a word with you by the way. Your righteous man must over-skip that petition of the Pater noster (forgive us our debts) for he is well assured, that his debts be already pardoned. For at the very first instant that he had faith, he had Christ's righteousness applied to him, and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sins, and of life everlasting. Wherefore he cannot without infidelity, distrust of his former justification, or pray for remission of his debts: but following the famous example of that formal Pharise, in lieu of demanding pardon, Luc. 18. may well say, O God I give thee thanks, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also these Papists: Fearing the remission of my sins, or the certainty of my salvation, but am well assured thereof, and of Christ's own righteousness to, and so forth. But to go on with M. Perkins discourse. Here we must note, that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principal duty of faith, for in faith (saith M. Perkins) are two things: first, knowledge revealed in the word, touching the means of salvation: Secondly, an applying of things known unto ourselves, which some call affiance: the first they acknowledge. So then by M. Perkins own confession, Catholics have true knowledge of the means of salvation; (than he and his fellows err miserable.) The second which is the substance and principal they deny. Answer. Catholics teach men also to have a firm hope, and a great confidence of obtaining salvation, through the mercy of God, and merits of Christ's Passion, so they perform their duty towards God, and their neighbour, or else die with true repentance. But for a man at his first conversion, to assure himself by faith of Christ's righteousness, and life everlasting, without condition of doing those things he ought to do, that we Catholics affirm to be, not any gift of faith, but the heinous crime of presumption, which is a sin against the holy Ghost, not pardonable, neither in this life, nor in the world to come. See S. Tho. 22. q. 21. art. 1. R. ABBOT. The Mayor proposition he granteth, yet with this limitation, all due circumstances of prayer being observed. But his circumstances as he intendeth them, are but a Labyrinth to intricate and perplex the consciences of men, and to bereave them of all joy and comfort of their prayers. We believe that a Psal. 145, 18. God is nigh unto all them that call upon him in truth. We know that many are the weaknesses and imperfections of our prayers, many our distractions in that devotion, but yet we believe that God respecting the truth, and not the measure of our hearts, pardoneth the same for Christ's sake, who is our high Priest, b Exod. 28.38. to bear the iniquity of our holy offerings, to make them acceptable before the Lord. To the Minor proposition he answereth, that we must not pray that Christ's merits may be made ours in particular, for that were greatly to abase them. As though the Prophet David did abase God in making him his in particular saying, c Psal. 18.2. The Lord is my rock and my fortress, my God and my strength, my shield, the horn of my salvation, and my refuge, with infinite other speeches of the like sort. As though Thomas did abase our Saviour Christ in calling him, d john. 20.28. My Lord and my God. We do no injury to God to make him ours in particular, because he hath said, as to Abraham, so to every one of the seed of Abraham, e Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God. We do no injury to men, because we do not thereby make him our peculiar, but leave him the same to others, that he is to us, as every man enjoyeth the light of the Sun to his own use, without impeachment thereof to the use of any other man. f Aug. in Psal. 32. conc 2. Ipse sit haereditas nostra, possessio nostra. An fortè temerè dicimus f●ciendo nobis Deum possessi●nem cùm sit Dominus, cùm sit Creator? Non est ista temeritas; affectus est desideri● & dulcedo spes. Dicat anima, omninò secura dicat; Deus meus e● tu, qui dicit animae nostrae, salus tua ego sum. Non faciet in●uriam cùm hoc dixerit, immo faciet si non dixerit. Let God, saith Austin, be our possession, our inheritance. What, do we unadvisedly in making God a possession to ourselves, he being our Lord and Creator? It is no rashness or unadvisedness; it is affection of desire, it is sweetness of hope. Let the soul boldly say, Thou art my God, to him that saith to our soul, I am thy salvation. It shall do no wrong in saying so; nay it shall do wrong in not saying so. And thus S. Bernard saith, that g Bernard. in Cant. ser. 69 Anima Deum videns haud secut videt quàm si s●la videatur à Deo. the soul that looketh upon God, doth no otherwise look upon him, then as if itself only were looked upon of God. For h Chrysost in Gene. hom. 34. Peculiare hoc est amori, ut ex communibus propria faciat. this is the property of love, as Chrysostom saith, to make proper to a man's self that that is common; which he speaketh by occasion of the Apostles words handled in the former section, Christ hath loved me, etc., where he saith, that the Apostle i Ibid. Propter amorem in eum id quod factum est omnibus mihi proprium facto. upon his love to Christ, doth make proper to himself that that was done for all. Accordingly S. Austin saith, k August. de visit i●f●●m lib. 2. cap. 2. Tutius & iucundius loquor ad meum jesum quàm ad aliquen sanctorum spirituum Dei. I speak more safely and more sweetly to my jesus then to any of the holy Spirits or Angels of God. Now do all these speeches tend to the abasing of God, and of his Son jesus Christ? Did S. Austin, or whosoever was the Author of those words, abase Christ in naming him my jesus? If not, what abasing then is it of the merits of Christ, that we should make them particularly ours? But to show him his folly, S. Bernard saith that l Berna. in Cant. ser. 61 Nisi quòd non erat de membris C●risti nec pertinebat ad eum de Christi merito ut su● praesumeret, suum diceret quod illius esset, tanquam rem cap●● membrum. but that Cain was not of the members of Christ, nor had any thing to do with the merit of Christ, to presume the same to be his, he would have called that his that was Christ's, as the member doth that that is the heads, plainly giving to understand, that the faithful man being a member of Christ, doth call that his that is Christ's, & presumeth the merit of Christ to be particularly his. And therefore he saith in the next words, m Ibid. Ego fidentèr quod ex me mihi deest usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini, quo●●am misericordia eff●uunt. Whatsoever is wanting unto me of myself, I boldly take it unto me out of the bowels of the Lord jesus, because they run out with mercy. What should let then but that we may pray that the merits of Christ may be made particularly ours, and accepted as particularly a satisfaction for us to the forgiveness of our sins? Nay, saith M. Bishop, good Christians pray that through the infinite value of Christ's merits our sins may be forgiven us, etc. But I pray, M. Bishop, how do you think your sins particularly forgiven, but by the particular application of his merits, his passion, death, and resurrection, and his sitting at the right hand of God, to make intercession for us? Can a medicine work without being applied particularly to him in whom it is to work? How do you pray that a justice proportionable to your capacity, as you very nicely and gingerly describe it, may be given particularly to you for Christ's sake, that is, as we take it, in regard of that that Christ hath done, as generally for others, so particularly for you, but that you take it, that Christ hath done the same particularly for you, as well as for other particulars? And but that your wits outrun you, and leave you to say you know not what, what is this but to apply the merits of Christ particularly to yourself? Otherwise it may be said unto you, what have you to do particularly with Christ, that for his sake you ask any thing particularly for yourself? Surely we cannot ask any thing of God for Christ's sake, but by supposing a particular relation betwixt Christ and us, depending upon that that he hath done and merited for us. But Master Perkins to show that in our prayer, we ask the merit of Christ's righteousness to ourselves, allegeth the petition of the Lords prayer, Forgive us our trespasses. For what is forgiveness of sins, but a thing merited by the righteousness & obedience of Christ? Our Saviour saith in the Gospel, that n Mat. 2●. 28. his blood is shed for the forgiveness of sins. When then we beg forgiveness of sins, what do we but beg to ourselves the fruit of the bloodshedding of jesus Christ? The righteousness of Christ containeth the whole obedience that Christ performed to his Father, both in living and dying, to be the satisfaction for our sins. And if there be no forgiveness of sins, but only by his satisfaction for us, what do we when we crave forgiveness of sins, but crave the application of Christ's righteousness unto us, that it may be accepted for our satisfaction to the forgiveness of our sins? Now to our prayer M. Perkins noteth, that we add Amen, as a word of confirmation unto us, that God heareth our petition, and granteth the same according to the promise that he hath made unto us. Which he said not only of himself, but alleged to that purpose the saying of Austin, affirming, that o August. de Temp. ser. 182. Amen in his petitionibus significat indubitantèr à Domino conserri quod petitur, si ultimae conditionis pactum firmitèr teneatur. Amen in these petitions signifieth, that that which is craved of the Lord, is undoubtedly granted, if we steadfastly hold fast the covenant of our last condition or creation, which is our faith in Christ jesus. Now if Master Bishops wits had been at home, he would not have thought Master Perkins wits to be gone a pilgrimage for the writing of these things, neither would he have conceived that he had begged the thing in question, but rather proved it, unless he will say, that there can be forgiveness of sins without the satisfaction and merit of Christ, which what is it to us, but by being particularly applied unto us, and accepted to our use? As for our righteous man, as he calleth him, he hath no warrant to omit to pray for the forgiveness of his sins, because he is no otherwise taught to believe it, but as he prayeth for it. But in praying for it, he hath assurance from Christ to believe the obtaining of it, who saith, p Mar. 11.24. Whatsoever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye shall have it, and it shall be done unto you. Of this sufficient hath been said before in the question of q Sect. 5. & 18. the Certainty of Salvation, and I list not here to follow him in an idle and impertinent vagary. Only I marvel that his head should go so far awry, as to apply to us the example of the Pharisee, being so far different from us. For the Pharisee was outright a Papist, avouching inherent justice, and presuming thereof in himself, although by the gift of God even as the Papists do. Nay, Master Bishops righteous man goeth beyond the Pharisee, saying, I thank thee, O God, that I am just r Cha. 2. sect. 10. before thee, clean and whiter than snow, no more sin left in me then was in Adam in the state of innocency, and therefore s Cha. 4. sect. 2, worthy of thy kingdom and of the joys of heaven, t Ibid sect. 4. not needing greatly to fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge; and if I do not certainly know it, yet u Cha. 3. sect. 3. & 14. I hope that I am so; and not like these Protestants, whose x Cha. 4. sect. 2. righteous man is like unto sepulchres whited on the outside with an imputed justice, but within full of iniquity and disorder. Let him here take knowledge of his description of their righteous man out of his own words, & thereby know himself to be some degrees above the absurdity of the Pharisee. But the righteous man whom we teach, is such, as the ancient Fathers many times describe out of the words of Solomon, as they did read them: y Prou. 18.17. Pustus in principio sermonis accusator est sui. Hieron. count Pelag. lib. 1. The just man in the beginning of his speech, is an accuser of himself. When he cometh into the presence of God, he beginneth his speech with acknowledging his own unworthiness & sin. His righteousness he knoweth to be such, as leaveth him still to say with David, z Psal. 143.2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight no man living shall be found righteous, a Prou. 24.16. Vulgat. He falleth seven times a day, and daily prayeth for forgiveness, and so continueth till God manifest the effect of his prayer, being well assured in the mean time upon the promise of God, that God heareth him, and will make it appear that he hath not prayed in vain. But to let this go, M. Bishop taketh it for an advantage to him, that M. Perkins confesseth, that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth a knowledge revealed in the word touching the means of salvation. But what doth it advantage him, that the Church of Rome hath that which the devils have? They know that the means of salvation is by Christ crucified, dying, rising again from the dead, by faith, by the sacraments, but they have not the use of this knowledge, wherein consists the life thereof. No more hath the Church of Rome, which professing generally the means of salvation, to be in the cross, and death, & resurrection of Christ, in faith, and in the sacraments, doth in the special use & application thereof, wholly overthrow all, frustrateth the cross, and death, and resurrection of Christ, perverteth the faith, corrupteth the sacraments, blendeth & mingleth the Gospel with her own traditions, deviseth other means of salvation, & wickedly maketh the people to trust therein. Now if it follow that we err miserably, as he saith, because they do thus know the means of salvation revealed in the word, it must follow that they also err miserably, because all other heretics know the means of salvation in that sort as well as they. And indeed they do err miserably who go from the word, as touching the use and effect of that means of salvation which they learn from thence, and contrary to the word tie the same to other supplements, which they themselves have borrowed of human device. Now the firm hope and great confidence, whereof he answereth to the second point mentioned by M. Perkins, is a mere collusion. He maketh it firm on God's behalf, but on our side most infirm & uncertain, because by his rules a man cannot tell whether he have any true repentance, or faith, or hope, or charity, or any thing else whereupon his hope should stand, which he still hangeth upon man's worthiness & disposition of himself, & leaveth it in the power & choice of his own free will. But true faith believeth b Aug. in Psal. 88 Non secundum merita nostra, sed secund●● illius miserecordiam firma est promissio. the promise of God to be firm and sure, not upon our merits, but upon his own mercy, and accordingly embraceth the same, not with an uncertain condition, if we do this or that, but with full assurance that God c jerem. 32 40. according to his promise will keep us in his fear, to do that which we ought to do, and when by frailty we fall, will in mercy look upon us as he did upon d Luk. 22.61. Peter, and will cause us to rise again. And this hope and assurance God offereth unto us, even from our first conversion for Christ's sake, and thenceforth we accordingly expect everlasting life, not for our own sakes, but e 1. john. 5.11. in Christ, by virtue of his righteousness, obedience, and merit, and of the purchase that he hath made in our behalf. Neither is this any unlawful presumption, but f Ambros. de sacram. li. 5. cap. 4. Praesume non de operatione tua, sed de Christi gratia. Bona praesumptio. a good presumption, as S. Ambrose speaketh, and that g August. de verb. Dom. ser. 7. Gratia mea plenus es, quia non de virtute tua, sed de gratia mea praesumpsisti because, as S. Austin saith, we presume not upon our own virtue or power, but upon the grace of God. As for his charging of us in respect hereof with sin against the holy Ghost, it is but a escape of his ignorance, who as it seemeth, understandeth not what is meant thereby. What his schoolmen have written thereof, it is nothing to us, but let him learn by Hierome how to understand it out of the text itself. h Hieron. in Ma● ca 12. Qui manifestè intell g●ns opera Dei, cùm de virtute negare non possit, eadem stimulatus invidia calunniatur, & Christum Deique verbum & opera Sp sancti di●et esse Beelzebub, isti non dimittetur neque in praesenti seculo nec i● futuro. He, saith he, who understanding manifestly the works of God, when he cannot gainsay as touching the power, doth yet of envy calumniate the same, and affirmeth Christ and the word of God, and the works of the holy Ghost to be of the devil, to him it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come. This is a dreadful sin, and let M. Bishop take heed, the light of God so clearly shining as that it cannot but dazzle his eyes, that he do not entangle himself in the guilt thereof, by wilful opposition against the truth. 17. W. BISHOP. Master Perkins third reason, is drawn from the consent of the ancient Church, of which for fashion sake to make some show, he often speaketh, but can seldom find any one sentence in them that fits his purpose, as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine, cited by him. De verbis Domini. serm. 7. Augustine saith: I demand now, dost thou believe in Christ, O sinner? thou sayest I believe: what, believest thou that all thy sins may freely be pardoned by him? thou hast that which thou believest. See, here is neither applying of Christ's righteousness unto us by faith, nor so much as believing our sins to be pardoned through him, but that they may be pardoned by him. So there is not one word for M. Perkins. But S. Bernard saith plainly: That we must believe that our sins are pardoned us. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Again, he addeth conditions on our party, which M. Perkins craftily concealeth. For S. Bernard granteth, that we may believe our sins to be forgiven, if the truth of our conversion meet with the mercy of God preventing us, for in the same place he hath these words: So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth, that is, the grace of God in our souls, if mercy and truth meet together, if justice and peace embrace and kiss each other. Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it, if we stirred up by the grace of God, do truly bewail our sins and confess them, and afterward follow holiness of life and peace. All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off, because it dashed clean the vain gloss of the former words. His last authority is out of S. Cyprian, who exhorteth men, passing out of this life, not to doubt of God's promises, but to believe that we shall come to Christ with joyful security. Answer. S. Cyprian encourageth good Christians dying to have a full confidence in the promises of Christ, and so do all Catholics, and bid them be secure too on that side, that Christ will never fail of his word and promise, but say that the cause of fear lies on our own infirmities: And yet bids them not to doubt, as though they were as likely to be condemned as saved, but animates them, and puts them in the good way of hope, by twenty kinds of reason. R. ABBOT. The drift of Saint Austin in the place alleged, is to show, that we are a Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 7. Elegy de me praesumetes, non de se. Totum gratiae semper reputa. Si de tuo opere prasumis, ergo merces tibi redditur, non gratia condonatur. Si auten gratia est, gratis daetur. to presume of God only, not of ourselves, and to attribute all that we are (towards him) wholly to his grace. If thou presume of thine own work, then is it a wages paid, not a grace given unto thee. But if it be grace, than it is freely given. Hereupon follow the words alleged: b Interrogo nunc, Credis, o peccator, Christo? Dicis, Credo. Quid credis? Gratis universa peccatae tibi per ipsum posse remitti? Habes quod credidisti. O gratia gratis data. I demand now, O sinner, dost thou believe Christ? Thou sayest, I believe. What dost thou believe? That all thy sins may be pardoned freely by him? By which words he would import, that the sinner is to believe, that in Christ only there is enough to yield him forgiveness of sins, and therefore that he is to presume only upon him. Which if he do, Saint Austin telleth him, Thou hast that which thou believest, and addeth, O grace freely given. Now M. Bishop should here have told us, what it is that S. Austin telleth the believing sinner that he hath: what that grace is that he saith is here freely given unto him. For if it be forgiveness of sins, as indeed it is, than the words import, that the sinner believing in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and relying wholly upon him, assuredly hath that for which he believeth, and therefore is not to doubt thereof. And herein he alludeth to that in the Gospel, where Christ asketh the blind men; c Mat. 9.28. Believe ye that I am able to do this, to draw from them, whether they did attribute so much to him, as to expect so great a benefit from him. When therefore they answered, Yea, Lord, he touched their eyes, saying According to your faith so be it unto you. So with S. Austin the word may serveth to challenge a sufficiency to jesus Christ, and to exclude other means of forgiveness of sins, not to question the belief of the forgiveness thereof, which he so resolutely affirmeth to him that believeth, and can be no otherwise but by the applying of the righteousness, the merit, the satisfaction of Christ, because we cannot believe it but only thereby. The place of Bernard is very impudently shifted off. First, by altering the question, which is not here, by what we believe our sins to be forgiven, but whether it be the property of a justifying faith, to believe particularly the forgiveness of a man's own sins. Now S. Bernard saith, that d Bernard in Annun●iat. ser. 1. Jnitium quoddam & velut fundamentum fidei. for a man to believe that he cannot have forgiveness of sins, but by God's pardon is but the beginning and foundation of faith. Therefore, saith he, if thou believe that thy sins cannot be done away, but by him to whom only thou hast sinned, thou dost well, e Sed add adhuc ut & hoc credas quia per ipsum tibi peccata donantur. Hoc est testimonium quod perhibet in cord nostro Sp. sanctus, dicens, Dimitiuntur tibi peccata tua. Sic enim arbitratur. Apostelus gratis justificari hominem per fidem. but go f●rther yet, to believe that by him thy sins are forgiven thee. This is, saith he, the testimony that the holy Ghost giveth in our heart, saying, Thy sins are forgiven thee. For thus doth the Apostle suppose that a man is justified freely by faith. Of imputed righteousness enough hath been said before: the point here is of particular faith, whether a man believe his own sins to be forgiven him. S. Bernard saith yea, and saith it so plainly, as that M. Bishop could not tell for his life what directly to answer to it. But forsooth S. Bernard addeth conditions on our party, saith he, which M. Perkins craftily concealeth, and here he bringeth words following a mile after, where S. Bernard hath broken off the point formerly in hand, which was to set forth the condition of a true justifying and saving faith. And what I pray are the conditions that he addeth? Forsooth truth of conversion, bewailing of our sins and confessing them, and afterwards following holiness and peace. Where we see a glozing sycophant, which will make the simple Reader believe, that he giveth an answer when indeed he giveth none. For when we teach the belief of the forgiveness of sins, do we teach a man unconverted to believe the same? The penitent sinner confessing and bewailing his sins to God, and careful as having felt the sting of sin, thenceforth to avoid the same, is the proper and only true subject of this disputation of justification by faith. We deny that faith hath place in any other man, and therefore deny that any other can have the true belief of the forgiveness of his sins. Of the converted man then, of him that truly repenteth and forsaketh his sin, S. Bernard saith, and we say, that the faith whereby he is justified, is a faith whereby he particularly believeth the forgiveness of his own sins. What is M. Bishop now but a wrangling Sophister, that thus in a mist of idle discourse, seeketh to steal away, where indeed he is so fast holden that he cannot untie himself? In like sort he dealeth with the other place of Cyprian, who encouraging faithful Christians against the terror and fear of death, saith; f Cyprian. de Mortal. Deus tibi de hoc mundo recidenti immortalitatem pollicetur, & tu dubitas & fluctuasi Hoc est Deum omninò non nosse: hoc est Christum credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere: hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fidem in domo fidei non habere. God hath promised immortality unto thee, when thou departest out of this world, and dost thou waver and doubt thereof? This is not to know God, this is by the sin of unbelief, to offend Christ the master of believers; this is for a man being in the Church, to be without faith in the house of faith. The words are manifest. He propoundeth the promise of God particularly: requireth the same accordingly to be believed; not to believe it so, he affirmeth is to be without faith in the house of faith. God promiseth to thee, and dost thou doubt? this is not to have faith. Cyprian then teacheth such a confidence in the promises of Christ, as is to be without all wavering or doubt. Yea, saith M. Bishop, we are secure on Christ's side, that he will never fail of his word and promise, but the cause of fear lies upon our own infirmities. Thus he is like the mother that strangleth her child so soon as she hath brought it forth. He setteth up confidence with one hand, and throweth it down with another; nay, he setteth it up with one hand, and throweth it down with both. What is it to us, that Christ is true of his word, if we may not believe that his word doth appertain to us? what confidence can it yield, that Christ faileth not of his promise, so long as we must fear lest our infirmities disable us of having any part therein? And would Cyprian talk so idly, to bid men not waver or doubt, when they might answer they had cause to fear and doubt, by reason of their own infirmities? Would he bid men not doubt to go out of the world, because of the promise of God, when their own infirmities might be a sufficient cause to make them fear their departure out of this world? But Cyprian knew well that we can have nothing but fear from ourselves, and therefore teacheth us to build ourselves wholly upon the promise of God, that howsoever our own infirmities do offer us occasion of distrust, yet resting upon the truth of God, we believe with Abraham g Rom. 4.18. under hope against hope, that God will perform what he hath spoken, for his own sake, as he saith by the Prophet, h Ezech. 36.22. Not for your sakes, but for my holy names sake I will do it, saith the Lord. Yea, but we bid them not doubt, saith Master Bishop, as if they were as likely to be condemned as saved. But how so, when they see and know in themselves, that for which they may be condemned, and cannot know any thing whereupon they may rest the hope of salvation? For you say, Master Bishop, that a man cannot tell whether he have repentance, hope, charity, prayer, whether he be justified, and in the state of grace or not, and therefore how should he but think himself more likely to be condemned then otherwise? You say you animate them and put them in the good way of hope, by twenty kinds of reasons. But how can you put them in hope when you teach them to fear? That one reason whereby you impose fear, carrieth more sway in the conscience, than all those twenty kinds of reasons, whereby you persuade hope. And when you teach that a man cannot tell whether he have any hope or not, what can there rest but horror and despair, at leastwise anguish, perplexity, trembling and fear, save only in consciences that are benumbed and astonished, and have no feeling of themselves? In a word, in death there can be no hope, but setting aside the respect of ourselves, to depend upon the promise of God, and to say with Hilary out of the Psalm, i Hilar. in Psal. 51. Spes nostra in miserecordia Domini in secu●um & in secu●●m seculi. Our hope is in the mercy of God for ever and ever. 18. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins having thus confirmed his own party, why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholics allege in favour of their assertion? Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter? Nothing less: It was then belike, because he knew not how to answer them. I will out of their store take that one principal one, of the testimony of holy Scripture, and by that alone sufficiently prove, that the faith required to justification, is that Catholic faith, whereby we believe all that to be true, which by God is revealed, and not any other particular believing Christ's Righteousness to be ours. How can this be better known, then if we see, weigh, and consider well, what kind of faith that was which all they had, who are said in Scriptures to be justified by their faith. S. Paul saith of Noah, That he was instituted heir of the justice, Heb. 11.7. which is, by faith. What faith had he? That by Christ's Righteousness he was assured of Salvation? No such matter, but believed, that God according to his word and justice, would drown the world, and made an Ark to save himself and his family, as God commanded him. Abraham the Father of believers, and the Pattern and example of justice by faith, as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans: What faith he was justified by, let S. Paul declare, who of him and his faith, Rom. cap. 4. hath these words. He contrary to hope believeth in hope, that he might be made the father of many Nations, according to that which was said unto him: So shall thy seed be as the stars of heaven, and the sands of the sea: and he was not weakened in faith, neither did he consider his own body, now quite dead, whereas he was almost an hundredth years old, nor the dead Matrice of Sara, in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, most fully knowing, that whatsoever he promised, he was able also to do, therefore was it reputed to him to justice. Lo, because he glorified God in believing, that old and barren persons might have children if God said the word, and that whatsoever God promised he was able to perform, he was justified. The Centurion's faith was very pleasing unto our Saviour, who said in commendation of it, That he had not found so great faith in Israel? What faith was that? Marry, that he could with a word cure his servant absent: Math. 8. Say the word only (quoth he) and my servant shall be healed. S. Peter's faith so much magnified by the ancient Fathers, and highly rewarded by our Saviour, was it any other, Math. 16. Then that our Saviour was Christ, the Son of the living God? And briefly let S. john that great Secretary of the holy Ghost, tell us what faith is the final end of the whole Gospel. These things, john. 20. (saith he) are written that you may believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. With the Evangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well, Rom. 10. saying: This is the word of faith which we preach, for if thou confess with thy mouth our Lord jesus Christ, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from death, 1. Cor. 15 thou shalt be saved. And in another place: I make known unto you the Gospel, which I have preached, and by which you shall be saved, unless perhaps you have believed in vain. What was that Gospel? I have delivered unto you that which I have received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day, etc. So by the verdict of S. Paul, the belief of the articles of the Creed, is that justifying faith, by which you must be saved. And neither in Saint Paul, nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught, that a particular faith, whereby we apply Christ's Righteousness to ourselves, and assure ourselves of our salvation, is either a justifying, or any Christian man's faith, but the very natural act of that ugly Monster, presumption: which being laid as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion, what moral and modest conversation, what humility and devotion can they build upon it? R. ABBOT. What the reason was why M. Perkins here propounded no objections of the Papists M. Bishop might have conceived, because he had a Chap. 3. Of the Certainty of Salvation. before noted and confuted the best that are alleged by them. If he had not so done, yet it should not be likely that he had therefore omitted them, because he knew not how to answer them, because this which M. Bishop bringeth for their principal reason, is but a very weak and simple reason. The thing that he would prove thereby, is that justifying faith is that Catholic faith, as he calleth it, whereby we believe all that to be true which God hath revealed. He abuseth the name of Catholic faith, whereby hath been wont to be imported the true and sound doctrine of the Catholic Church, comprised in books, taught in Pulpits and schools, professed by the mouth, which a man may preach to others, and himself be void of justifying faith. Thus Vigilius saith, having discoursed of some points of doctrine, b Vigil. count Eutych. lib. 1. Haec est fides & professio Catholica, quam Apostoli tradiderunt, Martyrs roboraverunt & fideles hucusque custodiunt. This is the Catholic faith and profession which the Apostles delivered, the Martyrs have confirmed, and the faithful keep until this day. justifying faith is the private act of the heart and conscience of the man that is justified, which though it be grounded and built upon it, yet cannot but absurdly be termed the Catholic faith. But M. Bishop perhaps by Catholic faith meaneth that justifying faith, whereby he and his fellow Catholics must hope to be justified. By which means he hath matched the devil with himself and his Catholics, and hath made him a Catholic. For if it be the only faith of a Catholic to believe all that to be true which God hath revealed, what hindereth the devil to be a Catholic, seeing he believeth, and to his grief well knoweth, that all is true that is revealed by God? This is that which we rightly call historical faith, the object whereof is the word of God in general, and it is no more but credere Deo, to believe God in that which he speaketh, which is incident to devils and damned men. This historical faith is presupposed and included in justifying faith, but the proper object of justifying saith is c 2. Cor. 5.19. God in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, or the promise of God's mercy to us in Christ jesus, whereby we do not only believe the promise in general to be true, but do trust in God, and expect good at his hands, according to that promise for Christ's sake. This faith therefore is called d Rom. 3.22. Phil. 3.9. the faith of Christ, that is, whereby we believe in Christ, and is further expressed to be e Act. 3.16. faith in his name, f Rom. 3.25. faith in his blood. Of which S. Austin saith; g August. in joan. tract. 35. Fides Christi est credere in eum qui justificat impium: credere in mediatorem sine quo interposito non reconciliamur De●; credere in salvatorem qui venit quod perterat quaer●re atque saluare, etc. The faith of Christ is to believe in him that justifieth the ungodly; to believe in the Mediator, without whose means we are not reconciled unto God; to believe in the Saviour, which came to seek and to save that which is lost; to believe in him that saith, without me ye can do nothing. This is the faith whereby we are saved, and whereby all the faithful have been saved from the beginning of the world. To which purpose S. Austin again saith; h August. de nat. & great. cap. 44. ●a fides iustes sanavit antiquos quae sanat et nos, id est, mediatoris Dei & hominum hominis jesu C●risti, fides sanguinis eius, fides crucis eius, fides mortis & resurrectionis ●ius. The same faith saved the righteous of old that now saveth us, that is, the faith of the man jesus Christ the Mediator betwixt God and men, the faith of his blood, the faith of his cross, the faith of his death and resurrection. Thus by faith Abel in his lamb beheld i 1. joh. 1.29. the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, and thereby his sacrifice was accepted, and in that respect is Christ called k Apoc. 13.8. the lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world. But here M. Bishop undertaketh to tell us, and therefore let us hear of him according to the depth of his divinity, what kind of faith that was which all they had who are said in Scriptures to be justified by their faith. And first he beginneth with Noah, of whom it is said, that l Heb. 11.7. he was made heir of the righteousness which is by faith. But what faith was that? He believed, saith he, that God according to his word and justice would drown the world, and made an Ark to save himself and his family, as God commanded him. And what? in the drowning of the world and making of an ark to save himself, did No consider nothing but the drowning of the world and the making of an ark to save himself? S. Austin calleth the Ark, m Aug. count Faust. Manich. lib. 19 cap. 12. Sacramentum arcae in qua Noe domus à dilwio. liberata est. the sacrament of the Ark, and in a sacrament or mystery did the faith of No see no more but only what his eyes did see? n Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 7. Mysterium appellatur quoniam non id quod credimus inituemur, sed quòd alia videmus, alia credimus. In sacraments, as chrysostom saith, we do not see that which we believe, but we see one thing and believe another. No then in the Ark did believe that which he did not see, which what it was, S. Peter giveth us to understand, when he maketh our baptism the thing that o 1. Pet. 3.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth the type and figure of the Ark, which, saith he, saveth us by the resurrection of jesus Christ. The Ark than was to him a figure and seal of the same, whereof Baptism is a figure and seal to us; p Rom. 4.11. a seal of the righteousness of faith, of q Cap. 3.22. the righteousness of God by the faith of jesus Christ, to all and upon all that do believe. His deliverance temporally was a figure of that spiritual salvation, which both he and we have by the washing away and forgiveness of our sins, by the blood, and death, and resurrection of jesus Christ, and in the belief hereof was it that he was made heir of the righteousness of faith. In the second place Abraham is brought forth, whose faith M. Bishop construeth to be no more but this, that he believed that old and barren persons might have children if God said the word, and that whatsoever God promised he was able to perform. Where if he had looked into the Apostles words with the eyes of a doctor of divinity, he would have found the seed there spoken of to be r Gal. 3.16. Christ, as the same Apostle elsewhere expoundeth it, Christ in person as the head, and all the faithful gathered as members into one body with him, s August. in Psal. 58. Totus Christus caput & corpus, & post; Christus est to●um corpus Christi. the head and the body making one whole Christ, as S. Austin speaketh. God promised unto Abraham a seed, wherein t Genes. 15.2. all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Herein God would make him u Rom. 4.13. the heir of the world, and x Vers. 16.17. a father of many nations, not to that seed only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, that we may know that a spiritual seed is here to be understood, which should become the children of Abraham, by y Vers. 12. walking in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, and so should be made partakers of the blessing with him. The performance of all this promise of blessing to Abraham and all the nations of the earth, stood upon his having of a son which God had promised unto him. The barrenness of Sara, & the old age both of Abraham and her, might seem to deny all hope of having a son. But yet Abraham rested secure in the affiance of the power of God, not doubting but that God was able, and would give him a son of whom Christ should come, to be unto him that blessing that God had promised. This was the thing that Abraham's faith respected, and to which the Apostle referreth it, speaking of a promise that was to be sure, not to Abraham only, z Vers. 16. but to all the seed both of believing jews and Gentiles; who are also called a Heb. 6.17. heirs of the promise, to the performance whereof, to show unto them the stableness of his counsel, God bound himself by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it was unpossible that God should lie, (his promise and his oath) we might have strong consolation, which have our refuge to hold fast the hope that is set before us. Of what? that old and barren persons may have children if God say the word? O base and abject conceit of so divine and heavenly a matter. Nay but of the blessing, which as the Apostle noteth before, God did swear unto Abraham, and unto that seed which he would multiply unto him, by faith to be blessed together with him. Thirdly, he allegeth the faith of the Centurion, of which our Saviour testifieth, that b Mat. 8.10. he had not found so great faith in Israel. And what was that faith? Marry, saith he, that he could with a word cure his servant absent. Say the word only, quoth he, and my servant shall be healed. But did he only believe that by saying the word Christ could cure his servant? Surely he believed somewhat else that made him to believe that: he believed somewhat else that made him to say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. c August. de verb. Dom ser. 6. Neque ho●●ret ●um 〈…〉. He would not thus have said with so great faith and humility, saith S. Austin, but that he did already bear Christ in his hea●●. W● doubt not but he had conceived of Christ that he was the Son 〈◊〉 God, the Saviour of the world, and with this faith came unto 〈◊〉 The profession of his faith is here mentioned according to the present occasion. It followeth not, that because the act of faith is no further expressed here, therefore there was nothing further in his faith for his justification towards God. Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say, that he could be justified without believing the remission of sins by the blood of jesus Christ, which yet is not expressed here; and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring us this example to show what is meant by justifying faith? In the other places as touching believing that d Mat. 16 16. joh. 20.32. jesus is Christ the Son of God, the question is, what is meant by believing that jesus is Christ. If no more but an act of understanding barely to assent unto it, than the devils profess as much, e Mar. 1.24. O jesus of Nazaret, I know thee who thou art; even the holy one of God. But that we may not make that belief a matter common to the devil, we must understand it to be a compounded action, not of the understanding only, but of the heart, of the will and affections, as appeareth by the third place which to this purpose he citeth; f Rom. 10.9. If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and believe with thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, etc. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptised, Philip saith, g Act. 8.37. If thou believe with all thine heart, thou mayest. I believe, saith he, that jesus Christ is the Son of God. Belief therefore in these speeches importeth such a belief, as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we believe him to be; whereby we believe to our own use and comfort that which we believe. It is such a faith as desireth, seeketh, embraceth, holdeth, joyeth in that which it believeth, because therein it seethe and apprehendeth peace; whereby we so believe that jesus is Christ, as that according to that we believe him to be, we believe in him, and put our trust and confidence in him. This is implied in the words that jesus is Christ, that is, the promised Messias and Saviour, in whom is promised unto us, and in whom we look to find blessing, peace, immortality and everlasting life. Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith; h August. in Psal. 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum, non quomodo daemones cre●ebant, sed non diligebant Christum, & ideo quamuis crederent, dicebant, Quid nobis & tibi est, fili Dei? Nos autem sic credamus ut in ipsum credamus, diligentes eum & non dicamus, Quid nebis & tibi est, sed potius di●amus, Ad te pertinemus, tu redimisti nos. Omnes qui sic credunt tanquam lapides sunt vivi de quibus templum Dei ad fi●a●um est, & tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus ar●a illa compacta est quae in diluu●o merge non potuit. This is to believe in Christ, even to love Christ, not as the devils believed and loved not, and therefore albeit they believed yet said, What have we to do with thee, thou son of God? But let us so believe, as that we believe in him loving him, and let us not say, What have we to do with thee, but rather let us say, We belong to thee, thou hast redeemed us. All that thus believe, are as lively stones of which the temple of God is builded, and as those never putrefying planks and timber, whereof the Ark was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood. Such a faith must M. Bishop confess to be meant in the places by him alleged, that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of devils. By this the answer is plain to the last place, which mentioneth only the subject and matter of the Gospel, but of the manner of believing expresseth nothing. Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sins, there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospel we believe, as where the same Apostle saith; i Rom. 4.25. He was delivered (to death) for our sins, and rose again for our justification, which we cannot be said truly to believe, unless we believe ourselves to be redeemed and justified from our sins by the death and resurrection of jesus Christ. Now than we deny not, but that the belief expressed in the articles of the Creed, is that justifying faith by which we must be saved, yet not according to that historical meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them, but according to that true meaning of believing in God, which the Scripture teacheth, whereby a man can truly say, I believe in God, which M. Bishop cannot tell whether he can say or not, and therefore we are sure that he cannot say. But though he cannot say it, yet let him not repine at us that can, and if he list not to have any part in that faith, whereby he should apply to himself the righteousness and merit of Christ, to the assurance of the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, let him leave it unto us, and we will joy therein, and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion, because thereby jesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone, of whom we presume all things towards God, who can presume nothing of ourselves. But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile, where mentioning this faith laid as the corner stone of our religion (which the sycophant, as the Pope's parrot to speak what he teacheth him, termeth irreligion) he inferreth, this being so, what moral or modest conversation, what humility and devotion can they build upon it? It made me call to mind the moral and modest conversation of their Popes, the humility and devotion of the most of their Cardinals and Bishops, the sweet and cleanly life of their Votaries, both religious and secular, and by them to consider what good fruits M. Bishop's faith hath brought forth amongst them. It made me remember a story that I have heard out of Boccace of a converted jew, of whom he that converted him would by no means hear that he should go to Rome, fearing that the sight of the behaviour that he should see there, would make him renounce Christianity again. It made me think of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon, who seeing enormous behaviours so to abound at Rome, refused to become Christians, saying, k M●t. Parisan Henrico. 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates, dicebant▪ Quomodo ex uno font aequa dulcis & salsa poterit emanare? Vbi Christiani fonte● justitiae ha erir● tenentu●, in●eniunt la ●c m toxicatum. How can water both sweet and salt flow out of one fountain? Where Christians are bound to draw at the fountain of justice, there they find a poisoned brook? It made me call to mind the good usage and behaviour of the Spaniards in the west Indies, where by their extreme villainies and cruelties they have made the name of Christian religion to stink amongst those poor and unbelieving souls. It made me consider the humility, and devotion, and great virtue that the jesuits and Seculars bewrayed the one of the other, in the late contentions that were amongst them. It put me in mind of the moral and modest conversation of Weston the jesuite and his fellows, in hunting the devil in Sara Williams, and many pretty tricks about that matter. Surely M. Bishop if the faith and religion which we profess, did bring forth such ugly monsters as your Popes have been, or did nourish such execrable villainies and filtheries as are practised amongst you, we might justly grow suspicious of it. But thanks be to God, that though our fruits be not such as they ought to be, yet the face and state of our Church and common wealth is such, as that we may boldly tell you, that it is not for a harlot to compare with an honest matron, nor for you to make comparison betwixt us and you. 19 W. BISHOP. The second difference in the manner of justification, is about the formal act of faith, which M. Perkins handleth as it were by the way, crookedly I will be as short as he, the matter not being great. The Catholics teach, as you have heard out of the Council of Trent, in the beginning of this question, that many acts of faith, fear, hope, and charity do go before our justification, preparing our soul to receive into it from God through Christ that great grace. M. Perkins Doctor like resolveth otherwise, That faith is an instrument, created by God in the heart of man, at his conversion, whereby he apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's righteousness, for his justification. This jolly description is set down without any other probation, than his own authority that delivered it: and so, let it pass as already sufficiently confuted. And if there needed any other disproof of it, I might gather one more out of his own explication of it, where he saith, that the covenant of grace is communicated unto us, by the word of God, and by the Sacraments. For if faith created in our hearts, be the only sufficient supernatural instrument, to apprehend that covenant of grace, than there needs no Sacraments for that purpose, and consequently I would feign know by the way, how little infants, that cannot for want of judgement and discretion have any such act of faith, as to lay hold on Christ his justice, are justified? Must we without any warrant in God's word contrary to all experience, believe that they have this act of faith, before they come to any understanding? R. ABBOT. By those acts of faith, fear, hope, charity going before justification, the Council of Trent doth expressly consort itself with Pelagius the heretic. This faith, fear, hope, charity, we must know not to be the effects or works of any infused grace, which before justification is none, but they are the proper acts of man's free will only, assisted by some external or outward grace, as they by collusion call it, which as I have showed before in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will, Pelagius the heretic affirmed and granted as well as they. But hereby they directly cross the rule of S. Austin, that b August. de fide & oper, cap. 14. Sequunt●r justificatum, ●on praecedunt iustificandum. good works follow in a man being justified, but they go not before justification. He saith they do not go before, they say they do go before, only they are not properly meritorious. Meritorious they are also c Bellarm de iustific. lib. 1. ca 17. Fides suo quodam modo meretur remissionem peccatorum. in some sort, but not properly meritorious ex condigno, as the new faith, hope, and charity are in the justified man. Let the Reader well observe it, that there is one faith, hope and charity before justification; another faith, hope and charity infused when a man is justified. But of that we shall hear more anon. Here the special matter is as touching M. Perkins his description of faith to be an instrument supernatural created by God in the heart of man at his conversion, whereby he apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's righteousness for his justification. This M. Bishop saith, is set down without any proof, and is already sufficiently confuted: but where? Surely we have seen much for proof on M. Perkins side, but M. Bishop's confutation yet we have not seen. Yea where M. Perkins did notably demonstrate this act of faith out of the Gospel, M. Bishop passed it over without any further answer but only to say, d Chap. 3. sect. 16 He might be ashamed to use this discourse to us, who admit no part of it to be true, in which sort he might easily answer any thing that he list not to admit for truth. But what is it that he would have to be proved? For that faith is an instrument to apprehend and receive, it is plain, because it is e Aug. in joan. tract. 50. Quomodo tenebo absentem? quomodo in coelum manum mittam, ut ibi sedentem teneam? fidem mitte & tenuisti. the hand which we stretch to heaven to take hold of Christ, and to hold him sitting there; it is the mouth whereby we eat and drink Christ; because f Ibid. tract. 26. Qui credit manducat. to believe is to eat: it is the stomach whereby we digest him, for g Tertul. de resur. carn. fide digerendus. he is to be digested by faith; it is h Bernard. in Cant. ser. 32. In bonis Domini quatenus fiduciae pedem p●rrexeris eatenus possidebis the foot whereby we enter possession of the benefits of Christ, and possess so far as we stretch the same, it is i Idem in Annunc. ser. 3. Dominus oleum misericord●ae nisi in vase fiduciae non ponit. the vessel whereinto God putteth the oil of his mercy. k Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 33. Fide illum accipimus. By faith, saith Austin, we receive Christ: it is l Ambros. in Psal. 43. Fidei tactus est quo tangitur Christus. by faith, saith Ambrose, that we touch Christ, and m Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 2. Quatum fidei capac● afferimus, tantum gratiae inundanin haurimus. look how much faith we bring to receive, saith Cyprian, so much we draw of the abundant grace of God. This being plain, the question than must be of the thing that is to be received. Now the thing to be received, is the thing whereby we are to be justified. The thing whereby we are to be justified is the obedience of Christ, for n Rom. 5.15. by the obedience of one, saith the Apostle, shall many be made righteous, and what is the obedience of Christ, but the righteousness of Christ? The righteousness of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and received for our justification. And how should we be o 2. Cor. 5.21. made the righteousness of God in him, but by apprehending and receiving a righteousness which is in him? He is called the p jerem. 23.6. Lord our righteousness, not who maketh us righteous only, but who himself is our righteousness, and how should he be our righteousness, but by his righteousness? Therefore in apprehending and receiving Christ by faith, we apprehend & receive the righteousness of Christ to be our justification before God. But I need not stand upon this; for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall prove, that we receive no gift of inherent righteousness, whereby we can be justified in the sight of God, it followeth, as is also proved, that the righteousness which we receive by faith for justification, is the merit and obedience of Christ imputed unto us. Now M. Bishop telleth us, that he can gather a disproof of all this out of M. Perkins own explication. For, saith he, if faith created in our hearts, be the only sufficient supernatural instrument to apprehend the covenant of grace, than there needs no Sacraments for that purpose. But such disproofes will make men think that he is run not out of his learning only, but also out of his wits. If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins, it must be thus, If faith be the only instrument whereby we apprehend Christ, what need we any Sacraments to offer him unto us? And why did he not as well say, what need there any word of God to that purpose? for his disproof standeth as good in the one as in the other. But M. Perkins setteth both down, as means on God's part to offer Christ unto us, not as instruments or means on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ, and notably observeth, how the giving of bread and wine to the several communicants in the Lord's Supper, is a pledge and sign of God's particular giving of Christ's body and blood with all his merits, to every of them by faith in him. Yea, saith M. Bishop, but how then are infants justified, who cannot have any such act of faith? I answer him, that infants dying, are justified and saved merely by virtue of the covenant and promise of God, to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents, and in right whereof they are baptised and entered into the body of the Church, God having said, q Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed. For where the offer of the covenant hath no place, there the means of acceptance cannot be required, but by mere and absolute gift righteousness and life are given, and in the Sacrament sealed unto them, who according to the purpose of the grace of God, are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithful, according to the intendment and meaning of the covenant. Yet nothing hindereth, but that we may conceive, that God calling infants from hence, doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit, give them light of understanding, and knowledge, and faith of Christ, as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enjoy for ever. Who when he will, maketh babes and sucklings to praise him, and even in young children sometimes in our sight, showeth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death, far beyond that their years are capable of. As for infants baptised and continuing to elder years, they are not always justified in being baptised, but God calleth them, some sooner, some later; some at one hour, some at another, according to his good will and pleasure, and then the medicine long before applied, beginneth to work the effect that doth appertain unto it. 20. W. BISHOP. But to return unto the sound doctrine of our Catholic faith, M. Perkins finds fault with it, one that we teach faith to go before justification, whereas by the word of God (saith he) at the very instant, when any man believeth first, he is then both justified and sanctified. What word of God so teacheth? joh. 6.54. Marry this: He that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ, and is already passed from death to life. I answer, that our Saviour in that text speaketh not of believing, but of eating his body in the blessed Sacrament, which who so receiveth worthily, obtaineth thereby life everlasting, as Christ saith expressly in that place. And so this proof is vain. Now will I prove out of the holy Scriptures, that faith goeth before justification, Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul: Whosoever calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saved, but how shall they call upon him, in whom they do not believe, how shall they believe without a preacher, etc. Where there is this order set down to arrive unto justification. First, to hear the preacher, then to believe, afterward to call upon God for mercy, and finally mercy is granted and given in justification: so that prayer goeth between faith and justification. This Saint Augustine observed, De praedest. sanc. cap. 7. De spirit. & lit. cap. 30. when he said: Faith is given first, by which we obtain the rest. And again: By the Law is knowledge of sin, by faith we obtain grace, and by grace our soul is cured. If we list to see the practice of this recorded in holy writ, read the second of the Acts, and there you shall find, how that the people having heard S. Peter's Sermon, were stricken to the hearts, and believed, yet were they not strait way justified, but asked of the Apostles what they must do, who willed them to do penance, and to be baptised in the name of jesus, in remission of their sins, and then lo, they were justified, so that penance and baptism went between their faith, and their justification. In like manner Queen Candaces Eunuch, having heard S. Philip, announcing unto him Christ, believed that JESUS CHRIST was the Son of God (no talk in those days of applying unto himself Christ's righteousness,) yet was he not justified, Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptised. And three days passed between S. Paul's conversion and his justification, Act. 9 as doth evidently appear by the history of his conversion. The second fault he findeth with our faith, is that we take it to be nothing else, but an illumination of the mind, stirring up the will, which being so moved and helped by grace, causeth in the heart many good spiritual motions. But this (says M. Perkins) is as much to say, that dead men only helped, can prepare themselves to their resurrection. Not so good Sir, but that men spiritually dead, being quickened by God's spirit, may have many good motions, for as our spirit giveth life unto our bodies; so the spirit of God by his grace animateth, and giveth life unto our souls. But of this it hath been once before spoken at large, in the question of Free will. R. ABBOT. We are so to affirm the effect of justifying faith, as may make good what the Scripture hath delivered concerning it. Which because the Church of Rome doth not, in making faith precedent in time to justification and grace, M. Perkins justly findeth fault therewith. Our Saviour saith, a joh. 5.24. He that heareth my word and believeth in him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life. Our passing from death to life, is our justification. If every one that believeth be passed from death to life, than every one that believeth is justified; or if there be any that believeth, and yet is not justified, them it is not true of every one that believeth, that he is passed from death to life. To this place M. Perkins alluded though he quoted it not, but M. Bishop thought it safest for him to say nothing of it. To the other place his answer is a simple shift. He that believeth eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ. I answer, saith M. Bishop, that our Saviour in that text speaketh not of believing, but of eating his body in the blessed Sacrament. But we answer him again, that if Christ speak of eating in the sacrament, than it must follow, that whosoever is not partaker of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is excluded from life, because our Saviour expressly saith, b joh. 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. But so to say is absurd and false, as in the example of the crucified thief and many other, is apparent and plain. Again the Sacrament was not instituted long after, and will M. Bishop exclude any faithful, that after this time died, before that institution from that eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his blood, which Christ here recommendeth for the having of eternal life? S. Austin saith, that c Bed● in 1. Cor. 10. ex August. ser. ad infants. in baptism we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the Bread and the Cup, yet is he not deprived of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament, seeing he hath found that already which that Sacrament signifieth. The Apostle testifieth, that the fathers of the old Testament did d 1. Cor. 10.3.4. all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, not the same one with another, as the e Rhem. Annot. 1. Cor. 10. Rhemistes for a shift expound it, but f Aug. in Joan. tract. 26. spiritualem eandem quem nos. the same that we do. For g Idem de utilit. penitent. c. 1. Eundem non invento quomodo intelligam nisi eundem quem manducamus & nos. I find not, saith S. Austin, how I should understand, The same, but the same that we eat. Therefore they also did eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. But their eating and drinking was not the participation of the Sacrament. Therefore Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, doth not import any thing tied to the participation of the Sacrament. Yea the whole course of that text giveth us plainly to understand, that Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, meaneth the same as by believing in him. Therefore doth S. Austin by the one expound the other. h Aug. in joan. tract. 25. Crede & manducasti. Ibid. tract. 26. Hortans ut credamus in eum. Credere enim in eum, ho● est manducare p●nem viwm. Qui credit manducat. Believe and thou hast eaten; he exhorteth us to believe in him; for to believe in him, that is to eat the bread of life; he that believeth, eateth. And so saith he of the father's eating and drinking, that this i Idem de utilit. poenit. Fide capiebatur, non corpore hauriebatur. spiritual meat and drink was received by faith, and not by the body. Now if belief in Christ be imported by eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, then M. Perkins proof was not vain but M. Bishop hath showed himself a vain man, to give so vain an answer without any proof thereof at all. Without doubt k joh. 6.54. whosoever eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life. But no man hath eternal life, but he that is justified and sanctified. Whosoever therefore eateth and drinketh the flesh & blood of Christ, is justified & sanctified. But our believing in Christ is our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. So soon therefore as we believe in Christ, we are justified & sanctified, that it may be true which the Apostle saith, that l Rom. 3.22. the righteousness of God by the faith of jesus Christ, is to all and upon all that do believe, which cannot be said, if any believe upon whom there yet is not the Righteousness of God to justify him before God. The proofs that he allegeth to the contrary, are very simple and slender. First he allegeth the words of S. Paul, m Rom. 10.13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shallbe saved, but how shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? etc. Where of justification we hear not a word, nor is any thing purposely meant thereof. For the words which the Apostle citeth out of the Prophet joel, touch not the order of justification, but import a promise to them that are justified by faith in Christ, and accordingly do call upon the name of the Lord, that in the calamities and confusion of the world God will preserve them to be partakers of everlasting salvation. Now we grant that by order of nature there is a precedence of faith to justification, but we deny all priority in respect of time. And whereas M. Bishop avoucheth, that prayer goeth betwixt faith and justification, beside that it is not proved by the Apostles words, it is very untrue and false. For there can be no true prayer without n Zach. 12.10. Vulgat. the spirit of grace and of prayer, without o Rom. 8.15. Gal. 4.6. the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba Father. The spirit of adoption and grace is the spirit of sanctification. It followeth then that we pray not but by being first sanctified, and because sanctification is consequent to justification, it must follow also, that justification goeth before prayer, so that in praying for the forgiveness of sins, it cometh to pass with us which the Prophet saith, p Esa. 6●. 24. Before they call I will answer them. Let M. Bishop order the matter how he will, yet this must always stand good, that faith in the first instant of the being of it, gaspeth unto God by prayer, as the thirsty land, and together therewith receiveth blessing of God. God toeth not himself to M. Bishop's order, but where he giveth faith, in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith. As there is no flame without light, but in the beginning of the flame there is jointly a beginning of light, and yet in nature the flame is before the light; so is there no faith without justification and sanctification, and in the first act of faith jointly we are justified and sanctified, albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both. Thus are the speeches understood that he allegeth out of Austin, and thus they are true, and make nothing at all to serve for the purpose to which he allegeth them. No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptism of the people converted by Peter's sermon, of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul. He proveth thereby, that there was some time betwixt their believing and their being baptised▪ but proveth not that there was any time betwixt their believing and their being justified. For he must understand, that we do not tie the justification of a man to the act or instant of his baptism, and of all these do affirm, that they received the sacrament of baptism as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision. After justification, q Rom. 5.11. he received the sign of circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of faith which he had when he was uncircumcised. Even so did these receive the sign of baptism as the seal of forgiveness of sins and of the righteousness of faith, which they had embraced and received before they were baptised. We read of Cornelius and his company, that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them, they received the holy Ghost when they were yet unbaptized, and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were justified? Constantine the Emperor was not baptised s Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 4. till near his death, and shall we say that till than he was never justified? Valentinian was t Ambros. de ●bitu Valentia. not baptised at all, and yet Ambrose doubted not of his justification. Very idly therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples, and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause. I omit his penance in steed of repentance only, as a toy that he is in love withal. It is the plain doctrine of their schools, u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68 ar. 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis, non est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda: hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni & morti Christi, quasi ipsa non esset suffi●iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum. that no penance is to be enjoined unto men in baptism, or that are to be baptised for any sins whatsoever, because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ, as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sins of the baptised. Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alleged, expressly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptised, M. Bishop and his fellows would forbear there to translate doing of penance, but that, poor men, they are afraid they shall be all undone, unless they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance. Whether in those days there were talk of applying Christ's righteousness, appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse. The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine, is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind, stirring up the will, which being so moved and helped by grace, causeth in the heart many good spiritual motions. M. Bishop putteth in (by grace) only to delude the Reader, because he understandeth hereby no other grace, but the same that Pelagius did, as before hath been said. But hereof M. Perkins rightly said, that it is as much as if they should say, that a dead man only helped, can prepare himself to his resurrection. Not so good Sir, saith M. Bishop, but that men spiritually dead being quickened by God's spirit, may have many good motions. I answer, you say true, good Sir, when a man is quickened by God's spirit, but can a man be quickened before he be quickened? We suppose that the justifying of a man is the quickening of him, and not we only, but you also in the five and twentieth section following, do hold that our justification is the translating of us from death to life. Before justification than we are not quickened, nor receive any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life, wherein spiritual life consisteth. Therefore to avouch many good spiritual motions before justification, is to avouch grace without grace, life without life, the spirit without the spirit, and a quickening of us before we are quickened. Which because it cannot be, it is true that M. Perkins saith, that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himself to his resurrection. What you have said in the question of Free will, I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place. 21 W. BISHOP. The third difference, saith M. Perkins, concerning faith, is this. Page. 84. The Papists say, that man is justified by faith, yet not by faith alone, but also by other virtues, as the fear of God, hope, love, etc. The reasons which are brought to maintain their opinion, are of no moment. Well, let us hear some of them, that the indifdifferent Reader may judge, whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON. MAny sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much: Luke. 7 47. whence they gather that the woman there spoken of, had pardon of her sins, & was justified by love. Answer. In this text, love is not made an impulsive cause, to move God to pardon her sins, but only a sign, to show that God had already pardoned them. Reply. Observe first, that Catholics do not teach, that she was pardoned for love alone, for they use not (as Protestants do) when they find one cause of justification, to exclude all, or any of the rest: But considering that in sundry places of holy writ, justification is ascribed unto many several virtues, affirm that not faith alone, but divers other divine qualities concur unto justification, and as mention here made of love, excludeth not faith, hope, repentance, and such like: so in other places, where faith is only spoken of, there hope, charity, and the rest must not also be excluded. This sinner had assured belief in Christ's power to remit sins, and great hope in his mercy that he would forgive them great sorrow and detestation of her sin also she had, that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate herself at Christ's feet, to wash them with her tears, and to wipe them with the hairs of her head. And as she had true repentance of her former life, so no doubt but she had also a firm purpose, to lead a new life. So that in her conversion, all those virtues met together, which we hold to concur to justification, and among the rest, the pre-eminence worthily is given to love, as to the principal disposition. She loved our Saviour as the fountain of all mercies, and goodness, and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him; yea, and the humblest service, and most affectionate she could offer him, to be all too little, and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bore him. Which noble affection of hers, towards her divine Redeemer, no question, was most acceptable unto him, as by his own word is most manifest: for he said, That many sins were forgiven her, because she loved much. But M. Perkins saith, that her love was no cause that moved Christ to pardon her, but only a sign of pardon given before: which is so contrary to the text, that a man not past all shame, would blush once to affirm it. First Christ saith expressly, that it was the cause of the pardon: Because she had loved much. Secondly, that her love went before, is as plainly declared, both by mention of the time past, Because she hath loved; and by the evidence of her fact of washing, wiping, and anointing his feet: for the which saith our Saviour, than already performed: Many sins are forgiven her. So that here can be no impediment of believing the Catholic Doctrine, so clearly delivered by the holy Ghost, unless one will be so blindly led by our new Masters, that he will believe no words of Christ, be they never so plain, otherwise than it please the Ministers to expound them. And this much of the first of those reasons, which M. Perkins said were of no moment. R. ABBOT. I wished thee, gentle Reader, before to observe that which here plainly thou seest, that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith, hope, charity before justification, which must prepare a man in justification to receive, and is the cause for which in justification he doth receive another; a faith, which is the cause why God endueth him with faith; a hope, which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope; a charity, which is the cause for which God bestoweth upon him the gift of charity. A strange doctrine, and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned, a August. epist. 46. that upon our merits the grace of God is bestowed upon us. M. Bishop will say, that they make no merits of these; yet he himself knoweth that their schools do make them merits ex congruo, though not ex condigno, merits which are of force to move God, and which it is convenient that God should respect, though they do not fully deserve grace. And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif. lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodam modo meretur remissionem peccatorum: justificat per modum dispositionis ac meriti. Bellarmine himself affirmeth, as before was said. But let us know why they account them not properly merits? The reason indeed is, because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace; for they make them intrinsically the acts only of man's free will, though adjoining the show of a counterfeit grace, which doth as it were put a hand under the arm to help lift it up for the acting thereof. Yet M. Bishop at random not knowing what he saith, calleth them divine qualities, contrary to the doctrine of his own schools. For if faith, hope, and charity before justification be divine qualities, and essentially the works of grace, there can nothing hinder, but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces, wherein they affirm justification to consist. But now he must understand, that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly, as that they give him way to shift off from himself the assertion of Pelagius. They understood it so largely, as that c August. epist. 105. Si excusatio justa est quisquis ea utitur, non gratia sed merito liberatur. if a man can but plead a just excuse for his deliverance, he that useth it is not delivered by grace but by merit; if there be but d Cont. 2. epist. Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19 Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae: ac sic gratia nö sit gratia, sed sit illud, etc. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari. a good will before grace, than grace is not grace, but is given upon merit. And if he will say, that they affirm not any good will before grace, let him remember, that Pelagius affirmed such a preventing grace as they do, but S. Austin professeth to know no grace, but justifying grace, as hath been showed e Cha. 1. sect. 5. before, so that if before justifying grace, there be any good will or good work, than the grace of God is not freely given, but by merit, according to the doctrine of Pelagius. Yea, Bellarmine himself confesseth, that the f Bellarm. de great. & li. arbit. lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres, cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus (etiamsi n●n sit meritum de condigno) ratione cuius datur gratia. Fathers do understand the grace of God to be given by merits, when any thing is done by our own strength, in respect whereof grace is given, though the same be not any merit de condigno, of condignity or worth. Such are the faith, hope, and charity, that they teach before justification, which therefore as I have said, are denied to be merits de condigno, because they proceed from our own strength. Yea, say they, but not without the help of God. But so Pelagius also said, as we have showed in the place before quoted in the question of Free will, and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselves from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius, that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed upon us. And this M. Bishop will prove by the example of the woman, who in the Pharisees house washed the feet of Christ, of whom our Saviour saith; g Luk. 7.47. Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. She was justified therefore, saith he, because of her love. M. Perkins answereth, that that because importeth not any impulsive cause of the forgiveness of her sins, but only a sign thereof, as if Christ had said, It is a token that much hath been forgiven her, because she loveth much. But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons, who face the matter most boldly, where their cause is worst, saith, that this is so contrary to the text, that a man not past all shame, would blush once to affirm it. The text of it own accord yieldeth this construction and no other. The creditor forgiveth to one five hundred talents, to the other fifty; whether of them will love him more? He, saith the Pharisee, to whom he forgave most. Here is love expressly set down, as a thankfulness following after, in respect of a forgiveness gone before. Christ then in effect inferreth thus, Thou hast given me small tokens of thy love, since my entering into thy house, but thus and thus hath she showed her love. What is the cause? h August. hom. 23. O Pharisaee, ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris: non quia parum dimittitur, sed quia parum putas esse quod dimi●ttiur. O thou Pharisee, therefore thou lovest little, because thou thinkest that little is forgiven thee, not because it is little, but because thou thinkest it to be but little. But this woman knoweth that much hath been forgiven her, therefore she loveth much. And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth, To whom a little is forgiven, he doth love a little: which if we will fit to the words going before, Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much, we must make the meaning of these former words to be this; But she loveth much; it is a sign therefore that much hath been forgiven her. In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles, i Ambros de Tobia. cap. 22 Plu● remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat; sed & ipsa plus soluit. etc. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit, qu● plura meruiss●t. to which there was more forgiven, because she was indebted more, but being mindful of this grace, hath paid so much the more (in love) by how much the greater mercy she had obtained. And to the same sense doth he expound it, k In Luc. cap. 7. writing upon the place, even as Basil also doth, when alluding to that place, he saith: l Basil. exhort. ad baptism. Pl●s debenti plus remittitur ut vehementius amet. To him that oweth more, more is forgiven, that he may love the more. So doth Hierome take it, saying, m Hieron. adu. jovin. lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat. unde & salvator ait, etc. Of two debtor, to whom more is forgiven, he loveth more; thereupon our Saviour saith, Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much, which cannot hang together, if love be taken for an effect of forgiveness in the one speech, and a cause thereof in the other. But now we expect, that Master Bishop so peremptorily rejecting that exposition, should give us some great reason of the denying of it. First, saith he, Christ saith expressly, that it was the cause of the pardon; because she had loved much. But his learning should teach him, that the word because doth not always note an antecedent cause, but sometimes a succeeding effect or sign. As where our Saviour Christ saith of the devil, n john. 8.44. he abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him, he did not mean to say, that the cause of his not abiding in the truth, was because now there is no truth in him, but that hereby as by an effect and sign, it appeareth that he abode not in the truth. So where he saith; o Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I have called you friends, because all things that I have heard of the Father I have made known unto you, he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause, but a token of accounting them his friends. Which being evident and plain, M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing, but that Christ's words may well be understood, that he nameth the woman's love only as a sign and token of many sins to be forgiven unto her. And to take it otherwise as he doth, overthroweth the rule that is delivered by S. Austin: p August. epist. 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur, non quia praecesserunt iustificamur. Good works begin from the time that we are justified, we are not justified for any good works that go before. His second reason is less worth, and he showeth therein either his ignorance or his negligence. For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses, that her love is expressed by the time past, she hath loved much, and her forgiveness by the time present, Many sins are forgiven her, importing that the former cannot be the sign, and therefore must needs be the cause of that that followeth, if he had been so careful as to look into the Greek text, he should have found that her forgiveness of sins is expressed also by the time past, by the Attic preter perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Many sins have been forgiven her, because she hath loved much, albeit it should not have noted necessarily a present act, but a continuation of the benefit, if it had been expressed in the present tense. The exposition therefore alleged, being direct, and arising simply out of the text itself, what reason hath M. Bishop to force another, which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith, Thy faith hath saved thee? To conclude, let him take for his reproof, that which Origen saith; q Origen. ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam: Remittuntur, etc. For no work of the law (and therefore not for her love) but for faith only doth Christ say to the woman, Thy sins are forgiven thee, and again, Thy faith hath saved thee: and let him learn to condemn his own presumption, in that he taketh upon him so rashly to define, that which he is not able, by reason to make good. As for the Ministers, they are very simple men, if they cannot better approve their expositions and doctrines than he hath done. 22. W. BISHOP. Gal. 5.6. 2. Reason. Neither Circumcision, nor prepuce, availeth any thing, but faith that worketh by charity. Hence Catholics gather, that when the Apostle attributeth justification to faith, he means not faith alone, but as it is joined with charity, and other like virtues, as are requisite to prepare the soul of man, to receive that complete grace of justification. M. Perkins answereth, that they are joined together. But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christ's righteousness, and maketh it ours. It useth charity as an instrument to perform the duties of the first and second table, but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our justification. Reply. That it hath the chiefest part, and that faith is rather the instrument and handmaid of charity; my proof shall be out of the very text alleged, where life and motion is given to faith by charity, as the Greek word Energoumene being passive, doth plainly show, that faith is moved, led, and guided by charity. Which S. james doth demonstrate most manifestly saying, that Even as the body is dead without the soul, so is faith without charity: Making charity to be the life, and as it were the soul of faith: Now no man is ignorant, but it is the soul that useth the body, as an instrument, even so than it is charity, that useth faith as her instrument and inferior, and not contrariwise: which S. Paul confirmeth at large in a whole chapter, proving charity to be a more excellent gift than faith, or any other, concluding with these words: 1. Cor. 13. Now there remaineth faith, hope, and charity; these three, but the greater of these is charity. Whereupon S. Augustine resolveth thus: Nothing but charity maketh faith itself available, Li. de Trinit. cap. 18. for faith (saith he) may be without charity, but it cannot be available without it: So that first you see that charity is the mover and commander, and faith, as her instrument and handmaid. Now that in the work of justification, it hath the chief place, may be thus proved, I demand whether that work of justification by faith be done, for the love of God, and to his honour or no? If not, as it is void of charity, so it is a wicked and sinful act, no justification, but infection, our own interest being the principal end of it: now if it comprehend and conclude God's glory, and service in it, that is, if they apply Christ's righteousness to them, to glorify God thereby, then hath charity the principal part therein: for the directing of all, to the honour and glory of God, is the proper office and action of charity. All this reason that charity both concurreth to justification, and that as principal, S. Augustine confirmeth in these words: The house of God, (that is, a righteous and godly soul, Serm. 22. de v●rbis Apostol. ) hath for his foundation faith; hope is the walls of it; but charity is the roof and perfection of it. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop was loath to trouble himself too much with M. Perkins answer, who truly observeth the difference betwixt faith & charity, that the proper act of faith is to take & receive to us; the proper act of love, to give ourselves forth to others. Seeing then that justification is a thing to be received, the same must needs be performed properly by faith, but not by charity, because charity is no instrument to receive. But yet faith receiving all of God, useth charity, as the means to make return of itself to God again, and by charity, as a working hand performeth all the duties commanded of God, to the honour and glory of God. This therefore the Apostle intendeth in the place alleged, that faith having alone justified us by receiving the gift of righteousness, which is by the merit of jesus Christ, doth not stay there, but goeth forth by charity, to serve God, to serve one another, and to show ourselves thankful unto God. And wonder it were, that the Apostle having before professedly disputed the matter of justification, and referring the same wholly to faith, should here cross all that he hath before said, and tell us, that not only faith, but love also must concur to make up our justification before God. Mark it well, gentle Reader, that where the Apostle purposely speaketh of the means of justification, M. Bishop can find nothing to prove, that we are justified by love, nothing pleaded but only faith; but here where the Apostle describeth only the condition of the faith by which we are justified, here he will find somewhat whereby to plead against the Apostles former doctrine, yea, and will prove, that love hath not only a part, but the chiefest part in our justification, and that faith is rather the instrument or handmaid of charity. How much is he beholding to his Master Bellarmine, that hath taught him such a trick, and furnished him with a device, which never any Father Greek or Latin, never any translator could light upon, till his admirable wit had found it out? We may well think that such a head could not but deserve a Cardinal's hat. Forsooth the text proveth, that life and motion is given to faith by charity. But how so? a Bellarm. de iustific. lib. 2. cap. 4. Marry the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being passive, doth plainly show, that faith is moved, led, and guided by charity. But what? must we, M. Bishop, upon Bellarmine's word and yours take this, without any further authority or warrant so to do? Indeed it is true, that the Greek word sometimes is taken passively, but by the Apostle is more often used in the active signification, and in this place was never before by any Father Greek or Latin taken otherwise. Yea, the spite is, that the vulgar Latin interpreter to whom they are tied by the Council of Trent, crosseth this device, for he readeth as we do, Fides quae per charitatem operatur, faith which worketh by love. But there is a trick to salve that to; for, saith Bellarmine, b Jllud (operatur) passiuè accipiendum est, non a●●iuè. the word (operatur) must be taken passively, not actively. Now what blockheads were the Divines of Rheims, that could not see so much, or would omit so material a proof against the heretics? for they have translated as we do, faith which worketh by love. But they were bashful; they thought Bellarmine could carry out the matter with his name and countenance, but it would be condemned for a great fault in them. Better it is for some man to steal a horse, then for another to look over the hedge. They knew well, that every child would cry out upon them for lewd men, if they had translated operatur passively, in as much as neither their own interpreter in any other place, nor any other Latin author hath ever used it in that sort. Again, they saw that a very gross and palpable absurdity would thereupon have ensued, which on their own part cannot be denied. For if they had translated faith which is wrought by love, than it would have followed, that love by which faith is wrought, must needs be before faith, whereas they all acknowledge, that faith hath the first being, according to that which M. Bishop a little c Sect. 20. Ex August. de praedest. sanct. ca 7. before alleged out of Austin, faith is given first, by which we obtain the rest. Which being a principle in divinity, and accorded on both sides, they could not tell how to make good, if they should have said that faith is wrought by love. Now M. Bishop, though for the rest he would adventure upon his masters credit, yet durst not follow him so far, as to translate operatur passively, but only beateth about the bush, and telleth us, that the Greek showeth, that faith is moved, led, and guided by charity. Wherein he doth wrong to the Rhemists his countrymen, to whom for country's sake he should have done that honour, to stand to their translation. Yea, and he abuseth his Reader, in that he doth not directly translate the place, which if he had done, he durst not translate it, to give that meaning that now he maketh of it. Which meaning of his cannot in any sort be true, because it is faith which first heareth, and believeth, and receiveth the words of God, & thereby prescribeth unto charity the way that it is to go, and the duty that it is to perform, without which what is charity, but a wild & a wandering affection, easily swerving and carried away from the due respect and love of God, so that by faith it is that charity pleaseth God, and d Heb. 11.6. without faith it is unpossible to please God. Now seeing with God we cannot think, that the greater is accepted for the less, but rather the less for the greater, not the mistress (so to speak) for the handmaids sake, but rather the handmaid for the mistress sake, we must needs make faith not the handmaid, as M. Bishop doth, but the mistress, because by faith it is that charity is acceptable unto God. But he telleth us, that S. james doth demonstrate charity to be the life, and as it were the soul of faith, when he saith, Even as the body is dead without the soul, so is faith without charity. But he wrongeth his Reader, in citing thus falsely the words of S. james. For S. james saith not, so is faith without charity, but so is faith without works. Now charity cannot be without works, but if there might not be works without charity, S. Paul would not have said, e 1. Cor. 13.3. Though I feed the poor with all my goods, and though I give my body to be burned and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is inwardly the affection of the heart, seen only to God: but works are outwardly visible and apparent to men, and therefore there is a difference to be made betwixt charity and works, which wholly overthroweth all that M. Bishop here goeth about to prove. For the faith whereof we here dispute, is inward in the heart, because with f Rom. 10.10. the heart man believeth unto righteousness. But that which is without, cannot be the life or soul of that which is within, nay itself hath from within all the life that it hath, and if it receive not life from within, it is altogether dead. Works therefore being outward, and issuing from within, if they be true, can by no means be said to be the life of faith that is within. But that which S. james saith, he saith it of works. He saith nothing therefore, to prove that charity is the life and soul of faith. But how then, will he say, doth Saint james make works, as it were the life and soul of faith? Very well, according to that meaning of faith which he there intendeth. For he speaketh of faith, as it is outwardly professed to men. g jam. 2.14.18. Th●u sayest thou hast faith, show me thy faith: I will show thee my faith. Now in this respect, works are rightly said to be the lif● of faith; not charity, but works, because charity cannot be discerned by the eyes of men, but works of behaviour and conversation are discerned. Yea, there may be a profession of the faith and works thereunto correspondent outwardly, when yet there is neither faith nor charity within. Yet where it is so, men outwardly to men and to the Church, go for no other but living m●m●●●s of the Church, until such time as the wind of temptation bloweth them away, and discovereth them to have been but chaff, when in semblance they seemed to be good corn. But where there is outward profession of faith, and there is not conversation thereunto agreeing, a man is accounted but a dead branch fit to be cut off; his profession wanteth that that should give it life and grace; he is every man's by word and reproach, his hypocrisy is detested of all men, and therefore is much more loathsome unto God. In a word, S. Paul speaketh of faith in one meaning, as it is inward in the heart to God: S. james speaketh of faith in another meaning, as it is outward in the face to men. If we understand it according to Saint Paul, it is faith that giveth life to all the rest, as afterwards shall further appear. If we understand it according to Saint james, works are the life of faith, and give it name and being, because a man is not accounted faithful for his words, unless there be also works agreeable to his words. Now therefore Master Bishop's comparison, whereby he would make charity as the life and soul, and faith as the body, cannot be made good out of this place, nay indeed it cannot be made good at all. For that which must be as the life and soul, must be the internal and essential form of the thing. But h Bellarm. de justificat. lib. 2. cap. 4. Forma fidei extrinseca, non intrinseca, & quae dei illi non ut sit sed ut moueatur● sit res actuosa & operans. charity is to faith a form only extrinsical and outward, not an inward form, saith Bellarmine, not giving it his being, but only his moving, activity, and working. Charity therefore cannot be called the life and soul of faith. Now because it is but an outward and accidental form, the moving and working that it giveth unto faith, is but outward and accidental For the proper and natural act and motion of a thing, cannot proceed from an accidental form. Faith therefore hath it own inward & essential form, whereby it hath life & being within itself, & whence proceedeth a motion & working that is proper to itself. And thus doth the Apostle set it down distinctly, as a virtue absolute in itself, when he saith, i 1. Cor. 13.13. Now abide these three, faith, hope, and love. Where to say that faith is as the body, and love as the soul, is to make the Apostle to speak absurdly, as if a man for two should reckon a body & a soul. According to this distinction doth the scripture still set forth faith in the nature of faith, to be the instrument of our justification before God, even according to that life & soul that is that proper & essential form, whereby it hath the being of faith, which yet in justifying us, receiveth charity as an accidental form to be unto it an instrument for moving and stirring abroad, in the performance of all duties recommended unto us both to God and men. Thus Bellarmine perforce wresteth from M. Bishop, yea and from himself also, this assertion of faith being likened to the body, and charity to the soul. Yet M. Bishop once again will assay to prove it by S. Paul, making charity a more excellent gift than faith, reckoning faith, hope, and charity, and concluding, the greatest of these is charity. But this testimony availeth him nothing at all; for it followeth not, that because the eye is a more excellent member than the ear, therefore the eye is as the life and soul to the ear, or the ear the instrument of the eye. No more doth it follow, that because charity is a more excellent gift than faith, therefore it should be the form and life of faith, or faith the instrument of charity. It followeth not, that because the eye is more excellent than the ear, therefore for the use of hearing, it should be more excellent than the ear. No more doth it follow, that because charity is more excellent than faith, therefore for the use of justification it must excel faith. Faith and charity respectively have the preferment each of other. If we respect latitude of use, charity is more excellent than faith, as which is extended every way to God, to Angels, to men, and by which all the gifts of God which he bestoweth upon us, are made profitable to other men, so as that k Aug. de verb. Don. ser. 18. universa inutilitèr habet, qui unum illud qu● universis utatur non habet. unprofitably he hath all, saith Austin, who wanteth that one whereby he should use all. l Chrysost. hom. de fide, spe & charit. Nullum charismae sine charitate perfectam est; nullum donum sine charitate aptum. Quicquid enim charismatis aut doni quisque meruerit, desertum charitate non stabit. Omnia enim quae Sp. sanctus devotis aut impertit aut donat aut charitate perficiu●tur, aut sine charitate effectum nullum sortiuntur. No gift, saith chrysostom, is perfect or convenient without charity. Whatsoever grace or gift a man hath obtained, being destitute of charity, it will not stand; because whatsoever God imparteth or giveth, either is perfected by charity, or without charity, it cometh to no effect or use. But if we consider a man privately in himself, and for his own use, faith is more excellent than charity, as wherein originally standeth our communion and fellowship with God; m Ephe. 3.17. by which Christ dwelleth in our hearts; into which as a hand God putteth all the riches of his grace for our salvation; and by which whatsoever else is in us, is commended unto God. We have nothing in us pure, nothing clean, nothing but what is corrupted & defiled, but faith salueth all, healeth all, setteth Christ betwixt God and us, that for his sake he may be merciful unto us. Again if we respect latitude of time & continuance, charity is to be preferred before faith. For faith is but for a time, and when the promise of God, which is the matter or subject of it, shall be fully accomplished, the use of it shall cease. But charity and love abideth for ever, and shall continue betwixt God and us an everlasting bond. Therefore Origen saith, n Origen. in Numer. hom 14. Sola charitas nunquam excidit, ideò super prophetiam, super fidem. super scientiam super ipsum etiam martyrium charitas habenda est. Only love it is that never faileth; therefore it is more excellent than prophecy, than faith, than knowledge, than martyrdom. o Chrysost. hom. de fide, spe & charit. Sola charitas aeterna est, quia cum Deo in sancti● est: ideo maior est. Only charity is eternal, saith chrysostom, because with God it is in the Saints; for that cause it is the greater. The same reason S. Austin also giveth, p August. de doct. Christ. lib. 1. cap. 39 Quia cùm quisque ad aeterna pervenerit, duobus istis decedentibus charitas auctior & certior permanebit. because, saith he, when a man is come to things eternal, those two (faith and hope) failing, charity shall remain more increased, and better assured. In few words to resolve M. Bishop in this behalf, we say that q Aristot. Topic. the end is more excellent, than those things which pertain to the end. The end of our faith & justification is charity, that is, the full restoring of us to the image of God, the very sum and effect whereof is love. Absolutely therefore to speak it is true, that love is greater and more excellent than faith. But when we speak of the means of justification and attainment of that salvation, whereto perfect charity and righteousness doth belong, than faith must be preferred as the greater and more excellent, faith only beareth sway therein, and this slender & weak charity which here we have, is of no effect or moment thereunto. To save a man, I say, faith is the greater; in man being saved charity is the greater. Till faith have finished our salvation, love must yield to faith; When faith hath fully saved us, it shall have an end, but love which simply is the greater, shall abide for ever. Now as touching the place of Austin, he speaketh there of faith according to vulgar understanding, in like sort as S. james doth. He speaketh of a faith that may be without charity, which true faith cannot be. r August. epist. 85. Pia fides sine spe & charitate esse non vult. Godly faith, saith the same Austin, will not be without hope and charity. For s Idem de verb. Dom. ser. 61. Si fidem habet sine spe & delectione, Christum esse credit, non in Christum credit. if a man have faith without hope and love, saith he, he believeth Christ to be, but he believeth not in Christ. But that only is the true justifying faith, whereby a man believeth in Christ, which taketh not his life and force of love, but incorporating us into Christ, receiveth of him t 2. Tim. 1.7. the spirit of love, and by Christ giveth life and force to all the fruits and works thereof. Faith then as it is professed to men, may be without charity, but being without charity, it profiteth nothing, nor can stand us in any steed with God: but true faith is never divided from charity, nor can be, and therefore of it Saint Austin speaketh not. That which he would seem to infer, is without any premises, and apparently false by the very words here questioned. For if faith worketh by love, than faith is the worker, that is, the mover and commander, and love the instrument by which it worketh, and as absurd it must needs be, to say, that charity or love is the commander, and faith the instrument, as to say, the axe is the commander of the Carpenter that heweth with it, or the Carpenter the instrument of the axe. For conclusion of this section, Master Bishop will give us a reason to prove, that in the work of justification charity hath the chiefest place. First he asketh full wisely, whether that work of justification by faith, be done for the love of God, and to his own honour or no? justification is the work of God, who is u Rom. 3.26. the justifier of him that is of the faith of jesus. His question is this, whether God do justify us for the love of God? But I answer him, that the final end of our justification, is the honour and glory of God, who hath x Ephe. 1.5.6. predestinated us to be adopted through jesus Christ unto himself, to the praise of the glory of his grace. And what of that? Marry than hath charity the principal part therein, saith he, for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God, is the proper office and action of charity. But therein he deceiveth himself, for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith, y Rom. 4.20. to give glory unto God, and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife, are said z Num. 20 12. not to have sanctified the Lord, that is to say, not to have given him glory, because they believed him not. For a 1. john. 5.10. not to believe God, is to make him a liar, which is the reproach and dishonour of God, but to believe God, is to ascribe unto him, truth, and power, and wisdom, and justice, and mercy, and whatsoever else belongeth unto him. Therefore Arnobius saith, that b Arno in Psal. 129, Bene facere ad gloriam hominis, benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet. to do well belongeth to the glory of man, but to believe well, concerneth the glory of God. c Chrysost. ad Rom. hom. 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei: hic autem (qui credit) convenientem de eo opinionem accipit, cumque glorificat atque admi●atur nu●lo magis quàm operum demonstratio. Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rect● factum aliquod prae●titeri●: haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac qu●●ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant. By works, saith chrysostom, we obey God, but faith entertaineth a meet opinion concerning God, and glorifieth, and admireth him much more than the showing forth of works. Works commend the doer, but faith commendeth God only, and what it is, it is wholly his. For it rejoiceth in this, that it conceiveth of him great things, which do redound to his glory. And whereas our Saviour in the Gospel teacheth us, that our good works do glorify God, saying, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven, he saith, that it is of faith that our good works do glorify God. d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit. Behold, saith he, it appeareth that this cometh of faith. M. Bishop's argument therefore maketh against himself, and proveth that we are justified rather by faith then by charity, because it is faith principally that yieldeth honour unto God. The last place alleged out of Austin, is nothing against us; for although we defend that a man is justified by faith alone, yet we say, that both faith, hope, and charity must concur, to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man, whereof anon we shall see further. 23 W. BISHOP. The third of these trifling reasons, is perversely propounded by M. Perkins thus. Faith is never alone, therefore it doth not justify alone: That this argument is fond framed, appeareth plainly, in that that Catholics do not deny, but affirm, that faith may be without charity, as it is in all sinful Catholics, we then form the reason thus. If faith alone be the whole cause of justification, then if both hope and charity were removed from faith (at least by thought, and in conceit,) faith would nevertheless justify. But faith considered without hope and charity, will not justify: ergo, it is not the whole cause of justification. The first proposition cannot be denied of them, who know the nature & propriety of causes, for the entire and total cause of any thing, being (as the Philosophers say) in act, the effect must needs follow, and very sense teacheth the simple, that if any thing be set to work, and if it do not act that which it is set too, then there wanted some thing requisite. And consequently that was not the whole cause of that work. Now to the second proposition. But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselves Christ's righteousness, without the presence of hope and charity. For else he might be justified without any hope of heaven, and without any love towards God, and estimation of his honour, which are things most absurd in themselves: but yet very well fitting the Protestants justification, which is nothing else but the plain vice of presumption, as hath been before declared: Yet to avoid this inconvenience which is so great, M. Perkins granteth, that both hope and charity must needs be present at the justification, but do nothing in it, but faith doth all, as the head is present to the eye, when it seethe, yet it is the eye alone that seethe. Here is a worthy piece of Philosophy, that the eye alone doth see, whereas in truth it is but the instrument of seeing, the soul being the principal cause of sight, as it is of all other actions of life, sense, & reason: and it is not to purpose here, where we require the presence of the whole cause, and not only of the instrumental cause. And to return your similitude upon yourself, as the eye cannot see without the head, because it receiveth influence from it, before it can see, so cannot faith justify without charity, because it necessarily receiveth spirit of life from it, before it can do any thing acceptable in God's sight. R. ABBOT. He may indeed very justly call them trifling reasons, if at least trifles may carry the name of reasons. As for this reason it is not perversely propounded by Master Perkins, but in such sort, as some of Master Bishop's part have propounded it upon supposal of our assertion, that faith can never be alone. But as he propoundeth it himself, the terms of his argument being declared, the answer will be plain, and he shall be found a Sophister only, and no sound disputer. It is therefore to be understood, that removing or separating of things one from the other, is either real in the subject, or mental in the understanding. Real separation of faith and charity we wholly deny, so as that true faith can no where be found, but it hath charity infallibly conjoined with it. Separation mental in understanding and consideration, is either negative or privative. Negative when in the understanding there is an affirming of one, and denying of another, and the one is considered as to be without the other; which understanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subject, is false understanding, and not to be admitted. Separation privative in understanding is, when of things that cannot be separated indeed, yet a man understandeth the one, and omitteth to understand the other; considereth the one, and considereth not the other. Thus though light and heat cannot be separated in the fire, yet a man may consider the light, and not consider the heat: though in the reasonable soul, understanding, reason, memory, and will, and in the sensitive part the faculties of seeing, hearing, smelling, &c. cannot be removed or separated one from the other, yet a man may conceive, or mind one of these, without having consideration of the rest. Now if M. Bishop by negative separation, do remove hope & charity from faith, so as that his meaning is, that if faith alone do justify them, though there be neither hope nor charity, yet faith will nevertheless justify, his mayor proposition is false. For though it be true, that the total cause of any thing being in act, the effect must needs follow, yet from the total cause can we not separate those things, together with which it hath in nature his existence and being, and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect, though they confer nothing thereto; because that is to deny the being of it, and the destroying of the cause. But if his meaning be, that if faith alone do justify, then though we consider not hope and charity as concurring therewith, yet itself doth justify, we grant his mayor proposition for true, but his minor is not true. We say, that faith considered without hope and charity (that is, hope and charity not considered with it) doth justify. Then saith he, a man may be justified without any hope of heaven, and without any love towards God, or estimation of his honour. True say I, if his meaning be, that the hope of heaven, or love of God, and estimation of his honour be excepted only privatively, and only not considered with faith as causes of justification. But if his meaning be, as it is, that a man then is justified without having any hope of heaven, or love towards God, or estimation of his honour, he playeth the part only of a brabbler, inferring a real separation of those things in the subject, which the argument supposeth only respectively separated in the understanding. Here is then no presumption in the Protestants justification, but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption, that having left his head at Rome, and broken his brains in contending against the jesuits, he would notwithstanding take upon him to be a writer, and do it so vainly and idly as he hath done. According to that that hath been said, M. Perkins answereth, that though faith be never subsisting without hope and love and other graces of God, yet in regard of the act of justification, it is alone without them all, even as the eye in regard of substance and being is never alone, yet in respect of seeing it is alone: for it is the eye only that doth see. Here is (saith M. Bishop) a worthy piece of Philosophy, that the eye alone doth see. Why I pray, what is the default? Marry the eye is but the instrument of seeing, saith he, the soul being the principal cause of sight, as it is of all other actions of life, sense and reason. But did not your sense and reason serve you to understand that M. Perkins meant accordingly, that the eye alone doth see, that is, that the eye alone of all the members & parts, is the instrument of seeing, and proportionably that faith alone of all the virtues and graces of the soul, is the instrument of justification? As the soul than seethe only by the eye, so the soul spiritually receiveth justification by faith alone. If his head had stood the right way, he might very easily have conceived, that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see, did not mean to exclude the soul that seethe by the eye, but only all other parts of the body from being consorted with the eye in the soul's employment & service for that use. And that that M. Perkins saith therein, is directly to the purpose, because the question is not here of the whole cause of justification, but only of the instrumental cause. Of the efficient and final cause of justification there is no question, which is, God in jesus Christ, for our salvation and the glory of his name. The material cause we say and have proved to be the merit and obedience of Christ. The formal cause is God's imputation, apprehended and received by us. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone, which is the very point here disputed of. But here he will return the similitude upon us; the eye cannot see without the head, because it receiveth influence from the head before it can see. Be it so: no more can faith justify without Christ, without God whose ordinance and gift it is, of whom it hath it force and power, being by him as peculiarly appointed to justify, as the eye is to see. The eye is a natural instrument, receiving his influence from the head, whereof it is naturally a member and part: but faith is an instrument supernatural; not any natural part or power and faculty of the soul, but the instinct and work of God, and therefore receiveth all the force and influence that it hath, from the spirit of jesus Christ. But he maketh other application hereof. So cannot faith justify without charity, because it necessarily receiveth spirit of life from it, before it can do any thing acceptable in God's sight. So then charity is the head, and faith the eye, and we must needs take it so, because M. Bishop hath told us that it is so. But if it be so, than it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charity, as it is to see an eye without a head; as strange that charity being extinguished and gone, there should remain a faith whereby to believe; as that the head being dead, there should remain an eye whereby to see. But that that giveth influence and life to another thing, must needs have a priority to that that receiveth it. Charity hath no priority to faith, but charity itself is obtained by faith. For a Eccles. 25 13. faith is the beginning to be joined unto God. b Aug. de praedest. sanct. cap. 7. Fides prima daetur, ex qua impetrentur caetera. Faith is first given, by which the rest is obtained; c Prosp. de voc. gent. lib. 1. cap. 9 Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur. which being first given unrequested, at the request thereof all other benefits or good things do ensue and follow. d Aug. in Psal. 31. Laudo superaedificationem boni operis, sed agnosco fidei fundamentum: fidei radicem. Nec bona illa (opera) appellaverim quamdiu non de radice bona procedant. Faith is the root and foundation of good works; from which unless they grow, they are not to be called good; even e Origen. in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo ut surgantromi qui fructus operum ferant: illa scil. radix justitiae qua Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. that root of righteousness whereby the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, which receiving the dew or shower sticketh in the ground that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works. Faith is f Aug. in Psa. 83 Fides nidus est pullorum tuorum: in hoc nido operare opera tua. the nest wherein we are to lay our works, that we may hatch them unto God. Faith is g Prosp. de voc. gen. l. 1 c. 8. Fides bonae voluntatis & iustae actionis est genitrix. the mother of a good will, and just and righteous conversation. Our faith in Christ is h Aug. in Ps. 120 Christus in cord vestro fides est. Christ in us, and i Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 21. Mihi sol ille caelestis mea fide vel minuttur vel augetur that heavenly Sun is either impaired or increased unto me, saith Ambrose, according to my faith. In a word, S. Austin telleth us, that k Aug. in Joan. tract. 49. unde mors in anima? Quia fides non est. Ergo animae tuae anima fides est. faith is the soul of our soul, & what is that to say, but the life of all our life? It is faith then and not charity, that giveth influence to all the rest, even to charity itself; as faith increaseth, so other graces are increased; as faith decreaseth, so other graces decrease; the life of faith is our life; the strength of faith is our l Cyprian. ad Quirinum, lib. 3. cap. 43. Tantum possumus, quantum credimus. strength: if our faith be weak, there is nothing else whereby we can be strong. Therefore M. Bishop goeth much awry (yet no otherwise then he is wont to do) in assigning to charity to give the spirit of life and influence to faith, when as it is by faith that we m Galath. 3.14. receive the spirit which is the author of all spiritual life and grace, & on which all our state dependeth towards God. 24. W. BISHOP. The fourth reason, if faith alone do justify, than faith alone will save, but it will not save, ergo. M. Perkins first denieth the proposition, & saith, That it may justify, and yet not save: because more is required to salvation then to justification. Which is false: for put the case that an innocent babe die shortly after his baptism wherein he was justified shall he not be saved for want of any thing? I hope you will say yes: even so any man that is justified, if he depart in that state, no man makes doubt of his salvation, therefore this first shift was very frivolous. Which M. Perkins perceiving flies to a second, that for faith alone we shall also be saved, and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement. Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures, be razed out of the text. God at that time will tender unto every man according to his works. But of this more amply in the question of merits. R. ABBOT. Tertullian rightly saith, a Tertul. de poenit. Horum bonorum unus est ●itulus sal●s hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione praemissa. the salvation of man is the one title of all the benefits of God, forgiveness of sins being put in the first place. If salvation be the whole, and justification but a part, then more is required to salvation then to justification, because more is required to the whole then to a part. Under salvation we comprehend both justification and sanctification in this world, & life and bliss eternal in the world to come. The first act of our salvation is our justification; but God having by justification reconciled us unto him, goeth forward by sanctification b Col. 1 12. to make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. To justification belongeth only faith; to sanctification all other virtues and graces, wherein consisteth that c Heb. 12.14. holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. His exception as touching infants dying after baptism, is very idle. They are not only justified by forgiveness of sins, but also sanctified by the spirit of grace; neither is there any man justified to the title of eternal life, but the same is together also sanctified to the possession thereof, and therefore hath more to salvation then only justification. But as touching the very point, his minor proposition is false. We say, that we are saved also by faith only, according to that that before I alleged out of Origen, that d Origen. in Ro. cap. 3 sup. sect. 21 for faith only Christ said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee. Hath saved thee, saith he, as a thing already done, according to the usual phrase of the Scripture in that behalf. For so it is said of Zacheus, e Luk. 19.9. This day salvation is come to this house. So saith the Apostle, f 2. Tim. 1.9. He hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling; g Tit. 3.5. of his own mercy he hath saved us. The reason whereof is, because in justification, as I have said, our salvation is begun, and in that we are justified we are saved, Christ therein being given us, and in him the interest and title of eternal life thenceforth by that right only to be continued and performed unto us. Being then justified by faith alone, we are saved by faith alone, the gift of sanctification to holiness and good works being necessarily consequent, not as by virtue whereof we are to be saved, whom the Scripture pronounceth to be already saved, but as the process of God's work, for accomplishment of that salvation, whereto in justification we are begotten, and in way of inheritance entitled by faith alone. We are saved by faith alone, saith M. Perkins, because faith alone is the instrument whereby we apprehend Christ, who only is our salvation. Where observe, gentle Reader, what M. Bishop maketh of that speech, that for faith alone we are saved, and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement. Os impudens. Where doth M. Perkins say, that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement? What? a Doctor of divinity to lie? wilfully to lie? What is this but mere varletrie, to abuse his Reader, not being careful haply to look into M. Perkins book, but taking it upon his word. But if thou have M. Perkins book, I pray thee to look to the objections and answers set down in the end of this question of justification, which M. Bishop hath unhonestly left out; and there in the answer to the sixth Objection, thou shalt find these words, In equity the last judgement is to proceed by works, because they are the fittest means to make trial of every man's cause, and serve fitly to declare whom God hath justified in this life. By which words thou mayest esteem how little faith or credit is to be yielded to this wretched man, who doubteth not here with manifest falsehood, to affime that M. Perkins saith, that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement. And by the same words the solution is plain to the words which he allegeth; for God shall render to the faithful h Math. 16.27. according to their works, because good works are the proper marks whereby God will take knowledge of them that are justified and saved only by faith in Christ. For whom God hath justified and saved, upon them he setteth the seal and mark of his Spirit, working in them another nature, and i Ephes. 2.10. creating them in Christ jesus unto good works, whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him, and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men. So that to speak of salvation in that sort as we commonly understand it, for the final bliss and salvation that we expect in heaven, faith alone in itself is not sufficient to salvation, because though we be interested to it only by faith, yet somewhat else is required to prepare us and fit us to be partakers thereof. And to speak of salvation in gross, faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good works, but includeth them, as a part of that salvation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone, so that rightly are we said to be saved by faith alone, because nothing else doth give us any title, and itself alone doth give unto us all other things that are necessary to salvation. 25. W. BISHOP. 5. Reason. There be many other virtues, unto which justification and salvation are ascribed in God's word: therefore faith alone sufficeth not. Ecclesiast. 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. joh. 3. The Antecedent is proved, first of fear it is said: He that is without fear, cannot be justified. We are saved by hope. Unless you do penance, you shall all in like sort perish. We are translated from death to life, (that is, justified) because we love the brethren. Again of Baptism: Unless you be borne again of water and the holy Ghost, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Lastly we must have a resolute purpose to amend our evil lives: Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptism into death, that as Christ is risen from the dead etc. so we may also walk in newness of life. To all these & many such like places of holy Scripture, it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one: Rom. 8. You are saved by hope: to wit, that Paul's meaning is only, that we have not as yet salvation in possession, but must wait patiently for it, until the time of our full deliverance; this is all. Now whether that patiented expectation, which is not hope, but issueth out of hope, of eternal salvation, or hope itself be any cause of salvation, he saith neither yea nor nay, and leaves you to think as it seemeth best unto yourself. S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of salvation, it is best to believe him: and so neither to exclude hope or charity, or any of the foresaid virtues from the work of justification, having so good warrant as the word of God, for the confirmation of it. R. ABBOT. justification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other virtue save only faith: the promise of salvation is sometimes adjoined to other virtues, as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saved, but never as causes thereof, as in the question of merits shall appear. We may well think that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts, that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofs to serve his turn. M. Perkins propounded but one place for them; he thought himself to lay on load, and yet cannot bring us any thing whereby it is said that we are justified, but only faith. His first place is taken out of an Apocryphal Scripture, and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him. First his translation is false; for the words as their own Arias Montanus translateth them, are these, a Eccles. 1.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Non poterit ●racundus vir justificari. A man given to much anger cannot be justified; that is, cannot be acquitted of doing amiss, cannot be cleared of committing offence, because as S. james saith, b jam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousness of God, even in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith, c Eccles. 23.11. he that sweareth vainly shall not be justified, and again, d Cap. 26.30. a victualler shall not be justified of sin. For so is the Scripture want continually to use the word of justifying for acquitting, clearing, discharging, holding or pronouncing guiltless and innocent, approving, allowing, acknowledging for just, and such like, as where it is said, e Esa. 5.23. which justify the wicked for reward; f Mich. 6.11. shall I justify the false balance? g Luk. 10.29. he willing to justify himself, etc. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them, he that is without fear cannot be justified, he is as far off from his purpose. For the words import to the same effect, that he that is without fear shall not be found innocent, he shall not be found free from great sin, because the want of fear maketh a man bold to run into all sin: but a very senseless man is he that would go about hereby to prove, that a man is justified by fear. Again he bringeth the words of Christ, h Luk. 13.3. Unless ye repent (do penance, saith he, according to their foolery) ye shall all likewise perish. And what of this? Ergo forsooth a man must be justified by doing of penance. Yea? and is doing of penance a matter of justification now? But Ambrose sayeth, that the Apostle calleth them ˡ the blessed, of whom God hath decreed, i Ambros. in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labour & aliqua observatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum. Et paulò post: Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera, nisi tantum ut credant. that without labour or any observation they are justified with God only by faith: there being required of them no labour of penance, but only to believe. Why then doth Master Bishop tell us, that we are justified by doing of penance? Our Saviour spoke nothing there in their behalf, and very absurdly do they apply that that was meant of inward conversion and repentance, to outward and ceremonial observation of doing penance. As for repentance, it setteth forth the subject capable of justification by faith, but is itself only an acknowledgement of sin, no healing of our wound. The feeling of pain and sickness, causeth a man to seek for remedy, but it is no remedy itself. Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seek for food, but a man is not fed by being hungry. By repentance we know ourselves, we feel our sickness, we hunger and thirst after grace, but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it, is faith only, without which repentance is nothing but darkness and despair. As for us, we hold it a very mad conclusion to say; Except ye repent ye shall perish, therefore we are justified by repentance. We rather see by repentance, that we have nothing in ourselves whereby to be justified, and therefore learn to rely wholly upon Christ, that we may be justified by faith in him. The next place that he allegeth is a most notable falsification. We are translated, saith he, from death to life, because we love the brethren, whereas the words of S. john are; k 1. joh. 3.14. We know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren, making our love of the brethren a sign whereby we know that we are translated from death to life, not the cause for which we are translated from death to life. And in this sort doth S. Austin expound it; l Aug. in epist. 1 joan. tract. 5. Nos scimus. Quid nos scimus? Quia transivimus de mo●te ad vitam. unde scimus? Quiae d●ligimus fratres. We know. What do we know? That we have passed from death to life? Whereby do we know it? Because we love the brethren. Which is very plain also by comparing the tenses in which the Apostle expresseth the one & the other. For he nameth our translating from death to life in the m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. preterperfect tense, as a thing before done, but our love towards the brethren in the n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. present tense, as a thing which now we do. We know that we have passed, or God hath translated us from death to life, because we love the brethren. But our loving the brethren now cannot be the cause of that that God hath done before. It is therefore a token only whereby we are to know what God hath done; and to take it as M. Bishop doth, is the doctrine of Pelagius, that the grace of God is given unto us according to our merits, as before is showed. The next place is of Baptism, as he saith, o joh. 3.5. Except a man be borne again of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But we can hardly yield that this place is precisely to be understood of baptism, because it is not true, that except a man be baptised, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God, but it is infallibly true which Christ saith, that except a man be borne again of water and of the holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. Very well is it observed by Bernard, that our Saviour saith, p Bernard. epist. 77. Vide ne fortè ob hoc salvator cùm diceret, Qui credi●erit & baptiz●tus fuerit, salu●s erit, cautè & vig●●antèr non repet●erit, Qui verò baptiz●tus non fuerit, sed tantum, qui verò inquit, non crediderit c●ndemnabitur. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but doth not say, he that is not baptised, but only, he that believeth not shall be damned. The thief was not baptised upon the cross, but yet Christ saith, q Luk. 23.43. This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Valentinian the Emperor was not baptised, and yet Ambrose saith, r Ambr. de ●bit. Valentin. Certè quia popos●it accepit. because he desired it, he received it. S. Austin acknowledgeth as touching them that are of elder years and do believe, s Aug. de bapt. count Donat. lib 4 cap. 22. Tunc impletur invisibilitèr cùm mysterium baptismi non contemptus religionis sed articulu● necessitatis excludit. that baptism is invisibly fulfilled in them, when not any contempt of religion, but a point of necessity excludeth the mystery of it. Which dispensation we cannot conceive what warrant he had to give to elder years that should not make the same good to infants also, when the faith of the parents by which they are interested to baptism, craveth the same for them, and only by prevention invincible they are deprived of their desire, it being deemed a thing t Bernard. epist. 77. Dignum est et ad Dei spectat benignitatem, ut quibus fidem ae●as denegat propriam, gratia prodesse concedat alienan. belonging to the mercifulness of God, that grace should yield, that the faith of others should be available for them to whom years yet do not yield to believe themselves. But hereby it appeareth, that that speech of Christ is not simply to be understood of baptism, because then baptism should be simply necessary to salvation both in old and young. Yet admitting it to be meant of baptism, we say his argument is very vain, and to say, baptism is necessary to salvation, therefore we are not justified by faith alone, is all one as if he should say, It is necessary to salvation to be justified by faith alone, therefore we are not justified by faith alone. For baptism as I said before, is u Rom. 4 11. the seal of the righteousness of faith, wherein God setteth before us, and by which he giveth and sealeth and assureth unto us the washing away of our sins, and the accepting of us for just and righteous by the merit and bloodshedding of jesus Christ, only by faith in him. It is not then x 1. Pet. 3.21. the washing away of the filth of the flesh, that is, the outward ceremony, for which baptism is necessary to salvation, but the spiritual grace, which is justification by faith alone. This God offereth in baptism, and we by faith receive the same, but we shall do amiss to put baptism itself in place of that that is offered thereby. We eat the meat out of the dishes and vessels wherein it is set before us, but it is absurd thereupon to say, that we are fed by the dishes also and not only by the meat. It is Christ only who in the word and Sacraments is set forth unto us to be our righteousness, and by faith only we therein receive him to be our righteousness and everlasting life, but absurd it is hereupon to say, that the Sacraments themselves are things wherein our righteousness doth consist. Now therefore except a man in baptism be borne again, becoming a member of Christ and the child of God through forgiveness of sins only by faith in him, by virtue thereof receiving the spirit of adoption, and being thereby quickened to newness of life to walk therein, he cannot as Christ saith, enter into the kingdom of God. And hereby it appeareth, that his other place as touching walking in newness of life is impertinently alleged, the words importing no more than what we teach, that newness of life is always and necessarily a consequent fruit of justification, though never any precedent cause thereof. But the place of greatest moment for their part, was that that M. Perkins propounded for his objection, We are saved by hope. As touching this place M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins saith neither yea nor nay, but leaves the reader to think as it seemeth best unto himself, whether hope be any cause of salvation, and yet M. Perkins words are plainly these, We are not saved by hope because it is any cause of our salvation. The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this, We are saved by hope; that is, we have our salvation in hope, but not yet in act: we enjoy it in expectation, but not yet in possession. In which sort he saith in another place, that y Tit. 3.7. being justified by the grace of God we are made heirs as touching hope of eternal life. We have not yet the fruition of eternal life, but yet in hope we are inheritors thereof. And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he useth by distinction of that that we are in hope, and that that we are indeed or in real being. Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle, z Aug. de pec. mer. & remis. l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp. nunc habemus unde iam filii Dei reipsa facta sumas: in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innovati, ita & filii Dei▪ re autem ipsa quia n●ndum salus, ideò non●um plenè innovati, nondum etiam filii Dei sed filii seculi. We have now the first fruits of the spirit, whence we are (reipsa) indeed the sons of God, but for the rest, as (spe) in hope we are saved, as in hope we are renewed, so are we also the sons of God: but because (reipsa) indeed we are not yet saved, therefore we are not yet fully renewed; we are not yet the sons of God, but the children of this world. Again he saith, a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam, et iam in re ex part in regeneratione spirituali renovatus A man wholly in hope, and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spiritual regeneration. Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle; b Epist. 57 Tunc perficietur in re, quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe. Then shall that be performed indeed, to which now by profiting we walk in hope. Thus of Gods raising us up together with Christ, and setting us together with him in heavenly places, c De bapt. count Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe. He hath not yet done it really, but in hope. d In Psal. 37. Re sumus adhuc filii irae, spe non sumus. Really we are yet the children of wrath, saith he, but in hope we are not so. e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore, sed nondum re▪ spe securus esto. Rejoice that in body thou art redeemed, not yet in deed or in real effect, but in hope we are out of doubt. By all which it is plain, that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the salvation that we hope for, but only to signify the not having as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we have embraced. And it hath no sense, that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for, because the very name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceive our hope, and by virtue whereof we expect that which we hope for, and do not therefore hope to obtain it, because we hope. Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paul nor any other testimony of Scripture, whereby to give warrant, that either hope or any other virtue, hath any part in the work of justification, but only faith. As touching the nature of hope ᶠ before hath been spoken, and it hath been showed, a Cap. 3. sec●. 20. that as the Scripture understandeth it, it is nothing else but a patiented and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly believe shall come unto us. 26. W. BISHOP. To these authorities and reasons, taken out of the holy Scripture, let us join here some testimonies out of the ancient Church, reserving the rest unto that place, wherein Master Perkins citeth some for him. the most ancient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius, of our justification writeth thus: The beginning of life is faith, Epist. ad Philip. but the end of it is charity, but both united and joined together, do make the man of God perfect. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith. Faith goeth before, Lib. 2. Strom. but fear doth build, and charity bringeth to perfection. Saint john chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople, hath these words: Hom. 70. in Mat. Lest the faithful should trust that by faith alone they might be saved, he disputeth of the punishment of evil men, and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith, and the faithful to live well. S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants, & saith: Lib. 3. Hypognos. Hear o foolish heretic, and enemy to the true faith. Good works, which (that they may be done, are by grace prepared, and not of the merits of free will) we condemn not: because by them, or such like, men of God have been justified, are justified, and shall be justified. And, De side & oper. cap. 14. Now let us see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithful: Lest by evil security they lose their salvation, if they shall think faith alone to be sufficient to obtain it. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is clean contrary. For (saith he) A sinner is justified by faith alone, that is, nothing that man can do by nature or grace, concurreth thereto as any kind of cause, but faith alone. Farther he saith, That faith itself is no principal, but rather an instrumental cause, whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousness for our justification. So that in fine we have, that faith so much by them magnified, and called the only and whole cause of our justification, is in the end become no true cause at all, Cenditio sine qua non. but a bare condition, without which we cannot be justified. If it be an instrumental cause, let him then declare what is the principal cause, whose instrument faith is? and choose whether he had leifer to have charity, or the soul of man without any help of grace. R. ABBOT. Of his five proofs there is but only one that maketh any mention of justification by works. The two first were surely put in but only to fill up a room; for there is not so much as any show of any thing against us. For although we defend, that a man is justified by faith only, yet do we not make faith only the full perfection of a justified man. In the natural body the heart only is the seat and fountain of life, and yet a man consisteth not only of a heart, nor is a perfect man by having a heart, but many other members and parts are required, some for substance, some for ornament, which make up the perfection of a man, whereof if any be wanting, it is an imperfection, so that a Aug. de civit. Dei. lib. 11. ca 22 Si unum radatur supercilium, quàm propemo du● nihil corpori & quàm multum detrahitur pulchritudini? if but one eyebrow be shaven, as S. Austin saith, though in a manner nothing be taken from the body, yet it causeth a great blemish unto it. Even so is it in the justified man; faith only is the seat and fountain of spiritual life, because as the quickening faculty & power of the living soul dwelleth in the heart, so Christ who is our life dwelleth in our faith, or in our hearts by faith, but yet we consist not spiritually of faith only, but many other virtues and graces are required to make up the perfection of a Christian man, to which as to the other members from the heart, so from faith life is imparted and communicated, that in them we may be alive to God. Thus then Ignatius saith not purposely of justification, but by occasion of commending faith and love, that b Ignat. epist ad Ephes. for which M. Bishop following his master Bellarmine, misquoteth, Ep. ad Philipp●nses. faith is the beginning of life, etc. Which maketh for us altogether against him. For if faith be the beginning of life, then by faith we first live. By faith therefore we are justified; for to be justified, as M. Bishop confessed in the former section, is to be translated from death. Now as natural birth draweth not only guilt but also corruption, as hath been before showed, so faith wherein is our new birth, giveth not only forgiveness of sins to justification, but also sanctification to holiness and newness of life, the sum whereof is charity, because charity is the epitome and brief of the whole law, and herein further is accomplished our perfection towards God; so as that faith and love united and joined together, do make perfect the man of God. The place of Clemens Alexandrinus is the same, and needeth no further answer. With chrysostom we say, that faith alone sufficeth not absolutely, though faith alone suffice to justification. Charity and good works are necessary to the perfection of a justified man, but he is not by them made a justified man. Therefore the same chrysostom saith of Abraham, c Chrys. ad Rom. hom. 8. Fide saluarieum qui opera non habet, nihil fortasse fue rit insolentiae; e● verò qui rectè factis se conspicuum secerit, non ex ipsis sed ex fide justum fieri, hoc scilicet admirabile est & quod maximè fidei potentiam manifestat. That a man that is without works should he saved by faith, it should be no strange matter, but that he that hath made himself renowned by his good works should yet not be justified thereby but by faith, this is wonderful, and doth greatly set forth the power of faith. S. Austin in the place by him alleged, if it were S. Austin, avoucheth good works to justify them that are justified, that is, to approve them just; but condemneth the avouching of any works whereby to obtain justification, and purposely in that place disputeth against it. d August. Hypognost. lib. 3. Ex operibus non iustificabitur omnis caro coram illoc quia justitia Dei praeventu misericordiae per fidem jesu apparuit super omnes qui crediderunt. Ideò & subiungens, inquit, justificatè gratu per gratiam Dei. Noli ●i praeponere opera propria, ne● ex●●●ē gloriari▪ qu● ex operibus non, etc. By works no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God, because the righteousness of God by his preventing mercy, through the faith of jesus Christ, is apparent upon all that do believe. Therefore the Apostle saith, we are justified freely by the grace of God. Put not thine own works before it, nor glory thereof, because by works no flesh shall be justified before him. If no works go before justification, then M. Bishops cause, as too weak, must go to the walls, because than we cannot be said to be justified by works; for being justified before, we cannot be said properly to be justified by works that follow after, and if neither by works before nor after, than not at all. It followeth therefore, that when S. Austin saith in that place, that men of God are justified by good works, he must needs mean as Thomas Aquinas saith S. james doth, e Thom. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 3. lect. 4. quantum ad manifestationem justitiae, by way of manifesting and declaring that a man is justified, so as that contrary to M. Bishop's assertion, they are only signs and tokens of a justified man, not any causes of justification. Therefore S. Austin saith again anon after, f Aug. ut supr. justificatio per fidem jesu Christi data est, datur, dabitur cr●dent●bus. justification hath been given, is given, and shall be given to them that believe, by the faith of jesus Christ. Now that which he saith in the words cited by M. Bishop, he saith it not as to the Protestant, but to the Pelagian heretic the brother of the Papist, for affirming good works of man's free will before the justifying grace of God, for which the justifying grace of God is bestowed upon him. Which opinion S. Austin having confuted, bringeth in the heretic objecting thus, g Ibid. Ergò inquies damnas opera liberi arbitrij bona, quia dicis justitiam ex operibus non deberi? etc. Thou wilt say, Dost thou then condemn the good works of free will, in that thou sayest that righteousness is not due by works? If so, why then doth the Apostle command us to abound in good works? To which he answereth: h Audi haeretice stulte & inimice fidei veritatis. Operae liberi arbitrij bona quae ut fiant praeparantur per gratiae prae●entum nullo lib. arbitrij merito et ipso faciente, gubernante & perficiente ut abundent in libero arbitrio non damna m●●, quia ex his homines Dei justificati sunt, iustificantur & iustifi●abuntur in Christo. Damnamus verò authoritate divina opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur, & ex his tanqu●m meritis in Christo justificari extolluntur. Harken thou foolish heretic and enemy of the true faith. We condemn not the good works of free will, which that they may be done, are prepared by the preventing of grace upon no merit of free will, and the same preventing grace causing, directing and effecting that they do abound in free will, because by such, men of God have been, are, and shallbe justified in Christ. But by divine authority we condemn the works of free will which are put before grace, and are extolled for us by these as it were merits to be justified in Christ. Where very plainly by the name of the works of free will, he excludeth all works before the grace of justification, from being any causes thereof, and only in men of God, who are first justified that they may be men of God, affirmeth a justification by works in that sense as S. james speaketh thereof, which as I have said, is nothing else but a declaration and testimony of their being formerly justified by the faith of jesus Christ. In what sense he speaketh of free will, it hath been showed before in the question of that matter, and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousness, but only that that we do, which is made free by the grace of God. To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe, condemning them i De fide & oper. cap. 14. Si ad eam (salutem) obtinen damn sufficere solam fidem putanerint; benè autem vivere & bonis operibus v●ā Dei tenere neglexerint. who think that only faith is sufficient to obtain salvation, and do neglect to live well, and by good works to keep the way of God; which last words serving plainly to open S. Augustine's meaning▪ M. Bishop very honestly hath left out. We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of. We teach only such a faith as justifieth itself alone, but is never found alone in the justified man, never but accompanied with holiness and care of godly life, and therefore condemn those as spirits of Satan, which teach a faith sufficient to obtain salvation without any regard of living well. The sum of our doctrine S. Austin himself setteth down in the very same Chapter, that good works k Ibid. Sequ●tur justificatum; non praecedunt iust●f●candum. follow a man being justified, but are not precedent to justification. Now therefore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to cross that which M. Perkins hath affirmed, that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of justification as any cause, but faith alone. Of works of nature there is less question, but of works of grace, of works of believers the Apostle specially determineth the question, that we are not justified thereby, as shall appear. M. Perkins further saith, that faith is but the instrumental cause of justification, as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousness, and never doth any of us make faith the only and whole cause of justification in any other sense. We make not the very act of faith any part of our righteousness, but only the merit and obedience of Christ, apprehended and received by faith. But by this means M. Bishop saith, that faith is become no true cause at all, but a bare condition without which we cannot be justified. But that is but his shallow and idle conceit; for the necessary instrument, especially the lively instrument, is amongst the number of true causes, not being causa sine qua non, a cause without which the thing is not done, but a cause whereby it is done. Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida & otiosa, a foolish and idle cause, because it is only present in the action, and doth nothing therein. It is not so with faith, but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing, and the ear for hearing, etc. so is faith also for justifying; and M. Bishop's head was scant wise, to make a principal instrument a foolish and idle cause. But he asketh then, whose instrument faith is? and maketh his division, that either it must be charity, or the soul of man without any help of grace. We answer him, that it is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by grace, being l Ephes. 2.8. the gift of God, and m August. de praedest. sanct. cap. 7. the first gift, as before we have heard out of Austin, whereby we obtain the rest, and therefore whereby we obtain charity also, so that his division goeth lame, and neither is faith the instrument of charity, nor yet of the soul without grace, but of the soul therein and thereby endued with the grace of God. R. ABBOT. But to come to his reasons. The first is taken out of these words: As Moses lift up the serpent in the desert, so must the son of man be lift up, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have life everlasting. True, if he live accordingly, and as his faith teacheth him: but what is this to justification by only faith? Marry M. Perkins draws it in after this fashion. As nothing was required of them who were stung by serpents, but that they should look upon the brazen serpent: so nothing is required of a sinner, to deliver him from sin, but that he cast his eyes of faith upon Christ's righteousness, and apply that to himself in particular. But this application of the similitude is only man's foolish invention, without any ground in the text. Similitudes be not in all points alike, neither must be stretched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth, which in this matter is, that like as the Israelites in the wilderness stung with serpents, were cured by looking upon the brazen serpent: so men infected with sin, have no other remedy, then to embrace the faith of Christ jesus: All this we confess, but to say that nothing else is necessary, that is quite besides the text, & as easily rejected by us, as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability. R. ABBOT. Similitudes M. Bishop saith, must not be stretched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth, but Christ himself here directeth us to conceive wherein the similitude lieth. Christ himself expresseth, that in their looking upon the Serpent was figured our believing in him. What shall we then conceive, but as they only by looking were cured of the sting, so we only by believing are cured of sin. So S. Austin saith; a Aug. in Joan. tract. 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpentem illum sanabantur à mo●sibus serpentum, si● qui intuentur fide mortem Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum. Attenditur serpe●s ut nihil v●leat serpens; attenditur mors ut nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent, were healed of the stinging of the Serpents, so they who by faith behold the death of Christ, are healed of the sting of sin. And again, A Serpent is looked unto that a Serpent may not prevail, and a death is looked unto that death may not prevail. In like sort doth chrysostom express the similitude: b Chrys. in joan. hom. 26. Illi● corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis s●lutem: hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt. There by bodily eyes men received the health of the body; here by spiritual eyes they obtain forgiveness of all their sins. So saith Cyril, c Cyril. id joan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in eum fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur. He is showed (hereby) to be the giver of eternal salvation to them that by true faith do look unto him. d Theophyl. in Joan. cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes & credentes animae mortem effugituros. He teacheth (saith Theophylact) that sith the jews beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death, much more we looking unto him crucified and believing, shall escape the death of the soul. Thus they simply took the words of Christ, and made the cure to consist as on the one side in looking, so on the other side in believing. M. Bishop saith, that the meaning is, that men infected with sin, have no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ jesus. Well then: if no other remedy, then that is the only remedy. If that be the only remedy, then for remedy there is nothing necessary, but only that. And if any thing else be necessary, than the cure is not performed by that, not to be ascribed unto it; for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing, when that doth not cure without another. But as the●e to looking, so here the cure is ascribed to believing. It is therefore to be ascribed, to nothing but faith only. As for that which he further requireth by his corrections & exceptions, it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith only. For whatsoever is necessary in us to eternal life, followeth of true and lively faith, and is ministered unto us in Christ jesus, when by faith we have embraced him. e Acts. 15.9. Our hearts are purified by faith; f Gal. 3.14. by faith we receive the promise of the spirit, and g Rom. 8.2. the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ jesus delivereth us from the law of sin and of death, that it may neither prevail against us to condemnation, nor any further reign over us in conversation, which being the gift of God, is not to be alleged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God. 28. W. BISHOP. His 2. reason is collected of exclusive speeches (as he speaketh) used in Scriptures. As we are justified freely, not of the law, not by the law, Gal. 2.16. Luk. 8.50. not of works, not of ourselves, not of the works of the law, but by faith: all boasting excluded: only believe. These distinctions, whereby works and the law, are excluded in the work of justification, include thus much, that faith alone doth justify. It doth not so: for these exclusive speeches do not exclude fear, hope, and charity, more than they exclude faith itself. Which may be called a work of the law, as well as any other virtue, being as much required by the law as any other. But S. Paul's meaning in those places is, to exclude all such works, as either jew or Gentile did, or could brag of, as done of themselves, and so thought that by them, they deserved to be made Christians. For he truly saith, that all were concluded in sin, and needed the grace of God, which they were to receive of his free mercy, through the merits of Christ, and not of any desert of their own: And that to obtain this grace through Christ, it was not needful, nay rather hurtful to observe the ceremonies of Moses' law, as Circumcision, the observation of any of their feasts, or fasts, nor any such like work of the law, which the jews reputed so necessary. Again, that all moral works of the Gentiles could not deserve this grace, which works not proceeding from charity, were nothing worth in God's sight. And so all works, both of jew and Gentile, are excluded from being any meritorious cause of justification, and consequently, all their boasting of their own forces, their first justification being freely bestowed upon them. Yet all this notwithstanding, a certain virtuous disposition is required in the jew and Gentile, whereby his soul is prepared to receive that great grace of justification: that say we, is faith, fear, hope, love, and repentance, that (say the Protestants) is faith only. Wherefore say we, as the excluding of works, and boasting exclude not faith, no more do they exclude the rest, faith being as well our work, and a work of the law as any of the rest, and all the rest being of grace, as well as faith, and as far from boasting of, as faith itself. Now that out of S. Luke, believe only, is nothing to the purpose. For he was bid believe the raising of his daughter to life, and not that Christ's righteousness was his: and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtain a miracle, but not to obtain justification, of which the question only is. Consider now good Reader, whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text, and the judgement of the ancient Fathers. The texts see thou in the Testament. Take for a taste, of the Father's judgement, S. Augustine's exposition of those places of S. Paul, of one of the chiefest of which, De gra. & lib. arb. cap. 7. thus he speaketh: Men not understanding that which the Apostle saith, We esteem a man to be justified without the law, thought him to say, that faith sufficed a man although he lived evil, and had no good works: which God forbidden, that the vessel of election should think. And again. De praedest. sanct. cap. 7. Therefore the Apostle saith, that a man is justified by faith, and not of works, because faith is first given, and by it the rest (which are properly called works, and in which we live justly) are by petition obtained. By which it is manifest, that S. Paul excluding the works of the law, and the works done by our own only forces, doth not mean to exclude good works, which proceed from the help of God's grace. R. ABBOT. If justification be affirmed of faith, & denied to all other things, it should seem likely that the meaning of the Scripture is, that by faith only we are justified. M. Bishop answereth, that those exclusive speeches of the law, and works of the law, do no more exclude fear, hope, charity, than they exclude faith itself, because it is a work of the law as well as any other virtue. But yet the Apostle teacheth us, that the promise is a Rom. 4.16. therefore of faith, that it may be of grace, and b Cap. 11.6. if it be of grace, it is not of works, and therefore expressly severeth faith from works, as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixt c Cap. 3.27. the law of works, and the law of faith, so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law, speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle. For the faith of Christ, though it be accidentally reduced to the law, yet is not originally intended in the law, because Christ who is the object of our faith, is in order of nature consequent to the law. For life is first propounded in the law; which when it cannot be obtained there, Christ is consequently given and offered unto us, that we may have life in him. But we further tell him as before, that we attribute not our justification to faith for itself, or as it is an act or work, as if it were any part of our justice or righteousness, but as the heart giveth life to the body, not by the substance of itself, which is but flesh as the rest of the body is, but by the vital and quickening power of the soul that is seated therein, and as the hand feedeth the body, not as being itself the food of the body, but by receiving and ministering unto it the meat wherewith it is sustained, even so faith justifieth and giveth life, by receiving Christ to be our righteousness and life, in him d Act. 26.18. receiving forgiveness of sins, and inheritance amongst them that are sanctified unto eternal life. But M. Bishop telleth us, that the Apostles meaning in those places is, to exclude all such works as either jew or Gentile did or could brag of, as done of themselves, & so thought, that by them they had deserved to be made Christians. A goodly toy. Forsooth after they had been Christians a long time, they began to dispute & reason the matter, whether it were for the works that before they had done, that they were made Christians? whether they had deserved by their works to be made Christians, when e Ephe. 2.3. they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh, in fulfilling the will of the flesh, & of the mind, walking according to the course of this world, and after the Prince that ruleth in the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, as the Apostle describeth the condition both of jews and Gentiles, before they were partakers of the grace of Christ. Were the Christians then of so slender understanding as that they should make question of their deserts in that estate. Was that the thing so much laboured by the false Apostles, to persuade men that for their former deserts they were become Christians, and had the Apostle so much business to wean them, and withhold them from the conceit and opinion of such deserts? What should a man spend time and labour to refute so ridiculous, so senseless and absurd devices? Who would think that M. Bishop, a Doctor of Divinity by title, should be so simple a man, as that his Master Bellarmine could gull him, and gudgeon him with so vain a tale? The matter is plain. After that men had accepted the faith of Christ, and were become f Act. 15.1.10. brethren and disciples, there came unto them the false Apostles, and preached unto them, g Ver. 2. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. They sought to persuade men, that to the faith of Christ they must add the observation 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 themselves for justification and salvation. The Galathians were amongst others entangled by those false Apostles, and having before h Gal 1.9. received the Gospel, i Cap. 4.27. having been baptised into Christ, k Cap. 3.2. having received the spirit, yea and l Ibid. Ver. 4. having suffered many things for the Gospel, yet were brought to the adjoining of circumcision and the law to the faith of jesus Christ, to be justified thereby. This the Apostle inveigheth against, and reducing the state of the question from the ceremonies of the law to the whole law, determineth not concerning the Popish first justification, but concerning justification wholly, concerning men believing already, and in the state of grace, that they must be m Ro. 3.20.28. Gal. 3.11. justified by faith, and not by the works of the law, yea without the works of the law; yea, and saith, n Gal. 2.16. we have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. The Papist saith, we believe in Christ, that we may be justified by the works of the law; but the Apostle saith, we believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law, & giveth a reason, why we that believe in Christ cannot be justified by the works of the law, o Jbid. because by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified. And whereas the Papist again saith, that by Christ and by his grace we are enabled to fulfil the law to be justified thereby, the Apostle peremptorily denounceth, p Cap. 5.4. Ye are abolished from Christ; ye are fallen from grace whosoever are justified by the law. And that we may understand what law he meaneth, S. Hierome having mentioned those words, that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified, saith thereof, q Hieron. ad Ctesiphont Quod ne de lege Moys● tantum dictum pu●es, & non de omnibus mandatis quae uno legis nomine ontinentur, idem Apostolus scribit, dicens, consentio legi, etc. Which that thou mayest not think to be spoken only of the law of Moses (that is, the ceremonial law) but of all the commandments which are contained under 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 than it appeareth, that being members of Christ, and baptised into him, our justification still consisteth not in works, but only in the faith of jesus Christ. But M. Bishop by a new qualification, telleth us, that all works both of jew and Gentile, are excluded from being any meritorious cause of justification. Not then from being any cause, but only from being any meritorious cause. For he hath r Sect. 21. before told us, that that virtuous disposition of which he here speaketh, is the cause of justification. But if they be causes, how then is it true that he saith here, that the first justification is freely bestowed. For s Rhem. Testam. explication of words in the end. Gratis. freely, as the Rhemists tell us, is as much to say, as for nothing; and if it be bestowed for this virtuous dispositions sake, than it is not bestowed for nothing, but for hope, for charity, etc. Thus they turn and wind this way and that way, and can find nothing whereupon to stand. Saint Austin giveth it for a rule, that t August count Pelag. & Celestina. li. 2. ca 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit ullo modo nisi fueri● gratuita omnimodo. the grace of God shall not be grace in any sort, except it be free in every respect. And how is it free in every respect, if our works of preparation or disposition be properly the causes for which it is bestowed upon us? And what is it but a mockery, to say that the Apostle so often absolutely determining against justification by works, should mean notwithstanding that works are the very causes of justification, only that they are not meritorious causes. Yet we have heard, how Bellarmine maketh them u De justificat. lib. 2. cap. 17. quodam modo, in some sort meritorious also, and that their Schools have commonly received them so to be, so that in this respect also, they do but dally with the Apostle. But tell us M. Bishop, are those virtuous dispositions of yours the works of grace, or only of free will? If they be of grace, as you commonly foist in the name of grace in speaking of them, what hindereth them from being meritorious, seeing it is grace you say that addeth merit unto works? If they be of free will, than all works of our own forces be not excluded from justification, which before you say the Apostle intendeth. If he say that free will is helped by grace, let him tell us, what he meaneth therein by grace, and we shall find him a mere Pelagian heretic, as before is said. He goeth on further, and saith, that as the excluding of works and boasting excludeth not faith, no more doth it exclude the rest. How so? Marry faith is as well our work, and a work of the law as any of the rest. But that is false as we have already seen; and again, faith with us doth not justify as a work, as both faith, hope, and charity do with them, but only as the instrument of our justification to be apprehended and applied thereby. All the rest, saith he, are of grace as well as faith. But being before justification, how should they be of grace, seeing before justification there is no infused grace; and why are they not meritorious, as hath been said? Again, he saith, that the rest are as far from boasting of as faith. But therein he flatly contradicteth the Apostle, who affirmeth, that x Rom. 3.27. boasting is not excluded by the law of works, but by the law of faith. And the thing is plain; for he hath somewhat to boast of, who doth any thing, for which the grace of God is bestowed upon him, but in faith there is nothing to boast of, because the act of faith is, to believe that God doth all through Christ only for his mercy's sake; it is itself wholly the gift of God, and attributeth nothing to itself or to us, but all wholly unto God. But M. Bishop cannot be said to exclude boasting, in as much as he must confess, as hath been before said, that his works of preparation are intrinsically the works only of free will, and doth make the free will of man in all the work of justification concurrent with the grace of God, yea so far as that man hath to glory, that by his free will the grace of God taketh his due effect, it being in his power either to accept, or to refuse the same. Whereas he excepteth against the place of S. Luke, y Luk. 8.50. only believe, as nothing to the purpose, he showeth that he hath not learned rightly to conceive thereof. Let S. Austin teach him, that z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 18. Noverimus omnia miracula quae corporalitèr fecit valere ad admonitionem nostram ut percipiamus ab eo quod non est transiturum neque in fine abiturun: & post. Per ista temporalia quae videbantur aedificavit fidem ad illa quae non videbantur. all the miracles which Christ did corporally, do serve for our instruction, that we may receive of him that that shall not pass away, nor go from us in the end: that by these temporal things which were seen, he edified and builded faith to the things which were not seen. Christ therefore yielding here to faith only a miracle for the recovery of bodily life, doth instruct us, that to faith only he also yieldeth the work of his power, for the raising of us up to the spiritual life of grace. The man indeed was bid, as M. Bishop saith, to believe the raising of his daughter to life, but therein he was bid also to believe, that it is Christ by whom we are spiritually raised up from death to life, in being reconciled unto God by the not imputing of our sins, through the righteousness and merit of the same jesus Christ imputed unto us. He saith, that faith might be sufficient to obtain a miracle, but I answer him, that that miracle was a benefit importing a further benefit, and all the benefits of Christ are obtained in like sort, so that our Saviour Christ still referring them that seek unto him to faith, for the obtaining of bodily health, doth also refer us to faith, for the obtaining of soul's health. Now how his interpretation here delivered agreeth with the text of Scripture, the Reader I hope can well consider by that that hath been said. As for the places of Austin, if his sight had not failed him, I suppose he would not have alleged them, the one of them being nothing at all against us, and the other directly against himself. We say, a August. de great. & lib. ●●bit. cap. 3. God forbidden that the Apostle should think, that faith sufficeth a man although he live evil, and have no good works. Nay, we say further, God forbidden that he should think that there is any true faith in them that live evil, and have no good works. We have often enough said, that a true justifying faith is never separated from godly life, and that faith that is without good works, is only called faith with men, but indeed and with God it is not so. In the other place Saint Austin bringeth in the Apostle, saying, b De praedest. sanct. cap. 7. that a man is justified by faith, and not of works. But how accordeth this with that that Master Bishop saith, that a man is justified by his works, as well as by his faith. By faith and not by works, saith Saint Austin out of the Apostle, both by faith and works, saith M. Bishop out of his own brains. S. Austin giveth the reason, c Ibid. Quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetrentur caetera qua propriè opera num cupantur in quibus justè vivitur. Because faith is first given by which the rest are obtained, which are properly called works, in which a man liveth righteously. Whereby he importeth that faith is first given, that thereby we may be justified, and thence follow good works, in which we live well; according to his rules before delivered; d De fide et operib. cap. 14. Sequntur justificatum, non praec●dunt iustificandum. They follow a man being justified, they go not before to justification: e Epist. 120. cap. 30. Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustifica mur, non quia praecesserunt iustificamur. then they begin when we are justified, we are not justified for them going before. Then plainly it appeareth by S. Austin's judgement, that justification is the beginning of good works; and if justification be the beginning of good works, then by no means can it be said, that good works are any cause of justification. He excludeth not then good works, which proceed from God's grace, as M. Bishop saith, but he denieth that there are any good works before justification, because he knoweth no grace but justifying grace, and therefore directly crosseth Master Bishop's assertion of good works before justification, which are the causes for which we are justified. 29. W. BISHOP. Master Perkins third argument. Very reason may teach us thus much: that no gift in man is apt as a spiritual hand, to receive and apply Christ and his righteousness unto a sinner, saving faith love, hope, fear, repentance, have their several uses, but none of them serve for this end of apprehending, but faith only. Answer. Man's reason is but a blind mistress in matters of faith, and he that hath no better an instructor in such high mysteries, must needs know little. But what if that also fail you in this point? then every man cannot but see how naked you are of all kind of probability. I say then, that reason rather teacheth the contrary. For in common sense, no man apprehendeth and entereth into the possession of any thing, by believing that he hath it. For if a man should believe that he is rich, of honour, wise, or virtuous: doth he thereby become presently such a one? nothing less. His faith and persuasion is no fit instrument to apply and draw these things to himself, as all the world sees. How then doth reason teach me, that by believing Christ's righteousness to be mine own, I lay hand on it, and make it mine? Again Christ's righteousness (according to their own opinion) is not received into us at all, but is ours only by God's imputation: what need we then faith, as a spiritual hand to receive it? If they say (as M. Perkins doth) that faith is as it were a condition required in us, which when God seethe in us, he presently imputeth Christ's righteousness to us, and maketh it ours, then will I be bold to say, that any other virtue is as proper as faith, to have Christ applied unto us: there being no other aptness requisite in the condition it self, but only the will and ordinance of God: then every thing that it shall please him to appoint, is alike apt: and so M. Perkins had small reason to say, that faith was the only apt instrument to apply to us Christ's righteousness. Moreover, true divine reason teacheth me, that both hope and charity, do much more apply unto Christians all Christ's merits, and make them ours, them faith: For what faith assureth me of in general, that hope apply unto me in particular: by faith I believe Christ to be the Saviour of all mankind: by hope I trust to be made partaker of that salvation in him. But charity doth yet give me a greater confidence of salvation: for by the rule of true charity, as I dedicate and employ my life, labours, and all that I have to the service of God, so all that God hath is made mine, so far forth as it can be made mine, according unto that sacred law of friendship: A micorum omnia sunt communia. And therefore in true reason, neither by faith, nor any other virtues, we take such hold on Christ's merits, nor have such interest in his inestimable treasures, as by charity: which S. Augustine understood well, when he made it the model, and measure of justification: saying, De nat. & gra. cap. vlt. That Charity beginning, was justice beginning: Charity increased, was justice increased: great Charity, was great justice: and perfect Charity, was perfect justice. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins allegeth, that very reason may teach us, that faith only justifieth, because there is no gift in man that hath the property of apprehending and receiving, but faith only. To this M. Bishop answereth, that man's reason is a blind mistress in matters of faith. Wherein he saith truly, and indeed is the cause why he himself writeth so blindly as he doth, and measureth high mysteries by carnal and base conceits. And surely it seemeth that his reason was very blind, who gave so blind a reason against that which Master Perkins saith, being spoken not out of the reason of man, but as the reason of a faithful man, may esteem by direction of the word of God. No man entereth into the possession of any thing, saith he, by believing that he hath it; for if a man believe that he is rich, doth he thereby become rich? I answer him, no: but though a man by believing himself to be rich, do not become rich, yet if to a poor beggar a great man say, If thou wilt take my word, and refer thyself to me, and depend upon my favour and good will, I will make thee rich; doth he not by giving credit to his word commit himself to him, entertain his favour, accept his offer, and become owner of that that is promised unto him? What is it whereby we accept of promise, but only belief? Now all that our question is of, consisteth of promise, & in all the benefits of God we are a Gal. 4.28. the children of promise, b Cap. 3 29. heirs by promise; c Heb. 6.17. heirs of promise, expecting all things by the gracious promise of God; d 2. Pet. 1.4. by promise to be partakers of the divine nature, e Gal. 3.14.16. the blessing by promise, f Ephe 1 13. the spirit by promise, g Gal. 3.18. the inheritance by promise, h Tit. 1.2. life eternal by promise, i 2. Pet. 3.13. by promise a new heaven and a new earth, wherein righteousness dwelleth, all which k 2. Cor. 1.20. promises in Christ are, yea and in him Amen, for his sake first made, and for his sake to be performed also. Now seeing God hath taught us, that l Heb. 11.33. by faith we obtain the promises, that m Gal. 3.14. we receive the promise of the spirit through faith; that n Ibid. ver. 22. the promise (of blessing) is given by the faith of jesus Christ to them that believe, that o Mat. 8.13. as we believe, so it shall be unto us, that p Mat. 11.24. whatsoever we desire when we pray, if we believe that we shall have it, it shall be accordingly unto us, why is it strange to M. Bishop, that in believing according to the word and promise of God, to be partakers of those things which he hath promised, we should be said to become partakers thereof? In those mad presumptions fond alleged by him, there is no believing, because there is no ground whereupon to believe, but when God promiseth, and toeth the effect of his promise to the believing of it, not to believe that in the believing of it we are partakers of that which we believe, is to make God a liar, and to frustrate that which he hath promised. Sith than God hath promised Christ unto us, to be q jerem. 23.6. our righteousness, and that r Rom. 3.22. by the faith of jesus Christ, that is, by believing him to be that unto us which God hath promised, surely in believing him to be our righteousness he is our righteousness, and s 2. Cor. 5.21. we are made the righteousness of God in him. And this is indeed not by receiving Christ's righteousness really into us, but by having righteousness imputed unto us for his sake. For we receive the righteousness of Christ even as we receive himself, who so becometh ours, as that t john. 6.56. we abide in him and he in us; u Ephe. 5.30. we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, we are really and truly by the power of his spirit, one with him and he with us, and yet he is not personally & bodily brought unto us. Faith seeketh Christ, and findeth him, and holdeth him in the virgin's womb, in the manger, in the garden, upon the cross, in the grave, in his resurrection and ascension unto heaven, and in his now sitting at the right hand of God to make intercession for us. Every where faith embraceth him, and in every of these seethe him to be ours, as having undertaken and achieved all these things for our sakes. Even so the righteousness & merit of Christ is spiritually, but really ours within and without, in spirit & soul and body, to cleanse and sanctify us unto God. But, saith he, if it be ours by God's imputation, what need we then faith as a spiritual hand to receive it? A foolish and idle question; as if he should say, If I give food to a hungry man, what need hath he either of a hand to take it, or a mouth to eat it? He himself saw that the answer is ready, even the same that Ambrose delivereth; x Ambros. in Rom ca 4. Sic decretum a Deo: hoc sanxit Deus. Et in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutum est, etc. God hath so decreed: it is thus appointed of God; God requireth faith, to which he will impute the righteousness of Christ. Where we may wonder at the absurd boldness of this blind baiard, who telleth us hereupon, that he will be bold to say, that any other virtue is as proper as faith, to have Christ applied unto us. What M. Bishop, will you be bold to say, that any other virtue is as proper to apply Christ unto us, as that which God himself hath appointed for that use? Is not the will and ordinance of God sufficient to restrain your presumption and boldness, & to shut your mouth from running over in this sort? He saith, that there is no other aptness requisite in the condition itself, but only the will and ordinance of God. But shall we be so impious, as to think that the will & ordinance of God without cause appointeth one condition, when as well it might appoint another, or appointeth anything to be done, which is not more fitly done that way that he appointeth, than any other way? The Apostle telleth us, y Rom. 4.16. Therefore it is by faith, that it may be of grace, importing that faith is appointed as the fittest means, whereby to set forth the grace of God. Again, he addeth for another reason, z Ibid. That the promise might be sure to all the seed. For no otherwise can we rest assured of the promise of God, but as it is of grace, who in our works can find nothing whereupon to assure ourselves. By faith therefore we believe it to be of grace, that with comfortable assurance we may firmly expect the blessing which God hath promised unto us. Another reason with S. Paul, why faith is specially appointed, is a Cap. 3.27. to exclude boasting. So saith Ambrose; b Ambros. in Psal. 43. Maluit Deus ut salus homini fide potius quàm operib. quaereretur, nequis gloriaretur in suis factis. God hath made choice that salvation should be gotten rather by faith then by works, that no man should glory in his own doings. It is therefore for the special aptness of faith, that God hath appointed it to be the instrument for applying unto us the whole benefit of Christ. Yet M. Bishop telleth us, that true divine reason teacheth him, that both hope and charity do much more apply Christ's merits unto us then faith doth. But it is indeed a dreaming and unreasonable fancy, and not any true divine reason that hath taught him so. For whereas he saith, that hope apply in particular what faith believeth in general, it hath been before showed, that the office of true faith, is to make this particular application. And indeed there can be no true hope in any man, where there is not first a faith to apply the benefit of Christ particularly to himself. For though I believe that jesus is a Saviour, yet what ground have I thereby to hope for salvation, unless I believe that he hath saved me; that c Gal. 2.20. he hath loved me and given himself for me? Surely unless I believe for myself, I cannot hope for any thing for myself, save only at uncertain adventure, and without ground. Now M. Bishops hope being no other, how can he be said thereby to apply that to himself, whereof he is still to stand in fear, whether it be his or not? But to come nearer to the point, the question here is of applying the merits of Christ unto us. Now the merit of Christ is that that Christ hath already done for us. But hope respecteth that only that is futurely to be done. Hope therefore can in no sort be the instrument to apply unto us the merit of Christ. Neither can charity serve us for that use, because I cannot presume of that that is another's, upon any conscience of my love towards him, but upon confidence only of his love towards me. Howsoever I seem to employ myself to the service of God, yet it giveth me nothing whereof to presume with him, unless I believe that of his love he doth accept my service, and will reward the same. Be it as Master Bishop saith, that all things are common amongst friends, but before we can build thereupon, we must have it resolved unto us, that God taketh us for his friends, which can be no otherwise but by faith only, d Rom. 3.25. God having set forth Christ to be an atonement (to make us friends with God) through faith in his blood. Faith than must first apply unto us the merit of the blood of Christ, before there can be any friendship betwixt God and as. And although being now in friendship with Christ, our love may give us encouragement and comfort, to make use to ourselves of that that is his, yet it is not by our love, that we take it to make use thereof. For the art of love is done only extramittendo, by issue and passage from us to Christ, and therefore it must be somewhat else whereby we receive and apply from Christ to us. To be short, we wonder what application M. Bishop can make by charity, who e Chap. 3. Sect. 6. & 11. plainly professeth that he cannot tell whether he love God or God love him; who saith that hope and charity are seated in the dark corners of the will, and a man hath but only conjectures, and a probable opinion of the being thereof in himself. 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 Austin, why he allegeth it I know not; unless it be that he were only desirous to say somewhat out of Austin. S. Austin noteth, that inherent justice consisteth in charity, which is the sum of the law, which is the rule of justice. According therefore to the measure of our charity greater or less, so is the measure of our righteousness. We say the same, but what is this to show that charity is the fittest instrument to apply unto us the merit of Christ? But that he may not dream of justification before God, by any perfection of charity here, let him remember what Saint Austin hath said thereof, that f August. epist. 29. Supra. cap. 2. sect. 8. perfect charity is in no man so long as he liveth here; that the lesnesse thereof to that that it ought to be, is by reason of a default or corruption in us, by reason whereof, no man living shall be justified in the sight of God. 30 W. BISHOP. M. Perkins fourth Reason is taken from the judgement of the ancient Church: They are blessed, Ambros. in Rom. 4. to whom without any labour or work done, iniquities are remitted. So no works or repentance is required of them, but only that they believe. To these and such like words, I answer. First, that it is very uncertain, whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses. Secondly, that that Author excludeth not repentance, but only the works of Moses law, which the jews held to be necessary: as circumcision, and such like, see the place, and confer with it that which he hath written in the same work, upon the fourth to the Hebrews, where he hath these words: Faith is a great thing, and without it, it is not possible to be saved, but faith alone doth not suffice: but it is necessary, that faith work by charity, and converse 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 believe in Christ; True, but where is it, that we need nothing else, but to believe? Levit. 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 God's hand, but of his mercy receive both faith and justification. Sup. Cant. ser. 22. 4. Bernard hath: Whosoever thirsteth after righteousness, let him believe in thee: that being justified by faith alone, he may have peace with God. Answer. By faith alone, he excludeth all other means, that either jew or Gentile required, but not charity, which his very words include: for how can we abhor sin, and thirst after justice, without charity? and in the same work he declareth plainly, Serm. 24. that he comprehendeth always charity, when he speaks of a justifying faith: saying, A right faith doth not make a man righteous, if it work not by charity. And again: Neither works without faith, nor faith without works is sufficient to make the soul righteous. Gal. 3. 5. chrysostom, they said, he who rested on faith alone, was accursed: but Paul showeth, that he is blessed who rested on faith alone. Answer. He speaks of the jews who held Christians accursed, because resting on the faith in Christ, would not observe withal Moses law: Gal. 5. the Apostle contrariwise denounceth them accursed, who would join the ceremonies of Moses law with Christian religion, and so faith alone there excludeth only the old law, not the works of charity: so he mangleth pitifully a sentence of S. Basils' saying: De Humil. Let man acknowledge himself to want true justice, and that he is justified only by faith in Christ: If a man know himself justified by faith in Christ, how can he acknowledge that he wants true justice? His words truly repeated are these: Let man acknowledge that he is unworthy of true justice: and that his justification comes not of his desert, but of the mere mercy of God through Christ. So that by faith alone Saint Basil treating of humility, excludes all merit of our own, but no necessary good disposition, as you may see in his Sermon de Fide, where he proves by many texts of holy Scripture, that charity is as necessary as faith. M. Perkins last testimony is out of Origen: Rom. 3. Who proves (as M. Perkins said) that only believing without works justifieth, by the example of the Thief on the Cross, of whose good works there is no mention. Answer. Origen excludeth no good disposition in us to justification, but saith, that a man may be saved, without doing outwardly any good works, if he want time and place: as the Thief did, who presently upon his conversion was put to death, which is good Catholic doctrine: but that you may perceive how necessary the good dispositions before mentioned, be to justification, you shall find if you consider well all circumstances, not one of them to have been wanting in that good thieves conversion. First, that he stood in fear of God's just judgement, appears by these his words, to his fellow, Dost thou not fear God, etc. He had hope to be saved by Christ, out of which he said: O Lord remember me, when thou comest into thy Kingdom: By both which speeches is showed also his faith both in God, that he is the governor and just judge of the world, and in Christ, that he was the Redeemer of mankind. His repentance and confession of his fault, is laid down in this: And we truly suffer worthily: His charity towards God and his neighbour, in reprehending his fellows blasphemy, in defending Christ's innocency: and in the midst of his greatest disgraces, and raging enemies, to confess 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 have taken such order for his recovery, as it should please Christ his Saviour to appoint. So that he lacked not any one of those dispositions, which the Catholic Church requires to justification. Now that, that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualities out of the company of faith; is apparent: by that which he hath written on the next Chapter: where he saith: That faith cannot be imputed to justice, Rom. 4. to such as believe in Christ, unless they do withal put off the old man, and a little before more plainly saying: I think that faith is the first beginning of salvation, hope is proceeding in the building, but the top and perfection of the whole work is charity. R. ABBOT. To set down the places alleged out of Ambrose, is sufficient to discover the bad and evil conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them, and to show what a one he is indeed in all the rest of his answers. First, a Ambros. in Rom. ca 3. justificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. they are justified freely, saith he, because working nothing, nor making any requital, they are justified by faith alone through the gift of God. The second is this; b Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates & peccata tegu●tur, nulla ab h● requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm ut credant. They are blessed to whom without any labour or work their iniquities are forgiven and sins covered, no work of penitency being required of them, but only to believe. Thirdly, he saith, c Idem. in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutum est à Deo ut qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere, sola fide gratu accipiens remissionem peccatorum. This is appointed of God, that he that believeth in Christ, shall be saved without works freely, by faith alone, receiving forgiveness of sins. I pray thee now gentle Reader to mark well his answer to these allegations: First, he saith, that it is very uncertain whether these Commentaries be Ambroses. It is true indeed, that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the several Epistles, but of the Commentaries themselves, save only upon the epistle to the Hebrews, I know no man that doubteth. Their d Sixt. Senens. biblioth. sanct. lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the works of Ambrose for their part, and our e Centre. Magdeburg. lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part, and on both sides they are always cited in his name. There is no doubt but they are the works of a very ancient writer, if they were not his, and therefore that can make little to acquit Master Bishop of crossing the ancient Church, unless he can give us a better answer. But that we shall have, namely that that Author excludeth not repentance, but only the works of Moses law, which the jews held to be necessary, as circumcision and such like. Short and sweet: this he hath told us, and if we will far better, we must take the pains to go further. But let him remember that the point in question is of being justified by faith alone, which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth, by faith only, by faith only, it is required only to believe. Now though the ceremonial works of Moses law be excluded from justification▪ yet if we be justified by any other works, we are not justified by faith only or alone. He excludeth not repentance, saith he, but let us request him to turn us these words into English: Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm ut credant. We take it to be this, there being required of them no labour or work of penitency or repentance, but only to believe. He meaneth indeed by penitency, that which publicly was done, & for which men were called poenitentes, penitents as afterward appeareth, but by excluding such works of penitency, it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law, and therefore that M. Bishop's answer is a very absurd and broken shift. Mark the words gentle Reader, Working nothing, not making any requital, without any labour or work, no work of penitency required, without works, and freely, and by faith alone, all sounding that f Ambros. in Psal. 43. Non facta sua unumquenque iustificant, sed fides prompta. a man's works do not justify him, but his prompt faith, as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place. As for the words which he bringeth to cross the other, they are no way contrary to us. We say as he saith, that faith alone sufficeth not, and yet we say as he also saith, that faith sufficeth to justification. For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to justification, another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and justified man. The place alleged out of Austin inferreth our assertion, though it express it not. If it be our propitiation, that is, our justification to believe in Christ, then only to believe in Christ doth justify. If not, than it cannot be said to be our justification to believe in Christ. For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike, there it cannot be singularly attributed to any one. His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent; for Hesychius beside that he saith, that grace is not merited because it is of mercy, telleth us also what it is whereby the same is apprehended, and that he saith is faith alone. g Hesych. in Leuit. lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia & compassione probatur, & fide comprehendiur sola, non ex operibus. Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of works. If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith, why doth M. Bishop tell us that it is apprehended by works? If it be apprehended by faith alone, why doth he tell us that it is not apprehended by faith alone? Be it that our works before grace do not merit our justification, yet if by works we be justified as well as by faith, than it is not true which this Father saith, that the grace of justification is apprehended by faith, and not by works. The words of Saint Bernard are plainly spoken of the imputed righteousness of jesus Christ, by occasion of the Apostles words, that Christ is h 1. Cor. 1 30. made unto us of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. i Bernard. in Cant. ser. 22. justitia in absolutione peccatorum. Righteousness, saith he, by forgiveness of sins, & for prosecuting thereof saith of Christ, k justitiae tuae tanta ubique fragrantia spargitur, ut non solum justus sed & ipsa dicaris justitia, et justitia iustificans. Tan validus denique es ad iustificandum, quam multus ad ignos●endū. Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit justitiam credat in te qui iustificas impium, & solam justificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum. so sweet a savour of thy righteousness is every where spread abroad, as that thou art not only called righteous, but also righteousness itself, and a justifying righteousness. As strong thou art to justify, as thou art ready to forgive. Whosoever therefore being pricked with his sins hungereth and thirsteth after righteousness, let him believe in thee who justifiest the ungodly, and being justified by faith only he shall have peace with God. M. Bishop telleth us, that S. Bernard by faith alone excluded all other means that either jew or Gentile required, but not charity. Vain man, what had S. Bernard here to do either with jews or Gentiles? He spoke to Christian and faithful brethren, to whom he had no occasion to give any caveat either against jews or Gentiles, but instructeth them what to do being pricked and grieved with sin, even to hunger and thirst after righteousness, not meaning by righteousness inherent righteousness, as M. Bishop doth, but that righteousness which consisteth as he had before expounded it, in the forgiveness of sins. Therefore he teacheth to believe in Christ, who is our righteousness, l Justitia donans delecta. sub finem. a righteousness as he speaketh again, that forgiveth sins; the form of which righteousness he expresseth thus; m Delicta iwentutu meae & ignorantias meas ne memineris & ●●stus sum. Remember not the offences of my youth and my ignorances, and I am righteous or just. Thus S. Bernard saith, that a man is justified by faith alone, and shall we be so mad as to think, that in saying a man is justified by faith alone, his meaning was as M. Bishop affirmeth, that a man is justified by faith and charity, that is to say, not justified by faith alone? And did S. Bernard think that a man hath charity before he have charity? For seeing as M. Bishop telleth us, the gift of charity is infused and powered into us in justification, surely to say that by charity a man is justified, is to say, that by charity the gift of charity is powered into him. Which if it be absurd, then let him be content that S. Bernard's meaning be, as indeed it is, that a man is justified by faith alone, & let him take charity for a gift of the justified, & not for any forerunning cause of justification. Now that the righteousness there spoken of is not meant of inherent righteousness it is very plain, in that S. Bernard in the words following treateth severally thereof under the name of sanctification. His counter-places are impertinent. What S. Bernard therein saith we say: n In Cant. ser. 24 Non facit hominem rectum fides etiam rectae quae nō●peratur ex dilectione. A man's believing aright, except it work by love, doth not set him right or strait; and again, o Nec fides fine operibus nec opera sine fide sufficiunt ad animi rectitudinem. Neither faith without works, nor works without faith, do suffice to the rectitude or straightness of the mind. True it is, as I have often said, that to the full rectifying and perfecting of a man, belongeth not only justification by the forgiveness of sins, but also sanctification to charity and good works, but what doth this hinder, but that notwithstanding both the work of justification and the obtaining also of sanctification, may be performed by faith alone? Chrysostom's words are, p Chrysost. ad Gal. ca 3. Illi dicebant, qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est: hic contra demonstrat qui sola fide nititur eum benedictum esse. They said, he who rested on faith alone is accursed, but Paul saith, that he is blessed that resteth upon faith alone. M. Bishop's answer, that faith alone there excludeth only the ceromonies of Moses law, is already showed to be vain. But here it further appeareth, in that chrysostom noteth, that the Apostle maketh special choice of Abraham, who was so long before the Law, for an example of being justified without works, and that q Ibid. Abraham producit in medium declarans hunc quoque sic fuisse justification. Quod si is ante gratiam ex fide justificatus est, idque quum & operibus bonis floreret, multo magis vos. Et in Ep. ad Rom. hom. 8. supra sect. 26. when as he abounded in good works. For if he in that case were not justified by his works but by his faith, than it is manifest that not only the ceremonial works of Moses law, but all other works are excepted from that justification that is described to be by faith alone. We are to be justified as Abraham was. Abraham though he abounded in good works, yet was not justified thereby. Therefore we also though we have good works, yet are not justified thereby, but by faith alone. The sentence of Basil he saith is pitifully mangled by M. Perkins, when as by himself it is altogether marred. His words, saith he, truly repeated are these, Let no man acknowledge, etc. putting in a sentence of his own making under the name of Basils' words truly repeated. What a shameless man is he, thus to mock his Reader, thus grossly and palpably to forge a matter, and yet to pretend truth? Basil having mentioned the words of S. Paul, that r 1. Cor. 1.30. Christ is made unto us of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, saith hereupon thus: s Basil. ser. de humilit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinè apud Bellarm. de justif. lib. 1. c. 25 Haec est perfecta & integra gloriatio in Deo. quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum, sola autem fide in Christum iustif●catum. for that is perfect and full of rejoicing in God, when a man is not lifted up because of his own righteousness, but knoweth that he himself is destitute of true righteousness, and is justified by faith only which is in Christ. Thus he spoke to a Christian auditory, and instructed them to acknowledge themselves to be void, wanting, destitute of true righteousness, & to be justified only by faith in Christ. M. Bishop saith that he excludes all merits of our own, but no necessary good disposition; but he should remember I say, that Basil spoke to them that were past dispositions and preparations, it being a Sermon, not ad Catechumenos, such as were yet to be baptised, but ad fideles, to the faithful, as they were termed after Baptism, and them doth he teach to acknowledge themselves to be justified by faith alone. But whosoever they had been, how crossly doth M. Bishops bad disposition carry him to Basils' words. Basil saith: Let a man acknowledge himself destitute of true righteousness, and to be justified only by faith in Christ. M. Bishop saith, a man is not destitute of true righteousness, but hath virtuous good dispositions and preparations, by which he is to be justified, and not by faith alone. But no marvel that they cross others, who are so tangled with the truth, as that they know not how to speak, but to cross themselves, still blowing both hot and cold; freely, and yet for works; for nothing, and yet for something; no merit, and yet in some sort merit; of mere mercy, and yet somewhat to move God beside his mercy. But to give some colour to that that he saith, he telleth us, that Basil in his Sermon de Fide, proveth by many texts of Scripture, that charity is as necessary as faith. Be it so, yet he doth not say, that we are justified by charity. We say, as he there saith, that s Basil. ser. de fide Character & ensign Christianorum. love is the badge and cognizance of Christian men; much commended unto us by our Saviour, as a mark whereby he will have us to be known to be his disciples. We say further, that it is as necessary as faith, to the full perfection of a Christian man, and yet we say it hath nothing to do in the act of justification. To his question as touching the words alleged, If a man know himself justified by faith in Christ, how can he acknowledge, that he wants true justice? I answer him, that a man acknowledgeth himself to want in himself true inherent justice, confessing himself to be sinful and corrupt, when yet he wanteth not that justice or righteousness of which S. Paul saith: t Rom. 4.5. To him that worketh not (that is, u Oecumen. in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus fiduciam non habet. who hath no confidence by works) but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed for righteousness, and so as Basil saith, he is justified by faith alone, x Bern. in Cant. ser. 23. Charitas patris ipsorum cooperit multitudinem peccatorum. Et ser. 61. justitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum. the love of the Father, and the righteousness of Christ the Son covering the multitude of his sins: so that they are as if they had never been, and he as if he had offended nothing, as before hath been declared. origen's testimony which is the last of all, declareth plainly the same that Basils' doth, that y Orig. in Rom. cap. 3. Dicit sufficere solius fidei justificationem, ita ut credens tan tummodo quis iustificetur etiansi nihil ab eo operis fueri● expletum. the justification of faith alone is sufficient, so that a man only believing is justified, though there have been no good work performed by him. For example hereof he allegeth the Thief on the cross, z Pro sola fide a● ei jesus, Amen d●cot t●bi, etc. to whom for faith alone Christ said, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. M. Bishop answereth again, that Origen excludes no good disposition in us to justification. A strange matter, that these Fathers should have so little discretion still to be urging faith alone, faith alone, and yet should mean to leave a place to M. Bishops good dispositions, whereby faith alone is overthrown. But he addeth out of his master Bellarmine, that faith is opposed to outward works, so that origen's meaning is, that a man may be saved without doing outwardly any good works, if he want time and place. And what are those outward works? Forsooth Bellarmine nameth to fast, and to give alms. Absurd Friar, as if there were no outward good works to be done, but only fasting and giving of alms. M. Bishop here under the name of dispositions, setteth forth unto us many good works of the thief in that short time of his being upon the cross, the fear of God, hope, faith, repentance, confession of sins, love towards God and his neighbour, in reprehending his fellows blasphemy, and defending Christ's innocency, and yet of him Origen affirmeth the same that chrysostom did before of Abraham, that not for any works, but he was justified by faith alone. a Super hoc non requisivit Dominus quid priùs oporatus esset, nec expectavit quid operis cùm credidisset, explesset, sed sola confessione justificatum comitem sibi Paradisum in gressurus assumpsit. Christ did not inquire concerning him, saith he, what he had wrought before nor did look what work he performed when he had believed: but being to go into Paradise, took him to accompany him, being justified only by his confession, that is, by his faith which he uttered and showed by his confession of Christ. The other example there alleged by Origen, maketh the matter as plain, which is of the woman in the Gospel, that washed Christ's feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, whose good works M. Bishop hath noted also b Sect. 21. before: to whom notwithstanding c Origen. ibid. Ex nullo legis opere, sed pro sola fide. not for any work of the law, but for faith only, saith Origen, jesus said, Thy sins are forgiven thee: and again, Thy faith hath saved thee. Yea but Origen faith, d Idem in ca 4. that faith cannot be imputed to justice, to such as believe in Christ, unless they do withal put off the old man. And we say no less, that justification cannot be separated from sanctification; but where the one is, there is the other also: and yet it is distinctly to be considered what belongeth to the one, and what belongeth to the other. He correcteth the opinion of them, who think profession of faith to be faith, and thereupon saith as we do, that to such their faith, because indeed it is no true faith, cannot be reputed for righteousness. Therefore of faith he said before: e Jbid Ne putes quòd si quis habeat talem fidem ex qua justificatus habeat gloriam apud Deum, possit simul cum ea habere & iniustitiam: si enim qu● credit quòd jesus est Christus ex Deo natus est, & qui natus est ex Deo non peccat, manifestum est, quia qui credit jesus Christo non peccat: quòd si peccat, certum est quia non creditet, etc. Certum est eum qui verè credit, opus fidei & justitiae operari & totius bonitatis. Do not think, that he that hath such a faith, as whereby being justified, he hath to rejoice with God, can together therewith have unrighteousness. For if he that believeth that jesus is Christ, be borne of God; and he that is borne of God sinneth not, it is manifest, that he that believeth in jesus Christ, sinneth not; and if he do sin, (that is, give himself to sin) it is certain that he believeth not. Certain it is, that he that truly believeth, doth work the work of faith and righteousness, and of all goodness. Thus he saith as we do, that true faith cannot be separated from godly life: so that a man cannot have fellowship with Christ by justification, who by sanctification also hath not fellowship with him. But the root of all is faith, by which alone we are justified, and so the bar of sin is taken away, that divided before betwixt God and us, that so the sanctifying spirit of God may have access unto us, to work in us the good work of God, and so to prepare us to that inheritance, to the hope whereof he hath called us. As for the other place that he citeth, it is the same in effect with that of Ignatius f Sect. 26. before alleged, and containeth nothing but what we also teach, as hath been declared there. 31. W. BISHOP. The third Difference of justification, is how far forth good works are required thereto. Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith, That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of justification: the first, when of a sinner one is made just: the which is of the mere mercy of God through Christ, without any merit of man, only some certain good devotions of the soul, (as the acts of Faith, Fear, Hope, Charity, Repentance,) go before, to prepare (as it were) the way, and to make it more fit to receive that high grace of justification. The second justification is, when a just man by the exercise of virtues, is made more just: as a child new borne, doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger: of this increase of grace, Catholics hold good works to be the meritorious cause. M. Perkins first granteth, that good works do please God, and have a temporal reward. 2. That they are necessary to salvation, not as the cause thereof, but either as marks in a way to direct us towards salvation: or as fruits and signs of righteousness, to declare one to be just before men: all which he shuffleth in, rather to delude our arguments, then for that they esteem much of good works, which they hold to be no better then deadly sins. The main difference then between us consisteth in this: whether good works be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousness, which we call the second justification: or whether they be only fruits, signs or marks of it. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop, it seemeth, did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong, to make her better than indeed she is: for whereas he had said, that they exclude all works from the first justification, and confess it to be wholly of grace, M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding, that certain good devotions of the soul, (as the acts of faith, fear, hope, charity, repentance,) go before to prepare the way to justification, all which it hath been his drift hitherto to prove to be properly and truly the causes thereof. Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins observeth three things accorded unto by us, in the recital whereof M. Bishop useth his wont guise of deceit and fraud. First, we grant, that good works do please God, and are approved of him, and therefore have reward: which we intent both temporal and eternal, but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other, but only temporal reward. Secondly, we say that they are necessary to salvation, not as causes either conservant, adiwant, or procreant, but either as consequent fruits of that faith which is necessary to salvation, or as marks in a way, or rather the way itself leading to salvation. Thirdly we say, that the righteous man is in some sort justified by works, as S. james saith that Abraham was justified by works, that is, declared and made manifest to be just. And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God, for that it pleaseth God by our works to take the sight and knowledge of our faith; albeit we forbear so to speak, both for avoiding confusion in this disputation of justification, properly understood in the sight of God, and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point, sounds another way. This last M. Bishop here concealeth, fearing lest it should prevent him of some of his cavils, but that which he doth allege, he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments, then that we esteem much of good works, which (he saith) we hold to be no better then deadly sins. Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part, still perverting sometimes our saying, sometimes our meaning. Where he cannot oppugn that which we teach, he will make his Reader believe, that we mean not as we say. We see no such difference betwixt them and us, betwixt their lives and ours, but that we may well be thought to esteem good works, as much as they do. We would be ashamed to be such as their stories have described their Popes, and Cardinals, and Bishops, nay, as M. Bishop and his fellows have described the jesuits to be. Whereas he saith, that we account good works no better than deadly sins, he very impudently falsifieth that which we say. We affirm the good works of the faithful to be glorious and acceptable in God's sight for Christ's sake, being done in his name, and offered upon the altar of faith in him. The imperfection thereof is accidental, and taketh not away the nature of a good work, but only maketh it an unperfect good work: which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the work to be rejected, if in rigour and extremity God should weigh the same; which he doth not, but mercifully pardoneth it for Christ's sake. Seeing then the blemish set aside, we acknowledge it to remain entirely a good work, being the work of the grace of God, to be accepted and rewarded of God, with what conscience doth this brabler say, that of good works we make no better then deadly sins? As touching the question propounded by him, it consisteth of two parts: the one, of the increase of righteousness: the other, of the cause of that increase. We say, that the righteousness whereby we are to be justified before God, admitteth no increase, because it must be perfect righteousness: for perfect righteousness consisteth in indivisibili, if any thing be taken from it, it is not perfect; and if it be not perfect, it cannot justify before God. Now by M. Bishop it appeareth, that the inherent righteousness which they say is infused into a man in his first justification, is unperfect, because it remaineth afterwards to be increased. Of the same inherent justice we also make no question, but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for, and that we are therein to thrive and grow from day to day: but hence we argue, that it is not that that can make a man just in the sight of God: for the defect that is thereof, is not by a mere privation, but by admixtion of the contrary: a August. Epist. 29. ex vitio est, it is by reason of some corruption, as S. Austin saith. Yea, b Idem de perf. justit. Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet, vel minor est quàm debet. there is sin, as he again saith, when charity (that is inhernt justice) is less than it ought to be. But where sin is, a man cannot be said to be just in the sight of God. Therefore by the Popish imagined first justification, a man cannot be justified in the sight of God: no, nor by their second justification, because it never groweth to that, but that it is still capable of increase. It remaineth therefore, that we are just in the sight of God only by the righteousness of Christ, which is without increase, being fully absolute and perfect, according to the prescript form of the law, the same being undertaken for our sakes, and performed in our name. But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousness, there groweth a question of the cause of this increase. The Romish doctrine is, that the grace of God is c Coster. Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis, quemadmodum baculus in manu convalescentis, cuius auxilio si velit utetur; si● minùs poterit eam removere. like unto a staff put into a man's hand to stay him, and that it is left to his free will either to use this staff to keep him up, or to leave it and so to fall. Free will then (say they) using well the grace that it hath received, deserveth thereby an increase of justice and righteousness. Thus they still hang all upon the merit and free will of man: they think scorn to have any thing of gift, but one way or other will deserve all. But the doctrine of truth teacheth us to conceive all to be of grace, both the first gift of sanctification, and all the succeeding increase thereof. For although it be true, that God to the thankful receiving and using of his gifts, doth add greater measure thereof, according to that of our Saviour: e Mat. 25.29. To him that hath shall be given, that is, saith S. Austin, f Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 1. ca 1. Dabitur habentibus, id est, cum benignitate utentibus eo quod acceper●●it. To them that use well that which they have received, yet that which is added, is but g Joh. 1.16. grace for grace, and h Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit. the rendering of one gift to another gift, God himself giving himself occasion by one gift, of the bestowing of another. As he giveth faith, and to faith giveth that for which we believe: as he giveth us to pray, and to our prayer giveth that for which we pray: so in all the rest he giveth grace, and giveth to use well the grace that he hath given; and to the well using thereof giveth also further measure and increase of grace, that both in the gift and in the increase all praise and glory may redound to him. The means in us whereby this increase is wrought unto us, is our faith; which, as it first receiveth the spirit, so receiveth also the increase of it, whilst by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ, and thereby are more and more partakers of his life. i Ambros. in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis, vel minuttur vel ●ugetur. That heavenly Sun, saith Ambrose, is increased or diminished unto me according to my faith. Now them to determine the point whereupon we are here to insist, it is not, whether inherent righteousness may be increased, for that we deny not; nor whether good works be meritorious causes of the increase of it, for that beongeth properly to the question of merits: but the question is, whether in the increase of righteousness, which they term second justification, we grow to any such perfection, as that thereby we may be found perfectly just in the sight of God, by virtue and force thereof to be accepted unto everlasting life. 32. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins pretends to prove, that they are no cause of the increase of our justice: and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose, but repeats those objections, and proposeth them now at large, which we made before against the first justification: the which although impertinent to this place, yet I will solve them first, and then set down our own. We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. Answer. The Apostle there speaketh of the justification of a sinner: for he saith before, that he hath proved, both jew and Greek, to be under sin; and that all have sinned, and need the glory of God: wherefore this place appertains not unto the second justification, and excludes only either works of the law, as not necessary unto the first justification of a sinner: against the jews who thought and taught them to be necessary, or else against the Gentiles any work of ours, from being any meritorious cause of that first justification: for we acknowledge very willingly (as you have heard often before) that every sinner is justified freely of the mere grace of God, through the merit of Christ only, and without any merit of the sinner himself: and yet is not a sinner (being of years of discretion) merely passive in that his justification, as M. Perkins very absurdly saith: for in their own opinion he must believe (which is an action,) and in ours not only believe, but also Hope, Love, and Repent: and this kind of justification excludeth all boasting in our souls as well as theirs. For as they must grant, that they may not brag of their faith, although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their justification, that without it they could not be justified: even so let them think of the rest of those good preparations, which we hold to be necessary, that we cannot truly boast of them,, as though they came of ourselves: but we confess all these good inspirations, as all other good, to descend from the bounteous liberality of the Father of lights: and for the yielding of our consent to them, we can no more vaunt, then of consenting unto faith: all which is no more, then if a man be mired in a lake, and unable of himself to get out, would be content that another of his goodness should help him out of it. Yet observe by the way, that S. Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting: Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Son of God, 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations. Again: He defineth that we may glory in measure, and that he might glory in his power, 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and revelations. So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord, and in his heavenly gifts, so it be in measure & due season, acknowledging them from whence they come. But to boast and say, that either God needed us, or that our good parts were cause that God called us first to his service, is both false and utterly unlawful. Ephes. 2. So that by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast himself, is nothing against our doctrine of justification, Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it: and not also with S. Augustin, that faith is there mentioned, to exclude all merits of our works, which went before and might seem to the simple to have been some cause, why God bestowed his first grace upon us: but no virtuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace: and therefore very fond doth M. Perkins infer, that in that sentence S. Paul speaketh of works of grace, because in the text following he mentioned good works. Whereas the Apostle putteth an evident distinction between those two kind of works, signifying the first, to be of ourselves: the second, to proceed from us as God's workmanship, created in Christ jesus, and the first, he calleth Works simply: the second, Good works, prepared of God for us to walk in after our first justification. What gross ignorance than was it, to take these two so distinct manner of works for the same, and to ground himself so boldly upon it? R. ABBOT. The question intended by M. Perkins is expressly propounded, how far forth good works are required to justification: namely, before God, which he determineth thus, that they are required, not as causes for which we are justified, either in the beginning of grace, or in the proceeding thereof, but only as effects and fruits of justification. Which although it be implied in that that before hath been said, of being justified by faith alone, yet neither as touching first nor second justification, is directly handled by M. Perkins, but only in this place. Here therefore he disputeth wholly as touching justification before God, that good works concur not as any causes thereof, and bringeth his arguments directly to that point. First, the Apostle saith, a Rom. 3.28. We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. M. Bishop excepteth against this place, as meant of the first justification of a sinner, not appertaining to the second justification. But we find but one justification spoken of by S. Paul, both beginning and continuing in faith: for being still sinners, so long as here we live it must needs be, that that which the Apostle saith of the justification of a sinner must still appertain unto us, and therefore that both firstly and last we are justified by faith without the works of the law And if there were any second justification, that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it. For he writeth these things to the Romans', to the Galathians, which long before had believed and been baptised, and yet now still informeth them, that their justification is by faith without the works of the law: still he saith, b Gal. 2.21. If righteousness be by the law, Christ died in vain: yea he proveth by the Prophet's words, not that the sinner only, but c Cap. 3.11. the just shall live by faith, as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalms these words: d Psal. 55.7. vulg. Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos. He will save them for nothing, addeth, e Hieron. adver. Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin justos qui non proprio merito, sed Dei sal●ātur clementia. No doubt but he meaneth the just, who are not saved by their own merit, but by the mercy of God. But it is further to be noted, that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this justification, even then when he had long been the servant of God, and showed singular devotion and obedience unto him. He bringeth for another example the Prophet David, a man according to Gods own heart, who from his childhood had been called of God, yet now still acknowledging his blessedness to consist in the f Rom. 4.6. Lords imputing of righteousness without works. It is evident therefore that M. Bishop's exception is unsufficient, and that not only at a man's first entrance into the state of grace, which he calleth the first justification, but afterwards also a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, and therefore works can be no meritorious cause of any second justification. His acknowledgement, that a sinner is justified freely of the mere grace of God, through the merit of Christ only, without any merit of the sinner himself, is a mere collusion and mockery. For if a man be justified by works, than it is not by mere grace. He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ, that her love and other virtuous dispositions were causes why she was justified, and determineth still, that hope, fear, repentance, charity, concur as causes thereof. Yea but (saith he) they are no meritorious causes; there is the merit of Christ only, and no merit of the sinner himself. So then justification is by works, but not by merits. But we see the Apostle resolveth against works, of merits he saith nothing: he speaketh of that that is, not of that that cannot be; works there may be, but merit there can be none, as is afterwards to be declared. See then the madness of these men: the Apostle saith, h Gal. 2.16. Ephes. 2.9. Not by works; yes, say they, it is by works, but it is not by merits: the Apostle saith, i Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of works; yes, say they, it is both by grace and by works, but it is not by merits. Thus impudently they confront the Apostle, and seek to tie upon him a flat contradiction to that he saith. They will seem to uphold grace, by excluding merit, when as the Apostle testifieth, they plainly overthrow it by affirming works, because (as hath been before alleged out of Austin) grace is not grace in any respect, except it be free in every respect. Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit, but affirm the same k Bellar. de just. lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort, even in their first justification, as I have before divers times observed out of Bellarmine. Thus they play fast and lose, and would feign say, but cannot well tell what to say. With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God, and yet they so teach it, as that they make it of no effect. Now because our justification is merely by the gift of God, therefore M. Perkins saith, that the sinner in his justification is merely passive, meaning, that we do nothing at all, wherein consisteth any part of our righteousness with God. M. Bishop saith, that this is absurd, because a man must believe, and to believe is an action. But it is absurd only to an absurd and ignorant man, who understandeth not what he readeth. To believe is an action, but he hath had occasion enough to know and understand, if ignorance had not blinded him, that we place no part of righteousness in the very act of faith, but in the thing received thereby. Christ only is our righteousness, and him we receive by faith. God justifieth, we are justified. God imputeth righteousness, to us it is imputed: God then is the agent, we the subject whereon he worketh, patients, receivers, and no way workers of that which is our righteousness before God. And to this his understanding should lead him in that justification which they maintain. For although they say that by faith, hope, charity, repentance, which are actions, they obtain justification, yet the very habit of justice is with them a thing merely infused of God, and not the act of man himself. Therefore as touching the very habit of justice a man must be only passive, not active, in the same sense as M. Perkins speaketh, only a receiver, and not at all a worker thereof. But now he telleth us, that the justification which they so teach, wrought and procured by hope, fear, love, etc. excludeth all boasting as well as ours. But that cannot be: for the Apostle telleth us, that l Rom. 3.27. boasting or rejoicing is not excluded by the law of works, but by the law of faith. So long as any thing is attributed to our works in this behalf, we have somewhat to glory in, as that by our works, and for our works sake we have obtained that which we have. The Apostle saith, that m Rom. 4.2. if Abraham were justified by works, he had whereof to glory or rejoice, and therefore it is not true, that justification being attributed to works, we have nothing whereof to rejoice or boast ourselves. Neither doth M. Bishop's explanation help the matter at all, that we cannot boast of those preparations, as though they came of ourselves: because we see the Pharisee in the Gospel to glory of that, which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God: n Luc. 18.11. August. in Psal. 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi▪ fatebatur ab illo se ●●cepisse quod habebat. Hieron. adver. Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo, quia ipsius misericordia non sit, sicut caeteri homines, etc. O God I thank thee, saith he, that I am not as other men are. But by his words of these good inspirations descending from the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader, dealing only colourably, as Pelagius the heretic was wont to do. For they make God the occasion only, and not the true cause of them. They make him externally an assistant to them, but the internal producing and proper original of them, is of the Free will of man, which is the cause why they affirm these works that go before justification not to be meritorious, as they say those are that follow after. For if they made them essentially the works of grace, they could have no colour to attribute merit to the one, and to deny it to the other. Yea M. Bishop himself apparently excludeth them from being the works of grace, in that presently after he calleth the grace of justification, the first grace, as being ignorant of the language of their own schools, whereas these works are said to go before, to prepare us for the receiving of justifying grace. In these works of preparation therefore there is apparently somewhat attributed to man, whereof he hath to glory in himself: for that howsoever being helped of God, yet he doth somewhat himself, for which God bestoweth upon him the gift of justification. Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat whereof to rejoice, in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God. Yea but a man, saith he, can no more vaunt of consent to these works, then of consent to faith: true, and therefore if either way he have any thing of himself, he hath somewhat whereof to boast. M. Bishop therefore buildeth up his own glory in both, so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and works, as that all is nothing, but by the free will of man. Now we on the other side, together with the ancient Church, o Fulgen. ad Monim. lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus, immo sal●briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quàm in nostr● opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare. suffer not, nay, we utterly forbidden, that either in our faith, or in our work, we challenge to ourselves any thing as our own. But in the justification of faith boasting or rejoicing is excluded, not only for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God, but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for itself, but only to Christ who is received thereby, and is itself a mere acknowledgement, that we have all that we have of the sovereign bounty and mercy of God, only for his own sake, & not for any thing that is in us. Now therefore we hence argue against M. Bishop's justification, that that is the only true doctrine of justification, by which man's boasting or rejoicing is excluded. By the doctrine of justification by works, man's boasting is not excluded. Therefore the doctrine of justification by works, is not the true doctrine of justification. As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake, and content that another should help him out, it savoureth very strongly of the stink of the Pelagians, leaving in a man both will and power for the helping of himself, whereas the Scripture affirming us to be p Ephe. 2.1. dead in trespasses and sins, bereaveth us altogether of all, either will or power, whereby we should yield any furtherance to the saving of ourselves. But the same is also otherwise unfit, because the conversion of a man is an acceptance of a service and an entrance into it, wherein he is to bestow his labour and pains to deserve well, as M. Bishop saith, at his hands whose servant he is, and by covenant to merit heaven. Hereto he worketh partly by grace, as he saith, and partly by free will, and therefore having merited and deserved, he hath somewhat in respect of himself wherein to glory and rejoice: whereas the course that God taketh is, q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. s●iam●● in d●e illa, quia non ex operibus justitiae quae fe●imus nos, sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit. that we may know at that day, as S. Bernard saith, that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us. For this cause albeit he could have perfected us at once, and even at the first have reform us to full and unspotted righteousness to serve him accordingly, yet hath he thought good to leave us groaning under a burden of sin, and under many infirmities and imperfections in the service that we do unto him, that the sight of our foul feet may still pull down our peacocks tail, and we may always fully know, that we are to give all the honour and glory of our salvation to God alone. But M. Bishop telleth us, that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden, and we acknowledge the same, for else the Apostle would not have said, r 1. Cor. 1.31. He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. Our glorying or rejoicing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodness, and to the magnifying of him, and not of ourselves. He that exalteth himself as the Pharisee did, in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God, rejoiceth against God. But M. Bishop offendeth both ways: he attributeth not all unto God, but somewhat at least to the free will of man. Again, it is not entirely the glory of God that he respecteth, but s Sest. 2. the bringing of dignity unto men, as he hath before expressed. Therefore albeit he will not have a man boast and say, that his good parts were the cause that God called him first to his service, yet he maketh no exception, but that a man may boast of the good works that he hath performed in serving him, and may glory that his good parts therein are the cause why God adjudgeth heaven unto him as justly deserved, which is that against which the Scripture wholly driveth, teaching us to confess that which Austin doth, that t Aug Hypog. lib 3. Intell●ge, in miseratione & misericordiae, non in factione meritorum animam coronari. not for performance of merits, but in mercy and loving kindness the soul of man is crowned: and to say with Hilary, u Hilar in Psal. 135. Quòd sumus qui non fuimus, quòd erimus quòd non sumus, causam ●●am non habet, nisi misericordiae Dei. That we are what we were not; that we shall be, what we are not, it hath no other cause at all, but only the mercy of God. Again, he will not have us boast and say, that God needed us for ourselves, but we must needs say with Tertullian: x Tertul. adver. Hermog. Nemo non eget eo de cuius utitur. There is none but needeth him, of whose he useth any thing. Their doctrine of free will maketh God to stand in need of us, because by it God bringeth not the work of our salvation to pass, but at our will. It is in the power of our free will, either to help it or hinder it, either by admitting or rejecting the grace of God. For the performance therefore of his purpose and promise, God must stand in need of our will, to consent to his work, or else it succeed not. For the avoiding of which absurdity, we must confess, that God useth nothing in us, for the effecting of our salvation, but what he himself graciously worketh in us. Our consenting, our believing, our willing, our working, all is of God, and nothing is there therein that we can call ours. Now therefore it is plain, that M. Perkins did not ignorantly and maliciously as this ignorant wrangler speaketh, but judiciously and truly apply against them the place to the Ephesians, y Ephe. 2.8. By grace ye are saved through faith; not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. Where the Apostle ascribing all to grace through faith in Christ, taketh exception generally against works, and giveth to understand, that they are effects, not causes of salvation, because God having first by faith put us in the state of salvation, doth consequently create us anew in Christ jesus, unto good works. M. Bishop's exception is, that the Apostle there excludeth only the works that be of ourselves, before we be justified. But that his exception is very vain, appeareth plainly by that the Apostle for reason of that that he saith, Not of works, lest any man should boast, addeth in the next words, For we are his workmanship created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath prepared for us to walk in. Where one way to understand works in the one sentence which is to be proved, and another way to understand good works in the other sentence which is the proof, is to make the Apostle to utter as reasonless reasons as M. Bishops idle head is wont to do. For what sense were it to say, we are not saved by works that are of ourselves before we be justified, because we are God's creation and workmanship in the good works that we do after our justification? But the Apostles meaning is very evident, we are not saved by any good works that we do; for our good works are none of ours, but they are his workmanship in us, by whom we are saved, who having by his calling entitled us to salvation, hath prepared good works as the way for us to walk in, to the same salvation. It was not then M. Perkins ignorance, to take two distinct manner of works for the same, but M. Bishops absurd shifting, to make a distinction of works there where the sequel of the text plainly convinceth, that there is no difference at all. But we would gladly know of him, to which manner of works he referreth his virtuous dispositions? To the latter he cannot, because they proceed from us as God's workmanship created in Christ jesus, which we are not till we be justified, and they are for us to walk in after our justification. If to the former, than we see they are by the Apostle excluded from justification. So in neither place doth he say any thing of them, and because he knew them not, he hath wholly left them out. He was undoubtedly to blame, to conceive so little virtue in Master Bishops virtuous dispositions, as not to think them worth the speaking of. But it is worth the noting, to what fashion he by this device hath hewed the words of the Apostle: Not by works, lest any man should boast; that is, not by works that are of ourselves, but yet by virtuous good dispositions and works of preparation, which are partly of God, and partly of ourselves; and yet as I have before said, they make the essential production of these works of preparation, to be only of ourselves, because as yet there is z Coster. Enchirid. ca 5. Hominis liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis, sed moventis & adiwantis se praparas ad justificationem, non solum patiendo sed operando & agendo. no infused or inhabitant grace, whence they should proceed, and therefore out of their own grounds it must follow, that the same works of preparation are here excluded by the Apostle. But see the singular impudency of this man, who maketh S. Austin a witness of his virtuous dispositions, who hath not in the place alleged by him, so much as any semblance or show for proof thereof. Note with S. Austin, saith he, that faith excludeth all merits of our works, but no virtuous dispositions for preparation to grace. Lewd Sophister, where is that note found in S. Austin? in what words is it set down? What? still lie, and nothing but lie? S. Austin forsooth maketh the Apostle to exclude all merits of our works which went before, and might seem to the simple to have been some cause why God bestowed his first grace upon us, but not all works; for there are works of preparation, which Doctor Bishop, no simple man I warrant you, defendeth to be the cause why God bestoweth upon us his first grace. Will he make S. Austin the author of so absurd and impious a gloze? S. Austin under the name of merits wholly excludeth works, understanding by merits any thing going before justification, that should be unto God a motive or cause to bestow his grace upon us, as I have showed a Sect. 21. before. Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul, only against merits, but simply against works, that he affirmeth b August. li. 83. quaest. 76. nemo meritu priorum bonorum operum arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis pervenisse. Dicit posse hominem sine operibus praecedentibus justificari per fidem Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt. a man to be justified without works precedent or going before, that he teacheth that not for any good work past, a man attaineth to the justification of faith; that a man is not justified by works that go before faith, meaning by faith not a faith which is before justification, but the faith in which our justification is begun, as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place, c Jdem de verb. Apost. ser. 16. Si justitiae nihil habemus, nec fidem habemus. Si fidem habemus iam aliquid habemus justitiae. If we have no righteousness, we have no faith: but if we have faith, we have also some part of righteousness already. And thus perpetually he excludeth all works going before justification, from being any causes thereof, and still maketh justification the beginning of all good works, so as that d Idem epist. 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secundum. Deum ulla ratione omninò non possumus. without the grace of God (which with him is no other but the grace e Epist. 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua justificati sumus ut homines justi essemus. whereby we are justified) we can in no sort think or do any thing according unto God. Of M. Bishops virtuous dispositions before justification, he never speaketh word, nor ever giveth intimation of any such, nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same, as we have seen 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 m●n will be justified by works, he is bound to fulfil the whole law, according to the rigour of it. That is Paul's ground: But no man can fulfil the law, according unto the rigour of it: ergo. No man can be justified by works. He that can apply the text prefixed unto any part of the argument, Erit mihi magnus Apollo: Saint Paul only saith in these words: That if you be circumcised, ye are bound to keep the whole law of Moses. Master Perkins, That if a man will be justified by works, he must fulfil the rigour of the law: Which are as just as Germans lips, as they say: But M. Perkins says, that it is Saint Paul's ground: but he is much deceived, for the Apostles ground is this: That circumcision is as it were a profession of judaisme, and therefore he that would be circumcised, did make himself subject unto the whole law of the jews. Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law, because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string, shall be treated in a distinct question, as soon as I have dispatched this. R. ABBOT. The force of the sentence alleged, that a Gal. 5.3. he that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law, dependeth upon 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 giving to understand what was to be conceived of the rest, that c August. count Faust man.. lib. 19 cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putarent suam spem salutemque continer●. it was certain destruction for them to think, that their hope and salvation was contained in such works of the law, because thereby they were secluded from having any benefit in Christ. Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision, as being a special matter then spoken of, so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law; d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ, whosoever are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. If then in any part of the law a man seek to be justified, he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ. Being abandoned from Christ and his grace, he hath no means of justification and salvation, but by the law. He cannot be justified by the law, but by perfect observing of it, because it is said, e Cap. 3.10. Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. What then is said of circumcision, belongeth to all the works of the law. He that seeketh to be justified by the works of the law, he is bound fully and perfectly to observe the same, and if he be any where a trespasser, he cannot be justified 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 perceive, that observeth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against justification by the law, to disprove the doctrine of the false Apostles, urging for justification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law. Therefore in the words alleged, this argument is implied; He that will be justified by the law, is bound to fulfil the whole law: He that seeketh to be justified by circumcision, seeketh to be justified by the law: he is therefore bound to the perfect observation of the whole law. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that circumcision is as it were a profession of judaisme, it is a very idle and sleeveless answer. For what is judaisme, but a profession of justification by the law, the jews f Rom. 932. seeking righteousness not by faith, but as it were by the works of the l●w. Circumcision therefore is a profession of justification by the law; against which the Apostles ground is, as hath been said, that he that professeth to be justified by the law, doth tie himself to observe it without any breach, being by the law guilty of death, if he be found to transgress in any sort. Now that there is no ableness in us to fulfil the law, so as to be justified thereby, it shall appear God willing, in the place where Master Bishop promiseth to treat thereof. 34. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins third argument. Election to salvation is of grace without works: wherefore the justification of a sinner is of grace alone without works: because election is the cause of justification. Answer. That election is of grace without works, done of our own simple forces, or without the works of Moses law: but not without provision of good works issuing out of faith, and the help of God's grace, as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop, to answer the argument, avoucheth a plain point of Pelagianism, that God's election is upon foresight of our good works, directly contrary to that which the Apostle defineth in the example of jacob; a Rom. 9.11. Before the children were borne, and when they had done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not by works, but by him that calleth, it was said, the elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, I have loved jacob, and have hated Esau. b August. Ench. cap. 98. Qua in re si futura opera vel bona huius vel mala illius, quae Deus utique praesciebat vellet intelligi, nequaquam diceret, non ex operibus, sed di●●ret ex futuris operibus, eoque modo istam solueret quastionem, etc. Where, saith S. Austin, if the Apostle would that either the good works of the one, or the evil works of the other that were to come should be understood, he would not have said, Not of works, but would have said, for the works that were to come, and so would have put the matter out of question. c Idem epist. 105. Ideo, inquiunt Pelagiani, nondum natorum alium oderat, alium diligebat quia futura eorum opera praetudebat. Quit istum a●utissimum sensum Apostolo defuisse non miretur? The Pelagians said, as he observeth, that of them being not yet borne, God therefore hated the one, and loved the other, because he did foresee their works to come. Who would not wonder, saith he, that this witty conceit should be wanting to the Apostle? But his resolution every where is, that God's election is the cause of our good works, not the foresight of our good works the cause why God elected us. To that purpose he allegeth the words of the Apostle, d Ephe. 1.4. He hath chosen us in him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him through love; e De praedest. sanct. ca 8. Non quia futuri eramu● sed ut essemus. Et cap. 19 Non quia future's tales nos esse praescivit, sed ut essemus tales per ipsam electionem gratiae, etc. not saith he, because we would be, but that we should be; not because he foreknew that we would be so, but that we might be so by his election of grace. The like he observeth of the same Apostles words concerning himself, f 1. Cor. 7.25. Aug. epist. 105. I have obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful, not for that the Lord did foresee that he would be faithful, but by his mercy made him so to be. It were too long to allege all that might be alleged out of Austin as touching this point, but Master Bishop having very nicely touched it, deferreth the rest to the question of merits, where he saith nothing directly to it. It seemeth he was jealous of the matter, and therefore was loath to wade too far, lest it should too plainly appear, that Pelagius and he are both fallen into one pit. 35. W. BISHOP. The fourth argument. A man must be fully justified, before he can do a good work: and therefore good works cannot go before justification. True, not before the first justification of a sinner. But good Sir, you having made in the beginning of this last Article, a distinction between the first and second justification; and having before discussed the first, and the second now remaining, and expecting you, why did you not say one word of it, the matter being ample and well worthy the handling? Albeit you will not willingly confess any second justification as you say: yet had it been your part at least to have disproved such arguments, as we bring to prove a second justification: Ye acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification; but these degrees must be made downward of evil, worse and worst: for if all our sanctification and best works be like unto defiled clouts, and no better than deadly sins as you hold, Pag. 76. elsewhere, let any wise man judge what degrees of goodness can be lodged in it. Again, how absurd is that position, that there is but one justification, whereby they take fast hold on Christ's righteousness, which can never after be either loosed or increased. Why then do you with your brother jovinian maintain, that all men are equally righteous? If it so be, let him that desireth to see you well coursed, read S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory. Lib. 2. con. jovin. Epist. 81. Epist. 57 Hom. 15. in Ezech. At least we must needs uphold, that a man is as just and righteous at his first conversion, as at his death, how godly a life soever he lead: against which I will put down these reasons following. R. ABBOT. If there can be no good works before the first justification of a sinner, what shall we think of M. Bishops virtuous dispositions and works of preparation? What? are they virtuous, and yet are they not good? Nay, he hath called them a Sect. 30. & 32. before good qualities, good dispositions, good preparations, and what? were they good then, and now are they not good? Tell us, M. Bishop, your mind: are your works of preparation good works, or are they not good? If they be not good, than you have spoken untruly before in calling them good. If they be good, than it is untruth that you say here, that no good works go before the first justification of a sinner. Either in the one or in the other you must needs confess, that you have said amiss. Now here he quarelleth with Master Perkins, as if he had said nothing to the matter in hand, which is as he saith of the second justification, whereas Master Perkins, though noting their distinction of first and second justification, yet hath in hand wholly to exclude works from justification, whence it must follow, that they have no place in any second justification. And the argument here propounded, directly overthroweth his second justification, though he would not see so much. For if a man can do no perfect good works till he be fully justified, them can he do no perfect good works till the second justification be fulfilled. For a man is not fully and perfectly justified, till he have attained to full and perfect justice. justice is not full and perfect, so long as any thing remaineth to be added unto it. There is still something to be added in their second justification, till it come to his full term. Therefore till then a man is not fully justified. Now the justice that is not perfect, if it be respected in itself, cannot be pleasing unto God. It can therefore bring forth no good works to merit at God's hands. There can therefore be no good works, whereby a man should merit their second justification. M. Bishop after his manner briefly reciteth the argument, and having so done, very scholarlike answereth to the conclusion, granting it in one sort, when the premises infer it in another, and yet braveth and faceth, as if the matter were wholly clear for him. justification, as M. Perkins saith, we make but one, but yet we make degrees of sanctification, not evil, worse and worst, as this caviller fond dreameth, but good, and better and best, according to the measure of God's spirit bestowed upon us, but yet so, as that to the good, & better, and best that is in this life, there cleaveth a blemish and stain, which would cause the work to be condemned, but that it is graciously accepted, and the imperfection thereof mercifully pardoned for Christ's sake, as shall appear in the handling of that matter. He calleth the affirming of one justification perfect at first, and not after to be lost, an absurd position; but it is not absurd, but to absurd men, to whom the truth itself is absurd. There is in the sight of God but one justification only by faith in Christ, under the coverture whereof we stand thenceforth acceptable unto God, both in our persons, and in our works of obedience unto everlasting life. In that sense as to present us just before God, there is no other justification. That that is further, is but declarativa, a justification so called, whereby we are justified and declared to be justified men. The true justification properly so called, cannot be lost, because a Rom. 8.30. whom God justifieth he also glorifieth, nor increased, because the righteousness of Christ is always uniform and alike. By this righteousness being the same to all, all are equally righteous, but by the different grace of sanctification in inherent righteousness, some are more righteous & some less, and if jovinian maintained the contrary, he erred, and therefore those Fathers whom M. Bishop citeth, do not coarse us at all, but say the same that we do, and we that they, neither is it any other but his gross ignorance, so absurdly to mistake one thing for another. We say, that there is equality of righteousness in one respect▪ and he bringeth the Father's affirming against jovinian what we confess, that there is difference of righteousness in another respect, According to that former righteousness by imputation of the merit and obedience of Christ, a man is as righteous the first day of his conversion, as he is in the end of his life, howsoever as touching sanctification and inherent righteousness, he grow much, and therein be renewed from day to day. 36. W. BISHOP. First, that of the Revelations: Let him that is just be yet justified: or as your text hath it: He that is righteous, Cap. 22. let him be more righteous: and that of, fear not to be justified even until death: Eccles. 18. do convince, that there are more justifications than one, and that a man may increase in justification and righteousness until death. Which is confirmed where it is said: That the path of a just man proceedeth, Prou. 4. as the light doth until it be perfect day: which is degrees more and more. And S. Paul teacheth the same, where he saith to men that give alms plentifully: That God will multiply their seed, 2. Cor. 9 and augment the increases of the fruits of their justice. Further, S. james doth most effectually prove this increase of righteousness, and the second justification, in these words: Abraham our father, was he not justified by works, Cap. 2. offering Isaac his son upon the altar. That he speaketh of the second justification is evident: for Abraham was justified before Isaac was borne, as it is most manifest by the Scripture itself: and by that heroical act, of not sparing his only and entirely beloved Son, his justice was much augmented. Gen. 15. Rom. 4. And the Apostle himself seemeth to have foreseen all our adversaries cavillation, and to have so long before prevented them. First, that common shift of theirs (that this work was a sign, or the fruit only of his faith, and no companion of it, in the matter of justification) is formally confuted: for the holy Ghost speaking distinctly of both his faith and work, and joining them both in this act of justification, attributeth the better part of it unto his work, thus: Seest thou that faith did work with his works; and by the works the faith was consummate and made perfect. Which he doth after fitly declare by a similitude, comparing faith to the body, and good works to the soul: which give life and lustre to faith, otherwise faith is of little value and estimation with God. Which S. Paul also teacheth at large, among other speeches including this: That if he should have all faith, 1. Cor. 13. and wanted charity, he were nothing. And comparing faith and charity together, defineth expressly, that charity is the greater virtue, which charity is the fountain of all good works. And so by this preferring these works of charity before faith, he doth stop the other starting hole of the Protestants, that Abraham forsooth was justified before God, by only faith: but was declared just before men by his works: For if God esteem more of charity, then of our faith, a man is more justified before God by charity, then by faith. Again, in the very place where this noble fact is recorded, to show how acceptable it was to God himself, it is said in the person of God: Gen. 22. Now I know that thou lovest me: and to convince all obstinate cavilling, is it not said that his faith did in this very fact cooperate with his works, and that the work made his faith perfect: which conjunction of both of them together, doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his justification before God: adding also, That he was therefore called the friend of God: which could not have been, if thereby he had been only declared just before men: and thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles, S. Paul and S. james, which seem contrary. S. Paul saying that a man is justified by faith without works, and S. james, that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. That S. Paul speaketh of works which go before faith, such as we of our own forces, without the help of grace are able to do: and such he saith not to deserve our first justification. But S. james disputeth of works, which follow faith, and issue out of our souls, now garnished will grace, and such he holdeth us to be justified by, Lib. 83. Quest. q. 76. Ser. 16. de verb. Apost. that is, made more and more just: See the place. He saith directly, that we are justified, and that this justice doth increase, whiles it doth proceed and profit. R. ABBOT. The exhortation of S. john is, that he that hath walked in righteousness and innocency, and thereby approved his profession of the faith of Christ, should still continue his course, and go forward to justify and approve himself to the consciences of all men, by the same virtuous and godly life. The words have their reference to outward conversation, & justification is to be understood of the same that S. james speaketh of, and that is before men, and in example of outward life. To inward holiness and purity the other part of the sentence is to be referred, He that is holy, let him be sanctified still, that is, let him add to his sanctification, let him be more and more renewed, let him still be a Ephe. 4.22.24. putting off the old man, and putting on the new; let him still b 2. Cor. 7.1. cleanse himself from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, and finish (or perfect) his sanctification in the fear of God. S. john would not by both those speeches import one thing, & therefore seeing the latter without doubt importeth inward righteousness, the other must needs be applied to outward works. As for that of Ecclesiasticus it is nothing to us, who admit no canonical authority of that book; yet it proveth nothing for M. Bishop nor against us, the words truly translated being these: c Eccles. 18.21. defer not till death to be justified; that is, put not off till death to repent & to seek forgiveness of thy sins, according to that which in the former verse he hath said; d Ver. 20. Humble thyself before thou be sick, & whilst thou mayest yet sin, show thy conversion. Here is nothing at all to prove two justifications in that sense that we here speak of, as whereby a man being first just, becometh more just before the judgement seat of God. Increase & growth of inherent righteousness we acknowledge and require in all faithful Christians, and his pains is idly bestowed in the proof thereof. We know what our Saviour saith, e john. 15.2. Every one that beareth fruit in me the Father purgeth, that he may bring forth more fruit; what S. Peter exhorteth, f 2. Per. 3.18. to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. We teach men to say with S. Paul: g Phil. 3.12. Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect, but one thing I do; I forget that which is behind, & endeavour myself to that which is before, and follow hard towards the mark. etc. We teach with S. Bernard; h Bernard. in Purif. ser. 3. In viae vitae non progredi est regredi. In the way of life not to go forward, is to go backward, and again, i Epist. 123. Nolle proficere est deficere. not to increase is to decrease; k Epist. 91. Vbi incipis no●e fieri melior. 〈◊〉 eti●m d●sinis esse i●●us. where a man beginneth not to care to be better, there he giveth over being good at all. He need not therefore to prove this matter unto us, who teach it much more faithfully & carefully then they do. The place of james proveth no other justification but what we confess, that is an approving & declaring of his faith and justification. His works are a testimony that the Scripture hath truly & rightly said of him, l jam. 2.23. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Now M. Bishop should have told us in what other meaning it can be taken, that S. james saith, that in his works the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. For if his works were but the fulfilling of that Scripture, how absurdly doth Master Bishop go about to prove in his works an augmentation of that which by that Scripture is imported formerly to be done? If his works were but the fulfilling of that that was said of his justification before, how doth he thereby seek to prove a second justification? Now the former testimony of his justification is to be considered, which was long after Gods first calling of him, m Gen. 12. & seq. when he had showed his singular faith and obedience unto God, in going out of his own country at the word of God, when he had long called upon the name of the Lord, built many altars unto him, done him much service: when he had long traveled from place to place under his protection. For after all this, yet was he not justified by his works, but only of his n Gen. 15.6. believing the Lord, it is testified, that it was imputed unto him for righteousness. We would have M. Bishop to tell us, whether Abraham before the time that this testimony was given him, were a justified man or not? he cannot deny it, because Abraham had done many good works: and he hath before said, that there can be no good works before the first justification. If he were justified before, than it appeareth, that to a man already justified, not his works, but his faith is counted for righteousness▪ and because it cannot be thought that by one means he was justified before, and by another now, it must needs be, that as before to be justified, so now still being justified, his faith is counted to him for righteousness, according as it is written: o Hab. 2.4. The just shall live by faith. Now if after he were justified, he did continue still to be justified by faith, then to speak properly as we do of justification in the sight of God, there is one only justification whereby a man's p Rom. 4 5. faith is imputed to him for righteousness, as the Apostle speaketh. It must needs therefore follow that S. james speaketh of justification in some other meaning then the Apostle S. Paul doth: what that meaning is let him learn, not of us, but of the ancient Church: q Phot. apud Oecum. in Rom. cap. 4. Non habuit Abrah●m opera? absit. Opera siquidem habuit, ut si cum hominibus qui simul cum eo versabantur fuisset in judicio constitutus facilè justificatus fuisset, illisque antepositus: verum ut coram Deo ex suis operibus iustificaretur tanquam dignus & aequalis sese praebens dignitatis cum ea quae inde praebebatur beneficentia & dono, nequaquam fuisset illam assecutus unde ergo b● dignus est habitu● ex sola fide, etc. Solutio patet ex bu quomodo hi● quidem (Paulus) ex fide ait justificatum fuisse Abraham, diws autem Ia●obus ex operibus. Had Abraham no works? (saith Photius) God forbidden. Verily he had works, so as that if he had been brought in judgement with the men with whom he lived, he had easily been justified, and preferred before them: but that by his works he should be justified before God, as worthy of the dignity, kindness, and gift that was yielded unto him, he would never have attained to it, but he had it by faith only. Hereby, saith he, the resolution is manifest, how Saint Paul saith, that Abraham was justified by faith, and Saint james, that he was justified by works. Here is a plain distinction and difference delivered, that Saint Paul saith, that by faith only a man is justified before God: but that it is before men, & with men that S. james meaneth a man is justified by works. And this distinction is very plainly intimated by S. Paul, when he saith, r Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were justified by works, he had to rejoice but not with God. He denieth not but Abraham was justified by works, and that he had wherein to glory, and to stand upon his justification, but yet not with God. He might do it in respect of men, but with God he could not do it. So saith Origen upon those words, having first put difference betwixt justification by faith seen only to God, and justification by works which may be approved of men: s Origen. in Rom. ca 4. Abraham si ex operibus justificatus est, habet quidem gloriam ex operibus venientem, sed non illam quae apud Deum est. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath the glory which cometh by works, but not that which is with God. And this distinction is apparent also by S. Austin, who speaking as touching inherent justice and righteousness of works, saith, t Aug. de Temp. ser. 49. Quamdiu vivitur in hac vita nemo justificatus est, sed, In conspectu Dei. Non frustrae addidit, In conspectu tuo: nisi quia potest esse justificatus in conspectu hominum. Referet in conspectu Dei: Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens. So long as we live in this life, no man is justified; but in the sight of God. Not without cause was it that David added, In thy sight: For it may be that a man may be justified in the sight of men; but let him speak as touching God's sight, and no man living shall be justified in thy sight. Where sith S. Austin as touching justification by works, denieth that any man in this life is justified in the sight of God, it must necessarily follow that that justification which is by works, must not be understood in the sight of God, but only in the sight of men. Now then to speak of justification before men, as S. james doth, it is true that both faith and works do concur and join in the act of justification. The faith that inwardly in the heart justifieth to God, and is outwardly professed with the mouth to men, is not sufficient to approve a man outwardly to men, and to the Church of God, to the sight and conscience whereof, every faithful man is bound to acquit and clear himself, unless it be accompanied and adorned with virtuous and upright conversation. In this respect therefore it may be said, that the better part in some sort is attributed to works, that faith is made perfect by works; that faith is as the body and good works as the soul, and that faith without works is dead, even as the body is dead without the soul. Men specially have an eye to works, and thereto attribute more than to words. He is taken for a halting and half Christian, that maketh show of faith, and liveth not accordingly. Men account him as a carrion, a dead carcase, loathsome, & detestable; he is every man's byword, as I said before, and his name continually carrieth reproach with it. Hereby it appeareth also, that faith though haply it be in the heart, yet is here respected only as it is professed to men. For it cannot be that the work of the hand should give life to the faith of the heart, but rather receiveth life from it. Yea, M. Bishop himself telleth us, that charity within is the life of faith within, and therefore works which are without cannot be said to be the life of faith, but as faith itself also is without. There may be works whereby a man outwardly may u Luk. 16.15. justify himself to men, as the Pharisees did, which yet are dead works, because there is neither faith nor charity to give them life from the heart. Now S. james must so be understood, as that not charity which is habitually and invisibly within, but works which are outward and apparent, must be the life of faith. He speaketh therefore of faith, as it is outwardly professed, which hath it life, and grace, and honour amongst men by the outward fruits of good works correspondent to itself. Very guilefully therefore doth M. Bishop turn his speech from works whereof S. james speaketh, to charity, there being here so different a consideration to be had of the one and of the other; yea, he himself naming charity the fountain of good works, and thereby importing that charity as the fountain differeth from the good works that issue therefrom. The place that he allegeth to the Corinthians, x 1. Cor. 13.2. Though I have all faith. etc. is nothing to this purpose, because we speak here of a faith that is common to all the faithful, but the Apostle there speaketh of a faith that is peculiar only to some, whereof he hath said the chapter going before, y Cap. 12.9.10. To one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another is given faith, meaning the faith whereby miracles are wrought, as he himself addeth, Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, etc. His purpose is to teach men not to be proud of special gifts of the spirit, but to respect the end and use thereof, which is performed by love, without which they are only idle shows. As touching the comparison of faith and charity, there hath been enough said z Sect. 22. before. For our present state faith hath the preferment, and all in all hangeth upon our faith, which is the heart and life of whatsoever else is in us towards God. It is faith that giveth God his glory, that acknowledgeth him to be that that he is; that so setteth him before us, as to draw all our affections unto him, our love, our fear our hope, our delight, ourselves wholly both body and soul. The promises of God in special manner are made to them that believe and trust in him. Therefore that God esteemeth more of our charity then of our faith, is not the Apostles assertion, but M. Bishops fond collection, and that which the whole course of Scripture doth gainsay. But supposing it to be so, the consequence that M. Bishop draweth therefrom is very ridiculous: If God esteem more of charity then of our faith, a man is more justified by charity, then by faith. As if he should say, A man esteemeth more of his eyes then of his ears, therefore he heareth better with his eyes then with his ears. A thing may simply & absolutely be preferred before another, and yet the other in some respect & use may be preferred before it. Thus may it very well be said as touching this comparison of faith with charity as before is said. Further he allegeth, that God to show how acceptable Abraham's fact was to him saith, Now I know that thou lovest me. The true text is, a Gen. 22.12. Now I know that thou fearest me, but thus M. Bishop shufleth and shifteth the best he can, to gain somewhat to charity against faith. But this is nothing to his purpose howsoever. It pleaseth God who knoweth the heart and whatsoever is within us, yet to take upon him the knowledge of our love, faith, fear, etc. by the fruits thereof. Hereby he will try us, he will approve us, and give testimony & witness unto us, and so shall he do at the last day. But what will Bishop infer hereof? If that that he would prove be that that he saith, that it was acceptable unto God, we will easily grant him so much, and so send him back again as wise as he came. If he would prove hereby that Abraham was justified before God by his works, let him consider his argument well, God took knowledge of Abraham's fearing him by his works; therefore Abraham was justified by works in the sight of God. But if we follow the construction that S. Austin often maketh of those words, this collection will appear much more absurd. b August. co●● Maximin. lib. 3. cap. 19 God, as he saith, knoweth all things before they come to pass. It was not now that God first knew that Abraham feared him. Therefore as c Gemere dicitur spiritus qu● nos gemere facit, sicut dixit Deus, Nunc cognovi, quando cognoscere hominem fecit. the spirit is said to pray and groan, because he maketh us to pray and groan, so he saith, that God is said to know, when as he maketh us to know. d Jbid. lib. 1. Nunc cognovi id est, nunc cognoscere te feci. & de Genes. ad lit. lib 4. cap. 9 feci ut cognosceretur. Now I know then is as much as if he had said, Now I have made thee to know, or I have made it to be known that thou fearest me. M. Bishop's argument than is come to this, God made Abraham to know by his work in offering his son Isaac, that he was one indeed that feared God; therefore Abraham was justified by his works in the sight of God. But he will now convince all obstinate cavilling, and to that end saith, that it is said, that Abraham's faith in this fact did cooperate with his works, and that the work made his faith perfect. And what of that? This conjunction of them both together, doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his justification before God. This is as he said before, just as Germans lips, nine mile asunder. He joineth faith and works together, therefore he speaketh of justification before God. The argument much better serveth us; If he had spoken of justification before God, as S. Paul doth, he would have spoken of faith only as he doth: but because he joineth faith and works together, it plainly appeareth, that he speaketh not of the same justification, whereof S. Paul speaketh, and therefore must be understood of justification before men. Well, his friends are beholding to him for his good will, but he is able to stand them in little steed. Yet to help the matter, it is added, saith he, and he was called the friend of God. But why did he not allege the whole text, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God, and so conclude thereof, therefore he was justified by his works in the sight of God? He might as well infer it of the one as of the other; and if the one part of the sentence be against his purpose, what sense was there in him to seek for it in the other? The meaning is evident & plain, that it appeared by Abraham's obedience and works, that it was not without cause said of him, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and that he was called the friend of God. e Mat. 12.33. The tree is known by his fruits, and Abraham by his fruits is justified, and proved to be a good tree. Now it is not hereby only declared, that he was just before men, as this wrangler cavilleth, but it is hereby declared unto men, that he truly believed, and by his faith was justified before God. To be short, in the text there is not so much as one word, or piece of word, whereby Master Bishop can make it good, that Saint james speaketh of justification in the sight of God. But because the text will not, Saint Austin is brought to prove it, who speaketh never a word to that effect. M. Bishop very lewdly falsifieth his words, and maketh him to say that which he doth not say, nor ever meant to say. He speaketh the idle dreams of his own head, and propoundeth them to his Reader under Saint Austin's name. The very words of Austin are these: f August. lib. 83. quaest. 76. Non sunt sibi contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli & jacobi, cùm dicit unus justificari hominem per fidem absque operibus; & alius dicit manem esse fidem sine operibus, quia ille dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt, hic de ijs quae fidem sequuntur. The sentences of the two Apostles Paul and james, are not contrary one to the other, when the one saith, that a man is justified by faith without works, and the other saith, that faith without works is vain, because the one speaketh of works that go before faith, the other of works which follow faith. Here is no mention of first or second justification, not so much as the name of justification by works, much less any expounding of the meaning of it; not a syllable in all that Chapter, whence he should derive that meaning of justification, which he setteth down for Augustine's, to be made more and more just. Nay, I remember not in my reading, that Austin any where in any meaning affirmeth justification by works, but only in his Hypognosticon, the words whereof are before handled: which work though we commonly cite under Augustine's name, yet there is no man much conversant in Austin, but will easily conceive by the phrase and style, that it is none of his, to say nothing, that in his Retractations he maketh no mention of it. The words that here he speaketh out of S. james are, that faith is vain without works, hereby willing it to be understood, that though faith do justify without any works going before, yet where it justifieth, it hath always good works thencefoorh accompanying it, and that that faith which is not thus accompanied with good works, is not g August. de fide & oper. cap. 14. Salubris illa plancque evangelica. that healthful or saving health which the Gospel commendeth, nor doth justify him in whom it is: h Lib. 83. quaest. ut suprà. Nam justificatus per fidem non potest, nisi justè deinceps operari, quamuis nihil anteà operatus justè ad justificationem pervenerit. For he that is justified by faith, saith he, cannot but thenceforth work righteously, though he attain to justification without having wrought any thing righteously before. The intent that S. james had alleging the example Abraham, he noteth to be this, i Fidem eius bonae opera consecuta esse demonstrat. to show that good works ensued or followed his faith. The drift of his speech is against them, who k Qui sic acceperunt dictum (per fidem sine operibus) ut putarent, cùm semel in Christum credi dissent, etiamsi malè operarentur & flagitiosè ac facinorosè viverent saluos se esse posse per fidem. so took it to be said, (by faith without works) as that they thought, that when once they had believed in Christ, albeit they wrought evil, and lived wickedly and lewdly, yet they might be saved by faith. The error of these men he reformeth thus: l Non ita intelligendum est ut accepta fide, si vixerit, dicamus eum justum etiamsi walè vixerit. It is not so to be understood, (that a man is justified by faith without works) as that having received the faith, if he live, we should call him just, although he live amiss. By which phrase of receiving the faith it appeareth, that there is only that faith here meant which consisteth in outward profession and receiving of baptism, which is far from that faith to which the holy Scripture attributeth justification and salvation. In all which speech S. Austin saith nothing against us, nothing which we avouch not as well as he, but only that under the name of justification, he containeth not only forgiveness of sins, wherein justification properly consisteth, but that also which we distinctly call sanctification, consisting in the inward renewing of us to holiness and righteousness, which the Scripture plainly distinguisheth as we do. In the other place alleged, he notably oppugneth that which M. Bishop would feign maintain. He toucheth three things appertaining to our salvation, which towards it, we have already attained; Predestination, vocation, justification. Of this last he saith, m Aug. de ver. Apost. Sir 16. Quid est, justificari? Audemus dicere, ●am hoc tertium habere nos? Et erit quisquaem nostrúm qui audeat dicere, justus sum? Puto enim hoc esse, Justus sum, quod est, Peccator non sum, si audes hoc dicere, occurrit tibi joannes, si dixerimus, etc. Quid ergo? Nihil habemus de justitia, an habemus? sed non totum habemus. Hoc ergo quaramus, etc. What is meant by being justified? Dare we say, that we have this third thing already? And is there any man that dares say, I am just? for I think it to be all one to say, I am just, as to say, I am no sinner. If thou be bold so to say, S. john meeteth with thee, saying, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. What then? have we nothing of righteousness, or have we? But yet we have not all. Let us then seek after this: for if we have some part, and some part we have not, let that increase which we have, and that shall be supplied which we have not. He plainly confesseth, that by that justification which he speaketh of, we have but somewhat of inherent righteousness, and that we have still somewhat of sin, and therefore that we are not as yet so just by that justification, as that thereby we may stand for just in the sight of God, because we cannot stand for just in his sight before whom perforce we must confess ourselves to be sinners. But M. Bishop teacheth far otherwise, as we have seen before, that a man by baptism is made as void of sin as Adam was in the state of innocency, and therefore hath no need greatly to fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge. Now of that righteousness that we have, S. Austin saith, that it is to grow and increase, that we n Ibid. Grati simus ex eo quod habemus, ut addatur quod non habemus. are to be thankful for that we have, that that may be added which we have not, etc. We teach in the like sort, but yet withal we teach as he doth, that it never so far increaseth in this life, but that it leaveth us still to confess ourselves sinners, and therefore that it never bringeth us to that, as that we can thereby be justified in the sight of God. This is the point. Increase of inward and inherent righteousness we say there ought to be, and is: no man doubteth, no man maketh question of it, but we deny that we merit any justification by our works, or grow by our own righteousness, to be reputed just before the judgement seat of God, neither doth Saint Austin ever affirm the same. 37 W. BISHOP. Nothing then is more certain and clear, then that our justification may daily be augmented: and it seemeth to me, that this also be granted in their opinion. For they holding faith to be the only instrument of justification, cannot deny, but that there are many degrees of faith, it is so plainly taught in the word: O ye of little faith! Mat. 8. Luc. 19 And then a little after, I have not found so great faith in Israel: and, O Lord increase our faith, and many such like, where many different degrees of faith are mentioned. How then can the justification which depends upon that faith not be correspondent unto that diversity of faith, but all one? Again, Master Perkins delivereth plainly, Pag. 54. That men at the first are not so well assured of their salvation, as they are afterward: if then in the certainty of their salvation, which is the prime effect of their justification, they put degrees, they must perforce allow them in the justification itself. And thus much of this question. The objections which Master Perkins makes for us in this Article, Pag. 201. do belong either to the question of merits, or of the possibility of fulfilling the law, or to the perfection of our justice: and therefore I remit them to those places: and will handle the two latter points, before I come to that of merits. R. ABBOT. That inherent righteousness may be increased we confess, but we deny that our justification before God consisteth therein, but only in the merit and obedience of Christ, which needeth no increase, because it is fully absolute and perfect in every respect in itself. But Master Bishop according to his opinion, muffled in the mists of ignorance, telleth us, that there must needs be divers degrees of justification in our meaning, because there are divers degrees of faith, and divers degrees of assurance of salvation. But we answer him, that that necessarily followeth not, because although the instrument whereby we receive, is in some stronger, and in some weaker, yet the thing received is one and the same to both. The price of redemption in the shedding of the blood of Christ, is one and alike to all and every faithful man, but yet it is not alike apprehended by every one. There is perfect righteousness required of us, and the same is yielded unto us in Christ. There may be a difference in us, but Christ cannot be divided, neither is there in him any difference from himself. Where he goeth, he goeth whole; and therefore what he is to the strong, the same is he to the faint and feeble soul. There is greater assurance and less assurance, but the matter whereof each doth take assurance, is the whole mercy of God in Christ. 38. W. BISHOP. Whether it be possible for a man in grace, to fulfil God's law. Pag. 95. MAster Perkins argueth, that it is unpossible: first, for that Paul took it for his ground, that the law could not be fulfilled. Admit it were so. Gal. 5. I than would answer, that he meant, that a man helped only with the knowledge of the law, cannot fulfil the law: but by the aid of God's grace, Rom. 8. he might be able to do it. Which I gather out of S. Paul, where he saith, that that which was unpossible to the law, is made by the grace of Christ possible. 2 Object. The lives and works of most righteous men, are imperfect and stained with sin; ergo quid? Of this, there shall be a several Article. 3 Object. Our knowledge is imperfect, and therefore our faith, repentance, and sanctification is answerable. I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge, then would they be much more perfect than they are, but this argument is also impertinent, and doth rather prove it possible to fulfil the law, because it is possible to know all the law. Then if our works be answerable to our knowledge, we may also fulfil it. 4 Object. A man regenerate, is partly flesh, and partly spirit, and therefore his best works are partly from the flesh. Rom. 8.13. Not so, if we mortify the deeds of the flesh by the spirit, as the Apostle exhorteth. R. ABBOT. The denial of the possibility of keeping God's commandment, or of fulfilling the law is not absolutely meant. God forbidden, that we should say, that God hath commanded any thing unpossible to be done. We believe that Adam was created in state to fulfil all the righteousness of the law. We believe that Christ in our nature hath fulfilled the same for us, and that we by Christ in the end shall fully be restored to the perfection thereof. In the mean time also we keep the commandments of God, and frame our lives according to the line and rule thereof, and herein we labour and travel to grow and increase from day to day: but we attain not to perfection here; that which we do is more in will then in work; more in desire then in deed. In the midst of our righteousness we condemn ourselves of sin; we carry our uncleanness in our hands, and thereby do yield confession thereof to the Lord: if we will say that we fulfil the law, our own mouth shall condemn us, who accordingly as we are taught do daily ask forgiveness for our transgressions of the law. There is no man so long as he liveth, but must confess, that he is too weak to the bearing of that burden, and cometh much short every manner of way of that, that is required by the law. And this S. Paul took indeed for the ground of his whole disputation against justification by the law. For rightly he saith: a Gal. 3.21. If there had been a law given which could have given life, than righteousness should have been by the law. He taketh it for granted, that the law could not give life, not because it was defective in itself, but because by our defect we were not capable of the life that was offered thereby; even as the Sun cannot give light to the blind, not for any want that is in it, but because the blind hath not means to make benefit and use of the light that most clearly shineth from the Sun. Which reason the Apostle more plainly declareth otherwhere, when he saith, that b Rom. 8.3. it was impossible for the law (namely, to justify and save us) because it was weakened by the flesh. Whereby he signifieth, that the default resteth upon our weakness and the corruption of our sinful flesh, whereby we are unable in any sort to attain to that righteousness, and perfect integrity and innocency that the law requireth of us. Now if flesh do hinder the law from being able to justify us, than so long as flesh continueth, there must needs be still a weakness of the law in that behalf. But so long as here we live 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 never therefore whilst we live attain to the fulfilling of the law to be justified thereby. This remainder of flesh doth argue, that we have yet received the grace of God, but only in part. It hath begun to heal us, but a great part of our disease and weakness continueth still. We are therefore as yet but in part only enabled thereby to fulfil the law, and if we keep it but in part, we keep it not so as to be justified by the law, because by the sentence of the law, e ●al. 3.10. cursed is every man that continueth not in all things that are written therein. This meaning the Apostle plainly delivereth, neither doth M. Bishop gather any other meaning from him, but by the corrupting of his words; alleging 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 under the Apostles name, which the Apostle doth not say? he neither saith, nor meant to say, that to fulfil the law, is made possible by the grace of Christ, but rather that in Christ, that justification is supplied unto us, which it is unpossible should be yielded unto us 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 unpossible before to fulfil the law. But of this text there will be further occasion to speak in the three and fortieth section. The second reason alleged by M. Perkins against the opinion of fulfilling the law, is that the lives and works of the most righteous men are unperfect and stained with sin. M. Bishop very quipperly demandeth, Ergo quid? he knew the ergo well enough, Ergo no man can fulfil the law. For if the most righteous fail in that behalf, than it followeth, that generally all are excluded from that power. If all must confess themselves to be unperfect, if all must acknowledge themselves to be sinners, than all must confess, as I said before, that they fail of the performance of the law. The connexion would have been considered here, but M. Bishop prettily passeth it over under pretence of a several article, for the handling of the proposition: what he saith of that we shall see anon. M. Perkins third reason is taken from the imperfection of our knowledge: for it cannot be but our faith, our love, our repentance, our sanctification must be unperfect, so long as we have but unperfect knowledge to direct us in all these things. M. Bishops answer to this consisteth of two parts: the one whereof is an acknowledgement against himself, the other, an assertion of apparent and manifest untruth. I would to God, (saith he) our works were answerable to our knowledge, then would they be much more perfect than they be. He confesseth then, that our works are not perfect, according to that that we do know; and if they be unperfect to that knowledge that we have, and our knowledge come far short of that concerneth us by the law, then must our works be very far from perfection, and we far from being truly said to fulfil the law. But M. Bishop according to his skill denieth in the second part of his answer, that our knowledge is unperfect, expressly contrary to that which the Apostle saith: f 1. Cor 13.9.12 We know in part, we prophecy in part, we see through a glass darkly. 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, dum putamus Deo quem diligimus pl●e●re vel non displicere quod facimus, & postea cùm didicerimus, quòd non placeat poenitendo deprecamur ut ignoscat. We all (saith S. Austin) offend in many things, whilst we think that that which we do either pleaseth God, or doth not displease him, when as afterwards we learn, that it is not pleasing unto him, and do repent thereof. h Idem soliloq. cap. 1. Quisquic cognoscit te, amat te plusquam se, relinquit se & venit ad te, ut 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) loveth thee more than himself, and leaveth himself to come unto thee, that he may rejoice in thee. Hence is it, Lord, that I love thee not so much as I ought to do, because I do not fully know thee: because I know thee but a little I love thee but a little, and therefore do but a little rejoice in thee. There is no man in this life that knoweth himself, but knoweth well that he hath cause to pray still with the Prophet David: i Psal. 119.12. Teach me thy statutes; k Ver. 33. teach me O Lord the way of thy statutes: l Ver. 73. give me understanding that I may learn thy commandments: m Ver. 127. grant me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies. If so great a Prophet were still to be taught, were still to learn, were still begging of God the understanding and knowledge of his commandments, how vain a man is M. Bishop to make it so possible a matter for a man being yet covered in part with the veil of flesh, to attain to the full and perfect knowledge of the law. Of this argument he saith, that it is impertinent, but giveth no reason why he so saith. Saint Austin 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 corpus●ulo cunctas potest habere virtutes, quia ex part cognoscimus, etc. that no man in this body can have all virtues, because we know but in part, and prophecy but in part, and if imperfection of knowledge do hinder virtue, and the perfect fulfilling of the law, how doth he make it an argument impertinent to say, Our knowledge is yet unperfect, therefore we are yet unperfect to the fulfilling of the law. But we must pardon his unperfect knowledge, which if it had been according to his will, undoubtedly we should have seen some more skill in his answers then now we do. M. Perkins fourth and last reason is taken from that that before hath been said, that the regenerate man in this life is still partly flesh, and not wholly spiritual, and therefore his best works savour partly of the flesh. Not so, saith M. Bishop, if we mortify the deeds of the flesh by the spirit. But I answer him, Yes even so, because though by the spirit we mortify the deeds 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 fulfil the law. Now if we attain not to that that we would, our will also being yet unperfect, so that we will not so perfectly as we should, how far must we needs think ourselves to be from that integrity and uprightness, which we should perform according to the perfect rule of righteousness that is laid before us in the law? But of this further when we come to the point as touching the perfection, and purity of our works. 39 W. BISHOP. But these trifling arguments belong rather unto the next question. I will help M. Perkins to some better, that the matter may be more thoroughly examined. Act. 1.15. Why go ye about to put a yoke upon the Disciples necks, which neither we, nor our Fathers were able to bear? these words were spoken of the law of Moses, therefore we were not able to fulfil it. I answer first, that that law could not be fulfilled by the only help of the same law, without the further aid of God's 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 help of ordinary grace: and in that sense, it is said to be such a yoke, as we were not able to bear. 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 joshua, David, josias, Zachary, Elizabeth, and many others, did fulfil 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 think is seldom to be found. If M. Perkins arguments were as trifling as he hath given them answers, he might have done well to have spared his labour bestowed in the writing of that book. Before he have given any one good answer to the reasons only by the way alleged by M. Perkins, he taketh upon him to bring other of his own indeed out of our books, that he may show himself as wise in answering the one, as he hath done already in the other. We are wont to allege 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 bear. Whence even by the very words it must needs follow, that we are not able to fulfil the law. M. Bishop's answer is, that that law could not be fulfilled by the only help of the same law, without further aid of God's grace. As though they had not the grace of God, who notwithstanding complained of the law, as of a yoke too heavy for them to bear even in that state of grace. Therefore we will say to M. Bishop, as Orosius did to the Pelagian heretic: b Oros. Apolog. de arbit. libert. Samuel, Elias, etc. Patres sine dubio nostri sunt e●●neminem Patrum Petrus affirmat, sed neque semel ipsos, hoc est, Apostolos cum essent Judaei ●nus legis ferre potuisse, sed fide Christi secundum spem gratiae fuisse saluatos. An fortè secundum te omnes isti sansti Patres Dei adiutorium non habebant? Samuel, Elias, Elizeus, Esay, jeremy, Daniel, Zachary, all those holy ones either judges or Kings, or Prophets were undoubtedly our Fathers, and Peter affirmeth, that none of the Fathers, no nor themselves, that is, the Apostles being jews, could bear the burden of the law, but were saved by the faith of Christ according to the help of grace. What, had not all these holy Father's thinkest thou the hope of grace? Having then the help of the grace of God, yet they still acknowledged the law to be a heavier burden, then that they were able to stand under the weight thereof. To this purpose he urgeth the heretic with that which is written in the law: c Deut. 6.5. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc. d Oros. ibid. Respond, non mihi sed Deo; non v●co sed conscientia, si ita ex toto cord Deum diligis, ut nullam un quam in eo cogitationem quae absque timore & dilectione Dei intelligi possit admittas: ita in tota anima sequeris, ut suscepta semel cruce in nullam penitus oblectationem habita ad tempus i●cunditatu succedas, etc. Answer, saith he, not to me but to God, not with thy voice, but with thy conscience, whether thou so love God with all thy heart, as that thou never admit any thought therein, that may be conceived to be without the fear and love of God: whether thou so follow him with all thy soul, as that having once undertaken the cross, thou be never carried for the time to fall into any delight or contentment of pleasure, etc. Where as he showeth how far it is beyond our power to keep ourselves within the lists & bounds of this commandment: so he taketh away M. Bishops second exception, that the law was thus called a yoke, etc. in respect of the sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies by the multitude, whereof he saith, that it was so burdensome and cumbrous, as that it could hardly be kept by the help of ordinary grace. For if the law be there understood? which saith, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. as Orosius declareth, than 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 observe 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 keep it if it might be kept. But the yoke of which S. Peter speaketh, is such as none was able to bear. It is not then to be understood of the ceremonies of the law. And indeed there is no doubt, but that the ceremonial law, by ordinary grace of God, as touching the outward practice thereof, might exactly be performed. The multitude of those observations is equalled in the Romish Church, and yet they have nimble fellows that can attain to all. But out of M. Bishop's words we will argue à minori ad maius; if the law of ceremonies were so heavy a yoke, which consisted only in outward observations, how much heavier is that that giveth law to the whole man, to all his thoughts, and words, and deeds, 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 sense & conscience, saith of the ceremonies, that they could very hardly be observed: but of the rest of the commandments, that they are very possible and easy to be kept, as we shall see anon. In the mean time to prove it, he bringeth example of divers, who he saith did fulfil all the law: but he is prevented and bereaved of those examples by Cyprian, who saith of all those excellent men and Priests, and Prophets before Christ, that e Cyprian. de jejune. & tent. Christi Fuerant & ante Christum viri insignes, Prophetae, Sacerdotes, sed in peccatis concepti & nati, nec originali nec personali caruere delicto, & inventa est in omnibus vel ignorantia vel insufficientia, in quibus erronei peccaverunt & egu erunt misericor dia Dei. per quam edocti & restituti gratias egeru●t Deo, & ad plenitudinem justitiae multùm sibi de esse confessi sunt, & sperantes in Deo nullam sibi soliditatem attri buere praesumpserunt. being conceived and borne in sins, they were neither without original nor personal, fault, and there was found in them all either ignorance or unsufficiency, by which going astray they sinned and stood in need of the mercy of God, by which being instructed and restored, they gave thanks to God, and confessed that much was wanting unto them to perfection of righteousness, and trusting in God presumed not to attribute any soundness to themselves. As touching them all, we must answer the same that Saint Austin answered the Pelagian heretics: f August. de pec. mer. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 14. Scripturarum testimonijs quibus de illorum laudibus credimus, hoc etiam credimus, non justificari in conspectu Dei omnem vinentem, & ideo rogari ne inire● in judicium cum servis suis. By the testimonies of the Scripture which we believe as touching their commendations, we believe this also, that no man living shall be found just in the sight of God, and that therefore he is requested not to enter into judgement with his servants. Whereby what we mean when we request it, the same S. Austin showeth: g Jdem de Tem. Sir 49. Nests micum in judicio exigendo à me omnia quae praece pisti, & omnia quae iussisi●. Name me invenies reum, si in judicium iniraveris mecum, etc. Stand not with me in judgement, by exacting of me all that thou hast commanded, and all that thou hast charged us. For thou shalt find me guilty if thou enter into judgement with me. This S. Austin maketh the common confession of all the servants of God, that they do not fulfil all, and M. Bishop saith of them whom he nameth, that they did fulfil all. The Pelagians alleged amongst others, Zacharie and Elizabeth, as M. Bishop doth, because it is said of them: h Luk. 1.6. Both were just before God, and walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without reproof. S. Austin answereth them, i Aug. contra Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 1. cap 48. Dictum est quantum mihi videtur secundum quandam inter homines conversationem probabilem atque laudabilem, quam nullus hominum justè posset in accusationis & criminationis querelam vocare. Quam proptereà in conspectu Dei habu●sse referuntur, quia in ea homines nulla dissimulatione fallebant, sed ut apparebant homi nibus, ita noti erant oculis Dei. It is spoken as seemeth to me, as touching a commendable and praiseworthy conversation amongst men, which no man could justly ca● into quarrel of accusation or crime. Which therefore they are said to have had before God, because they therein did not deceive men by any dissimulation, but as they appeared to men, so they were known to the eyes of God. Therefore he maketh of that which was said of them, no more but that which the Apostle saith of himself, k Phil. 3.6 As touching the righteousness of the law I was unrebukable, when as yet he was not called to the grace of Christ. l Aug. de pecca. mer. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 13. Quid de illis laudabile dictum est, quod non in eo comprehendatur quod de se Apostolus cùm in Christum non dum credidisset professus est, etc. What commendable thing is spoken of them, saith he, which is not comprehended in that which the Apostle professed of himself, when as yet he had not believed in Christ, that according to the righteousness that is in the law, he was without reproof. m Oros. Apolog. de arbit. libert. Sine crimine dici quenquam & sine querela non est perfectionis testimonium, sed conversationis ezemplum. In being said in the Scripture to be without crime or reproof, saith Orosius, is not imported a testimony of perfection, but an example of conversation. It is manifest therefore, that that which is written concerning them, is not to be drawn to the avouching of that fulfilling of the law which M. Bishop here defendeth for justification before God. Yea, and it is further to be noted, that Zachary was a Priest, and the Priest's manner was, n Heb. 7.27. first to offer sacrifice for his own sins, & then for the people's. Zachary therefore offered sacrifice for his own sins. But o 1. joh. 3.4. sin is the transgression of the law: if Zachary then were a transgressor of the law, it is false that Master Bishop saith, that he fulfilled the whole law. Still therefore it standeth good against all subverters of truth, as touching the moral law, that in respect of justification it is a yoke which neither joshua, nor David, nor josias, nor Zachary and Elizabeth, nor any of those others whom M. Bishop meaneth have been able to bear, and therefore we have nothing to rest upon, but only the faith of jesus Christ to be justified in him. 40. W. BISHOP. Rom. 7. To will is in me, but I find not how to perform: If S. Paul could not perform that which he would, how can others? Answer. He speaks there of avoiding all evil motions and temptations, which he would willingly have done, but he could not: marry he could well by the assistance of God's grace, subdue those provocations to sin, and make them occasions of virtue: and consequently keep all the commandments, not suffering those passions to lead him to the breach of any one of them. The like answer we make unto that objection, that one of the ten commandments forbids us to covet our neighbours goods▪ his wife, or servants, which (as they say) is unpossible: but we hold, that it may be well done, understanding the commandment rightly, which prohibiteth not to have ill motions of covetousness and lechery, but to yield our consent unto them. Now it is so possible for a man by God's grace to refrain his consent from such wicked temptations, that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified virtuous man, Lib. 10. conf. cap. 7. even when he is asleep: and testifieth of himself, that waking he performed it. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop hath a good facility in propounding our arguments, but he hath very ill hap in answering of them. S. Paul would willingly have avoided all evil motions, saith he, but he could not. Therefore say we, he could not fulfil the law. He could subdue those provocations to sin, saith he, and not suffer them to lead him to the breach of any of the commandments. For what is it whereof the Apostle saith, as is alleged, a Rom. 7 18. To will is present with me, but I find not how to perform that that is good? It is even the commandment, whereof he hath said before, b Ver. 12. The commandment is holy, and just, and good: for instance whereof and clearer evidence, he setteth down the commandment c Ver. 7. Thou shalt no lust, which he still prosecuteth under the name of good. Paul then confesseth, that though he had a will to keep and fulfil the law, and namely, the commandment, Thou shalt not lust, yet he could not find means to attain to that perfection, and why then doth M. Bishop attribute to him, the keeping of all the commandments, so as not to be led to the breach of any one of them. d August. de nupt. & concup. lib. 1. cap. 27. Lex non vult ut concupiscam quae dicit, Non concupisces, & ego nolo concupiscere. Concupiscere nolebat, & tamen concupiscebat. The law would have him not to lust in that it saith: Thou shalt not lust; and he was willing not to lust, but yet he did lust: how then should we say, that he did fulfil the law? If the law forbidden evil motions and provocations, and it is not possible for us to avoid them, or to free ourselves from them, it must follow, that it is not possible for us to fulfil the law. But we forsooth do not understand the commandment rightly, which M. Bishop telleth us, doth not prohibit evil motions of covetousness and lechery, but only consent unto them. So then the law saith, Thou shalt not lust, but M. Bishop saith, Yes, thou mayst lust without any sin, but thou mayst not consent unto thy lust. But far otherwise S. Austin saith, that e Idem Epist. 200. In justitia nondum consummata perseveranter proficientes ad eius consummationem quandoque veniemus ubi peccati concupiscentia non cohibenda atque fraenanda, sed nulla sit. Hoc enim posuit lex dicendo, Non concupisces. the law in saying, Thou shalt not lust, doth set down that there shall be no concupiscence to be restrained and bridled. Therefore he saith: f De Temp. Ser. 45. Plenitudo est virtutis, quòd lex dixit, Ne concupiscas. Hoc modo impleri non potest. The perfection of virtue is that which the law saith, Thou shalt not lust: this now (in this life) cannot be fulfilled. And again, g Ibid. Ser. 49. Hoc dicit legem implere, hoc est, non concupiscere. Quis ergo hoc, qui vivit potest? To fulfil the law, is not to just: and who is there living that can so do? It is manifest then by S. Austin, that that commandment requireth a perfection, which in this world we never are able to attain unto, because it doth not only forbid consent, but even the very having of any evil motions or affections contrary to the law. And by those motions we do not only break the commandment, Thou shalt not lust, but we fail of yielding love to God with all our heart, with all our soul, etc. because evil motions and lusts do occupy some part of the heart and soul, and withhold the same from God. Therefore S. Austin saith again, h Aug. de perf. just. Cùm est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus. Neque enim caro sine anima concupiscit, quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur, quia carnaliter anima concupiscit. so long as there is any part of carnal concupiscence by continency to be bridled, God is not perfectly loved with all the soul: for the flesh lusteth not without the soul, although the flesh be said to lust, because the soul lusteth according to the flesh. Now therefore albeit it be true, that a man may resist such evil motions, and deny consent unto them, yet is he not thereby freed from transgression of the law. But yet M. Bishop falsely allegeth S. Austin to that purpose, who in the place i August. Confess. lib. 10 cap. 30. Saepe etiam in somnis resistimus, etc. Potens est manus tua abundantiore gratia tua lascivos motus etiam mei sopotu extinguere▪ etc. Lugens in eo quod incomsummatus sum, & sperans perfecturum te in me misericordias tuas usque ad pacem plenariam quam habebunt tecum interiora & exteriora meacùm absorpta fuerit mors in victoriam. cited, not the seventh as he quoteth, but the thirtieth Chapter, affirmeth indeed that sometimes men resist those concupiscences even in their sleep, that it is in God's power to make him always so to do. He signifieth his longing desire after that purity and perfection, but his expectation of it only then, when death shall be swallowed into victory, howsoever God be able, if so it were his pleasure, to give it even now also in the mean time. And indeed there is no man living to whom can be attributed that perfection, to be altogether and wholly free from consent of sinful lust. There is no man that fighteth so warily, but that sometimes, yea many times he receiveth grievous wounds, and findeth cause to cry mournfully unto God for the cure thereof. A man resisteth in one thing, and is overtaken in another; at one time he checketh those corrupt desires, with which as nets he is strongly entangled at another. This is the state of all flesh, and of this we have cause to complain, so long as we live here. 41 W. BISHOP. jac. 3.2. 1. joan. 1. We do offend in many things: and if we say, we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. But if we could observe all the law, we should offend in nothing, nor have any sin, ergo. Answer. I grant that we offend in many things: not because it is not possible to keep them, but for that we are frail, and easily led by the craft of the devil into many offences which we might avoid, if we were so wary and watchful as we ought to be: again, although we cannot keep ourselves from venial offences, yet may we fulfil the law, which is not transgressed and broken, unless we commit some mortal sins. For venial sins, either for the smallness of the matter, or want of consideration, are not so opposite to the law, as that they violate the reason, and purport of it, although they be somewhat disagreeing with it. But of this matter more fully in some other place. R. ABBOT. There is no doubt, but if all impediments were taken away, whereby we are hindered from keeping the commandments of God, it should be possible enough perfectly to fulfil the same. It is true which S. Austin saith, that a August. de sp● & lit, cap. 19 Non vitio suo non implebatur lex, sed vitio prudentiae carnis. it is not by any default of the law that we fulfil it not, but by default of the wisdom of the flesh, which as the Apostle saith, is b Rom. 8.7. enmity against God, and is not subject unto the law of God, nor indeed can be. We are by our frailty led into many offences, (saith M. Bishop) and we might avoid the same, if we were so wary and watchful as we ought to be. But so long as this frailty hangeth upon us, and by the weakness and corruption of flesh, we are not so wary and watchful as we ought to be, why doth he attribute unto us a power and ableness to fulfil the law? And what is that that he saith, but even the device of the Pelagian Heretics, who affirming, c Hieron. Epist. ad Ctesiphont. Hominem posse esse sine peccato, si velit, etc. Cùm ab eis quaerimus, qui sint quos absque pe●cato putent nova stropha eludere cupiunt veritatem se non eos dicere qui sint vel fuerint, sed qui esse possint. that a man may be without sin if he will, and being demanded who they were whom they took to be without sin, by a wily shift answered, that they said not what men are, or what they have been, but what they may be. Even thus M. Bishop being urged by the confession of the Apostles themselves, that in many things we all offend and sin, that is, do trespass and break the commandments of God, confesseth it to be true, but yet notwithstanding saith▪ that it is unpossible to keep them. But as Hierome answered the Pelagia●s, so we answer him, d Jbid. Qua est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit? Posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris? dare nescio cui quod in Patriarchis & Prophetis, & Apostolis fuisse nequeas approbare? What a reason is this, that that is possible to be which never was, and may be done, which thou bearest witness that never any man did, and to give to every man that which in the patriarchs, and Prophets, and Apostles, thou art not able to make good? To be short, as it is not possible for a man being feeble, and weak, and sick, to bear a burden, which notwithstanding being recovered and fully cured, he can bear with ease: so it is not possible for us, so long as we are compassed about with corruption and frailty, to observe and keep the law and righteousness thereof, which yet being delivered from all bondage of corruption and sin, we shall easily attain unto. His second shift is as absurd as the former, that though we cannot keep ourselves from venial offences, yet we may fulfil the law, because it is not broken but by mortal sins. But the law itself saith, e Gal. 3.10. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Therefore concerning all sins the sentence of the Apostle must stand good, that f Rom. 6.23. the wages of sin is death. So our Saviour Christ testifieth, g Mat. 5.19. He that breaketh one of the least of these commandments, and teacheth men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, that is, saith S. Austin, h August. in joan. tract. 122. Consequens est, ut qui minimus est in regno coel●rum, non intr●t in regnum coel●rum. he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. But we will demand of M. Bishop, are those venial sins forbidden by the law or not? If they be not forbidden, than they are no sins: for i Rom. 4 15. where there is no law, there is no trespass, and k Aug. de piece. mer. & rem. lib. 2 cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit si quid erit, si non diviuitùs ●ubeatur ut non sit. sin shall be no sin, if God do not forbid the being of it. But if they be forbidden, how doth he say, that to do them is no transgression of the law? for what is it but a transgression of the law to do that which the law forbiddeth to be done? The Apostle saith, that l Rom. 3.20. by the law cometh the knowledge of sin. Venial sins then by the law are known to be sins: how are they known to be sins by the law, but that they violate the reason and purport of the law. But let S. john here stop M. Bishop's mouth: m 1. joh. 3.4. Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law. Venial sin (as he termeth it) is sin; therefore venial sin is the transgression of the law: he therefore that committeth only those which he calleth venial sins, cannot be said to fulfil the law. 42. W. BISHOP. Lastly, it may be objected, that the way to heaven is straight, and the gate narrow: which is so true, that it seemeth unpossible to be kept by flesh and blood: but that which is impossible to men of themselves, is made possible and easy too, by the grace of God: which made Saint Paul to say: Phil. 4. Psal. 118. I can do all things in him, that strengtheneth and comforteth me: and the Prophet David, After thou (O Lord) hadst dilated my heart (and with thy grace set it at liberty) I did run the ways of thy commandments: that is, I did readily and willingly perform them. Of the loving of God with all our heart, etc. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of justice. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop maketh the commandments of God, not only possible, but possible and easy too. But I answer him again, as Hierome did the Pelagian heretic: a Hier. ad Ctefiphont. Facilia dicis Dei esse mandata, & tamen nullum proferre potes qui universa compleverit. Respond mihi, facilia sunt, an difficilia? si facilia, proffer quis impleverit, & cur Dominus in evangelio, Intrate, inquit, per angustam portam? sin autem difficilia, cur ausus es dicere, facilia esse Dei mandata quae nullus impleverit? Thou sayest, the commandments of God are easy, but yet thou bringest forth no man that hath fulfilled them all. Tell me, saith he, are they easy, or are they hard to be done? If they be easy, show us who hath fulfilled them, and why our Saviour saith in the Gospel, Enter in at the strait gate? But if they be hard, why dost thou dare to say that the commandments of God are easy which no man hath fulfilled? Thus Hierome plainly excepteth against his answer to those words of Christ; for they to whom Christ speaketh those words, were and are men endued with the grace of God, and yet he giveth them to understand, that the gate of life shall be straight and narrow unto them. Therefore S. Austin saith, that b Aug. de praedest. & great. ca 9 Arduum est virtutis iter, & quanquam adiuuante gratia Dei non sine labore gradiendum. the way of virtue is hard, and though the grace of God do help, yet is not to be traveled without labour and pains. Now if it be so hard a matter, and so full of travail and pains, to compass that c Jdem cont. 2. epist. Pelag lib. 3. ca 7. Ista parva justitia. Et epist. 200. justitia nondum consummata. small and unperfect righteousness which here we have, is it an easy matter with M. Bishop, to achieve that absolute and perfect righteousness that is described in the law? Some help he thinketh to have in that the Apostle saith; d Phil. 4.13. I am able to do all things in Christ, or by the help of Christ that strengtheneth me. But the Apostle himself excludeth him from that help, in that he so plainly testifieth of himself, that he could not find how to perform the good that he would, as we have seen before, yea & telleth us, that though the spirit be in us lusting against the flesh, yet by reason of the e Gal. 5.17. flesh lusting against the spirit, we cannot do the things that we would. He that could do all things, yet could not repel the f 2. Cor. 12.7. buffeting Angel of Satan, by whom he was grievously afflicted, nor was thought able to withstand the temptations of pride and vain glory, upon the abundance of his revelations, as appeareth in that, this sting of Satan was occasioned to bridle him therefrom. The place itself plainly showeth the meaning of itself, that he was enabled to all things, that is, to the enduring of all things that concerned him in the service that he had in hand, that neither abounding nor wanting neither fullness nor hunger should hinder him from going on therein for the preaching & testifying of the Gospel, & for enlarging & confirming of the Church of Christ, accordingly as elsewhere he saith, g 2. Tim. 2.10. I suffer all things for the elects sake. But the restraint that Bernard useth is not to be omitted. h Bernard. de dilig. Deo. In illo omma potest quae tamen poss● prosit. He is able to do all things, that is, all which it is behoveful that he be able to do. Now what is behoveful, it is not for M. Bishop to presume, but for God himself to determine, who hath not thought fit to bring us to perfection in this life, that he may have the whole glory of our salvation in the life to come. The words of David are as little helpful unto him, i Psal. 119. I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou hast set my heart at liberty. So far as we are at liberty, so far we run, and so fast we run. But we attain not to that liberty yet, but that being k Rom. 7.23. holden captive to the law of sin which is in our members, we have still cause to cry, l 24. Who shall deliver us (or set us at liberty) from this body of death? m 2. Cor. 3.17. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. We have received as yet only n Rom. 8.23. the first fruits of the spirit. We have yet therefore but the first fruits of liberty, and there is still remaining somewhat o Heb. 12.1. that presseth down, and sin hanging fast on, so that we cannot run without much hindrance and many falls, and the p Mat. 26.41. willingness of the spirit findeth always a let by the infirmity and weakness of the flesh. 43. W. BISHOP. Having now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prove the impossibility of keeping Gods commandments, let us now see what we can say in proof 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 Son in the similitude of flesh, of sin, damned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according unto the spirit. See how formally he teacheth, that Christ dying to redeem us from sin, purchased us grace to fulfil the law, which before was impossible unto our weak flesh. Again, how far S. john was from that opinion, of thinking Gods commandments to be impossible, Cap. 5. may appear by that Epistle: And his commandments be not heavy. Which is taken out of our saviours own words: My yoke is sweet, Math. 11. and my burden is light. The reason of this is, that although to our corrupt frailty, they be very heavy: yet when the virtue of charity is powered into our hearts by the holy Ghost, then lo, do we with delight fulfil them. For as the Apostle witnesseth: Charity is the fullness of the law. Rom. 13. And, He that doth love his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law: Math. 22. Which Christ himself, teacheth, when he affirmeth, That the whole law and Prophets depend upon these two commandments, of loving God, and our neighbour. Now both according unto our opinion and the Protestants, a man regenerate and in the state of grace, hath in him the virtue of Charity: we hold it to be the principal part of inherent justice: they say that their justifying faith can never be separated from it: so that a righteous man, being also endued with charity, is able thereby to fulfil the whole law. Let us adjoin unto these Authorities of holy write, the testimony of one ancient Father or two; S. Basil affirmeth: That it is impious and ungodly, Serm. in illud. Attend tibi. to say that the commandments of the spirit be unpossible. S. Augustine defineth, That we must believe firmly, De nat. & gra. cap. 69. that God being just and good, could not command things that be impossible for us to fulfil: The reason may be, that it is the part of a tyrant, and no true lawmaker, to command his subjects to do that under pain of death, which he knows them no way able to perform: for those were not to be called laws, (which are to direct men, to that which is just) but snares to catch the most diligent in, and to bind them up to most assured perdition. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approved Council of Aransican, as an article of faith, in these words: 2. Can. vlt. This also we believe according to the Catholic faith, that all men baptised by grace there received, with the help and cooperation of Christ, can, and aught to keep and fulfil those things which belong to salvation. The principal whereof are after our saviours own determination, to keep the commandments: If thou wilt enter into life, Math. 1●. keep the commandments. 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 fellows do not accept it accordingly, no doubt but he will think they do him great wrong. As for us we may by his leave think that that we see, that he hath babbled much, and said as good as nothing, and that he is far from being a man to take upon him the confuting of any thing that is defended on our part. But now leaving his confutation, he goeth in hand with proof of a possibility in us to fulfil the law. And first he allegeth to that purpose the words of S. Paul in some part handled before, a Rom. 8.3. That that was unpossible to the law, inasmuch as it was weak because of the flesh, God sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification or righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. Now of this place he saith, that it formally teacheth that Christ dying to redeem us from sin, did purchase us grace to fulfil the law which before was impossible to our weak flesh. But he is still so full of formality, that we can find little matter in any thing that he saith. How hath Christ purchased grace for us to fulfil the law in that sense as here we speak of fulfilling the law, when as the grace of Christ doth still leave, remaining in us a weakness of flesh, to which the Apostle saith, it is a thing unpossible to fulfil the law. All M. Bishop's teeth cannot untie this knot. If weakness of flesh hinder the fulfilling of the law, than so long as we live here the grace of Christ never putteth us in state to fulfil the law, because it never taketh from us the weakness of the flesh. His commentary therefore is nothing worth, and because it is but his own, we make very small account or reckoning of it. The cause of our not fulfilling the law continueth still, and therefore we must refer the benefit here expressed to some other thing, than our fulfilling of the law. That the Apostle noteth first in saying, that Christ condemned sin, comparing it thereby to a prisoner, a robber or murderer brought to the bar, and there receiving sentence of condemnation and death, that thenceforth it should be bereaved of all action or accusation, of all plea or power against us. This Christ hath done for us by purchasing for us the forgiveness of sins, whereby b Rom. 4.6. the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, because as S. Austin saith, c Aug. Retra●t. lib. 1. ca 19 Omnia Dei manda●a facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. All the commandments of God are reputed to be done, when that that is not done is pardoned. Now when all the commandments of God are reputed to be done, the justification of the law is fulfilled in us. For what is the justification of the law, but the justification which the law might seem to intend and propound unto itself, that we might be acquitted of sin, and accepted unto life. Thus the ancient Fathers expound it for d Theophylact. in Rom. ca 8. justificatio laegis, id est, exitus ipse & destinatio. the scope, the end, the thing destinated by the law, which when the law could not attain unto, Christ performed it unto us by the forgiveness of our sins. 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? non essemu● maledictions obnoxij. Per Christum quidem in effectum deductus est in nobis legis scopus. What was the end of the law, saith Oecumius? That we should not be subject to the curse. By Christ then that which was the scope of the law, was brought to effect in us. So chrysostom, g Chrysost. ibid. hom. 13. Quae legis erat ●ustificacio non esse execrationi obnoxium, id tibi perfecit Christus. That which was the justification of the law, not to be subject to the curse, Christ hath effected unto us. Last of all Ambrose saith, h Ambros. ibid. Quomodo impletur in nobis justificatio nisi cum datur remissio omnium peccatorum? How is the justification of the law fulfilled in us, but when there is given unto us forgiveness of all our sins? The Apostle therefore by the justification of the law, understandeth not inherent righteousness, but signifieth that that justification which the law intended, but through our default could not make good unto us, by inherent righteousness Christ hath performed, in purchasing for us forgiveness of sins, by which we are reputed just and blameless in God's sight, and accepted to be inheritors of everlasting life. Now S. Ambrose to the former words addeth, i Ibid. sublatis peccatis justificatus appareat mente seruiens legi De●. That a man being justified by the taking away of his sins, may appear in his mind serving the law of God, whereby he noteth that to justification by forgiveness of sins, is adjoined regeneration to inherent righteousness, which he calleth afterwards k Ibid. Signun iustification● hoc est in homine, ut per id quod inhabitat in eo, justificatus appareat esse filius Dei. a sign of justification. And this we deny not, but do always most religiously teach the same; only we deny that this is that, wherein consisteth our justification before God, but it is a sequel and sign thereof, and we never attain to the perfection of it whilst we live here. And if we will either directly or undirectly understand it in these words, we must take thereof that which S. Austin saith, that l Aug. de sp & lit ca 36. Sic operatur justificationem in sanctis suis in huius vita tentatione laborantibus ut tamen sit & quod petentibus largitèr ad●ciat et quod confitentibus clementer ignoscat. God so worketh in his Saints, labouring in the temptation of this life, as that there is yet for him largely to add unto them ask or craving of him, and mercifully to pardon them when they confess it unto him; yea, so as the same S. Austin elsewhere saith, m Idem de ciu. Dei. li. 19 cap. 27. Ipsa justitia nostra tanta est in hac vita ut potius remissione peccatorum constet quàm perfectione virtutum. as that our righteousness in this life rather consisteth in forgiveness of sins, then in perfection of virtues. Now therefore though the place be understood of inherent righteousness, yet it maketh not for M. Bishop's turn, because it proveth only, that Christ shall restore us to the perfect righteousness of the law, which we affirm, that he beginneth in this life, and shall fully accomplish in the life to come; but it proveth not that which he desireth, that in this life we are enabled by the grace of Christ, to the perfect fulfilling of the righteousness of the law. To the other places that he allegeth, that the commandments of God are not heavy; that the yoke of Christ is easy, and his burden light, he himself in effect setteth down the answer. To our corrupt frailty, saith he, they be very heavy. True; and therefore so long and so far as this corrupt frailty continueth, so long and so far the commandments of God are still heavy unto us, which must needs be till that which n 1. Cor. 15.42▪ 43. shall be sowed in corruption and weakness, shall be raised again in incorruption and power. When the virtue of charity, saith he, is powered into our souls, than we do with delight fulfil them. True, so far forth as charity is powered into our souls. But so long as there is carnal concupiscence, there cannot be perfect charity to take full delight in the law of God, because o Aug. count Iuli●n. lib 4. cap. 2. Inquā●m inest nocet a● minuendam spiritualem dele●●ationem sanctarum m●ntium, illam scilicet de qua dicit Apostolus: Condelector legi Dei, etc. carnal concupiscence even by very being in us, as S. Austin saith, doth abridge or diminish that spiritual 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. justit. Rat. 8. Tunc erit plena justitia, quando plena sanitas: tunc plena saenitas quendo plena charitas; tunc plena charitas quando videbi mus sicuti est. Then shall be perfect righteousness, saith he again, that is perfect keeping of the commandments 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 mean time love keepeth the commandments of God, but yet unperfectly, because itself is but unperfect, even as a lame man goeth, but yet halteth ●n his going. To be short, the same S. Austin well observeth, that q Idem de nat. & great. cap. 69. Consideret non potuisse divinitus dici, gravia non sunt nisi quia potest esse cordis affectus cui graviae non sunt. God could not have said that his commandments are not heavy, but that there may be an affection of heart to which they are not heavy. Therefore r Ibid. conversus quisque ad Dominum Deum suum ex toto cord suo et ex tota anima suae mandatum Dei non haebebit grave. when a man shall be converted unto God with all his heart, and with all his soul, he shall find the commandment of God not heavy unto him. But that affection, that conversion is yet but begun. So long as concupiscence possesseth any part of the soul, all the soul is not yet converted unto God. Very vainly therefore doth M. Bishop deal, when from that which we have yet but in part for the fulfilling of the law, he inferreth the fulfilling of the whole law. But to make up the matter, he bringeth some authorities of the ancient Church, as much to his purpose as that that he hath said already. That that Basil saith, s Basil. in illud, Attend t●bi. Jmpium est dicere spiritus praecepta servari non posse. that it is impious to say, that the commandments of the spirit cannot be observed (for so the words are) is spoken of those things, which by no means can be done. As where the spirit saith, Look to thyself, if a man will expound it of bodily looking and viewing of himself, it is that that cannot be done. For the eye as he saith cannot see itself, it cannot see the head, nor the back, nor the face, nor into the bowels. Now it were wickedness, as he saith, to say that the spirit commandeth any thing in this sort. But we say not so of the commandments of God; for we teach that by the grace of Christ we fulfil them in part already, and shall do it perfectly when the impediment which is the remainder of original corruption shall be done away. But so long as the t Gal. 5.17. flesh lusteth against the spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would, so long it is unpossible for us to observe the righteousness of the law, according to the full measure and perfection thereof. Hereby the answer is plain to the place that he allegeth out of Austin. For we believe that God hath not commanded any thing unpossible, meaning as he doth, absolutely and wholly unpossible. We say as he saith, u Aug. de sp. & lit. cap. 35. Sive exemplo est in hominibus perfecta justitia & tamen impossibilis non est. Fi●ret enim, si tanta voluntas adhiberetur quanta sufficit tantae res. Effet autem tanta si & nihil eorum quae pertinent ad justitiam nos lateret, & ea sic delectarent animum, ut quicquid aliud sive voluptas sive dolor impedit delectatio illa superaret. Quod ut non sit non ad impossibilitatem sed ad judicium Dei pertinet. There is no example of perfect righteousness amongst men, and yet it is not unpossible. For it might be performed if there were so great will put to it as is sufficient for so great a matter. And there should be so great will, if on the one side nothing were hidden from us of those things which belong to righteousness, and on the other side the same did so delight the mind, as that that delight did overcome all other impediments of pleasure or pain. Which that it is not so, is not to be referred to any impossibility of the thing, but to the judgement of God. x Ibid. cap. 36. Nullo modo dicendum est Deo deesse possibilitatem, qua voluntas sic adiunetur humana ut justitia omni ex part modò perficiatur in homine. Quando quidem si nunc velit in qucquam, etiam hoc corruptibile induere incorruptionem, atque hic inter homines morituros eum jubere vivere minimè morituram, ut tota penit●● vetustate consumpta nulla lex in membris eius repugnet legi mentis deumque ubique praesentem ita cognoscat. sicut eum sancti postea cognituri sunt, quis demens audeat affirmar● non posse? Sed quare non faciat, etc. est aliquid in abdito & profundo iuditiorum Dei, ut etiam justorum omne os obstruatur in laud sua, & non aperiatur nisi in laudem Dei. For God, as he saith afterwards, wanteth not power so to assist the will of man, as that even now righteousness may in every sort be made perfect in him. And if it were the will of God that even now this corruptible in any man should put on incorruption, and he would appoint that he should live here immortal amongst mortal men, so as that all oldness being utterly consumed, there should be no longer any law in the members to rebel against the law of the mind, and that he should so know God as the Saints hereafter shall know him, who would be so mad as to affirm that God cannot do it? But why he doth it not, somewhat there is in the secrecy and depth of his judgement, that every mouth even of the just may be stopped in their own praise, and not be opened but to the praise of God. Thus therefore the commandments of God are not unpossible to be done, because God can make us able perfectly to fulfil the same. Yea, it is in his power even in this life to bring us to this perfection, if it were his will and pleasure so to do. But in his wisdom he hath thought good to give us in this life only some taste and beginnings thereof, whereby we very well see and understand, that there is no impossibility in the rest. The reason why he doth so is, because he will have us, yea even the most just and righteous of us, fully to understand by our defects, that our salvation is not of our merits or works, but only of his mercy. But in his due time he will give us fully to be satisfied with that righteousness, with the taste only whereof he now provoketh rather than assuageth our hunger and thirst. Even y Ibid. Primum praeceptum justitiae quo iutemur diligere Deum ex toto cord, etc. in illa vita complebimus cùm videbimus faecie ad faciem. Sed ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praeceptum est ut admoneremur quid fide exposcere, quò spem praemittere, et obliviscendo quae retrò sunt, in quae anteriora extendere debeamus. that great commandment of righteousness to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, whereto is consequent that other of loving our neighbour as ourself, we shall fulfil in that life when we shall see face to face. But therefore even now is that commanded unto us, that we should thereby be advertised what to ask and pray for in faith, to what to send our hope before us, and to what to follow hard forward, forgetting that that is behind. Now therefore as it is most easy for a man that hath sound and perfect eyes to discern the light, which yet is unpossible for him that is blind, so long as he continueth so; so when God shall perfectly restore us to our spiritual health and strength, it shall be easy and delightful unto us, to keep all the righteousness which God hath commanded, but so long as we continue in this weakness and frailty, we can by no means be said to attain to the perfection of the law. But here M. Bishop unstringeth his tongue against God, and faith that it is the part of a tyrant, not of a true lawmaker to command his subjects to do that upon pain of death, which he knows them no way able to perform. A silly foolish man, that by his brainsick fancies measureth the wisdom and righteousness of God, and taketh upon him presumptuously, to give law unto God in what sort he shall make laws for men. But God is able in this behalf to acquit himself, z Rom. 3.4. that he may be justified in his sayings, and found clear when he is judged. For the just God was not in making of laws, to regard man's ableness but his own righteousness, and therefore to forbid all sin, that he might not seem to approve any, and to command all righteousness, that he might not seem to neglect any. It should not have been known to be sin which he had not regarded to forbid, nor taken for righteousness which he had not vouchsafed to command. Was it fit that the rule of righteousness should have been abridged in favour of man's sin, when the want of power to fulfil the law, was not by God's default in creating man, but by man's disabling himself in turning away from God? But M. Bishop's folly and ignorance appeareth herein very plainly, for that the Scripture teacheth us that the use of the law, we not being able to fulfil it, was to be a Gal. 3.24. our Schoolmaster to train us unto Christ. God had not any opinion in giving the law of our performance thereof, but he intended it to be as a glass for us to see ourselves, and to conceive thereby our own estate, that finding ourselves to be miserable and utterly lost in ourselves, we might the more readily accept of the salvation that is freely offered unto us by jesus Christ. Thus saith the Apostle again, b Rom. 10.4. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Therefore S. Austin saith, that c Aug. de nat. & great. cap. 12. Haec est intentio legis arguentu ut propter ea quae perperàm fiu●t confugiatur ad gratiam Domini miserantis, etc. ubi et remittantur quae malè fiunt & eadem gratia iwante non fiant. the intent of the law reproving us is this, to make us for our misdoings to fly to the grace of the merciful God, where what we do amiss may be pardoned, and by the help 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 amiss, and stand in need of pardon. The law in the mean time serveth us for a pattern of true righteousness, teaching us what we are to strive unto, what the purity is whereunto God hath called us, 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 us from it, praying instantly unto God to bring us to it, that his grace and mercy may in the end make us partakers of our desire, and thenceforth we may never do amiss. d Jdem de perfect. justit. Rat. 17. Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamuis eam in hac vita nemo habeat? Non enim rectè curritur si quò currendum est nesciatur. Quomodo auten sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur? Why should not this perfection be commanded to man, saith Austin, although no man have it in this life? For we cannot run aright, if we know not to what to run. And how should we know if by no commandments it were declared unto us? Again he saith: e De great. & lib. arbit. cap. 16. Magnun aliquid Pelagians se scire putant quand● dicunt, Non iuberet Deu● quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri. The Pelagians (he might have said the Papists) think they know some great matter when they say, God would not command that which he knew could not be done by man. Let M. Bishop take knowledge of his objection used of old by the Pelagian heretics. S. Austin answereth, f Quis hoc nesciat? sed ideò jubet aliqua quae non possumus ut sciamus quid ab illo petere debeamus. Ipsa est fides quae orando impetrat quod lex imperat. Who knoweth not so much? But therefore doth he command some things which we cannot do, that we may know what we are to ask of him. It is faith which by prayer obtaineth that which the law commandeth. The commandments of God then are not unpossible; for if they were unpossible, we could never hope to attain to the keeping of them. But now we pray unto God that he will, and according to his promise we believe that he will bring us to that state of innocency and perfection, wherein we shall fully answer the image of perfect righteousness, which is set before us in the law. In the mean time there is a let that hindereth us, and holdeth us back, that it is not possible for us so long as it continueth, to do those things which yet are possible to be done. The Arausican Council saith nothing of fulfilling the law, but speaketh generally of doing those things which belong to salvation. Now to our salvation it belongeth to know and confess, that g Rom. 3.20. by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God. To our salvation belongeth an humble acknowledgement of our unableness to satisfy the law, true repentance of our sins, the faith of jesus Christ, that by him and in him we may have supply of that wherein we are found defective by the law. In a word, it is the way to exclude us from salvation, to place our affiance and trust of obtaining the same in our fulfilling of the law, the Apostle telling us, that h Gal. 3.10. so many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse, because it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them, whereas i Eccles. 7.22. there is not a man just upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not. The words of Christ, k Mat. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, were spoken to the young man, to the same end to which the law generally was given, to give him occasion to measure and know himself by the commandments, that so he might seek the way of salvation in Christ, which in the law being a transgressor thereof, he could not find. But of these words enough hath been said before in the question of l Cha. 3. Sect. 3. the Certainty of Salvation. For conclusion of this point, to quit M. Bishop, I will allege the words of S. Bernard; m Bernard in Cant. ser. 50. Non latuit praeceptorem praecepti pondu● humanas excedere vi●es, sed iudicavit utile ex hoc ipso suae ipsos insufficientiae admoneri, et ut scirent sanè ad quem justitiae finem niti pro virib●s oporteret. Ergo mandando impossibilia non praevaricatores fecit sed humiles, ut omne os obstruatur & subditus fiat to tus mundus Deo. Accipientes quip mand●tum & sentientes defectum clamabimus in coelum & miserebitur nostri Deus, & s●temus in die illa quia non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos sed secundum miserecordiam suam saluos nos fecit. It was not unknown to the commander, that the weight of the commandment doth exceed the strength of man; but he held it expedient, that hereby men should be advertised of their own unsufficiency, and that they should know to what end of righteousness they should labour to their uttermost. Therefore by commanding things unpossible to us, he hath not made us trespassers, but humbled us, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subject to God. For receiving the commandment, and feeling our own defect and want, we shall cry to heaven, and God will have mercy upon us, and we shall know at that day, that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us. In which words he giveth us to understand, that God had reason sufficient to give the law, though he knew it unpossible for us in this state of mortality and weakness, perfectly to fulfil the law. 44. W. BISHOP. Now that just men's works be not sins: which I prove first, That good works be not stained with sin. by some works of that pattern of patience, job: Of whom it is written, that notwithstanding all the devils power and craft in tempting of him, He continued still a single hearted and an upright man, Cap. 2. departing from evil, and preserving his innocency. If he continued an innocent, he sinned not: Again, if in all these instigations to impatience, he remained patiented: these his works were perfect. For S. james saith, Esteem it my brethren all joy, Cap. 1. when you shall fall into divers temptations: knowing that the probation of your faith worketh patience: And let patience have a perfect work, that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing. 2. King David thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himself, Thou hast (O Lord) proved 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 needs then be granted, that some of his works at least were free from all sin and iniquity. And that the most of them were such, if you hear the holy Ghost testifying it, I hope you will believe it: read then where it is of record, 3. Reg. 15. That David did that which was right in the sight of our Lord (and not only in the sight of men) and turned from nothing that he commanded him, all the days of his life, except only the matter of Urias the Hittite. 3. The Apostle affirmeth, 1. Cor. 3. That some men do build upon the only foundation Christ jesus, gold, silver, and precious stones: that is, being choice members of Christ's Catholic Church, do many perfect good works, such as being tried in the furnace of God's judgement, will suffer no loss or detriment, as he there saith expressly: Wherefore they must needs be pure, and free from all dross of sin, otherwise having been so proved in fire, it would have been found out. 4. Many works of righteous men please God: Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 2. Make your bodies a quick sacrifice, holy & acceptable to God: the same offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God. Phil. 4. And S. Paul calleth alms bestowed on him in prison, an acceptable sacrifice of sweet savour, and pleasing God. But nothing infected with sin (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 speak, not impute it to the person: but to say that a sinful work is of sweet savour before him, and a grateful sacrifice to him, were blasphemy: wherefore we must needs confess, that such works which so well pleased him, were not defiled with any kind of sin. Mat. 5. 1 Tim. 6. Ephes. 2. Finally, many works in holy writ be called good, as, That they may see your good works: To be rich in good works: We are created in Christ jesus to good works: but they could not truly be called good works, if they were infected with sin. For according to the judgement of all learned Divines, it can be no good work, 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 evil good, which were blasphemy, or else acknowledge, that there be many good works free from all infection of sin. R. ABBOT. The wise man having prefixed this title, That good works be not stained with sin, which we say they be, taketh upon him in his text to prove, that just men's works be no sins, which no man saith they be. We must bear with him, because his understanding doth not serve him to take that for gold, wherein there is any dross: for if it did, he would easily conceive that the stain of man's sin doth not destroy or take away the nature of the good work which in man & by man is wrought by the grace of God. But leaving that piece of his folly, let us examine his proofs, that good works be stained with sin. And first, he will prove it by the example of job, because it is said of him, that a job. 2.3. he continued still a single hearted and an upright man, departing from evil, and preserving his innocency. But it were very hard to say, how M. Bishop's purpose should be made good out of these words. We find here a relation of jobs goodness, but we find nothing to prove, that that goodness of his was no way touched or stained with sin. Now the reader is to understand, that this commendation of job set down in the 1. Chapter, & after repeated in the 2. chapter to show his constancy therein, was of old urged by the Pelagian heretics, as now by M. Bishop to prove the perfection of the righteousness of man. But S. Austin well weighing the circumstance of the text, how it is withal said, There is none like him in the earth; and considering what job elsewhere saith; b Cap. 9.2. How should a man be just before God? answereth him in this sort; c Aug. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. ca 10. Secundun modum conuersationis humanae perhibet ei Deus tam magnum iustiae testimonium. Ipse autem se metuens ex regula illa justitiae quam sicut potest conspicit apud Deum, in veritate scit quia ita est quia non erit homo justus ante Deum. According to a measure of human conversation, God giveth him this so great testimony of righteousness, but he himself being afraid of himself, according to that rule of righteousness, which as he can he seethe with God, knoweth in truth that so it is, that there shall not a man be found just before God. Thus he saith again, that d Ibid. ca 12. Ex hominum qui in terra sunt comparatione laudatur. he was commended in comparison of men living upon earth. Hereby than it appeareth that there is nothing in these words of jobs commendation, that availeth M. Bishop any whit at all. Which that it may the better appear, job saith of himself as the vulgar Latin translateth, e job. 9.28. Verebat omnia opera mea. I was afraid of all my works. Whereof what we are to conceive, we may esteem by that that Gregory Bishop of Rome speaketh by occasion of other words of the same job, that f Grego. Moral. lib. 9 ca 1. Sanctus vir quia omne virtutis nostrae meritum vitium esse conspexit si ab interno arbitro districté iudicetur, rectè subiungit, si voluero, etc. the holy man because he saw all the merit of our virtue to be faulty, if it be strictly judged by him that judgeth within, saith rightly, If I will contend with him, I shall not be able to answer him one for a thousand. To which purpose he saith afterwards again, that g Ibid. cap. 8. Interrogationi illius homo respondere non sufficit, quia si remota tunc pietate discutitur in illo examine etiam justorum vita succumbit. man is not able to answer to God, questioning or reasoning with him, because if he be sifted without favour, the life even of the just quaileths in that examination. This made job afterwards to say of himself again: h job. 39.37. Behold, I am vile, what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. Whereupon Hierome saith against the Pelagians: i Hieron. count Pelag. lib. 2. Ecce Iob noster immaculatus & sine querela quali justitiae fine coronatur ut miserecordia Dei indigeat. Behold our job so innocent and without reproof, with what end of righteousness he is crowned, that he standeth in need of mercy at God's hands. By all which it may appear, how impertinently M. Bishop allegeth the words of james, to affirm the perfection of jobs works. Yea, what a mad connexion doth he make, S. james saith, k jam. 1.4. Let patience have a perfect work that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing. Therefore if job remained patiented, than his works were perfect. He should understand that a man may remain patiented, and yet his patience not altogether perfect, being resisted and interrupted by the weakness and rebellion of the flesh; even as came to pass in holy job, as may appear by many of his own speeches, and by the reproof that God used to him in the end; l job. 39.35. Is this to learn, to strive with the almighty? he that reproveth God, let him answer to it. Therefore the remaining of patience doth not prove itself to be perfect; much less proveth it the perfection of other works. The perfect work of patience intended by Saint james is perseverance, whereby we continue and grow forward to that perfection which our Saviour Christ setteth as a mark for us to aim at, m Ma●. 5.48. Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, but yet still find cause so long as we live here, to say with the Apostle, n Phil. 3.10. Not as though I were already perfect. If Master Bishop think that here we can be perfect and encier lacking nothing, let him remember what Saint Hierome saith; o Hieron count Pelag lib 1 Omni● habere & nullo indigere virtutis est eius qui peccatum non fecit nec inventus est in ore eius dolus. To have all things and to want nothing is a matter of his virtue who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Let him not therefore dream of it, p Ephe 4.13. till we all meet together unto a perfect man, and unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ. But as touching perfection more hereafter. That which he allegeth spoken by David concerning himself, is absurdly forced to his purpose, whilst he urgeth it as simply & generally spoken, which was spoken only in a special respect. q Psal. 17.3. There was no iniquity found in him as touching any imagination or practice against Saul, whereof he was unjustly and wrongfully accused, but otherwise simply speaking of himself, he saith, r Psal. 38.4. Mine iniquities are gone over my head, and as a weighty burden they are too heavy for me. s 130.3. O Lord if thou be extreme to mark iniquities, who shall abide it? t 143.2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight no man living shall be justified. Hereby therefore it is plain also that that which is said of David, that u 1. King. 15.5. he turned from nothing that the Lord commanded him all the days of his life, but only the matter of V●ias the Hittite, is to be understood according to the occasion whereof it is spoken, the text setting down before the wickedness of Abi●am in his reign and government over the Kingdom of judah, sinning himself by public idolatry, and causing the people also to sin with him. To him his Father David is opposed, as touching laws and public government, and direction of his people, that he turned not aside from the commandments of the Lord, nor caused any public scandal or offence, but only in commanding the death of O ij ●h the Hittite, for colouring the adultery committed 〈…〉 ●ith his wife. As touching the third proof that he bringeth out of Saint Paul's words to the Corinthians, it is apparent by the place itself, that it is very absurdly wrested. For Saint Paul speaketh there of building by the preaching of the Gospel, as is clear by the words immediately going before; x 1. Cor. 3.10. According to the grace of God given unto me, as a skilful Master builder I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon; but let every one take heed how he buildeth upon it. Then signifying the foundation whereupon the building is to stand to be jesus Christ, ●e prosecuteth that caveat, giving to understand, that there shall be a trial of the work of every builder, whereby loss shall grow to them who are not careful to build such matter as is proportionable to the foundation. He therefore that buildeth gold, and silver, and precious stones, that is, true faith and doctrine according to Christ, his work shall abide the trial of the word of truth, and his labour shall have reward. But if any man build upon Christ timber, hay, and stubble, that is, the trash of human traditions and superstitions, the fire, that is, y Chrysost. de panitent. hom. 8. Igne examinemus; verbo scilicet doctrina. the word of Doctrine, as chrysostom expoundeth it, shall consume it; by the word of the Gospel that which he hath builded shall be reproved and rejected, and he shall lose both his labour and reward. This is the very direct and plain meaning of the Apostles words, fully agreeing with the circumstance of the text. But Master Bishop perforce and against the hair, draweth the text to be construed of works, and like to a sorry husband, who for a penny present gain neglecteth a shilling profit another way, for the gaining of a present small advantage, is content to bereave himself of that that should steed him much more in another cause. For whereas they are wont generally to allege this place, and to expound the fire here spoken of, for the maintenance of Purgatory fire, he for a shift here turneth Purgatory fire into the furnace of God's judgement, and so striketh down a main pillar of the Pope's Kitchen, and endaungereth z Act. 17.25. the craft whereby he and his fellows have their goods. Surely if Purgatory fire do not burn here, it is hard to say how they will get it a chimney wherein to burn any otherwhere. But to the point, it hath been already showed, that there is no gold or silver of our works, wherein there is not found some dross if trial be made thereof in the furnace of God's judgement; no stones so precious wherein the jeweller of heaven doth not find speckes and flaws, if he precisely take view of them, so that a Aug Confess. lib. 9 ca 13. Va etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota miserecordia discutias ●am. woe to the commendable life of man, saith S. Austin, if God set mercy aside in the judging of it, and therefore all pray that God will not enter into judgement with them. The gold notwithstanding, and silver, and precious stones which we build in our good works through God's mercy, shall abide and have their glory; the dross thereof the fire of repentance shall consume, whilst we ask and obtain of him pardon and forgiveness of all our imperfections and wants, of all that timber, and hay, and stubble of carnal and earthly affections, with the dust whereof our feet have been soiled, and bewrayed in walking the path of the faith of Christ. Yea he that b Mat. 3.11. baptizeth his with the holy Ghost and with fire, will by this fire purge from us and our works this dross and corruption more and more, till he bring us out of the furnace as the pure and perfect gold to be glorious before him for ever and ever. To be short, the fire of God's judgement mitigated and assuaged with the water and dew of his mercy, shall at that day give approbation and testimony of righteousness to the good works of his servants, so as that because they are true gold which that fire consumeth not, they shall not for some dross receive any loss or detriment therein, but fully receive that reward in the hope and expectation whereof they have laboured in the Lord. Therefore though we would understand these words of the works of holy men, as without forcing them we cannot, yet is there nothing whence M. Bishop can infer that which he intendeth, that good works are wholly free from all dross and stain of sin. As little hath he for his purpose in his next argument. Many works of righteous men please God, saith he, but nothing infected with sin can please God. Nothing indeed if it be considered as infected with sin; and therefore good works being touched and infected with the contagion of sin, before they can please God, must have some means to take away the guilt and imputation of the sin. There was c Exod. 28.38. iniquity in the holy offerings of the children of Israel, but the high Priest did bear the iniquity to make the offerings acceptable before the Lord. There is iniquity in our holy offerings, our spiritual sacrifices, but Christ our High Priest hath borne the iniquity, and they are d 1. Pet. 2.5. acceptable to GOD by jesus Christ. Not by themselves, or by their own perfection, but by jesus Christ, being perfumed with the sweet incense of his obedience, who e Ephes. 5.2. for us (to make us acceptable both in ourselves and in our works) hath given himself an offering and a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God. Therefore by the pardoning and not imputing of sin, through the redemption of Christ, both the person and the work are pleasing in God's sight, neither is the same to be called a sinful work, as M. Bishop termeth it, because it is in substance a good work, and the fruit of the good spirit of God, and the default and imperfection is only an accident to the work. Briefly we are to lay up in our hearts that which the Prophet saith: f Psal. 103.13. As a father pitieth his children, so is the Lord merciful unto them that fear him: for he knoweth whereof we be made, and remembreth that we are but dust. And therefore as a father accepteth the readiness and obedience of his child to that that he commandeth, though he do the thing perhaps but rawly and rudely: so is God pleased through Christ with the good intendment and endeavour of his children, for the doing of that that he requireth, though by the weakness of the flesh, much halting and lameness, and imperfection appear in that which they do. By this appeareth the vanity of his argument taken from the name of good works, which he saith could not be truly called good, if they were infected with sin. For as the offerings were truly called holy offerings, in which notwithstanding there was some blot of iniquity: so are the works of the faithful truly called good works, in which notwithstanding there is a stain of the same iniquity and sin. They are good in the substance of the deed good in the original of the grace and spirit of God from whence they proceed, good in the will and endeavour of the person by whom they are done, good in the acceptation of God, in whose name and service they are done: but yet they have a blemish of evil, g Ambros. apud August. contra julian. lib. 2. Labes corporeae concretionis. by reason of the blot of bodily corruption growing fast too, as Ambrose speaketh, h Hilar. ibid. Corpora nostra vitiorum omnium materia, pro qua polluti & sordidi nihil in nobis mundum, nihil innocens obtin●mus. whereby being polluted and filthy (saith Hilary) we have nothing in us innocent, nothing clean. They are good then, but yet not perfectly good, yea if God should strictly and narrowly deal with us, he should have just cause of rejecting us in the doing thereof, for that we by our corruption do disgrace that which proceedeth holy, and pure, and good from him. Now therefore whereas he saith, that it can be no good work wherein is any defect, he saith untruly, because good and evil have their latitude and degrees: and accordingly as contraries expel each other, the one always growing by the impairing of the other, accordingly as S. Austin saith: i August. de verb. Dom ser. 11. Non n●bis inf●rt bona sua nisi auferat mala nostra: & in tantum illa crescunt, inquantum ista mi nuuntur: nec illa perficientur nisi ista finiantur. God doth not bring his good gifts into us, except he take away our evils; and so far do the good things increase, as the evil are diminished: neither shall the one be perfected, till the other be fully ended. Now in this mixture of contraries, that giveth the name that prevaileth most: so that k Higher ad Ctesiphont. justi non quod omni vitio careant, sed quod maiori virtutum part commend●ntur. men are called just, as Hierome saith, not for that they are without all vice, but in that they are commended for the greater part of virtues. That therefore may rightly and truly be called a good work in some measure and degree of goodness, which yet entirely, and perfectly, and wholly cannot be called good. But that we may see how vainly and idly he talketh, his conclusion is diligently to be observed, that there may be many good works free from all infection of sin. There be many such, but all good works than it seemeth be not free from all infection of sin. And if all be not so, then let him tell us how those good works which be not free from all infection of sin, be called good works, as he importeth, seeing no work can be called good, as he hath told us before, that faileth either in substance or in circumstance, or hath any fault or defect in it. Let him answer us for those some, and his answer shall serve us for all the rest. 45 W. BISHOP. In am of the manifold testimony of Antiquity, which doth nothing more than recommend good works, and paint out the excellency of them, I will set down one passage of S. August. wherein this very controversy is distinctly declared and determined: Lib. 3. contra duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 7. thus he beginneth: The justice (through which the just man liveth by faith) because it is given to man by the spirit of grace, is true justice: the which, although it be worthily called in some men perfect, according to the capacity of this life, yet it is but small in comparison of that greater, which man made equal to Angels shall receive. Which (heavenly justice) he that had not as yet said himself to be perfect, in regard of that justice that was in him: and also imperfect, if it be compared to that which he wanted. But certainly this lesser justice, or righteousness, breedeth and bringeth forth merits, and that greater, is the reward thereof. Wherefore he that pursueth not this, shall not obtain that. Hitherto S. Augustine. Note first, that he defineth the justice which we have in this life, to be true justice, which is pure from all injustice and iniquity: then, that it is also perfect, not failing in any duty which we be bound to perform. Lastly, that it bringeth forth good works, such as merit life everlasting. True it is also, that this justice although perfect in itself, so far as man's capacity in this life doth permit: yet being compared unto the state of justice which is in heaven, it may be called imperfect, not that this is not sufficient to defend us from all formal transgression of God's law: but because it keepeth not us sometimes from venial sin, and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath. S. Augustin hath the like discourse, where he saith directly, De spir. & lit. vlt. cap. that it appertains to the lesser justice of this life, not to sin. So that we have out of this oracle of Antiquity: that many works of a just man are without sin. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop notably abuseth S. Austin, and maketh him in stead of all antiquity, a witness of that which he oppugneth even in that very Chapter whence he citeth the words here set down. Which that we may the better discern, let us examine particularly the collections that he maketh from the words. First, that the justice that we have in this life is true justice. We acknowledge the same, even as it is true gold wherein notwithstanding there is found dross; even as it is a true pearl which notwithstanding with handling hath a spot or stain. It is true righteousness, a Bernard. de verb. Esa Sir 5. Humilis justitia sed non pura. but not pure, saith S. Bernard: b Idem in fest. sanct. Ser. 1. Si districtè iudicet●r iniusta invenietur omnis justitia nostra & ●●nùs habens. it will be found unrighteousness and scant, if it be strictly judged. Therefore M. Bishops exposition of true justice is false, where he maketh the same to be pure from all injustice and iniquity. Secondly, he maketh S. Austin to say, that our righteousness in this life is perfect, not failing in any duty which we are bound to perform. But how lewdly doth he therein deal with S. Austin, who plainly teacheth, that c Aug. de Ciu. Dei. lib. 19 ca 27 Magis remissione peccatorum constat, quàm perfectione virtutum. our righteousness in this life standeth rather in forgiveness of sins, then in perfection of virtues. Yea in the Chapter cited by him, he saith: d Idem contra 2. Epist. Pelag. li. 3. cap 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homi ne justo hactenus perfecta nomina tur, ut ad eius perfectionem pertineat, etiam ipsius imperfectionis, & in veritate cognitio, & in humilitate confessio. Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem perfecta ista p●rua justitia, quando etiam quid sibi desit intelligit. Ideoque Apostolus & imperfectum & perfectum sedicit; imperfectum, cogitando quantum illi ad justitiam desit, cuius plenitudinem adhu● esurit & siti●. Perfectum autem quòd & suam imperfectionem confitori non erubescit, & ut perventat bene procedit. The virtue which is now in the just man is thus farforth called perfect, as that to the perfection thereof belongeth both the knowledge in truth, and in humility the confession of the imperfection of it. For than is this small righteousness for the model (or little measure) of it perfect, according to this infirmity, when it knoweth what there is wanting unto it. Therefore the Apostle calleth himself unperfect and perfect; unperfect, in bethinking how much he wanteth to righteousness, the fullness whereof he yet hungereth and thirsteth after: perfect, both for that he is not ashamed to confess his imperfection, and for that he goeth well forward to come to perfection. Now how should we here acknowledge imperfection, if we be perfect according to the uttermost of that perfection that is required of us here? How can we take upon us to know, that there is somewhat wanting to our righteousness, when we must believe it to be such, as faileth not in any duty which we are bound to perform? How did the Apostle think that he wanted much to righteousness, when his righteousness wanted nothing that it ought to have? How is it said, that he was not ashamed to confess his imperfection, when yet there was no imperfection for him to confess? Nay, how is it that M. Bishop is not ashamed to seek by Austin to avouch such a Paradox, so contrary to sense, so contrary to conscience, so contrary to the confessions of all the faithful crying with one voice, e August. in Psal. 142. Quare hoc dicitis? etc. Quoniam non iustificabitur, etc. Forgive us our trespasses, and that for this very cause, as S. Austin saith, because no man living shall be justified in the sight of God. The same S. Austin telleth us, that f De spir. & lit. cap. 35. Sine exemplo est in hominibus perfecta justitia. there is no example of perfect righteousness amongst men: that g De Temp. ser. 49. Ipsa est perfectio hominum invenisse se non esse perfectum. this is the perfection of man, to find himself not to be perfect: h De spir. & lit. ca 36. In ea quae perficienda est justitia multum in hac vita, ille profecit, qui quam longè sit à perfectione justitiae proficiendo cognovit. that he hath much profited in righteousness, who by profiting knoweth how far he is from perfection of righteousness: that S. Paul was i De peccat mer. & remiss lib. 1. cap. 13. Perfectus viator etsi nondum erat itineris perfectione perventor. perfect as a travelers. (to perfect righteousness,) not as one that was come unto it, because k De nat. & great cap 12 Benè proficientes dicuntur perfecti viatores. they that go well forward, or profit well, are called perfect travelers. These speeches are evident and plain, and will M. Bishop tell us, that S. Austin affirmeth, in this life a perfect righteousness, not failing in any duty which we are bound to perform? To the same purpose S. Hierome also saith: that l Hieron. contra Pelag li. 1. Haec est hominis vera sapientia imperfectum esse se nosse, atque ut ita loquar, cunctorum in carne justorum imperfecta perfectio est. it is man's true wisdom to know himself to be unperfect, and that there is but an unperfect perfection of all that are righteous in this life. And again, that m Ibid. lib. 3. Vera & absque omni sorde perfectio in coelestibus reseruatur, quando sponsus loquetur ad sponsam, Tota pulchra es amica mea, & macula non est in te. true perfection which is without all filth or uncleanness, is reserved unto heaven, when the bridegroom shall say to the bride, Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee. So saith Fulgentius, that n Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. divinorum munerum nondum est perfecta perfectio utpote ubi omnis perfectus perfectionis est indigus. there is yet no perfect perfection of the gifts of God, as where every perfect man is yet wanting of perfection. And this made Origen to say, that o Origen. ad Ro. cap. 6. In praesenti vita puto quòd formam atque umbram virtutum tenere possimus, ipsas verò virtutes tunc cùm venerint illa quae perfecta sunt: & ideo justus magis ut mihi videtur in umbra virtutum quàm in ipsis virtutibus vivit. in this life we may have the image and shadow of virtues, but the virtues themselves when the things that are perfect shall come: and therefore that the just man liveth rather, as he thinketh, in the shadow of virtues, then in the virtues themselves. To which words accordeth that of Hierome, alluding to that of the Apostle whereto Origen alludeth, that p 1. Cor. 13.9.10.12. we know in part, and we see through a glass in a dark speaking; and when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. q Hier. contra Pelag. li. 3. Mundum cor quod posteà sit visurum Deum & vitae immaculatae beatitudinem in umbra possidemus & imagine. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis, quamuis Propheta, quamuis Apostolus dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore, si vos cùm sitis mali, etc. We have (saith he) but in a shadow and an image the clean heart, that shall after see God, and the happiness of unspotted life. Though a man be a Patriarch, though a Prophet, though an Apostle, yet is it said to them by our Saviour, If ye being evil, etc. Where is he now that telleth us of such a perfect righteousness in this life, as faileth not of any duty that we are bound to perform, when as there is here none but unperfect perfection, no man but that wanteth of perfection: when as we have here but the image and shadow of virtues, no perfection without some filth or uncleanness, none but which leaveth us still in case to be called evil? Whereby appeareth again the absurdity of his third collection, that our perfection yieldeth such good works as merit everlasting life. It is true that S. Austin useth the name of merit, but that by the name of merits he meaneth simply good works, to which God hath promised reward, and not any merit properly so called, shall hereafter appear in the question of merits. In the mean time how far he was from that opinion of meriting, which M. Bishop here would fasten upon him, may appear by the words cited by him out of Hilary against the Pelagian heretics: r Aug. contra julian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal. 51. Spes in misericordia Dei in seculum, & in seculum seculi. Non enim illa ipsa justitiae opera ad perfectae beatitudinis sufficient meritum, nisi misericordia Dei etiam in hac justitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum & motuum non reputet vitia. Our hope is in the mercy of God for ever and ever: for the very works of righteousness are not sufficient to the meriting of perfect bliss, unless the mercy of God even in this will of righteousness, do forbear to impute the vices or defaults of human passions and affections. Whereupon he himself saith. s Ibid. Confitetur etiam peccata justorum magis eos asserens in Dei misericordia spem ponere quàm de justitia sua fidere. He confesseth the sins even of just men, affirming that they rather trust to the mercy of God, then have any confidence of their own righteousness. It is not therefore the merit of righteousness, that we can rest upon, but only the pardon of God's mercy, by which as we have obtained the gift of righteousness: so we expect also the reward and crown thereof, that it may be verified which the Prophet saith: t Psal. 103 4. He crowneth thee in mercy and compassion: and that of the Apostle, that eternal life is the gift of God through jesus Christ our Lord. Now to these collections M. Bishop addeth a caveat, that this justice though perfect in itself, so far as man's capacity in this life doth permit, yet in comparison of the state of justice in heaven may be called unperfect. Which is as much as if he should say, that it is perfect in itself, so far as it may be perfect there where it cannot be perfect. For there is not in this life any capacity of perfect righteousness, as wherein we continue still with the Apostle u Rom. 7.14.19. carnal, sold under sin, not doing the good that we would, by reason of x Gal. 5.17. the flesh lusting against the spirit, y Rom. 7.23. rebelling against the law of the mind, leading us captive to the law of sin which is in our members, so as that to avoid the enticements of the world, and to keep ourselves in our course entirely to God, is as S. Ambrose saith, z Ambros. de suga seculi. cap. 1. Res voti magis quàm effectus. a matter that we do more wish and desire than we can effect and do, and when we have laboured much for it, cannot but condemn ourselves for being so far from it. But against this device of his, we must note what hath been said, that our perfection here is not without some filth, and that it leaveth us still evil, and therefore is not perfect in itself. Yea, and S. Hierome again against the Pelagians distinguishing a Hieron. adis. Pelag lib. 1. Perspicuum est duas in scriptures sanctis esse perfectiones, duasque iustitias: Primam perfectionem, & incomparabilem veritatem, perfectamque justitiam Dei virtutibus coaptandam: secundam autem quae competit nostrae fragilitati: ●uxta illud quod dicitur, Non iustificabitur, etc. ad eam justitiam quae non comparatione sed Dei sceintia dicitur esse perfecta. two sorts of perfection and righteousness, the one to be compared to the righteousness of God; the other belonging to the frailty of man, denieth our perfection in this latter kind, and saith, that in this sort it is true, that no man living shall be justified in God's sight, which he affirmeth to be spoken as touching a righteousness called perfect not by comparison, but in respect of the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God then which knoweth all things according to truth, yet knoweth no justice or perfection in us, whereby we are able to stand just and perfect before him. Therefore Gregory saith, that b Grego. Moral lib. 5. cap. 8. Ipsa nostra perfectio culpa non caret nisi ha●c severus judex in subtili lince examinis misericorditèr pe●set. our very perfection is not without fault, unless the severe judge do with mercy weigh it in the precise balance of his examination. Neither is it to be omitted which S. Austin saith, that c Aug. de Temp. ser. 49. In comparatione resurrectionis illius stercus est tota ista vita qu●m gerimus. unusquisque metiatur se quid est modò & quid erit tunc & inveniet in comparatione illius ista damna esse & stercora. all the life which we live here, that is, all the righteousness of this life, is but dung in comparison of the resurrection, that if a man measure himself what he is now and what he shall be then, he shall find that that which now is, is but loss and dung in comparison of that. Which how can it be true, if that that is in this life be perfect in itself, so perfect as that it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to perform; yea, as that it meriteth and deserveth the righteousness of heaven? Can that that in comparison is but dross and dung, be truly said to deserve the righteousness of heaven? But concerning the same, he addeth further, that it is sufficient to keep us from all formal transgression of God's law. So then thereby a man shall be free from all formal sin; and shall have no formal trespass for which to say, forgive us our trespasses; and of formal transgression it shall not be true which S. john saith, d 1. john. 1.8. If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, or which S. james saith, e jam. 3 2. In many things we offend all. Is not this a formal foolery of a man that would be taken to be wise? These are drunken fancies, fit for no other but drunken men, that neither know themselves nor others, and therefore we can take M. Bishop for no other but a vile hypocrite, who contrary to his own conscience and knowledge, pleadeth in this sort for the perfection of the righteousness of man. But to fill up the measure of his lewd dealing, he falsifieth another place of Austin, making him to say, that it belongeth to the lesser justice, that is, the justice of this life, not to sin. Wherein he goeth about to make S. Austin a promoter and upholder of that heresy, which with all his might he oppugned in the Pelagians, who defended as M. Bishop here doth a righteousness in this life, whereby a man may be free from sin. And indeed the words which M. Bishop allegeth out of Austin, are the adversaries objection, not the assertion of Austin himself. He bringeth them in by way of supposition what may be said, namely that f Aug de sp. & lit. ca 36 Sed dici potest quadam justitia minor huic vitae competens qua justus ex fide vivit, etc. Non absurdè dicitur etiam ad istam pertinere ne peccet. there is a lesser righteousness belonging to this life, wherein the just liveth by faith, to which righteousness it pertaineth not to sin. Which objection having prosecuted more at large, and alleged what may be said for the maintenance thereof, he at length setteth down answer, whereof a part is contained in these words: g Ibid. Tales justi ex fide viventes non opus habent Deo dicere, dimit nobis, etc. Falsumque esse convincunt quod s●riptum est, Non iustificabitur, etc. Sed quia haec falsa esse non possunt illud esse consequens video ut qu●lemlibes vel quantamlibet in hac vita potuerimus definire justitiam nullus in ea sit hominum qui nullum habeat omninò peccatum. Such just men living by faith have no need to say, forgive us our trespasses, & do convince it to be false which is written, No man living shall be justified in the sight of God, and that, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves: and that there is not a man that sinneth not: and that, There is not a man just upon the earth that doth good and sinneth not. But because these sayings cannot be false, it followeth, that whatsoever, or how great soever we can define righteousness in this life, there is not a man therein that is without sin. Where very plainly he disclaimeth the assertion of any righteousness in this life, in which that may be found that M. Bishop speaketh of: namely, not to sin. And surely had not this man a face of brass, and an iron conscience, he would not in these days of light affirm a thing, or seem to affirm it, so contrary to the perpetual doctrine and confession of the Church. As for his distinction of venial sins, I have before showed it to be frivolous and vain, and the same (God willing) shall appear further in the Section next save one. 46. W. BISHOP. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures, and partly out of the record of Antiquity, let us join one or two drawn from the absurdity of our adversaries doctrine, which teacheth every good work of the righteous man to be infected with mortal sin: which being granted, it would follow necessarily, that no good work in the world, were to be done under pain of damnation, Rom. 7. thus: No mortal sin is to be done under pain of damnation: for the wages of sin is death: but all good works are stained with mortal sin, ergo, no good work is to be done under pain of damnation. It followeth secondly, that every man is bound to sin deadly: for all men are bound to perform the duties of the first and second table: but every performance of any duty is necessarily linked with some mortal sin, therefore every man is bound to commit many mortal sins, and consequently to be damned. These are holy and comfortable conclusions, yet inseparable companions, if not sworn brethren of the Protestants doctrine. Now let us hear what arguments they bring against this Catholic verity. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop hath learned from his fellow M. Wright to strike the matter dead at one blow. Albeit, it is more likely, that these arguments going so currant amongst them, were agreed upon at Wisbich or some other like place, in some solemn assembly and consultation, where the grave and reverend company of the Seculars laid their wits together, to give the Protestants some inevitable and deadly blow. It is hard to think, that one or two men's wits should serve to contrive such a matter as here is against us. Now if some young Sophister of the University had stood by, and smiling at them had said, that it was pity that they good old men, should be troubled with making of Syllogisms, who had forgotten of how many terms a Syllogism doth consist, would they not (think you) have startled at the hearing of it, and thought themselves exceedingly disgraced by a boy? Surely the arguments here set down are such, as that if a boy in our Universities should make the like in earnest, he should be thought justly to deserve the rod, and yet these are they who take upon them, as if we were to say unto them: a job. 12.2. Because you only are men, wisdom must die with you. He will prove by our doctrine, that no good work is to be done under pain of damnation. And how? forsooth no mortal sin is to be done under pain of damnation: but all good works are stained with mortal sin, ergo, etc. Did not his head serve him to know, that it is an error in arguing, when a Syllogism consisteth ex quatuor terminis. We have mortal sin in the Mayor proposition and in the Minor, stained with mortal sin. If he would have kept the course of argument, he must have said thus: No mortal sin is to be done under pain of damnation; but all good works are mortal sins, ergo, etc. Which if he had said, the absurdity of his minor proposition had easily appeared, because every man could have discerned, that good works, though they have some aspersion or touch of our corruption, yet do not thereby become sins, no more than gold by his dross becometh earth or iron; no more than white linen for some spot or stain, is to be accounted black haircloth; no more than the day is to be called night, because it hath but overcast and darksome light. S. Hierome telleth us, that b Hier. adverse. Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri, ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari. Denique & Apostoli appellantur lux mundi, sed non est scriptum quod in Apostolorum luce nullae sint tenebrae. When S. john saith, that there is no darkness found in the light of God, he showeth, that all others lights are blotted with some uncleanness. The Apostles (saith he) are called the light of the world, but it is not written that there was no darkness in the Apostles light. And what? will M. Bishop conclude, that because there was some darkness in the Apostles light, therefore their light was darkness and not light? If he will not so conclude, then let him say, that it followeth not that good works are sins, albeit in our doing of them they receive some blemish and stain of sin. But to show us somewhat more of the sweat and superfluity of his learning, he hath added another argument of the like feature, to prove that by our doctrine every man is bound to sin deadly. And why so? because all men are bound to perform the duties of the first and second Table, and every performance thereof is necessarily linked with mortal sin. Which is as if a man should reason thus: A lame man is bound by law to come to the Church; but he cannot come to the Church but he must halt, therefore he is bound by law to halt. M. Bishop is bound to pay a man twenty pounds, but he cannot tell the money without soiling his fingers: therefore he is bound to soil his fingers. He can no way infer his conclusion, but by a sophistical cavillation, which the Logicians call fallaciam accidentis, whereby in the conclusion he inferreth that of the accident, which in the premises is referred only to the subject, his argument by that means wholly without form, and offending in the like sort as the other did. Bring it into his due fashion, and every child then shall see, that his proof is most ridiculous and absurd. For to bring in his conclusion, his argument must be this: Whosoever is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table, is bound to sin. But every man is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table; therefore every man is bound to sin. His Prosyllogisme for the proof of his mayor proposition out of his own words must arise thus: Whosoever necessarily sinneth in doing the duties of the first and second Table, is bound to sin: but whosoever is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table, necessarily sinneth in the doing thereof: therefore whosoever is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sin. Here his mayor proposition is apparently absurd: for though a man by reason of infirmity cannot but sin in doing his duty, yet it is the duty only that he is bound to, and not to the sin, because the sin is not implied in the duty, but ariseth by casual and accidental necessity from the condition of the man. Now therefore a man may doubt whether is greater in this man, his malice or his ignorance. In respect of his malice we may use to him the words of the Prophet David: c Psal. 52.3.5. Thy tongue imagineth wickedness, and with lies thou cuttest like a sharp razor: Thou hast loved to speak all words that may do hurt, O thou false tongue. In respect of his ignorance, we may justly scorn him as a presumptuous and saucy companion, who being of so base quality, and not knowing how to frame an argument aright, would take upon him to encounter a whole army of learned men, and so insolently dedicate his unlearned fooleries to the King. 47. W. BISHOP. First, they allege these words: Enter not, O Lord, Psal. 141. into judgement with thy servant, because no living creature shall be justified in thy sight. If none can be justified before God, it seems that none of their works are just in his sight. Answer. There are two common expositions of this place among the ancient Fathers: both true, but far from the Protestants purpose. The former is S. Augustine's, S. Ieromes, De perf. justice. Epist. ad Ct●s. S. Gregory's in his Commentaries upon that place: who say, that no creature ordinarily liveth without many venial sins, for the which in justice they may be punished sharply either in this life, or else afterward in Purgatory. Wherefore the best men do very providently pray unto God, not to deal with them according unto their deserts: for if he should so do, they cannot be justified and cleared from many venial faults. And therefore they must all crave pardon for these faults, or else endure God's judgements for them, before they can attain unto the reward of their good deeds. The second exposition is more ordinary with all the best Writers upon the Psalms: as S. Hilary, S. Hierome, S. Arnobius, S. Euthimius, and others: which is also S. Augustins, S. Gregory's. All these say, Lib. ad Cro●ia. cap. 10. lib. 9 moral. cap. 1. that man's justice in comparison of the justice of God, will seem to be no justice at all: and so take these words, No creature, neither man nor Angel, shall be justified in thy sight: that is, if his justice appear before thine, and be compared to it. For as the stars be bright in themselves, & shine also goodly in a clear night, yet in the presence of the glittering Sun beams, they appear not at all: even so man's justice, although considered by itself it be great & perfect in his kind, yet set in the sight & presence of God's justice, it vanisheth away, and is not to be seen. This exposition is taken out of job, where he saith: I know truly it is even so, that no man compared to God, job 9 shall be justified. Take the words of the Psalm in whether sense you list (that either we have many venial faults, for which we cannot be justified in God's sight, or else that in the sight of Gods most bright justice, ours will not appear at all) and it cannot be thereof justly concluded, that every work of the righteous man is stained with sin: and consequently, the place is not to purpose. R. ABBOT. I would wish thee (gentle Reader) well to observe M. Bishops twofold answer to this place. The more clear these words of Scripture are against the inherent righteousness of man, the more notably his singular impudency appeareth in seeking to shift them off. David saith it, a Prophet saith it, a man after Gods own heart saith it: a Psal. 143.2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for no man living shall be justified (or found just) in thy sight. Now M. Bishop answereth, that this is spoken in respect of venial sins, without which no creature liveth, and for which a man may in justice be punished sharply, either in this life or in Purgatory. Where it is to be observed, that he hath told us in the Section last save one, that venial sin is no formal transgression of God's law, by reason whereof they hold, that b Rhem. Testim. 1. joh. 1.8. venial sins consist with true justice, and hinder it not. So saith Andradius, c Andrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 5. justitiam evertere nullo pacto possunt, neque perfectam & ab solutam legis obedientiam quoquo modo impedire. They can no way overthrow justice, nor in any sort hinder the perfect and absolute obedience of the law. So then David's prayer must be this: Enter not into judgement with me for venial sins; for by reason of venial sins which hinder not, but that a man is just, no man living shall be justified in thy sight. Which exposition being apparently lewd and shameless, yet he hath learned of his master Bellarmine to countenance it with the names of them who never thought any such thing. He allegeth Austin, who in the place by him cited hath not a word to t●at effect, which maketh him to set none down, because indeed there are none. But in the place mentioned the same Austin rightly saith, d Aug. de perfe. justit. Superexal●at misericordia iudi●io. Quod si non esset, quae spes esse●? Quando. quidem cùm rex iust●s federit in thro●o, quis glo ritbitur se castum habere cor, aut quis gloriabitur se esse immu●em à peccato? Were it not that mercy rejoiceth over judgement, what hope should there be? For when the just King shall sit upon his throne, who shall glory that he hath a clean heart, or rejoice that he is free from sin? If no man shall be able then to challenge to himself a clean heart, where is that perfect justice of works which Master Bishop dreameth of, which cannot come but from a clean heart? He citeth in the second place the reverend Father Saint Hierome, who beside that he saith nothing for him, speaketh expressly and directly against him. e Hieron. ad C●esiphont. Quando ●icit, In conspectu tuo, hoc intelligi vult, quòd etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur, Dei scientiae atque noutiae nequa quam sancti sunt. Homo enim videt in fancy, Deu● in cord. Si auten inspiciente Deo & omnia contemplante, quem cordis arcana non fallum, nullus est justus, perspicuè ostenditur haereticos non hominem in excelsa sustollere, sed potentiae Dei derogare. When the Prophet saith, In thy sight, he will have it to be understood, that even they which seem holy unto men, are not holy to the notice and knowledge of God. For man seethe in the face, but God in the heart. Now if in the sight and beholding of God, whom the secrets of the heart cannot deceive, no man be just, it is plainly showed that the heretics (in affirming men to be just) do not lift up man, but detract from the power of God. He affirmeth that by the place it is proved, that to the knowledge and sight of God no man is just, and M. Bishop maketh him a witness, that the Prophet speaketh of venial sins, which are no let, but that a man is just. In the like fraudulent manner he nameth Gregory, whose words are these; * Greg. in sept. Psal. panitent. Scio multos in conspectu hominum justos videri, & ad spem coelestium promissorum evectos innocentèr in mundo vivere, qui etsi non delinquant in opere, labuntur tamen aliquando vana aut perversa cogitation. Cuius enim ment●m vanae cogitaetiones non laniant? Cuius cor tentationes non vexant? Cuius animum desideria carnis non turban? Non ergò in conspectu Dei iustificatur, qui cord delinquit quod inivetur Deus. I know that many seem just in the sight of men, and being lifted up to the hope of heavenly promises, do live innocently in the world, who albeit they offend not in deed or work, yet do sometimes fall by vain and perverse cogitation and thought. For whose mind do not vain thoughts wound? whose heart do not temptations afflict? whose mind do not fleshly desires trouble? Therefore he is not justified in the sight of God who offendeth in the heart which God beholdeth. Now who would not wonder that M. Bishop should refer himself to these words for the exposition that he maketh of the place here in hand. And yet why should we wonder, for his master Bellarmine had so alleged it; and that was enough: whether truly or falsely, what was that to him? But how far Gregory was from that which he would so feign fasten upon him, appeareth by that that was a little before cited out of him, as also in that he saith, that f Greg. Moral lib. 8. cap. 21. Quantalibet justitia polleaut nequaquam sibi ad innocentiam vel ●lecti sufficium si districtè in judicio requirantur. even the elect howsoever they excel in righteousness, have not sufficient to approve themselves innocent, if they be narrowly sifted in judgement. Therefore not for venial sins which hinder not a man from being just, but for such sins as bereave a man of the title of justice and innocency, doth the Prophet desire that God will not enter into judgement with him. M. Bishops other answer is taken from an exposition, which he saith is more ordinary with all the best writers upon the Psalms, and yet indeed is no other but a mere Pelagian shift; that is, that man's justice in comparison of the justice of God, will seem to be no justice at all, even as the Sun drowneth the light of the stars that it appeareth not. Hierome having mentioned the words in question against the Pelagians, addeth thereupon; g Hieron. ad Ctesiphont. Non iustificabitur, etc. Quod testimonium sub nomine pietatis nova argumentatione deludunt. Aiunt ad comparationem Dei nullum esse perfectum: Quasi scriptura hoc dixerit. Which testimony under the name of piety they delude with a new shift. They say, that in comparison of God no man is perfect. As if this were it, saith he, that the Scripture speaketh of; & so he goeth on with the words which I cited out of him last before. That is not then by S. Hieromes testimony that the Scripture meaneth when it saith, that no man living shall be justified in God's sight. For shall we be so mad as to think, that we are taught to pray to God not to enter into judgement with us, because our righteousness is not comparable to his? Where hath God required it so to be? h Ibid. Numquid praecepit mihi Deus ut essem quod Deus est? ut nihil inter me esset & Dominun Creatorem? ut maior essem An gelorum fastigio? ut haberem quod Angeli non habent? Hath God, saith Hierome, commanded me to be the same that God is? That there should be no difference betwixt me and the Lord my creator? that I should be above the height of Angels? that I should have that which the Angels have not? Shall we think that the creator will be offended, because his creature is not the same that he himself is? or that God will enter into judgement with us because we were not made Gods? If this be absurd, as indeed it is, than we must confess, that therefore the Prophet teacheth us by his example so to pray, because according to that righteousness that is commanded unto us, & belongeth to our duty, we are found greatly defective and wanting in the sight of God, as in the former section also I have showed that Hierome expoundeth that place. As for them whom M. Bishop citeth to warrant his exposition, he doth notably abuse them. First Hilary indeed speaketh of comparison to God, but not as touching degree of righteousness, in which there can be no comparison, because the one is finite and the other infinite, but as touching an uniformity and constant tenor of righteousness, whereby man should inviolably and unmoveably without interruption continue in that righteousness that concerneth him, as God doth in his righteousness. This he expresseth when he saith, that i Hilar. in Psal. 142. Non hos demutabilis naturae nostrae promptissimos lapsus secundum indemutabilis substantiae sua indeflexam constanitam metitur, sed justus & moderans tan tum ab homine expectat quantum humanae meminerit licere naturae. God doth not measure these slippery falls of our changeable nature according to the inflexible constancy of his unchangeable substance, but in justice and moderation expecteth so much of man as he remembreth the nature of man can reach unto. For so is his promise in our willing mind to accept us according to that that we have, as the Apostle speaketh in another case. To this meaning he saith: k Ibid. Quid spei est si judicari nos fecundum se Deus velit; si ad comparationem sui vitae nostrae innocentiam postulabu? What hope is there if God will have us to be judged according to himself; if he shall require the innocency of our life in comparison of him: that is, to be as free from slips and falls in our state as he is in his? And to show that man being subject to alterations and changes is not just in God's sight, according to the righteousness that concerneth him in his own state, he addeth: l Ibid. justificari in conspectu Dei quis viventium potest, cui ira, cui dolour, cui cupiditas, cui oblivio, cui ignoratio, cui casus, cui necessitas vel per naturam corporis, vel per motum semper fluctuantis animae admixta sunt? Cui & quotidiè gravissimus host●● immineat, drabolui videlicet animae viri fidelis insidians eamque ad interitum per sequens? Hanc enim esse causam docet, qua nemo vivens iustist●arò in conspectu Dei possit. And what man living can be justified in God's sight, with whom anger, and grief, and lust, and ignorance, and forgetfulness, and casualty, and necessity, are blended and mingled either by the nature of the body, or by the motion of the ever-wavering soul; who also hath daily a grievous enemy at hand, even the devil lying in wait against the soul of the faithful man, and persecuting the same to destroy it? For this doth the Prophet teach to be the cause, why no man living can be found just in the sight of God. By which words being very clear and manifest, the reader may esteem with what fidelity M. Bishop hath brought Hilary to justify his exposition of that place. With the like truth or rather untruth, he citeth Hierome, who saith, that m Hieron. in Psal. 142. Manifestissimè demonstravit, quia misericordiam De● praestolatur, etc. Hic quasi aliquis judicet inter Deum & Prophetam, sicut & scriptum est, ut iustificeris, etc. Et proptereà intrat in judicium Deus ut justè pumat. the Prophet doth manifestly show, that he did wait for God's mercy, that he supposeth some one to be judge betwixt God and him; which so being, God should be justified in his sayings, and overcome when he is judged: who therefore entereth into judgement that he may justly punish. Then reckoning Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob amongst them of whom the Prophet speaketh, he inferreth: n Ergo nec ipsi Patriarchae justi ficabuntur in conspectu Dei. Stellae enim non sunt mundae in conspectu eius. Therefore not the very patriarchs themselves shall be found just in the sight of God: for even the stars are not clean in his sight. What can be more plainly spoken, to show that even the most righteous and just for want of purity and justice should justly be punished, if God should enter into judgement with them, and that if the very stars, not by their own sin, but by being in the o Rom. 8.20.21. bondage of our vanity and corruption be found unclean before God, much more are we unclean, for whose sake it is that that imputation doth lie upon them? But to make it yet further to appear what Hierome conceived of those words, he saith in another place: p Hieron. in Esa. lib. 6. cap. 14. Cùm dies judicij vel dormitionis advenerit, dissoluentur omnes manus, quia nullum opus dignum Dei justitia reperietur, & non iustificabitur, etc. When the day of judgement or death shall come, all hands shall be faint, because no work shall be found worthy of the justice of God, and no man living shall be justified in his sight. Where he plainly teacheth, not only as touching comparison to God, but as touching that a just man in himself ought to be, that no man living, no not so much as in any one work shall be justified in God's sight, but his hands, that is, all his works shall fail if God enter into judgement with him. The next that he citeth is Arnobius, who for one part of his exposition of these words, saith, that man is not to be found righteous if he be compared to God; that q Arno. in Psal. 142. Omnis pulchritudo te present deformis est: omnis fortitudo infirma; omnes divitiae mendicitas omnis humaena justitia iniustitia. all beauty in God's presence is but deformity, all strength but weakness, all riches but beggary, all righteousness but unrighteousness. But having set down this because this could not sufficiently express the meaning of the Prophet, he addeth further: r Jbid. Et ut vicinam tuae iustinae justitiam humanam exquirere desinas quaeso, quoniam persecutus est inimicus animam meam, etc. Tanta me obscuritate suae circūdedi● fraudis ut ●●ortuū me apud Deum credens, putaren me nullum ●●uperationis apud justitiam tuam auditum invenire: id●o anxiatus est in me spiritus meus And I pray thee that thou wilt cease to search out the righteousness that concerneth man, that should be neighbour to thy righteousness, because the enemy hath persecuted my soul, and compassed me about with such darkness of his deceit, as that believing myself to be dead with God, I thought I should find no hearing with thy righteousness for my recovery: therefore is my spirit troubled within me. It is plain then by the judgement of Arnobius, that not only in comparison of God, but even by that righteousness that belongeth unto man, no man living shall be found just before the judgement seat of God. Euthymius whom he allegeth next, is as plain to the same purpose. For although with Arnobius he on the one side deny justification in comparison of God, in comparison of whom, saith he, not only man, but neither the Angels themselves are just, because it is he only that is not capable of sin, yet not contented herewith, he on the other side expoundeth the prayer of the Prophet in this sort; s Euthym. in Psal. 142. Id est, non districtè mecum agas in futuro: ad te fugio & non sum dignus vocari filius tuus, nec ego tecum intr●re in judicium volo, nec constituo justitiam meam quòd non iustificab●tur hic in carne ubi nemo hic viuen● p●enò mundus est. Enter not into judgement, etc. that is, deal not strictly with me in the time to come: I fly unto thee, and am not worthy to be called thy son, neither will I enter into judgement with thee, neither do I set up mine own righteousness, because it shall not be justified here in the flesh, where no man living is perfectly clean. He further addeth reasons of the using of this prayer, t Ibidem. Quotidiè peccamus: Pauca bona facimus in comparatione comm●ssionis & omissionis: minima bona faci●●● in comparatione beneficiorum Dei. because we daily sin; because we do few good deeds in comparison of that that we commit (in evil) and omit (in good): because we do little good in comparison of the benefits of God. Now than what is become of Master Bishop's righteousness, so perfect as that it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to perform; yea, such as by which we merit everlasting life? Compare the one with the other, gentle Reader, and thou shalt see how well they agree. S. Austin in the place alleged, hath nothing at all concerning this text, nothing at all concerning the righteousness of man. Only he saith of the Angels, that u August. count Priscill. & Origen. ad Oros. cap. 10. Cuius participatione justi sunt, eius comparatione nec justi sunt. although by participation of God they be just, yet in comparison of God they be not just. Now if the Prophet's words be to be taken as M. Bishop construeth them, than this prayer must be the prayer of Angels as well as of men, because by the testimony of Austin, which Euthymius also observeth, the very Angels themselves are not just in comparison of God. Now we do not any where find that it belongeth to the Angels to pray in this sort, and therefore it must be so understood as is proper unto men. And that understanding thereof, the same S. Austin declareth to us writing upon that Psalm: x Jdem. in Psal. 142. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videor, producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam; coaptas me ad eam & praws inventor. Howsoever I seem to myself right and strait, yet thou bringest a rule out of thy treasury; thou layest me to it, and I am found faulty. The words therefore import that not only by comparison, but by rule of righteousness which God hath prescribed to man, every man living is found failing of righteousness in the sight of God, even as elsewhere he saith: y Idem de peccat. mer. & remiss. li. 2. ca 10. Quantum ad integerrimam regulam veritatis eius pertinet, non iustificabitur, etc. According to the most entire rule of his truth, no man living shall be justified in his sight. Which he declareth yet more plainly in his foresaid exposition upon the Psalm, when he teacheth that by the same defaults for which we pray daily unto God, forgive us our trespasses, it cometh to pass that no man living shall be justified in God's sight, z Idem In Psal. 142. Dicant Apostoli, dicant, dimit nobis, etc. Et cùm eis dictum fuerit, Quare hoc dicitu? quae sunt debita vestra? respondeant, Quoniam non iustificabitur, etc. Let the Apostles themselves say, let them say, forgive us our trespasses. And when it shall be said unto them, why do ye say thus? What are your trespasses? let them answer, Because no man living shall be justified in thy sight. Gregory's mind is sufficiently plain by that that hath been said before. For what though he say that the righteousness of men & Angels is nothing in comparison of God? Doth that import that there is nothing else meant by the Prophet, when he prayeth unto God not to enter into judgement with him? By this than we may see the lewd consciences of these men in citing the authorities of the ancient Fathers. He hath brought us here a great company of their names for him, when there is not one of them but speaketh expressly against him, and the most of them in the self same places whence he allegeth them. But he telleth us further, that his exposition is taken out of job, from whom he allegeth these words; a job. 9.2. I know truly it is even so, that no man compared to God shall be justified. In which sort it is true, that we also read the words in some of our translations, but it is true also that the word of comparison is not at all found in the Hebrew text. Therefore Arias Montanus translateth it ad verbum thus: b Quid iustificabit se homo cum Deo? Why will a man justify himself with God? Pagnine thus; c Quomodo instificabit se homo cum Deo? How will a man justify himself with God? S. Austin also readeth to the same effect, d Aug. de piece. mer. & remiss. li. 2. ca 10. Quem admodum justus erit homo ante Deum? How shall a man be just before God? Therefore these words of job have nothing at all, whereupon that exposition of his may have any ground, and though job had said, that man in comparison of God is not just or cannot be justified, yet it followeth not that that therefore should be all that David meant in saying, that no man living shall be justified in God's sight. And that appeareth by S. Austin in the place now alleged, where bringing in the words of job; e job. 20. If I shall call myself just, my mouth shall speak wickedly; he expoundeth the same thus: f August. ibid. Si me justum dixero contra judicium eius ubi perfecta illa justitiae regula me ●onmucit iniustum, profectò impie loquetur 〈◊〉 me●●. If I shall call myself just against his judgement where the perfect rule of righteousness proveth me to be unjust, surely my mouth shall speak wickedly, and in respect hereof saith, that those words were used by David: Enter not into judgement, etc. For this cause then are we taught so to pray, because the perfect rule of righteousness proveth us to be unjust if God enter into judgement with us. By this place therefore we wholly overthrow the righteousness of man, and do firmly prove, that no man living either generally in the course of his life, or in any particular act or acts can be justified before God, if God call him to the trial of the precise & perfect rule of righteousness and truth. Yea, if no man can be found just in the sight of God, than it must necessarily follow, that no act of man can be found just, because the act must needs be according to the condition and quality of the man, so that unless a man be fully and perfectly just, no act fully and perfectly just can proceed from him, but must needs have a stain of that sin which bereaveth him of the title of a just man. 48. W. BISHOP. One other ordinary hackney of theirs, is that out of the Prophet. All our righteousness is as a menstruous or defiled cloth. Esay. ●4. The which I have already rid to death in the beginning of the question of justification, where it was alleged: The answer is briefly, that the Prophet praying for the sins of the people, speaketh in the person of the sinful; such as the common sort of them were, who had more sins then good works, and so their righteousness was like unto a spotted and stained cloth. Now this disprooueth not, but that their good works although but few, yet were free from all spots of iniquity: it only proveth, that with their few good, they had a great number of evil, which defiled their righteousness, and made it like a stained cloth. R. ABBOT. He hath so rid this hackney of ours, as that he hath pitifully galled himself in the riding of him. We do imagine that by that time he hath better advised of this whole matter, he will think that some body did ride him when first he took this business in hand. We may here see the blind insolency of a presumptuous vain man, who having said nothing but what is justly to be derided and scorned, yet taketh upon him as if he had given us some very admirable and learned answer. Yea, in this very place he babbleth as if his wits were to seek, crossing and thwarting that in one line which he uttereth in another. He telleth us that the words of Esay were spoken in the person of the sinful, who had more sins then good works, and so their righteousness was like unto a spotted and stained cloth: and yet by and by he saith, that their good works though but few, were free from all spots of iniquity. Again as uncertain where to stand, he telleth us, that their evil works defiled their righteousness, and made it like a stained cloth. If their good works were free from all spots of iniquity, how did their evil works defile them, and make them like a stained cloth? Or if their evil works did defile their good, and make them like a stained cloth, how were they free from all spots of iniquity? Again, we would demand of him, how sinful, or as he hath called them before, evil and wicked men should do good works free from all spots of iniquity, seeing our Saviour so plainly saith, that a Mat. 7.18. Luk. 6.43. an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, no more than we can gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles. S. Paul telleth us, that b Tit. 2.15. to them that are unclean nothing is pure, their minds and consciences being defiled. Which made S. Bernard to say, that c Bern. in Cant. Ser. 71. Si fuerit n●●us in conscientia, nec quod ex ea prodieri● carebit naevo. if there be a blemish or blot in the conscience, nothing that cometh from it shall be without a blot. How then can it stand good which M. Bishop saith, that sinful and wicked men do good works which are free from all spots of iniquity? But thus he turneth all upside down, and according to the present occasion, letteth go whatsoever cometh next to hand, without fear or wit. But upon the place I need not to stand. I refer the Reader to that that hath been d Se●t. 3. before said thereof, where it hath been showed, that the Prophet by way of prophecy indited the prayer in the name of the faithful that were to live in the desolations of jerusalem and the Temple; that the prayer of the Prophet Daniel, at that time fully expresseth the effect of the same prayer of Esay: and therefore that it is the confession of the faithful & godly, that their righteousness is as a stained cloth, and that the ancient Fathers have used the place for proof thereof. 49 W. BISHOP. 3. There is not a man who doth not sin: And blessed is the man whose sins be not imputed to him; and such like. I answer that the best men sin venially, and are happy when those their sins be pardoned: but all this is clean besides this question, where it is only inquired, whether the good works that the just do, be free from sin, and not whether they at other times do sin, at the least venially. This is all which M. Perkins here and there objecteth against this matter: but because some others do allege also some dark places out of the Fathers, I think it not amiss to solve them here together. S. Cyprian saith: That the besieged mind of man, can hardly resist all assaults of the enemy: for when covetousness is overthrown, up starts lechery, and so forth. Answer. All this is true, that the life of man is a perpetual warfare: yet man assisted with the grace of God, may perform it most valiantly, and never take any mortal wound of the enemies: although through his own frailty he may be sometimes foiled. Dial. 1. cap. Pelag. S. Hierome affirmeth: That then we are just when we confess ourselves to be sinners. Answer. That all just men confess themselves to sin venially: but neither of these places come near the point in question, that not one good deed of the just man, is without some spot or stain of sin. Epict. 29. S. Austin hath these words: Most perfect charity which cannot be increased, is to be found in no man in this life: and as long as it may be increased, that which is less than it ought to be, is faulty, of which fault it proceedeth, that there is no man who doth good, and doth not sin. All this we grant to be true: that no man hath so perfect charity in this life, but that sometimes he doth less than he ought to do: and consequently doth not so well, but that now and then he sinneth at the least venially, and that therefore the said holy Doctor had just cause to say: Woe be to the laudable life of a man, Lib. 9 confess. cap. 13. if it be examined without mercy. All which notwithstanding just men may out of that charity which they have in this life do many good works, which are pure from all sin as hath been proved. They allege yet another place out of S. Austin: Lib. 3. con. duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 7. That belongeth unto the perfection of a just man, to know in truth his imperfection, & in humility to confess it. True: that is as he teacheth elsewhere. First, that the perfection of this life is imperfection, being compared with the perfection of the life to come. Again, that the most perfect in this life, hath many imperfections, both of wit and will, and thereby many light faults. Now come we unto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle, out of whose sweet words ill understood, they seem to have sucked this their poison. He saith: The holy man job, Lib. 9 moral. cap. 1. because he did see all the merit of our virtue to be vice, if it be straightly examined of the inward judge, doth rightly add, if I will contend with him, I cannot answer him one for a thousand. I answer, that by our virtue in that place, is to be understood, that virtue which we have of our own strength, without the aid of God's grace; which we acknowledge to be commonly infected with some vice: that S. Gregory so took it, appears by the words, both going before and following: before he writeth thus: A man not compared to God, received justice: but compared unto him, he loseth it. For whosoever compareth himself unto the author of all good, loseth that good which he had received: for he that doth attribute the good unto himself, doth fight against God with his own gifts: And after thus: To contend with God, is not to give to God the glory of his virtue, but to take it to himself. And so all the merit of this our virtue, which cometh not of God, but is attributed unto ourself, as proceeding only from ourselves, is the very vice of pride, and cannot be prejudicial unto true good works, all which we acknowledge to proceed principally from the grace of God dwelling in us. He saith further with S. Augustine, that in this life we cannot attain unto perfect purity, such as shall be in heaven, read the beginning of his first and second book of Morals, and there you shall find him commending job to the skies, as a good and holy man, by his temptations not foiled, but much advanced in virtue. R. ABBOT. These arguments the most of them are foisted in of his own head, there being none of ours that allegeth them to that purpose to which he produceth them. But thus because he would be taken for a valiant warrior, he maketh himself a man of straw to fight with, and with all his might bestirreth himself against a shadow. But the worth of his answers is first to be seen in that which he saith to the words of the Apostle; a Psal. 32.2. Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. The best men sin venially, saith he, and are happy when those their sins be pardoned. Now the Apostle expoundeth the forgiveness, or not imputing of sin there spoken of, to be the imputation of righteousness. But the forgiveness of their venial sins, is not the imputation of righteousness, because without any forgiveness of venial sins, a man continueth righteous and just, as wherein there is no breach of justice and righteousness, and notwithstanding the same a man is just in the sight of God, as out of the Romish doctrine was showed in the section last saving one. Therefore forgiveness of sins spoken of in that place, cannot be understood of venial sins. Again, he maintaineth in the question of Satisfaction, that forgiveness of sins taketh not away the temporal punishment of sin. How then is a man happy, when those venial sins be pardoned, if for want of satisfaction he remain still to pay dear for them, as he speaketh in his Epistle, in Purgatory fire? He bringeth in a place of Cyprian, as idly as he did the former texts. To that which he saith we answer him, that it is by the grace of Christ through the forgiveness of sins, that the wounds which the faithful man receiveth, be not mortal. His foils and wounds of themselves are such, as that he must say with David: b Psal. 130.3. If thou, O Lord, be extreme to mark iniquities, who can stand? c Aug. in Psal. 129. Vidit propè totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suit, accusari omnes conscientias cogitationibus suis; non inveniri castum cor praesumens de justitia sua. Si ergo cor castum non potest invenirs, quod praesumat de sua justitia prasumat omnium cor de miserecordia Dei, & dicat, si, etc. He saw, saith S. Austin, the whole life of man in a manner to be barked at on every side with his sins; all consciences to be accused by their own thoughts; that there is not a clean heart found, that can presume of it own righteousness; If then ther● cannot be found a clean heart, which may presume of it own righteousness, let the hearts of all presume upon the mercy of God, and say, If thou markest iniquities, O Lord, who shall abide it? Let Master Bishop mark it well, that in this warfare there is no heart clean that can presume of it own righteousness, and that we have nothing to rest upon, but only God's mercy. To the place of Hierome, he saith, that all just men confess themselves to sin venially. But just men confess their sins in the same meaning as they say, Forgive us our trespasses. They say, Forgive us our trespasses, as S. Austin saith the Apostles did, as we heard before, for those sins for which they say also, Enter not into judgement with thy servants, for in thy sight no man living shall be justified. They confess therefore such sins as hinder them from being justified in the sight of God, which M. Bishop saith his venial sins do not. The repeating of the whole sentence of Hierome, is a sufficient answer to him, the latter part whereof he concealeth, because it taketh away his gloze upon the former: d Hieron count Pelag li. 1. Tunc justi ●umus quando nos peccatores fatemur et justitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex Dei consistit miserecordia. Then are we just when we confess ourselves to be sinners, and our righteousness standeth not upon our own merit, but upon the mercy of God. If our righteousness consist in the acknowledgement of our sins, and in the mercy of God, pardoning and forgiving the same, then is there in us no such perfection as M. Bishop speaketh of, neither can any work come from us, that can have the title of absolute and perfect righteousness before God. And this will be yet more by that that in the next place is alleged out of Saint Austin, who noting divers degrees of charity, saith that e Aug. epist. 29. Plenissima charitas qua iam augeri non potest quamdiu hìc homo vinit est in nemine. Quādi● autem augeri potest, profectò quicquid minus est quàm ●ebet ex vitio est. the most perfect charity no further to be increased, is in no man so long as he liveth here, and so long as it may be increased, that that is less than it ought to be, is by reason of a corruption or default. Now hereto Saint Austin addeth, not only that which Master Bishop mentioneth, though he mention it also by half; f Ex quo vitio 〈◊〉 est iustu●, etc. By reason of which g Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio. Aug. de li. a●●i●. lib 3. cap. 14. corruption, there is not a man just upon earth, which doth good and sinneth not, but also another sentence which he concealeth, h Ex quo vitio non iustifica●●tur, etc. By reason of which corruption, no man living shall be justified in the sight of God. Now if by reason of a corruption remaining in us, there be such an imperfection of charity, which is the substance of inherent justice, as that no man living shall be justified in God's sight, then can no good work proceed from us, which can be said to be perfectly and entirely go●d. For from an unperfect cause, cannot come a perfect effect. i Bern in Cant. ser. 71. Si radix in vitio & ramus. If the root be faulty, the branch also must be so. A lame leg cannot yield an upright and steadfast gate. Therefore needs must there be a lameness and blemish in all the good works that issue from us. For charity is not such as it ought to be, till we love the Lord our God with all our soul. But k Aug. de perfect. justit. Cum est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis, etc. non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus. so long as there is any carnal concupiscence, God is not loved with all the soul. And so long as we live here, there is carnal concupiscence against the law of the mind. Therefore so long as we live here, charity is never perfect in us as it ought to be, neither can any perfect good work be effected by us. M. Bishop minceth and qualifieth the matter, that no man hath so perfect charity, but that sometimes he doth less than he ought to do. But the argument proveth, that charity is always unperfect in this life, and therefore not sometimes only, but always a man doth less than he ought to do. There is always a blot that staineth our charity, l Hilar. apud August. count Julian. lib. 2. Supra sect. 44. by reason whereof we have nothing in us clean, nothing innocent, as before was cited out of Hilary; and therefore it can yield no works that are free from blot and stain. But the Reader is here to note the constancy of this man, who affirmeth here, that no man hath so perfect charity in this life, but that sometimes he doth less than he ought to do, whereas before he hath told us of a righteousness so perfect in this life, as that m Sect. 45. it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to perform. Thus giddily he runneth to and fro, being uncertain what to say, and never knowing where he may stand sure. Now here he saith, that the other saying of Austin, Woe to the laudable life of man, if it be examined without mercy, is spoken in respect of venial sins, whereas Austin useth the words in respect of hell fire, which they say is not incident to their venial sins. For having professed that he he durst not say, that after baptism no word went out of his mother's mouth against God's commandment, and that Christ saith, that if a man say to his brother, fool, he is guilty of hell fire, he addeth these words; n Aug. Confess. lib. 9 cap. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam. And woe even to the commendable life of man, if thou set aside mercy in the examining (or sifting) of it. To which purpose he saith also in another place; o Idem. In Psal. 42. Quicunque hic vi●●● quantumlibet justè vivat, vae illi si cum illa in judicium intraverit Deus. Whosoever liveth here, howsoever justly he live, woe unto him, if God enter into judgement with him. In which sort Arnobius also saith, p Arno. in Psal. 135. Vae nebis si quod debemus exegerit; vae nobis si quod debet reddiderit. Woe unto us if he require what we own to him; woe unto us if he pay what he oweth to us. These woes are not uttered in respect of Purgatory or any temporal affliction, but in respect of the issue of that final dreadful judgement, the sentence whereof shall stand for ever. Now if they have learned by the word of God to denounce this woe, than woe to M. Bishop, that to the contrary defendeth a righteousness so perfect in this life, as that his righteous man q Sect. 4. needeth not greatly to fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge, as who faileth not in any duty that he is bound to perform; who can keep himself from all but venial sins, which are easily forgiven r Rhem. Testam. Annot. Mat. 10.12. Sext. Proaema●: glossa. by the Bishop's blessing, by holy water, by knocking the breast, by saying a Pater noster, by extreme unction, and some other such devotions madly devised to that end. As touching the other place of Austin, it hath been already showed, that our righteousness in this life is unperfect, not only by comparison, but simply in itself, and according to that that here is required of us, The imperfections of wit and will, which M. Bishop speaketh of, are so great and so many, as that if he did but with a feeling heart and conscience consider the same, he would find that there is small cause in the most perfect of this life, to plead for that perfection that he maintaineth. But being a man of a frozen and dead heart, and neither knowing others nor himself, by the name of many light faults he passeth over those things which make the most righteous and just to groan under the burden of them, and to say with David, s Psal. 38.4. Mine iniquities are gone over my head, and are like a sore burden, too heavy for me to bear: t Psal. 40.12. My sins have taken such hold upon me, that I am not able to look up, they are more in number then the hairs of my head, and my heart hath failed me. Tush saith M. Bishop, what need all this ado? all these are but light and venial faults; but hereby we conceive that neither his will nor his wit have indeed that perfection, that it were fit they should have. His answer to the words of Gregory is ridiculous and childish. Gregory forsooth by our virtue meaneth the virtue that we have of our own strength, when as Gregory teacheth, that we have no virtue of our own strength, but only by the gift of God. u Greg. Moral. lib. 24. cap. 5. justitia nostra dicitur non quae ex nostro nostra est, sed quae divina largitate fit nostra. It is called our righteousness, saith he in another place, not which is ours of our own, but which by the gift of God becometh ours. According to this meaning, he saith, that x Ibid. li. 9 ca 1. Sanctus vir quia omne virtu●is nostrae meritum vitium esse c●nspexit, si ab interno arbitro districté iudicetur, rectè subiungit. si voluero, etc. the holy man job, because he saw all the merit of our virtue to be vice if it be strictly judged by the internal judge, did rightly add, If I will contend with him, I shall not be able to answer him one for a thousand. He apply his speech to jobs righteousness, which he had no cause to imagine, that job alleged as attained unto by his own strength. And shall we be so mad, as to think that if job had been perfect by a righteousness received by the gift of God, he would say he could not therefore answer God, because he saw all the merit of the virtue that he had by his own strength to be but vice? It is strange to see that these men should be so blind, as not to see the gross absurdity of these shifts. Gregory spoke to the instruction of his hearers, whom surely he thought not to be worse than the Pharisee, but knew that they attributed their virtue and righteousness to the gift of God; and of that righteousness which they confessed to be Gods good gift, teacheth them to acknowledge, that through our weakness and frailty, it becometh defective and faulty, if God call it to precise and strict examination & judgement. Even as elsewhere he saith again; y Ibid cap. 11. Omnis humana justitia iniustitia esse c●nuincitur, si districtè iudicetur. Prece ergò post justitiam ind●get, ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ipsa judicis pietate convalescat. All the righteousness of man is convicted to be unrighteousness, if it be strictly judged: it needeth therefore prayer after righteousness, that that which being sifted might quail, by the mere piety of the judge may go for good. Where I hope that M. Bishop, though he will say much, yet will not say, that Gregory meant that we should pray, that the righteousness which we do of our own strength, by the piety and clemency of the judge may stand for good. And if he dare not so say, than it followeth that of that righteousness, which in this life we attain to by the gift of God. Gregory saith, that it is found to be defective, and to come short of perfect righteousness, and thereby to be unrighteousness, if severe and strict account be taken of it; which more peremptorily he affirmeth elsewhere, saying: z Ibid. ca 18. Si remota pietate discutimur, opus nostrum paena dignum est quod remunerari praemijs praestolamur, etc. Restat ut postquam bonum opus agitur lachrymae expiationis exqu●rātur quatenus ad aeterna praemia meritum recti operis subvebat humilitas postulationis. If we be judged without mercy, our work is worthy to be punished, which we expect to have rewarded. Therefore the tears of expiation, as he speaketh, are required, that humble prayer may lift up the merit of our good work, to the obtaining of eternal reward. So that howsoever he commend job, as well he might, sure I am that both job and he condemn M. Bishop, as a proud Pharisee, maintaining the righteousness of man against the righteousness of God, to the impeaching of the glory of God. Which he doth also by his quillet of attributing good works principally to the grace of God, not wholly but principally, that so he may reserve some place at least to the free will of man, because he cannot endure that no part of glory should redound to man. To be short, it appeareth both by that that is said here, and that that hath been a Sect. 4.44 45. before alleged, that Gregory doth not bereave man only of that perfection that shall be in heaven, but also of that that is required, & by duty ought to be in him here upon the earth. 50. W. BISHOP. Now before I depart from this large question of justification, I will handle yet one other question, which commonly ariseth about it: it is, Whether Faith may be without Charity. I prove that it may so be: first out of these words of our Saviour: Many shall say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, Math. 7. have we not prophesied in thy name, have we not cast out devils, have we not done many miracles? to whom I will confess, that I never knew you, depart from me all ye that work iniquity. That these men believed in Christ, and persuaded themselves assuredly to be of the elect, appeareth by their confident calling of him, Lord, Lord, and the rest that followeth: yet Christ declareth manifestly that they wanted charity, in saying that they were workers of iniquity. 2. When the King went to see his guests, Math. 22. He found there a man not attired in his wedding garment, and therefore commanded him to be cast into utter darkness. This man had faith, or else he had not been admitted unto that table which signifieth the Sacraments: yet wanted charity, which to be the wedding garment, besides the evidence of the text is also proved, where in express terms, Apoc. 1●. The garments of Christ's Spouse is declared to be the righteousness and good works of the Saints. And that with great reason: for as S. Paul teacheth: 1. Cor. 13: Faith shall not remain after this life: With what instrument then (trow you) will the Protestants lay hold on Christ's righteousness? That charity is that wedding garment, S. Hierome upon the same place doth witness, saying: That it is the fulfilling of our Lords commandments. And S. Gregory doth in express words define it. H●m. ●8. in evang. Can. ●2 in Mat. Tract ●●m Ma●● Math. 25. What (saith he) must we understand by the wedding garment but charity: So do S. Hilary, and Origen: and S. chrysostom upon that place. 3. The like argument is made of the foolish Virgins, who were part of the Kingdom of God, and therefore had faith, which is the gate and entrance into the service of God. Yea in the house of God, they aspired unto more than ordinary perfection, having professed Virginity, yet either carried away with vain glory, as S. Gregory takes it, or not giving themselves to the works of mercy, spiritual and corporal, as S. chrysostom expounds it: briefly not continuing in their former charity (for faith once had, cannot after the Protestants doctrine be lost) were shut out of the kingdom of heaven, albeit they presumed strongly on the assurance of their salvation, as is apparent by their confident demanding to be let in: for they said, Lord, Lord, open unto us. john. 12. 4. Many of the Princes believed in Christ, but did not confess him: for they loved more the glory of men, than the glory of God. What can be more evident, then that these men had faith? when the holy Ghost saith expressly, that they believed in Christ, which is the only act of faith: and yet were destitute of charity, which preferreth the glory and service of God, before all things in this world. R. ABBOT. That there may be faith without charity we make no question, but the question is of that faith whereby we are justified, or wherein standeth our justification before God. It is to be known, that faith is of divers sorts: there is a faith which is called a Tit. 1.1. the faith of the elect, as being peculiar unto them, and for which men are called b Ephe. 1.1. faithful: and there is a faith by which the c jam. 2.19. devils also are said to believe, and yet are not to be called faithful. There is a faith whereby we d Ibid. believe that there is one God: and there is another faith, whereby e john. 14.1. we believe in God. There is a faith whereby Simon Magus f Act 8.13.21. believed, whose heart was not right in the sight of God, and there is a g Act. 15.9. faith whereby God purifieth the heart. There is a h jam 2 20. dead faith, and there is a i Gal. 2.20. faith whereby we live, and Christ liveth in us. There is a k 1 Tim. 1.5. faith unfeigned, and thereby we understand, that there is also a feigned faith. There is a faith that consiste●h in l Oecumen in jac. ca 2. De simplici assensu fidem dicere solemus, etc. Rursum consecutionem ex affectu procedentem cum firmo assensu nomine fidei vocamus. bare assent of the understanding, and there is a faith that implieth the affection of the heart and will. There is a faith whereby m john 3.15. he which believeth shall never perish: and there is a faith whereby some n ●●k. 8.13. believe for a time, and in time of temptation go away. There is a faith which the world o 2. Tim. 2.18. destroyeth, and there is p 1. john. 5.4. a faith which is our victory, whereby we overcome the world. According to these differences, there is q jam. 2.14 a faith without works, and there is r Gal. 5.6. a faith which worketh by love. We affirm then of the faith of the elect, whereby we believe in God, to which the promise of justification and eternal life is made, that it is a faith which cannot be separated from charity and good works, but wheresoever it is, there is infallibly joined with it the love of God, bringing forth s Phil. 1.11. the fruits of righteousness which are by jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. Now as touching this faith M. Bishops arguments must be understood, or else they are nothing against us, and being so understood, a man would wonder that a wise man should show so much folly, to bring arguments so impertinent and frivolous, as he hath done. The first is taken from the words of reprobate hypocrites, who t Mat. 7.22. at that day shall say unto Christ, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, etc. to whom he shall profess, saying, I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. They shall say, Lord, Lord; therefore they believed in Christ, and were persuaded assuredly that they were of the elect; the conclusion as well agreeing to the antecedent, as a goose feather to a fox's tail. It is to be noted, that faith is grounded upon the word of God, and the thing which it believeth, is that that God hath said. Thus the Apostle telleth us, that, u Rom. 10.17. faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and therefore calleth the word of God x Ver. 8. the word of faith, because that is the object and matter of faith. Whatsoever we conceive towards God beside the word of God, it is opinion, imagination, presumption, but faith it is not. Now the word of God denounceth, that x Psal. 11.6. the soul of the Lord hateth them that love iniquity; that y Psal. 92 9 all the workers of iniquity shall be destroyed, that Christ shall say to them at the last day, Depart from me ye workers of iniquity. If then there be no faith but by the word of God, and the word of God denounce destruction to the workers of iniquity, how can it be said that the workers of iniquity have faith to persuade themselves assuredly, that they are of the elect? S. Austin saith, z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. Qui fidem h●bet sine spe & dilectione Christum esse credit, non in Christum credit. He who hath faith without hope and charity, believeth that Christ is, but he believeth not in Christ. For a Cyprian. de simplic. praelat. Credere se in Christum quomodo dicit qui non facit quod Christus facere praecepit? how doth he say that he believeth in Christ, saith Cyprian, who doth not what Christ hath commanded us to do? How then doth M. Bishop say, that these believe in Christ, in whom he confesseth there is no charity, no love to Christ to do those things which he commandeth? They of whom Christ speaketh as the words very plainly import, are heretics, schismatics, false Apostles, false teachers, yea and such also, as though they preach the truth of Christ, yet preach it not truly & sincerely, but b Phil. 1.15.18. of envy and strife, and under a pretence, who under the name of Christ c Gap. 2.21. seek their own, and not that that is Christ's, making the word of God to serve them, & themselves not serving it; using the Gospel for their purpose, when they have no true purpose for the Gospel: d Psal. 50.16.17 taking the testament (of Christ) in their mouths, but hating to be reform thereby; e Tit. 1.16. professing to know God when by their deeds they deny him. To the name of Christ even in the mouths of such wicked men, God sometimes doth that honour, as that miracles are done thereby, devils are cast out, & great effects are wrought, wherein they much glory, & in respect thereof assume much unto themselves. These in the end, not of faith, but for fear, when they shall see that which they believed not, that f Phil. 3.19. damnation is their end, shall in perplexity of mind cry unto Christ, whom before they regarded not, and therefore by him now shall be rejected. Of such, though professing to know God, and prophesying in the name of Christ, yet the Apostle saith as the vulgar Latin translateth, and as the word well beareth, that they are g Tit. 1 16. unbelievers, yea as Thomas Aquinas expoundeth it, h Thom. Aquin. in Tit. 1. lect. 4. Non apti ad credendum. not fit to believe. And if they be unbelievers, why doth M. Bishop say they have faith? or if they have faith, why doth the Apostle say that they are unbelievers? Surely they that believe destruction to be the end of the works of iniquity, will be careful to avoid the same. Cyprian truly saith: i Cyprian. de simplic. praelat. Metueret conscientiae nostra si crederet; quia non credit omnino nce metu●t: si autem crederet & caveret. Si caveret, evaderet. Our conscience would be afraid if it did believe: because it believeth not, therefore it feareth not. If it did believe, it would take heed, and if it did take, it should avoid or escape, namely the punishments to come, whereof he speaketh in that place. The cause why men k Heb. 4.2. profit not by the word of God, is because it is not mingled with faith in those that hear it. Where there is faith, men profit by it, and it is the l 2. Cor. 2.16. savour of life unto life; but where faith is wanting, it cometh to pass which Ambrose saith: m Ambros in. 1. Thess. ca 4. Transeunt hinc in gehennam ut ediscant verum esse quod credere noluerunt. They go from hence to hell, that there they may learn that that is true which here they would not believe. Thus it cometh to pass with them of whom M. Bishop here speaketh, who either preach their own devices under the name of Christ, or mingle not that with faith in themselves, which they preach to be believed of other men. There is not so much as one word in the text whence he should conclude, that ever they were endued with true faith. The next of his arguments is taken from the man that came to the wedding, n Math. 22.11. not having on a wedding garment. This argument he handleth very learnedly. First, he saith, that this man had faith; which because he knew we would deny, therefore for proof thereof, he addeth, that else he had not been admitted to the table which signifieth the sacraments. But this needeth as much proof as all the rest, nay it cannot be proved at all. For men are admitted to the sacraments by men, and they are admitted for profession of faith, when they that admit them cannot tell whether they have faith or not. For as Hilary saith, o Hilar. in Mat. ca 22. In fallendis hominibus plurimum artis solet habere simulatio. Et paulò post. Humana simplicitas difficilè fraudulentiam simulatae mentis intelligit. hypocrisy is wont to use much art to deceive men, and human simplicity hardly perceiveth the fraud of a dissembling mind. Many pretend that which is not in them, and make profession of faith with the mouth, when in the heart they have no faith at all. p Aug. in Psal. 7. Postquam in tanto culmine nomen coepit esse Christianun, crevit hypocrisis; id est, simulatio eorum qui nomine Christiano malunt hominibus placere quàm Deo. Since the name of Christianity hath begun to be in so high regard, the hypocrisy of men hath increased; that is, the dissembling of them who by bearing the name of Christians, regard more to please men then God. Now sith all these are admitted to the sacraments, and yet q 2. Thess. 3.2. Tho. Aqui. ibid. Licet videantur habere eam, non tamen habent veram. all have not faith, it followeth not, that because men are admitted to the sacraments, therefore they have faith; nay, it is a very ridiculous and childish proof. Wherefore as it is said, that this man wanted charity, so we say that he wanted also faith, and so M. Bishop is become as wise a man as he was before. Let him then expound the wedding garment to be charity, it shall hurt us nothing. For we will answer him that he wanted the wedding garment of charity, because he wanted faith: for had he had true faith, he should also have had love, because r Gal. 5.6. faith worketh by love. But the wedding garment is as well faith as love. It is indeed jesus Christ himself, of whom the Apostle saith; s Rom. 13.14. Put ye on the Lord jesus Christ; and again, t Gal. 3.27. so many as are baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. Him we put on first by faith, thereby making him ours, and applying to ourselves the benefit of his redemption, that appearing before God in the scarlet garment of his obedience to bloodshed & death, we may by forgiveness of sins be accepted for his sake, & thenceforth the residue of our spiritual attire may be put upon us, whilst in putting on Christ, we put on u Ephe. 4.24. the new man, which according to God is created in righteousness & holiness of truth; whilst we x Col. 3.12. put on the bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering, whilst by growing and increasing, we are still y 1. Thess. 5.8. putting on the breastplate of faith, and love, and the hope of salvation for an helmet. Thus chrysostom truly and rightly saith, that z Chrysost. Op. imperf. hom. 44. Nuptiale vestimentum est fides veraquae est per jesum Christum & justitia eiu●, etc. the wedding garment is true faith, which is by jesus Christ and the righteousness thereof, or his righteousness. And thus Ferus, one of M. Bishops own Doctors hath taught us, that the wedding garment which is Christ, is put on two manner of ways: a Perus in Mat. cap. 22. Primo internè per fidem cum peccatu tuis superinduu Christi justitiam, etc. Dein●e cùm externè charitatem eius aemulaeris. first inwardly by faith, when upon our sins we put on his righteousness: then outwardly when we imitate his love. The place which he allegeth out of the Revelation, containeth nothing to the contrary, b Apoc. 19.8. The fine linen (wherewith the bride and spouse of Christ is arrayed) is * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the righteousnesses of Saints, for so is the word in the plural number. Here is then first c Rom. 4.5.11 the righteousness of faith fully perfect in the blood of Christ, by the imputation of his obedience and merits; and secondly the righteousness of good works and inward conformity unto God begun in this life, and fully to be perfected at the resurrection of the dead, when Christ shall make his Church d Ephe. 5.27. a glorious Church; not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but to be holy and without blame. But the exception which he maketh, why faith can be no part of this wedding garment, is worthy to be noted. He hath before told us, that the wedding supper importeth the Sacraments, the use whereof is only in this life; and here saith, that faith cannot be the wedding garment, because faith remaineth not after this life. How many mile to London? a poke full of plums. But howsoever that be, his wisdom might conceive, that since the last judgement dependeth respectively upon that that hath been precedent in this life, therefore as with him the righteousness and good works of the Saints which they have wrought here, are their wedding garment for the last day, so we may also truly say, that the faith whereby in this life we believe in Christ, shall be our wedding garment then, when as Saint Peter saith, e 1. Pet 1●. we shall receive the end of our faith, which is the salvation of our souls. He allegeth Hierome for his purpose very falsely, or at leastwise very vainly. The words of Hierome are these: f Hieron. in Math. cap. 22 Vestis nuptialis praecepta sunt Domini & opera quae complentur ex lege & evangelio, novique hominis efficiunt vestimentum. The wedding garment are the commandments of the Lord, and the works which are made up of the law and the Gospel, and do make the garment of the new man. Why doth he allege these words to exclude faith from being a part of the wedding garment, when as one of the commandments of the Lord, as S. john telleth us is this, g 1. john. 3.23. that we believe in the name of his son jesus Christ; when as h john. 6.29. this is the work of God, as our Saviour saith, that is, a work that God hath commanded, and wherein he is pleased, that we believe in him whom he hath sent: when as the works that are made up of the law and the Gospel, consist not only in charity but in faith also. I stand not upon the rest of the testimonies which he bringeth: for though any do by occasion name charity for the wedding garment, as men by divers occasions speak diversly thereof: yet no man was ever so absurd, as expressly to exclude true faith from being one part of it, as M. Bishop doth. And if any do speak sometimes of a faith without charity and fruits of good works, they speak thereof as we do, as being only a bastard faith, a false and feigned faith, an idle outward receiving and professing of the faith, or doctrine of faith: not that true faith which the Apostle speaketh of, to which he assigneth our justification in the sight of God. The like foolish argument he maketh from the i Mat. 25.1. foolish virgins: he may well call it the like, because indeed they are all nought. They had faith, saith he: true, but they had not true faith; they had not that faith which the Apostle speaketh of, wherein our justification is affirmed to consist. For of that faith the Protestants say truly, that it cannot be lost, because God hath made unto it the promise of eternal life, and therefore Christ prayeth for it, that it may never fail. They had a form or show of faith, as they had k 2. Tim. 3.5. a form or show of godliness, but never knew the power thereof. His tale of perfection is an idle dream, as we shall see hereafter, if God will. As for them that apply this text to the profession of virginity, they do apparent wrong therein, the very text itself giving to understand, that thereby is described the kingdom of heaven, by which in these parables every where is understood the whole state of the outward and militant Church professing to seek the kingdom of heaven. To take it otherwise is to offer violence to a very plain and manifest text. Under the name of Virgins all are comprehended, who by profession and promise of faith and baptism, have undertaken to be l 2. Cor. 11.2. virgins, that is, entire and faithful unto Christ. By the lamp is imported that outward profession to men: the oil signifieth true faith and a good conscience inwardly to God. Howsoever the lamps of foolish virgins, of idle and empty professors give them credit with men, so as that they are not barred from the company and conversation of the wise, yet in the sleep of death they shall go out, and shall not serve to light them to go to God: then shall they too late seek and wish for that, the opportunity whereof before they carelessly omitted. Then shall they cry, Lord, Lord, as the other did before, but it shall not boot them to cry when the doors shall be shut against them. Thus doth Christ give the same to understand of hypocrites in general, which before he had done of hypocritical and false teachers, and what he saith here, he expresseth more fully by the other Evangelist, that when they shall cry, m Luk. 13.25. Lord, Lord open to us, and Christ shall answer unto them, I know you not whence you are: then they shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. Where we see them pleading that they have heard Christ preach and they have been partakers of his Sacraments, but they cannot plead for themselves, that they have believed in him: therefore he shall answer them again: I tell you, I know ye not whence ye are, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. His fourth argument is of n joh. 12.42. many amongst the chief rulers of the jews, who believed in Christ, but yet confessed him not, because of the Pharisees, lest they should be cast out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men, more than the praise of God. Here we see faith indeed as he saith, but we see no necessity that faith should be understood here to be without charity. Here is weak faith and weak love, too much yet entangled and tied in the nets of carnal and earthly respects, but he hath no ground to affirm that there is no love. Yes, saith he, for charity prefers the glory and service of God before all things in the world, whereas these men were afraid to confess Christ. Indeed o 1. joh. 4 18. perfect charity casteth out all fear, and perfect faith breedeth perfect charity; but there is a beginning of true faith and love, which being yet little and weak, and having not yet overmastered all worldly regards, is for a time timorous and fearful to confess Christ, yet groweth to strength by little and little, till it resolve to cleave unto him with loss of all other things. Such was the faith of Nicodemus and joseph of Arimathea, who were two of these chief rulers, the one p joh. 3.2. coming to jesus by night, the other a disciple also, q Cap. 19.38. but secretly for fear of the jews, who yet afterwards being stirred up with those things which they beheld & saw in the death of Christ, more boldly showed themselves in his behalf, and in the end forsook all for the following of his service. In the mean time they showed love also to Christ, though weakly, r Cap. 7.50.51. the one in speaking in his behalf, s Luk. 23.51. the other in withholding his consent from the counsel and deed that was acted against Christ; both in yielding themselves to be his disciples, and to be instructed by him. Such was the faith and love of the Apostles themselves, who were every while affrighted, and in his greatest distress t Mat. 26.56. all forsook him and fled. But he that u Cap. 12.20. breaketh not the bruised reed, nor quencheth the smoking flax, till he bring forth judgement into victory, wheresoever he seethe true faith, and unfeigned love, though yet weak and feeble, watereth and cherisheth, and undersetteth the same that it may grow to strength. x Aug. in joan. tract. 53. Videte quemadmodum evangelista notaverit & improbaverit qu●sdam, ques tamen in eum credidisse dixit, qui in hoc ingressu fidei si proficerent amorem quoque humanae gloriae proficiendo superarent. The Evangelist (saith S. Austin) noteth and reproveth some, of whom notwithstanding he saith, that they did believe in Christ, who if they did grow forward in this beginning of faith, would by growing forward overcome the love of human glory, which the Apostle had overcome, who saith, God forbidden, that I should rejoice but in the cross of our Lord jesus Christ. This growth there is wheresoever there is true and unfeigned faith, and because it cannot grow without love, it groweth to the overcoming of all contrary love, till it cleave wholly unto God. Thus the Gospel expressly teacheth concerning some of these chief rulers, and we cannot doubt, but that the like befell in the rest of them that did truly believe in Christ. They believed, but their faith was weak, and their love was according to their faith: till increase of faith brought further strength of love, and they learned by faith and love to prefer the service of Christ before all the glory of this world. Albeit, it is not to be omitted, that S. john sometime following the Hebrew phrase, useth the term of believing in Christ abusively, applying it to them who by the miracles of Christ, and his manifest declaration of the truth, were convicted in conscience to acknowledge him to be of God, but yet did not at all in their hearts submit themselves unto him. Thus he saith in another place, that y joh. 2.23. many believed in the name of Christ when they saw his miracles which he did, to whom yet he did not commit himself, because he knew what was in them. Thus might it be said of some of those chief rulers, that they believed in Christ, that is, were persuaded in their minds that he spoke the truth, but yet preferring their credit and reputation with men, gave no regard unto it. But that there is another manner of believing in Christ, which is that whereof we speak, not incident to them who continued wholly possessed with such respects, Christ himself showeth, saying: z joh. 5.44. How can ye believe which receive honour one of another, & seek not the honour that cometh of God alone? They might therefore in some meaning be said to believe in Christ, when yet they had no true faith which as appeareth by these words cannot be separated from love, and seeking of the honour that cometh of God alone: which wheresoever it is begun, beginneth to look unto God, and winding by degrees out of all other regards, yieldeth itself entirely to follow him. Therefore the distinction of faith being observed, which the Scripture itself enforceth upon us, M. Bishop hath yet alleged nothing to prove, that true faith and charity may be divided, or that any man may be said truly to believe in whom there is not also love to righteousness and good works. 51. W. BISHOP. Cap. 2. 5 This place of S. james, (What shall it profit my brethren, if any man say that he hath faith, but hath not works: what, shall his faith be able to save?) supposeth very plainly, that a man may have faith without good works, that is, without charity, but that it shall avail him nothing: Caluin saith, that the Apostle speaks of a shadow of faith, which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our Creed, but not a justifying faith. Without doubt he was little acquainted with that kind of faith by which Protestants be justified: but he directly speaks of such a faith, as Abraham was justified by, saying, That that faith did work with his works, and was made perfect by the works. Was this but a shadow of faith? But they reply, that this faith is likened unto the faith of the Devil, and therefore cannot be a justifying faith: that followeth not: for an excellent good thing, may be like unto a bad in some things as Devils in nature are not only like, but the very same as Angels be: even so a full Christian faith may be well likened unto a devils faith, when it is naked and void of good works, in two points: first, in both there is a perfect knowledge of all things revealed: secondly, this knowledge shall not stead them any whit, but only serve unto their greater condemnation, because that knowing the will of their master, they did it not. And in this respect S. james compareth them together: now there are many points wherein these faiths do differ, but this one is principal: that Christians out of a godly and devout affection, do willingly submit their understanding unto the rules of faith, believing things above human reason, yea such as seem sometimes contrary to it. But the devil against his will, believes all that God hath revealed, because by his natural capacity he knows that God cannot teach, nor testify any untruth. Again, that faith may be without charity, is proved out of these words of the same 2. chapter. Even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. Hence thus I argue: albeit the body be dead without the soul, yet it is a true natural body in itself: even so faith is perfect in the kind of faith, although without charity it avail not to life everlasting. Lastly, in true reason it is manifest, that faith may be without charity, for they have several seats in the soul, one being in the will, and the other in the understanding: they have distinct objects, faith respecting the truth of God, and charity the goodness of God. Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charity, as charity doth faith, for we cannot love him of whom we never heard. Neither yet doth charity naturally flow out of faith, but by due consideration of the goodness of God, and of his benefits and love towards us, into which good and devout considerations few men do enter, in comparison of them who are led into the broad way of iniquity through their inordinate passions. This according to the truth, and yet more different in the Protestants opinion: for faith lays hold on Christ's righteousness, & receives that in: but charity can receive nothing in, as M. Perkins witnesseth, Pa. 85. but gives itself forth in all duties of the 1. and 2. Table. Now sir, if they could not apply unto themselves Christ's righteousness without fulfilling all duties of the 1. and 2. Table, they should never apply it to them: for they hold it impossible to fulfil all those duties: so that this necessary lincking of charity with faith, maketh their salvation not only very evil assured, but altogether impossible: for charity is the fullness of the law, which they hold impossible, Rom. 12. and then if the assurance of their salvation must needs be joined with such an impossibility, they may assure themselves, that by that faith they can never come to salvation. R. ABBOT. That faith may be without charity and good works, it is true, and we doubt not thereof, according to the meaning of faith of which S. james speaketh, which Caluin very justly and rightly saith, is but a shadow of faith. For it plainly appeareth by the text, that he speaketh of faith, as only professed before men, as before hath been alleged. Therefore he compareth it a jam. 2.16. to the good words of him, that wisheth well to the poor man, but doth nothing at all for him. To this tendeth his question, b Ver. 14. What availeth it though a man say that he hath faith? and his other demand, c Ver. 18. show me thy faith? The uttermost that he extendeth it to by instance, is a mere historical faith: d Ver. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. His purpose is to show, that faith if it be truly professed hath a root within, from whence spring by obedience the fruits of all good works, and if it give not forth itself by works, it is no true faith. Whereas M. Bishop saith, that S. james speaketh directly of such a faith as Abraham was justified by, he saith very untruly and absurdly: for S. james bringeth the example of the true, and lively, and workfull faith of Abraham, as opposite to that idle and dead faith, concerning which he propounded that question of faith and works. Yea of Abraham's faith he showeth that it was said, e Ver. 23. Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, which was never said of any man for saying that he had faith, for believing that there is one God, for that faith that consisteth only in profession before men. Now the faith of Abraham which f Ver. 22. wrought with his works, and was made perfect by his works, g Beda in Epist. jac. cap. 2. that is, saith Beda, was proved by the performance of works to be perfect in his heart, this faith of Abraham, I say, is it whereby the Protestants hope to be justified in the sight of God, as Abraham was, because h Rom 4.23. it was not written for him only, that it was imputed to him for righteousness, but also for us, to whom it shall be imputed believing in him that raised up jesus our Lord from the dead. We allege further, that the faith whereof S. james speaketh, is likened to the faith of devils, and therefore that it cannot be the same with that which the Scripture nameth for a justifying faith. M. Bishop answereth, that that followeth not, and for avouching thereof, maketh Abraham's faith not only the same with the faith of hypocrites and false Christians, but also with the faith of devils. He would qualify the matter in show, but in truth maketh no difference. An excellent good thing may be like unto a bad in some things, saith he. True, but yet the bad cannot be like the good in that wherein standeth the goodness and excellency of the good. Now he maketh the Hypocrites faith, if we consider the very act of faith, the same that Abraham's faith was, which was reputed unto him for righteousness, and for which the Scripture setteth him forth as an excellent pattern of faith to be followed of all believers. But to avoid the odiousness hereof, he sophisticateth the matter, and so much as in him lieth, blindeth his reader. They are like (saith he) in two points: where in the first point, he comprehendeth the fullness and perfection of that which he calleth Catholic and Christian faith, consisting (as here absurdly he saith) in the perfect knowledge of all things revealed, as if every one that hath their Catholic faith, have the perfect knowledge of all things revealed, but as more plainly he hath delivered his mind before i Sect. 18. in believing all to be true that God hath revealed. No more is there in Abraham's faith, if we keep within the compass of the nature of faith, & no less in the devil, & the same in every Catholic Christian, and so the devil is become a Catholic whether he will or not. Come on M. Bishop, rid us of this doubt, for we cannot find by you, but that the devil by Catholic faith is become a Catholic. He goeth on: Secondly this knowledge shall not steed them any whit. But that is nothing to the very nature of faith, whether is steed or not steed. The essence & act of faith whether it steed or not steed, is no more but this, to believe generally all to be true which God hath revealed, and therefore whether with good works or without, the faith of the Catholic Christian in the act of faith, is no other but the devils faith. Now albeit he say, that these faiths differ in many points, yet of those many he nameth but only one, and that nothing to the purpose. For if he will show a difference of faith betwixt Christians and devils, he must take it from faith itself, and not from those things which to the nature of faith are merely accidental. Christians, saith he, out of a godly and devout affection, do willingly submit their understanding to the rules of faith. But this is not to make a difference, but to add charity unto faith. This godly and devout affection, and willing submission, is an act of charity, and not of faith: an act of the will and affection wherein charity is seated, not of the understanding, wherein he saith is the seat of faith. And in this affection and submission, faith itself still is no more than it was before, to believe all to be true that God hath revealed. The devil then still pleadeth for himself, that if the Catholic faith which M. Bishop hath described, do make a Catholic, there is no reason to except against him for being a Catholic, because he believeth all to be true which God hath revealed. Or if he will say that true Christian faith doth always actually & necessarily imply this godly & devout affection and willing submission of the understanding to the rules of faith, then because this cannot be without charity, let him grant the question, let us travel no further about this point, but let him say as we say, that the true Christian faith whereby it is said we are justified can never be separate from charity & good works. Thus he casteth himself into he knoweth not what Labyrinths & mazes, & cannot tell how to get out. How much better were it for to acknowledge the simple and plain truth of God, then to intricate himself in these perplexities, wherein he can find no place to stand secure. But yet out of the words of S. james, As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead, he will further prove, that faith may be without charity, and yet perfect in the kind of faith. Now this is it that hath been said, that in the kind of faith, considering faith entirely in itself, he maketh Abraham's faith and the devils faith to be all one. As touching the words of S. james sufficient hath been said before. If faith be considered as outwardly professed to men, as he intendeth it, good works are the life of faith. If it be considered as it is inward in the heart to God, good works cannot be the life thereof, because that which is without cannot give life to that that is within. Whereas he turneth works into charity, he playeth the Sophister: for it is one thing to talk of charity, another thing to talk of works; the one being in habit, the other in act; the one inward, the other outward; the one the tree, the other the fruit; the one the spring, the other the stream. But letting this pass as handled before, let us see how he argueth from the place of james: Albeit the body be dead without the soul, yet is it a true natural body in itself. But that is not true, for a true natural body is that only, which hath the true members and parts of a natural body, which a dead body hath not. k Arist. Polit. lib. 1. cap. 1, When the body is dead, saith Aristotle, there shall be neither foot nor hand, but only by semblance of name, as a man termeth a hand of stone; for in like sort is a dead hand: for all parts of the body are defined by their office and faculty. Therefore when they lie dead they are not the same, but retain only the show and shadow of the name. The argument therefore must be turned against himself, that as the dead body is not a true natural body, but only by equivocation is so called: even so a dead faith is no true faith, but only by equivocation for some semblance to men it carrieth the show and shadow of the name of faith. Yet he will not so give over, but as having set the stock upon it, he will win it in this period, or else he will lose all. Indeed he is like a sheep tangled in the briers, the more he struggleth and striveth, the faster he tieth himself. He saith, that faith & charity have several seats in the soul, faith in the understanding, and charity in the will. But that is not so: for as hath been before said, true and unfeigned faith which the Scripture commendeth, for justification is a mixed action of the understanding and will. Yea the Apostle expressly placeth faith in the heart, which is the seat of the affections. l Rom. 10.10. With the heart (saith he) man believeth unto righteousness: If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. No marvel that M. Bishop cannot tell what true faith is, who knoweth no other faith but only a faith of the head, consisting in speculative fancies and imaginations of the brains, and descending no lower than the tongue: whereas the Apostle speaketh of a faith of the heart, a feeling faith, which by feeling gathereth to it the affection and will; which is not only an act of knowledge and understanding, as M. Bishop dreameth, but implieth an affecting, desiring, embracing, seeking of that which it believeth, a joying and reviving of itself therein. So I alleged before out of Oecumenius, that the faith whereof Saint Paul speaketh is not a bare assent, as is the faith of devils and M. Bishops Catholic faith, but m Oecumen. in lac. cap. 2 Consecutionem ex affectu procedentem. hath some further consequence arising from the affection. Again, they have distinct objects, saith he, faith respecting the truth of God, and charity the goodness of God. Indeed the truth of God is the object of our faith; but what is the matter of that truth, but the promise of God concerning his goodness towards us? n Psal. 27.13. I should utterly have fainted (saith David) but that I believe verily to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. o Ferus in Mat. ca 8. Fides quam Scriptura commendat nihil aliud est quàm fidere gratuita Dei miserecordia The faith (saith Ferus) which the Scripture commendeth, is nothing else but to trust to the free mercy of God. So then the goodness & mercy of God is properly and truly the object of our faith. Yea and how should the goodness of God be the object of our charity, but by being first the object of our faith? For therefore do we love the goodness of God, or love God for his goodness towards us, because first we believe the same, neither can we so love but by believing. For charity consisting simply in affection, apprehendeth nothing in God of itself, but receiveth all from faith, which is it as chrysostom noteth, p Chryso in Rom. hom. 8. Conuenientem de Deo opinionem accipit. whereby we conceive a due and convenient opinion concerning God. Love is not a reciprocal action; the passage thereof is merely from him that loveth to the thing that is loved. Thus therefore it is in our love to God, but what we conceive back again of him towards us, it is by faith and not by love. Yea M. Bishop himself verifieth this, in that he saith, We cannot love him of whom we never heard. For what is all our hearing, but only by believing that which we hear? First therefore we hear of God's goodness, his mercy, his truth, etc. and by believing that which we hear, our affections are drawn unto him. First therefore all these are the objects of our faith, and consequently become the objects of our love. His next difference is a mere begging of the question. We say, that faith though it do not presuppose charity as a thing precedent, yet always supposeth and inferreth it as an immediate and necessary consequent. For faith receiveth Christ q Ephes. 3.17. to dwell in our hearts, who cometh not but accompanied with grace and with the fruits of the spirit, which always grow and increase according to the increase and growth of faith. Great faith hath fervent love, weaker faith hath weaker love, but always hath a measure of love answerable to itself. Now by this that hath been said, it appeareth how untruly M. Bishop saith for his last difference, that charity doth not naturally flow out of faith, whereas indeed common sense in divinity doth instruct him, that the original thereof is from thence and only from thence. For if we cannot love God but by hearing & believing him to be that that he is, than it is faith which setting God before us such a one as he is, wise, mighty, just, merciful, loving and gracious unto us, enamoreth our hearts, and breedeth in us affections correspondent to his grace, neither is there any spark of love but what ariseth from this ground. Yea M. Bishop himself confesseth so much, but that his wits are so besotted with his minion of Rome, that he knoweth not what he saith. Charity (saith he) doth not naturally flow out of faith, but by due consideration of the goodness of God, and of his benefits and love towards us. Which is as much as if he should say, it doth not naturally flow out of faith, but doth naturally flow out of faith. For whence is this consideration of God's goodness, etc. but from faith? Do we consider these things any otherwise but as by faith we first apprehend and believe the same? It is faith (as hath been said) which affecteth and seasoneth the heart with the sweet taste and feeling of those considerations, and thereby allureth and draweth us to love him of whom we have received so great love. And for want of faith it is that it cometh to pass which M. Bishop to make up his sentence impertinently complaineth of, that few men enter into these good and devout considerations; yea he and his by oppugning and destroying true faith, do help to draw men back from considering of these things. Now all that hitherto he hath said, he telleth us is according to the truth, whereas indeed there is not a word true, as hath appeared: and if it had been true, yet he had gained nothing thereby, because it followeth not, that those things which are divided in faculty and use, are therefore divided in the subject, or may be the one without the company of the other, as by infinite examples may be seen. But he maketh faith and charity more different yet in the Protestants opinion. And how? For faith (saith he) layeth hold of Christ's righteousness, and receives that in; but charity receiveth nothing in, but giveth itself forth in all duties of the first and second table. But what of this? Will he conclude thus, There is a difference betwixt faith and charity, therefore faith may be without charity? No forsooth: but unless faith may be without charity, the Protestants salvation is unpossible. And why so? Marry charity is the fullness of the law, and the Protestants hold it unpossible to fulfil the law, therefore they can have no charity; and therefore by their own doctrine they can have no faith, because without charity there is no faith. What a horrible disputer M. Bishop is? how deep a reach hath he into hell, that he can fetch from thence these profound conclusions against the Protestants? The Protestants answer to his ridiculous and childish collections, is easy and ready. True and lively faith, by the consideration of the goodness and mercy of God towards us in jesus Christ, enkindleth in our hearts true charity and love towards God, and towards our brethren and neighbours for God's sake. The aim and mark of which charity, is to give forth itself in all duties of the first and second table. But charity so long as here we live is unperfect in all men, and but unperfectly attaineth to that that it aimeth at. Some attain in some good sort to the performance of some duties, others to the performance of some other duties, but none attaineth to all, as r Hieron. adver Pelag. lib. 1. Nullus in isto corpusculo cunctas potest habere virtutes, etc. Hierome well noteth against the Pelagian heretics: yea and in those that we do attain unto, there is also some weakness and default, some blot and stain, as hath been showed by the corruption of sin s Heb. 12.1. that hangeth so fast on, and presseth us down whilst we are labouring and striving to ascend upward unto God. Thus therefore faith and charity go together, weak faith, and charity unperfect, running in the way, but oftentimes through frailty stumbling and falling; striving to the keeping of all God's commandments, but yet forced to say with the Apostle, t Rom. 7.19. The good that I would, I do not, but the evil that I would not, that I do: I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man, but I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captive to the law of sin. But faith is our comfort, that God for Christ's sake, and for his righteousness sake which he hath wrought for our redemption, accepteth us as perfectly righteous in him, that he forgiveth all our sins, winketh at all our imperfections, and will heal all our wounds and infirmities, that what is now impossible through the weakness of the flesh, may be made expedite and ready unto us, when there shall be no longer the flesh lusting against the spirit, but sin and death and all enemies shall be destroyed, and u 1. Cor. 15.28. God shall be all in all. Thus the linking of faith and charity maketh no impossibility of our salvation, but it is the spirit of error that hath dazzled M. Bishop's eyes, that he cannot discern how one truth agreeth and standeth with another. 52. W. BISHOP. Let us annex unto these plain authorities of holy Scripture, one evident testimony of antiquity: that most incorrupt judge S. Augustine saith flatly, Lib. 15. de Trin. ca 17. con. Cresc. lib. 1 cap. 29. that faith may well be without charity, but it cannot profit us without charity. And, That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church, but that unskilfully, yet is it he. Also that one faith is had without charity, and that also out of the Church, neither therefore is not faith. For there is one God, one Faith, one Baptism, and one immaculate Catholic Church: in which God is not served only, but in which only he is truly served: neither in which alone faith is kept, but in which only faith is kept with charity. So that faith, and that only true faith, Ephes 4. of which the Apostle speaketh, One God, one faith, may be, and is in many without charity. R. ABBOT. The former of these two places which he citeth out of Austin, is answered a Sect. 22. before. The faith of which he speaketh, is not 〈◊〉 true justifying faith, but only the outward profession of the doctrine of faith. That is plain by the second, b August. count Crescon. lib. 1. cap. 29. One faith is had without charity, even without the Church, that is, one doctrine of faith: even as the Apostle meaneth, when he saith, One faith, one baptism, etc. Thus Saint Austin declareth it, when he calleth it c Ibid cap. 28. Fides qua creditur Christum esse filium Dei vi●i. Et cap. 29. Fides qua co●fitemur Christum esse filium Dei vivi. the faith whereby it is believed that Christ is the Son of the living God: the faith whereby we confess Christ to be the Son of the living God: and in other meaning he could not say there is but one faith, because of the faith of particular consciences the Scripture saith, that every man shall d Habac. 2.4. live by his own faith. That that he maketh the matter of faith, the devils acknowledge and confess, who yet cannot truly say, I believe in God, I believe in jesus Christ, which is the voice and profession of a true justifying faith, and cannot be separated from hope and charity, as hath been before made manifest by the acknowledgement of Austin himself: yea and the doctrine of faith, though in general terms it may be sometimes found amongst heretics, yet according to the substance and true meaning thereof, it is not to be found with them, as the same Saint Austin acknowledgeth, saying, e August. Enchirid. cap. 5. Si diligenter quae ad Christum pertinem cogitentur, nominetenus invenitur Christus apud quoslibet haereticos, qui se Christianos vocari volunt, te verò ipsa non est apudeos. If diligently those things be considered which belong to Christ, Christ is found, as touching his name, amongst all sorts of heretics, who will needs be called Christians, but indeed he is not with them. So as then there may be the true faith of Christ in general words, where the true meaning of the faith of Christ is denied, and there may be the true meaning of the faith of Christ in the profession of the mouth, when the same faith is not truly and effectually imprinted in the heart. And in this sort there may be indeed faith without charity, but not the justifying faith, as hath been often said. If there be that faith concerning which it is said of Abraham, f Gen. 15.6. He believed the Lord, and it was imputed to him for righteousness: there followeth always charity as a necessary and infallible consequent and companion thereof. 53. W. BISHOP. The Protestants bold asseverations, that they cannot be parted, are great, but their proofs very slender, and scarce worth the disproving. The first, He that hath not care of his own, hath denied his faith: 1. Tim. 5. therefore faith includeth that good work of providing for our own. Answer. That faith there seems to signify, not that faith whereby we believe all things revealed, or the Protestants the certainty of their salvation: but for fidelity, and faithful performance of that which we have promised in Baptism, which is to keep all God's commandments: one of the which, is to provide for our children, and for them that we have charge of: so that he who hath no such care over his own charge, hath denied his faith, that is, violated his promise in Baptism. There is also another ordinary answer, supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian belief, to wit, that one may deny his faith two ways: either in flat denying any article of faith, or by doing some thing that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith. Now he that hath no care of his own, doth not deny any article of his faith, but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith: so that not faith, but the doctrine of faith, or our promise in Baptism, includeth good works. joh ●. 2 There are among you that believe not; for he knew who believed, and who was to betray him: Opposing treason to faith, as if he had said: faith containeth in itself fidelity. This argument is far fetched, and little worth. For albeit faith hath not fidelity and love always necessarily joined with it, yet falling from faith, may well draw after it hatred and treason: yea ordinarily wickedness goeth before falling from the faith, and is the cause of it: which was judas case, whom our Saviour there taxed, for he blinded with covetousness, did not believe Christ's doctrine of the blessed Sacrament, and by incredulity opened the devil a high way to his heart, to negotiate treason in it. ● joh 2. 3. They object that: Who saith he knows God, and doth not keep his commandments, is a liar. Answer. He is then a liar in grain, who professing the only true knowledge of God, yet blusheth not to say, that it is impossible to keep his commandments: but to the objection, knowing God in that place, is taken for loving of God, as: I know ye not: that is, I love you not. Our Lord knows the way of the just, Math 7. & 25. Psal. 1. joh. 14. that is, approves it, loves it: so he that knows God, keeps his commandments, as Christ himself testifieth: If any love me, he will keep my word. And he that loveth me not, will not keep my words. Lastly, they say with S. Paul: That the just man liveth by faith. But if faith give life, than it cannot be without charity. Answer. That faith in a just man is not without hope and charity, by all which conjoined he liveth, and not by faith alone. But faith is in a sinful and unjust man, without charity: who holding fast his former belief, doth in transgressing Gods commandments, break the bands of charity. And so it remaineth most certain, that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charity. R. ABBOT. The Protestants asseverations are indeed very bold, but not upon slender proofs. Their proofs are stronger than that any such silly disputers as M. Bishop is, shall be able to disprove them. As for his proofs to the contrary, thou hast seen gentle Reader, how miserable, and poor, and beggarly they be. See now what choice he maketh of our arguments, culling out those that he was best able to deal with, and what slender shifts he maketh to avoid them. a 1. Tim. 5.8. He that provideth not for his own, saith S. Paul, and namely for them of his household, he denieth the faith, and is worse than an infidel. It must follow therefore, that there can be no faith where this work of charity is wilfully cast off. M. Bishop telleth us, that by faith is here meant either fidelity as touching the performance of that we have promised in baptism, or else the doctrine of faith. But let him expound it as he list, of either of them it shall yield an illation & consequence of that which we affirm. For seeing the introduction of justifying faith is b Mark. 1.15. repentance from dead works, justifying faith must always imply a conscience and care of conforming a man's self to the doctrine of the Gospel, and to the promise and vow that he hath made in baptism of obedience unto God, and therefore where dead works still reign, it cannot be said that justifying faith hath there taken any place. Therefore he that shaketh off the yoke of the doctrine of the Gospel, and by his conversation disclaimeth the promise that he made in baptism, plainly showeth that howsoever he profess the faith, yet that he hath no true faith abiding in him. And this the Apostle teacheth of him who is so inhuman and barbarous, as that the commandment of God cannot move him to provide for them, the care of whom even infidels by instinct of nature do know and conceive to belong unto them. But we would gladly understand how M. Bishop divideth the articles of faith from the doctrine of faith. For what do the articles of faith contain but only the doctrine of faith? That then contrary to the doctrine of faith, must needs also be contrary to the articles of faith. He therefore that by his deeds denieth the doctrine of faith, denieth in effect also the articles of his faith, howsoever with his tongue outwardly to men he make show to confess the same. M. Bishops answer then taketh not away the strength of this argument, but rather addeth further force and strength unto it. But it is plain by the very words, that the Apostle understandeth faith as it is opposed to infidelity, affirming that such, though they be c Hieron in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Fideles nomine. believers in name, as Hierome speaketh, yet in deed are not believers. Therefore chrysostom expounding the words by that saying of the same Apostle, d Tit. 1.16. They profess that they know God, but by their deeds they deny him, inferreth, e Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom 14. Quomodo hutu●nodicredit qui Deum ab●egauit● How doth he believe that hath denied God? The argument therefore is firm and sure, that howsoever there may be an outward profession of faith, yet indeed there is no faith wheresoever there wanteth a correspondence of good works. In the second place, it is strange to see how M. Bishop making choice of his adversaries weapons, yet is foiled in his own choice. The argument he saith is little worth, but sure I am, howsoever little worth it be, it is more worth than his answer. He setteth down the words of S. john according to his vulgar Latin, but according to the true text they are thus: f joh. 6.64. But there are some of you that believe not; for jesus knew from the beginning which they were that believed not, and who should betray him. Where when the Evangelist setting down Christ's words, There are some of you which believe not, inferreth as a reason of his speech, for he knew who should betray him, as if it had been jointly, There are some of you which believe not, for one of you shall betray me, doth he not plainly demonstrate that the betraying of him could not stand with believing, that he could not be a believer that was to be the traitor? For what reason were it to say, he believed not, for he was to betray him, if he might believe & yet betray him? Whereas M. Bishop saith, that faith hath not always fidelity and love joined with it, he beggeth the question; but that which he addeth of falling away from the faith, as if judas having before believed, were now relinquishing his faith, beside that it is the begging of another point in question also, it is excluded by the Evangelist, in that he noted that jesus knew from the beginning that judas believed not. Which words from the beginning, M. Bishop knowing that in the true reading of the text, noted also in the margin of his vulgar Latin, they would be prejudicial to him, thought it a point of wisdom to conceal. But to speak of that faith which judas had, he was not yet falling away from it: he was yet an Apostle, and a preacher of the faith, and we see that others departing from Christ, he still continued with him, and gave no outward token of unbelief, and without doubt little thought now of doing that which afterwards he did, which the Evangelist expressly noteth, that g joh. 13.2. the devil did afterwards put into his heart. But yet there is a truth of faith, concerning which our Saviour saith, intending his speech specially of him, There are some of you which believe not, which is not incident to any child of perdition, because it is God's gift, as our Saviour at large in that chapter expresseth, to them that h joh. 6.64.65. come unto him by the same gift, whom being come, he never i Ver. 37. casteth away again, and therefore they never lose that which they have received. Thirdly, he citeth for us the words of Saint john, k 1. joh. 2.4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. From which place we argue, that because faith always implieth knowledge of that we believe, so as that where there is no knowledge, there is no faith, nor can be, it must needs follow, that sith there is no knowledge of God where there is no keeping of the commandments, therefore where there is no keeping of the commandments, there is no faith. Now by knowledge we understand a true acknowledgement of that which we believe, which is not a matter of bare l Thom. Aqu●n. 21. art. 2. ad 2. Duplex est cognitio divinae bonitatis vel voliitatis una q●idem speculativa, etc. Alta est affectiva sive experimentalis dum quis experitur in seipso gustum divinae dulcedinis & complecentian divinae voluntatis, etc. speculation by verbal apprehension, such as whereby blind men talk of colours, and home-dwellers discourse of foreign countries where they never came, but an experimental and approving knowledge, an effectual and feeling knowledge, to which, because it is the knowledge of faith, our Saviour attributeth eternal life, when he saith, * joh. 17.3. This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent: m Col. 3.10. by which the Apostle saith that the new man is renewed according to the image of him that created him. In which latter place we are to observe, that it is one thing to which we are renewed, and another thing, by which. The thing whereto we are renewed, is the image of God, which consisteth in charity: the thing whereby we are renewed is knowledge. Thus the Apostle S. Peter teacheth us, that n 2. Pet. 1.23. grace and peace is multiplied unto us by the knowledge of God, and of jesus Christ our Lord; that the divine power giveth us all things pertaining to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us. Seeing then that knowledge here is the thing whereby charity and all things pertaining to godliness are ministered unto us, it shall be absurd to expound knowledge to be charity itself, albeit true it is that of this knowledge of God, even as of faith, there ensueth always charity and love. This true and lively and effectual knowledge it is of which Saint john here speaketh, giving to understand that barren and idle and fruitless knowledge is indeed no knowledge, and that howsoever a man seem able to say much, yet that he talketh but as by hearsay, not knowing what he saith, if his knowledge be not such as season his heart to the love and keeping of the commandments of God. Because then true faith cannot be without this true knowledge, and this true knowledge cannot be where there is not the keeping of God's commandments, it must follow, as I said before, that there is no faith where there is no keeping of the commandments of God. Now although M. Bishop allege a place or two, where there is a necessity of expounding God's knowledge towards us in other sort then the word seemeth to import, yet he bringeth none to import any necessity of making the same construction of our knowledge towards God. Let it be granted him, that God's knowledge may import his love, yet I suppose he cannot show us any where, that to know God, is to be expounded simply to love God. As for the liar, let him keep it to himself, because he best deserveth it: he hath taken pains for it, and no reason that any man should bereave him of his right. We profess the knowledge of God, and we profess and teach the keeping of God's commandments, although we also teach, that by reason of our corruption and weakness it is unpossible for us so long as we live here, to keep them perfectly, and in such fort as thereby to be justified in the sight of God. If M. Bishop will say that he keepeth them, I am sure that he is a liar, and as Hierome did the Pelagian heretic, so do I put him o Hieron. ad Cresiphon●. Proffer ●uis impleverit. to bring in example of any other that hath so done. The last place he draweth in backwards and by force, there being no man of us that allegeth it to the purpose here in hand. He maketh his choice, as we see, to serve his own turn. Because he had no great skill to answer, he thought it wisdom to take heed what he did object. But yet out of that sentence truly alleged, we may take somewhat to this point. The words are, p Gal. 3.11. The just shall live by faith. According to these words, true faith is said always to imply and contain eternal life. Our Saviour Christ speaketh as of a thing presently had: q joh. 3.36. He that believeth, hath eternal life; r Cap. 5.24. he is passed from death to life. But without charity there can be no state of eternal life, because s 1. joh. 3 14. he that loveth not, abideth in death. If then wheresoever there be true faith, there be eternal life, and without charity there can be no eternal life, it must necessarily follow, that wheresoever there is true faith, there is also charity, and love bringing forth the fruits of good works, and seeking to win others by example of just and holy life. M. Bishops answer we see giveth check to the holy Ghost. The holy Ghost saith, The just shall live by faith. Not so, saith M. Bishop: he liveth by faith, hope and charity, and not by faith alone. Further I trouble not myself with his idle words, which contain nothing but a begging of the matter in question, and are applied only to an argument of his own device. CHAPTER 5. OF MERITS. 1. W. BISHOP. Observe that three things are necessary to make a work meritorious: First, that the worker be the adopted son of God, and in the state of grace. Secondly, that the work proceed from grace, and be referred to the honour of God. The third, is the promise of God through Christ to reward the work. And because our adversaries, either ignorantly or of malice do slander this our doctrine, in saying untruly that we trust not in Christ's merits, nor need not God's mercy for our salvation, but will purchase it by our own works: I will here set down what the Council of Trent doth teach concerning Merits: Sess. 6. cap. vlt. Life everlasting is to be proposed to them that work well, and hope well to the end: both as grace, of mercy promised to the sons of God through Christ jesus, and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendered unto their works and merits. So that we hold eternal life to be both a grace, as well in respect of Gods free promise through Christ, as also for that the first grace (out of which they issue) was freely bestowed upon us. And that also it is a reward in justice, due partly by the promise of God, and in part for the dignity of good works unto the worker, if he perseruere and hold on unto the end of his life, or by true repentance rise to the same estate again. In infants baptised, there is a kind of merit, or rather dignity of the adopted sons of God, by his grace powered into their souls in baptism, whereby they are made heirs of the kingdom of heaven, but all that arrive to the years of discretion, must by the good use of the same grace either merit life, or for want of such fruit of it, fall into the miserable state of death. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop setteth down three things which he saith are necessary to make a work meritorious, but giveth us no ground at all whereby we may rest persuaded, that where those three things do concur, a man may be said to merit or deserve at God's hands. He leaveth us still to wonder, that a sinful wretch offending and provoking God from day to day, should dare to talk of merit and desert with God, but that we know that heresy and ignorance make men bold to frame the majesty of God to their own brainsick and senseless conceits. The conditions and circumstances by him mentioned, we always teach and require in our doctrine of good works, but far are we from finding merit in any of them. For first the adopted son of God standeth bound by duty to do all things to the honour of his Father, and there can be no merit in doing that which a man by duty is bound to do. Secondly, if the work proceed from the grace of God, the work is Gods and not man's, and therefore man can thereby merit nothing. Thirdly if the reward depend upon promise, than it ariseth not of the merit or worth of works, especially there being by the frailty of the worker and the bounty of the promiser that disproportion betwixt the work and the reward, as that it is merely absurd to imagine that the one should be merited and deserved by the other. These things (God willing) shall further appear in the process of this question. In the mean time M. Bishop here challengeth us for slandering their doctrine with some matters of truth, as that they trust not in Christ's merits, that they need not God's mercy for their salvation, but will purchase it by their own works. Now we wot well that they use speech of Christ's merits, and God's mercy, and of trusting therein, because they know that if they abandoned the mention hereof, they would soon grow odious and hateful to all men. For the cup of poison of the whore of Babylon they must use a cover of such good words, lest they make men loath to drink thereof. But let it be examined how they teach these things, and their falsehood will soon appear. By trust in Christ's merits, men conceive the placing of the confidence of salvation immediately therein, as the proper cause for which God accepteth us to eternal life, who ourselves are miserable sinners, and altogether unworthy thereof. But their trust in Christ's merits, is that he hath purchased for us grace, if we list by free will to merit heaven for ourselves, thereby to be just before God in ourselves, and worthy of the kingdom of heaven, as M. Bishop in the former question of a Sect. 2. justification hath declared. So then the effect of Christ's merits is tied only to this life, and thenceforth we are to depend upon that which here we do for ourselves, by well using that grace which the merits of Christ first purchased for us. Therefore one Richard Hopkins translating into English a book of Granatensis, as touching prayer and meditation, giveth it one where for a marginal note, that our Saviour Christ is our Advocate for the time of this life, but after our departure out of this life he is no more our Advocate, but our judge, for the time is passed (saith he) of dealing with God by an Advocate, etc. and we shall have our definitive sentence according to our works. Whereby it appeareth what reckoning they make of the mercy of God, which they also pen up within the compass of this life, and deny it that place which the Apostle giveth it, b 2. Tim. 1.18. at that day. Yea so little use is there with them of God's mercy, as that M. Bishop doubteth not to demand, c Cap. 4. Sect. 4. What need any justified man greatly fear the rigorous sentence of a just judge? Hence are those most insolent speeches of theirs, that good works are d Rhem. Annot. 2. Tim. 4.8. truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life; that heaven is the due and just stipend which God by his justice oweth to the persons working by his grace; that we have a right to heaven, and deserve it worthily; that it is our own right, bargained for and wrought for, and accordingly paid unto us as our hire: e Ibid. Heb. 6.10 that good works be so far meritorious, as that God should be unjust if he rendered not heaven for the same. Thereupon Tapper sticketh not to say, f Ruard. Tapper. in explic. art. Lovan. tom. 2 art. 9 Absit ut justi vi tam aeternam expectent sicut pau per eleemosynam: Multò namque glori●sius est ipso● quasi victores & triumphatores eam possidere tanquam palmam suit sudoribus debitam. God forbidden that the just should expect eternal life as the poor man doth an alms: for it is much more glorious that they should have it as conquerors and triumphers, as the prize due unto their labours. Thus you yourselves have written M. Bishop, and do we slander you in reporting truly what you have written? No, no, your speeches are impudent and shameless in this behalf, and such as we wonder that your foreheads serve you to avouch. Why doth it not suffice you to preach good works simply, as Christ and his Apostles did, with commendation of God's mercy in rewarding the same? What need this vain foolery of merit, so improbable, so absurd, so impossible, whereby you do not magnify God, but set up the righteousness of man against the grace of God? As for the definition of the Council of Trent, we esteem it not, knowing the same for the most part to have been but a conventicle of base Italianate Machiavels', who by equivocations and sophistications have deluded the world, and by casting the chaff of some phrases of the Fathers upon the meres and puddles of the schoolmen, have laboured to cover and hide the filth and mire thereof, and indeed have left them still to serve by false confidence and trust for gulfs and whirlpools to swallow up and devour the souls of men. Although the words of the Council may bear some good construction according to the ancient father's meaning of the name of merits, yet by them they are deceitfully set down, to leave open a gap to the absurd and intolerable presumption of men, in advancing and lifting up the desert of men's works, as if God were thereby greatly bound and beholding unto them. How far their meaning extendeth, will appear by M. Bishop, who will not have us think that he will speak any thing but by the authority of that Council. And first he telleth us, that they hold that eternal life is a grace; which indeed they dare not deny, because the Scripture expressly so affirmeth, g Rom. 6.23. Eternal life is the grace (or gift) of God through jesus Christ our Lord. But he addeth to grace a supply of works, quite contrary to the Scriptures; for it is expressly said, h Chap. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no grace. i August. contra Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 2. ca 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit ullo modo, nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo. Grace (saith Saint Austin) is not grace in any sort, if it be not free in every sort. It is of grace, saith M. Bishop, and yet it is of works also. But still to make a show of upholding grace, he telleth us that though eternal life be by works, yet the first grace, out of which those works do issue, is freely bestowed upon us. Which he saith only as ashamed to deny grace altogether, and not of any conscience that he maketh faithfully to avouch the same. For if the grace, whence those works do issue, which is the grace of justification, be freely bestowed upon us, why doth he before labour to approve that we are justified by works? Or if we obtain the grace of justification by works, how doth he say that the same is freely bestowed upon us? The plain truth is, that by their works of preparation they make a man at least in some sort, as we have heard before out of Bellarmine, to merit and deserve even the first grace, if by the first grace we understand the grace of their first justification, as M. Bishop usually doth. But beside grace, it is also a reward due in justice, saith he. And how so? Marry partly by the promise of God. Now if he rested here, we would not contend with him. For promise is indeed grace, and justice in respect of promise is nothing but truth in the performance thereof, neither is here any impeachment of the free gift of God. But not contented herewith, he addeth, that it is due in part also for the dignity of good works. And thus he confoundeth those things which the Scripture still very precisely distinguisheth, advertising us that k Rom. 4.14. if they which are of the law (that is of works) be heirs, then is faith made void, and the promise is made of none effect: and again, l Gal. 3.18. if the inheritance be of the law (that is of works) it is no longer by promise. To be inheritors by works, and to be inheritors by promise, are things so opposite as that the one wholly excludeth the other, neither can they possibly stand together. As for that which he saith of infant's merit and dignity, it is also the schoolemens fiction and device. Remission of sins is their salvation as it is ours, and in them it standeth good which the Apostle saith, m Rom. 5. 2●. As sin hath reigned (over them) unto death, so grace also reigneth by righteousness (that is, by imputation of righteousness) unto eternal life, not by any dignity in them, but through jesus Christ our Lord. But as touching them that arrive to years of discretion, he telleth us that either they must by good use of grace merit life, or for want of such fruit fall into the miserable state of death. A very hard sentence for himself; for if he never have life till he merit and deserve it, we can well assure him that he shall go without it. And I wonder that his heart did not tremble at the writing hereof, but that he hath hardened the same against the truth, and writeth but only for maintenance of that occupation and trade, that must yield maintenance back again to him. What will he say in the end, when he shall lie wrestling with death, and ready to resign his soul into the hands of God? Will he then crave for mercy, who writeth now so earnestly for merit? Let him take heed that God do not then answer him, n Luk. 19.22. Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou evil servant. Thou hast despised my mercy. Thou hast defined, that every one that doth not merit life must fall into the state of death. Thy sentence shall stand good against thyself: thou art far off from meriting life, and therefore thy just portion shall be everlasting death. Let him learn in time to fear this doom, and leave off by this wilful oppugning of the faith and doctrine of Christ to rebel against God. 2. W. BISHOP. With this Catholic doctrine M. Perkins would be thought to agree in two points: First, That merits are necessary to salvation: Secondly, That Christ is the root and fountain of all merit. But soon after like unto a shrewd cow, overthrows with his heel the good milk he had given before: renouncing all merits in every man, saving only in the person of Christ: whose prerogative (saith he) it is, to be the person alone in whom God is well pleased. Then he addeth, that they good Protestants, by Christ's merits really imputed to them, do merit life everlasting. Even as by his righteousness imputed unto them, they are justified and made righteous. To which I answer, that we most willingly confess our blessed saviours merits to be infinite, and of such divine efficacy, that he hath not only merited at his Father's hands both pardon for all faults, and grace to do all good works, but also that his true servants works should be meritorious of life everlasting. As for the real imputation of his merit to us, we esteem as a feigned imagination, composed of contrarieties. For if it be really in us, why do they call it imputed? and if it be ours only by God's imputation, then is it not in us really. Further, to say that he only is the person in whom God is well pleased, is to give the lie unto many plain texts of holy Scriptures. jac 2. Eccles. 45. Act. 13. joh. 16. Rom. 1. Abraham was called the friend of God; therefore God was well pleased in him: Moses was his beloved: David was a man according unto his own heart: God loved Christ's Disciples, because they loved him. Briefly, all the Christians at Rome, were truly called of S. Paul the beloved of God. And therefore although God be best pleased in our Saviour, and for his sake is pleased in all others, yet is he not only pleased in him, but in all his faithful servants. Now to that which he saith, that they have no other merit than Christ's imputed to them, as they have no other righteousness but by imputation, I take it to be true: and therefore they do very ingeniously and justly renounce all kind of merits in their stained and defiled works. But let them tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth. It is, that as they have no righteousness or merit of heaven, but only by a supposed imputation, so they must look for no heaven but by imputation: for God as a most upright judge, will in the end repay every man according to his worth: wherefore not finding any real worthiness in Protestants, but only in conceit, his reward shall be given them answerably, in conceit only: which is evidently gathered out of S. Augustine, Lib. 1. de mori. Eccles. cap. 25. where he saith: That the reward cannot go before the merit, nor be given to a man before he be worthy of it: for (saith he) what were more injust than that, and what is more just than God? Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardy as once to demand, much less so impudent as to assure ourselves of that crown, before we have deserved it. Seeing then that the Protestants by this their proctor renounce all such merit and desert, they must needs also renounce their part of heaven, and not presume so much as once to demand it, according unto S. Augustine's sentence, until they have first renounced their erroneous opinions. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins hath indeed given good milk, as M. Bishop saith, even a 1. Pet. 2.2. the sincere milk of the word, which he had drawn from b August. in joan. Epist trac. 3. Est matter Ecclesia; & ubera eius du● Testamenta Scripturari, 〈◊〉 narum. the breasts of the Church, the old and the new Testament, the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, which are c Ephes. 2.20. the foundations whereupon the house of God is built. He played not the shrewd cow, to overthrow it when he had given it, but what he gave M. Bishop seeketh to corrupt by blending and mingling with it, not the leaven only, but the very poison of human traditions. He renounceth, and so do we, all merit but what is in the person of jesus Christ for us, and thereby only do we lay hold of eternal life, acknowledging that not for any thing that we do, but only d Mat. 3.17. in him the Father is well pleased towards us, and accepteth us to be his children, and heirs of his kingdom. Whereas in his pleasance he termeth us good Protestants, I must tell him as before, that if the Protestants do not exceed the goodness of them who will be taken to be the very best amongst the Papists, without question they are very bad: and I doubt not but he himself will acquit the Protestants from being so bad as he and his fellows have told us that their good masters the jesuits be. But for answer he saith, that Christ did merit for his, not only pardon of all faults, and grace to do all good works, but also that their works should be meritorious of life everlasting. A strange speech, and such as the Apostles and Primitive Church were not acquainted with. Forsooth Christ did not merit eternal life for us, but he merited for us grace, that so we might merit eternal life for ourselves. Now M. Bishop hath taught us before, that grace is nothing, but as Free will adjoineth itself unto it, and so the conclusion is, that the grace of God doth not save man, but man by the help of grace doth save himself. Thus the matter resteth upon us, Christ offereth us grace; we may receive it, if we will; and when we have it, we may, if we will, thereby deserve eternal life, otherwise we go without it. But the Scripture teacheth us far otherwise, that e 1. joh. 5.10.11 the record that God hath witnessed of his Son is this; that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Here is no record, that God hath given us grace to deserve eternal life, but that he hath given us eternal life; nor that this life is in our merits, but that this life is in his Son, so as that f joh 3.36. he that believeth in the Son, hath everlasting life, and g 1. joh. 5.13. they that believe in the name of the Son of God, are to know, that they have eternal life, God by the beginning giving them certificate and assurance of the end. The real imputation of Christ's merits to us, is no feigned imagination, but a clear truth, as hath been before showed. The contrariety and opposition that he conceiveth therein, is his own fond dream, no doctrine of ours. We do not say, that Christ's merits are really in us, neither did Master Perkins give him any word whereof to imagine it, but only that by imputation they are made really ours, because they were undertaken and done for us, even as Christ the doer thereof is become really ours, even h jerem. 23 6. the Lord our righteousness. Whereas he saith, that to say, that Christ only is the person in whom God is well pleased, is to give the lie to many texts of Scripture, which testify, that God hath been pleased towards Abraham, Moses, etc. we suppose he doth not well understand himself. It is said of many, that God was pleased with them, or they pleased God, but the question is, in whom, for whose sake, by whose mediation God was well pleased towards them, and that was only in Christ, only for Christ's sake, accordingly as the Apostle Saint Paul saith of all the elect: i Eph. 1.6. He hath made us accepted in his beloved, and Saint Peter, that our k 1. Pet. 2.5. spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God by jesus Christ. And this prerogative the voice of the Father giveth him from heaven: l Mat. 3.17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: namely, towards Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Moses, David, and all towards whom he is well pleased. Which seeing it was the plain meaning of M. Perkins, and M. Bishop acknowledgeth it to be true, that Christ is he, for whose sake God is pleased in all others, what is it but childish and idle cavilling to make a question there, where by his own confession none is to be made? Now where we say, that we have no righteousness to justify us before God, but only the righteousness of Christ, nor any merit whereby to presume of heaven, but only the merit of Christ, all our own works being blemished and stained with sin, he biddeth us tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth. And what is that? Marry, that as we have no righteousness but by imputation, so we must look for no heaven but by imputation. But why should we not think, that the merit of Christ's obedience and righteousness is of sufficient value and estimation to purchase for us the kingdom of heaven, and everlasting glory? Is it sufficient to purchase grace for us to merit heaven for ourselves, and is it not sufficient itself to merit heaven for us? And if we have no merit of our own, what should hinder but that we may say with Saint Bernard: m Bernard. in Cant. Ser. 61. Ego fidenter quicquid ex me mihi deest, usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini: quoniam misericordia effluunt, etc. Meritum proinde meum miserationes Domini. Non planè sum maritiinops, quamdiville miserationum non fuerit. Quòd si misericordiae Domini multa, multus nihilo minus ego in meritis sum. Whatsoever is wanting to me of myself, I boldly take it unto me out of the bowels of the Lord, for they flow out with mercy. My merit is the Lords mercy: I am not poor in merit, so long as he is not poor in mercy: and if he be rich in mercy, then am I also rich in merits. Yea Bellarmine M. Bishops master after that he hath sweat and traveled mightily to avouch the righteousness and merit of works, in the end being quite spent is content to retire into our port, and draweth to this conclusion, that n Bellar. de just. lib. 5. cap. 7. Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, & periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benig nitate reponere. because of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the peril of vain glory, the safest way is to repose our whole trust in the only mercy) and goodness of God. Now if there be no salvation, no heaven without merits, and a man have no merits of his own, by what merits shall the mercy of God save him, but only by the imputation of the merits of Christ? And will M. Bishop say of him, that as he hath no merits but by imputation, so he shall have no heaven but by imputation? Shall this be all the comfort of that which Bellarmine commendeth for the safest course, to fly to the sole and only mercy and goodness of God? Yea, saith M. Bishop: for God as a most upright judge will in the end repay every man according to his worth. What, and do you M. Bishop expect, that God in the end should repay heaven to you according to your worth? Go fool, go, leave off this talk of merit and worth: learn to know God, learn to know thyself, learn to say with chrysostom: o Chrysost. in Coloss. hom 2. Nemo talem vitae conversatio nem ostendit, ut regno dignus esse possit, sed totum donum est ipsius D●. No man showeth such conversation of life, as that he may be worthy of the kingdom, but it is wholly the gift of God. Was not p Mar. 1.7. john Baptist worthy to lose the latchet of Christ's shoe, and dost thou think to be worthy to reign with Christ? But I leave him here to be whipped with his own rod: his own conscience will one day sting him sufficiently with the remembrance of these assertions. As for the Protestants, let him take no care for their worthiness. We believe that there is for us in Christ a real worthiness, for which we shall receive a real heaven. But let him take heed, lest whilst he feedeth himself with a conceit of worth where there is none, he be deluded with a conceit of heaven in his end, and indeed find none, nor ever attain to that which is prepared for them that maintain the truth of the Scripture, and glory of God to their own comfort. But of worthiness there will be further occasion to speak hereafter. As for the place of Austin which he allegeth as good to stand for him, it was written by him when he was newly converted from the heresy of the Manichees in such words and phrases as seem plausible to human understanding and judgement, which comparing one man with another, expresseth to itself the difference by terms of worthy and unworthy, deserving and hot deserving, howsoever to the sight and judgement of God worth & desert are far from all. The purpose of S. Austin in that place, is to show the ordinary course that God taketh, that he will first have us to travel in his service, before we receive the reward thereof, as the Apostle declareth in saying, q 2. Tim. 2.6. The husbandman must labour before he receive the fruits. But that S. Austin in maturity and ripeness of judgement was very far from M. Bishop's fancy of merit, may sufficiently appear by one sentence of his where he saith, r August. in Psal. 109. Promisit hominibus divinitatem, mor talibus immortalitatem, peccatoribus justificationem, abiectis glorificationem. Quicquid promisit, indignis promisit, ut non quasi merces operibus promitteretur, sed gratia à nomine suo gratis daretur, quia & hoc ipsam quód justè vivit, inquantum homo potest justè vivere, non merit humani, sed beneficij divini est, God promised to men participation with God, immortality to mortal creatures, justification to sinners, glorification to abjects and castaways. Whatsoever he promised, he promised to men unworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to works, but being grace might according to the name be freely given; because to live justly, so far as man can live justly, is not a matter importing man's merit, but the benefit and gift of God. Where plainly he showeth, that whatsoever God hath promised, it is his mere and only gift; that to speak simply thereof, it is to be bereaved of the title of a reward of works, because God promised the same when we had no works: that it is not given for our worth, because it was promised when we had no worth: yea and that we have any good works, it is an effect of the same promise; it cannot be thought to make any merit on our behalf, but to set forth grace and mercy on God's behalf: so that all is free gift, all is grace and mercy, and the adding of one gift, and grace, and mercy to another, howsoever sometimes in some respects, as hereafter we shall see, the gift of God is set forth unto us under the name of recompense and reward. In a word, by that that followeth, I doubt not but it will appear, that the Protestants Proctor, if he must needs be so termed, hath said nothing in this behalf, but what by S. Austin and other ancient Fathers may well be defended against this Romish prater, who hath great insolency of words, but sound matter of proof he can find none at all. 3. W. BISHOP. But M. Perkins will nevertheless prove, and that by sundry reasons, that their doctrine is the truth at self, and ours falsehood. First, by a sorry short syllogism containing more than one whole page. It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious work: which must be (saith he) four: first, That the work be done of ourselves, without the help of another: secondly, That it be not otherwise due debt: thirdly, That it be done to the benefit of another: four, That the work and reward be equal in proportion. These properties he sets down pythagorically without any proof: but inserreth thereon, as though he had proved them invincibly, that Christ's manhood separated from the Godhead cannot merit: because whatsoever he doth, he doth it by grace received, and should be otherwise due. He might in like manner as truly say, that Christ's manhood united to the Godhead, could not merit neither: for he received his Godhead from his Father, and whatsoever he doth, is therefore his Fathers by due debt. And so the good man, if he were let alone, would disappoint us wholly of all merits, aswell the imputed of Christ's, as of all ours done by virtue of his grace. Wherefore we must a little sift his four forged proprieties of merit: and touching the first, I say, that one may by the good use of a thing received by free gift, merit and deserve much even at his hands that gave it. For example, the farther bestows a Farm upon his son freely; who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same, deserve his further favour: yea, he may by the commodities reaped out of that farm, buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale, as well as if he had never received the farm from his father's gift. Which is so common a case, and so sensible, that every man of mean wit, may easily reach unto it: even so by good manuring the gifts which God freely bestoweth upon us, we may both merit the increase of them, and according to his own order and promise, purchase thereby the kingdom of heaven: which is plainly proved by that parable, Of the talents given by a king to his servants; Mat. 25. the which they employing well and multiplying, were therefore esteemed worthy of far greater, and withal to be made partakers of their Lords joys. M. Perkins then was not a little overseen, to put for the first propriety of merit, that it must be done by a man, and of a man himself. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins saith very truly upon noting the conditions necessarily required in a meritorious work, that the manhood of Christ considered a part from his Godhead, because it is but a creature, and hath all by the gift of God, and doth all by bond of necessary duty, cannot merit at God's hands: Whereas M. Bishop against this saith, that he might in like manner as truly say, that Christ's manhood united to the Godhead could not merit neither, because he received his Godhead from the Father, and therefore whatsoever he doth is his Fathers by due debt, he bewrayeth his notable and absurd ignorance. For Christ receiveth his Godhead of the Father to be equal to the Father, not inferior; to be the same in substance, and majesty, and glory, that the Father is. Now duty and debt do necessarily enforce minority and subjection. Seeing therefore there is no minority or subjection in the Godhead of the Son towards the Father, there can be no debt or duty of the Son in that respect towards the Father. Thus the good man, to repay him with his own stout, is taken before he is aware in the nets of the Arian heresy, which made Christ as God inferior, and subject to the Father. The merit of Christ therefore consisted in this, as S. Paul noteth, that being equal to God his Father, and owing no debt or duty, did voluntarily humble himself to obedience and duty for our sakes. So then M. Perrkins, indeed a good man, as M. Bishop shall one day see, hath not by his assertion bereaved us of the merits of Christ, but hath taught how rightly to understand the same. But now he will a little sift, as he saith, the four forged proprieties of merit, which M. Perkins hath set down. Whether they be forged or not, will appear by the sequel; in the mean time his answers to them may seem rather to have come from the Smith's forge, than out of the study, and from the learning of a Doctor of Divinity. The first condition required in a meritorious work, properly so to be called, to which by duty, debt and right for the works sake, reward is to be yielded, is, that a man do it of himself, and by his own power. For so saith Hilary: a Hilar. de Trin. lib. 11. Mereri eius est qui ipse sib● meriti acqui rendi author existi●. It is for him to merit, who himself is to himself the author of getting his merit. Therefore S. Bernard having said, that b Bernard. in A 〈◊〉 c●at. ser. 1. Non talia sunt hominum merita●i propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex ●ure, etc. Nam merita omnia Dei donu sunt, & ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est quàm Deus hom●●. the merits of men are not such, as that life eternal by right is owing for them, giveth this for one reason thereof, because all merits are the gifts of God, and so man is rather a debtor to God for them, than God to man. So Origen saith, that c Origen. in Ro. cap 4. Vix mihi su●deo ullum opus esse posse, quod ex debito remunerationem Dei deposcat, eùm etiam hoc ipsum quòd agere aliquid possumus, vel cogitare vel proloqui ipsius do●● & larguione faciamus. he can hardly be persuaded, that there can be any work, which by debt may require reward at God's hands, in as much as it is by his gift that we are able to do, or think, or speak any thing that is good. By this reason S. Austin, though according to the language of his time, he useth the name of merit, yet taketh away the true nature of merit, by bereaving the righteousness of man of having any thing due unto it. d Aug. Epist. 105. Tibi tanquam debita redderetur si ex te tibi esset justitia cu● debetur. Nunc de plenitudine eius accepimus non solùm gratiam qua nunc justè in laboribus usque in finem vivimus, sed etiam gratiam pro hac gratia ut in requie posteà sine fine viuamu●. Eternal life (saith he) should be rendered as due unto thee, if of thyself thou hadst the righteousness to which it is due: but now of his fullness we receive not only grace now to live justly in our labours to the end, but also grace for this grace, that afterwards we may live in rest without rest. Here is then nothing due unto us, and therefore no merit, because whatsoever righteousness is in us, it is only God's gift unto us. This reason in sundry places he giveth against opinion of having God e Idem in Psal. 32. & in joan. tract. 3. a debtor unto us by our doings, against the conceit of f In Psal. 43. in fine. our worthiness, or thinking that we have any thing due unto us for the good works that we perform, because of God it is that we have all. But M. Bishop's head is sufficient to answer this, and that with greater depth of wit assure yourself, then is to be found in the heels of any Protestant whatsoever. A man (saith he) may by the good use of a thing received by free gift, merit and deserve much even at his hands that gave it. For example forsooth: The father bestows a Farm upon his son freely, who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits thereof, deserve his further favour, yea by the commodities thereof he may grow to be able to buy any thing that his father shall set to sale. Surely this reason is very farmerlike, and smelleth more strongly of the cart, than it doth of the Bible. But for answer, if a man bestow a thing upon another, and the same can make no good use thereof, but by his hand and help that gave it him, is he not in all that redoundeth to him bound to him, by whose gift he first enjoyed that which he hath, and by whose only hand he maketh use and profit of it? If a father bestow a farm on his son, and the son can do no good therewith but by the father: if he increase nothing, raise nothing, but what is raised and increased to him by his father: if he be not able of himself so much as to stir a hand to help himself, but his father doth all for him, shall we think that by the increase and profit that ariseth thereof, the son meriteth and deserveth any thing at his father's hands? can he give the Father any thing, but what was first the father's gift to him? Even so is the case with us. God hath bestowed upon us his calling and grace; but what are we the nearer, if his hand do not still work for us who hath said, g john. 15.5. Without me ye can do nothing; who in the beginning and to the end h Phil. 2.13. worketh in us both to will and to do; so that i Rom. 15.18. we have nothing to speak of, but what Christ hath done by us; k Cyprian. ad Quirin. lib. 3. ca 5. De nullo gloriandum quando nostrum nihil est. nothing to rejoice or glory of, because we have nothing of our own, l Aug in joan. tract. 5. Nemo habet de suo nisi mendacium & peccatum. nothing of our own but lying and sin, so that we can yield nothing to God but what is his, m Esa. 26.12. who hath wrought all our works for us, n Rom. 11.36. of whom, and for whom, and through whom are all things, that he may be blessed for ever. Therefore the ancient Church taught against Pelagius the heretic, that o Aug. epist. 106. Gratiam Dei & adiutorium eius etiam ad singulos actus dari. the grace of God is given to every several action. p Hieron. ad Ctesiphont. Sciamus nos nihil esse nisi quod donavit, in nobis ipse seruaue●it, etc. semper largitor, semper donator est. Non sufficit mihi quod semel donavit, nisi semper donaverit: Peto ut accipiam, & cum accepero, rursus peto. We must know, saith Hierome, that we are nothing if he himself do not keep in us that which he hath given. God is still giving, still bestowing: it sufficeth me not that he hath once given, unless he be still giving: I pray to receive, and when I have received, I pray again. This is it that we are here to understand, that not only the first grace, but whatsoever consequently we have or do towards God, it is altogether and wholly of the gift of God, and therefore in nothing can we be said to merit or deserve at God's hands, because we cannot bind God as a debtor unto us, by any thing that is his own. But Master Bishop maketh no more account but this, that God hath given him a Farm, and by the well husbanding of it he must grow rich, and then make a further purchase of God again. His Farm is the grace of God, which he must manage by free will, and so fill his bags with merits, that when God shall set heaven to sale, he may be able at once to buy a whole Kingdom for himself. But if this be all, let him take heed least of a rich Farmer he become a poor beggar, and his purchase be to be turned out of doors. Let him thankfully acknowledge the gift of God, but if he thus brave the matter with God with terms of purchase, he will prove like the Laodiceans, of whom the holy Ghost saith; q Apoc. 3.17. Thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and want nothing, and knowest not how thou art wretched and miserable, and blind, and naked. God will have us r Bernard in Cant. Ser. 50. to know at that day that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us, and that s Aug. in joan. tract. 3. Quòd praemium in. mortalitatis postea tri●uit, coro●at dona sua, non merita tua. in giving the reward of immortality, he crowneth not our merits but his own gifts. As for that which he allegeth of those that received the talents, and for the well using thereof were so bountifully rewarded, it proveth that God doth well requite the good usage of the gifts that he bestoweth upon us, but well he knoweth that of worth, of merit, and desert, there is nothing spoken there. The talon is God's gift, and the well using of the talon is God's gift, and therefore the reward commendeth the mercy of God, but can in no sort approve any merit or desert of man. But of reward more hereafter: in the mean time M. Bishops sensible case is become senseless in this case. M. Perkins like a Divine, hath set down this first condition of merit, and he hath answered it like a Farmer, as being more sensible to make use of a piece of ground, then to dispute a question of the word of God. Let us see now whether he have any better success against the second. 4. W. BISHOP. The second, That a man must do it of his own free will and pleasure, and not of due debt: carrieth in show an opposition, but in deed there is no contradiction in it: for a man may, and every honest man doth of his own free will and pleasure, pay his due debt: but let us pardon the disorder of words: his meaning being nothing else, but that the payment of that which is otherwise due debt, cannot be any meritorious work, to which S. Austin doth answer in these words: Ser. 3. De verb. Apost. O great goodness of God, to whom when we did owe service by condition of our estate, as bondmen do to their Lord, yet hath he promised again & again the reward of friends. In which there is couched a comparison, which being laid in the light, will much help to the understanding of this matter. He that hath a slave, or bondman, may lawfully exact of him all kind of service without any wages: Bread and a whip (saith a Philosopher) serve for a slave. Now suppose the Master to be sovereign governor of a state: then if it please him to make his man free, and withal a member of his commonweal, the same man by performing many good offices to the state, may justly deserve of his Prince as great reward and promotion, as any other of his subjects: and yet may his Lord and old Master say truly to him, all this that thou hast done, or could do, is but due bebt unto me, considering that thou wast my bondman. So fareth it with us in respect of God: all that we can do is due debt unto him, because he hath made us, and endowed us with all that we either be, or have: yet it hath pleased him, as a most kind Lord, to set us at liberty through Christ, and to make us Citizens of the Saints, and as capable of his heavenly riches, as the Angels, if we will do our endeavour to deserve them: and whereas he might have exacted all that ever we could do, without any kind of recompense: yet he of his inestimable goodness towards us, doth neither bind us to do all we can do; and yet for doing that little which he commandeth, hath by promise bound himself to repay us a large recompense: by which we may well understand those words of our Saviour: Luk. 17. When you have done all these things that are commanded you, say that you are unprofitable servants: we have done that we ought to do. True. By our native condition we were bound to perform, not only all these things that be now commanded, but whatsoever else it should have pleased God to command: and this we must always confess, to preserve true humility in us: yet God hath bettered our estate through Christ, and so highly advanced us, that we not only be Citizens of the Saints, but his sons and heirs, and thereby in case to deserve of him a heavenly crown, and this is S. Ambrose exposition upon the place. S. chrysostom pondering these words, let us say, taketh it for a wholesome counsel for us to say, that we be unprofitable servants, lest pride destroy our good works: and then God will say, that we be good and faithful servants, as it is recorded. Mat. 25. Vers. 21. Again, we may truly say, when we have done all things commanded, that we are unprofitable servants, as venerable Bede our most learned countryman interpreteth: Because of all that we do, In Luc, 17. no commodity riseth unto God our Lord in himself: who is such an infinite ocean of all goodnesses, that he wanteth nothing: Whereupon David saith, That thou art my God, Psal. 15. because thou standest in need of no good that I can do. R. ABBOT. That that shall merit, must be a work done of a man's own free will and pleasure, and not of due debt. The opposition of these terms is plain and pregnant, and M. Bishop's instance to the contrary is absurd. A man doth willingly pay his debts, but not upon his own 〈◊〉 will and pleasure. For what a man doth of his own free will and pleasure, it is at his own choice to leave it undone if he list, but it is not at an honest man's choice to pay his debts or not to pay, but by necessary duty he is tied to the payment thereof. There is no man but in common course of speech understandeth a contradiction in those words, but M. Bishop cannot let a rush go by him, but he will be seeking a knot in it, and being sick of Piso's disease, albeit he know not how to speak, yet he can by no means hold his peace. But to show that the payment of that which is due debt, may be a meritorious work, he allegeth a testimony of S. Austin, importing no such matter. a Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 3. O magna bonitas Dei, cui cum pro conditione obsequia redilere debeamus utpote ser●● Domino, famuli Deo, subiecti potenti, mancipia redemptori, aemicitiarun nobis praemia repromittit, ut à nobis obsequia debita servitutis exterqu●at. O the great goodness of God, saith he, to whom whereas by our condition and state, we are of duty to do service as bondmen to their Lord, and as servants unto God, as subjects to a Potentate, and slaves to him that ransomed them, yet doth promise unto us the reward of friendship, that he may wrest or draw from us the duties of service which we owe. All is but this, that God of his mercy by promises of reward, draweth us on to the performance of our duty towards him. I doubt not but the Reader will wonder what should move M. Bishop here to allege this place to that purpose that he doth, and yet he needeth not wonder that seethe still his manner of idle and impertinent allegations. Very common sense teacheth that I am not bound to a man, for the doing of that which he standeth bound to do for me. There is no merit in the doing of it, but trespass if he do it not. Yet he telleth us, that in S. Austin's words there is a comparison couched that will put this matter out of doubt. Which indeed is so closely couched, as that in S. Austin's words we can see no token of it, and full ill-favouredly doth he deal with S. Austin therein to serve his own turn. For whereas the godly Father useth the words to set forth God's mercy, that he vouchsafeth to promise reward for works of due service, this cozening impostor chargeth God hereby with duty of justice bound to payment of wages for merit and desert of works. But in the comparison by him laid down, there are many differences to be observed, which do lay open unto us the absurdity of it. First of the infinite disproportion betwixt God and man it ariseth, that no man by bondage or villeinage can be bound in that high degree to another man, as every man is bound to God; and therefore though one man being by community of nature the same that another is, may deserve at the hands of another man, yet it followeth not therefore that a man may deserve or merit at God's hands. Secondly, manumission and freedom with men extinguisheth bondage and service, but liberty and adoption to Godward, are a bettering of the condition of our service, but no discharge at all of the duty of it; nay, we are freed by liberty from sin, from death, and from the devil, but we continue still bond & servants unto God. So doth the Apostle tell us, that thereby we are made b Rom. 6: 18.22: servants unto righteousness, servants unto God. Therefore doth he write himself c Phillip 1: 1: the servant (or bondman) of Christ, and S. Peter teacheth us to acknowledge ourselves d 1. Pet. 2.16. the servants (or bondmen) of God. Yea, and S. Austin in the place cited, calleth our works e Obsequia debita servitutis. duties of service (or bondage) that are owing unto God, which being the last part of the sentence, M. Bishop very guilefully left out, because it wholly overthroweth that which he saith of the changing of our former state. Thirdly, the Prince is in some sort tied to the subject, as well as the subject to the Prince. For as the subject hath need of the Prince, so hath the Prince also of the subject; as the subject standeth by the Prince, so doth the Prince by the subject, and therefore by necessity is tied to reward the service of the subject, for the securing of his own estate. But it is not so with God; we do nothing to benefit him, he needeth us not, and therefore it is his mere mercy to vouchsafe any countenance to our service. Fourthly, there is some proportion betwixt temporal service & temporal reward, and yet such is the magnificence of Princes, as that for small service they give great reward, far beyond the worth of the work which they reward; but there is no proportion as shall be showed betwixt out temporal service to God, and his eternal rewards to us, and much more royal and magnificent is he to reward far beyond all possibility of desert. Last of all, add concerning M. Bishops free man, that that was said before concerning his farmer, that in the service of his Prince he is able to do nothing but by the help of his Prince, so that what is done, is indeed his Princes doing for him, and not his own for himself, yea and that in his Prince's service he commit so many defaults, as that if he be questioned he be not able for a thousand to answer one, and we shall leave the free man & the farmer both alike, both disclaiming merit and pleading mercy, content to take that of free gift which M. Bishops pride will not take but by desert. Now therefore briefly to touch his application: all that we can do, saith he, is due debt unto God. True, but not only by state of our creation, but also in that liberty wherewith he hath set us free in Christ, because by our liberty we are free from sin and death, but still continue bond to God. In this liberty he saith, that God hath made us capable of heavenly riches, if we endeavour to deserve them, but no where hath God set them forth with that condition, and after all our endeavour we are very far from deserving. God, he saith, doth not bind us to do all that we can do. A lewd man, who cannot but know that we cannot by many degrees do that that we are bound unto, and seeing he bindeth us to give him f Mar. 11.30. all the heart, all the soul, all the mind, all the strength, how can he say that God doth not bind us to all that we can do? Again, by the same spirit he termeth the commandments of God that little that he commandeth. A foolish and senseless man, a mere Pharisee not knowing the power of God's law; otherwise if he had grace and spirit to conceive it, he would by the law, as the Apostle did, find himself g Rom. 7.10. dead in himself, and acknowledge that which now seemeth to him but little, to be a burden beyond his strength. At length he telleth us, that God by promise hath bound himself to repay us a large recompense. But if by promise, then of mercy on his own part, not of merit on our part. By promise he bindeth himself, but by merit we bind him to us. It is in his own power to promise, and without promise he should be tied to nothing; but whether there be promise or not, he is tied in justice to render for merit and desert. Now because Master Bishop in the issue of his comparison, can find nothing but promise, the end of his comparison must be, that merit and desert is altogether to be excluded. But by that that he hath said, he telleth us that we may well understand those words of our Saviour, h Luk. 17.20. When ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do. And how then are we to understand them? Marry by our native condition we were bound to perform all the commandments of God, and this we must confess to preserve true humility in us; yet God hath bettered our estate in Christ, and made us thereby in case to deserve of him. But what, in this better state are we not still bound to perform that which God commandeth? doth our high advancement to be the children of God, take away the obligation of our duty towards God? If it do not so, (and surely we are so far from opinion of taking it away, as that rather it doth increase it) than what shall become of Master Bishops answer? We were bound before to the keeping of God's commandments, and we continue bound still; what merit can there be more now in the doing of them, than there was before? What, Master Bishop, did our Saviour mean that by our native condition we were to say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done but our duty, and did he mean that in our better condition of grace in Christ we are not to say so? See, gentle Reader, this is one of them who take upon them to be the only Masters of the world; and as if all learning and truth were locked up in their Schools. But had he not so much reason, as to consider that Christ taught his Disciples this lesson, when they were now partakers of that better state? In this betterness of condition and estate, Christ teacheth them, that when they have done all that is commanded, they should say, We are unprofitable servants, yea and by the comparison precedent, setteth them forth still in condition of servants unto God, and showeth that they cannot of duty expect so much as thanks for all that they have done. Doth a man thank his servant, because he doth that which was commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye when ye have done all, say, we are unprofitable servants, etc. As if he should say, Because you are servants, learn you to conceive in like sort of your service. Now Master Bishop having set down that goodly commentary, addeth, And this is Saint Ambrose his exposition upon the place. But why doth he not set down the words of Ambrose? why doth he seek to steal away only with setting down his name? Let Saint Ambrose himself speak, and he saith to his purpose not one word, nay he speaketh against him. i Ambros. in Luc. lib. 8. cap. 17. Nemo in operibus glorietur, quia iure Domino debemus obsequium. Agnosce te esse servum plurimis obsequijs defaeneratum. Non te praeferas quia filius Dei diceris: agnoscenda gratia sed non ignoranda natura: neque te iactes si benè s●ruisti quod facere debuisti. Let no man rejoice, saith he, or glory in works, because by right we own duty to the Lord. Acknowledge thyself to be a servant that art indebted in manifold service. Do not set up thyself, for that thou art called the child of God: thou art to acknowledge grace, but not to be ignorant of nature: and do not vaunt thyself, that thou hast served well which thou wast bound to do. In which words he giveth plainly to understand, that our native condition of service continueth still, and is not taken away by the state of the grace of God, and that we are still to remember that we do but out duty; we do but what we are bound to do in all that we can do. Now further he allegeth chrysostom, but where is the place? We doubt him to be as false in chrysostom as he was in Ambrose, and yet in that which he citeth what is there for merit, or what against debt and duty of service unto God? chrysostom taketh it for wholesome counsel for us to say, that we be unprofitable servants, lest pride destroy our good works. But what, was it Chrysostom's mind that we should say so and not think so? Did he mean that by lying we should avoid pride? S. Austin well asketh the question; k Aug. de verb. Apost. ser. 25. Propter humilitatem ergò mentiris. Wilt thou then lie to show humility? S. Bernard having cited those words of Christ, addeth thus, l Berna. de tripl. custod. Sed hoc, inquies, propter, humilitatem monuit esse dicendum. Planè, propter humilitatem sed nunquid contra veritatem? But thou wilt say that Christ hath taught so to say for humilities sake. True, saith he, it was for humility indeed, but what, against truth? What chrysostom conceived of the words, it may appear when he saith: m Chrysost. ad pop. Antioch. hom. 53. Omnia quae facimus, aginius debitum implentes. Propterea & ipse dicebat etc. All that we do, we do as fulfilling duty; therefore Christ said, When ye have done all, say, We are unprofitable servants, etc. In another place he gathereth thereof, that n Idem de penitent. Qui omnia faciunt, parva fecisse computabuntur. they which have done all, shall be reckoned to have done but little: and again, that Christ thereby commandeth us o Idem de paenit. & confess. Oblivions tradere bona opera. to forget our good works, namely as not worth the remembrance and reckoning of, howsoever God in favour & mercy do accept them. But most directly he speaketh to our purpose, where having set down the words before alleged, p Chrysost. ad Coloss. hom 2. Supra sect. 2. No man showeth such conversation of life, as that he can be worthy of the Kingdom, etc. he addeth, Wherefore Christ saith, When ye have done all, say, We are unprofitable servants, etc. This is it then that our Saviour Christ would signify in those words, that a man by doing whatsoever he can do, cannot attain to be worthy of the Kingdom of Christ, but that it is to us altogether the gift of God. To which purpose Mark the ancient Hermit notably apply the same words; q Marc. Heremit. li. de bis qui se putant operib. justificari. Dominus totius legis debitores nos esse judicari volens, & filiorum adoptionem proptio sanguine nobis gratuitò datam, inquit, Cùm omnia feceritis, etc. Proptereà regnum coelorum non est merces eperum sed gratia Domini fi●clilus servis praepara●a. Our Lord, saith he, willing to show that we are debtors of the whole law, and that the adoption of children is freely given to us by his blood, saith, when ye have done all things that are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants, etc. Therefore the Kingdom of heaven is not the reward (or wages) of works, but it is the grace (or gift) of God prepared for his faithful servants. On every side therefore those words of Christ are taken to import somewhat against merit and worth, yet M. Bishop by means that his minion of Rome hath hoodwinked his eyes, cannot see so much, but he is still doting upon that which he can no where find. Which the more plainly to show, he citeth Bede for another construction of these words of Christ, that therefore we are to account ourselves unprofitable servants, because of all that we do, there ariseth no profit to God; but why did he leave out that which Bede there addeth, as giving to understand that that former was not the whole meaning of Christ's words; r Beda in Luc. cap. 17. We are unprofitable servants, because the sufferings of this time, are not worthy of the glory to come, as in another place, which crowneth thee in mercy and compassion. He saith not, in thy merits, because by whose mercy we are prevented that we may humbly serve him, by his gift we are crowned to reign with him. What M. Bishop, no more faith, no more trust in you? do you allege Authors, when they condemn your doctrine, even in the places whence you cite them? Leave of, leave of; Act. 26.14. it is hard for you to kick against the pricks. You fight against the Gospel of Christ, against the truth of God, and do not you doubt but it will prevail against you, and the conquest thereof shall be your utter confusion if you hold on your course. 5. W. BISHOP. And thus we fall upon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious work, which is, That it be done to the profit of another: and say that albeit God in himself receive no profit by our works, yet doth he in the administration of his holy commonweal the Church, wherein good men's services do much pleasure him. And in this sense it is said of S. Paul, That by cleansing ourselves from wicked works, 2. Tim. 2. Math. 5. we shall become vessels sanctified, and profitable unto our Lord. Again, God is glorified by our good works. That seeing your good works, they may glorify your Father which is in heaven. Finally, God doth rejoice at the recovery of his lost children. joh. 15. ver. 8. Luk. 15. If then good men travailing painfully in God's Vineyard, do yield him outwardly both honour, joy, and commodity: that may suffice to make their work meritorious. R. ABBOT. As touching this condition, we contend not with Master Bishop concerning his exposition thereof. Merit must be done by the will, and for the use and behoof of him at whose hands it must merit. So Christ's obedience by the will of the Father, to the praise of the glory of his grace, did merit and deserve at his Father's hands in our behalf. Only it is to be added, that it must fully satisfy the use and behoof whereto it is intended, and not fail in any point thereof. Now because a Aug. Eu●hirid. cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei extitantur ut etiam spiritu suo, etc. tanquam filii hominum quibusdam motibus humanis deficiant ad seipses, etc. the children of God are so moved by the spirit of God, as that by their own spirit as the sons of men through human motions and affections, they sometimes fail and fall back to themselves, and therefore do not so entirely and perfectly serve the uses of the Lord, to yield either glory to God, or love to their brethren as they ought to do, therefore neither do they attain to this condition of merit, nor can in any sort bind God to repay them for that broken service that they have done, nay if he would call matters to strict reckoning and account, he hath rather occasion of quarrel against them, for disgracing and defiling the works that he hath wrought in them. 6. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins fourth property is, That the work and reward be equal in proportion: If he understand Arithmetical proportion, that is, that they be equal in quantity, to wit, the one to be as great, or of as long continuance as the other: then we deny this kind of equality to be requisite to merit: there is another sort of proportion, called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometrical: and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one unto the other: as when a good office is given unto a Citizen of desert, it may be that the honour and commodity of the office is far greater, than was the merit of the man: yet he being as well able to discharge it as another, and having better deserved it, is holden in true justice worthy of it: In like manner in a game where masteries are tried, the prize is given unto him that doth best, not because the value of the reward is just as much worth, as that act of the man who winneth it: but for that such activity is esteemed worthy of such a recompense. Now the crown of heavenly glory, is likened by Saint Pule, unto a Garland in a game: where he saith, 1. Cor. 9 2. Tim. 2. That we all run, but one carrieth away the prize. And, he that striveth for the mastery, is not crowned, unless he strive lawfully. It is also resembled unto places of honour: Math. 25. joh. 14. I will place thee over much. And, I go to provide you places. Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seed: Math. 13. 1. joh. 3. For the seed of God tarrieth in him. But a little seed cast into good ground, and well manured, bringeth forth abundance of corn. Briefly, than such equality as there is between the well deserving subject and the office, between him that striveth lawfully and the crown, between the seed and the corn, is between the reward of heaven, and the merit of a true servant of God. And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument, more indeed to explicate the nature and condition of merit, then that his reason nakedly proposed, did require it. R. ABBOT. The proportion that maketh merit or desert, must be Arithmetical, wherein the work must fully equal the reward, though not in greatness and continuance, yet in value and worth. If the one in that sort do not counterpoise the other, the one cannot be said to be deserved by the other. But there is no proportion at all either Arithmetical or Geometrical, betwixt that that is finite and that that is infinite; therefore none at all betwixt the work of man and the reward of heaven, the one being every way finite, the other in continuance infinite. So then Master Bishops Geometrical proportion and reasonable correspondence is excluded also, because a Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Tantum ibi graetia divinae retributionis exuberat ut inceparabiliter atque ineffabiliter omne meritum quamuis bonae & ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis & operationis excedat. the grace (or gift) of God's reward, as Fulgentius saith, doth so much there abound, as that incomparably and unspeakably it exceedeth all the merit of the will and work of man, albeit it be good and given unto him of God. There is no reasonable correspondence where the one incomparably and unspeakably exceedeth all the merit and desert of the other. The same is imported by Saint Bernard, who having said, that men's merits are not such as that life eternal is due unto them of right, giveth reason thereof, beside that that I mentioned before: b Ber. in Annunciat. Ser. 1. Quid sunt omnia merita ad tantam gloriam? For what are all merits to so great glory? M. Bishop will have us think that he did amiss to ask such a question, because there is as he saith such a reasonable correspondence betwixt the one & the other, as that the one contrary to S. Bernard's sentence, is justly & duly deserved by the other. And in the same sort doth he control Macarius, who affirmeth, that c Macar. homil. 15. Siqui● abeo tempore quo conditus est Adam usque ad finem mundi militasset contra diab. lum & omnes dolores cruciatusque perrulisset, nihil magnum fecisset respectu gloriae quam consecuturus est, & in qua infinitu seculu cum Christo regnabit. though a man from the time that Adam was created even to the end of the world, were in warfare against the devil, and did suffer all afflictions and sorrows, yet should he do no great matter in comparison to the glory which he shall receive, being to reign with Christ world without end. Now then because all reasonable correspondence is quite sunk, Master Bishop's merit is quite drowned, and his device of Geometrical proportion will not serve his turn. But we are here to note the notable stupidity of this merit-monger Pharisee, who maketh the like correspondence betwixt the merit of man and the reward of heaven, as is betwixt the well deserving subject, and an office bestowed on him, betwixt him that striveth lawfully and the crown; betwixt the seed and the corn increasing thereof. Who would think that he could be so absurd, so basely to proportion those d 1. Cor. 2.9. good things which neither eye hath seen nor ear hath heard, nor have entered into man's heart, which God hath prepared for them that love him. And yet even in these comparisons how far is he beside the stool. For first we know that subjects do not challenge offices at their Prince's hands, by right and title of merit and desert, but by request of favour and grace. Whatsoever a man hath done, he hath done the duty of a subject, and it is at the discretion and pleasure of the Prince, to consider of that he hath done, and what is it to him, if his Prince bestow the office which he desireth, upon a man of meaner quality and worth than he thinketh himself to be? But if the honour and commodity of the office be far greater, as M. Bishop saith, than the merit of the man, shall we not think that he meriteth a dagger & a bell, that will go about hereby to approve a title of merit and desert with God? For if the reward of heaven be far greater than the merit of man, why doth he seek to make good our meriting thereof? As touching his second comparison of games & trial of masteries, he might easily conceive, that the prize ex condicto standeth good to him that winneth it, but there is no question of the value or worth of it, which haply is much less than to countervail the labour & pains that is bestowed for the gaining of it. As in the games of Olympus, the most famous that ever were in the world, the prize was but an Olive garland, nothing for worth in comparison of the pains & expense men were at, to prepare themselves, & to travel for the obtaining thereof. So that Tigranes when Mardonius had persuaded Zerxes to war against the Grecians, hearing thereof said unto him, e Polydor. Virgil. de invent. rerum. lib. 2. ca 13. Good Lord, Mardonius, what kind of men hast thou brought us to fight against, who try masteries not for gaining of money, but for showing of prowess and valour? So that the correspondence betwixt the gamester and the prize may be this, that the labour and pains on the one side is much, and the prize on the other side worth just nothing, nor is esteemed at all for the value and worth of it, and yet hereby forsooth Master Bishop will set forth unto us a correspondence betwixt the merit of our works, and the reward of heaven. As for the places of Scripture that he citeth hereof, the Apostle thereby setteth forth the consequence and order of the work and the reward, God having designed the one to the other, as the prize is proposed in the game, but as touching value and worth, as touching merit and desert he intendeth nothing therein. His third comparison is, that the grace of God is compared to seed, as where Saint john saith: f 1. john. 3. ●. His seed remaineth in him. In which place Saint john having said, that he that is borne of God sinneth not, that is, finally and utterly, giveth reason thereof; for that being once borne of God, though he do grievously fall, as did David and Peter, and many other, yet there is still a seed remaining in him, which albeit for the time it seem covered and dead, yet shall revive and spring again, and bring forth fruit unto God; and what is this to M. Bishop's merit? He telleth us, that by seed is imported the grace of God, but he doth not show us, that by seed is imported the merit of man. To what end then is this brought in, but to let us see that his head is idle, and doth not well advise what he hath to say? Well, we must conceive his meaning by that he saith, that a little seed bringeth forth abundance of corn. But we must ask him whether there be that reasonable correspondence betwixt the seed and the increase, as that the one in worth should be esteemed with the other? If M. Bishop should offer that correspondence to the husbandman for his crop, would he not judge him with his Geometrical proportion to be scarcely correspondent to a wise man? Shall we then think him well in his wits, that thinketh the seed of his merits to be a valuable consideration for the receiving of the crop of heavenly rewards? Again, the husbandman's increase of his seed whence proceedeth it? Doth he by sowing his seed, expect it as a matter of merit & desert? Is it not wholly the blessing of God that sendeth the early and latter rain, and giveth strength to the earth to bring forth increase thereof: Even so is it in all the reward that God bestoweth upon us. We sow the seed of our good works, but of themselves they yield us no fruit; there is no worth or merit in them to require wages at God's hands, but it is only the mercy and bounty of God whereby we shall reap the increase that we expect thereof. Thus M. Bishop can find no means to thrive. He hath been a farmer, and a freeman, and an officer, and a gamester, and a seedman, and yet every where he is crossed in his merit, and can no where light upon a foundation to set it firm and sure. And yet mark, gentle Reader, how with his reasonable correspondence he minceth the matter, over that other his fellows do. The Rhemistes speak plain English, as we have heard before, and tell us that their works are truly and properly meritorious, and not only reasonably, but fully worthy of everlasting life, that they have a right to heaven and deserve it worthily, and that God by his justice oweth it unto them. These are downright lads, that stick not to utter their minds, but M. Bishop he cometh in paltering with his Geometrical proportion, and reasonable correspondence, and like a young novice is abashed to say all, and by that means if good heed be not taken, is likely to mar the market of merit, to the harm of himself and the rest of them. Hitherto than it appeareth, that M. Perkins did rightly assign those four conditions or circumstances to be required in a meritorious work; which standing good as they do, there can be no merit; because all the good that we do is Gods, because in all we do but our duty, because that that we do doth not fully satisfy our duty, nor hath any due proportion or correspondence to the reward of heaven. 7. W. BISHOP. Exod. 20. His second testimony is, God will show mercy upon thousands, in them that love him and keep his commandments. Hence he reasoneth thus: Where reward is given upon mercy, there is no merit: but reward is given upon mercy, as the text proveth, ergo. Answer. That in that text is nothing, touching the reward of heaven which is now in question: God doth for his loving servants sake, show mercy unto their children or friends, either in temporal things, or in calling them to repentance, and such like: but doth never for one man's sake, bestow the kingdom upon another, unless the party himself be first made worthy of it. That confirmation of his, that Adam by his continual and perfect obedience, could not have procured a further increase of God's favour, is both besides the purpose, and most false: for as well he, as every good man sithence, by good use of God's gifts, might day by day increase them: And that no man think that in Paradise it should have been otherwise, S. Augustine saith expressly, That in the felicity of Paradise, In E●chir. cap. 25. righteousness preserved, should have ascended into better. And Adam finally, and all his posterity (if he had not fallen) should have been from Paradise translated alive into the Kingdom of heaven: this by the way. R. ABBOT. What, when God promiseth mercy to thousands in them that love him and keep his commandments, doth he mean his mercy to their children only, and not to themselves? and is the mercy that is promised only for earth, and not for heaven? Here M. Bishop as it appeareth, was hardly bestead, when he could find no way to get out, but by such a senseless and absurd shift. But to take away that corrupt gloze of his, the Prophet David expressly referreth all reward to God's mercy. a Psal. 62.12. Thou O Lord art merciful, or mercy O Lord is to be ascribed unto thee, for thou rewardest every man according to his work. Which words are general of every man, not signifying that which God doth to some for others sake, but that which every man receiveth for his own work, and import not only reward of temporal things, because they are the words which the Scripture every where useth to signify the reward that shall be given at that day. Now then there is no merit either in things temporal or eternal, because it is of mercy that God rewardeth every man according to his works. And thus of God's eternal mercy, the same Prophet alluding to the words of the commandment, saith in another place: b Psal. 103.17. The mercy of the Lord is for ever and ever upon them that fear him, and his righteousness towards their children's children, even such as keep his covenant, and think upon his commandments to do them. It is God's mercy then whereby to them that fear him and keep his commandments, he giveth reward for ever and ever, showing himself just also in performance of the same promise of his mercy to their children's children. But could not the blind man here see, how by his own answer he doth cirumvent himself? The place he saith must be understood of temporal graces and benefits, not of the reward of heaven. So then by mercy God bestoweth the reward of temporal benefits, but by merit he bestoweth the Kingdom of heaven. Now how strange a thing is it and improbable, that merits should extend to the purchase of the Kingdom of heaven, and yet should not serve to purchase temporal benefits here upon the earth? c Hieron. Si tanti vitrum, quanti pretiosissimum margaritum? If glass be of so great price, how much more worth is a most precious jewel? If earth be so much worth, as that mercy only can yield it, shall we think that we have merit to deserve heaven? But we will leave the man to his folly: it may be when he hath better considered of the matter, we shall have of him some wiser answer. In the mean time we acknowledge, that God doth not for one man's sake bestow the Kingdom of heaven upon another, but yet of mercy he bestoweth it both upon the one and upon the other, both upon the fathers and upon the children, even all that fear him and keep his commandments. And sith of mercy he bestoweth it, certain it is that they have no merit to deserve and challenge it, whosoever they be that love him and keep his commandments. That which he saith of Adam, he saith it without book, and hath no warrant for that he saith. As for the place of Austin, though it contain nothing but what is probable, yet we answer to it by a rule which the same S. Austin hath prescribed otherwhere, that d Aug de peccat. mer & remiss. lib. 2. ca 36. Vbi de re obscurissima disputatur, non adiwantibus divinarum scripturarum certis clarisque documentu, cohibere se debet hum●●a praesumptis, nihil faciins in alteram partem declinando. where there is controversy of a very obscure matter, there being no certain & clear instructions of holy Scriptures to help us therein, human presumption is to stay itself, doing nothing by inclining either way. 8 W. BISHOP. Now to the third Argument. Rom. 6. Scripture condemneth merit of works: The wages of sin is death. True. But we speak of good works, and not of bad, which the Apostle calleth sin: where were the man's wits? but it followeth there, That eternal life is the grace or gift of God. This is to purpose: but answered 1200. years past, by that famous Father Saint Augustine, in divers places of his most learned Works. I will note one or two of them. First, thus here ariseth no small doubt, De great. & lib. arb. cap. 8. which by God's help I will now discuss. For if eternal life be rendered unto good works, as the holy Scripture doth most clearly teach, (note) how then can it be called grace? when grace is given freely, and not repaid for works: and so pursuing the points of difficulty at large, in the end resolveth: that eternal life is most truly rendered unto good works, as the due reward of them: but because those good works could not have been done, unless God had before freely through Christ, bestowed his grace upon us, therefore the same eternal life, is also truly called grace: because the first root of it was Gods free gift. The very same answer doth he give, where he hath these words: Epist. 106. Eternal life is called grace, not because it is not rendered unto merits: but for that those merits to which it is rendered were given, in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly, affirming, that S. Paul might have said truly, eternal life is the pay or wages of good works: but to hold us in humility partly, and partly to put a difference between our salvation and damnation, chose rather to say, that the gift of God was life eternal: because of our damnation, we are the whole and only cause, but not of our salvation, but principally the grace of God, the only fountain of merit, and all good works. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins alleged the whole words of the Apostle, not to argue only from the assertion expressed in the latter part, that a Rom. 6.23. eternal life is the gift of God, but also from the connexion of the whole sentence, that whereas it being said, that the wages of sin is death, the sequel of the speech, if there were any merit in our works, should have been, The wages of righteousness is eternal life, he saith not so, but the gift of God is eternal life: and so both by that which he doth not say, and also by that which he doth say, showeth, that there is no place to be given to the merit and desert of man. Now Master Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by itself, The wages of sin is death, as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit, and asketh, Where were the man's wits? Surely his own wits were not so far from home, but that he well knew wherein the proof stood, but we see he is disposed sometimes to show his apish tricks, that we may see how he can skip and leap about the chain, howsoever he advantage himself nothing at all thereby. But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended, Eternal life is the gift of God through jesus Christ our Lord. He telleth us, that the place is answered 1200. years passed by S. Austin in divers places of his works. Now indeed it is true, that S. Austin in divers places of his works hath handled those words, but the spite is, that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serve M. Bishop for an answer. This may appear by that that he saith in the very same book, and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth: b August. de gr●● & 〈◊〉 arbit. cap. 9 C●●● posset dicere & rectè dicere, Sti●●end●m justitiae vita eterne, malu●●●●ē dicere, Gratia Dei, etc. ut intelligantus non pro merit● nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternam se● pro miseratione sua perducere, de quo, etc. Whereas the Apostle might say, and rightly say, The wages of righteousness is eternal life, yet he chose rather to say, The grace of God is eternal life, that we may understand, that not for our merits, but for his own mercy's sake he bringeth us to eternal life, whereof it is said in the Psalm, He crowneth thee in mercy and compassion. Hereby it may seem, that S. Austin meant to yield M. Bishop small help by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits. But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop, she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissi●●è dicit Scriptura, Quoniam Deus red●es, etc. quomodo gratia est vita aeterna, cum gratia non operibus reddatur, sed gratis detur, etc. how eternal life should be called the grace of God, seeing that it is elsewhere said, that God will render unto every man according to his works. The difficulty he showeth to arise of this, that that is called grace, which is not rendered unto works, but is freely given. Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle: If it be of grace it is not of works; otherwise grace is no grace. Then he solueth the question thus, that d Intelligamus & ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere. we must understand that our good works to which eternal life is rendered, do belong also to the grace of God, signifying that God of his mercy intending to give us eternal life, doth by the same mercy give us those good works to which he will give it. For conclusion of that Chapter, he saith consequently: that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est qu●m Dei gratia sine dubio & vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est: & ipsa enim gratis ●ata est, quia gratis data est illa cui datur: sed illa cui datur, tantum. modo gratia est; haec autem quae illi datur quomam praemium eius est, gratia est pro gratia, tanquam merces pro justitia, ut verum sit, etc. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God, therefore undoubtedly eternal life, which is rendered unto good life is the grace of God: for that is freely given, because that is freely given to which it is given. But good life to which eternal life is given, is only grace; eternal life which is given to good life, because it is the reward thereof, is grace for grace, as it were a reward for righteousness, that it may be true, as it is true, that God will render to every man according to his works. In all which discourse plainly he showeth, that good life is the grace and gift of God, and when God rendereth thereto eternal life, he doth but add one grace to another grace, which although it be as it were a reward for righteousness, yet is indeed but grace for grace. Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before, that f Supra Sect. 2. August. in Psal. 109. Whatsoever God promised, he promised to men unworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to works, but being grace, might according to the name be freely given, because to live justly, so far as a man can live justly, is not a matter of man's merit, but of the gift of God. So that although eternal life be as it were a reward of righteousness in consequence and order, yet absolutely to speak it is not so, because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God. Now if God by his free gift intending to us eternal life, do give us his grace to lead a just and holy life, that thereto he may give it, have we reason hereupon with M. Bishop, of mercy whereby we should glorify God, to build up merit and desert for the glorifying of ourselves? or shall we rather subscribe that which S. Austin saith for conclusion of that whole disputation concerning that place of the Apostle, as before I cited, that it is not for our merits that God bringeth us to eternal life, but for his own mercy's sake. The other place cited by M. Bishop is wholly to the same effect: g Idem Epist. 105. Cùm Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quàm munera sua, sicut enim ab initio fidei mi sericordiam consecuti sumus, non quia fideles eramus, sed ut essemus, sic in fine corona bit nos in miseratione & misericordia. unde & vita ipsa aeterna gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur nec ideò quia meritis non datur, sed quia data sunt & ipsa merita quibus datur. When God crowneth our merits, he crowneth nothing else but his own gifts. For as from the beginning we obtained mercy to be faithful, so in the end he shall crown us in compassion and mercy. Whence eternal life is called grace for no other cause, but because it is freely given, not for that it is not rendered to merits, but for that the merits themselves are given to which it is given. In which there is nothing that giveth any show of favour to M. Bishop but the very name of merits, but that that helpeth him nothing shall appear hereafter, S. Austin meaning thereby merely good works, without any conceit of merit as it is now understood in the Church of Rome. Yea and that appeareth plainly here also: for if God in crowning merits, crown nothing but his own gifts, than those merits are not truly and properly so called, because a man cannot properly merit at God's hands by that that is to him nothing else but the gift of God. And this S. Austin showeth further in that that followeth: h Ibid. Cui debetur vita aeterna vera justitia est. Si autem vera justitia est ex te non est: desursum est, descendens à Patre luminum, etc. Qua propter, o homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam, justitiae quidem stipendium est, sed tibi gratia est, ●ui gratia est & ipsa justitia. Tibi enim tanquam debita red: redderetur, si ex te tibi esset justitia cui debetur. Nunc ergo, etc. ut supra Sect. 3. It is true righteousness to which eternal life is due. But if it be true, it is not of thyself, it is from above, descending from the Father of lights: that thou mightst have it, if at least thou have it, verily thou hast received it. For what hast thou that thou hast not received? Wherefore o man, if thou be to receive eternal life, it is indeed the wages of righteousness, but to thee it is grace to whom righteousness itself also is grace. It should be rendered as due unto thee, if of thyself thou hadst the righteousness to which it is due. Now therefore of his fullness we receive not only grace, etc. but also grace for grace, etc. If eternal life be merited and deserved by us, then to us it is the wages of righteousness; than it is rendered as due unto us. But S. Austin though he confesseth, that it may be said, that it is the wages of righteousness, yet denieth it to be so to us; and denieth that it is rendered as due unto us. Therefore it must necessarily be granted, that it is not merited and deserved by us: it can no way be avoided, but that if it be deserved by us, it is due unto us: but it is not due unto us, saith S. Austin, because the righteousness is none of ours. There is therefore on our behalf no merit, no desert to which it should be accounted due. Thus S. Austin wholly bendeth himself to establish the truth of the grace of God, against the Pelagian heretics, and saith nothing whereof M. Bishop may infer the doctrine of merit, which he together with them maintaineth against the grace of God. But for the further declaring of S. Austin's mind, I will observe that one sentence of his upon the Psalms: i Aug. in Psal. 144. Data est venia peccatori, datus spiritus iustificationis, data est charitas & dilectio, in qua omnia bona faci a 〈◊〉 super haec dabit & vitam aeternam & societatem Angelorum: totum de misericordia. M●rita tua nusquam iactes, quia & ipsa sua merita illius dona sunt. To thee being a sinner is granted forgiveness; the spirit of justification is given thee; there is given thee charity and love, whereby to do all good things: and beyond all these things, he will give thee also eternal life, and the society of the Angels, all of mercy. Do not talk of thy merits any where, because even thy merits also are his gifts. In which words it plainly appeareth, that albeit S. Austin useth the name of merit, according to the language of his time, yet he did it not in any such sense, but as still intending, that both in the beginning, and in the proceeding and in the end all is wholly and only to be ascribed unto God's mercy. But M. Bishop telleth us here, that S. Austin crosseth M. Perkins proportion, in that he affirmeth, that S. Paul might have said, that eternal life is the wages of good works. Wherein he doth but deceive himself; because to speak simply it is true, that eternal life is the stipend and wages of true and perfect righteousness, according to the sentence of the law: k Gal. 3 12 He that doth these things shall live in them; and yet it is so but only by covenant and condition, not by merit, because in doing all we should do but that that we are bound to do. But as hath been already said, S. Austin, though he grant that simply it might have been so termed, yet denieth it to be so to us. It is indeed the stipend or wages of righteousness, but to thee it is grace, that is, to thee it is no stipend. Now this is spoken upon a supposal of entire and perfect righteousness, but take withal the exceptions that S. Austin putteth in by the way, as we have seen: l Si tamen habet Epist. 105. if at least thou have it; and again, m Inquantum homo potest justè vinerean Psal. 109. so far as a man can live justly, and let it be considered herewith, which out of Austin hath been abundantly declared in the former question, that there is no righteousness so perfect in this life, as that thereby we can be found just in the sight of God, and then merit and stipend shall be excluded, not only for that our righteousness is the gift of God, but also for that we have not that righteousness to which the stipend and wages of righteousness should be due. But let us here consider the reasons which M. Bishop setteth down in S. Austin's name, why he did not say: The wages of righteousness is eternal life: partly, saith he, to hold us in humility. Well, but yet it was not S. Augustine's meaning, that the Apostle would keep us in humility by concealing that that is true, but by withholding us from conceiving proudly of ourselves that that is not true: n Ne justitia de humano se extolleret bono merito lest (saith S. Austin) righteousness should advance itself as of any merit that man should have thereby. Again, partly (saith he) to put difference between salvation and damnation. This reason he maketh of his own, S. Austin hath it not: but what is that difference? Observe it well, gentle Reader, for herein is the secret, and thou shalt see the lewdness of there wretched men in abusing the name of S. Austin to the colouring of their falsehood. We are (forsooth) the whole and only cause of our damnation, but not of our salvation, but principally the grace of God. The grace of God he saith is principally the cause of our salvation, but not the whole and only cause: for we must understand, that we ourselves by our Free will are a part of the cause of our salvation. Yea upon Free will they hang the effect of the grace of God, and from thence do they derive unto man that merit whereby he doth deserve eternal life. For they know well, that man cannot be said to merit any thing by that that is wholly the gift of God: and therefore for the upholding of merit and desert, they are so eager and earnest for the maintenance of free will. They walk in this behalf in the very steps of the Pelagian heretics, who as Prosper recordeth, alleged for defence of Free will, o Prosper de li. arbit. Asserunt nec laudem ha b●re eos, nec meritum qui ex dono gratiae sunt fide●es. that men can have no commendation nor merit, who are faithful by the gift of grace. So S. Hierome bringeth in the Heretic saying resolutely: p H●●r●n. adver. Pelagic Mihi ●ullus ●nf●●re pe●erit arbitrij libertatem, ne si in operibus m●s Deus adiutor extu●rit non mihi debeatur merces sed ei qui in me operatus est. No man shall take away from me free will, lest if God be my helper in my works the reward be not due to me, but to him that worketh in me. Even so Popish merit standeth upon free will: for q Rhemish Annot. in Rom. 9.14 men, say the Rhemists, work by their own Free will, and thereby deserve their salvation. So saith Alphonsus de Castro, r Alphons. de Castro adu hear. lib. 7 in Gratia. Ex hoc quòdnos monitio● illius consentimus, qui tamen dissentire poteramus, debetur nobis merces & praemium & inde meritum nostrum. In that we by free will consent to God's monition, who yet had it in our power to dissent, a reward and wages is due unto us, and thence is our merit. In like sort Andradius telleth us, that s Andrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 6. Nostra merita dicuntur quia liberè & spontè illas actiones suscipimus quibus apud Deum promeremur. they are called our merits, because we freely and voluntarily undertake those actions whereby we merit with God. Now of this poisonful doctrine whereby man is made partaker with God in the glory of our salvation, they would make S. Austin a partaker and patron with them, who in condemning the Pelagian heresy, condemned the same, and challengeth our good works which he calleth merits, wholly and only unto God. So he saith, that t August. Epist. 105. Omne bonum meritum nostrum non in nobis facis nisi gratia. all our good work or merit is wrought unto us by grace only, that u Jdem Hy●og. lib. 3. justorum per totam seculi vitam meritum em●● est gr●tia. all the merit of the just through the whole life of this world is grace. x De ve●. Dom. S●rm. 7. Totum reputa quòd justus es pietati. That thou art just, saith he, repute it wholly to mercy. y De verb. Apost Ser. 16. Totum quòd sumus & quòd habemus boni ab illo habemus. That that we are and have in goodness, we have it wholly of him. To that purpose he allegeth against the Pelagians a speech of Cyprians, requiring that z Idem de bo●o pursue. cap. 6 ex Cypriano de Orat. Dom. Nequis sibi superbè arroganterque aliqu●d assumas, nequis aut confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam dicat, etc. ut dum praecedit humilis & submissa confessio, & datur totum Deo qu●cquid suppliciter cum Dei timore petitur, ipsius pretate praestetur. no man proudly and arrogantly assume any thing to himself, nor call the glory of confessing or suffering his own, that whilst humble and lowly confession goeth before, and all wholly is yielded unto God, it may be granted unto us by his mercy, whatsoever we humbly request in the fear of God. Now according to those words of yielding or attributing all wholly unto God, he saith in the same place, a Jbid Tutiores vivimus si totum Deod●●●us, & non nos illi ex part, & notis ex part committimus. We live more safely if we attribute all wholly to God, and do not commit ourselves partly to God and partly to ourselves. For reason whereof he saith anon after, that b Jbid cap. 7. Post casum hominis nonnifi ad gratiam suam Deus pertinere voltus, ut homo accedat ad eum; neque nisi ad gratiam suam pertinere volunt, ut homo non recedat ab eo. after the fal● of man, God would not have it belong to any thing but to his grace that we come unto him, nor would have it to belong to any thing but his grace, that we do not departed from him. And to those words of Cyprian he alludeth in divers and sundry places, as namely, where he saith, that c Enchir. cap. 32 Proptereà dictum Non volentis, etc. ut detur totum Deo. See of , Sect 15. therefore the Apostle saith, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that all wholly may be attributed unto God, discoursing at large, that our willing and our running is not to be divided betwixt the will of man and the mercy of God, because then as it is said on the one side, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, because the will of man alone sufficeth not, so on the other side it may be said, It is not of God that showeth mercy, but of him that willeth and him that runneth, because the mercy of God alone sufficeth not. Now it were wickedness thus to cross and contradict the Apostles words, and therefore doth he conclude, that all is wholly to be ascribed unto God's mercy. See then the good dealing, or rather the lewd falsehood of M. Bishop and his fellows who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits, that good works are principally indeed of God, but yet partly of ourselves, do allege S. Austin for the defence thereof, who constantly teacheth to the utter overthrow of merits, that our good works are wholly and only of the grace of God, and in no part of ourselves. This is one thing for which we justly detest them, as setting up the glory of man in stead of the glory of God; the righteousness of man in stead of the righteousness of God, and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternal life, do bereave them of God's mercy, by which only they should attain the same. And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly fair words, as we see here by M. Bishop, who having said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our salvation, and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof, yet addeth, that the grace of God is the only fountain of merit and all good works. If grace be the only fountain of all good works, than all good works proceed only from grace, and if only from grace, then what can we merit or deserve thereby? If we merit and deserve thereby, than they are partly of us, and of our free will, & then grace is not the only fountain of merit and all good works. Therefore let him not lie in this sort; let him speak as he meaneth, & acknowledge that which they all maintain, that good works are therefore our merits, because they proceed from our Free will, and are no otherwise our merits, neither do we otherwise deserve by them, but as they proceed from our free will. Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do, all is nothing with them unless man adjoin thereto the work of his own free will. Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free will, or else let him leave with colourable words thus to delude and mock the simple and ignorant reader, in saying that which he thinketh not, that the grace of God is the only fountain of merit and all good works. 9 W. BISHOP. Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about justification, We are saved freely, not of ourselves, or by the works of righteousness, which we have done. I have often answered that the Apostle speaks of works done by our own forces, without the help of God's grace: and therefore they cannot serve against works done, in and by grace. R. ABBOT. The oftenness of his answer showeth the corruption of his conscience, that was not moved with so often repeating a manifest untruth. What, was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians, that they were not saved by the works which they did, when they yet were a Eph. 2.1. dead (as he saith) in trespasses and sins, or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reform in them? Did they renounce their former works to come to Christ that they might be saved by him, and did they afterwards grow again to a conceit of being saved by their former works? These are gross and palpable untruths, neither hath the Scripture any thing at all, that may give any show for warrant of such construction. Nay, as hath been before said, when the Apostle having said, b Ver. 9 Not of works lest any man should boast, addeth as a reason and proof hereof: c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ jesus unto good works, etc. as if he should have said, We cannot be said to be saved by works, because our works are none of ours, but God's works in us, he plainly showeth, that not only works before grace, but after also are excluded from being any cause of our salvation. The place to Titus likewise resteth our salvation only upon d Tit. 3.5. God's mercy, and therefore leaveth no place to our good works, and therefore it is used by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against works before grace, but e Bernard. in Cant. ser. 50. that we may know at that day, that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us. 10. W. BISHOP. Now to that text which he hudleth up together with the rest, although it deserved a better place, being one of their principal pillars in this controversy: it is, Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory to come. The strength of this objection lieth in a false translation of these words, Axia pros tein doxan equal to that glory, or in the misconstruction of them: for we grant (as hath been already declared) that our afflictions and sufferings be not equal in length or greatness with the glory of heaven; for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life, and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heaven; notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour, employed by a righteous man in the service of God, doth merit the other greater and of longer continuance, and that by the said Apostles plain words, 2. Cor. 4. for (saith he) That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light, doth work above measure exceedingly an everlasting weight of glory in us. The reason is, that just men's works issue out of the fountain of grace, which giveth a heavenly value unto his works. Again, it maketh him a quick member of Christ, and so receiving influence from his head, his works are raised to an higher estimate: it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost, and so maketh him partaker of the heavenly nature, as S. Peter speaketh: which adds a worth of heaven to his works. 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heaven, which any pure creature attaineth unto of infinite dignity, as M Perkins fableth, but hath his certain bounds and measure, according unto each man's merits, otherwise it would make a man equal to God in glory: for there can be no greater than infinite, as all learned men do confess. R. ABBOT. These words of S. Paul to the Romans, a Rom. 8.18. The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed upon us, are very directly cited, and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand. M. Bishop saith, that that text is one of our principal pillars in this controversy; and indeed it is so strong a pillar, as that all M. Bishop's strength is not able to shake it from upholding that which we profess to teach by it. But yet pro forma he chargeth us with false translation and misconstruction. He telleth us, that we should not say, worthy of the glory, but equal to the glory. The Greek word, as grammarians note, doth by his original signify those things which being put into the balance, are of equal weight and poise one to the other, and from thence is it taken to signify worth or worthiness, because there is a full correspondence of value betwixt that that is said to be worthy, and the thing that it is worthy of. And according to this usual signification of the word, do we translate, not worthy of the glory, etc. and though we should translate not equal, yet must we perforce understand it as touching equality in worth. And herein their own vulgar translation doth justify us, Non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, etc. that is, as the Rhemists translate it, The passions of this time are not condign to the glory to come, etc. for what is condign but equal or comparable in worth; whence they take their meritum condigni or ex condigno, to be that which in value and worth is fully equivalent to the reward. Therefore Arias Montanus ad verbum readeth it thus, Non dignae passiones nunc temporis ad futuram gloriam, etc. The sufferings of this time are not worthy to the glory to come: which what is it but the same as to say, they are not comparable in worth to the glory to come? Now then why doth he go about to impeach our translation, when it is thus approved by their own? But that it may plainly appear that we have no way falsified or misconstrued this text, let us see in what sort the ancient Fathers have cited and applied the same. Saint Austin readeth the words thus, b August. lib. 83. quaest. 67. Jndignae sunt passiones huius temporis, etc. The sufferings of this time are unworthy to the glory to come: and saying in another place, that c Idem de Civit. Dei. lib. 5. cap. 18. Nullo mods superbiant sancts Martyrs, tanquam dignum aliquid pro illius patriae participatione fecerint, ubiaterna est & vera foelicitas. Et sub finem: superbia ne extollamur; Quoniam sicut dicit Apostolus, Indigna, etc. the holy Martyrs are not to be proud as if they did any worthy matter for the participation of that country where is eternal and true happiness: allegeth afterwards for reason hereof these words, Because as the Apostle saith, the sufferings of this time are unworthy, etc. In the very same sort doth d Ambros. de jacob. lib. 1. cap. 6. & de Interpellat. Job. lib. 1. cap. 1. & in Psal 118. ser. 19 Ambrose cite the same words in sundry places, and although in the text inserted in his commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, he read as the vulgar Latin doth, yet in expounding the next verse he expresseth the effect thereof thus, e Idem in Rom. 8. Praesentu temporis passiones indignas dixit ad futuram gloriam. The Apostle hath said that the sufferings of this time are unworthy to the glory to come. Therefore elsewhere alluding to those words, he saith that the Saints f Idem de bono mortis. cap. 2. Gloriosam mercedem laboris exigui incipientes recipere cognoscent indignas esse passiones huius temporis, quibus remunerationis aeternae gloria tanta refertur. when they shall begin to receive the glorious reward of their small pains, shall know that the sufferings of this time are unworthy to have so great glory of eternal reward yielded unto them. And again in another place, g Idem de interpellat. David ca 2. Indigna sunt quae in hoc corpore sustinemus remuneratione futurae gloriae. The things which we suffer in this body, are unworthy of the reward of the glory to come. Hierome upon that place saith, that h Hieronim. in Rom. 8. Revereà nihil posset homo condignum pati gloriae coelesti etiamsi talis esset ilia qualis modo est vita. etc. a man could do nothing comparable in worth to the heavenly glory, albeit it were but even such as this life is. For whatsoever a man shall suffer before death, it is no more than he deserved before by his sins. But now both his sins be forgiven him, and then eternal life shall be given, the company of Angels, the brightness of the Sun, etc. Oecumenius expoundeth it, that i Oecumen. in Rom. 8. Non possumus quiequam futura retributione condignum aut pati aut ad illam confer. we cannot suffer any thing worthy of the reward to come, or help any whit thereto. Fulgentius having said that k Fulgent. ad Momin. lib. 1. supra sect. 6. the gift of God's reward doth incomparably and unspeakably exceed all the merit of the good will and work of man, bringeth for proof hereof these words of the Apostle, The sufferings of this time, etc. Bernard likewise affirming that l Bernard. in Annunciat. ser. 1. supra sect. 3. the merits of men are not such as that eternal life may be due unto them of right: & ask, what are all merits to so great glory: for confirmation citeth also the same words, and addeth, m Nec si vni● omnes sustineat. No not if one man did endure them all. By all which it may appear how truly M. Bishop and his fellows make construction of this place, that the sufferings of this time are not equal in length and greatness to the glory to come, but yet for value and worth they be equal to it, and the one doth merit the other, expressly contrary to their own text and translation. But to prove this, he allegeth further that the Apostle saith, that n 2. Cor. 4.17. this momentany and light tribulation worketh unto us a far most excellent and eternal weight of glory. Yet we find not here the thing that he would prove, that this short and light tribulation doth merit and deserve that most excellent and eternal weight of glory: nay who doth not see, that it is plainly excluded by the words? For if our sufferings and good works be but according to the scant and small measure of our frail and weak condition, short in time, and light in burden, and on the other side, the glory to come be exceedingly or beyond measure excellent, surely then apparent it is, that the littleness and lightness of the one can never in worth attain to the unmeasurable excellency of the other. But he will say, the one worketh the other, the affliction worketh unto us the glory. True, and what then? Doth the one therefore merit and deserve the other? Surely as it is said of affliction, so it may be said of them that afflict us, that they work unto us an excellent and an eternal weight of glory; and yet it cannot be said that they deserve the same for us. Affliction worketh unto us glory, only as an instrumental cause, which beyond the nature thereof God useth amongst other means to prepare us and fit us to be partakers of his glory. He thereby o job 33.16.17 openeth our ears, and subdueth our pride, and p Osc. 14.5. healeth our rebellions, and frameth us to understanding, and q Heb. 12.10. maketh us partakers of his holiness, and r 2. Cor. 4.16. whilst our outwardman is corrupted, our inner man is renewed from day to day. In a word, s 1. Cor. 11 32. when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. t Chrysosan Gen. hom. 25. Afflictiones nos inducunt ut operemur bona Deoque gratae opera. Afflictions (saith chrysostom) do induce us to those things that are good and acceptable unto God. And thus the Apostle telleth us, that u Rom. 8.28. all things work together for good unto them that love God: yea saith Saint Austin, x August. sol●leq. cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonum etiam ipsa peccata. vide de corrept. & gratia. cap 9 even their very sins: and yet M. Bishop will not say, that all things and specially their sins do merit and deserve the same good unto them. Yea the devil himself, by the overruling hand of God, is made to work unto us our salvation and glory, whilst (as Ambrose saith) y Ambr. de poenit. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ipse se morsu suo vulnerat et contra se armas, quem debilitandum pu ravit, etc. imperant Christo & diabolus ipse fit praede suae custos. he armeth us against himself, and by the commandment of Christ is made the keeper of him whom he would make a prey; whilst by being exercised with his temptations, we grow stronger in faith, and patience, and obedience, and so more and more able to resist him. Therefore neither have these words of the Apostle any thing for M. Bishop's turn, that our sufferings here do merit the glory of the life to come. Yet, as if he had very firmly proved his merit, he goeth on to tell us how it cometh to pass that our works have this virtue, because they issue out of the fountain of grace, which giveth a heavenly value unto them. To which purpose their Andradius saith, that z Andrad. Orthod. explic. lib. 6. Divinitatem quandam habeant necesse est, etc. Tantum promerentur, quantum spiritus quo ducuntur dignitas atque amplitudo postulat. our works have a kind of divine quality, and we deserve so much thereby, as the dignity and excellency of the spirit requireth, by which we are led. But if we have this heavenly value, no otherwise but as they proceed from the grace of God, what have we thereby to challenge to ourselves? how should we be said to merit by that that is none of ours? It hath been already showed that it cannot be ascribed as a merit unto us, which is wrought of God in us. And it is worth the while to note here the giddiness of these men. The heavenly value and merit of their works cometh of the grace of God, and yet forsooth they merit nothing by them but as they proceed from their own free will. Why are they thus warbling and turning to and fro? Either let them say that the value of good works is wholly of the grace of God, and then what is the worth thereof to them; or if they will say that they merit thereby, let them say that they have a value and worth from them, whereby they deserve for them? But what will they say to Fulgentius and Bernard, who expressly say, as we have heard, of the good works that are given of God, that God's reward doth incomparably and unspeakably exceed all the merit thereof, and that they are not such as that by any right eternal life should be due unto them. And when Austin and Ambrose say, that the afflictions of this life are unworthy to the glory to come, of whose afflictions or sufferings do they speak but of the Saints, even as the Apostle doth, who suffer by the gift and grace of God, are members of Christ and temples of the holy Ghost, even of those sufferings wherein they suffer with Christ; of which Saint Ambrose yet further saith, to show the meaning of the words here in hand, a Ambr. epis. 22. Conglorificatur ille qui patiendo pro ipso compatitur ei. & ut hortetur ad passionem adiungit quoniam minora sunt omnia quae patimur & indigna pro quorum laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum. He is together glorified, who in suffering for him suffereth with him: and that the Apostle may exhort us to suffering, he addeth, that all those things which we suffer, are too little and unworthy, that for the pains thereof so great reward of good things to come should be returned unto us. As for the infiniteness of the glory of heaven, M. Bishop well knoweth, but that his idle head delighteth to make matter to talk of, that M. Perkins was never so idly conceited, as to imagine it according to his construction, that any pure creature enjoyeth the same in infinite extent of measure and greatness, but only of time and continuance, because it hath no end. Now infinite in what sort soever, cannot be answered but by that that is infinite. The trespass of man against the infinite majesty of God, could not sufficiently be answered but by the infinite punishment, which because it could not be in greatness, whereof a creature could not be capable, was therefore supplied and made infinite by continuance. For the taking away thereof, there was to be yielded an infinite satisfaction, which the Son of God yielded by the infiniteness of his person, though by only temporary sufferings and death. As then to take away a punishment not infinite in greatness, but in continuance there was necessarily required the merit of an infinite person, so to purchase the glory of heaven, which to the Saints is infinite in continuance only, not in greatness, there is likewise required the merit of an infinite person, which is only the merit of jesus Christ; so far are we from doing any thing that may carry any semblable proportion of merit and desert. Now infiniteness of glory as touching continuance, doth not make a man equal to God, nay it doth not make the Saints of God equal one to another, who are different in measure of glory, though every one enjoyeth the measure that he hath infinitely and without end. Thus M. Bishop like a drunken man is still offering to stand up, but at every next step tumbleth down again, and can say nothing, but what still redoundeth to his own harm. The pillar we see standeth firm and sure, and he can find no means to throw it down. 11. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins fourth reason. Whosoever will merit, must fulfil the whole Law: for if we offend in one commandment, we are guilty of the whole Law; but no man can fulfil the whole Law. ergo. Answer. I deny the first proposition: for one good work done with his due circumstances, doth bring forth merit, as by all the properties of merit may be proved at large, and by his own definition of merit set down in the beginning. Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sin, he loseth his former merit: but recovering grace, he riseth to his former merit, as the learned gather out of that saying of our Saviour, in the person of the good father, Luc. ●5. Do on him (that is on his prodigal son returning home) his former garment. His second proposition is also false, as hath been proved at large in a several question. To that of Saint james, although it belong not to this matter, I answer, that he who offendeth in one, is made guilty of all, that is, he shall be as surely condemned, as if he had broken all: See Saint Augustine. Epist. 29. ad Hieron. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins saith, that he that will merit must fulfil the whole Law. M. Bishop denieth that, and saith that one good work done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit. Now happy men are they with whom one good work is of so great worth. But what doth a man merit by that one work? Surely if it be a merit of heaven, I doubt not but M. Bishop for his part in that meriting faculty wherein he liveth, hath in his opinion by many merits devoured a number of the heavens of Democritus his innumerable worlds. But I pray you tell us M. Bishop, if he be a Gal. 3.10. cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, how should any man merit by performing only one thing? If life be tied only to the doing of all, why do you make so many merits of that which by the sentence of the Law can yield only one? Nay S. james plainly telleth us, as M. Perkins allegeth, that b jam. 2.10. he that keepeth the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, is guilty of all, that is, he is in general guilty of breaking the Law, and therefore lieth under the curse that is pronounced by the Law. But this place M. Bishop saith belongeth not to this matter, and why, but because he knew not what to say unto it? for that that he doth say, doth fully make against himself. For how should one work done with his due circumstances bring forth merit, when notwithstanding the doing of many works with their due circumstances, a man for offending in any one is as surely to be condemned as if he had broken all? Marry saith he, a man may merit, and after by falling into any mortal sin, he loseth his merit. But that cannot be: for the Law as hath been said, maketh no promise but to him that fulfilleth all; and therefore till a man have fulfilled all, he can merit nothing; and therefore hath merited nothing by any former act or acts, if afterward he fall into any trespass of the Law. Now therefore there can be no rising again to former merit, where there is no merit at all, and the place which he citeth in that sort as he citeth it, may import a renewing to the former estate; but as touching merit, it importeth nothing at all. But whether those words of S. james belong to this matter or not, let S. jerom tell him, who thereupon infers thus, c Hieron. adver. Pelag. lib. 2. Quis nostrum aliquando non peccavit? Si autem peccavit (quod negari nou potest) & per unum peccatum omnium est reui peccatorum, non suis viribus sed Dei misericordia saluatur. Which of us hath not sometime sinned? And if he have sinned (which cannot be denied) and by one sin be guilty of all sins, then is he not saved by his own power but by God's mercy. The place then by his judgement, taketh away from man all power of being saved by any thing in himself, and leaveth him to be saved only by the mercy of God. To the other proposition of M. Perkins argument, he answereth also by denial, and saith that in a several question he hath proved that a man may fulfil the whole law: but by that he hath read the disproof of his proof, it will appear to him I hope that he hath proved nothing. Now it is to be observed how silly he omitteth the place of S. john alleged by M. Perkins, d 1. joh. 1.8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. which invincibly proveth that no man fulfilleth the whole law, because there is no man without sin, and every sin is e Cap. 3.4. the transgression of the law. 12. W. BISHOP. His fift reason. We are taught to pray on this manner, Give us this day our daily bread: where we acknowledge every morsel of bread to be the mere gift of God, much more must we confess heaven to be. Answ. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer; but he handleth the matter so handsomely, that a man may think him to be so profoundly learned, that he doth not yet understand the Pater noster: for who taketh our daily food to be so merely the gift of God, that we must not either make it ours with our penny or travel, we must not look to be fed from heaven by miracle, by the mere gift of God, but according unto S. Paul's rule, either labour for our living in some approved sort, or not eat. Yet because our travels are in vain unless God bless them, we pray to God daily to give us our nouriture, either by sending or preserving the fruits of the earth, or by prospering our labours with good success: or if they be men who live of alms, by stirring up the charitable to relieve them. So we pray, and much more earnestly, that God will give us eternal life: yet by such means as it hath pleased God to ordain, one of which and the principal is by the exercise of good works, which God hath appointed us to walk in, to deserve it. And it cannot but savour of a Satanical spirit, to call it a Satanical insolency (as M. Perkins doth) to think that eternal life can be merited: when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christ's time so thought and taught in most express terms. R. ABBOT. It well appeareth that M. Perkins better understood the Lords prayer, then that he had any need to learn of any such slender master as M. Bishop is. The argument which he useth, is very effectual and strong. If we cannot merit the food of this life, but must crave it of gift, much less can we merit everlasting life. But saith M. Bishop, our daily bread is not so merely the gift of God, but that we must either make it ours with our penny or travel; we must labour for our lining, etc. Be it so; and yet by all our expense and labours and travels we merit nothing; we look for nothing by desert, but crave it of the blessing and free gift of God. Let M. Bishop say, Is there any man, who by his labour and pains can challenge at God's hands a morsel of bread as of merit and desert? If he cannot, but is still bound to cry amidst all his travels, Give us this day our daily bread, why doth he put man in opinion of meriting at God's hands eternal life, who cannot by all his works bind God unto him for his daily bread? We labour therefore to lay hold of eternal life by such means as God hath ordained, and by the exercise of good works which God hath prepared for us to walk in, but after all our labour we still beg eternal life at God's hands, as of his mere blessing and gift, that it may be true both in the beginning and in the end, that a Rom. 6.23. eternal life is the gift of God through jesus Christ our Lord. Yet he telleth us that God hath appointed good works for us to walk in to deserve eternal life. But where hath he so appointed? We find that God b 1. joh. 5.11. in his Son hath given unto us eternal life, and that he hath c Ephes. 2.10. prepared for us good works to walk in, as the Apostle speaketh, namely to that eternal life which he hath given us, but that he hath appointed us good works to deserve eternal life, M. Bishop cannot tell us where to find. Now because the spirit of God hath not any where taught us so to conceive, what is it but Satanical insolency thus to teach against the doctrine of the spirit? And whereas he saith that Saint Austin and the best spirit of men since Christ's time, have taught that heaven may be merited, we first tell him, that all that is nothing unless Christ himself have so taught: and secondly, that he falsely fathereth upon the Fathers this misbegotten bastard of merit, which in that meaning as he and his fellows teach it, was never imagined by the Fathers, as partly hath appeared already, and shall (God willing) appear further. 13. W. BISHOP. But let us hear his last argument, which is (as he speaketh) the consent of the ancient Church, and then beginneth with S. Bernard, who lived a thousand years after Christ: he (in I know not what place, the quotation is so doubtful) saith, Those things which we call merits, are the way to the kingdom, but not the cause of reigning. I answer, that merits be not the whole cause, but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on us, out of which our merits proceed: Ser. 68 in Cantie which is Bernard's own doctrine. Manu●l. cap. 22. Secondly, he citeth S. Augustine: All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit. True in a good sense: that is, by virtue of his death and passion my sins are pardoned, and grace is bestowed on me to do good works, and so to merit. In Psal. 114. Thirdly Basil: Eternal life is reserved for them that have striven lawfully, not for the merit of their doing, but upon the grace of the most bountiful God. These words are untruly translated: for first he maketh with the Apostle, eternal life to be the prize of that combat, and then addeth, that it is not given according unto the debt and just rate of the works, but in a fuller measure, according unto the bounty of so liberal a Lord: where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence, That God punisheth men under their deserts, but rewardeth them above their merits. Psal. 120. 4. M. Perkins turns back to Augustine upon the Psal. 120. where he saith (as M. Perkins reporteth) He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits. Answ. S. Augustine was too wise to let any such foolish sentence pass his pen. What congruity is in this? He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits. It had been better said, He crowneth thee not, etc. But he mistook belike this sentence of S. Augustins': When God crowneth thee, he crowneth his gifts, not thy merits. De great. & lib. arb. cap. 6. Which is true, being taken in that sense which he himself declareth: To such a man so thinking (that is, that he hath merits of himself, without the grace of God) it may be most truly said, God doth crown his own gifts, not thy merits, if thy merits be of thyself, and not from him: but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with us, than we may as truly say, that eternal life is the crown and reward of merits. His other place on the Psalm is not to this purpose, Psal. 142. but appertains to the first justification of a sinner, as the first word, quicken and revive me, showeth plainly: now we confess that a sinner is called to repentance and revived, not for any desert of his own, but of God's mere mercy. R. ABBOT. The place of Bernard, is in the very end of his book De gratia & libero arbitrio, where having before divided a Bernar. de great. et lib arbit. Dona sua Deus in merita divisit & proemia. the gifts of God into merits and rewards, he showeth that merits are wholly to be ascribed unto God, because b Non equidem quòd consensus ip se in quo meritum omne consistit ab ipso (libero arbitrio) sit, etc. Deus facit volentem, hoc est voluntati suae consentientem. to consent to God, which is the thing wherein merit wholly consisteth, is not of our free will, but of God himself. So that although God in the work of man's salvation do use the will of man himself, yet there is nothing in the will of man to that purpose, but what is c Totum ex illa. wholly of the grace of God. Now having disputed and showed these things at large, in the end of the book he shutteth up all with this conclusion, d Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita spei quaedam sunt seminaria, charitatis incentiva, occuliae praed●stinationis iudici●, futurae foelicitatis praesagia, via regni, non causa regnandi. If properly we will term those which we call our merits, they are the seedgrounds of our hope, incitements of our love, tokens of our secret predestination, foretokens of our future happiness, the way to the kingdom, not the cause of our reigning, or of our having the kingdom. Where plainly he giveth to understand, that whatsoever is spoken of our merits, is but unproperly spoken; that God having purposed unto us eternal life, bestoweth his grace upon us to lead a godly life, as a foretoken thereof, and therefore that our good works are but the way wherein God leadeth us to his kingdom, which he of his own mercy hath intended and given unto us, and not the cause for which he is moved to bestow the same upon us; even as Saint Augustine speaketh, e August. in Psalm. 109. Via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum quem promisit. the way by which he will bring us to that end which he hath promised. Now what saith M. Bishop to this place of Bernard? no question but he hath an answer ready, though by his own confession he never saw the place; so notable a faculty have these men to tell an Author's meaning before ever they look into him: forsooth Bernard's meaning is, that merits are not the whole cause, but the promise of God through Christ, and the grace of God freely bestowed upon us, out of which our merits proceed. Thus he answereth Bernard by a plain contradiction to Bernard's words. Bernard saith, they are not the cause: Yes saith M. Bishop, they are the cause, though they be not the whole cause. But see how scholarlike he dealeth therein; for it is as much as if he should say, The tree is not the whole cause of the fruit that it bringeth forth, but the root whence it proceedeth, and the boughs whereupon it groweth, whereas the root and the boughs are parts of the tree, without which it is not a tree; and therefore the exception maketh nothing against it, but that the tree is called the whole cause of the fruit. So saith he, Merits are not the whole cause of salvation, but the grace and promise of God, distinguishing merits as one part of the cause, from the grace and promise of God as another part of the cause; whereas merit by his own rule in the beginning of this question, doth always necessarily include the promise and grace of God, and can be no merit but as it proceedeth from grace, and hath of God a promise of reward. By this exception therefore he saith nothing to hinder, but that merits are the whole cause of salvation, fully and directly contrary to that that Saint Bernard saith, that merits (which he intendeth no otherwise but implying the grace and promise of God) are the way to the kingdom, but not the cause of our obtaining the kingdom. Yet of that which he saith, he telleth us that it is Saint Bernard's own doctrine, not alleging any words of Bernard to that purpose, but only quoting a sermon of his where there is nothing for his purpose, as afterwards shall appear in answering his testimonies of the Fathers. In the mean time, whereas he excepteth that Bernard lived a thousand years after Christ, I must answer him that his testimony is so much the more effectual, in that God in the midst of so great corruption and darkness did still by him and others continue the light and acknowledgement of this truth. The next place cited by M. Perkins is under S. Augustine's name, though that book indeed be none of his: f August. Manu●l. ca 22. Tota spes mea est in morte Domini meis mors eius meritum meum; refugium meum, salus, vita & resurrectio mea. All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit. M. Bishop hereto saith that it is true in a good sense. Where we see him to be an apt scholar, and well to have learned the lesson of the Index Expurgatorius, g Jndex Expur. in castigat. Bertram. We set some good sense upon the errors of the Fathers when they are opposed against us in contentions with our adversaries. But what is that good sense? Marry, by the virtue of his death and passion grace is bestowed on me to merit. But surely he doth not think that ever the author of those words intended that sense. If he will make that sense of the one part of the sentence, he must necessarily make the like of the rest. The death of the Lord is my merit, my refuge, my salvation, my life and resurrection. If his meaning be, the death of the Lord is my merit, that is, hath purchased for me that I should merit for myself; then in the rest also shall be likewise said, the death of the Lord is my refuge, that is, hath purchased for me that I should be a refuge for myself; the death of the Lord is my salvation, life and resurrection, that is, hath purchased for me to be salvation, life and resurrection to myself. So likewise where he addeth, h Meritum ●●e●● miseratio Domini: nonsum meriti inops quamdiis miserationum Dominus non de fuerit. My merit is the mercy of the Lord; so long as the Lord of mercy shall not fail, I shall not want merit: the meaning shall likewise be, the mercy of the Lord giveth me ableness to merit for myself, and so sung as his mercy faileth not, so long shall not I fail of good works to merit and deserve heaven. Now these constructions are lewd and absurd, and indeed far from the conscience of the writer of those words, who findeth nothing in his own works to comfort himself withal, and therefore flieth unto the death and merit of Christ, and the mercy of God, as his only succour, and the only stay that he hath to rest upon. Which, that the Reader may thoroughly understand, I hold it not amiss to set down what the same author hath written in another place of the same book, even out of the same spirit: i Ibid. cap. 13. Sileat sibi & ipsae anima, et transeat se non cogitando se, sed te Deus meus quoniam tu es revera tota spes & fiducia m●a. Est enim inte Deo meo & Domino nostro jesu Christo, uniuscuiusque nostrum, & portio, et sang● & c●ro. Vbi ergo portio mea regnat, ibi regnare me credo. Vbi sanguis meus dominatur, ibi dominaeri me confido Vbi caro mea glorificatur, ibi gloriosum me esse cognosco. Quamuis peccator sim, tamen de hac communione gratiae non diffido. Etsi peccata mea prohibent substantia mea requirit. Etsi delicta propriae mea excludunt, naturae communio non repellit, etc. Desperare utique potuissem propter nimia peccata mea & vitiae, culpas & infinitas negligentias meas quas egi & quotidi è indesinenter ago cord & ere, & opere, & omnibus modis quibus humana fragilitas peccare potest, nisi verbum tuum Deus meus caro fieret & habitaret in nobis. Sed desperare iam non audeo, quoniam subditui ille tibi usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, tulit chyrographum peccaetorum nostrorum, & affigens illud cruci peccatum crucifixit & mortem. In ipso autem securus respiro, etc. Let my soul (saith he) be silent to itself, and pass over itself, not thinking of itself, but of thee, O my God, because thou art indeed my whole hope and trust. There is in thee my God and our Lord jesus Christ, the portion and flesh and blood of every one of us. Where my portion reigneth, I believe that I also reign; where my blood ruleth, I believe that I also have dominion; where my flesh is glorified, I know that I also am glorious. Albeit I be a sinner, yet I doubt not of this fellowship of grace. Albeit my sins hold back, yet my substance (namely being now of his flesh and his bones) requireth it. Albeit mine own defaults do exclude me, yet fellowship of nature putteth me not away. I might despair because of my exceeding great sins and corruptions, my defaults and infinite negligences which I have committed, and daily without ceasing do commit in thought, and word, and work, and every way that human frailty can sin, but that thy Word (O my God) became flesh, and dwelled amongst us. But now I dare not despair, because he being obedient unto thee unto death, even the death of the cross, hath taken away the handwriting of our sins, and fastening it to the cross, hath crucified sin and death. Now securely I take breath and heart again, in him who sitteth at thy right hand, and maketh intercession for us. By these words, and many other that might be alleged out of that book, the Reader may judge of the construction that M. Bishop maketh of the words cited by M. Perkins. We see nothing here but confession of sins in himself; no other hope but only forgiveness of sins in Christ. Surely these are not the speeches of a man dreaming of an ableness given unto him to deserve eternal life. No, no, it was never heard of in the world, that the meaning of these words, My hope is wholly in the death and merit of Christ, should be, that we hope to be able by Christ to merit and deserve salvation, until these brazen faced hypocrites were hired and set to work by Antichrist for the confusion of souls, by making them to lean upon the broken staff of their own merits, in steed of the only saving merit of the blood of Christ. The faithful have always in their end betaken themselves to this hold, and many returning unto God even at the last gasp, having nothing in themselves to comfort themselves, have securely reposed their hope in the merit and death of Christ, and with joy and comfort have gone to God; who if they had understood hope in Christ according to M. Bishop's exposition thereof, of being to be made able by Christ to merit heaven, would have been rend and torn in pieces with perplexity and fear, neither could have conceived any comfort thereof at all. But let him alone, he shall one day understand the untruth of his answer, when he shall be glad to make use of those words which we have spoken of, or the like, without that good sense as he calleth it, which now his senseless and dead heart imagineth of them. The place of Basil is as clear as the light, yet he laboureth to cast a mist before it also: but cannot so do it, but that he is forced in part to acknowledge the truth on our behalf. k Basil. in Psal. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is laid up eternal rest (saith he) for them that strive lawfully in this life, not to be rendered according to debt for works, but provided according to the grace of the bountiful God, for them that trust in him. Where apparently Basill alludeth to the words of the Apostle, l Rom. 44. To him that worketh, that is, to him that hath the righteousness of works, the reward is not imputed * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by favour but by debt; and therefore the phrases being borrowed from the Apostle, must with him have the same meaning as with the Apostle they have. His meaning then is plain, that that eternal rest is not rendered by way of debt, but by way of favour and grace; and never hath any ecclesiastical writer understood those phrases otherwise. Only M. Bishop telleth us, that Basils' meaning is, that it is not rendered according to the debt of works, that is, according to the just rate of works, but in a fuller measure, and above our merits. But his masters of Rheims reject this commentary of his, and do tell him that our works are m Rhem. Testam. Annot. 2. Tim. 4. fully worthy of everlasting life. God then doth not exceed the rate of our works, as they say, but giveth only what we are fully worthy of, what we fully and justly merit and deserve thereby. Yea and they saw well, that to teach otherwise as M. Bishop doth, is to overthrow merit. For if God do give us above our merits, than we do not merit that which God giveth; or if we do merit it, than it cannot be said to be above our merits. But it is above our merits, saith M. Bishop, therefore it followeth necessarily that we do not merit or deserve it. Yea we have seen before out of Fulgentius and Bernard, that God's reward doth so incomparably exceed all the merit and work of man, as that eternal life is not due thereunto by right, neither should God do any wrong if he did not give it: and therefore the sentence of Basill is true, according to the Apostles intendment of those terms which he useth, that eternal life is not rendered by way of debt for works, but by grace, that is, freely bestowed to them that trust in him. M. Bishop telleth us, that he maketh eternal life to be the prize of the combat: but what of that, seeing he giveth us to understand that this prize is with favour and mercy proposed, and with the same mercy and favour rendered to them that fight the combat? Therefore he saith in another place, n Basil. de humilit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is nothing left thee O man to glory of, whose glorying and hope consisteth in this, that thou mortify all that is thine, and seek in Christ the life to come; whereof having the first fruits we are now therein, living wholly by the grace and gift of God. There is then with Basil no merit, no debt in any sort, because we live wholly by the grace and gift of God, so that M. Bishop's exposition is but a mere falsification of Basils' words. M. Perkins further allegeth a saying of Austin, He crowneth thee because he crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits. M. Bishop answereth that S. Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence pass his pen. He questioneth the matter, What congruity is it to say thus? He directeth a better form of speech, It had been better said thus. Now if the sentence be S. Augustine's, what will men but take M. Bishop for a fool, that would so unadvisedly befool S. Austin, and take upon him to correct his words when he had no cause. The place indeed is misquoted, either by M. Perkins mistaking, or by the oversight of the Printer, for in steed of Psal. 102. he hath quoted Psal. 120. by misplacing of the figure, a very small and easy oversight. But S. Austin in Psal. 102. hath these words, o August. in Psal. 102. Ergo coronat te quia donae suae coronat non merita tua. He crowneth thee because he crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits. Which is the same in effect with that which M. Bishop putteth in place of it, very often repeated by S. Austin, either in the same, or very near the same words, that God when he crowneth us, p Idem epist. 105. et in joan. trac. 5. & de great. et lib. arb. cap. 6. 7. crowneth his own gifts, not our merits. But he answereth hereto very untruly and deceitfully. It is true indeed that S. Austin there speaketh to him that thinketh he hath merits of his own and of himself, that God will not crown those because they are only evil, and he giveth not the crown to evil works, but he crowneth only his own gifts, because in us there is no good work, to which only the crown is given, but only by God's gift. q De great. et lib. arb. ca 6. Prorsus talia cogitanti veriffimèdicitur, dona tua coronat Deus, non merita tua, si tibi & teipso, non ab illo sunt merita tua. Haec enim si talia sunt, mala sunt: quae autem mala sunt, non coronat Deus. Si autem bona sunt, Dei dona sunt. To him that so thinketh (saith he) it is rightly said, God crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits, if thou have thy merits of thyself and not of his gift: for if they be such, they be evil, and God crowneth not those that be evil; but if they be good, they be the gifts of God. Now to those words M. Bishop addeth in the same letter as if it were S. Augustine's, whether by the Printers fault, or by his own lewd falsehood he can best tell himself, this animadversion, But if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with us, then may we as truly say, that eternal life is the crown and reward of merits. But M. Bishop, did S. Austin tell you so? Will you so wilfully abuse him and pervert his words and meaning? Surely in the beginning of the next Chapter, which is but ten lines after the words cited, S. Austin saith thus: r Jbid. cap. 7. Siergo Dei donae sunt merita tua, non Deus coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquam dona sua. If then thy good merits be God's gifts, God doth not crown thy merits as thy merits, but as his own gifts. In which words he plainly denieth, that there is any respect of our merit, or that God accounteth us as having merited, but that he giveth the crown and reward only as to his own gifts which he himself hath bestowed upon us. How bad a man then is M. Bishop, to make S. Austin say, that God crowneth our good works proceeding from his grace as our merits, when S. Austin expressly and flatly denieth the same. But there is yet some further poison hidden in his words: for when he nameth merits proceeding from grace working with us, he divideth betwixt God and us that which S. Austin maketh entirely the gift of God. The work is not merely of the grace of God in us, but of grace working with us, because we also as well as grace are partakers of the work. So then S. Austin must not say, that God crowneth his own gifts, not our merits, but God crowneth partly his own gifts, and partly our merits, because the good works which he crowneth are partly of his grace, and partly also of our own free-will. By this means Master Bishop will hold it very absurd, which the same Saint Austin saith in the other place: s Epist. 105. C●●● Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quàm namerae sua. When God crowneth our merits he crowneth nothing else but his own gifts: for if he crown nothing else but his own gifts, if he crown nothing at all of ours, than what part of the clown is it that we can say is merited and deserved by us? His answer to the last words of Austin is excluded by the very words themselves: t Aug Psal. 14● Propter ●●men tuum D ●●ine, vivificabis ●e●in tua justitia, non in mea, non quia ego merut, s●● quia tu miseritis Lord for thy name's sake thou wilt quicken me: in thy righteousness, not in mine; not because I have deserved it, but because thou art merciful. This place he saith appertaineth to the first justification of a sinner: but it seemeth he gave the answer somewhat too early in the morning before his eyes were well opened: for otherwise he might have seen, that these are the words of a man already justified, uttered in the name of the Prophet of God, not in the preterperfect tense as of a thing past, but in the future tense, as of a thing to come: Thou shalt or wilt quicken me, and therefore cannot be understood of any first justification. The Prophet being already in part revived to the life of God, prayeth still to be revived and quickened more and more, and promiseth to himself by assurance of faith through the holy Ghost, that God will so do, not in my righteousness, saith he, as Austin expresseth it, not because I have deserved it, but for his own names sake, for his own mercy's sake, giving to understand, that not only the beginning of the work of God, but also the proceeding thereof is, not for any merit of man, but by the mercy of him by whom it was first begun. And whereas he saith that they confess, that a sinner is called to repentance and revived, not for any desert of his own, but of God's mere mercy, he doth but blind his Reader with a concealed distinction of merit, having himself u Of justification. Sect. 21. before taught, that his works of preparation are the cause of the justification of a sinner, as he hath corruptly argued out of the words of Christ, Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. So that the term of mere mercy is used only colourably and for fashion sake, neither doth he acknowledge the mere mercy of God in any sort, but as the Pelagian heretics did, in the first offer of his grace. 14. W. BISHOP. Having thus at length answered unto all that M. Perkins hath alleged against Merits: let us see what can be said for them, following as near as I can M. Perkins order. Objections of Papists, so he termeth our reasons. First, in sundry places of Scripture, promise of reward is made unto good works. Gen. 4. Prou. 11. Eccl. 18. Mat. 5. If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? To him that doth well there is a faithful reward. Fear not to be justified unto death, because the reward of God remaineth for ever: and, When you are reviled and persecuted for my sake, rejoice, for great is your reward in heaven, and a hundredth such like: therefore such works do merit heaven, for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it. M. Perkins answereth first, that the reward is of mere mercy, without any thing done by men. But this is most apparently false: for the Scripture expresseth the very works whereof it is a reward: again, a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure which is rewarded, otherwise it were to be called a gift, & not a reward: & much more the Latin and Greek word, Misthos, Merces, which rather signify a man's hire and wages, than a gift or reward. Wherefore M. Perkins skips to a second shift: that forsooth eternal life is an inheritance, but not a reward. Reply. We know well that it is an inheritance, because it is only due unto the adopted sons of God: but that hindereth not it to be a reward, for that it is our heavenly Father's pleasure, that all his sons coming to the years of discretion, shall by their good carriage either deserve it, or else for their bad behaviour be disinherited. M. Perkins having so good reason to distrust his two former answers, flies to a third: and granteth that eternal life is a reward, yet not of our works, but of Christ's merits imputed unto us: this is that castle wherein he holds himself safe from all cannon-shot: but he is foully abused, for this answer is the most extravagant of all the rest, as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture: examine any one of the places, and a babe may discover the incongruity of it: namely, Christ saith, that great is their reward who are reviled and persecuted for his sake: assigning the reward unto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for God's sake; and not to his own merits imputed: and if you desire a formal sentence s●tting this purpose, take this: 1. Cor. 3. jac. 1. Every man shall receive his reward, according unto his own proper labour, and not according to Christ's merits imputed unto him. So a doer of the work shall be blessed in his deed: and not in the imputation of another's deed. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop having hitherto said much, and answered just nothing, falleth in hand to sharpen his tools and weapons again, which were blunted and dulled by M. Perkins. And first, he opposeth places where mention is made of reward, presuming that reward must necessarily suppose and enforce merit and desert. To this M. Perkins hath answered, that reward is twofold: of debt, & of mercy. Eternal life, he saith, is a reward of mercy given of the goodwill of God, and not properly repaid as due to any thing that is done by man. M. Bishop replieth, that this is apparently false: for the Scripture (saith he) expresseth the very works whereof it is a reward. But I answer him again, that it is not false, but very true, because although the Scripture do set forth unto us eternal life as the reward of such & such works, yet that is not to tie the original of the reward to the work, but only to note the sequel thereof: the reward being in truth derived from a former mercy whereby it was promised before the work, and by which both the work and the reward are given unto us. Nay, a Aug. in Psal. 118. conc. 13. Nondum eram quib●● promitteretur ne quisquam de me●itis gl●riaritur: & quibus promissum est, etiam ipsi promissi sunt, ut totum corpus Christi d●●at, Gratia Dei sum id quod sum. They yet were not themselves, saith S. Austin, to whom salvation was promised, that no man might glory in his merits; yea they to whom it was promised, were also promised themselves, that the whole body of Christ may say, By the grace of God I am that I am. b Idem in Psal. 109. ut supra Sect 2. Whatsoever God promised, saith he again, he promised it to us being unworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to works, but being grace might according to the name be freely given. So that although eternal life be c Idem de great. & lib. arbit. cap. 8. Supra sect. 8. as it were a reward for righteousness, yet it is indeed but grace for grace, as out of him also we have heard before. But saith M. Bishop, a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure which is rewarded. But that is not always so: for I doubt not but many times an English beggar hath come to him and asked him a reward, at whose hands notwithstanding he hath received no former pleasure: and even so must Master Bishop beg at God's hands the reward of everlasting life. Yea but than it should be called a gift, and not a reward: and did not he know that it is called a gift? d Rom: 6.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eternal life (saith Saint Paul) is the free gift ●f God. Christ saith of his sheep: e joh 10.28. I give unto them eternal life. f 1 joh. 5.11. This is the record, saith Saint john, that God hath given unto us eternal life. It may be he cannot see how it should be called both a gift and a reward. I will tell him therefore, that secundum quid, and in a respect it is called a reward, but simply and absolutely it is only gift. Compare eternal life to the work, and look no further▪ and so the Scripture calleth it a reward. But consider the original from whence the work itself also proceedeth, and all is merely and wholly gift: yea & though in act and execution the work be before the reward, yet in intendment & purpose that which we call the reward is before the work, and God therefore giveth us good works, because formerly by his election he giveth us eternal life. From the English word he goeth to the Greek and Latin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and merces, & saith, they rather signify hire or wages, than gift or reward. And what of that, seeing the Apostle teacheth us to distinguish, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wages, may be reckoned to a man by favour & not by debt. For he could not say: g Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the wages is not imputed by favour, but by debt, but that there is an imputing of wages by favour also. And this appeareth in them, who being called into the vineyard at the 11. hour, yet received for wages, h Mat. 20.10.14 by favour, not by debt, as much as they who were first called, and had borne the burden and heat of the day. The Lord of the vineyard gave them the same wages, i Prosper. de voc. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 5 Non labori pretium soluens sed divitias bonitatis suae in eos quos sine operibus eligit effundens, ut etiam ij qui in multo labore sudarunt, nec amplius quàm novissimi acceperunt, intelligan● donum se gratiae non operum accepisse mercedem. not as paying a price to their labour, but pouring forth the riches of his goodness to them whom he chose without works, that even they also who have sweat with much labour, and have received no more than the last, may understand, that they have received a gift of grace, not a wages for their works. Thus M. Bishop seethe hire and wages to be a matter of favour, and the reward of works, in some sort so called, to be nothing else indeed but a gift of grace. And if he will understand it otherwise, let him hear the resolution of Mark the Eremite, saying: k Mark. Herem. De his qui putant ex operibus se justificari. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Some not keeping the commandments, yet think they believe aright: again, some there are who keeping the commandments hope to receive the kingdom of heaven as a wages due unto them: both of these fail of obtaining the same. M. Perkins answereth secondly, that the kingdom of heaven is properly an inheritance, but is called a reward only by figure & resemblance. To this M. Bishop replieth, that it is an inheritance, because it is only due to the adopted sons of God. But that is not all: for it is not so called only, because it is only due to the adopted sons of God, but because by virtue of their adoption they have the title of it, even by being new borne the sons of God. For inheritance is a matter of birth, and though a man be of never so good desert, yet can he have no title of inheritance thereby. The younger brother may be of better desert than the ●●der, yet that cannot make him his father's heir. Where the thing is by desert, a man can have no title to it till he have deserved it, but what is by inheritance a man hath the right of it before he can do any thing towards the deserving of it. When therefore the Scripture setteth forth unto us eternal life under the condition of inheritance, it plainly teacheth us, that we attain not unto it by any merits or works, but that before any works God by adopting us to be his children, giveth us the state & prerogative thereof. And therefore whereas M. Bishop saith, that it is our heavenly Father's pleasure, that all his sons coming to the years of discretion, should by their good carriage either deserve it, or else for their bad behaviour be disinherited, he speaketh at all adventure, quite contrary to the nature of the thing whereof he speaketh. And see how improbably he speaketh in respect of human courses, to which he alludeth: what, is there no remedy but that a son must either deserve his inheritance, or else be disinherited? Are fathers wont to measure their children by that rule? Is there no mean betwixt these two? Surely the behaviour of the heir is seldom such, as may be said to deserve the inheritance whereto he is borne, and yet fathers do not disinherit their children for not deserving. There is an indifferent behaviour of sons that yieldeth no desert, and there is many times behaviour whereby they ill deserve, and yet by birth the right of inheritance standeth good unto them. And this is our title, even our new birth in jesus Christ, whereby we are l Tit. 3.7. made heirs of everlasting life, when as notwithstanding our behaviour is such, as that being strictly examined, we well know that we deserve the contrary. As for that which he saith of disinheriting, it is sometimes found with men who cannot reclaim their sons from evil courses, or fashion them to their own desire, (which what Father would not do, if it were in his power to do it, to avoid the disinheriting of his son?) but with God who hath the hearts of his children in his hands, and can dispose them to his own will, it is never found; but in this case it holdeth which the Apostle saith: m Rom. 11.29. The gifts & calling of God are without repentance: that is, as S. Austin saith, n August. de Praed Sanct cap. 16. Sine mutatione stabilitèr fixa sunt. They are firmly settled without any change. The third answer M. Perkins addeth, not for any distrust of the two former, but to give further strength unto them, and this answer is indeed a castle, that all M. Bishop's cannon-shot is not able to shake. He saith, that it is more extraungant than the rest, and furthest off from the true sense of Scripture and I know not what, but all his extravagant terms will not help him to avoid the force of it. It is first to be noted how he perverteth M. Perkins his words: for M. Perkins denieth not but that eternal life is the reward of our works: but saith, if it be granted to be a deserved reward, it is not for our works, but for Christ's merits imputed unto us. It is then the reward of our works, not for the desert of our works, but because Christ by his merits hath purchased it, and we in him receive it for reward of our works. To his merits only the reward is assigned and given to our use: for his works sake is it that any reward is promised or yielded to our works. For o 2. Cor. 1.20. in him all the promises of God are yea and Amen: for his sake they were first made, and for his sake they are performed. The father giving unto us his son, p Rom. 8.32. together with him giveth us all things: q 1. joh. 5.11. He hath given unto us eternal life, but this life is in his Son, in his obedience, in his merits eternal life is the reward of our works. If it be said, r Mat. 5.11.12. Blessed are ye when men revile you, and persecute you for my name's sake: great is your reward in heaven, it is for Christ's sake that it is said: Blessed are ye; great is your reward in heaven. If it be said: s 1. Cor. 3.8. Every man shall receive his reward according to his labour, it is for Christ's sake that it is so said. If it be said: t jam. 125. The doer of the word shall be blessed in his deed, it is for Christ's sake, that he shall be blessed in his deed. For if we consider our persons, the Father u 1. Eph. 6. hath accepted us in his beloved, in jesus Christ, and x 3. Mat. 17: in him is well pleased towards us. If we look to our works, our sufferings, our service, all our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God, not by their own worth, not by our desert, but y Pet. 2.5. by jesus Christ, by his merits, by his deserts, and therefore by his merits have the reward allotted unto them. Thus M. Bishop fighteth hard and getteth no ground: he thinketh, poor man, that he hath trodden M. Perkins under foot, but M. Perkins liveth triumphantly in heaven, and he liveth a base conquered man here upon the earth, and by his defending of Merits, secludeth himself from that mercy, whereby he should attain heaven and perpetual joy and felicity. 15. W. BISHOP. In stead of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins, I will confirm the first with such texts of holy Writ, as specify plainly our good works to be the cause of eternal life. Mat. 25. Come unto me ye blessed of my Father, possess a kingdom prepared for you. And why so? For when I was hungry, ye gave me meat, & so forth: the like is in the same chapter of the servants, who employed all their talents for their Lord said unto them: Because you have been faithful in few things, I will place you over many. And many such like: where good works done by the parties themselves are expressly said to be the very cause why God rewarded them with the kingdom of heaven. Therefore he must needs be holden for a very wrangler, that doth seek to pervert such evident speeches, and would make the simple believe, that the cause there formally specified, is not to be taken for the cause, but doth only signify an order of things. But if any desire besides the evidence of the text, to see how the ancient Fathers take it, let him read S. Augustine, In Psal. 40. where he thus briefly handleth this text: Come ye blessed of my Father, receive: what shall we receive? a kingdom: for what cause? because I was hungry, & you gave me meat, etc. Of the real imputation of Christ's merits, there was no tidings in those days: and that judicious Doctor found, that good works was the cause of receiving the kingdom of heaven. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop to help the former argument addeth some texts of holy writ, which specify plainly, as he saith, our good works to be the cause of eternal life. To this purpose he allegeth the words of Christ as touching the last judgement: a Mat. 25.34. Come ye blessed of my Father; possess, or rather b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inherit ye the kingdom prepared for you before the foundations of the world; for I was hungry and ye gave me meat, etc. Where the very place itself disproveth that that he intendeth to prove by it: for by that that he saith, Inherit ye the kingdom, it is plainly gathered which S. Ambrose thence affirmeth: c Ambros. de abitis Theodosij. Tanquam possessionem haereditariam recipimus ea quae promissa sunt ●●bis. We receive as a possession of inheritance those things that are promised unto us. And if we receive the kingdom by way of inheritance, than it is not by merit, as hath already been declared. Again, when he saith, prepared for you from the foundations of the world, even as S. Paul saith, d Eph. 1.4. God hath chosen us in Christ before the foundations of the world, he showeth that the kingdom was prepared for them that inherit it before they had any works: and therefore, to reason in the same manner as the Apostle doth: e Rom. 9.11. not by works, but by (the grace and mercy of) him that calleth, it is said: Come ye blessed, inherit the kingdom, etc. For to say that God f August. contra julian. Pelag. li. 5 cap 3. Ne fortè ante constitutionem mundi ex operibus praecognitis putarentur electi, se●utus est & adiunxit, si autem gratia, etc. vide Epist. 105. prepared the kingdom for them, upon foresight of their works, is the heresy of the Pelagians long agone condemned. It must needs be therefore that it was prepared for them without respect of works, and that their works are alleged not as the proper cause for which the kingdom is given unto them, but as signs and tokens that they are they for whom it is prepared, even as before we heard out of S. Bernard, that g Bernard. de great. & lib arb. Occultae praedestinationis indicia, futurae foelicitatis praesagia, via regni, no● causa regnandi. they are tokens of our predestination, foretokens of our future happiness, the way to the kingdom, not the cause of our obtaining it. No more can be argued out of the other place. Reward we find there, but Merit we find none, neither can the one of these be evicted by the other. It only showeth how God graceth his faithful servants by assigning unto them under the name of reward, that which indeed he otherwise freely bestoweth upon them. A most clear example whereof we ha● 〈◊〉 our father Abraham, to whom God made at first an absolute promise, that he would h Gen. 12.2.3. make of him a great nation, and would bless him, and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed, and yet afterwards upon the trial that he made of him for the offering of his son Isaac, taketh occasion to renew the promise, as if he would do it for his obedience therein. i Cap. 22.16. Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thine only son, therefore will I surely bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed after thee, etc. and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice. The blessing was assured to Abraham infallibly by the former absolute promise of God, k Prosper, de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap. 3. Sine conditio: ne promisit, sine lege d●nauit. without any caution or condition, as Prosper well saith, but he would have Abraham to take knowledge by occasion of that that he had done, that the promise before freely made, should inviolably & without any impeachment stand good unto him. Even so God from our works taketh occasion of the renewing of his promises, & thereto for our assurance toeth the performance thereof under the name of reward, when as the true cause of all is his mercy in jesus Christ, by whom only it is that the work is accepted in his sight. Now if God vouchsafe to honour us, let not us thereby take occasion to dishonour him, or challenge proudly to our merits, that for which we should sing praise only to his mercy. Neither do we herein wrangle or pervert the Scripture, but finding by the Scripture that God hath chosen and called us, l Ephe. 1.6. that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace, m Aug. count Pelag & Celestina. lib. 2. cap. 24. Non enim Dei gratia gratia erit ullo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo. which is not grace in any sort, except it be free in every sort, we endeavour that this glory may be yielded entirely unto God, and that to this end it may always be acknowledged, that n Rom. 6.23. eternal life is the gift of God, through jesus Christ our Lord. Now whereas he allegeth S. Austin to his purpose, he abuseth S. Austin as he is wont to do, who questioneth not any cause in the place by him cited, but using the words, Come ye blessed of my Father, receive ye a Kingdom, goeth on hereupon to demand, not as Master Bishop saith, For what cause, but o Aug. in Psal. 49. Quid percipite? Regnum. Pro quare? Esuriu●, etc. Quid tam vile, quid tam terrenum quàm frangere panem esueriente? Tanti valet Regnum coel●rum. Si non habes facultatem frangendi panem, etc. da calicem aquae frigidiae; mitte duo mi●uta in gazophylacium. Tantum emi● vidua duob●s minuus, quantū●mit Petrus relinquens re●●a, quantum emit Zach●us dando dimidium patrimonium. Tanti valet quantum habueris. for what thing? He answereth, I was hungry and ye gave me to eat. What is there so base, saith he, what so concerning the earth, as to break bread to the hungry? At so much is the Kingdom of heaven valued unto thee. If thou have no ability to break bread to the hungry, etc. yet give a cup of cold water, cast two mites into the treasury. The widow for two mites bought as much as Peter forsaking his nets, as Zachee did in giving half his goods. It is valued unto thee at so much as thou hast. Thus the purpose of this judicious Doctor, is directly against Master Bishop's cause of receiving the Kingdom of heaven, showing how base and of how little worth the things are, whereto God notwithstanding of his vouchsafing grace returneth the Kingdom of heaven, that we may know that it is not for our merits sake that he bestoweth the same. As for the imputation of Christ's merits, M. Bishop knoweth no use of it, because he yet knoweth not himself; but he will then know the use of the merits of Christ, when he cometh to know how vainly and fond he hath presumed of his own. To the true Church of Christ, it was never strange tidings that Christ's merits should be imputed unto them; whose hope hath always been to find favour at God's hands, by virtue of that merit that he hath performed for them. 16 W. BISHOP. Here by the way M. Perkins redoubleth that common slander of theirs: that we take away a part of Christ's mediation. For, saith he, if Christ's merits were sufficient, what need ours? It hath been told them, but they will never learn to understand it: I will yet once again repeat it. We hold our saviours merits to be of infinite value, and to have deserved of God all the graces and blessings, which have or shall be bestowed upon all men, from the beginning of the world unto the end of it: yet his divine will and order is, that all men of discretion having freely received grace from him, do merit that crown of glory, which is prepared for them, not to supply the want of his merits, which are inestimable, but being members of his mystical body, he would have us also like unto himself in this point of meriting: and further desirous to train us up in all good works he best knew, that there could be no better spur to prick our dull nature forward, then to ordain and propose such heavenly rewards unto all them that would diligently endeavour to deserve them. The man seems to be much ignorant in the matter of Christ's mediation: I will therefore help him a little. It consisteth in reconciling man to God: which he performed by paying the ransom of our sins, in purchasing us Gods favour, and in ordaining means how all mankind might attain to eternal life: in the two first points we do for the most part agree: to wit, that our sins are freely pardoned through Christ's passion: and that we are as freely justified, and received first into God's grace and favour: although we require other preparation than they do, yet we as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either, as they do. Marry about the means of attaining to heaven, we differ altogether: for they say that God requires no justice in us, nor merit at all on our parts, but only the disposition of faith, to lay hold on Christ's righteousness and merits: but we say that Christ's righteousness and merit, are incommunicable unto any mere creature: but that through his merits, God doth power into every true Christian a particular justice, whereby he is sanctified, and made able to do good works, and to merit eternal life. Which ability we receiving of God's free gift, through Christ's merits, doth much more magnify both God's grace, and Christ's merits: for the greater that the gift is, the greater is the glory of the giver, And to argue that to be a derogation unto his mediation and merits, which he hath appointed to be the very instrument of applying the virtue of them to us, is indeed under colour of magnifying Christ's merits, to undermine and blow out all the virtue of them. But says Master Perkins, what should we talk of our merits, who for one good work we do, commit many bad, which deface our merits, if we had any? True it is, as it was once before said, that every mortal sin blotteth out all former justice and merit: but by repentance both are recovered again: but must we not speak of any good, because we may hap to do evil? that is a fair persuasion, and well worthy a wise man. R. ABBOT. To say that they take away a part of Christ's mediation, is no slander but truth, as by M. Bishop himself appeareth in this very place. To M. Perkins saying that if Christ did sufficiently merit eternal life for us, than he should do more than is needful, in making us able to merit for ourselves, he answereth, that though Christ's merits be of infinite value, and have deserved of God all graces and blessings, yet his divine will and order is, that we also merit that crown of glory. But to what end when he hath merited it already? Marry not to supply the want of his merits, but as being members of his mystical body, he would have us like unto himself in this point of meriting. Thus we must think that M. Bishop is like unto Christ in this point of meriting, or rather we must think him an impious wretched man thus in meriting to consort himself and his with the Son of God, and to bring in these profane novelties into the Church, which neither Scripture, nor council, nor father, nor any antiquity was ever acquainted with. Where hath he ever read, that Christ would have us like unto himself in this point of meriting? What is this but to affirm him in a kind of generality, * Our conformity and likeness to Christ wherein it standeth see of satisfaction. Sect. 2. only to be jesus Christ, but that otherwise he hath left it to every man to be a jesus Christ, a Redeemer and Saviour for himself, because it is his will to have us like unto himself in this point of meriting, by which it is that he is become jesus, and a Saviour unto us? It is by meriting I say, that Christ is unto us jesus a Saviour, and therefore if we be like unto him in meriting, it cannot be avoided but that we also are saviours. Yea, and for this matter of meriting, necessary it was that he that should be our Redeemer should be God, because none but God, no Angel, no Archangel, no creature whatsoever could merit at the hands of God; and yet this man sticketh not blasphemously to affirm, that in this point of meriting we are like unto the Son of God. And all this meriting for aught he saith, remaineth still needless and causeless, because for shame he dareth not deny that in words which indeed he doth deny, that Christ's merits are inestimable, and have deserved all graces and blessings for us. Which being granted, to what end should we be like unto Christ in meriting? Nay, we rightly conclude thereof, because God doth nothing idly, that therefore he doth not appoint us to merit that for ourselves, which Christ hath already merited in our behalf. Whereas he saith, that God desirous to train us up in all good works, best knew that there is no better spur to prick forward our dull nature, then to ordain and propose such heavenly rewards, we acknowledge that so far he saith truly, but where he addeth that they are proposed to such as will endeavour to deserve them, I must remember him of the sentence of Mark the Hermit before alleged, that a Marc. Herem. Supra sect. 14. some keeping the commandments, expect the Kingdom of heaven as a wages deserved or due unto them, and that these fail of the Kingdom of heaven. Now here M. Bishop in his bravery sitteth him down in his chair, and taketh upon him to teach M. Perkins, as a man much ignorant in the matter of Christ's mediation, but if M. Perkins had known it in no better sort than he teacheth him, we might have taken him indeed for a very simple and ignorant man. True it is which he saith, that the office of Christ's mediation consisteth in reconciling man to God, and that he performed this by paying the ransom of our sins, by purchasing God's favour, and ordaining means how all mankind might attain to eternal life. But he saith very untruly, that in the two first points for the most part we agree; for they are far from agreeing therein with us, or with the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They do not hold that our sins are freely pardoned, or that we are freely justified, albeit he is ashamed to confess that they hold it otherwise. For what is it to say freely, but b Rhem. Testam. explication of words in the end. for nothing, as his Rhemish Masters have expounded it? and they do not hold that our sins are pardoned, or we justified for nothing, but for works. And that appeareth by that he addeth next: although we require other preparation than they do. For the works of preparation they make to be the cause of the forgiveness of sins and justification, as he himself hath c Of justification. Sect. 21. before disputed; only he thinketh the matter handsomely salved, that works are the cause of justification, but not the merit of works, and with this juggling device he addeth, that they as fully deny any merit of ours, to be cause thereof as we do. Whereas the Scripture saith nothing of the merit of works, but absolutely excludeth works from being any part of the cause of our justification before God; neither opposeth each to other grace, and merits, but grace and works; not saying, If it be of grace, it is not of merits, but d Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace were no grace. Therefore these words of his, are but words of hypocrisy and falsehood, and used only to blind the unskilful Reader, and to conceal that venom and poison that would otherwise easily be espied. Albeit his master Bellarmine sticketh not to tell us, that e Bellarm. de justificat. lib. 1. cap. 17. justificat per modum meriti: suo quodam modo meretur remissionem peccatorum. faith which is one of their preparations, doth justify by way of merit, and doth in some sort merit forgiveness of sins, that we may know that very untruly and against his own knowledge, M. Bishop affirmeth that they as fully deny merit to be the cause of forgiveness of sins or justification, as we do. About the means of attaining to heaven, he saith, we differ altogether. For they say, saith he, that God requires no justice in us. Where as he hath sought to clear his own part with a lie, so doth he with a lie seek to disgrace ours. We do not say that God requireth no justice in us; we only deny that the justice which God requireth in us, is the cause of our justification before God, or can yield us any merit towards God, and therefore in this respect we desire f Phil. 3.9. to be found in Christ, and by faith to stand under the coverture of his merits and righteousness, and in the imputation thereof to be accepted unto everlasting life. Now against this, he saith, that Christ's righteousness and merits are not communicable unto any mere creature. But he saith he knoweth not what; for what should hinder but that what Christ hath done for us, should be communicated and imputed unto us? And is not Christ himself communicated unto us, g Esa. 9.6. borne unto us, given unto us, become h john. 17.23. one with us? Accordingly therefore he is i 1. Cor. 1.30. of God made righteousness unto us, even k jerem. 23.6. the Lord our righteousness, that we may say, l Psal. 71.14. I will go forth in the strength of the Lord God, and will make mention of thy righteousness only. But he will have it, that through Christ's merits grace is given unto us to do good works, and to merit eternal life. One part whereof we acknowledge to be true, that through Christ's merits grace is given unto us to do good works, because good works are the way wherein we are to walk to that eternal life which he hath merited and purchased for us. But the other part thereof is false, and we deny that he hath appointed us by our good works to merit for ourselves eternal life. It is a Romish fancy, which we marvel they so busy themselves to commend to others, when none of them dare presume of it in himself. M. Perkins by sound argument hath confuted it, and M. Bishop is content again barely to affirm it, without either proof of his own part, or disproof of that that is said against it. In a word, we do not find in Scripture that Christ died for our good works that they might merit, but only for our sins that they might be pardoned. This is the ancient received faith of the Church of Christ, but the other is a novelty which antiquity never imagined, but is lately devised in the Church of Rome. He saith that they by this doctrine of Merits, do much more magnify God's grace and Christ's merits than we do. And why? For the greater the gift is, saith he, the greater is the glory of the giver. But I answer him that the gift is greater, in that Christ giveth himself to be our merit and righteousness, than it should be in giving us ableness to merit for ourselves. And by this the glory of the giver is most of all set forth, which then most clearly shineth, when there is least show or appearance of any thing to be attributed unto us. Which is not in their Popish doctrine, where man by his merits is set on horseback, and those merits are affirmed so to proceed from grace, as that they proceed also in part from his own free will. Therefore to deny our merits, is not to undermine and blow out the virtue of Christ's merits, but to acknowledge the same to be in themselves entirely and perfectly sufficient without us, that whilst we yield nothing to ourselves to rejoice in, the glory of our salvation may redound wholly to him to whom wholly and only it doth belong. But to affirm merits on our part, cannot be without singular derogation to the mediation and merits of Christ, who hath taught us to apply unto us the virtue of his merits, not by meriting again for ourselves, but by believing in him, according to that which the Apostle hath taught us, that God hath m Rom. 3.25. set him forth to be an atonement (for us) through faith in his blood. M. Perkins against this vain presumption of merit, allegeth further, that for one good work that we do we have many evil, the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deeds, and maketh them too light in the balance of the law. This M. Bishop lightly regardeth. Tush his mortal sins are taken away by penance, and his merits though they were gone, yet return again, and without doubt he will thereof make himself a ladder that shall serve him to climb to heaven. What, saith he, must we not speak of good, because we may hap to do evil? That is a fair persuasion, and well worthy of a wise man. It is but a hap we must think that he doth any evil, and therefore he will not be barred from speaking of his good, and is no fool I warrant you in the persuasion thereof. Surely we think that job was somewhat wiser than M. Bishop, and yet he thought that persuasion not to be unworthy of him. n job. 9.2. If I would contend with him, I should not be able to answer him one for a thousand. And when by the provocation of his friends he had used that great justification of himself, being reproved for it by the Lord, he renounceth to speak of his good any more, and saith, o job. 39.37. I am vile: what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken, but I will answer no more, yea twice, but I will proceed no further. David p Aug in Psal. 129. Vidit propè totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suis. seeing the whole life of man in a manner on every side to be barked at by his sins, thought his evils sufficient to stop his mouth from talking of his good, and crieth out unto God, q Psal. 130.2. O Lord if thou straightly mark iniquities, who can stand? S. Austin thought it worth the while to consider, and took it to be a bar against all pleading of Merit, that if God strictly examine our behaviour, r August. Plarae inueni●● peccata quàm merita. he shall find more sins than merits or good works; and therefore he could cry out, s Confess. lib. 9 ca 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum siremotae miserecordia discutias eam. Woe even to the commendable life of man, if thou, O God, examine it without mercy. I wonder then what merit M. Bishop can find in the commendable life of man. The same S. Austin asketh again, t De verb. Dom. ser. 15. Quis est qui non sit debitor Dei nisi in quo nullum potest inveniri pecca●●m? Who is he that is not a debtor unto God, but he only in whom can no sin be found? Now if we be all debtors unto God by our sins, can we by our good works have him a debtor unto us? And what though God of his mere mercy and goodness do pardon our sins, and putting out of sight and remembrance our evil deeds, do still reserve the acknowledgement of our well-doing? Shall we thereupon out of his mercy build a merit unto ourselves, and think that we have well deserved at God's hands, and bound him to us by our good deeds, when by our sins we have a thousand times more provoked him to destroy us? M. Bishop is no doubt a wise man, and hath some great reason to settle himself in this persuasion; but yet a fool may be so wise, as to wish him to take heed that the golden house of merits that he buildeth now, do not fall heavy in the end upon his own head. 17 W. BISHOP. Let us to our third Argument; God hath by covenant and promise bound himself to reward our works with life everlasting: Therefore good works do in justice deserve it: for faithful promise maketh due debt. Math. 20. The covenant is plainly set down: where God in the person of an householder agreeth with his workmen for a penny a day: that is, to give them life everlasting for travailing in his service during their life time, as all ancient interpreters expound it. Whereupon S. Paul inferreth, that God should be unjust, Heb. 6. if he should forget their works, who suffered persecution for him: 2. Thess. 1. and saith, If it be just with God, to render tribulation to them that persecute you, and to such as are persecuted, rest with us: Li. 2. cont. jovin. cap. 2. upon the same ground S. Hierome saith, Great truly were the injustice of God, if he did punish evil works, and would not as well receive good works. To all these, and much more such like, M. Perkins answereth, that covenant for works was in the old Testament, but in the new, the covenant is made with the workman, not with the work. Reply. All that I cited in this argument, is out of the new Testament, where express covenant is made for working and works, as you have heard. And as it was said in the old law, Math. 19 Do these things & thou shalt live: so is it said in the new, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: and life eternal is the hire and wages for labouring in God's vineyard, and not of the imputed justice or merits of Christ: but look about you, and behold the goodly mark which M. Perkins sets up: Mark, saith he, that it is said, God will render unto every man according to his works: not to the work, or for the work. O sharp and over-fine wit! doth he render according to the works, and doth he not render for the works? If the rate of the works be the measure of the reward, that for fewer or lesser works there is a lesser reward, and for many and worthier a greater: surely in my simple understanding, he that giveth according unto the works, giveth for the works. That other addle invention (that works are there mentioned, not because they are rewarded, but because they are tokens that the doer is in Christ, for whose obedience God promiseth the crown of life) is not worth the confuting, it is so flat contrary to the text: which ascribeth distinctly that reward unto the workman for his works, and not for Christ's obedience imputed unto him. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop in the former section, as we have seen, hath flouted M. Perkins with the name of wise man, and pronounced his ignorance, and hath taken upon him to teach him. Now a man would wonder, that taking so much upon him there, he should here argue so childishly and simply as he hath done. God hath by promise bound himself to reward our works with life everlasting: therefore good works do in justice deserve it. But what if some man for a goose quill should promise M. Bishop a goose, should not he be taken for a goose that would thereupon conclude, that a goose quill were worth a goose? Who would not deride and scorn the absurdity of such men, who set forth themselves like champions and challengers, and bring such reeds or rather rushes to fight with? What, because God in mercy promiseth to reward our works with life everlasting, doth it follow that our works do deserve the same? Faithful promise, saith he, maketh due debt. But what of that? for the debt in that case ariseth not of any desert of him to whom the promise is made, but only of the word of him that promiseth. A man for nothing may promise something, and for very small things very great; where though there be no comparison betwixt the one and the other, yet the promise standeth good. We must therefore distinguish betwixt debt of desert, and debt of promise. For debt of desert ariseth out of the nature and condition of the work itself, which by itself bindeth him to whose use and service it is done. But debt of promise groweth not from the thing that is done or yielded to another, but only from the promise itself, whereby a man hath bound himself. Saint Austin well observeth, that a Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 16. Aliter decimus homini. D●b●s mihi quia d●di tibi● & aliter decimus, De●es mihi quia promisi●ti mihi. Quando d●cis, Debes mihi quia dedi tibi, processit à te beneficium sed mutuatum, non donatum. Quando dicis, Debes mihi quia promisi●ti mihi, tu nihil dedisti & tamin exigu. B●nitas enim ei●s qui prom●sit dab●t n●●● mal ti●● fid●● convertatur. Qui autem fall●t malus est. it is one thing to say to a man, Thou art debtor to me, because I have given to thee; another thing to say, Thou art debtor to me because thou hast promised me. When thou sayest, Thou art debtor to me because I have given to thee, a benefit hath proceeded from thee, though by way of lending, not of mere giving. But when thou sayest, Thou art debtor to me because thou hast promised me, thou givest nothing to him, and yet requirest of him. Where the goodness of him that hath promised, will make good that which he hath promised, least fidelity be changed to naughtiness or evil. For he that deceiveth is nought. Therefore debt of promise we see is so far from implying or importing desert, as that it bindeth the promiser for his own sake, though there be nothing in the party to whom he hath promised that may move him, or give him cause of the performance of his promise. The covenant, he saith, is set down, where God in the person of a householder, agreeth with his workmen for a penny a day, etc. But that thence no merit can be gathered, hath been before showed in b S●●●. 14. answer to the first objection. Yea, and it is plain; because if there had been respect of merit, there should to unequal work have been assigned unequal reward. But there all are made equal, that all may know, as was before alleged out of Prosper, that c Pr●●. de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap. 5. Se donum gratiae non ●p●●ū●ccepisse 〈◊〉 cedem. they receive a gift of grace, not a wages due to works. It is d Heb. 6.10. just then with God, as Master Bishop citeth, not to forget the works of his servants; e 2. Thess. 1.6. just with God to render rest to them that are persecuted for his sake, not in respect of any merit of ours, but for his own word and promise sake. f Ambros in Rom cap 3. Iust●tia Dei dicta est quae videtur esse misericordia quia de promissio●e originem habet, & cùm promissum Dei redditur, iustita Dei dicitur. justitia enim Dei est quia redditum est quod promissum est. It is called the justice of God, saith Ambrose, which seemeth to be mercy, because it hath his original from promise, and when the promise of God is performed, it is called the justice of God. For it is the justice of God that that is paid or performed which is promised. Thus and no otherwise is the saying of Saint Hierome to be understood, that g Hieron. Cont. Jovinian. lib. 2. Revera grandis iniustitia Dei si tantum peccata puniret & bonae opera non susciperet. great should be the unjustice of God, if he did only punish sins, and did not receive or accept good works, namely because as he hath in judgement threatened to punish the one; so he hath promised in mercy to reward the other. Otherwise if we consider the works themselves, they are h Bernard in Annunciat. Ser. 1. Non talia ut iniuriam saceret Deus nisi eam donaret. not such as that God should do wrong, though he gave not unto them eternal life, as Saint Bernard speaketh, yea saith Hierome, i Hieron in Esa. lib. 6. cap. 14. Cum Dies judicij vel dormitionis advenerit dissoluentur omnes manus, quia nullum opus dignum Dei justitia reperietur. All hands shall fail at the day of death and judgement, because no work shall be found worthy of the justice of God. The more wickedly deal the Rhemish glosers, in referring those words of Hierome to the very merit of works, not doubting with manifest blasphemy, to affirm that k Rhem Testam. Annot. Heb. 6.10. good works be so far meritorious, as that God should be unjust, if he rendered not heaven for the same. But Saint Austin far otherwise saith: l August in Psal ●●9 Debit●rem se no●is Deus fecit nihil a nobs a●● piendo, se●● omn● no●● 〈…〉 God hath made himself a debtor unto us, not by having any thing of us, but by promising all things unto us. m 〈…〉 He is become a debtor, not by receiving any thing from us, but by promising what it pleased him. Hereupon, saith he, that which in so many places he repeateth: n 〈…〉 32 83. 109. & de verb. Dom. Ser. 31. Non dicimus illi, Red quod accipisti; sed Redde quod pro● 〈…〉 We say not unto God, Repay that which thou hast received, but, Pay that which thou hast promised. Yea, he plainly argueth, that o In Psal. 32. Cum ab illo habeamus quicquid illi offerimus & ex illo sit qui●quid boni sumus, etc. 〈…〉 quid dedimus & tenemus debitorem unde debitorem? Quia promissor est. sith we have of him whatsoever we offer to him, and all our goodness is of him, therefore we have not yielded any thing to him to hold him debtor thereby. Whence then have we him a debtor? Marry, saith he, because he is a promiser. See here Master Bishop; because all our good works are of God, we cannot have him a debtor unto us by any merit of works that we do unto him, but he is a debtor only for his promise sake. p Ibid. Te●eamus fidelissimum debitorem, quia habemus miserecordissimum promissorem. Let us hold him a most faithful debtor, saith he, because we have him a most merciful promiser. The promise was made in mercy; the performance thereof now dependeth upon the fidelity of the promiser, not upon the merit of the worker, even as the same Saint Austin saith; q In Psal. 88 Non secundum merita nostra sed secundum misericordiam illius firma est promissio. The promise is sure, not according to our merits, but according to his mercy. But to the objection here made M. Perkins answereth by distinguishing the covenant & promise of God, that one is of the Law, another of the Gospel: one of works, the other of faith: one of the old testament, the other of the new. By the old covenant of the Law, the promise is made only to the work, neither is the person accepted, but for the works sake. Now by this covenant God r Heb. 8 9 hath no delight in us, because we continue not in his covenant, there being none found that perfectly fulfilleth the righteousness of the law. By the new covenant the person is first accepted by faith for Christ's sake, and then the work is accepted and rewarded, not for the merit of itself, but for the condition of the person. By the first covenant, the work is rejected, if it have not the uttermost that it ought to have. By the second covenant s 2. Cor. 8.12. if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, not according to that that he hath not; so that though there be by human frailty some imperfection in the work, yet God pardoning the imperfection, accepteth of it, and rewardeth it, dealing as fathers with their children, who accept their good endeavours, when in the works haply there is nothing worthy to be respected. Here therefore the promises of God properly respect the person working, and not the desert or worthiness of the work. But Master Bishop in the height of his ignorance, answereth, that all the places by him cited, are out of the new Testament, understanding by the new Testament, the books which we call the new Testament, and the old Testament, for the books that go under that name. Whereas Master Perkins distinguisheth the two Testaments, as God himself doth, not by the books, but by the matter of the books; there being in the books of the old Testament, many things that belong to the new, and many things repeated in the books of the new Testament, that belong properly to the old. Such are the sentences by Master Bishop alleged, t Luk. 16.28. Do this and thou shalt live: u Math. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, though according to his reading he so citeth the former of them out of the old Testament, as if it were not spoken in the new. But these, though by occasion they be mentioned in the Gospel, yet are conditions indeed properly belonging to the Law. Now in the old testament according to M. Bishop's meaning, we may see example of that that M. Perkins saith, where it is said of Cain and Abel; x Genes. 4.4.5. The Lord had a respect to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering he had no regard. First he had respect to Abel, because of his faith in Christ, and consequently to his offering: but he had no respect to Cain being void of true faith, and therefore he had no respect to cain's offering. For it is here true which the Law saith, Cuius persona non placet, nec caetera placent: where the person is not pleasing, nothing else can please; and therefore S. Bernard saith; y Bernard. in C●nt. Ser. 24. Quid miraris ● Cain quòd munera tua non respicit qui te despicit? What wonderest thou Cain, that he hath no respect to thy gifts who despiseth thee? Wherefore it should not seem strange to M. Bishop which M. Perkins hath observed, that God rendering to the faithful according to their works, should be said notwithstanding not to do it for their works sake, because their works are secondarily accepted for their own sakes, & they are accepted for Christ's sake, and both they and their works are rewarded by virtue of that atonement, whereby he hath reconciled them unto God. And thus howsoever Master Bishops simple understanding conceiveth it not, greater works have greater reward, and lesser works have lesser reward, and yet for Christ's sake it is that greater or lesser have either greater or less reward. But it is further demanded, if works do not merit, why are they mentioned in the promises? Not because they merit, saith Master Perkins, but Master Bishop repeateth it, Not because they are rewarded, whereas Master Perkins denieth not, but that works are rewarded; only he denieth that they are rewarded by virtue of their own merit and worth, but by virtue of Christ's mediation, for whose sake they are accepted in the sight of God. But we must not think strangely of this, because he doth therein but as he is wont to do. It is further added, that good works are mentioned in the promises, as the proper marks and signs of them to whom appertain the promises that are made freely for Christ's sake: as tokens that the doer of them is in Christ, through whose merits the promise shall be accomplished. This to M. Bishop is an addle invention, not worth the confuting, it is so flat contrary to the text. But it is his addle head that taketh this for an addle invention, and his ignorance of the text that maketh him think it so flat contrary to the text. The text, saith he, ascribeth distinctly that reward unto the workman for his works, and not for Christ's obedience imputed unto him. But we tell him again, that it is for the imputation of Christ's obedience, that the text ascribeth any reward to the workman for his work, as is sufficiently approved unto him in the z Supra. Sect. 14. defence of the answer to the first objection. His whole error standeth in this, that he cannot conceive how the reward should be given to our works, if it be given for Christ's sake, or how it should be given for Christ's sake, if it be promised to our works, whereas both these accord in one, and for Christ's sake it is that any such reward is assigned to our works. 18 W. BISHOP. M. Perkins fourth objection for us is proposed unskilfully, yet could he not answer it, but by relying upon that which is most untrue, that forsooth no one action of the best man is without fault: which hath been already confuted, and might be by instances of Abraham's oblation of his son, Saint john Baptists preaching, and reprehending of Herod, and Stephen's martyrdom, with infinite such like, in which Master Perkins nor any else will be able to show in particular, what fault there was. Math. 6. Luk. 11. Again, our Saviour saith: That if the eye be simple, the whole body is lightsome, not having any part of darkness in it: and very reason teacheth us, that a man's action for substance and all due circumstances, may be perfect. It was then a very silly shift to say, that never any man did any one action, with all his due circumstances. But in steed of that fourth Argument, I will put this: If a greater reward be due unto them that do better works, than a reward is due unto them that do good works, which is evident in reason: But a greater reward is provided for them that do better, as S. Augustine grounded upon God's word, Serm. 46. De verb●● Dom. 1. Cor. 15. proveth in sund●y places: namely upon that, For star differeth from star in glory, so shall be the resurrection of the dead: specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort, chastity in wedlock after another, and holy widowhood yet after another: Serm. 95. Lib. de virg. cap. 44. all (saith he) shall be there, but they shine diversly: And of the same work affirmeth, That martyrdom shall be higher rewarded than any other work. The like doth he upon those words, One ground shall yield thirty fold, another threescore fold, another an hundred fold: Comparing chastity in wedlock to the thirty, in widows to the sixty, and in virgins to the hundred. But most directly in his sixty seven treatise upon Saint john's Gospel, upon this verse: In my father's house are many mansions: where he saith, that albeit some be holier, juster, and more valiant than others, yet there shall be fit rooms for them all, where every one is to receive his place according unto his merit. That penny spoken of (by which saith he is signified eternal life) shall be given to every man equally: Math. 20. because every one shall live for ever, and not one longer than another: but many mansions do signify the different dignities of merits in the same everlasting life. And S. Gregory in most express terms, doth teach the same doctrine, saying: Lib. 4. mor. cap. 42. Because in this life there is a difference of works amongst us, there shall be in the other life without all doubt a distinction of dignities: that as one here exceedeth another in merit, so there one surpasseth another in reward. Finally, S. Augustine, and S. Hierome, De heres. her. 8●▪ Lib. 2. cont. Ioui●. condemn it as an heresy, to hold that there is not diversity of merits in this life, and rewards in the next: Whereon followeth most manifestly, that there be merits and rewards. R. ABBOT. The fourth objection he telleth us is unskilfully proposed, but yet he doth not tell us how he would have it proposed, because belike he had small opinion of it. Yet I will do him the favour to put it into form for him, to let it appear whether he be likely of any advantage by it. It must be thus: If good works be perfect and without fault, than they merit. But they are perfect and without fault, because they are the works of the holy Ghost. Therefore they must needs merit. Now the first of these propositions is false. For although it be granted that good works be perfect and without any defect, yet can they not merit at God's hands, as may appear by that that hath been a Supra Sect. 3. 4. before said as touching the conditions of Merit. Even Adam himself in the state of Paradise, could by desert have challenged nothing at God's hands, as neither can the elect Angels still continuing in that integrity wherein they were first created. But Master Perkins denieth the minor proposition, affirming that no works of ours are perfect and without blemish, but do all carry the marks of our uncleanness, whereby being exacted in rigour, they are subject to reproof. For although in their original, which is the spirit of God, they be pure and clean, yet as water though clear in the fountain, yet gathereth uncleanness from the channel wherein it runneth, so the works of grace wrought in us, do receive some taint of the corruption of our nature through which they pass. And as the hand of the most cunning Scribe, writ he never so excellently by himself, loseth much of his perfection and grace, in holding the hand of a child to teach him to write, so the work of the holy Ghost being most absolute in itself, yet in us through the crookedness and corruption of our nature, whilst it is framing us to itself, loseth much of the beauty and glory that it should have, until the same spirit have fully consumed all our dross, that it alone may prevail in us. M. Bishop replieth, that this is most untrue, and telleth us, that it hath been already confuted, but yet against his confutation it is justified to him before, and will stand good, that there is no action of man so perfect, but that there is a defect to be found in it. The best of our actions is weakened by b Gal. 5.17. the flesh lusting against the spirit, so as that we cannot do the things that we would. In our best actions it happeneth which our Saviour saith; c Math. 26.41. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. And howsoever faith fight against the weakness of the flesh, do prevail and overcome, yet even of the resistance of the flesh there groweth a blemish, and the nearness of the infection thereof, doth breath out some distasteful quality upon our works, for which we have need to ask pardon at God's hands. But M. Bishop bringeth instances of Abraham's oblation of his son; of john Baptists preaching and reprehending Herod; of his and Stevens martyrdom, with infinite other such like, saith he, in which no man can show in particular what fault there was. But why should we not conceive the like of the martyrdom of john and Steven, as we do of the martyrdom of Peter? And of Peter's martyrdom our Saviour Christ beforehand saith; d john. 21.18. When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thine hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. Thus spoke he, saith S. john, signifying by what death he should glorify God. Where when he saith, Wither thou wouldst not, there is plainly approved in Peter's martyrdom a shrinking and drawing back, a resistance and opposition of the will, so that though willingly he did undergo it, yet it was in some part also against his will. Whereupon S. Austin maketh this collection: e August. in Psal. 30. conc. 1. St Petrus Apostolus tanta perfectione quò nollet ductus est, & volens nolens mortuus est, sed volens coronatus est, quid mirum si est aliquis pavor in passione etiam justorum, etiam Sanctorum. Pavor est ex humana infirmitate, spes ex divina promissione. If Peter the Apostle being of so great perfection, was led whither he would not, and died with his will against his will, but with his will received the crown, what marvel is it if there be some fear in the suffering even of just men, even of the Saints? There is fear by human infirmity, and hope by the promise of God. And this resistance, this fear, this shrinking back, the same S. Austin imputeth to the corruption of sin. f Idem Epist. 120 Mente seruiens legi Dei, carne autem trahens desideria peccati, quibus obedire vetat Apostolus mentis quidem ratione concupiscit homo dissolui & esse cum Christo, sed id sensu carnis recusat & refugit. A man (saith he) in mind serving the law of God, and in the flesh carrying still the lusts of sin, which the Apostle forbiddeth to obey, by reason of the mind desireth indeed to be loosed, and to be with Christ, but by sense of the flesh refuseth and shuneth it. Now what ground hath M. Bishop to except john and Stephen in their martyrdom from the common condition of the Saints? and why should he think that john's preaching and reprehending of Herod was without that spot of resistance and fear, when his martyrdom was not? And why should we imagine, that that weakness of the flesh which hath his work in the martyrdom of the Saints, had not the like also in Abraham's oblation of his son, being a thing without doubt as cross to his nature and will, as his own death was. But saith M. Bishop, Our Saviour saith, that g Mat. 6.22. Luk. 11.34. if the eye be simple, the whole body is light some, not having any part of darkness in it. It is true, if the eye be wholly single and clear, but where is the eye that is so clear? Where is he that saith not with David, h Psal. 13.3. Lighten mine eyes that I sleep not in death. i 119.18. Open thou mine eyes, that I may see the wondrous things of thy law. k Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 18. Tota opera nostra in hac vita est sanare oculum cordis unde videtur Deus. It is our whole work or endeavour in this life, saith S. Austin, to heal the eye of the heart wherewith we should see God. If it be our whole work in this life to heal our eyes, than we expect not in this life to have them fully whole. In the mean while therefore because it is God's prerogative which S. john speaketh of, l 1. joh. 1.5. God is light, and in him is no darkness at all, it must needs be, as S. Hierome collecteth thereof, m Hieron. contr. Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri, ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari. that all our lights are spotted and darkened with some filth. But he telleth us yet further, that very reason teacheth us, that a man's action for substance, and all due circumstances may be perfect. And it may be indeed that his broken reason so teacheth him, howsoever his conscience be contrary to his reason. But our reason teacheth us, that if there be yet darkness in the understanding, and waywardness in the will, and in both a stooping and inclining to the weakness and corruption of the flesh, as indeed there is, than all our works favour of our earthly vessels, and nothing can come from us, but certainly carrieth a blot and imperfection with it. And therefore it was no silly shift of M. Perkins, but a true defence, that never any man did any one action with all his due circumstances, because n Deut. 6 5. Aug. de perfect. justit. Cùm est aliquid con●upiscentiae carnalis, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus. all the soul which God wholly requireth in every action of his service, cannot be wholly bestowed therein, so long as concupiscence possesseth any part thereof, as perpetually it doth so long as we continue in the warfare of this life. But here in stead of that fourth objection proposed by M. Perkins, M. Bishop bringeth us forth a leaden dagger of his own. If greater reward be due unto them that do better works, than a reward is due unto them that do good works. But a greater reward is provided for them that do better works: the conclusion should be, Therefore a reward is due unto them that do good works. In stead whereof in the end of this idle discourse, he bringeth in this: Whereof followeth most manifestly, that there be merits and rewards. But I pray you M. Bishop, whereof doth that follow? do merits follow in the conclusion, when in the premises there is no mention of them? But we must pardon you: it seemeth your traveling to Rome hath jogged your Logic out of your head, and therefore such conclusions may easily slip you. But the direct conclusion of your argument we grant, therefore a reward is due unto them that do good works, only with this exception, that it is due by the merciful promise of God, not by virtue of any our merit or desert, and more your argument proveth not. Now he taketh great pains in the handling of this worthy argument, to prove inequality of reward, and all to no purpose, because we deny not, but that as God in this life diversly distributeth his graces, to some in greater measure, to some in less: so in the life to come he will sort his rewards accordingly, that it may be true which is written, that o 1. Cor. 3.8. every man shall receive his wages according to his labour. But whether greater wages to greater labour, or lesser wages to lesser labour, both are promised for Christ's sake, as hath been showed: and God will perform the same p Ezech. 36.22. for his own names sake, and not for any merit of ours, whereby he standeth bound unto us. As for the term of merits which he allegeth out of the Fathers, what we are to conceive thereof followeth anon after to be declared. Of virginity and widowhood we are to entreat in the question of Vows. 19 W. BISHOP. The fift reason is taken out of those texts, which teach that men are worthy of eternal life: They shall walk with me in whites, Apoc: 3. Sap. 3. 2. Thess. 1. Luk. 20.35. because they be worthy. God proved them, and found them worthy of himself. That you may be esteemed worthy of the kingdom of God. Now if men be worthy of eternal life, it must needs be granted, that they have deserved it. M. Perkins answereth: that they were indeed worthy, but not for their own merits, but for Christ's imputed unto them. This is his only refuge, yet hath he not, nor cannot show any one text in Scripture that speaketh so. But to refel him, turn only to the places, and there you shall find, that this worthiness rose of good works, as Christ saith: Apoc. 3. I know thy works, and find them not full: yet there be some amongst you, who have not defiled their garments (but have their works full) they shall walk with me in whites, because they be worthy: 2. Thess. 1. and by sustaining persecutions, they were made worthy of that kingdom. And in the words following the Apostle signifieth, that it is as just for God to requite good works with the joys of heaven, as he doth punish wicked with the pains of hell. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins for objection proposeth the place of the Revelation, a Apoc. 3 4. They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy, as whereby they would prove merit, because a man cannot be worthy but he must merit & deserve. M. Bishop out of his store addeth two other places of the new Testament, but they are such as whereby is ministered unto us a very ready and pregnant answer to the first. The place of Saint Luke is by their own vulgar translation thus: b Luk. 20.35. Qui digni habebuntur: that is, They who shall be accounted worthy. The words of Saint Paul are: c 2. Thess. 2.5. digni habeamini: that ye may be esteemed worthy of the kingdom. Whereby we conceive and understand what man's worthiness is, God's dignation, God's acceptation, Gods vouchsafing to take him as worthy for Christ's sake, though in respect of himself he be not worthy. To this M. Bishop saith: This is his only refuge, yet can he not show any one text of Scripture that speaketh so. But we answer him, that all those texts of Scripture which do thus speak of God, reputing, or esteeming, or accounting worthy, do import so much unto us. For if our worthiness stand in Gods esteeming and accounting of us, we may not of the title of worthiness conclude, that by perfection of real quality we are that for which he is content in mercy and favour to accept us. We are accordingly worthy as we are just. We are just, to speak of perfect justice, not by righteousness of works, but only by God's imputation of righteousness without works, as we have seen before. In like sort therefore we are worthy d Bernard in Dedicat. Eccles. ser. 5 Nos sumus sed ipsius dignatione, non dignitate nostrae. by Gods vouchsafing acceptance, not by our worthiness, as S. Bernard saith. And hereto agree the confessions of the faithful. jacob saith, e Gen. 32.10. I am less than all thy mercies, and all the truth which thou hast showed unto thy servant: that is, as we read it, I am not worthy thereof: according to that which chrysostom saith: f Chrysostom. de compunct. cordis. Etsi millies moriamur, etsi omnes animae virtutes expleamus nihil tamen dignum gerimus ad ea quae ipsi à Deo percepimus. Though we die a thousand deaths, though we fulfil all the virtues of the soul, yet do we nothing worthy in comparison of those things which we ourselves have received of God. john Baptist, g Mat. 11.11. than whom there arose not a greater amongst women's children, yet saith of himself in respect of Christ, h Mat. 3.11. I am not worthy to bear his shoes: i Mar. 1.7. I am not worthy to untie the latchet of his shoe. The Centurion of whose faith our Saviour testifieth, that k Mat. 8.10. he had not found so great faith, no not in Israel, yet saith of himself, l Ver 8, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof. m Bernard. in Dedicat. Eccles. Ser. 5. Lege, o homo, in cord tuo, lege intra te ipsum de teipso testimonia veritatis, & hac communi luce iudicabis te indignum. Read, O man, saith S. Bernard, in thine own heart, read within thyself concerning thyself the witness of truth, and thou wilt judge thyself unworthy of this common light. Thus holy men have spoken, thus they have thought, and if our unworthiness be such to these things, shall we dream of a worthiness to the crown of heaven? n Psal. 31.16. Save me, saith David, for thy mercy's sake: that is, saith S. Austin, o Aug. in Psal. 30. Hoc est, non in mea justitia, non in meis meritis, sed in tu● misericordia; non quia ego sum dignus, sed quia tu misericors. not in my righteousness, not in my merits, but in thy mercy: not because I am worthy, but because thou art merciful. Again, the same S. Austin saith in another place: p Idem in Psal. 41. Nobis Deus omnia bona praestat, quia bonus est, non quia nos digni sumus: quia ille misericors est, non quiae in aliquo promeruimus. God yieldeth unto us all good things because he is good, not because we are worthy; because he is merciful, not because we have meririted in any thing. The Prophet acknowledgeth God giving deliverance q Psal. 44.26. for his mercy's sake, or as the vulgar Latin readeth, for his name's sake. Saint Austin again expoundeth it: r Aug in Psal. 43. Hoc est, gratis, propter nomen tuum, non propter meritum meum, quia tu digna turus es facere, non quia ego dig●us sum cui facias, That is, freely, for thy name's sake, not for my merit: because thou shalt vouchsafe to do it, not because I am worthy to whom thou shouldest do it. Thus doth S. Austin oftentimes give check to M. Bishop's conceit of worthiness, by occasion of those phrases so often used, for thy name's sake, for thy mercy's sake, for thy righteousness sake. So Basil expoundeth the same phrase: s Psal. 143.12. For thy mercy's sake: t Basil. in Psal. 142. Non quòd ego dignus sim, sed propter benignitatem tuam. not because I am worthy, but because of thine own goodness. Now if M. Bishop will have no salvation but that he will be worthy of it, let him hear what S. Bernard saith: u Bernard. in Dedicat. Eccles. Ser. 5, Quòd si nos puerili animositate gratis salvari nolumus merito non saluamur Excludit miseriae dissimulatio miserationem nec dignatio locum habet, ubi fuerit praesumptio dignitatis. If we of childish stomach will not be saved freely, justly are we not saved at all. The dissembling of our misery excludeth mercy, neither hath God's vouchsafing any place where presumption is of our worthiness. But M. Bishop to refel M. Perkins, biddeth us turn to the places, and there we shall find, that the worthiness rose of works. But we have turned to the places, and find no necessity thereof. We find that they that defiled not their garments were worthy, but that by their very works they were worthy we find not. Nay their worthiness indeed was in their garments. For what garments were they that they had not defiled, but the same whereof the Apostle speaketh: x Gal. 3.27. so many as are baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. He is our purple garment of redemption by his blood: he is our Lily white garment of innocency by his righteousness. They that with this profession of Christ do join idolatry, heresy, uncleanness, do dishonour the name and profession of Christ, and disgrace the garments which should grace them; which these had not done. By these garments therefore they were worthy, by Christ, by his merits, by his obedience, by his righteousness; in him and for his sake they were counted worthy; and whatsoever worthiness God pronounceth of them for their works, it is by the gracious acceptation thereof in him. Albeit the place may very well bear another construction also, that they were worthy, not absolutely, but compared to the other spoken of before. For one man compared to another, may be called worthy in comparison of the other, when simply considered in himself, and compared to the judgement of God, he is not worthy. And to this distinction S. Ambrose leadeth us, who speaking of the calling of the Apostles, whom Christ put y 2. Cor 6.20. in his stead to beseech us to be reconciled unto God, saith of them: z Ambros. in 2. Tim. 1. Si ad liquidum quaeras nullus hominum potest dignus videri Vitarius esse Christi. Omnes enim quos elegit, priùs fuerant peccatores. Quantum ergo ad comparationem caeterorum hominum, high digni inventi sunt, quantum verò ad rem ipsam omnes indigni sunt. If we inquire the matter strictly, there can no man be found worthy to be the deputy of Christ: for all whom he chose, were formerly sinners. In comparison then of others, these (the Apostles) were found worthy; but as touching the thing itself all are unworthy. Thus plainly doth he give us to understand, that men may be called worthy only in respect of other men. In the other place M. Bishop saith, that by sustaining persecutions, they are said to be made worthy. But he saith untruly: for the Apostle saith only as was before alleged, that ye may be counted worthy, which (as I have said) is for Christ's sake, a Phil. 1.29. in whom it is given unto us, that not only we should believe in him, but also suffer for his sake, and because it is given us, therefore howsoever patiently we bear it, yet we must still say as S. Austin teacheth: b Aug. in Psal. 43. Sive patientes in tribulationibus, sive gaudentes in prosperitatibus redime nos non propter meritum nostrum, sed propter nomen tuum. Deliver us, not for our merit, but for thy name's sake. Yet he goeth further and telleth us, that in the words following the Apostle signifieth, that it is as just with God to requite good works with the joys of heaven, as to punish wicked with the pains of hell. Neither do we make any doubt thereof, because he hath given his word and promise so to do. And it is as just with God to perform his promise to the one, as it is to punish the evil deservings of the other. By justice and just judgement God giveth rest unto the persecuted, but this just judgement consisteth in justifying and maintaining c Aug. in Psal. 42. judica, inquit●●ne Deus non timeo tu licium tuum quia novi misericordiam tuam. Discern causam meam, distet inter eum qui in te credit, & eum qui non credit: par infirmitatis sed dispar conscientia, etc. their cause, as S. Austin noteth, not in weighing or examining their merit & worth. By just judgement God putteth difference d Jdem in Psal. 32. Nec in miseritordia Deus amittit iudi●ium nec in judicio mesericordi●m, etc. N●n qu●d judicium amisit, aut non debuit judicare inter conversos & non conversos? An vobit justum videtur ut conversus, & non conversus aequaliter habeantur? Ergo habet & judicium in ipsa m●sericordia. Rursus in illo judicio habet & misericordiam, etc. betwixt the converted and the not converted; betwixt the righteous and the wicked; betwixt him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not, betwixt him that believeth, and him that believeth not; and yet he that believeth and serveth God, yea and is persecuted for God's sake, must crave judgement with mercy to be received unto life, praying with David against mere judgement: e Psal. 143.2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant etc. That justice therefore is to the faithful such as Basil speaketh of: f Basil in Psal 141. justitiae immixta est misericordia, & ita immixta ut ipsa justitia benignitas vocetur. Mercy is mingled with justice, and so mingled, as that justice itself is called mercy. That just judgement is such, as Saint Ambrose speaketh of: g Ambros. 〈◊〉 Psal. 118. Ser. 20. judicium quo fragilitatis nostrae aestimatione censemur. In hoc ipso judicium cum misericordiae copulatum est, ut veritas judicij miseratione Domini temperetur. A judgement wherein we are judged with consideration of our frailty, in which judgement is joined with mercy, so that the truth of judgement is tempered or qualified with the mercy of the Lord. Now h Ber. in Cant. Ser. 14. judicium temperatum misericordia est. judgement tempered and qualified, is indeed mercy as Saint Bernard saith. As for the place cited out of the book of Wisdom: i Wisd. 3.5. God proved them and found them worthy of himself: though it be out of a book the authority whereof we deny, and therefore can require no answer, yet it hath answer sufficient by that that hath been said. God found them worthy of himself by finding them answerable to those conditions and rules, by which he is content in mercy to accept men as worthy, though simply no man can be worthy of him. 20. W. BISHOP. The sixth reason M. Perkins delivereth thus: 2. Tim 4. Eternal life is termed a crown, and a crown of righteousness to be given by a just judge: therefore in this life it must be justly deserved, otherwise it were not well called a crown of justice, nor could be said to be rendered by a just judge. M. Perkins answereth, that it is called a crown by resemblance, because it is given in the end of the life, as the crown is given in the end of the race. Reply. If that were all the cause, and that there were no respect to be had to former deserts, it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance, because that also is given in the end of life: and in their opinion, more properly: because all their works are defiled like a menstruous cloth: and a halter is the end of such wicked works. But as a halter is due to a thief, so is a crown of glory the just reward of the righteous man. Secondly he answereth, that it is called a crown of justice, because God hath bound himself by his promise to give it: here then at length we have by his own confession, that by Gods promise eternal life is due debt unto the righteous: but as having over-shot himself, he adds, not for any desert of theirs, but only for the promise sake. But as you have heard before out of S. Matthew, Math. 20. that promise was made for working the time of his life in our vineyard, and so there was some desert on their part: and the servants were rewarded, because they employed their talents well: and in this very place, Math. 25. Saint Paul reckoneth up his good services, for which the just judge would render him a crown of justice: and therefore the justice is not only in respect of God's promise. And if you will not believe me, proving that I say out of the very text, rather than M Perkins on his bare word, let S. Augustin be arbitrator between us, Li. 50. Hom. hom. 4. who most deeply considereth of every word in this sentence: Let us hear (saith he) the Apostle speaking, when he approached near unto his passion, I have (quoth he) fought a good fight, I have accomplished my course, I have kept the faith: concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which our Lord will render unto me in that day, a just judge: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming: he saith, that our Lord a just judge will render unto him a crown, he therefore doth owe it, and as a just judge will pay it. For the work being regarded, the reward cannot be denied. I have fought a good fight, is a work: I have accomplished my course, is a work: I have kept the faith, is a work: There is laid up for me a crown of justice, this is the reward. So that you see most clearly by this most learned Father's judgement, that the reward is due for the work sake, and not only for the promise of God. See him upon that verse of the Psalm: Psal. 100 I will sing unto thee O Lord, mercy and judgement. Where he concludes, that God in judgement will out of his justice crown those good works, which he of mercy had given grace to do. R. ABBOT. To the objection of this place M. Perkins answereth, that everlasting life is called a crown only in resemblance. For as he which runneth a race, saith he, must continue and run to the end, and so be crowned, even so must we continue to walk in good works unto the end, and then receive eternal life. Now for reply to this answer it seemeth M. Bishop had some conference with the hangman, and learning of him that a halter is the end of a wicked course, (let him remember his own wicked course, and fear the judgement of the just God) he thought good to draw that observation to serve him for one shift. And first to give way to his hangman's device, he curtalleth M. Perkins his answer: as if he had said no more but thus, that eternal life is called a crown, because it is given in the end of the life, as the crown is given in the end of the race. Whereto he replieth, that if that were all, and that there were no respect to former deserts, it might then as well be called a halter. But M. Perkins answer expresseth plainly, as we see, that the crown hath reference to them that continue to the end to walk in good works, and therefore left no occasion or place for this hangmanlike and uncivil reply. But his mind, it seemeth, was strongly set upon the halter, and therefore by head and shoulders he would pull it in, only to please himself and his table companions with a forced and witless jest. He addeth further, that in our opinion it should more properly be called a halter, because all our works are defiled like a menstruous cloth, and an halter is the end of such wicked works. Now we know no reason but that M. Bishop by most right, because he hath set down the sentence, should keep the halter to himself; for that we are well assured that his best works are defiled as well as ours. But what will he say (I marvel) to Pope Leo the third, of whom Matthew of Westminster reporteth, that a Math. Westm. lib. 1. anno 798. Mulier quaedam ad quam aliquando acc●ssum habuit, ut ●●cebatur manum eius comprimit inter celebran dum & comprimendo deosculans incentiwm libibinis in Papa excitavit. being at Mass, about a good work no doubt, a woman of his good acquaintance coming with her offering, crushed and kissed his hand, and therewith stirred up in the Pope (a holy father I warrant you) some motions of the flesh. Now was this no defilement shall we think to so good a work? Surely if M. Bishop had lived then, he would have given judgement of the Pope that he should be hanged, because a halter is the end of such wicked Mass. But tell us M. Bishop, do all your works go so currently and cleanly from you, as that you can presume to be free from the halter that you have here made? Have you never offended at Mass in some such like sort as the Pope did? Doth not your mind often wander when you seem to pray? Do not sinister thoughts and respects many times interpose themselves, and make you to go crooked when you think to go upright? Take heed that hereafter it be not said unto you, Patere legem quam ipse tuleris: Be tried by the law which thou thyself hast made: a halter is the end of such wicked works. But of the condition of our works, more hath been said before, then ever M. Bishop will be able to disprove. Here he concludeth, that as a halter is due to a thief, so is the crown of glory the just reward of the righteous man. True say we, but yet not by the virtue of his righteousness and desert, but by the merciful promise of Almighty God. In respect of which promise, it is called, as M. Perkins answereth, a crown of justice, because God by his promise hath bound himself to give it, and in the performance of his promise he is approved just. And this is the constant confession of us all, which M. Bishop seemeth to apprehend as casually or forcedly spoken by M. Perkins, that eternal life is a due debt to the righteous and faithful, yet with that exception still, which he thinketh M. Perkins added as having overshot himself, because his ignorance conceiveth not how these two stand together, not for any desert of theirs, but only for his promise sake, as hath been declared sufficiently b Sect. 17. before, in defending the answer to the third objection. But as touching the place here handled, he shall find S. Bernard expounding this crown of justice in the same sort as we do. c Bernard. de gr●t. & lib. arb. Est ergo quam P●ulus expectat corona justitiae, sed justitiae Dei, non suae. justum est quip ut redd●t quod debet debet autem quod pollicitus est. Et haec est justitia de qua praesumit Apostolus promissio Dei. It is a crown of justice (saith he) which Paul expecteth, but of God's justice, not his own. For it is just that God pay what he oweth, and he oweth that which he hath promised. And this is the justice of which the Apostle presumeth, even the promise of God. Albeit it is true also, that man's justice is crowned, & that in that respect also it is a crown of righteousness, who maketh question thereof? but still it is true, that it is not due to man's righteousness by merit and desert, but is tied to it only by the promise and grace of God. And thus doth the Apostle reckon his good service, for which the just judge would render a crown of justice, not as pleading his desert thereof, but knowing that God hath promised such reward to such service. He allegeth to the contrary the examples of them that were called into the vineyard, and of the other that received the talents, but of them he hath before received answer. All his error is, that he cannot conceive work and reward, but that it must necessarily imply merit and desert, which notwithstanding children can distinguish, because great reward by favour may be given when the work is in no sort to be thought worthy of it. As for the place of Austin which he produceth, it giveth him no succour. We find there work and reward: I have fought a good fight, etc. the work. There is laid up for me a crown of justice; the reward: but we do not find that the reward is deserved by the work: we do not find that by virtue of merit the justice of God any way standeth bound unto him. Nay in the same sermon S. Austin saith, d Augus. lib. 50 homil. 14 Da veniam Apostole, propria tua non novi nisi mala. Cùm ergo Deus coronat merita tua, nihil coronat nisi dona sua. Pardon me Apostle, I know nothing of thine own but evil: therefore when he crowneth thy merits, he crowneth nothing but his own gifts. His collection from the place is already answered, that by the promise the reward is yielded to the work. In the other place there is nothing more than in that I have spoken of, and hath full answer by the same exception. Only I will remember M. Bishop, that by S. Augustine's doctrine there can no merit be pleaded on our behalf, because all our good works come from grace on God's behalf, so that therefore the crown is but grace for grace, and a latter mercy added as the consequent of a former mercy. And this S. Austin noteth concerning this very place of S. Paul here debated. e Idem in Psal. 102. Reddet mihò Dominus, etc. Quare? Quia bonum certamen certau●, etc. unde certasti? etc. Non ego autem sed gratia Dei mecum. Ergo & quòd coronar●●, ill●us mesericordia coronaris. Nusquam sis superbus: semper lauda dominum. The Lord will render unto me a crown of righteousness. Why? because I have fought a good fight, etc. But whence hast thou fought a good fight? etc. Yea not I, but the grace of God with me. Then it is by his mercy that thou art crowned. Be no where proud, but always praise the Lord. In a word he saith again as before we have seen, that f Idem. de great. & lib. arb. cap 7. Non coronat Deus merita tua tanquam merita tua, sed tanquam dona suae. God crowneth our merits, not as our merits, but as his own gifts: and if they go not under account of our merits in heaven, why are they so earnestly pleaded for as ours here upon the earth? 21. W. BISHOP. And that the Reader may understand, that not only S. Augustine doth so confidently teach this doctrine of merits (which M. Perkins blushed not to term the invention of Satan,) I will fold up this question with some testimonies of the most ancient and best Authors. S. Ignatius, the Apostles auditor saith: Epist. ad Roman. Give me leave to become the food of beasts, that I may by that means merit and win God. justine a glorious Martyr of the next age hath these words, Apolog. 2. aunt med. speaking in the name of all Christians: We think that men who by works have showed themselves worthy of the will and counsel of God, shall by their merits live and reign with him, free from all corruption and perturbation. S. Irenaeus saith: Lib. 4. cont. h●res. cap. 72. We esteem that crown to be precious which is gotten by combat and suffering for God's sake. S. Basil. All we that walk the way of the Gospel, as merchants do, Ora in initium prou. Lib. de Spir. sancto. cap. 24. buy and get the possession of heavenly things by the works of the commandments. A man is saved by works of justice. S. Cyprian. If the day of our return shall find us unloden, swift, Serm. de eleemos. in fine. and running in the race of works, our Lord will not fail to reward our merits. He will give for works to those that win in peace, a white crown, and for martyrdom in persecution he will redouble unto them a purple crown. S. Hilary. Can. 5. in Math. The kingdom of heaven is the hire and reward of them that live well and perfectly. Lib 1. de Offic. c. 25. S. Ambrose. It is evident that there remaineth after this life either reward for merits, or punishment. S. Hierome. Now after baptism it appertaineth to our travels, according unto the diversity of virtue, to prepare for us different rewards. Ser. 68 in Cant. S. Bernard. Provide that thou have merits, for the want of them is a pernicious poverty. Briefly that this was the universal doctrine of all good Christians above a thousand years past, is declared in the Council of Arausicane: Reward is debt unto good works if they be done, C●●. 18. but grace which was not debt, goeth before, that they may be done. These testimonies of the most ancient and best learned Christians, may suffice to batter the brazen forehead of them that affirm the doctrine of merits to be a Satanical invention, and to settle all them that have care of their salvation, in the most pure doctrine of the Catholic Church. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop will give us to understand, that not only S. Austin, but all antiquity teacheth the doctrine of merits, so that M. Perkins might blush to call it the invention of Satan. But M. Perkins had no cause to blush in that respect. He knew well that antiquity is more vaunted by Papists then followed. He knew well that in this doctrine of merits they wickedly belly antiquity and the Fathers. And indeed never any Father spoke of merits as they have done. justly therefore did he call it as it is the invention of Satan, serving only to delude men, to put them in vain hope, to lift them up in pride, with opinion of gaining heaven, that they may by their pride be cast down to hell. But for the cleared of this point, it is to be understood, that the name of merits is indeed very usual amongst the fathers of the Latin Church, but with no such meaning as the church of Rome hath fancied thereof. For they only intended thereby briefly and in one word to signify good works, works that please God, that are accepted in God's sight, that find favour with God, & obtain reward at his hands. They dreamt not that in good works there should be a just desert of heaven, that they should deserve it worthily, that they should be fully worthy of everlasting life, that good works should as well be the cause of salvation, as evil works are the cause of damnation, that good works are so far meritorious, so far I say meritorious, as that God should be unjust if he rendered not heaven for them, as in the beginning hath been showed that now is the language of the church of Rome. These speeches or the like were never heard of amongst the Fathers. They used the word merit according to the signification wherein commonly they used the verb mereri, which with them imported to obtain, to find favour for any thing to be given or done; so as that wicked men are said sometimes mereri, not surely to deserve, but to receive or to find the favour of benefits at God's hands; yea and good men are said mereri, not to deserve, but to receive or to find evil usage at the hands of the wicked. But by examples the matter will be plainer than by words. S. Austin saith, a August. de ciu. Dei. lib. 5. cap. 24 Huius vitae solatia quidam etiam cultores daemonum accipere meruerunt: Some who have been worshippers of devils have merited, that is, have found the favour to receive the comforts of this life. Again, b Idem in Psal. 35. Apostolià suis civibus occidi meruerunt: The Apostles merited, that is, found such usage as to be killed of their own people. c Cont. lit. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 6. Pro actione gratiarum flammas meruimus odiorum: In steed of thanks we have merited, that is, we found at their hands the fire of hatred. d De anima & eius orig. lib. 2. cap. 12. Caveat homo ne ab illo miserecordiam mereatur homo contra eius sententiam à quo factus est homo: Let man take heed that man do not merit, that is, obtain mercy of him against the sentence of him by whom man was made. So doth Ambrose use the same word, e Ambr. de Cain & Abel. lib. 2. cap. 10. Iniquus Cain longaevam duxit aetatem, duxit uxorem, & hoc meruit promissione divina: Wicked Cain lived long, and married a wife, and this he merited, that is, obtained or received by the permission of God. f Idem ser. 53. Non debemus mirari quòd joannes tantam gratiam nascendo meruerit: We are not to wonder that john in his birth merited, that is, obtained so great grace. So Hilary speaketh, g Hilar. epist. apud Aug. tom. 7. Libros quaeso habere mereamur: I pray you let us merit, that is, find the favour to have those books. So Hierom, h Hieron. praefat: in Abdiam. Veniam mereri debeo: I am to merit, that is, to obtain pardon. So Gregory Bishop of Rome, i Gregor. Moral. lib. 9 cap. 17. Paulus cum redemptoris nomen in terra conaretur extinguere, eius verba de coelo meruit audire: Paul when he went about to extinguish the name of Christ upon earth, merited, that is, found the mercy & favour to hear his words from heaven. In another place, O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem: O happy sin of Adam that merited, that is, found the mercy to have such and so great a Redeemer. S. Austin apply the word also to beasts and cattle, k August. in Psal 35. Homines habent aliquid apud Deum exceptum quod iumenta non merentur: Men have somewhat excepted with God which beasts merit not, that is, obtain not. Thus the word hath grown also into translations, where in the originals there hath been no occasion of it. Where Cain saith, Mine iniquity is greater than can be pardoned, the vulgar Latin translateth, l Genes. 4.13. Maior est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam mereàr: Mine iniquity is greater than that I can merit, that is, obtain pardon. Where S. Paul saith, m 1. Tim. 1.13. I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly, etc. S. Austin out of some translation readeth, n Aug. de Bapt. con. Donat. lib. 4. cap. 5. Misericordiam merut, I merited mercy, but importing nothing but the obtaining thereof. In an Epistle of Ignatius we have it commonly translated, o Ignat. epist. ad Romanos. I am in love with none of the things that are seen, ut jesum Christum merear adipisci, that I may merit to obtain Christ, whereas in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is as Hierom translateth it, p Hieron in Cat. Eccles. Script. ut jesum Christum inventam, that I may find jesus Christ. Again, in the next period the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the same translator readeth as before, the words being translated by Hierome, q Jbid. tantum ut Christo fruar, only that I may enjoy Christ. And thus in infinite places have they made the Greek Fathers to speak of merit, where they never meant any such thing. But to make it plainly to appear, that by merit they meant not any such worthiness or desert as M. Bishop speaketh of, let one sentence of Ambrose fully suffice. r Amb. epist. 22. Omnia quae patimur minora sunt & indigna pro quorum laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum quae revelabitur in nobis cùm ad Dei imaginem reformati gloriam eius facie ad faciem aspicere meruerimus. All the things that we suffer are too little and unworthy for the pains whereof there should be rendered to us so great reward of future good things, as shall be revealed in us, when being reform to the image of God we shall merit (that is, attain) to see his glory face to face. Where to take merit properly to import desert and worthiness, should be to make Ambrose in one sentence absurdly cross & contrary to himself, to say, that we deserve to see God face to face, when he hath first affirmed that even our sufferings for Christ's sake are unworthy to have so great glory yielded unto them. The same is more plain by that that before hath been alleged out of Gregory, s Of justification sect. 49. ex Gregor. Moral. lib. 9 cap. 18. If we be judged without mercy, our work is worthy to be punished which we expect to have rewarded: therefore the tears of expiation (saith he) are required, that humility of prayer may lift up the merit of our good work to the obtaining of eternal reward. Where we see he useth the name of merit as usually they were wont, but showeth that it is so far from being truly merit, as that in extremity it is worthy to be punished, and that it needeth tears of expiation, that is, earnest intercession and prayer to God for Christ's sake to remit the spots and blemishes thereof, and that it is thus by prayer only, that is, by favour, that any reward is yielded unto it. But to this place most properly belongeth that of S. Bernard before mentioned, that t 〈◊〉 in A●●●●ne ser. 1. Neque enim taliae sunt hominum merita ut propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure, aut Deus iniuriam faceret nisi eam donaret. the merits of men are not such as that eternal life is due for them of right, or as if God should do wrong if he did not yield the same unto them. u Idem de great. et lib. arb. Si propriè appellentur ea quae nostra ditimus merita, etc. uta regni sunt, non causa regnand. If (saith he) we will properly name those which we call our merits, they are the way to the kingdom, not the cause of our obtaining the kingdom. Where most plainly he giveth to understand, that the name of merits is unproperly abused, and howsoever custom had taken it up, to call good works by the name of merits, yet that we are not to conceive, that good works for themselves can challenge any thing by any right, or that we can truly and properly be said thereby to deserve at the hands of God. And this is fully confirmed by Alfonsus de Castro, who mentioning reward due to works, saith x Alphons. count haer. li. 7. tit. Grat. Debetur inquam non ex operis natura, quia ut ait Paulus, Non sunt condignae, etc. sed ex iure promissionis. Hanc enim legem nos naturae docuit, ut quod quisque promisit debere se credat. It is due, not by the nature of the work, for the sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the future glory which shall be revealed upon us, but it is due by right of promise: for nature hath taught us this law, that every man should take himself to owe that which he hath promised. Surely if the debt of the reward arise not from the nature of the work but only by virtue of promise, than merit is no merit properly, because merit properly so called, ariseth from the nature of the work, being in itself justly worthy of that that it is said to deserve. To come then to the testimonies cited by M. Bishop, the first thereof which he citeth out of a Ignat. epist. ad Roman. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sinite me bestiarum escam esse per quas Deum assequi licet. Ignatius, is a false translation, there being nothing in the Greek to import merit, but only the getting, or gaining, or obtaining of God, as hath been said. Suffer me (saith he) to be the food of beasts, that by them I may obtain God. And how far Ignatius was from any such opinion of his own merit, appeareth towards the end of the same Epistle, where he saith, b Jbid. Ego erubesco ex ipsis dici. Non enim sum dignus esse ultimus aut purgamentum, sed miserecordiam consecutus sum ut sim aliquis si Deum adipiscor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I am ashamed to be named one of them (the Pastors of the Church:) for I am not worthy to be the very last or the very outcast of them, but I have found mercy to be some body if I obtain God. He reckoned not of merit or worth, but held it a matter of mercy to him to come to God. How hardly then was M. Bishop bestead, that in the forefront would put Ignatius, when the words that he citeth are nothing for him, and his words in the same Epistle are altogether against him? The words of justinus Martyr also are very lewdly abused in the same manner. The words meritis suis, by their merits, are merely foisted in, neither is there any thing that can be construed to that purpose. c justin. Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Qui si dignos consilio illius se operibus ostenderint, conversatione cum ipso dignatum iri accepimus ut una regnent incorruptibiles, & à perturbatione immunes effecti. They (saith he) who by their works shall show themselves to the counsel of God worthy, or as M. Bishop translateth out of Bellarmine, who by their works show themselves worthy of the counsel and will of God, we have received that he doth vouchsafe them to have company with him to reign with him, being made immortal and free from all perturbation. Where he nameth worthiness in no other sort then the Scripture doth, as hath been before showed, comparatively, not simply; by acceptation, not by perfection; according to the phrase of men, whereto the holy Ghost is content sometimes to submit himself, not according to the exact censure of the judgement of God; not as a matter of Popish merit, whereto God in justice is bound, but to which God in favour vouchsafeth, as he saith, to have company with him. And this he maketh very plain, when in the next words he addeth, d See the same of free-will. sect. 14. For in like sort as he created us when we were not, so do we think that he vouchsafeth them of immortality and dwelling with him, who willingly make choice to do those things that are pleasing unto him. Now to have being at first, it was not of ourselves. In like sort to choose and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath given us, it is by his persuading and moving of us to the faith. Whereby he teacheth, that our being in God, & following of those things that are pleasing to him, is no more of ourselves then our first creation and being was, but that it is by Gods persuading us, Gods moving us, Gods working in us, there being nothing therein to be attributed to ourselves. Whereby he destroyeth the nature of merit, as I have showed e Sect. 3. before, & to that purpose acknowledgeth the vouchsafing favour and grace of God in receiving us to immortality and life with him; for where merit and desert is, there terms of vouchsafing can have no place. Now that which Bellarmine translateth of men showing themselves worthy of the will and counsel of God, may well be understood according to the phrase of the Apostle, instructing us f Col. 1.10. to walk worthy of the Lord, g 1. Thess. 2.12. to walk worthy of God who hath called us unto his kingdom and glory, that is to say, as is fit for them to walk who have received so great mercy at the Lords hands, to the very same purpose as elsewhere he saith, h Phil. 1.27. Let your conversation be such as becometh the Gospel of Christ. In which sort john Baptist saith, i Mat. 3.8. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, that is, such as are fitting and beseeming them that profess to have repent. So then men show themselves worthy of the will and counsel of God, in behaving themselves as is agreeing to them that profess to know the will and counsel of God, without any necessity of merit to be imported thereby. The words of Irenaeus are these: k Iren. lib. 4. cap. 27. Bonus agonista ad incorruptelae agonem adhortatur nos ut coronemur, & pretiosam arbitremur coronam, videlicet quae per agonem acquiritur sed non ultro coalitan. Et quamtò per agonem nobis advenit, tantò est pretiosior. Quamto autem pretiosior tantò eam semper diligamus. Sed neque similiter diliguntur ea quae ultro adveniunt quàm illa quae cum multa solicitudine adinueniuntur. The good combatant exhorteth us to the combat of immortality, that we may be crowned, and may think the crown precious, as being attained by fight, and not of itself accrueing unto us. And by how much the more it cometh by fight, so much the more precious it is: and the more precious it is, so much the more we may love it. But the things are not in like sort loved which come of their own accord, as those which are attained with much care. In all which, what is there to M. Bishop's purpose? He only showeth that God hath appointed, that not with our ease and idleness the crown of life shall voluntarily come unto us, but that we with labour and travel must strive to come to it, that in the attainment of it, it may be the more joyful and precious unto us. What is this other than we also teach, who yet cannot find hereby that our labour and travel doth merit and deserve the crown of life? The case is all one, as if a Prince having a subject fallen from him, and gone into a far country should of mere grace & favour send for him to come again, by letters patents granting him his pardon, and assuring him place of honour & state upon his return home: who being to pass through the midst of the enemies of his Prince, must use much fight, and travel, and pains, and undergo many dangers both by sea and land for the achieving of this honour. When he cometh to his journeys end he hath no title to plead for his place, but only the free donation and gift of his Prince. By his labour & pains he hath gained himself the possession of it, & he might for the mean time lay it before him as a reward to comfort and encourage himself in the journey that he was to make; but merit he can allege none; no right can he allege whereby to claim it, but only his Prince's gift. Even so it is with us. We were fallen from God, and he hath called us to him again, and given us the promise of eternal life. By much combat and travel we must attain to it, and yet when we have done all, we can plead no merit, we can make no claim but only by our Prince's gift, by the free and merciful promise and bounty of Almighty God. And hereby appeareth the answer to the place of Basil, that l Basil orat. in princip. Proverb. Omnes nos qui viam Euangelicam incedimus mercatore● sumus p●r opera mandatorum nobis possessionem coelestium comparantes. we all who walk the way of the Gospel are merchants, getting by the works of the commandments the possession of heavenly things. For by the works of the commandments we obtain the possession, but not the right and title of heavenly things. They are the way wherein we walk to attain to that which God of his free mercy bestoweth upon us. Wherein because we yield our labour in the one to receive the other, S. Basil so far fitly compareth it to a kind of merchandise or exchange, though not intending that in the merit of the one should be the purchase of the other. As for the other place, it is none of Basils, being taken out of a counterfeit addition, which m Erasm. epist. praefixa libro Basil. de Spir. sancto. Erasmus well observed, and by good arguments declared to be no part of Basils' work. n Basil. de Spir. sanct. cap. 24. Homo saluus fit per justitiam operum. A man (saith he) is saved by righteousness of works. But the Scripture saith, o Ephes. 2.8. Ye are saved by grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. r Basil. in Psal. 43. Vide quomodo sermonem clauserit. Post mill virtutes unde servari orat? Ex misericordia & benignitate. Whatsoever the author might mean in that he saith, we are sure that his words accord not with the phrase and style of the holy Ghost. And that the true Basil was far from that mind, appeareth plainly by the note that he giveth upon the words of the Psalm, ᵖ Arise, O Lord, help us and deliver us for thy mercy's sake. q Psal 44.26. Behold (saith he) how he endeth his speech. After a thousand virtues, whereby doth he pray to be saved? Even of mercy and goodness. And upon another of the Psalms he saith, s Idem. in Psal. 23. Retributiones quae putantur, propter solam Dei benignitatem hominibus praestantur. universae siquidem mortalium justitiae ●e praestita quidem ab ipso bona adaequant, nedum futura quae & humanam cogitationem transcendunt. Rewards, as they are thought to be, are yielded unto us by the only mercy & goodness of God: for all the righteousnesses of men cannot equal the benefits which he hath already bestowed, much less those that are to come which go beyond all the conceit of man. He saw well, that the Prophet after thousands of virtues could have no hold of salvation but only by God's mercy. He saw well, that albeit God's benefits go under the name of rewards, yet in all our righteousness there is nothing to countervail in any sort the bounty of his goodness, and therefore was far from that Pharisaical and proud opinion of merit, which M. Bishop desireth to fasten upon him. Which is easy to be seen in that also which I cited out of him before, that t Basil. in Psal. 114. supra sect. 13. eternal rest is laid up for them who lawfully fight the combat of this life, not to be rendered by way of debt to works, but provided by the grace of the bountiful God for them that trust in him. u Cypr▪ de eleem. Si expeditos, si celeres, si in hoc operis agone currentes dies nos vel reditiones, vel persecutionis invenerit, nusquam Dominus meritis mostris ad proemium decrit. In pace coronam vincentibus candidam pro operibus dabit; in persecutione purpuream propassione geminabit. Cyprian hath nothing for M. Bishop's turn, but only the name of merits; and it is already showed that that can avail him nothing. In steed of merits put in good works, which is all that it importeth; and Cyprian saith nothing but what we say. No more doth Hilary, whose words are, x Hilar in Mat. can. 5. Haec rectè perfectèque viventium merces est ut in novam ●oelestemque substantiam ex hac corruptibilu corporis materie transferantur. This is the reward of them that live well and perfectly, that from this matter of a corruptible body they are translated to a new and heavenly substance. M. Bishop somewhat forceth the place to serve his turn, but it is plain by that that hath been said before, that the names of hire and reward are far enough off from proving merit and desert. And whatsoever they import with men, yet that they import not so with God, let Hilary himself be witness, who speaking of the wages of them that were hired into the vineyard, saith, y Idem ibid. can. 20. Merces quidem ex dono nulla est quia debetur ex opere, sed gratuitam Deus omnibus ex fidei justificatione donavit. Wages indeed there is none of gift, because it is due by work: but God hath given the same freely to all by the justification of faith. There is no merit then in the reward that Hilary speaketh of, because though it be termed reward, yet it is freely given by the justification of faith. In the place of Ambrose it is plain, that the name of merits is taken indifferently for works either good or evil. He saith, that z Ambros. Offic. lib. 1. cap 15. Nonnè evidens est meritorum, aut proemia, aut supplicia post mortem manner? it is evident that for merits there remaineth after this life either reward or punishment: and M. Bishop will not say, that punishment remaineth for the merits that he pleadeth for. Yet he calleth good works by the name of merits, but to how little purpose for Popish merit hath been already showed. And how far Ambrose was from opinion thereof, his own words shall witness, where he saith, a Ambr. in Psal. 118. ser. 20. Quis nostrum sine divina potest miseratione subsistere? Quid possumus dignum proemijs facere coelestibus? etc. Quo tand●m hominum merito defertur ut haec corruptibilis caro induat incorruptionem, & mortale hoc induat immortalitatem? Quibus laboribus quibusue iniurijs possumus nostra levare peccata? Indignae sunt passiones huius temporis ad superuenturam gloriam. Non ergo secundum merita nostra, sed secundum misericordiam Dei coelestium decretorum homines forma praecedit. Which of us can stand without the mercy of God? What can we do worthy of the reward of heaven? By what merit of man is it yielded, that this corruptible should put on incorruption, or this mortal should put on immortality? By what labours, by what suffering of wrongs can we abate our sins? The sufferings of this time are unworthy for the glory that is to come. Therefore the form of heavenly decrees goeth before men, not according to our merits, but according to God's mercy. This being so by the judgement of Ambrose, why doth M. Bishop seek to persuade us by the name of Ambrose, that God frameth his heavenly decrees concerning us according to our merits, and that the works that we do, are worthy of the reward of heaven? He useth commonly the name of merit as the rest do, but never had in his heart that matter of merit that M. Bishop dreameth of. Hierome also is cited but for show, and only to fill up a place. b Hieron. adue●. Jovinian. lib. 2. Nostri laboris est pro diversitate virtutum, diversa nobis proemia praeparare. It belongeth to our labour according to diversity of virtues to prepare for ourselves diversity of rewards. The rewards by the promises of God are tied to the works, and therefore in doing the works to which the rewards belong, we may well be said to prepare for ourselves the same rewards. As we are said to work out our salvation, because though it be Gods mere grace by which we are saved, yet he useth our will and our work for the effecting thereof, so are we said also to prepare rewards for ourselves, because God useth us as instruments to do for ourselves the works that belong to those rewards which he hath prepared for us. And these rewards we doubt not, as before was said, but that they are divers, according to the diversity of our works, greater rewards to greater works, & less reward to lesser works; but what is all this to prove that the rewards are justly merited and deserved by our works? That Hierome thought not so, it is plain by that we have seen out of him c Supra sect. 17. before, that there can no work be found worthy of the justice of God, as also for that he saith in the name of the people of God, d Hieron. in Esa. lib. 17. cap. 64. Si consideremus merita, desperandum est. If we consider our own merits, we must despair, and resolveth even concerning e Idem adu. Pelag. lib. 2. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos: haud dubium quin justos qui non proprio merito, sed Dei saluantur clementia. the just, that they are not saved by their own merit, but by the mercy of God. There followeth Saint Bernard, whom M. Bishop would not have cited if he had meant so faithfully as he should have done. In what sort S. Bernard taketh the name of merits, hath been declared a little before, so as they may well blush to cite any thing out of him for maintaning their doctrine of merits. But M. Bishops dealing is so much the more unhonest, for that in the very same sermon Bernard overthroweth that that he would prove by him. f Bernar. in Can. ser. 68 Quid de meritis solicita sit Ecclesia cui de proposito Dei firmior suppetit, securiorque gloriandi ratio? etc. Non est quòd iam quae ras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audias apud prophetam, Non propter vos, etc. Ezec. 36. Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiunt merita, etc. Merita habere cures; habita data noveru; fructum speraveris misericordiam Dei, etc. Perniciosa paupertas meritorum penuria est. To what end is the Church careful as touching merits, which hath a more sure and secure ground of rejoicing by reason of the purpose of God? It is not for thee to ask, by what merits we hope for good things, seeing thou hearest by the Prophet, Not for your sakes, but for mine own sake will I do it, saith the Lord. It sufficeth for merit, to know that merits are not sufficient. Be careful to have merits; when thou hast them, know them to be given thee; but for fruit thereof hope for the mercy of God. The wa●t of merits is a pernicious poverty. Thus under the name of merits he commendeth the having of good works, and our care to be rich therein, showing that it is a pernicious want to be destitute thereof, and to be men fruitless in the Church of God. But yet when we have them, he teacheth us to conceive the unsufficiency thereof, and to rest the expectation of the fruit and reward thereof only upon God's mercy, who hath promised to perform it, not for our sakes, but for his own sake, and so fully bereaveth them of that nature of merit which M. Bishop doth assign unto them. Thus doth he every where give us to understand his mind: g Ibid. ser. 61. Meritum meum miseratio domini. My merit (saith he) is the mercy of the Lord. h Ibi. ser. 73. Opus habent & sancti pro peccatis exorare ut de misericordia salui fiant propriae justitiae non fidentes. Even the Saints have need to entreat for their sins, that by thy mercy they may be saved, not trusting to their own righteousness. And again: i In Psal. Qui habitat. ser. 1. Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritu sui● sperant: periculosa quia ruinosa. Dangerous is the dwelling of them that trust in their own merit: it is dangerous because it is ruinous. k Ibi. ser. 16. Hoc totum homini● meritum si totam spem suam ponat in illo qui totum hominem saluum fecit. This is the whole merit of man, to put his whole trust in him who hath wholly saved man. Many other such like speeches of his might be alleged, whereby M. Bishop may well take occasion to bethink himself, whether he have not done S. Bernard wrong to make him a patron of the doctrine of merits, which the Church of Rome now maintaineth. Let him duly consider whether he have done well to take a little advantage of a scrap of a sermon, and to urge it contrary to the whole drift of the Author in that place, and his perpetual doctrine other where. For conclusion, we are assaulted with a whole general Council that saith never a word against us. The Arausican Council saith, l Concil. Arausic. cap. 18. Debetur merces de bonis operibus si fiant: sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit ut fiant. Reward is due for good works if they be done, but grace which is no due, goeth before, that they may be done. Even so say we: we also confess that there is a reward due unto good works, which God taketh upon him to owe unto us; but we say it with that limitation that before we have heard out of S. Austin, from whom that Council borroweth almost all that they have set down, that m Supra sect. 17 God hath made himself a debtor unto us, not for any thing that he hath received of us, but by promising all things unto us. It is due then to the work, not simply in respect of the work itself, or for the merit and worth thereof, but by virtue of the promise that God hath made to them that so work. And thus we are come to an end of M. Bishop's antiquity, which we may see doth pitifully fail him, in that out of all antiquity he could bring no stronger proofs than he hath done; his doctrine of merits being expressly thwarted by the most of them whom he hath brought for defence of it. But as touching Antiquity, gentle Reader, for thy further satisfaction, and the better arming of thee (if need require) against the fraud of these undermining Sophisters, it shall not be amiss to advertise thee thus much, that as we do, so did the ancient Fathers upon divers occasions speak diversly of good works, and both their speeches and ours are always to be weighed according to the same occasions. When there is cause to set forth the true and proper cause of our salvation, they refer the same as we do to the free grace and mercy of God, and wholly to his gift; they vilify as we do the works and worth of men, and acknowledge that there is nothing in us in the confidence whereof we may offer ourselves to God; nothing in strength, whereof we can stand before God, or whereby we should merit and deserve any thing at God's hands. Here works are considered merely as they are, and as God instrict and precise judgement findeth them to be, and therefore are pronounced of accordingly. But when occasion requireth to speak only of good works and of the end thereof, and we look no further but to enforce a conscience of the way wherein God hath called us to walk to that salvation that he hath promised, or when we have in hand to commend any special point of godly and virtuous conversation, we press the same with all instance, as the Fathers do; we show how necessarily God requireth the works of our obedience, how graciously he vouchsafeth in mercy to accept them, how he hath promised of his bounty to reward them. We forbear not to say, that eternal life is the stipend of our warfare, the hire and wages of our works; that God hath not appointed heaven for idle persons and loiterers, but for such as labour for it; that because God rendereth heaven, we must have that whereto it is to be rendered: if we have not, there is no heaven for us. We say, it is a crown or garland; win it and wear it: it is a harvest; labour for it if thou wilt enjoy it: it is a field of treasure; if thou wilt possess it, thou must purchase it. Such kind of speeches every man may observe, who is either a hearer of our sermons, or a reader of our books. Now if any man will hereof conclude, that we teach the merit of works, it is his ignorance and mistaking, and he doth us wrong. We teach what followeth of what; we teach the dependence and consequence of good life and eternal life, of the work and the reward, God having so ordained the one to be the way whereby he will bring us to the other. But when we look to the true cause of all, we truly teach that it is God that giveth us both good life and eternal life, both the work and the reward, not the one properly for the other, but the one to follow the other, only for his mercy's sake. Thus the fathers also conceived hereof, as appeareth by that that hath been alleged from them. We speak as they spoke, and they as we; and the Papists do them absurd wrong to wrest & strain their speeches as they do. Whatsoever M. Bishop hath cited from them, understand it according to S. Bernard's rule before set down, as of the way not as of a cause, and they differ nothing at all from that that we say. CHAPTER 6. OF SATISFACTION. 1. W. BISHOP. MAster Perkins acknowledgeth first civil satisfaction, that is, Pag. 117. a recompense for injuries or damages any way done to our neighbour: such as the good Publican Zacheus practised, Luk. 19 who restored fourfold the things gotten by extortion and deceit. This is wittily acknowledged by him, but little exercised among Protestants; for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting, there men use very seldom to recompense so much as one fold for their extortion, bribes, usury, and other eraftie overreaching of their neighbours. But of this kind of satisfaction, which we commonly call restitution, we are not here to treat, nor of that public penance, which for notorious crimes is done openly, but of such private penance which is either enjoined by the confessor, or voluntarily undertaken by the penitent, or else sent by God's visitation to purge us from that temporal pain, which for sins past and pardoned we are to endure, either in this life, or in purgatory if we die before we have fully satisfied here. R. ABBOT. We will never believe you M. Bishop, that your upstart sacrament of Confession hath any such effect as you pretend for satisfaction and restitution of evil gotten goods, until we shall certainly understand, that your masters the jesuits have made restitution of those goods which you and your fellow Seculars, by Watson your proctor, have charged them to have embezzled by cozenage and villainy, in drawing them by their notable imposture of spiritual exercise to sell their whole estate, and to put the money into their hands. I might write here a pretty story, to show what fruits your sacrament of confession hath yielded in that behalf, but the occasion no further requiring than it doth, let that one example now suffice. But in M. Perkins words you might have taken knowledge of a Protestant, namely Zacheus, without any sacrament of confession, offering restitution to them to whom he had done wrong; and doubt not you, but the rest who faithfully are that which they profess to be, are always ready to do the like, and that more holily and religiously than you are wont to do. But to the purpose, the satisfaction here spoken of, is the yielding of a sufficient and worthy recompense and contentment to God for the trespass that we have done unto him. The very naming whereof may be sufficient to make us detest the doctrine of these wretched men, who doubt not, to the singular impeachment and dishonour of the cross of Christ, to attribute unto men a power for the performance of any such satisfaction unto God. We may well marvel, that any taking upon him to be a Christian man, should have his heart so senseless and dead, as not to abhor to think that a man should be said to give a worthy recompense to God for his own sin. By which means they make that a matter of our merit, which never any faithful man imagined to be any other but God's mere mercy; and teach men to seek for that in themselves, which they should find only in the blood of Christ; and take away the true conscience of thankfulness to God for the remission of our sins, whilst we can plead that he doth not so forgive us, but that we are feign to make him amends, and give him full satisfaction for the wrong. Nay it taketh away also the true conscience of sin itself, whilst it is hereby conceived to be a matter of so small moment, as that our beggarly devotions and observations should be thought to be an effectual expiation and redemption thereof. Yea and it argueth a very base conceit of the high majesty of God, to think so base trumpery, such baggage devices as they have forged, to be a fit and sufficient recompense for an offence to him. But herein the Church of Rome hath renewed another point of the Pelagian heresy, who taught a August. Epist. 106. Quod poenitentibus venia non detur se●undum gratiam & misericordiam Dei, sed secundum meritum & laborem eorum qui per poenitentiam dignificerint misericordia that pardon and forgiveness is not given to penitents according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to the merit and labour or pains of them who by repentance shall be worthy of God's mercy. Thus the Pelagians affirmed, and thus the Papists affirm; the fathers and the children still accord in one. Against the Pelagians the ancient Church defined as we do now against the Papists, b Ibid. Fateatur secundum gratiam & misericordiam Dei veniam poenitentibus dari, non secundum merita ecrum, quandoquidem etiam ipsam poenitentiam donion Dei dixit Apostolus, etc. that it is to be confessed, that pardon is granted to the penitent or repentant by the grace and mercy of God, not according to their merits, in as much as the Apostle telleth us, that repentance itself also is the gift of God. Here is no interposing of merit or satisfaction; here is nothing but grace and mercy, c August. conc. Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 2 cap. 24. which is not grace in any sort, as we have heard before out of S. Austin, except it be free in every sort. Arnobius derided in the Pagans this opinion of their satisfactions to their gods, and out of the nature and disposition of the true God, telleth them what the behaviour of their gods should be, if they were indeed as they are called Gods. d Arnob. adu. gentes lib. 7. Ergone iniurias suas Dij vendunt atque ut paruuli pusiones quo animis parcant abstineantque ploratibus passerculos, pupulos, equuleos panes accipiunt, quibus avocari se possint, ita Dij immortales placamenta ista sumunt, quibus ira● atque animos ponant, & in graetiam suis cum offensoribus redeant? Atqui ego rebar Deos, etc. Do the gods then, saith he, sell their own wrongs, and as little children to appease them and to make them leave crying, do take birds, and puppies, and hobbihorses, and cakes, to withdraw them from the things they minded, so do the immortal Gods receive these pacifications whereby to put away their anger & stomach, and to be reconciled to them that offended them? But I had thought that the Gods without any recompense or satisfaction would leave their anger, and remit to sinners their offences. For it is, saith he, the property of Gods liberally to forgive & to grant free pardons. This censure of Arnobius the Papists also undergo, who make God in the like sort as did the Pagans, to sell his own wrongs for our satisfactions, and deny that God giveth to the penitent any free pardon, but he will have a recompense for the offence done unto him, yea and that after the sin is not only passed, but also pardoned, as we are here told. Which I wish thee, gentle reader, to observe diligently, that thou mayst see hereafter how unhansomly he manageth this matter. These satisfactions M. Bishop telleth us, are either enjoined by the Confessor, or undertaken by the penitent, or sent by God's visitation. The two first kinds are in matter all one, either alms by giving a fee to a Priest, or a gift to holy Church, or after a full Friday dinner to fast at night with Sugar cakes and suckets, & wine, or to mumble so many Pater nosters, Ave-maries, and Creeds, such and such days for thus or thus long. And if they be but venial sins e Sext Proaem. in Glossavenialia remittuntur per benedictionem Praelati, per orationem dominicam aquam lenedictam, tunsionem pectoris, etc. to receive the Bishop's blessing, or to be besprinkled with holy water, or to say one Pater noster, or to give himself a knock on the breast, or some such like matter will be satisfaction good enough. Such impudent and shameless harlots have we to do with, who stick not with their ridiculous toys to abuse & vilify the majesty of God, and to make a mockery of the appeasing of that wrath before which the Angels themselves have no strength to stand. The like impiety we see in the other kind of satisfactions, which he saith are sent by God's visitation, whereby we must think that every ague, every bile, every sore finger is a satisfaction for our sins. For although God do lay these things upon us, yet we in the bearing thereof do yield him a recompense for such trespass or offence as we have done to him. Now if we perform not these satisfactions here, than we must after this life make satisfaction in the fire of Purgatory, if we take not good order for the quenching of it. As for hell fire it makes no great matter; that burns but little at Rome: the only Catholic fire is Purgatory fire. Hell yieldeth neither gold nor silver, but Purgatory is a rich mine, and the fire thereof melteth much treasure out of men's purses, that it may run into the Pope's mint: & therefore no marvel if there be much Catholic business, & many bellows blowing to keep it from going out. This is a terrible fire, I warrant you, & if it be hot enough to melt gold and silver, how cruelly doth it scorch the tender souls, that lie frying and broiling in it? Hard therefore will be the case of them that neglect to make full satisfaction while they live here: but yet there is a help for that, for the Pope's pardon will cut off all. The Pope hath a store house of satisfactions at Rome, wherein he hath hoardward up whatsoever the Virgin Mary, & the Apostles, & other Saints & Martyrs have by way of satisfaction paid to God more than they ought him, & if a man will come off and be liberal, he can thence furnish him with sufficient to make up that which he wanteth of his own for payment for all his sins. And he (good holy Father) perceiving in these times f R●●m, Testam. Annot. in 1. Cor. 2.11. a fall of devotion, & a loathsomeness that men commonly have to do great penance, though their sins be far greater than ever before, even of pure compassion fearing to drive them either to despair, or to forsake Christ and his Church, enjoineth small penance, and pardoneth exceeding often and much, not only all enjoined penance, but also all or great parts of what temporal punishment soever due or deserved either in this world or the next. Belike God is waxen more remiss in these later times, and is not so strict to require satisfactions as he was wont to be, and hath been content to put the penalties and forfeitures that are made to him into the Pope's hands, that he may make benefit of them, as having greater occasion of expense than Peter & Paul, and the first Bishops of Rome had. But one thing there is that maketh us here somewhat to stick: M. Bishop reckoneth God's visitations for one part of these satisfactions. Now the Pope having so large power to remit all temporal punishment due or deserved, either in this world or the next, we wonder that we could never yet hear, that a Pope's pardon hath eased a fit of an ague, or cured headache, or toothache, or such like, whereas by their assertion it should be strong enough to break the stone in the bladder, to cure the Strangury, the Gout, the Gangrena, the Nolime tangere, & whatsoever else Physicians & Chirurgeons do accountincurable. How should we think that he that cannot give help for any of these, should be of power to set men free from Purgatory pains? But by his failing so wholly in these, we take him to be a liar in all the rest, & do prove both him and his Factors to be the notable impostors and cousiners of the world, g 2. Pet. 3. ●. Apoc. 18.13. through covetousness with feigned words making merchandise of men's souls, and h Tit. 1.11. speaking things which they oughs not for filthy lucre's sake. We must take you (M. Bishop) to be one of these, unless you bring us better matter than we look for, for the proof of these things. Of Purgatory until you give us further occasion to speak further of it, sufficient hath been already said in i Sect. 10.16, 26. answer of your Epistle to the King. 2. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins in his third conclusion decreeth very solemnly, That no man can be saved, unless he made a perfect satisfaction unto the justice of God for all his sins. Yet in the explication of the difference between us, defineth as peremptorily, that no man is to satisfy for any one of all his sins, or for any temporal pain due to them: which be flat contradictory propositions, and therefore the one of them must needs be false, B●● such odd broken rubbish doth he commonly cast into the ground-wo●●● of his questions, and thereupon raiseth the tottering building of his n●● doctrine: and lets not, like a blind man, to make an outcry, that in this matter the Papists err in the very foundation and life of religion: which in his first argument he goes about to prove thus: Imperfect satisfaction is no satisfaction at all: but the Papists make Christ's satisfaction imperfect, in that they do thereunto add a supply of human satisfaction: ergo, they make it no satisfaction at all. Answ. This is a substantial argument to raise the cry upon: which hath both propositions false. The first is childish: for he that satisfieth for half his debts, or for any part of them, makes some satisfaction, which satisfaction is unperfect, & yet cannot be called no satisfaction at all, as every child may see. His second is as untrue: man's satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christ's satisfaction, but to apply it to us, as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them, and to fulfil his will and ordinance. God doth in baptism for Christ's sake pardon both all sins, and taketh fully away all pain due to sin, so that he who dieth in that state, goeth presently to heaven. But if we do afterward ungratefully forsake God, and contrary to our promise transgress against his commandments, then lo the order of his divine justice requires, that we be not so easily received again into his favour: but he upon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternal punishment due unto it through Christ, doth exact of every man a temporal satisfaction, answerable unto the fault committed: not to supply Christ's satisfaction, which was of infinite value, and might more easily have taken away this temporal punishment, than it doth the eternal: but that by the smart and grief of this punishment, the man may be feared from sinning, and be made more careful to avoid sin: and also by this means be made members conformable to Christ our head, that suffering with him, we may reign with him. And therefore he having satisfied for the eternal punishment, which we are not able to do, doth lay the temporal pain upon our shoulders, that according unto the Apostle, Gal. 6. Every man do bear his own burden. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop well knew that M. Perkins speech importeth no contradiction, because in the one he intendeth that every man is to make satisfaction for his sins, either by himself or by a Mediator, and in the other denieth that any man maketh this satisfaction, or any part thereof by himself. Though the phrase were not so easy of our making satisfaction when he meant it by another, yet his meaning was very plain. There must be a satisfaction yielded to the justice of God, which is done only in jesus Christ, a Rom. 3.25. whom God himself hath set forth to be an atonement or reconciliation through faith in his blood. Here is therefore no broken rubbish, but a sure foundation laid, and the building settled upon it standeth firm and fast, the wind wherewith M. Bishop hath blown against it being only his own breath. And because b 1. Cor. 3.11. there is no other foundation to be laid, but only that which he hath laid, which is jesus Christ, therefore not like a blind man, but upon good discernement and sight, he hath made the outcry, that the Papists laying another foundation in the merits and satisfactions of men, do err in the very foundation and life of Christian faith. To show this he argueth in this sort: A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent, is no satisfaction at all. But the Papists make Christ's satisfaction imperfect, in that they add a supply of human satisfactions: therefore they make Christ's satisfaction no satisfaction at all. A substantial argument, saith M. Bishop: well, if it be not so, we expect that M. Bishop make it appear to us by a very substantial answer. He telleth us, that both the propositions are false, yea the first (saith he) is childish, but well we wots that he hath given us a very childish reason why he so saith. He that satisfieth for half his debts or any part thereof, saith he, makes some satisfaction. But we tell him, that therein he fond misapplyeth the name of satisfaction, which is a word of perfection, and therefore cannot be rightly used of that that is unperfect. It importeth the doing of that that is sufficient and enough to give full contentment to the party to whom it is done, and fully to quit the offence and wrong that is done unto him. Therefore no man but M. Bishop is so mad as to say, that by the tender of a penny, a man offereth a satisfaction, when the debt or damage is an hundred pounds. Yea and howsoever the name of satisfaction may be abused in party-payment for matters of mere debt, yet he should remember, that in their schools it is resolved, that because Satisfaction, as here it is spoken of, is c Thom. Aquin. Supplement. q. 14. art. 1. c. Cùm per satisfactionem tolli debeat offensa praecedentis peccati, offensae autem ablatio sit amicitiae divinae restitutio, quaeper quoduis peccatum impeditur, sieri non potest, ut homo de uno peccato satisfaciat alto retento. Vide in corp●art. the taking away of displeasure and offence, and the taking away of offence is the restitution of friendship and love, and there cannot be restitution of friendship and love, so long as any impediment thereof continueth, therefore there can be no satisfaction for one sin, (that is, for one part of a man's debt) so long as there is a remainder of another. M. Bishop might very well conceive, that God receiveth not recompense of his wrongs by pence and halfpennies, nor doth account the sacrifice of a sheep to be some satisfaction towards the saving of a soul. But it is the 2. proposition that specially concerns the point. To that he answereth, that man's satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christ's satisfaction. Where we see it to be with them, as Tertullian mentioneth of the Valentinian heretics, d Tertullian. adverse. Valent. Nihil magis curant quàm occultare quod praedicant. si tamen praeditant qui occuliant, etc. Negant quicquid agnoscum. They care for nothing more than to hide that which they preach, if at least they preach who conceal and hide: they deny it howsoever they well know it. They do indeed make the satisfaction of Christ unperfect, & our satisfactions to be the supply of his want, but yet because that soundeth odiously, they will not have it known or taken that they do so. Yet M. Perkins brought proof thereof out of one of their great Schoolmen, Gabriel Biel, who plainly saith, that although the passion of Christ be the principal merit for which is conferred grace, and the opening of the kingdom and glory, yet it is never the alone and total meritorious cause. It is manifest (saith he) because always with the merit of Christ there concurreth some work, as the merit of congruity or condignity of him that receiveth grace or glory, if he be of years, and have the use of reason, or of some other for him if he want reason. Here it is expressly affirmed, that the passion of Christ is not a total meritorious cause, and if it be not a total cause, than it wanteth a supply, & that that is added for the producing of the effect, must necessarily be holden to be added for a supply of that that it wanteth. Seeing then to the satisfaction of Christ, as not being a total and perfect cause, our satisfactions are added for the producing of the effects of grace and glory, it cannot be denied but that our satisfactions are a supply of somewhat wanting to the satisfaction of Christ. To this acknowledgement taken out of their own books, why doth M. Bishop answer nothing, but that in his conscience he knoweth that they are guilty of that wherewith they are charged? Yea and the thing is very apparent of itself: for if they held the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction, than they must needs confess that in the nature of a satisfaction nothing else should be needful for us. But they require somewhat else as needful in the nature of a satisfaction. Therefore they do not confess the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction: for it implieth a manifest contradiction, to affirm any thing to be a total cause, and yet to require another cause as necessary for the same effect. M. Bishop telleth us, that the use of our satisfactions is to apply unto us Christ's satisfaction, and to fulfil his will and ordinance. A goodly and witty device. I have a medicine fully sufficient and available for the curing & healing of my wound, & I must have another medicine for the healing of the same wound, which I must apply and lay to the former medicine. My surety hath fully and perfectly discharged my debt, and I must myself pay the debt again, that my sureties payment may stand good for me. A satisfaction to apply a satisfaction, is a toy so improbable & senseless, as that we may think them miserably put to shifts, that could find no better cloak to hide their shame. Yet this is the cover of all their poisoned cups. They multiply their witchcrafts and sorceries without end, & bring into the Church what they list, lewdly to devise, and then tell us that these things serve to apply unto us the merit & passion of Christ. The sacrifice of the Mass is the propitiation for our sins, but it applieth unto us the sacrifice of the cross of Christ. The blood and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are available for the forgiveness of sins, but they apply unto us the virtue of the blood and sufferings of Christ. But here M. Perkins noted, that the means of application consist in Gods offering to us, and our receiving of him. God offereth Christ unto us by the word & Sacraments; we receive him by faith. He required it to be proved, that by satisfactions Christ is either offered on God's part, or received on our part. Why did M. Bishop omit to do this? why doth he neither bring reason, example, nor authority to show us, that satisfaction hath any such nature or use of application, or in what sort it should be said to apply? We have showed e Of justification Sect. 19 29. before, that faith is as it were the hand of the soul, an instrument properly serving for apprehending, receiving, laying hold of, and applying to ourselves: why doth not he make the same appear to us concerning satisfaction? But why do we require him to do more than he can do? But here is a secret, gentle Reader, which I wish thee to take knowledge of, and if thou be acquainted with him, ask him (if occasion serve) the solution of this doubt. He telleth us through all this discourse, that the use of Christ's satisfaction is to take away the guilt of sin, & the eternal punishment thereof, & that this we obtain in the forgiveness of our sins. But now after the forgiveness of our sins, these satisfactions remain to be performed by us. If this be so; if the use of Christ's satisfaction be determined in the forgiveness of our sins, & these satisfactions follow after, how or to what use do these satisfactions apply unto us the satisfaction of Christ? As for example, M. Bishop giveth a man absolution before he dieth: he hath thereupon his sins forgiven him, & a release from eternal punishment, but yet being not yet thoroughly scoured, to Purgatory he must go. Now then in what sort, and to what end doth Purgatory apply unto him the satisfaction of Christ? For the satisfaction of Christ meddleth not with temporal punishments; he hath left the kingdom of temporal satisfactions & the whole revenue thereof to the Pope. What do we here then with applying the satisfaction of Christ? Riddle this riddle he that can, for M. Bishop cannot do it: yet he telleth us further, that our satisfactions are to fulfil the will and ordinance of Christ, and hereupon he entereth into a goodly tale to declare unto us this ordinance. But his declaration is such, as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretics: f Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis ut virut falsitatis intr●●at. They thrust in words of truth, that the poison of their falsehood may find entrance. It fitteth them which Tertullian said of the Valentinians: g Tertul. adverse. Valent. Sanctis nominibus & titulis, & argumentis verae religionis vanissima & turpissima sigmenta co●figurant. They fashion their most vain & filthy devices to the holy names, and titles, and arguments of true religion. He telleth us, that God in Baptism for Christ's sake both pardoneth all sin, and taketh fully away all pain due to sin. But where I marvel hath he seen this miracle wrought? That God in Baptism giveth full forgiveness of sins we acknowledge, but yet did we never find, but that baptism for pain & outward grievances leaveth a man the same that it found him; sick and diseased before, sick and diseased still; lame before, lame still; blind before, blind still. We see that infants baptised, who (he saith) have no sin to satisfy for, yet have many pangs, and frets, and sicknesses, and how then doth baptism take away all pain due to sin? He who dieth in that state, saith he, goeth presently to heaven: but he who dieth in that state, dieth he without pain? We see he talketh at random wholly by fancy, & not by reason, neither do his eyes look which way his feet go. Well, let this pass: What after baptism? If after we transgress, saith he, then lo the order of his divine justice requires, that we be not so easily received again into his favour. Why but the Apostle S. john saith to them that are baptised, h 1. joh. 22. If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation, or satisfaction for our sins. What is the difference then, if both in baptism and after baptism Christ be the atonement & satisfaction for our sins? Yea saith M. Bishop, God upon our repentance pardoneth the sin, and eternal punishment due unto it through Christ, but doth exact of every man a temporal satisfaction answerable to the fault committed. But this cannot be, i Hieron. in Esa. cap. 53 lib. 14. Ne exparte veritas, & ex part mendaciū● eredatur in Christo. least as S. Hierome saith in another case, it be partly a truth, and partly a lie which we believe in Christ. For then as touching eternal punishment it shall be a truth, that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, but as touching temporal satisfactions it shall be a lie, and we shall be said to be the propitiation and atonement for our own sins. Which because it is blasphemous and wicked to affirm, neither hath the Scripture taught us any such division betwixt Christ and us, therefore we must confess that in name of satisfaction for reconcilement unto God, we do nothing for ourselves, but Christ only both temporally and eternally is the satisfaction for our sins. Christ did not only bear the infinite wrath of God, to acquit us of eternal punishment, but according to the words of the Prophet cited by the Evangelist, k Esa. 53.4. Math. 8.17. He took (upon him) our infirmities, and bear our sicknesses, that is, our temporal punishments; which what doth it import, but that in respect of temporal punishments also Christ is our Redeemer, Christ is our satisfaction unto God. And if not so, why do we then pray to God to be delivered from temporal calamities and afflictions for Christ's sake? Nay, see how wickedly this device is framed. The blood of Christ serveth not to acquit us from temporal punishments, but the blood of S. Peter doth, and the blood of Paul, and the blood of the Martyrs; these all are helpful to free us from temporal satisfactions. They pray by one Saint against the toothache, by another against the falling sickness, by another against the plague, etc. their merits are available in this behalf, but the merit of Christ availeth nothing. And yet they tell us that the conclusion of all their prayers is, Per Christum Dominum nostrum; through Christ our Lord. But why do they thus bring in the mediation of Christ, if Christ in this respect have done nothing for us? If Christ have left the burden of temporal satisfactions to lie wholly upon us, why do they pray by him and through him to be disburdened thereof? This the Church of the faithful hath always done, and in all times. The Church of Rome therefore dealeth unfaithfully to retain the words of the faithful, and to give check to the meaning of them, by denying Christ to be our Redeemer from that wrath of God, whereby temporal afflictions and punishments are laid upon us. As for us we resolve that as the disobedience of the first Adam, brought upon us not only eternal punishments, but also temporal, so the obedience and merit of the second Adam, to answer that in saving which the other had done in destroying, hath made satisfaction to God for both, so that the faithful penitent soul believing & receiving in Christ forgiveness of sins, believeth itself to be perfectly reconciled unto God, & reckoneth not of any further satisfaction to be made unto him. Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth that Christ's satisfaction is of infinite value, & therefore that our satisfaction is not to supply his. But if it be of infinite value, why doth he restrain & abridge the effect thereof, in respect of them to whom the infinite value of it doth belong? why doth he make the value thereof in respect of the temporal punishments of sin, altogether idle & of no use? and if it might have freed us from doing satisfaction for ourselves, why doth it not? He giveth us reasons, that by the smart thereof we may be feared and made careful to avoid sin, & that by suffering, we may be conformed as members to Christ our head. You say well, M. Bishop, but yet we hear nothing here concerning satisfaction. We require a reason of the assertion of our satisfactions, for that Christ we say hath yielded a full satisfaction for us, & you tell us of being frighted from sin, & made comformable unto Christ, which are things that stand very well without any matter of satisfaction. The Scripture teacheth us these uses of the sufferings of the faithful, but it saith nothing to us concerning satisfaction. But for the better understanding of this whole matter, it is to be observed, that the temporal calamities & evils of this life are of themselves, and in their own nature the punishments of sin, the effects of God's curse, the beams of his everlasting fury & wrath, the forerunners of his dreadful judgement, preparations to death, & death itself the upshot of all the rest, as it were a gulf swallowing us up into fearful darkness, and utter destruction both of body & soul. Now Christ being l john. 1.29. the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, in taking away our sins, taketh away consequently the effects of sin, because the cause being removed, the effects cannot remain. But in sin as hath been before declared, we are to consider both the corruption and the guilt, of which the guilt being taken away, the corruption may still remain, and the effects of sin have reference to both these. Being then reconciled unto God through jesus Christ, by the not imputing of our sins, we see that the temporal afflictions and grievances of this life, are still continuing & lying upon us. Hereupon the question is, our sins being forgiven, in what nature they continue? We say; not as satisfactions to the wrath of God, in respect of the guilt of sin, but as cautions and provisions of his love for the destroying of the corruption of it. The guilt of sin is the foundation of satisfaction; and where no guilt is, there is no satisfaction to be demanded. When therefore forgiveness hath taken away the guilt, there can be no requiring of satisfaction, & the afflictions thenceforth lying upon us are of another nature, and to other ends & uses, then that either we should be said thereby to satisfy God, or that God should be said thereby to satisfy himself of us. The uses thereof the Scripture noteth m Rom. 6.6. the destroying of the body of sin, n Heb. 12.10. the making of us partakers of his holiness, o 2. Cor. 4.16. the renewing of the inner man from day to day, p Col. 1.12. the making of us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. q 1. Cor. 11.32. We are chastened of the Lord when we are judged, that we should not be condemned with the world. r Aug. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 15. Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt vel ad emendanda peccata, velad exercendam probandamque justitiam, vel ad demōstrandā vitae huius miseriam ut illa ubi erit beatitudo vera atque perpetua & desideretur ardenriùs & instantiùs inquiratur. Vide in joan. tract. 124. They serve, saith Austin for the reforming of our sins, for the exercise and trial of our righteousness, for the setting forth of the misery of this life, that that life where shall be true and everlasting bliss, may both more fervently be desired, and more instantly sought for. These reasons he giveth, why the punishments of sin as touching the matter of them continue still in this life after the forgiveness thereof, but of satisfaction not a word. Yea, being occasioned to speak directly to the point by the Pelagians, objecting to him, that s Aug de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. ca 33. Qui dicunt, si peccat● mors accidisset, non utique post remissione peccatorummoreremur; non intelligunt quomodo res quarum reatum ne post hanc vitam obsint Deus soluit; tamen eat ad certamen fidei sinit manner, ut per illas erudiamur & exerceamur proficientes in agone justitiae. if death had come by sin, then after forgiveness of sins we should not die, he answereth thus, They understand not that God suffereth the things, the guilt whereof he releaseth, that they may not hurt after this life, yet to remain (in this life) for the fight of faith, that thereby we may be instructed and exercised, profiting and growing in the fight of righteousness. The guilt of death then and of all other temporal calamities, is taken away, but yet these things continue, not as matters of satisfaction, but as means of instruction for the framing of us unto God. He goeth on, and saith, that it may be as well said, if for sin it were said to man, In the sweat of thy brows shalt thou eat thy bread, and the earth shall bring forth unto thee briers and thorns, why after forgiveness of sins doth this labour remain, and why doth the ground of the faithful bring forth briers and thorns? Again, if for sin it were said to the woman, In pain and sorrow thou shalt bring forth, how is it that after forgiveness of sins faithful women still bring forth with the same pains? All these cases and the like he cleareth in this sort: t Ibid. cap. 34. Respondemus dicentes, ante remissionem esse supplicia peccatorum. post remissionem autem certamina exercitationesque justorum. We answer, that before forgiveness they are the punishments of sins, but after forgiveness, they are the fights and exercises of the just. Where we see that being drawn to answer precisely to this matter, he denieth them after forgiveness to be punishments of sin, howsoever both he and we are wont in common speech to term them so, because originally and naturally they are so. Therefore is there commonly that difference made betwixt the afflictions of the faithful and the unfaithful, that u Origen. in Genes. hom. 16. Quod iustu exercitium virtutis est, hoc iniustis pena peccati. that which is to the just the exercise of virtue, as Origen saith, is to the unjust the punishment of sin; that x Tertull. Apologet. ca 41. Omnes seculiplage nobis fortè in admonitionem, vobis in castigationem, à Deo obueniunt. the plagues of the world, as Tertullian saith, are to the one for punishment, to the other for admonition and advertisement. So can Thomas Aquinas say when occasion serveth, that y Thom. Aquin. 12. q. 114 art. 10. ad 3. Temporalia mala infliguntur impijs in paenam, inquantum per ea non adiwantur ad consecutionem vitae aeternae, justis autem qui per huiusmodi mala iwamtur nen sunt paenae sed magis medicinae. temporal evils are inflicted upon the wicked for punishment, for that they are not thereby helped for the obtaining of eternal life, but to the just who are thereby helped, they are not punishments, but rather medicines. So then they are not punishments, they are no satisfactions where sins are forgiven, but they are referred to other end. If they be satisfactions, the proper and only use of them in that nature is ex part ante, in respect of time past, to give recompense for offence formerly committed; and whatsoever else is alleged, is merely accidental, but the proper and only use of afflictions where sins are forgiven, is ex part post, in respect of time to come, to keep us from sin, and to help forward our sanctification towards God. But M. Bishop hudleth and confoundeth all together, and by terms of the true uses of afflictions delivered in the Scripture, deceitfully coloureth his matter of satisfactions devised beside and against the Scripture. Let him speak distinctly as the Scripture doth, and then he must say, that that which concerneth the guilt of sin, and belongeth to satisfaction, is laid wholly upon Christ, that it may be true which the Prophet saith, z Esa. 53.5. The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him, and by his stripes we were healed; but that which is laid upon us after forgiveness by Christ, is only de futuro, to weaken and wear away the power of sin, and in death which is the last of these afflictions, utterly to destroy it. Now therefore whereas he saith that we must be conformable unto Christ as members to our head, he notably abuseth the pretence thereof to the singular dishonour of jesus Christ. He hath told us before that we must be a Of Merits. Sect. 16. like unto Christ in meriting, and here he telleth us that we must be like unto Christ in satisfying: but what? must we be like unto Christ in those things wherein consisteth his being Christ? wherein standeth his being our Redeemer, our Saviour, our high Priest and Mediator unto God? By meriting and satisfying for us, it is that Christ is our Christ, our jesus and Saviour. If therefore we be like unto him in meriting and satisfying, what hindereth but that as he is in common jesus, and a Saviour for all, so we also should be said every man to be a jesus and Saviour for himself. Which because it is impious to affirm, and cannot be avoided, if it be true which he saith, let him learn to know that we are to be like unto Christ in his image, not in his office; in act of conversation, not in effect of satisfaction and redemption; in that that he is simply according to himself, not in that that he is by dispensation for us. We must suffer as he hath suffered, but not suffer for ourselves, or one for another, as he hath suffered for us. We must walk in obedience to God as he hath walked, but not to merit by our obedience for ourselves, as he by his obedience hath merited for us. These are lewd and Antichristian devices, serving to justle Christ out of his place, by a pretence of conformity betwixt him and us. M. Bishop's conclusion therefore is without any ground, that Christ having satisfied the eternal punishment of sin, hath left a temporal satisfaction thereof to be performed by us. As for the words of the Apostle which he citeth for some proof thereof, b Gal. 6.5. Every man shall bear his own burden, it had been his part to make it plain, first that the burden there spoken of is to be understood of temporal afflictions. Secondly, if it be so to be understood, he should again have told us how it followeth, that those afflictions must necessarily be taken to be satisfactions. Thirdly, if they be satisfactions, it would have been considered how this place standeth with the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome, which, the Apostle saying, Every man shall bear his own burden, that is, if we believe M. Bishop, shall satisfy for himself, doth notwithstanding appoint one man to bear the burden and satisfactions of another. If every man bear his own burden, why doth the Pope pretend by his Pardons, to impart to one man the satisfactions of another? or if the Pope do thereby impart the satisfactions of Saints and Martyrs to the help of those that want, why doth Master Bishop tell us that of temporal satisfactions it is said, that every man shall bear his own burden? But thus he is wont to cite texts at all adventure; be they with him or against him all is one; they help to fill up a book, and that is enough for his purpose. But the meaning of those words plainly appeareth out of the circumstance of the place. The Apostle labouring to withdraw men from judging and condemning others, and from justifying themselves by measuring & comparing themselves to them whom they condemned, wisheth every man to consider himself in himself, to make trial of his own work, not to content himself, for that he seemeth to himself to be preferred before another, but to endeavour without comparison to others to be approved in himself. To this meaning are these words; c 〈◊〉. ● Let every man prove his own work, & then shall he have rejoicing in himself and not in another. For reason hereof he addeth, for every man shall bear his own burden, as if he should say: It concerneth not one man what another is: the burdening of another shall be no disburdening of thee: what is amiss in him, he shall answer for himself, but look thou to thine own burden, for whatsoever it is thou shalt answer to God for it. The burden then which the Apostle speaketh of is, as Thomas Aquinas saith, d Tho. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 6. lect. 1. Onus reddendae rationis, etc. in die judicij. the burden of our reckoning & account to be made unto God at the day of judgement, and his words are to the very same meaning, as elsewhere he saith: e Rom. 14.12. Every one of us shall give accounts of himself to God. So that M. Bishop's argument falleth out in the end to be this; Every man at the day of judgement must give reckoning to God for himself. Therefore Christ hath left us to make temporal satisfaction to God for our own sins. Thou must take it as it is, gentle Reader, for he can make it no better than it will be: deny his argument, and he hath no more to say. 3 W. BISHOP. Nay (saith M. Perkins) we must then be new Christ's, and Redeemers, and Priests of the same order with himself. Nothing so, but having grace from him, we may in virtue thereof satisfy, not for the crime itself, or everlasting punishment, which is linked with it: because that would require an infinite virtue: but for the temporal pain of it, one endued with grace may satisfy, for the measure of stripes must not exceed the rate of the fault, the punishment then resting unsatisfied being limited, a creature may pay it. And that the Reader may better perceive what we mean by the temporal pain, let him consider that in sin are two things, the one is the turning away from God, whom we offend, the other is the turning unto the thing, for the love of which we offend: as for glory, lust, lucre, or such like, the sinner transgresseth: now when he is by the grace of God converted, his turning away from God, both the sin and the eternal pain due unto it, are freely through Christ pardoned, but for the pleasure which he took in the sin, the man himself is to satisfy: and so according unto the greatness of that his pleasure, he is to do penance. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins gave argument and reason of that which he said; but M. Bishop like a reasonless man without giving any reason, affirmeth that again, against which M. Perkins argued. He rightly allegeth, that no part of the Priesthood of Christ can be said to have passed from him to us, that to make satisfaction for sins whether temporally or eternally is a part of the Priesthood of Christ, and therefore that it is not a thing passed from him to us to make satisfaction for our sins. Again, to attribute that to us, for which and by which Christ is Christ, our Redeemer & high Priest, is to make us Christ's, Redeemers and Priests for ourselves. But to attribute to us to make fatisfaction for sins either temporally or eternally, is to attribute that to us, for which and by which Christ is Christ, our Redeemer and high Priest. It is therefore the same, as to affirm us to be Christ's, Redeemers and Priests for ourselves. M. Bishop answereth ridiculously and childishly, Not so, but Christ hath satisfied for the eternal punishment which required an infinite virtue: as for the temporal pain it may be satisfied by us. But what is here for exception to our collection, that sith the name & office of Christ, of a Redeemer and Priest standeth in satisfying for sin, therefore if we be said to satisfy temporally for ourselves, then as Christ is our Christ, Redeemer, and Priest, in respect of satisfying for the eternal punishment of our sins, so we are Christ's, Redeemers, and Priests for ourselves, in respect of making temporally an atonement for ourselves. But that it belongeth to the Priesthood of Christ, to make atonement for temporal punishments, is plain in the law, where we read that the plague being begun, the high Priest in figure of our high Priest jesus Christ, maketh atonement for the staying of it. a Numb. 16.46. Take the censer, saith Moses to Aaron, and put fire therein of the Altar, and put therein Incense, and go quickly to the Congregation, and make an atonement for them; for there is wrath gone out from the Lord, the plague is begun. He did so, & the plague was stayed. The like we see in the plague that followed upon David's numbering of the people, b 2. Sam. 24.25. he offered burnt offerings & peace offerings, and the Lord was appeased towards the land, and the plague ceased from Israel. And hereby we understand, that all the sacrifices of the law, wherein c August. Enchirid. cap. 33. Singular sacrificium (Christi) cuius erant umbrae omnia sacrificia legis & prophetarum. Christ was always set before them, had a respect of appeasing the wrath of God, not only for everlasting punishments in the world to come, but also for the temporal afflictions & punishments that are incident to this life. It is therefore a great impiety in the Church of Rome, to take away this part of Christ's office from him, and to make every man thereof partaker to his wrong. But now whereas M. Bishop saith, that it would require an infinite virtue to satisfy for the everlasting punishment of sin, we would gladly know of him how it standeth, that a greater virtue is required to satisfy for the everlasting pains of hell, then there is to merit and purchase the everlasting joys of heaven. He saith, the grace of Christ giveth force to our works to deserve the one; but if that be true, by what reason doth he deny that the grace of Christ giveth force to our satisfactions to quit the other? His own confession in the one condemneth his assertion in the other, and because he denieth that our merits of satisfaction can release from hell, he must deny that our merits of purchase are of sufficient value to deserve heaven, because the grace of God must be holden to be of the same power and virtue on both sides. Again it is untrue which he saith, that the temporal punishment being limited may be satisfied for by a mere creature, because the satisfaction is not to be esteemed according to the quantity of the temporal punishment, but according to the majesty of him to whom the offence is done, who being the same in punishing, whether temporally or eternally, can have none of sufficient worth to deal with the one, who is not the same for the other also. He cannot in any sort merit any thing at God's hands, who is not in worth and power answerable to his infinite greatness. And this Thomas Aquinas saw, who to make good human satisfaction, attributeth unto it d Thom. Aquin. suppl. q. 13. art. 1. ad 1. Sicut offensa habuit quandaem infinitatem ex infinitate divinae maiestatis●●ta etiam satisfactio accipit quandam infinitatem ex infinitate divinae misericordiae provi est gratia informata per quam acceptum redditur quod homo facere potest. an infinity, in respect that it is informed by grace, & accepted thereby, whereby we may see how well these men accord in the grounds of their defence. But Thomas Aquinas saw it to be an absurd fancy which M. Bishop here followeth in designing a rate, as he calleth it, of sins to be answered by a measure of temporal stripes, whereas the infiniteness of sin can bear no such limitation, nor be bounded in any sort within the compass of temporal revenge. But yet M. Bishop will make us believe that he hath a device whereby to make good this rate and measure. He telleth us that in sin two things must be considered; the one is the turning away from God whom we offend; the other is the turning to the thing for the love of which we offend. Our turning from God, both the fault & the eternal punishment due unto it, he saith, are freely pardoned by Christ, but man forsooth must satisfy for the pleasure that he took in turning to the creature. But this idle Sophism of his is rejected also by the same great rabbin of theirs, Thomas Aquinas as a thing of nought. e Jbid. Quidam dicum quòd habet infinitatem ex part aversionis & sic gratis dimittitur, sed ex part conversionis finita est & sic pro ea satisfiers potest. Sed hoc nihil est, quia satisfactio non respondet peccato nisi secundum quod est offensa Dei quod non habet ex pa●●● conversionis sed ●x 〈◊〉 ●●●sionis. 〈…〉 22. Ci● 〈…〉 bene●● 〈…〉 dine●●ist 〈…〉 muliaeuten 〈◊〉 pertur●ato Some say, saith he, that sin hath an infinity in respect of averting or turning away from God, and so it is freely pardoned, but that in respect of conversion or turning to creatures it is finite, and so may be satisfied for. But this is nothing, because satisfaction answereth not to sin, but according as it is an offence to God, which it hath not of converting to other things, but of averting and turning from God. There is a love of the creatures which is according to God, & standeth with the love of God. ᶠ The creature because it is good, it may be loved aright, saith Austin, and it may be loved amiss: aright if order be kept; amiss if order be perverted. Therefore virtue & righteousness is not a denial of the love of the creatures, but it is, as he saith, g Ibid. Definitio brevis & vera virtutis ●rdo est amoris. an order in loving. The act of sin than consisteth in disordered love, in that the love of the creature implieth an aversion and turning away from God. Now then seeing satisfaction is to be made by us in respect of aversion from God, & the punishment that belongeth to aversion from God, is the eternal punishment of sin, as M. Bishop also saith, he must acknowledge by the doctrine of their own Schools, that we are to make satisfaction for the eternal punishment of sin, and then let him tell us what exception he hath yet given, that their doctrine of satisfactions doth not make us Christ's, & Redeemers of ourselves, & Priests of the same order with the Son of God. But we are yet further desirous to know, upon what ground M. Bishop would have us to believe, that only temporal punishments should belong to the pleasures & delights of sin, or in what sort we should conceive the same pleasures of sin severed from averting & turning away from God? These are such strange devices, howsoever he setteth them down, as special tricks of wit, as that he should think him to have written them in a dream, but that he uttereth so many of them, as that then we must imagine him to live in a continual dream. Must we think that the Apostles were acquainted with this nice conceit of his? Did they mean that Christ suffered and died for our sins quantum ad aversionem, so far as concerneth turning from God, but that he left us to suffer for our own sins, and one for another's sins quantum ad conversionem, so far as concerneth turning to the pleasures of our sins? Surely the Prophet saith, quantum ad aversionem: h Esa. 53.6. All we like sheep have gone astray, and quantum ad conversionem, we have turned every man to his own way, and addeth concerning both; And the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all. But M. Bishop hath learned another lesson of their schoolmen, who have exercised their wits to mock the word of God, for the colouring of those lewd and blasphemous novelties, which the Romish Apostasy hath brought in, to the wrong and derogation of the cross of Christ. 4 W. BISHOP. But Christ (saith M. Perkins) said on the Cross, It is finished: Wherefore all satisfaction was at Christ's death ended, as well temporal as eternal. Answer. That those words have a far different sense: To wit, that Christ had then ended his course, and fulfilled all prophecies, and endured all such torments, as it pleased God to impose upon him for the redemption of mankind: of satisfaction temporal there is no mention, neither can any thing be drawn thence against it: No more can be out of this other: Christ made sin for us: 2. Cor. 5. that is, the punishment of sin, as M. Perkins gloseth it: but the learned say, an host or sacrifice for sin. But we grant that he suffered the punishment for our sin, and say consequently: that all sin is pardoned freely for his sake, and the pain of hell also, which is punishment of sin: but not other temporal pains, such as it hath pleased the justice and wisdom of God to reserve unto every sinner, to bear in his own person. And after this sort, and no other was God in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. And that Saint Paul understood well, that Christ's sufferings did not take away ours, may be gathered by these his words: Colos. 1. I rejoice in suffering for you, and do accomplish those things that want of the Passions of Christ, in my flesh for his body, which is the Church. But of this point more, when we come unto the Arguments for the Catholic part. R. ABBOT. What our Saviour meant by saying in the very instant of his giving up the ghost, a john. 19.30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is finished, we may conceive by the Apostle, making as it seemeth application of that word when he saith, b Heb. 10.14. With one oblation he hath * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. consummated or made perfect for ever them that are sanctified. By that one oblation he performed whatsoever was necessary for our full and perfect satisfaction and reconcilement unto God. And therein he fulfilled all prophecies that were written of atonement & peace to be made betwixt God & man, the effect whereof S. Peter expresseth saying, c Act. 10.43. To him give all the Prophet's witness, that through his name all that believe in him shall receive remission of sins. d Ephe. 1.7. In him we have redemption, saith S. Paul, through his blood even the forgiveness of sins. Now as the author to the Hebrews inferreth, e Heb. 10.18. where remission of these things is, there is no more offering for sin, so may we infer, where remission of sins is, there is no more satisfying for sin, because sacrifice & satisfaction have one and the self same respect to sin. Seeing then Christ hath done that that yieldeth us perfect forgiveness of sins, it must follow that there remaineth no further satisfaction to be performed for sin. And thus much is contained in M. Bishop's words, but that like Caiphas he saith well & understandeth not what he saith. Christ, saith he, endured all such torments as God would impose upon him for the redemption of mankind. And what is redemption, but a payment of full & perfect satisfaction? f Tho. Aquin p. 3. q. 48. art. 4 in corp. Quia passio Christi sufficient & superabundant suit satisfactio pro peccato & reatu poenae humani generis, eius passio fuit quasi quoddam pretium quo liberati sumus ab viraque obligatione. Na●● ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfacit sive pro se sive pro alio, pretium quoddam dicitur quo seipsum vel alium redimit à peccato & poenae, Christus autem satisfecit dando seipsum pro nobis, & ideo passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio. Because the passion of Christ, saith Thomas, was a sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sin of mankind & guilt of punishment, his passion was as it were a price or payment, by which we were set free from obligation both those ways. For the satisfaction whereby a man satisfieth either for himself or for another, is called a price by which a man redeemeth (or buyeth out) himself or another from sin and punishment. Now Christ, saith he, hath made satisfaction by giving himself for us, & therefore the passion of Christ is said to be our redemption. If then the passion of Christ be therefore our redemption, because he hath paid a sufficient & superabundant satisfaction to free us from obligation of guilt and punishment, how can it stand that after Christ's redemption the obligation should still remain, & that there should be yet a further satisfaction to be made? Either it must be said that Christ hath not made a full redemption; or else it must be acknowledged, that Christ hath taken away all temporal satisfaction. But Christ in saying It is finished, testifieth that in his death he fully finished our redemption. Therefore he testifieth that he hath left no place for any further satisfaction. This cannot be shifted off. A perfect redemption taketh away all obligation of further satisfaction, or else it cannot be called absolutely perfect. Christ's redemption therefore being simply & absolutely perfect, must necessarily infer a denial of temporal satisfaction. Albeit the very name of temporal satisfaction in this case is absurd, because the guilt of sin being only infinite & eternal, and in no fort temporal, cannot be brought within any compass of temporal satisfaction as before was said. In a word, we do not believe that Christ played the Sophister upon the cross, to say quantum ad aversionem, It is finished, that is, the satisfaction of sin is fully paid, but quantum ad conversionem, all is not yet fully finished, but there remaineth some further satisfaction to be made. No more do we believe that the Apostle when he said, g 2. Cor 3 21. Christ was made sin for us, did play fast or lose, as meaning that if we understand sin quantum ad aversionem, than it is true that he was made sin for us, that is, the punishment or sacrifice for sin, but that quantum ad conversionem we are made sin for ourselves, or one man for another. Or that when it is said, h 1. Pet. 3 13. He suffered for sins once, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, the meaning is that in part he suffered for our sins to bring us to God, but left us in part to suffer for our own sins, to bring ourselves to God. We cannot be persuaded that that was the meaning of the Apostle when he said, i 2. Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, because he defineth that reconcilement to consist in the not imputing of our sins, and how are our sins not imputed if we be still holden in any sort to make satisfaction for them? But these things though they be apparently blasphemous & wicked, and do expose the Gospel of Christ to mockery & contempt, yet M. Bishop laboureth to colour with a sentence of S. Paul, which for more than a thousand years after the time of Christ and his Apostles, never any man understood or expounded to that meaning whereto he apply it. k Col. 1.24. Now rejoice I in my sufferings for you, and do fulfil or accomplish (those things that want, saith M. Bishop, but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the remainder, those things that are yet behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the Church. M. Bishop by translating those things that want of the passions of Christ, and applying the place to their satisfactions, giveth us to understand that blasphemy of theirs, which he will seem otherwise to deny, that for satisfaction somewhat is wanting to the passion of Christ, so that the passion of Christ is not taken with them to be a full and perfect satisfaction and redemption. He will say, the old interpreter so translateth, but because the old interpreter made not that use of these passions in the words following, as M. Bishop doth, therefore to our meaning only, and not to his, he translateth in that sort. The afflictions and sufferings of the faithful are very often in the Scripture termed l 2. Cor. 4.10. Phil. 3.10. 1. Pet. 4.13. the afflictions and sufferings of Christ. Christ is the head; we are the body. m Aug. in Psa. Caput & corp●● unus est Christus. The head and the body, saith S. Austin, make one Christ. He hath made us one with himself, and therefore under one name of n Gal. 3.16. Christ, he comprehendeth both himself and us. Whatsoever then is done either to the head or to the body, the same is done to Christ. Christ the head hath suffered in himself whatsoever was needful for the redemption and purchase of that body, whereof he was to be the head. He therefore suffered and died for sin as a Redeemer; we as redeemed are by suffering to be conformed unto him, that in suffering we may be still dying, and in death itself may fully and for ever be o R●● 62.11. de●d to sin. Now because the afflictions of the body and members of Christ, are reckoned to be the afflictions of Christ, therefore so long as there is any part of the body still remaining to be afflicted, so long there is somewhat wanting, or yet behind of the afflictions of Christ. Thus S. Austin saith, p Aug. in Psal. 61. Si in memoris Christi es, quicquid pateris ab eu qui n n sunt in ●●ēoru Christi deerat passionibus Christi, If thou be a member of Christ, whatsoever thou sufferest of them who are not the members of Christ, it was wanting to the passions of Christ. And thus S. Paul as a member of Christ professeth, that for his part he fulfilled the remnant, or that that was yet to be sustained of the afflictions & sufferings of Christ. But he addeth, for his body's sake which is the Church, and upon these words specially the question dependeth. In what meaning is it that he saith he suffereth for the Church's sake? M. Bishop will have us think that it was to add somewhat for his part to the common treasury of satisfactions, whence relief & succour might be yielded to men by the Pope's indulgences, to supply the want of their own satisfactions. We must think that somewhat was wanting to the sufferings of Christ, to set us free from temporal punishments, and towards that S. Paul paid his shot, and having suffered enough for his own discharge, would add somewhat to serve in common to ease the burdens of other men. But against this wicked and blasphemous fancy, the Apostle himself instructeth us, when he saith, q 1. Cor. 1.13. Was Paul crucified for you? If we believe M. Bishop, Paul also was crucified for us, but Paul himself denieth himself to have been crucified for us. Therefore he teacheth us to say, r Gal. 6.14. God forbidden that I should rejoice but in the cross of our Lord jesus Christ: not in the cross of Paul, not in the cross of Peter, but only in the cross of jesus Christ. If M. Bishop say true, we have to rejoice in the cross of Peter, and in the cross of Paul, and in the crosses of the rest of the Saints, as having redeemed us from Purgatory, & from temporal pain●, but we are taught to rejoice in nothing but in the cross of jesus Christ, that it may be true which he hath said, s Esa. 63.3. I have trodden the winepress alone, & of all people there was none with me. Therefore Ambrose saith; t Ambros. in 1. Cor. cap. ●. St Christus pro nobis mortuus est, quomodo gra●ā & lexeficium etia hominibus imputamus ad e●us iniuriam? If Christ have died for us, why do we impute his grace and benefit to other men to his wrong? Very fitly to this purpose saith Leo Bishop of Rome: u Leo epist. 81. Quamtris multorum san●torum pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors fuerit, null●●s tament●sontis o●●●sio mu●di fuit propitiatio. Accepere justi, non dedera●t coronas, & de fortitudine fidelium nata sunt exempta patientiae, non dona justitiae. Singulares quipp● in singulis mortes fuere nec alterius quisquam debitum suo fine persoltus, quum inter filios homi●●m unus Dominus noster jesus Christus extiterit in quo omnes crucifixi, omnes mertu●, omnes sepulti, omnes sunt etiam suscitati. Albeit the death of many Saints hath been precious in the Lord's sight, yet the kill of no Saint hath been the propitiation of the world. The just received crowns, but gave none, and of the fortitude of the faithful have grown examples of patience, no gifts of righteousness. Their deaths were several in every of them, neither hath any man by his death paid the debt of another man, seeing amongst the sons of men it was only our Lord jesus Christ, in whom all were crucified, dead, buried, and raised again. This was the ancient doctrine of the Bishops of Rome, but now Master Bishop telleth us out of their Romish learning, that one man is the propitiation and atonement for another, that some men do pay debts, and make satisfactions for others, because Paul saith that he suffereth for the Church's sake. But S. Austin telleth him again: x Aug. in joan. tract. 84. Etsi fratres pro fratribus mor●amur, tamen in fraternerun peccatorum remissionem nullius sanguis marty●is funditur, quod fecit ille (Christus) proneb● nec in hoc quid imitaremur sed quid gratularemur contulit nobis, etc. Quò isi quisquam se potentia Christi comparabit alley. unsc putando sanare peccatum, mulium est ad illum, non capit tantum, etc. Dives est qui nec haereditario nec proprio unquam deb●to obnoxius & ipse justus est & alios justificat Christus. Noli contra eum te extendere, intantum pauper ut remis●ionis p●ccatorum appate●● quo●idianus in oratione me●dicus. Albeit we as brethren die for our brethren, yet no martyrs blood is shed for the remission of the sins of the brethren, which Christ hath done for us, and in that hath yielded us not any thing to imitate and follow, but what to rejoice of. For if any man will compare himself to the power of Christ, in thinking himself to heal the sin of another man, it is too much for him; he is not capable thereof. He is the rich man, saith he, who being not subject to any debt either hereditary or of his own, is both just himself, and justifieth others, even jesus Christ. Do not advance thyself against him, being so poor as that thou appearest in thy prayer daily a beggar of the forgiveness of sins. There is no forgiveness of sins then by the blood of Martyrs; there is no ableness in one man to heal the sin of another, or to pay another's debt: every man is poor, every man a beggar, craving from day to day the release and remission of own debts. This was S. Paul's case; thus he prayed daily as Christ had taught him, and why then doth Master Bishop make him so rich, as that he should be able to make payment of our debts, that he should purchase a release of the punishment of our sins, that he should take upon him y Tho. Aquint. supplem. q. 12. art. 2. ad 1. Satisfactio est quaedam illatae iniuriae recompensatio. Et q. 14. Ablatio offensae. art. 1. in corp. to make recompense for the wrongs that we have done to God, and to take away our offence towards God, or God's offence and displeasure towards us, as their name of Satisfaction doth import? It was a far other matter that the Apostle intended, in that he saith that he endured afflictions for the Church's sake. It was to confirm unto the Church the truth of the Gospel of Christ; to cause the greater opinion of that doctrine which he preached, in that he yielded himself for the testifying thereof, to hazard and bestow his temporal life; to encourage & comfort the faithful to continue constant in the faith of Christ, according to the example that they had seen in him; to embolden other men to preach the word, notwithstanding the opposition that was made against it. And thus doth the Apostle express the ends and uses of his afflictions, z Phil. 1.7. the confirmation of the Gospel, a Ver. 12. the furthering of the Gospel, b Ver. 17. the defence of the Gospel, c Ver. 20. the magnifying of Christ. d 2. Cor. 1.6. If we be afflicted, saith he, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is wrought in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer. Not then as to purchase any thing towards their salvation by his afflictions, but as to hearten and comfort them to the patiented bearing of afflictions, in the enduring whereof God had intended to bring their salvation to effect. Thus Thomas Aquinas, where his eyes were open, conceived both of this text, & of that to the Colossians which is here in question, who writing upon the words of the Apostle, Was Paul crucified for you? useth these words: e Tis. Aquin in 1. Cor. cap. 1 lect. 2. Hoc proprium est Christo, ut sua passio●e & morte nostram salutem operatus fuerit, etc. Sed contra hoc esse v. letur quod Apostolus dicit, Gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis, etc. Sed dicendum quod passio Christi fuit n●bis salutifera non solum per modum exempli sed etiam per modum meriti & efficaciae, inquamtum eius sanguine redempti & justificati sumus, etc. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solùm per modum exempli, secundum. 2 Cor. 1. Sine tribulamur, etc. This is proper to Christ, that he by his passion and death hath wrought our salvation. But it seemeth to be against this which the Apostle saith: Col. 1. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, etc. But we are to say, that the passion of Christ was the cause of our salvation, not only by way of example, but also by way of merit and effectual working, in that by his blood we are redeemed and justified; but the sufferings of others is furthering to our salvation only by way of example, according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation, etc. Again in another place propounding by way of objection, that f Idem p. 3. q. 48. art. 5. arg. 3. Non solum cassio Christi sed etiam aliorum sanctorum preficua fuit ad salutem nostram, ut Col. 1 Gaude● in passionibus meis pro vobis, etc. Dicendum quod passiones sanctorum proficiunt Ecclesiae, non quidem per modum redemptioner, sed per modum exempli & exhortationis; secundum illud 2. Cor. 1 Sine tribulamur. etc. not only the passion of Christ, but also of other Saints was helpful to our salvation, according to the saying of the Apostle. Col. 1. Now rejoice I in my sufferings for you, etc. and therefore that Christ only cannot be called our Redeemer, but also other Saints; he answereth thus: We are to say that the passions of the Saints are helpful or profitable to the Church, not by way of redemption, but by way of example & comfort (or encouragement) according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted, etc. So where the Apostle saith, g 2. T●m. 2.10. I suffer all things for the elects sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ jesus, he asketh, h In ●. Tim. 2. lect 2 Sed nunquid sufficit Christi passio? Dicendu● quòd si● effecti●●; sed passio Apostoli dupliciter expiediebat. Primo quia dabat ex●mplum perfistendi in fide Se●undo quia confirmabatur fides, & ex hoc ind●cebantur ad salutem. what, was not the passion of Christ sufficient? Yes, saith he, as touching the working of salvation; but the Apostles suffering was two ways expedient. First, because he gave example thereby of continuing in the faith. Secondly, because thereby the faith was confirmed, and by that means they were induced and drawn on to salvation. Thus than we have example, confirmation, comfort, encouragement in the sufferings of the Apostles and Saints, but we cannot find any satisfaction for our sins. And that M. Bishop may know that we speak this from better authority then only Thomas Aquinas, let S. Ambrose tell in what sense the Apostles suffered for the Church. i Ambrosin Psal. 43. Petrus pro Ecclesia multa tolera●●it. Multa etiam Paulus raeterique Ap●stoli pertulerunt cùm caederentur v●rgis, cùm lapidarentur, cùm in carceres truderentur. Illa enim tolerantia amurtarun & usu periculorum Do●●ni fundatus est populus, & ecclesia incrementum est consec●●, cùm caeteri ad martyrium festinarent vilentes per illas passiones nihil Apost●lorum decessisse virtutibus sed etiam propter hanc bre●em vitam immortalitatem esse quaesitam. Peter, saith he, suffered many things for the Church. Many things also S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles suffered when they were scourged, when they were stoned, when they were imprisoned. For by that bearing of wrongs and experience of dangers, the Lords people was founded, and the Church received increase, for that other hastened to martyrdom, when they saw that by those sufferings there was no impeaching of the Apostles virtues, and moreover that for this short life immortality was sought (or gotten) thereby. In the like sort doth he expound the words of the Apostle which here we speak of: k Idem in Colos. ca 1. In tribulationibus quas patiebatur exultare se fatetur, quia profectum suum videt in fide credentium. Non est cuim●inants tri●●●atio quando cum pro quo patitur acquirit ad vitam. He professeth himself to rejoice in the troubles which he endured, because he seethe his success in the faith of them that believe: for his trouble is not in vain when he gaineth him to life for whom he suffered. No other thing doth Cyprian gather out of those words: l Cypria. de dupl. Mart. Quemadmodum ille mirabili testimonio clarifis. avit Patrem in ho. mundo, a●que etiam in coelisma testimon●um illius quodammodo consummatur testimonio Sanctorun, quasisit una passio Domini & servorum. Id nequis exiflimet parùm religiose dictum beatus Paulus nobis patrocinatur, na scribens. etc. Quis enim nescit quam uberem proventum effudit Ecclesiae seges Apostolorum & caeterorum Martyrum sanguine irrigata? Quò plus sanguinis effusum est, hoc magis ac magis esstoruit mu●titis do fidelium. hoc latiùs sparsit suas propag nes illa beata vitis à Christo stirpe surgens & necupans orbem universum, etc. Even as Christ, saith he by his admirable testimony glorified the Father in this world and also in heaven, so his testimony is after a sort consummated or made perfect in the testimony of the Saints, as if the passion of the Lord and of the servants were all one. And that no man may think that irreligiously spoken, S. Paul warranteth the same to us thus writing to the Colossians; I now joy in my sufferings for you, and fulfil those things which are yet wanting or behind of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the Church. For who knoweth not how plentiful increase the corn field of the Church hath yielded, being watered with the blood of the Apostles and other Martyrs? The more blood was shed, so much more & more the multitude of the faithful flourished; so much the wider that blessed vine spread her branches, arising from Christ her stock, and possessing the whole world. Afterwards going forward to show that m Testificatus est se esse pastorem bonum, quia animam suam posuit pro evibus, nobis exemplum praebens, ut qui pro nostra qualicunque portione vices illius gerimus, parati simus, & ipsi pro grege dominico sanguinem fundere, nisi malumus videri mercenarij quam pastors. Domini verbis congruunt verba discipul● Cùm enim dixisset se gaudere, etc. perpetiens & ipse pro corpore Christi, quod est Ecclesia, qualia pas●us erat Dominus causam adiecit cur ea libenter pateretur Cuius, inquit mi●●●ier factus sum, etc. ut impeam verbum Dei Sicut ergo mortibus Martyrum consummantur passiones Christi, ita sanguine pastoru●●●● firmantur pr●m ssa Christ●. Nul●um enim instrumentum in dubitabilius quam quod tot Martyrum sanguine signatum est. Hoc ●●mtrum si ●mp●ere vertum Dei, hoc est, replere evangelium. Christ testifying himself to be the good shepherd, because he gave his life for the sheep, hath therein given example to those that are the pastors in his stead to be ready to shed their blood for the Lords stock, unless they will be taken for hirelings rather than for pastors, he saith, that thereto the words of the Apostle accord, who saying, that for the body of Christ which is the Church, he suffered the like things as the Lord suffered, he addeth, The cause why he suffered those things willingly, whereof (saith he) I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is given to me that I should fulfil the word of God. For as by the deaths of the Martyrs, the sufferings of Christ are perfected, so by the blood of the Pastors the promises of Christ are confirmed. For there is no instrument more undoubted than that which is sealed with the blood of so many Martyrs. This is indeed to fulfil the word of God, this is to fulfil the Gospel. In the like sort doth S. Austin make construction of the words of S. john: n 1. joh 3.16. He laid down his life for us, therefore ought we also to lay down our lives for the brethren: namely, o August. in joan. troth. 47. Sic & nos debe●●os ad aedificandam plebem, ad fidem asserendam aminas pro fratribus ponere. for the edifying of God's people, for the avouching of the faith. Thus it was said, that p Tertul. Apol. cap. 45. in fine. Semen est sanguis Christianorum. the blood of Christians was like seed, that q August. in Psal. 58. Sanguine seminata seges Ecclesiae fertilius pullulavit. the field of the Church being sowed with blood, did more fruitfully spring and grow, whilst r Idem Epist. 50 Laudatur Dominus qui donare dignatus est, ut servi eius passionibus suis lucrarentur fratres suos. the Lord did grant that his servants by their sefferings did win their brethren, but that the blood of Christian Martyrs was any satisfaction for the rest of the Church of Christ, or any redemption of the punishments of their brethren, it was never heard of in those times. They knew nothing then of the Pope's storehouse of Supererogations and Satisfactions: they knew nothing of that marting, and chopping, and changing of merits which these presumptuous Romish hypocrites now maintain, in whom it is much more verified than it was in the Donatists, which S. Austin saith: s Idem Epist. 51. Tantam sibi arrogant justitiam ut came iactent se non solúm habere, sed etiam alijs hominibus dare. They arrogate unto themselves so great righteousness, as that they brag not only that they have it themselves, but also give it unto others. But to conclude this point, let M. Bishop know, that both he and his fellows are very impudent and shameless men, thus to wrest the words of the Apostle, to the defence of a doctrine which for above a thousand years was never heard of in the Church, and which have out of the ancient Church according to the Scriptures a very manifest and clear exposition another way. 5 W. BISHOP. Now to M. Perkins second reason. In sundry places (saith he) of Scripture, we are said to be redeemed, justified, and saved freely: but this word freely importeth, that we are saved without doing any thing ourselves in that matter of salvation. Answer. Not so good Sir, for even in your own doctrine, it is necessary that ye believe, and bring forth the fruits of repentance, and that now and then, ye make some short prayers, and receive the Communion, and do many other odd things in that matter of salvation: wherefore the word freely doth not exclude all our working and suffering in that matter. R. ABBOT. Those odd things, as this odd companion termeth them, which we require as necessary in the matter of our salvation, are no other but either occasions and affections of seeking and desiring, or means of our apprehending and receiving that salvation which is freely and only by jesus Christ. We do not pray to be saved for our prayers sake, nor believe to be saved for our faith's sake, nor receive the Communion to be saved, or to have our sins forgiven by virtue of our receiving, but we pray and believe to have our sins forgiven us, and to be saved freely for Christ's sake, and do receive the Communion for the strengthening of our faith in this belief, Christ by the Sacrament offering himself unto us with the whole benefit of his passion, to be received and made ours by faith. As for repentance consisting in the true feeling and acknowledging of our sins, whereby we see ourselves in ourselves to be lost and cast away, it is the motive and occasion of seeking this salvation in Christ, and freely for his sake, and the fruits of repentance which we require are but the way, as hath been before showed, to the full attainment and possession of salvation, which we receive by him. And further, we acknowledge that our repentance, our faith, our prayer, and whatsoever else is in us towards God, is wholly and altogether of the gift of God, purposing salvation unto us of his own free mercy, and therefore of the same mercy bestowing upon us those things which he hath appointed as preparations thereunto: but to ourselves, as of ourselves, we can challenge no part nor parcel of any of these things. Therefore on our part nothing hindereth, but that we are said to be redeemed, justified, and saved freely, that is, a Rhem. Testam. explication of words in the end. for nothing, as Master Bishop's Masters of Rheims do give the signification of the word gratis. But if Master Bishop himself had meant to deal here truly and honestly with his Reader, he should not have dodged in this sort, by talking of us without answering for himself, but should have made it appear, how that which he affirmeth can stand with that which the Scripture teacheth. If we be not saved but by interposing our merits for the purchase thereof, how is it said, that we are saved freely, that is, for nothing? how can our sins be freely forgiven, that is, for nothing, when they are not forgiven but upon condition of satisfaction? Satisfaction is the payment of a price, as we have seen before out of Thomas Aquinas. Now to do a thing freely and to do it for price and payment cannot possibly stand together. Therefore M. Perkins argueth rightly: If we satisfy in our own persons, then are we not saved freely, and if we be saved freely, than we make no satisfaction at all. M. Bishop's leisure served him not to answer this point. We know he wanted no good will, but in hast he was, & must needs be gone, because indeed he knew well, that he could say nothing, but that every child would see his doubling and shifting, and descry him to be a very vain and wilful man. 6. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins third reason. We pray daily, Forgive us our sins: now to plead pardon, and to satisfy for our sins, are clean contrary. Answer. If our sins be mortal, we crave pardon both of the sin, and the eternal punishment annexed, and do willingly withal satisfy for the temporal pain: as the man who is convicted of high treason, and having both his life, honour, lands and goods, pardoned and restored unto him, doth very joyfully indure-three months imprisonment, and any reasonable fine set on his head. If our sins be venial, than that prayer is a special mean, both to obtain pardon of the fault, and release of all the pain, In Enchir c. 71 as witnesseth S. Augustine, saying: That for the daily, short, and light offences, without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithful doth satisfy. And that is not true which M. Perkins adds, that we are taught in that prayer, wholly and only to use the plea of Pardon. For in the same petition, we are taught also to pardon others, even as we will look to be pardoned. Again, if there were only a plea of pardon, it would not serve M. Perkins purpose. For who would say, that within the compass of the Pater noster, all things necessary to salvation be contained: beside, prayer is one part of satisfaction, as shall be proved hereafter: and so by oft praying for pardon, we may well satisfy for much temporal punishment. R. ABBOT. I pray thee, gentle Reader, that with M. Perkins argument here propounded and M. Bishop's answer to it, thou wilt compare that which M. Bishop himself before hath said: a Of original sin. Sect. 1. Doth not a Pardon (saith he) take away from the fault pardoned, all bond of punishment due unto it, and consequently all guiltiness belonging to it? Who can deny this, unless he know not or cure not what he say? Hereby then understand, that M. Bishop here either knoweth not, or careth not what he saith: for that as a man having forgotten himself he would make us believe, that the pardoning of a fault doth not take away all bond of punishment due unto it. That which he said before is sensible and clear to every man's sight, but that which he saith here is senseless and absurd, even in that very instance whereby he seeketh to make it good. The man who for high treason is but adjudged to short imprisonment and fine, is never said to be pardoned. The prince dealeth graciously with him in not calling him further into question, but to give him a pardon should be to cut off both imprisonment and fine. And who was there ever in the world before the time of these rank witted Sophisters, that made that construction that M. Bishop doth of our prayer which we make to God, Forgive us our trespasses; as that our meaning therein should be to say to him, Forgive us the sin, and the eternal punishment, but as touching the temporal punishment, we are willing and ready to make thee satisfaction for it. When we lie groaning under the burden of temporal calamities and afflictions, do we not say unto God, Forgive us our trespasses, and beg of him remission of sins, to the intent that by forgiveness of sins we may be eased of the same burden? The voice of Christ to the sick of the palsy: b Mat. 9.2. Thy sins are forgiven thee, doth it not give him present release from the bond thereof? David saith, c Psal. 32.3. Whilst I held my tongue (from acknowledging and confessing my sins) my bones were consumed in my mourning all day; for thy hand was heavy upon me day and night, and my moisture was turned into the drought of Summer, I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and did not hide mine iniquity. I thought, I will confess against myself my wickedness unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the punishment of my sin. By which words he giveth us to understand, that the forgiveness of his sins upon his repentance and confession thereof, was the taking away of the grievous malady wherewith he was so sore afflicted, and upon experience hereof uttereth those words in the beginning of the Psalm, d Ver. 1. Blessed is the man whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sin is covered: Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sin, as to note that one part of that blessing is to be released from the temporal punishments that are due to sin. Yea and to that purpose he addeth also after: e Ver. 6. Aug. Pro hac. Pro qua hac? pro ipsa venia peccatorum. For this, that is, saith S. Austin, for forgiveness of sins, shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee in a time when thou mayst be found, surely in the overflowing of many waters they shall not come near him. Where by many waters he understandeth the manifold crosses and afflictions of this life, wherewith we are tossed to and fro by reason of our sins, and signifieth that the godly man by obtaining forgiveness of sins, obtaineth deliverance and freedom from the punishment thereof. Forgiveness of sins than is not understood with reservation of temporal satisfaction, neither doth any thing remain in the nature of punishment to him that by repentance and faith becometh partaker of that mercy. As for his distinction of mortal and venial sins applied to the petition of forgiveness of sins, we know no such, neither is any such to be approved, as f Of justification. Sect. 41. before hath been showed. By God's hearkening to our prayer all sins become venial; if God hear not our prayer for forgiveness of sins, all sins continue mortal. Our Saviour Christ knew no such difference as M. Bishop maketh, that God when he heareth us crying unto him, Forgive us our trespasses, doth forgive us some sins wholly, and othersome but in part, or that our prayer should be a special mean in some sins, to obtain pardon of the fault, and release of punishment, and in othersome not so. No, neither did S. Austin ever dream, that God did forgive sins with a reservation of the punishment thereof: he knew well that forgiveness altereth the case and nature of afflictions, as hath been before showed. Master Bishop citeth him saying, that g Aug. Enchir. cap. 71. De quotidianis, brevibus, levibusque peccatis sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit, etc. Delet omnino haec oratio minima & quotidiana peccata. Delet & illa à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta sed poeniten ●●in melius mutata discedit, si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur, dimit nobis, etc. ita veracitèr dicatur, sicut & nos, etc. id est, si fiat quod dicitur. For the daily, short, and light offences, without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithful satisfieth. But as he saith so of these daily and light offences, so he saith of other also in the next words: It blotteth out also those from which the life of the faithful wickedly led, but by repentance changed to better is departed, if as it is truly said, Forgive us our trespasses, so it be truly said, As we forgive them that trespass against us, that is, if it be done which is said. So then as it satisfieth for the one, so it satisfieth for the other also: as for the lesser, so for the greater, and for both obtaineth pardon at God's hands. But Master Bishop here doth merely abuse his Reader by an equivocation of the name of satisfaction. For Satisfaction with Saint Austin, as with all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, importeth the means whereby we are to entreat and obtain of God pardon and forgiveness of our sins: but with Master Bishop and his fellows it importeth a punishment still remaining for sins past, and already pardoned, to be endured either in this life, or after death in Purgatory, as he hath before expressed in the beginning of this Chapter. Saint Austin's meaning than is, that the daily prayer of the faithful sufficeth to obtain pardon at God's hands for our daily and common trespasses, yea and for greater offences also when by repentance and amendment of life we forsake them: but no meaning hath he either that the saying of the Lords prayer, should be a recompense to God for our trespass, or that our trespass being pardoned, there should still remain a satisfaction to be performed for it. Now here Master Bishop further denieth, that in the Lord's prayer we use only plea of pardon: for (saith he) we are taught also to pardon others even as we will look to be pardoned. And what then? what, because we are taught freely to pardon others, shall we hereupon conceive, that God is hired by our pardoning others to give pardon unto us? Our Saviour Christ noteth thereby the affection of them to whom it belongeth to use the plea of pardon: he saith not any thing to be construed to the impeachment and derogation of the freeness of the pardon. Meekness and readiness to forgive, is h Gal. 5.22.23. a fruit of the spirit i Rom. 8.15. of adoption, by which we cry Abba Father, in the voice of which spirit only it is, that God hearkeneth unto us. k Aug. Enchir. cap. 71. Eorun est dicere, Pater noster, etc. qui iam tali patri regene rati sunt exaqua & Spiritu sancto. It is for them to say, Our Father which art in heaven, saith Saint Austin, who now are regenerate and borne again to such a Father of water and of the holy Ghost. If we speak not by this spirit, our voice is as the voice of strangers, and God giveth no regard unto it. Therefore our forgiveness of others is not alleged as the cause for which God is moved to forgive us, but we present it to him as the mark of his spirit, which he hath set upon us, & as the token that we are his children, to whom he hath assigned it for a portion to be made partakers of the forgiveness of sins, & to whom Christ hath ministered comfort & boldness so to pray. His 2. exception is very vain also: for although the Lords prayer contain not all things necessary to salvation, yet the Lords prayer is the direction of all prayers necessary to salvation. Therefore Tertullian calleth it as he in his manner speaketh, l Tertul. de fuga in persecute & li. de Orat. legitimam orationem, the prayer that serveth us for a law of praying; and Austin also saith: m August. Epi. 121. cap. 12. Si per omnia precationum sanctarum verba discurras, quanium existimo nihil invenies quod non ista dominica contineat & concludat oratio. If thou go over all the words of holy prayers, thou shalt find nothing (as I think) which this Lord's prayer containeth not. Yea Tertullian doubted not further to affirm, that n Tertul. de Ora. Breviarium totius evangelii. it is the brief sum of the whole Gospel. Now therefore if in the Lord's prayer we ask forgiveness of sins only by plea of pardon, than it cannot be that we should be taught elsewhere to ask forgiveness upon tender of satisfaction, which wholly overthroweth the name and nature of forgiveness. And surely M. Bishops understanding might afford him to conceive, that although the Lords prayer contain not all things necessary to salvation, yet that that is there contained, receiveth no check from any thing spoken otherwhere. As for his last exception it is most absurd, that the prayer by which we entreat God not to urge us to satisfaction, should itself be accounted a satisfaction, as if we said unto God, Forgive us our trespass, O Lord, and yet we do not wish thee to forgive us altogether freely, and for nothing; for even by our praying we make thee amends for our trespass. Satisfaction is defined with them to be o Thom. Aquin. Suppl q. 15. art. 15. in corp. Opus satisfactorium oportet quòd sit poenale. a punishment, and because prayer as M. Bishop telleth us, is one part of satisfaction, we must understand that with them it is a punishment to pray, and M. Bishop having received the penitents confession, and enjoining him a number of Pater nosters, doth enjoin him so many punishments, and maketh him in effect to say unto God again, O Lord forgive me my sins, and that I may deserve that favour at thy hands, I here make thee satisfaction and recompense, by enduring this punishment of praying to thee. Nay, it is scant so well: I pray thee, gentle Reader, to mark well the contriving of this matter. The penitent cometh to M. Bishop, who upon his confession giveth him absolution of all his sins, enjoining him for satisfaction and penance thus and thus to pray. So then he saith, O Lord, my sins be forgiven me already, but yet for a punishment, and by way of satisfaction I say unto thee, Forgive us our trespasses. These are the mysteries of the fornications of the whore of Babylon, things reasonless, witless, senseless, mere witcheries and enchantments of men's minds, and the untimely fruits of a barren strumpet, such as the very common instinct of Christianity should teach all men to detest; to discover them, is sufficient to confute them. But of this M. Bishop telleth us we shall hear more hereafter. 7. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins fourth Argument is taken out of certain odd fragments of ancient writers. Guiltiness being taken away, the punishment is also taken away. Tertul. de Bapt. True: he that is guilty of nothing, cannot justly be punished: for guiltiness is a binding up to punishment (as M. Perkins defineth, Pag. 28. ) then if the band to punishment be canceled, the party is freed: but all this is nothing to the purpose for guiltiness of temporal punishment doth remain after the sin and guilt of eternal be released. Augustine saith, Christ by taking upon him the punishment, De verb. Apost. ser. 37. and not the fault, hath done away both fault and punishment. Just: the eternal punishment which was due to that fault, not the temporal: as S. Augustine himself declareth: In Enchir. cap. 70. God of compassion doth blot out our sins committed, if convenient satisfaction be not on our parts neglected. To that other sentence out of him: When we are gone out of this world, there will remain no compunction or satisfaction, it is easy to answer without the help of any new edition: for it will be too late then to repent, and so there is no place left to compunction, that is, contrition of heart: neither consequently to confession or satisfaction: as if he had said, before we go out of this world there is place for both compunction and satisfaction: and so that place is rather for us. Now to chrysostom, who saith, Tom. 10. hom. 5. Prem. in Esa. That God so blotteth out our sins, that there remains no print of them: which thing befalls not the body: for when it is healed, there remaineth a scar; but when God exempteth from punishment, he gives thee justice. All this is most true, and much against M. Perkins doctrine of the infection of original sin, but nothing touching satisfaction: for we hold, that the soul of a sinner when he cometh to be justified, is washed whiter than snow: so that there is no stain or print left in it of the filth of sin. It is also freed from all eternal punishment, but not from some temporal. Now gentle Reader, prepare thyself to behold a proper piece of cozenage. Ambrose saith, I read of Peter's tears, but I read not of his satisfaction. Luk. 22. The colour of the craft lieth in the ambiguity of this word satisfaction, which is not always taken for the penance done to satisfy for the former fault, but is sometime used for the defence and excuse of the fact. So speaketh S. Paul, Act. 24 10. Bono animo pro me satisfaciam, with good courage I will answer in defence of myself, 1. Pet. 3. or give you satisfaction: in like manner Ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you reason of that hope which is in you. In this sense doth S. Ambrose use the word, as is most plainly to be scene to them that read the place, and confer it with the very like of his, Lib. 10 in Luc. I find not (saith he) what Peter said, but I find that he wept: I read his tears but I read not his satisfaction: but that which cannot be defended, may be washed away. So that nothing is more manifest, than that satisfaction in this and the like places is taken for defence and excuse of his fault, which Peter used not, but sought by tears and bitter weeping to satisfy in part for it: for this bewailing of our sins is one special kind of satisfaction, as S. Ambrose testifieth, saying, Lib. 2. de poenit. cap. 5. That he who doth penance, must with tears wash away his sins. The other place cited out of S. Ambrose, De bono mortis, let us adore Christ, that he may say unto us, fear not thy sins, nor the wa●●es of worldly sufferings, I have remission of sins, is rather for us then against us: for if by adoring and serving of God we may be put out of fear of our sins and the punishment of them, than doth it follow, that prayers and such like service of Christ, doth acquit us of sin, and satisfy for the pain due to them. In Psal 31. Hierome saith, The sin that is covered, is not seen; not being seen, it is not imputed; not being imputed, it is not punished. Answer. To wit, with hell fire: which is the due punishment of such mortal sin whereof he speaketh: or sin may be said to be covered, when not only the fault is pardoned, but all punishment also due unto it is fully paid. Lib. 2. de punit. cap. 5. So doth S. Ambrose take that word covered, saying, The Prophet calleth both them blessed, as well him whose iniquities is forgiven in Baptism, as him whose sins are covered with good works: For he that doth penance, must not only wash away his sins with tears, but also with better works cover his former sins, that they be not imputed unto him. Now we must back again unto chrysostom, belike he had forgotten this when he cited the other, Hom. 44. sup. Math. or else this was reserved to strike it dead. He saith, Some men endure punishment in this life and in the life to come: others in this life alone: others alone in the life to come: other neither in this nor in the life to come: there alone as Dives, here alone as the incestuous Corinthian: neither here nor there, as the Apostles and Prophets, as also job and the rest of this kind, for they endured no sufferings for punishment, but that they might be known to be conquerors of the fight. Answer. Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures, were not for their sins; for they committed but ordinary light offences, for which their ordinary devotions satisfied abundantly. The great persecutions which they endured, were first to manifest the virtue and power of God, that made such frail creatures so invincible: then to daunt the adversaries of his truth, and withal to animate and encourage his followers. Finally, that they like conquerors, triumphing over all the torments of this life, might enter into possession of a greater reward in the kingdom of heaven. All this is good doctrine, but nothing against satisfaction, that their surpassing sufferings were not for their own sins. And thus much in answer unto M. Perkins arguments against satisfaction. R. ABBOT. Against his answer to the words of Tertullian, I must urge his own words in the section before alleged, Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due unto it, and consequently all guiltiness belonging to it? Who can deny this, unless he know not or care not what he say? Now then put these together. Tertullian saith, a Tertul. de haptismo. Exempto reatu eximitur & poena. The guilt being taken away, the punishment is also taken away. But the pardoning of a sin, saith M. Bishop, taketh away all guiltiness belonging to it. Therefore consequently it taketh away all the punishment: for where there is no guilt, no punishment can be. Yes saith M. Bishop, guiltiness of temporal punishment doth remain after the sin and guilt of eternal be released. But then a pardon doth not take away all the guiltiness of sin, as before he saith it doth. Oportet mendacem esse memorem: A liar must bear a brain. Again, we would know some ground whereupon we may be assured that sin hath two kinds of guilt; for we conceive but one only guilt whereby the sinner is guilty of all, both temporal and eternal punishments. Otherwise we may with as good warrant affirm guilt of infinite sorts; one whereby a man is guilty of burning, another whereby he is guilty of drowning, another for the gout, another for the palsy, and for every several punishment a several guilt; and that there may be a remitting of one of these guilts, and yet a retaining of the other. If M. Bishop take this to be absurd, he must give us leave to take him for an absurd man in thus severing the guilt of temporal and eternal punishments. Yea and this assertion of his is the denying of that that in the ground of this question is supposed and confessed. For if the sin be past and pardoned, as he saith at first, how remaineth there any guilt: for what is the pardoning of a sin but the remitting of the guilt? The guilt is a bond, whereby we stand bound to punishment; the forgiving of the sin, what is it but the releasing or losing of this bond? If the bond be released, why doth he affirm that we are bound still? or if we be still bound, why doth he affirm the losing of the bond? If he will say that the bond is partly released, and partly standeth still, then let him say, the sin in part is pardoned, but not wholly, and then let him show us what warrant he hath, that God in that sort forgiveth sins by patches and pieces, which because he cannot do, let him give us leave to take him for that that he showeth himself to be. The words of Austin are merely deluded with the same shift. b Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 37 Suscipiendo poenam & non suscipiendo culpam et culpam delevit & poenam. Christ (saith he) by taking upon him the punishment, and not taking upon him the fault, hath done away both the fault and the punishment. Just, saith M. Bishop, the eternal punishment, not the temporal. But how doth he warrant this limitation in the one part of the sentence which cannot be justified in the other? Where it is said that Christ hath taken upon him the punishment, it is understood of our punishment both temporal and eternal, though that which should have been eternal to us, by the infinite power of his Godhead was overcome and made temporal to him. Was it S. Augustine's meaning then to say, that Christ having taken upon him our whole punishment, hath delivered us only from a part, and left the rest to be satisfied by ourselves? Surely what Christ took upon him for us, from the same he delivered us. He took upon him our temporal punishments: therefore he hath taken away our temporal punishments, so that they remain not in the nature of punishments but of medicines, to them that have obtained forgiveness of sins by faith in him. That the mediation of Christ extendeth to the remitting of temporal punishments, I have showed c Sect. 2. & 3. before, and therefore need not stand here any longer to confute this improbable and unlikely gloze. As for the place of Austin which he allegeth for colouring hereof, it hath his answer in the former section, being the next words to those that are cited there. d August. Enchirid. cap. 70. Nemini dedit laxamentum peocandi, quamuis miserando deleat tam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur. God hath given to no man a freedom to sin, albeit the sins that are already committed he in mercy blotteth out, if convenient satisfaction be not neglected. Here is satisfaction first, and thereupon the blotting out of sin, but M. Bishop telleth us of the blotting out of sin first, and of a satisfaction required after. Why doth he wilfully abuse his Reader, to make show of proving that to which he allegeth nothing? The thing that he should prove is, that God remitting the sin and the eternal punishment, doth reserve the making of a temporal satisfaction, and he bringeth in Austin requiring convenient satisfaction for the remitting of the sin. His argument then if we will frame it, must be this; We must use convenient satisfaction unto God for the obtaining of the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore after that our sins be forgiven us, we are still to make a temporal satisfaction unto God; which if it be not a good one, we may take him to be stark nought. Of the name of satisfaction I shall speak further in the last section; here it is enough briefly to observe, that the convenient satisfaction spoken of by Saint Austin, is no convenient argument for Popish satisfaction. The other place cited from him, is a flat denial of satisfaction after this life. e Homil. 5. Cùm de hoc seculo transierimus, nulla compunctio vel satisfactio remanebit. Some read, vel aliqua satisfactio, which must be resolved thus, Non ulla compunctio vel satisfactio aliqua remanebit, or else the division leaveth place to compunction & repentance after this life, which opinion Austin there inveigheth against, and M. Bishop himself here disclaimeth. When we are gone out of this world, there will not remain any compunction or satisfaction. M. Bishop saith, that there remaineth satisfaction though there remain no compunction; but S. Austin saith, there remaineth neither compunction nor satisfaction. But although M. Bishops whole drift tend to that that I have said, yet I wish thee gentle Reader, to observe here how prettily he circumuenteth himself. After this life (saith he) there is no place left to compunction, that is, contrition of heart, neither consequently to confession or satisfaction. If because there is no place for compunction in this life, therefore there be no satisfaction after this life, why doth he tell us in the beginning that after this life there is satisfaction to be made in purgatory if we die before we have fully satisfied here? why do they make men believe, that for the dead satisfaction may be made by them that are alive? There is satisfaction, he saith, after this life, and he saith there is no satisfaction after this life, and thus indeed knoweth not what to say. But yet he telleth us, that S. Austin thereby acknowledgeth that before we go out of this world, there is place both for compunction and satisfaction, and so that place (saith he) is rather for us. well, but what he gaineth in the scabbard, he loseth double in the dagger. If Purgatory sink into hell, they are in a woeful case. It is Purgatory satisfaction specially that they have their living by. Now against Purgatory satisfaction he giveth us this argument: where there is no place for compunction, there is no place for satisfaction. But in Purgatory there is no place for compunction. Therefore there is no place now left for Purgatory satisfaction. As for satisfaction in this life, in such sort as S. Austin speaketh of it, we deny it not. Satisfaction is nothing else with him but true repentance, as shall be showed hereafter; and we preach repentance, not according to the illusions of Popery, but according to the truth of the word of God. The next words are cited out of chrysostom, for which is noted Prooem. in Esaiam. Others citing the same work, do set down what they cite, as ex Hypomnemate in Esaiam. But the words are by my copy in his third homily de Poenitentia, and they do indeed irrefragably overthrow M. Bishop's satisfactions. f Chrysost. de poenit. hom 3. Neque mihi dixeru, permultum peccau●, quomodo salu●ri possum? Tu nequ● sed Dominus tuus potest, atque ita potest, ut tua deleat peccata. Sicenim delet peccata Deus, ut neque eorum vestigium maneat. In corporibus qu●dem id non est ita, sed quanquam millies conetur medicus creatrix remanet Deus autem sic delet ut neque cicatrix neque cicatricis supersit indi ium, non vestegium quodquam, sed post poenae liberationem & justitiam inserit, & peccantem coaequalem facit non peccanti. Extinguit enim peccatum atque id non esse facit nec fuisse. Say not unto me, I have sinned: how shall I be freed from so many sins? Thou canst not, but thy God can: yea and he will so blot out thy sins, that there shall remain no print of them. Which thing befalls not the body, for when it is healed, there remains a scar, but God so blotteth out sins, as that there remaineth no scar nor token of scar, no print or sign at all, but after deliverance from punishment he giveth thee justice, and maketh the sinner equal to him that hath not sinned: for he extinguisheth sin, and maketh it not to be, yea as if it had never been. Which words are apparently spoken of actual sins▪ g Aug. de nupt. & concup. lib. 1. cap 26. Eorum peccatorum quae manner non possunt, quoniam cum fiunt praetereunt, reatus tamen manet, etc. Reus est donec reatus ipsius indulgentia remittatur. The act whereof is past, as S. Austin saith, with the time wherein they are done, but the guilt remaineth, till by pardon it be remitted. Now God so remitteth it, saith Chrysostom, as that no print thereof remaineth. If no print thereof remain, if it be as if it had never been, how doth M. Bishop then tell us, that after forgiveness there remaineth still a guilt of temporal punishment? This is the point; why did he not answer to it? why doth he turn his speech from actual sins whereof the place is meant, to original sin whereof it cannot be meant? because though he tell us that original sin remaineth not, yet he cannot deny but that some scar or sign thereof remaineth in the concupiscence of the flesh. But chrysostom denieth the remaining of any scar or sign, which can no otherwise be true but only in actual sins, whereof nothing but the guilt remaineth, and which by remission is perfectly done away. But that original sin, though the guilt be remitted, yet as touching the corruption continueth still, hath been sufficiently showed before in the handling of that question. As touching the place of Ambrose, I will not gainsay that which M. Bishop answereth. Ambrose saith as M. Perkins allegeth, h Ambr. in Luc. lib 10. cap. 22. Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego. I read of Peter's tears, but his satisfaction I read not: but satisfaction is not there taken in that meaning whereof we speak. He meaneth indeed that he used no apology, no excuse or answer for himself, but yielded himself with tears to the acknowledgement of that that he had done amiss. The word of satisfaction is here very unproperly used, and therefore may very easily be mistaken, without any purpose of cozenage or fraud. I might as well object cozenage here to M. Bishop, who taking upon him to make good his answer by another place of Ambrose, allegeth for another place the very same which M. Perkins cited. But Ambrose hath the words indeed in another place in one of his i Ser. 46. Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego; Rectè planè Petrus flevit & tacuit quia quod defleri solet, non solet excusari. sermons, and therefore we will not charge M. Bishop here with cozenage, there being otherwise every while occasions enough to discover him to be a cosiner. As for that which he saith, that Peter sought by tears and bitter weeping to satisfy in part for his fault, we take him to deal very absurdly in that he should go about to make the Apostle so absurd, as to think the shedding of a few tears to be any part of the redemption of so great a sin. The Apostles tears were no part of Popish satisfaction, but the tokens of true repentance, lamenting the wound, but seeking the cure only in the satisfaction of the cross of Christ. As for that which he allegeth from Ambrose, that k De poenit. lib. 2 cap. 5. Qui poenitentiam agit, non solum diluere lachrymis debet peccatum suum, sed etiam, etc. he that repenteth must with his tears wash away his sin: he needed not for that phrase to have gone so far, he might have found it in the places l In Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. Lavant lachrymae delict● quod voce pudor est confiteri: & idem habet ser. 46. before alleged. But he spoke therein as we many times do, not as thinking the tears of the body to be the washing away of the sins of the soul, but as to note that the weeping and tears of faith do obtain of God the washing away of our sins in the blood of jesus Christ. In the other place S. Ambrose saith thus: m Debono mortis. cap. 12. Nos eum in temporum fine quaeramus, et complectamur pedes eius, & adoremus eum, ut ducat & nobis, Nolite timere, id est, nolite timere à peccatis seculi, nolite timere ab iniquitatibus mundi, nolite timere à fluctibus corporalium passionum; ego sum peccatorum remissio. Let us seek Christ in our times, let us embrace his feet, and worship him, that he may say unto us, Fear not: that is, fear not for the sins and iniquities of the world; fear not for the waves of bodily sufferings, I am the forgiveness of sins. So long as there is necessity of punishment, especially such a n Bellar. de poenit. lib. 4. cap. 1. Poena illa quae luenda restat post culpae remissionem est illa ipsa poena sensus quam in gelienna pati debuisset peccator, remota solùm a●ernitate. hellish punishment as they say is in purgatory, so long there is just cause of fear. But S. Ambrose telleth us here, that Christ by forgiveness of sins taketh away all occasion of fear; that in our sins and iniquities he leaveth us nothing to be afraid of. It followeth therefore, that after forgiveness of sins there is no further punishment, no further satisfaction to be made. Here M. Bishop again putteth off his Reader with a dodge: If (saith he) by adoring and serving of God we may be put out of fear of our sins and the punishment of them, than doth it follow that prayers and such like service of Christ doth acquit us of sin, and satisfy for the pain due to them. Which is as leaden an answer as if a man should say, If by entreating & praying the Physician I obtain of him a medicine whereby I am cured, than my entreating and praying is the very medicine itself by which I am cured. For what do we seek Christ, worship him, embrace him, desire him, pray unto him, but to be relieved, succoured, comforted and saved by him, that in him we may have satisfaction and remission of our sins? What madness is it then to make our seeking, our worshipping, our praying, to be themselves the satisfaction that we profess to seek in him? But such madness do they run into, who will not submit their right minds to the obedience of the faith of Christ. In the next place followeth Hierome. o Hieron. in psal. 31. Quod regitur non videtur: quod non videtur, non imput●tur: quod non imputatur nec punietur. That which is covered, is not seen; that which is not seen, is not imputed; that which is not imputed, is not punished. He speaketh it for exposition of the words of David, p Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sin is covered; blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. Now if the forgiving of sin be not the imputing of sin, then where sin is forgiven, there is no punishment, because there is no imputation of that to which the punishment is due. That which is not imputed, is not punished. To wit, saith M. Bishop, with hell fire. But that answer will not serve his turn: for if it be any way punished, it cannot be said not to be imputed: for whence ariseth the punishment but from the imputation of the sin? Now of not imputing, S. Austin telleth us, that q August. in Psal. 118. Siquid à deviante committitur, propter viam non imputatur, & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur. when sin is not imputed, a man is taken as if he had never done it. So saith S. Bernard, that r Bernar in Can. ser. 23 Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare 〈◊〉 decreuer●t, sic est quasi non fuerit. whatsoever God hath determined not to impute, it is as if it had never been. If it be as if it had never been, if a man be taken as if he had never done it, how then doth M. Bishop tell us, that there is still a satisfaction and punishment to be endured for it? But therefore he bringeth us another answer, such as for which be deserveth to be admitted for a wise and well learned man. Sin may be said to be covered when not only the fault is pardoned, but also all punishment due unto it is fully paid. So than whereas in brief Hierome saith, The sin that is, covered, is not punished: his meaning must be, that it is not covered till it be fully punished: nay he is made directly to contradict himself, and to say, The sin that is punished, is not punished. Would not a man think him to be out of his right wits that maketh such wrong constructions of plain words? As for the words of Ambrose which he bringeth in, what is there in them concerning punishment after the pardon of the fault? He speaketh of covering former sins with better works, but of covering them with punishment he saith nothing. And as for that which he saith, though at large it may be construed well enough, yet according to the exact truth of Scripture it is untrue, namely that sins are understood there to be covered with good works, as is plain by that the Apostle witnesseth, that the Prophet in that place describeth s Rom. 4.6. the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. But the true covering of sin is that which S. Bernard speaketh of, when in one place he saith that t Bernar. in Can. ser. 23. Charitas patris ipsorum cooperit multitudinem peccatorum. the love of the Father, and in another place that u Jbid. serm. 61. justitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum. the righteousness of Christ covereth the multitude of our sins. And of those words of David, it shall be worth the while to hear what Saint Austin saith, and to consider how well M. Bishop's answer accordeth therewith. x August. in Psal. 31. Quia totum gratiae imputatur non meritis nostris, beati quorum, etc. Non in quibus non sunt inventa peccata, sed quorum tecta sunt peccata. Cooperta sunt, tecta sunt, abolita sunt. Si texit peccata Deus, noluit advertere; si noluit advertere, noluit animaduertere; si noluit animaduertere, noluit punire: noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere. Because all is imputed to grace (saith he) and not to our merits, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Not in whom no sins are found, but whose sins are covered. They are covered, they are hidden, they are abolished. If God have covered sins, he looketh not on them; if he look not on them, he mindeth them not; if he mind them not, be will not punish them: he will take no knowledge of them, he chooseth rather to forgive them. If forgiveness of sins be such, as that God thenceforth looketh not on them, mindeth them not, taketh no knowledge of them, punisheth them not, let's us know that that which M. Bishop saith is an untruth, that he still reserveth sharp and severe punishment both in this life and in the life to come to be inflicted for them. The force of the saying of chrysostom which is the last, standeth in this, that he denieth that the Apostles, and Prophets, and holy men endured their sufferings for punishments, but that they might be known to be conquerors in the fight. The place showeth that the afflictions of the righteous and faithful have not the nature of punishments, but lie upon them for other respects, and therefore not being in the nature of punishments, they cannot be accounted for satisfactions. M. Bishop answereth, that they were no punishments for their own sins. And why? for they (saith he) committed but ordinary light offences, for which their ordinary devotions satisfied abundantly. A very dapper, but a very fond speech of a remoislesse man, whose heart yet hath never felt what the burden of sin is. Good Lord, how lightly doth he trip over with ordinary light offences? Surely the redeeming of those light offences required the shedding of the blood of the Son of God; and is it so lightly to be skipped over, for which the Son of God shed his most precious blood? Tush, saith M. Bishop, their ordinary devotions did abundantly satisfy for their sins. Belike they were proud hearted as he is: they would not be beholding to God, they would not die in his debt; what they owed him they would pay themselves for themselves, being rich enough, and well able to discharge all. But will he make those holy men as very fools as himself, that they neither knew God or themselves, but would think their ordinary devotions to be sufficient satisfaction for their sins? No, no, they knew well that after all their devotions they stood in need of God's mercy, that they had still to cry, Forgive us our debts, Enter not into judgement with us: that all their merits were but dross, and all their satisfactions were but dung if they were opposed against the judgement of God, as to shield them from their sins. But M. Bishop yet addeth more: It is nothing against satisfactions, that their surpassing sufferings were not for their own sins. And why? because we must understand forsooth, that though they were not satisfactions for their own sins, yet they were so for other men's, and in that respect are called surpassing, as namely exceeding the measure of their own sins. This is that impious monster of Romish apostasy, whereby they have put the Saints in Christ's place, and taught men to seek for that redemption in them which they should seek for and find in him alone. But we would gladly know of M. Bishop, where those surpassing sufferings of job and of the Prophets and other holy Saints of old were laid, before the storehouse was built at Rome? what use were they put to? who was the dispenser and disposer of them? What, was there a Pope then also to send pardons flying about the world to fetch one soul out of Purgatory for the surpassing sufferings of another? Or shall we think that they lay idle all that while, that the whole harvest of them towards the end of the world might be brought together into the Pope's barns? The high Priest of the jews was overseen, that he did not take upon him to be Pope of jerusalem, for of these surpassing sufferings he might have raised much thrift. Wicked caitiffs', that thus delude men with blasphemous tales and lies, who thus defile the innocent blood of the Son of God, by mingling with it the leprous and corrupted blood of sinful men. They all thought wholly and only to be redeemed by Christ, and must we think now in part to be redeemed by them? They knew themselves by their sins guilty of eternal suffering, and must we now think their sufferings to be beyond their sins? But against this blasphemy, sufficient hath been said before; albeit it is in itself so grossly impious and loathsome, as that the very mention of it is enough to make all Christian hearts to detest them that are the teachers of it. 8. W. BISHOP. Now to the reasons which he produceth for it. And albeit he like an evil master of the camp, range our arguments out of order, placing that in the forefront of our side, which Caluin presseth out against us, Lib. 3. instit. cap. 4. num. 29. yet will I admit of it, rather than break his order. 1. Levit. 4.56. Moses according to God's commandment prescribed several sacrifices for the sins of several persons, and ordained that they should be of greater and lesser prices, according unto the diversity of the sins. Whence we argue thus: These men's faults upon their true repentance, joined with faith and hope in Christ to come were pardoned: Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them, their pains and prayers in assisting, during the time of the sacrifice, being painful works done to appease God's justice, were works of satisfaction. M. Perkins answereth many things, as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose: First, that those sacrifices were types of Christ's suffering on the cross: what is this to the purpose? Secondly, that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation: and what needed that, when they had offended God only, and not the congregation, as in many offences it happeneth? Again, if satisfaction must be given to the congregation, how much more reason is it that it be made to God? Read those Chapters, and you shall find that they were principally made to obtain remission of God, as these words also do witness: Levit. 4. ver. 20. And upon that sacrifice, the sin shall be forgiven them. So that sacrifices were to satisfy God, who thereupon forgave the sin, and all pain due to it. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop belike had no great conceit of this argument of theirs, and therefore was angry that M. Perkins should disgrace them by putting it in the first place. Ilfavouredly it is propounded, and ill-favouredly maintained, but yet such learning it is, as he with great pains hath brought from Rome. The foundation that he layeth is a lie, and the building that he setteth upon it, a ridiculous consequence. He telleth us, that Moses prescribing by the commandment of God several sacrifices for several persons, did ordain that they should be of greater and lesser prices, according the diversity of the sins. But where is that ordinance? why doth he not exemplify that which he saith? where do we find in Moses law, that for such or such a sin, greater or less, shall be offered a sacrifice of such or such greater or lesser price? Surely he is little acquainted himself in Moses law, and some Register or other gave him a gudgeon at Rome, and made him believe that the Pope's Taxa poenitentiaria, whereby every sin is rated at a certain price, was framed according to the same law of Moses, and according to the prices of the sacrifices prescribed therein. We read there indeed of divers sacrifices, as in sins of ignorance a Levit. 4.3. for the Priest a young bullock, b Ver. 14. for the whole congregation the same; c Ver 22.23. for a ruler a he goat; for any of d Ver. 28. the people a she goat; e Chap. 5.15. for any consecrate thing by error withholden a ram of two shekels; f Ver. 18. for other trespass against holy things ignorantly done, the same; for g Chap. 6.6. sin wittingly committed, the same also; for the high h Chap. 16.3. Priests yearly offering for himself and his house, a bullock and a ram; and for the whole people i Ver. 5. two he goats and a ram. This diversity we read, and some few other such like, but of sacrifices of greater or lesser price, according to the diversity of the sins, we read nothing, it is a thing that Moses and Aaron never knew. Well, let that go, let us see what argument he hath framed against us. These men's faults (saith he) upon their true repentance, joined with faith and hope in Christ, were pardoned. Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices, their pains and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice, being painful works, done to appease God's justice, were works of satisfaction. O what pains here was for the appeasing of God's justice, to stand by and pray whilst the sacrifice was offering. Such cruel pains doth M. Bishop impose upon his penitents for their sweet sins, that a man may swear they are the worse for it all their life after. Vain man, was this a pains to be spoken of, for the satisfying and appeasing of the justice of God for sin? But to let this pass, if k Of the certainty of salvation. sect. 2. the honest man, of whom M. Bishop hath spoken before, should out with a little Latin, and tell him here, M. Doctor, negatur argumentum, how foully would he be graveled, and so set at a Nonplus, that he could not tell which way to turn him. What, because they that offered the sacrifice with true repentance in the faith of Christ were pardoned, doth it therefore follow that their charges and their pains were the satisfaction for their sins? The honest man would tell him, Good sir, you err by assigning a wrong cause; for it was not for his charges and his pains that he was pardoned, but for his faith in Christ. He laid not his hand upon himself, as to lay his sin upon himself, but l Levit. 1.4. he laid it upon the head of the dumb beast, as in figure of jesus Christ, m Esa. 53.6. upon whom the Lord would lay the iniquities of us all. Therefore his sacrifice, if he offered it aright, was only a profession of the hope of redemption by Christ, and he was thereby instructed in him alone to expect full satisfaction and forgiveness of his sins. Now thus in effect M. Perkins answered him, and he reciting the answer by halves, asketh, What is this to the purpose? Very much it is against his purpose, if in the sacrifices themselves there were nothing else but a direction to seek satisfaction in jesus Christ. n Heb. 10.1. The Law had the shadow of good things to come, and not the (lively or substantial) image of the things themselves. Therefore no satisfaction indeed, but only a shadow of satisfaction to come was to be found therein. For o Ver. 4. it was unpossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin. And therefore the Law was p Chap. 7.18. abolished for the weakness and unprofitableness of it. How should it be said to be weak, or why should it be called unprofitable, if satisfaction for sins were to be found in it? Albeit in some meaning M. Perkins acknowledgeth in them a satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church of God, as testimonies of their repentance, and of their desire to be reconciled to God and men. What needed that, saith M. Bishop, when they had offended God only, and not the congregation, as in many offences it happeneth? I answer him, that because all men are sinners, every man was by these sacrifices to give acknowledgement thereof as touching himself, and to show his care to be reconciled to God, either for public or private offences, whereby he had with Achan provoked God's wrath against his people as well as against himself. Upon the doing whereof, men were accounted to the Church and with men, as sanctified and cleansed from their sins, and no exception was to be taken against their joining themselves to the Church. And therefore for warrant of this distinction the Scripture teacheth, that those sacrifices did q Heb. 9.13. sanctify as touching the purifying of the flesh, that is, outwardly to men, but r Ver. 9.14. & chap. 10.1.2. to sanctify the conscience, to acquit the conscience of sins, it reserveth as a thing peculiar to the blood of Christ. But, saith M. Bishop, if satisfaction must be given to the congregation, how much more reason is it that it be made to God? True, but what are we sinful wretches, that we should think that any thing that we can do should be a satisfaction to him for sin? But much more absurd are we to think, that the offering of a bruit creature should be any part of the redemption thereof. Our satisfaction therefore is not any thing that we do or can do, but it is only the pleading of a satisfaction paid for us in the blood of Christ. Yet he still urgeth, that sacrifices were to satisfy God, because it is said, that upon the sacrifice the sin shall be forgiven. But I have already answered him, that it was forgiven not for the sacrifice sake, but for Christ's sake, whom the offerer was to understand therein. And we know, that of Sacraments usually those effects are spoken which properly belong to those things whereof they are sacraments. It is rightly said by Tertullian, that God in these sacrifices s Tertul contra Marc lib. 3. Non quae siebant exigens sed propter quod fiebant. required not the things which were done, but that for which they were done. And therefore as Origen saith, as touching the high Priests standing forth to appease the wrath of God, when the Angel was gone forth to be the executioner thereof, t Origen. in Num. hom. 9 Neque enim indumenta Pontificis purpura & Lina & bysso contexia erubuisset Angelus ille vastator, sed ista quae futura erant indumenta magni Pontificis intellexit & ijs cessic. The destroying Angel would not have bashed at the high Priests garments, made of purple, and wool, and silk, but he understood those garments that should be of the great high Priest (jesus Christ) and to them he yielded: even so we are to conceive that the wrath of God was no whit nor in any sort pacified by those sacrifices for the things themselves that were done therein, but he respected in them the blood and sacrifice of his only begotten Son, and thereto was content to yield himself satisfied and appeased towards them that offered with faith in him. 9 W. BISHOP. The reason for us (which indeed is the very groundwork of satisfaction) may thus be framed: many after pardon obtained of their sins, have had temporal punishment laid upon them for the same sins, and that by Gods own order: wherefore after the forgiveness of the sin, and the eternal punishment of it through Christ's satisfaction, there remaineth some temporal pain to be endured by the party himself for the same sin, which is most properly that which we call satisfaction. They deny that any man hath been punished temporally for any sin which was once pardoned: we prove it first by the example of the Israelites, whose murmuration against God, was at Moses intercession pardoned; Numb. 14. yet all the elder sort of them, who had seen the miracles wrought in Egypt for their deliverance, were by the sentence of God deprived of the sight of the land of promise, and punished with death in the wilderness for the very same their murmuration. The like judgement was given against Moses himself and Aaron, Numb. 20. Deut. 32. for not glorifying God at the waters of contradiction: both of them had their sin pardoned, yet were they both afterward for the same debarred from the entrance into the holy land. To this M. Perkins answereth, first, that a man must be considered in a two fold estate, as he is under the law, and as he is under grace. In the former estate, all afflictions were curses of the Law: in the latter, they are turned unto them that believe in Christ, from curses into trials, corrections, preventions, admonitions, instructions, and into what you will else, saving satisfaction. Now to the purpose. Whereas God (saith he) denied the believing Israelites, with Moses and Aaron, to enter into the land of Canaan, it cannot be proved that it was a punishment or penalty of the law laid upon them: the Scripture hath no more but that it was an admonition unto all ages following, to take heed of like offences, as Paul writeth, 1. Cor. 10. All these things came unto them for examples, and were written for our admonition. Reply. He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion, needs not to care what he saith. Hath the Scripture no more of their fact, then that it was an admonition to others? Turn to the original places, where the whole matter in particular is related: First their murmuration, than Moses intercession for them, and the obtaining of their pardon, and lastly after all the rest, God's sentence of deprivation of them from entering into the land of promise for that their murmuration. Again, Aaron shall not enter into the land, Numb. 14. Num. 20. ve. 24. Deut. 32.51. because he hath been disobedient to my voice: and of Moses, Because he hath trespassed against me at the waters of strife. So that nothing is more clear, even by the testimony of the holy Ghost, then that their days were shortened, and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off, in punishment of those offences, which were before forgiven them. And these things being recorded, as S. Paul testifieth, for our admonition and instruction, we are to learn thereby, that God so dealeth daily with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop here maketh a hot and a long harvest, and all his corn will not yield him so much as one morsel of bread. He telleth us that the argument which he here handleth is the very groundwork of satisfaction: now if the goundworke fail, we may be well assured that the building cannot stand. We deny indeed that any affliction or judgement of God hath lain upon any faithful man in the nature and condition of a punishment after the forgiveness of his sin. The things themselves, which in their own nature are punishments, and at the first are inflicted in that nature, yet the sin being forgiven, lose that nature, and become only trials, preventions, admonitions, instructions; neither do we therein conceive God's anger against us, but his fatherly goodness, and providence & care to keep us to himself, that he may make us partakers of eternal life. Thus carnal concupiscence being of itself a punishment of sin, though according to the guilt it be taken away by remission of sins, yet according to the thing itself remaineth in the faithful, not now for a punishment, but for the humbling and exercising of us, to make us to know ourselves, to draw us to trust and confidence in God, to sharpen our desire & love of that righteousness for which we fight in fight against it. So death of itself the wages of sin, becometh to the faithful as a poison broken into a medicine, and as a serpent that hath lost his sting: a Bern. in Cant. Ser. 26. jam non stimulus sed iubilus. I am cantando moritur homo & moriendo cantat. Vsurparis ad laetitiam matter moeroris, usurparis ad gloriam gloriae inimica: usurparis ad introitum regni porta inferi & fovea perditionis ad inventionem salutis. There is no sting but song, saith S. Bernard, man now dieth singing, and singeth dying. O thou mother of mourning, saith he, thou art turned to joy; thou enemy of glory dost now serve to give glory; thou gate of hell art used for an entry to the kingdom of heaven, and thou pit of destruction for the finding of salvation. S. Austin saith thereof, that b Aug. de pec. mer. & remis. li. 2. cap. 34. Morten cerporis propter peccatum homini Deus inflixit, & post peccatorum remissionem propter exercendam justitiam non ademit. Et paulò priùs: eam fidelibus evenire, ut eius timore vincendo exerceretur fortitudo justitiae God inflicted death for the punishment of sin, and after forgiveness of sins he still left it for the exercising of righteousness: that, saith he, the fortitude of righteousness might be exercised in overcoming the fear thereof. The like hath been noted out of him c Sect. 2. before concerning other judgements laid upon mankind in the beginning, by reason of sin. Now as of these, so of all other afflictions after forgiveness of sins, we resolve that they forego their former condition and property, and cease to be revengements and punishments for sin, but have other respects and uses for which they are continued. The examples so strongly urged by Master Bishop make nothing against this. First, the Israelites murmur, God to Moses threateneth wholly to destroy them, promising to make of him a mighty people. Moses prayeth unto God to withhold that wrath from his people, & to forgive the trespass. God saith, d Num. 14.20. I have forgiven it according to thy request: but he addeth, Notwithstanding as I live all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord: for all those men which have seen my glory & my miracles which I did in Egypt & in the wilderness, and have tempted me these ten times, and have not obeyed my voice, certainly they shall not see the land whereof I swore unto their fathers. Here is the forgiveness of a sin, saith M. Bishop, and yet a punishment ensuing after. But we answer him, that this example altereth the question, & cometh not within the compass of that whereof we speak. For it is one thing to speak of the forgiveness of a sin to the whole body of a people, and another thing to speak of forgiveness to one particular man. Forgiveness of a sin to a whole people is not absolute, but only in a respect: it is not simply the taking away of a sin, but the taking of it away in some sort, and therefore though it be the excluding of one punishment, yet nothing hindereth but that it may leave place for another, yea and though in common there be a forgiveness, yet in particular there may still remain an imputation of the sin, even as amongst this people were many reprobates and castaways, who though they were forgiven and freed in respect of the destruction then threatened, yet being void of repentance and true faith, found otherwise spiritually no benefit at all of this forgiveness. God saith not here simply, I have forgiven it, but I have forgiven it according to thy request. Moses request was according to Gods threatening; Gods threatening was wholly to destroy that nation. In this respect God said, I have forgiven it, namely so, as not at once to destroy this people according to my wrath and indignation conceived against them. And this Lyra very well observed: e Lyra in Num. ca 14. Benè dicit juxta quòd non totaliter dimisit, sed quantum ad hoc quòd non deleret totum populum simul. He saith well (saith he) according to thy request, because he did not wholly pardon it, but only as touching the not destroying of the whole people at once. Now albeit in this respect he did forgive it, because he did not wholly forgive it, therefore he voweth to glorify himself throughout all the earth, by making them an example of his judgement upon unthankful men, with whom no sights nor sayings can prevail to make them obedient to the voice of God. Therefore he would forbear to destroy them in that sort, and to their seed he would make good the promise of the land of Canaan, but as for them he would wear out the whole multitude of them, that not one of them should have the enjoying or sight thereof. This he laid as a judgement in common upon that generation of men, which had so infinitely from time to time provoked him, as that they made him f Psal. 95.12. to swear that they should not enter into his rest. But yet in the bosom of that multitude we cannot doubt but many there were, who truly repent and obtained forgiveness both of this & of all their other sins, & yet together with the rest were deprived of entrance into that holy land. For God doth not except particular men from general and common plagues, and when he striketh a nation with famine, sword, pestilence or other calamity; both one and other, good and bad are subject unto it, g Cyprian. contra Demetr. Intrae unam domum boni & mali interim continemur: quicquid intrae domum evenerit pari sort perpetimur, donec, etc. We are shut up together in one house, saith Cyprian, and whatsoever befalleth within the house we suffer it all alike. Only he so ordereth, that what is to a nation in common for revenge & punishment, becometh in particular to the repentant and faithful a help and furtherance of salvation. And so was it with the believing Israelites, who though by a common judgement they were excluded corporally from the Sacrament and sign, yet were thereby spiritually edified, and learned with Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob so much the more to meditate, to desire & long for the spiritual and everlasting rest. Albeit in respect of the faithful also it is to be understood that God's chastisements oftentimes lie upon them after forgiveness of sins, though not for punishments to themselves, yet for exemplary admonitions to others, h Tho. Aquin. 12. q. 87. art. 6. ad 3. edificentur in poena, qui scād●lizati sunt in culpa. that (as Thomas Aquinas speaketh, they may be edified by the punishment that were scandalised by the sin. And thus S. Austin rightly saith, that i Aug in Joan. tr. 124. Productior est poenae quàm culpa, ne parva putaretur culpa, si cum illa finiretur & poena. the punishment is continued longer than the sin, lest the sin should be esteemed but small, if the punishment should be ended together with it. And this M. Perkins well observeth in general concerning that example of the Israelites, that God though his judgement proceeded not one way, yet would have it to be seen another way, though not for punishment to them that repent and believed, yet for example to future times to take heed of cutting themselves off by unbelief and disobedience from the heavenly rest, as these had done from the seal and Sacrament thereof, the Apostle to that purpose saying: k 1. Cor. 10.11. These things came to them for ensamples, and are written to admonish us upon whom the ends of the world are come. Now as we conceive in general of the faithful of that people, so we do in particular of Moses and Aaron. M. Bishop urgeth it set down, that therefore they entered not, because they trespassed, because they were disobedient. And who maketh doubt, but that their trespass and disobedience was the original cause of the debarring of them? But still we say, that the cause of this debarring of them being forgiven, the effect still continued for other use: which in them was not only moral, but also mystical, God willing thereby to give to understand, that the Law, which was given by Moses, and the Priesthood that was executed by Aaron, could not bring us to that eternal inheritance which was figured by the land of Canaan but only jesus, who was figured by josuah, could yield unto us the possession thereof. Thus S. Austin maketh mystical and spiritual application thereof, affirming that l August. contra Faust. man.. lib. 16. cap. 19 Non introducebat populum in terram promissionis, ne videlicet lex per Mosen non ad saluandum sed ad conuincendum peccatorem data introducere putaretur. Ita Tertula●iuer Marcionem l●b. 3. Moses did not bring the people of Israel into the land of promise, lest the law which was given by Moses not to save, but to convict the sinner, should be thought to bring us into the kingdom of heaven. But fully to answer this point, and to stop M. Bishop's mouth, let us take that which the same S. Austin saith in another place: m Idem in Psa. 98. Quaerimus vindictam in Moyse, propè nullam habet nisi quòd ad extremum a●t illi Deut, Ascend in montem & morere. A●t seni, Morere, tam peregeras ●etates suas: nunquid nunquam erat moriturus? Quaelis illa vindicta? Ostendit ibi vindictam suam, ut diceret, Non intrabis in terram promissionis, quam intraturus erat populus. Quandan figuram quorundam gerebat Moses. Nam qui in regnum coelorum intravit magna illa poena crat adie●ram illam non venire qua ad tempas erat promissa ut umbram osteude ret & transi●e●● Nun mulit perfi●●ntrauerunt in illam terram? Nun in illa terra viventes multa mala fecerunt & Deum offenderunt? Nun & idolotriam secuti sunt in terra illa? Magnum erat non dedisse terram istam Moysi, sed Moses voluit gestare figuram eorum qui sub lege erant quia per Moysen data est lex, & ostendit eos qui sub lege esse vellent, & sub gratia esse nollent non intraturos interram promis●ionis. Ergo illud quod dictum est Moysi figura erat, non poena. Se● mers quae poena? Non intrare in illam terram quae poena quo intraverunt indigni? We seek God's punishment in Moses, saith he, and he had in a manner none, but that God at last saith to him, Go up into the hill and die. He saith to an old man, Go die: he had now finished his years; what, should he never die? what punishment is this? He showed him there his punishment, in that he said: Thou shalt not enter into the land of promise, to which the people was to enter. Moses did here bear a figure of some: for he being to enter into the kingdom of heaven, was it a great punishment not to come to that land which was promised, for a time to carry a shadow, and so to pass away? Did not many unfaithful men enter into that land? did not they that lived in that land commit many evils and offend God? did they not follow idolatry in that land? A great matter it was not to give this land unto Moses: but Moses was to bear a figure of them which are under the law, because the law was given by Moses, and he showeth that they which would be under the law, and would not be under grace, should not enter into the land of promise. Therefore that which was said to Moses was a figure, not a punishment: what punishment was it to an old man to die? what punishment was it, not to enter into that land, into which unworthy men did enter? Here than it is plain, that the not suffering of Moses to enter into the land of Canaan, was not a matter of punishment, but a matter of figure. God took the occasion thereof of his trespass, but the trespass being remitted, it was turned from being a punishment to him, to be a mystery of faith both to him and us. But it were worth the while here to question with M. Bishop, how he should make the not entering of all these into the land of Canaan, to be any satisfaction for their sins? what did they or suffered they, that might carry the name of a satisfaction? Did any thing herein befall them, but what befell to many just and godly Fathers before that time? He saith, their days were shortened, but how were the days of Moses and Aaron shortened, when the one lived to n Deut. 34.7. 120. and the other to o Numb. 33.39. 123. years, almost double to that number of years which Moses noted for the ordinary time of the life of man, p Psal. 90.10. The days of our age are threescore years and ten. Yea Moses was so old, as that he said, q Deut. 31.2. I am a hundred and twenty year old: I can no more go in and out. Again, we wonder, whereas M. Bishop hath told us before, that such excellent holy personages by their ordinary devotions satisfied abundantly for their sins, how it came to pass, that all Moses devotions for the space of r Deut. 2.14. eight and thirty years after, could not satisfy for that one sin of his, but that it still hindered him from entering into the promised land? Surely, M. Bishop cannot well tell us how these things hang together. But to conclude this point M. Perkins had set down by the words of the holy Ghost, the use of God's chastisements towards his children, and M. Bishop as loath to be acquainted therewith, saith nothing of it. s 1. Cor. 11.32. When we are judged we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. The occasion thereof is our sin: t Ver. 30. For this cause many are weak and sick amongst you, and many sleep: but the use thenceforth is not for satisfaction but for salvation, that we may not be condemned with the world. 10. W. BISHOP. Now to the next example, which M. Perkins maketh our third reason. King David was punished for his advoultrie after his repentance, for the child died, 2. Re. 12. and was plagued in the same kind of incest by Absalon: and when he had numbered the people, 2. Re. 24. he was after his own repentance, punished in the death of his people. M. Perkins answereth, that the hand of God was upon him after his repentance: but those judgements which befell him, were not curses to him properly, but corrections of his sins. Reply. What dotage is this, to grant the very same thing, which he would be thought to deny: but yet in other terms, that the simple (whom only he can beguile) may not perceive it: if the hand of God were upon David correcting him for his sin, and that after his repentance: did not David then suffer temporal punishment for his sins before forgiven? which is most properly to satisfy for them. Yea over and beside this punishment inflicted by God, he of his own devotion performed far greater satisfaction, by putting on sackcloth, lying on the bare ground, by watering his couch with tears, and making ashes his food, and in this most pitiful plight, he made most humble supplication unto God, to wash him more and more from his iniquity: he never dreamt that this his satisfaction should be any derogation unto the satisfaction of his Lord and Saviour: Psal. 50. but in the Psalm saith: that such an humble and contrite heart, is a sweet sacrifice unto God. We deny not but the punishing of one, is a warning and admonition unto another, to take heed of the like: so may not they deny, but that correction is to the party himself, as an admonition to beware afterward, so a correction and punishment of the fault past. Psal. 50. Which S. Augustine upon this verse of the Psalm, Thou hast loved truth, teacheth most plainly, saying: Thou hast not left their sins whom thou didst pardon, unpunished: for thou before didst so show mercy, that thou mightest also preserve truth: thou dost pardon him, that confesseth his fault, thou dost pardon him, but so as he do punish himself: and by that means both mercy and truth are preserved. R. ABBOT. This matter concerning David was answered long ago by S. Austin against the Pelagian heretics, who having set down for a rule of the chastisements and afflictions of this life, that a August. de peccat. mer. & remis. lib. 2. ca 34 supra Sect. 2. before forgiveness they are punishments of sins; after forgiveness the combats and exercises of the just, as before was said, bringeth for example thereof this that M. Bishop here objecteth concerning David. b Tale aliquid nobis insinuatum est de Patriarcha david ad quem cùm Propheta missus esset, eique propter peccatum quod commiserat eventura mala & iracundia Dei comminaretur, confession peccati veniam meruit, & tamen consecuta sunt quae Deus fuerat comminatus ut sic humiliaretur à filio, etc. Cur dimisso peccato quod erat minatus implevit? Respondebitur remissionem peccati factam ne homo à percipienda vita impediretur aeterna, subsecutum verò illius comminationis effectum, ut pietas hominis in illa humilitato exerceretur atque probaretur. Such a matter, saith he is insinuated unto us concerning the Patriarch David, to whom the Prophet being sent, and threatening unto him the evils, that by the wrath of God should befall unto him for the sin that he had committed, by the confession of his sin he obtained pardon, and yet those things followed which were threatened, that he should be so humbled by his son. Why did God fulfil that, when he had forgiven the sin? We are to answer, that the sin was forgiven, lest the man should be hindered from eternal life: but the effect of the threatening followed, that the piety of the man might be exercised and proved in that humiliation. Here was just occasion given to Saint Austin to have mentioned Master Bishops satisfaction if he had known it, but he knew it not, and therefore said nothing of it. He denieth David's afflictions after forgiveness to be punishments: he maketh the use of them to be thenceforth only for combat and exercise and trial of his piety and faith. Therefore in calling them corrections as from a father in respect of time to come, not punishments as from a judge in respect of time past, we say nothing but what Saint Austin saith. As for David's mourning afterwards, expressed in the one and fiftieth Psalm, it was the testimony of his true repentance, the expressing of his desire to be disburdened of his sin, and to be established by the grace of God, that he might not in such sort fall again. His c 2. Sam. 12.16. fasting and lying on the earth, were to entreat the Lord for the sparing of the child's life: but in nothing that he did do we find any dreaming of satisfaction. He knew well that it was a derogation to the satisfaction of Christ to seek in himself that satisfaction that was to be sought for in Christ alone. He knew, that d Psa. 51.17. a broken and contrite heart is a sweet sacrifice to God, but yet he knew it not to be a sacrifice propitiatory for the sin of man. It is not itself a satisfaction for sin, but only the disposition of him who seeketh to find satisfaction in the Son of God. And this broken and contrite heart grieving and sorrowing for sin, is that punishment whereof Saint Austin speaketh in the words which Master Bishop citeth, and which he calleth the punishing of a man's self, and is the affection wherewith we are to seek forgiveness at God's hands. Which when we are careless of, God striketh us with his rods and punishments to work it in us, and to make us seek the forgiveness of our sins. This the Apostle giveth to understand when he saith, e 1. Cor. 11.31. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord, as if he should say, that because we judge not ourselves therefore doth the Lord judge us, that thereby we may be taught to judge ourselves. Thus our sin is punished that it may be forgiven, but after forgiveness thereof Saint Austin denieth (as we have heard) that any thing remaineth as a punishment for sin, neither doth this place import any thing otherwise. As for the other instance that he useth concerning the plague inflicted for the numbering of the people, it was more for the punishment of the people, then of David himself for the numbering of the people, though by David's numbering of them God would take the occasion of it. Therefore the story saith: f 2. Sam. 24.1. The wrath of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moaned David against them, in that he said: Go number Israel and judah. Here therefore necessary it was, and standing with the glory of God by David's prayer, that the sin of the people should be forgiven as well as David's sin. David prayed for them. He offered a offering as it were to tender unto God the mediation of jesus Christ, that for his sake he might be merciful unto them. Upon this it is said: g Ver. 25. The Lord was appeased towards the land, & the plague ceased from Israel. This maketh plainly against M. Bishop, because it proveth directly, that the forgiving of the sin was the staying of the plague, not that the plague continued after the forgiveness of the sin. 11. W. BISHOP. Our fourth reason: The Prophets of God, when the people were threatened with Famine, the Sword, the Plague, or such like punishments for their sins, did commonly exhort them to works of penance, as fasting, prayer, haircloth, and the like, to appease God's wrath justly kindled against them: which being performed by them, God was satisfied. So (for example sake) the Ninivites at jonas preaching, doing penance in sackcloth and ashes, turned away the sentence of God against them. M. Perkins answereth, that famine, the plague, and such like scourges of God, were not punishments of sins, but corrections of a Father. Reply. This is most flat against a thousand express texts of the Scripture; which declare, that for the transgressions of God's commandments, he hath sent those punishments upon the people of Israel. And what is the correction of a father, but the punishing of a shrewd son for some fault committed, yet in a mild sort? Or doth the Schoolmaster (which is Caluins' example) whip the scholar, or strike him with the Ferula, but to punish him for some fault? So that great Rabbins seem not to understand what they say themselves, when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father, but not the punishment for a fault. As though father's used to correct those sons who never offended them: or masters to beat such scholars as commit no faults. But saith M. Perkins, these punishments be tending to correction, not serving for satisfaction: what senseless rhyming is this? by due correction of the fault, the party is satisfied in justice: and when he that hath offended doth abide such punishment as the grievousness of his offence did require, there is both due correction of the offender, and due satisfaction unto the party offended. M. Perkins finally flieth unto his old shift of imputative satisfaction: that forsooth our sufferings do not satisfy, but the party punished by faith layeth hold on the satisfaction of the Messias, and testify the same by their humiliation and repentance. Reply. As we first grant that all satisfaction hath his virtue from the grace of God, dwelling in us, which is given us for Christ's sake: so to say that Christ's satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction, is just to beg the principal point in question, & therefore an old trivants trick, to give that for a final answer, which was set in the beginning to be debated: look upon the forenamed example of the Ninivites, of whom it is not certain that they had any express knowledge of the Messias, and therefore were far enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction. But most certain & evident it is in the text, that God upon the contemplation of their works of penance, took compassion on them, and was satisfied; as by turning away the threatened subversion, is most manifest. R. ABBOT. It is an old saying, a Tertul. adu. Marc. lib. 4. Propter quod venimus, hoc age; Do that that we come for. M. Bishop buildeth here beside his groundwork. He propoundeth a Satisfaction to be made for sins past and pardoned, that is, after the forgiveness of the sins, and bringeth us arguments to prove a satisfaction for the obtaining of that forgiveness. But we will take them as they come, though by their own grounds they be worth nothing, there being no satisfaction to be made by a man, as we shall see hereafter, so long as he continueth in mortal sin, and still continuing in it, until by forgiveness it be blotted out. The Prophets denounce famine, sword, pestilence. M. Perkins should not have made any question, but that they denounce them as the punishments of sin, as fruits and effects of Gods curse according to the law. So did God accordingly execute them in fury and wrath, for just revengement upon a rebellious and unthankful people. The point of question stood not in this, neither needed M. Bishop to bestow so much pains for the proving of it. Yet it is to be observed, that although God in general denounced and executed the same by way of revenge and punishment, yet in particular he had always a respect to the calling and saving of his elect, turning those common judgements to be unto them occasions of repentance, & turning unto God to obtain of him remission of their sins and everlasting life. To them therefore upon their repentance the nature of punishments was altered, and they became means either to receive them presently to endless bliss, or to further them in the way wherein they were to walk for the attainment of it. Of this enough hath been said already; but the matter here is this, The Prophets denouncing such plagues, do withal call the people to repentance, to fasting, to praying, to putting on sackcloth and ashes. This being performed, saith M. Bishop, God was satisfied. Therefore he will have us to understand, that the doing of these things was a satisfaction, that is, the payment of a just price unto God, by which they merited the turning away of his fearful and heavy wrath. But this argument of his followeth not, because we know, that a man in favour may hold himself satisfied towards another upon his humbling of himself, who yet receiveth not a satisfaction, that is, a just and sufficient recompense for the debt that is owing him, or the wrong that is done unto him. The servant that ought his master b Math. 18.24. ten thousand talents, when he was called to payment, fell down at his masters feet, and besought him for patience. His Master herewith was appeased and satisfied, and forgave him all the debt; and will any man hereupon say that he made his Master satisfaction for the debt? So is the case betwixt God and us. We humble ourselves before him, we pray, we entreat him to forgive us. He is herewith satisfied, that is, contented and appeased, and remitteth the trespass. Shall we now hereupon say, that our humbling of ourselves, our entreaty and prayer to forgive us, is the payment of our debt? This is a mad conclusion as we take it, but such pretty knots will serve at Rome to tie the Pope's trinkets together, and they hold fast enough there, because no man must meddle with the untying of them. But this matter as Master Bishop handleth it, would require somewhat further to be considered of. We are therefore to understand, as in some part hath been signified before, that we are to put difference betwixt outward and temporal forgiveness, respecting only a temporal & earthly benefit, and that inward and spiritual forgiveness, which serveth for the acquitting of the conscience, to the obtaining of eternal life. That outward and temporal forgiveness, is not indeed to be called a forgiveness of the sin, but only a forbearing of the punishment. And this forbearance God yieldeth not only to true and faithful repentance, but also to the external signs and tokens thereof, proceeding only from worldly sorrow, upon fear of temporal plagues and punishments either imminent or incumbent. For we must know that God ordereth the administration and government of the world, not only for the bringing of his elect unto eternal life, but so also as serveth for maintenance of public order, and state, and society amongst men. Such is the wickedness of man's nature and proneness to mischief and violence, to lasciviousness and filthiness, and all kind of iniquity, as that the state of men would grow intolerable, if God did not take course both to restrain men from that enormity and excess of sin whereto nature tendeth, and to give encouragement to those courses, which serve for the common good and benefit of mankind. To which purpose Cyprian very rightly saith, c Cypr. count Demeir. Si non intercederet rebus humanis divina censura, quanta esset in hominibus audacia facinorum impr●nitate secura? If God's censure and judgement did not interpose itself amidst the doings of men, how great presumption would there be, growing secure and careless by the impunity of of sin? Now therefore when men grow to outrage & extremity, he sendeth amongst them his d Ezech. 14.21. sore judgements, the sword, the famine, the pestilence, which are e Tertul. de anima cap. 14. Revera lucs & fames & bella, etc. proremedi● deputanda, tanquam consura insolescentis generis humani. as it were the lopping & pruning of mankind, when they grow too proud and rank, and hereby he redresseth the insolencies and disorders that are found amongst them. But when men understanding the wrath and judgement of God, do show their dread and fear thereof, and yield themselves, though but civilly to be reclaimed, he showeth himself outwardly appeased and satisfied, and putteth up the sword which he had drawn against them. Thus though the Ninivites were heathens and infidels, yet when upon the preaching of jonas they put on sackcloth and ashes, and showed tokens of repentance, God did forbear the destruction that he had proclaimed against them. So when Ahab hearing by the message of Elias the fierce wrath of God conceived against him, did show himself moved thereat by f 1. Kings. 21.27.29. rending his clothes, and fasting, and lying in sackcloth, though he were a most wicked man, yet the Lord somewhat relented from the sentence that he had denounced, and deferred the execution thereof from the father to the sons time. In like sort the people of Israel when they every while by idolatry departed from God, yet upon humbling of themselves at the feeling of God's heavy hand, found mercy & deliverance from the tyranny of their oppressors, though by the sequel it still appeared, that they did it with a faithless and false heart. Thus God yieldeth temporal benefit to outward discipline and conformity to his laws, and showeth his regard thereof for the course of this life, even in them towards whom he hath no purpose of everlasting life. Now although towards infidels and hypocrites upon outward submission, God show himself outwardly satisfied and contented, and do yield thereto the remitting of temporal punishments, yet M. Bishop will not hereupon conclude, that they have made a satisfaction to God for their sins, because they themselves teach, that no man living in mortal sin of impenitency or infidelity, can perform any work of satisfaction unto God. So he himself here telleth us, that all satisfaction hath his virtue from the grace of God dwelling in us, which is given us for Christ's sake; whereupon it followeth, that where the grace of God dwelleth not by the faith of Christ, there can be no virtue of satisfaction in any thing that is done. The more unshamefast man he, within four lines after to bring the Ninivites for a proof of their satisfaction, of whom he himself saith, that it is not certain that they had any express knowledge of the Messias (he should have said, it is certain that they had none) and therefore were far enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction, and consequently were far off from the participation of the grace of God. But all is one with him it carrieth a show, and that serveth his turn, making no conscience at all of abusing the ignorance or unadvisedness of his Reader, and only regarding to uphold a side. But now as touching spiritual forgiveness of sins, for the acquitting of the conscience inwardly to God, all that mourn and weep, that rend their clothes and lie in sackcloth and ashes, that is, that perform outward tokens of repentance, are not partakers thereof. The reason whereof is, because these works of themselves do spiritually yield no satisfaction or contentment unto God. Then do they obtain true forgiveness and remission of sins, when they are used only as affections, wherewith we plead to the throne of the mercy of God the satisfaction of jesus Christ, that not for the things which we do, but for his sake, and g Math. 3.17. in him, according to his promise he may be well pleased towards us. In his name, not in our own we come unto God; for his merits, not for own we beg of him to be merciful unto us; testifying by our repentance the feeling and grievance of our wounds, but professing to expect in him only the medicine for the cure. Neither do we herein beg the point in question, as M. Bishop allegeth, but we give him plain and currant answer. We deny that which they affirm, that works of penance are true satisfactions to God for sin. They seek to prove it, for that God upon the doing hereof is appeased, and forgiveth sins. We answer, that where God upon the doing hereof, giveth forgiveness of sins, it is not for the works sake that is done, but for that the doer by faith seeketh and findeth the washing away thereof in the blood of jesus Christ, it being he only of whom we are taught, that h Col. 1.14. in him we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins. There are that do those works, and yet have no forgiveness; and therefore that other in the doing thereof obtain forgiveness, it is not to be attributed to the works themselves, but to somewhat else that is respected therein. And what is all our repentance, but a bootless sorrow, a blind horror and anguish of mind, wherein there is nothing but darkness and fear, but only as it receiveth light and comfort in the blood of Christ, for the mitigating and assuaging of it? If itself for itself can give no comfort, it is no satisfaction in itself: and therefore in all our repentance our satisfaction is in him only, who as S. Austin saith, i Aug. in Psal. 31. Soluit quod non debebat, ut nos à debito liberaret. Paid that which was no debt of his, to free us from our debt. These things are spoken by due and just course, and therefore M. Bishop must take here again the trivants trick, in that he would with so bare a shift slip over a direct and formal answer. 12 W. BISHOP. Our fift reason: Daniel giveth this counsel to Nabuchodonosor: Daniel. 4. Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy offences with mercy on the poor. If by such good deeds our sins may be redeemed, as holy writ doth testify, than it followeth that such works yield a sufficient satisfaction for them, for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended, as well as satisfaction. M. Perkins answereth, The skilful in the Caldey teach, that the word importeth rather a breaking off, then redeeming. Reply. To Authors in the air, without pressing of the propriety of the word no answer can be given: but let us admit that it be broken off; his sin not being covetousness, but pride and lack of acknowledging all kingdoms to depend upon God, as the text itself doth specify, To break off this sin by alms, and compassion of the poor, is nothing else but by such works of charity, in some sort to satisfy God's justice, thereby to move him to take compassion of him. And that by almsdeeds we are cleansed from our sins, Luk. 11. our Saviour himself doth teach, saying: Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you. R. ABBOT. This objection serveth much for the clearing of that that hath been said in the former section, and to open a way to the true understanding of many phrases, which by the Papists are abused to the maintenance of their absurd position of human satisfaction. We are to consider, what the person is to whom they are spoken, and in what respect the Prophet spoke them. Nabuchodonosor was a heathen King, void of the grace and spirit of God, having no knowledge, nor yielding any acknowledgement of God, but what God by miracle wrested from him, and yet thenceforth drowning that also in pride, oppression, cruelty, tyranny, and all kind of iniquity & injustice. Now therefore by the doctrine of the Romish Schools, he was not in case to do any work of satisfaction. For M. Bishop telleth us, as we have seen before, that all satisfaction hath his virtue from the grace of God, and Thomas Aquinas saith, that a Thom. Aquin. suppl. q. 14. art. 2. in corp. Sine charitate opera facta non sunt satisfactoria. works done without charity, have no power of satisfaction, & therefore where grace and charity are not, no satisfaction can be done. If then Nabuchodonosor, were not capable in their meaning, to do a work of satisfaction, how impudently do they deal to allege that that was said to him, to the maintenance of their doctrine of satisfactions? How should he be advised according to their meaning to redeem his sins, from whom by their own rules nothing could proceed, that might in their meaning be a redemption for his sins? Again, here is nothing intended as touching the true forgiveness of sins, wherein consisteth the spiritual reconcilement of man to God, but only as touching the avoiding of a threatened outward judgement, and the preservation of temporal & earthly state, which God yieldeth even to civil and moral change of former evil courses, as before was said. Daniel had threatened unto him from God the loss of his understanding, and the casting of him forth to the company of bruit beasts. He adviseth him yet to alter his former doings, by which he had drawn that sentence upon himself, to try whether haply God would be moved thereby to revoke the judgement which he had pronounced. b Theod. in Dan. 4Vn clementiae fructum percipere? Hanc eandem erga eos ostendito qui unam tecum sortiti sunt naturam: ita enim judici persuadere poteris ut minas extinguat neque sinat eas ad exitum perduci. Wilt thou, saith he, as Theodoret resolveth the speech, receive the fruit of mercy? show the same then to them who have obtained the like condition of nature with thyself, for so thou mayest persuade the judge to put away his threatenings, and not to suffer them to be brought to effect. Where Hierome conceiveth, that c Hieron in Dan. 4. Fecit juxta Danielu consilium, miserecordias in pauperes, & idcirco usque ad mensem duodecimum in eum dilata est sententia. Sed quia postea ambulans in aula Babylonis gloriatur, etc. bonum miserecordiae perdidit malo superbiae. Nabuchodonosor according to daniel's counsel, did show mercy to the poor, and therefore for twelve months the sentence was deferred, until upon glorying in his Babel, by sin of pride he lost the benefit of mercy. So then we see the forbearing of the punishment granted to a mere outward reformation, & yet the King being an infidel, there was no remission of the sin. There could therefore be no satisfaction, because satisfaction cannot be without remission; whereof it followeth, that sith daniel's words had their effect without any satisfaction, therefore there can no satisfaction be concluded thereof. For further confirmation hereof, we are to note what Origen saith as touching this matter, who observing, that d Origen in Mat. trac. 35. Operis boni aliud est quod facimus propter homines vel secundum homines: aliud autem quod propter Deum vel secundum Deum, etc. puta benè quis facit homini naturali iust●tia motus, no prepter Deum, quom●do faciebant interdum & gentes & multi faciunt homines. Opus illud ol●um est vulgar, non magnio doris, & tamen acceptabile apud Deum, sicut Daniel significat dicens ad balthasar Deum non cognoscentem, Audi, etc. Tale aliquid dicit & Peirus apud Clementem, quoniam opera bona quae siunt ab infidelibus in hoc seculo eis prosunt, non & in illo ad consequend●m vitam aeternam Et convenientèr quia nec illi propter Deum faciunt, sed propter naturam humanam. Qui autem propter Deum faciunt, idest, fideles, non solum in hoc seculo proficit eyes, said in illo, magis autem in illo. of good works there is one sort which we do for men or according to men; another which we do for God or according to God, for example thereof saith: A man doth good being moved by natural justice, and not in respect of God, even as heathens many times did and many men do. This work, saith he, is but common oil, and of no great savour, and yet it is acceptable with God, as Daniel signifieth, saying to a King that knew not God, Hear my counsel, O King, and redeem thy sins with alms. Some such matter Peter also saith in Clement, that the good works which are done by infidels, do benefit them in this world, but not in the world to come, for the obtaining of eternal life; and that very rightly, because they do them not for God's sake, but only as of the nature of man. But they which do these things in respect of God, that is the faithful, have benefit thereby, not only in this world, but also in that, yea specially in that that is to come. Here is the true condition of Nabuchodonosors works set forth unto us; he was an infidel, he knew not God; that which he did, he did it only by natural instinct; God respected it no further but only for this world, and only in that respect did Daniel say unto him, Redeem thy sins with alms, and therefore it must needs be granted, that the word of redeeming is very unproperly used, & can have no such meaning as M. Bishop intendeth by it. Now therefore albeit it be true which M. Perkins observeth out of the learned in the Chaldee tongue, that the word which is by the vulgar interpreter translated to redeem, doth properly signify to break off, yet he needed not to have rested upon that answer, but should rather have taken the common translation, thereby to evict that the name of redemption hath use with ecclesiastical writers, without any intendment of Popish satisfaction. Forwords are not always to be racked to their native and proper use, but from it are borrowed many times to import somewhat else, which in some respect may seem near unto it. Redemption properly importeth the payment of a just price, for the setting of a captive or bondman free. In this meaning it is used of our Saviour Christ, who gave himself for a price for us, to set us free from death and sin, & to reconcile us unto God; but in this meaning to attribute unto ourselves any power or worth to pay any price, or to yield any valuable recompense unto God for our sins, is a blasphemy intolerable, and a great impeachment of the sufficiency of Christ's redemption. Yet notwithstanding the term of redeeming is otherwise many times used, when one thing is made consequent to the doing or foregoing of another, as the freedom of the bondman is to the payment of the price. In this case the one is said to be redeemed by the other, not because it is a worthy price for the purchase, but because it is an opportunity for the obtaining or gaining of it. Thus Nabuchodonosor formerly said to his soothsayers: e Dan. 2.8. I know certainly that ye redeem the time, that is, that ye use your talk for the prolonging of the time. So are we said by foregoing the vanities and pleasures of the world, f Ephe. 5.16. Col 4.5. to redeem the time, because thereby we take the opportunity thereof to bestow it to the Lords use. Thus the heathen King was willed by almsdeeds to redeem his sins, not as though his almsdeeds were any satisfaction to God for his sins, which by the doctrine of Popery could not be, but because God for the common benefit of mankind, hath vouchsafed to yield good for the only outward forsaking of evil ways, howsoever inward regeneration find no place at all. Thus a man is said with his goods to redeem his soul, not for that worldly goods are a price for the saving of a soul, God forbidden; but for that by foregoing his goods, he findeth means and opportunity of being saved by jesus Christ. And in this sort ecclesiastical writers are wont sometimes to attribute to works of repentance and charity the redemption of our sins, not for that they took them in themselves to be any price, for the worth whereof God should be appeased towards us, but only because to the faithful doers thereof for Christ's sake, in whose name they are done, God hath made the promise of forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. Now by that that hath been said, we see that M. Bishop's argument is fallen into this frame: Nabuchodonosor an infidel and heathen King, never partaker of forgiveness of sins, and not capable by the doctrine of the Church of Rome of doing any satisfaction for sin, is willed to redeem his sins with almsdeeds; therefore after forgiveness of sins, there remaineth yet a satisfaction to be made for the sins that are forgiven. He that shall deny his argument, shall do him a shrewd turn; for how to prove it, he cannot tell. As for the place which he citeth out of S. Luke, it must import somewhat further than the words sound. For infidels as we have seen of Nabuchodonosor do give alms, and yet all things are not clean unto them, for g Tit. 1.15. to unbelievers nothing is clean, but even their minds and consciences are defiled. The Pharisees also to whom Christ there speaketh, h Math. 6.2. gave alms, and yet they were not cleansed thereby. Yea, the Apostle S. Paul giveth us to understand, that i 1. Cor. 13.3. a man may give all his goods to feed the poor, and yet being without charity and love, it profiteth him nothing. But by the occasion of the words, the meaning of them will appear. He hath said before, k Luk. 11.39. Indeed ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that which is within you, is full of ravening and wickedness. Hereupon he addeth for reproof; Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without, make that which is within also? Then for correction and exhortation he bringeth in the words which M. Bishop allegeth by halves; * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea, rather give for alms those things that are within, & behold all things shall be clean unto you. Where presupposing as we may conceive, that they did give alms, or otherwise exhorting them so to do, he withal directeth the true manner of the giving thereof, consisting not only in reaching a gift with the hand, but in giving the heart and affection, and l Esa. 58.10. pouring out the soul, as the Prophet speaketh, to the hungry; in showing judgement, and mercy, and fidelity to our brethren, for the want whereof he taketh exception against them in the next words, m Math. 23.23. as Saint Matthew expresseth the particulars thereof. Therefore he admonisheth them by these words, that as they were careful outwardly to cleanse their cups and platters, so they should much more be careful to cleanse their hearts, to void themselves of hypocrisy, covetousness, bribery, cruelty, and to put on charity, compassion, mercy, justice, and faithfulness, and then not only their dishes and vessels, but their almsdeeds, their meats and drinks now defiled with rapine and covetousness, yea all things should be clean unto them. It is not for alms then that Christ saith, Behold all things shall be clean unto you, for alms itself may be defiled and unclean, but for n 1. Tim 1.5. love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. So that in effect the words of Christ are but the same with that which the Apostle saith, o Tit. 1.15. All things are clean to them that are clean, that is, to them who in heart and conscience are purified and cleansed. And because p Acts. 15.9. by faith the heart is purified, therefore he saith in effect, to them that believe all things are clean. So then Master Bishop reasoneth thus, To them that give alms in true faith and a good conscience, all things are clean; therefore by almsdeeds we are redeemed and purged from our sins. We deny the argument, because it is not by alms itself that all things are clean unto us, but alms itself receiveth purity and cleanness from faith and a good conscience, without which it is in God's sight defiled and unclean. 13 W. BISHOP. Math. 3. Luk. 3. Our sixth. Bring forth the worthy fruits of penance. That is, do such works as become them who are penitent: Which (as S. chrysostom expoundeth) are: He that hath stolen away another man's goods, Hom. 10. in Math. let him now give of his own: he that hath committed fornication, let him abstain from the lawful company of his own wife, and so forth: recompensing the works of sin, with the contrary works of virtue. The same exposition giveth Saint Gregory, Hom. 10. in evang. In Psal. 4. and to omit all others, venerable Bede interpreteth them thus. Mortify your sins by doing the worthy fruits of penance, to wit, by afflicting yourselves so much for every offence, as worthy penance doth require, which will be a sacrifice of justice, that is, a most just sacrifice. To this M. Perkins answereth, that this text is absurd, for the word repent, signifieth, only change your minds from sin to God, and testify it by good works. Reply. His answer is most absurd, for we argue out of these words (Worthy fruits of penance:) and he answereth to the word going before, repent: which we use not against them; and for his gloze or testifying our repentance, is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alleged. And Saint john expressly maketh them the means to escape the wrath of God: saying, that the Axe was set to the root of the Tree, and unless by worthy fruits of penance they appeased God, they should be cut up, and cast into hell fire: and seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christ's satisfaction by faith: saying, it will not help you to say that ye are the Sons of Abraham, who was father of all true believers: as much as if he had said, Trust not to your faith, hand off ye generation of vipers. For notwithstanding ye be the sons of the faithful, unless ye amend your lives, and for the evil works which ye have done heretofore, make recompense, and satisfy the justice of God with good, ye shall be cast into hell fire. R. ABBOT. This argument is like his fellows that are gone before. We must do such works as become those that are penitent, therefore the works that we do are satisfactions for our sins. A man would think that Master Bishop should have more discretion, then to bring such light stuff in so weighty a cause. Though Master Perkins had alleged it out of some of their books, yet reason would have required, that he in the review should have better advised of it. But we see, Trigge and Trugge will not part company; what his fellows have said, be it good or bad, true or false, he will say it to the death. Only his memory faileth him a little, where he saith, that they use no argument against us from the words going before, Do penance, as they say; Repent, as we translate it; having forgotten that his masters of a Rhem. Testam. Annot. Math. 3.2. Rheims made a stout argument from thence in behalf of penance and satisfaction. Very impudently they dealt therein, because it is contrary to their own doctrine, to urge penance and satisfaction upon them that are to be baptised, and Thomas Aquinas affirmeth it to be an injury to the blood of Christ, as I have b Of justification. Sect. 20. before showed; and therefore by their own doctrine, the words of john Baptist cannot be understood of any such matter. But yet they were feign for a shift to take hold of that, because they had nothing else so colourably to serve turn in that behalf. It was out of M. Bishop's head what they had said, or else without doubt he would have said the like. But M. Perkins hath rightly told him, that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used by S. john, signifieth the alteration and change of the mind from sin to righteousness. It importeth no acts of penance, but inward reforming of our affections for the amendment of our lives. And therefore doth Athanasius say, that repentance hath it name from thence, c Athanas. quaest. 162. Ideò poenitentia resipiscentia dicitur quod mentem à malo in bonum transferat. for that it transferreth or removeth the mind from evil to good. M. Bishop will not stand upon this; he urgeth the other words, worthy fruits of penance. Howsoever he translate them absurdly, yet we approve his exposition of them, do such works as become them that are penitent; but what followeth hereof for him? Surely we teach men to do such works as become them that profess repentance, to recompense former works of sin with contrary works of virtue; former neglect and carelessness, with due circumspection and watchfulness over their ways and conversation. We teach that in grievous sins our grief & affliction of mind should be the more, and that both inwardly it is so, and outwardly appeareth so to be, where true repentance is, even as greater wounds cause greater feeling and pain, and make men more earnest to seek remedy and cure. But in all this we can find no satisfaction, in all this we cannot find that our affliction and sorrow is the thing itself that works the cure. It is the humbling of ourselves to seek mercy at God's hands, for the washing away of our sins in the blood of jesus Christ, but we know not how itself should be taken for a water to wash us from our sins. But yet M. Bishop will prove it so to be, because john Baptist saith, d Ver. 10. Now is the axe laid to the root of the tree: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire. Which is even as much to the purpose, as if he had said just nothing. We say also that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, but still we say, what is this to satisfaction? We still require his proof, that for the virtue and worth of these fruits it is that God is appeased towards us. But that cannot be; for a man cannot bring forth good fruit, except first of all he be made a good tree; for e Chap. 7.17. an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruit, than God must first be appeased towards him, which is by the faith of jesus Christ, f Rom. 3.25. whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or atonement through faith in his blood. Our good fruits than are not the causes, but the effects of Gods being appeased towards us. If we have none, we are sure that we are in state of judgement and damnation; and the sentence of Saint john taketh hold of us; but if we have them, we are not to account them the redemption of our sins, but testimonies of the remission and forgiveness thereof. Yea but Saint john, saith M. Bishop, seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christ's satisfaction by faith. Where, or in what words? Marry because he saith, Say not in your hearts, we have Abraham to our father. We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face when he wrote this, that the paper might not see him blush. Why, what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christ's satisfaction by faith? Forsooth he saith to them, it will not help you to say that ye are the sons of Abraham, who was father of all true believers. Well, but what is this yet to laying hold on Christ's satisfaction by faith? It is as much, saith he, as if he had said, trust not to your faith; hand off ye generation of vipers. This is a strange construction, that say not in your hearts, we have Abraham to our father, should be as much as to say, Trust not to your faith. But it grew at Rome, and we know that things far fetched are wont to be very strange. As for us we conceive in our simplicity that john's meaning was to reprove them for flattering themselves, for that carnally they were the seed of Abraham, as if that were sufficient security for them towards God, when as in the mean time they neglected the repentance, and faith, and works of Abraham. The true children of Abraham are they g Rom. 4.12. who walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham, and h john. 8.39. do the works of Abraham, which they not regarding, could not be accounted the sons of Abraham, whose offspring was reckoned according to the spirit, not according to the flesh. Thus doth our Saviour testify of them that they believed not; saying unto them: i Math. 21.31. Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdom of God: For john came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not, but Publicans and harlots believed him; and ye, though ye saw it, were not moved with repentance afterward that ye might believe him. Now is it not a wonder, that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith, yet john Baptist should say unto them, Trust not to your faith? Well, all this is nothing, he cannot serve the Pope's turn that will not notably cog and lie. The rest of his commentary accordeth with this, where he foisteth in the satisfying of God's justice, there being nothing in the words of S. john, that foundeth to that effect. 14. W. BISHOP. Cor. 7.10. The 7. objection with M. Perkins, Paul setteth down sundry fruits of repentance, whereof one is revenge, whereby repentant persons punish themselves to satisfy God's justice, for the temporal punishment of their sins. M. Perkins answereth. A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himself, and that is, to use all means to subdue the corruption of nature, and to bridle carnal affections, which kind of actions are restrainments properly, but no punishments; directed against the sin, but not against the person. Reply. I never saw any writer so contradict himself, and so dull, that he doth not understand his own words. If this subduing of our corrupt nature, be restrainments only from sin hereafter, and not also punishments of sin past, how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himself, which you affirm that he must do? Revenge as every simple body knoweth, is the requital of evil past: We grant that all satisfaction is directed against sin, and not against the person, but for the great good of the man, albeit that for a season it may afflict, both his body and mind too, as Saint Paul's former Epistle did the Corinthians, but this sorrow being according unto God, doth much benefit the person, as the Apostle declareth. For besides this revenge taken on himself to appease God's wrath, it breedeth (as it is in the text following) in our corrupt nature that loveth not such chastisement, A fear to return to sin, lest it be again punished, for where there is no fear of pains, & much pleasure, thither our corruption will run headlong. It stirreth up also in us, Indignation against sin, and all the wicked instruments of it, A defence and clearing of ourselves, with the honester sort, And an emulation, and desire to fly as far from sin as other our equals, and consequently A love of virtue and honest life, which freeth us from that sorrow and all other troublesome passions, all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul. R. ABBOT. The Greek father's chrysostom Theophylact, Oecumenius, and Hierome amongst the Latins, do refer the revenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man, whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the laws of God. But we further very willingly yield, that by revenge is also meant a wreaking of a man's anger, as I may term it, upon himself; being offended and grieved at himself for the sin that he hath done, and therefore bending himself to cross and thwart those desires by which he was led unto it. This the Scripture teacheth us by the terms of a Math. 16.24. denying ourselves, b Col. 3.5. mortifying our earthly members, c 1. Pet. 4.1. suffering in the flesh, d Gal. 5.24. crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it, and e Rom. 6.6. destroying of the body of sin. Thus men occasion requiring, give themselves over to fasting, and weeping, and mourning, and forbearing of accustomed delights, yea and to open rebuke and shame with men, having by public offence made themselves a scandal to the Church. This revenge we deny not; we say that hereby we testify both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we have taken against ourselves; we teach others to take heed, and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we have fallen; we labour hereby that the temptations of sin may no more in the like sort prevail against us; but we are still to seek of that use which M. Bishop maketh of it, that this anger of ours against ourselves is a price of satisfaction for the appeasing of God's anger. To this being the very point, he saith never a word; he telleth us of revenge, but he proveth not that this revenge is a matter of satisfaction. We say that to this revenge of true and faithful repentance God granteth remission of sins, but we say he granteth it, because we seek it, not in the merit of our revenge, but only in the blood of jesus Christ. 15 W. BISHOP. Lastly, saith M. Perkins: They make three works of satisfaction, Prayer, Fasting, and Almsdeeds. For the first, it is mere foolishness to think, that a man by prayer can satisfy for his sins, it is all one as if you had said, that a beggar by ask an alms can deserve the alms, or a debtor by requesting his creditor to pardon his debt, should thereby pay his debt. That Prayer doth appease God's justice, and obtain pardon, God himself is witness, Psal. 49. saying: Call upon me in the day of tribulation, and I will deliver thee. Prayer cannot be made without faith in God's power, and hope in his goodness, and therefore must needs be pleasing in God's sight: by prayer we humble ourselves before God, and acknowledge his omnipotency, and our infirmity. By prayer we lament with bitter tears our own ingratitude, folly, and wickedness, and bewail the grievousness of our sins: such prayer made King David (as his Psalms do testify) water his couch with tears, making them his food day and night: and by them he satisfied for his former offences. So did a far greater sinner than he, ● Paral. 33. King Manasses: who falling into tribulation, prayed unto the Lord his God, and did great penance before the God of his fathers, and prayed, and entreated earnestly, and God heard his prayers, & brought him back again to jerusalem into his Kingdom. Now to M. Perkins Similes. A beggar doth not deserve his alms, because he makes not this former kind of prayer, but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lips outward. The like we say of a debtor, whose creditor being a needy man, will not be paid without money, but God who needs none of our goods, highly esteemeth of an humble & contrite heart, grieved much for having sinned in the sight of God, and humbly suing unto him for pardon. Math. 18. To such a one he said: Did I not forgive thee all thy debt, because thou besoughtest me? R. ABBOT. Master Bishop's arguments are like the fox's whelps, never a one better than other and all stark nought. It is strange to see what shuffling and shifting he useth to make some good show of a bad cause. The question is, whether prayer be a work of satisfaction, that is, a work of that worth and price, as that by the merit thereof we make God a just and sufficient recompense for the offence that we have done. For the proof hereof he allegeth the sentence of the Psalm: a Psal. 50.15. Call upon me in the time of trouble, and I will hear thee. So then his reason is this, God hath promised to hear us when we pray unto him, therefore prayer is a work of satisfaction. As much as if he should say, the prince promiseth a traitor upon his submission and entreaty to give him his pardon: therefore his submission and entreaty is a sufficient recompense for his treason. We may see how marvelously the Roman religion sharpeneth men's eyesight, that they can see man's satisfaction there, where God only signifieth his own merciful disposition. Yea but God doth thereby witness, that prayer doth appease God's justice and obtain pardon. Yea but what need a pardon when the sin is already pardoned? for prayer is made a work of satisfaction after the forgiveness of the sin, as I have showed before. A very ridiculous device, that God first remitteth the trespass, and we afterwards for a punishment: and to make God amends and satisfaction, must say, Forgive us our trespasses. Therefore when he speaketh of obtaining pardon, he doth but seek by words of truth to colour absurd dotages of falsehood and error. The use of prayer is indeed not to make satisfaction, but to crave pardon. It appeaseth God's justice by the entreating of his mercy, whilst we beseech him to hear us, not for our prayers sake, but for Christ's sake; not by the merit of our satisfaction, but by virtue of his intercession; not for the works sake which we do, but for his truth's sake, for that he hath promised so to do to them that call upon him. By our prayer we request him to forgive us, that is, not to urge us to satisfaction, and is it not an absurd fancy to affirm prayer itself to be a satisfaction? And what do men in this case, but mock and dally with God, in ask him forgiveness, when in the mean time they think to make him a full and just requital of his wrongs, so that there shall be nothing to be forgiven? For what remaineth to be forgiven where there is yielded a sufficient recompense for the offence done? M. Bishop goeth on and telleth us, that prayer cannot be made without faith. It is true, & by faith it is that our prayer obtaineth all things at God's hand. But of faith it is true which S. Ambrose saith, that b Ambros. de Penitent. lib. 2. cap. 8. Tanquam ex syngrapha fides impetrat, non tanquam ex debito. it obtaineth as by deed of gift, not by way of debt. It looketh not to our satisfaction, but to the promise of God through the mediation of jesus Christ. Further, he allegeth idly and impertinently, that prayer is pleasing unto God: that by it we humble ourselves before him, acknowledging his omnipotency, and our own infirmity; that thereby we lament and bewail the grievousness of our sins. He mentioneth king David watering his couch with tears, and making them his food day and night: & Manasses greatly humbling himself, as the text saith, (not doing great penance as he translateth) & entreating the Lord, so as that the Lord heard him, etc. Now all these things are according to the Proverb, Pro rastris ligones; we call for rakes, and he sends us mattocks; we demand one thing, and he answereth another. We say that prayer is pleasing to God; we confess all these uses and effects thereof, but what is all this to the proving of satisfaction? how doth he make it appear that that which David and Manasses did, they did it with opinion or purpose to make satisfaction for their sins? I would ask him here with what face he could thus set himself to delude his Reader with empty shadows and shows of vain discourse, but that I see his whole book in a manner is made of such delusions. But here to show the absurdity of this assertion of theirs, that prayer is a matter of satisfaction, M. Perkins had said, that it is all one as if they should say, that a beggar by ask of alms should deserve his alms, or that a debtor by requesting his creditor to pardon the debt, should thereby pay the debt. See now what a scholarlike answer M. Bishop hath returned. To the first he saith, A beggar doth not deserve his alms, because he makes not this former kind of prayer, but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lips outward. Thus full simply he giveth a gird at the Protestants prayers, to shift himself from answering for their own. But what if the beggar do make that kind of prayer, and with much lamentation crave an alms, is he thereby to expect it as deserved and due unto him? hath he hereby any just right and title to that which he craveth? Surely, if it be due unto him, it is no alms, or if it be an alms, than it is not due unto him. Why could not Master Bishop conceive the instance as well of the earnest and hearty request of the beggar, as of that short sleight one from the lips outward, but that he was put to his shifts, and was glad thus in a cloud to steal away? But it is some further matter that he hath respect unto. For we Protestants are content to pray simply as Christ hath taught, not thinking any virtue to consist c Eccles. 5.2. in multitude of words, nor imagining that by the length of our prayers we are to prevail with God, or that by the often saying of them he is the more affected with them, but measuring prayer by the intention and affection of the heart, uttering itself according to the motion of itself, either by few or many words. We pray not by rule, nor offer our devotions to God by task and tale, knowing it to be but d August. Epist. 121. cap. 10. Multum loqui est rem necessariam superfluis agere v●rbis. babbling to move a necessary matter to God with superfluous and needless words But the new Catholics are like the old heathens, who thought themselves to be the better e Math. 6.7. heard for their much babbling and often repeating, and therefore they say their prayers by number and stint, as if they would make thereof a charm or enchantment to bind God to their will. A man for a penance must say so many Pater nosters, and so many Ave-maries, and so many Creeds, and when he hath so done, he is man good enough, he hath made satisfaction for his sins. In one of their books there are seven short prayers before which there is this Rubric: f Horae beatae Mar. Virg. secundum usum Sarum. Quicunque instatu gratiae existens devotè dixerit septem Orationes sequentes, cum 7. Pater noster, & 7. ave Maria ante imaginem pietatis, mer●bitur 56 millia annorum indulgent. etc. Whosoever being in the state of grace, shall devoutly say these seven prayers following before the Crucifix, with seven Pater nosters, and seven Ave-maries, he shall obtain six and fifty thousand years of pardon; fourteen thousand granted by Saint Gregory, fourteen thousand by Nicholas the fifth, and those doubled by Sixtus the fourth. O what a horrible virtue there is in the number of Seven, when it comes to prayers and Pater nosters, and Ave-maries! what a foul rule would he make in Purgatory, that should use every day to say these prayers? He should have so many thousand years to spare from himself as that he might rid a great murth of souls out of that cruel prison. Such a like foolery do we find in their g jesus Psalter in the end of the Manual of meditation, etc. jesus Psalter, commended for that the glorious name of jesus is therein called upon four hundred and fifty times: in which there are fifteen principal petitions, which must be said every one by themselves ten times, and you may say them upon your ten fingers, (to be sure to keep just reckoning) or else upon ten beads, and in every of these ten times the name of jesus is thrice repeated, thirty times in every petition, as for example: 1 jesus, jesus, jesus, mercy. 2 jesus, jesus, jesus, mercy. 3 jesus, jesus, jesus, mercy. etc. The second petition. 1 jesus, jesus, jesus, help me. 2 jesus, jesus, jesus, help me. 3 jesus, jesus, jesus, help me, etc. The third petition. 1 jesus, jesus, jesus, strength me. 2 jesus, jesus, jesus, strength me. 3 jesus, jesus, jesus, strength me, etc. till in every ●●e ye make up the number often. Now I trow the short, slight prayers of the Protestants be not comparable to these devotions: no marvel if both heaven and hell be conjured at so often repeating of the name of jesus. What Circe might be thought likely to bewitch men so far, as to give any regard to such drunken fancies? What Prophet, or Apostle, or Father, or Martyr, or Confessor hath given them any example of praying in this sort? Or if they have no example of it, why do they thus lewdly entangle simple souls with an opinion of devotion in that wherein there is nothing but absurd and heathenish superstition? These now are the prayers of satisfaction, by which M. Bishop will have us to understand, that there is a difference betwixt Catholics and beggars; for Catholics say their prayers often over, and thereby they merit much. And yet we see, that an importunate hungry beggar will stand long, & go over his beggars ditty, as often as M. Bishops penitent doth his Pater noster and his Creed, who for all that, can claim nothing as due unto him for the pains that he hath taken. And if a beggar by his instance and earnestness can merit nothing at a man's hands, shall we think that a Catholic beggar by his instance can merit and deserve at the hands of God? Believe it that list: as for us we know that prayer craveth by way of alms, and therefore by way of merit can expect nothing. His exception to M. Perkins second comparison is as ridiculous and vain as the former: The like we say of a debtor, saith he, whose creditor being a needy man will not be paid without money. But what if the creditor be not a needy man, but will be content without any money to remit the debt? What, are all creditors needy men, and are there none found that forgive debts? doth M. Bishop know never a Catholic that showeth so great compassion upon a poor man, humbly entreating him in that behalf? If he do not, we suspect their charity: if he do, we suspect his honesty, who would mock his Reader with such a paltry shift, telling us an idle tale, what it is wherewith the creditor is paid, when our speech is of entreaty to remit the debt? But in this case it is clear, that as it is absurd to say, that the debtor entreaty for the forgiving of his debt, may be called a satisfaction for the debt: so it is absurd to say, that our prayer to God for the forgiveness of our sins, may be called a satisfaction for our sins. There is no disproportion whence he may take any advantage against the force of this exception. But yet further he maketh God by this means like unto his needy creditor. For as the creditor must be appeased by money, so must God by merit, and on both parts satisfaction is required. What it is wherewith the satisfaction is made it skilleth not, be it to God one way, and to the creditor another way; but on both sides there must be just and worthy satisfaction. He would make us believe, that God freely forgiveth nothing, but either we must by merit purchase our release, or else we must lie by it, till we have paid the uttermost farthing. Yea and that must be many times for money also: for although God himself take no money for Pardons, yet the Vicar of Rome doth for him. An humble and contrite heart will not serve the turn, he must pay for it that will be pardoned. Thus M. Bishops shifts fall out amiss on every side, and he can say nothing to serve his turn. Better were it for him to yield to the truth, then thus to shame himself by fight so childishly against it. In a word we tell him, that God indeed esteemeth an humble and contrite heart, grieving for sin, and suing for pardon, but he esteemeth the same as suing for pardon, not as presuming of satisfaction. A strange suitor is he, that thinketh suit to be satisfaction, or that by requesting a pardon he justly deserveth to be pardoned. He allegeth that it is said, h Mat. 18.32. Did not I forgive thee the debt, because thou besoughtest me, but yet he doth not find that it is said, I forgave thee the debt, because by beseeching me thou madest me a full recompense & satisfaction for the debt. If he had made satisfaction thereby, than it should not have been said afterwards, which M. Bishop should have remembered: i Vers. 34. His master was wroth, and delivered him to the jailers till he should pay all that was due unto him. There could nothing remain due, where just satisfaction had been made. 16. W. BISHOP. Secondly, saith M. Perkins: Fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking, no more conferring to the kingdom of heaven, then eating and drinking doth. What an Epicurian and fleshly doctrine is this? Why then did the Ninivites fast, put on sackcloth, and lie on the ground (all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting) rather than eat, and drink, and presume of God's mercy, if the one had been as acceptable to God as the other? Why is S. john Baptist commended for his rough garments and thin diet, if cherishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it? Christ saith expressly: That if we fast in secret, his heavenly Father will repay us openly: will he reward eating and drinking so liberally? but of fasting we shall have a whole Chapter hereafter. Therefore brieflly I here conclude, that this doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the kingdom of Atheists and Epicures, whose sweet speech is: Let us eat, and let us drink, for after death there is no pleasure: true, for such belli-gods and their followers. R. ABBOT. That fasting of itself is a thing indifferent never wise man made any doubt. No man ever yet in a right mind thought it to be a matter of virtue to keep a man's belly empty. Surely, if to fast be a virtue, then to eat and drink is a vice, because whatsoever is contrary to virtue is vice. If fasting of itself be a good work, a man may do a good work against his will, because a man may be made to fast, when he hath more will to eat. But it might please his wisdom to understand, that some things simply and of themselves are good: other some things simply and of themselves are evil: othersome of themselves are neither good nor evil, but yet are instruments and may be used either to good or evil. Of this last kind are riches, health, strength, walking, sitting, waking, sleeping, marriage, virginity, and such like, by which for the things themselves a man is neither the better nor the worse, but by a good man they may be applied to good, and by an evil man to evil. Of the same nature are eating, drinking, fasting, for none of which can a man be called better than another man, because they are things indifferently common both to good and evil, although by a good man they may be used to good. And therefore as john Baptist came a Mat. 11. 18.1● neither eating nor drinking, so the son of man came both eating and drinking, to give to understand, that neither eating nor fasting of themselves do make us any whit the more accepted in the sight of God. Neither did our Saviour Christ by eating and drinking cherish the flesh in such sort as it is unlawful to cherish the flesh, which is meant of the vices, not of the substance of the flesh, by wantonness, intemperancy, and excess, not by moderate and sober feeding and diet: in which respect let him remember what the Apostle saith, that b Eph. 5.29. never any man hated his own flesh, but loveth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord doth the Church: thereby noting them to be unnatural monsters rather than men, of whom he speaketh in another place, who place c Col. 2.23. religion in not sparing the body, and not having it in any honour to satisfy the flesh. As for the Ninivites, if they had but only fasted, they had done as good as nothing, what had they done more than their cattle did? But they fasted to humble themselves to God, and to show their fear of his judgement, and for these things God vouchsafed to respect their fast. And thus he that d Mat. 6.17.18. fasteth in secret, not to fast, but e Tertul. de poen. leiunijs preces a al●re. by fasting to cherish prayer; not to afflict the body, but to affect the soul: that is, that useth the one not for itself, but for the other, not for f 1. Tim. 4.8. bodily, but for spiritual and godly exercise, him the Father seethe in secret, and will reward him openly. It is not simply fasting, that God requireth, but humiliation and prayer; he requireth fasting accidentally, only as a support and help thereof. Therefore the doctrine of Popery is most absurd and senseless, which maketh fasting distinctly by itself, and for itself, not only an act of God's worship, but also a matter of merit, such as whereby we make satisfaction to God, and purchase of him the remission of our sins. M. Bishop allegeth somewhat concerning fasting, as we see, but concerning this use of fasting, though it were the matter in hand, he had nothing at all to say. As for his cavils they are handled before in g Sect. 18. answer to his Epistle to the King. The kingdom of Atheists & Epicures in the whole world doth not flourish more than in the Court and Church of Rome, and I do almost persuade myself, that M. Bishop in his own conscience is persuaded that it is so. I doubt not but he would tell a pretty tale in this behalf concerning their masters the jesuits, but that now his tongue is tied up, and he must say no more, he hath been taught what it is to tell us tales out of their school. 17. W. BISHOP. Lastly, he saith, that almsdeeds cannot be works of satisfaction for sins: for when we give them as we ought, we do but our duty, and we may as well say, that a man by paying one debt, may discharge another, as to say by doing his duty, he may satisfy God's justice for the punishment of his sins. A man might suppose, that this man were prettily well seen in Carolo Buffone, that thus ruffleth in grave matters with his simple Similes. That almsdeeds redeem our sins, purge us from them, and make all things clean unto us, hath been already proved out of holy Scriptures, I will join thereunto this one testimony of that holy Martyr S. Cyprian: Our frailty could not tell what to do, Serm. de opere & eleemos. unless the goodness of God by teaching us the works of justice and mercy, had showed us a certain way of preserving our salvation, which is, that with almsdeeds we might wash clean away the filth of sins, which we had contracted after Baptism. The holy Ghost speaketh in the Scripture, and saith: Sins are purged by almsdeeds and faith. Now to M. Perkins Simile. We deny that a man is bound to give all the alms that he can: we are bound to give that which we may well spare, when there is great want: but alms (which is a part of satisfaction) is not given out of our superfluity, but spared from our necessary uses, and is many times bestowed, when there is no such great need, upon building Schools, Colleges, Hospitals and Chapels. And this may serve to answer M. Perkins Similes against these three works of satisfaction. If any man desire to know why we make special reckoning of these three works, it is principally for two causes: First, we being to satisfy, must perform it with such things as be our own, which be of three sorts, either they belong to our soul, or to our body, or to our external goods. The goods of our mind we offer to God by prayer, by fasting, and other reasonable bodily discipline, we exhibit unto him a living host, Rom 12.1. holy and pleasing God. By almesdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods. Secondly, all sin as S. john teacheth, 1. Epist. 2. may be reduced into three principal heads. The concupiscence of the flesh, that is lechery, which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the body: Concupiscence of the eyes, covetousness, which is purged and chased away by almesdeeds: and pride of life, which is suppressed by humble prayer, and often meditation of our own miseries. R. ABBOT. Simple similes, saith M. Bishop. Now he may be taken for a very simple man, who to answer simple similes is forced to use such simple shifts. We may wonder at the blindness of these arrogant and presumptuous hypocrites, who thus stand upon their terms with God, of doing more for him then they are bound to do, more than by duty they own unto him. Every man of common ordinary piety and devotion confesseth, that whatsoever we are, or whatsoever we have, either within us or without us, we own all to God, a Act. 17.28. In him we live, and move, and have our being. Of his bounty we receive, and by his mercy we enjoy whatsoever we enjoy. So little interest have we in any thing in his sight, as that at his commandment we are to leave whatsoever we have. In all the gifts therefore which we give in his name and for his sake, we are to say and to acknowledge, Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus, Of thine own we offer unto thee that which is thine own, and nothing but thine own. And although God have not determined unto every man all particular uses of those benefits wherewith he hath endowed them, yet he hath taught every man to remember himself to be the Lords steward for that portion which he hath, and that to him he shall give account of the disposing of it. He hath given every man leave to use the same according to the state and calling whereunto he is called, and for the lawful upholding and increasing of it, and accordingly to have respect of those that are his, b 1. Tim. 5.8. for whom he that careth not to provide, hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel; but yet so, as that he otherwise also c Tit. 3.14. learn to do good works for necessary uses, that he be not unfruitful; that as he is a member of the body of Christ, so he employ that which he hath as occasion requireth, to the public benefit and use of the same body. And this is one part of the thanks that we owe unto almighty God, not to think much when there is cause to bestow some part of that which we have to the honour & service of him at whose hands we have received all. Which, he that neglecteth to do, and turneth all to private use, and to the building of his own house, bringeth upon himself the judgement denounced by the Prophet, and commonly verified before our eyes, d Habac. 2.9.10 He that coveteth an evil covetousness to himself, that he may set his nest on high to escape from the power of evil, consulteth shame to his own house. Now seeing all that we have is Gods, and we can no way sufficiently recompense the mercy that he hath showed in bestowing the same upon us, what extreme madness is it to imagine, that thereout we can yield him a just and worthy price of redemption and satisfaction for our sins? Spare we never so much from our necessary uses, and give we never so much as it were out of our own bellies, yet our consciences should tell us that it is not the thousandth part of that which God hath deserved of us; and shall we be so witless as to think that that we do may be a sufficient recompense for the wrongs that we have done unto him? It is worthy to be noted which the Apostle teacheth us, that e 2. Cor. 8.1.3. to be willing beyond our power to minister to the Saints is a grace of God bestowed upon us. It is the fruit of God's love towards us to carry this mind towards those that are his. What strange men than are they, who of that which is the effect of God's love and mercy towards us, will make a matter of our merit and desert towards God? In a word, M. Bishop's answer is a most idle dream; and because we can do nothing but what we own to God, and all infinitely too little to show forth our thankfulness towards him, we must say as M. Perkins doth, that in giving alms as we ought, we do but our duty; and that to say that by almsdeeds we may satisfy for our sins, is the same as to say, that a man by paying one debt may discharge another. But yet it concerneth them to stick hard for the maintaining of this device, for in all the ports of Rome there is not a ship that hath brought in more rich lading then this hath done. For hereby they have had the commandment of men's purses, their goods and lands; and whilst they have borne them in hand, that from necessary uses they must take somewhat for the redeeming of their sins, they have made them rob their wives, their children, posterity and friends, to bestow upon holy Church, as they called the gifts which they craved for themselves. By this pretence, like f Exod. 10.15. the Grasshoppers of Egypt, they devoured all that was green upon the earth: whatsoever was delightsome and pleasant they found means to make it theirs. And hence came those rich endowments of religious houses, men upon conscience of sin sparing no cost, in false hope to find some comfort thereby, as g Answer to the Epist. Ded. sect. 31. before was said. And this point of satisfaction was so much the more willingly entertained, because they that were loath to trouble themselves with fasting and prayer, yet found help enough hereby, for that h Thom. Aquin: supplen q. 15. art. 3 ad 3. Eleemosyna aliorum vices supplere potest inquantum alia satisfactionis opera per eleemosynam quisque sibi mercatur quodammodo in ijs quibus eleemosynam tribuit. alms may supply or serve in steed of the rest, inasmuch as by it a man in some sort buyeth for himself the other works of satisfaction in them to whom he giveth alms. This is the wonderful virtue of the alms that is enjoined by a Popish Priest, that when a man neither fasteth nor prayeth, yet it maketh other men's fastings and prayers serve the turn for the remission of his sin. And this was the notable cozening device of those holy votaries, to make men believe (as before hath been mentioned) that they had a faculty to transport their merits and satisfactions to the use of them that were beneficial unto them, verifying in themselves that which the Apostle S. Peter had prophesied of them, i 2. Pet. 2.3. Through covetousness with feigned words they shall make merchandise of you. But M. Bishop here in malice to the jesuits, quite passeth by religious houses, as if the alms of satisfaction did not belong to them. Howsoever he be outwardly pacified, yet manet alta mente repostum, it is neither forgotten nor forgiven, if he knew which way to work his will. As for Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, Chapels, the building of them (if it be in the true faith of Christ) is a gracious and godly work, but when they are so done, they are done as testimonies of our thankfulness and duty to God, not as satisfactions for our sins. Now although he have hitherto proved nothing as touching satisfaction, yet presuming that he hath so done, he joineth to that supposed proof the testimony of Cyprian, saying that k Cypr. de Eleem. Nec habebat quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas atque imbecillitas faceret nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens justitiae & misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret, ut sordes post modum quascunque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus. our frailty and weakness could not tell what to do, unless the mercy of God helping us had by showing us the works of justice and mercy, opened us away for the preserving of our salvation, that by almsdeeds we cleanse or wash away whatsoever filth of sin we contract after baptism. Which words of Cyprian, if we construe them in rigour as they sound, do contain a most dangerous and unchristian assertion, and such as all men rightly minded do abhor, that by Christ all our sins are forgiven in baptism whatsoever we have done, but that whatsoever we sin afterwards is to be purged and cleansed by ourselves. Whereof it must follow, that we who are baptised in infancy have no further benefit of Christ's redemption, but that we receive then for the freeing of us from the bond of original uncleanness. Yea and if the way whereby after baptism we are to be cleansed from our sins be alms, in what case must they be who only receive alms, and have none to give, and therefore want that means for the forgiveness of their sins? But the true doctrine of the Gospel setteth Christ before us, not only in baptism, but afterwards also to be l joh 1.29. the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. S. john being baptised, speaketh of himself amongst others, and saith it to them that are baptised, m 1. joh. 2.2. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins. The true confession of which point of faith S. Austin delivereth, in saying that n August. count 2. epis. Pelag. li. 3 ca 6. Caro Christi verum est & unicum sacrificium pro peccatu, non solùm his quae universa in baptismate diluuntur; verumetiam his quae post ex huius vitae infirmitate surrepunt, propter quae quotidiè universa in oratione ad Deum clamat Ecclesia, dimit nobis, etc. et dimittutitur nobis per singulare sacrificium pro peccatis. the flesh of Chrst is the true and only sacrifice for sins, not only those which altogether are washed away in baptism, but those also which afterwards steal upon us by the frailty of this life, for which the whole Church crieth daily in prayer to God, forgive us our trespasses, and they are forgiven us by that only sacrifice for sins. We learn here another manner of lesson than Cyprian there teacheth, that after baptism, not the sacrifice of our alms, but the only sacrifice of the body of Christ is the remission of our sins. M. Bishop must give us leave rather to believe Austin speaking according to the Scripture, than Cyprian speaking directly against the Scripture. And therefore we answer him as the same Austin did the Donatists, when they alleged an Epistle of Cyprian against him, o Cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31 Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriam cum eius quaeslibet literas à canonica divinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus, etc. Et cap. 32. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor, quia liter●s Cypriani non ut canonica● haebeo. sed eas ex canonicis considero, & quoth in eyes divinarum scripturarum authoritati congruit, cum laud eius accipio, quod autem non conguit, cum pace eius respuo. We do Cyprian no wrong to distinguish any writings of his from the authority of holy Scripture. We are not bound to the authority of this epistle (or sermon) because we account not Cyprians writings as canonical, but consider them by the Canonical Scriptures, and what therein agreeth to the authority of holy Scripture, we receive it with his praise, but what agreeth not, by his leave we refuse it. Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithful, that p Cyprian. de orat. Dom. Ipsum habemus apud Patrem Aduocatum pro peccatis nostris. we have Christ with the Father to be the Advocate for our sins, thereby confessing the effect of Christ's redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life, we dare not conceive, howsoever his words be very harsh, that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seem to be. And to justify himself to conceive no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of us from our sins amidst all our alms and devotions consisteth not in that which we do, but in the blood of Christ, he saith in another place, c Idem ser. de ablut. pedum. Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas; quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi, & cùm diceres mihi, Revertere, non sum reversus: cùm minareris, non tim●●: cùm bonus esses & lenis, exasperans fui. Vltra septuagies septies in coelum & coram te peccavi. Quis tot sordes abluet? qui● abradet stercora conglobata? Quicquid dicat Petrus, necesse est ut ipse nos abluas; neque enim lavare nos possumus, sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lavacro indigemus, etc. Apud te fons vitae est, et miserationum quae à seculo sun● profunditas infinita; abluisti nos baptismo, lavasti sanguine tuo, semper lavas quotidiana peccata donando. O merciful Lord, how often have I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine; how often (O holy Lord) have I despised thy commandments, and when thou saidst unto me, Return, I have not returned; when thou threatnedst, I feared not; when thou wast good and gentle, I have provoked thee: beyond seventy times seven times I have sinned against heaven and before thee. Who shall wash away so much filth? who shall take away the muck that is thus grown together? Let Peter say what he will (in refusing to be washed) we have need that thou wash us, for we cannot wash ourselves, but in all things that we do, we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercy. With thee is the well of life, and the infinite depth of mercies which have been from everlasting: thou hast washed us in baptism, thou hast washed us in thy blood, thou always washest us by forgiving our daily sins. By these words he giveth plainly to understand, that he did not think the washing and cleansing of us to consist in the merit of our alms, but in the forgiveness of our sins. He confesseth that in all that we do, we stand in need of pardon, and therefore cannot be imagined to think that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sins. In the other words therefore we must conceive his purpose to be only to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seek remission of their sins by the mercy of God in the blood of jesus Christ, albeit being instant and earnest, as men are wont to be to press that that he had in hand, he runneth into inconvenient phrases and speeches, which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith. Those works of mercy and compassion towards our brethren, are the true fruits and effects, the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart, that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy, and therefore because in the doing thereof we find mercy, he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselves we obtained that mercy, when yet it is not for the works sake that God accepteth us, but for Christ's sake, whom by our works we show that we unfeignedly seek, and do truly believe in him. And as for the place of Scripture which he allegeth, though by error of the scribe perhaps it be, that there is noted in the margin the fourth of Toby, yet these words not being found in Toby, and the words that are in Toby being cited afterwards, he therein alludeth undoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the proverbs; but forcing the text, and putting in alms and faith in steed of mercy and truth. Which words of Solomon, if a whining adversary by instance and importunity will urge upon us to expound of the mercy and truth of man, it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed, d Prou. 16.6. In mercy and truth iniquity shall be forgiven, that is, where mercy and truth are, there is forgiveness of sins, as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiven, not the thing by virtue whereof they are forgiven. But we have no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercy and truth, and therefore must understand it of the mercy and truth of God, of which the Prophet David speaketh, when having signified the forgiveness of the sins of God's people, and the nearness of his salvation to them that fear him, he addeth for the cause thereof, e Psal. 85.10. Mercy and truth are met together. Of which also the Evangelist S. john saith, f john 1.17. Grace and truth, that is, mercy and truth come by jesus Christ. Thus then by mercy and truth iniquity is forgiven; not by any merit or work of ours, not by any satisfaction that we can make, but by the mercy of God, truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sins by the blood of jesus Christ. As for the book of Toby noted as I said in the margin, and from whence Cyprian afterwards allegeth other words of alms delivering from death and purging all sin, it is not of sufficient authority to prove unto us any matter of faith, the ancient Church testifying of it, and the rest of the same sort, as Hierome and Ruffinus have recorded, that g Hieron. prolog. galeat. Igitur sapientia Solomonis & jesus filii Sirach liber, & judith & Tobias non sunt in Canone. Sic Ruffin. in expos. Symb. they are not canonical, and S. Austin affirming that h August. decivit. Dei. lib. 17. ca 20. Aduersus contradict●resnō tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Cano●e Iudae●rum. the writings which are not in the Canon of the jews (as none are but what they had written in their own tongue) are not with so great authority alleged in matters of question and contradiction. Albeit we will not disavow those words in that meaning, as I have before expressed, that almesdeeds deliver from death and purge us from sin, as arguments for proof that we are delivered from death and purged from sin, not as causes effecting and working the same purgation, or if we will use the name of causes, as causes to our apprehension & knowledge, not as causes of the essence and being of the thing. But take all these speeches how we will, it shall appear (God willing) in the next section that they make nothing at all for M. Bishop, and that they are impudently wrested to that purpose for which he allegeth them. In the mean time for the conclusion of this section he telleth us a reason why they make special reckoning of these three works for satisfaction, but the ground of his reason fully overthroweth all the assertion thereof. Being to satisfy (saith he) we must perform it with such things as be our own. But say we, we have nothing of our own, but whatsoever we have is his, i Rom. 11.36. of whom, and through whom, and for whom are all things. Therefore as before hath been concluded, we cannot satisfy at all. Whether they be goods of the mind, or of the body, or external goods, we own all unto him, and we do but pay him with his own. His applying of the words of the Apostle to fasting is absurd. Reasonable bodily discipline, saith he; whereas the Apostle by k Rom. 12.1. reasonable service meaneth that that is mental and spiritual, and thereby agreeable to God, who is l john 4.24. a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and truth, not any m 1. Tim. 4.8. bodily exercise which profiteth little, as the same Apostle speaketh. So the other words of a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, are misapplied to a particular act of fasting, having a general reference to the whole course of a Christian life and conversation. I omit the rest of his words as idle. 18. W. BISHOP. But now to knit up this question: let us hear briefly what the best learned and purest antiquity hath taught of this satisfaction done by man; and because M. Perkins began with Tertullian, omitting his ancients: let us first hear what he saith of it in his book of penance. How foolish is it (saith he) not to fulfil our penance, and yet to expect pardon of our sins, this is not to tender the price, and yet to put out a hand for the reward: for God hath decreed to set the pardon at this price: he proposeth impunity to be redeemed with this recompense of penance. His equal in standing, and better in learning, Origen thus discourseth: See our good Lord tempering mercy with severity, Hom. 3. in lib. Judic. and weighing the measure of the punishment in a just and merciful balance: he delivereth not up a sinner for ever. But look how long time thou knowest thyself to have offended, so long do thou humble thyself to God, and satisfy him in the confession of penance. That glorious Martyr, and most learned Archbishop S. Cyprian, is wonderful vehement against them that would not have severe penance done by such as fell in persecution: Lib. 1. ep. 3. saying: That such indiscreet men labour tooth and nail, that satisfaction be not done to God, highly offended against them. Lib. 3. ep. 14. And saith further, That he who withdraweth our brethren from these works of satisfaction, doth miserably deceive them, causing them that might do true penance, and satisfy God their merciful Father, with their prayer and works, to perish daily, and to be more and more seduced to their further damnation. Orat. in illa verba, attend tibi. Idem Ambr. ad virg. lap cap. 8. S. Basil saith: Look to thyself, that according to the proportion of thy fault thou mayst hence also borrow some help of recovering thy health. Is it a great and grievous offence? it hath then need of much confession, bitter tears, a sharp combat of watching, and uncessant and continued fasting: if the offence were light and more tolerable, yet let the penance be equal unto it. Orat in sanct. lum. S. Gregory Nazianzen saith: It is as great an evil to pardon without some punishment, as to punish without all pity. For as that doth lose the bridle to all licentiousness, so this doth strain it too much. Jdem de paup. amor. By compassion on the poor and faith, sins are purged, therefore let us be cleansed by this compassion, let us scour out the spots and filth of our souls with this egregious herb that makes it white, some as wool, others as snow, according to the proportion of every man's compassion and alms. De Helia & jejune. S. Ambrose saith, We have many helps whereby we may redeem our sins: hast thou money? redeem thy sin, not that our Lord is to be bought and sold, but thou thyself art sold by thy sins, redeem thyself with thy works, redeem thee with thy money. And, Epist. 82. how could we be saved, unless we washed away our sins by fasting? S. Hierome maketh Paula a blessed matron say, My face is to be disfigured, which against the commandment of God I painted: my body is to be afflicted that hath taken so great pleasure: my often laughter is to be recompensed with continual weeping: my silks and soft clothing is to be changed into rough hair. Read another Epistle of his to the same Eustochium, Ad Eustoch. de obitu Paulae. about the preserving of her virginity, and see what penance himself did, being a most virtuous young man. S. Augustine saith, He that is truly penitent, Epist. 54. looks to nothing else then that he leaves not unpunished the sin which he committed: For by that means, not sparing ourselves, he whose high and just judgement no contemptuous person can escape, doth spare us. And he showeth how that a penitent sinner doth come to the Priest, and receive of him the measure of his satisfaction. Lib. 50. hom. Hom. 50. cap. 11. Cap. 15. And saith directly against our Protestants position, That it is not sufficient to amend our manners, and to departed from the evil which we have committed, unless we do also satisfy God for those things which we had done. S. Gregory saith, That sins are not only to be confessed, Lib. 6. in 1. Reg. but to be blotted out with the austerity of penance. I will close up these testimonies with this sentence of our learned countryman venerable Bede: Delight (saith he) or desire to sin, In Psal. 1. when we do satisfaction is lightly purged by almesdeeds and such like: but consent is not rubbed out without great penance: now custom of sinning is not taken away but by a just and heavy satisfaction. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop knitteth up the question, but he knitteth it (gentle Reader) with a bow-knot; if thou have but skill to pull the right string, thou shalt presently lose all that he hath knit. Ask him, and let him tell thee the true state of the question here disputed, and thou canst presently discern, that of these so many testimonies by him alleged, there is none, not so much as one that carrieth any show or semblance to that for which he citeth them. Such is the notable imposturage and cozenage of these false harlots, in laying together huge companies of the places of the Fathers to blind the eyes of simple men, who are not able to discern whether they be applied right or wrong. I have pointed at this matter before, but it cometh here more fully to be declared. M. Bishop in the beginning telleth us thus: We are not here to treat of that public penance which for notorious crimes is done openly, but of such private penance which is either enjoined by the Confessor, or voluntarily undertaken by the penitent, or else sent by God's visitation to purge us from that temporal pain which for sins past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in Purgatory, etc. Mark that which he saith, gentle Reader, that satisfaction is not here meant of public penance for notorious offences, but only of private penance, and that for sins past and already pardoned. That thou mayst the better understand this secret of theirs, thou art to observe that in sin they affirm two things, a Bellar. de paen. lib. 4. cap. 1. Cum homines in Deum peccant, amicitiam simul & justitiam violant. Ac pro amicitia reformanda, non potest homo Deo satisfaceremam satisfactio hominis erga Deum acceptatione ipsius Dei necessari● indi●●get: acceptatio autem amicitiam praesupponit. Et praeterea ut satisfactio sit aliquo modo ad aequae●●tatem, oportet ut sicut offensio habuit infinitatem quandam ex part obiecti, sic habeat satisfactio infinitatem aliquam ex part principij satisfacientis. Proinde requiritur ut opera satisfactoriae fiant à spiritu Dei hominem inhabitante, sive ab ipso homine ut membro Christi ac filio Det iam per gratiam & charitatem effecto. etc. the violation of amity betwixt God and us, and the violation of justice. For the renewing of amity, they say that a man cannot satisfy, because satisfaction must have acceptance with God, and acceptance presupposeth amity and friendship. Again, satisfaction must have some kind of equality, in respect of the offence for which the satisfaction is made. That there may be such an equality, it is necessary that as the offence hath a kind of infinity in respect of the object (which is God) so the satisfaction have a kind of infinity in respect of the original whence it hath beginning. It must therefore proceed from the spirit of God dwelling in man, or from man made by grace and charity the member of Christ and child of God. When therefore a man by mortal sin hath expulsed from himself grace and charity, he must first upon his contrition and confession be reconciled and have his sin forgiven, and afterwards must make satisfaction for the same sin. For they will have us think that though God be content to be friends with us, and in that respect to forgive the sin, yet he will have satisfaction made to his justice for the wrong and trespass that we have done him. Thou mayst not wonder that they be very earnest in the assertion of this matter, because upon this ground Purgatory standeth, and consequently the whole revenue of the Pope's pardons, and of all their obsequies and devotions for the dead. Now this being the point of their defence, that God having forgiven and pardoned the sin, there remaineth a satisfaction to be made by temporal punishment, which of all the Fathers by him alleged, speaketh any thing to that effect? He hath taken them all out of Bellarmine, but therein see the honesty and fidelity both of Bellarmine and him: peruse them, and consider of them again & again, and what dost thou find sounding to the proof of their assertion? The Fathers speak of a satisfaction for the obtaining of the forgiveness of sins, but of a satisfaction to be made when the sin is forgiven, they say never a word, yea they never imagined any such thing. The church of Rome denieth that to be properly a satisfaction, which the Fathers call by the name of satisfaction, and knew no other but that, & yet that satisfaction they allege for the proof of their new devised satisfaction. Yea Bellarmine himself confesseth, that b Bellar. de poen. lib 4. ca 1. Si veteres Patres interdum actionibus humanis tribuere id videntur ut Deum ex inimico amicum reddant atque adeò pro expianda culpa satisfaciant, interpretandi sunt d● satisfactione ex congruo, non ex condigno. where the Fathers do seem to attribute to the actions of men to restore amity with God, and to satisfy for the remission of the sin, they must be expounded of satisfaction ex congruo, not ex condigno. So had he said before, that with the Fathers in that case, the words of c Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. Vbi poenitentia dicitur meritum, pretium, sati●factio, redemptio pro peccato, de merito, etc. ex congruo accipienda sunt. merit, price, satisfaction, redemption, must be taken in that sort. And yet whereas all these Fathers alleged speak of price, satisfaction, redemption, for the remission of the sin, he himself bringeth them to prove d Lib 4. cap. 9 satisfaction de condigno, after the remission of the sin. To speak of them briefly in order as he reporteth them, the first testimony out of Tertullian, concerneth public penance, the whole book being written thereof, as e Beat. Rhen. in argum. lib. Tert. de poenit. Beatus Rhenanus showeth in the argument of the same book, and as by the author himself appeareth in that he speaketh of such a repentance as is f Tertul de poen. Quicquid mediocritas nostra ad poenitentiam semel capessendam & perpetuò continendam suggerere conata est, omnes deditos Domino spectat. but once to be had after baptism, which was so ordered by the Church in public penitency, but in private never, neither would M. Bishop plead so hard for it, if it were so. Now public penitency was a satisfaction to obtain forgiveness, and so here Tertullian plainly expresseth, calling it g Ibidem. Quàm stultum poenitentiam non adimplere & veniam delictorum sustinere? hoc est, pretium non exhibere, ad mercem manum emittere. Hoc enim pretio Dominus veniam addicere instituit, etc. a folly not to fulfil penance, and yet to expect pardon, affirming the one to be the price for the other, and that God hath set the pardon at this price. This then being a price for the pardon, cometh not within the compass of our question, which is of a satisfaction when the sin is pardoned. origen's purpose in the same place alleged, is by the example of the deliverance of the Israelites when they called upon the Lord, to show that the Lord delivereth a man to adversary powers h Origen. in lib. judic. hom 3. humiliet cum qui nimis fuerat exaltatus, ut affligat, ut conterat do nec resipiscat & quaerat dominum, etc. Abijciatur superbiae odor iste teterrimus. etc. ●e fortè irascatur Dominus & tradat nos, etc. & humilitatem quam in scientia Christi docere debuimus, in correptionis nostrae tribulatione discamus: sed vide benignum Dominum misericordiam cum severitate mis●entem & ipsius poenae modum justa & clementi libratione pensantem. to humble him that was exalted, to afflict him, to break him until he repent and seek the Lord; exhorting to put away pride lest the Lord be angry and give us up into the hands of the enemy, that by the trouble of correction we learn that humility which we should have taught in the knowledge of Christ. Hereupon he inferreth that advertisement of Gods tempering mercy with severity, weighing the measure of his punishment by a just and merciful consideration, namely in that sort as he hath before delivered, i Tradidit humiliandos ut salubri medicinae ratione contraria contrarijs curarentur. that in manner of a wholesome medicine, one contrary may be cured with another. Therefore he saith that k Non in perpetuum tradit delinquentes, sed quanto tempore errasse te nosti, etc. tanto nihilominus tempore humilia teipsum Deo et satisfacito ●t in confession poenitentiae, etc. quia si te ipse emendaveris, si te ipse correxeris, pius et misericors est Deus qui vindictam temperet ab eo qui illam poenitendo praevenit. God doth not give over a sinner for ever, as to note that all that he doth is but to bring a man to repentance; which being done, he is satisfied. Whereupon he giveth advice to a man, that according to the time that he knoweth himself to have erred or offended, so he humble himself, and satisfy God in the confession of repentance; because (saith he) if thou reform and amend thyself, God is gracious & merciful to withhold punishment from him who preventeth it by repentance. Now what is all this but that which the Apostle saith, l 1. Cor. 11.31. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord? He exhorteth to prevent God's judgement, to humble ourselves, to repent, to cast away our pride, to seek God, to satisfy him by confession and acknowledgement of our sins, that God being gracious and merciful may forbear to punish us, but we find nothing of that that we seek for, that having humbled our sins, and being reconciled to God, and having obtained forgiveness of sins, we shall remain bound to punishment and satisfaction for our sins. The words cited out of Cyprians epistles, concern them who in the time of persecution had fallen and denied Christ, whom he would not have to be restored to the communion of the Church until they had publicly lamented their grievous fall, and given good tokens of their true and faithful repentance. Therefore he blameth them that too lightly and easily received them again, hereby causing m Cyprian. lib. 1. epi. 3. Proponitur sacrilegis atque dicitur, ne ira cogitetur Dei, non timeatur judicium Domini, ne pulsetur ad Ecclesiam Christi, sed sublata poenitentiae nec ulla exomologesi criminis facta pax à non veris presbyteris verbis fallacibus praedicetur, etc. that they conceived not the wrath of God, that they feared not the judgement of the Lord, that they knocked not at the Church of Christ, but without repentance and open confession of their sin had false peace preached unto them with deceitful words. Here is therefore no speech of satisfaction after peace and reconcilement to God, but only for the obtaining of this peace. And this is evident by the very words cited by M. Bishop, wherein Cyprian blameth them that withheld men from n Ibid. Elab●rant ne indignanti Deo satisfiat. satisfying God being angry; and he apply them against us, for denying satisfaction when God is pleased. In the other place Cyprian saith, that o Lib. 3. epist. 14. Possunt agentes poenitentiam veram Deo Patri ad misericordià precibus & operibus suis satisfacere. showing true repentance they might by their prayers and works satisfy God to the procuring of mercy: and M. Bishop allegeth it to prove a satisfaction when men have already procured mercy. Cyprian speaketh of a satisfaction, for want whereof men p Jbid seducuntur ut magis pereant & qui se erigere possunt plus cadant. perish, and as M. Bishop translateth, are seduced to their further damnation, and M. Bishop apply it to a satisfaction, for want whereof men perish not nor are damned, but must make it up in Purgatory fire. The words of Basil are as impertinent as the rest. He saith nothing but what we say, that the greater wound should cause the greater pain, the greater sin the greater sorrow, that we may so much the more earnestly seek reconcilement to God, by how much the further we have departed from him; but no shadow is there of satisfaction to be made after that we are reconciled unto him. The last of his words contain the sum of all the rest: q Basil. orat. in illud, Attend tibi. Adaequetur peccato poenitentia. Let the repentance be equal or proportionable to the sin. To the like sentence of Ambrose he referreth us in the margin; r Ambr. ad virg. lapsam. Grandi plagae alta & prolixa opus est medicina; grand scelus grandem habet necessariam satisfactionem. A great wound had need of a very effectual and long cure: a great sin had need of great satisfaction. The words immediately going before are these: s Peccator si sibi non pepercerit à Deo illi parcitur, etsi futuras poenas gehennae perpetuas in hoc parvo vitae spacio compensaverit, seipsum ab aeterno judicio liberat. If the sinner spare not himself, than the Lord will spare him; and if in the short space of this life he shall recompense the everlasting pains of hell that are to come, he freeth himself from eternal judgement. It is apparent therefore that he speaketh of a satisfaction whereby to obtain forgiveness of sins for the avoiding of the eternal pains of hell, not of a satisfaction after forgiveness, for the avoiding of the temporal pains of Purgatory. He writeth it to a virgin that had yielded herself to be defiled and corrupted, and calleth her to public and perpetual penance, denying her any remission or pardon in this world. t Ibid. Inhaere poenitentiae usque ad finem vitae, nec tibi praesismas ab humano die posse veniam dari quia decipit te qui hoc tibi polliceri volverit. Quae enim propriè in Dominii peccasti, ab illo solo te convenit in die judicij expectare remedium. Continue in thy penance or repentance even to the end of thy life, and do not presume that of man's day any pardon can be granted thee, for he deceiveth thee that will promise that unto thee. For thou which hast sinned properly against the Lord, must of him alone expect remedy at the day of judgement. A hard censure, and unworthy of Ambrose, and so contrary to that which otherwhere he hath written, as that we may well question whether it be his or not; but it being plainly denied her to have forgiveness, how deceitfully is this example brought to prove satisfaction after forgiveness. With as great fraud he allegeth Gregory Nazianzen, who in that place inveigheth against the Novatian heretics, denying repentance to them that fell after baptism, according to the censure now mentioned under the name of Ambrose. Against that rigour he saith, that u Greg. Nazian. ora. 39 in sancta lumina. In eodem vitio sunt tam effraenata et omni animaduersionis meus soluta licentia, quam saeva, nec ulla clementia temperata condemnatio; illa omnes habenas vitijs laxans, haec vehementiori astrictione praefocans. in like sort are to be blamed both unbridled licence freed from all fear of punishment and cruel condemning, not mingled or tempered with clemency and mercy; the one losing the bridle to all vices, the other stifling men with overmuch straightness. Nicetas in his commentary thus expresseth it, x Nicet. ibid. in comment. Parem ●●ea sententiae reprehensionem poenanque mere●●ur qui v●l p●cc●●s nulla p●●●ciūt 〈◊〉 ●mnes hab●●●mit. 〈…〉 qui eos 〈…〉 ●nant v● 〈…〉 consequ● 〈…〉 ●iae sp●●●●u relinq●●●●. They alike deserve to be reproved and punished, who either punish not offenders at all, but give them wholly the bridle, or do so condemn them as that they leave them no hope to obtain pardon. He speaketh of the external government and discipline of the Church, wherein he blameth that men should be left at liberty to offend without fear of punishment; and again blameth such extremity and rigour, that offenders when they repent, should be excluded from hope of pardon: and what is this to prove that men being pardoned by God, must notwithstanding yet make him a satisfaction for their sins pardoned? No man I suppose is so blind, but that he seethe the falsehood of this citation. The other out of the same Father is of the same condition. He speaketh of mercy and compassion, as means y Ora●. 27. de amore pauperum. Miseratione purgemur, animique labes et inquinamenta egregia illa herba detergamus, etc. to purge sins, to scour out the spots and filth of our souls; but he saith nothing of satisfaction to be made after that those spots and filth are purged and scoured. Of the saying of Solomon which he allegeth, I have spoken in the former section: only it may be added, that whereas he for mercy and truth readeth z Misericordia & fide peccata purgantur. By mercy and faith sins are purged, or iniquity is forgiven, which the Hebrew text beareth very well, we may understand it of God's mercy in giving, and our faith in receiving the forgiveness of sins, the promise thereof being made to them that believe in him. Again he bringeth us Ambrose speaking of a Ambr. de Heliae & jejune. cap. 20. Habemus plura subsidia quibus peccat● nostra redimamus. Habes pecuniam: redime peccatum tuum, etc. Et ep. 82. Quae nobis salus esse potest nisi teiunio eluerimus peccata nostra? redeeming our sins with our money, & washing away sins with fasting; but we hear nothing of satisfaction or redemption after the forgiveness of our sins. Yea when he saith that the Lord is not to be bought and sold, he giveth us to understand, that he meaneth not that by our money we purchase or merit at God's hands, and therefore can not be said thereby to make him satisfaction for our sins. That which he saith of redeeming, he will have it understood of freeing ourselves from the cords or bonds of our sins, that we may not be holden by the custom of them, whilst by well doing we resist and cross the practice and lusts thereof, that they may not continue to bring us unto death. b Ibid. Non venalis est Dominus. sed tu ipse venalis es. Peccatis tuis venundatus es. Redime te operibus tuis: redime te pecunia tua, etc. Venenum veneno excluditur. Veneno mors repellitur, vita servatur. The Lord (saith he) is not to be bought and sold; but thou art so. Thou art sold to thy sins. Redeem thyself by thy works: redeem thyself by thy money. By one poison another poison is excluded: by the poison (of the Mammon of iniquity) death is repulsed, life is preserved. Here is a redemption for the excluding of sin, not to pay a satisfaction for it; to set us free from the bondage of committing sin, not to purchase the forgiveness of it. Nay of that he hath said immediately before, c Ibid. Confugiamus ad medician qui vulnera superiora curavit, et siquid superest acerbitatis medela non decrit. Etsi quid iniuriae fecimus memor non erit qui semel donavit. Etsi graevia deliquimus, magnum medicum invenimus, magnam medicinam gratiae eius accepimus Magna enim medicina tollit peccata magna. Let us fly to the Physician who hath cured our former wounds, and if any bitterness be remaining, there shall not want a medicine. And if we have done wrong, he will forget it who hath once pardoned. Albeit we have greatly offended, we have a great Physician, we have received the great medicine of his grace: for a strong or great medicine taketh away great sins. That which is next alleged out of Hierome concerning Paula, signifieth her lamentation of her former life, and setteth out her repentance of her sins, d Hieron. epitap. Paulae. Jtaleu●a peccata plangebat ut eam graussimorum criminum crederes ream. which being but small, as Hierome saith, she so bewailed, as that a man would have thought her guilty of grievous offences; but that proveth not that she meant to make satisfaction hereby for pardoned sins, neither doth he say any thing to that effect. No more doth he as touching himself in the other epistle to Eustochium, where he showeth what hardness he endured at the first in the wilderness to subdue the heat and lust of youth, having as he saith, e Hieron. ad Eustoch. Ob gehennae metum tali mecarcere ipse damnaveram. for the fear of hell condemned himself to that prison, but not so much as any word that he did any thing there for penance or satisfaction for his sins. This is so wisely applied, as that we may well think M. Bishop put it in of his own head, there being nothing either in words or in matter likely to serve the turn. As little help hath he in the next citation which is out of S. Austin, who telleth Macedonius the Lieutenant concerning them who being condemned to death, had their lives and pardon begged by the Bishops, that f August. ep 54. Quosdam qu●r●● manifesta sunt crimina à vestra severitate liberatos à societate removemus altaris, ut poenitendo placare possiut quem peccando contempserant séque ipsos puniendo. they kept many of them whose crimes were manifest from the participation of the sacrament, that by repentance and punishing themselves they might appease him whom in their sins they had despised. Hereupon he inferreth: g Nam nihil aliud agit quem veraciter poenitet nisi ut id quod mali fecerit impunitum esse non sinat. ●o quip modo sibi non parcenti ille parcit cuius altum iustumque judicium nullus contempt●● evadit. For he which truly repenteth, laboureth nothing else but not to suffer that evil which he hath done to be unpunished: for by that means when he spareth not himself, he is spared of him whose secret and just judgement no despiser shall escape. Which words being plainly delivered of that repentance whereby God is appeased that he may not punish, what do they make to the proof of a punishment which they say God inflicteth when he is appeased? Concerning this punishing of ourselves, I refer thee to that which before hath been said by occasion of another sentence of S. Austin in the tenth section. The other place is manifestly spoken of public penitency, S. Austin exhorting every man in the guilt of those sins of which the Scripture teacheth, that h Gal. 5.21. they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God, i August. hom. 50. Cùm in se protulerit severissimae medicinae sententiam veniat ad Antistites per quos illi in ecclesia claves ministrantur, & acciptat satisfactionis suae modum ut in offerendo sacrificio cordis contribulati denotus & supplex id tamen agat quod non solum illi prosit ad recipiendam salutem, sed & caeteris ad exemplum, ut si peccatum eius non solum in gravi eius malo sed etiam in scandalo est aliorum, atque hoc expedire vi●litati ecclesiae videtur antistiti in notitia multorum veletiam totius plebis agere poenitentiaem non recuset. to pronounce sentence against himself of a sharp medicine, to come to the Priests by whom the keys of the church are ministered unto him, and of them to receive the manner or measure of his satisfaction, that being devout and humble in offering the sacrifice of a troubled or contrite heart, he may yet do that which may not only do him good for the receiving of salvation, but others also by example, that if his sin be not only to the grievous hurt of himself, but also to the scandal of others, and it so seem to the Priest or Bishop expedient for the profit of the Church, he refuse not to do penance in the knowledge of many or of the whole church. This is again a repentance for the receiving of the forgiveness of sins & salvation, but no other satisfaction, required not only for the good of the offender, but also for the good of other men and of the whole church, whereas M. Bishops satisfaction concerneth only the man himself to be delivered from Purgatory pains. To the same effect is that which he citeth further out of the same Homily: k Ibid. Non sufficit mores in melius commutare, & à factis malis recedere, nisi etiam de his qua factae sunt satisfiat Deo per poenitentiae dolorem. It sufficeth not to amend our manners and to departed from evil doings, unless for those things which we have done we satisfy God by sorrow of repentance. To what end that satisfaction is used, he showeth presently after: l Non enim dictum est tantùm ut abstineatis à peccatis, sed & de praeteritis, inquit, Dominum deprecare ut tibi dimittantur. For it is not said only that we should abstain from sins, but pray to God also saith he (namely Ecclesiasticus) for the things that are past, that they may be forgiven thee. Here is all still for forgiveness of sins, but nothing of satisfaction when sin is forgiven. So when Gregory saith, that m Greg in 1. Reg lib. 6. Non solum confitenda sunt pec●ata, sed etiam poenitentiae austeritate delenda sins are not only to be confessed, but also to be blotted out by austerity of penance or repentance, he speaketh of a penance for the blotting out of sin, not of penance when the sin is already blotted out. So doth Beda expressly apply his speech to the purging, the blotting out, the pardoning of sin. n Beda in Psal. 1. Delectatio seu voluntas peccandi quando ad satisfactionem venitur levitèr eleemosynis & alijs talibus purgatur; consensu● verò non nisi graut poenitentia deletur; consuetudo autem nonnisi recta & ponderosa satisfactione absoluitur. Delight or desire to sin when we come to satisfaction is lightly purged with almsdeeds & such like; but consent is not blotted out by great repentance; but custom of sin is not pardoned but by just and weighty satisfaction. Thus (gentle Reader) of all that M. Bishop hath cited, yea and of all that Bellarmine hath cited, there is not one that speaketh to the point in question, as touching satisfaction after forgiveness of sins. No, it is a late device of the Schoolmen, which when they had set it abroach, they desired to colour and to give it taste by citing sentences of the Fathers as touching satisfaction, when as the Fathers speak of satisfaction in one meaning, and they apply them in another. But I suppose I have not yet given thee full satisfaction, unless I further add somewhat as touching the ancient Fathers using of this term of satisfaction. It is therefore to be understood, that the same was first applied to that public penance, whereby open and notorious offenders did satisfy the Church, that is, give sufficient and approved testimony and assurance of their true and unfeigned repentance for their sins. When any in the time of persecution had fallen by renouncing the name and faith of Christ, or had otherwise committed any great and scandalous trespass to the grievance of his brethren, to the obloquy of religion and slander of the Church, but especially to the offence of almighty God, and provoking of his wrath both against himself, and them also with whom he lived, he was by the public censure of the Church secluded from the Communion, and cut off from the society of the faithful and godly, as unworthy to be reckoned a member of Christ, or partaker of the hope that is by him. But yet there was always hope of restitution remaining to them who upon convenient trial were found penitent and grieved for the evil which they had done. To this purpose therefore they were enjoined p See hereof Tertul. de poenitentia, and the collections of Beatus Rhenanus in the argument of that book. public confession of their sins. They had their place appointed them in the Church, where they stood lamenting and mourning, & with weeping and tears cast themselves to the ground, praying to God for themselves and commending themselves to the prayers of the assembly. It was prescribed them by watching, by fasting, by course, and uncouth apparel to afflict and humble themselves, that every way their grief and sorrow might be seen. Which being duly performed the Church was satisfied, and taking compassion on them restored them again to brotherly society, and to the communion of the Church, and hereof first was the name of satisfaction taken up. It was not therefore a satisfaction whereby they meant to make God a just recompense for their sins, or as by paying a price of worth and value to merit and purchase their own pardon, but only a satisfaction whereby the Church would be certified of their true repentance towards God, as not enduring that any man should be accounted a member amongst them, who by sin had made himself a stranger to God, until they saw reason to be persuaded that God would be pleased to be reconciled to him again. They could not look into the heart to see any man's repentance and sorrow, but by men's devout submitting themselves to the ordinances of public censure and discipline they would be induced to the persuasion thereof, and being thereof persuaded, they received him again whom before they had rejected. Hereof Saint Austin saith very plainly to show the the end of it; q Aug. Enchir. cap. 65. Cor concritum & humiliatum Deus non spernit. Verum quia plerunque dolor alterius cordis occulius est alteri, neque in aliorum notitiam per verba vel quaecunque alia signa procedit, cùm sit eoram illo cui dicitur, Gemitus met● à te non est absconditus, r●ctè constituuntur ab ijs, qui Ecclesiae praesunt temporae poenitentiae, ut fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in qua remittuntur ipsa peccata; extra came quip non remittuntur. A contrite and humbled heart God despiseth not, but yet because commonly the grief of one man's heart is secret to another, and cometh not by any words or signs to the certain knowledge of others, being in the sight of him to whom it is said, My groaning is not hid from thee, therefore rightly are there appointed certain times of penance, that the Church also may be satisfied wherein sins are forgiven, because out of it there are none forgiven. Here is the true use of those public satisfactions. It is true that God yieldeth to the contrite and broken heart remission and forgiveness of sins, but in scandalous trespasses he will have the knowledge thereof to be taken in the forgiveness of the Church. A man in that case sinneth not against God only, but also against the Church, in provoking God's anger, as before was said, not only against himself, but also against them, in corrupting others, so much as in him lieth, by his evil example, in causing adversaries by that occasion to speak evil of the Church. God therefore would that as the Church is interested in the wrong, so it should also be interested in the forgiveness thereof, so as that in this case no man is to presume of forgiveness with God, who is not so much as in him lieth, reconciled to the Church of God. This our Saviour Christ hath confirmed in the Gospel: r Mat. 18.18. Whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. s john 20.23. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted; whose sins ye retain, they are retained. So then the forgiveness of the Church is to be accounted as it were an admission to forgiveness with God, and a man taketh the one to be to him a confirmation of the other. Now the Church is to forgive according to the same rule as God forgiveth, only him that is penitent and grieved for his sin, and therefore in such sort, as hath been said, requireth satisfaction for certificate and assurance of such repentance. And this is specially that satisfaction which is so much spoken of in the writings and records of the ancient Church. But yet will M. Bishop say, the matter is not sufficiently cleared, because howsoever the name of satisfaction might have original from hence, yet we find them to have applied the same to God also, and to have taught men by such and such works to satisfy and appease the wrath of God. And we deny not indeed but that so they have done, but yet we say, that they never spoke of satisfaction in any such meaning as the name of it now importeth in the Church of Rome. far were they from having any thought, that any thing they did could be a satisfaction, that is, a just and sufficient, and worthy recompense for their sins: but yet they called repentance by the name of satisfaction, as to note that it is the thing wherewith God is satisfied, that is, contented and appeased, not for the thing itself, but for that he hath promised to accept those passions and tears, and works which are the issues and streams of a broken and contrite heart, carefully seeking his mercy, and humbly craving remission and pardon in the name of jesus Christ. In this sense they translated the name of satisfaction from the Church to God, and from public to private repentance, never imagining, that any man would be so mad as to conceive merit there where they taught the sinner to ask mercy, where they taught that the whole effect of that that is done consisteth in God's mercy, through the merit of jesus Christ. t Hesych. in Leuit. 7 lib. 2. Christus nobis propitiatio factus est, ergo in ipso omne poenitentiae sacrificium ministratur & agitu● & omne quod ex poenitentia quis consequitur ad eum refertur. Christ is made our atonement, saith Hesychius: therefore all the sacrifice of repentance (or penance) is administered and done in him, and all that a man obtaineth by repentance is referred to him. It is not then for our repentance sake, but for Christ's sake, that in repentance we obtain that mercy that we do obtain. And to that purpose very notably serveth that which chrysostom, moving question in the name and behalf of a sinner, and making answer thereto, very learnedly and religiously speaketh in this sort: u Chrysost. de poenit. hom. 3. Sive in Hypou●uemate in Esaiaen, Cùm omnem vitam in peccatis detriverim, si me poenituerit, fiamne saluus? Prorsus fies. unde hoc liquet? Ab ipsa Domini tui benignitate, non ex tua poenitentia mihi sumo fiduciam. Poenitentia enim tua non praevalet tantam abstergere malorum eluutem. Poenitentia si sola fuerit, meritò tibi metuendum est, sed quoniam poenitentiae Dei clementia, Deique pietas juncta est, confide. I have spent all my life in sin, and if I repent, dost thou think I shall be saved? Yea verily, saith he. But how shall I be certain of that? or what persuasion can induce me to think so? I take assurance hereof from the mercy of the Lord, not from thy repentance. For thy only repentance availeth not to wash away so great filth of sin. If there be thy only repentance, thou art justly to be afraid, but because God's mercy & compassion is joined with repentance, therefore be of good cheer. Here is nothing attributed to repentance for itself, but only to the mercy of God vouchsafing to yield favour and forgiveness to the repentant. Therefore do they hang the whole fruit of repentance upon faith: for x Aug. de vera & falsa poen●t. cap. 2. Fides fundamentum est poenite●tiae, etc. Poenitentia itaque quae ex fide non procedit, utilis non est. saith, saith S. Austin, is the foundation of repentance, and the repentance which proceedeth not from faith is unprofitable. y Ambros. de poenit. lib. 1. ca 8 Ergo & agendam poe●●t●n●am & tribuend●m veniam credere nos convenit, ut veniam tamen tamquam ex fide speremu●, non tanquam ex debito. We are so to believe, saith Ambrose, both the doing of penance, and the yielding of pardon, as that notwithstanding we hope for pardon, as by faith and not as of debt. Here is then no popish opinion of penance and satisfaction expecting remission by way of debt and duty as a thing deserved, but in the midst of our repentance or penance, we are taught to hope for pardon only by the faith of jesus Christ. Therefore S. Bernard saith, that z Bernard. de verb. lib. job. In sex tribulat. Sola nim●rum secundi Adae tribulatio purgat, quos contaminavit offensio sola prioris; non quod propriae cuiquam sufficere possit satisfactio. Quid est enim omnis poenitentia nostra, nisi quod si non compatimur, omninò non possumus conregnare. it is the only suffering of the second Adam, that purgeth us whom the only offence of the first Adam did defile; I say not (saith he, alluding to that which before he hath said concerning repentance and mortification) that any man's own satisfaction can suffice him: for what is all our repentance, but only that if we suffer not with him, we cannot reign with him. By our repentance then which he expresseth before in weeping for our sins, in bearing our cross, in mortifying our members, in offering ourselves a sacrifice to God, hereby he saith we become like unto Christ in suffering, and so are fitted to reign with him, but yet the purging of us from sin he denieth to these things, and reserveth it to Christ alone. For we may ask as Ambrose doth: a Ambros. in Psal 118. Ser. 20 Quibus laboribus, quib●s iniurijs possumus nostra levare peccata? By what pains or by what sufferings (or bearing of wrongs) can we abate or ease our sins? By which question he plainly declareth, that they did not hold the pains and sufferings of repentance or penance to be properly any purgation or satisfaction to take away sins. And this appeareth by Saint Austin when he saith: b Aug. in Psal. 129 Quae propitiatio ista nisi sacrificium? Et quod est sacrificium nisi quod pro nobis oblatum est? Sanguis innocens fusus delevit omnia peccata nocentium. What propitiation is there but sacrifice? what sacrifice but that which was offered to us? The innocent blood being shed, hath blotted out all the sins of offenders. To which purpose elsewhere he saith, that c Jdem contra adverse. Leg & Proph. lib. 1. cap. 18. Singulari & solo vero sacrificio pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est. for the singular and only true sacrifice, the blood of Christ was shed for us. But most religiously and Christianly is that spoken which he saith yet in another place: d Idem contrae 2. Epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5. Omnium piorum sub hoc onere corruptibilis carnis & in huius vitae infirmitate gementium spes una est, quòd advocatum habemus. etc. It is the one only hope of all the godly groaning under this burden of corruptible flesh, and in the infirmity of this life, that we have an advocate with the Father jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins. If there be no propitiation, that is, no satisfaction, but only sacrifice, & no sacrifice, but the bloodshed of the Son of God; if our only hope with God be this, that we have with him Christ for our advocate & atonement for our sins: if by all our pains and sufferings we cannot ease ourselves as touching our sins, but only the suffering of the second Adam be the purgation thereof; if amidst all our penances we are to hope for pardon by faith, that is, by favour and not by debt, not trusting to any merit of our repentance, but to the mercy of God, and referring all the fruit thereof to jesus Christ, then farewell Popish satisfaction; the Fathers that speak of satisfaction say nothing for that satisfaction: but at Rome this brat was borne, and we must leave it to be buried there. The Fathers have spoken of redeeming our sins, purging our sins, washing our sins, blotting out our sins by prayers, by almsdeeds, by fasting, by good works, but amidst this impropriety of words they have retained, as we see, a faithful acknowledgement of the true Christian faith. Albeit, why do I speak of impropriety of words as in them, when we ourselves upon occasion forbear not to speak as they have spoken? For which of us is there that maketh question to say, It is a satisfaction to God, when a sinner turneth from his evil way: repent thee of thy sins, amend thy wicked life, humble thyself before God, ask mercy and forgiveness and God is satisfied. Redeem thy former cruelty with mercy, thine oppressions with almsdeeds, and let the Mammon of iniquity serve thee for the saving of thy soul. Wash away the filth of thine uncleanness with bitter tears, and with fasting and mourning blot out that guilt which the delights and pleasures of sin have written against thee. Thou hast hitherto been reckless towards God, make him recompense hereafter both in thine own devotion and care, and in seeking the recovery of other men. Thus we speak, and who doth not thus speak, both in this kind and in other sort also, when yet we impute not to those things which we commend, any virtue of cleansing or washing of us from our sins, but only intent to note the affections and dispositions which are the fruits and testimonies of that true faith and repentance, whereby we seek the washing away of out sins only in the blood of jesus Christ. And if we sometimes doubt not thus to speak, how much more securely would the Fathers use such phrases, when yet there was no fear of those misconstructions of heresy and Apostasy, which have since prevailed in the Church of Rome? We have seen Bellarmine before acknowledging out of their principles, that the Fathers in these phrases imported only merit of favour and grace, not merit of worth and purchase, and therefore setting aside the name of merit, let us not doubt but that they meant in all their speeches to uphold the grace and favour of God by the mediation of jesus Christ. They taught men amidst all their devotions to ask pardon of God's mercy, and therefore could not be thought to teach them, that by the same devotions they did deserve it. In a word I conclude this point, with a speech or two of Chrysostom's, which I wish thee gentle Reader to compare with the doctrine which M. Bishop here hath brought us from Rome: e Chrysost. de beato Philogonio. Ego testificor ac fide jubeo quod si quisquam nostrum qui peccatis obnoxij sumus, ex animo vereque promittat Deo se posteà numquam ad illa rediturum, nihil aliud Deus requirat ad satisfactionem viteriorem. I testify (saith he) and give thee warrant, that if any of us who are subject to sin, (or guilty of sin) do hearty and truly promise unto God never to return to the same again, God doth require no further satisfaction. Again, upon the words of the Apostle, f 1. Cor. 11.31. If we would judge ourselves we should not be judged of the Lord, he saith thus: g Jdem in 1. Cor. hom. 28. Non dixit, si puniemus, si supplicium de nobis sumemus sed, si dijudicaremus, hoc est, si nostra tantùm voluerimus peccata cognoscere, si condemnare n●sipsos, liberaremur utique & ab huius & à futuri seculi supplicijs. The Apostle saith not, If we would punish ourselves, if we would take revenge of ourselves, but If we would judge ourselves, that is, if we would only acknowledge our sins, if we would condemn ourselves, we should be delivered both from the punishments of this world, and of the world to come. Here we see, that after true repentance, there is no further satisfaction: that after true acknowledgement and confession of our sins, there is no reservation of punishment, but by the mercy of God we are set free both from the punishments of this world and of the world to come, whereby all that M. Bishop here hath built, is utterly overthrown. 19 W. BISHOP. And if you please in few words, to hear the Protestants works of penance and satisfaction: in stead of our fasting, and other corporal correction, they fall to eating, and that of the best flesh they can get, and take in the Lord all such bodily pleasure, as the company of a woman will afford. In am of giving alms unto the poor, they pill them by fines and unreasonable rents: and by usury and crafty bargains, are not ashamed to cozen their nearest kin. Finally, in place of prayer, and washing away their own sins by many bitter tears, they sing merrily a Geneva Psalm, and rail or hear a railing at our imagined sins, or pretended errors. And so leave, and lay all pain and sorrow upon Christ's shoulders, thinking themselves (belike) to be borne to pleasure and pastime, and to make merry in this world. R. ABBOT. A shrewd wench hearing her mother at angry words with her neighbour, and well knowing her mother's desert, gave her this counsel, Call her whore first, mother, for fear lest she call you whore. M. Bishop knew very well, that there is sufficient cause for us to call his mother whore, and to upbraid the Church of Rome with the poisoned and abominable fruits which their doctrine of satisfactions bringeth forth. Therefore he thought it good policy in her behalf to follow the counsel of the unhappy girl, and to call whore first, that by laying some slanderous imputations of evil behaviour upon us, he might break and abate the odiousness of those unclean and filthy corruptions which he knew were justly to be objected against them. He knew well, that if we should paint them out from top to toe, we should make the Church of Rome to appear a monster, most ugly & deformed, such as that all men may thereby take just occasion to detest her. To give him some taste of their good fruits, let him remember that of the Court of Rome it was said long since: a Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis Eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis. The world too little is their covetise to satisfy, No harlots are enough to serve their filthy lechery. b Ibi. Manifestè comperium est Ecclesiam Romanam Dei indignationem incurrisse. Ipsius enim magistratus & rectores non populi devotionem, sed marsupia plena quarunt denariorum; non animas Deo lucrifacere, sed reditus capere & pecunias congregare, religiosos opprimere, poena, usura, simonia & alijs diversis argumentis alienae usurpare. Non curatur de justitiae & honestate, etc. Adeo invaluit Romanae Ecclesiae in satiabilis cupiditas confundens fasque nefasque quòd deposito rubore veluti meretrix vulgaris & effrons omnibus venalis & exposita usuram pro parvo, si●oniam pro nullo inconuenienti reputavit, ita ut alias provincias sua contagione macularit, etc. Foetor Curia Papali● usque ad nubes fumum teterrimum exhalavit. It is manifestly found, saith Matth. of Paris, that the Church of Rome hath incurred the indignation of God. The governors and rulers thereof do not seek the devotion of the people, but the filling of their own purses; not to gain souls to God, but to take rents and to gather money, to oppress them that are religious, by penalty, usury, simony, and divers other devices to get other men's goods into their hand; there is no care of just and honest dealing. The insatiable covetousness of the Church of Rome is grown to that pass confounding right and wrong, as that being past blushing, like a common and shameless harlot, setting herself to sale, and being exposed to all men, she accounteth usury for a small inconvenience, and simony for none: so as that with her contagion she hath defiled other countries. The stinch of the Pope's Court hath breathed out a most noisome fume even to the very clouds. Of those time's Abbess Vrspergensis speaketh in this sort: c Abbas V●spergensis in Chr. Tunc coeperunt multiplicars ma●a interris. Ortae siquidem sunt in hominibus simultates, doli, perfidiae, tradit●ones ut se invicem trad●nt in mortem & interitum. Rapinae, depraedationes, depopulationes, terrarum vastationes, intem diae, seditiones, & bella & rapinae, sive in stratis, sive in latrocinijs iustificatae sunt, ut omnis homo ia●a sit periurus, & praedictis faci●●r●bus implicatus, ut vix excusari possit quin sit in his sicut p●pulus sic & sacerdos. Then began mischiefs to be multiplied upon the earth: for there arose amongst men discords, deceits, treacheries, treasons, so as that they betrayed one another to death and destruction. Spoiling and preying one upon another, destructions and wastings of countries, burnings, seditions, wars and rapines, whether in the streets, or in places of robberies were justified, so as that now every man is guilty of perjury, and wrapped in these foresaid wicked acts, and it cannot be excused, but that as the people is in these things so is the Priest. Platina the Pope's Secretary breaketh out in passion thus: d Platin. de vit. Pontif. in Marcellino. Quid futurum nostrae aetati arbitramur, qua vitia nostra eo crevere ut vix apud Deum misericor diae locum nobis reliquerint? Queen vitae sit avaritia Sacerdotum, quanta libido undique conquisita, quanta anabitio & pompa, quanta superbia & desidia, quanta ignoratio tum s●●psius tum doctrinae Christianae quàm paerua religio & simulatae potiús quàm vera, quàm corrupti mores, vel in prophanis hominibus quos seculares vocant detestandi, nihil attinet dicere, cum ipsi ita apertè & polam peccent acsi inde laudem quaererent. What do we think shall befall in this our age, wherein vices are grown to that, that they have scant left any place of mercy with God. How great the covetousness of Priests is, especially of them that are in place of government, how great their licentiousness affected every way: their ambition and pomp, their pride and sloth, their want of knowledge both of themselves and of the doctrine of Christ, how little devotion and that more counterfeited then true, how corrupt their manners are, to be detested even in profane and secular men, it skilleth not to say any thing, for that they sin so apparently and openly, as if they sought to be commended for it. And in another place thus: e Idem in Stephano 3. Nunc adeò refrixit pietas & religio, non dico nudis pedibus, sed caligati & cothurnati vix supplicare dignantur. Non flentinter eundum, vel dum sacrificatur, sed rident & quidem impudenter: de his etiam loquor quos purpura insigniores facit. Non hymnos canunt, id enim servile videtur: sed ●ocos & fabulas ad risum concitandum inter senarrant. Quo quis dicactor est & petulantior, eò maiorem in tam corruptis maribus laudem merciur. Severos & graves viros reformidat hic noster clerus. Now is piety and devotion waxen so cold, as that I say not barefooted, nay hosed and booted, they scant vouchsafe to pray. They weep not as they go, or when they are at the sacrifice: but they laugh and that impudently, I speak even of them whom their purple garments grace above other men: they sing not the Hymns, for that seemeth a base matter, but they tell one another tests and tales to make each other laugh. The more prating and saucy a man is, the more is he thought in this corruption of manners worthy to be commended; our Clergy brooketh not stayed and grave men. f In Gregor. 4. Adeo in omnem luxum & libidinem sese effundit Ecclesiasticus ordo. The ecclesiastical state hath given itself over to all luxury and wanton lust. Matthew of Paris said of the time wherein he lived, g Mat. Paris. in Henr. 3. anno 125●. Qui his temporibus malus non est, optimus reputatur: Jniquus cùm laedere cessat, prodesse judicatur. In these times he that is not a bad man, is thought to be very good; the just man when he forbeareth to hurt, is deemed to do good. Yea, and Machiavelli one of the fathers of the Romish generation yet did not doubt to say further, that h Machiavelli. disput. de rep. l. 1. cap. 12. Nusquam minùs vel pietatis vel religionis est, quàm in ijs hominibus qui viciniores Romae habitant. no where was there less piety or religion, then in those that dwelled nearest to Rome. I do here but point at some few things that come next to hand, but he that would discourse this matter as it deserveth, and would gather the flowers of Romish conversation out of their own stories, or set forth the sanctified behaviours that are to be seen at Rome, at Venice, in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, amongst this Catholic generation, yea or discover the pretty tricks of many of our Catholics hear at home, should make it clear enough that M. Bishop doth but play the hypocrites part, in offering to i Mat. 7 3. pluck a mote out of his brother's eye, and not seeing the great beam that is in his own eye; it would appear that he hath small cause to brag of the fruits of their doctrine of Pardons and satisfactions. k Marsil. Patau. de sens pacis part. 2. cap. 26. Veniae promissio perniciosa & insana doctrina & seductio animarum, à Christianis omnibus contemnenda & cavenda. A mad and pernicious doctrine, as Marsilius Patavinus called it long ago, the beguiling of souls, worthy to be despised, and fit to be taken heed of of all Christian men: by which the Germans complained, l Cent gravam. German. art. 3. Profligata Christi pietas & extincta, quando quilibet pro modo pretij quod in merces illas expendit peccandi impunitatem sibi pollicetur. Hinc stupra, incestus, adulteria, periuria, homicidia, furta, rapinae, foenora & to●a malorum semel originem traxerunt. Quod enim malorum amplius iam horrebunt mortales quando sibi peccandi licentiam & impunitatem nedum in hac vita, sed & post obitum aere licet immodico comparari posse persuasum habet. that the religion of Christ was abandoned & extinguished with them, for that every man for a sum of money bestowed upon pardons promised to himself a liberty to sin without any punishment. Hence whoredoms, say they, incests, adulteries, perjuries, murders, thefts, robberies, usury, and the whole sink of mischiefs have had their beginning. For what will men fear any longer, when they be persuaded, that for money, though it be much, not in this life only, but after death also they may get a licence and impunity of sin. And indeed it is true which Hierome saith, that m Hieron. in Mat. 19 Faciliùs sacculus contemnitur quàm voluptas. men more easily set light by their money, than they do by their pleasure, n Cyprian. lib 2. epist. 2 Quod redin●● potest, non timetur. neither doth any fear that which he may redeem or buy out for money, as Cyprian speaketh. Therefore when they persuaded men that they might satisfy for their sins, and that alms was the most special work of satisfaction, and did supply the want of other satisfactions, as before was said, they that were of ability to give alms liberally, that is, to stop the mouths of begging Friars, were hereby thrust forward to all manner wickedness, which either by secrecy they could conceal, or wherein by power they could uphold themselves, that human laws might take no hold of them. These things are more apparent both by story and by sight, than that M. Bishop's wit can serve to colour or hide them. It is nothing therefore that he telleth us of their fasting, and alms, & prayers, inasmuch as they do these things to purchase themselves liberty to sin freely, and to take their pleasure otherwise. And whatsoever he can otherwise allege hereof, he is to remember that chrysostom saith, that o Chrysost. Op. imper. in Mat. hom. 19 Quae sunt vestimenta ovilia? Species videlicet simulatae religionis; eleemosyna simulata, oratio simulata, ie iunium simulatum, & caeterae speci●s pietatis quibus se vestiunt lupi rapaces. counterfeit alms, and fasting, and prayer, are the sheeps clothing that serve to cover ravening wolves. With these sheeps garments the Pharisees of old covered their biting and destroying of souls. They were p Acts. 26.5. Epiphan. haer. 16. the Pharisaeis. a most strait sect, they fasted twice a week, they lay some upon thorns, other some upon stones, other some upon boards of small breadth, that they might easily fall beside, by this means to afflict themselves with watching, that they might attend to praying, they vowed continency, some for four, some for eight, some for ten years. By these dissembled devotions they crept into the minds of the people, they seduced and beguiled them, and held them bound to their traditions, and q Mat. 23.14. devoured widows houses under pretence of long prayers. By the same pretences M. Bishop and his fellows r 2. Tim. 3.6. creep into houses, and lead captive simple women laden with sins, and led with divers lusts, and make them their instruments for the s Tit. 1.11. subverting of the husbands and whole houses, and entangling of them, with the superstitions and abominations of the man of sin. Albeit being more cunning than the Pharisees, they take such good course with their fasting and corporal afflictions, as that they neither abate their flesh nor their filthy lust, but by practice of shrift and confession, they insinuate themselves into the affections and secrets of the same women, and thereby take advantage against them to gain them to their will. He twiteth us with taking pleasure in the company of a woman, but they by not being tied to the lawful company of one, do reserve to themselves a liberty of abusing many. And no marvel that such good fruits proceed from them, with whom it is a position, that t Coster. Enchirid. cap. 15. propos. 9 Sacerdos si fornicetur aut domi concubinam foucat, tametsi gravi sacrilegio se obstringat, graviùs tamen peccat si contraehat matrimonium. it is greater sacrilege for a Priest to marry, then to commit fornication or to keep a concubine, yea u Campeg. apud Sleidan. Cōmen●. lib. 4. Si sacerdotes mariti fiant multo esse gravius peccatum quàm si plurimas domi meretrices alant. that by keeping many harlots he sinneth not so much. As for us we live in marriage as did Abraham, x Rom 4.11. the father of all that believe, as Isaac, jacob, the patriarchs, the Priests, the Prophets, and other righteous men, and as the first Christians did, who all pleased God, and were accepted in his sight. We know there is no offence in marriage, because it is the ordinance of God, but we detest their vowed virginity, by pretence whereof they wickedly defile themselves with the uncleanness of the devil. He telleth us again of eating the best flesh that can be gotten, but we eat whether fish or flesh as laws permit, what the providence of God doth yield us, giving God thanks, neither are we so scrupulous therein as he and his fellows, who whether in fish or in flesh being forsooth ghostly fathers, take it in scorn not to be entertained with the best. Whereas he mentioneth their alms, we find it in former times which they brag of, not to have been such, but y Math. Paris. in Henr. 3. anno. 1258. Deficiente annona pauperum multitude innumerabilis mortua est, & inventa sunt passim eorum corpora tumida praefame & liventia, quina vel sena in porcarijs, star. quilinijs & lutosis plateis, etc. that in a time of dearth innumerable poor people have died like dogs upon dunghills, and in swine-sties, and in the streets, without any compassion taken for their comfort and relief. And no marvel, because alms was reduced by them to the maintenance of idle lozel's in religious, houses, as now it is to their nightwalking and wandering Circumcellions, but as for the true alms for the relief of the poor and needy, we doubt not but it is more faithfully exercised by us, than it was or is by them. Of racking poor men by fines and unreasonable rents, he shall see examples enough amongst their Catacatholike disciples, of whom there be some, who for the colouring of their impious cruelties, do allege concerning their tenants, living in due obedience to their Prince according to the laws of God, that they are heretics, and therefore that it skilleth not how they deal with them, not knowing that though their religion were the truth, yet it should concern them which the Apostle saith; z Gal. 6.10. Whilst we have time let us do good to all men, though specially to them that are of the household of faith. Concerning usury, let him remember what Matthew of Paris reported of old concerning the Pope, a Math: Paris. in Henr. 3. anno. 1247 Papa qui forma & exemplum totius teneretur esse religionis usurarius est man●fectus. The Pope, saith he, who should be the pattern and example of all religion, is an open usurer. He had here in England his bankers who were termed b Jdem anno. 1235. Caursini mercatores Papales. Ca●rsini, who did use that trade of merchandise in his behalf. Again for craft and cozening, let him remember how the same Matthew describeth the Pope's c Anno 1234. Argumentosas extortiones excogitans. Excogitata muscipulatione pecun●am emungere edoctus. Verba elegantissima quae corda hominum lapidea viderentur penetrare nisi facta humilitati ac justice luce clariùs adversantia sequerentur. extortions cloaked with arguments and reasons, his mousetraplike devices his goodly words, such as might move hearts of stone, but that his deeds followed very clearly repugnant to humility and just dealing. d Anno 1240. Absurdum videbatur etiam simplicibus quàm diversis muscipulis simplicem Dei populum substantia sua moliebatur Romana curia privare, nihil petens nisi aurum & argentum. It seemed absurd, saith he, even to simple men, to see by how divers traps the Court of Rome craving nothing but gold and silver, practised to rob the poor people of God of their substance. Now therefore M. Bishop gaineth no credit to his doctrine of satisfactions, by charging these enormities upon us, inasmuch as they are found much more intolerably in the Pope himself, and therefore much more in them who are the members of so bad a head. Whosoever amongst us do sin in these kinds, and cause the people of God to grieve, and his enemies to blaspheme his truth, we teach them, and they shall find, that e 1. Thess. 4.6. God is the avenger of such things, and his judgement shall in due time find out their sin. Of the ridiculous absurdity of their satisfactory prayers I have spoken before. His words of bitter tears are but formal; Catholic eyes are too tender to be made red with bitter tears, and the form of their prayers fitteth not thereto. Our singing of Geneva Psalms as he calleth them, indeed David's Psalms, though many of them haply turned into English meeter at Geneva, is a devotion prescribed by the holy Ghost, saying by the Apostle, f Col. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing your own selves in Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, singing with a grace in your hearts to the Lord. If being merry in good sort we thus sing Psalms, we therein follow the rule of S. james, g james 5.13. Is any man merry? let him sing. Yea, and we hold it for a notable token of the apostasy of the Church of Rome, that it hath so abandoned this point of Christian exercise and devotion, from all both public and private use. We do not rail but perform the office of careful pastors and teachers in noting their sins and errors not imagined only, but very sensible, nor only pretended, but proved by the testimony of him who is truth, and cannot err. As for that which he saith of laying all pain and sorrow upon Christ's shoulders, it is true that we do so indeed, as touching satisfaction for sin, but otherwise God wanteth not means to lay pains and sorrows upon those that are his, to make them know that they are not borne to pleasure and pastime, but to h Act. 13.36. serve the counsel of God, & to glorify his name. The Church of Rome swarmeth, as before hath been noted, with Atheists and Epicures, that carry the show of that persuasion, but amongst the true professors of the Gospel, there are no such found. CHAPTER 7. OF TRADITIONS. 1 W. BISHOP. Master Perkins. Traditions are doctrines delivered from hand to hand, either by word of mouth or writing, besides the written word of God. His first conclusion as touching our consent. Concl. 1. We hold that the very word of God was delivered by Tradition from Adam to Moses, who was the first Penman of holy Scripture. Item, that the History of the new Testament (as some for eight, not eighty, or as other think for twenty years) went from hand to hand by Tradition, till penned by the Apostles, or being penned by others, was approved by them. Hitherto we agree (but not in this which he enterlaceth) that in the state of nature, every man was instructed of God immediately in both matters of faith and religion: for that God then as ever since used the ministery as well of good fathers, as godly masters; as Enoch, No, Abraham, and such like, to teach their children and servants the true worship of God, and true faith in him; otherwise, how should the word of God pass by Tradition from Adam to Moses, as M. Perkins affirmeth, if no child learned any such thing of his father, but was taught immediately from God? but M. Perkins seemeth to regard little such petty contradictions. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins meaning is plain enough without any contradiction. God in the beginning revealed his will unto our father Adam, not by writing, but familiarly by word of mouth. He left it not thenceforth merely to pass from man to man, but as he first gave this light by immediate revelation from himself, so afterwards he continued, renewed, and confirmed the same, raising up some in all times to be near unto him, to whom a Heb. 1.1. in divers manners, by speech, by visions, by dreams, by sundry illuminations and inspirations, he imparted the knowledge of himself, and endued them with eminency of gifts and authority, to be b 2. Pet. 2.5. preachers of righteousness both to their own families, and to other whom the Lord would call. It is not true than which M. Bishop would so gladly fasten on, that the doctrine of faith passed by tradition, in such sort as the question of traditions standeth betwixt them and us. They pretend that Christ taught his Apostles divers and sundry doctrines which he would have wholly left without writing to the custody of the Church, and to be reported successively from man to man to the world's end. But God did not in those first ages leave his word in any such sort wholly to the memory and report of men, as trusting to their fidelity for the successive delivering of that which at first had been received, but he himself took upon himself the custody of his own tradition, and continued still to report what he had first taught, knowing the channel of human conceit to be more corrupt, than that the stream of divine truth can long run pure & clear therein. And this may sufficiently persuade us, that our Saviour Christ would not leave any part of his religion to so uncertain and doubtful course, & so subject to the corruptions of human devices. If God would ever have had his truth to pass altogether from hand to hand, undoubtedly he would have taken that course in the beginning, when men living so long, might be likely to confirm and settle in their posterity what they should believe. But he saw there would be no safety, unless he himself still continued to be an instructor unto them. He knew how subject men are to alteration and change, how easily one man mistaketh that which is rightly delivered by another, how readily men sometimes come short, sometimes go too far; how one man's fancy conceiveth one way, & another man's another way, and that we can never keep any strait and even path, so long as instruction is no otherwise had, but from man to man. Therefore where God himself attended not to keep the fire burning which he had kindled, it soon went out: where men were left only to tradition, they soon degenerated from that service of God, wherein they had been brought up under just and righteous parents. There is no likelihood therefore that God finding so little safety in tradition in the beginning, would leave his Church now to be guided by tradition in the end. Nay, when he thought good somewhat to withdraw himself from that familiar conference & dealing with men, he would otherwise supply the want thereof, & provide for the safety of his people, by appointing a standing oracle of a written law, to which all men at all times might resort to be informed as touching duty and service towards God. And as in the creation of the world, howsoever the light were at first sustained and spread abroad by the incomprehensible power of God, yet when he created the Sun, he conveyed the whole light of the world into the body thereof, so that though the Moon & stars should give light, yet they should shine with no other light, but what they received from the Sun, even so in the constitution of the Church, howsoever God at first preserved & continued the knowledge of his truth, by immediate revelation from himself to some chosen men, by whose ministery he would have the same communicated to the rest, yet when he gave his word in writing, he conveyed into the body of the Scriptures the whole light of his Church, so that albeit there should be Pastors and teachers therein, to shine as stars to give light to others, yet they should give no other light, but what by the beams of the written law was cast upon them. Which beams albeit they shined not then altogether clear & bright, many things being lapped up in obscure & dark mysteries, & rather signified by figurative ceremonies, then expressed in plain words, yet were they not to walk by any other light, nor to go without the compass of the written word; only what was obscure therein, God by his Prophets from time to time made more & more apparent, until by jesus Christ in the writings of his Apostles & Evangelists, he set up 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 only & not by writing, and thus as M. Bishop allegeth, good fathers & godly masters taught their children & servants the true worship of God, & true faith in him. But it is true also which he signifieth in the second place, that they whom God thus raised up to be teachers & instructors of others, received not the word only by tradition from others, but had revelation & confirmation thereof immediately from God himself. Therefore there is no argument to be taken hence to give any colour to Popish tradition, nay we may justly argue, that if God would have had the religion of Christ to be taught in any part without writing, he would have taken the course which he did then by immediate revelation, to continue and preserve the integrity and truth thereof. 2. W. BISHOP. His 2. Concl. We hold that the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles, spoke, and did many things good and true, which were not written in the Scriptures, but came to us by Tradition: but these were not necessary to be believed: For one example he puts; that the blessed virgin Mary lived & died a virgin: but it is necessary to salvation to believe this, for helvidius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretic for denying it. * De haeres. ad Quod. hae. 84. R. ABBOT. It is necessary to salvation to believe that our Saviour was conceived and borne of a virgin. We persuade ourselves also according to the common judgement of the Church, that she so continued and died, but yet we deny it to be any matter of salvation so to believe. 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 spiritum sanctum administratae seruivit tum demum nuptialia opera viro Maria non negaverit. Nos verò licet nihil hoc doctrinae pretatis ●ffi●eret (nam donec dispensabatur Christi generatio necessaria erat virginitas, quid verò postea sit factum ad mysterij huius doctrinam non anxiè cō●ungendū est) v●runtamen, etc. it should be no whit prejudicial to the doctrine of faith, that the virgin Mary after that she had in her virginity served for the generation of Christ, should perform the office of a wife to her husband. Her virginity was necessary till the birth of Christ was accomplished, but what was afterwards done, is not too scrupulously to be adjoined to the doctrine of this mystery. But yet that no man might to the scandal and offence of devout persons, affirm rashly that she ceased to be a virgin, he showeth that the places of the Gospel, which seem to give suspicion thereof, do not evict it, but may well be construed otherwise. And therefore helvidius for moving an unnecessary question hereof, to give occasion of public disturbance, and for affirming rashly, that which he had no warrant sufficiently to prove, was justly condemned & rejected by the Church, neither can we approve any th●t shall do as he did. 3. W. BISHOP. His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances and Traditions touching time & place of God's worship: And touching order & comeliness to be used in the same (marrow with these four caneats:) First, that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd. See what a reverent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God, governed by his holy spirit, that it nevertheless may prescribe things both childish and absurd. But I must pardon him, because he speaketh of his own Synagogue, which is no part of the true Church. Secondly, that it be not imposed as any part of God's worship: This is contrary to the conclusion, for order and comeliness to be used in God's worship, which the Church can prescribe, is some part of the worship. Thirdly, that it be severed from superstition, etc. This is needless; for if it be not absurd, which was the first proviso, it is already severed from superstition. The fourth, touching multitude may pass; these be but mere trifles: That is of more importance, that he termeth the decree registered in the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles, a Tradition: whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine delivered, besides the written word. Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcel of the written word, as all the world knows: that then which is of record there, cannot be termed a Tradition. R. ABBOT. The cautions set down by M. Perkins are material & necessary against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, which having 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 error; and therefore in her ordinances and traditions swerveth from the gravity and wisdom of the holy Ghost. The ceremonies of the Mass are apish and ridiculous toys; whereby in that which Christ instituted for a most sacred and reverend action, they make the Priest more like to a juggler or to a vice upon the stage, in his duckings and turnings, his kiss & cross, his lifting up and letting down, his putting together the forefinger & the thomb, and another while joining both his hands; his putting to the right eye & then to the left, with a number of such other absurd and foolish devices. The like absurdity have I noted before, that when the Priest hath pronounced absolution and forgiveness, they appoint a man for penance to say, Forgive us our trespasses, and again, that they make their prayers like a charm, which to work their effect, must be said over thus or thus many times. I remember I have read some where, that one of the Popes would have ordered that the Pope & his Cardinals should ride upon Asses in token of humility, & for imitation of Christ, riding into jerusalem upon an Ass. The Cardinal's thought that the fool rid the Pope, & took this for a childish and idle fancy. Now if the Pope the head of their Church, could be possessed with so childish & vain a toy, why should we doubt but that against their Church there is cause of the first caution, that the Church is not to prescribe any thing that is childish or absurd? The second caution is, that nothing be imposed as any part of God's worship. This, saith M. Bishop, is contrary to the conclusion. And why so? For order and comeliness to be used in God's worship, saith he, is some part of the worship. But who taught him that deep point of Philosophy, that an accident is a part of the subject, that the beauty or comeliness of the body is a part of the body? Order and comeliness are matters of ceremony, not of substance; of outward ornament, not of inward devotion, properly and immediately respecting men, but by consequence only reduced to God, & therefore can be no parts of the worship of God. The third caution is, that what the Church prescribeth, be severed from superstition & opinion of merit. Of opinion of merit M. Bishop saith nothing, which is a case that in high degree toucheth the Church of Rome, which of her own traditions hath made meritorious works, and hath bewitched the people, to think that by the observation thereof they may purchase & deserve heaven. As touching superstition, he saith the caution is needless, for if it be not absurd, saith he, which is the first proviso, it is already severed from superstition. Which indeed is rightly spoken according to the truth of the thing, because in truth all superstition is absurd, & therefore there should need no distinction betwixt that that is superstitious, and that that is absurd, but yet the distinction here hath use in respect of the opinion of men, because many things are superstitious, which yet with men are hardly deemed absurd, for that c Col. 2.23. they have a show of wisdom, as S. Paul saith, in voluntary religion and humbleness of mind, and in not sparing the body, so that they many times blind the eyes of them that seem to be of very good sight. And this is the case of many Popish traditions, wherein as there are many things so absurd, as that they are feign to use their wits to devise covers & excuses, that they may not appear to be so gross as they are, yet many other there are which are so fairly varnished with colours of piety & holiness, as that by the means thereof Satan first prevailed to bring them into the Church, dazzling the eyes of men that they saw not the mischief that in time he should work thereby to the religion and faith of Christ. The last caution is, that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of traditions. A thing whereof S. Austin complained in his time, that d August. epist. 119. Tam multis praesumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia, etc. Ipsan religionem quam pancissimu & manifestissimis celebrationun sacramentis miserecordia Dei esse liberam voluit scruilibus oneribus premunt ut tolerabilior sit conditio judaeorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, tamen legalibus sarcinu, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciunti●. all was full of manifold presumptions, and that the religion which the mercy of God would have to be free, by having but a very few & very manifest sacraments & observations, was so oppressed with servile burdens, as that the state of the jews was more tolerable than it; who though they knew not the time of liberty, yet were subject to the burdens of God's laws, not to men's presumptions. This caution, M. Bishop saith may pass, but in this the Church of Rome hath more deeply offended, then did those times whereof S. Austin complained, having infinitely entangled the consciences of men, with the multiplicity of her witchcrafts & sorceries, & endless variety of superstitious observations. These things now M. Bishop telleth us, are but mere trifles, but the reason is, because he wanteth understanding to conceive the weight and importance of them. And from that want it proceedeth, that he allegeth a trifle indeed as a matter of more importance. That is that M. Perkins calleth the decree registered in the fifteenth of the Acts by the name of a tradition, having before defined traditions to be all doctrines delivered beside the written word. But if his sight had served him, he might very readily have seen, that in the first place M. Perkins had defined traditions as they are in question betwixt us & them, and referreth the same only to matters of doctrine, in which sort we admit of no traditions, but that here he speaketh of traditions more generally, in such sort as we grant traditions, as he expresseth, which are the positive & temporary ordinances & constitutions of the Church. The decree then of the Apostles was no tradition in that meaning wherein we question traditions, because it was no matter of doctrine, but only of conversation & temporary observation, but in the general use of the name of traditions, it was a matter of tradition, because all ordinances of the Church are imported by that name. 4. W. BISHOP. The Difference. Catholics teach, that besides the written Word, there be certain unwritten traditions, which must be believed and practised, as both profitable and necessary to salvation. We hold that the Scriptures contain in them all doctrine needful to salvation: whether it concern faith or manners, and acknowledge no traditions for such, as he who believeth them not, cannot be saved. Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions, observe that we divide Traditions into three sorts: the first we termed Divine, because they were delivered by our blessed Saviour, who is God: the second, Apostolical, as delivered by the holy Apostles: the third, Ecclesiastical, instituted and delivered by the Governors of the Church, after the Apostles days. And of these three kinds of traditions, we make the same account, as of the writings of the same Authors: to wit, we esteem no less of our saviours traditions, than of the four Gospels, or any thing immediately dictated from the holy Ghost. Likewise as much honour and credit do we give unto the Apostles doctrine unwritten, as written. For ink and paper brought no new holiness, nor gave any force & virtue unto either Gods or the Apostles words; but they were of the same value and credit uttered by word of mouth, as if they had been written. Here the question is principally of divine traditions, which we hold to be necessary to salvation, to resolve and determine many matters of greater difficulty. For we deny not but that some such principal points of our Faith (which the simple are bound to believe under pain 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, Divine, Apostolical, & Ecclesiastical. Which distinction in some meaning standeth good, but as he expresseth the meaning of it, it is absurd. For if Apostolic traditions be expounded of doctrines, as he expoundeth them, what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt divine and Apostolic traditions, when the Apostles for doctrine delivered nothing but what they themselves had received from God? Our Saviour limited their commission in this sort, a Mat. 28.20. teaching them to do whatsoever I have commanded you. Accordingly they professed to do. b 1. Co●. 11.23. I have received of the Lord that which I have delivered unto you, saith Saint Paul. c 1. Thess. 4.2.8. We gave you commandments by the Lord jesus, and he that despiseth these things, despiseth not man but God. d Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospel which was preached by me, I received it not of man, nor was taught it, but by the revelation of jesus Christ. Therefore Tertullian saith of them, that e Tertul. de prescript. Nec ipsi (Apostoli) quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam à Christo discipl●nam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt. they did not upon their liking make choice of any thing to bring in, but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had received of Christ. So that if Traditions be understood 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 will make difference betwixt them, we must call Apostolic traditions, only such ordinances whether written or unwritten, as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony & usage in the Church, as the observation of the memorial of the nativity, death, & resurrection of Christ, the alteration of the seventh day from the jews Sabbath to the day of Christ's resurrection, the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded, & such like. And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subject to diversity according to diversity of places, as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subject to alteration & change, where there might be reason of any such alteration, as were f Jude vers. 12. the feasts of charity first used by the Apostles, & afterwards abolished for the abuse of them, & as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded, it being by the custom of that time a sign of honour and authority so to do, whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head covered. The observation of g Acts. 20.7. Apoc. 1.10. the Lords day we hold perpetual & unchangeable, because we find it noted in the Scriptures to have been from the Apostles, and there can be no reason of reversing or altering what they ordered therein. If thus M. Bishop will speak of Apostolic traditions, we acknowledge the name of them, but Apostolic doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for divine. Thus therefore the question is of divine traditions, that is, doctrines of faith & of the worship and service of God, which we deny to be any, but what are comprised in the written word of God. Now of divine traditions, he telleth us some parabables, which it seemeth he himself did not well understand. We hold them, saith he, to be necessary to salvation, to determine matters of greater difficulty. Be like than they are not necessary for themselves, 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 salvation. By this means a number of their traditions must fall, Purgatory, prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, Pope's Pardons, worshipping of idols & images, and the rest, because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby. Again, we deny not, saith he, but that some such principal points of our faith, which the simple are bound to believe under pain of damnation, may be gathered out of the Scriptures. It seemeth then that the simple are not bound under pain of damnation, to believe the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures, & if he say they be so bound, than that clause of his was very idly and impertinently inferred. But we must pardon him; it seemeth he wanted sleep the night before, and therefore being very drowsy, could not well consider of that he wrote. 5 W. BISHOP. M. Perkins goeth about to prove by these reasons following, that the Scriptures contain all matter of belief necessary to salvation. Testimony, * Deut. 4.2. Thou shalt not add to the words that I command thee, nor take any thing there from. Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to salvation. If it be said, that this is spoken as well of the unwritten as written word; for there is no mention in the text of the written word: then M. Perkins addeth, that it must be understood of the written word only, because these words are as a certain preface set before a long Commentary made upon the written Law. Answer. Let the words be set where you will, they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification. The words cited signify no more, then that we must not either by addition or subtraction, change or pervert God's commandments, whether they be written or unwritten. Now to infer, that because they are as a preface unto Moses law, that therefore nothing must be added unto the same law, is extreme dotage. Why then were the books of the old Testament written afterward, if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught, besides that one book of Deuteronomie? Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many volumes after this, had read these words; or that they either understood them not; or that understanding them well, did wilfully transgress against them? one of these the Protestants must needs defend, or else for very shame surcease the alleging of this text for the all-sufficiency of the written word. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop's allegations are too simple & childish to move the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against unwritten traditions & doctrines. a Deut. 4.2. Ye shall put nothing to the word that I command you, saith Moses, neither shall ye take aught there from, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you, thereby giving to understand, that every putting too or taking fro, is a breach of the commandment of the Lord. Against the exception which M. Bishop useth, that these words may be understood of commandments as well unwritten as written, M. Perkins answereth, that these words are as a preface to a long commentary or exposition of the written law, & therefore do import, that to the written law nothing is to be added, nothing to be taken from it, but that only was to be done, which is contained therein. Now howsoever M. Bishop dote, yet the case is plain, that because Moses spoke 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 books of the old Testament and of the Prophets written afterwards, if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught, but that one book of Deuteronomy? Behold a cozening Sophister, who seethe well, and knoweth, that save only by falsehood and deceit he availeth nothing. We say not that of the book of Deuteronomy only, but of the whole written law Moses said, Ye shall put nothing to it, etc. Again we do not say, that God did forbid any more books to be written or taught, but that no matter of doctrine, of faith, or of the worship of God, should be received, or written, or taught, but what was derived from the written law. Now than I wish thee gentle Reader to observe how the wise man in his own answer circumuenteth and overthroweth himself. Moses saith, Ye shall put nothing to the word which I command you, nor take aught therefrom; now tell us M. Bishop of what word did he say this? He telleth us, that we must understand it of the word whether written or unwritten. Be it so, but you will confess then, that to the word of God delivered by Moses, written or unwritten nothing is to be added, because the words of Moses plainly express so much, and how then came it to pass, that so many books were written afterwards? We hope you will not deny but that Moses therein taught the Israelites whatsoever was necessary to salvation: how then doth it stand, that the rest of the Prophets added so much more in writing? To use your own words, shall we think that the Prophets read not these words, or understood them not, or did wilfully transgress them? We would gladly hear whether of these you will say. The man is mute, and he hath nothing to answer: if he answer as he must, his answer fully serveth our turn, for defending the only written law of Moses, that the books that were after written by the Prophets, serve to explain and declare the law, & to show the experiment & practice of it, but add 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 delivered it to the Priests and to all the Elders of Israel, and commanded them saying, Every seventh year thou shalt read this law before all Israel. The law then which he gave them, he gave them in writing, that they might read it, & it might be read unto them. It could not have been said Moses wrote this law, if he had written but a part of it, and left another part unwritten. Nay, it is said further afterwards; d Ver. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book until he had finished them, than Moses commanded the Levites saying, Take the book of this law, and put it in the side of the Ark, etc. It is apparent then that Moses gave not over writing the words of the law, until he had finished them, that is, until 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 book of the law. And therefore that which is set down 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 every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them; thereby to show, that all the words of the law are written in the book of the law, & nothing left unwritten that was any part or parcel thereof. Thus when God would give direction to josuah, g josuah. 1.7. to observe and do according to all the law which Moses had commanded him, giving him charge according to the instruction of Moses here spoken of, not to turn away from it to the right hand or to the left, either by putting too or taking fro, to show what he meant by all the law he addeth, Let not this book of the law depart out of thy mouth, but meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe and do according to all that is written therein. Here again it is plain, that to observe all the law of Moses, is to observe all that is written in the book of the law. And out of this place Cyprian being urged by Stephanus Bishop of Rome with tradition, argueth against the receiving of unwritten traditions; h Cyprian ad Pompetum. unde est ista traditriot Virumnè de dominica & evangelica authoritate descendens, an de Apostolarum mandatis atque epistolu veniens? Ea enim fa●ienda esse quae scripta sunt, Deus testatur, & protonit jesus Nave diceus, Non recedet, etc. Whence is this tradition, faith he? Whether descendeth it from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or cometh it from the commandments and epistles of the Apostles? For that those things must be done which are written, God testifieth, saying to josuah, The book of this law shall not departed out of thy mouth, etc. Where he plainly showeth that out of these words he intendeth this conclusion, that concerning faith and devotion 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 clear by the place that we have here in hand: for if all that Moses commanded were written, and nothing was to be added to that that Moses commanded, than 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 understand that that is said of adding or diminishing as touching the written word. i Tertul adverse. Hermog. Adoro scripturae plemdinem etc. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: si non sit scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum. I reverence the fullness (or perfection) of the Scripture, saith Tertullian, Let the school of Hermogenes show me that that which he saith is written; if it be not written, let him fear the woe that is appointed to them that add 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 aut●m non sequuntur, & Apostolus per humanum exemplum vehementèr prohibeat aliquid in divinis scripturis vel addere vel demere, cum dicit, Hominis quidem Testamentum, etc. it is a manifest falling from faith, and an apparent sin of pride, either to refuse any thing that the Scripture hath, or to bring in any thing that is not written, seeing our Lord jesus Christ saith, My sheep hear my voice, they do not follow a stranger; and the Apostle by a human example greatly forbiddeth in the holy Scriptures either to add any thing, or take away, when he saith, A man's testament when it is confirmed, no man refuseth or addeth any thing to it. Hereby than it is plain, that the forbidding to add 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 only, and nothing therein 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 speak 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 Wizards and Soothsayers, but to the law and to the testimony, commending the written word as sufficient to resolve all doubts whatsoever. Answ. By the law and testimony in that place, the 5. books of Moses are to be understood: if that written Word be sufficient to resolve all doubts whatsoever, what need we then the Prophets? what need we the Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles? what Wizard would have reasoned in such sort? The Prophet willeth here, that the Israelites who wanted wit to discern whether it be better to fly unto God for counsel, then unto Wizards and Soothsayers, do see what is written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting-Wizards: which is there plainly forbidden in diverse places. Now out of one particular case, whereof there is express mention in the written word, to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoever are thereby to be decided, is a most unskilful part, arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blind Israelites. R. ABBOT. If M. Perkins had thought himself to be so wise as M. Bishop doth himself, we should certainly have condemned him for a wizard; what we think of M. Bishop in the mean time, we leave it to him to consider of. The Prophet in the place alleged, dehorteth the faithful from yielding to the wicked motions and counsels of hypocrites and unbelievers, who casting away all trust and confidence in God, and relinquishing the yoke of obedience to him, sought by other helps and means to secure and establish themselves against the dangers which they imagined to themselves: who as they had given themselves over to idolatry, so followed the course of idolaters in this behalf, and for advice and direction in such things as concerned them for their safety, they sought & taught one another to seek to Soothsayers, and such as used familiar spirits, and took upon them to call up the souls of dead men to give answer to such things as should be demanded of them. By them they would be instructed what to do, and what course to take for their own good, & hereby were hardened in their abominations and apostasy from God, to the further provocation of his wrath against themselves. He therefore advertiseth the faithful and godly not to join with them in any such doings, but when they should persuade them to inquire of any such wicked persons, rather to answer them a Esa. 8.19. Should not a people inquire at their God? Every nation seeketh to their own God. The Lord is your God, will ye not seek to him? will ye go for the living to them that are dead? Hereupon he addeth the words here questioned: b Vers. 20. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Wherein he giveth to the people of God a general direction to go to the law & to the testimony, to be instructed what ways they ought to walk in, and to hearken to none, to follow none but only such as speak unto them according to that word. The Prophets of God called men one way; false Prophets, wizards and Soothsayers called men another way; he teacheth them therefore a sure way to know to whom to commit themselves, by considering who spoke according to that word. Now to this the wizard giveth us 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 unto them, that they are not to consult with wizards, it is because there is no light in them, and who but a wizard would have made such a construction of the place? The Prophet teacheth them in general to seek to the law of God for advice and answer of such things as touching which they went to consult with wizards & soothsayers; to be directed thereby in seeking to provide for their own safety; thence to take resolution of their doubts; and to take it for certain, that they led them in darkness, whosoever should draw them to other ways than could be warranted thereby. c Basil. in Esa. cap. 8. Vnaquaeque natiorem ambagiosam & quaestionem de quae cupiebat edoceri suo proporebat Deo dissoluendan. Quos supponebant esse Deos, his offerebant diluendas inquisitiones suas Every nation, saith Basil upon that place, did propound to their God the doubt and question whereof they desired to be taught, to have resolution thereof: whom they took to be gods, to them they offered their questions to be answered. Therefore he showeth 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? Provide sedulò ut quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit, opere expleas diligentèr, & certus opperitor iucundissiman fruitionem repositorum tibi bonorum, etc. Bonis perfru● siquidem desideres, quae praescripta sunt mandata, opere exequitor. which God hath given, as to guide us by the hand, & to direct us the way. Wilt thou then, saith he, be certainly persuaded what shall hereafter befall thee? Provide diligently to do the things which the law commandeth thee to do, and wait assured of the most joyful fruition of the good things which are provided for thee. If thou desire to enjoy good things, perform the commandments that are prescribed unto thee. By Basils' judgement than it is plain, that the words have further meaning, then to refer than to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards. But Hierome goeth yet further, & tells us the meaning of the Prophet in this sort: e Hieron. in Esa. cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris, etc. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt mangis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum. If ye doubt of any thing, if ye would know the things that ye doubt of, refer yourselves to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures. What will M. Bishop say now, will he call Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophet's meaning to be, that the Scripture, the written word should resolve them of all that they doubted towards God? Yea & the law itself sufficiently warranteth us so to conceive. f Deut. 12.32. Whatsoever I command you, take heed you do it, saith Moses, thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught therefrom. Those words M. Bish. vulgar Latin expoundeth thus: g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino. What I command thee, that only do to the Lord, thou shalt put nothing thereto, etc. Now we have seen before, that Moses committed to writing whatsoever he commanded. If than 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 resolved 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 Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles? I have answered him before, but yet let me tell him here, that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord jesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament, when he was urged that Christ approveth the same in saying, I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil 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 Austin answereth him, that h August. count Faust. Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant, sed ut fierent quae scripta erant, quod ipsa eius verba iestantur; Non enim ait, Jo●a unum aut unus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt, sed donec omnia fiant. Christ came to fulfil 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 show: for he doth not say, Not one jot or title of the law shall pass, till the things be added which are wanting, but till all things be done. Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once again, that the Prophet's writings were no additions of doctrine, but only explanations of the law, and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do add nothing to the law, but only do further declare, and withal set forth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshowed & prophesied in the law. And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospel, professeth i Act. 26.22. to say no other things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come: so that to use the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis upon other occasion useth, though the Evangelists and Apostles spoke in a new manner, yet they spoke k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce, ut cùm dicas nouè non dicas nova. no new matter, or to allude to Saint Austin's 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, * joh. 20.31. These things were written, that ye might believe, that jesus is the Christ: & in believing, might have life everlasting. Here is set down the full end of the Gospel, that is, to bring men to faith, and consequently to salvation: to which, the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions. Answ. Here are more faults than lines: first, the text is craftily mangled, things being put instead of miracles. For S. john saith, Many other miracles Christ did, etc. but these were written, etc. Secondly, S. john saith not, that for faith we shall be saved, but believing we should have salvation in his name, which he clipped off: thirdly, remember to what faith S. john ascribes the means of our salvation, not to that whereby we apply unto ourselves Christ's righteousness, but by which we believe jesus to be Christ the Messias of the jews, and the Son of God, which M. Perkins also concealed. Now to the present matter, S. john saith, that these miracles recorded in his Gospel, were written, that we might believe jesus to be the Son of God; and believing, have salvation in his name, etc. Therefore the written word contains all doctrine necessary to salvation. Answ. S. john speaks not a word of doctrine, but of miracles: and therefore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him, is not to care what one saith. But M.P. foreseeing this, saith, it cannot be understood of miracles only; for miracles without the doctrine of Christ, can bring no man to life everlasting: true, and therefore that text speaking only of miracles, proveth nothing for the sufficiency of the written Word. Christ's miracles were sufficient, to prove him to be the Son of God, and their Messias: but that proveth not S. john's Gospel to contain all doctrine needful to salvation: for many other points of faith must be believed 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. john's Revelations? Finally, admit that S. john's Gospel were all-sufficient, yet should not Traditions be excluded; for Christ saith in it in plain terms, * joh. 16. that he had much more to say unto his Apostles, but they as then being not able to bear it, he reserved that to be delivered unto them afterward: of which high mysteries S. john recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christ's resurrection; and so many of them must needs be delivered by Tradition unwritten. R. ABBOT. More faults than lines, saith M. Bishop, but very slender proof doth he bring of any fault. First, he cavilleth that the text is mangled, and things put in instead of miracles. The words are thus: a joh. 20.30. Many other signs also did jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these things are written that ye might believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God, and that in believing ye might have life through his name. Where we translate the Greek relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being in the neuter gender, these things, because it hath not reference only to miracles mentioned in the former verse, but to the matter of the whole book, S. john here intending to set forth the end & purpose of all that he hath written. For being b Hier. Proem in Matth. Cum esset in Asia & tam tunc haereticorum seminae pullularent, Cerinthi, Hebionis, & caeterorun qui negant Christum in carne venisse, coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis & multarum Ecclesiarum legationibus de divinitate salvatoris altiùs scribere in Asia, as Jerome saith, and the seeds of heretics beginning to grow, of Cerinthus, Ebion and others denying Christ to have come in the flesh he was forced by almost all the bishops of Asia, and by messages from other churches, to write more deeply than the other Evangelists had done, of the divinity of our Saviour Christ. Here than he signifieth that he hath so done: these things (saith he) are written, that ye may believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God. Therefore Cyrill saith hereof: c Cyril. in joan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem evangelii manifestat. As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written, he manifesteth the intent of his Gospel. The first fault than pretended by M. Bishop is no fault, because the relative implieth generally what the Evangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospel. The second fault is ridiculously alleged; for when M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saved, how doth he mean it, or how doth any man mean it, but d Acts. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ? As touching the third point, it hath been e Of justification. Sect. 18. before declared, that to believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God, importeth the applying unto us of the merit and righteousness of Christ. For as a man may f Thom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art. 2. ad 3. Credere D●um non convenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei. Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat. believe that there is a God, or that God is, and yet be still an infidel, wanting that belief thereof which is properly the act of faith, as Thom. Aquinas noteth, so a man may in some sort believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God, & yet not so believe it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of justifying faith, because he believeth it not under such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith. If it be taken only for an act of understanding as the Papists take it, a man may believe it without any fruit, because the devils so believe: but the belief of the heart which the Scripture intendeth, importeth affiance, and trust, and inward feeling, and comfort of that which it believeth, whilst thereby we apply unto ourselves the benefit of the merit & passion of Christ, expecting thereby the remission of our sins. But now from noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a final answer, that because S. john speaketh of miracles, not of doctrine, therefore these words prove nothing for the sufficiency of the written word. Where M. Perkins exception still standeth unremoved, that because by miracles without doctrine we cannot attain to that faith whereby we believe that Christ is the Son of God: therefore the words of the Evangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only. For others did miracles, as great, yea g joh. 14.12. greater than Christ did, as by example we see when h Act. 5.15. by the shadow of Peter, and by i Chap. 19.12. napkins and handkerchifes from Paul's body the sick are healed, which we read not of Christ himself. By miracles therefore Christ is not discerned, unless by doctrine accompanying the same he be made known unto us, & therefore the words of the Evangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make use of the miracles of Christ. So S. Austin referreth the words both to those things which Christ did and said; k Aug. in Joan. tract. 49. Sanctus evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum & dixisse & fecisse quae scripta non sunt. Electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. The holy Evangelist testifieth, that Christ both did and said many things which are not written, and for the overthrowing of M. Bishop's answer, and justifying of our assertion he addeth: but those things were chosen to be written, which seemed sufficient for the salvation of them that believe. Cyril speaketh more expressly: l Cyril. in joan. lib. 12. cap. 68 Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt, sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quàm ad dogmata, ut recta fide & operibus & virtute rutilantes ad regnum coelorum perveniamus. All things which Christ did are not written, but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conversation as doctrine, that shining with right faith and virtuous works, we may attain to the kingdom of heaven. It is not then our collection only, but thus these ancient Fathers conceived, that of the miracles & doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct us to faith, to the attainment of everlasting life. And this is plainly delivered in the words of S. john, who could not say, These things are written that ye may believe, and believing may have eternal life, if there be not that written by the belief whereof we may obtain eternal life. Therefore as touching Saint john's Gospel containing all things needful to salvation, we answer him first, that indeed we affirm that there is no article of faith necessary to salvation, which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospel of S. john. Secondly, there is no cause so to restrain the words, as if Saint john would mean only in his Gospel to comprehend all that should be needful for the instruction of the Church. Nay he hath a plain reference to those things which were before written by Moses and the Prophets, who all prophesied of the Messias, the Christ and anointed of the Lord, in whom God should be God with us, who should procure our peace with God, the remission of our sins, and everlasting bliss. m Rom. 1.2. In their writings the Gospel was promised, n Cap. 3.21. they testified the righteousness of God by the faith of jesus Christ, to all, and upon all that do believe: o Act. 10.43. they gave witness that through his name every one that believeth in him should have forgiveness of sins: by them the doctrine of salvation was from time to time published to the Church. The perfection and accomplishment of this hope depended upon the incarnation, death, and resurrection of jesus Christ. These things in the p Gal. 4.4. fullness of time God made good; he sent his Son made of a woman, and made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law: who to that end q 1. Cor. 15.3. died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was buried, and arose the third day according to the Scriptures. It remained now that it should be known, that this was he whom the Father had sealed and sent for the working of our redemption. Therefore S. john to that effect saith, These things are written, that ye may believe that this jesus is that Messias, that Christ r joh. 1.41.45. of whom Moses in the law and of whom the Prophets did write, the hope of the Fathers, the light of the Gentiles, the glory of Israel, that so believing ye may according to the promise of God have life through his name. Albeit therefore he hath in his Gospel comprehended the sum of all that we believe, yet we may conceive that he useth those words not so much to set forth the fullness of that that he himself hath written, as to signify that he hath sufficiently set forth the accomplishment of those things which were written by Moses & the Prophets, in the belief whereof consisteth the obtaining of everlasting life. And yet thirdly without impeachment of any thing already said, it is very likely that S. john writing his Gospel last of all, & compiling together the 4. Gospels, spoke these words not only as touching that which he himself had written, but also of all written by the rest of the Evangelists, to signify the use thereof in such sort as I have said, to which Cyrils words before mentioned seem to have respect. But howsoever we will conceive thereof, we cannot doubt but that S. john would give to understand, that by the written Gospel and word of God, we are sufficiently instructed to that faith in Christ whereby we attain to live with him. As for M. Bishop's question, if S. john's gospel alone be sufficient, what need the other three gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, & c? it is but his cuckoos song, which he hath sung before. And he may even as well say, what needed any Evangelist to write any story which another had before written? when S. Matthew had written the passion of Christ, what needed the rest to mention again any thing that he had written? When S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians had first handled the question of justification, what need was there that he should handle it again in his Epistle to the Romans? When David's thanksgiving for deliverance from his enemies was set down in the 18. Psalm, what needed the same to be mentioned again in the s 2. Sam. 22.1. second book of Samuel? A number of such idle questions he might make of divers things set down in divers places in the very self same words, and of an infinite number of sayings which have other to answer than to the very same effect. But the wisdom of God hath thus thought good to provide for our salvation, not only sufficiently but abundantly, by the consent of divers persons writing diversly in divers places & and at divers times, to confirm us so much the more in the belief of those things that are written, to give us often occasion to remember and consider the same things, to exercise our meditation and study in comparing those things that are diversly set down, to sharpen our diligence in searching out the accord of those things that seem to differ, to set forth in the variety of his words the riches of his wisdom, that there may be therein both to edify the simple and weak, and yet to busy the heads and understanding of the learned, that it may neither be abhorred by the one nor contemned by the other. For these and other causes it hath pleased God that what is written sufficiently by one, should yet be written by other also. But M. Bishop in the end howsoever the matter go, provideth sufficiently for himself. For he telleth us finally, that although S. john's gospel were all-sufficient, yet should not traditions be excluded. And why so? for Christ saith in it in plain terms (saith he) that he had much more to say unto his Apostles, but they as then being not able to bear it, he reserved that to be delivered unto them afterwards. And how then must we think that he delivered those things? Marry of those high mysteries S. john recordeth not much in his gospel after Christ's resurrection, and so many of them must be delivered by tradition unwritten. Here thou seest (gentle Reader) a budget large enough to receive all the Pope's traditions: we shall not need to doubt now but that he will prove what he list: if it be for his turn without question it was one of those things that the disciples could not bear till after Christ was risen from the dead, and then he left it to them by tradition. But I would have thee to observe what a note S. Austin gave long ago concerning that speech of Christ: August. in joan. tract. 97. Omnes insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt au dacias figmentorum svorum quas maximè exhorret sensus humanut hac occasione evangelicae sententiae colorare conatur, ubi Dominus au, Adhuc multa, etc. quasi haec ipsa sint quae tunc discipul● portare non poterant. ᵗ All foolish heretics who yet desire to be called Christians, do seek to colour the presumptions of their devices, even such as human sense abhorreth, by the pretence of that sentence of the Gospel where Christ saith, I have many things yet to say unto you, but ye are not yet able to bear them; as if these were the things which the disciples than were not able to bear. M. Bishop then by alleging this place for the making good of their traditions, hath gained thus much, that we must now account him, as also his fellows, in the like case amongst foolish heretics, who affirming wicked & abominable devices which they cannot prove, will make us believe that they are things which Christ had to say to his disciples, and they were not able to bear them. But if Christ had left any such matters to be delivered by tradition, than it should undoubtedly be known which and what they were. We desire then by M. Bishop to be advertised particularly thereof, and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not bear. What, shall we think that Christ spoke of that trash which they deliver unto us under the name of traditions? But S. Austin again cutteth him off from all answer in that behalf: u Ibid. tract. 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit, quis nostrum dicat, ista vel illa sunt? aut si dicere audeat unde probat? Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiam vera quibus volverit, quae volverit, fine ullo testimonio divino affirmet ea esse quae tunc dominus dicere noluit? Quis hoc nostrum faciat & non m●ximam culpam remeritat● incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas. Seeing Christ himself hath been silent of those things, who of us can say, they are these & these? or if he dare to say it, how doth he prove it? For who is there so vain or so rash, who though he say things that are true, will affirm without any testimony from God that those are the things which Christ would not say? Which of us should so do, and not incur a note of great presumption, not having any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle? Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spoke, then M. Bishop can have no proof for their traditions hereby, because whereas his words import that S. john in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof, though not much after the resurrection 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 Saviour before hath said to his Apostles: x john 15.15. All things that I have heard of my Father, have I made known to you. And again in his prayer to the Father, y Chap. 17.8. I have given unto them (saith he) the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them. If Christ delivered all the words of God to his disciples before his death, than it must needs follow that he delivered no other words unto them after his resurrection. Therefore those many things which he had to speak unto them, are not to be understood of any other things than he had taught them before, but of a more full & perfect revelation, for the more full & perfect apprehension & understanding of the same things. To which purpose we are again to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection, that our Saviour here saith not, that he would declare those things unto them himself after his resurrection, 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 will lead you into all truth. Now how he should lead them into all truth, he hath before showed. a Chap. 14.26. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance which I have told you. He should teach them all things, not by teaching them other things, but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had been taught by Christ himself. Therefore here Christ saith further: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak. Whereby he importeth, that the holy Ghost should speak according to his example, and he still professeth that b chap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himself, that c Chap. 8.28. he doth nothing of himself, but as the Father hath taught me (saith he) so I speak these things. Christ spoke d Chrysost. de sanct. & adoran. spiritu. Non discessit à lege, non discessit à Prophetis, etc. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis, etc. A seipso enim loqui, extra legem loqui est. not of himself, as Chrysostom noteth, because he spoke out of the Law and the Prophets: for to speak of himself, is to speak without or beside the Law. So then the holy Ghost shall not speak of himself, but as Christ spoke according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets, so the holy Ghost should speak 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 speak unto them, and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to lead 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 john 20.9. know the Scripture, nor could do, until he should f Luk. 24.45. open their understanding that they might understand the same. Origen understandeth the words spoken to the Apostles g Origen. contra Cells. l. 2. Fortassis ut Judaeis & in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicendum quae sit vera lex, etc. Videns perdifficile esse ex animo revellere penè conata et usque ad grandem aetatem coalita dogmata, adeòque pro divinis habita ut amovere illa videretur imptum, etc. Jdeo dictum, Deducet vos in omnem veritatem, id est, in omnem veritatem earum rerum in quatum figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu Deum colere. as jews brought up in the letter of Moses law, our Saviour seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown up with them to those years which were taken to be of God, so as that it should seem impious to remove them. Therefore where Christ saith, The spirit shall lead 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 have been conversant, thinking thereby truly to worship God. Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops unwritten mysteries: here is nothing as Origen conceiveth, but that the spirit should afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law, which they were not yet well able to conceive. And therefore against all illusions of heretics pretending for their unwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost, as the Church of Rome doth, Chrysostom taking it for granted, that what Christ spoke is set forth unto us in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, giveth this most notable rule: h Chrysost ut supra. Si quis eorum qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctum, ex seipso loquitur, non ex Euangelijs, non credit. Venit Manes, & dicit, Ego sum Paracletus, etc. Vbi audisti in evangelio quòd Sol & Luna opifices sunt, etc. Vbi legisti haec● Ex quo non legit haec scripta, sed à seipso loquitur, manifestum est quòd non habet spiritum sanctum. If any of them who are said to have the holy Ghost, do speak any thing of himself, and not out of the gospels, believe it not. Manes cometh and saith, I am the comforter which Christ promised to the Apostles. Yea but where dost thou hear in the Gospel that the Sun and the Moon are creators? etc. Where readest thou these things? Because he readeth not these things written, but speaks of himself, it is manifest that he hath not the holy Ghost. He than that speaketh that that is not written, speaketh of himself; & hereby it is manifest unto us that it is not by the spirit of God, but by a false and lying spirit, that M. Bishop and the church of Rome do tell us of high mysteries delivered by Christ, which are not written in the Gospel of Christ. 8. W. BISHOP. This place of S. john, M. Perkins patcheth up with another of S. Paul: * Gal. 1.8. If we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you any thing besides that which we have preached, let him be accursed: And to this effect he blames them that taught but a divers doctrine to that which he had taught. * 1. Tim. 1.3. Answ. Now we must look unto this gentleman's fingers: there were three corruptions in the text of S. john, here is one, but it is a foul one. In steed of preaching unto them another gospel, he puts preach unto them any other thing: when there is great difference between another Gospel, and any other thing. The Gospel comprehendeth the principal points of faith, and the whole work of God's building in us: which S. Paul like a wise Architect * 1. Cor. 3.12. had laid in the Galathians: others his fellow-workmen might build upon it, gold, silver, & precious stones, with great merit to themselves and thanks from S. Paul. Marry if any should dig up that blessed and only foundation, and would lay a new one, him S. Paul holdeth for accursed. So that that falfication of the text is intolerable: and yet when all is done, nothing can be wringed out of it to prove the written word to comprehend all doctrine needful for salvation: for S. Paul speaketh there only of his Gospel, that is, of his preaching unto the Galathians, and not one word of any written Gospel: no more doth he in that place to Timothy, and so it is nothing to purpose. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop hath a quick nose to smell a fault in the citing of a text, where he can see none. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we translate to preach, because we have no English word that doth more nearly express the signification of it; and by preaching we always understand the declaring of the Gospel and word of God. The Rhemists according to their foolish manner, translate it to evangelize, but make English thereof, and let it be, to preach for Gospel, and then the words as they translate them are thus: a Gal. 1.8. Although we or an Angel from heaven preach for gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you for gospel, accursed be he. As we have said before, so now I say again, if any preach to you for gospel beside that which you have received, accursed be he. Now then M. Bishops correction, any other Gospel, is not found at all; but that which M. Perkins translateth, any other thing, is necessarily understood: for what is it to say, If any preach to you for gospel beside that which you have received, but if any preach to you for gospel any thing beside that? But here he will tell us what the Gospel is, and that he doth according to that wise manner as he is wont to do. The Gospel (saith he) containeth the principal points of faith, and the whole work of God's building in us. Where we would ask of him why he only saith the principal points of faith, when presently he addeth, the whole work of God's building in us? Surely if the Gospel contain the whole work of God's building in us, than it containeth not only the principal, but all the points of faith. Thus his pen still outruns his head, and giveth him not leave well to advise of that he saith. But the Apostle by these words giveth us to understand, that he had preached unto them the whole doctrine of the Gospel, & that this Gospel which he had preached unto them, is incompatible of any doctrine as any matter of the Gospel & doctrine of Christ beside itself. S. Austin well noteth that the Apostle doth not say b August. in Joan. tract. 98. Non ait plusquam accepistis, sed praeter quod accepistis. more than ye have received, but beside that which ye have received, as leaving them to increase more and more in that doctrine which they had received, but not to admit of any other doctrine beside that. Therefore Vincentius Lyrinensis hereof saith, c Vincen. Lyrin. Annuntiare aliquid Christianu Catholicu praeter id quod acceperunt nunquam licuit, nunquam licet, nunquam licebit; & anathemare eos qui ad●untient aliquid praeterquam quod semel acceptum est, nunquam non oportuit, nunquam non oportet, nun quam non opertebit. To preach to Catholic Christians any thing beside that which they have received, it never was lawful, it is never lawful, it never shall be lawful; and to accurse them who do preach any thing beside what was once received, it was always behoveful, it is always behoveful, and always shall be behoveful. What, will M. Bishop here challenge Vincentius Lyrinensis for falsification, because he saith any thing beside that? If he will not, then let him acknowledge his own folly in blaming M. Perkins where there was no cause of blame. Yet chrysostom will offend him somewhat more: d Chrysos. in Gal. cap. 1 Neque dixit. fi contraria annuntiaverint aut totum evangelium subverterint, verum si vel paulùm evamgelizaverint praeter evangelium quod accepistis, etiam si quiduis, labefactarint, anathema sint Paul doth not say, saith he, if they preach contrary things, or if they subvert the whole Gospel, but if they preach but even a little beside the Gospel which ye have received, if they weaken but any thing, accursed be they. But yet he excepteth that S. Paul speaketh only of his Gospel, that is, of his preaching to the Galathians, and not one word of any written Gospel, and therefore that nothing can be wringed out from hence to prove that the written word comprehendeth all doctrine needful to salvation. I answer him by the words of Irenaeus, e Jren. a●is. haeres lib. 3. cap. 1. Non per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quàm per eos per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt, postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scriptures nobis tr●diderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. We have not known the means of our salvation by any other but by them by whom the Gospel is come unto us, which they verily preached then (at first) but afterwards by the will of God delivered it unto us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. This was the ancient opinion and persuasion of the Church, that what the Apostles first preached, they afterwards committed to writing, esteeming that to be the safest and f Phil. 3.1. surest way, that hereby the Church might be armed against the practices of all deceitful and wicked heretics that would go about to bring in their own devices, under colour & show of the Apostles names. Because therefore whatsoever doctrine the Apostles preached is written, and by the ancient Church was holden so to be, they made no doubt to apply these words to the written Gospel, and to understand them to be accursed that preach any thing for doctrine of the Gospel, which is not thereby warranted unto us. Therefore chrysostom saith upon these words, that g Chrysost. in Gal. 1. Paulus etiam Angelis de coelo descendentibus praeponit Scripturas, idque valdè congruentèr: siquidem Angeli quamlibet magni, tamen seruisunt ac ministri: caeterum omnes Scriptura, non à servis sed ab universorum Domino Deo venerunt ad nos. Paul here preferreth the Scriptures before Angels coming from heaven, and that justly, saith he, for Angels albeit they be great, yet are but servants and ministers, but all the Scriptures came unto us not from servants, but from God the Lord of all. But let S. Austin briefly conclude this point, and show us to what these words are to be referred. h August. count lit. Petil. li. 3. ca 6. Sive de. Christo sive de eius ecclesia, sive de quacunque re alia quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dicit, Licet 〈◊〉 nos, sed omninò quod secutus adiecit, Si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scriptures legalibus et Euangelicis accepistis anathema sit. Whether concerning Christ, or concerning the Church of Christ, or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life, we will not say, if we, but even as he going forward addeth, If an Angel from heaven shall preach unto you but what ye have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel, accursed be he. The words of the Apostle to Timothy, of i 1. Tim. 1.3. commanding * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not to teach any other doctrine, sounding to the same effect as the other do, do yield us the like collection, as we have seen in them. 9 W. BISHOP. The fourth testimony. * 2. Tim. 3.16. The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct to righteousness, that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto every good work. In these words are contained (saith M. Perkins) two arguments to prove the sufficiency of Scripture: The first, that which is profitable to these four uses, to teach (all necessary truth is not in the text) to confute errors, to correct faults in manners, to instruct (all men in duty, is M. Perkins his addition to the text) that is sufficient to salvation. But the Scriptures serve for all these uses, etc. Answer. This text of holy Scripture is so far from yielding our adversaries two arguments, that it affordeth not so much as any probable colour of half one good argument. In searching out the true sense of holy Scripture, we must observe diligently the nature and proper signification of the words, as M. Perkins also noteth out of S. Augustine, in his sixth objection of this question; which if the Protestants did here perform, they would make no such account of this text: for S. Paul saith only, that all Scripture is profitable, not sufficient, to teach, to reprove, etc. How are they then carried away with their own partial affections, that cannot discern between profitable and sufficient. Good timber is profitable to the building of a house, but it is not sufficient without stones, mortar, and a Carpenter. Seed serves well, yea is also necessary to bring forth corn; but will it suffice of itself, without manuring of the ground, and seasonable weather? And to fit our purpose more properly, good laws are very profitable, yea most expedient for the good government of the commonwealth: but are they sufficient without good customs, good governors and judges, to see the same laws and customs rightly understood and duly executed? Even so the holy Scriptures (S. Paul affirmeth) are very profitable, as containing very good and necessary matter, both to teach, reprove, and correct: but he saith not, they are sufficient, or that they do contain all doctrine needful for these four ends. And therefore to argue out of S. Paul, that they are sufficient to all those purposes, when he saith only, that they are profitable to them, is plainly not to know, or not to care what a man saith: and to press such an impertinent cavil, so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do, is nothing else but to bewray unto the indifferent Reader, either their extreme ignorance, or most audacious impudency, that think they can face out any matter, be it never so impertinent. The same answer I make unto M. Perkins his second argument out of the same place, that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute, but not sufficient. I say moreover, that M. Perkins doth falsely English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures, when it signifieth all Scripture, that is, every book of scripture, and is there put, to verify that the old Testament only serves to instruct to salvation: for in the words next before, S. Paul showeth, how that Timothy from his infancy had been trained up in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, which (saith he) can instruct thee to salvation: and annexeth, as the confirmation thereof the text cited, All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, etc. Now in Timothy's infancy no part of the new Testament was written, and therefore all Scripture which is here put to prove that Scripture which Timothy in his infancy knew, cannot but by unreasonable wresting signify more than all the books of the old Testament. So that there are three foul faults in this the Protestants Achilles': The first in falsification of the text, that it might seem to be spoken of the whole, which is spoken of every part. The second, in applying that which is spoken of the old Testament unto both the old and new. The third, in making that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth only to be profitable. And this is all they can say out of the Scripture, to prove that the written word contains all doctrine needful to salvation: whereupon I make this invincible argument against them, out of their own position. Nothing is necessary to be believed, but that which is written in holy Scripture. But in no place of Scripture is it written, that the written word contains all doctrine needful to salvation, as hath been proved. Therefore it is not necessary to salvation to believe the written word to contain all doctrine needful to salvation. R. ABBOT. Here is a long discourse and a little answer, and gladly M. Bishop would wind out of this sentence of the Apostle, and it will not be. The whole words of the Apostle entirely set down, will make the Reader plainly to understand that he hath taken a great deal of pains, and said just nothing. Speaking to Timothy he saith, a 2. Tim. 3.15. Thou hast known the holy Scriptures of a child, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus. The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, being perfectly instructed to every good work. The first part of which words do sufficiently infer that which we affirm; for if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus, than they are sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to salvation. If they be not sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to salvation, then can it not be said, that they are able to make a man wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus. The force of these words cannot be deluded: every eye can see that if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus, than all doctrine necessary to faith and salvation is contained in the Scriptures. Now for confirmation hereof the Apostle addeth, The whole Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable to teach (the truth) to improve (false doctrine & error) to correct (vice and sin) to instruct in righteousness. From hence then we must infer that which before is said, that because the Scripture is able to direct a man in truth and righteousness, therefore it is able to make him wise unto salvation by faith in Christ: for in the embracing and following of truth and righteousness, consisteth the attainment of everlasting life. If any man will except and say, that though it teacheth the truth, yet it teacheth not all truth necessary to salvation, he wholly overthroweth the Apostles confirmation. For if it do not teach all truth necessary to salvation, than it is notable to make a man wise to salvation. It may be said to help towards it, but it cannot be said to be able to do it, if it contain not all things belonging to that wisdom that concerneth us for the obtaining of salvation. But the Apostle telleth us that it so doth the things by him mentioned, as that the man of God may be absolute or perfect, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. being perfectly instructed, or being furnished and prepared to every good work. The man of God is well known by the phrase of Scripture to import the minister of God, in which sort the Apostle hath before said to Timothy, b 1. Tim. 6.11. But thou O man of God fly these things, etc. Here therefore he giveth to understand that the Scripture is so able to make wise unto salvation, so able to instruct in truth and righteousness, as that therein the man of God, the minister of God findeth enough to make him perfect, and to prepare and furnish him to every good work. And if there be enough for the perfection of the minister of God, then surely it must needs follow that much more is it able to perfect every other man to that faith and righteousness that should bring us unto God. But here M. Bishop putteth us off with three wise answers, by which he would feign persuade us that we altogether err in the citing of these words. First he chargeth us with falsification of the text, because we read, the whole Scripture, whereas we should say, all Scripture, the Greek words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not importing as he saith the whole Scripture, but every part. But why is this on our part a falsification, more than it is in the Rhemists, to translate according to their vulgar interpreter, c Math. 8.32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole heard; d Ver 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole city; e Ephes. 4.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole body: and in their Latin f Heb. 2.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, per totum vitam, through their whole life, which they English, through all their life. If there be no falsehood in these translations, why must there needs be a falsification in ours? Yea and when it is all one with them to say, their whole life, and all their life, why must it be a fault in us to say, the whole Scripture, where they say, all Scripture. Surely but that malice blindeth itself, and will not see that that it doth see, they would conceive that all Scripture in this place can no otherwise be taken but to signify the whole Scripture, even as elsewhere by g Acts 20.72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. all the counsel of God we understand the whole counsel of God: in like sort as where it is said, h Gen. 18.25. Qui iudicas omnem terram, Thou which judgest all the earth, that is, the whole earth: i Chap. 35, 2. Conuocata omni domo, calling together all his house, that is, his whole house: k Exod. 12.41. Egressus est omnis exercitus Domini de terra Aegypti, All the army of the Lord departed out of the land of Egypt, that is, the whole army: l Chap. 17.1. Profecta est omnis multitudo filiorum Israel, All the multitude of the children of Israel went out of the desert of Sin, that is, the whole multitude: m Levit 8.3. Congregabis omnem coetum Israel, Thou shalt gather together all the congregation of Israel, that is, the whole congregation: with infinite other examples of the like sort. And seeing the Apostle, when in the proposition, the Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation, must needs be understood to mean collectiuè, the whole Scripture, because it cannot be said of every part of the Scripture that it is able so to do, what is it but wilful dotage to understand all Scripture as meant otherwise in the proof? Especially when it is so apparent, that that which the Apostle affirmeth in the proof, fitteth to the whole Scripture, and so inferreth that which is propounded to be proved, but cannot agree to every part of the Scripture, because every part of the Scripture is not profitable to all those uses, to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct in righteousness. He will say that those uses are not all jointly to be understood, but by disjunction, every part is profitable either to teach, or to improve, or to correct, or to instruct in righteousness, though it be not profitable to all these. But in thus saying he quite overthroweth the Apostles confirmation, for it doth not follow, that because every part of the Scripture is profitable either to teach, or to improve, or to correct, or to instruct in righteousness, therefore the Scriptures are able to make a man wise to salvation, because that may be said of the first chapter of Genesis, or any other like, that it is profitable either to teach, or to improve, or to correct, or to instruct in righteousness, that is, to one or other of these uses, and yet it cannot be said, that it is able to make a man wise to salvation through the faith which is Christ jesus. Therefore the words of the Apostle must be understood of the whole scripture, which being able to teach, to improve, etc. is consequently able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ. And hereby his other cavil is taken away, that we make that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth only to be profitable. For the Apostle nameth not profitable as to diminish any thing from sufficiency, but reckoning it to be profitable to all those uses that he expresseth, he leaveth it plainly to be understood, that it is sufficient to that that he would conclude thereby. For unless it be in such sort profitable, as that it be sufficient to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct, it cannot be able to make a man wise to salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus. Therefore Athanasius alluding as it seemeth to this place, saith, n Athan. contra Gentes, sive cont. idola. Sufficiunt quidem per se sacra & divinitùs inspiratae Scriptura ad veritatis instructionem. The Scriptures being holy and inspired of God, are by themselves sufficient to the instruction of truth. M. Bishop's instances therefore are frivolous and vain. Timber is profitable for the building of a house, but it is not profitable for all those uses that concern the building of a house, and therefore is not sufficient. But the Apostle noteth the Scripture to be profitable for all those uses that concern the building of the house of God; and because it is so, therefore it is sufficient for that building. The second is against himself, for although there must be one to sow the seed, yet the seed itself is sufficient wherewith to sow the ground: and even so, although there must be one to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct, yet the holy Scripture is sufficient wherewith to do all these. Thirdly, good laws are profitable (saith he) for the good government of the Commonwealth, but they are not sufficient without good governors and judges. And be laws never so sufficient for the commonwealth, yet they avail nothing without governors and judges serving to put them in execution. Even so we say, that albeit the holy scriptures do sufficiently instruct us what doctrine is to be taught, yet all is vain if there be none to teach it. But what a witless cavil is this, that when question is of the doctrine of the Scriptures, whether it be so sufficient as that they which teach are to teach no other, they object that the doctrine of the scriptures is not sufficient without one to teach? We tell him therefore again, that, as where laws are sufficient to govern by, good governors and judges being necessary for execution thereof, are to judge and govern only by laws; so the doctrine of the holy Scriptures being sufficient to teach by, though teachers be necessary for the teaching thereof, yet they are to teach nothing but only by the Scripture, and therein only is it that we affirm the sufficiency of the Scripture. But in human laws that sufficiency is never found, they never fit all occasions and uses of the common wealth, never meet with all inconveniences and mischiefs, never determine all controversies and causes, never provide so perfectly for the right, but that it proveth to some man's wrong, and therefore though they be profitable, yet they are not profitable every manner of way. In the holy Scripture the Apostle teacheth us it is otherwise, it serveth us for all occasions towards God; there is nothing that concerneth us, but either by teaching or reproving, or correcting or instructing, it apply itself unto us: o Cyprian. de dupl. martyr. Nullus est animorum morbus cui non praesens remedium divina scripturae suppeditat. There is no sickness of the mind (saith Cyprian, referring himself to these words of the Apostle) to which the holy Scripture yieldeth not a present remedy: p Chrysost in 2. Thes. hom. 3. Omnia clara sunt & manifesta ex scripturis divinis; quaecunque necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt. All things are evident and clear (saith chrysostom) by the holy Scriptures, whatsoever things aye necessary they are manifest. The scriptures therefore are in such sort profitable, as that they are sufficient also fully to instruct us as touching the means of obtaining eternal life. As for customs, they may have their place and use amongst the laws of men, but amongst the laws of God they have no place. q Cypr li. 2. ep. 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est, non est attendendum quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Because Christ only is to be heard (saith Cyprian) we are not to regard what any before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ first did, who is before all: for we are not to follow the custom of men, but the truth of God. r Tertul. de verlan. virg. Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominavit. Christ (saith Tertullian) called not himself custom but truth. M. Bishop therefore dealeth but idly to allege the exorbitant and lawless customs of commonwealths, as a colour for traditions in the church of Christ. His last exception is, that the Scriptures here spoken of which Timothy knew from his infancy, could be no other but the scriptures of the old Testament, because no part of the new Testament was then written, and therefore that that is here said cannot but by unreasonable wresting signify more than the old Testament, charging us hereupon with falsification in applying it to both the old and new. Where the vain man doth not see that he exceedingly strengtheneth the argument against himself; for if S. Paul could say that the scriptures of the old Testament were able to make a man wise unto salvation by the faith of Christ, how much more is it true of the scriptures now that they are able so to do, when as by the new Testament so much light is added for the cleared of the old? The doctrine which the Apostles preached in the new Testament, they confirmed by the old. They taught no other faith but what was contained therein, only the faith was more plainly and clearly delivered by them, because as S. Austin saith, s August. de catech. rud. In veteri testamento est ocultatio novi: in novo testamento est manifestatio veteris. in the old Testament the new is hidden, and in the new Testament is the manifesting of the old. t Idem in joan. troth. 45. Tempora variata sunt non fides, etc. Eadem fides utrosque contungit. The times (saith he) are divers, but the faith is one. Seeing then the old Testament was sufficient to instruct men to the faith of Christ, and the instruction thereof notwithstanding is much more manifestly delivered in the new, and no other faith is taught in the new Testament than is contained in the old, who doth not see that the conclusion standeth strong on our part, that much more the scripture now containeth all doctrine necessary to instruct us to the faith of Christ? Albeit it is not true which M. Bishop saith, that S. Paul meaneth here only the scriptures of the old Testament. For although when Timothy was a child, there were no other scriptures but only of the old Testament, yet when Paul wrote these words to Timothy, the greatest part of the books of the new Testament were extant. He wrote this epistle newly before his death, as appeareth by that he saith, u 2. Tim. 4.6. I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departing is at hand. He had then written all the rest of his epistles, as we may easily conceive, neither is it likely but that the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, with the Acts of the Apostles, were written before that time, the first by S. Matthew being testified to be written at the time of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, & x Jren. li. 3. ca 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorum lingua scripturam edidit evangelii cum Petrus et Paulus Romae evangelizarent, et fundarent Ecclesiam. founding the Church there, where S. Luke makes an end of the history of the Acts of the Apostles, after which being not long after the beginning of the reign of Nero, the Apostle lived for the space of 12. or 13. years, being put to death in the y Func. Chronol. 14. year of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest, because he died z Hieron. in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno, & sepultus Alexandria. in the 8. year of Nero, as Hierome testifieth, six years before S. Paul's death, and therefore before the writing of this epistle. The like also is plain of the former epistle of S. Peter, as appeareth for that his second epistle was written about the same time that S. Paul wrote this second epistle to Timothy, S. Peter being put to death at the same time as S. Paul was, and saying as he doth in the same second epistle: a 2. Pet. 1.14. I know that the time is at hand that I must lay down this my tabernacle. Now therefore so many of the books of the new Testament being extant at that time, who can doubt but that the Apostle naming all Scripture did speak of those books, unless he will be so mad as to say, that at that time they were no Scriptures? And as when we say that a man hath known the laws from a child, we do not mean to restrain his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child, but will signify his knowledge also of such laws as have been since made: even so when the Apostle saith, that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child, he would give to understand, that he was conversant not only in the Scriptures that then were, but also in such other as from time to time thenceforward were written for the same use. Nay who would make question, but that the Apostle setting down by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture, would hereby give us to understand what to conceive of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards? Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing, to take away the evidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle, and the Protestants Achilles is stronger than that he may take upon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith. But yet well far a good stomach, for though he have said as good as nothing, yet he setteth a good face upon the matter, and concludeth this point with an invincible argument, like the invincible navy of Spain: Nothing is necessary to be believed but that which is written in holy Scripture. Very true. But in no place of Scripture is it written, that the written word contains all doctrine needful to salvation, as hath been proved. But that is not true: the proofs that it doth so, are pregnant and clear; but his proofs to the contrary are childish and vain, and therefore his conclusion cannot hold. In steed therefore of his presumed and invisible argument, we wish him to consider of this, Whatsoever the written word teacheth us of itself, that is necessary to be believed. But the written word teacheth us concerning itself, that it is able to make us wise to salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus. It is necessary therefore for us to believe that it can so, and therefore to reject all doctrine that cannot be approved and warranted thereby. 10. W. BISHOP. And by the same principle I might reject all testimony of Antiquity as needless, if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold. Yet let us hear what testimony M. Perkins brings out of antiquity in favour of his cause. Tertullian * De resur. carni● saith, Take from heretics the opinions which they defend with the Heathens, that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone, and they cannot stand. Answ. Here Scripture alone is opposed (as every one may see) unto the writings of heathen authors, and not to the traditions of the Apostles: and therefore maketh nothing against them. Again, saith M. Perkins out of the same author: We need no curiosity after jesus Christ, nor inquisition after the Gospel, when we believe it, we desire to believe nothing besides it: for this we must believe, that there is nothing else which we may believe. Answer. By the Gospel there is understood all our Christian doctrine written and unwritten, and not only the written word of the four Evangelists, else we should not believe the Acts of the Apostles, or their Epistles, no more than traditions: which Christian doctrine written and unwritten, we only believe by divine faith; to all other authors we give such credit as their writings do deserve. If any man desire to see Tertullia's judgement of traditions, let him read his book of prescriptions against heretics, where he averreth that traditions serve better than the Scriptures themselves to confute all heresies, heretics always either not allowing all the books of Scripture, or else perverting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures. And in his book de Corona militis, he formally proposeth this question, whether traditions unwritten are to be admitted or no? and answereth by many instances, that they must be received, concluding thus: For these and the like points if thou require law out of the Scriptures, thou shalt find none: but Tradition is alleged to be the author of them, Custom the confirmer, and Faith the observer. So that nothing is more certain than that Tertullian thought unwritten Traditions necessary to be believed. R. ABBOT. It followeth not that antiquity is needless, though all doctrine needful to salvation be contained in the scriptures, because antiquity giveth us many good and profitable helps for attaining to the understanding of many places and stories of the scripture, when yet it teacheth us to admit of no doctrine but what is proved thereby. The first testimony alleged by M. Perkins is out of Tertullian, a Tertul. de resurr. carn. Aufer haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt (sive ut aliàs legitur, quaecunque Ethnici saepiunt) ut de scriptures solis quaestiones suas sistant & stare non poterunt. Take from heretics what they conceive like the heathen, or what the heathen conceive, that they may determine their questions only by the Scriptures, and they cannot stand. M. Bishop telleth us for answer, that Tertullian opposeth Scripture alone to the writings of heathen authors, not to the trrditions of the Apostles, and therefore maketh nothing against them. But Tertullian speaketh not any thing there of heathen authors, but of heathenish reasons & fancies whereby heretics plead against the mysteries of faith, as there he giveth example by the resurrection of the dead. He requireth them to forego these, and to bring their questions only to the Scriptures, or to the Scriptures alone. Now to say that he opposeth not Scripture alone to the traditions of the Apostles, is a ridiculous evasion, when as by calling them thus to only Scripture, he giveth to understand that he knew no such traditions belonging to matters of doctrine and faith, for determining of questions that might arise thereof. For whether he oppose the same to heathen authors or to heathenish reasons, we may well take it to be absurd, that he should require heretics to be brought only to Scripture, if it be as M. Bishop telleth us, that questions cannot be determined only by the Scriptures, or if he thought any other means to be as necessary as the Scriptures for the determining of them. But this sentence hath not so much strength by itself, as it hath by that that is cited together with it: b Idem de Prescript. Nobis non est opus curiositate post Christum jesum, nec inquisitione post evangelium. Cùm hoc credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc enim priùs credimus non esse quod ultra credere debemus. We need no curiosity after Christ jesus, nor inquiry further after the Gospel: when we believe that, we desire to believe no more: for this we believe, that there is nothing further for us to believe. Where when M. Bishop saith, that by the Gospel is to be understood all our Christian doctrine, so far he saith truly, but when he addeth, written or unwritten, he beggeth the question, and his Commentary goeth without the compass of Tertullia's text. He should by plain example or reason have given us to understand, that Tertullian by the Gospel importeth any doctrine unwritten: otherwise he may well think that we scorn his interpretation, having no warrant of it but his own word. Tertullian spoke of the Gospel as the Apostle doth, who saith, c Rom. 1.2. that God before promised it by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures, and that it was d Cap. 16.26. opened and published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets. We have heard before out of Irenaeus, that e Sect. 8. the Gospel which the Apostles first preached, they afterwards committed to writing, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith, and out of chrysostom, that f Sect. 7. to speak any thing that is not written, is to speak of himself, and not out of the Gospel. So doth Basil of the word of God and Scripture, make one and the same thing, and denieth that there is any word of God beside the Scripture, saying: g Basil Ethic. reg. 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est, peccatum est, sicut dicit Apostolus, fides veró ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Dei, ergo quicquid extra divinam Scripturam est, cum ex fide non sit, peccatum est. If what soever is not of faith be sin, and faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, than whatsoever is beside the holy Scripture, because it is not of faith is sin. If there be no Gospel but written, no word of God but Scripture, then surely Tertullian when he saith that we need no inquiry further after the Gospel, taketh away Traditions, and leaveth no place for doctrine unwritten. Whereas he saith, that by the Gospel is not understood only the written word of the four Evangelists, he talketh idly, because no man understood it so. The doctrine delivered in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, is no less the doctrine of the Gospel, then that that is recorded by the four Evangelists. But here to see Tertullia's judgement of traditions, he referreth his Reader to the same Tertullia's book of Prescriptions against heretics. Now this sentence alleged by M. Perkins was taken out of that book, although he quoted not the place, which M. Bishop knew not, because indeed he had never read the book. Therefore this that he here faith, he saith it only by hearsay, and for aught he knoweth Tertullian may as well speak against Traditions, as any thing for them. And the truth is, that Tertullian speaketh no otherwise for Traditions, then doth Irenaeus whom he cited before in his Epistle to the King, whom I have showed to make nothing at all for M. Bishop's purpose. The occasion of both their speeches was the same, having to do with wicked and blasphemous heretics, who admitted h Tertullian. de Prescript. Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas, & si quas recipit adiectionibus & detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit, & si recipit non recipit integras, & si aliquatenus integras praestat, nihil●minùs d●uersas expositiones commentatae conuer●it. of the scriptures no otherwise then they lift themselves, rejecting the books that specially made against them, and by additions & detractions framing the books which they did receive to serve their own turn, and by their wicked glosses wresting the words of scripture to the maintenance of their damnable errors. They took upon them to know more than the Apostles, saying, that the holy Ghost which Christ promised to send, was not given to the Apostles, but to them, so that the Montanists affirmed, that i Dicunt Paracletum plura in Montano dixisse, quàm Christum in evangelium protulisse. the holy Ghost spoke more things in Montanus, than Christ did commit to the Gospel, and not only more, but greater and better things. When they were urged by the teachers of the Church with these corruptions and falsifications, k Haec & ipsi habent in nos retorquere, &. à nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum & expositionum earum mendacia inferri etc. they were ready to answer, that the corrupting of the Scriptures and false expositions thereof were rather found with them: by means whereof there was no end of reasoning with them, because they could hold them to no certain grounds whereupon to proceed against them. Hereupon Tertullian referred men as Irenaeus did, to consider the Churches planted by the Apostles, and which had had continuance of Pastors and teachers from them, by them to learn what faith and doctrine was delivered by the Apostles, as not doubting but what they delivered was the truth, as l Supra sect. 4. who devised nothing of their own, but faithfully assigned to the nations the doctrine which they had received of Christ. He setteth it down as a principle, that undoubtedly m Hoc propono, unum & certum aliquid institutum esse a Christo quod credere omni modo debeant nationes. there was some one and certain thing appointed by Christ for the nations to believe: that whatsoever that was, Christ undoubtedly delivered it to his Apostles, n Duodecim praecipuos lateri suo adtegerat destinatos nationibus magistros, etc. Si Christus Apostolos misit ad praedicandum, (praescribimus) non alios esse recipiendos Praedicatores, quàm quos Christus instituit. whom he chose to be teachers of all nations, and therefore that no other Preachers are to be received but whom Christ appointed: that to say that either the Apostles knew not all things, or did not make known all things to all men, is o In utroque Christum reprehensions subijcientes, qui aut minus instructos, aut parum simplices Apostolos miserit. to reprove Christ as sending Apostles either unsufficient, or not dealing simply and plainly. Taking it then for granted, that the Apostles delivered all truth to the Church, he moveth another doubt that haply the Churches had erred, and forsaken that which at first was delivered by the Apostles. To this therefore he answereth, that p Quid verisimile est, ut tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverinit Nullus inter multos eventus unus est exitus: variassedebuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum. Caeterum quod apud multos vn● invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum. it is not likely, if the Churches had erred, that being so many and so great, they should in error light all upon one faith; that they would surely have varied in their error one from another, because where there are many going but by hap, they cannot all happen upon the same end. Therefore what with many is found one (saith he) it is no matter of error, but that that was first delivered unto them. He goeth on further to show, that it is the mark of truth q Ab excessis reuertor ad principalitatem veritati & posteritatem mendacitati deputandan, exillius quoque Parabolae patrocinio, etc. Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum & verum quod sit prius traditum id autem extraneum & falsum quod sit posterius immissum. to be first, and that what cometh in after is to be reputed a lie, as appeareth by the Parable wherein the good seed or wheat was first sowed, and then afterwards the tars. Thus by the order it is so manifest (saith he) that that is of the Lord, and true, which was first delivered, but that strange and false, which is afterwards come in. Now if any of them would dare to challenge to themselves the antiquity of the Apostles, he willeth them r Siquae audent se interserere aetati Apostolicae, ut ideò videantur ab Apostolis traditae, quia sub Apostolis fuerunt, possumus dicere. Acdant ergo originos Ecclesiarum suarum, evoluant ordinem Episcoporum svorum, etc. to show the original of their Churches, and the succession of their Bishops from the Apostles, which if there had been any such, they might easily have done, this being very little more than a hundred years after the time of the Apostles. But withal he declareth, that such opinions of theirs as were mentioned in the time of the Apostles, s Quae tunc sub Apostolis fuerunt, ab ijsdem Apostolis & demonstratae & deierata. were by the Apostles showed & renounced, whereof he giveth sundry examples, of denying the resurrection, of observing circumcision, of forbidding marriage, of denying the Godhead or manhood of Christ, of worshipping Angels, and such like condemned in the writings of the Apostles. t N●m & sic facilitis traducentur dum aut iam tunc fuisse deprehenduntur aut ex illis quae tunc fuerunt semina sumpsisse, etc. Sive ergo taedem nunc sunt aliquanto expolitiores, quae sub Apostolis rudes habent suam exinde damnationem: sive aliae quidem illae fuerunt aliae autem posteà o●o●tae sunt, & quasdam ex illu op●niones usurpaverunt habendo cum eu consoretum praedicationis, habeant etiam necesse est consortium damnationis, etc. Et si nihil de damnaticijs participarentur, de aetate sola praeiudicatentur, tantò magis adviterae, quantò nec Apostolis nomin●iae. unde fi●m●●● constat has esse quae adhuc tunc nunt rebantur futurae. Thus (saith he) they shall the more easily be traduced, whilst they are found either to have been then, or to have taken any seeds from those that were then. For whether they be now the same somewhat more polished and fined, which in the Apostles times were yet rude and unfashioned, they have their condemnation from thence; or whether they were one then, and other have since sprung up, which yet have borrowed some opinions from them, surely in being partakers with them in their preaching, they must needs also be partakers of their condemnation. And albeit they did not participate with those that were so condemned, yet (saith he) there should prejudice be taken against them only for their latter age, being so much the rather corruptions of the truth, for that they are not so much as named by the Apostles; whence it is so much the more certain, that they are those which then it was foretold should be in time to come. Hereupon he referreth his Reader to sundry particular churches, u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolica● apud quas ipsae ad●uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur, etc. Proxima est tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non long es à Macedonia, habes Philippos, etc. si Italiae adiace●, hebe's Romanam, etc. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur: unum Deum novit, Creatorem vniu●sita●●●: & jesum Christum ex Virgin Maria, filium Creatoris, & carnis resurrectionem: legem & Prophet's cum Euangelicis & Apostolicis literis miscet & inde fidem portat eam, etc. where were still Bishops in the seats of the Apostles, and their authentical Epistles were still read, as of the Corinthians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians, the Romans, which together with the African Churches acknowledged one God, the Creator of the whole world, and jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary, the Son of the Creator, and the resurrection of the flesh; joining the law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, and thence deriving that faith. Thus had he before set down the doctrine and faith, which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to uphold and maintain: x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur v●um omninò Deum esse, nec alium quàm mundi Creatorem, qui universa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum, etc. Superest ut demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina, cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur. The rule of faith is this, to believe that there is one only God, and the same no other but the Creator of the world, who by his word first of all sent forth, made all things of nothing. The same word called his Son, was under the name of God diversly seen of the patriarchs, evermore 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 womb, and being borne of her, did the part of jesus Christ: preached thenceforth the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, wrought miracles, and being nailed to a cross, rose again the third day, and so forth according to the articles of Christian belief. Upon the assertion of this rule he inferreth, that y Si haec ita se habent, ut veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo tradidit, constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad ean●è de Scriptures provocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non perti●ere. sith the truth must be adjudged to them who walk in that rule which the Church had delivered from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, it was hereby assured which he had before propounded, that the heretics were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures, who without the Scriptures were proved to have no title to the Scriptures. Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith, that z Illic igitur & Scripturarun & expositionum adulteratio deputanda est, ubi diversitas muenitur doctrinae. Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi, necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae. Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere, nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius, ita & nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur. Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris? quid de proprio i●tulimus, ut aliquid contrarium ei & in Scriptures deprehensum detractione vel adiectione, vel transmutatione remediaremus? Quod sumus, hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quàm sumus. the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof, must be reckoned to be there where there was found diversity 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 contrary side he saith: As their corrupting of doctrine could not have success without corrupting of the instruments thereof; so neither could integrity or soundness of doctrine have stood with us, without the integrity of those instruments by which doctrine is handled. For in our Scriptures what is there contrary to us? What have we brought in of our own, that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrary, we should remedy by adding or taking away, or changing any thing? What we are, the same are the Scriptures even from their beginning. From them we are ever since there was nothing otherwise then we are. This is the brief sum of all that Tertullian in that book saith, pertinent to the matter here in hand, wherein as there is nothing in favour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth, so there is much to be observed for the oppugning and convincing thereof. First, it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the avouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture, but only for justifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture. The heretics oppugned the main and fundamental grounds of Christian faith, concerning the unity 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 rejected such whole books, and razed such testimonies of Scripture as evidently made against them, affirming the same not to have been written by the Apostles, or by any divine 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 reform those things which the Apostles had written. Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by clear testimony of Scripture, yet the authority of Scripture being rejected and refused, it was necessary for many men's satisfaction to take some other course for the convicting of them. b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat evangelia dum vitiat. Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. Emendatores Apostolorum. Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolic Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted, and had successively continued from the time of the Apostles, that by the testimony of those Churches it might appear, both that the Scriptures were authentical and true, and that the doctrine avouched against the Heretics, was no other but what the Apostles themselves by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures delivered to the Church. In which case they did nothing else but what we also have done, when upon exception taken against us, as using the Scriptures partially for the maintenance of our religion, which yet every eye may see to be clearly justified thereby, we have further alleged the tradition of the Church, and showed by pregnant and express testimony and witness of the ancient Fathers and Counsels, both that we acknowledge all those Scriptures which were with them undoubtedly approved for Canonical, and do gather no other assertions or doctrines, but what by them were gathered from thence. And if M. Bishop will not hereupon conclude us to be patrons of their traditions, as we suppose he will not, then let him know that he abuseth Tertullian, in seeking to make him a supporter thereof, who did nothing in effect but what we do: let him take knowledge of his own singular falsehood and treachery, in alleging a speech of tradition, which importeth no more but the written doctrine of the Scripture, thereby to colour their traditions, which are both beside and contrary to the Scripture. Yea and his treachery is so much the greater, in this general naming of Tertullia's book of Prescriptions as making for their traditions, for that Tertullian, which is secondly here to be noted, doth plainly affirm, that what they are, the Scriptures are, that is, that they taught nothing but what the Scripture had taught them, yea and that integrity of faith could not have stood with them, but by the integrity of the Scriptures, by which the doctrine of faith is managed and taught, thereby signifying that albeit by the importunity of heretics they were forced to appeal to the tradition of the Churches, yet that neither their safety, nor the safety of the Churches to which they appealed stood in tradition, but in having the Scriptures entire as they were first delivered unto them, that out of them they might teach what was first delivered. Yea and that so, as they needed no adding to the Scriptures, nor taking from them, nor changing of any thing, for the saluing of any thing which they taught, whereby it appeareth, that he meant not to leave any place for unwritten doctrines, or any such traditions as the Church of Rome defendeth against the plain letter and express word of holy Scripture, only by taking upon her to make such meaning thereof as may not touch her devices, howsoever they contain impious idolatry & blasphemy against God, and the apparent dishonour of the name of Christ. Again, we are to note, that he teacheth it to have been some one certain matter of doctrine, which Christ at the first delivered to his Apostles, and the Apostles to the Church: that that only is true which was thus delivered at first, but whatsoever since hath come in, is erroneous and false. To which purpose elsewhere also he giveth this prescription, that c Contr. Marc. lib. 3 Illic pro●ūcianda est regulae interuersio ubi posteritas invenitur. we are there to affirm the perverting of the rule, where there is found laternesse of time: and again, that d Ibid. lib. 4. Ei praescribens outhoritatem quod antiquius reperietur, & ei prescribens vitiationem quod posterius revincetur. authority is to be yielded to that that is the more ancient, but that to be preiudicated of corruption, which shall be proved to be the later. Therefore in the words formerly alleged, we see he maketh it a certain mark of corruption and falsehood, not to have been named or mentioned by the Apostles. Now if by this prescription we examine the doctrine of Popery, we shall easily perceive and find, that in it is the perverting of the rule, as wherein there are so many devices never mentioned by the Apostles, yea which had neither name nor place for many hundreds, yea some not for a thousand years or more after the time of the Apostles, as hath been declared before in answer of the Epistle to the King. This is a true and certain rule, and necessary to be observed, and we learn thereby to condemn for novelties and human presumptions, whatsoever hath not warrant from the beginning, and to admit of no faith or doctrine, but what the Church received immediately from the Apostles, and the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. And because what Christ received from God hath witness of the law and Prophets, as we have seen before out of chrysostom: therefore we are to know, that there is no doctrine truly affirmed as belonging to the new Testament, which hath not confirmation and testimony from the old. Fourthly, we see that albeit Tertullian did refer his Reader to Tradition, yet he took not this witness of tradition only from the Church of Rome, but also from other Churches which were founded by the Apostles as well as it. So doth he also in another place, saying: e Contra Marc. lib. 4. V●deamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthij hauserintiad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti, quidlegant Philip penses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesij, quid etiam Romani de proxime sonent, quibus evangelium & Petrus & Paulus sanguine suo signatum relic runt Haebemus & joannis alum ●as Ecclesias, etc. Let us see what milk the Corinthians did draw from Paul, by what rule the Galathians were reform; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians do read; what the Romans also near unto us do teach, to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed with their blood. We have also the Churches which were taught by S. john, etc. And although in his prescriptions he name it as the honour of the Church of Rome, that the Apostles Peter and Paul did with their blood utter f De prescript. Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sanguine su● profuderunt. all their doctrine to that Church, yet doth he not name it as a thing proper and peculiar to it, in as much as S. Paul plainly affirmeth, that to the Church of Ephesus also he had preached g Act. 20.27. all the counsel of God, and thereby leaveth us to understand, that he did the like to all the Churches. Herby then we descry the notable fraud of M. Bishop and his fellows, who now hang the authority of all tradition only upon the Church of Rome, and will have nothing authentical from other Churches but only from that Church. For although Tertullian might safely argue from tradition in the consent of many Churches, and might conclude it undoubtedly to have been delivered from the Apostles, which was uniformly received by them all, when as none of them had power to obtrude or thrust upon other Churches any doctrines devised by themselves, and especially being so soon after the time of the Apostles as before was said, yet can no such assurance be builded upon any one Church, and that so many hundreds of years after, and especially such a Church as by tyranny and usurpation hath compelled other Churches to be subject unto it, thereby enforcing upon them whatsoever it pleaseth to devise for the serving of it own turn, and wherein there have been so many innovations and alterations, as that their varieties & uncertainties from age to age, do show that they are departed from that one certain rule, which Christ and his Apostles first delivered to the Church. To conclude, Tertullian teacheth us to take knowledge of such heresies or falsehoods as are noted to have been in the Apostles times, and by them condemned, and thereby to know them for deceivers, not only who teach the same, but any that have taken seeds from thence, or being then but rude and unfashioned are since polished and fined with more probable device and show. Such were then the teaching h Act. 15.1. of justification by the works of the law, i Col. 2.18. the worshipping of Angels, k Ibid. ver. 23. the not sparing of the body, nor having of it in honour to satisfy the flesh; to which we may add the l 1. Tim. 4 3. forbidding of marriage, and commanding of abstinence from meats noted for time to come. All which we see in the Papacy now maintained and practised; and though they be glossed and coloured with tricks and shifts, that they may not seem to be the same that the Apostles spoke of, yet by Tertullia's rule are to be taken to have been then condemmned, inasmuch as the Apostles speaking of them as they were then, used no restraint for warrant of them as they are defended now. Thus then M. Bishop hath little cause to boast of Tertullia's book of prescriptions, and better might he have forborn the naming of him, but that he hath learned of his master Bellarmine, to name authors sometimes in general, when in particular they make nothing for that he saith; as in that whole book Tertullian hath not one word for warrant of any tradition or doctrine that is not contained in the Scripture. But he will make the matter sure, I trow, out of another place, where Tertullian formally proposeth the question whether traditions unwritten be to be admitted or not, and answereth that they must so. Now it is true indeed that Tertullian so resolveth and concludeth the matter in those words which Master Bishop hath alleged, but he should withal have told us when it was that he so resolved, and then little cause should we have to wonder at that he saith. He wrote his book of prescriptions, when he yet continued in the society of the Church, but the book which Master Bishop citeth de Corona militis, he wrote afterwards, when he was fallen away, and besotted with the prophecy of Montanus, and purposely girdeth according to his usual manner, at the Catholic and godly Pastors and professors of the Church, and specially indeed of the Church of Rome, at which it was that he was specially offended. He upbraideth them as m Tertull. de Coron. militis. Novi pastores corum in pace leones, in praelio ceruse, etc. Non dubito quoslam sarcinas expedire fugae accingi de civitate in civitatem nullam aliam evangelii memoriam urant. fearful and fainthearted, and minding nothing more if persecution should arise, then to run away. And because they had condemned Montanus with his new prophecy, therefore he saith of them: n Planè superest ut martyria recusare meditentur qui prophetias musaen sp. sancti respuerunt. It remaineth indeed that they think of shunning martyrdom, who have rejected the prophecies of the holy Ghost. The matter whereupon he took the occasion of this writing, was briefly thus. A Soldier who was a Christian, coming amongst the rest to receive the emperors donative, refused to wear his garland upon his head as the manner was, but came with it in his hand. Being demanded why he so did, he answered that he might not do as the rest did, because he was a Christian. Hereupon he was taken and cast in prison, and fear there was least further danger should hereby grow to the whole Church. Many hereupon condemned the undiscreet zeal of this man, who without cause in a matter merely indifferent, would thus provoke the emperors fury, both against himself, and the whole profession of Christian faith. Tertullian ready to entertain every such occasion, taketh the matter in hand, and writeth this book as in commendation and defence of the constancy and resolution which he had showed in this matter. Now it is to be considered, what it was that was said on the Church's behalf, which Tertullian taketh upon him to oppugn. o Maximè illud opp●nunt; Vbi autem prohibemur ne coronemur, etc. Vbi scriptum est, ne coronemur, etc. This they specially urge, saith he, Where are we forbidden to wear a garland? where is it written that we should not wear a garland? To this he answereth, that p Hanc si nulla scriptura determinavit, certè consuetudo cerroboravit, quae sine dubio de traditione manavit. though no Scripture had so determined, yet custom had so confirmed, which no doubt, saith he, came by tradition. He than bringeth in the Church's reply, q Etian in traditionis obtentu exigenda est, inquis, authoritas scripta. But sayest thou, in pretence of tradition, authority of Scripture is to be required. Whereby it is manifest, that the Church then rejected unwritten traditions, and where tradition was alleged, required authority of Scripture for the warrant of it; and hereupon was it that Tertullian being now become an heretic, defended unwritten traditions against the Church. Therefore the latter Church of Rome in defending traditions beside the Scripture, followeth the steps of Montanus the heretic, and we in oppugning the same, do no other but take part with the ancient Church of Rome. Albeit the absurdity of Tertullia's defence of traditions here doth sufficiently bewray itself, in that he maketh it r Anon putat omni fideli licere concipcie & constituere dunta aeat quod Deo congnat, quod disciplinae conducat, quod saluti proficiat? etc. Salus traditionis respectu quocunque traditore censeatur. lawful for every faithful man to conceive and set down what may be fitting to God, what helpful to discipline, what profitable to salvation, and will have tradition to be regarded, whosoever be the author of it. He maketh s Confirmata cōsuetume idonea teste probatae traditionis. custom a sufficient witness for the approving of tradition, who notwithstanding elsewhere though still possessed with the same humour, yet much more discreetly, saith, that t De virgin velan. Consuetudo f●rè initium ex ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita in usum per successionem corroboratur & na adversus veritatem vindicatur. Custom commonly having his beginning of ignorance or simplicity, is by succession strengthened to common use, and so is maintained against the truth, well observing withal, that u Ibid. Dominus noster Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominatuit, etc. Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoc erit haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo. Christ did not call himself custom, but truth, & that whatsoever savoureth against the truth, is heresy though it be an ancient custom. As for the instances which M. Bishop saith he bringeth for the justifying of Traditions unwritten, they are partly impertinent, and partly heathenish and heretical devices; and surely if the Church had been then fraught with traditions, as the Church of Rome is now, he would not have been so slenderly furnished for the approving of them. His first instance is, that in baptism x Aquam adituri contistamur nos renunetare diabolo & pompae et Angelis eius. they did profess to renounce the devil and his pomps and his Angels. But this is no other but written doctrine, and the Scripture teacheth it, when it nameth y Heb. 6.1. repentance from dead works as one of the foundations of Christian profession, and of the doctrines of the beginning of Christ, and we use the same renunciation in baptism, who yet disclaim traditions unwritten. Form of words maketh no difference of doctrine, & though in other terms, yet we do no other thing therein, but what the Scripture teacheth us to do. His second instance of z De hinc ter mergitamur. thrice dipping, is a matter only of ceremony, not of doctrine, and it is merely indifferent whether it be done once as in the name of one God, or thrice as to import the Trinity of the persons. As for a Jnde suscepti lactu & mellis con●ordiam praegustamus. the tasting of milk and honey which is his third instance, it was also a voluntary observation, which may seem first to have been brought in by heretics, howsoever after it got place in the Church, because Dionysius who for his time most exactly describeth Dionys. Ecclesiast hierarch. cap 4. the ceremonies of the Church, maketh no mention of it. c Lavacro quotid●●●o 〈◊〉 die pe● tot 〈◊〉 m●l●● abstinemus: Die dominico reiunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare. Eadem immunitate 〈◊〉 in Pentecosten usque gaudemus. Not to wash for a week after baptism, not to fast or pray kneeling upon the Sunday, or betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide, were also but positive ceremonies, subject to the discretion of the Church, used in some places and times, and not in other, insomuch that in part they are grown out of use even in the Curch of Rome, and therefore come not within the compass of traditions, as we here dispute of them. d Eucharistae Sacramentum & in tempore victas, etc. etiam aniel●canis caetibus nec de aliorum quam praesidentium manu suntimus. To receive the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Ministers, is the institution of Christ, and we are taught it by the written word, but either to do it in the morning before day, or at the time of other feeding, was a mere arbitrary and indifferent thing, and the Church of Rome now useth it at neither time. e Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs annua die facimu●. Offerings yearly made for the dead and for birth-days, were first brought in by the heretic Montanus, to whom now Tertullian had addicted himself, and of whom the ecclesiastical history testifieth, that f Euseb. hist. eccl. lib. 5. cap. 16. Sub praetextu & nomine oblationum munerum captationem artificiose commentus est. under the pretence and name of offerings, he cunningly devised the taking of rewards and gifts. And although the one of them by the plausible colour of it took such fast hold, as that the stream thereof hath run into the lakes and puddles of the Church of Rome, yet the other was soon rejected, or not at all admitted, but only amongst his fellows, Origen testifying that Christians g Origen. in job. lib 3. Nos non nativitatis diem celebram●s sed mortis, etc. & in Le●i●t hom. 8 Nemo ex omnibus sanctis invenitur dum festum, etc. egisse in die natalis su●. did not celebrate their birthday, and that it was not found that any of the Saints had made a festival day of his birthday. h Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terram decuti anxit pa timur. Not to endure to have any part of the Sacrament fall to the ground, is a part of that i 1. Cor 14.40. decency and reverence which the Scripture requireth to be used in sacred and holy things; or if he speak it of ordinary bread and drink, the Scripture also teacheth, that of those good blessings of God, k john. 6.12. nothing should be lost. The use of l Ad omnem progressum atque promotum ad omnem aditura et exitum, ad vestitum & calceatum, ad lavacra, ad men sai, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quaecunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo cer●nus. the sign of the cross was ceremonial also, no matter of doctrine and faith, but only an occasion of remembrance, and a token of the profession thereof, which in discretion for temporary consideration was begun, and by like discretion cause so requiring, might be left again. Our Church in some part, where it is most free from Popish abuse, useth the sign of the cross, and yet well knoweth, that unwritten traditions, as the name is understood in this disputation, are not justified thereby. We doubt not as touching outward usages and ceremonies, as touching positive constitutions and ordinances of the Church, but that under the name of traditions, according to the circumstances before expressed, they may be commanded, and are to be obeyed, though they be not contained in the Scripture, but for matter of faith and of the worship of God, we deny that any thing may be admitted beside the written word, and Tertullia's instances are too weak to serve Master Bishops turn to prove the contrary. To be short, it appeareth plainly by Tertullian, that the Catholic Church defended then against heretics the same that we now defend against the Papists, that pretence of Tradition without authority of Scripture availeth not; and therefore that the Papists under the name of Catholics are indeed heretics, wrestling and fight against the Church. 11 W. BISHOP. Come we now unto his second testimony out of S. Jerome, * In cap. 23. Math. who writing (as he saith) of an opinion, that S. john Baptist was killed, because he foretold the coming of Christ (the goodman would say, Zacharie S. john's Father, for the Scripture showeth plainly why S. john lost his head * Math. 14. ) But S. Jerome there saith, this Because it hath not authority from Scriptures, may as easily be contemned as approved. Out of which particular, M. Perkins (showing himself a doughty Logician) would enforce an universal, that forsooth all may be contemned that is not proved by Scripture. As if you would prove no Protestant to be skilful in the art of true reasoning, because M. Perkins behaves himself in it so unskilfully. But S. Jerome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproved as allowed, not having any ground in the Scripture, because (saith he) It is taken out of the dreams of some Apocryphal writings, opposing Scripture to other improoved writings, and not to approved Traditions; to which (he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians, before the middle,) That the Church of God doth attribute the like authority, as it doth unto the written Law. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins indeed mistook in naming john Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of john Baptist, but it is no matter of consequence for his advantage, and therefore might easily be pardoned by Master Bishop, who for advantage hath made many greater and fouler faults. a Hieron. in Math. 23. Some, saith Hierome, will have Zacharie (who is said to have been slain betwixt the temple and the altar) to be meant of the father of john Baptist, avouching out of the dreams of Apocryphal books, that he was slain because he foretold the coming of our Saviour. * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem, eadem facilitate contemnitur quae probatur. This, saith he, because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures, is as easily contemned as approved. Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular enforce an universal, as M. Bishop pretendeth, but rightly allegeth, that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion, must by rules of Logic imply a mayor proposition for the inferring thereof. This hath no authority out of the Scriptures; therefore it may be as easily contemned as approved. Why so, but only because whatsoever hath not authority of Scripture, is as easily contemned as approved? The argument contained in Hieromes words, cannot stand good but by this supply, and so it is not the inferring of an universal from a particular, but the proving of the particular by the universal, according to due course. But M. Bishop telleth us, that the cause why that story might as well be reproved as allowed, was because it was taken out of the dreams of some Apocryphal writings. Which what is it but to use a shift in steed of an answer, the sentence being in itself entire, and absolutely giving the cause of the rejecting of that story, because it had no authority out of Scripture? Yea, if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions, Hieromes argument proveth to be nothing worth. For though this were written in Apocryphal books, and had no proof of Scripture, yet it might be confirmed by tradition, and therefore it followeth not, that because it was written in Apocryphal books, and had no proof of Scripture, it should hereupon be rejected. b Aug. de ciu. Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas. In the Apocryphal writings, saith Austin, some truth is found, albeit because there are many things also false, they have no canonical authority. If this therefore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphal books might be true, than it might be confirmed by tradition, and therefore not to be contemned, and thereof it followeth, that Hieromes reason of rejecting it for wanting authority of Scripture, is worth nothing. Which if M. Bishop will not say, then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this, that there is no necessity for us to believe, what authority of Scripture doth not confirm, saying no other thing therein, but what elsewhere he maketh good, reasoning both ways, c Hieron. adver. Heluid. Naetum Deum esse de virgine credimus, quia legimus: Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus. We believe it, because we read it; we believe it not, because we do not read it. And surely if Hierome had had here any conceit of tradition without Scripture, he would not have left this matter thus indifferently, as easily to be contemned as approved, but would simply have contemned it, because tradition had given another cause of the death of Zacharie, namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of jesus, to be still a virgin, and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed only for virgins and maidens. Whereof Origen saith: d Origen in Mat. tract. 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis, etc. Such a tradition hath come to us, and Basil: e Basil. de humana Christi gener. Zachariae historia quadam qua ex traditione adnos usque pervenit. A story of Zacharie by tradition hath come to us, and in like manner Theophylact: f Theophyl. in Math. cap. 23. Habet●ta narratio nobis tradita. Thus hath a narration delivered by tradition to us. If this then being delivered by tradition, yet availed so little in the Church, because it wanted the authority of Scripture, we may well conceive that Hieromes meaning was plain, that tridition howsoever colourable it seem to be, yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture. As for the other words alleged by Master Bishop that g Hieron. adu. Lucifer. Luciferianus dixit, etc. Nam & multa alta quae per traditionem in ecclesijs obseruantur, authoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt. to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authority as it doth unto the written law, they are set down for the words of a Luciferian schismatic, and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretic, even from Tertullian, of whom was spoken in the former section, insomuch that some of h Velutin lavacro ter caput mergitare, deinde egressos lactis & mellis praegustare concordiam, etc. die dominico & per omnem Pentecosten, nec de geniculis adorare et jeiunium solvere. the instances of traditions used by Tertullian, are there set down in Tertullias own words. And yet by those instances it appeareth, that the words come not within the compass of our question, because he speaketh only of ceremonial customs and observations which are temporal and occasional, not of matters of doctrine and faith, which are necessary and perpetual, which though they had in time grown to be alike in practice and use, as if they had been written, yet in judgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike, and therefore for the most part have ceased since to be observed even in the Church of Rome. 12 W. BISHOP. Master Perkins. His third Author is Saint Augustine. * Lib. 2. de doct. Chri. cap. 9 In those things which are plainly set down in Scriptures, are found all those points which contain faith and manners of living well. Answer. All things necessary to be believed of every simple Christian, under pain of damnation, that is, the Articles of our Belief, are contained in the Scriptures, but not the resolution of harder matters, much less of all difficulties, which the more learned must expressly believe, if they will be saved, which distinction S. Augustine elsewhere doth signify: * De peccatorum meritis cap. vlt. and is gathered out of many other places of his works, as in that matter of rebaptizing them, who became Catholics, after they had been baptised by heretics. He saith, * Lib. 5. de bapt. contra Donat. cap. 23. The Apostles truly have commanded nothing hereof (in their writings) but that custom which was laid against S. Cyprian, is to be believed to have flowed from an Apostolical tradition, as there be many things which the universal Church holdeth, and therefore are to be believed. The same saith he of the custom of the Church in baptizing infants. * De genes. ad letra. lib. 10. cap. 23. And in his Epist. 174. of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture, & yet nevertheless is defended to be used in the assertion of faith. As also (saith he) we never read in those books that the Father is unbegotten, and yet we hold that he is so to be called. * Lib. 3. cap. 3. cont. max. Arianum. And Saint Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored, though it be not written in the word. The like of the perpetual Virginity of our blessed Lady, * Heresi. 4. out of which and many more such like, we gather most manifestly that Saint Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the written word, but to be taken out of the Church's treasury of Traditions. R. ABBOT. It is strange to see here what stutting and stammering the man useth, loath to confess the truth, and yet forced by the very evidence thereof, in a manner fully to subscribe unto it. I pray thee gentle Reader to mark well the words of Austin, that are here alleged. a Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 9 In ijs quae a pertè posita sunt in Scriptures inveniuntur illa omnia quae con●nent fidem mo ●esque vivendi. In those things, saith he, which are plainly set down in the Scriptures, are found all those things which contain faith and behaviour of life. He saith not barely, in the Scriptures, but in those things which are plainly set down in the Scriptures; nor that some special matters of faith are found, but all those things are found, which contain faith and conversation of life. Now how nicely doth M. Bishop mince the matter. All things, saith he, necessary to be believed of every simple Christian under pain of damnation, are contained in the Scriptures, as if S. Austin spoke here only of simple Christians, and not of those that are of learning & knowledge, when as his drift is in this book, to teach the Preacher how to conceive of the Scriptures for his own use. Then he restraineth all those necessary things, to the articles of our belief, whereas S. Austin expoundeth himself as touching b Spem scilicet & charitatem de quibus superiore libro traectavimus. hope and charity, of which he had entreated in the former book. Then he excepteth the resolution of harder matters and many difficulties which the learned must expressly believe, when as S Austin saith, that in the Scriptures are found all those things which contain faith and conversation of life, insomuch that we have heard him c Suprae. sect. 8. before pronounce a curse to an Angel from heaven, who either concerning Christ, or the Church of Christ, or any thing belonging to our faith and life, shall preach any thing but what we have received in the scriptures of the Law and the Gospel. But yet if they will have S. Augustine's words to be understood of all things necessary to be believed of every simple Christian, we would gladly know why they require every simple man, under pain of damnation, to believe the Pope's supremacy, his succession from Peter, the power of his pardons, the validity of his dispensations, to believe their doctrine of the Mass, of Purgatory, of invocation of Saints, of prayer for the dead, of worshipping idols and images, and a thousand such other devices, when as these are not found in any plain places of Scripture, nay when as the plain text of Scripture is clearly and manifestly against them. Thou must understand, gentle Reader, that M. Bishop giveth not this answer in earnest, but the evidence of S. Austin's words being so pregnant against him, somewhat he must say for the present, to colour the matter, howsoever it be otherwise contrary to his own defence. It is not for their thrift to grant that what concerneth every simple Christian upon pain of damnation is plainly set down in Scripture; to believe so, is the marring of a great part of their harvest. But alas in this case what should he do? if Saint Austin say it, it is not for him to speak against it; only what he looseth here, he must do his best to recover other where. But for this lame answer, whereby he in part confesseth the truth against himself, and yet laboureth in part to conceal it and keep it back, he seeketh patronage from another place of Austin, saying that Saint Austin elsewhere doth signify that distinction. He noteth in the margin de peccatorum meritis cap. ultimo, but which book it is of the three, he noteth not, nor what the words are. Now in the last chapters of the first and third book, there is nothing incident to this purpose, but that which S. Austin saith in the last chapter of the second book, is such as that we need not wonder that M. Bishop did forbear to set down his words. For having there in question whether the soul be ex traduce, that is, whether it be derived and propagated by generation, with other points thereupon depending, he saith that the matter is d August. de peccat. mer. & remiss lib. 2. cap. 36. Disputationem desiderat eo moderamine tempe ratam ut magis inquisitio cauta lau litur, quàm praecipitata reprehendatur assertio. Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur, non adinuantibu● divinarum Scripturarum certu clarisquè documentis cohibere se debet humana praesumptio nihil faciens in alteram partem declinando. with such moderation to be handled, as that a man may be rather commended for enquiring warily, then reproved for affirming rashly. For (saith he) where question is of a very obscure matter, without the help of sure and evident testimonies or instructions of holy Scriptures, the presumption of man is to withhold itself, doing nothing by inclining either way. But he goeth on yet further: e Ibid. Etsi enim quod libet horum quem admodum demonstrari & explicari possit ignorem, illud tamen credoquòd etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarssimae esset authoritat, si homo illud sine dispendio promissa salutis ignorare non posset. For albeit I know not how any of these points (mentioned before) may be declared and made plain, yet I believe that the authority of the words of God should be most clear concerning them, if man without damage of salvation promised might not be ignorant thereof. In which words we see Saint Austin mentioning difficult and hard questions, but we see withal that he denieth the determining of any such without assured and clear testimonies of holy Scripture, affirming that he believeth that there should be clear authority of God's word for the deciding of them, if man (and not only simple men) without loss of salvation might not be without knowledge of them. Hereby than he most evidently testifieth, that whatsoever is necessary for the salvation of mankind, hath clear and evident testimony of holy Scripture, and that what hath not so, we are to surcease from defining any thing of it. How lewdly then doth M. Bishop deal, to make his Reader believe that Saint Austin saith for him, that the resolution of harder points and difficulties, which yet the learned must expressly believe, are not contained in the Scriptures? But yet he telleth us, that that is also gathered out of many other places of his works, and yet out of all those places allegeth not any part or point of doctrine which Austin himself doth not undertake to justify by the Scriptures. It hath been before declared, that when we say that all matters of doctrine and faith are contained in the Scripture, we understand as the ancient Fathers did, not that all things are literally and verbally contained in the Scripture, but that all are either expressed therein, or by necessary illation and consequence to be derived from thence. S. Hierome doubteth not to say as we do, f Hieron. contra Heluid. Sicut haec quae scripta sunt, non negamus, ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus. What things are written, we do not deny; but what are not written, we reject: and yet in the same book he saith also, that it is g Jbid. Sanctae Scripturae idioma, etc. ea de quibus posset ambigi si non fuissent scripta, signari; caetera verò nostrae intelligentiae derelinqui. the property of the holy Scripture, that those things whereof there might be doubt if they were not written, are set down, but other things are left to our understanding to collect and gather them thereby. And in this sense Saint Austin saith, h August. count Maxim Arian. lib. 3. cap 3. Ex ijs quae legimus aliquae etiam quae legimus intelligimus. By those things which we read, we understand some things also which we do not read. Thus doth the same Saint Austin sometimes say, that the Church receiveth some things that are not written, not that those things are not to be proved and defended by the Scriptures, but only that they are not literally expressed in the Scriptures. And so it appeareth in the first instance produced by M. Bishop as touching the rebaptizing of them who became Catholics after they had been baptised by heretics. For although Saint Austin say, that i Jdem de Bapt. contra Donatist. l. 5. cap. 23. Apostoli nihil exinde praeceperunt, sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est. the Apostles commanded nothing thereof, but that the custom which was opposed to Cyprian was to be believed to have flowed from an Apostolical tradition, yet he himself disputeth that point against the Donatists continually by the Scripture, refuseth to have the matter decided but only by the Scripture, and in the first propounding thereof saith very plainly to them, k Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 7. Ne humanis argumentis id agere videar, etc. ex evangelio profero ceriae documenta quibus demonstro quàm rectè placuerit & verè secundum Deum, ut hoc in quoquaen schismatico vel heretico ecclesiastica medicina curaret in quo vulnere separabatur, illud autem quod sanum maneret agnitum potiùs approbaretur, quàm improbatum vulneraretur. That I seem not to deal by human arguments (namely for that a general Council hath so confirmed) I bring assured proofs out of the Gospel, whereby I show how rightly and truly according to God it thus seemed good to them, that ecclesiastical medicine should cure that in an heretic or schismatic wherein he is wounded and separated from the Church, ●ut that which remaineth sound should rather be acknowledged and approved, then by being disallowed should be wounded. To omit many other places that might be alleged to the same purpose, soon after the words alleged by M. Bishop, he saith thus, l Ibid. lib 5. cap 23. Contrae maendatum Dei est quòd venientes ab haereticis si illic baptismum Christi acceperunt, baptizantur, quia sanctarum scripturarum testimonijs pianè ostenditur, etc. It is against the commandment of God, that men coming from heretics should be baptised, if there they have received the Baptism of Christ, because by testimonies of holy Scripture it is plainly showed thus and thus. Literally therefore and as touching matter of fact and example, Saint Austin speaketh of it as not written in the Scripture, but by Tradition so accustomed, because there is nothing expressly mentioned thereof, but yet showeth that therefore this Tradition was accepted and approved, because by testimonies of Scripture it was confirmed to be right, m Ibidem. lib. 4. cap. 7 Quia benè perspectis ex utroque litere disputationis rationibus & Scripturarum testimonijs, potest etiam dici, Quod veritas declaravit, hoc sequimur. because the reasons and testimonies of Scripture being well considered on both sides of that controversy, it might be said, What the truth hath declared, that we follow. And thus it is true which S. Austin addeth in the place cited, n Lib. 5. cap. 23. Sicut sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia, & ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta benè creduntur, quanquam scripta non repertiantur. that there are many things which the whole Church holdeth, and for that cause are believed to have come from the Apostles, albeit they be not found set down in Scripture, because they be not namely & word for word set down in Scripture, albeit they be to be justified by those things that are there set down. Of this kind is that which M. Bishop nameth in the next place, of the custom of the church in baptizing infants, which Austin saith o De Genes. ad. litter. lib. 10. cap. 23. Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio. is to be believed to be no other but an Apostolic tradition, and we also acknowledge no less. But what? did Austin hold it a tradition that could not be proved and warranted by the scripture? Nothing less. For he himself against the Pelagian heretics proveth the necessity thereof by the Scriptures, p August. epist. 89. Dicunt infantem morte praeventum non baptizatum perire non posse, quo●●am sine peccato nascitur, etc. Dicit Apostolus, Per unum hominem, etc. Jdeo non est superfluus baptismus paruulorum, ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt, per regenerationem liberentur. They say (saith he) that an infant not being baptised cannot perish, because he is borne without sin: but the Apostle saith, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin came death, and so death went over all, forasmuch as all have sinned, etc. Therefore the baptism of infants is not superfluous, that they who by generation are bound to condemnation, by regeneration may be delivered from it. And in another place against the Donatists, q De Baptis. lib. 4. cap. 24. Si quisquam hac in re authoritatem divinam quaerat, etc. Veracitèr conijcere possumus quid valeat in par●●●●s Baptimi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit. If any man (saith he) desire divine authority in this behalf, we may truly conjecture what the sacrament of Baptism availeth in infants, by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received. So by the rest of the Father's sundry arguments are taken from the Scriptures for the justifying of that custom, and r Bellarm de sa●ram Baptism. lib 1. cap 8 Bellarmine himself by the Scriptures proveth that infants are to be baptised, and therefore full weakly doth M. Bishop deal to bring this for proof of their Traditions, that is, of doctrines beside the Scripture. In his other objections he is as idle as in any of these, or rather more idle. The Arian heretic presseth Austin to show where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is read in the Scriptures. Saint Austin answereth him, that s August. Epist. 174. Respondebatur à nobis quia nos Latinè loqueremur & illud Graecum esset, prius quaren● on esset quid sit Homoousion, & tunc exigendum ut in libris sanctis ostenderetur, etc. quia et si fortasse nomen ipsum non inveniretur, restamen ipsa inveniretur. Quid est enim contentiosius quàm ubi de reconstat, certare de nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a Greek word, and they spoke Latin, and therefore it was first to be set down what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then to be required in the scriptures, because albeit the word perhaps be not found there, yet the thing itself is found. For what greater wrangling is there, then to contend about the word, when there is a certainty of the thing? Where we see M. Bishop in the place which he himself citeth, condemned for a contentious wrangler, that thus urgeth the word consubstantial as a tradition beside the Scripture, when as the thing itself and matter imported by it, is contained in the Scripture, yea and S. Austin himself in the same place proveth it by the Scripture, and elsewhere asketh of the Arian heretic, t Idem. contrae Maximin. lib. 3. cap 14. Quid est Homoousion, nisi, Ego & Pater unum sumus. What is Homoousion, consubstantial, but, I and my father are one? By the other word unbegotten he taketh advantage against the Arian, who had set down that term in the confession of his faith concerning God the Father. He demandeth of him whether the Scripture had used that word, which not being found, and yet approved, he concludeth: u Jdem. epi. 174. Vides posse fieri ut etiam de verbo quod in scriptura Dei non est, reddatur tamen ratio unde rectè dici ostendatur: sic ergo & homoousion quoth in authoritate divinorum librorum cogebamur ostendere, etiamsi vocabulum ipsum ibi non inventamus, fieri posse ut illud inveniamus cut hec vocabulum rectè adhibitum iudicetur. Thou seest that it may be, that of a word which is not set down in Scripture, yet reason may be given to show that it is rightly spoken: so therefore consubstantial also, which we were required to show by authority of Scripture, albeit we find not the very word there, yet it may be that we find that to which the word may be judged to be rightly applied. In these words therefore there is nothing imported but what we are instructed by the Scriptures; the meaning is there, though the letters and syllables be not there. In like sort the case standeth with his other instance of the holy Ghost to be adored, which we may wonder that he should be so impudent, or rather so impious, as to make an example of traditions beside the Scripture, as if the Scriptures did not prove that the holy Ghost is to be worshipped, when as S. Austin proveth it there against the Arian no otherwise but by the Scriptures. But as touching all these points concerning the Godhead, let that suffice which Thomas Aquinas hath given for a rule, that x Thom. Aquin. sum. p. 1. qu. 36. art. 2. ad 1. De Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non invenitur vel per verba vel per sensum. Licet per verba non inveniatur in sacra scriptura quod spiritus sanctus procedit à Filio, invenitur tamen quantum ad sensum. concerning God we ought to say nothing which is not found in Scripture either in words or in meaning. Whereof he saith for example, Though in very words it be not found in holy Scripture that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, yet in sense and meaning it is there found. To this our assertion accordeth, that no matter of faith or doctrine is to be admitted but what either in words or in sense is contained in the Scriptures. Let M. Bishop show us the sense of their Traditions in the Scriptures, and we will receive them, though we find not the words; but if he allege for Traditions beside the Scripture, those things the sense and meaning whereof is in the Scriptures, though the words be not, he abuseth his Reader, and saith nothing against us. For this matter I refer thee further (gentle Reader) to that which hath been said y Sect. 11. before in answer of his Epistle to the King. As touching the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin, what we are to conceive, hath been before declared. S. Austin z August. haeres. 56 & 84. affirmeth it, but not under the name of a tradition: and Hierome when he would maintain it against a Hieron. adver. Heluid. Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt, etc. Non credimus quia non legimus. helvidius, took upon him no otherwise to maintain it but only by the Scripture, thereby showing that he took tradition to be a very weak and uncertain ground. Now therefore it plainly appeareth that S. Austin hath pulled down the church's treasury of traditions, because M. Bishop can bring nothing to the contrary, but that he plainly and truly meant that which he said, that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture, are found all things belonging to our faith and conversation of life, and thereby leaveth no place to M. Bishop's matters of faith that are not contained in the written word. 13. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins his last testimony 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 objection, What need we make recourse unto the authority of the Ecclesiastical understanding, if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect? He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controversies in religion, but through all his book he proves out the clean contrary, that no heresy can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures, without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholic Church. R. ABBOT. The words of Vincentius are uttered first by way of objection thus: a Vincen. Lyrin. Hic forsitan requirat aliquis, cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon, sibique ad omnia satis supèrque sufficiat, quid opus est ut et Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae ●ungatur authoritas Some man happily may ask, seeing the Canon of Scriptures is perfect, and in itself abundantly sufficient for all matters, what needeth it that the authority of Ecclesiastical understanding should be joined unto it? He hath taught a man in the words before to ground and settle his faith, b Duplici modo fidem munire: primo divinae legis authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione. first by the authority of the law of God, and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church, meaning by tradition, as appeareth, the interpretation or exposition of Scripture delivered by the Church, not any matters of doctrine to be received beside the Scripture. Hereupon he asketh the question, seeing the Scripture is abundantly sufficient, what need is there to add the tradition of the Church? taking it for a thing received, and by all men approved, that the Scripture in itself is abundantly sufficient to instruct us every way and in all things belonging to faith and godliness, and therefore making it a doubt why the other should be needful. And that we may understand that he meant it not only by way of objection, but positively, in the repeating of the same points afterwards, he setteth down this exception and reason, c Jbid. Non quia canon solas non sibi ad universa sufficiat sed quia verba divina plerique pro suo arbitratis interpretantes, varias opiniones erroresque concipiant. Not but that the Canon alone is in itself sufficient for all things, but because many interpreting the words of God as they list, do conceive divers opinions and errors there from. M. Bishops answer then is false, that Vincentius affirmeth not that the Scriptures be fully sufficient to determine all controversies in religion, for Vincentius affirmeth it peremptorily, and therefore teacheth us to shun them who after the Scriptures and interpretation thereof teach us that there are yet other matters of Christian doctrine and faith that are not contained in the Scriptures. M. Bishop telleth us that through all his book he proves the contrary. But what is that contrary? Marry that no heresy can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholic Church. Whereby we see that either he hath not read that book of Vincentius, or doth impudently falsify that which he hath read. True it is that Vincentius in respect that heretics do often very guilefully allege the Scriptures, and wrest them to the maintenance and defence of their new devices, doth refer a man for his safety to the judgement and resolution of the Catholic church, not as they loudly bear us in hand, of the church of Rome, as if by it the Catholic Church were to be understood, but so as d id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod a omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim verè proprièque Catholicum quod ipsa vis nominis ra●ieque declarat, quae omnia verè universaliter comprebendit. that we hold that which hath been believed every where, and always, and of all: for this (saith he) is truly and properly Catholic, as the nature and signification of the word declareth, which indeed comprehendeth universally all. Hereto he frameth those rules of antiquity, universality and consent, idly 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 us, but in divers and sundry points are convicted thereby. But the matter that toucheth M. Bishop very nearly, is the restraint and limitation of this rule, which he saith is e Quae tamen antiquae sanctorum Patrum consensio non in omnibus divinae legis quaestiunculis sed solùm certè praecipuè in fidei regula mag no nobis study & investigandae & sequenda est. not to be followed in all questions of the word of God, but only or chief in the rule of faith, whereby he meaneth those things that concern the articles of the Creed: f In ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus tetius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur. in those questions, as he repeateth afterwards, upon which the foundations of the whole Catholic faith do rest. It is untrue than which M. Bishop saith, that Vincentius holdeth no heresy to be suppressed or confuted but by the tradition of the Catholic Church, when as he apply his rule only or at least chief to those heresies which touch the main pillars & foundations of Christian faith. And it is yet further untrue, because Vincentius further addeth, that g Sed neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt, sed novitiae 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 & inveteratae hareses nequaquam hac via aggrediendae sunt, eò quòd prolixo ten porum tractu longa ijs furandae veritatis patuerit occasio. Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores vel schismatum vel haereseōn prophanitatet nullo mod● nos oportet nisi aut sola, si opus est. Scripturarum authoritate convincere, aut certè iam antiquitùs universalibus sacerdotum Catholicorum Concilijs convictas damnatásque vitare. neither always nor yet all heresies are to be impugned in that sort, but only those that are new and fresh, namely when as they first spring up, before they have falsified the rules of ancient faith, and are therein hindered by the straightness of the time, and before (the poison spreading further abroad) they labour to corrupt the books of the ancient Fathers. But heresies that are far spread, and are grown old, are not to be set upon in this sort, because by long tract and continuance of time they have had great opportunity to steal the truth. And therefore as touching all profane heresies and schisms that are grown old, we are in no sort to do otherwise, but either to convince them, if need be, by only authority of Scripture, or else to avoid them, being anciently convicted and condemned by general Council of Catholic Bishops. Where we see that Vincentius affirmeth directly contrary to that that M. Bishop reporteth of him, that heresies are not always to be dealt with by those rules that he hath before set down, yea that heresies that have continued long, and have been far spread, are no otherwise to be convicted but by only authority of Scripture. And thereof he giveth reason, for that they have had time and opportunity to falsify the rules of faith, and to corrupt the books and writings of the ancient Fathers, which heretics always labour to do, so that the doctrine of faith cannot safely be jeoparded upon their consent. Now whatsoever M. Bishop and his fellows dream of this book, this rule doth so fit us, as if Vincentius had purposely studied to instruct us in what sort we ought to deal against them, and to justify the course that we have used in that behalf. Antichrist hath set up his kingdom aloft in the Church, and the whore of Babylon hath sitten like a Queen for many ages past. She hath fulfilled that that was prophesied of her, that h Apoc. 14.8. she should make all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornications. i Chap. 17.2. The Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the inhabitants of the earth have been drunk 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, etc. an army of Priests, according to the saying of Gregory, an army of Monks and Friars, of Schoolmen and Canonists, who have been her agents and factors for the uttering of her merchandise and the upholding of her state. They have used their endeavour to the uttermost for the corrupting l Erasm. Epist. ad Warram. Archiepis Canivar. apud Hieron. of the ancient monuments of the Church. They have made away many of the writings of the Fathers, they have falsified those that remain, they have foisted in bastards and counterfeits under their names. Most lewdly and shamefully m Ludou. vives de cause. corrupt. art. Adscripta sunt Origeni, Cypriavo, Hieronymo, Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per qui●tem quidem in mentem venerant, indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs atque illa erudition, sed etiam servis cor● siquos Scythas habuerunt aut Seres. they have fathered upon Origen, Hierom, Cyprian, Austin (& the rest) such things as they never dreamt of, unworthy not only of their conceit and learning, but even of their slaves, if they had any, that were Scythians and Barbarians. By the names of such renowned authors, they have sought to gain credit to devices of their own, such as the ancient Church was never acquainted with. Now therefore Vincentius his rule standeth good on our part, that inasmch as they have had so long time and opportunity to steal away the truth, and to falsify the Father's writings, therefore we are to convict them by authority of Scripture only, knowing it to be true which chrysostom saith, that n Chrysost. oper. imperf. in Math. hom. 49. Ex qu● heresis obtinuit Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae divine, etc. Nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodo per Scripturas, etc. Sciens Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in novissimis diebus esse futuram, ideo mandat ut 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 have gotten foot in the Church, there is no proof of true Christianity, nor other refuge for Christians desirous to know the truth of faith, but only the Scriptures of God: no way for them that are desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ, but only by the Scriptures. Our Lord (saith he) knowing that there should be so great confusion of things in the last days, doth therefore will that Christians desirous to receive assurance of true faith, should fly to nothing but only to the Scriptures. Otherwise if they look to any thing else, they shall stumble and perish, not understanding which is the true Church, and thereby shall light upon the abomination of desolation which shall stand in the holy places of the Church. Now therefore we have done nothing but that that in the course of Christianity is just and right, to call the trial of the controversies and questions of religion to the authority of the Scriptures only, and to teach men therein only to repose the certainty and assurance of their faith. Albeit by the singular providence of almighty God it hath come to pass, that in antiquity, as we have the same remaining unto us, there is yet light sufficient to discover the apostasies & abominations of the Church of Rome, to justify the truth of God against their falsehood and lies, and to make it appear that we do rightly and truly apply the Scriptures to the reproving and convincing thereof, as through this whole work is most plainly and clearly to be seen. And this is so much the more manifest for that they themselves have been forced to complain that they are feign o Index Expur. in castig. Bertran. Cum in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores & extenuemus, ex cusemus, excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum adversarijs, etc. to bear with very many errors (as they call them) in the old Catholic writers, and to extenuate them, to excuse them, by some devised shift to deny them, and to set some convenient meaning on them, when they are opposed in disputations or in conflicts with their adversaries. In many questions we show the antiquity, the universality, the uniform consent and agreement of the ancient church for us and against them, and it is strange to see what poor and miserable shifts, yea what impudent and shameless devices they are driven to, and yet cannot avail to suppress the light thereof. In a word, it is plainly found that they have no cause to brag of Vincentius Lyrinensis, either as doing damage to us, or yielding any gain or advantage to themselves. 14. W. BISHOP. Thus M Perkins having ended with the Law and Testimony, addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former: the first, that Christ and his Apostles used always to confirm their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures, and not with Tradition. Answ. First for our Saviour jesus Christ, be out of his divine wisdom delivered his doctrine most commonly in his own name, But I say unto you: and very seldom confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law. The Evangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies; but never or very seldom seek to confirm his doctrine by testimonies: their own they do sometimes; but to say they never wrote any thing out of Tradition, proceeds of most gross ignorance. Where had S. Matthew the adoring of the Sages? S john Baptists preaching? briefly, that was done before his own conversion, but by tradition. S. Mark wrote the most part of his Gospel out of Tradition received from Peter, as witnesseth Eusebius * Lib. 2. hist. cap. 14. . S. Luke testifieth of himself, that he wrote his whole Gospel * Cap. 1. as he had received it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses. What desperate carelessness was it then to affirm that the Apostles never used Tradition to confirm any doctrine? when some of them built, not only parcels, but their whole Gospels upon Traditions? R. ABBOT. The reasons seem 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 weak an answer. If the doctrine of faith and of the service of God had stood in the old Testament in any part upon tradition, undoubtedly our Saviour Christ would have made some mention thereof; and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures, so would sometimes have appealed to tradition also. But that doth he never: he reproveth traditions and condemneth them, but never useth one word to approve any. M. Bishop answereth, that Christ most commonly delivereth his doctrine in his own name (I say unto you) and very seldom confirmeth it out of the Law. But that is a very weak and silly shift, yea there is in it apparent and manifest untruth. For we find our Saviour in the Gospel more often citing and alleging the Scriptures, than we hear him saying, I say unto you, as every Reader may observe. Again, where he doth say, I say unto you, he teacheth us to understand that a john 14, 10. he speaketh not of himself, but what he saith, he speaketh as chrysostom before hath taught us 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, delivering no point of doctrine but what hath witness and confirmation from thence. Thirdly, it is much to be observed against M. Bishop, that where our Saviour doth most often use those words, c Mat. 5.18.20. I say unto you, he useth them to challenge the written Law from the corruption of Tradition, and to affirm the original truth thereof. For Tradition had taught men to understand the law literally only & of outward actions, but he shows in the commandments d Ver 22.28. of murder and adultery, that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart. Tradition had diminished the integrity of the Law, and taken from it, e Ver. 34. teaching only not to forswear; but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vain and idle swearing. Tradition had added to the Law of it own device, and where God had said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, by a corrupt gloze put to it, Thou shalt hate thine enemy: 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 perverted the written Law, would have perverted Traditions also, if there had been any; and Christ would have restored the integrity thereof, but there is no surmise given us of any such matter. We hear him often saying, g Mat. 19.4. Have 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 never hear him saying, Have ye not thus received by Tradition? He telleth the Saducees, k Mat. 22.29. Ye err, because ye know not the Scriptures: and the cause of the Disciples error was noted, l john 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 john 5.39. Search the Scriptures, they testify of me, but he never saith, search after Traditions, they are they that testify of me. n Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, saith he, but never mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was delivered 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 unto them. p Ver. 45. He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures, but we read not of giving them understanding of Traditions. Thus the Evangelists from place to place, upon divers occasions do set down q Mat. 1.22. & 2.17. etc. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets, mentioning the things which are wri●●en, but never once speak of the fulfilling of Tradition. And what? will M. Bishop have us to dream as idly as he doth, that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures, when we find these infinite references to the Scriptures, and to Traditions none at all? He telleth us a childish tale, that the Evangelists very seldom confirm Christ's doctrine by testimonies, but their own they do sometimes, as if the doctrine of the Evangelists were not the doctrine of Christ; and showing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Evangelists, who maketh that very seldom which is so often done. And when it is done, it is done by Scripture only, never by Tradition; which is the point whereto he should have answered, and he saith nothing to it. Only he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader, by seeming to say somewhat, when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary, and concerneth not that that is objected to him. To say that they never wrote any thing out of tradition (saith he) proceedeth of most gross ignorance. Where had Matthew the adoring of the Sages? etc. Pelting brabbler, what is this to that that M. Perkins saith? Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirm that which they preach by the doctrine of former times; they signify, the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught unto the people of God. They never confirm any thing but by Scripture; they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition, but only by Scripture. Tell us M. Bishop how could this be, if there were Tradition beside the Scripture? We ask you not whence the Evangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote, but how it cometh to pass that they never mention anything delivered by tradition in former times? But these are the juggling tricks of shifting companions, deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours, maliciously oppugning the truth when as they have 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 evangelio praedicabant, legis & prophetarum vocibus comprobarunt. Whatsoever the Apostles preached in the Gospel, they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets: whereof it followeth against M. Bishop, that they taught no doctrine by tradition, but only by the scriptures As for his questions, whereas he demandeth where S. Matthew had the adoring of the Sages and john Baptists peaching, etc. 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 himself? I suppose he will answer, that he received the same from him that made the world, from him that was the author of those speeches. So say we that Matthew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped: he learned john Baptists preaching of him whom john Baptist preached. He learned his Gospel as Paul did, who saith of himself, s Gal. 1.12. Neither received I it of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of jesus Christ. As touching the Gospel of S. Mark, Eusebius reporteth, that the faithful t Euseb. hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran● illis semel audita, nec contenti fuerunt non scripta divinae praedicationis doctrina, sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt ut commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditam accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent, nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint, etc. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset, delectatum esse virorum istorum voluntate & scriptum hoc evangelium Ecclesius ad legendum authoritate suae confirmasse. who had heard the preaching of S. Peter, not thinking that sufficient, nor contented with the doctrine of that divine preaching unwritten, most earnestly entreated Mark that he would leave them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had delivered unto them by word, and ceased not till they had persuaded him thereto. Now they say (saith he) that the Apostle when he understood this to have been done by the instinct of the holy Ghost, joyed much in the desire of those men, and by his authority warranted this Gospel in writing to the reading of the Church. Now this story is well worthy to be observed. The faithful had heard the preaching of Peter: they thought Tradition to be a very uncertain keeper of the doctrine which they had heard: they desire to have the same left unto them in writing, to that purpose they entreat Mark the scholar and follower of Peter; the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost; Peter acknowledgeth so much, and by his testimony approveth the Gospel thus written to the reading of the Church. Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should allege this story for patronage of his traditions, which shows that the church from the beginning was so jealous and fearful of resting upon tradition? S. Luke wrote his story u Luke 1.2. as they delivered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, they x 2. Cor. 13.3. in whom Christ spoke, 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. Mark did by the instinct of the holy Ghost, because as S. Paul telleth us, z 2. Tim. 3.16. all Scripture is given by inspiration of God: and as of prophecy, so of the Gospel also we must understand that a 2. Pet. 1.21. it came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved 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 dictant capite cognonerunt. Quicquid enira ille de suis factis & dictis nos legere volun, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. When the disciples wrote (saith S. Austin) what Christ showed & said unto them, 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 whatsoever he would have us to read of the things which he did and said, he gave in charge to them as his hands to write the same. Now therefore the Evangelists grounded not their Gospels upon Traditions, that is, upon report from man to man, but upon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himself. But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equivocation of the word tradition, and whereas it is questioned betwixt us in one meaning, he bringeth proof for it in another meaning. The word originally may import any thing that is delivered howsoever either by word or writing. Whatsoever God saith unto us, it may in this sort be called God's tradition, because he hath so delivered unto us. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we read in the written gospel, c Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae revertatur. In chalice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem. the original of the Lords tradition, and willeth in the Lord's cup to keep the truth of the Lords tradition. Thus whatsoever we have received in the Scriptures was first Tradition as delivered by word, and still is Tradition because it is delivered in writing, tradition signifying whatsoever is delivered, as before was said. But though the word in itself have this general and indifferent signification of any thing that is delivered, yet in our disputation it is restrained to one only manner of delivering, by word and relation only, and not by Scripture: and therefore where Irenaeus saith, d Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. evangelium nobis in Scriptures tradiderunt, he that should translate as M. Bishop doth, they delivered the Gospel by tradition in the Scriptures, should show himself as absurd a man as M. Bishop is, because he setteth down two opposite members of a distinction, and confoundeth them both in one. Now than the question is not in the general signification, whether the Gospel were a tradition, that is, a thing delivered from God, or whether it were a tradition by word, that is, a thing delivered by word, but whether of that tradition, that is, of that doctrine delivered from God by word, any part were left unwritten to go thenceforth under the name of unwritten tradition. We deny not but that the whole Law and Gospel is the Lords tradition: we deny not but that the Evangelists in the history of Christ had things first delivered unto them by word, which they should afterwards commit to writing, although in the writing thereof inspired of God, e john 14.26. the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance, and guiding them in what sort they should set them down; but we deny that either in the Law or in the Gospel there was any thing left unwritten that concerneth us to know for attaining of true faith and righteousness towards God. To come now to the point, howsoever the Evangelists built their Gospels upon Tradition, that is, upon that that was then delivered unto them, whether by Christ or by his Apostles, yet what is this to prove that they confirmed any doctrine, that is, any part of this tradition now delivered unto them, by tradition of former times, that is, by any doctrine left unwritten by Moses and the Prophets? This was the matter in hand, why then doth M. Bishop seek thus in a cloud to steal away? He telleth us of desperate carelessness, thinking to carry the matter with desperate words, but we must tell him, that it is desperate treachery in him thus to mock his Reader with boisterous babbling, when he saith nothing to prove that that he should, that either the Apostles proved any doctrine by unwritten tradition of the old Testament, or left any thing to be proved by unwritten tradition in the new. 15. W. BISHOP. His other reason is, that if we believe unwritten traditions were necessary to salvation, than we must as well believe the writings of the ancient Fathers, as the writings of the Apostles: because Apostolical traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their books: but that were absurd, for they might err. Answer. That doth not follow for three causes: First, Apostolical traditions are as well kept in the mind of the learned, as in the ancient father's writings, and therefore have more credit than the Father's writings. Secondly, they are commonly recorded of more than one of the Fathers, and so have firmer testimony than any one of their writings. Thirdly, if there should be any Apostolical tradition related but of one ancient father, yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his own invention, because that was registered by him as a thing of more estimation. And a-againe, some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would have reproved it as they did all other falsehoods, if it had not been such indeed as it was termed: which when they did not, they gave a secret approbation of it for such, and so that hath the interpretative consent at least of the learned of that age, and the following for Apostolical tradition. But Master Perkins proves 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 us for what points of doctrine he allegeth Moses and the Prophets: Marry to prove that Christ should suffer death, and rise again, and that he should give light to the Gentiles. For these and such like, which were evidently foretold in holy writ, he needed not to allege any other proof: but when he was to persuade them to abandon Moses Law, he then delivered to them the decrees of the Apostles, and taught them to keep 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 deliver unto you as I have received from our Lord, not in writing, but by word of mouth. And in the same Chapter putteth down the contentious Scripturist, with the custom of the Church, saying, If any man lust to strive, we have no such custom: so that out of S. Paul, we learn to allege Scriptures, when they be plain for us, and when they bear not so clear with us, to plead Tradition, and the custom of the Church. R. ABBOT. It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered over this matter, being of so great moment and importance for the authority and credit of their traditions. They tell us that traditions unwritten, are a part of the word of God. The council of Trent professeth a Concil. Trident. ses. 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit, etc. to receive them with the like affection of piety and reverence, as they do the holy Scripture. Now we desire to know by what testimony 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 approved unto us by testimonial & witness equivalent to the Scriptures. If then the writings of the ancient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions, we must believe the writings of the ancient fathers, as well as we believe the Scriptures. M. Bishop telleth us that traditions are as well kept in the minds of the learned, as in the ancient father's writings, and therefore have more credit than the father's writings. So then belike the minds of the learned, together with the writings of the ancient fathers, are of equal credit and authority with the Scriptures, and if Master Perkins had put in both these, than Master Bishop had not had a word to say. But we must yet ask further, whence or upon what ground do the minds of the learned accept of these traditions. If he will say, that they receive them of the fathers, than the argument still standeth good. If he say that they receive them of other learned that were before them, than it must be said that they also received them from other learned that were before them, and so upward till we come to the fathers, and so in fine it must fall out, that the fathers must be alike believed as the holy Scriptures. If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so, let him tell us otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest upon. But alas good man, we see he cannot tell what to say; only Bellarmine telleth us, that b Bellarm. de sacram. lib. 2 ca 25. Omnium conciliorum veterum & omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet. the assured certainty of all counsels and of all doctrines of faith, dependeth upon the authority of the present Church. Now than the testimony of the present Church, is made of equal & like authority with the holy Scriptures, and Bellarmine is in as pitiful a case as M. Bishop is. For the testimony of the present Church, what is it but the testimony of the learned of the present Church, & therefore now the minds of the learned are as good an oracle of truth as the Scriptures are. If this be not so, let us hear from M. Bishop what else is to be said hereof; for if traditions be to be received with like devotion & reverence, as those things that we are taught in Scripture, than there must be somewhat or other to commend the same unto us with the like authority as the Scripture doth the rest, and what that is we are desirous to understand. Now M. Bishop addeth two further exceptions against M. Perkins argument, and they are such wise ones, as that we may very well think them to be his own. Secondly, saith he, they are commonly recorded of more than one of the fathers, and so have firmer testimony than any one of their writings. But what is this to M. Perkins his speech, which is not restrained to any one of the father's writings, but taketh them jointly, and inferreth it as an absurdity, that the writings of the father's being taken all together, should be made equal in credit to the holy Scriptures. Thirdly, saith he, a tradition being related but by one ancient father, yet should be of more credit than any other of his own invention, because that was registered by him as a matter of more estimation. But what idle babbling is this? what maketh this to the clearing of the point in question? He will have us to receive traditions with the like piety and reverence, as we do those things that we are instructed by the Scripture. He putteth a case of a tradition, reported by one only of the fathers. He should hereupon have answered how we can in that sort admit of such a tradition as Apostolical, but by yielding the like credit to that one father as we do to the holy Scriptures. But he like a man in a wood, that knoweth not which way he is to go, telleth us that this tradition is of more credit than any other of his own invention, because it was registered by him as a matter of more estimation. O the sharp wits of these Romish Doctors, that can dive so deep into matters, and talk so profoundly, that they themselves understand not what they say. To as little purpose is that which he addeth, that if that tradition were not as it was termed, some of the rest of the fathers would have reproved it, which when they did not, they gave it their interpretative consent to be Apostolical tradition. But let the consent be either interpretative or express; what is this against the consequence of the argument which he taketh upon him to answer, that if we must receive traditions in that sort as they require us, and have no where to ground them but upon the testimony of the fathers, than we must give as much credit to the testimony of the fathers, as we do to the holy Scriptures. I am forced thus odiously to inculcate the matter in question, to make the ridiculous folly of this wrangler the more plainly to appear, who having nothing to say, yet hath not so much wit as to hold his peace. In this simplicity he goeth forward to answer the place of the Acts, where Saint Paul is brought in saying, c Acts. 26.22. I continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. In which words it is plain, that the Apostle professed in the preaching of the Gospel, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. to say nothing without the compass of those things which had been before spoken by Moses and the Prophets. M Bishop answereth, that he meaneth only of those things which he addeth, That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, etc. For these things, saith he, evidently foretold in holy writ, he needed not to allege any other proof. Yea but what other proof doth he use for any other doctrine? Forsooth when he was to persuade them to abandon Moses law, he then delivered to them the decrees of the Apostles, & taught them to keep them. Yea, but Paul preached a long while before those decrees of the Apostles were made, as appeareth from his conversion in the ninth Chapter, to the fifteenth Chapter, where those decrees are made; and all this while what other proof did he use, but only the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets? Do we not think that this man hath wonderfully hardened both his heart to God, and his face to men, that can apply himself to write in this sort? He well knoweth that the question is not here of new decrees, but of old traditions, what proof the Apostle had, or what ground of doctrine from the old testament, but only the Scriptures of the law and the Prophets? The Apostle himself saith, he had no other, he taught nothing, but according to the written books of the old testament, according to that which elsewhere he saith, that d Rom. 16.26 the Gospel was published amongst all nations, by the Scriptures of the Prophets. For a summary brief thereof, he nameth the suffering and resurrection of Christ, etc. but he that saith that herewith he preached any thing but what was warranted by Moses and the Prophets, maketh him to dally and to speak a manifest untruth, in that he saith that he spoke nothing without the compass of those things which Moses and the Prophets prophesied before. Now the wise man for instance against this telleth us, that he delivered the decrees of the Apostles, and taught them to keep them. Which beside that it is nothing to the purpose, as hath been said, doth also set forth his notable silliness and folly, in that for proof of traditions and doctrines unwritten, he bringeth the example of the Apostles decrees, which are expressly mentioned to have been sent to the Churches in writing, e Acts. 15.23. They wrote letters by them after this manner, etc. But in the height of his wisdom, he goeth forward to prove the same by another speech, When he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar, he beginneth with tradition, saying, I deliver unto you as I have received from our Lord, not in writing but by word of mouth. Surely the man's head was wonderful quaifie in the writing hereof, or else we must think that he was in some trance. I deliver unto you not in writing but by word of mouth, when notwithstanding in his Epistle, he sendeth it to them in writing. Or what, doth he mean that the Apostle received it of our Lord, not in writing, but by word of mouth? But what is that to the purpose, when he delivered the same here by writing, and not by word of mouth? He had heard there was some text or other there for his purpose, but neither did he well know it, nor had leisure to seek it out. The words of the Apostle are these, I have received of the Lord that which I have also delivered unto you. Now we conceive M. Bishop's meaning, though his understanding being very muddy, failed him so exceedingly in the expressing of it. The Apostle forsooth giveth to understand, that he first delivered unto them the institution of the Lords supper not in writing, but by word of mouth. And what of that? Doth it therefore follow, that by tradition of the old testament the Apostle proved any doctrine of the new? If this do not follow, his allegation is bruit and bootless, and he shooteth wholly beside the mark. The Apostle professeth to have delivered what he received of the Lord; but what he received of the Lord, was according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets. For the outward signs of the Sacrament were prefigured in Melchisedeck, bringing forth f Genes. 14.18. bread and wine for the corporal refection of Abraham's army, as the heavenly Melchisedeck should bring forth bread and wine for the spiritual refection and comfort of the sons of Abraham. As for the doctrine and faith imported by these signs, it is no other but what M. Bishop himself confesseth to have been evidently foretold in holy writ, namely that Christ should die for our sins, and should rise again from the dead, to become a light and salvation unto us, the Apostle himself instructing us the end thereof to be, g 1. Cor. 11.26. to show the Lords death till he come. Here was then no need to fly to unwritten tradition, but of this institution the Apostles words stand good, that he said nothing but what the Prophets and Moses did say should come. And thus the fathers, and namely h Tertull. adu. Martion. per tot. Tertullian, to show against the Marcionites, that there is but one God of the old and new testament, and not two Gods adverse one to the other, as those heretics blasphemously affirmed, do set down the accord of the Scriptures of the new testament with the old, and the fulfilling of the one in the other, but of traditions in the new testament according with traditions in the old, they never spoke a word, which yet in that cause had been very needful, if there had been any such. But M. Bishop being like the Lynx turning about and forgetting what he was feeding upon, will tell us perhaps, that whatsoever he had in hand, his meaning in the alleging of this place, was simply to prove the Apostles approving of traditions. And if he tell us so, surely we will not deny, but that it is indeed full simply done. The Apostle saith that he first delivered the institution of the Sacrament by word of mouth. What, must we therefore think that it was not afterwards committed to writing? The contrary appeareth, in that we see it here written by himself. What is there here then to hinder, but that as the Sacrament first delivered by word, was afterwards committed to writing, so all other points of Christian doctrine & faith, though delivered at first by word and preaching, yet were afterwards set down in writing, and delivered unto us in the Scriptures? And if nothing hinder, as indeed there doth not, then let him understand that this place is very simply and impertinently brought for traditions unwritten. To fill up the measure of his folly, he telleth us yet further, that the Apostle in the same Chapter putteth down the contentious Scripturist, with the custom of the Church, saying, If any man lust to strive, we have no such custom. Where a man might oppose him very hard, if he should ask him why those words of the Apostle do not belong to the Traditionist, as well as to the Scripturist. We know his dreams are very strong, but otherwise why he should apply these words to the Scripturist, he himself cannot well tell. Again, it would be known of him what custom the Apostle affirmeth here. We hear him saying, We have no such custom, but we do not hear him saying, We have a custom. And therefore M. Bishops alleging of these words in behalf of customs of the Church, may well make us think, that in the doing of it he had the very same head on that he is accustomed to have, to say nothing that he was much distressed for traditions and customs, when he took not to be contentious, to be an unwritten tradition and custom of the Church. So that his conclusion is like a body without either head or feet, wanting strength to carry him so far as he is desirous to go, and because the Apostles doctrine was neither according to unwritten traditions nor customs, but according to the Scriptures only, we learn that neither tradition nor custom, but Scripture only must bear sway for directing and prescribing true faith and doctrine in the Church. 16 W. BISHOP. Hitherto I have confuted what M. Perkins brought against Traditions. Now to that which he saith for them in our behalf. First, saith he, the Catholics allege, * 2. Thes. 2.15. Where, the Apostle bids the Church to keep the ordinances which he taught them, either by word of mouth, or by Epistle: Hence they gather that besides the written word, there be unwritten traditions that are necessary to be kept and obeyed. M. Perkins Answer. It is likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that ever Paul wrote to any Church: and then some things needful to salvation might be delivered by word of mouth: but that was afterwards written in some others of his Epistles. Reply. Observe first, that instead of Traditions (according to the Greek and Latin word,) they translate * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ordinances; ever flying the word Tradition, where any thing is spoken in commendation of them. But if any thing sound against them, than thrust they in the word Tradition, although the Greek word bear it not. See for this their corruption, and many other, a learned Treatise, named, The Discovery of false translations penned by Master Gregory Martin, a man most singularly conversant in the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Secondly, is it not plain dotage, to avouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians, was the first that ever he wrote? Surely, if none of his other were written before it, yet his first to the same Church must needs have been written before it. But let us give the man leave to dream sometimes. To the point of the answer, that all was written after in some other of his Epistles, which before had been delivered by word of mouth. How proveth M. Perkins that? the man hath such confidence in his own word, that he goeth not once about to prove it. Good Sir, hold you not here; that nothing is needful to be believed, which is not written in the word? Show us then where it is written in the word, that S. Paul wrote in his latter Epistles, that which he taught by word of mouth before, or else by your own rule it is not needful to believe it. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent Reader, I will set down the opinions of some of the ancientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle, that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing, and left nothing by tradition. Saint chrysostom in his most learned and eloquent Commentaries upon this text, concludeth thus: Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles delivered not all in their Epistles, but many things also unwritten; and those things are as well to be believed, as the written. Oecumenius and Theophylactus upon that place teach the same. S. Basil * De spu. ca 27. speaketh thus, I hold it Apostolical to persever in Traditions not written: for the Apostle saith, I commend you that ye are mindful of my precepts: and, do hold the Traditions, even as I delivered them unto you: and then allegeth this text: Hold the Traditions which you have received of me either by Word or Epistle. S. john Damascen accordeth with the former saying, * Lib. 4. De fide cap. 17. That the Apostles delivered many things without writing. S. Paul doth testify, when he writeth, Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which have been taught you either by word of mouth or by Epistle. These holy and judicious expositors of S. Paul, free from all partiality, gather out of this text of his, that many things necessary to be believed, even until their days remained unwritten, and were religiously observed by Tradition; which throweth flat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition (fenced with neither reason nor authority) that Saint Paul put in writing afterward all that he had first taught by word of mouth. Moreover Saint Paul immediately before his death in one of the last of his Epistles, commandeth his dear disciple Timothy, * 2. Tim. 2. To commend unto the faithful, that which he heard of him by many witnesses; and not that only which he should find written in some of his Epistles, or in the written Gospel. R. ABBOT. Hear M. Bishop beginneth with the taxing of our translations, for that we do not say, stand fast and keep the traditions, but stand fast and keep the ordinances, or the instructions which ye have been taught, blaming us for that we use the word traditions, where any thing soundeth against them, but utterly reject it where any thing is spoken in commendation of them. But the reason of our translating in that sort is just and godly, because our translation maketh nothing against that tradition which the Apostle intendeth in the Greek, & excludeth the stumbling block that might lie in the way of the more simple Readers, by means that Popish abuse hath caused the word to sound to a meaning altogether contrary to the intent of the Apostle. Where the word tradition carrieth the same sense wherein it is now used, we set it down; but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek importeth not that which custom hath made the word tradition to sound in English, good reason is there that we leave the word tradition, and take rather some other word that may come most nearly to the expressing of the Greek. Tyrant of old time did signify a King, till by the abuse of Kings the name grew opprobrious and hateful, and is now used to signify a cruel and usurping king. He therefore that should now translate tyrannus, a king, should be thought scarcely well to enjoy his wits. Translations are always to be framed according to the propriety and use of words then usually received when they are done, and to do otherwise cannot but breed misunderstanding of many things. And we would gladly know, why we may not aswell translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinances, or instructions, as their Latin interpreter translateth it a 1. Cor. 11.2. praecepta, and they precepts in their English. Albeit for the avoiding of their cavil I would rather translate it, b 2. Thess. 2.15. Stand fast and keep the things delivered, which ye have been taught either by word or by our Epistle. But here M. Bishop referreth his Reader to a learned treatise as he calleth it, named, The discovery of false translations, penned by Gregory Martin, there to see somewhat for this corruption and many other. I would not wish the Reader to forbear to look upon that book, only I wish him withal to take knowledge of Doctor Fulkes answer to it, and he shall see a discovery of a number of futilous and vain cavillations heaped together in that discovery. Gregory Martin wrote his pretended discovery to be a bellows to blow up treason and insurrection against his Prince, but when he failed of his hope, and his calumniations were laid open, his heart never served him to defend what he had written, because howsoever some things there were that with some probability he might cavil at, yet in the most he was made so naked, that he knew not how to cover his own shame. But he is long since gone to his judge, & hath learned what it is to fight against God's truth. But to come to the matter in hand, M. Perkins cannot be excused of too much negligence in his answer to this place. He taketh the second Epistle to the Thessalonians to be the first, and by that means nameth that for very likely which is very untrue, and so with mention of a bare likelihood passeth over the argument without giving any good satisfaction to him that would require it. Thus it is true which the Poet saith, Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus, and because M. Bishop dreameth so often, he must needs give him leave to dream sometimes. To supply that wherein M. Perkins failed, we answer him, that the traditions which the Apostle recommendeth to the Thessalonians, 1. Cor. 15.3.4. were no other but such as he mentioneth to the Corinthians, according to the Scriptures. S. Ambrose maketh the effect of his exhortation to be this: c Ambros in 2. Thess. cap 2. In traditione evangelii standum ac perseverandum monet. to warn them to stand fast, and to persevere in the tradition of the Gospel. d Rom. 1.2. The Gospel (as before hath been noted out of the Apostles words) was promised before of God by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures, and therefore was accordingly e Cap. 16.26. preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets. The story saith, that Paul at his being at Thessalonica, f Act. 17.2.3. opened and declared by the Scriptures, that it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that this was jesus Christ, whom (saith he) I preach unto you. Being driven from thence to Berea by the outrage of the jews, he preached there also, and g Ver. 11. they who received the word, searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things (which they taught) were so: whereby it appeareth that the word which he preached in both places, was no other but according to the Scriptures. Thus we have heard him before, saying, that h Cap. 26.22. he spoke nothing beside those things which Moses and the Prophets did say should be. Now all the doctrine of the Gospel that is set down in the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, is fully contained in the Scriptures of the new Testament. Seeing therefore the traditions, that is, those things which the Apostle delivered to the Thessalonians, were wholly according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, it must necessarily follow, that in the Scriptures of the new Testament the same are fully and perfectly contained, and so on both sides now can be no other but according to the Scriptures. We are out of doubt, that the Apostle preached to the Thessalonians the whole doctrine of the Gospel, which we find set down in writing by the Evangelists, and by himself & other the Apostles in their Epistles to other Churches. In his former Epistle to the Thessalonians he did not set down that whole doctrine which is written by them. Now we cannot make question but that his meaning was to exhort them to persevere in the whole: as in those things which he expressed in his Epistle, so in the rest also which we find written by himself and others. Therefore the traditions or things delivered by word, have a necessary and undeniable construction of all the rest of the written doctrine of the Gospel that is not set down in that first Epistle to the Thessalonians. Our exposition then is irrefragable and infallible, that the Apostle by those words hath reference to those things which are written otherwhere, but Master Bishop hath no argument to evict that he intended any thing that is written no where. Because therefore we have a meaning of the words whereof we are certain and sure, we rest there, and list not to admit a further meaning whereof we can have no assurance. As for that which he cavilleth of, whether Paul in his Epistles wrote all that he preached by word, I answer him, that he wrote the effect and use of all, but not all whereof that use is to be made, because many things are written by the Evangelists necessary for the use of Christian faith, which are not written in the Epistles of Saint Paul, though by him they were delivered to the Churches to which he preached. But though he wrote not all that was needful to be written, yet we believe the testimony that he hath given in that Epistle which he wrote last, even a little before his death, when almost all the books of the new Testament were now written, that i 2. Tim. 3.15. the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ jesus: and therefore that, what by him and others, there is so much written as concerneth us to know for our instruction in the religion and faith of jesus Christ. Now whereas M. Bishop to prove the contrary, allegeth the expositions of some of the Father's concerning those words of the Apostle to the Thessalonians, I may well answer him as Austin answered Hierome, pressing him in the like sort, with the names of sundry of the Fathers that were before them: k Aug. Epist. 19 Ad ipsum confugio: ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum eius tractatoribus provoco. I fly to Paul himself, to him I appeal from all expositors of his writings that think otherwise. He hath told us, that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation, & therefore we do not believe them that tell us, that his meaning is in the other place, that we have need of traditions beside the Scripture for supply of that wisdom. Yea & their collection as M. Bishop conceiveth of it, cannot stand good. It appeareth by those words of the Apostle, that he delivered more to the Thessalonians by word, then is contained in his former Epistle to them, but it doth not therefore follow that he delivered more unto than than is contained in the Scriptures. No reason can there be devised to make good this connexion. But to examine them particularly, first we may not think chrysostom so forgetful, as that he should cross that which in the very next Homily before he hath said: l Chrysost. in 2. Thess. hom. 3. Omnia clara sunt & pla●a ex Scripturis divinis: quaecunque necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt. All things are clear and evident by the holy Scriptures: whatsoever things are necessary, they are manifest. Surely if any thing be to be cleared by tradition beside the Scripture, than it cannot be said that all necessary things are manifest by the Scriptures. And therefore whereas he saith, Hereby it appeareth that the Apostles delivered not all in their Epistles, but many things also unwritten, and both the one and the other are alike to be believed, we must understand it of that tradition which the Church holdeth collected and gathered from the Scriptures, though it be not literally expressed therein. Thus the baptising of infants, and the not rebaptising of them that have been baptised by heretics, and the administering of the Lord's supper only by the Minister, and such like, have been always holden by the Church, and defended by the Scriptures, and yet they are no where literally contained in the Epistles of the Apostles. In such things chrysostom requireth a man to submit himself in peace to that which the Church practiseth being grounded upon the Scripture, and not contentiously to wrangle against it, because it is not in very words contained therein. But if any tradition be urged upon us that hath no ground or warrant from the Scripture, good reason we ask, as Cyprian did of Stephanus, m Cyprian. ad Pomp. supra Sect. 5. Whence is this tradition? Cometh it from the authority of Christ, or of the Gospel, or from the instructions and Epistles of the Apostles? For God testifieth, that we are to do those things which are written. * Si ergo aut in evangelio praecipitur, aut Apostolorum Epistolis, aut Actibus continetur, obseruetur certè haec sancta traditio. Therefore if this tradition be commanded in the Gospel, or in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, let it be observed and kept for holy. Whereby he will have it understood, that if it be not there warranted, it is not to be observed. The tradition which he there impugneth is taught indeed by the Gospel, though he conceived not so, but hereby he teacheth us, that it was to stand for a certain rule, that no tradition could be justly approved without warrant of the Gospel. And therefore chrysostom himself also teacheth us otherwhere, that n Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Siquid dicitur absque Scriptures, auditorum cogitatio claudicat● ubi verò ex Scripturis divinae vocit prodijt testimonium & loquentis sermonem & audientis animum confirmat. if any thing be spoken without Scripture, the mind of the hearers goeth lame; but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimony of the voice of God, it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh, and the mind of him that heareth. Neither doth it sufficiently give this confirmation to allege generally, that the Scripture speaketh of traditions, because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of, unless by the Scripture itself they be justified so to be. To chrysostom M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact, but as they take their exposition out of chrysostom, so in him they have their answer. Next he bringeth in a sentence under the name of Basil, which is not only suspected by Erasmus and others, but may by the place itself be well presumed to be none of his. There is good cause to think, that the Cuckoo hath played her part, and laid her eggs in Basils' nest: that some counterfeit to grace himself hath not sticked to disgrace him, by putting to him patcheries of his own device. To say nothing of the difference of style, and other arguments noted by Erasmus, we may observe how he maketh Basil contrary to himself, not only to those rules which he hath given otherwhere, but even to the course which he hath before professed in this book, yea and maketh a several question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book severally propoundeth nothing. The matter as Basil declareth was this: o Basil de spir. Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto. that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion, he would sometimes pronounce glory to God and the Father, with his Son and the holy Ghost, and sometimes by the Son in the holy Ghost. Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiveth to the heresy of Aerius or Arius, blamed him for saying with the Son and the holy Ghost, affirming that several terms should be used of the three Persons, of the Father, and by the Son, and in the holy Ghost, intending that in this diversity of phrases, a diversity of natures should be understood. He showeth that the heretics borrowed this fancy q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vain Philosophy, and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is observed. This he prosecuteth s Cap. 5. at large, and in the end propoundeth his adversaries objection: t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking, with the Son, was strange and unusual, but by the Son, was familiar in the phrase of Scripture, and accustomed with the brethren. He answereth, that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the use of both those speeches, and did not reject either of them, as if the one did overthrow the other. He affirmeth, that so many as did keep the tradition of their ancestors without alteration in all countries and cities, did use this speech. Therefore even the very country clowns (saith he) do so pronounce according to the manner of their forefathers. That than which hath been said by our ancestors, we also say, that glory is common to the Father with the Son, and therefore we sing hymns of glorification to the Father together with the Son. But he addeth, which is the thing that we are specially to observe, x Quanquam hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum, nam & illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem, etc. Albeit it is not enough for us that we have it so by tradition from the Fathers, for they also followed the authority of Scripture, taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we have alleged. Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers, that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures, and plainly instructeth us, that without authority of the Scriptures, the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for us. And to this accordeth that which hath been before cited from him, that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written. Thus in another place he saith: z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoever is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle saith, and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: surely whatsoever is beside the holy Scripture, because it is not of faith is sin. And again, a Idem reg. contract. q 95 Necessarium est & consonum ut ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit, discat cùm ad pretatis plero●horiam, tum ne assuescat humanis traditionibus. It is needful and convenient, that every man do learn out of the Scripture that that is necessary for him, both for the full assurance of godliness, and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men. Now how can we imagine, that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures, and though alleging as we do the tradition of the Fathers, yet with us acknowledging, that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures, should so soon after attribute so much to traditions that have no confirmation from the Scripture? Albeit, this contrariety had been small, neither should we have had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions, whether they be Basils or whose soever, if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far, as that M. Bishop himself must perforce confess they cannot accord with truth. For if he had no more but required the observation of traditions unwritten, we should have conceived that he meant unwritten, as Basil elsewhere doth, who professeth b Basil. de fide. Vocibus agraphis quidem, verum non alienis à p●a secundum Scripturam sententia. etc. to use words that are not written, but yet such as vary not from the meaning of piety according to the Scripture: words and terms which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture, but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture. Thus in the former part of the book de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9 De Sp. sancto. Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus. speeches concerning the holy Ghost, which without Scripture, saith he, we have received by the tradition of the Fathers, which yet are such as have all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures. So in the place here questioned he nameth divers things for unwritten traditions, which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures, though the words be not precisely set down therein. Such is in baptism d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae & Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus? the renouncing of the devil and his Angels: from what Scripture, saith he, have we it? Again he saith, e Ibid Ipsam fidei professionem quae credimus in Patrem & filium, & Spiritum sanctum è quibus habemus scriptis The very profession of faith whereby we believe in the Father, the Son, & the holy Ghost, out of what Scripture do we take it? The main matter which he laboureth there to approve by unwritten tradition, is the pronouncing of glory to the Father and the Son, together with the holy Ghost, which yet he himself saith, that f Cap. 25. Vim habet Scripturis congruentem. Nihil diversum dexero quod ad sententiae vit●● attinet. it hath a meaning agreeing with the Scriptures, and that in meaning it nothing differeth from that which Christ saith, the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost: and so we also hold & profess according to the Scriptures. In this sense therefore we also admit of unwritten traditions, & blame, as he doth, them who strictly urge what things are found in the Scriptures, that is, admit of nothing but what in precise terms is expressed therein, and therefore the words here in question thus far make nothing against us. Yea and in the assertion of those other traditions which he mentioneth, he nothing crosseth us, because we deny not traditions, as was said in the beginning, which are but rites and ceremonies of the Church, who ourselves have such traditions in use, and deny not the liberty of other Churches for the like. Such traditions he there mentioneth to have been in those times, the signing of them which profess Christ with the sign of the Cross, praying towards the East, to be thrice dipped in baptism, to pray standing all the time from Easter to Whitsuntide, & such like. Now such traditions we condemn not, but we cannot but dislike, that whereas these are no matters of faith & perpetual necessity, but only of arbitrary and indifferent observation, he notwithstanding reckoneth them, g Cap. 27 Quorum utraque paren vim habent ad pietatem. as having like force to piety with those things that are written, and that the rejecting hereof shall be the h Et ea damnahimus quae in evangelio ad salutem necessaria habentur. condemning of those things which in the Gospel are accounted necessary to salvation. To which assertion M. Bishop for the credit of their Church of Rome will refuse to subscribe, because they hold the most of these things to be indifferent, insomuch that there is no necessity with them of thrice dipping him that is baptized & that custom of standing in prayer for the time above named is worn out of use. Wherein it cannot be denied, but that the Church of Rome hath done greatly amiss, if it be true concerning such traditions which Basil there is made to say. In a word Basils' traditions if they be his, concern not our disputation, either being such as are contained in the sense, though not in the letter of the Scripture, or else being only temporary and arbitrary observations of the Church, neither of which we impugn. We impugn those traditions which are made necessary and perpetual doctrines of faith, and of the worship of God, and yet neither in the letter, nor in the sense and consequence of the scriptures can be justified so to be. Of this sort are the Pope's supremacy and succession of Peter, his Pardons, invocation of Saints, worshipping of images, prayer for the dead, the single life of Priests, the curtolling of the Communion, the sacrifice of the Mass, & a huge deal of such other baggage. Wherein we may take knowledge of the notable fraud of these Romish Traditioners, who tell us out of the Fathers of traditions, traditions, when as in none of the ancient Catalogues of traditions those traditions are found, which they especially require to be believed under that name. The Father's mention Apostolic traditions as they call them, whereof the Church of Rome observeth nothing: the Church of Rome telleth us of Apostolic traditions whereof there is no mention with the Fathers. They agree not in their beadroll of traditions, and yet we forsooth must believe that the traditions of Popery are the same that they speak of, and have been continued from the time of the Apostles. But what the manner of the ancients was, Hierome teacheth us to understand, when he saith: i Hieron. ad Lucin. Vnaequae que Provincia abunde● in sensu suo, & praecepta mai●rum leges Apostolicas arbitretur. Let every Province abound in it own judgement or opinion, and think the precepts of their ancestors to be Apostolic laws. This was indeed their custom, whatsoever observations they had, to term them for the credit of them, Apostolic traditions, howsoever they were but human presumptions, and sometimes contrary to that which the Apostles practised, as Hierome there showeth of the tradition of k In Actibus Apostolorum dictus Pentecostes & dit Dominico Apostolum Paulum & cum to credentes teiunasse legimus. not fasting upon the Lord's day, and the days betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide, which he saith that Paul and with him the faithful did. But as touching all such traditions we are to consider what the same Hierome elsewhere saith, that l Idem in Agg. cap. 1 Quae absque authoritate & testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte r●periunt & contingunt, percutit gl●dius Dei. What things men of their own accord devise and feign, as of Apostolic tradition without testimony and authority of the Scriptures, the sword of God striketh down. As for Damascene whom M. Bishop allegeth last, we hold him not worth the answering. We doubt not but he defended unwritten traditions without any qualification being a notable idol-monger, and having no means for defence of his idolatry but the pretence of unwritten tradition. M. Bishop committed much oversight to reckon him for a man free from all partiality, who in that respect could not but be partial in behalf of the cause which he had undertaken against the written truth of God. But M. Bishop hath yet one string more to play upon: S. Paul commandeth Timothy (saith he) to commend unto the faithful that which he had heard of him by many witnesses, and not that only which he should find in some of his Epistles, or in the written Gospel. S. Paul's words are these: m 2. Tim. 3.2. What things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same deliver to faithful men which shall be able to teach other also. He willeth Timothy in special manner to instruct some in those things which he had heard and received of him, that they might be for the work of the ministery, and serve for the instructing and teaching of others. The question now is, what those things were of which he speaketh. M. Bishop when he saith: not only that which he should find written, confesseth that the Apostle meant it of those things that are written, though he will not have it thought to be meant of those only. We take it then for granted, as indeed it cannot be denied, that the Apostle here intended those things that are written, but we would hear an argument to prove, that the Apostle meant any thing further that is not written. If he might use those words of those things that are written, what hindereth but that he might use them of those only? M. Bishop cannot prove that he did not so, but we prove that he did so, because in the next Chapter he telleth the same Timothy: n 2. Tim. 3.15. The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ jesus. Therefore M. Bishops proofs come much too short, to give us any assurance that S. Paul by traditions understood any thing, but what is to be learned by the Scriptures. 17. W. BISHOP. The second argument for Traditions, is this, to believe that there be so many books of holy Scripture, and no more: and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be, is very necessary to salvation; now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture, but is received only by Tradition, wherefore it is necessary to salvation to believe some Tradition. M. Perkins answereth, that the books of the Old and New Testament, be Scripture, is not believed on bare Tradition, but by the books themselves on this manner. Let the man who is endued with the spirit of discerning, read the books, and consider first the author of them, who is God; then the matter contained, which is divine; the manner of speech, which is full of majesty in simple words: lastly, the end aimed at, which is God's honour: and by this means he shall discern any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoever. Reply. A wise and deep observation I warrant you, and well worthy a grave Author: Let us examine it briefly, first, he will have his man endued with the spirit of discerning: who shall endue him with that spirit? M. P. seemeth to say, that every sheep of Christ hath his spirit. But S. Paul * 1. Cor. 12. teacheth plainly the contrary, that some certain only have the judgement to discern. And touching this matter of discerning which books are Canonical, which are not: not the learnedst in the primitive Church would take upon him to discern which they were; three hundred years after Christ, was left vndefined by the best learned, whether the Catholic Epistles of S. james and Jude: the second of S. Peter: the second and third of john, and his Apocalypse, were Canonical or no, as is confessed on all parts: hath then every Christian this spirit of discerning, when the best Christians wanted it? Who more profound, more skilful to discern, than that subtle and sharp Doctor S. Augustine, and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which books be Canonical. For he in divers places of his works, * De doct. Christ. cap. 8. 18. de civit. Dei 36. lib. 2. cont. Epist. Gaudent. 23 holdeth the books of the Maccabees to be Canonical Scriptures: and expressly proveth the book of Wisdom so to be: * De Praedest. Sanct. 14. and yet our Protestant's will not admit them. See therefore how foolish and vain his first rule is. Come to the second. His second is, that he who goeth about to discern whether the book be Canonical or no, must consider the Author, who is God. If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the book, what needs any further labour? it must needs be Canonical that hath God for the Author. This man's wits were surely from home, when he discoursed thus: and therefore it should be but folly to stand upon his particularities, let this one reason in general serve to confute him: all this manner put together, serveth only to help particular men to discern which books are Canonical, who may easily after their diligent inquiry err and be deceived in this point, because every man is a liar. * Rom. 3. And if there be no more certain means to assure them of this, which is the ground of all their Religion, than every particular man's discretion and judgement, than out of doubt their whole Religion is most unwisely builded upon mean men's inventions and discretion: who also for the most part do neither understand the language in which they were first penned, nor the usual phrases of Scriptures translated: that I say nothing of the figures, parables, prophecies, and controversies which seem to be, and many other difficulties, and yet these men need not doubt, having learned some half dozen lines of Master Perkins, but that reading any book, they shall be able presently to discern whether it be Canonical or no. A goodly mockery: Men were not so taught in the Primitive Church, but the most skilful and wisest in discerning Canonical books, trusted not unto their own judgement, but leaned always upon Apostolical Traditions. So did Cerapion an auncieni holy Writer (as Eusebius reporteth) reject certain books set out in the Apostles names, because they had not received from their Predecessors any such. The like doth Clement of Alexandria, * Cap. 11. and that famous Origen * Cap. 19 of the same book, who observe the Ecclesiastical Canon, as he had learned and received by Tradition. So doth he deliver his opinion of the four Evangelists, and other books of Canonical Scripture, and not relying on his own wit, which was excellent, or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters. That S. Augustine was of the same mind, may be gathered out of these words of his, * Lib. 35. cap. 6. Contra Faustum. Of what book can there be any assurance, if the letters, which the Church propagated by the Apostles, and by such excellency declared throughout all Nations, doth teach and hold to be the Apostles, should be uncertain whether they be Apostles or no? So that he maketh the declaration of the Church descended of the Apostles, to be a sure pillar to rest upon, for the certain knowledge of Canonical Scripture, and other spirits whatsoever, if they follow not that rule to be rejected: so far is he off from encouraging every sheep of Christ's fold, to take that weighty matter upon himself, as M. P. doth. And what can be more against the most prudent providence of the divine wisdom, then to permit every one to be a judge of the books of Canonical Scripture? For if all those books, & no other should pass currant for Canonical (which any Christian taking upon him the spirit of discerning, would censure to be such) then away with all the old Testament, because divers esteemed it to proceed of some evil spirits, as witnesses Freveus * Lib 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. and Epiphanius: * Haeres. 6. 6. Yea, not only all the old must be abrogated, but all the new also, because it hath many falsehoods mixed with the truth, as some presuming greatly of their spirit and skill in discerning, did teach: so testifieth S. Augustine, * Lib. 32. cap. 2. Contra Faust. Some would have had but one of the four Gospels, some five, some six, some seven; some rejected all S. Paul's Epistles: many, and those of the faithful, did not admit for Canonical some of the other Apostles Epistles, nor the Revelations. If then the divine foresight of our Saviour had not prevented this most foul inconveniency, by instituting a more certain means of discerning and declaring which books were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost, which not: then by leaving it unto every man's discretion, he might be thought to have had but slender care of our salvation, which every true Christian heart doth abhor to think: and therefore we must needs admit of this most holy and provident Tradition of them from hand to hand: as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prolegomenis, and also Kemnitius, handling the second kind of Traditions, in his examination of the Council of Trent: albeit they reject all other Traditions, besides this one. R. ABBOT. That which M. Perkins here saith, hath his proper use in the ordinary receiving of the scriptures in a Christian Church, where being from our infancy baptised into Christ, and bred up in the continual noise and sound of the word of God, and having by this means some seeds of the spirit of God sowed in our hearts, we simply and without controversy or question take the scriptures, presuming upon the record of the Church, and believing them to be that which they are said to be, that is, the book of God, and in this persuasion applying ourselves to the reading of them, and finding therein a spirit so different from the spirit of man, so great a majesty in so great simplicity, and all things so correspondent to those shadows of truth and righteousness, which a Rom. 2.14.15. the work of the law written naturally in our hearts, and confirmed by light of education do represent unto us, we resolve, and fully do believe them to be that that at the first we presumed of them, the oracles of God, the words of salvation and eternal life, having an inward testimony and conviction to draw from us the assent, & unmoveably to ground us in the assurance thereof. This seemeth to Master Bishop to be no wise observation, but the reason is because he himself is scarcely wise. When he hath said all that he can say, yet this must stand for good, that there is nothing that can cause the heart of man sufficiently to apprehend that the Scriptures are the word of God, till the Scripture itself in the conscience by the spirit do evict itself so to be. And herein it is true which Origen saith, that b Origen. de princip. lib. 4. c. 1. Siquis cum omni study & reverentia, qua dignum est Prophetica dicta consideret, in eo ipso dum legit & diligentius intuetur, cerium est, quod aliquo diuiniore spiramine mentem sensumque pulsatus, agnoscet non humanitùs esse prolatos eos quos legit, sed Dei esse sermons, & ex semetipso sentiet non humana arte nec mortals eloquio, sed divino (ut ita dixerim) cothurno esse conscriptos. he who with all diligence and reverence, as is meet, shall consider the words of the Prophets, it is certain that in the reading and diligent viewing thereof, having his mind and understanding knocked at by a divine inspiration, he shall know that the words which he readeth were not uttered by man but are the words of God, and of himself shall perceive that those books were written, not by human art, not by the word of mortal man, but by a majesty divine. In a word, as the Sun when a man is brought into the light of it, not by telling, but by sight and by it own light is discerned to be that that giveth light unto the world, so the Scripture which is as it were the chariot of c Aug. in Psal. 80. Est in Scriptures nostris sol justitiae & sanitas in pennis eius. the Sun of righteousness, when a man is brought into the sight thereof, even by it own light is discerned to be that that ministereth unto us the light of everlasting life. Now the spirit of discerning, of which M. Perkins speaketh, is not to be understood of that special gift of d 1. Cor 12.10. discerning spirits mentioned by S. Paul, which importeth a singular and eminent dexterity in spying and finding out the secret frauds and deceits of counterfeit teachers and false Apostles, but the common spirit of the faithful, e 1. Cor. 2.12. which we receive, as the Apostle saith, that we may know the things that are given unto us of God: whereby it is true which our Saviour saith: f john 10.27. My sheep hear my voice and they follow me: g Ver. 4.5. they know the shepherds voice, and they will not follow a stranger, but they fly from him, for they know not the voice of strangers. h Ver. 14. I know mine, and am known of mine. Again he saith: i Cap. 7.17. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Whereby he teacheth us, that in applying ourselves to learn and practise the will of God, we attain to discern the doctrine to be of God. And herein consisteth that k Col. 1.9. spiritual understanding which the Apostle recommendeth generally to the faithful in his prayer for the Colossians, the use whereof is l Phil. 1.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to discern things that differ (namely, from the truth) and m 1. john 4.1. to try the spirits whether they be of God or not. Now the spirit as it useth the ministry of the Church for the delivering of the books of scripture, so it useth the ministry of the Church to give advertisement of those books which have not the like authority as the Scripture hath. And this advertisement it sealeth and confirmeth, whilst having testified otherwhere the undoubted doctrine of God, we discern thereby some doctrines in those books, that are of another stamp, and not correspondent to the rest. For when they are in any part found to be of another spirit, we conceive of the whole, that they were written with another pen, and therefore albeit for the most part they carry the savour and taste of those things which we read in the other books, yet in their defects we fully apprehend that which we have been told, that they are not of like majesty and authority with the rest, and though we may profitably read them for those things wherein they are derived from the other, yet that we cannot securely ground any doctrine immediately upon them. In this simplicity without further question many thousands receive the Scriptures, they read them, and by the power of the holy Ghost they grow thereby to faith and spiritual strength, and attain unto everlasting life. So certain are they of the truth, which they learn in them, as that they are ready to forsake all, and to lay down their lives for the testifying of that which they believe thereby. Against this M. Bishop telleth us, that not the learnedst in the primitive Church would take upon him to discern which books were canonical, and which not. But in so saying he very greatly abuseth his reader, for the scriptures of Moses & the Prophets, and all the books of the new Testament save only those few which he mentioneth, have been discerned and acknowledged for Canonical without contradiction from the time that first they were delivered to the Church. Yea but for three hundred years after Christ, saith he, it was left vndefined by the best learned as touching those few, the Epistles of james and Jude, the second of S. Peter, the two latter of S. john, and the Apocalypse, whether they were Canonical or not. Be it so, but is this a sufficient ground for him to affirm, that they discerned not which were undoubtedly canonical Scriptures, because they doubted whether these were so or not? What, did so many hundred thousand Martyrs suffer in the space of those 300 years, and did they know no certain and undoubted grounds whereupon to build the assurance of that for which they suffered? Did the Bishops and Pastors of the Church teach the people of God out of the Scriptures, and yet did they not discern whether they were Scriptures or not? As for the doubt that was made of these books by him mentioned, it was only by some, and in some places, and upon weak and uncertain grounds, as the second Epistle of S. Peter upon difference of style, the Epistle to the Hebrews, for that it seemed to some for want of understanding to favour the heresy of the Novatians, the Revelation of Saint john, for that to some such like it seemed to make for the millenary fancy of Corinthus, but this was not sufficient so to overweigh the authority of them, but that the former testimony that was given of them prevailed still in the Church, so that they were not since confirmed or first received into authority by the Church, but only acknowledged and continued still in the authority which they had before. Therefore of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation, Hierome testifieth thus: n Hieron. ad Darda. de terra repromiss. Illud nostris dicendum est hanc Epistolà quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos non solùm ab Ecclesus Orientis, sed abomnibus retrò Ecclesus & Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli suscipi licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur, & nihil interesse cuius sit, cùm Ecclesiastici viri sit, & quotidiè Ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quòd sicam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas, nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim joannis eadem libertate suscipiunt, & tamen nos utraque suscipimus, nequaquam huius temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum authoritatem sequentes, qui plerunque utriusque utuntur testimonijs, non ut interdum de Apocryphis facere solent, etc. sed quasi canonicis & ecclesiasticis. This must we say to our men, that this Epistle to the Hebrews, not only of the Eastern Churches, but of all the former Churches and writers of the Greek tongue, hath been received as the Epistie of Paul the Apostle, albeit many think it either to have been written by Barnabas or Clement, and that it skilleth not whose it is, seeing it came from a special man of the Church, and is daily frequented in the reading of the Churches. And if the custom of the Latins receive it not amongst Canonical Scriptures, the Churches of the Greeks' by the like liberty receive not the Revelation of S. john, and yet we (saith he) receive them both, not following the custom of this time, but the authority of the ancient writers, who commonly use the testimonies of them both, not as they are wont sometimes to do out of the Apocryphal books, but as being books Canonical, and of authority in the Church. Herby then M. Bishop may see, that it was but in his ignorance, and upon some other man's word, that he saith, that for three hundred years it was not defined whether these books were Canonical or not, whereas they had undoubted authority in the first Church, and began in latter time to be questioned without cause. Of those other therefore which he mentioneth, we conceive in the like sort, of which they that in their simplicity doubted, yet in the other Scriptures by the holy Ghost discerned * 2. Cor. 4.6. the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of jesus Christ, and thereby became partakers of life in him. Whereas he saith, that we allow not S. Augustine the true spirit of discerning which books be canonical, because he maketh the books of Maccabees and the book of Wisdom to be Canonical Scriptures, and yet we will not so admit them: we answer him, that he hath not the spirit to understand and discern the meaning of Saint Austin. Ruffinus mentioneth the books whereof the question was as touching the reading of them in the Church to have been of three sorts: Some were o Ruffinan expos●symb apud Cyprian. Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt, ex quibus fide● nostrae assertiones constare voluerant. Canonical, which he reckoneth the same that we do, upon which (saith he) they would have the assertions of our faith to stand. Other some he calleth p Alij libri sunt qui non canonies, sed ecclesiastici à maioribus appella● sunt, etc. Ecclesiastical books, not Canonical, naming all those which we term the Apocryphal Scriptures, all which (saith he) the Fathers would have to be read in the Churches, but not to be alleged to prove the authority of faith. A third sort there were which were termed by them q Cateras Scripturas Apocryphas nominarunt, quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt. Apocryphal writings, which they would not have to be read in the Churches at all, which were all those that are wholly rejected as bastards and counterfeits, such as were r Sect. 13. before spoken of in answer to the Epistle. Now of those three sorts some made but only two, and that diversly. Some reckoned under the name of Apocryphal Scriptures all that were not of the first sort, and properly termed Canonical, as Hierome did, who having reckoned the same books for Canonical that Ruffinus doth, and accounting them in number two and twenty, as the Hebrews do, addeth that s Hieron in Prologue Galeata. Fu●●● pariter veteris legis libri viginis duo, etc. we are to know that whatsoever is beside these, is to be put amongst Apocryphal writings. Therefore (saith he) the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of jesus the Son of Syrach, of Toby, of judith, are not in the Canon, Thus he reckoneth the Ecclesiastical and Apocryphal books under one name of Apocryphal. Some on the other side under the name of Canonical books contained all that were not of the last sort, that is, of those bastards and counterfeits which were wholly exploded and rejected out of the Church. Thus S. Austin doth, extending the name of Canonical to all that was admitted publicly to be read, and therefore comprehending the books called Ecclesiastical jointly under that name. But here the name of Canonical is not properly used, because the Scriptures are called canonical, of being the Canon, that is to say, the rule of our faith, which those Ecclesiastical books are not, as before we have heard. And what? doth Austin make them all of equal and like authority? Nothing less: for in the first place cited by Master Bishop, where he setteth all those books down under one name of canonical, he giveth this rule, t Aug. de doct. Christ lib. 2 ca 8. In Scriptures canonicis ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequotur, etc. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scriptures Canonicis, ut cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesus, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt: in eyes verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat ca● quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritat● ecclesiae tonent. In the Canonical Scriptures let a man follow the authority of the greater number of catholic Churches, and this course he shall hold, to prefer those which are received of all catholic Churches, before those which some do not receive, and in those which are not received of all, let him prefer those which the more Churches and of greater authority do receive, before those which are holden of the fewer and of lesser authority or account. He would not have used any such exception, if he had taken all those books to be alike inspired of God, and therefore doth manifestly teach us to make some difference betwixt them, and consequently not to account the books of Maccabees properly canonical, inasmuch as few or no Churches esteemed them so to be. And this may somewhat further appear in the second place which M. Bishop citeth, where speaking of the Princes of the jews after the re-edifying of the temple, he saith, u Aug. de ciu. Dei. lib 18. cap. 36. Quorum supputatio temporum non in Scriptures sanctis quae canonicae appellantur sed in alijs invenitur in quibus sunt & Machabaeorun libriquos non judaei, sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabile●, etc. The account of their terms is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in other books amongst which are the books of the Maccabees, which not the jews but the Church reckoneth for canonical, because of the great and wonderful sufferings of some martyrs, who before the incarnation of Christ strived even to death for the law of God. Where we see him first plainly secluding those books from the canonical Scriptures, according as they were secluded by the jews, albeit withal he saith that the Church in a particular respect admitted of them as canonical, that is, publicly to be read, to give knowledge of the constant suffering of some therein mentioned, for the testimony of the law of God. But in what sort it was that the Church admitted of them, and the rest of that kind, Hierome giveth us to understand: x Hieron. praefat. in lib Solom. Sicut Judith & Tobiae & Machabaeorum libros legit quid●m ecclesia, sed eos inter canonica● Scripturas non recipit; sic & haec duo volumina (sapientiae & Ecclesiastici) legate ad aedificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem ecclesiastic●rum dogmatum confirmandum The Church readeth them, but accounteth them not amongst the canonical Scriptures: it readeth them for the edification of the people, not to confirm the authority of the doctrines of the Church. And this that Hierome saith, is confirmed also by Austin himself, where he teacheth, that y August de ciu. Dei. lib. 17. ca 20. Aduersus contradictores non tanta fir●●●●●● pr●●eruntur quae scripta non sunt in Canone judaeorum. those things which are not written in the canon of the jews, are not with so great strength (or authority) alleged against them that contradict us. Hereby therefore they are proved to be no canonical Scriptures properly so called, because canonical Scriptures being the rule and measure of our faith, do convince those that contradict, which S. Austin acknowledgeth these do not. The third place alleged by M. Bishop, helpeth yet further to clear this matter, where Gaudentius the Donatist alleging the example of Razias, killing himself in the second book of Maccabees, for defence of their Circumcellions casting themselves down from rocks, and provoking others to kill them, that they might be accounted martyrs, S. Austin first condemneth the fact, which the Author of that book commendeth, and then addeth for exception further: z Idem cont. Epist. Gaudent. li. 2. ca 23. Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum judaei non habent sicut legem & Prophetas & Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis dicens, Oportebat impleri, etc. Sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur, maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à persecutoribus tam indigna atque h●rrenda perpessi sunt, etc. This Scripture which is called of the Maccabees, the jews account not as the law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord giveth testimony as his witnesses, saying, All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, but it is received of the Church not unprofitably if it be soberly read or heard, specially for those Maccabees, who for the law of God like true martyrs suffered so unworthy and horrible things at their persecutors hands. Where we see how coldly he speaketh of the receiving of that book, as rather to excuse the Church, then to defend it for so doing, that it was done not unprofitably, and yet with this exception, if it be soberly read, and the reason of the receiving of it, not for the authority of the book, but for the story of those Maccabees, who there are recorded so constantly to have suffered torments for their observing the law of God. But withal he absolutely showeth, that those books are none of them, a Luk. 24.44. to which Christ gave testimony as his witnesses, who notwithstanding calleth those witnesses by the name of b Ver. 27. all Scriptures, thereby giving fully to understand that these are no Scriptures. Hereby therefore we conceive, that S. Austin well discerned the defect of these books, and rightly understood that they are not so to be accounted of as those are, to which Christ hath given witness by his own word. No otherwise therefore could he conceive of the book of Wisdom being of the same kind, and that he did so, it plainly appeareth, for that of that and the book of Ecclesiasticus it was that he said that which before I mentioned, that the books which are not in the canon of the jews, are not alleged with so great authority against them that say against us. And that this book was not received in the Church as a book of divine authority, appeareth by the very place which Master Bishop citeth, where it is showed, that Saint Austin citing a testimony out of the said book, exception was taken against it, c Aug. de prae●●. sanct. cap. 14. Quod à me positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis tanquam non de libro canonico adhibitum. For that it was taken out of a book that was not canonical. S. Austin indeed pleadeth earnestly to gain credit to it, and allegeth that of long time it had been accustomed to be read in the Church, and men had used to cite the testimony of it as divine, but yet could not expressly say that ever it was reckoned for a Canonical book. And as for those arguments, M. Bishop is deceived, to think that they could prove it to be Canonical, because the book of d Ruffinan exposit. symb. the Pastor was in like sort read in the Church, as Ruffinus beareth witness in the place before alleged, and yet was not accounted canonical Scripture, and Cyril and Ambrose cite the books of Esdras by the name of e Cyril. count julian. lib. 1. Sic ait Scriptura divinitùs inspirata, etc. Ambros. de obitu frat. Prophetico sermone dicitur, etc. ●epeto sacro Scriptura solatia tua & de bono mort. cap. 11 Ait propheta ad angelum, etc. holy Scripture, and inspired of God, and Ambrose calleth him by the name of a Prophet, whereas Hierome calleth those books f Hieron. praefat. in Esdram & Nehem. Nec apocryphorum tertij & quarti libri s●mnijs delectetur. dreams, and wisheth no man to be delighted with them. They used these books in their Sermons casually as we do, thinking it not material to cite them for exhortation to the people, howsoever they held them not of sufficient authority otherwise. Therefore they cited them with condition sometimes, g Hieron. ad furiam. Legunus in judith. sicut tamen placet volumen recipere. if we will receive such or such a book, as Hierome doth the book of judith, and h Origen. in Math. tract. 30. Si recipitur liber qui dicit quoniam sapientia est quae facta est populo columna nubis, etc. Origen the book of Wisdom, of which we here speak. By these things therefore it is plain enough, that though Austin were not willing that authority should in that sort be detracted from any book that was received publicly to be read in the Church, yet that he was well able to discern, and so did, which books were of divine and infallible authority, and which were to be accounted of inferior and lesser worth, judging thereof in effect no otherwise then we do. Now from this M. Bishop goeth to another cavil at that that M. Perkins saith, that a man to come to know the Scriptures to be of God, must first take and believe them so to be. He saith that the man's wits were from home in so discoursing, but the cause is, because his wits serve him not to conceive that which M. Perkins saith. Very well and truly doth Saint Austin observe, that i Aug. in joan. tract. 29. Jntellectus merces est fidei: ergo●oli quaerere intelligere ut credas, sed ●rede ut intelligas. understanding is the reward of faith: Seek not therefore, saith he, to understand that thou mayest believe, but first believe that thou mayest understand. He gathereth it from that which the Disciples say, k john. 6.69. We believe and know that thou art Christ the son of the living God. They first believe, and in believing they learn to know. The belief of which Master Perkins speaketh, is the belief of a learner, of whom in matters of other knowledge, they are wont to say, Oportet discentem credere, the learner must believe. There are in all Arts and Sciences certain propositions and principles, which the learner first accepteth upon the word of him that teacheth him; which notwithstanding afterwards he attaineth so to know, as that if he that taught him, should say any thing to the contrary, he should think him beside himself, and by no means yield to him, as knowing that certainly now which he did at first believe. Even so is it in this case; a man having it wrought out of his own conscience, that there is a God, to whom honour, and worship, and service is due, and that this God undoubtedly hath some way revealed wherein that honour and worship doth consist, betaketh himself upon the testimony of the Church, to the reading and hearing of the Scriptures, and in the exercise thereof, findeth and feeleth that to be true, which was testified unto him, and saith: l Psal. 48.7. Like as we have heard, so have we seen in the City of our God. And as the Samaritans being drawn to Christ by the report of the woman, after they had seen and heard him, say, m john. 4.42. Now we believe not because of thy saying, for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Messias the Saviour of the world, so this man being first brought to the Scriptures by the report of the Church, and thereby believing the same to be of God, doth by his own experience afterwards fully apprehend the truth and certainty of that report, yea more than was reported, so that he saith, n Origen. in Cant. hom. 2. Per illos quidem audivi; ad te autem veni & tibi credidi, apud quem muliò plura viderunt oculi mei quàm annunciabantur mihi. By them I heard of thee, and I came to thee, and have believed thee, with whom mine eyes have seen much more than before was told me. Therefore he resteth not his faith now upon the Church, but upon God himself, so that though the Church should slide back, and deny that which it hath before affirmed, yet he standeth secure, and chooseth rather to die a thousand times, then to forego the comfort and hope that he hath conceived by the Scriptures, which were at first delivered unto him by the Church. Thus Christian people have been wont to receive the Scriptures of the hands of the Church, wherein they have lived without seeking any further approbation and warrant thereof, because in the use of them they have given a sufficient warrant and testimony of themselves. So then we rest not the Scriptures upon the discerning of private spirits, as Master Bishop idly and vainly cavilleth, but we make the Church as the hand of God, whereby he putteth the Scriptures into our hands, and private spirit doth no more but subscribe to the testification of the Church. But now if Master Bishop will question the public testimony of our Church as touching knowledge what Scriptures are to be delivered, we answer him, that such and such only we acknowledge and deliver by our testimony, because by like testimony those only have been acknowledged and delivered unto us. Here then we refer ourselves to Tradition, and therefore all that Master Bishop allegeth to the end of this section, is but fight with a shadow of his own, and nothing against us. He saith in the end that Brentius and Chemnitius admit of this Tradition, albeit they reject all other Traditions beside this one, whereas Chemnitius setting down eight kinds of Traditions, acknowledgeth seven of them, and determineth our defence against the Papists, to consist in one kind only. We fight not against the word, we know it hath his use; Master Perkins in three conclusions here acknowledgeth Traditions: the Church of Rome hath brought it by her abuse to one special use and meaning, and in that use only we impugn it, namely as it importeth matters not of temporary rites and ceremonies indifferently used, but of perpetual doctrine and faith, which neither in word nor in meaning can be verified and confirmed by the written word, presupposed and acknowledged to be the word of God. In this sense we deny Traditions; the name otherwise we reject not; we say that by testimony of Tradition the notice of the canonical Scriptures is given unto us. This Master Bishop thinketh should make for the credit of their Church of Rome, dreaming that this must be by the tradition of that Church, or that that Church must be the witness unto us of this tradition. But therein he very much deceiveth himself; amongst all the traditions mentioned by the ancient Writers, we never find this tradition, that for the number of the books of canonical Scripture, we must take the tale and tradition of the Church of Rome. If he can make good any such tradition, he shall find us much the more favourable for all the rest. Otherwise we do not know why it should not be as ready for the Church of England, to judge which are canonical Scriptures, as it is for the Church of Rome. What means should they have for the discerning of them, that is not as open to us as it is to them? We take the account of holy Scriptures in the same sort as the ancient Church did, o Ruffin in exposit. symb. Secundum traditionem patrum: Sicut ex patrum monumentis acceptmus. Hilar. prolog. in Psal. Secundun traditiones veterum. according to the tradition of the fathers, and out of the monuments of the fathers. We reckon those only for canonical books, which from the time of the Apostles, have had certain and undoubted testimony to be so; testimony I say, of so many Churches, and nations, and peoples, to which at first they were delivered, and thenceforth used amongst them to be read in their Churches, expounded in their pulpits, meditated in their houses, which the fathers have perpetually cited in their books, and opposed in general Counsels against Schismatics and heretics, to which they have attributed all authority for the deciding and determining the causes and controversies of the Church, p Aug. in joannis epist. tract. 2. Contra quas nullus audeat loqui qui se vult quoquo modo vocari Christianum. against which none dare speak, saith Saint Austin, who will in any sort be called a Chrstian man. q Idem cont. faust. l. 11. cap. 5. Excellentia canonicae authoritatis veteris & novi testamenti Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones episcoporum, & propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serutat omnis fidelis & pius intellectus. The excellency of the canonical authority of the old and new testament, saith he again, being confirmed in the time of the Apostles, hath by succession of Bishops and propagation of Churches been set in a high and lofty seat, that all faithful and religious understanding may be servant unto it. Now by the Scriptures which thus irrefragably and unquestionably have been received universally of the whole Christian world, we learn to judge of those books adjoined to the old testament, whereof question is betwixt the Church of Rome and us. For in those books as touching the old testament, we learn that r Rom. 2.2. to the jews were committed the words of God, whereof it followeth, that none are to be accounted the words of God, that were not committed unto them. The books committed to them our Saviour Christ nameth to have been s Luk 24.44. Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, and calleth these t Ver. 27. all the Scriptures, as before was noted. Because then these are all the Scriptures, and those which we seclude from the Canon are none of these, it followeth that by the sentence of Christ himself, they are declared to be no Scriptures. And hereto agreeth the ancient tradition of the Church of the jews, recorded by josephus, who acknowledgeth that they had u joseph. count Apion. lib. 1. Sunt nobis solummodo duo & viginti libri quorum justè fides ad nutitur. Horum quinque sunt Moseos etc. Amorie Moseos usque ad Artaxerxem Persarun regem Prophetae temporum suorum res gestas conscripserunt in tredecim libris. Reliqui vero quatuor hymns in Deum & vitae humanae praecepta noscuntur continere. only two and twenty books, to which justly they gave credit, whereof five are the books of Moses: From whom to the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia, the Prophets wrote the matters of their times in thirteen books, which are thus reckoned, 1. josuah. 2. the judges with Ruth. 3. the two books of Samuel. 4. the two books of Kings. 5. the two books of Chronicles. 6. Ezra and Nehemiah. 7. Esther. 8. job. 9 Esay. 10. jeremy. 11. Ezechiel. 12. Daniel. 13. the book of the twelve lesser Prophets. The other four, saith he, contain Hymns and Songs to God, and precepts of human life, which are, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles. Of those things which were afterwards written, he saith, x Ab Artaxerxe usque ad nostrum tempus singulae sunt conscripta, non tamen priori simili fide sunt habita, cò quod non fuerit cert● successio prophetarum. that they were not of like credit to the former, because there was no certain succession of Prophets amongst them. This tradition the jews hold constantly and inviolably till this day, and in their dispersion through the world, do still give witness to the books that were delivered to their fathers, God by his providence appointing them to be y August. cont▪ faust. lib. 12. cap. 23. Quid est hody gen● ipsa nisi quaedam scriniaria Christianorum, ba●ulans legem & Prophetas in testimonium assertionis ecclesiae. the roll-keepers of the Christians, as Saint Austin noteth, carrying the law and the Prophets for the testimony of that which the Church teacheth. If God then have appointed them to be witnesses of those books of the old Testament, which should serve for the assertion of our faith in the new, we should do amiss to admit of other books of the old Testament for assertion of our faith, whereof they give no witness. This computation of the Scriptures according to their tradition, is followed by the fathers of the Christian Church, professing exactly to set down the number of Canonical books, as by z Euseb. lib. 4: cap. 25. Veteris instrumenti libros diligenter cogritos subieci: Where wisdom in the Greek is added by apposition to the Proverbs, so called by the ancients. Melito Bishop of Sardis, by a Jdem. lib 6. cap. 24. Where a fault is committed by Eusebius, in leaving out the book of the twelve lesser Prophets, for the two and twentieth. Origen, by b Athan. in Synopsi. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, by c Epiphan de mens. & pond. Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, by the whole Council of d Concil. Laodic. cap. 59 Laodicea, for the Greek and Eastern Churches, and for the Latin and Western Churches, by e Hilar. Prologue. in Psal. Ita secundum traditiones veterum deputantur. Hilary, by f Hieron. in Prologue. Galeato. Hierome, by g Ruffinus in expositione Symboli. Ruffinus, all reckoning for Canonical Scriptures the same that we do, and excluding from the Canon the same that we exclude. The same reckoning we find in the Canons, which have gone in the Church of Rome under the name of the Canons of the Apostles; only h Canon. Apostol. 84. three books of Maccabees are foisted in, of which we read not to that purpose any otherwhere. Yea, and that they went not in that account in the Church of Rome, is apparent by Gregory Bishop there, who being to apply the example of Eleazar in the Maccabees, to the matter that he had in hand, saith; i Gregor. Moral. lib. 19 cap. 13. De quae re non inordinatè agimus si ex libris licet non canonicis, sed ta●●n ad ecclesiae edificationem editis exempli●m proferamus. Eleazar enim, etc. Of this thing we shall not do amiss, to bring an example out of the books, though not canonical, yet set forth for the edification of the Church. In which words he plainly showeth, that neither the books of Maccabees, nor the rest of that sort were holden for canonical Scriptures, albeit they were set forth to be read, for that they contained many things profitable for the edifying of the people. For this cause S. Austin reckoneth them amongst the canonical books, but because he confesseth, as we have seen, that in contradiction they have not that k August. count faust. lib. 28. cap. 4. Confirmativa authoritate clarescerent. confirmative authority, which elsewhere he nameth for the prerogative of the Scriptures, he thereby confesseth that they are not truly canonical, because it is for that authorities sake that the name of canonical Scriptures is given to those to which it doth appertain. Therefore we reckon him also as a witness of this tradition, whereby our Church discerneth what books we are to approve for determining faith and doctrine in the Church, and under that name to commend as the infallible Oracles of God, to the devotion of the people. But now Master Bishop will ask, what the reason is, that admitting this tradition we do not admit also of other their traditions, of which we also read in the writings of the fathers? Whereto to say nothing that their traditions are uncertain as touching their beginning, variable in their proceeding, corrupt in their use, and many of them upstart devices, shamefully and lewdly attributed to the fathers, whereas this tradition of the Scriptures without alteration or interruption, hath had constant & perpetual acknowledgement both of the whole nation of the jews; and of the whole Christian Church throughout the whole world, from the beginning until this day, we answer him, that by this tradition itself, we are instructed against the admitting of their traditions. For this tradition or delivering of the Scriptures from God, is as the delivering of a commission from a Prince. For as by the commission the subject is directed what to do in the Prince's service, and is thereby listed and bounded so, as to do nothing but according to the tenure and warrant of the commission, being punishable if he shall attempt any thing further upon his own head: so by this commission of holy Scripture delivered unto us by the Church from God, we are instructed and limited what to believe and what to do as touching faith and duty towards God, and are justly to be punished if we shall dare in any sort to go beyond the bounds and warrant of this commission: yea and the Church itself is to hold and profess itself so tied to the precepts and rules of this commission, as that it may not presume to obtrude or thrust any thing upon the people of God to be believed and taught, but whereof it hath thereby received warrant and instruction from God himself. And if the Church shall further attempt or enterprise any thing, as the Church of Rome doth, it is to receive check and controlment from this writ of God's commission; neither are we to think ourselves discharged for that we are thus told by the bearer of the writ, so long as by the writ itself we are commanded otherwise. 18. W. BISHOP. The two next arguments for traditions, be not well propounded by Master Perkins. The third is to be framed thus: Either all the books of holy Scripture contain all needful doctrine to salvation, or some certain of them without the rest; not some of them without the rest, for then the other should be superfluous, which no man holdeth: therefore all the books of holy Scripture put together, do contain all necessary instruction. Now than the argument followeth, but some of those books of holy Scripture have been lost, therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written word, and consequently to be learned by tradition. Master Perkins answereth, first supposing some of the books to be lost, that all needful doctrine which was in them, is in some of the others preserved. But why did he not solve the argument proposed? were then those books superfluous? Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needless discourses? which this answer supposeth: therefore he gives a second more shameful, that none be perished, which is most contrary unto the plain Scriptures, * 1. Paral. vit. 2 Paral. 9 as S. john, chrysostom proveth, * Hom. 9 in Mat. Et hom. 7 an priorem ad Corinth. where he hath these express words: That many of the Prophetical books were lost, may be proved 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 rolls of paper, some profane and of Philosophy, I hold them not worth the discussing, being not much pertinent, and avowed on his word only, without either any reason or authority. R. ABBOT. Of this argument well propounded, we deny the minor proposition. We say that some of the Scriptures, though some other had miscarried, should contain all doctrine needful to salvation. The consequence that he maketh thereof, that then those other are superfluous, is childish and absurdly injurious 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 Evangelists divers times record the same stories, and even word for word; and must it follow, that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set down? There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one book of holy Scripture, but the same hath testimony and witness of other books. Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where, which otherwhere are not mentioned, but points of necessary doctrine and faith, have manifold testimony of the written word. Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith, that some of the old books were lost, which the wisdom of God thought necessary for those times, though unnecessary for us, yet it cannot be inferred hereof, that any doctrine was thereby lost, because though there might be some matters of story there only mentioned, yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law. And if Master Bishop will needs persuade us, that some points of doctrine were there delivered that are not in other scripture, and must now be learned by tradition, we desire to understand whether by tradition he have learned what those traditions were, and that out of their Church's treasury of traditions he will discover these secrets, of which neither the Prophets nor Evangelists, nor Apostles, nor Fathers, nor Counsels were ever able to inform us. He telleth us that chrysostom affirmeth the loss of those books; but doth chrysostom tell him of any doctrines derived by tradition from those books? Surely he wanted some proof for the Pope's triple crown & his year of jubilee, and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome, and dreaming it in his sleep, believed it when he was awake, that these matters were written of in these books, and the books being now lost, they come to us by a tradition of which the world never heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand years. But we must think that he wrote not these things for us, but for them who he thought would be more ready to believe him then we are. Now M. Perkins further answereth, that though those books were lost, yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost, because there might be books which were not reckoned for Scripture books. For proof hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle, a Rom. 15.4. Whatsoever things were written before time, were written for our learning, arguing hereof, that because books that be lost cannot serve for our learning, and all the books of scripture that were formerly written, were to serve for our learning, therefore no books of scripture formerly written could be lost. M. Bishop after his manner, calleth it a shameful answer, but saith not a word to disprove it. He telleth us that there were such books, but he proveth not that they were books of scripture, and to the reason alleged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all, and therefore I pass him over, without any further answer. 19 W. BISHOP. Master Perkins his fourth objection of the jewish Cabala, is a mere dream of his own: our argument is this, Moses who was the penman of the old Law, committed not all to writing, but delivered certain points needful to salvation by tradition; nor any Lawmaker that ever was in any country, comprehended all in letters, but established many things by customs, therefore not likely that our Christian law should be all written. That Moses did not pen all, thus we prove: it was as necessary for women to be delivered from original sin as men. Circumcision the remedy for men, could not possible be applied to women, as every one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell; neither is there any other remedy provided in the written law, to deliver women from that sin: therefore some other remedy for them was delivered 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 saved, as job, and many such like, according to the opinion of all the ancient Fathers: yet in the Law, or any other part of the old Testament, it is not written what they had to believe, or how they should live: wherefore many things needful to salvation were then delivered by tradition. To that reason of his, that God in his providence should not permit such a loss of any part of the Scripture: I answer, that God permitteth much evil. Again, no great loss in that, according to our opinion, who hold that tradition might preserve what was then lost. R. ABBOT. It concerneth M. Bishop to speak well of the jewish Cabala; for if the Cabala be not good, certainly Popish traditions are stark nought; the jews having as good warrant for the one, as the Papists for the other. Both of them to purchase credit to their own fancies and devices, betook themselves to this shifting pretence, that the word of God was delivered first by Moses, and then by Christ and his Apostles, partly written and partly unwritten. Whatsoever they have listed to bring in, either of curiosity or for profit, they have referred it to the unwritten word, and this hath been the sink of all both jewish and Popish superstition, both verifying in themselves that which our Saviour objecteth to the one, a Mat. 15.6. Ye have made the commandment of God of no authority by your tradition. M. Bishop here like a loving brother taketh the jews by the hand, and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions, that by them he may gain some reputation to his own. His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in comparison of him, were never able for themselves to devise the like. That Moses committed not all to writing, he proveth, because it was necessary for women to be delivered from original sin; but they could not be delivered from it by circumcision, not being capable thereof, and no other remedy is provided in the written law; therefore some other remedy was delivered for them by tradition. Further he allegeth, 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 delivered 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 tell what to say. But for our learning, M. Bishop, we are desirous to know of you what these remedies were that you speak of? What was the ceremony for the freeing of women from original sin, and children dying before eight days old? Where have ye found, or how can ye prove that there was any such? Surely you that can see so far into a millstone of traditions, are able (I trow) to inform us what it was, if any such thing were. Ridiculous vain man bringing in steed of proofs fantastical imaginations, whereof he hath no ground, nor can give us any testimony at all, either from the jews themselves, or from other ancient writers, but only out of the presumptions and idle dreams of some of their own schoolmen. Yea and in this device of his he crosseth the doctrine of his own part: for tell us M. Bishop, did circumcision take away original sin? If it did so, what difference then betwixt the sacraments of the old Testament and of the new? You are wont to tell us, that the sacraments of the old Testament did signify grace, but not give grace: that they did signify the taking away of sin, but not take it away: that they did signify justification, but did not justify. Therefore Bellarmine accordingly determineth, that circumcision did not justify or take away sin, but in that respect was of as little force as uncircumcision, yea and argueth that if circumcision had justified, than justification should have been proper to men, because men only are circumcised; so far is he from conceiving that some other remedy was provided for women in steed of circumcision. For expounding the Apostles words, b Rom 3.29. Is God the God of the jews only, 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 peccatum solis judaeis? Possumus nos etiam hinc alitèr argumentari: An masculorum Deus tantum? nun 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 give remedy against sin to the jews only? he addeth: We may hence also argue, Is God the God of men only? is he not also the God of women? Who then will believe that he gave a remedy (against sin) that should be available for men only? His resolution then is, that circumcision was no remedy against sin, because God would not appoint a remedy against sin (as he conceiveth) which should not be common to the Gentiles as well as to the jews, to women as well as men. Now therefore inasmuch as M. Bishop's foundation faileth, surely that which he buildeth upon it must needs fall, and look what he will say was the delivering of men from original sin, the same he must confess hath been the delivering of women also, so that either he must resolve one means for both out of the written word, or pass over to tradition unwritten; and if he have not a tradition for both, than all his matter of jewish tradition must come to nought, and there is nothing proved but that Moses committed all to the written law. But his phrase of delivering from original sin, implieth an error before confuted in the question of that point. Our regeneration consisteth in the forgiveness of sins, and the first fruits of the sanctification of the holy Ghost, the same spirit working sometimes without any sign or sacrament of initiation, as in the fathers until the time of Abraham, who himself was justified before the sacrament of Circumcision; sometimes with that sign of circumcision, proper in execution to men only, but yet sealing the fruit of God's 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 sign common both to men and women, as in our baptism we see, thereby showing that he worketh freely according to his own will, not tying himself to outward signs, but saving only by his grace, either with signs where they are, or without, where either there is no institution, as in the beginning, or there wanteth means and opportunity of execution, as oft befell in circumcision of the old Testament, and doth befall in baptism of the new. Now as touching M. Bishops third reason, it is as reasonless as the former, so that we may wonder that the author of it should be so without reason. job and many such like Gentiles (saith he) were saved. Very true. But in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to believe or how they should live. 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 believe, and according to that faith how they ought to live. Yea and where it is written, what they did believe and how they did live, there it is written what they had to believe, and how they were to live. But in the book of job it is written of himself and of his friends, what they did believe, and what the ordering of their life was, all according to the law of Moses, and the faith therein contained. It is therefore untrue which M. Bishop saith, that it is not written what they had to believe or how they were to live. But yet giving the man his way, let us see what his conclusion is: Therefore (saith he) many things needful to salvation were then delivered by tradition. We may see his head was troubled, and he had forgotten what he was to conclude; for this his conclusion should have been, Therefore Moses committed not all to writing. But this would not follow; for though it were not namely written of job what he had to believe, yet we cannot hereof infer, that therefore he had any thing else to believe but that that is written. What hindereth I say, but that Moses may be conceived to set down the faith whereby job was to be saved, though he do not expressly say, that job was to believe thus. But it may be that M. Bishop meant, that that conclusion should be subordinate to the former, and so would reason thus, job and such like received many things by tradition, therefore Moses committed not all to writing. Yet neither can this stand good, because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writing all that faith that job received by tradition. job was g Ambros. Offic. lib. 1. caep. 36. job antiqutor Mose, etc. ancienter than Moses, as Ambrose saith, and might receive 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 been i Sect. 1. before declared, not resting in relation from one man to another, but continually renewed and confirmed by revelation and illumination immediately from God, being certainly corrupted by tradition where he did not graciously show himself for the preservation of it. And as for other Gentiles, whosoever they were that were saved after the writing of the Law, they were saved only by that faith which the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets have described unto us. But M. Bishop not content to bring Moses alone for a patron of traditions, telleth us beside, that not any lawmaker in any country comprehended all in letters, but established many things by custom: therefore (saith he) it is not likely that our Christian law should be all written. Where we may justly hiss at his gross and wilful absurdity, that will measure the Lawmaker of heaven with the lawmakers of the earth, and by imperfection in the laws of men, will argue imperfection in the laws of God. No understanding of man can either by laws or by customs provide for all occurrents of the commonwealth, but daily there are arising and growing the occasions of new laws; and will he then frame the light of God to the measure of our darkness? And yet what lawmaker hath there been, or is there in the world, who if he were able to comprehend an absolute perfection of all laws, would not certainly take course to set the same down in writing, as being the only secure and safe way for the perpetuating thereof? And if we will thus conceive of any wise and reasonable man, how much more should we attribute it to the wisdom of God, that knowing the slipperness and mutability of the minds & thoughts of men, he would for safety and assurance set down in writing whatsoever he would have to stand for law of worship and service towards him? I need not to stand upon this, for the comparison is of itself so odious and absurd, as that every man may wonder that the man's discretion should fail him so far as to reason in this sort. For conclusion of this section, a toy took him in the head concerning somewhat said by M. Perkins in the section before. It was said that it should call the providence of God in question, to say that any part of Scripture should be lost. M. Bishop answereth, that God permitteth much evil. True, but he permitteth no evil injurious to his own 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 providence of God? His other answer, that there should be no great loss, because tradition might preserve that which was then lost, is a temerarious and witless presumption, contrary to the experience of all ages, whereby it is found that nothing is continued according to the first original which is delivered by word only from man to man. And his assertion is so much the more ridiculous in this behalf, for that he knoweth not any thing that Tradition hath preserved that was written in those books. If Tradition have preserved any thing thereof from being lost, let him acquaint us with it; or if he cannot do so, let him give us leave to take him for that we find him, a mere babbler, giving himself liberty to say any thing without fear or wit. 20. W. BISHOP. Now instead of M. Perkins his fift reason for us of milk and strong meat: wishing him a mess of Pap for his childish proposing of it, I will set down some authorities out of the written word, in proof of traditions. Our Saviour said, being at the point of his passion, * john 16.12. that he had many things to say unto his Apostles, but they could not as then bear them. * Acts 1. Our Saviour after his resurrection appeared often unto his Disciples, speaking with them of the kingdom of God, of which little is written in any of the Evangelists. * 1. Cor. 11. I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things, and keep the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you. * 1. Tim. 6. O Timothy, keep the depositum, that is, that which I delivered thee to keep: * 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast by the holy Ghost, the good things committed unto thee to keep: which was as S. chrysostom and Theophylact expound, the true doctrine of Christ, the true sense of holy Scriptures, the right administration of the Sacraments, and government of the Church: to which alludeth that ancient holy Martyr S. Irenaeus, * Lib. 3. c. 4. saying, that the Apostles laid up in the Catholic Church, as in a rich treasury, all things that belong to the truth. S. john who was the last of the Apostles left alive, 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 delivered by word of mouth. And to specify for example sake some two or three points of greatest importance, where is it written that our Saviour the Son of God, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of the same substance with his Father? Where is it written, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father? Where is it written that there is a Trinity, that is, three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance? And that there is in our Saviour Christ jesus no person of man, but the substance of God and man subsisting in the second person of the Trinity? Be not all and every of these, principal articles of the Christian faith, and most necessary to be believed of the learned, and yet not one of them in express terms written in any part of the holy Bible? Wherefore we must either admit traditions, or leave the highest mysteries of our Christian faith unto the discretion and courtesy of every wrangler, as shall be more declared in the argument following. R. ABBOT. The mess of pap hath scalded M. Bishop's mouth, and he would feign put it off to M. Perkins. He is ashamed of the childishness of this reason, yet not denying it to be one of theirs, but only blaming M. Perkins his manner of proposing it, whereas we imagine he would have done it, if he had known how to have proposed it in better sort. But because he is so desirous to pass it over, let us be content also to let it go, leaving the mess of pap to them whose the reason is, and let us follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proof of their traditions. The first is from the words of Christ a john 16.12. at the point of his passion, saying that he had many things to say unto his Apostles, but they could not as then bear them. Which words being of old a special refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin. of Montanus the heretic, an ancient Papist, we cannot wonder to be used now by the Papists for the shrouding of that trash and the like as they have borrowed of him. But of these words so much hath been said c Sect. 7. before, as that I need not here to stand upon them any further. His second authority is that in the Acts, concerning our saviours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3. by the space of forty days, and speaking of the things which appertain to the kingdom of God. Of these things (saith M. Bishop) little is written in any of the Evangelists. And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition; and if he will name to us these or these things, we desire to know how he can prove that those were the things whereof Christ spoke: if he cannot prove it, we reject his foolish presumption, and can much better deny than he affirm. What those things were, by tradition we know nothing, but by Scripture we do know. The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter. There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48. witnesses of those things which he spoke. What they witnessed, appeareth in their sermons every where in the Acts of the Apostles, and in their Epistles and writings, all consonant and agreeable to that brief sum there expressed by S. Luke. Now then to argue as we have done before, we are sure as touching the things that are written, that they are of those things whereof Christ spoke; but how doth M. Bishop prove that he spoke any thing more than that that is written? It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spoke were things appertaining to the kingdom of God. But S. Paul f Acts 28.23. testified the kingdom of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets. The things therefore which Christ spoke, as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Luke's Gospel, were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters unwritten must needs be an idle dream. Thirdly he allegeth the Apostles words, commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2. they kept the traditions even as he had delivered the same unto them. Where we find the name of traditions, which we deny not, but traditions of doctrine that should remain unwritten we find not. By traditions we understand here out of the circumstance of the words following, rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decency in the public assembly of their Church, which kind of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question. If M. Bishop will allege that this is but a shift, and will needs enforce that it must be understood of matters of doctrine, we will gratify him so far, but still we require him to prove that those matters of doctrine were any other than were afterwards put in writing. There was but little of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle. Those things which were afterwards written, must needs be understood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh, if we understand them of doctrine, because we know that by his preaching he had delivered those things unto them. And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be understood of those things that are written, we desire to know how they can enforce any necessity of understanding any other things thereby. One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards, i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper. It is written by himself, it is written by the Evangelists. Here is then a tradition, but no tradition unwritten. The sacrament of Baptism was another of his traditions, but that is written also. Another tradition he himself expresseth, to have been k 1. Cor. 15.3. the death and resurrection of Christ, but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures. So elsewhere he signifieth it to have been his l 2. Thess. 3.6. tradition, that he which would not labour should not eat, and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set down in writing. Now sith these were of the number of his traditions, and yet are written, what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these? M. Bishop allegeth the place, and so leaveth it without head or tail: there is the name of traditions, and that is enough for him, whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions, he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appear. His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy: n 1. Tim. 6.20. O Timothy keep the depositum, saith he. Where we see that one ape will be like another: his masters of Rheims would affect a foolish kind of singularity in translating, and he will show himself as wise as they. Why could they not as well have given us English, and said, keep that that is committed unto thee to keep, seeing that is the signification of the word depositum. Yet in the other place he is content to leave them, o 2. Tim. 2.14. Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed unto thee to keep, where they read, keep the good depositum. But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keep? He telleth us, that it was the true doctrine of Christ, the true sense of holy Scriptures, the right administration of the Sacraments, and the government of the Church. But what of all this? We expected unwritten traditions, and in all these things we see no necessity to understand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures. In the Scriptures we learn the true doctrine of Christ; and whatsoever is contained in the true sense of Scripture, is contained in the Scripture. There we learn whatsoever necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and government of the Church. But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sense of holy Scripture, and M. Bishop doth amiss in the citing of these places, unless he can make it good, that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul. Albeit those particulars are neither set down by chrysostom nor Theophylact; only Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus, p Theop. in't. Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata, tanquam Domini praecepta seruata, nec horum quicquam imminues. p 2. Tim. 3.15. Whatsoever things have been committed unto thee by me, keep as the commandments of the Lord, and diminish nothing thereof. Now although those words have reference to more than is written in those two epistles, yet they have not reference absolutely to more than is written, because in the latter of those Epistles the Apostle plainly telleth him, that q the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus. As for that which M. Bishop allegeth out of Irenaeus, it is nothing at all to his purpose. He saith that r Iren. lib. 3. ca 4. Apostili quasi in depositorium d●ues plenissimè in Ecclesiae contulerunt omnia quae sunt veritatis. the Apostles have laid up in the Church, as in a rich treasury, all things that belong to the truth: but how they have laid the same up in the Church, he hath before expressed: s Ibid. cap. 1. The Gospel which they first preached, they after by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Thus than the Church is the treasury of truth, by having the Scriptures which are the oracles of all truth. His last authority is taken from the words of S. john which he useth in his two latter Epistles: Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink, but I trust to come unto you and speak with you mouth to mouth. We see S. john's words, but hard it is to say how we should conclude traditions from them. S. john would write no more to them in that sort, or in those Epistles; but doth it follow hereof that he would teach them any thing that is not contained in the Scriptures? He might have many things to write unto them according to the Scriptures; and what should lead us to presume that he should mean it of other things whereof we are taught nothing there? In a word, what is there in the citing of all these authorities but impudent and shameless abusing of ignorant men, whilst for a colour he only setteth them down, and for shame dareth not set down how that should be inferred that is in question betwixt us and them? But to fill up the measure of this illusion he goeth on yet further, and by way of specification asketh, Where is it written that the Son of God is of the same substance with the Father? or that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father? or that there is a Trinity, that is, three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance? or that there is in Christ the substance of God and man subsisting in one second person of the Trinity? Absurd & wilful wrangler, where was it written which Christ said, t Luke 24.46. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name amongst all nations. Where is it written in the Prophets which S. Peter allegeth, u Acts 10.43. To him give all the Prophet's witness, that through his name all that believe in him shall have forgiveness of sins? Where do Moses and the Prophets say that which Saint Paul saith, x Ibid. 26.22.23. they do say that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light to the people and to the Gentiles? To come nearer to him, he hath told us before, that the articles of our Belief are contained in the Scriptures. But where is it written in the Scriptures, that we should believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth? or that we should believe in the holy Ghost? or that there is a holy Catholic Church, a communion of Saints? I will say as he saith here, Be not all these things necessary to be believed, and yet not one of them in express terms written in any part of the holy Bible? He will say, that though they be not there written in express terms, yet in effect and substance they are written there, and are thereby to be declared and proved, and so he will verify the words of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Peter and Paul, in those citations of Moses and the Prophets. Wizard, and are not those other articles then written in the Scriptures, because they are not written in express terms? Did not the Fathers conceive all those points of faith from the Scriptures, and by the Scriptures make proof of them? Is it not the rule of their own schools which I have before mentioned out of Thomas Aquinas, that y Supra. sect. 12. concerning God nothing is to be said, but what either in words or in sense is contained in the Scriptures? What, are we maintainers of traditions, in saying that faith only justifieth, that Christ only is our Mediator to the Father, that Saints are not to be invocated, nor their images to be worshipped, because these things are no where written in express terms? Let it not offend thee, gentle Reader, that I be moved, to see a lewd man labouring by vain cavillations to sophisticate and delude those that are not able to understand his cozenage and fraud. It is the cause of God, and who can bear it patiently, that the souls which Christ hath bought should be intoxicated with such charms? We do not say, that nothing is to be believed but what is written in the Scriptures in express terms, but we say that nothing is to be believed but what either is expressed in the Scriptures, or may be proved thereby, and therefore in oppugning traditions, we oppugn only such doctrines of faith, as neither are expressed in the Scriptures, nor can be proved by the Scriptures. Let M. Bishop prove their traditions by the Scriptures, and we will not reject them for unwritten traditions, but will receive them for written truth. But of this see what hath been said before in the twelfth section of this question, and in the eleventh section of the answer to his Epistle to the King. 21. W. BISHOP. The sixth and last reason for traditions: Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be understood, others doubtful, whether they must be taken literally or figuratively: if then it be put to every Christian to take their own exposition, every several sect will coin interpretations in favour of their own opinions; and so shall the word of God, ordained only to teach us the truth, be abused and made an instrument to confirm all errors. To avoid which inconvenience, considerate men have recourse unto the traditions and ancient records of the Primitive Church, received from the Apostles, and delivered to the posterity, as the true copies of God's word: see the true exposition and sense of it, and thereby confute and reject all private and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy commentaries: so that for the understanding of both difficult and doubtful texts of Scripture, traditions are most necessary. M. Perkins his answer is, that there is no such need of them, but in doubtful places, the Scripture itself is the best gloss, if there be observed first the analogy of faith, which is the sum of religion, gathered out of the clearest places: secondly the circumstance of the place, and the nature and signification of the words: thirdly the conference of place with place: and concludeth, that the Scripture is falsely termed the matter of strife, it being not so of itself, but by the abuse of man. Reply. To begin with his latter words, because I must stand upon the former. Is the Scripture falsely termed matter of strife, because it is not so of his own nature? why then, is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that believe not? S. Peter saith, Yes. No, saith M. Perkins, 1: Pet. ●. because that cometh not of Christ, but of themselves. But good Sir, Christ is truly termed a stone of offence, and the Scripture matter of strife, albeit there be no cause in them of those faults, but because it so falleth out by the malice of men. The question is not wherefore it is so called, but whether it be so called or no truly: that which truly is, may be so called truly. But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention, every obstinate heretic understanding them according to his own fantasy, and therefore may truly be so termed, although it be not the cause of contention in itself, but written to take away all contention. But to the capital matter, these three rules gathered out of Saint Augustine, be good directions, whereby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of Divinity, if they neglect not other ordinary helps of good instructions and learned commentaries: but to affirm that every Christian may by these means be enabled to judge which is the true sense of any doubtful or hard text, is extreme rashness and mere folly. S. Augustine himself well conversant in those rules, endued with a most happy wit, and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberal Sciences: yet he having most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more than thirty years, with the help also of the best commentaries he could get, and counsel of the most exquisite, yet he ingeniously confesseth, That there were more places of Scripture, that after all his study he understood not, than which he did understand * Epist. 119. cap. 21. . And shall every simple man furnished only with M. Perkins his three rules of not twice three lines, be able to dissolve any difficulty in them whatsoever? Why do the Lutherans (to omit all former heretics) understand in one sort, the Caluinists after another, the Anabaptists a third way, and so of other sects? And in our own country how cometh it to pass that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures, the Puritans almost the clean contrary? Why I say is there so great, bitter, and endless contention among brothers of the same spirit, about the meaning of God's word? If every one might by the aid of those trivial notes, readily disclose all difficulties, and assuredly boult out the certain truth of them. It cannot be but most evident to men of any judgement, that the Scripture itself can never end any doubtful controversy, without there be admitted some certain judge to declare what is the true meaning of it. And it cannot but redound to the dishonour of our blessed Saviour, to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at random, and hath not provided for his servants an assured mean to attain to the true understanding of it. If in matters of temporal justice, it should be permitted to every contentious smatterer in the Law to expound and construe the grounds of the law and statutes as it should seem fittest in his wisdom, and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the judge, what iniquity should not be law, or when should there be any end of any hard matter, one Lawyer defending one part, another the other: one counsellor assuring on his certain knowledge, one party to have the right, another as certainly averring not that, but the contrary to be law, both alleging for their warrant some texts of Law. What end and pacification of the parties could be devised, unless the decision of the controversy be committed unto the definitive sentence of some, who should declare whether counsellor had argued justly, and according to the true meaning of the Law: none at all, but bloody debate & perpetual conflict, each pursuing to get or keep by force of arms, that which his learned counsel avouched to be his own. To avoid then such garboils and intestine contention, there was never yet any Lawmaker so simple, but appointed some governor and judge who should see the due observation of his Laws, & determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law, who is therefore called the quick and lively law; and shall we Christians think that our divine Lawmaker, who in wisdom, care, and providence, surmounted all others, more than the heavens do the earth, hath left his golden laws at random, to be interpreted as it should seem best unto every one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit? no no, it cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation unto the sovereign prudence of the Son of God. In the old Testament, which was but a state of bondage, & as it were an introduction to the new, yet was there one appointed unto whom they were commanded to repair for the resolution of all doubtful cases concerning the Law: yea, and bound (were they under pain of death) to stand to his determination; and shall we be so simple as to suffer ourselves to be persuaded, that in the glorious state of the Gospel, plotted and framed by the wisdom of God himself, worse order should be taken for this high point of the true understanding of the holy Gospel itself, being the life and soul of all the rest? R. ABBOT. It is truly said by Thomas Aquinas, that a Thom. Aquin. sum. p. 1. q. 39 art. 4. c. In proprietatibus locutionum non tantum attendenda est res significata, sed etiam modus significandi. in propriety of speeches we are not only to regard the thing signified, but also the manner of signification. A speech may be true, & yet true only in some manner of signification, which therefore in propriety of speech is not true, because the thing properly & of itself is not that that the speech importeth it to be. Christ, saith M. Bishop, is truly called the rock of offence. Be it so, yet it is true only in some manner of signification in which it is that the Scripture so calleth him; in propriety of speech it is not true, because Christ of himself and properly is not so. He becometh so to unbelievers only by their default, and therefore only accidentally and respectively is so called: set aside the respect, and he cannot be truly called so. Even so the Scriptures are made a matter of strife by the iniquity and importunity of evil men, and to them only they are so called, whereas in themselves they are not so, but properly serve for the ending and determining of all strife. Master Perkins therefore might justly say, that they are falsely termed the matter of strife, having respect to the affection and intention of them by whom they were so termed. For they who gave this name, gave it by way of depraving and disgracing the Scriptures, when being required by us to stand to the judgement of the Scriptures, they refused to do so, and alleged that the Scriptures could give no judgement, but rather were themselves matter of controversy and strife; seeking by this pretence to draw all to the determination of their own Church. But herein they offered indignity and dishonour to him who hath given unto us b Psal. 119.104.105. his word to be the lantern unto our feet, and the light unto our steps, by his precepts to get understanding to hate all the ways of falsehood. Froward men may take occasion to strive about matters of the Scriptures, when notwithstanding the Scriptures clear those things whereabout they strive. c Tertul de resur. carn. Videntur illis materias quasdam subministrasse & ipsas quidem ijsdem literis revincibiles The Scriptures, saith Tertullian, seem to minister matter to heretics, but yet they are to be convicted by the same Scriptures. Where there is in the heart humility and obedience to the word of God, there question and controversy soon endeth: but where there is frowardness and selfewill, there will be no end of contention, howsoever there be apparent conviction. To leave this, & to come to the matter specially in hand, it seemeth that M. Bishop hath much forgotten what he was about. The matter in hand is to prove traditions, that is, doctrines of faith beside the Scriptures, and he maketh here a long discourse concerning the means of attaining to the understanding of the Scirptures. Let that means be what it may be; in the true understanding of the Scriptures there is no other but the doctrine of the Scriptures; and what is that to their traditions? In this argument he & his fellows keep their wont, that is to trifle and say nothing to the matter whereof they pretend to speak. Yet to follow them in their own steps, the question is of the true interpreting and expounding of the Scriptures. It is apparent they say, what the Scripture saith, but it is doubtful what it meaneth. There be many difficulties; some expound one way, some another way, but how is it to be known who expoundeth the right way? M. Perkins bringeth them in playing their old trump, that we must have recourse to the tradition of the Church, imitating therein the old heretics, whose allegation was as Irenaeus recordeth, that d Iren. lib. 3 cap. 2. Cum arguuntur ex Scripturis in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, etc. quia non possit ex his inventri veritas ab his qui nesciant traeditionem. by the Scriptures the truth could not be found out by them that were ignorant of tradition. To this M. Perkins answereth, that the Scripture itself declareth it own meaning, if we observe the analogy of faith gathered out of the manifest places of Scripture; if we weigh the circumstance of the place, and signification of the words; if we diligently weigh and compare one place with another, and use such other like helps as the Scripture yieldeth. With these words M. Bishop notably playeth the sycophant, as if M. Perkins hereby affirmed, that every Christian man by these means is enabled to judge which is the true sense of any doubtful or hard text: that every simple man furnished with these three rules, is able to resolve any difficulty in the Scriptures whatsoever. Against this he bringeth in the confession of S. Austin, that after so long study, the things which he knew not in the Scripture, were more than those which he did know. Thus he setteth up a S. Quintin for himself, and bestoweth himself very valiantly in running at it. But where doth M. Perkins profess this effect of those three rules with every Christian man, every simple man, nay where doth he affirm so much of any learned man, be he never so learned? He setteth down those rules as S. Austin doth the same and many other, as necessary helps for the searching of the truth, and by the exercise whereof men should labour to profit and grow in the understanding of the Scriptures, & may attain to the knowledge of that truth that is necessary to salvation, but far was he from conceiving that which M. Bishop speaketh of, that every simple man may thereby resolve all difficulties whatsoever. M. Bishop for the attaining of the sense of Scripture, referreth us to their judge, and to the traditions and ancient records of the primitive Church, to those ancient and holy commentaries. But is he so witless as to think that any man using this direction of his, shall be thereby enabled in the Scriptures, to resolve all difficulties whatsoever? If he will have no such fantastical paradox gathered of that which he saith, why doth he lay the imputation of it upon M. Perkins, when it followeth no more of M. Perkins speech one way, than it doth of his the other way? As for his question, why the Lutherans notwithstanding these rules, do understand the Scriptures in one sort, the Caluinists after another, the Anabaptists a third way, we answer him, that in his question there is more malice then wit. We ask him the like question, how it cometh to pass that notwithstanding their rules & directions, yet all these differ from them in the expounding of Scripture? Now as he will answer that notwithstanding their directions be true, yet that cannot hinder but that heretics will dissent from them, so we answer him, that notwithstanding our rules and instructions in this behalf be true, and taken from the course of the ancient fathers, yet that cannot let, but that Popish heretics, and self-willed Lutherans, and foolish mad Anabaptists will dissent from us. If he will say that albeit all these dissent from them, yet they themselves agree in one, the like will be said of all other parties, that albeit others do vary from them, yet amongst themselves they vary not. It is therefore no more prejudice to our rules that others descent from us, than it is to Papists that we descent from them. As for the Anabaptists, let him not put them to us, because we wholly detest them, but rather take them home to them, because being both of them the wicked offspring of him who is e john. 8.44. a liar, and the father of lies, they have both learned of him to teach men by equivocations & mental reservations, to lie, to perjure & forswear themselves. As for our own country, we must tell him that the dissension betwixt Protestants & Puritans, was never so mortal and deadly amongst us, as was the dissension of the secular Priests & jesuits amongst them; the one in no sort to be compared to the other. If there might be such a garboil more than hellish or devilish amongst them without prejudice of their religion, what prejudice should it be to us, that there is some matter of difference amongst us? He will say that the main matter amongst them, was but a matter of circumstance & of government, and so his wisdom knoweth, if he list, that the matters of controversy amongst us, are only matters of ceremony and form. He will say that they all accorded in the religion established by the council of Trent, and so let him know, that we on both parts subscribe to the same articles of religion established amongst us. He will say that there is some controversy about the meaning of some of those articles amongst us, 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, we are able always to justify, that in substantial points of faith there is no so great difference amongst us, but that there is greater to be proved to have been continually amongst them. But now M. Bishop having lightly passed over those observations of M. Perkins, cometh himself to set us down a course for the attaining of the true and right sense of holy Scripture. For the first part whereof, he bestirreth his Rhetorical stumps by way of declamation, to show us how necessary it is, that in the Christian Church there should be a judge for the deciding and determining of controversies and questions that arise about the Scriptures, and if in matters of temporal justice judges be appointed, and every lawmaker do ordain governors and judges for the declaring and executing of his laws, and God took this course amongst the people of Israel in the old testament, he telleth us that surely Christ in the new testament would not leave his Church unprovided in this behalf. Where we will seem for a time not to know his meaning, but will simply answer him, that Christ in this behalf hath provided for his Church, having given thereto f Ephe. 4.11.12. Pastors and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the building up of the body of Christ, till we all meet together in the unity of faith and knowledge of the son of God unto a perfect man. As in civil states there are appointed magistrates and governors in towns and cities, for the resolving and deciding of causes and questions of civil affairs, so hath God appointed the ministers of his word, every one according to the portion of the Lords flock committed unto him, to deliver what the law of God is, and to answer and resolve cases and doubts, as touching faith and duty towards God, g Tit. 1.9. to be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to improve them that speak against it; to be the same to the people, as God of old required the Priests to be, h Malach. 2.7. The Priest's lips should preserve knowledge, and men should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. If of these i Acts. 20.30. any arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them, the rest are warned k Ver. 28. to take heed to the Lords flock, and therefore are by common sentence & judgement to condemn such, that thereby the people of God may take knowledge to beware of them. But if in the Church any controversy or question depend, parts being taken this way & that way, so that the unity of faith and peace of the Church is endangered thereby, the example of the Apostles is to be imitated, and in solemn assembly & council the matter is to be discussed and determined, the Bishops and Pastors gathering themselves together either in lesser or greater company as the occasion doth require, and applying themselves to do that that may be for the peace and edification of the Church. And this hath been the care of godly Christian Princes, that l 〈◊〉 17.8 9 2. ●●●on. 1●. 8. as amongst the jews there was a high court of judgement established for the matters of the Lord, to the sentence whereof they were appointed to stand, yea and he that did presumptuously oppose himself, was to die for his contempt; so there should be in their Christian States consistories of judgement, assemblies and meetings of Bishops for considering and advising of the causes of the Church, and what could not be determined in a lesser meeting should be referred to a greater, to a Council provincial, or national, or general. By their authority they have gathered them together, they have sometimes been themselves present and sitten with them as moderators, and after as princes have by their edicts ratified and confirmed what hath been agreed upon, as we may see in m Euseb. de vit. Constant. li 3. ca 13. Prolatas sententias sensi●● excipete, vitissim ferre openi virique parit, etc. quid ipse sentiret eloqu●. Constantine the great in the Council of Nice, in n Synod. in Trullo per tot. Praesidente eodem pi●ssimo Impe●tore, etc. Convenient Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctionem. Constantine the fourth in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo, in o Toledan council. 3. Princips omnes reg●ra●●● sui pontifices in unum convenire mandavit, etc. p●●tet. Reccaredus the King of Spain in the third Council of Toledo. Now therefore albeit the Empire being divided, and many Princes of divers dispositions possessing their several kingdoms and states, there be no expectation or hope of a general council, yet M. Bishop seethe that we hold it necessary that in every Christian state there should be judges appointed for the causes and matters of the Lord & of the Church, even as in our church of England we have our sovereign Synods provincial or national, the sentence whereof we account so weighty, as that no man may dare upon peril of his soul presumptuously to gainsay the same. But yet with all, for the excluding of his issue, he must understand that in causes & matters of faith and of the worship of God, we make these to whom this judgement is committed, not lawgivers at all, but judges only. As therefore the judge is not his own 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: even so the judge ecclesiastical is to be the mouth of God, not p Ezech. 13.3. to follow his own spirit, nor q jerem. 23.16. to speak the vision of his own heart, but out of the mouth of the Lord, neither to make other interpretation of the laws of God, then by the same laws can be justified and made good. Thus we see, that as God tied the jews 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 show thee. s Lyra. ibid. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica, si dixerint tibi quòd dextera sit sinistra, vel sinistra dextera, talis sententia est tenenda quod pataet manifestè falsum esse, quòd sententia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda, si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem, & hoc patet per hoc quod praemittitur in textu. Indicalunt tibi judicij veritatem; & postea subditur: Et docuerint te juxta legem eius. Ex quo patet quòd si dicunt falsum vel declinem à lege Dei manifestè, non sunt audiendi. The Hebrew gloze, 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 authority soever he be, if it do manifestly contain falsehood and error, and this is plain by that that is put before in the text, They shall show thee the truth of judgement, & is afterwards added, They shall teach thee according to the law, whereby it is plain that if they say any thing false, or decline manifestly from the law of God, they are not to be harkened unto. It is not then so to be conceived, as that obedience should be absolutely due unto them, because as in the civil state there may be corrupt judges that wrist the law, and give sentence against law, so there may be corrupt men also in places of ecclesiastical judgement, men more affected to their own will, then to the word of God, seeking rather themselves then jesus Christ. It is therefore to be observed, that as in matters of civil justice, some things there are in the law so clear, that if the sentence of the judge be contrary thereto, every man may discern and see that he swerveth from the truth, neither will a man take it to be law which the judge pronounceth, because his own eyes perceive the contrary; so those things that concern faith and religion towards God, some things by the Scripture itself are so apparent and plain, as that it is manifest, that not for any ambiguity in themselves, but by the iniquity and frowardness of men they are called into question; and that to question the exposition, is nothing else but to seek collusion. In which cases the judge hath no more to do, but to deliver the peremptory sentence of God himself, t Aug. ac bapt. count Donat lib. 2. ca 6. Ass. ramu● fra●eram divinam in scriptures sanctis, & in illa quid sit gravius appendamus imm● non appendamus, sed à Domino appensa recognoscamus. not to weigh, as S. Austin saith, but to recognise and acknowledge what the Lord hath already weighed. Sometimes matters are more hard and doubtful, not so much haply of themselves, as by means of opposition and contradiction, and therefore are not so readily plain, until they be made plain. For the explaining and declaring whereof, the Church as the judge is to use the help of the law itself, that is, of the holy Scripture, and to that purpose to apply the rules before expressed, and so not by mere authority, but by testimony and warrant, to approve to the conscience of every man the sentence that shall be given for determining the thing in doubt. u O●●gen in Le●●● h●● 5. Inductus testa●ent●s l●●●t omne ve●●ū quod ad Dea●●●●tinet requiri & dis●uti, atque ex ●●sis omnim rerum scienti●m capi. Siquid autem superficerit quod non divina scriptura decernat, nulla alia tertia scriptura debet ad authoritatem scientia suscipi, sed quod superest, Deo reserueni●. By the two testaments, saith Origen, every word that pertaineth to God, may be searched 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 received for authority of knowledge, but what remaineth we must reserve to God. x Idem in jerem. ho. ●. Necesse est nobis Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare. Sensus quip nostri & enarrationes si●e his testibus non habent fidem. It is necessary for us, saith he, that we call the holy Scriptures to witness; for our senses and expositions without these witnesses have no credit. y Idem in Math. tr. 25. Dibemus ad testimonium omnium verborum quae proferimus in doctrina, proffer s●●sum Scripturae qu●si confirm entera que● exp●●●mus sensum. Sicut enim omne aurum quod-quod fuerit extra templum non est sancti fi●arum, sic omnis sensus qui ●uerit extra divinam Scripturam, qu●muis ad●●rab●lis videatur quibusdam, non est sanctus, quia non continetur à sensu Scripturae quae sol●● cum solum sensum santifi●are qu●● in se habet. We must, saith he again, for witness of all the words which we utter in teaching bring forth the sense of Scripture, as confirming the sense which we deliver: for as all the gold which was without the temple was unholy, so every sense which is without the holy Scripture, though to some it may seem admirable, is unholy, because it is not contained of the sense of Scripture, which is wont to make holy, only that sense which it hath in itself. By this rule the judgement of the Church is to proceed, & so to use the gift of interpretation, as that he that gainsaieth may be convicted as by the testimony of God himself, and they who have not the gift of interpretation, may yet see & perceive 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, & under pretence of being the judge in the causes of God, shall judge against God, what shall we then do? Surely as a private man may by ordinary knowledge of the law, be able to accuse a judge of high treason against his Prince, even so in this case a private man by ordinary knowledge of the law of God, may be able to accuse the Church of high treason against God. And as it is ridiculous in case of treason, to allege that it belongeth to the judge to give the meaning of the law, and to leave him at liberty to expound it, that it may rest thereupon whether his own fact be treason or not; so it is in like sort ridiculous, to allege that it belongeth to the Church, to make the meaning of the Scriptures; that the Church is judge, & it must rest in the power thereof, by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which itself commandeth, be offence to God or not. The Church indeed is judge, but tied to bounds of law; if the Church judge against the evidence of the law, than God himself by his own word is to be the judge. For what an absurdity shall it be further to require a judge, where God himself hath pronounced a sentence, or to inquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainly as the judge can devise to speak? When the judges of the people of the jews said, z E●. 8.12. A confederacy, and Esay the Prophet cried out, say not, A confederacy, that is, follow not them that lead you to leagues and covenants with idolatrous nations, who was to be the judge betwixt them? Esay saith to the people: a Ver 20. To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Who was to be the judge when the Prophet jeremy said one thing, and b jerem 26. 1●. the Priests and Prophets who were the judges, 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 blood upon yourselves. Who was now to be judge betwixt them? Surely none but d Ver 4. the laws which God had set before them, to which he calleth them; e Cap. 11. 3. 4. the covenant which he commanded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. When our Saviour Christ stood on the one side, and the judges, namely, the high Priests, and Scribes, and Elders of the people on the other side, where was the judge? f john 5.39. Search the Scriptures saith our Saviour Christ, for they are they that testify of me. We see the highest court of judgement under heaven pronounceth sentence against the Son of God. God indeed had appointed them for judges, the righteousness of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures. Thus it hath been in the Church of Christ; the Donatists on the one side affirmed themselves to be the Church; the Catholic and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them; whom did these godly Fathers make the judge? Optatus speaking of a main question betwixt them, whether he that was already baptised, though by an heretic, might be baptised again, saith: g Optat. contra Parmenian. li. 5. Vos dicuis, licèt, nos dicimus, Non linnet. Jnter lic●t vestrum, & non licet nestrum, ●●tant & remigrant animae populorum. Nemo vobis credat, nemo nobis: omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt judices. Si Christiani, te viraque part dari nosess●nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur. D●foris quaeren●us est iudixisi Paganus, non potesi nosse secreta Christian●● si li●●●, 〈◊〉 est Chri●tu●i baptis●at● Ergo ni ●●rr●s d● hac re●ul●●● poterit reper●ri judicium, de 〈◊〉 quare●dus est judex. Sed ut quid p●●●sanus ad coel●, ●●●m habemus hic in evangelio? Testament●m ●●qu●●, etc. Ergo voluntas c●●●vilut in Testamento, sic in evangelio inquiratur. You say it is lawful, and we say, it is not lawful. Between your, it is lawful, and our, it is not lawful, the people's souls do waver. Let none believe you nor us; we are all contentious men. judges must be sought for: if Christians, they cannot be given of both sides: for truth is hindered by affections. A judge without must be sought for: if a Pagan, he cannot know the Christian mysteries: if a jew, he is an enemy of Christian baptism. No judgement of this matter can be found on earth, but from heaven, But why knock we at heaven, when here we have the testament of Christ in the Gospel? In the Gospel, as in his Testament, we are to inquire and search what his will is. To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians, whether there be sin in infants from their birth or not: h Aug. de nupt. & concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controversia judicem quaerit. judicet ergo Christus & cui re● mors eius profecerit ipse dicat, Hic est, inquit, sanguis, etc. Judicet cum illo, & Apostolus quia & in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus, etc. This controversy requireth a judge: let Christ therefore be judge: let himself say what his death served for. This is my blood, saith he, which shall be shed for many for remission of sins. Together with him let the Apostle judge, because Christ himself speaketh also in the Apostle. Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the judge, or Christ himself in the Scripture: knowing well that the judgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already given by the highest judge. To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing forth of such things as are evident and plain, because Christ somewhere or other hath plainly spoken whatsoever is necessary for us to know. i Idem de unit. Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono ut quaeque aeperta & manifesta deligamus, etc. This I say before hand and propound, that we make choice of such speeches as are open and manifest. We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set down, and wrapped up in covers of figures, and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs. It belongeth to acute men to judge and discern 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 forth. Read to us those things that are as plain as those are that we read to you. Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it. This is the course of Ecclesiastical judgement; by this means they are to stop the mouths of contentious men, and to satisfy the people that are interested in the cause. By all this than it appeareth, that God hath not left his Church destitute of authority of judgement, but hath both appointed judges, and prescribed them laws whereby to judge; only that we remember, that k Psal. 82.1. he is the judge amongst the judges, and the sentence must be his. But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aimeth at, for he would feign have it conceived, that there should be some one to be judge, and that one must be the Pope. They name sometimes the Church, and sometimes the Council, but the Church is but the cloak-bag, and the Council the capcase to carry the Pope whither it pleaseth them, because neither Church nor Council can define any thing but as shall be pleasing to the Pope. The Church cannot err, the Council cannot err, but the reason is, because the Pope cannot err. Set aside the Pope, and the Church may err and the Council may err, but the Pope only cannot err. This is a drunken fancy, witless, senseless, such as the ancient Fathers never imagined or dreamt of, nay, unworthy whereof there should be any question, whether those godly Father's approved it or not. If we would argue from the temporal state, as M. Bishop doth, what state is there or hath been that maketh one man judge and interpreter of all laws? He nameth it to have been so in the old Testament amongst the jews, but either he knoweth not, or impudently falsifieth the story in that behalf. For the law of Moses did not make the high Priest alone a judge, but only as elsewhere it is expounded l 2. Chro. 19.11. the chief of them that were appointed judges for all matters of the Lord. There was a whole Council to which those causes were referred, and by common consultation and judgement things were agreed upon, and the sentence accordingly pronounced by the Priest. He had not to say, I determine thus or thus, but as we have example in the Gospel, he said, m Mat. 26.66. What think ye? as being to have consent of the rest before he could give a sentence. Therefore Moses setteth all down in the plural number, as of many, n Deut. 17.8.9. If there arise a matter too hard for thee, etc. thou shalt come to the Priests of the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days, and ask and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement, and thou shalt do according to all that they of that place shall show thee. According to the law which they shall teach thee, thou shalt do, etc. Only because the sentence in common agreed upon, was pronounced by the Priest as the chief, therefore it is added: o Ver. 12. And the man that shall do presumptuously, not hearkening to the Priest (as touching matters of the Lord) or to the judge (as touching civil causes, for we see these two plainly distinguished each from other) that man shall die. Now if God would not in that small kingdom have all to depend upon the judgement of any one, how improbable is it, that to one should be committed a judgement of all matters of the Lord throughout the whole world? And how do they make it good that any such power or authority should belong unto him? They tell us much of Peter, but we find not that attributed to Peter which they ascribe to the Pope, neither do they give us any warrant from Christ that that is descended to the Pope which is attributed to Peter. Surely if Christ would have had the Pope to succeed in Peter's place, the Popes should have been qualified as Peter was. But we see the contrary: for amongst all the generations of men since the world was, it cannot be showed, that ever there was such a succession of rakehells and helhounds, such monsters and incarnate devils as have been amongst them, men that have given themselves wholly to the devil, as their own stories do report, Heretics, Apostaties, Atheists, dogs, most unworthy of all other to have the Sun shine upon them, or the earth to bear them. Alphonsus de Castro said once, though afterwards he was made to unsay it: p Alphonsine Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres. Cum cons●●t pl●●res cor●●● address ill●teratos, ut Gra●●●atram penitùs ignorant, qui fit, ut sicras literas interpretari p●●s●●t? Thus it was printed twice at first, but after for th● Pope's credit he was instructed to leave it out. When as it is certain, that many Popes are so unlearned, as that they are utterly ignorant of their very Grammar, how can it be, that they should be able to expound the Scriptures? Surely very unlikely it is, and who doth not see it to be the most certain and inevitable danger of the Church, that the moderation thereof, and the detennining of the faith should be committed to one, but specially to such a one? Gregory Bishop of Rome saw it well, when the Patriarch of Constantinople making claim to be universal Bishop, he gave this for one reason against that universality, for that q Gregor. lib. 4. Ep. 32. universa Eccl●sia. quod absit, à statu suo corrupt, quando is qui appell●tur v●●uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Ep●. 24. if there be one to be universal Bishop, in his fall must be the fall of the whole Church. And that God by the multitude of the overseers of his church, hath provided for the safety thereof, Cyprian well observeth, who one where affirming, that r Cipria de simp. Praelat. Episcopatus v●●●● est c●●●●● a singulis in s●●●dum p●●● tincture. the office of Bishopric is but one, whereof every Bishop fully hath his part, and therefore signifying that none hath therein to challenge prerogative above another, addeth further in another place, that s Id●●● lib. 3. Ep. 13 〈…〉 er●●runt, etc. ut si quis ex hoc co●●●●io haere●●● 〈◊〉, & gregen Christ ●●cerare & v●stare t●●●rit sa●ueni 〈◊〉 caerer●, & quasi p●●teres vtil●s & 〈◊〉 S●●cord●s 〈◊〉 Dominic●s 〈…〉 therefore the corporation of Bishops consisteth of many, that if any one of this College or company shall assay to bring in heresy, and to rend and waste the flock of Christ, the rest should help, and as good and compassionate Pastors should gather the lords sheep into his fold. This provision of God, Antichrist the man of sin, the Bishop of Rome, being to bring the abomination of desolation into the church of Christ, hath defeated and made void, challenging to himself alone an universal power and authority of judgement over the whole Church, and under pretence thereof devising and establishing in the Church whatsoever he list, to the dishonour of God, to the perverting of the faith of Christ, and to the destruction of infinite souls, making a meaning of the word of God to serve his turn, that nothing which he saith or doth may seem to be controlled or checked thereby. To this purpose they have bewitched the world to entertain this paradox, which in the old Christian world was never heard of, that t Hosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae, etiansi nec sciat nec intelligat an & quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conveniat, tamen habet ipsissimum verbum Dei. if a man have the interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture, albeit he neither know nor understand whether and how it agreeth with the words of the Scripture, yet he hath the very word of God. And in like sort do our Rhemish impostors labour to persuade their Reader, that u Rhem. Testam. Argument of the Epistles in general. if any thing in Paul's Epistles sound to him as contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, (it is unknown what Church they mean) he faileth of the right sense. Thus howsoever clearly the scripture soundeth, yet it meaneth not that which it saith, if it be contrary to that which they affirm. To this impudent devise they are driven, because they see that the scripture condemneth them, unless they themselves have the managing of the scripture: that if the scripture be admitted for judge, it peremptorily pronounceth sentence against them, so that they have no means to colour their abominations, but by challenging to themselves to be judges of the scripture. As for us we hang the doctrine of faith, not upon our expositions, but upon the very words of God himself; we make the holy scripture the judge, not in ambiguous and doubtful speeches, but in clear and evident sentences, where the very words declare what the meaning is. It is a question betwixt us and them whether Saints images be to be worshipped or not: they say they are, we say they are not. Let the judge speak, x Exod. 20.4. Deut. 5.8. Thou shalt not make to thyself any likeness of any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under 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 forgiveness of sins. They say there is so in their Mass, we say there is none. Let the judge speak: y Mat. 26.28. This is my blood 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 us, whether the Saints be our Mediators unto God or not. They say they are, we say they are not. Let the judge determine it. a 1 Tim. 2.5. There is one God (saith he) and one Mediator betwixt God and man, even the man jesus Christ. It is a question whether a man be justified before God by works or not. They say it must be so; we say it cannot be. Let the judge answer it, b Rom. 3.20. By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight. c Gal. 3.11.12. That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident, for the just shall live by faith, and the law is not of faith, but the man that shall do those things shall live in them. They allege that the judge saith, that d jam. 2.24. a man is justified by works, and not by faith only: we say, that that is only in the sight of men or with men: they say that it is in the sight of God. Let the judge end it. e Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were justified by works, he had to rejoice, but not with God. It is a question whether the crosses and sufferings of the Saints do yield us any help with God, or any part of satisfaction for our sins. They say they do, we say they do not: let the judge tell us whether they do or not. f 1. Cor. 1.13. Was Paul crucified for you? g Gal 6.14. God forbidden that I should rejoice but in the cross of our Lord jesus Christ. It is a question whether the people ought to be partakers of the Lords cup: they say no; we say yea. Let the judge decide it. h Mat. 26.27. Drink ye all of this. Thus in all matters betwixt them and us, the judge speaketh clearly on our side: his words are so plain as nothing can be more plain. Yet notwithstanding they tell us, that all these things have another meaning, which we must take upon the Pope's word. The commandment (forsooth) is meant of the idols of the Gentiles, not of the images of Saints. As if a whoremonger should say, that the law forbiddeth whoredom 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 have but one husband of this or that sort, but of another sort she may have many. And yet they make them mediators of redemption also, because they make them mediators of satisfaction, and redemption is nothing else but the payment of a price of satisfaction. Thus they dally in the rest, and show themselves impudent and shameless men: let them for their meanings read to us as plain words of the judge, as those are that we read to them, and we will admit of them. If not, they must give us leave to stand to the sentence of the judge of heaven and earth, and to account the Pope as he is, a corrupt and wicked judge, although were he what he should be, yet void of all title of being judge to us. 22. W. BISHOP. Give me leave (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 Book. Consider then with yourself, that our celestial Lawmaker gave his law, not written in Ink and Paper, but in the hearts of his most faithful subjects, * jerem. 31. 2. Cor. 3. endowing them with the blessed spirit of truth, * john 16. and with a most diligent care of instrusting others, that all their posterity might learn of them all the points of Christian doctrine, and give credit to them aswell for the written as unwritten word, and more for the true meaning of the word, then for the word itself. These and their true successors be lively Oracles of the true and living God, them must we consult in all doubtful questions of Religion, and submit ourselves wholly to their decree. S. Paul that vessel of election, may serve us for a singular model and pattern of the whole; who having received the true knowledge of the Gospel from God, yet went up to Jerusalem with Barnaby, to confer with the chief Apostles, the Gospel which he preached, lest perhaps he might run in vain, and had run, as in express words he witnesseth himself. * Gal. 2. Upon which fact and words of S. Paul, the ancient Fathers do gather, that the faithful would not have given any credit unto the Apostles doctrine, unless by S. Peter and the other Apostles, it had been first examined and approved. * Tertul lib. 4. in Marc. Hier. Ep. 89 quae est 11. inter Ep. Augustini. August. lib. 28. contra Faustum, cap. 4. Again, when there arose a most dangerous question of abrogating Moses law: was it left to every Christian to decide by the written word? or would many of the faithful believe S. Paul, that worthy Apostle in the matter? Not so, but up they went to Jerusalem, to hear what the pillars of the Church would say: where, by the decree of the Apostles in council, the controversy was ended: which S. Paul afterward delivered in his preaching, commanding all to observe and keep the decree and ordinance of the Apostles * Acts 16. . And if it would not be tedious, I could in like manner show, how in like sort every hundredth year after, errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written word, they were confuted and rejected, not by the written word only, but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholars, and Successors. See Cardinal Bellarmine, * Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. I will only record two noble examples of this recourse unto Antiquity, for the true sense of God's word: the first, out of the Ecclesiastical history, * Lib. 11. cap. 9 where, of S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil, two principal lights of the Greek Church, this is recorded: They were both Noble men, brought up together at Athens: and afterward for thirteeene years space, laying aside all profane books, employed their study wholly in the holy Scriptures. The sense and true meaning whereof they sought, not out of their own judgement, (as the Protestants both do, and teach others to do) but out of their Predecessors writings and authority: namely, of such as were known to have received the rule of understanding from the Tradition of the Apostles: these be the very words. The other example shall be the principal pillar of the Latin Church, S. Augustine, who not only exhorteth and adviseth us to follow the decree of the ancient Church, if we will not be deceived with the obscurity of doubtful questions, * Lib. contra Crescon. 1. c. 33 but plainly affirmeth, That he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him unto it. * Con●ra Epist. sund. cap. 5. Which words are not to be understood as Caluin would have them: that S. Augustine had not been at first a Christian, if by the authority of the Church, he had not been thereunto persuaded: but that when he was a learned and judicious Doctor, and did write against heretics, even than he would not believe these books of the Gospel to have been penned by divine inspiration, and no others, & this to be the true sense of them; unless the Catholic Church (famous then for antiquity, generality, and consent) did tell him, which and what they were: so far was he off from trusting to his own skill and judgement in this matter, which notwithstanding was most excellent. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop here setteth the stock upon it, and at one game he is minded to win all, but indeed as a cozening gamester by shifting and juggling beguileth honest simple men, so doth he abuse the simple Reader with goodly glorious words, craving leave as it were to give him satisfaction in a high point, and applying himself under this colour most treacherously to delude him. Consider (saith he) that our celestial lawgiver gave his law not written in Ink and Paper, but in the hearts of his most faithful subjects. For this he quoteth the words of God by the Prophet jeremy: a jerem. 31.33. After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law into their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, etc. and the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians b 2. Cor. 3.3. Ye are manifest to be the Epistle of Christ ministered by us, not written with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshly Tables of the heart. Now therefore he will have us to conceive that which Andradius one of the great masters of the Trent-Councell hath told us, that c Andrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 2. Non spectavit Christus ut evangelium literit descriptum aut in membranu exaratum iaceret, sed ut verbis explicatum omni creaturae promulgaretur. Christ did not look that the Gospel should lie 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 themselves so much as in them lieth to impeach & vilify the authority of Scriptures, as if they were written only of private fancy, and Christ had had no care or regard to have it so. But how impertinently those places are brought for proof hereof, appeareth very plainly out of the words themselves. For what was the law that God promised by jeremy to write in the hearts of his people? Was it not the law given before by Moses, concerning which Moses also expresseth the same promise that jeremy doth: d Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou mayst love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul that thou mayst live. Now e Exod. 34.1. that law God himself had delivered in writing, and f Vers. 27. commanded Moses also to write the same. Therefore the words of jeremy as touching writing God's law in our hearts, can import nothing against the writing of it with ink and paper, but only that the laws which were before by the ministery of Moses delivered only in ink 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 only outwardly the letter of the law, whether in writing or in preaching, but would in both by the regeneration of the spirit give 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. Paul's Apostleship, as if he had had no sufficient commission or warrant of it. S. Paul for himself allegeth, that the Corinthians were as an Epistle from Christ, whereby he was sufficiently commended and his calling testified unto them, in that the Gospel by his ministry had had so great success, & taken so great effect amongst them. That singular effect of his preaching he importeth to have been a greater assurance unto them then any epistle written with ink and paper, and to have commended his ministery above the ministery of Moses, who gave the Law only in tables of stone, because here the spirit of God concurred with the outward service, and wrought mightily in their hearts, for the receiving of the doctrine of the faith of Christ, and converting of them unto God. Now to say that the Corinthians were an epistle not written with ink nor in tables of stone, what is it to show that the celestial lawgiver gave not his laws written with ink and paper? Surely the difference of the two testaments, which is the thing that M. Bishop would insinuate, was never holden to consist in this, that the one should be written and the other unwritten, because even in the old testament the new was written, but herein it stood, that the one either written or taught by word, ministered only knowledge what we ought to do, not any grace for the doing of it, but the other not only teacheth by writing or by preaching but ministereth also grace to work in the heart obedience to that that it teacheth. g August. de sp. & lit. cap. 20. Propter veteru hominis noxam quae per literam rube●rem & minantem minimè fanabitur dicitur illud testamentum vitas: hoc verò nonum propter novitatem spiritus qua hominem nowm san●tà vitio vetustatis, The old Testament, saith S. Austin, is so called because of the corruption of the old man, which was not healed by the commanding and threatening letter, but the other the new, because of the newness 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 give his laws written with ink and paper. If the Gospel might well enough have been kept in men's hearts without writing, why were the faithful so instant with S. Mark first, & after with S. john, as we have seen 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 unto them the same things that he had preached unto them, if there were no such necessity? Why is S. john in the Revelation so often commanded k revel. 1.11 & cap. 2.1. etc. & cap. 14.13. to write, to write, if tradition might serve as well as writing? Surely Irenaeus telleth us, that it was l Jren. ●ib. 3 c. 1. evangelium per voluntatem Dei in Scripturu nob●s tradiderunt. by the will of God that the Apostles delivered unto us the Gospel in writing, as we have showed before. So likewise we have heard S. Austin saying, that m Aug. supra sect. 14. Christ commanded his disciples to write what he would have us to read of his sayings and doings. The same S. Austin saith again, that n Idem in epist. joan. tract. 2. Contra insidiosos errores Deus voluit povere firmamentum in scriptures sanctis contra quas nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum. God would place a bulwark against deceitful errors in the holy Scriptures, against which no man dare speak that will in any sort be taken for a Christian man. Do these Fathers tell us that it was the will of God, the commandment of Christ, that his laws should be delivered unto us written with ink and paper, and will M. Bishop persuade us that it was not the will of God? But I would further question with him, What, are they all so perfect in the Gospel at Rome, as that they need no written Gospel? Is it so settled in their hearts & remembrances by tradition only, as that without any Scriptures it might be preserved amongst them? If M. Bishop say yea; he knoweth himself to be a liar. If he say, no, what is the reason that he setteth thus lightly by ink and paper? Fie upon this wilful blindness: how strange a thing is it that any man should thus cast a veil over his own eyes? He telleth us further, that Christ endowed his Apostles with the blessed spirit of truth, & with a most diligent care of instructing others, that all their posterity might learn of them all the points of Christian doctrine. Now thus far he saith true: but his purpose is, with a little truth to colour a great lie. For he addeth, that we should give credit to them aswell for the written as unwritten word. Sycophant, what have we here to do with the unwritten word? The unwritten word is the matter in question, and must it here be presumed before it be proved? Let it first be made good, that the Apostles meant to leave behind them any unwritten word. We say, that because they had care that all posterity by them should learn 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 have written to the intent that Theophilus o Luk. 1.4. might thereby acknowledge the certainty of those things whereof he had been instructed, so by his writings and the rest, we should acknowledge the certainty and assured truth of their doctrine, and not lie open to the illusions of such impostors and cosiners as M. Bishop is, who under the names of the Apostles should broach those things which the Apostles never thought. Whereof we have a notable example in p Euseb. hist. lib. 3. ca 36. Papias, who succeeded immediately after the time of the Apostles, who whilst he was not contented with those things which were left in writing, but was still hearkening after every one that took upon him to have been a follower of any of the Apostles, and inquiring what any of them had said or done, swallowed many gudgeons given him by such deceivers, and delivered, * Alia tamquam ex viva trad. tione ad se relata et peregr●na● quasdam seruatoris parabolas & doctrinas cum non nullis fob●losis adijcit, etc. Apostolicas d●sputationes non rectè accepit, etc. Quamplurimis ●os se ecclesiasticis viris ciroris causam dedit, quiad antiquitatem ipsius respexerunt. etc. as reported to him by tradition, many fabulous things and strange doctrines, conceiving himself by that means amiss of the Apostles speeches, and giving occasion to many other to err as he did, whilst for his antiquity they respected him very much. This is the end of M. Bishops unwritten word: they will teach us what pleaseth their Lord god the Pope, & then make us believe it is a part of the unwritten word. But yet he addeth again, that our crediting the Apostles should be more for the meaning of the word then for the word itself. Where it is not in any good meaning that he thus nicely distinguisheth betwixt the word itself & the meaning of the word, leaving it forsooth to be understood, 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 have us think that the Apostles would write words, and not mean by their words to signify their meaning? Is it likely that they would write one thing and in meaning intent another? Did they not write to that very end, that in their writing it should appear to all ages what doctrine they taught? Surely they were honest and plain dealing men; they would not beguile us, they would not mock us: they have simply told us what their mind is. There are many difficulties in their writings and in the whole Scriptures, it is true, but yet there are perspicuities also so far as is needful for the clearing of them. There is to exercise the strong; but yet there is also to sustain and comfort the weak. There is to provoke the appetite, but yet there is also to satisfy the hunger. There is q B●rnard. in paru. ser. 64. In Pelago sacra lection●● & agnus ambulat & elephas natat. depth for the Elephant to swim, but there are also shelves and shallows for the lamb to wade. It is truly said by S. Austin, that r Aug. ep. 3. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tanta in eyes difficultate perventatur. without any great difficulty we thereby attain to those things that are necessary for salvation, and that s Idem de utilit. credendi. cap. 6. Inscripturis disciplina ita modificata ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauritendum devotè ac piè ut vera religio poscit accedat. the doctrine thereof is so tempered, as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with devotion and piety, as true religion requireth he should do. M. Bishop goeth on and telleth us, These and their true successors be the true and lively oracles of the true and living God; them we must consult in all doubtful questions, and submit ourselves wholly to their decree. But what M. Bishop? are not only the Apostles, but their successors also the lively oracles of God? Which of the successors of the Apostles ever took upon him either severally or jointly so to be? We have heard that t Ephes. 2.20. the household of God are built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, but that they are built upon the foundations of the Apostles successors we never heard. As for consulting with the Fathers in doubtful questions, we willingly yield to do it, that we may have their help to find out in the Scripture the resolution of such doubts, but that we are to submit ourselves wholly to their decree as accounting them the oracles of God, is a point of learning which S. Austin knew not when he said; u Aug. de nat. & great. cap 61. Eg● in hutusmedi quorumlibet hominum scriptu liber sum, quia solis Canonicis Scripturis debeo fine ulla recusa●nne confensum. I am free in such writings of men whatsoever they be; because to the Canonical Scriptures only do I own consent without refusal. But not to stand too long upon these fancies, let one place of Hierome be an ●●s●er to them all. x Hier. in Psal. 86. Quomodo narrabit Dominus? Non verbo sed Scriptura. In cutus Scriptura? in populorum: quae Scripturae populis omnibus legitur, hoc est, ve omnes intelligant, etc. The Lord will declare or show in the Scripture of the people, and of the Princes that have been in her. How will the Lord declare? Not by word but by writing, or by Scripture: In whose Scripture? Even in the Scripture of the peoples, which is read to all people's: that is, that all may understand. The Lord hath spoken by his Gospel, not that a few, but that all should understand: the Princes of Christ have not written for a few, but for all the people. The Princes are the Apostles and the Evangelists. Those (saith he) which were or have been in her. Mark what he saith, which were, not which are: so that the Apostles excepted, whatsoever after shall be said, is cut off, and hath no authority. Albeit therefore a man be holy, albeit he be learned, after the Apostles, he hath no authority. In which words he showeth us, that the counsel of God thought good to leave us the Apostles doctrine, not by word, not by tradition, but by writing: that the scriptures which he hath given us by them are so disposed, as that they serve for the understanding of all men, that all authority of doctrine is concluded and ended in them, neither hath any after them authority to teach us any thing towards God, that is not warranted and approved by their writings. It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith, that Christ gave not his laws written with ink and paper: and again, that the meaning of the word is not to be known by the word itself: and again, that the successors of the Apostles also are the lively oracles of the true and living God. In the next place he abuseth the Apostle S. Paul, and under colour of the names of two or three of the Fathers, absurdly misapplieth his going up to Jerusalem, as if he had gone to have his doctrine examined and approved by the Apostles that were before him. He nameth S. Peter single and by himself, as to have us to conceive, that S. Paul yielded some high pre-eminence & superiority to him. But there is no such matter as he pretendeth, the Apostles own declaration overthroweth all this fancy. He professeth, that y Gal. 1.12. he received not his Gospel of man, nor was taught it but by the revelation of jesus Christ. After that he had received the revelation of the Gospel from Christ, & was appointed to preach the Gospel amongst the Gentiles, directly against M. Bishop's devise he saith: z Ver. 16.17. Immediately I communed not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to jerusalem to them that were Apostles before me, but went into Arabia, etc. a Ambros. in Gal. cap. 1. Nec consilium cutusquam petijt, aut ad aliquem retulit quid esset acturus, sed protinùs Christum praedicavit, etc. Non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se à Deo pergend● a●● praecessores Apostolos, ut aliquid fortè disceret ab eyes, etc. He asked no man's counsel (saith Ambrose) nor referred it to any man what he should do, but forthwith preached Christ. He saith, that there was no necessity that he being chosen of God, should go to the Apostles his predecessors, as haply to learn any thing from them. Now how badly doth M. Bishop deal to make his reader believe, that S. Paul's doctrine was first to be examined and approved by Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, when as S. Paul professedly saith, that he went not to take any approbation from them, because he had received equal authority & commission with them. He further declareth, that b Ver. 18. three years after he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him 15. days. c Ambros. ibid. Non ut al●quid ab eo disceret, quia ●am ab authore didicerat, à quo & ipse Petrus fuerat instructus, sed propter ●ffectum Apostolatus, & ut sciret Petrus hanc illi datam licentiam quam & ipse acceperat Not to learn any thing of him, saith Ambrose, because he had already learned of the author himself, by whom Peter was taught, but for affection of the Apostleship & that Peter might know that the same commission was give to him which Peter himself had. He went to him d Theophy. action Gal. 1. Non utilitatis sed honoris duntaxit gratia, ut Petrum spectaret. not for any benefit, but for honours sake to see him, saith Theophylact. Not for any such honours 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 have been inferior to the very chief Apostles, but for that honour's sake of which the same Apostle saith: f Rom. 12.10. In giving honour, go one before another, & whereof we are wont to say, that we name a man honoris gratia, for honours sake, by which g Theophyl. ut supra. cum qui aetate esset prouect●or veneraretur & magnificeret the younger honoureth the elder, the equal his equal, yea & the superior his inferior. For otherwise it is true which Cyprian saith that h Cyprian. de simple. Pralat. Hoc erant reliqui Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari conserito praediti & hoacris & potestatis. the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship both of honour and of power. But to go forward i Gal. 2.1. 14. years after befell that that M. Bishop here speaketh of, that Paul went up again to jerusalem. The occasion whereof was that that the mentioneth here as another matter, about the question of the Gentiles observing of Moses law. Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospel with great success amongst the Gentiles, and namely, at Antioch. Whilst they were abiding there, k Act. 15.1. there came down certain from judea, & taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Hereupon there was great dissension and great disputation of Paul and Barnabas against them. These false Apostles pretended themselves to have come from the Apostles at jerusalem, and to have received their instructions from them, as may appear by those words of their answer, l Ver. 24. We have heard that certain which departed from us have troubled you with words, and cumbered your minds, saying ye must be circumcised & keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment. Under this colour they slandered Paul, as teaching another Gospel than the other Apostles did. Now when as they thus pretended the Apostles names, and made show to have received commandment from them, it was necessary for the satisfaction of the Church, that the matter should be cleared by the Apostles themselves. Wherefore it was thought good, & God m Gal. 2.2. by revelation also so directed, as the Apostle signifieth, that n Act 15.2. he and Barnabas, & some other of them should go to jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders about this question. This occasion of his going let S. Ambrose declare: o Ambr. in Gal. 2. A judaeis causa legis mala illi siebat opinto, quasi discordaret à praedicatione caeterorun Aposto lorum, & hinc fiebat multis scrupulus, ita ut gentes possent perturbari ne in aliud inducer●●tur ab eo quàm tradebant Apostoli, qui cum Domino fuerant. Nam ipsa occasione subversi sunt Galatae à judaeis dicentibus, quiae aliud tradebat Paulus quam Petrus. Hinc factum est ut admonitus revelatione Domini ascenderet Hierosolyman, etc. The jews, saith he, caused an evil opinion of him in behalf of their law, as if he disagreed from the preaching of the rest of the Apostles, & hereby some scruple grew to many, so as that the Gentiles might be troubled or perplexed with doubt, left by him they should be drawn to any thing else then the Apostles delivered who had been with the Lord. For by this occasion the Galathians were perverted by the jews, saying, that Paul delivered or taught otherwise then Peter did. Hence it came to pass, that being admonished by revelation from the Lord, he went up to Jerusalem. What to do? to be examined and approved of them as his superiors & judges, as M. B. saith? What, had he preached the Gospel now 17. years, & doth he now at length remember himself 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 Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. Now q Hiero. in Gal. 2. Aliud est confer, aliud discere. Inter conferentes aequalitas est, inter docentem & discentem, minor est ille qui discit. it is one thing to confer, saith Jerome, another thing to learn. There is equality betwixt them that confer; 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 himself, as to have any thing added to himself by them, but only for satisfaction of the Church, that the scandal of the slander of the false Apostles might be removed, & all the Church might know, that in their doctrine they consented all in one, that so neither his labour thenceforth, nor that that he had bestowed might be bestowed in vain, by reason of any such false suggestions of his dissenting from the rest. And to show that he conferred with them to no other end, he saith afterwards, that r Ver 6. they added nothing further to him, that s Ver. 7. they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was committed to Peter, t Ver. 9 that they who seemed to be pillars, james, Peter, and john, gave unto him, and Barnabas right hands of fellowship, yea that he was so far from being inferior to them, as that at Antioch: u Ver. 11. he withstood Peter to his face as justly to be blamed, for not going the right way to the truth of the Gospel, in that he seemed by his carriage to draw the Gentiles to the observation of the law contrary, to that which before had been acknowledged by him. Now than the reason is manifest of S. Paul's going up to the pillars of the Church, albeit he were as great a pillar as any of them. And as for the sentence of the Council, it did not teach him any thing which he knew not, but only signified the common acknowledgement of that which he had before taught. x Chrysost in Gal 1. Ab initio quid esset agendum perspexerat, nec opus h●bebat ullo doctore, sed quae post multam discussionem erant Apostoli decreturi, haec ipsa citra discussionem coelitus h●bebat apud se certa & indubitata. He understood from the beginning, saith chrysostom, what was to be done, and needed no teacher, but what the Apostles after much debating should decree, the same had he certain and undoubted with himself from heaven without debating. Now by this that hath been said, we may conceive what to think of those allegations which M. Bishop for a show hath quoted in the margin. That which Tertullian saith is apparently false, that y Tertul. contra Marc. lib. 4. Ascendit ad consultandos Apostolos ne fortè secundum illos non credidisset, & non secundum illos evangelizaret. Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles, lest haply he had not believed as they did, or did not preach the Gospel as they did. As though it were likely, that the Apostle would have continued his preaching for 17. years, not knowing whether he preached right or wrong. As though he knew not that which he preached to be the truth, having received it (as before is showed) by the revelation of jesus Christ. That which Jerome saith must be esteemed according to the humour wherein he wrote it, which was in great choler and stomach towards S. Austin for disliking his opinion as touching Peter's dissimulation, mentioned in the chapter whereof we here speak. His words are, that z Hieron apud August. Epi. 11. Ostendens se non habuisse securitatem evangelii praedicandi, nisi Petri & illorum qui cum illo erant fuisset sententia roboratum. Paul had not had security of preaching the Gospel, had it not been confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those that were with him. As though he had preached 17. years, as before was said, without warrant of preaching? As though he expected confirmation now from Peter, or those that were with him, who so long before had had confirmation from Christ himself? As though he became an Apostle by warrant of Peter, & those that were with him, who in the beginning of his Epistle writeth himself, a Gal. 1.1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by man, but by jesus Christ, with many other words before mentioned, disclaiming the receiving of any authority from men. Ieromes heat made him forget that which is before cited out of his exposition upon that Epistle, that conference importeth equality, & therefore that the Apostle showing that he went to confer with the rest of the Apostles, importeth that he received of them no warrant of authority, but only by consent. As for that which is quoted out of S. Austin, it maketh nothing to M. Bishop's purpose. b August. count Faust lib. 28. ca 4 Si non inveniret in carne Apostolos quibus cōmu●icando & cum quibus evangelium conferendo eiusdem societatis esse appareres, ecclesia illi omnino no crederet. Sed cùm cognovisset eum hoc annuntiantem quod etiam ill● annuntiabant, et in eorum comunione atque unitate viventem, accedentibus etiam per eum talibus signis qualia & illi operabantur, ita eam Domino commendante, ●●ruit authoritatem ut verba illius hody sic audiantur in ecclesia, tanquam in illo Christus sicut ipse verissimè dixit l●cutus audiatur. If there had been no Apostles living, that Paul in communicating with them, and conferring with them of the Gospel, might appear to be of the same society, the Church would not have believed him. But when they knew him preaching the same which they preached, and living in their unity and fellowship, doing also the same miracles which they did, God thus commending it, he obtained authority, that his words are now heard in the Church, as if Christ were heard speaking in him, as he himself most truly saith. In which words he attributeth to the rest of the Apostles the giving of a testimony, that he was of the same society and fellowship with them, but importeth nothing at all of any their judicial power or superiority over him. The occasion of the words will show the purport of them. Manicheus the heretic wrote an Epistle as the Apostle of Christ, contrarying those things which were written by the true Apostles. The Manichees urged this Epistle as the true story of Christ, alleging that the Gospels were corrupted and not true. S. Austin questioneth how the Church should take him for an Apostle, or admit that for truth which he wrote concerning Christ, when as he lived not in the time of the Apostles, nor was known to be one of them, by having communion and fellowship with them. For even Paul, saith he, if he had lived after their times, and had not been known to have society and company with them, and by his preaching & miracles together with them, had not been commended to the Church by God, the Church could not have taken him for an Apostle of Christ, nor believed him upon his own word. This is all that is said, and nothing intended that the rest of the Apostles should give him warrant as judges, but only as witnesses testify him to be one of them. But now admit that they were as judges, & were to give commission & warrant to S. Paul; what is it that M. Bishop would prove thereby? Forsooth that there were some of authority for judgement, and deciding the controversies of the Church. Be it so; but why doth he take pains for that which we do not deny? Yea but it is that Peter may be known to be the judge. Be it so that Peter amongst the rest was one, yea & a chief man amongst them, because S. Paul saith, that c Gal. 2.9. james, and Peter, and john seemed to be pillars, that is, special and chief men amongst the Apostles. Yea, but that is not enough, but Peter must be the high & sovereign judge, and the rest only assistants & helpers to him. But that is apparently false, because in that judgement of which S. Paul speaketh james sat as the chief, and accordingly pronounced the definitive sentence; d Chrysost. in Act. hom. 33. jacobus fert & non resilit: illi erat principatus concreduus. to him, saith chrysostom, the principality or chiefty was committed. Yet let us yield so much that Peter was the highest judge in this assembly; what of that? Marry forsooth the Pope succeed in Peter's place, & he must therefore be the one high & supreme judge over all Churches. This is the issue that M. Bishop driveth at, but for his life cannot tell how to convey the Pope into S. Peter's place. This conclusion Bellarmine maketh out of three places that are here alleged, quoting them only as M. Bishop doth from him, but citing no words, & saying of them that they e Bellar. de verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 5. Disertè affirmant Ecclesiam non fuisse Paulo credituran nisi evangelium eius à Pe●●o confirmatum fuisset. Ergo Petr● erat tunc & proinde success●ris eius nunc de doctrina fidei. expressly affirm, that the Church would not have believed Paul, had not his Gospel been confirmed by S. Peter. Therefore it belonged to Peter then, and now to his successor, to judge of the doctrine of faith. Where we see him to be outright a jesuite, that is, a man of a brazen face & a wicked conscience, for that he knew well that two of these do not mention Peter, but speak generally of the Apostles, the third which is Hierome, nameth not Peter alone as he doth, but coupleth with him those that were with him, and maketh that which he saith common to them all. But it is a further point of impudence in him, to force that upon the Pope hereby, which never any of these fathers nor any other ever imagined, that he should be in Peter's place the universal judge of Christian faith, so that if S. Peter who they say was Bishop of Rome before, had been dead before that council of Jerusalem, & Paul the third had succeeded in his place, Paul the Apostle must have had his Gospel confirmed by Paul the Pope, as impious a caitiff as ever the world bred. I will not stand to take any further in this filth, let them lie in it that love it, and M. Bishop having taken upon him to swear whatsoever Bellarmine doth lie, must be content to be daubed with his dirt. He goeth on and telleth us, that he could show how every hundred years after, heresies were confuted and rejected not by the written word only, but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholars and successors. So then they were not rejected by the sentence and declaration of any one judge, he is now gone from that, but it was by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholars and successors, as all Bishops were. And indeed in those first Counsels the Bishop of Rome had no more to do then other Bishops, yea sometimes less than some others, to whom the moderation of the present business by general consent was committed, as in the Nicene council to f Theod. hist. li. 2. ca 15 Cuius concilij su●t ille non princeps? Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain above all the rest of the Bishops, who therefore g Council Nicen. subscript. in sine. subscribed first of all. And as for the deciding of matters, it was referred only to the authority of the written word, as appeareth in the same council of Nice, where Constantine propoundeth this rule unto them: h Theo. l. hist. li. 1. ca 7. Euangelici & Apostolici libri necnon antiqu●rum Prophetarum oracula planè nos instruunt quid de reb●s d ui●is (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) sentiendum sit: proinde posita h●stili discordia sumamus ex dictis divini spiritus explicatione● quaestionum. The books of the Evangelists & Apostles, as also the oracles of the old Prophets, do plainly instruct us what to think concerning Gods matters: therefore setting aside all hostile discord, let us take the resolutions of our questions from the words of the holy Ghost. Their sentence therefore was but to acknowledge and pronounce the sentence, which the holy Ghost had given in the written word, & no otherwise did they take upon them to declare it, but by the same word. Only for the greater satisfaction of the Church, & the more fully to take away all cavillations of heretics, they alleged sometimes the testimonies of such as had been before them, to show that by the same written word, they had taught no otherwise than they did. Albeit there were not always general Counsels for the confuting and rejecting of heresies, but many times the Pastors of the Church in their private writings confuted and condemned them only by the verdict & sentence of the written word. So Hilary only by the voice of the heavenly judge in the Scriptures, rejected the Arian heresy, i Hilar. de synod. count Arian. fidem Nicenam nunquam nisi exulaturus audivi. never having heard of the Nicene definition, until he was going into banishment for that f●ith. Yea, and after the definition of the council, S. Austin did not rest upon their sentence, but upon the sentence of the written word, and therefore saith to Maximinus the Arian: k August. contra Maximin lib. 3. cap. 14. Nec ego Nicenum, nec in debes Ariminense tanquam praeiudicaturus proferre consilium. Nec ego huius, nec tu illius authoritate deti● 〈◊〉 ●●ripturarū a●●tibus, non 〈◊〉 ●nque proper 〈◊〉 ●trisque comu● testibus res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione conceriet. It is not for me to allege the council of Nice, nor for thee to allege the council of Ariminum: neither am I bound to the authority of the one, nor thou of the other. By testimonies or authorities of Scripture, not proper to either of us, but common to both, let matter try with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason. He knew very well that the sentence of a council might be questioned also, & therefore that the controversy must finally rest upon 〈◊〉 sentence of the Scripture. M. Bishop further referreth us to Bellarmine, as touching those Counsels every hundred years, whose instructions are needless to us to certify us of the truth in that behalf, being otherwise better to be known then by any thing that he can tell us. But I would wish that he that desireth to know the quality and disposition of that wretched man, should thoroughly examine that chapter that Master Bishop quoteth, wherein he hath set down so many apparent & wilful lies, as that it may well appear what spirit it was that led him throughout his whole books. In the next place he telleth us an idle tale & impertinent, of Basil & Gregory Nazianzene, of whom Ruffinus reporteth, that l Ruffin. lib. 2. c. 9 Omnibus Graecorum se●ularium libris remotis solu divinae S●ripturae volumnibus operam dabant carumque intelligentians non ex propria praesumptione, sed ex maiorum scriptis & authoritate sequebantur; quos & ipsos ex Apostolica successione intelligendi regulam suscepisse constat. laying aside their profane studies, they applied themselves only to the books of holy Scripture, and sought after the understanding of them, not out of their own presumption, but out of the writings & authority of their ancients, who also themselves by such as had succeeded from the Apostles, had received the rule of understanding. To what end doth he allege this against us? Where it is said that they sought not the understanding of the Scriptures out of their own presumption, for the shooting of his bolt, he maketh a parenthesis thus, As the Protestants both do & teach others to do. But the Protestants would have him know, that that description of the studies of those two fathers, doth rightly describe the studies of every learned Protestant. They see it to their grief in all our books, & in the process of this whole book, it will appear to him, that the Protestants use the help of the father's writings as a singular benefit of God, for the true understanding of the Scriptures, and for the finding out of the truth in those controversies that are depending betwixt us & them. Yea, so far are we from contenting ourselves with our own understanding, as that we forbear not to turn & wind all Popish authors, either of former or latter time, that what gold we can find in their dunghills, we may apply it to the furnishing of the temple of the Lord. But it pitieth me to think of the silliness of this man, in upbraiding us with not searching the writings of the ancient fathers, of whom I am persuaded that we may truly say, that he never read so much as one volume of any one of the fathers, & had been in pitiful case for the writing of this book, had not Bellarmine been content upon trust to lend him the whole stock. Well, he hath read them that have read the fathers, & if they lie, be it so; he cannot tell how to help either himself or them. Thus for the finding of a judge we came first to the Pope, and from the Pope he hath brought us to the counsels, & from the counsels to the writings of the fathers, & now from the writings of the fathers he leadeth us to the Church. He allegeth to this purpose two sayings of S. Austin. The former upon occasion of the question betwixt the Donatists & him is thus, m August. count Crescon. lib. 1. ca 33. Quisquis falli metuit istius obscuritate quaestionis, candem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta Scripturae demonstrat. Whosoever feareth to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, let him seek for advice to that same Church, which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate and point out. We admit the condition; we willingly hearken to the judgement of that Church: in obscure points which we do not readily understand, we highly esteem the censure of that Church, which otherwise by the Scripture is demonstrated to be the true Church. S. Austin in those words hath reference to the whole Church from the time of the Apostles, & very rightly directeth him that was not able otherwise to discern, to presume that to be the truth which from the very original had been continued and practised in the Church. This serveth not M. Bishops turn, because it fitteth not to M. Bishop's Church. No more doth that other place which he citeth, n Idem cont. epist. funda. cap. 5 Ego verò evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae commcueret authoritas. I should not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the catholic Church should move me to it. M. Bishop before hand telleth us that S. Austin did not speak this as touching his being at first a Christian, but even now being a learned and judicious Doctor, he would not believe but for the authority of the Church. But very lewdly doth he abuse S. Austin in making him so to say, as if he had resolved that it being supposed that the Church should backslide and fall away, he himself also would play the Apostata, and fall away from the faith of Christ. What, was his faith built upon men, and not upon God himself? Did he not know that though o Rom. 3.4. every man be a liar, yet God is true? What if the whole world had conspired against the book of God, as not long before by Arianism it had against the Son of God, when Constantius the Emperor said to Liberius Bishop of Rome concerning Athanasius, p Theodoret hist. li. 2. ca 16. Quota pars tiles orbis terrarum qui solus facis ●●m homine scelerato? Liberius. Non dimnuitur solitudine mea verbum fidei. Who art thou to the whole world, who thus alone standest with a wicked man? Liberius though afterwards he yielded, yet for that time answered well; The word of faith is no whit impeached by my being alone; and would not, think we, S. Austin bear the like mind, howsoever all other sell away, yet constantly to cleave to that which he knew to be the truth? It is not all M. Bishop's foolish Rhetoric that can make us to believe that S. Austin would make any such protestation to that effect. Yea, and were not both he & his fellows very absurdly wilful, they would well enough see, as haply they do, by that which goeth before, and that which followeth, that it can be no otherwise construed, but as in the person of a man at first receiving the Christian faith; to whom it is no small motive thereunto, that the same faith hath found credit & entertainment throughout the whole world. But the words themselves shall best declare to what purpose they were set down. q Idem ut supra. Si invonires aliquem qui evangelio nondum credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi Non credo? Ego verò evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. Quibus ergo obtemperavi dicentibus, Credit evangelio; cur eye non crederen dicentibus mihi, Noli credere Mani●haeo? Elige quod v●lis. Si dixeris, crede Catholicis ipsi me monent ut ●ullam fidem accōmodē vobis, etc. Si dixeris, Noli Catholicis credere, non rectè facies per evangelium mo cogere ad fidem Manichaei, quia ipsi evangelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi. If thou shouldest find any man who yet believeth not the Gospel, what wouldst thou do to him saying unto thee, I do not believe? Surely I should not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the catholic Church should move me unto it. Whom then I have harkened unto, saying unto me, Believe the Gospel, why should I not hearken to them, saying to me, Believe not Manicheus. Choose whether thou wilt. If thou wilt say, Believe them of the catholic Church, they give me warning to give no trust to you. If thou wilt say, Do not believe them of the catholic Church, thou shalt not do well to force me by the Gospel to the faith of Manicheus, because by the preaching of them of the catholic Church, I have believed the Gospel. We see that both the propounding and the process of these whole words, do cry out against M. Bishop, and as it were with loud voice, do proclaim that S. Augustine's meaning was no other, but that the consent and authority of the Church overspreading the whole world, was at first a mighty & strong inducement unto him, to believe that Gospel wherein all so constantly did accord; because it could not be taken but to be of God which had gotten that estimation and account with so many nations and peoples of so strange and divers dispositions. Mark the words gentle Reader, What wouldst thou do to him, saying, I do not believe: Surely I should not believe unless, etc. unto whom I hearkened saying, Believe the Gospel, etc. By the preaching of them I believed the Gospel. The thing is apparent unto any man that doth not stop his own eyes that he may not see. And hereof most holily & devoutly the same S. Austin speaketh in his confessions to God, even as it were to tell us the meaning of these words: r Idem Confess lib. 6 cap. 5 Semper credidi & esse te & curam nostri gerere etiamsi ignorabam vel quid sentiendum esset de substantia tua, vel quae via duceret aut reduceret ad te. Ide●que eum essemu● insirmi ad inveniendam liquida ratione veritatem & obhoc nobis op●s esset authoritate sancta●um literarum, ●am credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributurum tam excellentum illi Scriptur●e per omneti●m terras authoritatem nisi & per ipsam tibi credi & per ipsam te quaerivoluisses. I always believed, saith he, that thou art, and that thou hast care of us, albeit I knew not what to think of thy being, or which way should lead me or bring me again to thee. Therefore when I was too weak by apparent reason to find out the truth, and for this purpose needed the authority of the holy Scriptures, I began now to believe that by no means thou wouldst give that excellency of authority to those scriptures even throughout the whole earth, but that thou wouldst have us thereby to believe thee, and thereby to seek thee. This place showeth the true effect of that other speech, and it is great impudence and impiety in M. Bishop and his fellows, to force upon S. Austin that protestation which they do by their false construction. 23 W. BISHOP. This matter is so large, that it requireth a whole question: but being penned up within the compass of one objection, I will not dwell any longer in it, but here fold up this whole question of Traditions, in the authorities of the ancient Fathers; out of whom, because I have in answering M. Perkins, and elsewhere, as occasion served, cited already many sentences; I will here be brief. S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholar, doth exhort all Christians, * Euseb li. 3.36. To stick fast unto the Traditions of the Apostles, some of which he committed to writing. Polycarpus, by the authority of the Apostles words, which he had received from their own mouths; confirmed the faithful in truth, and overthrew the heretics. * Ibid. li. 5. c. 20. S. Irenaeus, who imprinted in his heart Apostolical traditions, received from Polycarp, saith, If there should be a controversy about any mean question, ought we not to run unto the most ancient Churches, in the which the Apostles had conversed, and from them take that which is clear & perspicuous to define the present question? For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all, must we not have followed the order of Traditions, which they delivered to them to whom they delivered the Churches? Origen teacheth, that the Church received from the Apostles by Tradition, to baptise Infants. * Rom. 6. Athanasius saith: * Lib. de decre●. Niceni conc. We have proved this sentence to have been delivered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers: but ye, O new jews, and sons of Caiphas, what ancestors can ye show of your opinion? S. Basil hath these words: * De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We have the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church; partly written, and part we have received by Tradition of the Apostles in mystery, both which be of the same force to godliness, and no man opposeth against these, who hath at the least but mean experience of the Laws of the Church. See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in julian. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop is here as he was before, like the melancholic merchant of Athens, who rejoiced at the sight of every ship that came in persuading himself that it was his ship. He cannot light any where upon the name of traditions, but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish unwritten traditions. And here in the first place to colour this, he translateth the words of Eusebius amiss, by changing the singular number into the plural. a Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He warned them, saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius, that they should cleave steadfastly to the tradition of the Apostles. He saith not traditions, as to note sundry doctrines left unwritten, as M. Bishop would have it, but tradition, as entirely & generally to signify the doctrine delivered by the Apostles. Therefore he must necessarily be understood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written, but there is no necessity of understanding any more. This tradition, that is, the doctrine delivered by the Apostles, Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testify by writing, and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them, even no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing. But those Epistles have been diversly in hucksters hands, being grown to greater number than Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times, & containing many things now which they had not then, and many than which they have not now. Ignatius now is made to say, that b Ignat. epist. 5. ad Phil. p. Siqu● dominico die reiunauer●t aut sabbato praeter unum sabbatum, is est Christi interfector. if any man fast upon the Lord's day or upon the Saturday, he is a murderer of Christ, whereas S. Austin confesseth, that c Aug. epist. 86. Quibus diebus ●●unare eporteat vel quibus non oporteat nullo Domini vel Apostolorum praecepto invenio definitum. he found it not defined by any precept of Christ or his Apostles what days we are to fast and what not, and Hierome as we have heard before confesseth, that Paul and others with him did fast upon the Lord's day. He is now made to say, that d Ignat. ibid. Siqu● eum judaeis pascha peregeris, & festi eorum Symbola susceperit, is particeps est & socius eorum qui Dominum occiderunt & Apostolos eius. if any man observe Easter with the jews, or shall bear the marks of their festival day, he is a companion and partaker with them who killed Christ and his Apostles, whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history, that e Euseb. hist. lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort, & refused to yield to Anicetus' Bishop of Rome to do otherwise, & therefore that there was no such observation to which Ignatius should adjoin any such censure as here is. Again Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius, that f Hieron. count Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus & martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores. Christ chose Apostles who were sinners above all men, which now is not found in those Epistles that we have. Therefore sith we have his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted, it is hard from them now to gather any certainty at all, and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of, are but mere forgeries conveyed into them by the Pope's agents, albeit the former of those traditions which I have mentioned, maketh them also murderers of Christ, because they fast upon the Saturday, or else they must deny that these epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles. But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant, will appear by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus, who M. Bishop saith, by the Apostles words received from their own mouths confirmed the faithful in truth, and overthrew the heretics. Let his author speak, and let the Reader judge how honestly he dealeth in this citation. The words are the words of Irenaeus, of whom Eusebius reporteth, that in certain speeches against Florinus the heretic, he saith of himself having been with Polycarpus when he was very young, g Euseb. hist. eccl. lib. 5. ca 18. Commemorare quean sermons eius quos fecit ad multitudinem, & quomodo se cum joanne ac reliquis qui Dominum viderunt conversatum esse dixerit, & sermons ecrun memoraverit, & quae ex illis de Domino audierant & de virtutibus eius & doctrina tanquam ex ijs qui ipsi verbum vitae viderant et cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recensuerit. I remember the sermons that he made to the people, and how he told that he had been conversant with john and others that saw the Lord, and mentioned their speeches, and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and concerning his miracles and doctrine, as received from them who themselves had seen the Word of life, and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures. Here was then the tradition of Polycarpus, containing nothing else but according to the Scripture. As touching the tradition that h See the Answer to the Epistle. sect. 11. Irenaeus speaketh of, it hath been before showed that it containeth nothing else but the elemental articles of Christian faith, for the avouching whereof he was forced to appeal to the tradition and successive doctrine of the Church, because he had to do with heretics that refused the trial of the Scriptures. He saith rightly, that if nothing had been written we must have rested upon Tradition; but because God knew that Tradition was too uncertain and weak a means for preservation of truth, therefore as he hath before said, the Apostles delivered the Gospel which they preached in writing, and that by the will of God, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. In a word, when he saith, What if the Apostles had not written any thing at all? must we not then have followed the order of tradition? he intimateth that now that they have written, we are to follow that which they have written for the certainty & assurance of our faith. He forceth the order of tradition in this sort upon the heretics, because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them, but the matters whereof he treateth, are clearly taught therein, as every where he showeth throughout his whole book. His next allegation is vain and childish. Origen teacheth that the Church received from the Apostles by tradition to baptise infants, whereas Bellarmine himself proveth it to be necessary by the Scriptures, as I have showed i Sect 12. before. That of Athanasius is as little to the purpose as all the rest. The thing that he hath in hand in the k Athanas. lib. Quòd Nicena synod u congruis & pijs verbis decreta sua super Ariana haeresi exposuerit. book cited, is to give a reason of the decree of the Nicene Council, that the Son of God is of the same substance with the Father. He showeth, that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures, Constantine also so directing them as we have seen before. The matter was so cleared, as that the heretics for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded upon. Yet he declareth, that afterwards they fell to cavilling, that the words whereby the Council expressed their meaning, were not found in the Scriptures; that they devised them of themselves, and that none of the former Fathers had used the same. He answereth, that l Cognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scriptures non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam qu●m Scripturae volunt, & hoc ipsum sonaere, etc. Whosoever is of a studious mind, or desirous to learn, will know that those words, though they be not found in the Scriptures, yet have the same meaning which the Scriptures intent, and do signify the very same. Further, against their other cavil he showeth by divers places alleged, that the Fathers of former times had used the same words and manner of speech as the Council did. Hereupon he concludeth, m Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam à patribus ad patres quasi per man●● traditan esse. Vos autem nou● Iude●, Cataphaeque discipuli, quos verborum vestrorum patre●ac maiores demonstra●u●. Behold we show that this sentence hath been delivered from fathers to fathers, as it were from hand to hand: but O you new jews and sons of Caiphas, what fathers or ancestors will ye show us for your terms? Now shall not we think that M. Bishop hath here brought us a stout proof for traditions unwritten, and doctrines beside the Scripture? Even as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellows, Behold we show you that which we say of the sufficiency of the Scriptures delivered from fathers to fathers, even as it were from hand to hand, and he should hereupon cite us for witnesses of their traditions. As much wit should he show in this, as he now doth in that. The place of Basil is answered at large n Sect. 16. before. He further referreth us to the first oration of o Greg Nazi●n. contra Julian. erat. 1. Doctrina nostra insig●●rē videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditio●e acceptas in hunc usque diem serua●●mus, etc. Idem hic cogit 〈◊〉 scholas in omnibus civitatibus extruere parabat, & sacraria se desque partim altiores, partim depressiores, propha●●●um dogmatum lectiones & ●xplicationes instituere; tum preca●o●um alternatim ca●●●arum f●rmam, etc. Gregory Nazianzen against julian, but was ashamed to set down any words of his, because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians, which julian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganism, were schools and forms higher and lower, lectures, hospitals, monasteries, companies of virgins, singing by turns, and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church, and what are these to prove traditions, that is, matters of doctrine not contained in the Scriptures? We admit almost all those things which he there speaketh of, and yet we condemn traditions in that sense as we here make question of them. Surely M. Bishops traditions are in a miserable case, that in all antiquity can find no better foundations whereupon to build them. A man would not think that in so serious a matter he would so trifle as he hath done, bringing not one place in any sort appliable to his purpose, but only that of Basill, and yet neither that of sufficient weight to prove that that he hath undertaken to prove, as before hath been showed. 24. W. BISHOP. Because I have cited already some of the Latin ancient Doctors: in stead of the rest, I will record out of them in a word or two, how old rotten heretics used always to reject unwritten traditions, and fly wholly unto the written word. See the whole book of Tertullia's prescriptions against heretics, which principally handleth this very point. The same doth Irenaeus witness of the Valentinians and Marcionists. * Lib. 3. cap. 2. The Arians common song unto the Catholics was, I will not admit to be read any words that are not written (in the Scriptures) as witnesseth S. Hilary in his book against Constantius the Emperor, against whom he allegeth the preaching of the Apostles and the authority of the ancient Bishops expressed in his lively colours. S. Augustine some 1200. years ago, recordeth the very form of arguing, which the Protestants use now a days in the person of Maximinus an Arian, in his first book against him in the beginning. If thou shalt (saith this heretic) bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all, we must needs hear thee, but these words which are without the Scriptures, are in no sort to be received of us: when as the Lord himself hath admonished us, and said, in vain do they worship me, teaching commandments and precepts of men. How S. Augustine opposed against them unwritten traditions, hath been afore declared. The like doth S. Bernard affirm of certain heretics of his time called * Hom. 62. Cant. Apostolici. So that most truly it may be concluded, that even as we Catholics have learned of the Apostles and ancient Fathers, our noble progenitors, to standfast and hold the Traditions which we have received by word of mouth, as well as that which is written: even so the Protestants have received as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors, old condemned heretics, to reject all Traditions, and to fly unto the only Scriptures. R. ABBOT. For conclusion of this question he bringeth us here a rotten tale, how old rotten heretics used always to reject unwritten traditions, and fly wholly to the written word. To make this tale good, he bringeth us first a lie, and then a fond cavil. He referreth his Reader first to Tertullia's book of prescriptions, the purpose whereof what it is, I have showed before at large, but in all that book is no word of heretics flying wholly to the written word. Tertullian showeth, how they mangled and marred the Scriptures being urged therewith, rejecting what and where they list, so that by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them; but that they did fly to the Scriptures, or required trial thereby, he affirmeth not. And this is plain by Irenaeus, even in that place whence M. Bishop citeth him for his second witness, and where he speaketh of the very same heretics of whom Tertullian spoke. a Iren lib. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem ipsarum convertuntur Scripturarum, quasi non rectè habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, et quia variè sunt dictae & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vinam vocem; ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse, sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Heretics (saith he) when they are reproved by the Scriptures, fall to finding fault with the Scriptures, as if they were not aright, nor of authority, and that they are doubtfully set down, and that by the Scriptures the truth cannot be found of them that are ignorant of tradition: for they say that the truth was not delivered by writing but by lively voice, and that therefore Paul said, We speak wisdom among those that be perfect. Now by these very words of Irenaeus, do thou esteem (gentle Reader) the treachery of this man, who beareth thee in hand that Irenaeus noteth it there for a property of heretics to reject unwritten Traditions, and to fly wholly to the written word, when as it was their abusing and refusing of the Scriptures that made him to appeal to the tradition of the Church, the matters of their heresies being concerning the fundamental articles of our belief, which are evidently taught by the written word. It is truly said, that heretics shun the Scriptures even as the thief doth the gallows: and as it is true in other heretics, so it is in the Papists, upon whom how justly those words of Irenaeus light, and how fully they describe their usage towards the Scriptures, hath been b Answer to the Epistle. sect. 11. before declared. To this apparent lie, M. Bishop addeth a blind cavil, for which he bringeth the speeches of Constantius the Emperor and Maximinus, both Arians, out of Hilary and Austin. The matter is answered sundry times before. Against the assertion of the Church, that the Son of God is consubstantial or of the same substance with the Father, they excepted idly and vainly, that they would admit no words that were not written. M. Bishop knoweth well that we do not so, because we receive and profess those words which they refused, yea he knoweth that we say and teach, that the Pope is Antichrist, that the Church of Rome is the purple whore of Babylon, that the Mass is an abominable idol and wicked profaning of the Sacrament of Christ, and such like, and yet these words are no where found in the Scripture. We contend not concerning words, let them use what words they will, so that the doctrine imported and meant by those words be contained in the Scriptures. Of those heretics called Apostolici, S. Bernard saith no such matter as he allegeth. All that he saith is, that c Berna. in Cant. ser. 66. Instituta Ecclesiae non recipiunt. they did not receive the ordinances of the Church, and what is that to the doctrines of faith taught by Christ and his Apostles, which are not contained in the Scriptures? Concerning which, against M. Bishop's conclusion I conclude this question with the saying of Saint Austin before alleged, and worthy here again to be remembered, d August. supra sect. 8. Whether concerning Christ or his Church, or any thing that belongeth unto our faith and life, I will not say, if we, not being to be compared to him that saith, If we, but if an Angel from heaven shall preach unto you anything but what ye have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel, accursed be he. Harken to it M. Bishop, and let it make you afraid to plead for Traditions any more. CHAPTER 8. OF VOWS. 1. W. BISHOP. MAster Perkins is very intricate and tedious in delivering his opinion concerning Vows: I will in as good order as I can, briefly correct his errors herein. In this passage (which he entitleth of our consents) he rangeth many things, wherein we differ much; as first, in the definition of a Vow, which he defineth thus: A Vow is a promise made to God, touching some duty to be performed to him. This definition cometh too short of a Vow, and agreeth unto all other covenants made between God and man; and so Adam's acceptance not to eat of the forbidden fruit should be a Vow, and noah's building of the Ark: and briefly every acceptance and promise to fulfil any of God's commandments; and consequently every breach of them must needs be two several sins, the one of disobedience in such a precept, the other of infidelity by breaking of our vow. All which absurdities necessarily follow of M. Perkins his definition, and be things unheard of either in holy Scriptures or among the ancient holy Fathers, proceeding only out of the dross of their own devices, and therefore with as great facility to be denied of us, as they do with audacity avouch them. To make up then the definition, we must add, that the promise to God be of some better good, proceeding from our own free choice and liberty: so that no vow is made without a man's free choice to bind himself, over and beside all other necessary bonds; which to be of the nature of a vow, we gather first out of the holy Scriptures: * Deut. 23. If thou make a vow, be not slow to perform it: but if thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin. What can be more clear, then that a man may choose whether he will vow or no? which is confirmed in S. Paul: He that decreeth in his heart, not having necessity, but having power over his own will, etc. So that this liberty to promise, or not to promise, is of the substance of a Vow, and that if he list not to vow, he doth not sin: which were very false, if the acceptance of necessary duties were Vows. For he that refuseth to accept them, doth sin: as if a man should refuse to perform any of God's commandments. Hence it followeth most manifestly, that the promise which we make to God in Baptism, of keeping Gods commandments, is no vow, if a vow be taken properly, because it lieth not in us to refuse it, without we will withal refuse the grace of Baptism, and remain in the state of damnation. And M. Perkins affirming it to be a Vow, and often repeating it, doth not once confirm it with any shadow of proof, but takes that for granted, which he knows we do deny flatly. R. ABBOT. What the nature of a Vow is, we shall best conceive by the use thereof, which we find expressed in the Law of God, which if we well weigh & consider, we shall conceive that a Vow is nothing else but a deliberate and solemn promise made to God of some honour or service to be done unto him, interposed for a motive to the obtaining and receiving of some special benefit at his hands. The matter of Vows in the law of Moses is usually noted to be some ceremonial worship, God having thereby prescribed to his people certain forms of external observations, whereby they should upon occasions testify their thankfulness and devotion towards him. As in other their legal service they were restrained from following their own device, so in this point also of Vows they were limited; neither might any thing be done by vow to God, but whereof God had given warrant and approbation by the law. Albeit because devotion and thankfulness is a matter of free and voluntary affection, and ready of itself to show itself, therefore God, though he himself directed in that case what might and should be done by him that vowed, yet did not by express commandment tie any man to vow, but left it so far forth to issue from the free and voluntary motion of his own heart. Now the use of vows we find in Scripture to have commonly been upon condition of receiving some benefit and mercy at God's hands. Thus jacob being to go to his uncle Laban for avoiding the fury of his brother Esau, a Gen. 28.20. vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and keep me in this journey which I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothes to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in safety, then shall the Lord be my God, and this stone which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's house, and of all that thou shalt give me, will I give the tenth unto thee. So the sons of jacob the Israelites in the wilderness b Num 21.2. vowed a vow, saying, If thou wilt deliver and give this people (which were of the Canaanites) into mine hands, I will make their city's anathema, that is, I will utterly destroy them, reserving the spoil thereof to be consecrated unto thee. Thus c judge 11.30. jephthe upon condition of victory against the Ammonites, vowed for a offering to the Lord whatsoever at his return should first meet him out of his own house: d 1. Sam. 1.11. Hannah upon condition of having a son, vowed him for a perpetual Nazarite to the Lord: e Psal 66.12. David maketh vows to God in the time of his trouble, namely upon condition of being delivered therefrom: and Absalon though counterfeitly, yet expressing the manner and use of vowing, saith to David his father, f 2. Sam 15.8. Thy servant vowed a vow when I remained in Geshur in Aram, saying, If the Lord shall bring me again to jerusalem, I will serve the Lord, pretending thereby the offering of some sacrifices and offerings, by which he would show himself thankful to God. And thus as in all other service of the Law the performance of outward ceremonies was required, not for themselves, but for the spiritual duties that were shadowed thereby, even so was it in vows, that not for the carnal and outward things that were vowed, but for the inward affections and devotions thereby exercised, they were acceptable unto God. For it is true which Tertullian saith, g Tertul. adverse. Marc. lib 3 Non exigens Deus quae fiebant, sed propter quod fiebant, ob honorem sci●icet Dei. God did not require the things themselves that were done, but that for which they were done, which was for the honour of God. Therefore to speak properly and principally of the intention of vows, the matter of them was spiritual and inward devotion, though acted by carnal service. But spiritual acts and duties of religion are the same now that they were then, and the same then as now. Therefore the thing properly and principally meant in vows, continueth now the same as it was also then. Whereof it must follow, that they who make vows of other intendment than they did, & make promises to God of other matters than were meant in their vows, do deal very sinisterly and corruptly in alleging their example for the warrant of them. Yea and seeing the spiritual devotions intended in their vows are common to all persons & of all conditions, neither did import any thing that should belong to any divided sorts or societies of men, but what all Christians should alike perform to God, what are they but devisers of new worship and service unto God, who under the colour of those vows, do now bring in select and special acts & exercises of religion peculiar only to some men? If all Christian devotions signified by those vows, were found amongst the jews, as hath been said, and these select and peculiar devotions were not found, certain it is that these devotions are but superstitions, and have no warrant from the old Testament to be practised in the new. Now then to come to that which M. Bishop saith, albeit there is no man but well knoweth that a promise is more than a bare acceptance, yet wholly to take away that cavil, we term a vow a solemn promise, whereby a man in special manner bindeth himself to that which he voweth. Albeit where there is a promise made to keep God's commandments, who but an absurd man will hold it for an absurdity to affirm that in the breach there is a double trespass, because to the observation he was tied with a double bond, both absolutely by duty, and respectively by covenant and promise's, and therefore must needs be said to violate his duty the one way, and his fidelity the other. Otherwise why doth God upon h Deut. 5.27. a promise to keep his laws, so often charge his people in special manner for dealing i Psal. 78.8. unfaithfully with him, calling them in that respect k Deut. 32.20. children in whom is no faith, no fidelity or trust, l Esa 30.9. lying children, m Chap. 57.4. a false or lying seed, with sundry other speeches in sundry places to the like effect. It was therefore but a Romish distemper of M. Bishop's eyes, that made him unable to see gold from dross, and caused him to take that for an error, which common understanding should inform him to be a truth. As for that which he telleth us, that by our definition we make all covenants with God and promises to him to be vows, we answer him, that we do indeed take all serious and solemn promises to God to be very fitly contained under that name, not but that in precise manner of speaking there is a difference to be made betwixt them, but because we are not much scrupulous of distinction of words & terms, where save only in circumstance there is no difference betwixt the things themselves, no difference, I say, at all in that respect wherein they are questioned betwixt the Papists and us. For the only difference is this, that vows properly so called are uttered, as by examples I have showed before, with condition of obtaining somewhat at God's hands, but other oaths and covenants, and promises, are absolutely and simply made. According to this strict rule of speaking, it is only a covenant and promise that we make to God in Baptism, to forsake the Devil and all his works, to believe in God and to serve him; but it is a vow, when a man in sickness, by way of repentance of his former life, saith, If the Lord will be merciful unto me, and vouchsafe to restore me to health again, I will forsake all my former evil ways, and betake myself faithfully to his service. The matter then on both sides is one & the same, and the difference is only in form of speaking, which being no other, we make no doubt of calling both by the name of vows, neither is there any question in that behalf, because the Papists term absolute promises Vows as well as we. But M. Bishop, out of the dross of their schools, taketh upon him to teach us another difference, that a vow is a promise to God of some better good, the same proceeding out of our own free choice and liberty, whereas other promises may be of necessary duties, not being at our choice, but whereto we are tied otherwise. Where he leaveth us to guess what he meaneth by some better good, the words importing a comparison, and therefore implying a reference to some other good, than which that is better which we promise by a vow. This mystery Thomas Aquinas shall open for us, who saith, that n Thom. Aquin. sum. 22. qu. 88 art. 22. in corp. Dicitur maius bonum in comparatione ad bonum, quod comunitèr est de necessitate salutis. this better good is so called in comparison of that good that is commonly necessary for the obtaining of salvation: meaning thereby that it is better than those virtues and good works which in common belong to the duty of every Christian man. Which fancy of theirs is very fond & vain, because when of old the vow was sacrifice, and the common duty was mercy, the vow could not be said to be of a better good than was the common duty, for that mercy was better than sacrifice, as God himself gave to understand, saying, o Ose 6.6. I will have mercy and not sacrifice. Yea it hath been before showed, that of old the thing principally intended in vows was matter of common duty, though included for the time as it were in the shell of those outward ceremonies, and therefore vows cannot be said to be of better good then common duty. We see the special matter of jacobs' vow before mentioned, to have been that that concerneth every man for the obtaining of salvation, Then shall the Lord be my God: before which, neither the building of a house to God, nor the giving of a tenth of his goods to God, could be preferred as a better good. And who doth not understand and see, that in this assertion of a better good in their vows, they affirm that that is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures. How doth he vow a better good, who in the vow of continency burneth with fleshly lust, when the Apostle so plainly saith, p 1. Cor. 7.9. It is better to marry then to burn? How do they vow a better good in their vow of poverty and beggary, when as our Saviour saith, q Act. 20.35. It is a more blessed thing to give, then to receive? How do they in their vow of obedience tie themselves to a better good, in making themselves slaves to the rules of men, than other men do in following the commandments of God, when as the Scripture saith, r 1. Corin. 7.23. Be ye not made the servants of men? These are very peevish and absurd devices, bred in corrupt and rotten brains, and no way savouring of Christian understanding. As for that which he addeth, that a vow must proceed of our own free choice and liberty, and that no vow is made without a man's free choice to bind himself, whether he undrstand it of vowing, or of the thing that is vowed, there is no necessity thereof. For albeit it be true that a man is not always tied to vow, but sometmies is at liberty whether to vow or not, yet this is not so always and in all vows, because (as shall be hereafter showed) it is one part of honour and duty which God requireth of every Christian man, that we religiously vow and promise ourselves and our faithful service unto him. Whereby it appeareth as touching the thing vowed, that it is not always at our free liberty and choice before our vow, whether to do it or not. For seeing necessary duties are some part of the matter of vows, and it cannot but be sin to forego necessary and commanded duty, it must needs follow, that vows are made of those things also, which it is sin otherwise not to do, and are not at our choice and liberty whether to be bound to them or not. It had been sin in jacob not to have the Lord for his God, and yet it is the thing that he voweth, as we have seen, Then shall the Lord be my God. The words which M. Bishop allegeth for his purpose out of Deuteronomy, s Deut. 23.21. If thou vow a vow, be not slack to perform it, but if thou forbearest to vow, it shall be no sin unto thee, are altogether referred to legal vows. The spiritual duty of thanksgiving exercised by those types and figures, could not be omitted without sin, but it was no sin not to make the ceremonial vow; they were at their own free choice and liberty in that behalf, but we cannot thence frame a rule generally for all vows. The other place which is cited, is wholly impertinent, S. Paul thereby not only affirming that the father doth well to keep his daughter a virgin, when he is upon good grounds assured that he hath no necessity to do otherwise, when he hath full resolution that without any snare or danger to her he may so do. t 1. Corin. 7.37. He that standeth firm in his own heart that he hath no need (by peril or fear of incontinency to marry his daughter) but hath full power over his own will (to do safely what he liketh in that behalf) and hath decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, he doth well. u Ambros. in 1. Cor. 7. Hoc dicit ut qui virginem habet cui animus ad nuptias non est, servet illam, nec illic ingerat fomitem nuptiarum, quam videt nubendi voluntatem non habere: si enim beneficia praestanda sunt, quantò magis minimè sunt anferend●? This is his meaning, saith S. Ambrose, that he that hath a daughter that hath no mind to marry, keep her a virgin, and do not thrust upon her occasion of marriage, who he seethe hath no will or desire thereto; for if it be for a man to do a benefit, much more is it for him not to take it away. Now how badly doth M. Bishop deal to wrest these words to his description of vows, as if the Apostle had spoken of vowing to be where there is no necessity thereof, but a man hath full power whether to vow or not, when indeed he saith nothing at all to that effect. Here is therefore as yet no proof, that liberty to promise or not to promise is of the substance of a vow, nothing to prove that the name of vows doth not belong to the acceptance of necessary duties, such duties as in the refusal whereof we should commit sin. Nothing therefore is there to hinder, but that the promise that we make to God in baptism should properly be called a vow, if we understand the proper use thereof in respect of the thing vowed as M. Bishop doth. We take the proper use from the manner not from the matter of it, as hath been before said, but because the question here is what is properly the matter of a vow, we say there is no exception thence to be taken why the promise of baptism should not properly be called a vow. Surely Hierome maketh x Hieron. in Esa. lib. 7. cap. 19 Votum offert et soluit Domino qui est sanctus corpore & spiritu. holiness in body and spirit the matter of a Christian vow. S. Austin asketh the question & answereth it, y Augus. in psal. 75. Quid debemus vouere● Credere in illum, sperare ab illo vitam aeternam, benè viu●re secundum communem modum, furium non facerè, adulterium non, facere, non amare vinolentian etc. What are we to vow to God? To believe in him, to hope for eternal life at his hands, to live well according to the manner of life that is common to all, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to love drunkenness, not to be proud, not to kill, not to hate our brother. And again, z Jdem in Psal. 131. Quid vovemus Deo nisi ut simu● templum Dei: What do we vow to God but to be the temple of God? He maketh it a Idem de Temp. ser 7. Votum eptimun offer animam nostram. Quomodo? Moribus sanctis, cogitationibus castin, operibus fructuosis, avertendo à malo, & convertendo ad bonum. the best vow to offer our soul to God. How? By holy behaviour, by chaste thoughts, by good works, by declining from evil, and turning to good. If these things be the matter of Christian vows, why is the profession of baptism which containeth all these things, denied to be a vow? The great schoolmaster of the Roman church defineth b Pet. Lombard. sen lib. 4. dist. 38. Votum est testificatio quaedam promissionis spontaneae quae Deo & de his quae Dei sunt fieri debet, etc. Commune illud quod in baptismo omnes faciunt. etc. a vow to be the testification of a voluntary promise which is to be made to God, and concerning those things which belong to God; and according to this definition maketh that a vow which all make in baptism, because there voluntarily men protest and promise to consecrate to God both their bodies and their souls, as being both his by right of creation & redemption, and will M. Bishop here come in and tell us, Hic magister non tenetur, Here our master tells a lie? Their ordinary gloss calleth those protestations of baptism c Gloss. ordinar. in Psal. 75. Communia vota sine quibus non est salus. the common vows, without which there is no salvation: and Thomas Aquinas durst not deny but that the same properly do fall into the nature of a vow, because d Thom. Aquin. sum. 22 q. 88 art 2. ad 1. Sub voto baptizatorum cadit quia voluntariè fit, licet sit de necessitate salutis, etc. & in corp. Omninò voluntarium proprijssimè cadit sub voto. they are voluntarily done, but forsooth most properly they are no vows, because that is most properly a vow which is altogether voluntary, that is, such as that a man is wholly at his own choice whether he do it or not. And whence cometh this most properly? Marry out of the forge of Thomas Aquinas his brains, who seeing that that which he was to say for their other vows could not well hang together, if the promise of baptism should be taken for a perfect vow, hewed and pared the definition of a vow that it might be fitted for his turn. Azorius the jesuite telleth us, that e Azor. lib. 11. cap 14. Baptisma esse votum propriè dictum veteres Theologi cum magistro videntur sentire: sed probabilius est quod scholastici alij tenent. the ancient Divines, as also the Master of the Sentences, seem to think that baptism is a vow properly and truly so called, but (saith he) it is more probable which the rest of the Schoolmen hold. Thus against the judgement of the ancient Divines, they frame all things as they list, and we must take every of their blind sophisms to be a certain rule of truth. But we refuse them to be our masters, and choose to follow that which the Church before them hath followed, accounting all those things the matters of our vows to God which were figured by those ceremonies and sacrifices which were vowed by the law, even all the spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, and all good works whereby we honour and glorify almighty God, all which according to our state of life we promise to God in baptism, and therefore do account that promise a vow, because it containeth the spiritual substance of those ancient vows. The compiler of the book of Sentences in S. Augustine's works, hath from one or other gathered this sentence, f Sent. apud August. to. 3. in fine. Quisquis benè cogitat quae voveat Deo & quae vovendo persoluat, seipsum voveat & reddat. Hoc exigiur, hoc debetur. Whosoever well bethinketh him what to vow to God, and what in vowing to pay, let him vow himself and pay himself. This is required of God, and this is due to God. If this be the right conceit of a vow, than the promise of baptism is a vow, and it is not true which M. Bishop saith, that there is no vow properly so called of necessary duties, because we vow that which God requireth, and which is due to God. Albeit for conclusion I am to advertise thee (gentle Reader) that we make not the matter of vows to consist only in necessary duties, that is, such duties as God namely requireth of us, but that sometimes we vow those things which rest upon our choice, and whereof in particular we are commanded nothing. For albeit God require thankfulness and duty for the mercies which we have received of him, yet he hath not precisely set down, that by way of thanks a man should always do this or that, but hath left the devout and thankful mind to cast and consider which way he may testify the affection of his heart, by doing some good work whereof he hath understanding by the word of God that it shall be acceptable unto him. Thus a man, though not bound to it, yet may vow to do service to God in the ministry of the Church, and being a minister, conceiving his service in this or that sort to be profitable to the Church, may by vowing himself thereto abridge himself of that liberty which otherwise he might enjoy. So may a man vow a part of his goods to the poor, as g Luke 19.8. Zacheus did, when as by no commandment he is urged so to do. The like may men do for the building and endowing of Schools, Hospitals, Colleges, and such other godly & charitable uses, when yet these things by precept are not necessarily laid upon them. Yea neither do we question but that a man upon good grounds, and so long as he shall not thereby be h 1. Cor. 7.35. entangled in a snare, may privately vow unto God a single life, to the end that he may the more commodiously apply himself to the service of i Mat. 19.12. the kingdom of God; this vow being conditional only so far as it shall be seconded with the gift of God, and so long as it shall stand with peace of conscience towards him. In these & such like is the true imitation of the outward ceremony of the law, wherein men were at their liberty whether to vow or not; works whereof generally we have warrant by the word of God, but whereof in particular there is no necessity imposed upon us, being left unto us at large, thereby freely and voluntarily to exercise our zeal and devotion towards God. Wherein notwithstanding we are to remember that caution that chrysostom giveth, k Chrysos. in psal. 49. Si quis autem exactè perpenderit, etsi minimè promittatur, virtus tamen ei debetur. Id Christus fignificans dicebat, Quae debuimus facere fecimus. If a man exactly weigh the matter, our virtues are due to God, albeit they be not promised or vowed, which Christ signifieth when he saith, We have done that that was our duty to do. For seeing we are bound l Luke 10.17. to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, with all our strength, we must conceive that though nothing be directed unto us in particular as touching the necessity of such or such a work, yet in the general we do nothing therein but what we own to God, because whatsoever is within us or whatsoever is without us, we own all to him. Yea and the vow of our baptism doth after a sort contain all these other vows in that being there consecrated wholly to God, we undertake thereby to take all occasions and opportunities to do honour unto God. As for popish vows, being as they are for the most part brainsick & idle fancies, such as whereof neither in the general nor in the particular we have any testimony from God that they are accepted in his sight, they are only apish counterfeits of those legal and ceremonial vows, but do no way carry the true resemblance of them, nor that life of spiritual worship and service that was shadowed thereby. 2. W. BISHOP. The second point of our supposed consent is, that Vows were some part of God's worship in Moses law, but are not so in the Gospel, which we also deny. M. Perk. proves his assertion thus: Vows belonged to the ceremonies of Moses law, but all those ceremonies are abolished by Christ's passion. Ans. That Vows in themselves were no part of the ceremonies of Moses law, but true parts of the worship of God in all estates, as well in the state of nature and the Gospel, as in Moses law: but this point M. Perk. handleth again in the first point of our difference, where it shall be discussed. Thirdly he saith that special vows may be made in the new law, to perform some bodily exercise for some good end, as to fast, to task ourselves to prayers, or study of holy Scripture, and such like, but many rules must then be observed: that we vow an honest thing agreeable to God's word: this we allow. Secondly, that it be so made that it may stand with Christian liberty, that is, that it make not such things necessary in conscience, which Christian religion leaves at liberty. This rule of his is flat repugnant to the nature of a vow, and contrary to himself. For he saith a little before, that a Christian may vow fasting, prayer, almsdeeds. I then demand, having vowed these things, is he not bound to perform them? Yes, or else he breaks his vow, with which God is highly displeased. * Deut 23. Eccles. 30. An unfaithful promise displeaseth God. Then is it manifest, that all vows do abridge us of our liberty, and make that unlawful for us, which before our vow was lawful: which is so evident of itself, that I marvel where the man's wit and memory was when he wrote the contrary. His other rules, that a vow be made with good deliberation and with consent of our superiors, and not only 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 ceremonial work itself was a part of the worship of God, and was to be done in itself by way of obedience to God. He speaketh not of the act of vowing simply by itself, as M. Bishop falsely wresteth his words, but of the vow of a ceremonial duty in the way of service to God, which if M. Bishop do not acknowledge to be abolished, he must become a jew, and practise the sacrifices and offerings prescribed by Moses law. But of this he telleth us that we shall hear more hereafter, and we are content to wait his leisure, As touching vows under the Gospel, 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 himself prone to drunkenness, doth by vow bind himself for a time to the forbearing of wine and strong drink, or upon occasions toeth himself to set fasting, and prayer, and reading of the Scriptures, and giving of some set alms, and such like. But as touching such vows, he delivereth certain cautions to be observed. The first M. Bishop alloweth, that our vow be agreeable to the will and word of God. The second he understandeth not, and therefore cavilleth at it. It is required that our vow stand with Christian liberty, that is, that by vowing we entangle not our consciences with any opinion of the necessity of the things themselves which we have vowed, as if any worship or holiness consisted in those external and formal observations, but that in our practice of them we know that in themselves they are no matters of conscience, nor do yield us any part of righteousness with God. Now this which M. Perkins apply against the conceit of the very things themselves 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 perform his vow, and yet know that the thing itself is of no value with God which he performeth; and therefore M. Perkins wits did not fail in delivering, but M. Bishops in understanding. Those other conditions that such vows must be made with consent of superiors, 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 approveth also, and therefore not questioning whence they were taken, and telling him that our uprightness appeareth therein, 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 vows, as was the Church of the jews, we say no; Considering that the Ceremonial Law is now abolished, and we have only two Ceremonies by commandment to be observed for parts of God's worship: Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Answer. What, is not your Holiday service (which you call divine service) any part of God's worship in your own opinions? Can a public assembly instituted to honour God by prayer and thanksgiving with external ceremony of time, place, apparel, kneeling, standing, and sitting, be no part of God's worship in your irreligious Congregations, assembled together against Christ and his catholic Church? be it so. But admitting as you do, your service to be good; it could not truly be denied to belong unto the worship of God. But to the matter of difference, you grow very careless 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 ever was a council, and no commandment, nevertheless, a thing of great devotion and perfection in both states, intrinsically belonging and much furthering to the true worship of almighty God, which we prove in this sort. In a vow are two things; the one is the good which is vowed, called the material part: for example, Fasting, etc. The other, the promise itself made to God, which is the form; the material parts do belong unto their several virtues: but this promise and performance of it be substantial parts of God's worship. For by promising of any good thing unto God, we acknowledge and profess that God is the sovereign goodness itself, and taketh great pleasure in all good purposes and determinations: therefore to honour and worship him, we make that good promise again, in performing that good service of God, we testify, that he is most majestical, reverend, and dreadful. 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 do much dishonour him who break with him, as if he were of no better account then to be so deluded. This thing in itself is so certain and clear, that he who denies it, must needs either be ignorant in the nature of a vow, or not know wherein the true worship of God consisteth: for according unto the holy Scriptures itself, all good d●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. alms bestowed on God's prisoners, is called a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God: And it is said, * jac. 5. to be a pure religion before God, to visit Orphans and widows: If then all other virtuous duties done to the glory of God, be parts of his true worship; much more vows, which by special promise dedicate a good deed to God's honour: they then being of their own nature, special parts of his true worship of God, it followeth necessary, that at all times they were and may be used to the true worship of God: that they were in practice before Moses Law is evident by that vow which jacob made, * Gen. 28. of setting up a stone, which should be called the house of God, and of paying the tenths of all his goods. Out of which vow, we also gather, that God holdeth for agreeable, any kind of good service offered unto him out of our own devotion: albeit he hath not commanded it, for no such thing as jacob there vowed was commanded him, but he being well assured that it would be well taken by God, which was offered of good will, to his greater honour, he vowed it, and is in holy Scripture commended for it. Again, that when Saint Paul * Colos. 2. seemeth to disallow voluntary worship, he must be understood to speak either of erroneous, or of frivolous and foolish things promised to God, which do not properly serve to the setting forth of his honour. R. ABBOT. Our divine service, our prayers and thanksgivings to God, our hearing of his word, and receiving of his sacraments are indeed the worship of God, and our public assemblies are instituted hereby to honour God, but as for the external ceremonies of time, place, apparel, kneeling, standing, and sitting, if M. Bishops wits stood right, he would know that they are things accidental to the worship of God, but no parts thereof. God is not honoured by our meeting at such a time, or by being in such a place, or by wearing such or such apparel, or by our kneeling, or standing, or sitting, but by the things which according to his commandment we do in the usage of these things. The Church was wont to forbear kneeling in their prayers from Easter to Whitsuntide, and yet we suppose M. Bishop is not so absurd, as to say that therefore they failed to do to God some part of his worship. A number of apish gestures for many hundred years were wanting in the mass, and was there some part of God's worship wanting all that while? This matter needeth not to be stood upon, nor would there have been occasion to speak of it at all, but that men's senses commonly fail them most, when they think to use them most acutely against God. He calleth our congregations irreligious, and saith they are assembled against Christ and his Church, but God hath justified our congregations to thei● shame and confusion, and for the maintenance of them hath so showed his providence & power, that as the Egyptians said, a Exod. 14.25. The Lord fighteth for Israel against the Egyptians, so the Romish idolaters have been forced to say, The Lord fighteth for the English congregations against us. But to come to the matter, he findeth fault with M. Perkins his report of their doctrine, and therefore himself reporteth it, that they hold that neither in the old nor new law any man is bound to vow, but that it ever was a counsel and no commandment, yet nevertheless a thing of great devotion and perfection in both states, and intrinsically belonging to the true worship of God. Where as touching ceremonial vows, he saith truly that in the old law no man was expressly bound to vow, but that those vows were matters of perfection in the old law, if we will take it upon his word, we may, but how to prove it he cannot tell; it is a mere dotage, neither is there any ground whereupon to affirm that ever they were taken so to be. Nay even then was it true which Origen saith, b Origen. in ●●um hom. 24. Se●●tipsu● Deo offètre hoc est perfectius & emine●tu● omnibus votis: quod qui facit imitator est Christi. To offer a man's self to God was a matter of greater perfection and eminency than all vows; which he that doth, saith he, is the follower of Christ. But as touching vows & promises of spiritual duties and services which were figured in those ceremonial devotions, it is utterly false which he saith, whether in the old or new law, that we are not bound unto them, and his own words do plainly show the contrary. For he telleth us that vows do intrinsically belong to the true worship of God, and who doubteth but that God hath required and commanded whatsoever belongeth intrinsically to his worship and service? For if they be not commanded, there is no necessity of them. If there be no necessity of them then the religion and worship of God may stand perfect without them. If the worship of God may stand without them, than they do not intrinsically belong to the true worship of God. But because the true vows are intrinsically and essentially belonging to the true worship of God, therefore we must understand and know them to be commanded of God, and that he hath not left any intrinsical part of his true worship, to depend upon our will. And this will yet further appear by Master Bishop's proof, who, setting down the matter and form of a vow, the matter the good thing which is vowed; the form the promise itself made to God, telleth us that this promise and the performance of it are substantial parts of God's worship. For by promising, saith he, of any good thing to God, we acknowledge and profess that God is the sovereign goodness itself. Now if vows be a substantial part of God's worship, and yet not commanded of God, than some part of the substance of God's worship hangeth upon our discretion and choice, whether to yield it him or not, and we may yield him a maimed worship wanting some part of the substance of it, and yet commit no trespass against him. So likewise if vows be the acknowledging and professing of the sovereign goodness of God, and yet not commanded of God, we may without sin forbear some part of the acknowledgement and profession of the sovereign goodness of God. If thereby we testify that he is most majestical, reverend and dreadful, and yet God have not commanded them, we may refuse to give this testimony without any impeachment of the majesty of God. But God is not worshipped in that sort; he hath not left our acknowledgement of him arbitrary to the discretion of our will. He hath commanded us c Psal. 96.8. to give unto him the glory of his name, that is, the glory that belongeth & is due unto him, and if vows be a part of that glory, as M. Bishop telleth us they be, they cannot be exempted from that commandment. Christ hath commanded us d Mat. 22.21. to give to God the things that are Gods. If vows be a substantial part of the worship of God, we are tied to give the same unto him, neither may we think ourselves bound for one part only, and at our own liberty for the other. Now all this pains that he taketh, to prove that vows are a part of the worship of God, is but lost as touching us, because he fighteth without an adversary, & proveth that which we deny not; but it giveth us advantage against them, to charge them with manifest and abominable idolatry, in that confessing vows to be a substantial part of the worship of God, they communicate this honour to the Saints, and make vows to them of fastings, prayers, pilgrimages, churches, altars, tapers, and what not? a thing so void of all testimony of Scripture, as that Bellarmine is content to say, e Bellar. de cultu sanct ca 9 Cum scriberentur scripturae sanctae nondum caeperat usus vovendi sanctis. that when the holy Scriptures were written, the custom of vowing to Saints was not yet begun. It is nothing therefore against us that he allegeth, that jacob made a vow, thereby to prove that there was use of vows before the time of Moses law, but whereas he saith that the things which jacob vowed, were out of his own devotion, and not commanded of God, he speaketh it but at all adventure, and hath no ground for that that he saith. For if his reason be because we do not read that any thing was commanded to jacob in that behalf, we may likewise argue that he did all other devotions out of his own heart, and received them not by commandment from God, because we read nothing of any such commandment. But it is true which Origen saith, that f Origen. count Cells. lib 7. Nemo qui oculis animae cernit, alio modo Deum colit quàm sicut ipse docuit. no man that seethe with the eyes of his soul, worshippeth God otherwise then as he himself hath taught, and which Hilary saith, that g Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 4. Neu potest ali●er de Deo quàm ut ipse est de se testatus intelligi. we may not understand otherwise concerning God, then as he himself hath witnessed of himself. M. Bishop therefore doth amiss to make jacob as blind as he himself is, that he should go about to worship God with devotions of his own device. He received instruction of the will of God from the fathers that were before him, & he had also immediate revelation & illumination from God himself. We see that God afterwards in the law giveth commandment of the same things, of building altars and paying tithes, and undoubtedly God gave not commandments of things which he had learned of jacob, but which jacob had been taught by him. Yea, and because the Apostle S. Paul condemneth h Col. 2.23. will worship or voluntary religion, that is, all such devotions as men undertake of their own device, thereby giving to understand, that God never approveth any such, surely we may well resolve that jacob would not be guilty of any such presumption, but would first open his ear to learn of God what to do, before he would put forth the hand to do any thing unto God. But saith M. Bishop, S. Paul when he seemeth to disallow voluntary worship, must be understood to speak either of erroneous or of frivolous and foolish things promised to God, which do not properly serve for the setting forth of his glory. Where we see the very pattern of an erroneous, and frivolous, and foolish answer. The Apostle simply taxeth will worship as erroneous, and frivolous, and foolish, and M. Bishop telleth us, that he meaneth that will worship that is erroneous, or frivolous and foolish. He must be understood of frivolous and foolish things saith M. Bishop, and the Apostle telleth us that he speaketh of such things as i Ibid. have a show of wisdom, and therefore not to sight, but only to spiritual judgement are frivolous and foolish. And therefore doth the Apostle make them erroneous, and affirm that k Ver. 24. they perish in the using, because they are after the doctrines and commandments of men, alluding to that which our Saviour in the Gospel citeth out of the Prophet, l Mat. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men; but M. Bishop will have us think that the Apostles meaning is not to reprove generally the doctrines and commandments of men, but only some that be erroneous. In a word, set them one against another, and hearken well what they say. The Apostle saith, voluntary religion or worship is erroneous, because it is after the doctrines and commandments of men. Master Bishop saith, all voluntary worship is not erroneous, but only that that is erroneous. But here we must think, that when he thus took exception against promising to God frivolous and foolish things, he was quite out of the remembrance of the vows of their religious orders. We must in charity be persuaded that he thought not of them, because he would have considered, that in condemning the vowing of frivolous and foolish things, he should condemn them, as in which there are so many fantastical and frivolous toys, as touching their apparel and other usage, as that we may wonder that ever such drunken devices could come from sober men, if at least they were sober that were the devisers of them. And if he had remembered them, or when he doth remember them, I marvel what qualification or distinction he would have used, or will use to salve the matter, that so ridiculous fooleries should be thought as properly serving to the setting forth of the honour of God. Albeit it may be that though being subtle and wise, he afterwards pro forma disputeth, in the behalf of those vows that he may not walk too openly, yet carrying still a spleen to the jesuits, and for their sakes to all the rest he would first give us to understand, that in his mind he accounteth all those vows as superstitions, and wholly condemned by the sentence of the Apostle. We are very desirous to construe his meaning the best way. 4. W. BISHOP. Now that Vows should be frequented in the state of the Gospel, besides the evidence of Saint Paul's Vow, * Act. 18. and diverse other such like the Prophet Esay did foretell, in these words: * Esa. 19.18. They shall worship him with sacrifice and gifts, and they shall vow vows unto our Lord, and perform them. To which Master Perkins answereth, first, that by such ceremonial worship as then was in use, the Prophet doth express the spiritual worship of the new Testament. This exposition is voluntary and nothing proper: For what is more vild and absurd, then (to declare that Christians shall make no Vows) to say that they shall make Vows, as though one contrary were fit or would serve to express the other. This exposition being very unmeet, Master Perkins adjoineth a second, that in the new Testament we have vows of Moral and evangelical duties, but such are not any part of God's worship: so that first you shall have no vows at all: Secondly, the wind being changed, you shall have them, but as no parts of God's worship, as though Moral and evangelical duties undertaken and performed to God's greater glory be not the very sinews and substance of his service and worship. R. ABBOT. By the evidence of a Act. 18.18. S. Paul's vow, it is evident that M. Bishop wanted some discretion, to bring that for an example of proof, that vows are to be frequented in the state of the Gospel, the same being b Numb. 6.2. the Naz●rites vow, according to the ceremony of Moses law, no more belonging to the state of the Gospel, than did all the levitical priesthood and sacrifices, condescended unto by the Apostle, as M. Perkins before had told him, and be wisely saith nothing to the contrary only for the infirmity and weakness of the jews, c 1 Cor. 9.20. to whom for the time he became as a jew, d Aug epist. 19 Non mentientis astis sed compatientis affectis. not by craft of lying, as S. Austin saith, but by affection of compassion, that he might win them unto Christ. As touching the place of Esay, it is to be observed that M. Perkins bringeth it in as alleged by them, to prove that in external exercises we have as much use of vows as the jews had. e Esay. 19.21. The Egyptians (saith the Prophet, importing the like of all the Gentiles) shall know the Lord, and shall do sacrifice and oblation, and shall vow vows unto the Lord, and perform them. To this he answereth, that the Prophet according to the usual manner of all the Prophets, doth by the ceremonial service of the Levitical priesthood, import the spiritual worship of God, intending that because it is spiritually meant, therefore it is misapplied to the establishing of corporal and outward service. Now M. Bishops reply is like himself, perverse and cross, that the Prophet would not say, They shall vow, to signify that they should not vow. I answer him, that neither doth M. Perkins so intent, but that the Prophet would signify, that when those levitical and ceremonial vows should cease, yet the Gentiles should perform to God that spiritual worship and service that was figured thereby, and because the words are meant of spiritual duties, therefore that they are absurdly wrested to the maintaining of a new kind of ceremonial vows. For as the Prophet saith, that f Ibid. they should do sacrifice and oblation, & bringeth in the Lord saying, g Cap. 56.7. Their offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar, and again, h Cap. 60.7. The Rams of Nebaioth shall come up to be accepted upon mine altar, when yet the altar & offerings and sacrifices should be quite abolished, and therefore he saith it only to signify that they should do that spiritual service of inward and spiritual sacrifices that were represented and shadowed in those carnal observations; so doth he say, that they should vow vows, when yet those levitical vows should have an end, only because they should perform to God those spiritual devotions which were signified by those vows. Now as touching those spiritual devotions M. Perkins addeth for another part of his answer, that the Church of the new Testament maketh vows unto God of moral & evangelical duties, the vow and promise whereof first made in baptism, we always renew when we come to the Supper of the Lord. But withal he saith, that vows be also made of things and actions indifferent, which things notwithstanding are not to be accounted any part of the worship of God. Which words consisting of two parts severally applied, M. Bishop confoundeth and most lewdly and wretchedly perverteth, as if M. Perkins had said, that in the new Testament we have vows of moral and evangelical duties, but such are not any part of God's worship, and so with a harlot's face not fit to blush, passeth over the matter, when as it was directly showed him how that prophecy is fulfilled in the new Testament without any of the fooleries of Popish vows. I pray thee gentle Reader, to consider the matter well. M. Perkins saith, that we Christians vow vows of moral and evangelical duties, & if we make any other vows of things indifferent, those things must not be taken for any parts of God's worship. M. Bishop maketh him to say, that vows of moral and evangelical duties, and the duties themselves, are no part of God's worship. Think with thyself what credit thou mayest give to him, who sticketh not so impudently to pervert so apparent and plain words. But in those vows of moral and spiritual duties is the true performance of that prophecy, and we may so much the more rest upon it, because M. Bishop hath nothing to say against it. What further belongeth to the declaration of those vows, I put it off to be handled in the next Section. 5. W. BISHOP. Again saith M. Perkins, they allege for evangelical vows: * Psal. 75. Vow unto God and pay it. M. Perkins his answer is, that this binds the jews, he would have you understand, not the Christians. We say; that it is no commandment to either of them, but an exhortation, aswell to the one as to the other. First, because good vows do tend to the greater glory of God in all states: (as hath been proved before) Secondly, for that the Prophet in the next verse, yielding the reason why we must pay our vows, saith, That he unto whom we have vowed is terrible unto the Kings of the earth; And therefore most likely that such vows he spoke of there, may be made of any sort of men inhabiting the earth. Thirdly, because the ancient Fathers take it to extend unto us Christians, as well as unto the jews; let one S. Augustine serve, in his Commentary upon the 75. Psalm. Because we have handled those things (saith he) peradventure thou who wast willing before, but now wilt not vow: but mark what the Psalm said unto thee: It saith not, Do not vow, but vow and pay it: wilt thou not vow? Therefore wouldst thou have vowed, but not have fulfilled it? nay rather do both: Let the one be of thine own promise, the other shall be performed by the help of God. He then took these words to belong unto his Auditors who were no jews. In the same place he doth highly commend Christians for vowing, some Chastity, some Hospitality, some Poverty: but because contraries being set together, each do more lively appear in his kind, let us with this Exposition, compare M. Perkins his Commentary upon this place: who saith, that the Prophet speaketh of vows, of Prayer and thanksgiving: For so (saith Master Perkins) doth he expound himself, * Psal. 50.12. My vows are upon me, I will offer praises unto God. Well aimed, I warrant you; The six and fiftieth Psalm written first, is the Exposition of the seventy five Psalm, which was conceited and uttered after. Again, in the seventy five Psalm David speaketh t● others: in the other he speaketh of himself. Thirdly, the Prophet's words in the six and fiftieth Psalm, confirm rather that which he taught before, that all considerate vows are praises and parts of God's worship, or as the words do more literally sound, because his vows, that is, his prayers and desires were by God accomplished, therefore he would praise and thank him. R. ABBOT. a Psal. 76.11. Vow and perform unto the Lord your God, saith the Prophet, all ye that be round about him. M. Perkins very truly saith, that these words whether we call them an exhortation or a commandment, did concern the jews only as touching ceremonial vows, but as touching the spiritual intendment of them of praise and thanksgiving, do generally concern both them and us. M. Bishop like old True-pennie never but like himself, runneth away with a piece of this answer, and setteth himself to prove that which M. Perkins denieth not, that the words respect both the jews and us. We acknowledge so much M. Bishop: we say they concern only them in in those duties or devotions that were proper to them only, but in common they concern both them and us, in those duties and devotions that belong to both. We cannot doubt but that the Prophet had reference to the condition of that time, & did invite both the Priests and the people to that outward service of sacrifices and offerings, in the exercise whereof it pleased God in his wisdom then to train them up. But because we hear God so often professing, that he respected not their naked and bare sacrifices, and seeming so to reckon of them as if he had never given commandment of any such, namely when they were destitute of that inward piety and obedience and devotion, which God would have to be exercised thereby, therefore we must conceive that the Prophet here also looked further then to outward service, and in commending to them the exercises thereof, did call them to inward affections of praise and thanksgiving unto God. Seeing then the outward solemnities and ceremonies which were the external matter of their vows, were but instructions and inducements to spiritual offices and duties, which in the right use of vows were principally vowed thereby, therefore in the spiritual construction of those ceremonies, we are to learn what is the true and proper matter of Christian vows. And because God as he is the same God, so as touching spiritual worship, is alike worshipped from the beginning to the end, we cannot doubt but that in the example and practice of the faithful in those times we may behold as in a glass, what the duties are that by their vows are recommended unto us. What we find amongst them, we know the same belongeth to us: what we find not amongst them, their vows give us no warrant or example of it. Now what applications & constructions they made of those sacrifices & offerings and other ceremonies which they vowed unto God, we may see by many phrases & speeches which the Scriptures purposely use to show the meaning of them. Many examples thereof we have in the Psalms: b Psal. 4.5. Offer the sacrifices of righteousness: c 50.14.23. Offer unto God thanksgiving, and he that sacrificeth praise he honoureth me. d 51.17. The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit, a contrite and broken heart. f 107 22. Let them offer sacrifices of praise. g 115.17. I will offer to thee a sacrifice of praise. h 141.2. Let my prayer be in thy sight for incense, and the lifting up of my hands an evening sacrifice. Thus saith jonas, i jon. 2.9. I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving, and Osee, k Osc. 14.13. We will render unto thee the calves of our lips. The vow of humbling or afflicting themselves by fasting, what it imported appeareth by Gods reproving of them, for that l Esa. 58.3. in the day of their fast they sought their own will, as giving to understand, thas by their fast they were to be instructed to the forbearing of their own desires, to the renouncing of their own wills, to the subduing of their own corrupt and evil affections, to the eschewing of cruelty, oppression and violence, that they might make way to the works of mercy which God did command them, as in the Prophet's words there is showed, m Ver. 6. Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to lose the bonds of wickedness, to take off the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, to bring the poor that wandereth into thy house? etc. In brief the Prophet Micheas showeth the signification of this humbling, and of all their sacrifices; n Mich 6.8. He hath showed thee O man what is good, and what the Lord thy God requireth of thee. Surely to do judgement, and to love mercy, and to humble thyself to walk with thy God. The vow of the Nazarites was the principal vow of all the rest. What the intention thereof was is expressed in the first description of the ceremony of it, o Num. 6.2. to be separated to the Lord. Now this was the common condition of all that people to be separated to the Lord, as God himself giveth them to understand, p Levit. 20.24.26. I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people: therefore shall ye be holy unto me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from other people that ye should be mine. But God by a special vow of ceremonial observations, whereby in outward things for the time they were divided from the common conversation of themselves and their own people, would give a spectacle and example to the rest of them, of putting off those carnal and earthly affections by which they should be like to other peoples, for preserving of spiritual integrity and holiness towards him. And therein is exemplified the condition of all the faithful, of whom our Saviour hath told us, that q joh. 15.19. they are not of the world, but he hath chosen them out of the world, and therefore are r 2. Pet. 1.4. to fly the corruption that is in the world by lust, and to hearken to the voice of God, s 2. Cor. 16.17. Come out from among them, and separate yourselves, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. These are then the vows that belong to us, vows of prayer, of praise and thanksgiving, of denying ourselves, of mortifying our own affections, of mercy and compassion towards our brethren, and in a word, of keeping ourselves holy unto God; even those vows whereof we read many examples in the Psalms and other Scriptures: t Psal. 27.8. Thou saidst, seek ye my face, and my heart answered thee, O Lord, I will seek thy face. u 79 9.13. Help us O God of our salvation for the glory of thy name, etc. So we that be thy people and sheep of thy p●sture shall praise thee for ever, and from generation to generation we will set forth thy praise. x 80.17. Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, and upon the son of man whom thou madest so strong for thine own self: so will not we go back from thee; revive thou us and we will call upon thy name. y 86.11. Teach me thy way O Lord, and I will walk in thy truth. z 119.33.34. Teach me the way of thy statutes, and I will keep it unto the end; give me understanding and I will keep thy law, yea I will keep it with my whole heart. a Ver. 106. I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgements. Thus doth Osee the Prophet instruct the people of God, b Osc. 14.3. Take you words, and turn to the Lord and say unto him, Take away all our iniquity, and receive us graciously, so will we render the calves of our lips. These vows are recommended unto us in the new Testament, when we are taught c Mat. 16.24. to deny ourselves, and to take up the cross of Christ that we may follow him, d Col. 3.5. to mortify our earthly members, e Rom. 6.13. to give ourselves unto God, & our members as weapons of righteousness unto God: f Cap. 12.1. to offer our bodies a holy, lively and acceptable sacrifice unto God; g 1. Cor. 6.20. to glorify God both in our bodies and in our spirits, as being both his; h 2 Cor. 5.15. to live unto him which died for us and rose again. These vows we made to God in our baptism; and we profess the continuing and renewing of them from time to time in coming to the table of the Lord, as also in our daily prayers and meditations, and in all those promises which the remembrance of our own ways draweth from us every while. Of these the Prophet Esay spoke in the section before; of these the Prophet David here saith, Vow unto the Lord your God and perform the same, all ye that be round about him. Now than it is true that vows are to the honour & glory of God, and that we are to consider the dreadful majesty of God, that we may be moved carefully to perform the vows that we have made unto him, and that these vows are such as may be made by all sorts of men inhabiting the earth: and what of all this, either against M. Perkins or against us? As for S. Austin, he confirmeth all that hath been here said of the exposition of these vows, that the things that we are here willed to vow, are i Supra sect. 1. ex. August. in Psal. 75. to believe in God, to trust in him, to live a good life, to hope to receive of him eternal life, and such like as we have seen before. Now it is true that he saith further, that k Ibid. Alius vovet castitatem coniugalem, ut praeter uxorem suam non noverit aliam, etc. Alij vovent experti tale contugium nihil tale ultra pati●●lij virginitatem ab ipsi ineu●te aet ●te vovint: al●j vovent domum suam hosp●talem omnibus sanctis: alij vovent relinquere omnia sua, etc. some vow chastity in marriage by keeping themselves, the husband to his own wife only, or the wife only to her own husband; some having been married, vow not to marry again, some from the beginning vow virginity, some to use their houses for hospitality to the Saints, some to distribute all their goods to the poor: some of which vows we question not, the rest are afterwards to be considered of. But that which M. Bishop citeth, of his exhorting men not to forbear vowing for the necessity of the performance thereof, but for that to trust to the help of God, to prove that he took those words to belong to his auditors and not only to the jews, it is a proof needless, because we acknowledge so much, in such sort as hath been said before. As for that which he further addeth, of setting contraries together, that each may more lively appear in his kind, it is but the lively setting forth of his own indiscretion & folly. M. Perkins to show what may be understood by vows, in the place here handled allegeth a speech of David in a former Psalm. l Psal. 56.12: Thy vows are upon me, O God; (that is, the vows which I have made to thee are lying on me to be performed,) I will render praises unto thee. In which place we see that the Prophet expoundeth vows concerning praises to God, whereupon M. Perkins allegeth, that vows likewise in the other place may be construed of praises and thanksgiving unto God. Against this M. Bishop excepteth full wisely I warrant you, as not likely that the Psalm fifty six written first, should be the exposition of the Psalm seventy five which was conceited and uttered after. But did not his understanding serve to instruct him, that David though not expounding the latter Psalm in the former, yet in the former expounding vows to be praises, doth teach us how to expound vows, when they are mentioned in a latter Psalm, or in any other Scripture sounding to like effect? And who but he is ignorant, that Scriptures formerly written do often give us light and help for the understanding and expounding of Scriptures that are written later? His second exception is as good as that, namely that David in the latter Psalm speaketh to others, in the former of himself. And what then? What should hinder but that by the name of vows he should signify the praises of God in speaking to others, when he himself expoundeth vows to be the praises of God in speaking of himself? Albeit he mistaketh in making David the author of the latter Psalm, which is rather thought to be written in the time of Ezechias, but questionless after David's time. In his third exception his head being wild, he telleth us, that the Prophet's words in Psalm fifty six confirm rather that which he taught before. Where before when as the Psalm fifty six is the former of the two Psalms? I think he cannot well tell what he meant by this speech. But what is the thing confirmed? That all considerate vows are praises and parts of God's worship. What he meaneth by considerate vows we know not, but we take those only to be considerate vows whereby we vow those things which God hath warranted us to vow. Thus are vows a part of God's worship, when we vow those things which he hath taught us to be belonging to his worship. Such were for the time the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Law, not for themselves, but for the spiritual duty that was implied in them and acted by them. If they were not put to this use, God held them not for any part of his worship. David therefore having respect to this, signifieth that the thing which he properly intended by his vows, was praise and thanks to God. This is all that David saith, and was by Master Perkins fitly alleged for that that he had in hand. 6. W. BISHOP. Let us now come to the second point, wherein we descent: They (saith M. Perkins) hold vows made of things not commanded, as of Fasting, Prayer, etc. to be parts of God's worship; and that they tend unto a state of perfection. We say flatly no, holding that lawful vows be stays & props of God's worship, but not the worship itself: this is long since confuted. But here M. P. setteth up a rotten prop or two, to uphold his ruinous building, saying, S. Paul saith plainly, * 1. Tim. 4. Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness profiteth much. Where are you good sir? We treat here of vows, which are formally actions of the mind: what do you now about bodily exercises? Vows are principal parts of that godliness, which is so profitable. And if by bodily exercise, fasting, and other corporal pain or labour be understood, than we say, that such things of themselves would profit little; but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh, to the end we may less offend, and better serve God, than they may much profit us. But let us hear M. Perkins his second reason against such vows. God's kingdom standeth not in outward things, and therefore his worship standeth not in outward things. Answer. God's kingdom in itself standeth not in outward things, and as it is in us also, it doth consist chief in inward worship, by faith, hope, charity, and religion, in whose kingdom vows hold an honourable rank: but a great part of this worship among us, depends of outward things; for be not the two only parts of God's worship among Protestants (as M. Perkins saith in this question) Baptism & our Lord's Supper, both which partly consist in outwardly both speaking & doing? And is not faith (which is the root of all Christian Religion) gotten by outward preaching and hearing? R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop showeth himself again in his right colour; for whereas M. Perkins mentioning vows of things not commanded, addeth for example, as of meats, drinks, attire, etc. he in steed hereof putteth in, as of fasting and prayer, etc. that he might make his Reader believe, that M. Perkins affirmed prayer to be no part of God's worship. Well, he must keep his wont, and it fitteth well the cause that he hath in hand. The thing that M. Perkins propoundeth is this, that lawful vows of things not commanded, are stays and props of the worship of God, but not the worship itself. This M. Bishop saith is long since confuted, but where he cannot tell. But for proof hereof M. Perkins first allegeth the words of S. Paul, a 1. Tim. 4 8. Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness is profitable for all things. To these words M. Bishop giveth an answer that fully confirmeth what M. Perkins saith. But first he beginneth merrily, Where are you good Sir? Here M. Bishop, what would ye? we treat here of vows, saith he, which are formally actions of the mind; what do you now about bodily exercises? Yea but M. Bishop, you have told us before of good vows, and considerate vows, and therefore we presume you allow not of all vows, as if a man should vow the b Esa. 66: 3. kill of a man, or the cutting off of a dogs neck. You will tell us then, that good vows are such as whereby we vow good things, and then we answer you, that vows indeed take their condition and quality from the things themselves that are vowed, and therefore that those only vows are the true worship of God whereby we vow those things that belong to his true worship. Whence it followeth, that where bodily exercises are vowed by which God is not worshipped, the sentence of the Apostle is rightly alleged against the taking of those vows for any worship of God, that bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness is profitable for all things. We see the Apostle setteth down bodily exercise for one thing, and godliness for another, and thereby teacheth us, that bodily exercise by itself is no part of godliness: and if bodily exercise be no part of godliness, then vows of bodily exercise can be no part thereof. It is but at random therefore that M. Bishop saith, that vows are principal parts of that godliness that is so profitable, because they are no parts of that godliness but when that godliness itself is the thing which we vow. But now he addeth, If by bodily exercise fasting and other corporal pain or labour be understood, than we say, that such things of themselves would profit little, but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh, to the end we may less offend and better serve God, than they may much profit. And what is this but that that M. Perkins saith, that such things are stays and props and helps of the worship of God, but in themselves they are no part of God's worship? The mortifying of fleshly lusts, the avoiding of sin, the yielding of our obedience to God, these are things wherein God is worshipped. But fasting and such other exercises are only helps to these, and no part of them, and therefore the vows thereof (as M. Perkins saith) are no otherwise to be reckoned, but as props and stays, and not as parts of the worship of God. Popery hath wickedly taught men to reckon of them as meritorious works and satisfactions for sin, yea not only for a man's own sins, but for other men's sins also. These are impious and damnable conceits, and far from that which the Scripture hath taught us to conceive of all outward things. But against that opinion of vowing such outward and bodily service, Master Perkins further urgeth, that the kingdom of God standeth not in outward things, as eating, drinking, and such like, alluding to the words of the Apostle, c Rom. 14.17. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost, and he that in these things serveth Christ, pleaseth God and is approved of all men. The Apostle would thereby have it understood, that we are no whit the nearer to the kingdom of God by eating or not eating, by drinking or not drinking, by wearing or not wearing this or that, or by any such like things belonging to the external conversation and life of man. By outward things than we understand not all things that are done outwardly, but only those things the use whereof properly belongeth to the outward man. The preaching and hearing of God's word, the ministering and receiving of the Sacraments, are things outwardly done, but they are things belonging not to the outward but to the inward man. M. Bishop's exception therefore as touching these things is nothing to the purpose, but the argument standeth good, that because the kingdom of God consisteth not in such outward things as belong to the outward man, therefore Popish vows are to be condemned as superstitious, and as having no rank in any true religion, whereby men make vows of such outward things, to become thereby the nearer to the kingdom of God. Now mark gentle Reader, that as M. Bishop began this Section with one lie, so he endeth it with another, that M. Perkins saith, that Baptism and the Lords Supper are the two only parts of God's worship amongst the Protestants, whereas M. Perkins saith no other but thus; We have only two ceremonies to be observed by commandment, which are Baptism and the Lords Supper. It is one thing to say, only two ceremonies, another thing to say, two only parts of God's worship. But let M. Bishop remember what the gains of a liar is, that a man knoweth not how to believe him when he speaketh truth. 7. W. BISHOP. But it would weary a willing man to trail after all M. Perkins his impertinent errors. Let us then at length come unto the principal point in controversy. Catholics (saith he) maintain such vows to be made as are not agreeable to the rules aforenamed. The first is, that of Continency, whereby a man promiseth to God to keep chastity in a single life, that is, out of the state of wedlock. This kind of vow is flat against the word of God, as he saith, which he proveth first out of S. Paul, If they cannot contain, then let them marry: True, if they have not vowed chastity before, as the common Christians of Corinth (to whom Saint Paul there speaketh) had not. For such, * 1. Cor 7. if they cannot live otherwise chastened, it is better they marry then be burned, that is, defiled with incontinency. But to them who had vowed chastity before, S. Paul writeth in another style, That if they but desire to marry, they incur damnation, * 1. Tim. 5. because they have made frustrate & broken their former faith and promise made unto God of their chastity. So that this first text is a furlong wide at the least from the mark. R. ABBOT. It would weary a man thus to trail after an impudent and wrangling Sophister, who doubteth not as we see, so apparently and wilfully to lie, and neither understandeth what M. Perkins saith, nor what himself should say. We must come now to the principal point in controversy, as he termeth it; let us see how well he carrieth himself in the debating of it. M. Perkins allegation is, that the Papists maintain such vows as are not agreeable to the rules before mentioned, which are necessary to be observed in lawful vows. The first of these is their vow of Continency, whereby a man promiseth to God to keep chastity always in single life, that is, out of the state of wedlock. Against this vow he allegeth first the words of S. Paul, a 1. Cor. 7.9. If they cannot contain, let them marry, for saith he, it is better to marry then to burn. This is the commandment of almighty God, to all to whom the gift of continency is not given, that they betake themselves to marriage, as to a safe port and harbour, where they may be free from being tossed and turmoiled with the waves and storms of incontinency and raging lust, that so with quiet mind & pure conscience they may serve God, and without interruption call faithfully upon him. Now what hath M. Bishop learned out of his many large volumes for answer to this? The holy Ghost saith, let them marry: True, saith he, if they have not vowed chastity before, as the common Christians of Corinth to whom S. Paul there speaketh had not. Where when he construeth the Apostles words of common Christians, he putteth me in mind of the Manichees, who would by no means allow of marriage in their Elects, their special and choice men, but as for their auditors, that is, the common sort, b August. count Faust. lib. 30. c. 6. Multos vestres auditores in hoc obedire nolentes vel non valentes salva amicitia toleratis. they were content to bear with them if either they would not or could not live unmarried. Thus would he make us believe that the Apostle spoke but of the common sort, but meant not any thing of the rest that were more special men, when as the Apostle professeth himself to write c 1. Cor. 1.2. to all that call upon the name of our Lord jesus Christ, and in the beginning of that Chapter whence this allegation is taken sayeth, d Cap. 7.2. for the avoiding of fornication let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, and saith it to them e Verse 1. that had written unto him in the name of the Church, who undoubtedly were not of the common sort. But the exception which he useth is the very same as whereby the Scribes and Pharisees of old deluded the commandment of God, as our Saviour mentioneth in the Gospel, and made it of no effect by their tradition. God said, f Exod. 20.12. Honour thy father and thy mother. True, said they, except he have vowed or sworn the contrary. Amongst sundry wicked oaths amongst the jews, whereby they vowed the committing of lewd and damnable acts, and then hasted to the doing thereof that they might not be forsworn, this (as Philo the jew testifieth) was one, that g Philo de legib. special. jure iurando suam inhumanitatem confirmant, dum negant se hunc aut illum adiuturos ullo beneficio quoad vixerit. they would not help or do good to such a one so long as they lived. Amongst many other forms or fashions of swearing, josephus giveth us to understand, that one specially was h joseph contra Apion. li. 1. jusiurandum quod Corban appellatur. etc. Apud nullos autem invenitur hoc juramentum nisi apud Judaeos solos, quod interpretatur ex Hebraica lingua, Donum Dei. Corban, which is as much as to say, By the gift. Concerning which manner of oath it is that our Saviour Christ reproveth their absurd superstition, where he bringeth them in saying, i Mat. 23.18. Whosoever sweareth by the altar, it is nothing, but he that sweareth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by the offering (or the gift) that is upon it, he is a debtor; that is, as Hierome saith, k Hieron. ibid. Hoc studiosissimè repetebant. that they most earnestly required to be kept. So than if by any occasion the son had said to his father, l Matth. 15.5. Mark. 7.11. Corban, that is, by the gift, if thou have any profit by me, understanding after their manner, then let God destroy me, or such and such evil befall me, he was hereby tied, as they taught, that he should yield no succour or relief to the necessity of his father. Whatsoever God had commanded, it skilled not; he had now bound himself & must stand to it, not to do that that God had required of him: let his father beg or starve, or do what he would or could for himself, but of him he must have nothing. The very like is the tradition of the Pharisees of the Romish synagogue, who when God hath said, If they cannot contain let them marry, answereth, Be it so, if they have not vowed the contrary; but if they have vowed single life, whether they contain or not contain, they must not marry: let them swelter and boil and burn in filthy lust even to the very bottom of hell, yet marry they must not in any case. And whereas the Apostle saith, It is better to marry then to burn, M. Bishop telleth us that for such, that is, for common Christians, if they cannot live otherwise chastened, it is better to marry then to be burned, that is, defiled with incontinency; leaving it to be understood, that for Votaries, for such special Christians as he is, it is better to be burned, that is, defiled with incontinency, then to marry. And that it may appear that I do not unjustly force this consequence upon him, Cardinal Campegius doubted not most impudently to say, that m Sleidan. Comment. li. 4. Quòd sacerdotes mariti fiant multò esse gratitus peccatum quam si plurimas domi meretrices alant. it is a greater sin for Priests to be married, then to keep many harlots at home: and in like sort Costerus the jesuite, that n Coster. Enchir. cap. 15 Sa●erdos si fornicetur aut domi concubinam foveat, tameisi graut sacrileg●os se obstringat, multò tamen graviùs peccat si matrimonium contrahat. a Priest albeit he be guilty of great sacrilege if he commit fornication or keep a concubine, yet sinneth more grievously if he marry. Yea that we may not think that some petty fellows only have so conceived, Bellarmine that filthy Friar saith the same: o Bellar. de Monach. cap. 30. Vtrunque est mal● nubero & uri; immò peius est nubere, etc. Quae nubit post votum simplex tamen aliquo modo magis peccat, quàm quae forni●atur. Both are evil, to marry and to burn, but yet the worse of the two is to marry: yea, p Philo de Leg. special. Quasi non melius deoque gratius sit tale periurium, modò seruentur leges, etc. Addit enim culpae culpam, dum sacramento abutitur, cùm debu●sset potiùs abstinere à maleficijs. Abstineat igitur, & supplex Deum exoret ut pro sua clementia temeritati inconsultae ignoscat qua ad iurandum praeceps actus est: nam duplicare noxam cum te possis exonerare dimidio, maxima est insania vix unquam curabilis. she that marrieth after a simple vow (that is, when she hath but undertaken to vow, and hath not yet solemnly done it) yet in some sort sinneth more than she that committeth fornication. See these wretched caitiffs, whom neither fear of God nor shame of men can hold back from so devilish and damnable assertions, whereby they do but set a snare to halter and strangle the consciences of men, as they have done many thousands, and by whoredom and filthiness without remorse sent them headlong to hell fire. As though, saith Philo, to forswear (in such a case) for the keeping of God's laws, were not much better and more acceptable to God. For a man addeth sin to sin whilst he abuseth his oath, whereas he should rather forbear from evil doing. Let him therefore forbear, and humbly entreat God that of his mercy he will pardon the unadvised rashness whereby he was led headlong to swear: for to double the fault when thou mayest disburden thyself of the one half, is very great madness, and scarcely possible to be cured. Thus spoke Philo of those vows and oaths whereby men bind themselves contrary to that which God hath commanded, and his words shall be the just condemnation of them, who by pretence of a vow of human institution and device, debar men from doing that which God hath taught them to do, and tie them to that uncleanness whereby they are loathsome and hateful unto him. Mark it I pray thee gentle Reader, that by their vow of continency, they profess more to renounce marriage which is the ordinance of God, than fornication and whoredom which is the work of the devil. A man hath vowed continency, but yet cannot contain. What must be the means to salve this evil? Not marriage by any means which is the medicine that God hath appointed, but adultery, and fornication, and unnatural Sodomitical filthiness and uncleanness, to which the devil tempteth. It is a doctrine never heard of in the world, until by the tyranny of Antichrist the Church became a sty for these filthy swine, that a man should be taken to vow more against marriage, then against unclean and filthy lust. But yet this notable hypocrite here beareth us in hand, that S. Paul was the author of this accursed and desperate paradox. To them (saith he) that had vowed chastity before, Saint Paul writeth in another style, that if they but desire to marry they incur damnation, because they have made frustrate and broken their former faith and promise made unto God of their chastity. Where we must understand, that they of whom the Apostle there speaketh were poor widows, who were to live of the alms of the Church, and were used by the Church to look to poor, sick and impotent people, and to give some attendance to travelers and strangers, who were faithful Christians coming by occasion to the place where they were, to wash their feet, which was a thing much done in those hot countries, and to do such other necessary uses as might concern them. Now because they that were married could not fitly be employed to such service, neither was it fit that the Church should be every while to seek by their bestowing themselves in marriage that did undertake it, therefore they made choice only of such who would resolve and promise not to marry again. And that they might be the more fit and likely, both to make and keep this promise, the Apostle giveth this caution; q 1. Tim. 5.9. Let not a widow be chosen under threescore years of age, after which there need be small doubt that she should have mind or desire of marriage. This is the great vow of chastity that M. Bishop telleth us of, that a woman of threescore years old, being to do some service to the Church, and to be relieved therein by the Church's alms, should first promise not to marry again. But the Apostle having set down this caution, goeth on further saying, But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they will marry, having damnation because they have broken the first faith. He will have no widows of the younger sort admitted to that company, for the evident peril and danger thereof ensuing, which by experience than had in some sort appeared. For some young widows coming by this means to live idle upon common charge, gave themselves to wantonness, and quite cast off the remembrance and regard of their duty towards Christ, yea and as Hierome understandeth the word used by the Apostle, r Hieron. ad Geront. Fornicatae sunt in iniuriam viri sui Christi: hoc enim Graecus sermo significat. They committed fornication to the injury of Christ, whose they had professed themselves to be. The Apostle afterwards further expresseth what he meaneth by this waxing wanton against Christ, when he saith, s Vers. 15. Certain are already turned after Satan, namely that they proceeded so far, as that by apostasy and infidelity they forsook the faith and religion of Christ, and betook themselves to follow Satan, whom by their baptism they had professed to forsake. But of such he saith, that being thus grown wanton against Christ, they will marry, and addeth, having damnation because they have broken the first faith. Where the question is, to what these latter words are to be referred, whether to that he saith, they are waxen wanton against Christ, or to the other words, they will marry. M. Bishop saith, that therefore they have damnation, because they will marry, but to give some colour thereof he falsifieth the text, and in the Apostles name setteth down his own words. We say, that therefore they have damnation, not because they will marry, but because they are waxen wanton against Christ. We prove it to be so out of the text itself; for whereas M. Bishop in the Apostles name saith; they have damnation because they have made frustrate and broken their former faith, the Apostle himself saith not so, but because they have made frustrate their first faith. Now their first faith was that whereby they first believed, and gave themselves to Christ: in which sort it is said to the Church of Ephesus, t Apoc. 2.4. I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love; Remember from whence thou art fallen, and do the first works, and this faith was not broken by willing to marry, but by being become proud and wanton against Christ. M. Bishop then doth amiss, to put in their former faith, which is of doubtful construction, in steed of their first faith, whereof there is no doubt. If he will say, that the Fathers commonly understand it of their promise not to marry, we will answer him, that whatsoever any of the Fathers say, yet we will not pull out our own eyes, and say that we do not see that that indeed we do see. Albeit there want not of the Fathers to justify us in this behalf, who by plain allusion to this place, expound the first faith of the faith of baptism, and that which we have at first received in the profession of Christ. So doth Athanasius, when he saith: u Athanas. de unita Deit. Trin. Vae vobis qui primam fidem baptismi coelitùs institutam irritam facitis. Woe unto you that make frustrate the first faith of baptism which was delivered from heaven. In like sort Vincentius Lyrinensis mentioning x Vincen. Lyri. Scitum cunctu est quàm vehementer invehatur in quosdam beatus Apostolus qui mira levitate, translati fuerant abeo qui eos vocaverat in gratiam Christi, etc. Habentes damnationem quòd primam fidem irritam fecissent how earnestly the Apostle inveigheth against the Galathians, who so lightly were removed from him that had called them in the grace of Christ, apply to them these words, Having damnation for that they had broken or made frustrate their first faith. So Hierome saith, y Hieron. praef. epist. ad Titum. Non sunt digni fide qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt, Marcionē●oquor & Basilidem & omnes haereticos, etc. They are not worthy of credit who have broken their first faith, I mean Martion and Basilides and all heretics, etc. It is plain then that the first faith is that according to which we have first believed in Christ, and first plighted our troth to him. But by a second argument also from the text we prove that that we say, where the Apostle addeth; z Ver. 14. I will therefore that the younger (widows) marry, and bear children, and govern the house, and give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil; for certain are already turned back after Satan. Which last words do plainly import, that he meaneth that precept of such young widows as were already chosen into the company mentioned before, being apparently to this effect, some are already fallen away and turned after Satan; therefore I would have the rest that are yet remaining to marry, lest the like evil befall to any of them. But this he would not have said, if he had meant that it had been damnation for them to marry, or their willing to marry had been that frustrating of their faith which he there intendeth, and therefore it is plain that he meant not in that sort. And thus chrysostom though he seem there to understand faith of their promise not to marry, yet plainly determineth that the Apostle in those words speaketh of them of whom he hath said before, they will marry, though not as having yet run into those excesses which he setteth down. a Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 15. Volo igitur: quia & ipsae volunt, volo & ego adolescentulas nubere, etc. longè enim praestat haec facere quàm illa. Oportebat quippa solicitè curare quae Dei sunt, fidemque servare: quoniam verò illa non fiunt, melius est ista fieri quàm illa. Neque enim Deus irritatur, neque mala ista discuntur: quip vid●itas illa nihil parit boni; ex nuptijs vero plurima bona prodeunt & illud ante omnia, quòd negligentiae illarum & animo resupino consulitur, dum viris se subditas norunt. I will therefore; because they are willing, I also will that the younger widows marry; for it is much better that they do so, then that they do those other things (namely to wax wanton against Christ, to go idle from house to house, being prattlers and busibodies &c.) They should indeed carefully look to those things that belong to God, and keep their faith or promise, but because they do not so, it is better they do thus (to marry) then to do those other things. For by this means God is not provoked, neither are those evils learned. For that widowhood bringeth forth no good, but of marriage many good things proceed, and this specially for that thereby a remedy is provided against their negligence and careless mind, because they know themselves to be subject to their husbands. Thus doth Theophylact expound the words; b Theophyl. in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Maluissem equidem inquit viduas hasce à pactionibus cum Christo initis minime descivisle; sed cùm nuptias malint et ipse assentio, etc. Est enim satius matresfamilias fieri, etc. quàm per alienas domos circum vagari, & ad nugas converti et otium. I had rather indeed that these widows had not fallen away from the promise or covenant made with Christ, but seeing they had rather marry, I also assent unto them; for it is better that they become housewives, then that they wander up and down to other folks houses, and turn to trifles and idleness. Thus Ambrose also saith; c Ambros. in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Quoniam quae supra dixit de huiusmodi (viduis) contraria & illicita perducent eas ad mortem, idcirco consilium dat & praecipit ea fieri quae licita sunt, Melius est enim domus suae curam gerere, quàm in aliena domo adulari. Et mulium expedit nubere, quàm sub bona & p●ae professione notabiliter ìncedere. Because those contrary and unlawful things which he hath spoken of such widows, shall bring them to death, therefore he giveth counsel, and chargeth that those things be done which are lawful. For it is better that they take charge of their own house, then to use flattery in the houses of others. More expedient is it to marry, then under a good and godly profession to walk so, as to be subject to public note. Now than if M. Bishop will not believe us, yet he will not gainsay the assertion of these ancient fathers, that the Apostle here for avoiding those mischiefs and inconveniences that he speaketh of, giveth liberty of marriage to them who notwithstanding had been received into the number of Church widows, with profession and promise not to marry any more. Yea, and that it may yet further appear, how far the ancient Church was from the beastly and lewd conceit of Romish hypocrites before expressed, Cyprian speaking of virgins which had vowed virginity, saith thus: d Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 11. Sise ex fide Christo dicaverunt, pudicè & castè sine ulla fabula perseverent; ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent. Si autem perseverare nolunt vel non possunt, melius est ut nubant quàm ut mignem suis delicijs cadant. If by their faith they have dedicated themselves to Christ, let them continue purely and chastened without any evil report; so let them firmly and steadfastly look for the reward of virginity. But if they will not or cannot persevere, it is better that they marry, then that by their wantonness they fall into the fire. M. Bishop's master Bellarmine, being pitifully distressed with this testimony, that he might find a way and means to answer it, treacherously suppresseth the first part of the sentence, & faith that Cyprian spoke not of those e Bellarm. iudic. de lib. concord. Luther. art. 16. Cyprianum non de ijs loqui quae continentiam voverunt; sed de ijs quae adhuc deliberant quid sint factura. which had vowed continency, but of them who were yet in deliberation what to do, whereas the very words of Cyprian, as we see, do mention them who by their faith have dedicated themselves to Christ. Of virgins already vowed, S. Austin also saith: f Aug. de sanct. virginit. cap. 34. Hae quae nubere volunt et ideò non nuhunt quia impunè non possunt, meliùs nuberent quam urerentur, id est quàm occulta concupiscentiae flamma in ipsa concupiscentia vastarentur. They which would marry, and therefore do not marry, because they cannot freely do it, were better to marry then to be burned, that is, then by the secret flame of concupiscence to be consumed in lust. S. Hierome in like sort complaining of some by whom g Hieron. epist. ad Demetriadem. Sanctum virginum propositum quarundam non benè se agentium nomen infamat: quibus apertè dicendum est ut aut nubant si continere non possunt aut contineant si nalunt nubere. the holy profession of virgins was disgraced, whilst they miscarried themselves, addeth; who are openly to be warned either to marry if they cannot contain, or else to contain if they will not marry. To conclude, Epiphanius saith, that h Epiphan haer. 61. Apostolic. Melius est lapsun à cursu palàm sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem & à virginitate multo tempore paenitentiam agere & sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci, etc. et non quotidiè occultis iaculis sauciari, ab improbitate quae ipsi à diabolo infertur. Sic novit ecclesia praedicare; haec sunt sanationis medicamenta. better it is for a man that is fallen from his course (of virginity and single life) openly to take a wife according to the law, and long to be penitent for his fall from virginity, and so to be brought into the Church again, and not daily to be wounded with the wickedness which by the devil is brought upon him. Thus, saith he, the Church was learned to teach; these are her medicines wherewith to heal. This was the conceit of the ancient Church, though too much addicted to that vowing of virginity, yet in the defect thereof giving place to marriage, rather than to unclean and filthy life. But the Church of Rome now is become a desperate Surgeon; a Surgeon did I say? nay a cruel butcher, and a slaughterer of the consciences of men, not healing wounds, but poisoning them, and forsalues and medicines giving them cords and halters to hang themselves. Albeit their singular hypocrisy and impudency in this behalf notably appeareth, when telling us that the Apostle denounceth damnation to them that marry after a vow of single life, they notwithstanding give to the Pope a power to dispense where he list for the breaking of this vow, and to give liberty of marriage. Thus Matthew of Paris mentioneth that he dispensed with i Math. Parison He●r. 3. anno. 1237. Elinor the daughter of King john, and sister to King Henry the third, that having solemnly vowed widowhood, yet she might marry to Simon Mounfort Earl of Leicester. So doth Platina record, that k Plat. de vit. Pontif. in Coel●stin. 3. Celestinus the third did by voluntary dispensation give Constantia the daughter of Roger King of Sicilia, being professed a virgin to the Emperor Henry the sixth, upon a condition of a benefit to come to himself thereby. Many other examples are there of the like, by which they teach us lightly to esteem of that they say as touching this matter, being in their own account, a thing wholly subject to the Popes will. As for us, we are persuaded that if the Pope herein can dispense, we may much more securely presume of that dispensation which God by his word hath given, commanding them to marry that cannot contain. Master Bishop then may see, that the text alleged was not a furlong from the mark, but he himself was gone a furlong, or rather a mile from his own wits, that would go about to persuade us that it is better for votaries to burn, that is, to be defiled with incontinency then to marry, when the Apostle absolutely saith, It is better to marry, then to burn, yea that they are all beasts and men of seared consciences, who by a vow intent to tie men more strongly from marriage, then from beastly and filthy lust. 8 W. BISHOP. The second is much like: * 1. Tim. 4. It is a doctrine of devils, to forbid to marry: truth, if one should hold marriage in itself to be wicked, and therefore condemn it in all sorts of persons, as Montanus, and the Manichees did. But we have a more reverend opinion of marriage, than the Protestants themselves. For we with the Apostle * Ephes. 3. hold it to be a great Sacrament: they that it is a moral contract only. Notwithstanding, we maintain, that such persons, who being of ripe years have advisedly vowed chastity, may not marry; not because marriage is not honourable, but for that they have solemnly promised to God the contrary: which we also hold to be better, than if he had married. And so to use S. Austin's words, He forbiddeth to marry, who saith it to be evil, but not he who before this good thing, preferreth a better. And a little after, you see (saith he) that there is great difference between persuasion to virginity, by preferring the greater good before the lesser, & forbidding to marry, by accusing lying together for issue. The first is, the doctrine of the Apostles, which we teach, the latter only of devils. * Lib. 3. cont. Faust. Manich. cap. 6. R. ABBOT. Because the second is like the first, we presume it to carry sufficient weight and strength of argument against M. Bishop's answer. The Apostle reckoneth it for one of a 1. Tim. 4.1.3. the doctrines of devils to forbid to marry. M. Bishop answereth, Truth if one should hold marriage in itself to be wicked, and therefore condemn it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did. But if he had understood what he had said, he would not here have named Montanus; for Montanus in this point was outright a Papist, and condemned the Marcionites and Manichees for that opinion, with which M. Bishop here chargeth him. Tertullian being become by his fall the champion of Montanus, and being urged by the catholic Church with the words of the Apostle, in the place here cited against b Ibid. commanding to abstain from meats, answereth the place concerning meats, as Master Bishop here doth concerning marriage, that the holy Ghost in those words c Tertull. de jeian. Praedamnant iam haereticos perpetuam abstinentiam praecepturos ad destruenda et despicienda opera creatoris, quales inveniam apud Marcionem, apud Tatiantum, etc. non apud paraecletum. condemneth heretics that should command perpetual abstinence, to destroy and disgrace the works of the Creator, Such, saith he, as we find with Martion and Tatian (with whom the Manichees therein consented) not with (Montanus his) paracletus. As therefore in meats, so in marriage Montanus condemned them who dishonoured the work of God's creation, and took it to be a thing in itself unclean, and wholly to be condemned. Therefore Tertullian writing again in behalf of Montanus concerning marriage, setting the Church on the one side under the name of Naturalists or Carnalists, and heretics on the other side saith, d Tertull. de Monogam. Haeretici nuptias auferunt, Psychici ingerunttilli nec semel isti non semel nubunt, etc. Neque continentia eiusmodi laudanda est quia haeretica est, neque licentia defendenda quia Psychica est: illa blasphemat, ista luxuriat: illa destruit nuptiarum Deum, ista confividit. Heretics take away marriage, Carnalists urge it; they marry not so much as once; these marry more than once; their continency is not to be commended, because it is heretical, nor the licence of the other to be defended, because it is carnal: the one blasphemeth, the other exceedeth; the one destroyeth God from being the author of marriage; the other shameth him. Anon after he saith, that e Jbid. Christum Paracletus contestabitur qualem credimus cum toto ordine creatoris. their Paracletus did testify Christ according to the faith, with the whole order or ordinance of the Creator. In the same place he allegeth their soundness in the rule of faith, namely that which summarily we profess in the articles of our Creed, as an argument that those things which they taught were not of the evil spirit, f Ibid. Aduersarius spiritus ex diversitate praedicationis apparet primò regulam adulterans fidei; & ita ordinem adulterans disciplinae, etc. Fidem dicit pro eis integritas praedicationis, etc. Ante quis de Deo haereticus sit necesse est, tunc de instituto, etc. Paracletus novae disciplinae institutor, etc. who would first have corrupted them in faith, and then have perverted them in order of conversation, whereas now their integrity in preaching (the faith) did give assurance or warrant for them. A man, saith he, must first be an heretic concerning God, and then as touching institution of behaviour, but Montanus their Paracletus was, as he saith, an instructor or teacher (not of any new faith but) of new order and conversation, to which purpose he saith in another place, having set down a brief of the articles of our belief, g Tertull. de veland. virgin. Hac lege fidei manente caetera iam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, etc. Propterea Paracletum misit ut ad perfectum perduceretur disciplina. This law (or rule) of faith abiding, other matters of discipline and conversation do admit newness of correction, and maketh the end of the sending of their Paracletus to be this, that discipline or conversation might be brought to perfection. Montanus then denied not marriage according to the rule of faith, to be God's institution, but professeth of their continency that it h Idem de Monog. Continentia religiosa legem nuptiarum honorat. honoured the law of marriage, and therefore M. Bishop did him great wrong to couple him in that sort with the Manichees, who wholly blasphemed marriage as unclean, and having original from the devil and power of darkness. But yet he will say that Montanus taught somewhat against marriage, and we acknowledge the same, yet not as to condemn marriage, but i Jbid. Saluo inquis iure nubendi. Planè saluo, etc. nihilominus tamen ex ea part destructo qua continentiam praefert. etc. Praelatione continentiae imposita. to prefer continency, as Tertullian saith. It is true that albeit he acknowledged marriage to be God's institution, yet he held the liberty thereof to be permitted but only once, and that once to be yielded only to the infirmity of the flesh, even as M. Bishop said before, that to common Christians the Apostle said, If they cannot abstain let them marry, but it is plain by Tertullian, that all this was but to commend a state of greater perfection, k De veland. virgin. Quae Paracleti administratio nisi haec, etc. quòd ad meliora proficitur. the ministery of their Paracletus being that men should profit to better things, and l De Monog. Secundum sanctitatem caruis admonuit incedere. should walk according to the holiness of the flesh, which they deemed one special way to consist either in not marrying at all or marrying but once; in opinion whereof, and some other points of conversation, accounting them of the Church m Ibid. Nos quos spirituales meritò dici faciunt spiritualia charismata. natural and carnal men, as before was said, they called themselves spiritual, and in that respect are brought in by Origen as saying: n Origen apud Pamphil. in Apolog. Cataphryges' dicentes, Non accedas ad me quoniam mundus sumi non enim occipio uxorem, nec est sepulchrum pateus guttur meum sed sum Nazareus Dei, non bibens vinum sicut & illi. Come not to me, for I am pure or holy; for I take no wife, neither is my throat an open sepulchre, (as it were to feed and eat freely as those men do) but I am a Nazarite of God, forbearing to drink wine as the Nazarites did. Thus then howsoever they held God to be the author of marriage, and the liberty thereof to have been formerly permitted once and more than once, yet now they taught, that they were called to a greater exquisiteness and perfection of conversation, and therefore were either partly or wholly to forbear. Hereby than it appeareth, that the Montanists and the Manichees are to be severed one from another, and if the Apostles words do condemn them both, then M. Bishops answer is unsufficient, because they were not both guilty of that which he saith the Apostle there intended. Let him tell us; doth the Apostle by those words condemn them both or not? If he say, yea, as he must, than we infer, that the Apostle then did not speak only of them who held marriage to be a thing wicked in itself, because the Montanists did not think so. M. Bishops answer therefore must have a supply, & that supply must bring both the Montanists and the Papists within the compass of the Apostles words. The Apostle himself giveth us that supply when he saith, that those spirits of error of which he speaketh, shall speak lies in hypocrisy. They then of whom the Apostle speaketh, shall in hypocrisy forbidden to marry. And what is it to say in hypocrisy? Surely, to forbid marriage in hypocrisy, is to forbid it under colour of purity and holiness, and more than ordinary perfection. The Manichees did forbid marriage, but they forbade it not in hypocrisy, but by open and professed blasphemy: neither did they so much forbid it, as blaspheme and condemn it. A man may forbid that which notwithstanding in itself he thinketh lawful enough, but they wholly condemned marriage, as of itself wicked and damnable, and without any forbidding to be absolutely detested. The Apostles caveat was not so greatly needful against them or such other as they were, because their abominable blasphemy did apparently bewray itself, and was easily to be discerned: but the greater danger was to come by them who in hypocrisy should teach these doctrines of devils, that is, with fair shows and goodly pretences, and insinuations which might blind the eyes of them that were not jealous and suspicious thereof, and therefore of these specially he giveth admonition to the Church. Thus did the Montanists disallow of marriage, not as of evil institution, but only as a more profane and carnal state, fitting for vulgar and common Christians, but not so well sorting, specially second marriage, with that eminency of purity and perfection whereto their Paracletus did instruct them. Now in the same sort as the Montanists did, so do the Papists forbidden marriage only in hypocrisy, only as accounting it a more secular and vulgar kind of life, then is fitting to their spiritual and perfect states. M. Bishop telleth us, that they hold it to be a great sacrament, and some of them absurdly and ridiculously make the carnal conjunction of married persons the consummation of that sacrament, when notwithstanding in that sacrament and consummation of the sacrament they affirm that impurity and pollution as cannot stand with their sacrament of orders. Marriage (saith Bellarmine) o Bellar. de Clerie. cap. 19 Matrimonium impedit munus sacrificandi quia summa quaedam puritas & sanctitas in eo requiritur: mactis verò coniugij negari non potest, quin admixtae sit imputitas quaedam & pollutio. hindereth the office of sacrificing, because therein is required an eminent purity and holiness, whereas in the act of marriage there is mingled an impurity & pollution. Thus Costerus saith, p Coster. Enchir. cap. 15. Si in veteri lege carnis immunditia pollutis non licebat vel edere panes propositionis vel manibus contrectare res sacras vel templam ipsum intrare: multò manùs his convenit sacrorum nostrorum administratio, qui uxoribus suis liberisque procreandis vacant, etc. & post. Non tantus splender animi, morumque gravitas elucet in homine qui mulierculae semper assideat, eidemque vacet, quia libido omnis mores compositos dissoluit, minusque admirabilem hominem reddit: sacerdotum porrò est sancta castitate gravem quandam praeses far maiestatem, qua venerationi sint, & admirationi caeteris. If in the old law it were not lawful for them that were polluted with the uncleanness of the flesh, either to eat the show bread, or to handle holy things, or to enter into the temple, much less doth the administering of our sacraments belong to them, who give themselves to wives and to getting of children. There appeareth not (saith he) so great glory of mind, and gravity of manners in the man, who is still sitting by a woman, and attending to her, because all lust weakeneth stayed manners, and maketh a man less admirable: whereas it is fit for Priests to carry a grave kind of majesty by holy chastity, that they may be reverenced and admired of others. Thus these beastly Friars measure the ordinance of God, by the filth and corruption of their own wicked hearts, and in hypocrisy deprave that state of life as void of gravity, and modesty, and majesty, and as if there were nothing therein but lust and sitting by a woman, and attending to her, wherein notwithstanding the holy Fathers, the Patriarches, the Prophets, Priests, Nazarites, and Apostles served God: yea and when themselves for the most part are like the Manichees, detesting marriage, and yet q Aug. de morib. Manish cap 19 Vidimus post transeuntes nescre quas faeminac tam petulā●i gestu a●hinnientes ut omnium trivia lium impudicitian impudentiamque superarent. neighing like fed horses at every woman that passeth by, with such immodest and wanton behaviour, as passeth the unchastity and impudency of base and common rascals; some pretty tokens whereof the Reader may find in the story of Weston and his fellows, casting out the devil from Sara Williams and her sister. They vow against marriage as to profane and unholy a state, but they vow not against adultery, fornication, incest, Sodomy, against the horrible uncleanness of vicious burning lust; they vow not against gluttony, drunkenness, Simony, perjury, robbery; these things being of the devil hinder not, but that they may sacrifice, because their r Triderit. Concil. sess. 6 cap. 1. Oblatio munda; quae nulla indignitate aut malitia offerentium inquinari potest. sacrifice is so clean, as that it cannot be defiled with any indignity or evil of them that offer it; only in marriage being the institution of God, there is that impurity & pollution as by no means may stand with the gravity & majesty of their Priestly function. But to them belongeth that of Ignatius: s Ignat epist. ad Philadelp. S. quis unum dicit Deum, & confitetur jesum Christum, corruptionem & coinquinationem v●ca● legitimam commixtionem & f●●orum procreationem, huiusmodi habet inhabitaterem draconem apostatam. If any man profess one God, and confess jesus Christ, and do call the lawful conjunction of man and woman, and the procreation of children a corruption or defilement, the same hath the apostatical dragon dwelling in him. Now then of such spirits the Apostle speaketh, as wherewith the Romish doctrine is now inspired, not directly condemning the institution of marriage, but by obliquity of words impeaching & disgracing it as too base & unfitting for the eminent purity and holiness of some sorts of men. And against such spirits was that Canon made, that goeth with other under the name of the Apostles; t Canon. Apost. cap. 6. Episcopus aut presbyter propriam uxorem nequaquam subobtentu religionis abijciat. Si verò retecerit, excommunicetur; si perseveraverit, deijciatur. Let not a Bishop or a Priest put away his wife under pretence of religion: if he so do, let him be excommunicated; and if he presever, let him be deposed. So did the council of Gangra decree: u Concil. Gangrenes. ca 4 Siquis discernit presbyterum cō●ugatū tanquam occasione nuptiarum quòd offerre non debeat, & ab eius oblatione ideò se abstinet, anathema sit. If any man make difference of a married Priest, as if by reason of his marriage he should not minister, & doth therefore withhold himself from his ministration, accursed be he. This did Pope Hildebrand, that firebrand of hell, who x Math. Parisan Williel. Conq. Presbyteros vx●ratos à divino removit officio & laicis Missas eorum audire inter dixit, nou● exemplo, etc. put away married Priests from doing divine service, and forbade to be present at their service, & in those steps the Church of Rome still walketh, & hath the same curse still lying upon her till this day. By this it appeareth how far it is from truth, which M. Bishop saith, that they have a reverend opinion of marriage, when in effect they judge no otherwise thereof them the Montanists did, nor any otherwise at all, but only that they appropriate their opinion to some sorts of men, whereas the Montanists deemed alike concerning all. As for that which he saith, that the Protestants hold marriage to be a moral contract only, he speaketh it but according to the skill that he hath in the Protestant's doctrine, which is very little or none at all, but what his masters have reported of them. The Protestants teach as God himself hath taught, that marriage is y Prou. 2.17. the covenant of God, and that they who are joined in lawful marriage, z Mat. 19.6. are joined by God, and therefore that it is more than a moral, that is, a civil and human contract. He goeth on, and telleth us what the cause is why their votaries may not marry, not because marriage is not honourable, saith he, but because they have solemnly promised to God the contrary. But therein he lieth unto God, and talketh dissemblingly, because albeit they are content to say indefinitely that marriage is honourable, yet deny it to be honourable in some states of men, and do therefore bind them from it by vow, because they hold it dishonourable for them. It is not as he fraudulently saith, that therefore they may not marry because they have vowed the contrary, but therefore they make them vow, because they hold that in that state of life they may not marry, yea do hold it for a pollution and uncleanness in them. Whereas he saith, that in vowing against marriage a man doth better than if he had married; how true it is, appeareth commonly by the effects. To vow against the ordinance of God which he hath appointed for an infirmity which cannot be avoided, what is it but to bid battle to God, and madly to fight against him. God hath said, If they cannot abstain, let them marry: to vow against that that God hath said, that though he cannot contain, yet he will not marry, is to sin desperately against God. As for that which he allegeth for his purpose out of Austin, it belongeth not thereto. Austin speaketh nothing there of vowing, neither doth he so fully and perfectly there tell us the meaning of the Apostles words, because he examineth not the circumstances of them. He accounteth virginity and continency of single life, a superior good to marriage, and we deny it not, as hath been a Answer to the Epistle. sect. 8. before said as touching preferment and priority of gift; but excellency of gifts is a matter of external pre-eminence and preferment with men, not of internal righteousness towards God, neither is a man the better for the having, but only for the well using of them. Saint Austin never thought that either virginity or the vow of virginity was acceptable to God for itself, and howsoever we accord not with him as touching the vowing thereof, yet understanding virginity and single life with that implication as he doth, as having more commodiousness and opportunity to serve God, and being used accordingly, there shall be small difference betwixt him and us, and this will be nothing for M. Bishop's turn, because this preferment is only accidental by consequence and use, not essentially belonging to virginity for itself. 9 W. BISHOP. M. Perkins his third and last text is, * Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable among all, and the bed undefiled. The strength of this place lieth in a double corruption of the text: for this verb (is) is not in the text, nor cannot be the course of the Apostles speech, requiring a verb of the Imperative Mood, as both the sentences before and after do convince. Again, if you will have the Apostle say, that marriage is honourable among all men, we must also needs take him to say, that the bed is also undefiled among all, which was not true. Also that their conversation was without covetousness, etc. For there is no reason why this word (is) should be joined with the one more than with the other. And nothing but passion doth cause them to make the middle sentence an affirmative, when they turn both the other into exhortations. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The second corruption is in these words (among all) when they should translate (in all,) and the adjective being put without a Substantive must in true construction have this word (things) joined 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 marriage be honourable in all things, and the bed undefiled. Here is no willing of any man to marry, but only a commandment to them that be married to live honestly in marriage, to keep (as elsewhere he saith) their vessels in sanctification, and not in dishonour, and then shall their marriage be honourable in all things, that is, in all points appertaining to matrimony: so that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disprove the vow of chastity. R. ABBOT. A double corruption, saith M. Bishop, and yet there is neither of them to be seen, and unless we will take his simple word, he is able to prove none. First he blameth us for saying, Marriage is honourable, telling us that we should rather say, Let marriage be honourable, and seethe not in the mean time that our translation is implied in his own: for why should the Apostle say, Let marriage be honourable, but because it is so; as if he should say, let it be so reckoned of as it is, a thing honourable amongst all. But without any implication, the latter part of the sentence being affirmative, showeth that the Apostle meant to speak affirmatively in the former also. In this sort S. Austin conceived the Apostles meaning, who mentioning the good things that are in marriage, due order of generation, fidelity of chastity, and the sacred bond of marriage itself, addeth, a August. count Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 2. cap. 34. Propter haec omnia honorabiles nuptiae in omnibus & thorus immaculatus. In all these respects marriage is honourable in all, and the bed is undefiled. So also Chrysostom understandeth it as we translate it, that the Apostle b Chrysostom. ad Heb. hom. 33. Cùm posuisset honorabile coniugium & thorum immaculatum, ostendat quod meritò inferat quae sequuntur. setteth down that marriage is honourable in all. So likewise Theophylact rendereth the words affirmatively, c Theoph. in Heb. 13. Connubium honorabile est, honore dignum est. Marriage is honourable, marriage is worthy of honour: and in the very same sort d Socrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. Paphnutius in the Council of Nice, and the e Sext. Synod. can. 13. Fathers and Bishops of the sixth Synod in Trullo cite it as an affirmative speech, Marriage is honourable in all, and therefore we reject M. Bishop's assertion as childish and vain, that this cannot be the course of the Apostles speech. The sentences before and after, are uttered according as the matter requireth, but it more fitteth here for the inferring of the latter part of the verse that the Apostle say affirmatively, Marriage is honourable, then Let it so be, that fornicators and adulterers may understand themselves to be without excuse, in that marriage is appointed as an honourable state, and remedy for the avoiding of such sin. And thus doth chrysostom tie the two parts of the verse together: f Chrys. ut supra. Si enim connubium concessum est, justè scortator supplicijs afficitur. For if marriage be granted, than the fornicator is justly punished. So Oecumenius: g Oecumen. in Heb. cap. 13. Nam si coniugium permissum est & sine peccato licet ad explendae concupiscentiam, quis erit excusationis praetextus scortatoribus & adulteris? For if marriage be permitted, and be lawful without sin to satisfy concupiscence, what pretence of excuse shall there be for fornicators and adulterers? The former part of the sentence than is an assertion that marriage is permitted, & is lawful without sin. Yea but then saith M. Bishop, we must take him to say that the bed also is undefiled amongst all, which (saith he) is not true. But he should have told us why it is not true; where if he had answered, that the bed of marriage is not undefiled amongst all, because some pollute it by adultery and whoredom, it would have appeared that his understanding was very short, that could not conceive that the Apostle telleth us what the marriage bed is of itself, not what it becometh by the usage of it. He saith elsewhere, h 1. Cor. 3 17. The temple of God is holy which ye are: and yet withal he saith, If any man destroy the temple of God, him will God destroy, as giving to understand, that the uncleanness of men may defile that which God hath made holy. So is it in this case, the bed of marriage is holy and undefiled, God reputeth no uncleanness or pollution to it, It is lawful without sin, as Oecumenius hath before expounded it: * Primaes. in Heb. 13. Immaculatus lectustimmaculati & illi inde surgentes, hoc est, maculam peccati i●de non trahentes. They that rise from it are undefiled, saith Primasius, not drawing from thence any spot of sin, but the uncleanness is when the bed of marriage is made the bed of adultery, and man's filthiness 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 marriage bed, it is i Tit. 1.15. clean to them that are clean, that is, to them who by chaste conversation preserve in it that holiness and honour that God hath attributed unto it. Now by that that hath been said, appeareth the vanity of his second cavil, where he saith, that in steed of in all things, we say amongst all or amongst all men. The greek words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, in all, and the sentence being so read, Marriage is honourable in all, what else doth it sound but marriage is honourable in all men? And this is indeed the true and proper translating of the words; for we in reading amongst all, do disadvantage ourselves by not expressing literally the words of the Apostle. For we know that that may be honourable amongst all, which yet all are not capable of. The calling of the minister and of the magistrate is honourable amongst all, but yet all cannot be ministers and magistrates. But the Apostle saith that marriage is honourable in all, to signify that it is a state of life which God hath instituted to be free for all men. And that this is the true meaning of the Apostle, appeareth by that that hath been before said. For if these words do serve to bereave fornicators and adulterers of all pretence of excuse, than they must be so taken as that fornicators and adulterers must understand that they appertain to them. And how shall they understand that the words do appertain to them, unless we take them in this sort, that marriage is honourable in all men? for otherwise they may haply say, Marriage indeed is honourable, but it did not belong to us. For suppose that Popes and Popish Priests be fornicators, as their Canon law telleth us, that k Dist. 81. Maximianes' in glos Communiter dicum quòd Clericus pro simplici fornicatione deponi non debet, quia pauci sine illo vitio inveniuntur. few of them are found without that fault, how shall they be deprived here of the excuse of their filthiness, if they may say, We held marriage to be honourable, but it was not lawful for us to marry? But the words do serve to take away from all adulterers and fornicators all excuse of such uncleanness. They must therefore be taken to affirm indeed that which they seem to do, that marriage is honourable in all men. And so doth Theophylact apparently expound it, l Theoph. in Heb. 13. Non quia nuptiae aetate provectioribus minùs conveniant, adolescentulos ver● admocum deccant sed cunctis art honori sunt. He saith not that marriage is unfitting for the elder, and fit only for young men, but honourable for all, though withal he expound those words in all, as importing n Vel in omnibus hoc est, quibusuit modis, & quovis tempore. every way and at all times. But M. Bishop bringeth us to the Grammar, and telleth us, that the adjective being put without a substantive, must in true construction have this word (things) joined 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 have not knowledge, but rather there is not knowledge in all things, because the adjective is there put without a substantive: and where the Apostle saith, o 2. Thess. 3.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we should not say all men, but all things have not saith; and where he saith, p 1. Tim. 2.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we should not translate who gave himself a redemption for all men, but for all things, because in these places the adjective is put without the substantive, as in infinite other places it is, where notwithstanding it must necessarily be understood not of all things but of all men. It is not passion then, as he objecteth to us, but plain frenzy, as it seemeth, that maketh him to use these blind and ignorant cavillations, and the places of Scripture which M. Perkins hath alleged against their vow of continency, stand still firm and sure for aught that he hath been able to say against them. 10. W. BISHOP. The Scripture being so barren for him, he shall belike recompense it with the abundant testimony of antiquity in favour of his cause: but oh unhappy chance, he hath clean forgotten in this question the record of the ancient Church: what, was there not one Father, who with some one broken fragment of a sentence or other, would relieve you in this your combat against the Vow of Chastity? I will help you to one, but I fear me, you will scarce thank me for my pains: it is such a one, as is neither holy nor father, but the ancient Christian Epicure jovinian, who, as S. Augustine hath recorded * Haeres. 82. ad Qued vult. and S. Jerome, * Lib. 1. contra jovin. , did hold that virginity of professed persons, men and women, was no better than the continency of the married. So that many professed virgins believing him did marry, yet himself did not marry, as Friar Luther did; not because he thought chastity should be rewarded in the life to come, with a greater crown of glory; but because it was fit for the present necessity, to avoid the troubles of marriage: see just 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 deceive any one of the Priests. And in another place thus * Lib. 2. re●rec. 22 he speaketh of jovinian, Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster. So that no marvel if that M. Perkins could find small relief in antiquity for this his assertion, which the best of them esteemed no better than a monstrous sacrilegious heresy. R. ABBOT. How simply M. Bishop hath dealt in the answering of the Scriptures alleged against him, we have very well seen already, and it hath been made appear to him that we want not testimony of antiquity for the applying thereof in such sort as we do. Albeit we freely say to him, that our faith resteth entirely upon the word of God; and where God hath spoken plainly to us, we will not suspend our assent upon question, whether men think the same that God hath told us. If men have given testimony thereof, we take their witness and use it; if not, we say as in another case Cyprian doth: a Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 5. Non sunt expectanda testi●onia humana, cùm praecedunt divina suffragia. We are not to look for the testimonies of men, where we have warrant already from God himself, and with the Apostle Saint Paul, b Rom. 3.4. Let God be true, and every man a liar. In the mean time we do but suffer M. Bishop here to c Prou. 7.22. go like a fool to the stocks for correction, not imagining whither he goeth, and like the poor fish to dally & play with the bait wherein he receiveth his own bane. He sporteth himself with jovinian, and in the cause of jovinian we bring not a broken fragment of a sentence of some father, but in a manner a whole Church, and no mean Church, but even the Church of Rome, defending and maintaining that virginity, of professed persons is no better (with God) than the continency of the married. The old Church of Rome condemned the doctrine of Montanus, which was the same in effect as before I have said, that the Church of Rome now maintaineth. The old Church of Rome upheld the doctrine of jovinian, which was the same that we now defend against the Church of Rome. This matter (gentle Reader) hath been declared before at large d Sect 8. in the answer to M. Bishop's Epistle, and thither I refer thee for the full understanding of it. Here I will only briefly remember thee, that the doctrine of Hierome against jovinian found general opposition in the Roman Church, and how scandalously and offensively it was taken, his own words may give us to understand, when in his apology he saith, e Hieron. apolog. pro lib. adver. jovin. grand piaculum, eversae sum ecclesiae, orbis audire non potest, si virginitatem diximus esse mundiorem quàm nuptias. A great offence, the Churches are overthrown, the world cannot abide to hear it that I have said, that virginity is more pure (or holy) than marriage. It was no small matter that made him thus to speak: to hold that virginity is more holy than marriage, was then taken to be a doctrine pernicious to the Church, and the world could not brook the hearing of it. Some private persons were entangled with the conceit of it, but it was most heinously taken when it came publicly to be defended. And albeit Siricius then Bishop of Rome, a superstitious & unlearned man, the first for aught appeareth that sought to give way in the Church of Rome to the dregs and filth of Montanus, which that Church had before condemned, albeit I say this Siricius with some few of his own pack had given sentence against jovinian, yet so little did his sentence avail with the rest of the Clergy, as that Hierome found himself much aggrieved at their taking part against him. His words are plain, f Ibid. sub initio. Si seculi homines indignantur in minori gradu se esse quàm virgins, miror clericos & monachos & continentesid non laudare quod faciunt. Castrant se ab v●●ribus suis ut imitentia virginum castitatem, et idipsum volunt esse maritatas quod virgins? Though secular men think much that they are put in lower place than virgins, yet I marvel that Priests and Monks and continent persons do not commend that which they do. They contain themselves from their wives that they may imitate the chastity of virgins, and will they have it that married women are the same that virgins are? Hereby it plainly appeareth, that howsoever in practice they had yielded to the decree of Stricius, and to those fancies which then were somewhat grown as touching single life, yet they retained still the same judgement and opinion of doctrine, that virginity and marriage for themselves made no difference at all with God, howsoever the one be more convenient than the other for avoiding the distractions and troubles of our present life. For the rest look to the place before mentioned, which I hope will give thee satisfaction as touching this whole matter. As for Luther's marriage, he had grounds sufficient whereupon to satisfy himself in that behalf, and better were it for a great number of M. Bishop's copesmates to do as Luther did, then to practise that filthiness which under colour of continency they now do. 11. W. BISHOP. But M. Perkins hath an argument that shall nevertheless demonstrate the vow of perpetual chastity to be intolerable. For (saith he) this vow is not in the power of him that voweth: for continency is the gift of God, who giveth it not unto all, but unto whom he will, when he will, and as long as he will. And if we object, that by prayer and fasting the gift of continency may be obtained of God: he answereth, that it cannot, because it is not necessary to salvation. We reply, that it is necessary for all them that have vowed chastity. And be it so, that God giveth it not unto all, yet doth he certainly give it to some, for otherwise they cannot keep their vows, but to the dishonour of God, and to their own damnation should break them. And we only teach, that some such who have vowed chastity, could keep it: so that the argument is very childish, and too too weak to lead any wise man away from the holy and ancient doctrine of the Church. R. ABBOT. A very simple remonstrance doth M. Bishop here give us to M. Perkins his demonstration. The ground of the argument is this, that to make a vow of that which by ordinary providence of God is not in our power, and wherein we have no assurance of the extraordinary gift of God, is an intolerable presumption, a wilful tempting of God, and a seeking to bind his gifts to the headlong rashness of our fancies. What is he but a mad man that will make a vow to go upon his head, or to fly in the air, or a josu. 10.12. to stay the Sun as josuah did, or b Exod. 14.21. to divide the sea as did Moses, or c 1. King. 17.1. to stay the rain as Elias did, or d 2. King. 6.6. to make iron swim as Elizeus did? Now of continency we are taught that it is a special gift of God. Our Saviour Christ expressly telleth us, e Mat. 19.11. All men cannot receive this thing, but they to whom it is given. Therefore f August. de lib. arb. ca 4. Quibus non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt. they to whom it is not given, either have no will to it, or fulfil not that which they are willing to. Saint Paul saith, g 1. Cor. 7.7. Every man hath his proper gift of God, one thus, and another thus: and shall he that hath received his gift one way, vow the performance of that which belongeth to another gift which he hath not received? But say they, the gift is to be obtained by fasting & prayer. Yea but seeing prayer also is the gift of God, how can he presume that God will give him grace to pray for the obtaining of that other gift who hath wilfullyvowed without God, and having received no gift whereupon to vow? Surely they to whom it is not given, sometimes have no will to it, as we see before in S. Augustine's words, and how can they faithfully pray for that whereto they have no will? But it is true here which Solomon saith, h Prou. 20.25. It is a snare for a man after the vows to make inquiry; first to vow, and then to be to seek and to learn for the keeping of it. And what? doth fasting and prayer obtain of God whatsoever we list to ask? Shall we vow to do as Moses, and josuah, and Elias did, as I said before, and then think by fasting and prayer to obtain it? Saint Austin rightly saith, i Augus. de verb. Dom ser. 53. Aliquando Deus propitius negat quod petis. God in mercy sometimes denieth that which we ask, because he thinketh it not convenient for us, or he hath determined otherwise. k Idem epist. 34. Bonus Dominus qui non tribuit saepè quod volumus, utquod malimus attribuat. God is gracious (saith he) who oftentimes giveth not what we desire, that he may give us that which we will like better when he hath given it. Thus Saint Paul, though l 2. Cor. 12.8. he besought to be eased of that sting of the flesh, the messenger of Satan which buffeted him, yet obtained not what he desired. Therefore M. Perkins very well observeth that there are two sorts of the gifts of God, some common to all, and therefore necessary because he hath determined not to bring us to salvation without them, as are repentance, faith, forgiveness of sins, sanctification of the spirit, which as God first giveth, so to our faithful prayers he yieldeth the increase thereof. Other gifts there are which God hath intended to be proper and peculiar to some, and whereof he maketh not others partakers, because the want thereof is no hindrance to their salvation, as are the gifts of tongues, of healing, of knowledge, of wisdom, of utterance, and such like. Of this sort is the gift of continency, which because it is not necessary for salvation, we can no more presume to obtain by fasting and prayer, than we can any of those other, or health, wealth, preferment, or any such outward and temporal benefit. We may assay and use the means to see what God will do, but we have no promise whereupon we may certainly resolve ourselves for success therein. As therefore to vow the use of those other gifts when a man hath them not, only upon presumption by prayer and fasting to obtain them, is the part of a brainsick and distempered man, even so is it for a man to vow continency, not having received but presuming afterwards by fasting and prayer to obtain the gift whereby he should contain. But where M. Perkins answereth that the gift of continency cannot be presumed of by prayer and fasting because it is not necessary to salvation, M. Bishop replieth, that it is necessary for all them that have vowed chastity. And why so? For otherwise they can not keep their vows, but to the dishonour of God and their own damnation should break them. Where we see that M. Perkins understandeth necessary in one respect, and M. Bishop in another. Master Perkins intendeth, that prayer and fasting do not certainly obtain any thing, but what in itself and simply is necessary to salvation. M. Bishop will have us think that it obtaineth certainly whatsoever is necessary in respect of a vow for the performance thereof. But because that which M. Perkins saith is true, therefore that which M. Bishop saith is false, neither may we imagine by prayer & fasting to subject the gifts of God to the madness of our vows. What? because a man voweth to be a prophet or to speak strange tongues, shall it therefore be necessary for his salvation, that God bestow upon him the gift of prophecy or the gift of tongues, because otherwise he shall break his vow? If we will think this absurd, we must say in the vow of continency as we will in this, that the gift of continency is not necessary to salvation, but it is necessary for a man to repent him of his rash and headlong vow, to ask God mercy for abusing his sacred name in so unlawful sort, and to use the means ordained by God for avoiding the mischiefs of that vow wherein he findeth not himself seconded and confirmed by the gift of God. Because I say the gift of continency is not in itself necessary to salvation, therefore God doth not always yield it to the prayers of men, howsoever they have vowed it, but leaveth them to the repentance of their error, and to the remedy which he hath appointed for them; and they who having vowed against marriage, and not having the gift of continency do persevere therein, they do no other but rebel against God, and not further their salvation by keeping their vow as they call it, but increase their own damnation by the pollution and uncleanness of filthy lust. Whereas he faith, that they only teach that such as have vowed chastity can keep it: I answer him as Austin did to julian the Pelagian, that where m August. count Julian. lib. 5. ca 10. Non omnes capiunt, etc. cum posses dicere, Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed qui volverit si verum esset quod dicitu vos. Christ saith, All receive not this saying, but they to whom it is given: he might have said, All receive not this saying, but they that will, if it be true which they say. For if they that have vowed chastity can consequently keep it, than whosoever will vow it, is presently thereby put in state for the keeping of it, and that is whosoever will, because whosoever will, may vow. Which because it is apparently absurd, therefore our argument is strong enough to satisfy a wise man against so vain and childish answers. 12. W. BISHOP. But to the further confirmation of this point, let us hear what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibility of this vow. Tertullian near the end expounding these words, * Lib. de monog. He that can take, let him take. * Mat. 19 Choose (saith he) that which is good, if thou say thou canst not, it is because thou wilt not, for that thou mightest if thou wouldst, he doth declare who hath left both to thy choice. Origen upon the same place, * Mat. 19 He that will take this word that is set down of chastity, let him pray for it, believing him that said, Ask and it shall be given you, and he shall receive it: which doth plainly confute M. Perkins, who saith, that although we ask never so much, we cannot obtain this gift. With Origen agreeth Saint Jerome upon the same place, who saith, It is given unto them who have requested it, who have desired it, and traveled that they might receive it. The same song chaunteth Gregory Nazianzene, which is of three kinds of Eunuches * Orat. 31. . Saint chrysostom saith, It is possible to all them who make choice of it: and further addeth, that our Saviour Christ himself doth prove it there after this sort: Think with thyself if thou hadst been by nature an Eunuch, or by the malice of men made one, what wouldst thou then have done, when thou shouldest both have been deprived of that pleasure, and yet not have had any recompense for thy pain. Therefore thank God, because thou shalt have a great reward, and a glittering crown, if thou live so as they must do without any reward: yet (saith he) thou mayst do it more easily, safely and pleasantly, both because thou art fortified with hope of recompense, and also comforted with a virtuous conscience. We will wrap up this point with Saint Augustine, who directly confuteth Master Perkins by many reasons and examples: Lib. 2. De adulterinis coniug.. cap. 12. Et de bono viduit. cap. 20. And upon the Psalm, an hundredth thirty seven, he yieldeth another reason, why God will more really assist them, saying, He that exhorteth thee to vow, will help thee to fulfil it. All which heavenly doctrine, because it is spiritually judged (as the Apostle speaketh) the carnal man cannot understand: and therefore Master Perkins being persuaded that few can live chastened except they marry, avoucheth that this Vow doth bring forth innumerable abominations in the world; not the hundredth part so many as the fleshly heretics imagine, and out of flying and lying tales report and bruit abroad. Nay I dare affirm, that let the authentical Records of our Realm be well perused, and you shall find more lewd filthy lechery to have been practised by Ministers and their wives this last age, than was in a thousand years before by all the Catholic Priests and religious persons of the Land. This may serve for a reproof of all that M. Perkins objecteth against the Vow of chastity: afterward the man would somewhat reason the matter by showing how he condemneth not chastity, yet saith, that marriage is better than it, in two respects. If jovinian was reputed by the learnedst and holiest fathers, a Christian Epicure and a monster, because he durst make marriage equal with virginity: what shall this man be, who saith it is better? His reasons are so childish, that by the like you may prove dirt to be better than gold: wherefore I will not stand upon them. He nevertheless afterward concludeth, that one may purpose constantly with himself to lead a single life, but so, as he may change upon occasion, and this to be a counsel of expedience, but not of perfection. Lastly, that if any having the gift of continency do vow, and afterward marry (the gift remaining) they have sinned; which is flat against his own second rule, which prohibits us to lose our liberty, and to make any thing unlawful in conscience, which Christian religion leaveth at liberty. R. ABBOT. Holy fathers, saith M. Bishop, and beginneth first of all with an heretic, citing Tertullia's book de Monogamia, which as Hierom testifieth, was a Hieron in Catalogue. Tertul. Specialiter adversus Ecclesiam texuit volumina de pudicitia, de persecutione, de ieiunijs, de Monogamia, etc. written purposely against the Church. He manifestly abuseth the words of Christ; and whereas Christ saith, b Mat. 19.12. He that can receive this, let him receive it, to note that every one cannot receive it, as before he hath said, c Ver. 11. All men receive not this saying, but they to whom it is given: he forceth him even against the hair to say that every man can receive it if he will. Saint Hierome saith well concerning those words, d Hieron adver. jovin. lib. 1. Si● omnes virgines esse possent, nunquam Dominus diceret, Qui potest capere, capiat. If all could be virgins, our Lord Christ would never have said, He that can receive it, let him receive it. Now the truth is, that the heresy of Montanus was so plausible, as that it did wonderfully insinuate itself into the minds of men, and the Fathers and Bishops of the Church grew afterwards sometimes to speak in the same sort as Tertullian in behalf thereof had spoken against the Church. The Church then pleaded a necessity of marriage and second marriage, e Tertul. de Monog. Quousque infirmitas ista impudentissima perseverabit? &c: Rideo cùm infirmitas carnis opponitur, etc. because of the infirmity of the flesh. This Tertullian exagitateth in the place cited by M. Bishop, and derideth the allegation of it. For answer hereto he said that f Ibid. Jan nemini competit portare non posse quia per quem datur portare per se non deest. Quàmdiu causabimur carnem. quia dixit Dominus, Caro infirma? Sed praemisit, Et spiritus promptus, ut vin cat spiritus carnem ut cedat quod infirmum est fortiori. it was not now for any man to say he could not bear it, because he by whom it is given to bear, will not be wanting for his part. How long (saith he) shall we pretend the flesh, for that Christ saith, The flesh is weak? But he set before it, The spirit is ready, that the spirit may overcome the flesh, and that which is weak may yield to the stronger. This presumption he builded upon, that God would not be wanting to them to give ableness to contain who did endeavour themselves for the obtaining of it. Which being then presumed & disputed against the Church, may give us light what to judge of such speeches afterwards used in the doctrine of the Church. For this conceit much prevailed, that albeit Christ had said, All receive not this saying, but they to whom it is given, yet the receiving thereof is given to them who by prayer ask and seek it at God's hands. And thus Origen for answer to some that said, that they were willing to contain, but could not, saith as M. Bishop allegeth, g Origen. in Mat. trac. 7. Qui vult capax esse verbi quod de castitate positum est, petat, etc. non dubitans de illo quod dictum est, Omnis quipetit, accipit. He that will receive this word that is set down of chastity, let him ask not doubting of that which is said, Every one that asketh, receiveth. But Origen well knew, if he had remembered it, that though every one that asketh receiveth, yet every one receiveth not the thing which he asketh, because we h Rom. 8.16. not knowing what to pray as we ought, do sometimes ask those things which are either unprofitable or unnecessary for us. It is true that the prayer of the faithful never returneth empty; but yet therefore are we taught in our prayers to submit ourselves to the will of God, and to say with our Saviour, i Mat. 26.39. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt be done, because God, though k August. Exaudit D●us etsi non semper ad voluntatem, semper tamen ad utilitatem. he hear us always for our good, yet doth not hear us always according to our will. Because therefore the gift of continency is a specal gift which God hath not left indifferent to every man, we may not upon our prayers resolve to receive in particular that gift, because we have no warrant in particular for the obtaining of it. And this could Origen himself upon occasion well discern, when he saith that our Saviour l Origen in Mat. tract 24. Reprehendit hu●usmodi praeceptores qui crudelitèr et sine misericordia non secundum existimationem utrium uniuscuiusque cudientis, sed maiora virtute ipsorum iniungunt, utputa qui prohibent nubere, & ab eo quod expedit ad immoderatam munditiam compellunt: qui etiam docent abstinere à cibis, & alia huiusmodi ad quae non omninò oportet cogere, fideles alligant per verbum expositionis suae onera gravia citra voluntatem Christi dicentis, jugum meum suave est, et onus meum leave est, & imponunt ea quantum ad verbum suum super humeros homi●um curuantes eos & cadere facientes sub pondere gravium mandatorum eos qui ●●tulare ea non sufferunt. reproveth such masters as cruelly and unmercifully, without weighing the strength of their hearers, do enjoin them things beyond their power, as they (saith he) who forbidden to marry, and from that which is expedient do force men to a purity or cleanness more than needeth, who also teach them to abstain from meats, and by the word of their exposition do bind other such burdens to which they should not at all compel faithful men, being beside the will of Christ, saying, My yoke is sweet and my burden light; and do lay them by their word and doctrine upon men's shoulders, bowing them down, and causing them that are not able to bear them, to fall under the weight of their heavy commandments. Thus spoke Origen against them, who notwithstanding alleged for themselves, as we have seen, the same that he saith in the other place, that God for his part will not be wanting, and they that ask shall receive of him. And if it be true which he saith in those former words, than there was no cause for him here to blame those teachers for laying too heavy burdens upon men, because they might justly answer as he doth, that the burdens were not to be accounted too heavy, for that every one that asketh may receive strength for the bearing of them. But because he justly reproveth those teachers, therefore he giveth to understand that M. Perkins justly saith, that though it cannot be doubted, that some by prayer obtain the gift of continency, yet it is not yielded to the prayers of every man, and many though they pray never so much, yet receive it not. As for Hieromes words, they show which is the way to obtain it, but do not say that that way will bring every man unto it. m Hieron. in Math. 19 His datum est qui petierunt, qui volverunt, qui ut acciperent laboraverunt. It is given to them that have asked it, that have desired it, that have laboured to receive it, but it followeth not that it is given to all that do so. He expressly directeth his speech against them who thought that either n Ibid. Nem● putet sub hoc verbo fatum vel fertunant introduci by fatal destiny or by fortune and chance men received this gift, and showeth, that not so, but by prayer and labour they that have it do attain it. But if all might so obtain it, there were no reason of that advertisement which he giveth presently after, o Jbid. Infert. Qui potest capere capiat ut unusquisque consideret vires suas utrum possit virginalia & pudicitiae implere praecepta. Per se erim castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens, sed considerandae sunt vires ut qui potest capere, capiat. Christ saith, He that can receive it, let him receive it, that every man may consider his own strength whether he be able to fulfil the precepts of virginity and continency: for continency is of itself a flattering thing, and allureth every one to it; but men are to consider their strength, that he may receive it who is able to receive it. What needeth this consideration of our strength, and the doubt of our being able, if we may resolve that every one that asketh and seeketh, receiveth strength to be able. Yea and that the obtaining of this ableness requireth greater labour than every man's strength can bear, appeareth by Hierome himself, who of himself confesseth, how p Hieron. Vix eremi duritia refroenavi. hardly by the hardness of the wilderness he attained to the bridling of incontinent desire. q Ad Rust. de vivendi forma. Incentiva uttiorum ardoremque naturae ferre non poteram, quem cum crebris ieiunijs frangerent mens tamen cogitationibus aestuabat. I was not able (saith he) to bear the provocations of vicious desires and heat of nature, which when I repressed by often fasting, yet my mind was still raging with thoughts. r Ad Eustoch. de custod. virginit. In eremo constitutus, etc. Putabam me Romans interest delicijs, etc. Horrebant sacco membra deformia, & squalula cutis situm Aethiopicae carms obduxerat. Quotidiè lachrymae, quotidiè gemitus, & siquando repugnantem somnus imminens oppressisset, nuda humo ossa vix haerentia collidebam. De cibis & potu taceo cùm etiam languentes monachi aqua frigida utantur & coctum aliquid accepisse luxuria sit. Jlle igitur ego, etc. scorpionum tantùm socius & ferarum saepè choris intereram puellarum. Pallebant orae ieiunijs & mens desiderijs aest nabat in frigide corpore, & an●e hominem suum tam carne praemoriva sola libidinum incendia bulliebant. I thought myself to be amidst the pleasures of Rome. My body was rough with sackcloth, and my skin and flesh was become black; still I was weeping and mourning; I slept not but as sleep oppressed me, and then I laid my bones scarcely hanging together upon the bare ground. My drink was cold water, and it was too dainty for me to have any thing boiled. Yet I who was thus the companion of Scorpions and wild beasts, yet (in my mind) was many times present among the companies of maidens. My face was pale with fasting, and my mind was still raging with desires in my cold body, and my flesh being now dead before myself, only the fires and heats of lusts were still boiling within me. This he acknowledgeth as touching himself, and if he in that invincible obstinacy against himself, yea in the wilderness, where his company was but Scorpions & wild beasts, yet found so great difficulty to attain to that that he sought for: what shall we expect of them who are tied to live there where there is still casting of oil into the fire, and occasions mightily to provoke that desire which so mightily provoketh itself where there is no occasion. Yea wheresoever men live, there is not one of a thousand that can yield himself to the doing or suffering of that which Hierome describeth in himself, and therefore the vowing of continency is no other but even as the casting of a man's self into the sea, where though sometimes men find means to scape, yet there is certain and apparent danger and likelihood of being drowned. Now the words of Hierom seem to be but the imitation of Gregory Nazianzene, who as he chanteth the same song, to use M. Bishop's phrase, so is to have the same answer. Having rejected those fancies of destiny and fortune, as also the opinions of men's free will for making themselves chaste, he saith it is given. s Gre. Naz. orat. 36. Cum audieris, Quibus datum est, add, Volentibus datum est & ijs qui animi melinatione ita feruntur. But add, saith he, it is given to them that are willing to it, and by inclination of mind are thereto carried. He saith that there must be in a man a will and inclination for the obtaining of it, but doth not say that every man that hath a will to it, doth obtain it, which is the matter here in question. Yea he maketh that t Ibid. Propositum quoque ipsum atque electio divinum quoddam beneficium est, etc. Ipsum quoque velle à Deo est, etc. will whereby it is obtained a special gift of God, and wholly his gift, so that they who have not this special will inspired of God, though they have vowed a thousand times, yet can never pray or labour effectually for the obtaining of that which they have vowed. Chrysostom's exposition we reject, being very manifestly contrary to the drift of our Saviour in that place. He maketh this gift common u Chrys. in Mat. hom. 63 Hisdatum est qui sponte id eligunt. Ostendit superiore auxilio nobu opus esse quod quidem omnibus paratum est si volumus in hac lactatione superiores evadere. to all that will, whereas by Hierome before we learn that Christ therefore said, He that can receive it, let him receive it, because all cannot so do. As for S. Austin in the first place he saith somewhat again M. Bishop, but for him nothing at all. x August. de adulier. coniug.. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nunc rectissimè dicitur, Qui potest capere, capiat; qui autem se non continet, nubat. It is now rightly said, He that can receive it, let him receive it, but he that containeth not, let him marry: thereby plainly signifying that the words of Christ do import that every one is not capable of that precept of containing, and therefore that those expositions are not true which M. Bishop hath brought to prove that they are so. The second testimony is taken out of a book which is y Erasm. censur. in lib. de bono utduit. Mira dictionisfacili as & cander cla●tat non esse Augustini. none of Augustine's, and the reason which he useth of husband's long absence from their wives by traveling or like occasions, that if in such cases they can contain, than they may also for keeping their vow, is unsufficient. For we have promise of God's help in the necessities and temptations which his wisdom & providence imposeth upon us, but we have no promise of his help in those temptations which we procure unto ourselves, and wherein we tempt him by presuming upon his help, to go one way when he hath directed us to go another. The last words which he citeth, are spoken in general of vowing, and we doubt not but that in those things which we vow lawfully according to the will and word of God, the help of God who hath given us a heart to promise our service to him, will mercifully assist us accordingly, as we call upon him for the performance thereof, but so to secure every man who wilfully voweth that which God requireth not of him, is a spice and taste of those dregs wherewith Montanius as I said before corrupted the doctrine of the Church. He that exhorteth thee to vow, will help thee to fulfil it, but he exhorteth none in this case, but them that are able; He that is able, let him receive it, and let him receive it, saith he, but saith not, let him vow it, and what is that to move thee to vow, and to presume that afterwards he will make thee able? Yea, and what we are to conceive in this case, we are somewhat to esteem by Austin himself, who in his confessions to God acknowledgeth those z Aug. Confess. li. 10 cap 30. anima mea non sit rebellis sibi atque ut in somnis etiam non solum non perpretret istas corruptelarum turpitudines per imagines animales usque ad carnis fluxum sed ne consentiat quidem, etc. Quid adhuc (in hac aetate) si● in hoc genere mali mei dixi Domino bono meo. etc. night illusions and pollutions of the flesh, which in defect of marriage, carnal concupiscence is wont to cause, which are so unnatural and loathsome, as that no man should doubt but that chaste marriage is a thousand times rather to be chosen, then to endure the custom thereof. And if Austin at those years as he speaketh of, & in so great devotion, could not be free from such pollution, what shall we think of so many who in strength of body and heat of blood, with ease and full diet do undertake that Popish vow of single life, but that even in them it is true which S. Bernard saith, a Bern. in Cant: ser. 66. T●lle ex ecclesia honorabile connubium & thorum immaculatum, nonnè reple● eam concubinarijs, incestuosis, seminifluu, mollibus, masculorum concubitoribus, & omni denique genere immundorum. Take from the Church honourable marriage and the undefiled bed, and thou fillest all with keepers of concubines incestuous persons, seed-loosers', wantoness, Sodomites, and all manner of unclean persons. And this to have been the fruit and effect of that vow of virginity and single life, all ages by experience have found. It hath been always the trap wherein Satan hath taken men & women to hold them bond and captives to filthiness & uncleanness. When they had vowed they might not marry, & yet not being able to contain, they have fallen to whoredom; whence they grew to damnable practices, as b Tertull. de veland. virginib. Scit Deus quot tam infants & perfici et perduci ad partum integros duxerit, debellatos aliquandiu à matribus, etc. Haec admittit slagitia coacta & invita virginitas. Tertullian in part showeth, either to hinder conception, or to mar that which they had conceived, or if they could not prevent the birth, yet them to strangle & murder the child that was borne. Of the last whereof a notable example was seen in the time of Gregory Bishop of Rome the first, as c P●r●l ton a●●d 〈◊〉 V●●●●g 〈…〉 ●um qu●●a ●ie in ●●is trium suum propter pisces ●●●●sset et allata ●●de plus●uam six ●●●ll 1 infanium capita videret, ●ut●m 1 mox ductas paenne●tia ●●genitur, & factū● se de abstinentia de re●●m tat● cedis causa confesses cotugno illund paenitentiae fructu purgavit. Hulderichus the Bishop of Augusta mentioneth, when out of a pool which the said Gregory caused to be drawn, there were taken above six thousand infants skulls or heads, to his great grief at the sight thereof, & great repentance of the decree that he had made against marriage. So Cyprian maketh mention of a notable abuse of such as professing to be virgins, yet d Cypt. lib. 1. ep. 11. Detectae sunt in eodem lecto pariter mansisse cum masculis. would lie in bed and sleep with men, still taking upon them, that they were not defiled by them, yea he hath written e Jden de singular. cler. Eunuchi nostri dubitant sine faeminae sodalitate dormire. a treatise of purpose against them, who having vowed single life, yet would not be without the company and conversation of women, even in their beds, and were not ashamed by abusing examples of Scripture, to colour their lewd course. He allegeth f Quamti & quales episiopi et clerici noscuntur naufragasse cum volunt in navi fragile navigare. Bishops and Priests, many, and men of great worth, falling in that sort and by that occasion. chrysostom also hath written a Sermon of purpose, complaining g Chrysost. ser. Quòd regulares faeminae viris cohabitent. Derident & sales in nos iactant, etc. ut posthac me●us sit ne virgi●es quidem esse quae sit praeuar●ari attentent. that women professing rule of continency, had men dwelling with them, and affirmeth, that the behaviour of virgins did cause such jests and scorns amongst the Pagans, as that it were better there should be no virgins any more to attempt to sin in the like sort. How often do we read Hierome taxing the exceeding lightness & licentiousness of the Monks and professed virgins of Rome, noting and reproving Monks for being in such sort with women, as that h Hiero●. a● Rust ● videas ●onnullos à mulieribus non posse disce l●re, etc. et praeter vocabulum nupti trum omnia effe matrimonij. save only the name of marriage all things were like as if they were married; reproving virgins for becoming i Idem ad Eustoch. unde sinc nuptijs aliudnocten vxe●ū? unde no●●um concubinarun genus? unde meretrices univirae? Eiden domo, uno cubiculo, saepe uno tenentur & sectulo & suspiciosos nos vocant si aliquid existimamus. wives in name without any wedding, yea terming them plainly concubines and harlots. They will be (with men) saith he, in the same house, in the same chamber, yea oftentimes in the same bed, and they say we are too suspicious if we think any thing thereof. So doth Bernard report amongst the Clergy of his time, k Bern. de conver. ad Cler cap. 29. Post fornicationes, post adulteria, post incestus nec ipsae quidem apud aliquos ignomin●● passiones desint. fornications, adulteries, incests, yea and the passions of reproach, as he calleth their acts of Sodomitical filthiness. Of the persons guilty he saith, l J●●d Nec latere queunt prae mulitu ●ine nec prae impudencia quaerunt. They cannot be hid they are so many, nor care to be hid they are so impudent. Yea, the gloss of their Canon law before hath told us, that few of them were found free from fornication. Such were even of old the fruits of the unmarried Clergy, as that some Bishops, as Hierome reporteth, though after his manner he speaketh of them with reproach, would m Hieron. adver vigil. Non 〈◊〉 dia●onos nisi prius uxores duxerint. admit none into holy orders, unless they were first married. By the fruits therefore it appeareth, that the vow of single life is no heavenly doctrine, as M. Bishop calleth it, but that it came first from hell, & tendeth wholly thither, and that the defenders thereof after so great experience, are such as S. Paul speaketh of, who have their consciences burned with a hot iron, & are thereby past feeling, and therefore far from spiritual discerning. As for that which he saith, that more filthy lechery would be found by authentical records in ministers & their wives in this last age, then in their Priests in a thousand years before, we must take them but as the words of an impudent & shameless harlot, who being notorious & infamous to the world for her abominable filthiness, yet doubteth not to vaunt herself to a chaste and well reputed matron to be honester than she. Now M. Bishop persuading himself that he hath said much, when indeed to the purpose he hath said little, groweth angry here that M. Perkins should say, that in two respects marriage is better than virginity; yet only storming at it, he letteth it pass, because he hath nothing to say against it. But to anger him a little more, I will say this to him, that simply & absolutely to speak of the things themselves, marriage is better than virginity. I prove it for that God in the state of man's innocency & perfection said, n Gen. 2.18. It is not good that the man should be himself alone. That which in the state of righteousness & innocency was good, is undoubtedly better of itself, than that that in that state was not good. Marriage was good in the state of innocency, single life was not good. Marriage therefore is better than single life. That virginity is become better than marriage, it is casual & accidental, by reason of those evils, & distractions, & troubles, which came into the world by sin, which should not have been if there had been no sin. Let him take my words as they are, & not cross me with speeches of the comparison of marriage & single life in the now corrupted state of man. As touching jovinian enough hath been said before. Those fathers who accounted jovinian for an Epicure & a monster, as M. Bishop saith, for making marriage equal to virginity, when he himself lived an unmarried & a chaste life, if they had seen the things that have befallen since, would have changed their mind, & have learned by further experience to reform their error, and to give the name of Epicures & monsters to them whose doings by the witness of their own stories have showed them so to be. Who under colour of taking part with those fathers in condemning jovinian for an heretic, and carrying some semblance of following them in that behalf, have from the highest of their votaries to the lowest, made the earth to stink even as high as heaven, with the abominable corruption & filthiness of their unmarried life. Whereas M. Perkins saith, that if any having the gift of continency do vow single life, & the same gift remaining doth marry, he therein sinneth, M. Bishop saith that this is flat contrary to his own second rule, which prohibits us to lose our liberty, & to make that unlawful in conscience, which Christian religion leaveth at liberty. But the contrariety is not in M. Perkins words, but in M. Bishop's understanding. Christian liberty importeth not a being free from performing that which a man hath vowed in things indifferent, but only a freedom from any holy opinion of the thing itself which he hath vowed. A man knoweth in this case that to marry or not to marry is all one to God, but yet he will not marry because he hath vowed, & God maketh him able to perform his vow. To be short, he might have taken his answer from M. Perkins own words, that a man is to know, that if he marry, he sinneth not in marrying, but in causeless and unnecessary breaking his vow, when he may keep the same. Which if he would not have taken from M. Perkins, he might have taken it from S. Austin, whom M. Perkins citeth to that effect, or whosoever is the author of that book: o Aug de hono viduita. cap. 9 Non ipsa vel talium nuptia damnandae iudicantur sed damnatur fracta voti fides. The marriages of such are not to be judged damnable, but the breaking of their vow. Their marriage therefore standeth good, as he there disputeth, though they remain culpable for their former vow. 13. W. BISHOP. Now to supply M. Perkins his default, who was accustomed to rehearse, although many times untowardly, yet lightly always some reasons for the Catholic party; which in this question he hath wholly omitted, I will briefly prove by an argument or two, that it is both lawful and very commendable for men and women of ripe years and consideration, having well tried their own aptness, to vow virginity, if by good inspirations they be thereunto inwardly called. My first reason is this, that which is more pleasant and grateful unto God, may very well be vowed to him, but virginity is more acceptable to God than marriage. The first proposition is manifest, and hath no other exception against it, but that which before is confuted, to wit, if we be able to perform it. The second is denied by them, which we prove in express terms out of Saint Paul, * 1. Cor. 7. He that joineth his virgin doth well, but he that joineth her not, doth better: and again of widows: They shall be more happy by Saint Paul's judgement, if they remain unmarried: This may be confirmed out of Esay, Isa. 56. Where God promiseth the Eunuch that holdeth greatly of the thing that pleaseth him, that he will give him in his household and within his walls a better heritage and name, then if they had been called sons and daughters. I will (saith God) give them an everlasting name. And also out of the book of Wisdom, * Cap. 3. Blessed is the Eunuch which hath wrought no unrighteousness, etc. for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, & the most acceptable portion in our Lord's temple, for glorious is the fruit of God. Which is also plainly taught in the Revelations, * Reu. 14. where it is said, that no man could sing that song but 144000. and the cause is set down, These be they which have not been defiled with women, for they are Virgins. To these latter places, M. P. answereth, pag. 241. that to the Eunuch is promised a greater reward: but, not because of his chastity, but because he keepeth the Lord's Sabbath and covenant. But this is said unadvisedly; for to all others that keep Gods commandments, shall be given a heavenly reward: but why shall they have a better heritage, and more acceptable portion than others, but because of their special prerogative of chastity? M. P. then answereth otherwise here: that the single life is better & more happy, because it is freer from common cares of this life, and yieldeth us more bodily ease and liberty to serve God. But 1200. years ago S. Augustine of set purpose confuted this error in sundry places of his learned Works, specially in his treatise, De Virginitate, in these Chapters 13. 23. 24. 25. where he accounteth him no Christian that doth contradict Christ promising the kingdom of heaven to Eunuches. * Mat. 19 And in the 25. Chapter more vehemently exclaiming: O impious blindness, why dost thou cavil and seek shifts? why dost thou promise temporal commodity only to the chaste and continent: when God saith, * Esa. 16. I will give them an everlasting name. And if thou wouldst perhaps take this everlasting for a thing of long continuance, I add, inculcate, & often repeat, that it shall never have end. What wouldst thou more? This eternal name, whatsoever it be, signifieth a certain peculiar and excellent glory, which shall not be common to many, albeit they be placed in the same kingdom, etc. Which in the 29. Chapter he confirmeth out of that place of the Apocalypse, cited above in these words: The rest of the faithful shall see you, and not envy your state, but joy in it, & so be partaker of that in you, which they have not in themselves: for the new song which is proper unto you they cannot sing, but shall hear it, and be delighted with your so excellent a blessedness: but you, because you shall both sing and hear it, shall more happily rejoice and reign more pleasantly. Which may be also confirmed out of the Apostle in the same place: where he assureth that the single life is better for the service of God, saying; that a woman unmarried and a virgin, think of the things which belong unto our Lord; how she may please God, and be holy both in body and spirit. And our blessed Saviour teacheth, * Math 19 That some become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven: which, to be taken there properly for the reward in heaven. S. Augustine (with the rest of the Fathers) teacheth: * De virginit. cap. 23. What could be spoken more truly or more perspicuously? Christ saith, The truth saith, the wisdom of God affirmeth them to geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven, who do of a godly determination refrain from marriage: And contrarily, human vanity doth contend by impious temerity, that they who do so, do it to avoid the necessary troubles of matrimony, and that in the kingdom of heaven they shall have no more than other men. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop here taketh upon him to prove the vow of virginity to be lawful, but yet we see it is with certain cautions & conditions to be therein observed. First he will have them to be of ripe years & consideration, and well to try their own aptness. Secondly, it is lawful, if by good inspirations they be thereunto inwardly called. But put the case that these cautions be not observed, that some vow rashly and unadvisedly, without trial of their own aptness, & without any good inspirations calling them to it, or having upon some trial judged themselves apt, yet afterwards find it otherwise, what shall they do, not being now able to keep that which they have vowed? Marry let them sink or swim, let them burn till they be consumed, let them be brothels and harlots, and what they will, they have vowed, and they must stand to it, but marry they must not. As for that which he saith of good inspirations inwardly calling them, it is a mere begging of the question. We deny that there are any good inspirations inwardly calling to that which we are not outwardly taught by the inspired word of God. The spirit & word of God go jointly together, and where the word giveth us not warrant and direction for that we do, they are illusions and not inspirations, by which we are led. Now of vowing virginity or single life, the word of God hath neither precept nor example. All exercises of true righteousness we find amongst the people of the jews; we find amongst them all the spiritual intendments & significations of their ceremonial vows; but of this vow of single life & virginity we find nothing, save only amongst their sectaries in the corruption of their state & religion, as namely the Pharisees, who for one of their exercises of great holiness, a Epiphan. haer. 16. Quidan eorum cùm se exercebant, praescribehant sibi decennium aut octennium aut quadriennium virginitatis & continentiae. vowed continency and virginity, sometimes for ten years, sometimes for six or for four years, as Epiphanius reporteth of them. But yet M. Bishops argument will put the matter wholly out of doubt. That, saith he, which is more pleasant and grateful to God may be vowed unto God, but virginity is more acceptable to God then marriage; therefore it may be vowed. He nameth an exception to the first proposition, if we be able to perform it, and saith that it is before confuted, but his confutation cometh too short, and it still standeth good, that continency is a thing whereof we cannot promise the ability to ourselves, and therefore cannot make any lawful vow thereof. But letting that pass, let us examine the proofs of his minor proposition, that virginity is more acceptable to God then marriage. He bringeth first the words of S. Paul, b 1. Cor. 7.38. He that joineth his virgin in marriage, doth well, but he that joineth her not, doth better, and concerning the widow: c Ver. 40. she shall be more blessed if she so abide in my judgement. We hear the words, but yet we see not any proof therein of that which M. Bishop would prove by them. We know that liberty is better and more blessed than bondage, and yet liberty is not more acceptable to God then bondage, or the freeman than the bondman. d Act. 20.35. It is a more blessed thing, as our Saviour saith, to give then to receive, and yet it followeth not, that he that giveth is more acceptable to God, or more blessed with God than he that receiveth. S. Paul himself giveth us to understand in what respects he meaneth better and more blessed. First when he saith, e Ver. 26. It is good for the present necessity, that marriage be forborn by them that can forbear. f Hieron count Heluid. sub finem. Quae est ista necessitas? Vae praegnantibus & lactentibus in die illa. Jdeò sylua succressit ut postea recidatur. Ideò ager seritur ut metatur. jam plenus est orbis, terra nos non capit. Quotidie bella nos secant, morbi subtrahunt, naufragia absorbent, etc. What is this necessity, saith Hierome? Woe, saith he, to them that be with child, and to them that give suck in that day. Therefore the wood groweth that it may afterwards be cut down. Therefore is the field sowed that it may afterwards be reaped. The world is full, the earth containeth us not, wars are still hewing us down, diseases take us away, shipwrecks swallow us up. He giveth hereby to understand, that the Apostle meaneth this necessity of the troubles that are incident to the faithful, by persecutions & other temporal calamities, the bearing whereof is so much the more easy, by how much the less a man is distressed and distracted with care of wife & children, & hath thereby no hindrance, but that either by life or by death he may freely do that that shall be according to God. Again, to signify his meaning the Apostle further saith: g Ver. 28. The married shall have tribulation in the flesh, but I spare you. h Ver. 32. I would have you to be without care. The unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but the married careth for the things of the world how he may please his wife. i Ver. 35. I speak for your commodity, that ye may cleave to the Lord without separation. By all which words the Apostle importeth that there are many cares and distractions incident to marriage, whereby a man is holden to the respect of the things of this life and of the world, that he cannot so wholly addict himself to God. From these distractions single life, if a man will so use it, is more free, and giveth a man full liberty of applying himself entirely to those things wherein consisteth the seeking of the kingdom of heaven. Thus therefore single life is better and more blessed, because there is in it greater opportunity of following those good things wherein consisteth the attainment of eternal bliss. Thus the father doth better, that continueth his daughter being so willing unmarried, because he leaveth her at full liberty to bestow herself to the Lords use. Thus the widow is more blessed if she so abide, because she is more free to serve the Lord. But M. Bishop telleth us, that twelve hundred years ago, S. Austin of set purpose confuted this error, and specially in his Treatise de Virginitate, whence he nameth sundry chapters 13. 23. 24 25. Where it appeareth that M. Bishop neither understandeth what we say, nor what it is that S. Austin confuteth: S. Austin's speech his against the k Aug. de sanct. Virgivit. cap. 13. Qui putant continentiae bonum non esse necessarium propter regnum coelorum, sed propter praesens seculum, quod scilicet ceniugid terrenis curis pluribus atque arctioribus distenduntur, qua molestia virgins & continentes carent. who think that the benefit of continency is not needful for the kingdom of heaven, but only for this present world, because marriage is distracted with many earthly and troublesome cares, the encumbrance whereof virgins and continent persons do avoid: in a word, as afterwards he expresseth it, that l Ibid. cap. 24. Praesenti vitae v●le esse, non futurae. it is profitable for this life, not for the life to come. Now when we say that single life where the gift of continency is, is more helpful and yieldeth greater opportunity to the service of God, do we make it profitable for this life only, and not for the life to come? Hath the service of God a reference only to this world, and do we follow Ch●ist only for a benefit in this life? Indeed we should be far wide if we thought that the end to which the Apostle driveth, should be an idie, & voluptuous life, but we determine that the preferment of continency & single life so concerneth this present life, as that it specially respecteth eternal life. We reckon not of the preferment thereof in respect of this life, but all the account that we make of it is in respect of the life to come, knowing that by how much the more industriously and incessantly we apply ourselves to the work of God, so much the greater reward of glory we shall have with him, not by reason of any merit or desert, but by the heavenly disposition of that voluntary grace and mercy which hath promised, that m 1. Cor. 15.58. our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord, because n Cap. 3.8. every man shall have his wages according to his work. S. Austin therefore in confuting them that say, that the benefit of continency is only for this life, saith nothing against us. He accounteth him no Christian, saith M. Bishop, that doth contradict Christ, promising the kingdom of heaven to eunuchs. Though those be no words of Austin, yet we will ask him, for what Christ doth promise them the kingdom of heaven? Doth he promise it to them for being eunuchs? Surely then many should come to the kingdom of heaven who never had any belief thereof. It is not then their being eunuchs that Christ respecteth, but their more earnest seeking the kingdom of heaven. And thus the other sentences which he allegeth out of Austin, in the main drift of them contrary nothing that we say: only in two respects we differ from him and he from us. First, we hold the texts of Scripture which he bringeth to be very unsufficient for the proof of that which he intendeth. For the words of the Prophet Esay are not spoken of eunuchs, as for following some special kind of life in the Church, but for embracing the common faith and religion of the Church, and are properly referred to them who properly & truly are called eunuchs. M. Bishop to make them serve his turn, falsifieth and corrupteth them, the text being in this sort, o Esa. 56: 3. Let not the son of the stranger which is joined to the Lord speak and say, The Lord hath surely separated me from his people, neither let the Eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree: for thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the thing that pleaseth me, and take hold of my covenant, even unto them I will give in mine house and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and daughters (or otherwise, better than to the sons and daughters:) I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be put out. Which words and the rest that follow, do manifestly tend to take away from them of whom he speaketh, all opinion of separation from the people of God, or of being excluded from having 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 covenants of promise, but God giveth to understand, that in Christ this difference shall be taken away, and whosoever of the Gentiles shall cleave to the Lord and embrace his covenant, their prayers shall be acceptable unto him, and they shall have like place in the house of God. Again, God gave it as one part of his blessing unto Abraham, that q Gen. 22.17. his seed should be multiplied, and as one branch of that blessing, he promised unto the seed of Abraham, r Deut. 7.12.14 If they should hearken unto his laws and observe them, they should be blessed above all people, and there should be neither male nor female barren amongst them. Wherefore to be barren and without children, was with them a matter of much sorrow and shame, and as a token of not being beloved of God, but s Cyril. in Esa. lib. 5. come. 3. Gloria eorum in par●ubus & parturitionibus & conceptionibus. their glory, as Cyril citeth, was in births and bringing forth and conceiving. Now upon the Eunuch or gelded man the law of Moses had laid 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 have no place amongst them in their assemblies which were sacred and holy to the Lord. This therefore might seem to stand still as a bar against such, from being reckoned among the people of God; but God signifieth, that in Christ this bar also should be taken away. Cyril expoundeth the words thus, u Cyril ut supra. Siquis sit Eu●uchus, id est, careus liberis & sobole, ne dicat apud seipsum, ego sum lignum aridum, id est, ne molestè ferat orbitatem. Apud Deum enim nihil est, nec eum veijciet. If any man be an Eunuch, that is, wanting children and issue, let him not say with himself, I am a dry tree, that is, let him not take grievously his being deprived thereof. For with God this is nothing, neither will he for that cause reject him. He saith indeed afterwards, x Jbid. Nihil etiam nocet imò necesse esse dico, ut mentionem faciamus nunc eorum qui se propter regnum coel●rum Eunuchos reddiderun●, quibus cratio ae Deo hoc loco habita non abire accommodari potest. It is not hurtful, yea it is necessary, I say, that we here make mention of them who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, to whom the speech here used by God may, not impertinently, be applied, but he plainly enough importeth, that the proper construction of the words is that that he hath before delivered. God therefore willeth the Eunuch, not to account himself a dry tree, as not y Psal. 91.12. to be planted in the house of God, and as being deprived of the blessing of the people of God, but to know, that howsoever there lay upon him a note of exclusion by the Law, yet now if he would join himself in faith & religion to the people of God, he should be altogether as one of them, and howsoever his name might seem to die for want of sons & daughters, yet he should have a name better than the name of sons and daughters, even an everlasting name, which shall never be put out, but be glorious with God for ever. Men joy much in the continuance of their name by their issue and posterity, by sons & daughters, but to be named amongst the people of God and called one of his, is a far greater name than the name of many sons and daughters. Otherwise if we read it a better name than to the sons and daughter, it hath reference to the people of the jews, who for being of the seed of Abraham, were peculiarly reckoned for the children, for sons and daughters. Thus is it said of them by our Saviour Christ: z Mat. 8.12. The children of the kingdom shall be cast out: and again: a Cap. 15.26. It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. Therefore he giveth to understand, that the Eunuch by being the child of God, through the faith of jesus Christ hath a more glorious name, then if he were named of Abraham's seed, in the title whereof the jews so proudly & vainly rejoiced. In a word, the main drift of the Prophet's words generally of strangers, and particularly of Eunuches, is to signify in Christ the pulling down of the whole b Eph. 2.14. partition wall of all legal separations, that we should know there is an end of those differences and uncleannesses which the law imputed, and that now c Gal. 3.28. there is neither jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male or female, (no difference of maimed or whole) but all are one in Christ jesus, and d Act. 10.35. in every nation (and of every sort of men) he that feareth God and worketh righteousness 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 Eunuches in that sense as S. Austin speaketh of them. And whereas S. Austin so taketh the words, as that God should give to these Eunuches a better name than to sons and daughters, which to express M. Bishop translateth very falsely and corruptly a better name than if they had been called sons or daughters, as making the name of sons and daughters an inferior name to that that should be given to Eunuches, it is altogether improbable and unlikely which he conceiveth. The name of sons and daughters is the common name of all the faithful, and not a name of meaner quality belonging only to some inferior sort. Thus saith God concerning all his people: e 2. Cor. 6.17. Come out from amongst them, and separate yourselves, and touch no unclean thing, saith the Lord, and I will receive you, and I will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord almighty. S. Austin then might not say, that the eunuchs should receive a better name than the name of sons and daughters, because the highest honour that God giveth to them who touch no unclean thing, is to receive them for sons and daughters. Therefore Clemens Alexandrinus not understanding the words of any special place above the sons and daughters, but of a pre-eminence above them, who for not doing the things there specified, are rejected from being sons and daughters, saith; f Clem. Alexan. Serom. lib. 3. Si verbo obedierit Eunuchus, et sab bata custodierit per abstinentiam à peccatis, & fecerit mandata, honorabilior erit ijs qui absquerecta vitae institutione solo verbo erudiuntur. If the Eunuch obey the word, and keep the Sabbaths by abstaining from sin, and fulfil the commandments, he shall be more honourable than they who without ordering their life and conversation aright, are only taught and instructed by the word. Another place S. Austin allegeth to his purpose out of the Revelation of S. john, where he setteth down his vision of g revel. 14.1. a Lamb standing upon mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. Of them it is said anon after, h Vers. 4. These are they which are not defiled with women, for they are virgins: these follow the Lamb whither so ever he goeth; these are bought from men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb. In the applying of which place to virgins according to the flesh, we cannot but find a great want of that circumspection and judgement which S. Austin is wont to use, and take him to have been much blinded & carried away with prejudicate and partial affection, that could not discern his own error therein. Surely it is no light token of unheedinesse, that he reckoneth all to be defiled with women that are not corporally virgins. What, shall we hold the patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles to be defiled with women because they were married men? Would he account that a defilement which the holy Ghost pronounceth to be i Heb. 13.4. an undefiled bed? Again, it is to be noted that of these hundred forty and four thousand, it is said before that they were k revel. 7.4. sealed of all the tribes of the children of Israel. The numbers accord, and so l Origen. in Exo. hom. 1. Ex singulis tribubus duodexa milliae, etc. qui se cum multeribus non comquinaverint, sed virgines permanserint. Origen referreth them both to one, and if Origen will not serve, M. Bishop's masters of m Rhem. Test. Annot. revel. 14.1. Rheims acknowledge as much, giving a marginal note thus: Christ and the same number of elect that were signed Chapt. 7. Now how could Austin understand virgins according to the flesh amongst the tribes of Israel, amongst whom there never was any such profession of virginity? Therefore as touching this place we will oppose Ambrose against Austixe, who expounding the words of S. Paul: n 2. Cor. 11.2. I have prepared you for one husband to present you a pure virgin to Christ, saith thus: o Ambr. in 2. Co. cap. 11. Virgins vult eos esse in fide, unde & corruptores fidei zelatur ab his ut in die judicij incontaminatos eos assignet judici Christo. Hinc est unde in Apocalypsi joannis legitur, Hi sunt, inquit, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquina●: virgins enim pernianserunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocunque●erit. In mulieribus errorem significavit, quia error per mulierem coepit, sicut & jezabel mulurem dicit propter uxorem Achab quae zelo Baal Dei Prophetas occidit: cùm intelligatur idololatria qua corrumpuntur mores & fidei veritas. Nam si mulieres mulieres intelligas, ut ideò putes virgines dictas quia corpora sua intaminata seruaverunt, excludis ab hac gloria sanctos, quia omnes Apostoli exceptis joanne & Paulo uxores habuerunt He will have them to be virgins in the faith; by reason whereof he is jealous in their behalf of corrupters of the faith, that he may at the day of judgement present them undefiled unto Christ the judge. Hence is it that we read in the Revelation of S. john, These are they that have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins, etc. By women he signifieth error, because error began by the woman, even as he nameth the woman jezabel (chap. 2.20.) because of Ahabs' wife, who in zeal of Baal slew the Prophets of the Lord: whereas he meaneth idolatry wherewith the manners of men and true faith are corrupted. For if we understand women of women indeed, so that therefore we think them to be called virgins, because they kept their bodies untouched, we exclude the Saints from this glory, because all the Apostles except Paul and john had wives. Thus S. Ambrose expressly and by good reason rejecteth that exposition of S. Austin, and showeth that virginity in that place is not corporally to be understood, but spiritually, of being free from the corruption of heresy & idolatry, the enticements whereof are like the enticements and allurements of harlots, in which respect the city of Antichrist is called p Reu. 17.1.2. the whore of Babylon with whom the kings and nations of the earth commit whoredom and fornication, and therefore they that harken to such enticements, and break their faith to God, they are said to be defiled with women, according to the phrase that Moses often useth of q Levit. 20.5. going a whoring after other Gods. As on the other side * Orig. in Leuit. hom. 12. Anima fidei simplicitate & puritate actuum incorrupta probatur & virgo. by sincerity of faith and purity of conversation, the soul (saith Origen) is approved for a virgin and uncorrupt. So the author of the Commentaries upon the Revelation which go under S. Augustine's name, expoundeth the name of Virgins in the same place to import r Aug. in Apoc. hom. 11. Virgins hoc loco non solùm corpore castos intelligamus, sed maximè omnem Ecclesiam quae fidem puram tenet, sicut dicit Apost●lus: Desponsavi vos, etc. nulla haeriticorum adulterina commixtio●e pollutam, nec in malè blandi● & mortiferis huius mundi voluptatibus usque ad exitum vitae suae absque remedio poenitentiae infoelici perseverantia colligatam. not such only as are chaste in body, but rather or specially every Church which keepeth or holdeth pure faith, not polluted with the adulterous commixtion of heretics, nor unhappily continuing to the end without repentance in the dangerously flattering and deadly pleasures of this world, and citeth the place before mentioned to the Corinthians for declaration thereof. Thus we descent then from Austin as touching the application of those places of Scripture which he allegeth to his purpose, & the reader may perceive, that it is not without cause that we so do. Another thing wherein we cannot accord with him is, that he assigneth unto virgins a special glory peculiar to themselves, and eminent above all others, which under correction of so learned a father, we hold to be a very fabulous and vain conceit. For although virginity and single life do yield the opportunity of greater reward by giving liberty of greater work, yet it followeth not, that they have any thing so appropriated unto them, but that in married estate they that do the like work may rest in expectation of the like reward. The portion of all that s Gal. 3.9. are of the faith, is to be blessed with faithful Abraham, t Luk 16.22. to be carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosom, u Mat. 8.11. to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob in the kingdom of God. Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob were married men, and therefore virgins shall have their place all one with those that have been married. Our Saviour Christ told his Apostles, who all save john were married, that x Mat. 19.28. they should sit upon twelve seats to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. He gave them seats indifferently; he gave not john a special seat higher than all the rest, and shall we think that other virgins shall have seats above all them? They are mentioned as having y Re●. 21.14. their names written alike upon the twelve foundations of the Church, and shall we say, that one of their names was written in letters of gold, and all the rest with ink? Moses a married man, and Elias a virgin z Luk. 9.31. appeared with Christ not in any diverse, but both in the same glory. Therefore Ignatius a virgin also saith of himself, a Ignat. ad Philadelph. Opio dignus Deo inventus ad vestigia eorum (qui nuptijs operam dederunt) in regno mutuirit stiut Abraham, & Jsaac, & jacob, & joseph, & Esatae, & aliorum Prophetarum: si●ut Petri & Pauli, & alicrun Apostolorum qui nuptijs operam dederunt. I wish being found worthy of God, to be found in God's kingdom at the feet of them that were married, as of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, joseph, Esay and the other Prophets, as of Peter and Paul (mark that he reckoneth Paul for a married man) and other the Apostles who were married men. In a word, it was but S. Augustine's too great opinion of virginity in the flesh, that made him without any good grounds to entertain that conceit of some different and special glory in name thereof to be assigned unto virgins. Truth saith, the wisdom of God saith, that they who of religious purpose do forbear marriage, and use the gift of continency, do make themselves chaste for the kingdom of heaven, but truth doth not say, neither doth the wisdom of God say, that in name of virginity or continency they have greater reward than others, but only as they use the same more earnestly to seek the kingdom of heaven, which if the married do alike as they, they shall have reward alike. But saith M. Bishop, the Apostle assureth that single life is better for the service of God. And what? had not M. Perkins said so much to him, & do not we say the same? but we add, that it is better and more commodious where the gift of continency is, but where the gift of continency is not, there marriage is much better for the service of God. Again we say, it is most commonly, not always so, for b Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 10. Ita assum possunt nuptiae ut perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint. marriage (saith chrysostom) may be so taken, as that it shall be no hindrance to perfect life; even as the Ecclesiastical history saith of Spiridion a bishop, that c Soz omen. li 1. cap. 11. Vxorem habebat, & liberos, non tamen propterea res divinas negligentiùs obijt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he had wife and children, and was thereby no whit the worse about things pertaining to God. As for the words which he citeth out of the book of Wisdom, beside that they are no canonical Scripture they make nothing for him. They are an allusion to the words of Esay, & only signify that to the Eunuch that worketh righteousness, shall be given that excellent gift that belongeth unto faith, & a portion or state in the Lord's temple, which is a thing acceptable and blessed above all things, and that d Psal. 27.4. one thing above all things to be desired, but as touching comparison of portions in the house of God, it intendeth nothing. 14. W. BISHOP. Secondly, all the Protestants doctrine for marriage, & against vows, is notably confuted by S. Paul, * 1. Tim. 5. where he saith: That there were then certain widows, who when they waxed wanton against Christ, would marry, having damnation (saith he) because they made void and cast away their first faith: which was as S. Augustin * De sanct. vir. cap. 23. and the rest of the Fathers expound it, they had vowed continency, but would not perform it. Now these young widows (if the Protestants doctrine were true) not having the gift of continency, did very well to marry, and were in no sort bound to keep their vows, which was not in their power: but the Apostle doth not acquit them of their vow, but teacheth that they were bound to keep it in that he pronounceth damnation to them if they marry. R. ABBOT. To all that is here said I have fully answered before in the 7. Section. The Protestant's indeed say, & they make it good, that those young widows not having the gift of continency, did well to marry, and were by the Apostle willed to marry, lest haply any of them should by waxing wanton against Christ, fall into the like damnation as some other had done. An impious and devilish tyranny it is, when any have vowed rashly that that is not in their power, to tie them to their vow, and so to cause them by filthy lust and uncleanness to run into damnation, who by repentance of their unadvised rashness and using the remedy ordained by God, should keep themselves in pureness and peace of conscience to salvation. 15. W. BISHOP. Thirdly, the example of our heavenly Saviour, who would never marry: and of the blessed Virgin Saint Mary, who * Aug cap. 44. de virg. Bed. 1. Luc. vowed perpetual virginity: and of the glorious Apostles, who as S. Hierome witnesseth, * Clem. Alex: lib. 3. Strom. lib. 1. contra jovin. In Apol. 2. ad Aut. Tertul. apol. 2. cap. 9 were in part Virgins; and all after their following of Christ, abstained from the company of their wives. And of the best Christians in the purest antiquity, who, as justinus one of the ancientest Greek Authors among Christians; and Tertullian his peer among the Latins, do testify, * did live perpetual virgins. Out of these examples, we frame this argument. Our Captains and ringleaders, who knew well which was the best way, and whose examples we are to follow as near as we can, vowing Virginity, we must needs esteem that state for more perfect specially, when as the single man careth only how to please God, and to be holy in body and mind (as the Apostle writes) when as the married are choked with cares of this world. And unless a man had made a league with hell, or were as blind as a beetle, how can he ever persuade himself, that to wallow in fleshly pleasure, and satisfying of the beastly appetites, is as grateful to God, as to conquer and subdue them by Fasting and Prayer? Finally, if Saint Paul give counsel to the married, to contain during the time of Prayer * 1. Cor. 7. Priests and religious (that must always be in a readiness to minister the Sacraments, and to think upon such things as belong unto our Lord) are therefore upon a great consideration bound to perpetual chastity. R. ABBOT. To the first of these instances Clemens Alexandrinus answered long since, when by heretics it was used as M. Bishop now useth it against marriage. a Clem. Alexan. Strom lib. 3. Dicunt gloriosi isti iactatores se Dominum imitari, qui neque uxorem duxit, etc. Nesciunt causam cur Dominus uxorem non duxerit. Primum quidem sponsam habuit Ecclesiam Deind● verò nec homo erat communis ut opus haberet etiam adiutore aliquo secundum carnem. Neque erat ei necesse procreare filios qui manet in aeternum, & natus est solus Dei filius. These glorious bragger's (saith he concerning those heretics) tell us that they follow the Lord who married no wife, nor possessed any thing in the world. He answereth: They know not the cause why Christ married not. First he was to have the Church to be his proper spouse. Secondly, he was no common man that he should need a helper according to the flesh. Again, it was not needful for him to beget children who abideth himself for ever, and is borne the only Son of God. If M. Bishops wits had not greatly failed him, he would not have brought the name of our Saviour Christ into this question. We know that the incarnation of the Son of God was a matter of divine dispensation, and directed to special and certain ends & uses, and the marriage of a wife came not within any compass thereof. Yet he would honour marriage by vouchsafing to be borne in married estate, by choosing his Apostles almost all married men, by being present at a marriage, and gracing the same with a special miracle, by affirming the conjunction of marriage to be of God, and the bond thereof to be inviolable. His second instance is of the Virgin Mary, who he saith, vowed perpetual virginity: but that is false, neither is there any ground or any probability that she did so. He allegeth S. Austin for proof thereof, but S. Augustine's name is not sufficient, unless we have somewhat else to build upon. The Angel declared unto Mary, that Christ should be borne of her: she asketh, b Luk. 1.34. How shall this be seeing I knew not a man? This he saith imported, that she had vowed virginity, c Aug. de sanct. Virg. cap 4. Non quaesisset promissum sibi filium, quomodo foemina paritura esset si concubitura nupsisset. because she would not have asked how she being a woman, should bring forth a son being promised unto her, if she had intended by marriage to have company with joseph? But S. Austin here preiudicateth himself, in that he acknowledgeth, that d Ibid. Hoc Israelitarum mores adhuc recusabant the manner or custom of the jews did not then bear this vow: which being true, how should we think that she should before hand grow into the opinion or conceit of such a vow. Again, how improbable is it, that having vowed virginity, she would betrothe herself in marriage, when as amongst that people it was accounted a matter of so great reproach to faithful women, to die without issue, which she knew not then should in virginity befall her? Moreover how unlikely is it, that having vowed virginity she would put herself under e 1. Cor. 7.4. the power of a husband, unless it could be proved, which cannot, that joseph had vowed continency as well as she? Surely it cannot be doubted, but that in sooth and simplicity at the first they intended their marriage according to the usual manner of other faithful and godly persons. As for the reason that S. Austin giveth it is unsufficient, because there might be cause of ask that question without any intedement of such a vow. Thereof let M. Bishop be informed by S. Ambrose who maketh this the cause, f Ambr. in Luc. 1. A●cipe inquit signum tibi, E ce virgate vt●s, etc. Legerat hoc M ria●dco credidit suturum: sed qu● modo si●ret ante no● legerat Non enim quemaedmodum fi●ret velianto Prophetae fuerat reuel●um. The Prophet saith, Take unto thee a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a child. This Mary had read, and therefore she believed that it should come to pass, but how it should be she had not read. For to so great a Prophet it was not revealed how it should be. Mary than knew well that she was not to conceive him of whom the Angel spoke by the knowledge of man, and therefore asketh how it should be otherwise, seeing it should not be that way? but as touching vowing virginity there is nothing here meant. M. Bishops third example is of the Apostles, of which he saith, part were virgins: but knowing well that that part was a very small part, for there are none of them said to have been virgins, but only Paul and john. And yet concerning Paul albeit some say, that he was never married, as I alleged before out of Ambrose, yet some of the more ancient affirm, that he was married, as namely we have seen Ignatius g Sect. 13. before reckoning him amongst married men. So doth also Clemens Alexandrinus say, that h Clem Alexan. Sirom lib. 3. Paulus certè non veretur in quadain Epist●la suam appellare coniugem, quam non circumserebat quòd no magno eiopus esset ministerio. Paul is not abashed in one of his Epistles to speak to his wife, which he did not lead about with him, because he needed not much to be ministered unto. The words which he meaneth are to the Philippians: i Phil. 4.3. I beseech thee faithful yoke-fellow help those women which laboured with me in the Gospel. It is true, that in respect of that power that he had of himself for containing, he saith: k 1 Cor. 7.7. I would that all men were even as I myself am, but these authors (as we see) have holden that for no necessary proof, but that Paul might be married also as the rest were. Yea but all of them (saith M. Bishop) after their following of Christ abstained from the company of their wives. But that is more than Master Bishop can prove, yea Clemens Alexandrinus against those Heretics before mentioned condemning marriage, asketh thus: l Clem. Alex. ut supra. An etiam Apostolos reprobani? Petrusenim & Philippus filion procrearunt: Philiopus autem filias quoque suas viris tradidit. Do they also reject the Apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children, and Philip bestowed his daughters to husbands. And this of Peter is confirmed by the legend of the Roman Church, which amongst many notable lies & counterfeit stories lighted no doubt upon some truth. The Legend recordeth that Peter had a daughter named from his own name given him in his Apostleship, Petronella, which in the time of the persecution by Domitian the Emperor, was much desired by Flaccus a noble man, and thereby appeareth to have been then but young, whereas if she were not born after the time that Peter was an Apostle, she must needs be above threescore years old, it being no less from the time that Peter was called, to the time of that persecution. And to give the more likelihood hereof, we find it certain that Peter led his wife with him from place to place where he preached, as did also other of the Apostles, whereof the Apostle S. Paul speaketh manifestly: m 1. Cor. 9.5. Have we not power to lead about a sister being a wife, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? M. Bishop will say he meant it not of wives, but of other devout women: as though it were not more likely, that the Apostles having wives should lead about their own wives rather than strange women. Yea and the words of the Apostle convict it so to be understood, who would not be absurd in speech, to say a sister being a woman, and therefore must needs be taken to say a sister being a wife: & therefore they that take it otherwise are feign to falsify & misplace the Apostles words as the vulgar Latin doth. And whereas they are wont to say that those devout women should go about with the Apostles to minister unto them of their substance, as some did to our Saviour Christ, it cannot be the meaning of the Apostle here, because he speaketh here of a power whereby he might burden the Church with himself and his: but the going about of such women with them had been the disburdening of the Church. Yea & such women should have been said to have followed them, not to be led about by them, neither would the Apostle have spoken singly as of one, because it could not but have caused suspicion & obloquy, to go one with one, save only with their own wives. And thus Clemens Alexandrinus in the place before cited understandeth it of the Apostles wives, & showeth the cause why the Apostles took them with them, n Clem. Strom. lib 3 Ministraturae apud mulieres quae ●●mos custo●tebant. per quas etiam in gynaecaeum alsque reprehensione malauè suspitione ingredi posset doctrina Domini to minister to women which kept the houses, & that by them the doctrine of the Lord without reproof or evil suspicion might enter into the closerts of women. This was the special cause of their leading them about, & in that respect Clement saith, that o Jbid. Non ut uxores, sed ut soreres circumducebant. they led them not as wives but as sisters, not in regard that they were wives only, but for that they were also sisters in the faith of Christ, & in the hope of the Gospel, and thereby meet for that use, which was the thing properly intended in the leading of them. But hereby he showeth, that certain it is, that the Apostles led their wives about with them, & so namely the Apostle S. Peter, of whom he hath before said as we have heard, that he also begat children: and when afterward his wife was put to death for the faith of Christ, he was there present, as the same Clement also testifieth in another place, & did p Idem Sirom. lib. 7. Cum vides. sei uxorem su●a duci ad mortem, etc. exhortanis & consolando proprio nomine eam compellans dixit: Heus tu, memento Domini. Tale erat beatorum matrimonium, & usque adamiciss●ma perfecta affectio. Vide Euseb. hist. lib ●. cap. 27. exhort and comfort her, and calling to her, said: O wife remember the Lord jesus. Such (saith he) was the marriage of such blessed persons, and their perfect affection, even to the greatest amity. Now last of all M. Bishop for example nameth the best Christians in the purest antiquity living perpetual virgins: he citeth for it justin Martyr and Tertullian, when he taketh it indeed from the fantastical dream of his own idle head. Of the best Christians neither of them saith a word, only they say that some did live virgins and unmarried amongst them, to show how far they were from the fornications & incests, which were usually practised amongst the Pagans. justin having said, that by the doctrine of Christ he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her in his heart, & that not only the committing of adultery, but also the will and desire thereof maketh a man rejected of him, inferreth these words: q Iust. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Surely many with us both men and women of threescore or seventy years, who from their childhood have learned the doctrine of Christ, do continue uncorrupt, and I glory that in all sorts of our men I can show such. The Translator to uncorrupt, hath added coelibes, unmarried, but there is no reason by the words of justin to understand any thing else, but that they kept themselves uncorrupt from fornication & uncleanness, which it was hard to find, that any amongst the Pagans to such years had done. But yet of that I will not contend: only I say, that taking the words of unmarried persons, here is nothing said that either they were the best, or better than any other. No more is there in the words of Tertullian, who taxing the fornications & incestuous filthiness of the Pagans, saith: r Tertul. Apolo. cap. 8. cap. 9 Nos ab ifto eventu diligentissima & fidelissima castitas sepsit. quantumcun● à flupris & omni post matrimonium excessu, tantum & ab incesti casu iutisumus. Quidam multò securiores totam vim huius erroris virginea continentia depellunt, senes, pu●ri. Most diligent & faithful chastity hath hedged us in from such event, & as far as we are from fornication, & all excess beyond marriage, so far are we from the case of incest. Yea some both old & young do put away the whole force of this error by continency of virginity. Now what is there here whereupon M. Bishop should say, that the best Christians lived in perpetual Virginity? But we must not stand upon such matters: either we must give hime leave to do thus, or else he must write no more. Well, we see now that his examples are far from serving his turn, and therefore in stead of his blind argument gathered of selfe-conceipts we will argue thus: that seeing none of our captains and ringleaders whom God hath set before us as examples to be followed, have given us any example of the vow of virginity, therefore we must condemn it as a blind, a wilful, and superstitious vow. Nay we will argue further: Abraham our Father, s Rom. 4.12. in the steps of whose faith we are to walk, & into whose bosom we shall be gathered, was a married man, not once only, but twice married. So were the rest of the Patriarches married men; and so the Priests, the Prophets, the Apostles, and almost all that the Scripture setteth before us as examples of perfection. Therefore they are lewd hypocrites and no true teachers, that bear us in hand that Christian perfection cannot stand with marriage. Yea but the single man, saith M. Bishop, careth only how to please God, and to be holy in body and mind, as the Apostle writes, when as the married are choked with the cares of this world. But the Apostle only telleth us, what may be by the condition of single life, and the right use thereof, not what always and necessarily is. For we know that the married many times less careth for the things of the world than the unmarried, and the unmarried many times less careth to please God then the married doth. What, did M. Bishop and his fellows care only how to please God in that heat of spirit, whereby they were carried against the jesuits? or do the jesuits, yea their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops, care only to please God? Good men, they have all quite given over the world, and they breathe nothing but only heaven. A man may wonder at the impudence of this man, who doubteth not to speak so contrary to his own knowledge both in himself and the rest of them. It is true, that single life hath ordinarily more opportunity and liberty to the service of God than marriage, which is the thing that the Apostle meaneth, but seldom is it so used or never, but that marriage in some attaineth to as great holiness and perfection as single life. But M. B. in great anger goeth forward saying: Unless a man had made a league with hell, or were as blind as a beetle, how can he ever persuade himself, that to wallow in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of the beastly appetites is as grateful to God as to conquer and subdue them by fasting and prayer. Where we see a beastly filth out of a profane mouth and stinking breath, so speak of sacred & holy matrimony, as if there were nothing therein but wallowing in fleshly pleasure, and satisfying of beastly appetites. What, is it a matter of sacrament with them to wallow in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of beastly appetites? Doth he teach their married Catholic disciples that they wallow in fleshly pleasure, and satisfying of beastly appetites? Surely the ancient Church of Rome held l Tertul. de pud. E●usque tame●o ●uit ut moderatio libidinum pudicitia credatur. the moderation of lusts (by marriage) to be chastity, as Tertullian in behalf of Montanus upbraideth them, and Paphnutius informed the Council of Nice & they received it, that the m Socrat. hist. lib 1. cap. 8. Viri cum legitima uxore concubitum castimoniam appellatut. company of a man with his own wife is chastity, & what then shall we think of a filthy carrion, that accounteth nothing to be in marriage but wallowing in fleshly pleasure, & satisfying of beastly appetites, thereby blaspheming the sacred institution of God, & traducing all those holy men of God, of whom before was spoken, that lived in married state. Now further he telleth us, that S. Paul giveth counsel to the married, to contain during the time of prayer, where I leave it to thee, gentle Reader, to esteem whether the man were sober in so reciting the words of the Apostle. S. Paul saith: n 1. Cor. 7.5. Defraud not one another except it be with consent for a time, that ye may attend to fasting and prayer. Which words have manifest reference to extraordinary occasions of humbling ourselves to God, and of testifying unto him the grief and sorrow of our hearts, by depriving ourselves of the use of all those things whereof we take any joy or delight according to the flesh, or to any special occasions of gathering our spirits and souls more nearly unto God, whereby it concerneth us to departed as I may say, so much the further from ourselves. In this sort God when he was to give the law to prepare the people to due reverence and attention, commanded them three days before o Exod. 19.15. to be sanctified, to wash their clothes, and not to come at their wives. Another time being greatly offended with them, he commandeth them p Cap. 33.5. to lay aside their costly raiment, that they might show the sorrow of their hearts by a neglect and carelessness of the attiring of their bodies. And thus we know, that fasting in such cases is usually adjoined to prayer, that the afflicting of the body may sharpen and give edge to the affection of the soul. Upon such occasions the Apostle permitteth some withdrawing of the husband from the wife, but yet with this exception, that it be by consent, and but only for a time, and then come together again, saith he, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Where when he requireth consent, he giveth to understand, that where there is necessity of fasting & prayer, and yet consent of defrauding cannot be obtained, there fasting and prayer is to be used without defrauding, because defrauding may not be without consenting. Now these words belonging to special occasions, and being only conditional, the Romish hypocrites will have to concern all times, and to be absolutely so meant, as if ordinarily there could be no prayer where there is the company of man and wife. As if the Apostle would say, Let the husband give to the wife due benevolence, and likewise the wife to the husband, and yet tell them withal, that if they do so they cannot pray. But the Apostle S. Peter in this and all other respects willeth q 1. Pet. 3.7. husbands to dwell with their wives as men of knowledge, giving honour to the wife as to the weaker vessel, that (saith he) your prayers be not interrupted. So far was he from thinking the society of the faithful husband and wife to be the interrupting of their prayers, as that he instructeth carefully to preserve it, that their prayers may not be interrupted. And who doubteth but that those lessons of holy Scripture whereby we are taught r Luk. 18.1. to pray always, and not to wax weary, s 1. Thes. 5.17. to pray continually, t 1. Tim. 2.8. to pray every where, do concern the married as well as the unmarried, and therefore do import that marriage hindereth not but that we may so do. Surely it concerneth the holy men of God to pray as much as it concerneth us, even the Patriarches & Prophets, and other just and righteous men, neither can we doubt but that religiously and holily they performed that devotion unto God, and yet they lived in marriage, and their wives were partakers with them in this godly service. How is it come to pass, that marriage is a blot and hindrance to our prayers, seeing it was none to theirs? or if marriage be no bar against the prayers and devotions of other faithful people, what ail Priests and religious persons, that they cannot pray & perform other service to God if they be married? Until the time of Solomon who first ordered the attendance of the Priests by turns, the high Priest of the jews whom it concerned to be most pure & holy of any creature under heaven, yet in married estate, & performing the offices thereof presented himself daily unto God, bearing the figure and person of jesus Christ our high Priest the Son of God, and wearing a frontlet wherein it was engraven, u Exod. 28.36. Holiness to the Lord. Moreover, after the dividing of their courses, it is not found that ever the Priests in the time of their ministration were forbidden the company of their wives. What then is it but superstitious hypocrisy, that maketh Romish Priests to say they cannot holily do their service unto God, if they be married as they were? It is well observed by Clemens Alexandrinus, that x Clem Serom. lib. 3. Apostoli epistolae cum de matrimonio & liberorum procreatione innumerabilia praecepta contineant nusquam honestum moderatumque matrimonium prohibuerunt sed legis cum evangelio servants convenientiam utrunque admittunt, etc. the Apostles Epistles though giving innumerable precepts of marriage, and procreation of children, and governing the house, yet do no where forbid or abrogate honest and modest marriage, but keeping an accord betwixt the law and the Gospel, do admit both of the married and the unmarried. Now if there be an accord to be kept in this behalf betwixt the law and the Gospel, and that the Apostle did keep, than it is manifest that he determined not marriage to be any hindrance to sacred ministrations in the Gospel, because in the law it was not so. In a word, both Priests and religious, if they have not the gift of continency, are by marriage to be fitted to the service of God, which in the pollutions of incontinency they cannot do as they ought to do. Master Bishop saith, they are bound to chastity, but that is not true. They are bound from marriage, but to chastity they cannot be bound. If they have not the gift of continency, they cannot be chaste, but are polluted and defiled both in body and soul, with unchaste and lewd affections. But such pollution and uncleanness is no let with them to the service of God, only marriage is a let: polluted and defiled let them be, but married they may not be. 16. W. BISHOP. We will close up this point with some sentences taken out of the ancient Fathers, in praise of Virginity, which M. P. in all this question vouchsafeth scarce once to name, as though Virgins and Virginity were no English words, or not as plain as continency. S. Cyprian, De habitu Virginum, entitleth Virgins to be the most noble and glorious persons of Christ's flock: and addeth, that they shall receive of God the highest reward and greatest recompense. S. chrysostom * Lib. 3. cont. vitup. vit. neces. citeth, Virginity to be the top of perfection, and the highest tip of virtue. And Athanasius, De Virginitate, in the end bursteth out into these words: O Virginity, a treasure that wasteth not, a garland that withereth not; the Temple of God, the Palace of the holy Ghost, a precious stone, whose price is not known to the vulgar, the joy of the Prophets, the glory of the Apostles, the life of Angels, the Crown of Saints. S. Ambrose Lib. 1. de Virginibus paulò post init. Virginity is a principal virtue, and not therefore commendable that it is found in Martyrs, but because it maketh Martyrs: Who can with human wit comprehend it, which nature doth not hold within her laws? it hath fetched out of heaven that it might imitate on earth: neither unfitly hath it sought a manner of life in heaven, which hath found a spouse for her in heaven. This surmounting the clouds, the stars and Angels hath found the word of God in the bosom of his Father, etc. See who list to read more to this purpose the rest of the Fathers in their works of virginity; of which most of them have written. And S. Jerome, who is behind none of the rest in his books against jovinian and helvidius, all which do most diligently exhort to vow virginity, do teach how to keep it, and most vehemently inveigh against all them that do break it. And if any be so mad as to credit rather our fleshly ministers, than all that honourable and holy Senate of the ancient Fathers, he deserveth to live and die in perpetual darkness. In this matter I have stayed somewhat longer, because our carnal teachers, with the lewd example of their dissolute Disciples, have corrupted our age with fleshly and beastly liberty: In the other points, I will recompense it with brevity. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins rather nameth continency then virginity, because virginity noteth properly the state of the body, but continency is the virtue of the mind, which governeth and preserveth the integrity of the body. As for those great commendations which the fathers by him mentioned, and other of them do give to virginity, we so much the less respect them, by how much the more the same fathers have made it appear unto us, as a Sect. 12. before we have seen, that those commendations were but snares and advantages taken and used by Satan for the entangling of many thousand souls to sin, & to their own damnation. Their immoderate and excessive opinion and extolling thereof, drew many thousands to undertake the profession of single life, who when they neither could perform what they had undertaken, nor might without reproach and infamy leave their course, were content even to cast themselves into the devils mouth, and by practice of lewd and unclean life, to work their own confusion and overthrow. Albeit we would ask M. Bishop what it is, for which they commended virginity in so high measure and degree? If they respected the integrity of the flesh, what was it more than was to be found amongst heathen idolaters, as in the vestal virgins and others, or then is now to be found amongst the Turks? If he will say that they respected it as dedicated to God, why should they make that a service to God, wherein they that knew not God, might glory as well as they, and wherein for itself there was nothing that concerneth the service of God? If he will say that they conceived it not as in itself to be a service of God, but only regarded the employing of it to those things whereby God is served, they meant nothing against us, because we also conceive the power of virginity to be an excellent gift, and worthy to be admired and honoured, where according to the freedom and liberty that it giveth, it is faithfully bestowed to the service of jesus Christ. An excellent gift I say, as the gift of learning, the gift of eloquence, the gift of tongues & such like, which may be in the evil as well as in the good, & therefore are no otherwise acceptable to God, but only in their use. Now as excellent gifts are very seldom and rare, so is it in this; many may be willing, but few attain unto it; and therefore it was the great oversight of many of the fathers, so promiscuously to entertain multitudes, and by such bonds to tie them to that kind of life, whereto so many were unable, and whereof they found that to be true which Hierome confesseth, that b Hieron. adu. jovin. lib. 1. Jn●●pere plurimorum est, perseverare paucorum. it was in very many to begin, but in few to persevere. As touching their sayings which M. Bishop allegeth, they need not much to be stood upon. If they speak of virginity in the two former sorts now mentioned, they fall of themselves. If in the last meaning I answer, let virgins be according to the pattern which they describe, c Cyprian. de hab. virg. Quibus desideria tam carnis & corporis nullae sunt. Sola in vobis quae sunt virtutis & spiritus ad gloriam remanscrunt. that there be in them no desires of the flesh and of the body, and there remain in them only the things of virtue and of the spirit for the receiving of heavenly glory, and we will honour them as the more excellent portion of the Lords flock, and the top of Christian perfection, not for their virginity but for their piety, whereof notwithstanding they have the better opportunity by virginity; and only so as that if married persons shall equal them in piety, they shall stand as high as they. The saying of Athanasius as he allegeth it is a counterfeit, neither was Athanasius the Author of any so base a work. The words here cited do show the singular undiscretion both of the Author that wrote them, & M. Bishop that cited them, in that he calleth virginity the joy of the Prophets, and the glory of the Apostles, when in a manner all, both the Prophets & Apostles were married men and not virgins; and the life of Angels, when it is a thing nothing concerning Angels. These are but flourishes of vain wits which respect not how substantial, but how glorious their words be. And to such Rhetorical amplifications, Ambrose as touching that matter of virginity is too much affected, and appropriateth those things to the devotion of virgins, which nothing hindereth, but that they should be common to the faith and devotion of married estate. He so speaketh, as if heavenly life were only to be found in virgins, whereas in married persons the Scripture setteth before us the special examples and patterns thereof. As for Hierome, he needeth no censure of ours, being of old sufficiently censured by the Church of Rome, as before hath been showed. We reverence his learning, but yet we cannot but acknowledge in him some want both of modesty and piety, where in a preposterous humour of extolling virginity, he speaketh basely and rudely concerning marriage, and doubteth not to transcribe into his works those sentences and arguments, which Tertullian in his heresy used to the same purpose against the Church, as to him that compareth his epistle ad Gerontiam de Monogamia, and first book against jovinian to Tertullias book de Monogamia, will easily appear. To be short, all the exhortations & rules that they could use for the keeping of virginity, could not avail, but that the stink thereof hath always been loathsome to the world. They set banks against a stream that could not be stayed, and thereby caused a deluge and overflowing of great uncleanness. Which if chrysostom saw to be such, as that he held it better there should be no more virgins, as before was showed, what shall we but take them wilfully to dwell in darkness, who after so much further experience, continue to maintain that damnable vow, which all Christian ages from the time that it first began, have had cause to rue. As for the ministers, they live in chaste and lawful marriage, as the Prophets and Apostles have done, and can for that be no more accounted carnal and fleshly than they were, yea and they think that the walls of the stews and Surgeons instruments beyond the seas, and the confession closerts of many female Recusants at home will bear witness at that day, that they have not been so carnal and fleshly as Romish Priests. 17 W. BISHOP. Concerning the vow of poverty and monastical life, in which, as M. Perkins acknowledgeth, men bestow all they have upon the poor, and give themselves to Prayer and Fasting: yet he is not ashamed to avouch that this vow is against the will of God, and assayeth to prove it: Acts cap. 20. verse. 35. It is a more blessed thing to give, than to receive. Answer. As the very proposition (that it is displeasing to God to cut off all cares of the world, and to betake ourselves wholly to his holy service and contemplation of heavenly matters) is in itself profane and ungodly, so the proof thereof is devoid of natural wit and sense. Mark the Argument: It is against God's will to give away all, because it is more blessed to give than to receive: Why, if it be a more blessed thing to give; than they please God better that give. So that this his proof, improoues flatly his own assertion: But the dreamer means perhaps, that if you give all at once, you shall not be able to give afterward, but rather stand in need to receive. Reply. But no such human prudence can be drawn out of that sentence, which encourageth rather to give for the present, then to provide for hereafter. The true meaning of the place, is to exhort Christians to labour and travail, at vacant times to get their own living, and to provide something also to bestow upon them who stand in need rather than to be idle, and to stand in need of alms, as S. Paul himself did: which they did best perform, who had sold all they had, and distributed it to the poor, as the example of Paul himself, and the first Christians doth sufficiently declare, who sold all, and laid the price at the Apostles feet. * Act. 4. R. ABBOT. He hath promised us here to be short, and I will promise him not to be very long, because of this matter sufficient hath been said before, in a Sect. 18. answer of the epistle to the King. This vow of poverty, as was there said, is but a branch of the heresy of the Euchites or Messalian heretics, who in like sort as Popish Monks did profess b Epiphan. haer. 80. Videntur ut qui renunciaverint mundo et de proprijs bonis secesserint, etc. Non habent possessionem, ut inquiunt, in terra, etc. Extendunt manus & petunt velut victu carentes et nihil possidentes, etc. Orationibus va●antes. etc. to renounce the world, and to departed from their goods, having any thing of their own, nor any possession upon earth, and therefore stretching forth the hand, and begging as having nothing whereof to live, otherwise giving themselves wholly to prayer, and c Aug. de haeres. Tantum orant ut e● qui hoc de illis audiunt incredibile videatur, praying so much, saith S. Austin, as might seem incredible to them that hear of it. They carried as goodly a show as that is that M. Bishop here allegeth, but their renouncing of the world and praying was adjudged heretical, and so is that that he defendeth, and so much the more damnable for the superstitions and blasphemies that are added to it, as touching heavenly perfection, satisfaction for sins, merit of supererogation, whereby they are able to give spiritual help towards the saving of the souls of other men. He talketh of cutting of worldly cares, & betaking men's selves wholly to the service of God, and contemplation of heavenly matters, but he knoweth that their vow of poverty hath not cut off worldly cares, but hath sent their begging Friars up & down the country, & hath set them a work to be scraping & craving, that they have had small leisure to the contemplation of heavenly matters. The contemplation of heavenly matters is a goodly speech, but alas it is a matter that they for the most part are little acquainted with; their rising was the fall of all learning, & it was grown to a byword, d Vide. Hospin. de Orig. Monachat. lib. 6. ca 18: More unlearned them a Monk, & therefore very unfit were they for the contemplation of heavenly matters. In a word, it is well known that without the vow of poverty, men have more fruitfully given themselves to the contemplation of heavenly things, than ever they have done in the profession of that vow. They have lewdly abused the world, and under pretence of poverty, have bestirred and busied themselves by begging, to engross and clasp into their hands the riches and pleasures of the world, and whilst they had nothing in propriety, they had in community whereof to live like Epicures and belly-gods, and were nothing less than that they would seem to be. But to come to the point, Master Perkins against the vow of poverty or beggary, allegeth the words of Christ, e Act. 20.35. It is a more blessed thing to give then to receive. Master Bishop saith, that this proof is devoid of natural wit and sense, and calleth him dreamer for the alleging of it. But would not a man think Master Bishop himself to be out of his wits, that would give this answer, and by and by confess that Master Perkins cited the place in other meaning? He well knoweth that the vow of poverty importeth a condition and state of life for the time to come, and implieth giving but only accidentally, because a man that hath something, must needs give that away before he can be in state to have nothing, but if he have nothing, he can give nothing, and yet that is no impeachment to his vow. The argument than standeth good, that because it is a blessing of God to be in state to give rather than to receive, therefore for a man to renounce that state, wherein God hath made him able to give, and by a vow of poverty to bind himself to a state wherein he must beg and receive of others, is wilfully to renounce the blessing of God, and witlessly to undertake that which God threateneth to the wicked for a curse, f Psal. 109.10. Let his children be vagabonds and beg their bread. The words of Christ do plainly instruct us to take such course, and to maintain so far as we can that condition of life, wherein we may have to show our charity & love, as occasion serveth, to our brethren that stand in need. But this M. Bishop calleth human prudence; and telleth us that the sentence rather encourageth to give for the present, then to provide for hereafter. The sentence indeed encourageth to give, but it teacheth a man so to give, as remembering always, that it is a blessed thing to give rather than to receive, and therefore so to give, as that still he may give, and not wilfully to put himself in case to receive only or beg, and not to give. And this is not to be careful of providing for hereafter, but only not to tempt God by carelessness, and by wilful unproviding & depriving himself of that which God hath provided for him whereof to do good, and to show mercy both for the present & for hereafter. Now he that upbraided M. Perkins even now to be devoid of natural wit and sense, is himself here so witless & senseless, as that he seethe not his own answer to make directly against himself. For if the place do teach men to labour and travel, that they may have to bestow upon others that need, then surely it condemneth them who make a vow, that they never will have any thing to give to them that stand in need. S. Paul laboured that he might have of his own to supply his own necessity, and to help others. So did they, saith M. Bishop, that sold their lands, and laid the price down at the Apostles feet. So doth S. Paul teach all men: g Ephe. 4.28. Let him that stole, steal no more, but let him rather labour & work with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have to give unto him that needeth. But the vow of poverty and beggary, disableth a man for ever from being capable of any thing of his own, whereof he may minister to them that need. This vow therefore is contrary to those rules and precepts which the Apostle gave for the direction of Christian life. 18. W. BISHOP. The next place is, * Pro. 30.8. Give me neither riches nor poverty. Answer. The Prayer is good, and fitteth the persons of honest men who live in the world, and was of some perfection too in the state of Moses law, in which it was made, as dissuading from covetousness of great riches, but it cometh too short of the perfection of the Gospel, wherein we are counseled to esteem as dung all worldly riches. R. ABBOT. He blamed M. Perkins answer in the former Section, as devoid of natural wit and sense, but I pray thee, gentle Reader, if thou light upon him to ask him, where his wits were when he gave this answer. To the one part he answereth, a Pro. 30.8. Give me not riches, but to the other part, Give me not poverty, which is the thing urged against him, he answereth nothing. We are counseled in the Gospel, he saith, to esteem as dung all worldly riches. True, & therefore we say, Give me not riches. But yet in the Gospel we are taught to pray for that that is convenient according to our place and condition, when we say, Give us this day our daily bread, and therefore we say, Give me not poverty, whereupon it is added; Feed me with food convenient for me. The prayer, saith he, fitteth the persons of honest men that live in the world. Hypocrite who taught thee this distinction of prayers? Hath the spirit of God set it down as a prayer of the wisest man, and is it now come to be posted over to I know not what honest men? It was of some perfection, he saith, in the state of Moses law, but cometh too short of the perfection of the Gospel. Hypocrite, the Apostle hath taught us, that b Rom. 15.4. whatsoever things were written before time, were written for our learning, and must we upon the word of an idle Sophister be persuaded, that that prayer is too base for us to learn? And what? were not men taught in the state of Moses law, to esteem as dung all worldly riches? Did not David say: c Psal. 62.10. If riches increase set not your heart upon them. Did not Solomon say of riches, d Prou. 23.5. Wilt thou cast thine eyes upon that that is nothing? Did not Esay say, e Esa. 40.6. All flesh is grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field? Were they not as fully taught to despise the world, and to joy in God as we are? But the man so dreameth of perfection, perfection, as that we may very well think, that there is some very great imperfection in his head. In a word therefore, God hath taught a man to say, Give me not poverty, but they teach a man to say, I will vow poverty, 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 poverty is numbered among the curses of the law, none of which are to be vowed. Answer. It is one thing to be punished with poverty for transgressing of God's law, and another (I trow) for the love of God to give away all we have to the poor: The former was a curse in the law of Moses, the latter is a blessing, and the first blessing in the Gospel: * Luc. 6. Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven: Which sentence, albeit it may be applied very well unto humility, yet more literally signifieth voluntary poverty, as by the sentence opposed against it is manifest: * Ver. 23. Woe be to you rich men, etc. R. ABBOT. The words of Moses are, a Deut. 28.44. The stranger shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not (have to) lend to him. b Ver. 48. Thou shalt serve thine enemies in hunger and thirst, and in nakedness, and in need of all things. Christ hath taught us before, that it is a blessing to have whereof to give; and Moses teacheth us that it is a curse to be in want, & not to have whereof to lend; & what is then the vow of poverty but the renouncing of a blessing and the voluntary undergoing of a curse? M. Bishop answereth, that it is one thing to be punished with poverty for transgressing the law of God, another for the love of God to give all to the poor. But than is it done for the love of God, when God calleth us to the doing of it; otherwise it is no matter of the love of God, but of human presumption and selfwil. Therefore his answer here is all one, as if he should say, It is one thing for a man to be accursed of God, another thing voluntarily to lay God's curse upon himself; and how well that serveth his turn, let himself judge. Yet he will prove 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 poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. We may see the poor man was driven to poor shifts, when he was feign to use this text for the making good of his vow of poverty. If his leisure had served him he would have turned to the fift of Matthew, and there have seen our Saviour expounding himself, d Mat. 5.2. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Now a man would think that M. Bishop's learning should have taught him long before this, that a man may be rich in worldly goods, and yet poor in spirit; and that undoubtedly Abraham the father of all believers was such a one. Yea saith he, it may well be applied to humility, yet more literally it signifieth voluntary poverty. And how may that appear? forsooth by the sentence opposed against it, it is manifest, Woe be to you rich men. But I marvel what strings M. Bishop hath to tie this argument together: Christ saith, Woe be to you rich men: therefore that which he saith before, Blessed are ye poor, must necessarily be understood of voluntary poverty. What, doth Christ absolutely mean woe to all that be rich? When he expoundeth the poor to be poor in spirit, doth he not teach us proportionably to understand the rich? This childish collection is reproved by our Saviour Christ, when his disciples being astonished at that which he said, e Mark 10.23: How hardly do they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God: he answereth f Ver. 24. Children (thereby reproving their weakness of understanding) how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God? The woe than 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 uncertain riches, but in the living God. Christ having showed the end of the man that trusted in riches, addeth, h Luk. 12 21. So is every one that gathereth riches to himself, and is not rich in God. Woe be to them that are rich in this world and are not rich in God, but a man may be rich in this world, & yet rich in God also by acknowledging spiritually his own poverty in himself, and receiving all things of God's mercy. Seeing therefore a man may be rich according to this world, and yet none of them to whom Christ saith, Woe be to rich men, surely nothing hindereth but that a man may be rich, and yet may be one of those poor whom Christ pronounceth to be blessed, and therefore M. Bishops argument is idle, and proveth nothing less, then that Christ's sentence is to be understood of voluntary poverty, so that still it remaineth good, that the vow of poverty and beggary is the voluntary casting away of the blessing of God, and the undertaking of his curse. 20. W. BISHOP. Thus M. Perkins his texts of Scripture against poverty failing him, he fetcheth about another way, saying that it is a rule of the holy Ghost: He that will not labour (namely in some special and warrantable calling) must not eat * Thess. 2. . Ans. I allow both the text and the gloss, and find nothing there against religious persons, whose calling is special perfect, and therefore best warrantable: not so (saith he) because they give themselves to prayer & fasting. What a profane stupidity is this? Is not a life given to prayer and fasting agreeable to the will of God and laws of his church? albeit many religious men do over and beside very great services to God's church, in preaching, teaching and writing of most learned books. But suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray, did they not very well deserve their sustenance? yes much better than they which travel all the year about the providing of it. For in vain do men labour if God bless not their work with seasonable weather, which he doth rather at the prayer and instance of such good innocent souls that are to be fed with it, then for the Ploughman's own labours sake. And if by their fasting, watching and such like afflictions of their bodies, they do partly satisfy for our superfluous pampering of the flesh, and teach us by their good example to bridle and correct it: do they not deserve at our hands bodily sustenance? And who better performs all duties of the second table than they, being most obedient to all their superiors, and not hurting their neighbour in life, person, or any manner of their goods? And so in their several callings offend no honest men, and do much good both unto the Church and Commonwealth. R. ABBOT. If S. Paul when he said, a 2. Thess. 3.10. He that will not labour, let him not eat, did take praying to be labouring, than the Messalians had as well to answer for themselves as the begging Friars, because they took as great pains in praying as the begging Friars can do; yea those idle loiterers, concerning whom the Apostle speaketh, had sufficient to answer for themselves, that there was reason for them to eat because they did pray. Surely M. Bishop is a good proctor for such thriftless drones, who will be content to pray apace, & as much as the Friars do, if that may be reckoned a labour for which to require their meat. But prayer is a common duty & service of all callings, & not a distinct labour of any one. Till M. Bish. blotted this paper, I think it was never read, that prayer & fasting was a calling, save only in the conceit of those Euchites or Messalians, of whom I spoke, albeit they indeed fasted not. But whereas M. Perkins saith, that men living apart, & giving themselves only to prayer and fasting, do live in no calling, M. Bishop because he cannot prove the contrary, beggeth it. What a profane stupidity is this, saith he? Is not a life given to prayer and fasting (put in as it should be, only to prayer and fasting) agreeable to the will of God and laws of his Church? You should not have asked the question M. Bishop, but have proved it so to be, because therein stood the question, which it was your stupidity not to see. The argument propoundeth to you, that it is necessary for every man to labour in some calling, that he may have according to God's ordinance whereof to eat. It allegeth that to live apart & to be given only to prayer & fasting, is not to labour in a calling; and do you answer all with, Is it not so? To make up the matter, he addeth that many religious men do over and beside very great services to God's church, in preaching, teaching and writing of most learned books. Ye say well M. Bishop, such men because they labour, may justly eat, but these matters are accidental, and their vow & religion may stand without them, and therefore the matter is not answered by them. I admit that which he saith, but there might here worthy stories be told of the preachings of their Friars of all sorts. But M. Bishop himself knowing that this is but impertinent goeth on; Suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray, did they not very well deserve their sustenance? If they did nothing but fast & pray, it should be with them according to the Apostles rule, because than they should eat nothing. But now beside fasting and praying they eat also, which the Apostle saith they should not do, because they do not work. They fast a little, that they may eat enough, and there is no idle lozel but would be content with their fasting, so that he may have their diet otherwise. In a word, M. Bishop may keep his opinion to himself, but the Apostle sufficiently teacheth us, that because they labour not, therefore they do not so well deserve sustenance as they who labour all the year for the providing of it. As for the blessing of God, it dependeth not upon the prayers of such who have no warrant for the state of life wherein they pray; and the ploughman's prayer is more acceptable to God than theirs, because he followeth that rule of life which God hath taught, who never prescribed any rule of Monkish trade. Good innocent souls, saith he, whereas by all stories it appeareth that there hath not been a more stinking vermin upon the earth: even some of their own men have discovered them so to be. But M. Bishop is not satisfied, unless to folly he add blasphemy, saying, that they satisfy for our superfluous pampering of the flesh. Impious man, Christ is the satisfaction for our sins; what have we to do with the satisfactions of wretched men, who damnably sin in those things wherein they take upon them to satisfy for others sins? And what, M. Bishop, is there any superfluous pampering of the flesh to be found amongst you? Alas how have ye deceived us all this while? We thought that you had been nothing but spirit, and that superfluous pampering of the flesh had been only amongst us. But your teeth would have bit your tongue, if ye had not somewhat told us truth. Take it to ye M. Bishop, for it belongeth to none more rightly than it doth to you, and the example that ye lay before ye fitteth accordingly. But to shut up all this matter, he telleth us that none perform all duties of the second table better than they. As how? They are most obedient to their superiors. God hath commanded them to obey and honour their parents, their princes and governors, and they leave these at six and seven as they say, to perform obedience to other superiors superstitiously devised of their own. They many times impiously with the jews cast off the respect of their parents by pretence of their vows; they withdraw themselves into lurking dens from service to their princes and public state, yea many times they nourish rebellion and treason against them, and yet they are most obedient of all other, being not at all obedient to them whom God hath commanded them to obey. Again he saith, they hurt not their neighbour in life, person or any manner of goods. Yea but the life of a Christian man consisteth not in doing no hurt only, unless he also do good, and what good do they? It is doing good that Christ shall commend at the last day, b Mat. 25.35. I was hungry and ye gave me meat, and thirsty and ye gave me drink. On the other side, he shall object the want of doing good, c Ver. 42. I was hungry and ye gave me no meat, and thirsty and ye gave me no drink. And what shall the Monks then say? O Lord, though we did thee no good, yet we did thee no hurt. We had wherewith to feed thee and to cloth thee, and to harbour thee, but we gave all away at once, and made a vow that we would never have any thing again to do thee good: thou shouldest therefore starve and perish for hunger and cold, but look for nothing further at our hands. We were content to fast and pray according to our rule, and to spend our time in such witless observations as our founders directed us for matters of great perfection; but as for those things which thou hast required, we left them to men of more base and unperfect state, as nothing at all concerning us. This is their begging Friars condition of life, and this is that performing of the duties of the second table which M. Bishop speaketh of. They fast and pray, but do no good at all, neither to Church nor commonwealth, neither hath any kind of men be●e generally more offensive and pernicious than they have been. 21. W. BISHOP. After all this waste wind, M. Perkins confesseth, that a man may upon a special calling sell all his goods, as the Apostles did. What then (good Sir) shall become of your former arguments? May one then vow a curse of the Law, and leave off prayer for neither poverty nor riches, and say that it is not a blesseder thing to give then to receive? All these arguments which were whilom of great force, must now be nothing worth, because it pleaseth M. Perkins, the wind now sits in an other corner, such weathercocks surely are to be much respected. He saith further, in time of persecution a man may also leave all: he should rather have said, he must leave all, or else lose all, for the persecutor will not spare him. Lastly, he doth not condemn old ancient Monks, who lived by the sweat of their brows, and were married many of them, as he saith; but his authors cited say not so, neither shall he be able to cite one ancient allowed and approved writer, who saith that the ancient Monks lived with their wives, if perhaps they had been married before. But no marvel if fleshly Ministers think it no life without their fleshly mates. As for labouring at vacant times, it was always, and is to this day in practice among many religions. If other do in good studies, writing or teaching, employ that time of labour, no doubt but they do far better. R. ABBOT. There is no man but easily conceiveth, that those things many times which of themselves are unlawful and wicked in us, yet arelawfull and necessary when God commandeth them. It had been a wicked thing in Abraham of his own head to attempt the kill of his son, but it was an act of religious and godly obedience when God required it. It is desperate wickedness for a man wilfully to cast away his own life; but at God's commandment to offer and yield his life, it is right and just. It was uncleanness in Moses law to touch any excrement or dung; yet when God appointed a Ezech. 4.12. Ezechiel so to do, it was no uncleanness. The jews did sin grievously in binding themselves by vow not to honour their parents; and yet when Christ calleth, no man may say b Mat. 8.21. Let me first go and bury my father: yea c Luke 14 26. he that hateth not father and mother, saith Christ, he cannot be my disciple. Even so albeit it be superstitious and sinful of our own heads to relinquish the state of life whereunto God hath called us, under pretence and colour of giving ourselves idly to prayer and fasting, yet it is sacred and holy obedience to leave all when God calleth from all, who yet never calleth us in the leaving of all things to vow the never having of any thing again. These cases are sensible and manifest, neither was there cause for M. Bishop to talk of wind and weathercock in M. Perkins, but rather to wish better discretion and understanding to himself. As for the ancient Monks, albeit many of them were very absurd and senseless hypocrites, yet we deny not but many that went under that name were just and holy men, trained up as in our universities to virtue and learning, that they might afterwards serve for the ministry of the Church. M. Bishop would gladly attribute to their Monks some imitation of them, but it sticketh betwixt his teeth, and he knoweth not well how to bring it out. They are so unlike them, that they are scant worthy to be accounted as apes in comparison of men. That which M. Perkins saith of married Monks, is taken out of S. Austin, though he cite not the place, who setting down the heresy of them that were called d August. haer. 40. Apostolici qui se isto nomina arrogantissimè vocaverunt quòd in communionem svam non reciperent utentes coniugibus & res proprias possidentes quales habet Catholicae Ecclesia & Monachos & Clerecos plurimos. Apostolici, saith, that arrogantly they so called themselves, for that they received not into their communion, VTENTES CONIUGIBUS, such as had company with their wives, and possessed any thing of their own, such (saith he) as the Catholic Church hath many, both Monks and Clergy men. Let M. Bishop tell us the English of utentes coniugibus, and then tell us whether those Monks lived with their wives. As for the Ministers, they have no fleshly mates, but lawful wives, as they had of whom S. Austin speaketh; but M. Bishops former acknowledgement concerning themselves of their superfluous pampering of the flesh, doth fully assure us, that for lawful wives they betake themselves to fleshly mates, and that it is true of them now which in the Parliament of England upon the complaint of the filthy Sodomy that was found amongst them, was said of their unmarried Clergy, that e Chemni. de coelib sacerd. Delicata ●ibaria virorum Ecclesi isticorun vel naturalem purgationem, quaerere vel petorem. the dainty fare of the Clergy men did require either a natural purgation or a worse. 22. W. BISHOP. In defence of the Catholic party, M. Perkins hath not a word, wherefore I will briefly supply his want, and prove it to be very grateful to God to sell all and give it to the poor. I omit the example of our B. Saviour (who would not have any poor cottage of his own, so much as to rest his head in, but would wholly live of alms) and come unto this heavenly doctrine. * Mat. 19 He teacheth a young man whom he loved, in flat words, That if he would be perfect, he should go and sell all he had, and give it to the poor, and come & follow him, and then should have a treasure in heaven. These words are so express and evident, that there can be but one way to shift from them, which M. Per. flieth unto, pag. 244. to wit, that these words were only meant unto that young man, and not to be applied unto any others, no more than those words to Abraham of sacrificing his son Isaac. But this silly shift of our poor Protestant's is confuted manifestly in the same chapter of S. Matthew, where a little after S. Peter saith, Lord, behold we have left all things and have followed thee, what reward shall we therefore have? We have done (as S. Hierom expoundeth it, and the very sequel of the text doth plainly require) that which thou commandest in the words before to that young man What answer made our Saviour? That his commandment was only meant unto that young man, and that they had done foolishly in so doing? nothing less, but promiseth that they shall therefore sit with him in twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And that whosoever would forsake father, mother, lands, goods, etc. for his sake, should receive an hundred fold, and possess life everlasting. Can any thing be more plain out of the word of God itself, then that not this or that man, but whosoever shall forsake all for Christ doth very blessedly. And if need were, I could cite most of the ancient Fathers teaching those words of Christ, Go and sell all, to be an heavenly counsel given generally to all. S. Antony took them spoken to him, In vita eius apud Athanas. Saint Augustine to him ad Hilarium * Epist. 89. : to omit later religious men, I will only cite S. Hierom, who doth briefly both declare our Catholic doctrine, and shows also who was the author of the Protestants opinion, * Lib. count Vigil. saying thus, To that which thou affirmest, that they do better, who use their goods, and do by little and little distribute to the poor the profits of their possessions, then others who selling them give all at once, not I, but our Lord shall answer, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor. Christ speaketh to him that will be perfect (not to the young man only) who with the Apostles forsook both father, ship and nets. That which thou Vigilantius commendest, obtaineth the second and third degree: so that the first (which is to sell all at once) be preferred before the second and third: which is, to give by little and little the fruit of our revenues to the poor. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop here propoundeth to prove, that it is a grateful thing to God to sell all and give it to the poor; but that cometh too short of the vow of poverty, which is, that a man never more shall have any thing of his own. A man may by occasion forego all that he hath for Christ's sake, and yet not bind himself never to be owner of any thing more. But this is the thing that M. Bishop should prove, that it is grateful to God to vow never to have any thing of his own. A thing that troubled the Friars, but specially the Franciscans, who vowed poverty in the highest degree, because by this means they were proved thieves, and could not devise how to shift it off. For what is he but a Vide Hospinian. de Orig. Monac. lib. 6. cap. 16. a thief, that eateth, and drinketh, and clotheth himself with that that is none of his own, nor can be by any right? But they by no right or title might have any thing of their own. Other beggars eat and drink their own, because by gift it becometh theirs. But these Friars by their rule might have no right, title, or interest in any thing to be their own; their good founder Francis having laid it down, that without any construction, gloss or interpretation they should have nothing of their own. Now this in part is the thing that M. Bishop must prove, that it is pleasing to God, that men vow to live like thieves, to eat & drink and wear that that is none of theirs. Let us see then what he can allege for proof thereof. His first example cometh not within compass of this disputation, because we know that our Saviour Christ submitted himself to the bearing of our curse, that he might purchase a blessing for us. b 2. Cor. 8.9. He being rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich. Yet neither is there here any thing of any vow, neither can we question but that Christ possessed as his own whatsoever was ministered unto him, and therewith c john 13.29. bought whatsoever was needful, to use the same as his own, which the vow of poverty admitteth not. Now to the example of Christ, he addeth the lesson that he gave to the young man, d Mat. 19.21. Go sell all that thou hast, if thou wilt be perfect, and give it to the poor, and come and follow me, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. But still we fail of that that we require: we hear not Christ here saying to him, Vow thyself hereafter to perpetual poverty and beggary, that thou mayst never hereafter have any thing of thine own. This is the very point, and of this the sentence of Christ importeth nothing. Well, let this go, but of that speech of our Saviour M. Perkins answereth, that it tended to discover the secret corruption of the young man's heart, and therefore was a commandment not common to all, but special to him, as was to Abraham the commandment of offering his son. And to this effect Clemens Alexandrinus understandeth it, saying, e Clem. Alexan. stromat lib. 3. Cum dixit, si vis perfectus esse, etc. refella eum qui gloriatur quòd omnia à iwentute praecepta seruaverit: non enim impleverat illud, Diliges proximum. etc. Tunc autem ut qui à Domino perficeretur docebatur communicare & impertiri per charitatem. Pulchrè ergo non prohibuit esse divitem iniustè & inexplebilitèr. When Christ saith, If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, he disproveth him that glorieth that he hath kept all the commandments from his youth; for he had not fulfilled the commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But then as being to be perfected by the Lord▪ he was taught charitably to communicate and bestow. Notably therefore he forbiddeth not to be rich, but to be rich unjustly and unsatiably. Clement then saith as M. Perkins saith, that the words are directed to a particular occasion, and had their special use in respect of him to whom they were spoken, to discover his erroneous conceit and opinion of himself. This is not then a silly shift of the poor Protestants, but the true exposition of an ancient and learned Father. But what doth he allege for the confuting of this silly shift? Marry that f Ver. 27. S. Peter a little after saith, Lord we have forsaken all, and have followed thee, what reward shall we have? And what is that? We have done (saith he) that which thou commandedst in the words before to the young man. But that is not so; for we do not find that they sold all to give to the poor, as he was commanded to do, much less that they vowed never after to have any thing, as M. Bishop would prove by it. For it is apparent, that though the Apostles than had left the care and the use, yet they had not left the propriety & right of all. They meddled not with any thing they had, they attended not to any business of their own, they gave over their nets and their ships, & the following of all worldly affairs, that they might wholly follow Christ, but yet that they had still their own, it appeareth by the words of Christ, g john 16.32. Ye all shall be scattered every man to his own, and shall leave me alone. So is it said of john, that when Christ said to him, Behold thy mother, meaning it of the blessed virgin, h Chap. 19.27. he thenceforth took her to his own home. Yea and by the last chapter of his Gospel it may well be conceived that they had still their ships and their nets to go a fishing as they had before. But howsoever that be, these words make nothing against M. Perkins answer, because the disciples had had a like special calling to follow Christ as this young man had, and they do hereby but profess their yielding themselves to that special calling of Christ, as this young man should have done to this calling directed particularly to him. Albeit therefore this commandment were here intended only to the young man, yet there was no cause why Christ should say that they had done foolishly in doing that they had done, because they had received the like commandment in effect before, and by virtue thereof had before this forsaken all and followed him. Now as those callings of the disciples, and Christ's commandments to them of following him, were particular to themselves and not common to all, nor could be understood as belonging to this young man, so neither can this commandment to the young man be understood here as spoken in common to the disciples, or belonging unto us. In a word, Christ called him to be one of his disciples, as the rest were, and his calling cannot be understood to belong unto us any more than their calling doth. Now as Christ saith peculiarly to the disciples, that they having left all at his commandment and followed him shall sit upon twelve seats to judge the twelve tribes of Israel: so he maketh a common and general promise to all, that whosoever for his name's sake and for the Gospels' sake shall forsake all, that is, shall be content to yield all into the persecutors hands, and to lose all rather than to deny the name of Christ and to forsake his Gospel, he shall now receive an hundred fold, and in the world to come eternal life. This is true, we doubt not hereof, but M. Bishop himself must perforce confess, that this maketh nothing at all to prove that the former words spoken to the young man do belong to us. For that forsaking of all which Christ here speaketh of for his name's sake and for the Gospel's sake, is a necessary duty, without the performance whereof i Luke 14.26. a man cannot be Christ's disciple. k Mark 8.35: Whosoever (in this case) will save his life, saith Christ, shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and for the Gospel's sake, he shall save it. But M. Bishop telleth us, that that selling of all and giving to the poor, is no commandment but a counsel, a matter not necessary but voluntary, which a man may choose whether he will do or not. He that forsaketh not all in such sort as Christ speaketh thereof in the latter words, sinneth grievously against Christ: but M. Bishop saith, that a man may forbear to sell all and give to the poor, and yet sinneth not. Here by than we may see how untowardly he dealeth, in taking from one of these a confirmation of the other, and so it appeareth that hitherto M. Perkins answer standeth good, that those words of our Saviour Christ to the young man, were intended only in particular to him, and concern no other in proper meaning, but only such to whom they were in particular directed, as they were to him. But yet that M. Bishop may know that we have somewhat more to say then M. Perkins hath said, and can make it good that they most wickedly abuse this place to the maintenance of their vows and opinion of perfection, I will somewhat more fully examine the circumstances thereof. I shall seem haply here to go against the stream, and to be somewhat preiudicated by the opinion of sundry of the Fathers, but yet (gentle Reader) let not names of men carry thee away from that which thou thyself canst manifestly discern to be the truth. Remember what hath been already said, that the words of Christ literally and in proper understanding belonged peculiarly to the young man, but yet we deny not but that as the calling of the rest of the Apostles, so the calling of this young man by deduction and moralization is to be applied unto us, only the question is, in what meaning it doth concern us. Let it be observed what meaning M. Bishop intendeth of it, that Christ here recommendeth a matter of counsel, not necessary for all Christians, but voluntarily to be followed as a matter of special perfection by such as will; so as that without this a man may be saved and come to eternal life, but by the doing of it he meriteth a release of his own and other men's sins, and an eminent and more than ordinary degree of glory in everlasting life. But the text plainly showeth that this cannot be there meant, and that the lesson that Christ taught him did concern a duty necessary for the obtaining of eternal life. The question that he moveth to Christ, is, l Mat. 19.16. Good master what shall I do to obtain eternal life? Our Saviour answereth, If thou wilt enter into lift, keep the commandments. He professeth himself so to have done from his youth, and addeth, what lack I yet? What is it whereto he supposeth somewhat yet to be lacking? Every man seethe whereto it is to be referred, What lack 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 eternal life, go sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me. That this is the meaning of the perfection here spoken of, appeareth by the two other Evangelists, who thus set down the answer of Christ, m Mark 10.21: One thing is lacking unto thee; n Luke 18.22. Yet lackest thou one thing, sell all that thou hast, etc. Whereto did he lack one thing, but to that whereof he made the question, to the obtaining of eternal life? Christ's words then in effect are, Thou hast not yet all that is needful to the obtaining of eternal life, but if thou wilt be perfect lacking nothing thereto, go sell all that thou hast, etc. Now if we understand it as M. Bishop would have us, than there was no cause why the man should go away so sorrowful at that that Christ said. For the thing that he desired, was to have eternal life, and if he might have had eternal life without the foregoing of his riches, it would have fully satisfied him. But by M. Bishop's doctrine it might be said to him that he troubled himself in vain, for the words of Christ were but a counsel and not a commandment, and that there was not any necessity of doing that that was said unto him. They that would be of a high degree of perfection above others, must so do, but if he would rest in a lower degree, he might continue as he was, and yet obtain eternal life. But the young man conceived not so; he knew that Christ's words imported a condition of obtaining eternal life, according to the question that he had moved to him, and therefore was very sorrowful. And hereto accord the words of Christ ensuing, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Why doth Christ use these words, but that the young man's respect of his riches did hinder him, not from a state of perfection above others, as M. Bishop dreameth, but wholly from entering into the kingdom of God? Furthermore it is to be considered how improbable a thing it is, that to a man who knew as yet only the jewish religion, & had no knowledge of the faith of Christ, our Saviour would give at first a direction of perfection above others in Christian profession. He was as yet no disciple of Christ, he believed not in him, and is it credible that he would teach him at the first dash, of a ruler▪ according to M. Bishop's understanding, to become a Monk? Nay it appeareth plainly, that whereas the man had a zeal of God, and no doubt in true meaning did walk according to the Law so far as he had the true understanding thereof, our Saviour Christ would instruct him that that was not sufficient for the obtaining of eternal life, but he must be content upon his calling and commandment to renounce all that he had, to cast off all vain love 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 righteousness of the law I was unrebukable, but I think all things but loss for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ jesus my Lord▪ for whom I have counted all things loss, and do judge them to be dung that I might win Christ. For so it is, that moral works, whether of jews or of Gentiles, are not available in the sight of God; they want their form, and life, and perfection, until the same be given unto them by the faith of Christ. p Ambr. in psal. 1 Virtutes sine fide folia sunt: videntur virere, sed 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 Virtues without faith are bu● leaves, saith S. Ambrose, they show green, but they cannot profit us. Therefore the faith of Christ teacheth us to renounce all trust and confidence thereof, and to trust only upon him. This is the perfection whereto Christ calleth this young man, as if he should have said unto him, Thou dost well in that which thou dost, but that is not enough: if thou wilt have good of it, become my disciple, and to that end be content to forego all that thou hast, and come and follow me. Where to know how these words do belong to us, it must be considered that this man was called to a corporal and outward following of Christ according to the flesh, by means whereof he must necessarily forego the use 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 Gospel through the world; & thus Christ calleth this young rich man to do the same. But our following of Christ now consists not in changing of our places, but in giving him our affections, neither is performed by the foot but by the heart, neither is it a matter of special duty belonging only to some, but universally concerneth all that belong to him. As is then our following of Christ, so is our selling of all that we have, a matter of the heart and affection, whilst in the midst of all that we have, we have our minds so untied & free from the love and respect of worldly things, as that we are ready to forego all when the cause of Christ and his Gospel shall require us so to do. And this M. Bishop out of their own grounds must be forced to confess whether he will or not. For by Bellarmine we understand, that to be a Monk is q Bellar. de Monach. cap. 2. Status Episcoporum est status perfectionis adeptae: status religiosorum est status perfec●ionis acquirendae. a state for the gaining of perfection, but to be a Bishop is a state of perfection already attained, and therefore that perfection already attained standeth without literal or actual selling of all, because their Bishops may be rich, and many of them are so rich r Frasm. in epist. Hieron. ad Heliodor. in antidoto. Quid dicemus de ●et egregijs Episcopis qui vel cunregibus certare possunt opulentia? as that for wealth they are able to compare with kings. If these Bishops were formerly Monks, how do they keep their vow of doing perpetually that which Christ speaketh of in this place, unless it be so meant as I have said; to say nothing that these are notable fellows to tell us of a perfection in renouncing the world, and yet of a perfection too in returning afterwards to the world again. If they were not Monks, as a number never were, and yet attain to a state of perfection, than it is not necessary to perfection literally to sell and to forsake all, but it is sufficient according to our construction, habitually in disposition and affection to be ready thereto if cause require. Yea M. Bishop himself will confess, that it is not a thing necessary for us for the obtaining of eternal life, literally & actually to forsake all. But it was put to the young man as a necessary condition literally to be performed for the obtaining of eternal life, as before was showed. The words of Christ therefore are not literally to be applied unto us as they were to him. To be short, Gulielmus de sancto Amore very truly against M. Bishops vow of beggary expoundeth the words of Christ concerning s Hospin. de Orig. Monac. lib. 6. ca 17. ex Antonino. Mandatum esse ibi paupertatem habitualem non actualem flagitare Christum à nobis non ut iam omnia abijciamus quae habemus, sed ut cùm confessio divini nominu et gloriae Christi postulaverit, tum propter eum omnia deserere parati simus, etc. habitual not actual poverty: namely, that Christ requireth of us not forthwith to cast away all that we have, but that when the confession of the name of God and the glory of Christ requireth, than we be ready to forsake all, even as when Christ requireth of his followers the hatred of father and mother, and of their own soul, he doth not simply bid not to honour their parents, much less to hate them, but that occasion so requiring they be ready for Christ's sake to neglect all. Now this duty concerneth all, and therefore the words of Christ in application to us do belong to all, and are very falsely abused for the establishing and defending of Monkish vows, which are peculiar to some, and if men list may without sin be none at all, as M. Bishop himself hath before made plain unto us. But he is content to tell us that the words concern all, yet as a counsel only, not as a commandment; they are a heavenly counsel (saith he) given generally to all. But this is not so; they were a commandment given to him to whom they were given, as M. Bishop himself a little before hath termed them, & as they concern us, they are a commandment to us also. The young man sinned in refusing to do that that Christ directed him, and it is sin to us not to do that that herein is intended concerning us. If S. Anthony and S. Austin in that sort took it to be said to them, they did rightly therein; but otherwise if Christ did not say to them, Come and follow me, in the same sense wherein he spoke to the young man, than they had no reason to think that Christ said to them, Go sell all, in the same sense that he did to him. If their coming to Christ, & fellowing of him were a matter not outward but inward, them their selling all was to be a matter not outward but inward, until the following of Christ by love & affection with in, could not stand with the keeping of those things that are without. As for jeroms reproof of Vigilantius, it moveth us little in a cause that by the text itself is clear & plain. His choler and heat in those matters that were questioned betwixt S. Austin and him, do bewray that he could not endure that any man should dislike what he approved. He calleth Vigilantius in another place, a holy Priest, and we find not that he hath said any thing but what standeth with the holiness and truth of the word of God, and we approve that which he here saith, that t Hieron. adverse. Vigil. Asseru eos meliùs facer● qui utuntur rebus fuit & paulatim fructus possessionum svarum pauperibus dividunt quàm illos qui possessionibus diuendit● semel omniae largiuntur. they do better who use their own goods, and by little and little divide the fruits of their possessions to the poor, than they who sell their possessions, and give all at once. These make Christ a great feast for once, and leave him afterwards to hunger and thirst, but the other have care continually to minister comfort and relief unto him. As for Hieromes distinguishing of degrees, we admit not of it, because it hath no ground in the text which he allegeth, yea and so much the less, because in the church of Rome itself, as hath been showed, the state of perfection, which is the highest degree, standeth with the enjoying of those goods, to the forsaking whereof Hierome attributeth that perfection. 23. W. BISHOP. I might confirm this former argument with the example of the foresaid best Christians, * Acts 4. who having possessions & lands, sold all, and brought the price of them, and laid it at the Apostles feet: and more yet enforce it by the fact of Ananias and Saphira his wife, who having sold all theirs, presented but part of the money unto the Apostles, and reserved the rest unto themselves. Belike they were of M. Perkins his mind, that it is better to give then to receive, and therefore kept part to that purpose; but they therefore were both punished with present death: which proveth invincibly, both how laudable it is to sell all, and how dangerous to halt in such holy works. But to avoid prolixity, I do but point at the places: and that Ananias, as the rest had promised this to God (which is a vow) it appeareth in the text, where it is said, that he lied not unto men, but unto God, in not performing his promise. And here we deduce very clearly, that such a vow is much pleasing unto God, thus: That which▪ is commended by our saviours own both example and doctrine, and was practised by the Apostles and most holy Christians, that may be vowed very laudably: but to sell all, and give it to the poor, is such. R. ABBOT. It cannot be proved, neither doth the text say, that those foresaid best Christians sold all that they had. Let him take his own Rhemish translation, and tell us 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 feet 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 think but that he had something in his house also, wherewith he gave entertainment to Saint Paul, and those that were with him. And who doubteth but that the rest kept their dwelling houses furnished for their own use, and for the use of other godly and faithful brethren, as occasion should serve? So it is said of Barnabas, that c Cap. 4 37. whereas he had a field or a piece 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 piece of land, but they are not said to have sold all that they possessed. And whereas Master Bishop saith, that the same Ananias and his wife made a vow, because it is said that e Ver. 4. they lied unto God, he talketh idly. They lied unto God, because they pretended to bring the whole price of that which they sold, when they brought but a part thereof. But those other faithful Christians did that which the common state and necessity of the Church did then require. Many poor doubtless were then converted to the faith of Christ, who being now joined to the Church, could expect no relief but from the Church. They therefore who had wherewith to relieve the necessity of such, were to testify their faith and love, 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, whensoever like occasion should require. He showeth not himself a lively and feeling member of the body of Christ, who in the public want of the Church, cannot find in his heart to dispossess himself of somewhat for the succour and comfort of other members. Letting these things briefly pass as M. Bishop doth, let us see what argument he collecteth of these examples. That which was commended by our saviours 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 give it to the poor is such. We deny his second proposition, because it pronounceth that absolutely and simply, which in the other proposition is understood respectively only, and with exception. f Hieron. ad●. jovin. lib. 2. Antisthenes' venditis quae habebat & publicè distributis nihil sibi quàm palliolum reseruavit. Antisthenes' the Philosopher, who was master to Diogenes, sold all that he had, as Hierome mentioneth, and made public distribution thereof. So doth the same Hierome mention a sect of Philosophers called g Idem in Math. cap. 10. Bactroperitae, contemp●ores seculi, & omnia pro nihilo ducentes cellarium secum vehebant. Bactroperitae, who were contemners of the world, and set all things at nought, only carrying a bag 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 faithful Christians by their practice have taught it, when it concerneth us necessarily for the following of Christ; when the commandment of Christ and his cause and Gospel doth require it. But to do it voluntarily and of our own heads, when no such cause requireth it, it is not a matter of commendation with Christ, but of our own superstitious and fond presumption. The former way we may lawfully and laudably vow it, yea and we do all vow it in our baptism, to forsake all rather than to forsake Christ; to keep nothing, the keeping whereof should keep us away from Christ. But when the having of our wealth hindereth not, but that in mind and affection we may follow Christ, and keep ourselves faithful unto him, then to vow the relinquishing thereof, is a superfluous and rash vow, no service of God, but a pleasing of our own fancy, and no where commended by jesus 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 have granted us a free use of all things indifferent, and therefore to be bound to certain meats and apparel is intolerable: but this reason hath been reproved already: * Gal. 5.10. he addeth, Stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ hath made you free: Doth your breath or heart fail you Sir, that you stop thus in the midst of a sentence, the rest belike discovereth the fraud of it: And wrap not yourselves again in the yoke of bondage, to wit, bind not yourselves to the observation of Moses law, as ye 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 superiors, nor observe such good orders as holy Church hath approved? nothing less: but happy is that necessity, as Saint Augustine witnesseth, which holdeth us close to those things which be better to do, than to leave undone, otherwise our weakness would quickly shrink back. And again, if Christ's sufferings without his obedience (as M. Perkins himself testifieth, Pag. 61.) had not been available for our justification, no doubt, but those works which are garnished with the virtue of obedience, are more acceptable in God's sight. Finally, M. Perkins saith, that we magnify these three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. And good reason have we so to do, as hath been showed: but saith he, for the vow of Baptism, we have made no such account of it, as they do; which is not so. We hold indeed that the covenant which we make in Baptism, is no vow, but a full and assured promise to believe in God, to renounce the devil and all his works, and to keep all God's commandments, which we keep or do our best endeavour to keep; at least we teach not as the Protestants do, that they are impossible to be kept, for that is enough to discourage any man from endeavouring to keep them. And as touching the vow which he saith we made in our creation, we remember nothing of it, nor never heard speak of it by any good author, not that we make, or mean we any vows when we receive the B. Sacrament. These be but novelties of words, and the raving of some decayed wits. R. ABBOT. Christian liberty hath not only set us free from the rigour and curse of the law, but also from the yoke of external observations, that is, from placing religion and holiness, the worship and service of God, and from reputing cleanness or uncleanness towards God in any external or outward things. Concerning this liberty against the Monkish vow of obedience, M. Perkins allegeth the Apostles words, a Gal. 5.1. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. Here Master Bishop being somewhat pleasurable, asketh: Doth your breath or heart fail you, Sir, that you stop thus in the midst of a sentence? Why, I pray, what is the rest of the sentence? And wrap not yourselves again in the yoke of bondage. And what meaneth that? Marry bind not yourselves to the observation of Moses law, as ye shall do if ye be circumcised. And was it then the meaning of the Apostle, that they should not wrap themselves in the yoke and bondage of Moses law, which was given of God, but they might wrap themselves in the yoke and bondage of the laws of men? Did God ease us of his yoke, to give men liberty to yoke us again with their devices? What an idle exception is this of his, and why doth he not remember, that the Apostle maketh this instruction general against all yokes of human imposition, where he saith, b 1. Cor. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price; be ye not made the servants of men. S. Austin lamenteth it as touching the condition of his time, that c Aug ep●st. 119. Ipsam religionem quam paucissimis & manifestissimu celebrationun Sacramentis misericordia Dei esse liberam voluit seruilib●s oneribus premunt ut tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaec●ū qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur. whereas the mercy of God would have religion to be free, having very few, and those very manifest Sacraments or mysteries of observations, men did so oppress it with servile burdens, as that the state of the jews was more tolerable, who albeit they knew not the time of liberty▪ yet were subject to the burdens of the law of God, and not to human presumptions. It is plain then by S. Austin's judgement, which therein is very true, that the liberty of Christian faith and religion, is not only from the burdens and yokes of Moses law, but also from all burdens of human presumptions, and therefore M. Bishops answer is very unsufficient to our objection. The unsufficiency whereof will the better appear in considering the other place alleged by M. Perkins and omitted by M. Bishop, d Col. 2.16.20. Let no man judge you in meat and drink; why are ye led with traditions or decrees, Touch not, taste not, handle not? which all perish in the using, being after the doctrines and commandments of men. By which words he plainly showeth, that by the liberty of Christ no rules may be set down, whereby men should be judged in conscience about meats and drinks, about touching, tasting, handling, or any thing decreed by the doctrines and precepts of men. And what doth he then but thereby condemn all Monkish institutions, whereby the consciences of men are burdened and entangled with so many observations about meats, drinks, apparel, and other matters reckoned as a purchase of the forgiveness of sins, and the merit of eternal life? This cannot be avoided but that since the doctrines and commandemen of men as touching meats & drinks, and such other things be condemned therefore Friar Francis & his fellow Dominicke, with the rest of them, were superstitious hypocrites to prescribe rules, and to require obedience to be performed unto them in such things. Yea, and let M. Bishop be reckoned with them, who setteth such before us under the name of superiors to be obeyed, and calleth those good orders which the Apostle rejecteth because they are but men's traditions, and nameth that a holy Church, which contrary to the Apostles doctrine approveth such orders. As for that which S. Austin saith, e Aug. epist. 45. Foelix est necessitas quae in meliora compellit. Happy is the necessity that compelleth to the better, it is true where the thing is good whereto we are compelled, but unhappy is the necessity whereby we tie ourselves to those things which are superstitious and offensive unto God. Where he saith, that if Christ's sufferings without his obedience had not been available for our justification, no doubt but the works which are garnished with the virtue of obedience, are more acceptable in God's sight, he notably playeth the hypocrite, to make Christ's obedience to his father, a cloak for their Friarly obedience to superstitious and absurd men. It is true indeed which S. Austin saith, that f Aug in Psal. 70. Nihil tam expedit animae quàm obedire. there is nothing so expedient for the soul as to obey, but it is then true, when we obey them who according to God are to be obeyed. g Origen. in Cantic. hom 2. Ornamentum & monile ceruicis ecclesiae obedientiae Christi est. The obedience of Christ, saith Origen, is the ornament and jewel of the Church's neck, and therefore in Christ's behalf we are to obey none, but only them in whom we obey Christ. We are to obey them who h Math. 28.20. teach the things which he hath commanded, not those things which they themselves have devised. i Tertul. de prescript. Nec ipsi (Apostoli) quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt. The Apostles, saith Tertullian, gave themselves no liberty to bring in any thing of their own will, and we are to follow none but such as have followed the Apostles to deliver faithfully Christ's words, not presumed rules and orders of their own invention. k Ibid. Sed ne eligere quod aliquis de suo arbitrio induxerit. We are not, saith he, to choose (or follow) any thing, which any man of his own discretion hath brought in. Matthew of Paris telleth a story of l Math. Parisan Henr. 3 anno. 1227. Friar Francis, that when he delivered his rule to the Pope to be viewed and confirmed, the Pope considering the same, and beholding the deformed condition of the man, bid him get him to the swine, & wallow with them, and bestow his pains to preach to them. The Friar presently went where swine were, and tumbled himself amongst them, and from top to toe beraied himself all over with mire and dirt. In this habit he goeth to the Pope again, saying, My Lord I have done as thou commandedst, I pray thee now to hearken to my request. The Pope admired the man, and being sorry for that he had said to him, granted him the confirming of his rule. Were not here two fools well met, and may we not make it a question whether was the greater fool, whether the Friar for so doing, or the Pope for approving that which he did? Yet this brainsick and drunken trick of a dirty beast goeth with M. Bishop for a virtue of obedience, and was one of those worthy acts, for which of a Friar he became a Saint. Such is the rest of the obedience that their vow toeth them to, even to a number of mad & witless fancies, such as that a man may well think them to be bewitched of Satan, in that they place devotion & holiness in such toys. We leave their obedience to them, & not only of these absurdities, but of those other matters which carry some better show of sobriety & gravity, we say as S. Ambrose hath said, m Ambros. de Virg. lib. 3. Nos nou● omnia quae Christus non docuit, iure damnamus quia via fidelibus Christu● est. Siergo Christus non docuit quod docemus nos illud detestabile iudicamus. We justly condemn all new things which Christ hath not taught, because Christ is the way for faithful men. If Christ have not taught what we teach, we hold it worthy to be detested. Now therefore let them magnify their three vows whilst they will, but because Christ never knew them for his, we condemn them as superstitiously devised, & blasphemously maintained to the injury and wrong of the cross. We magnify the vow of baptism as the only Christian vow, approving no other vows but what are implied & contained therein, because therein for the whole course of our life we vow & dedicate ourselves wholly unto God. M. Bishop saith, that that is no vow but a full and assured promise, and yet in the former section he hath told us, that to promise to God is a vow. We vow ourselves therein to the keeping of God's commandments, and we endeavour to keep them, and by the grace of God we attain to the keeping of them, but yet so as that we know it to be one of Christ's commandments to say daily unto God, n Aug. count 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 ca 7. Ita dixerim, mandata f●cerunt ut ipsa mandata memi nerimus pertinere ad orationem in qu● veraci●or quotidie dicunt sancti fi●um promissimis fiat voluntas tua &, D●miti● nobis, etc. Forgive us our trespasses, because we do not so keep his other commandments, nor can so keep them in the infirmity of this flesh, but that o jam. 3.2. in many things we offend all. This we teach, and this is so true, as that M. Bishop himself in his own conscience is forced to subscribe it, and yet by a wilful spirit of contradiction bendeth himself to dispute against it. The vow of baptism we always renew in receiving the Lords supper, because therein we profess ourselves to be of his retinue, and renew the promise of being holy unto him. As for that which Master Perkins saith of a vow made in our creation as touching our obedience to God, in what meaning he spoke it, I cannot determine. There may be novelty in the word, but p 1. Tim. 6.20. profaneness which is the thing that the Apostle condemneth, there is none. He might suppose Adam's promise thereof before his fall, or the bond and duty arising of our creation, whereby we are no less tied then by a vow. Of his terms of raving and decayed wits, we will leave him to consider further, presuming that one day he will think that in all this matter he hath but raved, and that his wits were not right in taking upon him the defence of so bad a cause. CHAPTER 9 OF IMAGES. Our consents. We acknowledge the civil use of Images, M. Perkin●. as freely & truly as the Church of Rome doth. By civil use, I understand that which is made of them in the common society of men, out of the appointed places of the solemn worship of God: And this to be lawful appeareth, because the arts of painting and graving are the ordinances of God, and to be skilful in them is the gift of God, as the example of Bezaleel and Aholiab declare. * Exod. 35. This use of Images may be in sundry things. First in adorning and setting forth of buildings; so the Lord commanded his Temple to be adorned with Images of Palmtrees and Pomegranates; of Bulls, Cherubs, and such like. Secondly, they serve for distinction of coins. Thirdly, Images serve to keep in memory friends departed whom we reverence, & therefore in the days after the Apostles, Christians used privately to keep the pictures of their friends departed; which afterward (saith he) by abuse came to be set in Churches and worshipped, of which hereafter. Second conclusion: We hold the historical use of Images to be good and lawful: that is, to represent to the eye the acts of Histories, whether they be human or divine; and thus we think that the histories of the Bible may be painted in private places. Third conclusion: In one case it is lawful to make an Image, to testify the presence or effects of the majesty of God; namely, when God himself commands it: so was the brazen Serpent made to represent Christ crucified, * john. 3. and the Cherubs over the Mercy seat, to represent the majesty of God, whom the Angels adore: And therefore it is said: Thou shalt not make to thyself (that is upon thine own head) any graven Image: This by the way is a very wilful perverting of those words (to thyself) which cannot signify, but, to thine own use, that is, to adore them, as is plainly declared in the text following. The fourth conclusion: The right Images of the new Testament, are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospel, wherein Christ and his benefits are lively represented unto us: but these be metaphorical Pictures, not belonging to this purpose: for it is one thing to describe in words, another to express in lively colours and lineaments. 1. W. BISHOP. These conclusions contain, as M. Perkins affirmeth, the doctrine of the Church of England; which I would believe, if I did not see the Magistrates publicly to take away Pictures from Catholics, to tear and burn them, which were kept but in private places: yea, their more fervent disciples cannot abide a Cross standing by the highway-side, or in any, never so profane a place, but either they beat and hale them down, or most despitefully deface them: bewraying indeed unto all moderate men, their cankered stomachs against him that died on the Cross: who will one day (when he pleaseth) confound them. But to cover this their malice, they cast over it the mantle of zeal, saying that the Papists make them their Gods, and that therefore they are to be abolished. O men blinded with spite against true devotion. We Catholics are a thousand times more zealous of the true honour of the living God, than any Protestants ever were or will be: And that small reverence which we yield unto Images, is more different from the honour and obedience due unto Almighty God, than the cope of heaven is distant from the centre of the earth. R. ABBOT. They say the devil never goes away but he leaves a stink behind him. M. Bishop as it appeareth, had given over this work at the question of satisfaction, but better remembering himself, he took the matter in hand again, and then would by no means give over till he had left us this stink of Images. This is one of the gross and palpable abominations of the kingdom of Antichrist, the filth whereof there is no man but seethe, save only they a 2. Cor. 4.4. in whom being unbelievers, the god of this world hath blinded their minds, that the light of the glorious Gospel of jesus Christ, which is the Image of God, should not shine unto them. By this the Church of Rome hath matched all the idolatries of the heathen, and brought all their juggling devices into the Church, abusing the ignorance and simplicity of the people as grossly and damnably as ever they did. But in this field I have walked at large before in b Sect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King: and therefore I will here tie myself to those things which Master Bishop giveth us occasion to consider of. M. Perkins in his third conclusion affirmeth a lawfulness of making Images, to testify the presence and effects of the majesty of God, when God himself hath so commanded, as he exemplifieth in Moses his making of the brazen serpent in figure of Christ crucified, & the Cherubin set over the mercy seat, God there promising his presence, and signifying the attendance of Angels to do him service. Concerning this point Tertullian being urged by idol-makers with the example of the brazen serpent, answereth very rightly: c Tertul. de Idol. Benè quod idem Deus & lege vetuit similitudinem fieri, & extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudinem interdixit. Si eundem Deum observes, habes legem eius. Ne feceris similitudinem Si & praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis, & tu imitare Mosen. Ne feceris adversus legem similitudinem, nisi & tibi Deus iusserit. It is well that the same God both did forbid by law, that any likeness should be made, and by extraordinary commandment did appoint the likeness of a serpent. If thou worship the same God, thou hast his law, Thou shalt not make the similitude or likeness of any thing: if thou look to the commandment of making a similitude afterward, do thou imitate Moses, do not against the law make an image, unless God command thee also. God giveth not laws to himself but to us: what he commandeth to the contrary by his own authority, is no justification of our presumption. For this cause M. Perkins observeth, that in the commandment it is said: Thou shalt not make (TO THYSELF) any graven image: to thyself, that is, (saith he) upon thine own head, or upon thine own will and pleasure. M. Bishop saith, that this is a wilful perverting of the words, which cannot signify, but to thine own use, that is, to adore. Thus he cannot abide that they should be restrained from doing somewhat of their own heads, and at their own will: it is death to them to be hedged from that walk. Yet Moses gave it for a lesson from God, d Deut. 12.8.32 vulg. Hoc tantum facito Domino. Ye shall not do every man what seemeth good in his own eyes, What I command thee that only do to the Lord; thou shalt put nothing to, nor take aught therefrom. Whereby it appeareth, that M. Perkins exposition containeth a truth, that to the Lord, or by way of service to God, no image might be made but what God himself commanded, neither doth the text declare any thing to the contrary, but that that is the true meaning of the words which he expoundeth. In his fourth conclusion he saith, that the right Images of the new Testament, are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospel, and all things that by the word of God do thereto appertain, whereby e Gal. 3. 1● jesus Christ is described before our eyes, as the Apostle saith, even as crucified amongst us. This (saith he) is an excellent picture whereby Christ with his benefits is lively represented unto us. These are Metaphorical pictures, saith M. Bishop, not belonging to this purpose. But why doth he admit that which M. Perkins citeth out of Origen affirming that Christians have no other. f Origen. contra Celsum lib. 8. Simulachra Deo dicanda sunt non fabrorum opera, sed à verbo Dei dedolata formataque in nobis, videlicet virtutu ad imitationem primogeniti totius ereaturae in quo sunt justitiae, temperantiae, fertitudinis, sapientiae, pietatis, caeterarumque virtutum exempla. Hae sunt statuae Deo dicata in animum virtutes exertentium, quibus decentèr honorari credimus omnium huiusmodi statuarum archetypum primum, etc. The images to be dedicated to God are not the work●s of Carpenters, but hewed by the word of God and framed in us, namely, virtues to the imitation of him, who is the first borne before all creatures, in whom are the examples of justice, fortitude, temperancy, wisdom, piety and other virtues. These are Images dedicated to God in the minds of them that exercise such virtues, wherewith we believe the principal of all such Images, the image of the invisible God, who is God the only begotten, to be conveniently honoured. He knew no other images lawful amongst Christians, but only such as wherein we bear the image of God and of his Son jesus Christ, but this M. Bishop thought not good to take knowledge of. As for that which he saith, that he believeth not our doctrine to be as M. Perkins hath set down, because the Magistrates publicly take away pictures from Catholics, and tear them down and burn them, he must understand that it is nothing to us, what he believeth. Our Magistrates know how to put difference betwixt the lawful use of things, & the unlawful abuse: they know well how such pictures and images are by Papists turned to Idols, and therefore to show the detestation of the dishonour that thereby is done to God, they burn them, and tear them, and deface them being found with them, that they may no more be abused to such idolatry. Where otherwise they are found, and are not subject to their superstitious and false devotions, our Magistrates do nothing against them, because they are not offended at the having, but at the abusing of them. By reason of those idolatrous fancies, it is, that our more fervent disciples, as he calleth than, cannot abide a Cross standing by the high way side, or in any other place. They carry therein a true zeal to God, though not always so advisedly managed as it ought to be. But if any of private fancy proceed to the demolishing and destroying of such public monuments, we approve it not, and they that do it, deservedly receive their check. We are well enough persuaded, that they who first began the erecting of those Crosses, did it merely in the honour of the name of Christ, that where before had stood the ensigns of false and idol Gods, g Ezec. 16.25. at the head of every way, there might be lifted up a trophy and standard as a monument and token of the exaltation of him that died upon the Cross. They were far off from Popish idolatry: they had learned not to worship that that is made with hands, being converted from worshipping stocks and stones, they knew they were not to return to the same again: they carried the same mind as did Helena, when she found the Cross whereon Christ was crucified: h Ambr. de obitu Theodos. Regem adoravit non lignum, utique quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum sed adoravit illum qui pependit in ligno. She worshipped the King (saith Ambrose) verily not the wood: for this were heathenish error, & the vanity of ungodly men: but she worshipped him that was hanged upon the wood. But what they erected only for historical ostentation of the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, that Popery turned to heathenish abomination, & gave to the Cross the honour that belonged only to him that died upon the Cross. In respect whereof public authority hath done that, that seemed necessary for the taking away of such idolatry. It hath removed what contained open and apparent scandal to true religion, and hath left the rest to fall of itself, applying itself to the rule of S. Austin, i Aug. de verb. Dom. Ser. 6. Prius agimus ut idola in eorum cordibus confrin. gamus. We first labour to break the idols in men's hearts, knowing that where the heart is reclaimed from idolatry, it learneth to esteem of things outward as they are. And thus (thanks be to God) men have now learned to behold Crosses, and go by them without those superstitious opinions and usages which before have been had and observed towards them. Now where public authority ceaseth, it is not for private men to begin again, neither can it be warranted, that men in show of zeal carry themselves tumultuously for the reforming of such errors. S. Austin could say of breaking the Pagan Idols, k Ibid. Vbi nobis non est data potestas, non facimus: ubi data est, non praetermittimus. Where power is not given us, we do it not; where it is given us, we omit it not. Much more are we to observe the same rule in those things which are deemed in their original to have contained nothing prejudicial to the faith. Yea & by common experience we see, that by such private opposition, beside that it is injurious to public government, men do but enkindle the minds of their opposites to a more earnest affecting of those things, which before they have seemed very lightly to set by. But yet the ground whereupon either publicly or privately we or any of us have been moved to the defacing of any such superstitious Images, is that which M. Bishop nameth, because the Papists have made them Gods, & therein rob God of that devotion and service which peculiarly belongeth unto him. Here he crieth out, O men blinded with spite against true devotion! but we on the other side give most humble thanks to God, that by his word he hath given us light to see what true devotion is, and hath freed us from their yoke, who under the name of Christian devotion held us in the bondage of heathenish abomination. As for them, whether they be zealous of the true honour of the living God, their fruits do show, who in all things, and specially in this matter of Images, carry themselves so contrary to the express word of God. And whereas he saith, that the small reverence which they yield to Images is more different from the honour due to God, than the cope of heaven is distant from the centre of the earth, he showeth that he hath learned of the jesuits to equivocate with God, as they are wont to do with men. How doth he call it a small reverence which they do to Images, when it appeareth not, but that they do the same to Images that they do to God? They kneel to them, they pray to them, they vow vows to them, they offer offerings to them, they swear by them, and yet M. Bishop would make us believe, that there is great difference betwixt the worship that they do to images, and that which they do to God. But forsooth we must think that by a mental reservation they make a difference, and though all things outwardly seem the same, yet in mind and understanding they prefer God before their Idols. Thus they would have us to think, when as notwithstanding Andradius their great defender of the Council of Trent, freely confesseth, that l Andrad. Orth. explicat. lib. 9 Non tamen inficiamur hac nos Latriae adoratione Christi praeclarissimam crucem colere & venerari. with the worship of Latria (belonging they say to God only) they worship the cross of Christ. Yea Polydore Virgil another of their own fellows, hath told us how they have observed this difference: m Polyd. Virgil. de invent. rer. lib. 6. cap. 13. Eò insaniae deventum est ut haec pittatis pars parùm differat ab impietate Su●t enim benè multi rudiores stupidioresque qui saxeas vel ligneas, marmore ●s, aeneas, seu in parteribus pictas varijsque coloribus litas imagines colant, non ut figuras, sed perinde quasi ipsae sensum aliqu●m habeant & ijs m●gis fia●ne quam Christo. & alijs ●uis quibus di●atae sunt, etc. Men are grown to that madness (saith he) that this part of piety is little differing from flat impiety. For there are a many of the more rude and ignorant who worship images of stone or wood, of marble or brass, yea and painted and garnished with colours upon the walls, not as figures, but even as if they had verily sense, and do put more trust in them then they do in Christ or other Saints to whom they are dedicated. We doubt not but he would speak of his own as favourably as he could, and therefore we may well conceive what horrible impiety it was that wrested from him this confession. There followeth more to that purpose, wherein he showeth how the masters of that Image-craft made their profit of it, drawing on the people in that simplicity to offer richly unto them, but what he said, he is made now not to say, the Spanish Censors having taken order by their Index Expurgatorius, that all that matter in their editions is left out. Thus they take care that their Idolatry may continue still, providing so near as may be, that nothing may be extant amongst them for the discovery thereof And hereby it appeareth, that it is but for bashfulness that M. Bishop telleth us of so great difference of worship, & howsoever he and such other as he is, can plead for themselves a mental reservation, even as the Philosophers and learned amongst the heathen did, yet they suffer the people to run on in this abomination to worship their Images with as great devotion, as if they were very Gods. 2. W. BISHOP. And that these hotter brethren may see what reason Master Perkins had to allow of the civil and historical use of Images, I think it expedient to note here, how in the purest antiquity, Images were made and respected. That famous Image of our blessed Saviour, which the woman cured of the bloody flux, * Mat 9 set up in brass at Caesarea Philippi, upon a pillar of stone, is not unknown unto any that have read the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Lib. 7. cap. 14. And how God did approve it by giving virtue unto an herb when it did grow to touch the hem of that Picture, to cure all manner of diseases. Which Image Eusebius himself did see standing until his days, which was 1300. years ago, as he there testifieth as also, that he saw divers others, namely, of Saint Peter and Paul. This goodly stature being most memorable both for antiquity of it, being made our Saviour yet living, and for the miracles wrought by that herb, growing at the foot of it, julian the Apostata for malice against our Saviour, caused to be broken down, and set up his own image in the place of us but his was presently with lightning and thunder from heaven consumed into ashes, and our saviours, by the Christians carried into their Church, as witnessech Zozomenus. * Lib. 5. hist. cap. 20. Another picture of our saviours visage, he himself is reported to have sent unto Abgarus Prince of Edessa, as witnesseth Metaphastes In vita Constantini, Damascene * Lib. 10. de Imaginibus. , and Euagrius, * Lib. 4. hist. c p. ●. who doth in the same chapter rehearse a notable miracle, wrought by the same Image, to deliver the town from the sacking of the Persians. And in his fifth book and 18. chapter, recordeth another miracle done by the image of the blessed Virgin Marie in a prison at Antioch. The third Image representing our blessed Saviour, is said to have been made by Nicodemus his secret Disciple, which afterward was taken by the jews, and in despite of Christ was crucified, and to their confusion, much blood issued out of it. This history is in the work of S. Athanasius that sound pillar of the Church, entitled, De passione imaginis, and is either his, or some other very ancient and grave writer: For it is related in the seventh general Council, act. 4. That Saint Luke the Evangelist drew the picture of our blessed Laedie, is registered by Theodorus Lector 1000 years ago, and * Lib. 1. collectan. Metaphrastes, In vita Lucae, and Nicephorus * Li. 14 hist 1, 2. . Tertullian, an author of the second hundredth year after Christ, hath left written, * Lib. 2. de pudic. that the Image of Christ in shape of a shepherd carrying a sheep on his shoulders, was engraven upon the holy Chalices used in the Church. In the time of S. chrysostom, they were so common, that they were carried in rings, drawn on cups, painted in chambers. See Theodoret. in histor. relig. in vita Simeonis Stelitae. August. lib. 2. de cons. evang. cap. 10. And the 7. Synod. Act. 4. R. ABBOT. This Section M. Bishop writeth, neither against M. Perkins nor against us, but only against some hotter brethren, indeed against his own shadow, because I know none that do not allow of the civil and historical use of Images. But yet it shall not be amiss to note somewhat as touching some of the examples that he bringeth, because albeit by his own words it appeareth and is true, that they are nothing to his purpose, yet his drift is by such examples of Images, to gain some credit to their corruption and abuse of them. It is true that Eusebius maketh mention of such an Image set up a Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 17. at Caesarea Philippi by the woman whom Christ cured of the bloody issue, and that an herb grew at the foot of it, which when it grew to a certain height, cured all diseases miraculously, but that he himself saw it, he saith nor, neither doth he speak of any religion or devotion in any sort done unto it. If Popery had then swayed, what a work would there have been about that Image? what pilgrimages, what offerings, what kneeling, what censing, and no end of superstition? But there was no such matter, nor any manner of service done for the honour of it. Of the erecting of that Image Eusebius himself there saith: b Ibid. Nec mi rum videri d●●●● eos qui ex gertibus olim a Seruatore nostro curata suntasta seciss●, quando & Apostolorum illus imagines, Pauli videl. cet & Petri, con●que & apsius Christi●●. tabul● colorious depicta● ass●ruari vidimus quòd veteres ex gentili consuetudine eos quos seruatores put●rum hunc in modum honorare solui sunt. It need not seem strange, that those of the Gentiles who of old were cured by our Saviour Christ did such things, for that we have seen the Images of his Apostles Peter and Paul, yea and of Christ himself, kept painted with colours in tables, for that of old they have been wont by a heathenish custom thus to honour them whom they took to be preservers and saviours of them. Where it is duly to be noted, that Eusebins referreth the original hereof to the Gentiles, to heathenish custom and imitation, not to anie-institution of Christ, or of his Apostles and Evangelists, or other Pastors and Bishops of the Church. Again, that which he saith of other Images of Christ and Peter and Paul, he saith as of a matter very seldom and rare; We have seen such, saith he, as importing it was no common and ordinary thing. As for that which M. Bishop maketh the special commendation of this Image, which is the herb growing at the foot of it, it maketh me greatly to suspect, that in the report of it somewhat is amiss: do thou judge gentle Reader, whether there be not just cause of such suspicion. First Eusebius himself reporteth the matter only by hearsay: c Ibid. Domum eius ostendi, beneficijque Seruatoris illam collati admiranda trophaea durare serunt, etc. Hanc statuam imaginem jesis habere dicunt, etc. Mansit ad nostra usque tempora, sicut & vinere potest ab ijs qui in illam citatatem commigrant. They say, saith he, that the woman's house is yet showed, and that there continueth a notable monument of the benefit done to her by our Saviour; they say that the same hath the Image of jesus. It hath continued even until this time, and may be seen of them that travel to that City. If he had reported this matter as of his own sight and knowledge, some more reason there had been to give credit to it, but he doth not so report it, and therefore we cannot so firmly rest upon that which he saith. Secondly we so much the less believe it, for that it hath no other testimony but only his hearsay, there being no other of the ancient fathers that giveth us any record or witness of it. M. Bishop citeth Sozomen, making mention of that herb also, but he doth it only upon Eusebius his credit, other proof or knowledge of it he bringeth none. Now it is not possible that so famous a testimony & justification of the name of Christ should be omitted by justin Martyr, by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, Minutius Felix, and others in their Apologies and defences of Christian religion against the heathen: yea in the expounding of the story of that woman in the Gospel, neither Origen nor chrysostom, nor hilary, nor Ambrose, nor Hierome make any mention of such a matter. This I suppose should much weaken the credit and opinion of the miracle by him reported, to say nothing that if any such matter had been known, which could not but be known, it is not credible that it could have stood for the space of those three hundred years in so many terrible persecutions, wherein nothing was left unattempted or undone to take away all things that might give any glory to the name of Christ. Some speech it seemeth there grew afterwards concerning it, at leastwise of the standard or Image which in likelihood stood there, which so soon as d Sozomen. hist. lib. 5. cap. 20. julian the Apostata heard, he sent to have it taken away, and his own Image to be set up in stead thereof. Which being done in despite of Christ, no marvel if by thunder & lightning from heaven God revenged it, and turned topsyturvy the Image which that renegade set up against the name of Christ. Yea we doubt not concerning Popish Idols and Images of Christ and his Saints, but that God's revenge shall follow them, who destroy them in contumely & reproach of Christ, and in despite and hatred of his name, howsoever they themselves are abominable also in the sight of God, who are the makers and users of them. For he who amongst the heathens so notoriously revenged the sacrileges that were done to idoll-gods, when they were done to them under the name of gods, will undoubtedly revenge the contempts that are offered and done to sacrilegious Idols in the name of Christ, because their malicious purpose is therein directed against Christ himself. The ten tribes being divided from judah, built themselves altars wherewith to sacrifice to God, expressly contrary to the law of God, who admitted e Deut. 12.11.13.14. no altar but in the Temple at jerusalem, but yet when Ahab and jezabel pulled down those altars in contempt of God, and in behalf of Baal, Elias the Prophet complaineth unto God: f 1. King. 19.10. Lord they have digged down thine altars. That therefore which Sozomen reporteth of the destruction of julian's image, serveth not to add any credit to Popish Images, if at least it be true which he alone also reporteth, who in the same place reporteth some other very fabulous and vain things. The next example of Images is so much the more impudently alleged, for that in their own Decrees those two Epistles g Dist. 15. cap. Sancta Romana. ex decret. Gelas. 1. Concil. tom. 2. Epistola Abagari regis, ad jesum Apocrypha: Epistola jesu ad Abagarum regem apocryphas. of Abgar to Christ and of Christ to Abgar, whence that fable is taken, are condemned for an apocryphal or counterfeit device. It is to be noted also, that h Euseb. hist. lib. 1. cap. 14. Eusebius mentioneth Abgarus sending an Epistle to Christ, and Christ's answer to him, but of this matter of Christ's image he saith not one word. The tale it appeareth was then begun, but it was not come to perfection till afterwards Damascen that notable Idol-monger added to it another piece, and to that piece Nicephorus added yet another piece, and so now it serveth M. Bishop and his fellows for an authentical and good record. As for the miracles that he telleth us of, they little avail with us, because the one standeth wholly upon a false ground, and for the other or rather for both, we know that Euagrius sometimes showeth too little discretion in the entertaining of such tales. The third instance M. Bishop himself distrusteth, and naming first Athanasius for the reporter of it, cometh in presently with either it is his, or some other very grave and ancient writers. And why? for, saith he, it is related in the seventh general Council, namely wherein they seemed every man to have put on a vizard upon his face, that they might not be seen to blush at those lewd and shameful forgeries wherewith they then almost eight hundred years after Christ, laboured to set up the worshipping of Idols and Images, by the instigation and furtherance of a wicked Empress, usurping and tyrannising in the minority of her son. We shall have afterwards further occasion to speak concerning this Council; in the mean time it is to be understood, that i Sigebert. in Chron. anno 765. Sigebert mentioneth this matter of the Image of Christ to have befallen as the report was, 400. years after the time of Athanasius, in the year of our Lord 765. at which time much good drink was in brewing to make men drunk with the opinion of that idol-service which Satan then by might and main laboured to bring in. Yet M. Bishop so directed by his master Bellarmine, is not ashamed to cite this as under the name of Athanasius, by his name to gain some credit to a lie. Such another tale doth he tell us out of Theodorus Lector, and Metaphrastes and Nicephorus, of the Image of the virgin Marie, taken by Saint Luke the Evangelist, of whom we read that he was a Physician, but that he was also a Painter we read not. This matter hath no record at all for six hundred years after Christ, and we must believe it upon their words who so long after have devised it of their own heads. They come too late to inform us what Saint Luke did, and because it hath no better witness we reject this also for a lie. The rest I omit, importing only a civil and historical use of Images, as M. Bishop propoundeth, which we question not, only against the seventh Synod we except as an unfit witness in this cause, which from historical use lifted up Images to be adored with religious and holy worship. 3. W. BISHOP. This briefly of Images in general: now a word or two of the sign of the Cross, which our Protestants have banished from all their followers: nevertheless it cannot be denied to have been in most frequent use among the best Christians of the Primitive Church. Tertullian hath these words, * De corona militis. At every going forward and return, when we dress us and pull on our shoes, when we wash and sit down, at the lighting of candles, and entering into our chambers, finally when we set ourselves to any thing, we make the sign of the Cross on our foreheads. Saint Ambrose * Serm. 84. exhorts us to begin all our works with the sign of the Cross. S. Augustine. * 118. in Joan. What is that ensign of Christ, which all men know, but the Cross of Christ, the which sign, unless it be made on the foreheads of the faithful, yea, on the water by which they are regenerate, and on the Oil and Chrism wherewith they are anointed, and on the sacrifice wherewith they are nourished, not one of them are orderly and duly administered. Our Protestant's then that have neither holy Oil, nor sacrifice to make the Cross upon, are in pitiful taking. But hear also what some of the best Greek Doctors do say of this same sign of the Cross. S. Cyril * Catech. 4. agreeth fully-with Tertullian, saying: Make this sign of the Cross both eating and drinking, both sitting and standing, and walking and speaking, in sum, at all times. S. Basil * De Spir. sanct. accounteth this making the sign of the Cross, among some of the principal traditions of the Apostles. Origen * Hom. 8. in ca 15. Exod. yieldeth one reason why we make this sign, affirming that fear and trembling doth fall upon the evil spirits, when they see the sign of the Cross made with faith. S. Gregory Nazianzene * Orat. 1. in jul. reporteth, that the wicked Apostata julian, being frighted with spirits, made the sign of the Cross, which he had renounced, and yet it delivered him from them. S. chrysostom most largely discourseth of the glorious use of the Cross, Orat quod Christus sit Deus. See the place, among an hundred other commendations of it, he hath these words: That the heads of Kings are not so decked with their Diadems, as with the sign of the Cross, and concludeth, that all men strive to pass other in taking to them this admirable Cross, and that no man was ashamed of it, but esteemed themselves more beautified with that, then with many jewels, borders and chains, garnished with Pearl and precious stones. Heu quantum mutamur ab ipsis: Alas, what a pitiful change is this, that that which was of the best Christians reputed dear and holy, should now be accounted a point of superstition and plain witchcraft? By all which we learn, that the best Christians both used always and highly esteemed of holy Images, even from our saviours own days, and God himself hath by divine testimony of miracles recommended them unto us, not only for the civil and historical uses of them, but more to honour them whose pictures they were: for no man in his right wits can deny, but that it is and always hath been reputed as a great honour done to the deceased, to erect him an Image, to eternize the memory of his noble acts: as also that it is great encouragement to all beholders of such Pourtraits, to endeavour to imitate their glorious examples. The very sight of the Image of Polemon, a most chaste and holy parsonage, moved an unchaste woman to change her life, as out of S. Gregory Nazianzene is related * Synod. 7. act. 4. . Having so great testimony for the ancient use of Images, and such manifold commodities by the discreet and holy practice of them, he must needs be furiously transported with blind zeal, that makes war against Crosses, and burns holy pictures, as of late the superintendant of Hereford did in the market place openly. R. ABBOT. Of the sign of the Cross enough hath been said before in answer to M. Bishop's Epistle to the King. We condemn it not being taken as an arbitrary and indifferent ceremony, voluntarily upon occasion accepted by the discretion of the Church, and left free to the like discretion as occasion requireth, either to be wholly relinquished, or the use thereof to be moderated and abridged without opinion of any violation or breach of religion towards God. So long as it was kept within compass of being only a matter of admonition, a token of profession, and occasion of remembrance of the name of Christ, so long there was no reason for any man to contend concerning the using of it. But since it hath grown from being a mere ceremony, to be accounted as a Sacrament of grace and salvation, an instrument of sanctification and holiness, containing a spiritual virtue and power of blessing, and ministering inward strength against our spiritual enemies, it hath concerned the godly discretion and wisdom of the Church, to use due care to redress those erroneous and superstitious conceits thereof, which tend to the detriment and wrong of the faith and name of jesus Christ. We have received no commandment thereof from God, no institution of jesus Christ, no word or warrant of the Apostles, and therefore being brought in by men, it ought to be subject to the judgement of the Church, and not the Church tied to any bondage of the use of it. Our Church therefore hath used her liberty in this behalf, and though we deny not but that the sign of the Cross were in most frequent use, as M. Bishop saith, in the primitive Church, yet considering it to be a thing injurious to the faith and cross of Christ where it is made a matter of mystical consecration and blessing, hath discharged us of it where it was taken in that sense; and yet that we seem not wholly to explode that which antiquity hath approved, hath there retained it where it may carry no show of being subject to that construction. We use it not to ourselves, to our meats and drinks, to the water of baptism, to the bread and wine of the lords Supper, or any otherwhere where it was used with that meaning as in Popery it was used in all these: we use it in baptism with the application first intended, and to them which yet know not the use of it, that that which is done to them may be a remembrance to us, & to them also when they shall hereafter know and see the same in others, not to be ashamed of Christ crucified, and of the bearing of his cross, but with courage and constancy to follow him whose in baptism we have vowed ourselves to be. We know the Papists themselves are not so frequent in the use of the cross in their ordinary conversasation, as some ancienter times have been, and therefore as they themselves have done in part, so they must give us leave further also as occasion requireth to relinquish the custom of i● 〈◊〉 as touching the testimonies of antiquity which M. Bishop allegeth for the approving thereof, first Tertullian and Ambrose and Cyril do simply note the vulgar use of it, which in them and in those times we condemn not; they had their reason for the using, and so have we for the leaving of it. S. Austin goeth further and saith, that a Aug. in joan. tract. 118. Quod signum nisi adhibeatur sive frontibus credentium, sive ipsi aquae qua regenerantur, sive oleo qu● Chrismate unguntur, sive sacrificio quo aluntur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur. unless the sign of the Cross be applied to the water of baptism, and to the sacrifice wherewith the faithful are nourished, neither of them is rightly or orderly done, but he meaneth rightly or orderly in respect of the order and custom of the Church, not as touching any ordinance of God, even as if we would say, that baptism is not rightly administered with us without adding afterwards the sign of the cross, who yet account no religion or holiness at all in the adding of it, and neither hold baptism to be the better in the having, nor the worse in the wanting of it. The sacrifice of which S. Austin there speaketh, the Protestants want not, howsoever in respect of Popish abuse they forbear the name. He speaketh of a sacrifice wherewith the faithful are nourished, which is our Sacrament whereof they are communicants and partakers, not the Popish sacrifice where they are only lookers on. See what hath been said hereof before in b Sect. 27. answer of the Epistle to the King. As for Chrism or holy oil, as M. Bishop termeth it, spoken of in the same place by S. Austin, the Protestants are in no pitiful taking for the want of it, because they want nothing thereby that Christ hath commanded to be had. The ancient Churches used their ceremonies at their discretion. c Faber. Stapul. in Dionys. eccles. hierarch. Faber Stapulensis noteth many ceremonies of old time used, which are now quite omitted in the Church of Rome. We leave out Chrism by the same authority whereby they have left out of their ceremonies so many publicly received in ancient time. But so much the rather do we forego this, that we may not seem to uphold that abomination of Popery, whereby in their conjurations and benedictions they give power to these impotent creatures of water, oil, salt, and such other like, to serve for soul's health and for forgiveness of sins, and for resisting the power of the devil, which are no other but blasphemous devices, mere illusions of Satan, drawing men to put their trust in these trumperies, that they may neglect true faith and trust in Christ himself. d Basil. de Spir. sanct. cap. 27. 〈…〉 eos qui sp●●●● stum collocarunt signemus, etc. Basil mentioneth the sign of the cross no otherwise but in baptism as we use it. As for his speech of Traditions, what we are to attribute unto it, hath been before showed in the question thereof. 〈…〉 Origen do nothing concern the outward sign of the cross made with the hand, but the inward sign and print thereof consisting in faith. e Orig in Exod. hom. 6. Quid timent demones? quid tremuns? si ●e dubio crucem Christi in qua in umphati sunt, in qua exuti sunt principatus corum & potestates. Timor ergo & tremor cadent super eos cùm signum in nobis viderint crucis fidelitèr fixum, & magnitudinem brachij illius quod Dominus expendit in cruse. Non te ergo alitèr timebunt nisi videant in tecrucen Christi; nisi & tu poteris dicere, Mihi absit gloriari, etc. What do the devils fear? what do they tremble at? Undoubtedly at the cross of Christ, whereby they were triumphed over, whereby they were stripped of their principality and power. Therefore fear and trembling shall fall upon them, when they shall see faithfully fastened in us the sign of the cross, & the greatness of that arm which the Lord stretched forth upon the cross. Therefore no otherwise will they fear thee, except they see in thee the cross of Christ, except thou canst say, God forbidden that I should rejoice but in the cross of our Lord jesus Christ. This is then the cross or sign of the cross where at the devil is dismayed, even the faith of Christ crucified, and our glorying and rejoicing in him only, whereby we are inwardly signed and marked to be his. That which Gregory Nazianzene reporteth of julian the Apostata we are somewhat doubtful of, because it may be a matter either misreported or misconstrued. julian and his conjuror go into a dark cave to consult with the devil about getting the Empire. The devil beginneth after his wont manner to appear. julian being afraid signeth himself with the cross. The devil hereupon departeth away. Being brought again, he departeth again upon the same occasion. The conjuror telleth julian, that it was not for fear that the devil went away, but because he detested his making of the sign of the cross. Now the question is, how this matter cometh to be known, for here was no body but julian and the conjuror and the devil, and we cannot well imagine who should be the true reporter of it. Again, it is doubtful whether the historians do make right construction of this accident if it were so. julian was a vile miscreant, a wretched caitiff, even a limb of the devil, and what, shall we think that with the sign of the cross one devil driveth away another? It is likely that the conjuror knew well the meaning of the devil, that it was not for fear that he went away, but only for that he could not abide that any that came to ask counsel of him, should make any show of having to do with Christ. Whatsoever the matter there were, we undoubtedly resolve, that it is but a mee●e illusion of the devil, to seem to go away at the sign of the cross, when in the heart there is no faith or belief in the cross of Christ, as in julian there was none. As for that which he citeth out of chrysostom, that f Chrysost. hom. Quòd Christus sit Deus. Neque enim sic regia corona ornatur caput ut cru●●. etc. the heads of kings are not so decked with their diadems as with the sign of the cross, our most noble King james will confess no less, and we will subscribe the same, that the greatest honour of his Crown is the sign of the cross, as an acknowledgement of the Son of God that died upon the cross. The glory of pearls and precious stones is mortal and transitory, but immortal is the glory of that which his Majesty professeth, by bearing the ensign of the cross upon his Imperial Crown. That otherwise the sign of the cross is not now so affected and admired as chrysostom there describeth, it is partly for that there is not so great occasion thereof now as then there was, when as Christians lived so commonly amongst the heathens: partly for that Popery hath so intolerably abused it, and by sinister and superstitious fancies and opinions of it, hath put it into the hands of conjurers, sorcerers, witches, charmers, who most damnably have made it one of the special instruments of their devilish and wicked practices. Now therefore it is enough for us, that in substance of faith concerning Christ crucified, we agree with the ancient Church: as for the change of an accident or ceremony, it is not sufficient to put any difference betwixt them and us. The house of God ceaseth not to be the same, for taking away a piece of an appentise which hath been so beaten with wind and rain, as that it is quite rotten, and yieldeth to the walls neither ornament nor defence. The change therefore ariseth not so much of us, as of the thing itself, which howsoever it was anciently reputed of, yet hath since been made, though Master Bishop will not have it so thought, a point of superstition and plain witchcraft. The ancient Church would not be thought g Tertul. Apol. c. 16. Qui crucit nos religiosos putat, etc. to make a religion of the Cross, and Tertullian yet continuing sound, acquitteth them thereof. h Minut. Felix in Octau. apud Arnob. Cruces nec colimus nec optamus: vos planè qui ligneos deos consecratis, cruces ligneas ut deorum vestrorum partes forsitan adoratu. We do no worship to Crosses, sayeth Minutius Felix imitating and more plainly expressing the meaning of Tertullian, but you, saith he to the Pagans, who consecrate wooden gods, do haply worship wooden crosses as pieces of your gods. Ambrose maketh this the use of the sign of the cross, that i Ambros epist. 77. Per momenta singula fronti propria contemptum mortu inscribit, utpote qui sciat sine cruce Domini salutem se habere non posse thereby a Christian man every while writeth upon his own forehead the contempt of death, as who knoweth that without the cross of Christ he cannot be saved. When julian objected to Christians the use of the Cross, Cyril maketh no more thereof but this, that * Cyril count jul. lib. 6. Pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriam omn● boni & omnis virtutu. they made it in remembrance of all goodness and all virtue. Whatsoever they say of the cross or of the sign of the cross, they refer it to the faith of Christ crucified, not to the cross itself, but to the inward cogitation of the benefit of his cross. k jaem in joan. lib. ●. c. 17. Cruse insignita mens coelesti alimonia & Spiritus sancti gratia affatim pascitur, etc. Quisquis oculos animi ad Christum cruci affixum converterit, ab omni vulnere peccati ilicò curabitur. The mind marked with the cross, saith Cyril, is plentifully fed with heavenly food, and grace of the holy Ghost: whosoever turneth the eyes of his mind to Christ nailed to the cross, he shall be forthwith cured from all wound of sin. They used the outward sign only to turn the mind to the beholding of the cross of Christ, thereby hoping to receive comfort and defence. But Popery hath taught men so to conceive, as if God had given to the sign of the cross some formal power to do great wonders for us, & in this sense have witches & charmers borrowed it from them, as was before said. Yea Popery hath taught men most blasphemously to say to the wooden Cross: l Breviar. Rom. sabbat. quarto quadrages. O crux aut spes unica Hoc passionis tempore, Auge pijs justitiam, Reisque dona veniam. All-haile, O Cross, our only hope In this time of the passion: To godly men increase righteousness, And to offenders grant forgiveness. They have made the people to worship it, to pray to it, to do to it all manner of religious devotion, as if the wooden cross were to be taken for Christ himself. Upon pretence that he hanged upon a cross, they have attributed that to the cross which belongeth to Christ only. Consider the prayer which they make for consecration of the cross; m Oramus te Domine sancte Pater, etc. ut dignerus benedicere hoc lignum crucis tuae, ut sit remedium salutare generi humano, sit soliditas fidei, bonorum operum profecius & redemptio animarum: sit solamen & protectio & tu●ela adversus saeva iacula inimicorum, etc. We beseech thee O Lord, holy Father, that thou wilt vouchsafe to bless this wood of thy cross, that it may be a saving remedy to mankind, strength of faith, furtherance of good works, and a redemption of souls; that it may be a comfort, protection and defence against all the cruel darts of the enemies, etc. This is nothing else but to set up a block or a piece of wood in stead of Christ, and to cause men to say unto it, Thou art our redemption & salvation, even as the Israelites said of the golden Calf, n Exod. 32.4. These are thy Gods which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. These and such other like both impious blasphemies and superstitious fancies, have caused us to content ourselves with the faith of Christ crucified, and to forbear the outward ceremony of the cross, which was of old used only as a token of the profession of that faith. For conclusion of this matter of the Cross thou must note, gentle Reader, that it is but only a Cross whereof they all speak whom he hath alleged; of the Crucifix they say nothing. And so indeed they used barely the Cross, but the Crucifix in those times was yet unknown. o Beat. Rhen. in Tertul. Apologet. ca 16. Apparet Crucifixi effigiem sculptilem aut pictam id temporis crucinon solitam addi, etc. Id à gentilibus natum videtur, conniventibus sanctis patribus ut vel sic ad Christiamsmum pertraherentur. That seemeth to have grown from the Pagans, saith Beatus Rhenanus, the father's winking at it, that so they might be drawn to Christianity. That which came in by connivence and winking at Pagan fancy, the Church of Rome hath since taken hold of, and turned it according to the manner of the Pagans to extreme abomination. Now albeit full little it be which M. Bishop hath hitherto said in the behalf of his Images, and that upon so broken and hollow grounds, as that we may think him scarcely well in his wits that would build any thing thereupon, yet he is well persuaded of that he hath said, and telleth us that we may learn thereby that that yet we cannot see, that Christians have always highly esteemed of Images, that God hath recommended them by miracles, and that not only for the civil and historical use, but more to honour them whose pictures they were. The sign of the cross indeed belongeth not to this question, but otherwise what a poor deal hath he brought us, lies and all, that serveth any way to justify their Popish usage of Images. He hath told us of certain pictures of Christ, and Peter, and Paul, which we also have; he bringeth but one only example of any standing Image, and that acknowledged to be of heathenish custom, and imitation of Paganism. The miracles that he reporteth what slender and uncertain proof they have, it appeareth by that that hath been said. Surely if Popery had been then in the world, M. Bishop would have been able to have brought us many famous authors, and pregnant examples of all Churches for the same which they now do. Many carts are not able to bear the Legends that might be written of Images, and their miracles since the Church of Rome first undertook the patronage of them, and shall we believe that the ancient Church was of their mind, when there is so scant and silly show of any authority or testimony for warrant thereof? We may therefore see what a special faculty M. Bishop hath in making a conclusion, and how workmanlike he can build a large house upon a little ground. But out of that wit which he hath showed therein, he telleth us, that no man in his right wits can deny, but that it is, and always hath been reputed a great honour to the deceased, to erect him an Image to eternize the memory of his noble acts. Where if his own wits had been right, he would have remembered 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 honour done to Abraham, and Isaac, & jacob, to eternize the memory of their noble acts, not to Moses, nor josuah, nor David, 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 up Images for all these, to eternize the memory of their noble acts? This conceit of Master Bishops is profane and foolish, and savouring wholly of Paganism, neither do we find that the holy men of God have ever reputed this as an honour to be done unto dead men. Nay, he herein pointeth to the very root from whence idolatry first sprung. Men being by death deprived of them whom they loved, would comfort themselves by making their pictures and images, thereby to keep some kind of sight and memorial of them. Thus the father did by his deceased son, and men to them at whose hands they had received great benefits, or whom they would seem in special manner to admire. From human affection they proceeded to opinion and exercise of religion, and whilst they doted upon the Images of the dead, they would thereby do some honour and service to them. The heart of man being gone astray from God, grew more and more in the liking of this device, and the devil ceased not by all means to further the same, until he had brought it to the height of all abominable idolatry, and found means to have devotion done to himself thereby under the name of God. Thus S. Austin noteth, that p August. count Faust. lib. 22. cap. 17. Ex desiderio mortuotum constitutae sunt imagines unde simulachrorum usus exortus est, & maiore adulatione divini honores deferebantur tanquam in coelum receptis, pro quibus se in terris daemoniae colenda supposuerunt & sibi sacrificari à deceptis & per diti● flagitarunt. of desire or love to the dead images were set up, whence the use of Idols began, and by greater flattery divine honours were done to them, as being taken up into heaven, in steed of whom the devils here on the earth did substitute themselves, and required of deceived and wretched men, to have sacrifice done unto them. Here of the book of Wisdom saith: q Wised. 14 13: The vainglory of men brought in Idols into the world. When a father mourned for his son that was taken away suddenly, he made an image for him that was once dead, whom now he worshippeth as a God, and ordained to his servants ceremonies and sacrifices. Here is the original and effect of that fantastical device which Master Bishop mentioneth of eternising the memory of men, and of their noble acts, by making Images and pictures of them. As for that which he addeth of great encouragement hereby given to all beholders of such pourtraites, to endeavour to imitate their glorious examples, they are the glorious words of a vain man babbling his own conceits. If God had seen this to be a fit means for encouragement to virtue, he would not have failed to give to his people a commandment thereof, neither would he by special law have taken away from them all use and practise of this encouragement. He telleth us a tale out of their second Nicene Council, of a lewd woman reclaimed by the sight of Polemons picture, but he must bring us a better authority if he will have us to believe him, because we know it to have been the practice of that Council, to tell their own lies under the Father's names. Surely we must think that she was well prepared before, that by the sight of a picture could be moved to leave her vicious and unchaste life. Out of doubt amongst all the pictures and Images of their Romish Church, Master Bishop cannot give us one example of the like. But he telleth us that the manifold commodities of Images, stand in the discreet and holy practice of them, and it is likely that that discretion and holiness is worn out from amongst them, and for that cause not one Courtesan learneth by the Image of our Lady that which that unchaste woman learned by the Image of Polemon, and so much the less for that sometimes some gallant Courtesan is chosen to make our Lady's Image to her likeness. Foolish vain man, what discretion can there be in that, in the practice whereof God hath pronounced men to be r Esa. 44.19. void of understanding? What holiness can be in that which he affirmeth to be s Ibid. an abomination? what profit in that which he hath taught us to be t Ver. 10. profitable for nothing? what teaching by that which he calleth u jerem. 10.8. the doctrine of vanity, concerning which he hath said, x Habac. 2.19. Woe unto him that saith to the dumb stone, Rise up, it shall teach thee? Which things considered, the superintendant of Hereford, saith he, but good manners would have taught him to say, the Lord Bishop of Hereford did justly that which he did to take away crosses and pictures from such as make Idols of them, and openly to burn them, not transported therein with blind zeal, but led thereto with mature judgement and discretion, not being like the Trent and Romish Bishops, who for the most part are like the Idols which they worship, carrying a name of that they are not; but a man of learning, and gravity, and wisdom, giving honour to the place wherein he is, as the place hath done to him. 4. W. BISHOP. The difference. Now to the points in controversy, which are three, as M. Perkins delivereth: The first is, in that the Church of Rome holds it lawful to make Images to resemble God; though not in respect of his divine nature, yet in respect of some properties and actions: We contrarily saith M. Perkins hold it unlawful to make Images any way to represent the true God. For the second commandment saith plainly, * Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing in heaven, etc. The Papists say that the commandment is meant of the Images of false Gods; but it must needs be understood by the Image of the true jehovah, and it forbids to resemble God, either in his nature, or in his properties and works; for so saith the Roman Catechism upon the second commandment. Answer. This passeth all kind of impudency, to quote the Roman Catechism in defence of that opinion, which it doth of set purpose disprove. It teacheth indeed, that the very nature and substance of God, which is wholly spiritual, cannot be expressed and figured by corporal lineaments and colours, and allegeth the places produced by M. Perkins, to prove that unlawful; yet by and by annexeth these words: Let no man therefore think it to be against religion, and the law of God, when any person of the most holy Trinity is purtraited in such sort as they have appeared, either in the old or new Testament, etc. But let the Pastor teach, that not the nature of God, but certain 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 foul error. His texts of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechism, and do prove only, that God's proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporal shape or likeness. Then Master Perkins returns to confute the answer made him; that Idols are there only prohibited and saith, that we then confound the first and second commandment. For in the first was forbidden all false Gods which man frames unto himself, by giving his heart and the principal affections thereof unto them. (Good) and in the second, (admitting it to be the second) is forbidden to draw into any material likeness, that Idol which the heart had before framed unto itself, and to give it any bodily worship: which is distinction good enough to make two several commandments. Now the Roman Catechism, 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 commandments of the Protestants last, distinguishing desiring thy neighbour's wife, from coveting thy neighbour's goods, as they do: Thou shalt not commit adultery, from, Thou shalt not steal; 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 object are not so distinct, as the desiring of so diverse things, as a man's wife for lechery, and his goods of covetousness: And yet beside, add another reason very probable, that the reward and punishment belonging alike to all the Commandments, 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 conveniently 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 condemn the other division, which many of the ancient writers follow: but to show how little reason Master Perkins had to trust to that answer of his, that we should confound the first and second, which he saw the very Catechism cited by himself, doth make but one of both. R. ABBOT. M. Bishop doth much amiss here to put M. Perkins to the blush for an oversight, as touching the Roman Catechism, and therein very ill provideth for himself, who in his own book hath scarcely written one leaf, wherein there is not cause for himself to blush. Verily, he hath little cause to be so angry with M. Perkins, for thinking better of the Roman Catechism than it doth deserve; he only pointed at it in a marginal note by memory, which oftentimes deceiveth the carefullest man. Albeit it may be that M. Bishop and I are both deceived, and so is it very likely, that by oversight of the writer or the printer, the marginal note is put after, which should be applied to the words before. The Papists say the commandment is meant of the Images of false Gods. But the point of question is, whether it be lawful to make an Image to represent God. We say it is not lawful, because God hath wholly forbidden it, when he saith, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, etc. That hereby God forbiddeth the making of any Image to him, we prove, for that God after the giving of the law, advertiseth his people by Moses, as to declare the intent of this commandment, that therefore a Deut. 4.15. they saw no image in the day that the Lord spoke unto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, because they should take heed unto themselves, not to corrupt themselves by making them a graven Image, or representation of any figure. Again, 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 up unto him? M. Bishop answereth, that those texts do prove only that God's proper nature cannot or may not be resembled in any corporal shape or likeness. But if these places prove only this, what do they prove more than the heathen idolaters themselves freely confessed, such at least as were of any capacity or discretion amongst them. They knew their Images to be but corruptible things, having beginning and end, and therefore that they could not express the nature and condition of the Godhead, which they knew to be immortal. Hermes Trismegistus as Cyrill allegeth, said, that c Cyril. count julian lib. 1. Jncorp●reum corpore significare impossibile, & perfectum imperfecto comprehendere non possibile, & sempiternum conferre cum momentaneo d●fficile. it is impossible to signify the incorporeal God by a body, or by a thing unperfect to comprehend that that is perfect, or to compare that that is eternal, to that that is but for a moment. Zenophon a follower of Socrates, acknowledgeth that d Minut. Felix in Octa. apud Arnob. Zenophon Socraticus formam Dei veri neg ac videri posse, & ideò queri non oportere: Aristo Chius comprehendi omninè non posse: uterque maiestatem Dei intelligendi desperatione senserunt. the form of the true God cannot be seen, and therefore is not to be inquired of; as also Aristo Chius, that the same cannot be comprehended. They both, saith Arnobius, perceived the majesty of God by despair to attain to the understanding of him. Antisthenes' the Cynic affirmed, that e Clement Alexand. in pro●●ept. Antisthenes' dicit Deum nulli esse similem; quare eum nemo potest discere ex imagine. God is not like to any, and therefore that no man can learn him by an image. So doth Euripides for the notifying of God use these words; f Ibid Qui cuncta cernu, ipse sed non cernitur. Who seethe all things, and himself is not seen. Plato saith: g Ibid. universi huius pa●rem & effectorem & invenire diffi●ile est & cùm inveneris fieri non potest ut enuncies. It is hard to find out the father and maker of the world, and when thou hast found him, it is unpossible to declare him; yea he saith further, that h Cyril. count jul. lib. 1. De uno Deo Plato dixit nomen illi nullum congruere, nique humanam cognitionem posse comprehendere, sed appellationes quae de ipso dicuntur à posterioribus esse, abusiveque de ipso dici. no name is fitting to him, and that no knowledge can comprehend him, and the names that are given him are taken of after-effects, and abusively spoken of him. It were infinite to allege all that might be here brought, to show that the Pagans and Heathens took the proper nature of God to be incomprehensible, and therefore made not their images as to express the deity, but only as signs and shadows fitting the condition and state of men. And if the heathen idolaters conceived thus, much more are we to think so of the jews, that they well understood that the majesty of the immortal God could not be set forth by the figure or form of any creature. What, when they made i Exod. 32.4. the golden Calf, and worshipped it, doth M. Bishop imagine them to be such Calves, as to think God himself to be like a Calf? They knew their Calf could not set forth the proper nature of a Calf, and therefore must needs be far off from thinking that it could resemble the proper nature of God. So was it likewise as touching the Calves that were set up at k 1. King. 12.28. Dan and Bethel; they were set up as visible signs at which they should worship God, but never did they think that the proper nature of God was described or resembled by the. As the Romans at first worshipped l Clem: Alexand. in protrept Romae antiquitùs statuam Martis fuisse hastam dicit script●● Varro. Mars their God of battle by a spear, not because they thought him to be like a spear, but because the spear imported his property and act, so the jews worshipped God by a Calf, not thinking him to be like unto it, but thereby only to betoken him, who by the Ox in the tillage of the ground, ministereth bread for the sustenance of the life of man. Now therefore Master Bishop yieldeth unto them a good Apology and defence of all their idolatry committed in these Calves. For they had to say for themselves, that they trespassed not the commandment of God, because they did not intend by their Images to resemble the proper nature of God, but did only represent him in his effects, which the commandment forbiddeth not. But this device served not the turn, neither did the people of God ever dream that by this distinction they might take liberty to fet up any Image unto God. Yea, and therefore doth Moses tell them, as before was alleged, that they saw no image in the day when the Lord spoke unto them, because they should make none, no not to represent him in his properties and actions, because the appeared in no such. Therefore doth he by the Prophet disclaim the likening of him, and the setting up of a similitude unto him, because he will no way be likened, nor will have any similitude to represent him in his properties and effects. Therefore Origen telleth Celsus the Pagan, m Origen. count Cells. lib. 3. Communis sensus cogitare nos jubet non delectari Deum hoc honore imaginum quae effigiem eius aut significationem reprasentent aliquam. that common sense doth will men to think that God is not delighted with honour of images made by men, to represent his likeness or any signification of him, yea n Ibid. li. 7. Quis ●anamentis non rideat eum qui post egregias illas et valde Philosophicas de Deo sive dijs disputationes statuas respicit et aut preces eis offeri aut per earum contemplationem tanquam signi a●euius conspicui cenatur animū●rigere ad imaginationem intelligibilis numinis? who, saith he, that hath his right wits will not laugh at him, who after those excellent and very philosophical disputations concerning God or the Gods doth look to Images, and either offereth prayers unto them, or by the contemplation thereof, as of some visible sign goeth about to lift up his mind to the cogitation of God thereby to be understood? Thus he wholly explodeth all use of Images for any signification of God, or any representing of him, as thereby to be remembered or understood of us. We may not therefore so understand the commandment of God, as to leave men at liberty to commit idolatry, and to hold themselves sufficiently excused, for that they mean not by their Idols to resemble the proper nature of the Godhead. But they further tell us, that God by that commandment forbiddeth only Idols, that is as M. Bishop expoundeth, either Images that are taken for Gods, or Images of false Gods. So then take away false Gods, and here is no forbidding of Images at all: they shall be a part of the religion and worship of the true God both in himself and in his Saints, only we must take heed that we do not admit by them any false God. Thus they circumcise and pair the commandments of God, and force them by their constructions into such compass, as that they may do what they list, and yet not seem to be within any check of them. But to this M. Perkins answereth, that this should be to confound the first and second commandment, the one forbidding all inward, the other all outward idolatry, which M. Bishop acknowledgeth to be distinction good enough to make two several commandments, and yet will not be content to rest upon that distinction. He will not condemn it, but yet neither will he commend or follow it, because he well knoweth that it condemneth them of heinous impiety and sacrilege against God, for that they then in their ordinary Primmers and Catechisms, do wholly leave out one of God's commandments, and cannot deny but they do so. Now they have some colour for that they do, as setting down but a brief and the capital matter of the commandment; but if that distinction be admitted, they have nothing to excuse themselves of leaving out the whole commandment. And thus they do indeed to the uttermost of their power suppress and conceal this second commandment; and whereas they cannot prevail but that some will be reading, yet they so order the matter that they shall take no knowledge of that in their reading, lest thereby they grow to any dislike or suspicion of their idolatry. But the distinction of those two commandments is manifest, God in the one condemning all false gods, in the other all false worship, as namely, in making any image unto God, or in way of devotion & service to him, or the image of any other thing whatsoever, to yield thereto, or otherwise without an image to yield to the thing itself any part of devotion and religion, which is a thing belonging to God only. And we cannot doubt but that there is one commandment for preserving the external worship of God entire and pure, to which as to the head (these ten commandments o Philo jud. de Decalog. Leges sunt & capitae legum particularium. being not only laws but also heads or capital points of particular laws, as Philo well noteth) all the particular laws as touching that matter of the worship of God are to be referred. Which because they cannot be taken to be contained in any of the other three commandments, therefore we must necessarily take this as a distinct commandment to which all those particulars must belong. And thus the jews, whose testimony in this behalf is of great moment, took them to be distinct, as appeareth by p joseph. Antiq. lib. 3. cap. 4. Primum praeceptum Deum esse unum & hunc solum; colendum: secundum Nullius animalis simulachrum adorandum. Sic Philo de Decalogo. josephus and Philo, reckoning the first commandment, that there is one God, and he only to be worshipped: the second, that no image of any creature is to be adored. In the same sort doth Athanasius distinguish them, q Athanas. in Synop. Exod. Primum est. Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus. Alierum. Non facts tibijpsi simulachrum etc. The first is, I am the Lord thy God: the second, Thou shalt not make to thyself an image or any likeness. Origen saith, that r Origen in Exod. hom. 8. Haec omnia nonnulli putant unum esse mandatum. Quòd si ita putetur, non complebitur decem numerus mandatorum, & ubi tam erit Decalogi veritas? some took those two commandments to be one; but if we so take them, saith he, we shall not make up the number of ten commandments, and where then shall be the truth of the name of the Decalogue, namely, which signifieth ten commandments? He saw well that there can be no reason of dividing the last commandment as we reckon it into two; and therefore that there can be but nine unless we distinguish the two first in such sort as hath been said. But the Roman catechism M. Bishop telleth us doth otherwise, following therein the division of Austin and Cl●mens Alexandrinus, dividing the Protestants l●st commandment into two. Where we see the course that they follow in the use of the Father's writings, namely, that howsoever they profess to stand to the general accord and agreement of them, yet if some one or two varying from all the rest do serve their turn, they leave all the rest, and the matter shall go with them. As for the Schoole-doctors, M. Bishop did but put them in to fill up the room; for little reason is there that the streams of our religion should be taken to run out of puddles that have been so lately digged, and as well might he have named himself and his fellows as have named them. But by reason he will make it good, that there is more reason to confound the two first commandments, then to make one of that which we call the last; because the first forbidding inward, and the second outward idolatry, the outward and inward actions about the same object are not so distinct as the desiring of so divers things, as a man's wife for lechery and his goods of covetousness. Which reason of his is already overthrown by that that hath been said of the difference of two first commandments. For thereby we see that as God and the worship of God are two distinct things, so the commandments must be divers which instruct us to conceive of our duty in respect of both. The first commandment requireth of us an acknowledgement of one true God; the second requireth the true worspping of him. A man may acknowledge one only God, and that he only is to be worshipped according to the first commandment, and yet break the second commandment by worshipping him amiss, as by setting up an image whereby to worship him, which he there forbiddeth to be done. Therefore those terms of inward and outward idolatry, do not sufficiently distinguish those two commandments, because the first commandment is broken by outward idolatry, in the outward professing and following of any false god; and there is inward idolatry against the second commandment in the inward framing of idol-service unto the true God. Here is then very material ground of difference betwixt the first and second commandment, but a silly reason is it to allege a difference of things coveted and desired, to make thereby a division of the last commandment. The thing there forbidden is lust and concupiscence as the root and fountain of all sin and wickedness, and therefore the Apostle setteth down for the whole effect of that commandment, s Rom. 7.7. Thou shalt not lust, and calleth it often t Ver. 8, 9, 10. the commandment, the commandment, as to note that it is but one commandment which saith, Thou shalt not lust. He exemplifieth lust in the commandment by some objects, leaving the rest to be understood; but if we will divide the commandment of lusting, because the things are divers that are lusted after, there must be a necessity of making more commandments, because as there are lusts tending to covetousness and lechery, so there are also that tend to disobedience, to murder, to lying and slandering, and such like, and therefore by M. Bishop's reason there should be so many several commandments against lust. But to show that that division which they follow is not good, we may note that whereas they make the ninth commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, and the tenth, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, etc. which order may not be broken if we will divide the commandments as they do: Moses himself doth alter the same, and setteth it down as it was first indited thus, u Exod. 20.17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his servant, etc. as it was after repeated thus, x Deut. 5.27. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor his servant, etc. and by so indifferent placing of those two branches, infallibly proveth that they are not two commandments but one only. If M. Bishop will not yield this, we would know how he will order the commandments, as in the twentieth of Exodus they were first delivered from the mouth of God? If he will make the ninth commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, than he must say that the ninth and tenth do both serve to forbid the coveting of our neighbour's goods. If he will not say so, he must accord with us that those two which they divide are but one commandment, and therefore that which they make but one, must be divided into two. His other reason is of the same moment as the former, that reward and punishment belonging alike to all the commandments, must be placed either with the first or with the last. But Master Bishop considereth not, that there is a punishment or threatening annexed also unto the third commandment, and yet it is no argument to say, that therefore it must be the first. Again, he considereth not that God annexeth that promise and threatening to the second commandment, not for the order but for the matter of it, to move his people so much the more attentively to regard it, as giving to understand that it most highly provoketh him, to have the honour that belongeth to him given to stocks and stones, and that men should fall down to the works of their own hands. And this the Scripture most plentifully teacheth us, that God in so high manner detesteth this above other sins, as that for this y Rom 1.24.26.28. he giveth men over to their own hearts lusts, to vile affections, to a reprobate sense, to do those things that are not convenient, that by all filthiness and uncleanness they may dishonour themselves who have in so base and vile sort dishonoured him. Very pregnant example whereof we have in the Church of Rome, which since it gave entertainment to this idolatry, hath made itself a very sink of sin, stinking and loathsome both to Christians and Infidels, never ceasing running headlong from one corruption to another, from one wickedness to another, until it had made up a full measure of all abomination, and became according to the words of S. john, z john 18.2. an habitation of devils, the hold of all foul spirits, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Now therefore God knowing how prone and ready his people were to this gross idolatry, whereof they presently gave example in worshipping the golden Calf, giveth them a special warning in this behalf, telleth them that he is a jealous God; and thereby signifieth, that as the jealousy of the husband cannot endure that the wife under any pretence yield the usage of her body to another, nor can be satisfied by having it answered to him, that she doth it not as to her husband, but only as to her husband's friend, and for love to her husband, so he cannot brook the communicating of his worship under any pretence to idols and images, to blocks and stones, nor taketh it for answer that we account them not as gods, but do it thereby to honour God, but most severely revengeth this filthy polluting of the religion that is due unto him. This is the cause of annexing the threatening to this second commandment; and very simply doth the Roman Catechism gather thereof the confounding of it with the first. 5. W. BISHOP. But M. Perkins goeth on and saith, that our distinction between Image and Idol (that an Image representeth a thing that is, but an Idol a thing supposed to be but is not) is false and against the ancient writers, who make it all one. We prove the contrary, first by the authority of the ancient Doctors, Origen * Hom. 8. i● Exod. and Theodoret * Qu. 38. in Ex. , who in express words deliver the same difference of Image and Idol, which is taken out of S. Paul, * 1. Cor. 8. saying that an Idol is nothing in the world, that is, such idols as the heathen take for their gods, are nothing formally, that is, though they be great pieces of wood or stone materially, yet they represent a thing that is not, that is, such a thing to be a god, which is nothing less. Let M. Perkins but quote one place in the whole Bible, where they are used both for one. I will cite some, where if you use the one for the other, you must offend all good Christian ears: as where a man is said to be made after the image of God, may you say after the idol of God? Christ is said to be the image of his Father; will you call him the idol of his Father? Surely he cannot deny but the seventh general Council holden about nine hundred years past and gone, is so far off from making Image and Idol all one, that it doth accurse all them who call the image of Christ and his Saints, Idols. But Tertullian * De Jdolol●● (saith M. Perkins) affirmeth them to be all one: not so neither: for he maketh Idolum a divinity of eidos, which signifieth a form or similitude: so that Idolon is but a small similitude or slender image, not so much for the quantity, as for that it representeth but darkly. Eustathius an excellent Greek interpreter, upon the eleventh book of Homer's Odissea, describeth Idolum to signify a vain and vanishing image, as the shadow of a man, a ghost, or fantastical imagination. And so it cannot be that all profane Authors use these two words indifferently, seeing both in proper signification, and by the declaration of the learned there is great difference between them. But Saint Stephen calls the golden Calf an Idol, so it was indeed: What is that to the purpose? And Saint Hierome saith, that Idols are the images of dead men, (add) that are taken for gods: True, many Idols be Images: all such as truly represent any person that was once living here, but no Images be Idols, unless it be taken for a god: And so Idols requires beside the Image, that it be made a god, or the image of a false god. R. ABBOT. Here is nothing but fraud and falsehood, and a ridiculous shifting of the commandment of God, by an idle distinction of Idols and Images. They tell us that the second commandment forbiddeth Idols only and not Images, when as in truth every Image to which devotion or worship is performed, is no other but an Idol. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek signifieth originally the same that Imago doth in Latin, that is, an image, form or shape, as appeareth by the use of the word generally amongst all profane authors. But by Ecclesiastical use, the signification thereof is restrained, and it is made the proper name of those Images to which any religious service or devotion is done. The name of an Image than continueth more general in signification, noting every form or likeness of any thing described or shaped to whatsoever purpose or intent, as is the Prince's Image upon the coin, and the likenesses of men, beasts, birds, trees, flowers, wherewith embroiderers, painters, gravers, carvers adorn and beautify their works, and in a word every impression and form whereby one thing carrieth the resemblance of another. The Image then of itself is but an Image, and serving barely to resemble any creature, it hath no offence in it, but add worship unto it and spiritual devotion, and it becometh thereby an Idol, and the devotion that is done unto it is idolatry, that is, the worship of an idol. Howsoever therefore the words originally are in meaning the same, yet because the custom of the Church hath appropriated the one to special signification, we accordingly distinguish them; in such sort notwithstanding as that where the name of Image implieth that for which an Image is called an Idol, as in this question of Images it doth, there we take an image and an idol to be the same, and no difference betwixt them. But the truth of this matter will appear in examining the particulars which here M. Bishop hath set down for the justifying of their Idols. The difference that he maketh betwixt an Idol and an Image is this, that an Image representeth a thing that is, an Idol representeth a thing supposed to be, but is not. Where I pray thee (gentle Reader) to mark well how handsomely they deal in the contriving of this matter. An Idol forsooth is a representation only of such things as have no being, and the second commandment forbiddeth only idols; it therefore must be understood to condemn only representations of such things as have no being. Which being so, we marvel what those words import which are added in the commandment, The likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; or what Moses meant speaking yet more particularly, ᵃ Take heed that ye make not the representation of any figure, the likeness of man or woman, the likeness of any beast that is upon the earth, the likeness of any feathered fowl, the likeness of any creeping thing, etc. We would know of M. Bishop what it is that Moses here condemneth, whether Images or Idols? If he say Images, than Idols only are not forbidden by this commandment. If he say Idols, than Idols are not only representations of those things that are not, because all the things here mentioned have their real existence and being in the world. But we can use no better means to cirumvent him, then by the authorities which he himself allegeth, where following the example of his master Bellarmine, he referreth his Reader to the places, but setteth not down the words, because he well knoweth that they fully make against him. First, Origen having set down that b Origen. in Exod. hom. 8. Longè aliud sunt Idola & aliud dij; & rursun differentiae idolorum et similitudinum Aliud est ergo facere idolum, aliud similitudinem. Siquis in quolibet metallo auri vel argents, vel ligni vel lapidis faciat spec●em quadrupedis alicutus vel serpentis vel avis & statuat illam adorandam, non idolum sed simelitudinem fecit, vel etiam sipicturam ad hoc ipsum statuat. etc. Idolun verò facit ille qui secundum Apostolum dicentem quia idolum nihil est facit quod non est. Quid est autem quod non est? Species quam non vidit oculus, sed ipse sibi animus fingit. siquis humanis membris caput can●● aut artetis forniet, vel rursum in uno hominis habitu duas facies fingat aut humano pectori postremas partes equi aut piscu ad●●●ngat. Haec & ijs similia qui facit, non similitudinem sed idolum facit Facit enim quod non est, nec habet aliquid simile su●, etc. Quae sermo Dei universacomplectens simul abiurat & abijcït & non solùm idolum fieri verat▪ sed & similitudinem omnium quae in te●ris sunt & in aquis & in coel●. Gods and Idols differ much; and again that there is difference of Idols and resemblances or images: he prosecuteth the latter in this sort, It is one thing to make an Idol, another thing to make a similitude or image. If in any metal of gold or silver, or wood or stone, a man make the form of any four-footed beast, or serpent, or bird, and set up the same to be worshipped, he hath not made an Idol, but an image or similitude: or if he set up a picture for that purpose, he is to be said to have made a similitude: but he maketh an Idol, who according to the Apostle, saying that an idol is nothing, maketh that that is not. And what is that that is not? It is a shape which the eye hath not seen, but the mind fancieth to itself. As for example, if to the body of a man one frame the head of a dog or of a ram, or to one shape of a man make two faces to a man's likeness so far as the breast, do add the hinder parts of a horse or of a fish. He that maketh these or such like, maketh not a similitude but an idol. For he maketh that that is not, nor hath any thing like unto it. All these the word of God comprising together, condemneth and rejecteth, and doth not only forbid an idol to be made, but also the similitude of all things that are in the earth, and in the waters, & in heaven. Theodoret imitating Origen, speaketh to the very same effect: c Theod. in Exod. quaest. 38 Quî differunt idolum & similitudo? Idolum nihil representat quod su●sistat, similitudo verò est abcui●● imago & effigies. Cum ergo Graeci quidam forma● minimè subsistentes effingunt veluti Sphingas, Trit●nas, Centauros, Aegyptij verò homines canina fancy, babalouè capite tales rerum non subsistentium fictiones idola vocat, similitudines autem rerum subsistentium imagines veluti Solis, Lunae, stellarum, hominum, beluarun, rep●iliū & his similium, quae omnia verat adorare aut (animo) colere. How differ an Idol and a similitude or likeness? An idol representeth nothing that hath being, but a similitude is the image or shape of some thing being. When then some of the Greeks do fancy shapes that are not; as Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaurs; and the Egyptians, men with dog's faces or heads of oxen, such fictions of things that are not he calleth idols, but similitudes he calleth the images of things that are, as of the Sun, the Moon, the stars, of men, of beasts, of creeping things, and such like, all which he forbiddeth to worship, either outwardly by gesture, or inwardly by mind. Thus these authors, the latter of them taking occasion by the former, apply the name of Idols only to such imagined forms and shapes which have nothing answerable to them in the creatures of the world, as Sphynx bearing in the face the shape of a maid with wings, and all the rest of the body like a Lion; Triton or Dagon being the forepart of a man and the hinder part of a fish; the Centaurs being in one part men and the other horses; Anubis having an ox-head to the body of a man, and sundry other such like. Now what a trouble would it be to M. Bishop, if the honest man with whom he questioned d Chap. 3. sect. 2 before, should come to him, saying, Good sir, you asked me a question a while since, I pray let me make bold now to ask you another. What, were all the idols that we hear and read of such antics and counterfeits as you tell us out of these authors, forms and shapes to which nothing in the world hath correspondence? We took it that the e Act. 7.21. golden calf which the Israelites made and worshipped in the wilderness had been an Idol, which yet was f Psal. 106.20. the similitude of a calf or bullock that eateth hay. So did we think of their g Ezech. 16.17. Images of men, which the Prophet Ezechiel saith, they made, and committed whoredom with them (which S. Hierome expoundeth to have been h Hieron. in Ezec. lib. 4. cap. 16. Omnia const●uit Jerusalem &. vertit in idola Bilis sive Baalis, Chamos, etc. the Idols of Bel or Baal, Camosh, Astaroth and Melchom, and the ordinary gloss i Glossa ordin. ibid. of Priapus). And thus we see the author of the book of Wisdom, bringing in k Wisd. 14.14.16. a father making the image of his son, and the people counterfeiting the visage, and making the gorgeous image of a king, which he calleth expressly l Ver. 11 15. idols, and noteth therein the beginning of them. Thus doth David in the Psalm describe them by the parts and members of man's body, m Psal. 115.5. They have mouths and speak not, eyes have they and see not; they have ears and hear not, noses have they and smell not, they have hands and handle not, feet have they and walk not, neither make they any sound with their throat. If these be rightly called Idols, as we suppose they are, we desire (good sir) to know how it standeth good which your authorities report, that the name of Idols belongeth only to such fantastical shapes as before are spoken of. The honest man here putteth M. Bishop to a blank, having nothing to say but by the renouncing of his own authors. For if he say that those be no idols, every man seethe that he speaketh untruth: if he say they be, than he cotrarieth his own allegation for himself. Now what impudency is this both in his master and him, thus colourably to cite the names of Origen and Theodoret, when they themselves well know, that that which they say is contrary to the Scriptures, contrary to the rest of the Fathers, contrary to the perpetual consent and currant language of the whole Christian Church? But yet (gentle Reader) I would have thee to question with him somewhat further, What, M. Bishop, are only Idols forbidden by the second commandment whereof we speak? Yea, saith he. Yea but your authors, M. Bishop, tell us, as appeareth by their words before, that not only Idols which are shapes of things that are not, but also all images and representations of things that are, as of men or any other creatures, are thereby forbidden, n Origen. ut supra. Vtrumque resecat sermo divinus, ut nec affectu colas nec specie adores. that neither by mind or affection we worship them, nor by outward show and gesture bow unto them; how can it be then which you say, that only Idols are forbidden? Here M. Bishop is plunged again, and knoweth not what to say, because his images also which he thought to have pulled out, are by his own authors brought within the compass of the second commandment, so that howsoever they seem to vary from the rest in a curious device of the signification of a word, yet for the condemning of Popish idolatry they say the same that all the rest say. The translation which his authors herein follow, is the translation of the Septuagint, Thou shalt not make to thyself an Idol, nor the likeness of any thing, etc. where that which they call idol, is in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pesel, which in many other places they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is the same as in latin sculptile, which importeth a thing carved or graven to the likeness of any thing, or as we call it a graven image, so as that Arias Montanus a Papist translateth it, o Deut. 5.8. Ar. Mont transl. interlineary. Non facies tibi dolaturam omnis effigiei: Thou shalt not make to thyself any carved work of any likeness. By reason that Idols were for the most part carved or graven work, therefore the holy Ghost may seem to take that word as most common and general, under that, according to custom of speech, to comprehend all the rest, only adding by way of exposition, or the likeness of any thing, etc. Yea the words in Deuteronomie being set down without any particle coniunctive or disjunctive, Thou shalt not make to thyself a carved or graven work the likeness of any thing in heaven above, etc. do plainly argue that those words are added as an exposition, as if he had said, Thou shalt not make to thyself Pesel, that is, the likeness of any thing, etc. The Septuagint therefore respecting that Pesel by use was grown to signify generally p Deut. 7.25. & 123 Where by Pesilim, the graven images of their gods, all manner images of their gods are to be understood. the images of the heathen gods of whatsoever kind, would in the Greek according to the intendment of the commandment set down a word of the like large extent and signification, and thereto made choice of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an idol, as serving to express all forms and shapes which men set up to do worship unto them. And that the most ancient Church conceived there no otherwise of the name of Idol, appeareth by justinus Martyr, who disputing with Tryphon the jew, readeth Image instead of Idol, saying that q justin. Maert. dial. cum Tryph. Deus is erat qui per Mosen sanxit (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) nequa omninò fieret vel imago vel similitudo, neque eorum quae in coelo, etc. God commanded by Moses to make neither image nor similitude either of things in heaven above or in the earth beneath. Hereby therefore it appeareth that that which Origen and Theodoret say, is built wholly upon a false ground, and cannot by any other authority be made good. Yet M. Bishop telleth us that that which they say is taken out of the Apostle, where he saith, r ●. Cor. 8.4. that an idol is nothing in the world, which Origen indeed citeth to make good that meaning which before hath been expressed, although serving nothing at all to that effect. But see here the treachery of this our false and faithless Sophister, who making Origen his author, bringeth the words in one meaning when as Origen apply them unto another. For Origen when he allegeth that an Idol is nothing in the world, meaneth (as we see in his words before) that it is a shape, to which nothing answereth amongst the creatures of the world; for those Sphynxes, Tritons, Centaurs, and such like, are mere fancies, neither is there any such thing at all; but M. Bishop saith, that an idol is nothing, that is, it is no god. It is nothing formally (saith he) that is, though they be great pieces of wood or stone materially, yet they represent a thing that is not, that is, such a thing to be a god which is nothing less. But it is one thing not to be, another thing not to be a god; neither can a thing be said to be nothing because it is no god; and therefore very wretchedly doth he pervert the words of Origen by drawing them from things understood simply not to be, to things understood only respectively to be no gods. Yea he hereby overthroweth all that Origen there saith, because if by representing that that is not, he mean the representing of such a thing to be a god, which is nothing less, than those images and resemblances which he there speaketh of, of men and beasts and birds, set up amongst the Gentiles to be worshipped, shall be said also to be nothing, and to represent a thing that is not, because they represented such things to be gods which are nothing less, which is wholly repugnant to that which Origen hath set down. Thus either Origen and Theodoret both must be taken with one breath instantly to cross another, or else we must take M. Bishop to be a lewd man, who seeketh to father a bastard upon them, which is begotten by himself. Albeit neither can we approve that construction which Origin maketh of the Apostles words, as if an idol were only a representation or form to which there is nothing correspondent in the world. For who is ignorant, that the idols of the Gentiles were for the most part the images of men, and set up in the names of men deceased, in the like sort as Popish images? Thus Tertullian upbraideth the Pagans, that in their own s Tertul. Apolog. cap. 10. Provocamus ad conscientiam vestram, etc. illa nos damnet si poserit negare omnes istos deos vestros homines fuisse, etc. testimonium perhibentibus & civitatibus in quibus na●● sunt, & regionibus in quibus aliquid operati vestigia reliquerunt, in quibus etiam sepulti demonstrantur. consciences they knew well enough that the gods which they worshipped were but men, that it was to be proved in what places they were borne, where they had lived, and left remembrance of their works where they were buried. Therefore he telleth them of their custom of making gods, t Cap. 11. Quos ante paucos dies luctu publico mortuos sunt confessi, in deos consecrant. They consecrate them for gods whom a little before by public mourning they confessed to be dead. Thus did parents take upon them to honour their own children that were dead before them, as u Lactan Instit. lib. 1. cap 15. ex M. Tull. lib. de consolat. Approbantibus dijs immortalibus ipsis in eorum caet●● locatam ad opinionem omnium mortalium consecrabo. Lactantius showeth that Tully did his daughter. Thus did the lover to his beloved, as did the Emperor Adrian to his paramour x Origen. contra Cells lib. 3. Antinous, building a temple to him, and causing him to be worshipped. So did the children consecrate their parents, as y Lanctant. us supra. Bacchus, Apollo, Mercury and Pan did their father jupiter, and their children afterward the like to them. And this z Cypr. de Jdolo. vanit. August. de civit. Dei. lib. 8. cap 5. Cyprian and Austin note to have been revealed to Alexander the great as a great secret by Leo an Egyptian Priest, that not only their petite gods Hercules, Aesculapius, Romulus, and such like, but also those of the higher rank, jupiter, juno, Saturnus, Vesta, Vulcanus and the rest were but men and women to whom such honours had begun to be yielded after they were dead, it being by custom received when men were renowned either for strange acts or good deserts, to honour them as gods when they were dead, by setting up their images, and doing sacrifice and devotion to them. Hereupon Lactantius saith, as noting the most usual shape and form of their idols, a Lactan. Instit. lib 2. cap. 18 Simulachra quae colunt effigies sunt hominum mortuorum. The idols which they worship are the shapes or images of dead men. Yea they who conceived better of the condition of their gods, acknowledged that b M. Tull de nat. dear. lib. 1. Quis ●aem caecus in contemplandis rebus unquam fuit, ut non videret species istas hominum ●ollatas in deos aut consilio quodem sapientum quò facili●s animos imperitorum ad decrum cultum à vitae pravitate coo●erterent, aut superstitione ut essenisimulachra quae venerantes deos ipsos se adire crederent. the shapes of men were applied unto them, and that either by the advice of wise men, that they might the more easily turn the minds of ignorant men from naughtiness of life to the worship of the gods, or of superstition, that there might be images which the people coming to should believe that they came to the gods themselves. It is plain therefore that Origen erred in understanding the Apostle, to say that an idol is nothing, that is, a shape fitting to nothing in the world, because idols were most commonly the shapes of men, and set up as popish images in remembrance and honour of dead men, supposed for their merits and good deserts to be advanced to heaven. And in this respect S. Austin preferred the Pagans and heathens before the Manichees, for c August. contra Faust. li. 20. ca 5. Pagani colunt etc. quae sunt, sed prodijs colenda non sunt, etc. Vos ea colitis quae omninò non sunt, sed vestrarum fallacium fabularum vinitate finguntur. the Pagans' worship things that be, though they be not to be worshipped, but you (saith he) worship those things which be not at all, but are feigned by the vanity of your deceitful fables and tales. The meaning then of the Apostles words, An idol is nothing, is that which the Scripture elsewhere telleth us, d Esa. 44 10. it is profitable for nothing, e chap. 41.23. it can neither do good nor evil, neither save nor destroy, neither make clean nor unclean. f August. ibid. Sunt & idola sed ad salutem nihil sunt Es cap. 9 Ad salutem vel aeliquam utilitatem nihil sunt. Idols are, saith Austin, but to salvation they are nothing: to steed us or profit us they are nothing. g Chrysosti in 1. Corin homil 20. Sunt quidem, sed nihil possunt non magis intelligunt quam alij lapides. They are, saith chrysostom, but they can do nothing: they have no more understanding than other stones. Hitherto than all that M. Bishop saith, is but an Idol according to his own construction, making show to be somewhat when indeed it is nothing. But yet he maketh a further challenge, Let M. Perkins quote but one place in the whole Bible where (an idol and an image) they are used both for one. This he saith, presuming upon his master's word, and though we quote many places, all will be one; for he is sworn to his master, and will be true to him. But if he turn his Bible he shall find Samuel saying to Saul according to their own translation, h 1. Sam. 15 23, Quasi scelus idololatriae nollo acquiescere. Not to obey is as the wickedness of idolatry: it should be, is iniquity and idolatry. The Hebrew word which is there translated idolatry is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which their own latter translator Arias Montanus putteth into the text, but in the margin to express the true and proper signification of the word, setteth down imagines, images. The words then literally are, To transgress is iniquity and images. Let M. Bishop then tell us whether an Image here do signify the same as an Idol, and be put in place thereof or not, for we think that he will grant that the meaning is this, To transgress is iniquity and idols, that is to say, idolatry. Shall we quote any more than one? He shall find then that Micahs god called Pesel, an idol, as he will have it translated, i judg. 18.31. is called also k Chap. 17 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image; and the Israelites are said to destroy l 2 Kings 11.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the images of Baal, which their own translation elsewhere calleth m judges 10 6. the idols of Baal: and Ezechiel in one place objecteth to the Israelites n Ezech 7.20. Tsalmei, the images of their abominations and of their idols, which in another place he calleth o Chap. 16.36. the idols of their abominations: and again he calleth them p Ibid. Vers. 17. the images of men, which were the idols of Baal, Chamosh, and the rest, as hath been before said; and the author of the book of Wisdom saith of the Idol, q Wisd. 13.16. It cannot help itself, because it is an image that hath need of help: and the ancient Church in the second commandment for Idol, as the Septuagint translated it, did translate Image, as before I showed out of justinus Martyr. Accordingly the ancient Fathers commonly use the name of Images concerning Idols, as Lactantius calleth them r Lactan. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 18. Ipse imagines sacrae, etc. sacred or holy images, and Tertullian s Tertul. Apolog. ca 12. Imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus. cold images like to their dead principals: and of Sidrach, Misach and Abednego refusing to worship the Idol which king Nabuchodonosor set up, he saith, t Idem de idol. Honorem imaginu eius respuerunt. they refused to honour his image. So saith Cyprian of the devils, u Cypr. de Idol. vanit. Sub consecratis imaginibus delitescunt. They lurk under sacred or consecrated images: and Austin, x August. de ciu. Dei. lib. 8. ca 24. Daemons per artem nescio quam imaginibus inditi, hoc est, visibilibus simulachris. They, by I know not what art, are put into images, that is, visible shapes or representations. So saith also Minutius Felix, that y Minut. Felix in Octa. apud Arn▪ Quis dubitat horum imagines consecratas vulgus crare? etc. the common people pray to the consecrated images of dead men. It were infinite to allege all that might be brought out of the Scriptures and Fathers to show this promiscuous and indifferent use of the words or names of idols and images, and putting off the one instead of the other, Images for Idols, where the circumstance giveth occasion to understand such images to which religious service and devotion is performed. But M. Bishop telleth us that he can bring some places, where if we use the one of those words for the other, we shall offend all good Christian ears, as if we should say that man was made after the idol of God, or that Christ is the idol of his Father. Where we may see, that it is much that he can do, and yet when he hath all done, it is nothing to the purpose. What doth he herein but confirm that which I have before said, that ecclesiastical use hath restrained the signification of idol to be taken in the evil part only of Images superstitiously and sacrilegiously abused, and therefore that it cannot now be so generally applied as originally it might be? And yet further his wisdom should have considered, that we speak here of images as they are incident to the second commandment, which are the work of men's hands, and are set up for devotion and religion, and therefore if he would have spoken pertinently, should have brought us an example out of the Scripture, where there is any mention of such an image that is worshipped, which is not also to be called an idol. If he could show us such an example, it made somewhat for their Images, but those which he bringeth are impertinent and avail him nothing. As for Christ, he is the substantial image of his Father, and to be alike worshipped with him, and of him S. Austin somewhere saith, that z August. Nulla imago Dei coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse. Epist. 119. no image of God is to be worshipped which is not the same that God is: and thereby condemneth Popery of idolatry. And if any other image of God were to be worshipped, it should be man, who was created after the image of God, rather than a senseless block that hath only some outward shape and proportion of a man. But to press us yet further with a matter of no weight, he telleth us that the seventh general Council nine hundred years past, doth accurse all them who call the images of Christ and his Saints Idols. He meaneth it of the idolatrous second Nicene council which was a An. Dom. 789. almost eight hundred years after Christ and about eight hundred years past, where he to make it seem the more ancient addeth almost an hundred years. Of this Council we shall see more in the end, but here it is to be noted in what meaning they pronounce that curse, and how according to that meaning, as men carried with a spirit of giddiness and frenzy they utterly cirumvent and overthrow themselves. If they had meant images simply, we would accord with them that the images of Christ and his Saints are not to be called Idols, for such images we have, and thereby show that we condemn them not. Yea where they are put in the Churches, we say as Charles the great and his Council said for answer to that Nicene Council, b Lib. Carol mag. contra Synod. pro adorand. imagine. No nos imagines in basilicis pesitas idola nuncupamus sed ne idola ●uncupentur, eas adorate & colere recusamus. We call not images put in Churches by the name of Idols, but that they may not be called Idols, we forbear to adore & worship them. But the meaning of that Council is otherwise, that the images of Christ and his Saints being worshipped, yet are not to be called idols, and in this sense do they accuse them that confound them both in one. Concerning which it is to be observed that the same Council amongst sundry other heresies c Nicem. 2. Act 7. epist add Constan. et Iren. Audemus anathentatizare Arij insantam, etc. Nestorij idololatriam in homine. accurseth the idolatry of Nestorius in or concerning the man jesus Christ. The heresy of Nestorius stood in the dividing of the manhood of Christ from the Godhead, whereby he made two distinct persons distinctly and severally to be acknowledged & worshipped. He made the Godhead only an assistant to the manhood, and more eminently and effectually showing itself in him then in us, but otherwise no more united to the manhood than it is to us. Therefore he denied that the virgin Mary might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God, or that it might be said that God suffered for our sins, albeit the Scripture so plainly saith, d Luke 1.35. That holy thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Son of God: and again, e Acts 20.28. Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. Now because he made a distinct person of the manhood of Christ, and yet acknowledged to worship the man Christ, he was hereby charged to beak the first commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods but me. f Cyril. de rect. fide ad Reg. Legen iguurirritan, etc. Irritan faceremus legem quae uni verè Deo adorationem offeri, ut & sapientiam loquimur etc. Verè homines à cognitione Dei abducit & mundum hominis cultum docet. We should be so doing (saith Cyril) make frustrate the law which giveth worship to one only who is truly God, and affirmeth that this is to lead men away from the knowledge of God, and to teach the world (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the worshipping of a man. This is it which that Nicene Council calleth the idolatry of Nestorius, which they could not but condemn under that name, if they would carry any countenance of truth, because by the Council of Ephesus and the Catholic and godly Bishops (as appeareth by Cyril) it had been before in that sort notoriously condemned. Here than we say, if the manhood of Christ being taken severally and without personal union of the Godhead become an idol (for that the name of idolatry importeth) by being worshipped, what should let but that the image of Christ being worshipped is much more justly to be called an idol, which hath no manner of union neither to God nor man. In what respect the name of Idol is so applied, shall be showed afterwards, but in the mean time we desire to know how it should be Idolatry to worship the manhood of Christ, and yet it should be no idolatry to worship the image of Christ, and as the image of Christ, so the images of the Saints also. We cannot conceive this point, and therefore we expect M. Bishop, in this behalf to be resolved by you. Well then, leaving him to demur upon it for the saving of the credit of their Council, let us come to the consideration of his next authority. M. Perkins allegeth Tertullian, saying, that every form or representation is to be termed an idol. Not so neither, saith M. Bishop, for he maketh Idolum a diminutive of eidos which signifieth a form or similitude, so that Idolon is but a small similitude or slender image, not so much for the quantity, as for that it representeth but darkly. It seemeth that it was somewhat dark when he looked upon Tertullian, or that he took Tertullian for such a dark author, as that he was loath to trouble himself to look upon him at all. Tertullian indeed saith, that g Tertul. de idol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graecè formam sonat, ab eo per diminutionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deductum aequè apud nos formulam fecit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a form or similitude, and that from thence by diminution is derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which proportionably with us maketh or importeth a little form, but by that that followeth he giveth to understand, that as in Latin Paxillus, a nail; figulus, a potter; mandibulum, a jaw, and many other like, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is a diminutive only in form and sound, not in the signification and meaning of the word. For he inferreth thus, h Ibid. Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit. Ind idololatria omnis circa omne idolum famulatus & servitude. Therefore every form or lesser form requireth itself to be called an idol, and thence is idolatry, which is all manner devotion and service about any such idol. It is plain then that he maketh the name of an Idol to extend to all forms or representations, whether greater or lesser, expressly saying that i Nihil interest quale sit, qua de materia, qua de effigy, ne qui pu●et id solùm idolum habendum quod humana effigie sit consecratum. it skilleth not what a one it be, of what matter or what shape, that no man may think that that only is an idol which is consecrated in the shape of man. To whatsoever form then or likeness we yield devotion or service, we therein commit idolatry, and it is that which properly we call an idol. But to make this yet more plain, he addeth further a little after, k Omnia colit humanus error praeter ipsum omnium conditorem. Eorum imagines idola● consecratio imaginum idololatria. human error worshippeth all things save him that made all The images of those things are idols; the consecration of images is idolatry. Idols then by Tertullia's judgement are all manner images set up to represent either men or any other creatures, and consecrated to have religious duty performed unto them. And so elsewhere he saith of deifying men by their images after their death; l Jdem de Coro. mil. Mortui idolastatim fiunt habitu & cultu consecrationis. Being dead they are made Idols by their habit and service of consecration. It is consecration then or dedication, that of an image maketh an Idol, and therefore are Idols termed sacred images and consecrated images, as before I have showed out of Lactantius and other writers. Hereby than we may conceive, that M. Bishop surely wrote in the dark, when he set down Tertullian affirming Idol to import representing darkly, when he saith not any one word tending to that effect, but leaveth them the same as are the representations of Popish images. Neither doth Eustathius make any more for him then the rest, who when he calleth the ghosts of dead men m Eustath. in Hom. Odyss. lib. 11 Genus divinationis Ethnicis usitatum quo videbant hominum mortuorum idolae obscura & evanida, etc. obscure and vanishing Idols, importeth thereby the large signification of the word Idols, as belonging to all manner shapes and representations, both which are , and constant, and abiding, and those also that are airy, and darksome, and lightly vanish and pass away. For if the word Idols had imported only such dark and vanishing shadows, to what end should he add those Epithetons, the force whereof was already contained in the signification of the word? And if Homer or any other do apply the name of Idols, to fancies, and dreams, and shadows, it is nothing against us, who know and confess that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original signification, extendeth so largely as to be fitly used thereof, even as the word image may also, as appeareth by S. Austin who of the words of Christ, The son can do nothing of himself, but what he seethe the father do, etc. saith, that n Aug. in joan. tract. 19 Quaesi intelligantur secundum humanum sensum carnalitèr, nihil aliud nobis facit animae plena phantasmatis nisi quasdam imagines velut duorum hominum, patris & filii, unius ostendentis, alterius videntis, unius loquentis, alterius audientis, quae omnia idolae cordis sunt. if they be understood carnally according to human conceit, the soul full of fancies doth no other but frame certain images as of two men, a father and a son, the one of them showing and the other seeing, the one speaking and the other hearing, all which, saith he, are the idols of the heart. In a word whatsoever he can seem to allege out of profane Authors concerning the signification of the word Idol, it availeth him nothing, the case standing as I have showed, that ecclesiastical custom of speech hath termed every consecrated image by the name of an Idol, neither can he allege any, whose testimony is in this case to be regarded, with whom an Image to which worship is done, is any other than an Idol. M. Perkins further allegeth, that the golden calf of the Israelites was an Idol. What is that to the purpose, saith M. Bishop? Very much against that toy of his, that an Idol is that that representeth a thing that is not; for a calf is a thing that is, and therefore the golden calf cannot be said to represent a thing that is not. Yea, but saith he, it represented that to be a God which was nothing less. But that is a sophistical perverting of the words of his authors, as hath been before showed, and being but his own foolish fancy, what is it to us? His authorities make only that an Idol, which representeth in shape a thing that simply is not. Albeit neither will that shift of his rid him from this objection; for it is manifest that the Israelites made the golden Calf to be unto them a visible sign and representation of the true God, by which they would have some token of his presence amongst them, and his conducting and guiding of them. By their first propounding the matter, it appeareth that they would have the Idol in place of Moses, by whom because he was as it were a Mediator betwixt God and them, they conceived God to be present with them. Therefore they say, o Exod. 32.1. Make us Gods to go before us, for as for this Moses which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him, making the want of Moses the only cause why they required Gods. When the Idol is made, they say, p Ver 4. These be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. They had said before, this Moses which brought us out of the land of Egypt, and they knew well that the Calf being newly made, was not it that brought them out of the land of Egypt. Therefore as they acknowledged Moses only as the minister of that God, by whom they were brought out of the land of Egypt, so they require the Calf only as a sign and representation of that God by whom they were brought out of the land of Egypt, and only in that sense they say, These be thy Gods o Israel, etc. Therefore they proclaim accordingly, Ver. 5. To morrow shall be the holy day, not to the Calf or to any other god but to jehovah the Lord, which was the proper name of the only true God. And thus q Abulens. in Exod. ca ●2. q. 7. Deus qui te eduxit. etc. iste est quem hic cerni●; id est, in isto corpore aureo laetet eius virtus. Abulensis the great schoolman upon that place confesseth, that by the Calf they intended to worship God, as doth also r Ferus. in Act. ●ap. 7. Ferus their own Preacher at Mentz, yea and the Roman or Trent catechism before spoken of, which affirming that to resemble the Godhead by an image, is the breach of the commandment, to show that the Israelites committed this breach inferreth thus, s Catechis. Trideut. in explicat. precept. 1. Quocirca Israelitae qui ante vituli simulachrum clamabant, Hi sunt dij tut, etc. idololatrae sunt appellati qui mutarunt gloriam suam in similitudinem vituli comedentis faenum. Wherefore the Israelites crying before the image of a Calf, These are thy gods, O Israel, etc. were called idolaters because they changed their glory (which was their God) to the similitude of a Calf that eateth hay. Which words are altogether inconsequent, unless it be taken that the Israelites in their Calf intended the worship of their God. And this appeareth further in the Calves that were set up at Bethel & Dan, to the worship whereof when jeroboam would induce the people, he propounded unto them as josephus reporteth it, t joseph. Antiq. li. 8. ca 3. Nullus locus Deo est vacuus & is nulla certo loco includitur sed ubique notae exandit & ubique cultores suot respicit. Quare non placet mihi vos Hierosolyma proficisci religionis ergò, etc. Ega duas unulas aureas consecravi. alteram in Bethelis, alteram in Danae ut pro locorum opportunitatet ex propinquioribus oppidu ad eas confluentes illie Deum ritè adoretis. that God is absent from no place, nor is included or compassed any where, but as he knoweth all things, so heareth every where, and every where respecteth them that worship him; therefore that he liked not that for exercise or religion they should go up to Jerusalem, but he had consecrated two golden calves at Dan and Bethel, that at either of those places according to their dwelling, they might more near at hand in due manner worship God. By which words it is plain, that in the worship of the Calves he made show of no other, but thereby to worship God, and therefore jehu destroying the worship of Baal, for the upholding of the worship of those Calves, vaunteth of u 2. King. 10.16. the zeal that he had for jehovah, the Lord, and the Samaritans accepting of the same worship, are said thereby x Ibid. ca 17.32. to serve the Lord. Hereby then it is plain, that an Idol is not that only which representeth that to be a God which is not, but also that wherein is intended the representation & worship of the true God. Last of all, M. Perkins allegeth, that Hierome saith that Idols are the images of dead men. Add, saith M. Bishop, that are taken for Gods; for many Idols be images, saith he; all such as truly represent any person that was once living here, but no image is an Idol, unless it be taken for a God. But that this is very false, it is manifest because the Pagan's themselves, at least the wiser sort of them never took their images to be Gods, yea they scorned them that thought them to be so witless as to understand than so. y Origen. count Cells. li. 7. Quis nisi sit totus fatuus haec Deos credit, non dijs dicatas statuas? Who, saith Celsus, unless he be altogether out of his wits taketh them for Gods, and not for images dedicated to the Gods? z Ibid. li. 1. Probabile non est inter Deos censeri nequam artificum et plerumque scelestorum hominum opera. It is not probable or likely, saith he, that the works of base artificers & who are oftentimes lewd men should be reckoned amongst the Gods. So Olympius another Pagan Philosopher, when he saw the people of his part dismayed at the casting down of their images, a Sozom. hist. lib. 7. ca 15 Hortatur ne à religione deficerent asserens simulachra & statuas nihil aliud esse quam materiam corruptibilem, ac proinde in nihilun potuisse redigi; inhabitasse auten his virtutes qu●s●am, & eas iam in coelum avolasse. exhorteth them not to fall away from their religion; for as for those images, they were no other but corruptible matter, & therefore might be brought to nought, but there had dwelled in them divine powers, and those were now gone to heaven. Thus Arnobius bringeth them in, excusing themselves, that b Arnob. adu. Gent. li. 6. Deos inquitis per simulachra veneramus. by the images they worshipped the gods; and Austin, c Aug. in Psal. 85. Jsta non co limus; haec signae sunt. We worship not these things; these are but only signs. So Athanasius mentioneth that they pleaded for their images, that d Athan. adu. Jdola. A●unt tiltusmodi simulachra pro elementis literarum humano generi esse quae num leguni, Dei notitiam condiscere possi●t. they served for letters, which whilst men did read, they might thereby learn the knowledge of God. Seeing then that the heathen images were Idols, and yet were not holden to be very gods, it is hereby manifest, that an image may be an Idol, though it be not taken to be a God. If Master Bishop will say that the multitude notwithstanding took the images themselves to be gods, we answer him that so the vulgar people do amongst them also, as before I showed out of Polydore Virgil, but the heathen were of his mind, to have their religion esteemed according to the understanding of such wise men as he is. But in the conclusion he will mend the matter, saying that an Idol requires beside the image that it be made a God, or the image of a false God. So then though it be not taken for a God, yet it must be the image of a false God. Where to omit what hath been already said for disproof hereof, by the example of the golden Calves, and to say nothing of Micahs mother's idol, who saith of the silver wherewith she would make it, that for that use e judg. 17 3. she had dedicated it to jehovah the Lord, thereby showing that she meant to do it as a service to the true God, to let these go, I say, we find Hierome alleging that where we read in Genesis, f Gen 4.26. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord, g Hieron tradit. Heb. in Genes. Plerique Hebraeorum arbitrantur quòd tunc primum in nomine Domini et in similitudine eius fabricata sint idolae. most of the Hebrew writers did so take it, that then Idols were first made in the name of the Lord, & to resemble him. By which testimony it is plain that the name of Idols belongeth not only to the images of false gods, but to those images also that are set up in the name of the Lord, and to resemble him. In which sort h Synod. Nicen 2. Act. 4. in epist. German. Hoc unum arbitrati non esse Deum neque verum neque falsum nisi cuius idolum formatum videant. Germanus the patriarch of Constantinople saith of the Israelites, that they thought him not to be a God neither true nor false, of whom they saw not an Idol framed before them, plainly calling that an Idol also which is framed and set up in the name of the true God. And that this may the better appear unto us, we may observe that the Idols of the Gentiles were not condemned by the father's only, for that they were the images of false gods, but upon supposal that those were truly gods whom they worshipped, yet they dispute against images, as things too base, and vile, and unfit to be used for service of them to whom they would yield the acknowledgement of being gods. i Arnob. adu. Gent. lib. 6. Si certum est Deos esse quos remini, atque in summis coe●i regionibus degere, quae causa, quae ratio est ut Simulachra ista fingantur à vobis, cùm habeatis res certat quibus preces possitis offundere & auxilium rebus in exigentibus postulare? &c: Quid fieri pote est iniuriosius, cōtumeliosiu●, durius quàm Deum alterum scire & rei alteri supplicare: open sperare de numine & nullius sensus ad effigiem deprecari? If it be certain that those be Gods whom you think so to be, saith Arnobius, and that they dwell in the highest regions of heaven, what cause, what reason is there that you should make these images (or as they will have it these idols) seeing ye have otherwise to whom to pray, & of whom in extremities to request help? What can there be more injurious, reproachful, intolerable, then to know one to be God, and to make his supplication to another; to look for help of the divine power, and to make his prayer to a senseless image? So Lactantius saith; k Lactaent. Justitut. li. 2. cap. 2. Quid simulachra volunt quae aut mortuorum aut absentium monumenta sunt, etc. Si dij absentes esse non possunt, qui quoniam divini sunt in quacunque mundi part fuerint vident et audiunt universa, supernacua ergo sunt simulachra illis ubique praesentibus cum satis sit audientium nomina precibus advocare. 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 divine nature) in whatsoever part of the world they be, do hear and see all things, then are their images vain, they being every where, because it is sufficient in their hearing to pray unto them by their names. And to this purpose do they object unto them out of their own books the sentences of their own writers, condemning the worshipping of their Gods by images, as Austin bringeth in Varro, acknowledging that l Aug de civit. 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, etc. Dicit qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt & me●um dempsisse & errorem addidisse, prudenter existiman● Deos facilè posse in simulachrorum stoli●itate contemns. the Romans for above a hundred and seventy years worshipped their Gods without images, and that if they had still so done, the Gods should have been more holily and purely served or regarded; and that they who first set up the images of the Gods, for the people did both take away fear and added error, wisely esteeming saith S. Austin, that the Gods in that blockish senselessness 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 understood, that the condennation of their idols ariseth not only of being the images of false Gods, but of that being images they were worshipped, howsoever the Gods might be supposed to be true Gods which they worshipped thereby. And who would doubt but that the Carpocratian heretics m Epiphan haer. 27 Carpocrat Habent imagines Pythagorae, Plat●nis Aristotelis, etc. cum quibus etiam imagines jesu collocant collocatasque adorant & gentium mysteria perficiunt, etc. sacrificium atque alia, etc. August de haeres Colobant adorando incensumque ponendo Iren. li. 1 ca 24. setting up the images of jesus and Paul, & withal of Pythagoras, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and doing worship, offering sacrifice, burning incense unto them, did commit idolatry, & make idols of these images, albeit they were so far from taking them to be Gods or images of Gods, as that it was one part of that heresy to deny n August ibid. jesum hominem tantummodo putasse perhibetur. the godhead of Christ? Thus the name of Idols and Idolatry are sometimes metaphorically applied to those creatures which are unlawfully worshipped, albeit they be either not supposed, or expressly denied to be Gods. In which sort the Council of Laodicea o Theodoret. in Col cap. 2 Laodicenae synodus lege cavit 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 inventus fuerit occultè huic idololatriae vacan● anathema sit quoniam derelinquens Dominum nostrum jesum Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola. Whosoever shall be found giving himself secretly to this idolatry, accursed be he, because forsaking our Lord jesus Christ the Son of God, he hath made access to Idols. By which words it is plain, that by praying to Angels, men make Idols of them, though they do not think them to be Gods, because prayer is a devotion that belongeth only to God. The like M. Bishop must confess according to the opinion of Arius, even of Christ himself. For if the first commandment forbidden only Idols, as M. Bishop will have it, and Arius in impugning the divinity of Christ, and yet acknowledging to worship him, did break the first commandment, than it cannot be denied but that by the doctrine of Arius Christ must become an Idol. That Arius therein broke the first commandment, appeareth by Theodoret, q Theodoret. in Exod. q 37. Qui Trinitatis unam substantiam confitentur, divinae vocis legem observant: nihil enim aliud pro Deo coli permittunt excepta divina naturae. Qui vero errorem sequuntur Arij atque Eunomij manifestè in divinam legem committunt, confitentes quidem unum filium, sed creatum esse asserentes & à divina substantia alienum. Cum auten Deus dicat, Non erunt tibi d● alij praeter me, isti profectò Deum alium introducunt. They, saith he, who confess one substance of the Trinity, do observe the law of the word of God, for they permit nothing to be worshipped for God, save only the nature of God. But they which follow the error of Arius and Eunomius, do manifestly trespass against the law of God, confessing that the Son is one, but affirming him to be created & a stranger from the substance of God, Whereas God then saith, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, these verily bring in another God. M. Bishop therefore must necessarily grant that Arius made an Idol of Christ, whom notwithstanding he denied to be God, and therefore that the name of an Idol may belong to that which yet is not taken to be a God. Therefore doth Athanasius say of them, that by their opinion r Athan. count Arian. orat 4. Cur seize 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 have heard before of the Nestorian heresy, condemned of idolatry for worshipping the manhood of Christ, without acknowledging the personal uniting thereof to the Godhead. To be short, S. Austin saith of the works of the flesh reckoned up by the Apostle, fornication, uncleanness, etc. s Aug. de verb. Apost. ser 3. ista in nobis tamquam idela frangenda sunt. These are we to break in ourselves as Idols; & again telleth the Manichees, t Idem cont. Faust. lib. 14. ca 11 In phantasmatibus fabularum svarum idola colunt. that in their fabulous fancies they worship Idols, and Hierome generally saith of heretics, that u Hieron in Zachar. ca 13. Haereticerun perversa doctrina quodcunque simulaverit vertit in Idolum. whatsoever they devise or feign, they turn it to an Idol, not for that men have any opinion of Godhead in their lusts and fancies, but because they yield them that affection and service which they own to God. By all this than it appeareth, that because the name of Idols is metaphorically applied to things for being worshipped, or devoutly and affectionately embraced and followed, which yet are not holden to be Gods, therefore the proper use thereof belongeth to Images, in respect of worship done unto them, though the same Images be neither taken for Gods, nor be the Images of false Gods, whence it followeth that Popish Images because they are worshipped, must necessarily come under the name of Idols. 6. W. BISHOP. Now to those few authorities which M. Perkins citeth in his favour: To them of the counsel of Eliberis and Epiphanius, which seem to speak against setting up of Images in Churches: I will answer in their place. To that out of Lactantius lib. 2. instit. ca 19 Where Images are for Religion sake, there is no Religion, the force lieth in false translation of Images for Idols: Put, where Idols are for Religion, there is no Religion: But what, suppose he spoke against worshipping of Images in general, it were not proper to this purpose, where we speak only of making Images, and not of all sorts of Images neither, but of an Image only to represent some properties or actions of God. That out of Origen * Cont. Cel. lib. 7. is yet far wider; We suffer not any to worship jesus at Altars, Images, or Temples, because it is written: Thou shalt have none other Gods. Here is nothing concerning the making of God's Image; only Christians are forbidden to go unto the heathen Temples, and there at their Altars or Idols to worship jesus, who hath no affinity, nor can endure any fellowship with Idolaters. R. ABBOT. The words of Lactantius are, a Lactan. instit. li. 2. ca 19 Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulachrum est. It is undoubted that where Images are, there is no religion. M. Bishop chargeth us with false translation of Images for Idols. A poor shift, but it must serve where there is no better; yet how vain it is appeareth by the reason which Lactantius addeth: b Ibid. Nam si religio ex rebus divinis est, divini autem nihil est nisi in coelestibus rebus, carent ergò religione simulachra quia nihil potest esse coeleste in ea re quae fit ex terra. for if religion consist of things divine, and there be nothing divine but in heavenly things, than images are void of religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that that is made of earth. Now we suppose that M. Bishop can put no difference betwixt Idols and Images, in respect of being made of earth, and therefore must needs confess that Lactantius meant to make no difference betwixt Images and Idols. But that the folly of this exception may the better appear, to say nothing that the Fathers usually call heathen Idols by the name of Images, as by some examples I have showed in the former section, let us observe the reasons which Lactantius himself useth against them in the chapter next before, and we shall plainly see that Simulachra and Imagines, Idols saith M. Bishop, and Images are put both for the same thing. c Jbid. cap. 18. D●●m religiones Deorum triplic: ratione vana● esse. una quòd simulachra ipsa quae coluntur effigies sive hominum mortuorum: est autem perversum & incongruens ut simulachrum hominis à simulachro Dei colatur. I have showed, saith he, that the religions of the Gods are vain for three reasons. First, because the Images which are worshipped are the shapes of dead men, and it is disorderly and unfitting, that the image of a man should be worshipped of man who is the image of God. Images, we say, but if M. Bishop will say it must be Idols, then let him translate the rest also in like sort, because the word is the same, It is unfitting that the Idol of man should be worshipped by the Idol of God. Which if he will not then let him acquit us of false translation, and confess that Lactantius speaketh here of Images, as indeed he doth. And if he will not acknowledge it by the first reason, yet we hope he will by the second, where he setteth down the very name of Images. d Altera quòd ipsae imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines serviunt omni sensu carent quia terra sunt. Quie autem non intelligat nefa● esse rectum animal curuari ut adoret terram? Another reason is, saith he, for that (ipsae imagines sacrae) the holy Images which vain men serve, are altogether without sense because they are earth, and who understandeth not that it is a wicked thing that a creature made upright, should bow down itself to worship earth? Where calling those imagines which he had called before Simulachra, he showeth that Simulachra are as we translate them Images, and that in this point Idols, as M. Bishop calleth them, and Images are all one, the reasons which he allegeth standing alike against Popish Images, as they do against heathen Idols. The other part of his exception is but another part of a shift, M. Per. propounding to prove not only that it is unlawful for us to make any image any way to represent the true God, but also that we may make no Image of any thing in way of religion to worship God, much less the creature thereby. M. Bishop's supposal then that Lactantius there spoke against worshipping of Images in general, maketh the place directly to serve to that purpose, for which it was alleged. The words of Origen are applied also to the same end, who where Celsus objecteth, that e Orig. cont. Celso lib 7 Non ferunt templa, arras, & statuas inspicere; ne Scythae quinen & Numidae, etc. Christians not enduring to look at temples, altars, and Images, are therein like to the Scythians, Moors, Persians, and such like barbarous nations, answereth, that the barbarous nations do it otherwise and for other respects, but f Christiani temperant ab his propter illud Legis, Dominum Deum tuum timebis, etc. & alia similia quae adeo nos prohibent ab aris & simulachris ut etiam emori: ubeant citiùs quam contaminemus nostram de Deo fidem talibus impietatibus. Christians forbear these things, saith he, because of that which the Law saith, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, and thou shalt not make to thyself an image, etc. and thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve, and many other like speeches which do so forbid us altars and Images, as that they require us rather to die then to defile the faith that we have concerning God with such impieties. M. Perkins rather pointed at the place than cited it, & M. Bishop was loath to take the pains to look into it, and therefore returneth an idle tale, that Christians were forbidden to go to heathen temples, and there to worship jesus at their altars and Idols, as though in the mean time they might have Idols and Images of their own, whereas the thing that Celsus objected was, that they could not abide Images at all, and as afterwards he speaketh again, g Lib. 8. Celsus ait nos ararum, statuarum templorumque dedicationes fugere. did shun the dedicating of altars, Images and temples; and the very words here alleged do plainly express, that they wholly abhorred Images as an impious defiling of religion, & condemned by the law of God. And therefore by and by after he saith, h Li. 7. Impossibi le est ut qui Deum norit supplex fiat statuis; stulium est siquis preces simulachris offerat: Nos ideo qucque non honoramus simulachra, quia quantum possumus caveamus ne in eam credulitatem incidamus ut & his tribuamus divinitatis 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 conceit as to attribute any divine matter unto them. It is evident then that Origen wholly condemneth Images as touching all uses of religion, to which M. Bishop would approve them. 7. W. BISHOP. Having confuted the Protestants arguments against the making of Images to represent some property or action of God, I now come unto Catholic proof of them. The first reason set down by M. Perkins I reserve to the next point: the second is; God appeared in the form of a man to Abraham * Genes. 18. , and to Daniel, Who saw the ancient of days sitting on a throne * Dan. 9 . Now as God hath appeared, so may he be purtraited & drawn: M. Perkins his answer is, Not so, unless it be expressly commanded by God. Reply. This first is flat against his own second conclusion, where he holdeth it lawful to represent to the eye in Pictures, any histories of the Bible in private places, both the foresaid apparitions be in the old Testament, and therefore may be painted in private places, which cannot be truly done without you do represent God in the same likeness, as there he appeared. And what reason leadeth in words to represent those actions of God, the same serveth to express them in lively colours. Not so, saith M. Perkins, because when God appeared in the form of man, it was a sign of God's presence, for that time only, and for no longer. Be it so, it might notwithstanding be recorded in writing, that the memory of such majesty joined with loving kindness might endure longer. And if it pleased God, that this short presence of his should be written to be perpetually remembered, even so the same might be engraven in brass, to recommend it to us 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 ears are to the mind conveyed, Do move us less than that which is by faithful eye descried. This argument may be confirmed by the pictures of Angels, of Virtues, and other such like spiritual or accidental nature: for if such things as have no bodily proportion or shape, may notwithstanding be counterfeited and resembled in some qualities, why may not some property or action of God be in like manner represented? That thou mayest (Reader) understand the better what we mean, observe that pictures represent after three sorts. Some express to the quick, the very shape, proportion, and colour of the pattern; as the lively picture of man, or of any such corporal thing: others represent things as they did appear and were acted, as if the Painter should express the meeting of God with Abraham and his entertainment, he must then resemble God in the same likeness of a man in which he showed himself to Abraham. Thirdly, an Image of a spiritual thing, may be drawn not to resemble the nature of it, but to lead our understanding by such a similitude, into some better knowledge of that thing: so are Angels painted like goodly young men with wings, to teach us that they be of an excellent pure nature, ever flourishing, and most ready to dispatch with all expedition any employment to which God sends them; and so may God the Father be pourtraited as a goodly old grave man, sitting in his throne of majesty, attended upon by millions of Angels, (as he is described in Daniel 9) to instruct us how he is eternal, infinite, wise, and of most redoubtable majesty. In either of these two latter sorts we hold that God may be represented, and so in the seventh general Council, the drawing of the holy Ghost in form of a Dove, as he appeared, Mat. 3. is approved. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop telleth us what they hold, but as for proof of that that they hold, which in so weighty a matter should specially have been regarded, he bringeth none, nothing out of the old or new Testament, no example of any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, Evangelist, not of any of the godly Princes, or righteous and faithful servants of God, there being not one of them found to have made an Image to represent God since the world began. Yea he bringeth us neither Father nor Council for the space almost of eight hundred years after Christ, and that which he bringeth then, so uncertain & unsufficient, as that we may justly wonder at their wilfulness who will affirm or hold so important a matter upon so small ground. Their allegation is, that God appeared in the form of a man to Abraham and to Daniel, and as he hath appeared so he may be pourtraited and drawn. Now albeit we approve a civil and historical use of Images as he allegeth, yet we deny that the same extendeth so far as to warrant an Image of God, because howsoever it hath pleased God to appear at any time, yet he hath given to us an express charge, that we presume not to set up an image in any sort or meaning to represent him. Therefore albeit God had appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, whence the Israelites might take occasion to figure him in that sort, yet to prevent their so doing Moses telleth them, as before hath been showed, that a Deut 4.15. they saw no Image in the day when the Lord spoke unto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, that they might not corrupt themselves, and make them a graven image, the representation of any figure, the likeness of male or female, etc. b Vers. 23. Take heed, saith he, lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God which he made with you, and make you any graven Image, the likeness of any thing, as the Lord thy God hath charged thee. Where if the Israelites had been skilled in M. Bishop's distinction of making Images, this had hindered them nothing at all, but that at the first they might carve, or grave, or paint God in the likeness of a man, because he had so appeared to Abraham, or afterwards * See hereof after in sect. 1●. of a goodly old grave man, as this hypocrite speaketh, and I abhor to repeat, because he appeared to Daniel also in the form of a man, under the name of the Ancient of days. But they knew not this kind of learning; they took the commandment simply as it was intended, and therefore perpetually through all their generations, save only when they fell away from God, they held it unlawful to make any Image under any pretence to represent God. If they had understood the commandment of God as M. Bishop doth, undoubtedly they would have left some examples of doing that which he saith may be done. But king Agrippa told Caligula the Emperor when he would have had his Image set up in the Temple of Jerusalem, c Philo jud. de legate. ad Caium. Hoc temptum iam indè ab initio nullam unquam admisit manufactam effigiem, cùm sit Deo domi●ilium: pictorum enim atque statuariorum opera sunt sensibilium deorum imagines: illum autem invisibilem pingere aut fingere nefas duxerunt maiores nostri. This Temple even from the beginning never admitted any Image made with hands, because it is the house of God: for the works of painters and carvers are the Images of sensible Gods, but our forefathers have holden it a thing unlawful to paint or carve him that is invisible. Accordingly the Christian Church received and practised, denying that d Orig. cont. Cells. lib. 7. Deum incorporeum & invisibilem nulla figura circumscribimus. God who is without body and is invisible, may be described by any figure, as Origen saith, no not to represent any signification of him, as I observed e Supra sect. 4. from him before. Thus Theodoret saith, that Moses f Theodoret. in Deut. qu. 1 Instruens eos ne tentent unquam divinam imaginem effingere, cum arc●etypi speciem minimè viderint, etc. ut nullam imaginem construant invisibilis Dei. instructed the jews that they should not at any time attempt to frame any Image of God, seeing they had seen no likeness of him; that they should not set up any Image of the invisible God. In like sort Clemens Alexandrinus setteth it down for the doctrine of Moses which he saith Numa by him instructed taught the Romans, g Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 1. Numa ex ijs quae à M●se tradita sunt adivius prohibuit Romanis ne homini aut animali similem Dei facerent imaginem, etc. quòd ad quod est optimum non alia ratione quàm sola mente ulli licet attingere that we are not to make any Image of God like to man or any other thing, because no man may any otherwise meddle with God who is the sovereign good but only by the mind, and therefore the same Clement affirmeth as by the words of the Apostle, h Jbid lib. 6. Nobis nullum est simulachrum in mundo quoniam in rebus genitis nihil potest Dei referre imaginem. We have no Image in the world, because in the creatures there is nothing that can represent the Image of God. Because there is nothing that can represent God, therefore they admitted no Image of God at all. As for M. Bishops goodly distinction of painting and describing, it is no other than the Pagan's themselves would well like of for their defence. He excepteth no otherwise against making Images of God, but only the first way, as the Image should be understood fully and to the quick to resemble God, and in that sort the very heathens denied the resembling of God, or making any Image of him, as hath been before said. Yea Zeno the Stoic in that respect condemned the making of Images to their Gods, as Clemens Alexandrinus also showeth, i Ibid. li. 5. Dicit Zeno oportere nec templa facere nec imagines: nihil enim quod sit compositum esse Dijs dignum. because nothing that is compounded is worthy of the gods. Now therefore they will say to M. Bishop, that he cannot deny but that God hath appeared in the likeness of a man, and therefore that nothing hindereth, but that according to that apparition they may paint their gods like men, though they know them to be of more excellent nature then can be fully expressed thereby. Yea and if they add any other thing thereto, or worship them in any other shapes, they do it not as to resemble the nature of the gods, but to lead men's understanding by such similitudes into some better knowledge of them. They set forth Mars with helmet and ●arget & other compliments of fight, Apollo with a glistering Crown on his head, and bow and arrows in his left hand, Mercury with wings at his feet, and a rod or mace in his right hand, Cupid bl●nd with a dart also in his hand, but k Philo de ligat. ad Caium. Haec gestamina simulachris adduntur ut significent utilitates ab his Dijs exhibitas humano generi ●uisque cultoribus. these badges, saith Philo Iuda●us, are added to the Images to signify the benefits that these gods yielded to mankind and to their worshippers, or otherwise some special properties & effects severally belonging to every of them. With the same mind and respect they sometimes worshipped jupiter in the likeness of a Swan, Aesculapius of a Serpent, Mercury of a Dog, Pan of a Goat, Apis of an Ox, not thinking them to be like to any of these, but either for that they were said sometimes to have appeared in such likenesses, or for that they would hereby express somewhat that was memorable concerning them. To be short, there was nothing so absurd in their idolatries, but they had their hieroglyphical and Physical interpretations to salve the device and practise thereof, and therefore M. Bishop hath no reason to except against them, because they profess to have been led by the same reasons by which he seeketh to uphold the idolatry of his own part. But that he may seem not altogether without authority to say that which he saith, he allegeth unto us the second Nicene Council, approving the drawing of the holy Ghost in form of a Dove, because he is read in the Gospel so to have appeared. Where it seemeth to me, that he should have done much more wisely for himself, not to have alleged that record at all, because undoubtedly his Reader must needs think, that it is a very bad matter that he hath in hand, for defence whereof for almost the space of five thousand years from the beginning of the world there is no example to be found. If he had cited nothing, it might haply have been supposed that he had notwithstanding somewhat to cite, but no man will imagine that for his proof he would have come down so low as that Council, if he had had any better authority to rest upon. But the mishap is, that that Council also faileth him, insomuch as it saith nothing positively for the drawing and painting of the holy Ghost in the form of a dove, and doth approve those speeches which generally condemn the resembling of the godhead in any form. A relation is made of one Severus, who at Daphne took away the Doves framed in gold and silver and hanged over the fonts as in figure of the holy Ghost, saying that they ought not to use the name of the holy Ghost concerning any such form of a Dove. Hereupon Tharasius ready to apprehend every thing that might make for their Image-idolatrie, answereth thus: l Nicen. 2. Act. 5 Simo in nomine sancti Spiritus dedicaetas columbas sancti Patres receperunt, quantò magis corpus incarnati verbi & in terris in corpore visi recipiendum? If the holy Fathers received doves dedicated in the name of the holy Ghost, how much more is the body of the incarnate Word seen upon the earth in a body to be received; meaning the image of the body of Christ. If they did he saith, but he saith not that they did it lawfully if they did so. A man may say, if a Popish Priest may be permitted to keep a concubine or a harlot, much more should it be thought lawful for him to marry a wife, and yet doth not therefore approve, that it should be lawful for a Popish Priest to keep a concubine or harlot. And that the Council did not approve it as a thing lawful, it is manifest by those narrations and authorities which they do approve and allege for the approving of their Images. They allege a Sermon of john Bishop of Thessalonica containing a disputation betwixt a Pagan and a Christian, where the Pagan objecting in defence of their Images, that Christians also did make Images, not only to their Saints, but also to their God: the Christian answereth as touching God thus: m Ibid. ex Ser. Joan. Episc. Thess. Dei autem imaginem (dico Seruatoris nostri jesu Christi) quemadmodum ipse super terram eum hominibus conversatus est, pingimus, non ut ipsae natura Deus est. Quae enim posset esse Dei similitude, aut quae figura incorporei, ineffigiabilisque verbi Patris? Deus enim (ut scriptum est) spiritus est. Quoniam visum est Deo Patri unigenitum filium suum è coelis demittere quo pro nostra salute ex Spiritu sancto & in●olata virgine D●●para incarnaretur, nos eius humanitatem ea ratione pingimus, non illius incorpoream Deitatem. The image of God, I mean of our Saviour jesus Christ, we make according as he was conversant with men upon the earth, not as by nature he is God: for what likeness can there be of God, or what figure of the word of the Father which is without body, and not to be expressed by any shape? for God (as it is written) is a spirit. Because it seemed good to the Father to send down from heaven his only begotten Son, that by the holy Ghost he might be incarnate of the pure Virgin the mother of God, therefore we paint his humanity in that sort, but not his incorporal Godhead. Afterwards out of Leontius there is read a disputation betwixt a jew and a Christian, the jew professing to believe, that Christ is the Son of God, but that he was offended to see Christians contrary to the commandment to fall down before Images, and the Christian thereto answering: n Ibid. ex Leont. Deo ut talis est Scriptura jubet non esse faciendam similitudinem, ne que aliquam imaginem adorandam esse ut Deum. Imagines enim quas vides ad memoriam jesu Christi salutaris nobis incarnationis pinguntur Personam illius humanitatis ex primentes. Sanctorun auten imagines eodem modo uniuscuiusque praelia contra diabolum & mundum victoriasque significant. The Scripture commandeth, that to God as he is God, no similitude or likeness shall be made, and that no image shall be worshipped as God: but the images which thou seest are made to the remembrance of the incarnation of jesus Christ which hath yielded salvation to us. But the Saints images do in like sort signify the battles and victories of every of them against the Devil and the world. Again, it is alleged out of the confessions of certain Martyrs, thus: o Ibid. ex Const. Diacon Chartophyl. Non enim divinum simplex existens & incomprehensibile formis & figuris assimilamus, neque cera & lignis supersubstantialem & ante principia existentem substantiam honorare decrevimus. We do not by forms and shapes resemble God: being simple and incomprehensible, neither have we intended by wax and wood to honour the substance is above all substance, and hath his being before beginning. By all which it is evident that they wholly disclaimed the painting and picturing of the Godhead, so that their whole decree throughout the Council proceedeth only as touching the images of Christ, p Jbid Act. 7. Epist. ad Constan. & Iren. Quatenus scilicet perfectus homo suit. as he was perfect man, and of the Angels and Saints, as appeareth also by their synodal Epistle in the end of the Council, but of images of the Godhead they decree nothing. Whereby we see that M. Bishop is a man of an evil nature and disposition, who will thus make a bad matter worse than it is. A good mind will make things better and not worse, but whereas the Council was bad enough in decreeing worship to the images of Christ and his Saints, he maketh it worse than it was, by fathering upon it the approving of the images of the holy Ghost. We see then that he hath no proof at all for making an image of God, and therefore it was but a point of indiscretion in him to tell us in what manner and meaning they picture and resemble God, it being alleged that it is not lawful many manner or meaning so to do. As for his discourse of motives that come by sight, it savoureth of the gross conceit of all idolaters, who cannot endure to be without babies and puppets and no longer think they have a God, than they have a God to look upon. To hear of God or to read of him in his word, and to behold him in his works it is not sufficient, but by an image they must needs have him set forth more nearly to feed their eyes. Surely if the wisdom of God had thought it fit, that we should have learned him by painting and carving, he would not have failed to have given us instruction thereof. But sith he hath not so taught us, yea sigh he hath taught the contrary, and condemned them, (as hath been before showed) who have pretended to be instructed by such means, what a simple man doth Master Bishop show himself, to reason against God, and to say, If Angels and virtues may be figured and represented, why may not some property or action of God be in like manner represented? A simple man indeed, that hath not learned to put a difference betwixt the creature and the Creator, nor understandeth that that which is yielded to the pleasing of our curious fancy in the one, yet may justly be condemned as a wicked presumption to be attempted in the other. God hath forbidden to make any similitude to him. He hath not limited us any meaning wherein we may do it. What is it but wilful contempt in us to say, that in this or that meaning we will do that which he hath absolutely said we shall not do? 8. W. BISHOP. The first point then being obtained, that such images of God may be made; I come to the second: That all holy Pictures may be placed in Churches: which I prove by the argument that M. P. made for our first objection. In salomon's temple were erected Cherubins, which were images of Angels, on the mercy seat, where God was worshipped, and upon the walls and very doors of the same pictured. To this M. P. answereth, that they were erected by special commandment from God, who prescribeth the very form of them, and the place where they should be set, and thereby Moses had a warrant to make them, let them show the like warrant for their images, if they can. Secondly, (saith he) the Cherubs were placed in the most inward place of the Temple, and so were removed from the sight of the people, and the Cherubs without the vail, though they were seen, yet were they not worshipped. Reply. This man's wits were gone a woolgathering, when proposing to himself the Cherubs erected in Solomon's Temple: he answereth of the Cherubs made by Moses 350. years before: a most gross oversight and a shameful shift: but such as men desperately defending untruths, must needs use. For if he had answered directly, he had not had a word to say: for neither did God prescribe the form of them, nor give any special commandment to Solomon, to make and erect any such Cherubs, as he that pleaseth to read the Chapter may see, and there they were placed not only in the inward, but also in the outward parts of the Temple, upon the walls and very doors, that they might be seen of all the people: which M. P. finding, flitted from thence, and did fly unto another, which because it spoke of Cherubs, he thought would serve to blind his simple followers. Moses indeed had an express precept for the making of them, as he had for the Curtains and Curtain-rods, and every particular belonging to the Tabernacle. But Solomon without any special commandment out of his high and holy wisdom, understood that he might most lawfully and laudably imitate that heavenly pattern of Moses: and as the building was far more sumptuous and stately, so in the number and quantity of pictures exceeded, which is a sufficient instruction and warrant for all men after his days to make and set Images in the Church. And this finally M. Perkins seems to grant, when he saith, that these Cherubs without the veil, were there to be seen, but not to be worshipped: so that we have gotten one step further, that Images may not only be made, but also be set up in the Churches: which is fortified by the testimony of Tertullian, in the place cited before: where he saith, that our Saviour was pictured upon holy Chalices, which were used at the Altars: and of Sozomenus, who witnesseth that our saviours picture was taken into the Church. S. Gregory Naz. * Epist. 49. maketh mention of images in the Church of Diocaesarea, trimmed up by himself. Saint Basil * Orat. in Barl. pointeth to that holy man's picture, standing in the Church. Damasus * In vita Silue. shows how Constantine in the Church of S. john Laterane, erected a silver Image unto our Saviour. Saint chrysostom in demonstrat. quòd Christus sit Deus. And S. Aug. * Ser. 19 de Sanct. do teach, that the Cross was on the holy Tables, and used at all holy functions. And the reason why images should principally be set in Churches, is very pregnant. For where should holy pictures of holy men be more properly bestowed, then in holy places: and the Church being a resemblance of heaven (as S. Paul teacheth, * Heb. 9 ) is most conveniently decked up with Images: the representations of heavenly creatures: that men entering into that holy place, may by the view and consideration of such an heavenly show, retire their minds from worldly business, and lift them up unto the sovereign Monarch of both heaven and earth. R. ABBOT. There is some wit in gathering wool, but M. Bishop spendeth his time in gathering moss, and therein is little wit. For some colour of setting up their idols in Churches to be worshipped, they full simply allege the Cherubins that were set up in the temple which Solomon built, which M. Bishop saith were the images of Angels, and that they did represent the Angels we will not deny, but a joseph. Antiq. lib. ●. cap. 2. Hae Cherubicae effigies qu●nam specie fuerint, nemo vel con●●cere potest vel eloqui. of what shape they were, no man, saith josephus, can conjecture or affirm any thing. Our English translation readeth one where, that they were b 2. Chr ●. 10. like children, but by the testimony of josephus being himself an Hebrew, it appeareth that that signification of the Hebrew word is not certain, and the same word being no where else found in the Hebrew text leaveth it the more doubtful what construction may be made of it. And the doubt is so much the greater, for that in the vision of Ezechiel there is expressly noted a difference betwixt the face of a Cherub, and the face of a man, c Ezech. 10.14. Every beast (saith he) had four faces, the first was the face of a Cherub, the second was the face of a man, etc. But to let that pass, to the objection M. Perkins answereth, that those Cherubins were erected by special commandment of God, who had prescribed both the form of them, and the place where they should be set, and thereby Moses had warrant to make them, which they have not for their Images. Here M. Bishop alleging that M. Perkins proposing to himself the Cherubins erected in Solomon's temple, answereth of the Cherubins made by Moses 350. years before, falleth into a great rage, and crieth out, a most gross oversight and shameful shift, but such (saith he) as men desperately defending untruths must needs use, and if he had answered directly he had not had a word to say. Now who would think that so wise a man would take so great pains to bewray his own ignorance? who would think that in such heat he would charge another man with gross oversight, when he himself doth so grossly oversee himself? God commanded Moses to make the Ark, and the propitiatory or mercy seat, which was the cover of the Ark according to the fashion that he had showed him. Withal he appointed him to make two Cherubins, one at the one end of the mercy-seat, and the other at the other end, so as that with their wings stretched out, they should cover the mercy-seat. Which done he saith, d Exod. 25.22: There will I declare myself unto thee, and from above the mercy-seat between the two Cherubins which are upon the Ark of the Testimony, I will tell thee all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. According to this commandment Moses did, but what was done with those Cherubins which Moses set up, it is uncertain; whether by the enemies taking of the Ark, as most likely it is, they were taken away, or whether they fitted not the place of the Temple where they should stand, the Tabernacle and furniture thereof being before made portable to be removed from place to place. Howsoever that were, this is certain, that Solomon by virtue of the same commandment, and to observe that which by Moses was prescribed, made two Cherubins to stand in the same place as the other did, and to the same use. The work therefore being finished e 1. King. 8.5.6: king Solomon and all Israel being assembled together, the Priests brought the Ark of the covenant of the Lord into his place, into the oracle of the house, the most holy place, even under the wings of the Cherubins: for the Cherubins stretched out their wings over the place of the Ark, and the Cherubins covered the Ark. Inasmuch then as God had by the law directed in what sort this should be done, Solomon needed no further special commandment for the doing of it, but had trespassed against God, if being appointed to build a house unto God, he had not done it according to such rules as the law before had limited for the doing of it: so idle a fancy is it which M. B. here delivereth, that out of his own high wisdom only he thought it lawful for him to imitate that which Moses had done before, and consequently so vain a cavil is it which he useth, that the objection being moved of the Cherubins made by Solomon, M. Perkins answereth by the commandment given thereof to Moses, when as there was the very same respect of both, and Solomon renewed them by the same commandment, by which Moses at first made them. Now these 2. Cherubins of which the question is specially moved, were erected in the most holy place, whether, as the Christian saith to the jew before spoken of in the 2. Nicen council, f Nycen. Synod. 2. Act. 5. ex Leont. Quo sanè nulli mortalium dabatur accessus praeterquam summo Sacerdoti, idque semel in anno. it was granted to no mortal man to have access, but only to the high priest, & that once only in the year, yea and there was also g Exod. 26.33. 2. Chron. 3.14. a veil drawn before to make a separation betwixt the holy place, and the most holy, so that no man had the sight of any thing therein. Very falsely therefore & unhonestly doth M. B. deal to confounded these Cherubins with the rest as touching their place, and generally to say, There they were placed not only in the inward, but also in the outward parts of the Temple upon the walls and very doors, that they might be seen of all the people, it being evident that these were never to be seen of the people nor of any, save only the high Priest, and consequently were such as can give no warrant at all to setting up of Popish images. As for the rest of the Cherubins which the text mentioneth they were of other sort, wrought in the curtains, and feeling of the walls, and upon the doors and vessels only for garnishing and beautifying the works, but Cherubins that were standing images there were none but only those two. The veil of the most holy place was h 2. Chro. 3.14. wrought with Cherubins, i Kings 6.29. the walls were carved with graven figures of Cherubins, palm trees, and other graven flowers: k Ver. 35. the doors also with the like, l Cap. 7.29. the bases whereupon the cauldrons were to stand were graven in the borders with Lions, Bulls, and Cherubins. Here it is plain then, that the Cherubins were of no other respect or use, but as the figures of palm trees, pomegranates, Flowers, Lions, Bulls and other such like, not in any sort for exercise of the devotion of the people, but only for the adorning of the house. Yea and to these also the people had no access within the house, being prohibited to come any further than to the door, near to which stood the altar to which they were to tender their sacrifice, the Priest receiving the same, to do with it according to the law, but they themselves might not go in. There was one part of the Temple which was called m Exod. 26.33. Heb 9.6.7. the holy place, into which the Priests and Levites ordinarily went to perform their ordinary service: another part was called the most holy place into which only the high Priest went once a year, & these two parts are most properly called n Luk. 1.21. the Temple, in which Solomon bestowed all that curiosity of work. But without these was the vast room into which the people resorted, where they waited o Ver. 10. in prayer whilst the Priests performed the service, wherein they were accustomed to be taught, and our Saviour Christ and his Apostles preached unto them, going also in general under the name of the temple, yet not having in any sort that glorious beauty of workmanship that the other parts had, neither can M. B. tell us of any Cherubins therein. Seeing then there were no standing Cherubins in Solomon's temple but only two, which were wholly removed out of sight, and the rest had no other use but only the same as the figures of Lions, and Bulls, and Flowers, and Palm trees, and such like and of dead men there were no images at all, not of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, or any other, we should think that that temple yieldeth so small grace to Romish Idols, as that like Dagon they must fall to the ground and break their necks, unless there be some better means and help found for the upholding of them. As for the use whereto Solomon intended those works of his, who is there that maketh question of it? Who doubteth but that by curiosity of Imagery of carving and graving, and painting, men may beautify either their houses or their Churches in the like sort as he did? Yea M. Bishop well knoweth that we do not thrust Images wholly out of our Churches, because we have in Westminster, in Paul's, and commonly in the rest of our Churches throughout the land many images of our deceased Kings and Queens, of our Nobles and States higher and lower, which we preserve, and add more to them from day to day. We determine nothing absolutely against Images, but we determine against images in case of superstition and idolatry or in peril thereof. Take away the fear of superstition, and against images or pictures we say nothing. If therefore some of the Fathers not fearing or suspecting that heathenish abomination would get place in the Church, were more secure in this behalf, and doubted not to adorn their Churches or other places with pictures & images of Christ and his Apostles, of Saints and Martyrs, we wonder not thereat: but yet how rare a matter this was, may appear by the poor store of examples that M. Bishop bringeth thereof. That of Tertullian was only p Tertul. de pudicitia. Procedant picturae Calicum vestrorum, si vel in illis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius: (ovis perditae à Domino requisitae & humeris eius revectae.) a picture upon the chalice, of a shepherd carrying his lost sheep upon his shoulder, as in figure of Christ seeking mankind, & recovering him to God, of which kind of picture no man maketh any question. The second example is of the Image that stood in the street at Caesarea Philippi, which in the time of julian the Apostata was broken in pieces by the Pagans, and the Christians q Sozomen. hist. lib. 5. cap. 20. Christiani cùm eius fragmenta collegissent, in Ecclesia posuerunt took up the fragments thereof, and set it in the Church. Gregory Nazianzene mentioneth certain r Gregor. Naz. Epist. 49. Nequ● enim si statuae deijciantur hoc nos excruciate, etc. images in the Church of Diocaesarea, but what they were, or whose they were it appeareth not, but by his words of trimming, not the images, but s Templun quod exstruximus, omneque nostrum in eo exornando studium. the Church, it appeareth that they were only for the ornament thereof. Basil only mentioneth an image or picture that did represent the t Basil Orat. de Barlaam. Abibo certaminum ac victoriarum Martyris à vobis posita imagine victus, etc. Video manus ad ignem luctam exactiù● à vobis descriptam, etc. burning of the hand of Barlaam the Martyr, more lively set forth then he could by words declare it, of which kind M. Bishop may see many in the stories of our Martyrs. Their Pontifical is but a bastard witness and of too late years to tell us what Constantine did: he must bring us better proof, or else we believe not that which he reporteth by it, though to us it be nothing. The last instance out of u Chrysost. demonstrat. Quòd Christus sit Deu●. In front nostra figuratur: sic in sacramensa, in sacerdotum ordinationibus, sic iterum cum corpore Christi in mysticis caenis fulget. chrysostom and x August. de sanct. Ser. 49. Cum crucis charactere Altaris sacramenta confistuntur. Austin (though that out of Austin de Sanctis be a mere forgery) concerneth only the sign of the Cross used at the Sacrament as before was said, not any standing image either of the Cross or of him that was crucified, and therefore is wholly impertinent to the matter here in question. Hereby than the Reader may suppose that the use of Pictures and Images in the Primitive Church was not great, but specially of those standards whereof our question is principally intended, and by which idolatry hath specially been committed, inasmuch as there are so few certain and pregnant examples thereof to be found. But whether it were greater or less, experience hath since taught us to misdoubt that which they misdoubted not. We have found it to be true which the author of the book of Wisdom saith, that y Wisd. 14.10. images are a snare to the feet of the unwise, and that z Cap. 15.5. the sight of an image stirreth up the desire of the ignorant, so that he is in love with the form that hath no life, even of a dead image. a August. Epist. 40. Cum his sedibus honorabili sublimitate locantur ut à precantibus & immolantibus attendantur, ipsa similitudine animatorum membrorum atque sensuum quam vis insensata & exanima affi●iunt insumos animos ut vivere ac spirate videantur. When they are honourably set up in places aloft, saith S. Austin, that they may be beholden of men praying and offering unto them, even by the very semblance of living members and senses, albeit they be senseless and without life, they so affect weak minds, as that they seem to be alive and to take breath. b Idem in Psal. 113 Ducit & infirmo quodam affectu rapit infirma corda mortalium formae similitudo & membrorum imitata compago: & post, Quis adorat vel orat intuens simulachrum qui non sic assicitur, ut ab eo se exaudiri putet, & ab eo sibi praestari quod desiderat, speret? The similitude of the form, saith he again, and imitation of the frame of the members leadeth and draweth by an infirmity of affection the weak hearts of men; and who worshippeth or prayeth beholding an image, but he is so affected, as that he thinketh the same heareth him, and hopeth that that which he desireth shall thereby be done for him? Having then found this by experience to be true, we are careful to shun all the danger of such superstition, and therefore where we find Images subject to such abuse, as in the hands of Popish Recusants, we deface and destroy them, and otherwise that there may be no occasion of such abuse, we eschew and avoid the setting up of the like as have been usually worshipped amongst them, choosing rather to garnish our Churches with sentences of Scripture or with such Imagery as Solomon did the temple, whereof there may be no danger, then with glorious standards and images of men which may again give occasion of stumbling and falling to the weak minds of simple and ignorant men. As for M. Bishop's reason why images of holy men should be placed in Churches, it standeth upon so fickle ground as that it must needs fall. He allegeth that the Apostle (Heb. 9) maketh the Church to be a resemblance of heaven. But that which the Apostle there saith is not of our Churches, nor can be drawn thereto, but is spoken of the Sancta sanctorum, the most holy place of the temple of Jerusalem, into which only the high Priest entered in figure of jesus Christ once in the year, whereby (saith he) c Heb. 9.8. the holy Ghost signified, that the way into the holiest of all, (that is, into heaven) was not yet opened, while as yet the first tabernatle was standing. Hence than we argue against M. Bishop out of his own grounds, that seeing in the most holy place of the temple which was indeed the resemblance of heaven, there were admitted no images of holy men, therefore in our Churches though they be granted to carry a resemblance of heaven, which he cannot prove, yet it followeth not that Images should be admitted to have any place. Yea and the use of our Churches is not for gazing and staring, but for prayer unto God, for hearing of his word, and receiving of his Sacraments, to the devotion whereof the mind doth the less bestow itself when it is averted and withdrawn by the business of the eye. And sith in the outmost Court also of the Temple, whither the people resorted, this heavenly show of M. Bishops was altogether wanting, either we must condemn the wisdom & discretion of him by whom the temple was built, or else we must reject this device as fantastical and childish, to which M. Bishop ascribeth the retiring of our minds from worldly business, and lifting them up to God. Nay, images serve not to lift up the mind, but to depress it and keep it down, and this was one special argument whereby the Father's impugned the Images of the Pagans, d Aug. in Psal. 113. Valent ad curuandam infoelicem animam etc. Cyprian. contra Demetr. Lactani. instit. lib. 2. cap. 2. for that by the eye they held the mind doting & dreaming upon an Idol here on earth, when by spiritual contemplation and devotion it should be lifted up to heaven: so ill hap hath M. B. that he can say nothing for Popish Images which hath not been before impugned in Pagan Idols. 9 W. BISHOP. Now let us come to those two objections of M. P. which seems to be against the erection of images in Churches. The first is out of the Council of Eliberis cap. 36. which commandeth, that nothing should be painted on the walls of the Church, that was adored of the people. Answ. That if the Council speak of the image of God (in which sense M. P. citeth it, and the word (adored) doth insinuate) than it may be said, that the Council inhibiteth that sort of God's images which are made to express the divine nature: if it be extended unto all sorts of images, I answer, that they were then forbidden to be drawn upon the Church walls, but not to be set in Tables upon the altar, or in any other place. The reason is, because that Council was holden in time of persecution, as appeareth by the twenty fifth Canon of it: and then, if the persecutors had found out the place of their assembly, as they often did, those pictures must needs either have been defaced by themselves, or left unto the derision and despite of the heathens; and pictures also painted upon such poor walls as they had then to their Churches, would either by the moisture of the walls, or other incommodity, have been quickly disfigured: wherefore to the greater honour of such sacred things, those grave Father's thought it not meet to have them drawn upon the Church walls, there being many more meet places for them in the Churches. R. ABBOT. It seemeth that they are much troubled with this Canon of the Eliberine Council, which maketh them to turn it and wind it one way and another way, to set some such meaning upon it, as that it may not seem to make against them. The Canon is this: a Concil. Eliberi. Can. 36. Placuit in Ecclesia picturas esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. It hath seemed good to us, that there shall be no pictures in the Church, lest that which is worshipped or adored be painted upon the walls. Bellarmine allegeth out of their Writers four several answers, and being satisfied with none of them falleth in the end to the discrediting of the Council, b Bellar. de ima. sanct. Quicquid Concilium statuerit, etc. contra nos tantùm esse potest Concilium 19 Episcoporum quod prouinciale fuit & minimè confirmatum & in alijs decratis videtur errasse. Whatsoever it decreed, it was but a provincial Council, and of but nineteen Bishops, and was never confirmed, and seemeth to have erred in other decrees. This trick of his masters M. Bishop thought not good to use, thinking it to be somewhat too homely, but out of those rejected answers patcheth up somewhat to serve the turn till he can provide better. First, he telleth us that the Council inhibiteth that sort of God's images which are made to express the divine nature. But c Ibid. Non videtur satisfacere tum quia Concilium loquitur de picturis in genere, cum etiam quiae non erant in usu eo tempore inimō nec unquam fuerunt in ecclesia tales imagines quae sunt vera idola. Concilium autem loquitur de eo quod fieri solebat & interdicit ne deinceps fiat. this, s i'th' Bellarmine, seemeth not to serve the turn, both for that the Council speaketh generally of pictures, and also because there never were any such images used in the Church which are very Idols; and the Council speaketh of that that was wont to be done, and forbiddeth the doing of it any more. As for M. Bishop's reason of the tying of the Canon to the images of God, namely that the word (adored) doth so insinuate, it maketh much against himself. For if the Council intended, as indeed it did, that adoration belongeth only to God, then by the judgement of this Council, the second Nicene Council decreed idolatry, & the Church of Rome now practiseth it, in giving adoration to Saints and their images, as also to other images whatsoever, because none of them are gods. M. Bishop finding no hold in this answer, goeth to another, which is a scrap of Doct. Sanders answer, set down also by Bellarmine, that the Council decreed that which time and place then required, because there was doubt least the Pagans should think that the Christians worshipped flocks and stones, and again lest in those times of persecution, the images should by the persecutors be reproachfully used. Of this answer Bellarmine saith, d Fateor rationem illam Canonis (Ne quod adoratur, etc.) non multum quadrare huic expositioni. I confess that the reason of the Canon, Lest that which is adored and worshipped be painted upon the walls, doth not well agree to this exposition. But M. Bishop to show his cookery, dresseth this answer in a little other sort, and whereas Doct. Sanders understood images for those reasons to be wholly forbidden, he telleth us that they were forbidden to be drawn upon the Church walls, for than they must be forced to deface them themselves, or else must leave them to be disgraced by the enemies, but did not forbid them to be set in tables upon the Altar or in any other place. Their only care than was to have their images at liberty, that if occasion of persecution required, they might be packing bag and baggage, and like Aeneas his Gods might be shipped away to another Country, if they could not find safety in their own. Thus whereas Doctor Sanders his conceit was, that for fear of persecution, they were to have no images, Master Bishop is of another mind, that they might have them standing upon the Altar or in other places, only they might not have them painted upon the wall. But the wise man had forgotten the first part of the Canon, It seemeth good to us, that there shall be no pictures in the Church, not that there shall be no pictures upon the Church walls, but that there shall be no pictures in the Church. Whereby it appeareth plainly, that they supposed no other being of them in the Church, but only by being painted upon the walls; and if they had intended the having of them any otherwise in the Church, as upon the altar or in any other place, they would not have forbidden the having of them in the Church, by a flat contradiction to that which they intended. There were yet no standards of images in the Churches; only they had begun to adorn them with historical pictures & paintings. The father's thinking it a dishonour to him whom we adore and worship, to be pictured upon a wall, to take away that abuse, forbidden the having of any pictures in the Church, referring their words to that kind of images, because there was no other kind to which they had occasion to direct them. But Bellarmine's exception standeth still good against this answer, that the reason of the Canon fitteth not to it, which is not for any fear of the pictures, falling into the hands of infidels, but that that which we worship be not painted upon the walls. And by the same reason he excepteth also against the third answer, which is taken out of Alanus Copus, that Christians worshipped their images as Gods, & in that sense the Council did forbid them, for than saith he it should not have been said, lest that which is adored be painted, but rather lest that which is painted be adored. The last answer to which he saith the reason of the Canon doth most fitly agree, is that good stuff which M. Bishop here addeth for supply, that pictures painted upon such poor walls as they had then to their Churches, would either by the moisture of the walls or other incommodity (he knoweth not what) have been quickly disfigured; therefore for the honour of such sacred things, those grave Father's thought it not meet to have them drawn upon the walls, there being many more meet places for them in the Church: So than those grave Fathers are forced in effect to say thus, We will not have any pictures in the Church, because there are many meet places for them in the Church, and they will soon be disfigured being painted upon the walls. We think good to have no pictures in the Church, that that which is worshipped may not be painted upon the walls, that is, We will have pictures in the Church, and that painted which is worshipped, only for fear of being too soon disfigured, our Church walls being subject to much moisture, it shall not be done upon the wall; albeit if that inconvenience may be prevented, we do not dislike, but that that which is worshipped may be painted upon the wall. Hypocrite, what dost thou with that soul which Christ hath so dearly bought? wilt thou sell it wilfully to lies and falsehood? The Canon directly forbiddeth the having of pictures in the Church. The reason is, because they would not have that which they worshipped to be painted upon the walls. They knew it might as well be painted on the wall as any where else, but they were acquainted with no other having of pictures in the Church, but only by painting on the walls. Therefore to exclude them wholly out of the Church, which is the thing that they propound, they give reason of an undecency and unfitness, that that which is worshipped should be painted on the walls. Bellarmine therefore seeing well that none of those answers can satisfy any reasonable man that readeth the Canon itself, thought it best for a farewell to disgrace the Council in such sort as I have before showed; and much better should M. Bishop have done the same, and acknowledged that the Council speaketh against them but they regard it not, then thus to seek to smother a truth with a manifest and wilful lie. 10. W. BISHOP. The second objection is out of a postscript of Epiphanius letter, unto john Patriarch of jerusalem, in which is written, as M. Perkins falsely reporteth: that it is against the authority of Scripture, to see the pictures of Christ, or of any Saint to hang in the Church. Answer. It is there only, to see the picture of a man. Now that he should mean of Christ or of some Saint, is only gathered, yet M. Perkins makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text: even so do we think that some old enemy of images added that postscript unto Epiphanius letter. Our reasons are, because it hath no coherence with the former letter or style. Again, in the seventh Council, when all that could be found out of antiquity, was cited against images, no tidings there of this place, which if it had been true, might have been one of the principal. Thirdly, in the same Council, * Act. ●. other two places brought, as it were out of Epiphanius works, were found to be none of his: And for images was alleged, that Epiphanius own disciples erected an image to their master, and set it in the Church; which they would never have done, if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to do. M. Perkins observes a special reason in Epiphanius other counterfeit testimony: That images must not be suffered in the common house, because we must carry God in our minds. To which we answer, that images must be suffered in all places, that we may the better carry God in our hearts, being by the sight of them, both often put in mind of him, and much moved to honour and love him. R. ABBOT. That all this answer is but a mere shift, appeareth by Alphonsus de Castro, who confesseth that Epiphanius did hold this error, as he calleth it, against images, as did also after him Serenus Bishop of Massilia, in the time of Gregory the great, but maketh this excuse for them, a Alphon. adu. haeres. lib. 8. tit. Imago. Res non erat adeò aperta nec de illa re, quod scian, unquam ecclesia illo tempore definierat: quapropter liberum tunc erat eis ●itra haeresis notam ita sentire. that the matter was not then so manifest, neither had the Church at that time defined any thing of it, and therefore it was free for them, without any note of heresy to be of that mind. I pray thee, gentle Reader, here to observe, that the worshipping of images was no point of Christian faith or doctrine in the time of Gregory the great, that is, for six hundred years after the time of Christ, and that it was free for men without being questioned of heresy, all that while to speak against it. Hereby then esteem who they are that are to be accounted new masters, bringers in of new doctrines, and setters up of new religions in the Church of Christ. M. Bishop is loath to deal plainly as Alphonsus did, and therefore will by no means have it thought that Epiphanius was of that mind, but bringeth us certain wooden devices, to persuade men that he meant some other matter, or rather that the testimony alleged, is none of his. Master Perkins briefly allegeth that Epiphanius saith, it is against the authority of the Scriptures, to see the image of Christ, or of any Saints hanging in the Church. Master Bishop saith, that it is there only, to see the picture of a man: that he should mean of Christ or of some Saint, is only gathered, and both are thrust into the text. Whether it be so or not, let it appear by Epiphanius himself. b Epiphan. epist. ad joannem Hierosolymit. inveni ibi velum pendem in foribus eiusdem ecclesia tinctum et depictum & imaginem habens quaesi Christi vel sancti eu●usdā; non enim satis memini cu●●s imago fuerit. Cum ergò vidissem in ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud & magis dedi consilium custodibus eiusdem loci ut pauperem mortuum eo obuoluerent & efferrent, etc. I found there (in the Church at Anablatha) a veil hanging at the doors of the Church died and painted, and having the image as it were of Christ or some Saint, for I do not well remember whose image it was. When therefore I saw that contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, there was the image of a man hanging in the Church, I cut it, and advised the wardens of the place, that they should bury some poor man in it. It is here very evident, that of the image of Christ or of some Saint, he saith that it is against the authority of the Scriptures, to see the image of a man hanging in the Church. M. Bishop would seem to be blind, but indeed he saw this well enough, and therefore seeketh other shifts, because this could not serve. He would make us believe that some old enemy of images added that postscript unto Epiphanius letter, calling that a postscript which is a just and substantial part of a letter or Epistle, & seeking to have it accounted an addition by another man, which all copies both of Epiphanius his works in Greek, and Hieromes translation of that Epistle into Latin, do uniformly deliver as written by Epiphanius himself. But yet it shall not be amiss to consider his reasons. First, it hath no coherence with the former letter. As though it were so strange a thing to write of two matters in one letter, whereof the one hath no coherence with the other. But otherwise all things very justly accord. The thing was done as Epiphanius and john the Bishop of jerusalem, to whom the Epistle was written, were going together to Bethel. It was in the diocese of the said john. Epiphanius had promised the people of the place, to send them another veil for that which he cut. He sendeth it to the Bishop, and requesteth him to cause the same to be received by the ministers of the place, and them withal, c Ibid Et dein ceps praecipere in ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela quae contra religionem nostram ventunt, non appendi. to give charge that such veils which make against our religion be not hanged up in the Church of Christ. Thus therefore having other occasion to write to john Bishop of jerusalem, to clear himself as touching some grievances which the said john had conceived against him, there was apparent occasion and reason of the adding of this matter. As for the difference of style, it is a very fond and frivolous allegation, there being no manner of ground whereupon he should conceive it, or whereby he can affirm it. His second reason is, because in the seventh Council when all that could be found out of antiquity was cited against images, there was no tidings of this place, which might have been one of the principal if it had been true. But therein again his master doth exceedingly abuse him. For in the Council of Constantinople related by that seventh Council, and to whose citations it is that Bellarmine referreth that speech, there are set down but only eight authorities or testimonies of former antiquity, and that eight testimonies are not all that can be alleged out of antiquity against images, I hope M. Bishop will easily conceive and find by this discourse. Yea, and the Fathers of that Council profess d Synod. Constantino. tom. 5. apud Nicen. 2. Act. 6. Ex multis pauca testimonia coll●cauimus ●reliquis quae infinita sunt vole●tes supersedimus, ut qui velint ipsi requirant. to set down but few testimonies of many, willingly passing over the rest which, say they, are infinite, that they who will may search them themselves. And as touching Epiphanius citing one place out of them, they add, e Jbid. Idem in alijs quoque sermonibus suis de Imaginum subuersione multa dixit quae studiosi quaerentes facilè invenient. The same Father in other of his Sermons, hath said many things for the casting down of Images, which they that are studious by search shall easily find. It appeareth therefore that those Fathers had no meaning to bring all that might be brought, and it is a wilful falsehood to say that they did so. And that there was more to have been alleged out of Epiphanius, it is plain, not only for that he calleth f Epiphan. de haer. cap. 1. Nondum erat inventum aliquod aliud quàm sola scortatio & excogitatio simulaechrorum. Sic in Ancorato. the devising of images, a whoredom or fornication, and setteth it down for a matter of the Carpocratian heresy, that amongst other they worshipped the image of Christ, as before was said, but also for that he condemneth the Collyridian heretics for making the image of the virgin Mary, and offering to it, whose heresy for that cause he calleth g Jdem haer. 79. Huius simulachrisicae haeresis radicibu● excisis, etc. Et post. Simulachrificum hoc studium & diabolicus conatus. Praetextu enim justitia semper subiens hominum mentem Diabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, statuas humanas imagines praeseferentes per artium varietatem express sit. Et illi quidem mortus sunt qui adorantur: ipsorum verò imagis ne● quae nunquam ut ●erunt, etc. adorandas introducunt, adulterante mente à solo & uno Deo, velut commune scortum ad multam multiplicis coitus absurditatem irritatum, & quoth temperantian legitimi coniugij unius viri detrivit. the image-making heresy, or an heresy given to making of images, and calleth the desire of making images a devilish practice. For the devil, saith he, stealing into men's minds under pretence of righteousness, deifieth the mortal nature in the eyes of men, and by variety of arts frameth standards bearing in show the images of men. And they verily who are worshipped are dead, but they bring in their images to be worshipped which never were alive, the mind going a whoring from the true and only God, even as a common strumpet absurdly desiring variety of carnal company, & is past being content with the lawful marriage of one man. Hereby appeareth the falsehood of that which Epiphanius the deacon in the place here cited by M. Bishop, saith as touching this Epiphanius the Bishop, that in his book against heresies, he set down none as touching images; when as expressly he condemneth in those heretics the making of the image of the virgin Mary, as I have said, and offering to it, as their manner was to offer to it a cake; whence they had that name of Collyridians' given to them. And hereby may be conceived what account we are to make of M.B. third reason that in the same Council other two places were brought as it were out of Epiphanius works, which were found to be none of his. Where M. Bishop turneth one place into two, and the same one more likely to be forged by him that mentioneth it, if it were forged, then by any man else. The words are cited as out of an Epistle of Epiphanius to Theodosius the Emperor, in the end whereof he saith these words were; b Synod. Nicen 2 Act. 6 Epiphan. resp tom. 5. Saepe cum comministris meis de ablation imaginum egi, sed ab iijs non receptus sum, neque vel in pauci● vocem meam audire sustinuerunt. I have often dealt with my fellow Ministers for the taking away of images, but I have not been accepted of them, neither would they suffer, that in some few words I should speak unto them. These words, or rather the whole Epistle Epiphanius the deacon affirmeth not to have been written by the other Epiphanius, but allegeth nothing to prove it so. Only like a wily Sophister he reckoneth up of the Bishops that lived in the time of Epiphanius diverse chief men, as Basil; Gregory Nazianzene, Gregory Nyssene, chrysostom, Ambrose, Amphilochius, and Cyril, so carrying the matter, as if these were the men with whom Epiphanius had dealt, and hereupon inferring that if these so worthy men would not yield to him for the taking away of images, them there should be no reason now to take them away, whereas he had no reason at all, whereupon to imagine that these or any of these should be the men whom Epiphanius meant. Now beside that Epistle, he importeth that some other writings there were alleged of Epiphanius directed against Images, which, that being the readiest way to put them off, he without any proof at all affirmeth to be counterfeit, but seeing we have found him false as touching those works which he confesseth to have been written by Epiphanius, we can give him no credit for the denial of the rest. Whatsoever they were we see they have taken course to make them away, and indeed what hath lain in them they have laboured to suppress whatsoever most clearly did make against them, and in place thereof to f●ist in bastards and counterfeits such as are fit to serve their turn, but are altogether unworthy of them whose names they are forced to bear. The last reason of Epiphanius his scholars, erecting an image to him, and setting it in the Church, of what weight it is may be esteemed by that that hath been said. It resteth only upon the credit of Epiphanius the Deacon, & that is little in this case. Epipha. the Bishop of Cyprus lived 400 years before this Epiph. the deacon, that is, before the time of that 2. Nicen Council. If they would have been believed as touching a matter four hundred years before, they should have brought meet proof and testimony thereof, which sith they did not, we cannot hold it for truth, inasmuch as otherwise we find them so many ways culpable of untruth. But whereas Master Bishop saith, that those Scholars of Epiphanius would never have done so, if he had taught the same to be against the Scripture, it is his bare presumption, & not any necessary conclusion, because though Moses had taught the children of Israel from God, that they should make no Idols or worship them, yet when he was but a little gone from them, they made them, yea Aaron himself made for them a golden Calf. As touching the other sentence of Epiphanius cited by Master Perkins out of the Council of Constantinople it is this; i Synod. Constantinop. apud Nicem. 2. Act. 6 Estote memores dilecti filii ne in ecclesiam imagines inferatis, neque in sanctorum caemeterijs eas statuatu; sed perpetuò circumferte Deum in cordibus vestris. Quinetiam neque in domo commmuni tolerentur. Neque enim fas est Christianum per ●culos suspensum teneri sed per occupationem mentis. Be mindful beloved sons, not to bring Images into the Church, neither to set them in the Churchyards, but always carry God about in your hearts. Yea, let them not be suffered in the ordinary house, for it is not fit for a Christian man to be holden by the eyes, but by the occupation of the mind. M. Bishop answereth, that Images must be suffered in all places, that we may the better carry God in our hearts, being by sight thereof put in mind of him. But how vain this answer is hereby appeareth, for that we find in the Scriptures, that the setting up of such Idols is propounded to be the k Deut. 4.23.25. forgetting of God's covenant, and the corrupting of ourselves, but find it no where commended in the Scripture, to be a means of remembering him. He hath set before us the heaven and earth as a glass, wherein we may behold l Rom. 1.20. his power and Godhead, and thereby be moved to make enquiry after him. He hath given us his word to answer us what is needful when we inquire of him. He hath appointed the Sacraments for seals of that grace and mercy, that he hath revealed in his word. He setteth the spectacles of his providence, and mercy, and judgement continually before our eyes. By these means he hath taught us to be put in mind of him, and to learn to carry him in our hearts, but to be put in mind of him by an Image, it is only a vain and frivolous pretence of Idolaters, and no direction or instruction of the holy Ghost. It is enough for us, that the people of God who were to remember God as well as we, yet never found it lawful to set up an Idol to remember him thereby. 11. W. BISHOP. Now I come unto a third point, which M. Perkins maketh the second of our difference; that images may be not only made and set in churches, but also worshipped. M. Perkins holds the contrary: and his principal ground is the second commandment; which contains (saith he) two parts. The first forbids the making of images to resemble God: the second, the worshipping of them or God in them, in these words, Thou shalt not bow down to them. Answ. If it be only forbidden to make the image of God, and to adore it, than the making and worshipping of the image of Christ, or of any other creature, is not there prohibited: and so this second commandment more than thrice alleged, will not serve the turn against any other Image but God only. And in plain reason, according also to M. Perkins his own confession, the commandments of the first table touch only our duty towards God, that we give him all his due honour, and do not give any part thereof unto any thing else whatsoever. Wherefore divine and godly worship is only there spoken of, and not such worship as we give unto any creature, or to the picture of it. And consequently there is nothing there against the worshipping of our holy images. Observe that there is a sovereign worship due to God as to the creator and governor of all the world, and to give this to any creature is idolatry. Another honour, by infinite degrees inferior, yet absolute in itself, is ascribed unto Angels, and men as creatures endued with reason, and made after the likeness of God, and to exhibit this to whom it is due, is civility and not idolatry. This honour may be divided into two parts, because these creatures are like to God, as well in their natural powers and qualities, as in their supernatural. And that honour which is given to man or Angel, in respect of any natural quality, may be called moral or civil: but that which is attributed unto them in regard of their supernatural gifts, may well be called religious and spiritual, because it is due unto them only for their spiritual and religious qualities. There is a third kind of worship, yet meaner than the other, which is a kind of dependent and respective worship; as when a servant is honoured or cherished, not for his own but for his master's sake. And this is that worship which we allow unto images, which for the Saint's sake whom it doth represent, we do either reverently regard, or take off our hat, or bow our knee unto it. This third kind of worship being all we allow unto pictures, were he not that understands it more than half frantic, that should think it a great desparagement unto the incomprehensible worship of God, that to one of his servants pictures I should yield some such petty reverence: or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten commandments? nothing less. R. ABBOT. It is true that the commandments of the first table do touch only our duty towards God, requiring that we give him all his due honour, and do not give any part thereof to any thing else whatsoever. Therefore the second commandment for preserving entirely the honour of God forbiddeth the making of any image whereby to represent or resemble him, and not only so, but any image whatsoever to bow down to it or to worship it, yea & not only the making and worshipping of Images, but also the worshipping of the creatures themselves, any whatsoever either in heaven or earth. Both the words of the commandment and the Scriptures of particular laws that are referred unto it, do plainly show that all these things are to be understood therein. Now then seeing the law saith both of images and of creatures, Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them, it must follow that they who make the images of Saints and do bow down to them and worship them, do trespass against this commandment, and therefore the commandment is by M. Perkins rightly and well applied against Popish Images. But M. Bishop telleth us, that only divine or godly worship is there spoken of, and not such worship as they give to any creature or to the picture of it. And we acknowledge that only divine and godly worship is there spoken of, but divine or godly worship we say is all manner worship pertaining to godliness and religion, and therefore that they in giving religious worship to Saints and to their images, do contrary to the commandment give unto them divine and godly worship. But M. Bishop with a distinction of worship taketh upon him as do his fellows to mock God, and albeit they commit all absurdity of idolatry yet by a school-trick will make him believe that they do him no wrong at all. He telleth us of a sovereign worship due to God, and of ae religious or spiritual worship due to Angels and Saints, and of a dependent and respective worship due to Images. But what, is not the sovereign worship of God a religious and spiritual worship? or what do they make of their worship of images? is there no religion therein, and do they account it only a profane and carnal service? If on all parts there be religious and spiritual worship as he will not deny, what a wise part doth he play to give us a distinction of three members whereof one comprehendeth all? Well, howsoever he fumble in his terms, yet we must take upon us to understand 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 severally to be performed to their images, and we can hardly take M. Bishop's word for any warrant that they are now minded otherwise. It hath been their common rule, that a Thom. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. art. 3. ex Damascen. Honour imaginis ad prototypum pervenit. the honour of the image redoundeth to him whose image it is. Therefore Thomas Aquinas resolveth that b Jbid. in corp. Eaden reverentia exhibetur imagini Christi & ipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae consequens est quòd eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda. the same reverence is given to the image of Christ and to Christ himself, and because Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of latria (that is, divine and godly worship) it followeth that his image also is to be worshipped with the same worship of latria. Therefore Andradius saith as hath been c Sect. 1. before showed, We deny not but that we worship the cross 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 us, that d Bellarmin. de Imag. sanct c. 23 Admitti potest imagines posse coli impropriè & per accidens eodem genere cultus quo exemplar ipsum colitur. it may be admitted that improperly and accidentally images may be worshipped with the same kind of worship wherewith their principals are worshipped: but one of his fellow jesuits affirmeth simply and plainly, that e Azor. In●●itut. lib. 9 cap. 6. Constans est Theologorum sententia imaginem eodem honore & cultu coli quo colitur id cuius est imago it is the constant opinion of their Divines, that the image is worshipped with the same honour and worship wherewith he is worshipped whose image it is. M. Bishop therefore, but only that he hath the countenance of so great a Cardinal as Bellarmine, might haply receive a check for doing some disgrace to holy Images, by putting them to a lower and inferior kind of worship then the common opinion of their Divines doth attribute unto them. Which indignity he maketh the greater by making images as servants or serving men to them whose images they be, to Christ and his Saints, or to God if they be images of God. As when a servant is honoured not for his own but for his master's sake: so is that worship (saith he) which we allow to images, which for the Saint's sake whom it doth represent, we do either reverently regard, or take off our hat, or bow our knee unto it. But what reason is it to make servants of them who are more trimly decked and more loftily set up then ever their masters were? A servant is to be regarded for his master's sake, but what reason is there to give to the servant that honour that appertaineth to the master, yea which the master hath holden unlawful to be done unto himself? f Athanas. contra Arian ser. 3. Petrus adorare volentem Cornelium inhibuit, etc. Angelus quoque joannem in Apocalypsi se adorar● volentem non admisit, etc. Quocirca solius numinis est adorari, neque id ab Angelis ignoratur, qui quanquam caeteros gloria transcendunt creaturas tamen se esse, neque in classibus adorandorum sed adorantium agnoscunt se comput●ri debere. Peter forbade Cornelius (saith Athanasius) when he was about to worship him, saying, For I also am a man. The Angel also when john would worship him, suffered him not, saying, See thou do it not, for I am the fellow-servant of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them that keep the words of this book; worship God. Wherefore it belongeth to God only to be worshipped, saith he, neither are the Angels ignorant thereof, who albeit they exceed others in glory, yet acknowledge themselves to be creatures, and that they are to be reckoned in the rank of them that are to worship, and not of them that are to be worshipped. Now if Angels and Saints have refused to have worship done unto them, because they are but men and fellow-servants with us to God, how may it be thought lawful for us to do it to their servants, that is, to idols and images, as to their servants for their sakes? Surely we cannot see how this by any reason can stand good. Albeit we hold it also an unmannerly and rude part in M. Bishop thus to thrust servants upon them without their will. Where doth it appear unto him that they have promised entertainment to any such servants? what covenant have they made with them? what wages do they pay them? what service do they require of them? nay what service should they expect of senseless blocks, g Psal. 115.5.6. revel. 9.20. which have eyes and see not, ears and hear not, hands and handle not, feet and walk not, throat and speak not, which cannot h Mat. 8.9. go when they are bid go, nor come when they are bid come, nor do what they are bid do. And if they be of no service, if they be good for nothing, why are they set forth to us by a comparison of servants to be well entertained and used for their master's sake? M. Bishop then hath here made a wise hand, to set down a distinction of worship, the particulars whereof are neither pleasing to us nor to his own friends. Albeit it is withal to be understood, that these distinctions of worship, whether M. Bishops or any others, belong to the theorems of their schools, not to the practice of their Churches. They tell us of divers kinds of worship in their schools, when as in their churches there is no difference to be seen; but what they do to God, the same they do to Saints, the same also to the images of the Saints. Wherein that their absurdity and the vanity of their distinction may the better appear, let us examine what things they are that belong to divine and godly worship, which they call Latria, which if they be found to give in common to their Saints and images, than it shall be manifest that their distinction is used but only for a show to blind the unadvised and ignorant Reader, but cannot with any intelligent mind acquit them of that idolatry which we impute unto them. To divine or godly worship, Cyril & Austin do reckon to be belonging i August. de ciu. Dei, lib. 7. cap. 32. Sacra, sacerdotia, templum, altaria, sacrificia, ceremoniae, dies festi, & quicquid aliud ad latriam pertinet, etc. Cyril. contra julian lib. 4. Sacrificia, festivitates, hymni, gratiarum actiones, etc. adoratio, etc. preces, confessiones, celebritates, etc. Vide Aug. de ciu. Dei. lib. 10 cap. 4. sacred devotions, priesthood, temples, altars, sacrifices and offerings, ceremonies, festival days and solemnities, vows, prayers, praises and thanksgivings, adoration and worship, confessions, all which the devils did procure to be given to them when they sought to draw unto themselves the honour of God. S. Austin again expoundeth latria to consist k Augus. de ciu. Dei. lib. 10. ca 1. sacra faciamus & sacrificemus, vel aliqua nostra seu nosipsos religionis ritibus consecremus. Hic est enim deitati debitus, etc. Latriam nostri interpretati sunt. in doing sacred devotions and sacrifices, or consecrating any thing that is ours or ourselves by any rites or ceremonies of religion. Now what is there of all these things which they yield not to their Saints, and in the name of the Saints to the images of the Saints? They worship them, they pray unto them, they make confessions and vows to them, they give thanks to them for benefits received, they perform sacred devotions and ceremonies to them, and thereto consecrate themselves and their goods, they keep holy days and fasting days in the worship and honour of them, they set up lights before them, they put precious and costly garments upon them, they make pilgrimages to them, and no end is there of religious rites and duties which with all holy observation they yield unto them. l Idem. contra ser. Arian. cap. 29. Si aliquibus terrae molibus Spiritui sancto templum fabricaremus, quis dubitaret ei nos latriae servire? Who doubteth (saith Saint Austin) but that to whomsoever we build a temple, we serve him with latria, that is, the worship of God? m Jdem. contra Maximin. lib. 1. Si templum alicui Angelo excellentissimo de lignis & lapidibus faceremus, etc. creaturae exhiberemus eam servitutem quae uni tantum debetur Deo. For if to any of the most excellent Angels (saith he) we should of wood and stone build a temple or church, we should yield to the creature a service which is due to God only. But this they did as Erasmus there noteth n Erasm ibid. in margin. Hoc nun● fit quibus libet divis to every of the Saints, accordingly as Boniface the fourth o Platinan Bonif a Pantheon à Phoca obtinuit con●ecrau●tque in honorem beatae virginis omniumque martyrum. consecrated the Pantheon of the Romans to the honour of the blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs; according as they are taught to pray at coming into a Church, p Horae virg Mariae secund. usum Serum. Sancti dei in quorum honore & commemora tione haec sancta dedicata est Ecclesia & haec altaria consecrata, etc. O ye Saints of God, in the honour and remembrance of whom this church was dedicated and these altars consecrated, etc. Where it appeareth also that they consecrated altars to the Saints and to their honour, yea insomuch that in Churches they had many times their peculiar chapels and altars, and Priests, our Lady's chapel, our Lady's altar, our Lady's Priest, and so for other Saints, whereas S. Austin also testifieth, that to be honoured with an q Aug. de verb Do. ser 6 Quòd pro nomine accipiant illam statuam, ara testatur. Quid illic faciat ara si illud non habetur pro numine? altar is a thing proper to God only. Albeit here they except that they offer not their sacrifice to any but to God only, namely that in their mass they do not say, r Triden. council. sess 6. cap 3 unde nec sacerdos dicere solet, offero tibi sacrificium Petre vel Paul, etc. We offer unto thee O Peter or Paul, but reserve this as peculiar to him only who hath crowned them. A goodly matter, that of all the worship that belongeth to God they keep one only act or office entire unto him. Albeit here they do but halt and dally with God, because howsoever they pretend to offer to God only, yet they profess s Bellarmin. de sanct. beatitude. cap. 7. Sacrificia tam Eucharistiae quaem laudum et precum i● eorum honorem Deo publicè offeruntur. to offer to God in honour of the Saints: and whereas our Saviour Christ hath instituted that sacrament to be celebrated as a divine and godly worship, t 1. Cor. 11 24.25. in remembrance of him, they herein join the Saints in fellowship with him, and profess the same holy celebration to be performed and done u Concil. Trident. ut supra. In honorem & memoriam sanctorum ecclesia missas celebrare consuevit in remembrance of them. And yet it is to be observed further that sacrifice is not to be understood only of propitiatory sacrifice, as they affirm their mass to be, but of all consecrated and holy offerings, concerning which generally God hath said, x Exod. 22.20. He which sacrificeth or offereth to other gods but to the Lord only shall be slain. Where y Lyra. ibid. Per immolationem hic prohibitam intelligitur prohibita oblatio, libati●, ●hurificatio, & talia quae fiebant in templo ipsi Deo directè. by immolation or sacrifice (saith Lyra) is understood to be forbidden oblation, drink offering, burning of incense, and such other things, which in the temple were done directly to God himself. Hereby than it is plain that all manner of religious and holy offering is to be accounted a peculiar honour of God alone, and therefore did Epiphanius condemn the Collyridian heretics as making a god of the Virgin Marie, in that by way of devotion z Epiphan. haeres. Panem proponunt & offerunt in nomen Mariae, etc. Sanctum erat Mariae corpus at non Deus, etc. they offered a cake unto her or in her name. But this the Church of Rome doth, and teacheth men to do; they offer to their idols and images all manner offerings of gold and silver, and jewels, and whatsoever else may serve for the use of them who make their profit of those offerings, and therefore cannot be cleared of offering sacrifice to the Saints and their images, that is, of giving them in this respect also the worship that belongeth to God only. Thus as a Prou. 30. 2●. the harlot in the Proverbs eateth and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have committed no iniquity, so the harlot of Rome going a whoring from God, bestoweth upon her idols all the worship & honour of God, and doth to them all that she doth to God, and in the mean time pretendeth that it is not divine or godly worship, but only an inferior kind of worship that she doth assign unto them. Which because it is more manifest than that it can be denied, the Valentian jesuite to take away the inconvenience thereof arising, that they are guilty of Idolatry, frameth us a new definition of Idolatry, that it is not the giving of the worship of God to a creature, but b Greg. de Valen. de idololat lib. 2. cap. 1. Idolatriae genuina ratio creaturae divinum honorem habere sicut Deo. the giving of the worship of God to a creature as to God, thereby thinking that they are to be acquitted of idolatry, for that albeit they give divine honour and worship to their images, which he could not deny, yet they give it not to them as taking them to be Gods. But S. Austin simply saith, that c August. de Trin. lib. 1. cap. 6. Idololatrae dicuntur qui simulachris eam exhibent servitutem quae debetur Deo. they are called Idolaters who give to Images that service that is due to God, which they doing by his own confession, must consequently be affirmed to be idolaters. Neither can the distinctions used by M. Bishop and the rest, whatsoever colours they set upon them, excuse them in this behalf, because howsoever they term it an inferior worship which they do to Saints and Images, yet it is religious worship or worship of religion, and worship of religion is peculiar to God alone. d August. contrae Faust. lib. 14. cae. 11. Apostolus & creaturam laudat, & ei tamen cultum religionis exhibere vetat. The Apostle (saith S. Austin) forbiddeth that worship of religion be yielded to a creature. e Jdem. contrae 2. epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 4. Quis dicat non debere observare Christianos ut uni Deo religionis obsequio seruiatur. Christians (saith he) are to observe that with duty of religion they worship God only. Therefore he saith as touching the Saints, f Idem de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum etc. Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem, etc. Honoramus eos charitate, non servitute. Let it be no religion with us to worship dead men; they are to be honoured for imitation, not to be worshipped for religion: we honour them by way of love, not by way of service. To this purpose the same S. Austin very fitly observeth, that g Jbid. Et uni religantes animas nostras, unde religio dicta creditur. religion is so called of tying our souls to God only, that we may conceive that as Lactantius saith, h Lactan. instit. lib. 1. cap. 20. Religio et veneratio nulla alia nisi unius Dei tenenda est. no religion or worship is to be holden but of God only. In respect whereof having condemned images, he useth this exhortation, that i Ibid. lib 2 cap. 18. Nihil aliud adoremus, nihil colamus nisi solum artificis nostri parentisque unicum numen. we adore nothing, worship nothing but the only Godhead of our maker and Father. k August. contra Faust lib. 20. ca: 5. Solus ille colendas est quo solo fruens beatus fit cultor eius. He only is to be worshipped, saith S. Austin, in the enjoying of whom alone he becometh blessed that worshippeth him. l Origen. contra Cells. lib. 1. Et adhibemus animum qui docet solum hunc colendum esse, caetera nihil esse, aut esse quidem sed honore tantùm digna, non cultu atque adoratione quae nulli creaturae concedi potest absque divinitatis miu●●a. We harken to him (saith Origen) who teacheth us that God only is to be worshipped, and as for other things that they are nothing, or that they are indeed, but are worthy of honour only, not of adoration and worship, which can be granted to no creature without injury unto God. Now then what do they but mock us in telling us of a divers kind of worship to be performed by way of religion to God, to Saints and Images, when as in religion there is no worship to be done to any but to God alone? They tell us they give not the same worship to Images or to the Saints as they do to God, when as religion teacheth us that no worship at all is due either to images or Saints, but to God only. Albeit they lie therein, as hath been showed, inasmuch as by the common opinion of their Divines, the images of God and of Christ are to be worshipped with divine worship, because divine worship is due to them that are represented thereby. Now therefore whereas M. Bishop saith, that all the worship which they do to Images is but reverently to regard, to put off the hat and to bow the knee to them, he speaketh as a man ashamed of that which every where and in all places is practised amongst them. And it may be that he speaketh it but only by equivocation in respect of the very image itself, for in m Bellarmin. de Imagine. sanctor. cap. 21. In ipsa imagine verè inest aliquid sacrum, nimirum similitudo ad rem sacram, & ipsa dedicatio sive consecratio divino cultui. Ergo ipse in se & non solum ut prototypi vicem gerunt honore dignae sunt. the very image itself (saith Bellarmine) there is some sacred matter, namely the likeness to a holy thing, and the dedicating or consecrating of it to divine worship, and therefore Images themselves in themselves are worthy of honour, and not only as they represent or bear the person of the principal. His proposition more fully expresseth the same, n Jbid. Imagines Christi & Sanctorum venerandae sunt non solum per accidens vel impropriè, sed etiam per se & propriè, ita ut ipsa terminent venerationem, ut in se considerantur, & non solùm ut vicem gerunt exemplaris. The Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped not only accidentally or unproperly, but properly and in themselves, so as that they determine the worship themselves as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they supply the place of their principal. Thus haply M. Bishop by a cunning distinction telleth us that they give no more worship to images then that which he mentioneth, because in one meaning they give no more as they are considered in themselves, but let him make the meaning what he will, he knoweth well that in the devotion of the people they have all the same worship and service done to them as is done to God himself. Albeit that which he himself mentioneth is a witless, a senseless and drunken devotion, like to the superstition that was derided in the Pagans, who o Minut. Felix in Oct. apud Arno. Simulachro Serapidis denotato (ut vulgus superstitiosus solet) manum ori admovens osculum labijs pressit. at the sight of the image of Serapis (or such like) were wont going by to kiss the hand, namely in token of doing reverence thereto. What a brutish and beastly absurdity is it, that an understanding soul should deject itself to do reverence to a block? God hath said, Thou shalt not bow down to them: and again teacheth man to say, p Esa 44.19. Shall I bow to the stock of a tree? The Prophet saith of Idolaters, q Chap. 2.8.9. They worship the work of their own hands which their own fingers have made, and a man bowed himself, and a man humbled himself, therefore spare them not. He denounceth the vengeance of God to them who to stocks & stones, to the works of men's hands will do even those petty reverences which M. Bishop speaketh of. Therefore whereas he saith, This third kind of worship being all that we allow unto pictures, were he not that understands it more than half frantic, that should think it a great disparagement unto the incomprehensible worship of God, that to one of his servants pictures I should yield some such petty reverence, or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten commandments? I answer with his own words, Nothing less. We see that like Caiaphas he speaketh the truth, and is not aware. Indeed it is nothing less than a frantic humour to be instructed by God's commandment, and thereupon to deny the doing of any worship to pictures and images; but to affirm the same, and to do such reverences to pictures, is a plain token that Idolaters are like the idols which they worship, altogether void of understanding, and without the light of common sense. Therefore rightly the Prophet saith, r Psal. 115.8. They that make them are like unto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them. 12. W. BISHOP. But let us go on with M. Perkins his argument. His second is, The brazen Serpent was an image of Christ crucified, appointed by God: yet when the children of Israel burned incense unto it, Ezechias broke it in pieces * 4. Reg. 18. . Answ. So when Christians generally give godly honour to images, as those Israelites did to the serpent, let them also be broken by their lawful superior if no better remedy may be found. But as that very brazen serpent duly worshipped many hundred years by the same people before they fell to idolatry, as witnesseth S. Augustine * Lib. 3. de Trini. cap. 10. , where he reckoneth the brazen serpent among those signs which are worthy of religious worship: so good Christians may worship all sorts of holy pictures, so they think no god to dwell in them, nor put any trust in the pictures, but use them only to stir up devotion, to keep their minds from wandering after their domestical affairs, and to conserve the memory of God's happy servants. R. ABBOT. We are desirous to know where the superiors of the Romish Church have broken any images, to which godly honour hath been given. That it hath been given to them, it is confessed by Polydore Virgil, as I have before showed, acknowledging that a Polyd. Virgil. de invent. rer. lib. 6. cap. 13. that part of piety did little differ from impiety, and that the people did worship images not as figures but so as that they did put more trust in them then in Christ and the Saints to whom they were dedicated. These words they deface and blot out, with many other following which serve to the laying open of this wicked abuse, but of the reforming of any abuse herein committed, we can yet understand nothing. And seeing Greg. de Val. plainly confesseth that they give divine worship to Images, as hath been showed in the former section, we must take this speech of M. Bishop to be used but for a shift without any meaning to have their idols so roughly dealt with as he pretendeth. Nay as the Pagans were made believe that b Ruffin. hist. lib. 2. cap 23. Persuaesio dispersa quòd si humana manus simulachrum illud contigisset, terra dehiscens illico solueretur in Chaos, & repentè coelum rueret in praeceps. if the image of Serapis were hurt or touched, all the world would presently be dissolved: so the Romish politicians persuade themselves that their golden world will soon come to nought if once they should offer to lay violent hands upon their sacred and holy images. As for that which he saith of the brazen serpent duly worshipped many hundred years, it is a most impudent lie, neither is there so much as any show of any thing whereupon he should so affirm. The children of Israel had been accustomed c 2. Kings 18.4. to burn incense to it. Ezechias took knowledge of it (which it seemeth some other godly kings before him had not done) & condemned it as wicked & unlawful, & to take away utterly the occasion of that idolatry he broke the same brazen Serpent in pieces, calling it in contempt because of the abuse of it, a piece of brass. That it was worshipped than we find, and for that cause was destroyed, but that it was ever lawfully worshipped, there is nothing to be found. Yet M. Bishop very lewdly seeketh to father this conceit upon S. Austin, d Aug. de Trinit. lib. 3 cap. 10. Aliquamdo ad hoc fit eadem species vel aliquantulum mansura, sicut potuit serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in eremo, sicut possunt & literae; vel peracto ministerio transitura, sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur, sed ista quia hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa habere possunt, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt As witnesseth Saint Austin, saith he, where he reckoneth the brazen Serpent among those signs which are worthy of religious worship. The thing that S. Austin saith is this, that to declare somewhat to us from God sometimes a form or kind of thing is made either to abide for a while as might the brazen Serpent that was lift up in the wilderness, and as letters or writing may; or else to pass away as the service is performed, as the bread made for that use in receiving the sacrament is consumed. Hereupon he addeth, But these things being known to men because they are done by men, may have honour as matters appertaining to religion, but wonder as matters of marvel they cannot have. And what is here now whence M. Bishop should affirm that S. Austin accounted the brazen Serpent worthy of religious worship? What doth he say more of the brazen serpent than he doth of letters and writing, and will M. Bishop say that he will have letters and writing to be worshipped? Things appertaining to the use of religion are to be honoured by decent and seemly usage, as our Churches, pulpits, vestments, cups, books, and such like, and yet they are not to be worshipped. Saint Paul saith, e 1. Tim 5.17. The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, and yet we hope M. Bishop will not upon a good opinion of himself take upon him to be worshipped. f August. contra ser. Arian. ca 23. Honorat omnis qui adorat, non autem adorat omnis qui honorat. Every one that worshippeth, honoureth, saith S. Austin, but every one that honoureth doth not worship. Therefore Epiphanius saith of the blessed Virgin, g Epiphan. haeres. 97. Sat in honore Maria, Pater & Filius & Spiritus sanctus adoretur. Mariam nemo adoret, Deo debetur hoc mysterium, etc. Sancta est & honorata, at non ad adorationem, Let Mary be in honour; let the Father, Son and holy Ghost be worshipped: Let no man worship Mary; this mystery belongeth unto God. She is holy and honourable, but is not to be worshipped. The brazen serpent than might be honoured by being carefully kept, as Manna was for the remembrance of the benefit thereby received, but thereupon to assign to it religious worship is a collection somewhat strange. Seeing therefore the brazen serpent was never lawfully worshipped, M. Bishop hath no argument from thence to prove that good Christians may worship all sorts of holy pictures, but M. Perkins argument standeth good, that sith the brazen serpent erected by the commandment of God himself, yet when it was worshipped was therefore destroyed and abolished; therefore much more all other images being erected only of human curiosity without commandment from God are to be defaced and destroyed when religious worship or service is done unto them. As for M. Bishop's uses of his images to stir up devotion, to keep the mind from wandering, to conserve the memory of God's happy servants, they are (as I have before showed) the vain pretences of Idolaters, neither is there any good effect to be expected from them, to say nothing that these things are nothing to the point in hand, which is the worshipping of them. 13. W. BISHOP. Now to the third argument, which is jolly, and worthy the wild wit of a mad minister. Christ would not so much as bow his knee unto the devil, although he would have given him the whole world for doing of it: therefore we must not adore images. True, if the Image were M. Bezaes' ensign, or of their master the devil, or any of his helhounds. R. ABBOT. Here M. Bishop was disposed to play the Sycophants part, or else he might have seen 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 principal ground against it, allegeth the second commandment. To declare the meaning of the commandment he allegeth the example of our Saviour Christ, who when the devil requireth him a Mat. 4.9. to fall down and worship him upon promise to give him the whole world, taketh exception against him, not by the indignity of his person, but by the commandment of the law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serve, importing thereby, that the law doth forbid the doing of that which the devil required to any save to God only. He rejecteth him, I say, not in the name of a devil, 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 demanded to himself. Now than if M. Bishops wits stand right, the argument standeth good, that sith Christ by the law challengeth to God only that which the devil required of him, which was to fall down and worship him, we are thereby to learn that we are not to fall down and to worship any creature, not the Saints themselves, much less the vile idols that are set up in their names. Here I know what they are ready to except, that Christ saith not there, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only, but Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and leaveth only to the other part, Him only thou shalt serve, as not denying but that other things may be worshipped beside God, but only denying unto them the service of latria, the word there being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence latria is derived, which they say is the service peculiar unto God. But how vain this exception is, appeareth by considering the original words of the law, which saith in like sort of both, b Deut. 10.20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and thou shalt serve him, adding the word only to neither part. The name of fear is more general, and containeth all religion and devotion towards God, but in steed thereof our Saviour Christ nameth worship, which is a part of that fear, 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 understood of every part. Now whereas the sentences in the law are set down without the limitation of the word only, our Saviour Christ to show the meaning of the Scripture in such speeches concerning God, addeth that limitation to the latter part, not as to make that only peculiar to God, and to leave the former in common to others, but in the one teaching us what we are to understand in both, because by what reason the one is appropriated to God, by the same is the other also, and leaving us to conceive that whatsoever God challengeth as a part of his worship and glory, the same is to be given to no other beside him. To which purpose Tertullian very well saith. c Tertull adver. Hermog Veritas sic unum Deum exigit defendendo ut 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 only his. And so did Ambrose understand the words of Christ, when he saith, d Ambros. de Spir sanct. lib. 2. cap. 12. Neque adorandum quic quam praeter Deum legimus quia scriptum est, Dominun Deum, etc. We read that nothing beside God is to be worshipped, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serve. And to take it otherwise, taketh away the force of Christ's exception against the devil; 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 upon the latter part of the words, they confound themselves, and make our assertion good. For if in the words of the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Him only thou shalt serve, be an exception against that which the devil requireth of Christ, to fall down and worship him, it must necessarily be granted, that to fall down and worship, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to perform a service of latria; to do that service which belongeth to God only. Wherefore will they, nill they, they must confess 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 whatsoever, but least of all dead and senseless blocks. M. Perkins wits therefore were not wild in the propounding of the argument, but M. Bishop's honesty failed in the collecting of it, and that because his wits failed for the answering of it. As for his other terms I will 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 have the devil for their master, to whom that belongeth which S. john saith, e revel. 9.20: They worshipped devils and idols of gold & of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood, which neither can see, nor hear, nor go, which hath no where to be verified but in the Popish Church: and lastly that they are to be accounted the devils helhounds, who have given themselves wholly to the devil, as many of M. Bishops holy fathers have done, and namely for the present f Platin. in sylvest 2. Totum se diabolo tradiderat. Pontificatum adiuuante diabolo consecutus est, hac lege ut post mortem totus illius esset Sylvester the second for the gaining of the Popedom. 14. W. BISHOP. M. Perkins his fourth reason. A man (saith he) may be worshipped with civil honour, not with religious, which is wholly prescribed in the first table, and yet the meanest man is a more excellent image of God than any painted one. Answ. A man may be worshipped with religious honour, in respect of his supernatural gifts, as well as with civil honour of his natural properties, as hath been before declared: and no other religious honour is either prescribed or proscribed in the first table than such only as is proper to God. But (saith he) Thomas of Watering * 3. Part. qu. 25. art. 3. holds that the Crucifix is to be adored with the same honour that Christ is. Leaving Thomas of Watering and of Wapping to them that deserve it: I answer to the place of Saint Thomas of Aquine, that he speaketh (like a most learned Philosopher and Divine) very profoundly, that the image may be considered in itself, and so he saith, it is not to be worshipped at all, or as it doth convey our mind unto that which it doth represent: and so because there is but one and the same motion of our understanding and will towards Christ and the crucifix, we do adore them both at once with the same act of adoration, but in a far different degree, for Christ we adore properly as the true God, but the crucifix accidentally as a thing joined with Christ. Even as (saith he, expounding himself) art. 4. when one doth his homage unto the king, he worshippeth withal his purple garment, not that any worship is due to the rob, but the whole is given unto the person, which cannot be separated from that which is so closely joined to the person: even so the divine person of Christ is properly adored, but improperly all things conceived together with it, are said also by that deep doctor to be adored. He that hath an ear of hearing let him hear: for our purpose it sufficeth to know that he assigns very small worship to themselves. R. ABBOT. M. Perkins argueth, that they which will worship an image of God should rather worship man then any other image, because the meanest man is a more excellent image of God than all the images of God and of Saints that are devised by men. And if it be unlawful with religious honour to worship a man, then much more is it unlawful to worship an image that is made by man. To this M. Bishop full wisely answereth, that a man may be worshipped with religious honour in respect of his supernatural gifts. Now we doubt not but he thinketh himself to have some supernatural gifts, and is he so very a natural as to think that we may fall down and worship him in respect of his supernaturals? Cornelius in respect of supernatural calling and gifts worshippeth S. Peter, and he refuseth it, saying a Act. 10.26. Stand up, for I myself am a man. S. john in respect of supernatural gifts worshippeth the Angel, and he also disclaimeth it, saying, b revel. 19.10. Do it not, I am thy fellow-servant, worship God. What, is M. Bishop so witless as to think that Cornelius took Peter to be a God, or that john took the Angel so to be? No, but they took them to be excellent servants of God, and in that respect worshipped them; yet they renounced 〈◊〉 being done in that respect, and give us to understand, that religious worship is not to be given to Apostles because they are but men, nor to Angels because they are but fellow-servants, but is proper to God only. It savoureth therefore of a very natural wit, to say that a man may be worshipped with religious worship in respect of his supernatural gifts, and because there is no religious worship but what is due to God only, therefore very idly doth he say that there is no other religious worship either prescribed or proscribed in the first table than such only as is proper to God. There is no other prescribed, because in right there is no other, and that is proscribed and condemned when it is given to any other. But specially is it condemned when it is given to stocks and stones, to pictures and images, and therefore justly doth M. Perkins censure Thomas Aquinas for affirming very impiously and idolatrously that the Cross is to be worshipped with godly worship, even with the same that is due to Christ himself. M. Bishop seemeth here to show some sign of grace, and to be ashamed of this damnable and wicked position, and feign would salve the matter, but it will not be. Thomas Aquinas propoundeth the question, c Thom Aquin. sum. p. 3. q 25. art. 4. Vtrum crux Christi sit aedoranda adoratione latriae? etc. Illi exhibemus cultum latriae in quo ponimus spem salutis. Sed in cruse Christi p●nimus spem salutis: cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux, ave, spes v●ica, etc. Ergo crux Christi est adoranda adoratione latriae. Whether the cross of Christ be to be worshipped with the worship of latria? He determineth that it is, because we give the worship of latria to that wherein we put the hope of our salvation. But we put the hope of our salvation in the Cross: for the Church (saith he) singeth, All hail, O Cross, our only hope, at this time of the passion; To the godly increase righteousness, and to the guilty grant forgiveness. Therefore the Cross is to be worshipped with latria, that is, the worship that is due to God. Mark it, gentle Reader, that they put the hope of salvation in that cross to which they say, All hail, O Cross, etc. and therefore do worship it with latria, with divine and godly worship. M. Bishop maketh the matter somewhat dainty with his distinction of properly and unproperly; but Thomas like a plain meaning man speaketh downright, albeit otherwise he be as full of distinctions as any other. As for that which M. Bishop saith, it is a tale which he hath learned out of Bellarmine, and putteth it out under Thomas Aquinas his name, but Thomas himself saith nothing to that effect, whose name notwithstanding must sway more than Bellarmine's can do. His resolution more largely and distinctly set down is this, that d Jbid. in corp. Creaturae insensibili non debetur honor vel reverentia nisi ratione rationalis naturae, & hoc dupliciter, uno modo inquantum repraesentat rationalem naturam, alio modo inquamtum ei quocunque modo coiungitur. Primo modo consueverunt homine● venerari regis imaginem, secundo modo eius vestimentum. Vtrunque autem venerantur homines eadem veneratione qua venerantur & regem. to a thing without sense, a reverence may be due in respect of a reasonable nature two manner of ways; first in that it representeth the same reasonable nature; secondly, in that it is in any sort joined to it. The first way, saith he, men are wont to worship the King's image, the second way the King's garment; but they worship both with the same worship wherewith they worship the King himself. Here is good stuff, but yet it is such as Thomas his head could devise to set up the cross to be worshipped like a God. A pretty problem might be moved hereupon, and worthily debated, if there had happened to be a louse in the Pope's garment somewhat nearly joined to him, when Thomas should come to worship him, whether he should be said to worship the Pope's louse, and that with the very same worship as the Pope himself. If being joined in any sort to that which is worshipped, do put that that is so joined in case to be worshipped alike, then surely the Pope's louse must be worshipped if he happen to have one, as by the same reason must also the worms that breed in their rotten wooden gods. But to apply this to the cross he saith: e Ibid. Si ergò loquamur de ipsa cruce in qua Christus crucifixus est, utroque modo est à nobis veneranda, uno scilicet modo inquantum repraesentat figuram Christi extensi in ea, alio modo ex contactu ad membra Christi & ex hoc quod eius sanguine est perfusa. unde utroque modo adoratur eadem adoratione latriae, et propter hoc etiam cruc●n● alloquimur & deprecamurqua● si ipsum crucifixum. Si verò loquamur de effigie crucis Christi in quacunque alia materia. etc. Si● veneramur crucem tantùm ut imaginem Christi quam veneramur adoratione latriae. If then we speak of the very cross whereon Christ was crucified; we are to worship the same both ways, namely one way as it representeth the figure of Christ extended upon the cross; another way for touching the members of Christ, and for being imbrued with his blood. Whereupon in both respects it is worshipped with the same worship as Christ himself, that is, with the worship of latria, and therefore do we speak and pray to the cross as to Christ himself that was crucified. But if we speak of the image of the cross in any other matter, as stone or wood, or gold, or silver, we then worship the cross, only as the image of Christ, which we worship with the worship of latria. We heard before of Helena, that when she found the cross whereupon Christ was crucified, she worshipped not the cross, f Ambros. de obit● Theodosij Supra sect. 1. because that, saith Ambrose, had been a heathenish error, and a vanity of ungodly men, but she worshipped only him that died upon the cross, but Thomas if she had lived in his time, would have taught her a new point of divinity, that in two respects before mentioned she should have worshipped that cross with the very worship of Christ himself, and in one respect every cross that is made in likeness of that cross. Thus the Pope's Angelical Doctor hath determined; this the Church of Rome hath believed; this the common opinion of their divines as we see before, hath maintained, and this the people accordingly have practised. Now this can by no means be excused of idolatry, for it is idolatry to give the worship of God to that that is no God. But the cross is no God, and therefore it must needs be idolatry to give to the cross the worship of God. Of God it is said as touching divine honour and worship, Him only thou shalt serve. Now as S. Austin saith, g Aug. count ser. Arian. ca 29. Hanc servitutem non exhibebintus Filio side Patre dictum est. Et illi soli seruies; aut non exhibebimus Patri si de Filio dictum est. Et illi soli seruies, etc. If it were said of the Father, Him only thou shalt serve, we might not give this service to the Son, or if it were said of the Son, Him only thou shalt serve, we might not give it to the Father. If then by these words used concerning the Father, there should be an exception against the Son, who yet is the lively and substantial image of the Father, and the same that the Father is, how much more when it is said of one God, the Father, Son, & holy Ghost, Him only thou shalt serve, are we to take it for an exception against a senseless and dead image, that no divine worship or service be done unto it? Bellarmine therefore after so many ages, seeing that this can by no means be acquitted of idolatry, though he could not reform it in the Church, yet hath showed his good will according to the old manner of the Pagan philosophers, to salve it in the schools, telling us, that h Bellarm. de Imag. sanct cap. 25. Cultus qui per se & proprie debetur imaginibus est cultus quidam imperfectus qui analogicè & reductiuè pertinet ad speciem cultus eius qui debetur exemplari, etc. Imaginibus Christi non dibetur latriae verae & simplicitèr, sed cultus sine comparatione inferior qui tamen ad latriam reducitur sicut imperfectum ad perfestum. the worship that is given to images, is not the same that is given to the principals, but only by a kind of analogy or proportion is reduced to it, and therefore that to the images of Christ (or to the cross) there is not to be given latria (the worship of God) but an unperfect kind of worship, which is reduced to latria, as that that is unperfect to that that is perfect. This is his own new device, and their schools before knew not this trick, or at least approved it not, yet he saith, that i Ibid. Fortè Thomas & Bonaventura & a●● hoc solum dicere volutrū●, etc. quòd si ita est omnes convenimus, perhaps Thomas, & Bonaventure, & others meant in that sort, and then, saith he, we all agree. He saith but perhaps, but knowing well that it is passed perhaps, and very certain that Thomas never had any such meaning, as appeareth also very plainly by his words. Now M. Bishop willing to gratify the jesuits whom he so lately persecuted, leaveth Thomas and followeth Bellarmine's device, yet so as that being careful to save the credit of their deep Doctor as he calleth him, he setteth it down in Thomas his name. Albeit to say the truth he doth not well accord either with the one or with the other, for whereas he saith that the Image being considered in itself, is not to be worshipped at all, he cotrarieth Bellarmine, who, as appeareth before, assigneth a worship to Images as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they respect their principals. For the rest, Thomas saith indeed, that k Thom. ubi supra art. 3. in corp. Motus animae in imaginem inquantum est imago est unus & idem cum illo qui est in rem. there is the same motion of the soul towards the Image, as towards that whose image it is, whereof it followeth as Master Bishop saith, that they are worshipped both at once with the same act of adoration. But whereas he saith that that is in a far different degree, Thomas was never so absurd as to think, that in one and the self same act there can be a different degree, and therefore absolutely concludeth as I have before alleged, that the same reverence is due to the image of Christ, and to Christ himself. Master Bishop addeth that they adore Christ properly as the true God, but the crucifix accidentally as a thing joined with Christ, but Thomas maketh that a reason why the cross is worshipped with the very same worship as Christ himself, l Ibid. art. 4. ad 2. Crux Christi etsi non fuerit unitae verbo Dei in persona, fuit tamen ei unita per repraesentationem & contactum. because by representation or touching it is united unto Christ, being in this respect much more justly to be condemned of idolatry in thus worshipping the cross, than Nestorius was for worshipping the sole manhood of Christ, because albeit Nestorius acknowledged not any substantial or personal union betwixt the godhead and the manhood, yet he acknowledged a far greater union then that which Thomas assigneth betwixt Christ and the cross. And here it were worthy to be inquired, what manner of union or conjunction this is that they tell us of, by what bond it holdeth, what effects it worketh, whether it be any offering of violence to Christ, when the wooden Rood is rotten and worm-eaten to hue him in pieces, and cast the same into the fire, and so disunite the things that were before united? But Master Bishop somewhat resolveth us of this matter, teaching us to conceive of Christ and the crucifix, as of the King and his purple rob; the worst is, that he saith that there is not any worship due to the rob, whereas Thomas out of his idle dreams, hath before told us, that we worship the King's garment with the same worship as the King himself. So then the matter is come to a fair pass, that there is no worship at all due to the Crucifix, because there is none due to the King's robes, and then what is it that we dispute of all this while? He telleth us, that the worship of the King cannot be separated from the rob that is so closely joined to his person. But what, is the Cross or Crucifix as closely joined to Christ as the rob is to the King? If down before the cross: but if Christ be in heaven and the cross upon the earth, then is this a poor & simple defence of their worshipping the cross. The divine person of Christ, he saith, is properly adored. True, but that divine person of Christ is in heaven, and why are they not content to worship him properly where he is? Why do they under a foolish pretence of a King's rob, bring in an improper worshipping of that, which being here upon the earth, is so far and so wholly disjoined from him? Will not M. Bishop think him either a fool or a mad man, who finding the Pope's robes in his Castle of S. Angelo, will kneel down to the robes, and make his request to them when the Pope himself is in his Lateran consistory? Surely even so must we think that they egregiously play the fools who stand babbling to a cross here on earth, when their suit is to Christ himself sitting above in heaven. Thus we have given him an ear to the hearing of all this, but we have therein heard what he saith out of Bellarmine, not what Thomas Aquinas saith, but by Thomas his own words we say still that he ascribeth the same worship to the cross, as he doth to Christ himself. 15. W. BISHOP. Lastly, M. Perkins saith, without quoting any place, that Augustine and Gregory in plain terms deny images to be odored, and so do we too, taking adoring as they do for the worship that is proper to God. R. ABBOT. Saint Austin saith that by the commandment of God, a August epist. 119. cap. 11. Prohibetur coli ali qui in fig●ne●tis hominum Dei similitudo. We are forbidden to worship any similitude or image of God that is devised or framed by man. He noteth b Idem de morib. eccles. Cathol cap. 34. Novi midio●esse sepulchorum es pictura●ū adoratores, etc. Quos & ipsa ●o demnat ecclesia, etc. worshippers of pictures and relics to have been then condemned by the Church. He commendeth Varro the old Roman a heathen man, for c Idem De ciu. Dei. lib 4. cap 31. Castiùs existiniat sine simula●●ris observari religionem Quis non videat quantum propinquauerit veritati? thinking that religion is more purely observed without Images, and affirmeth that therein he drew near to the knowledge of the truth. Having in another place showed how a shadow of the wisdom of God appeareth in men, in making the portraitures and images of the creatures which he hath made, and namely of men he addeth; d Idem in lib. 83 quaest. 78. Qui talia opera etiam coluerunt, qu●ntum deviaverint à veritate hinc intelligi potest, quiasi ipsa anim ●hum corpora celerent quae mu●tò excellentiùs faebricata sunt & quorum sunt illa ●●itamenta, quid eis infaelicius diceremus? As for them who have worshipped such, how far they have gone away from the truth, may hereby be understood, because if they should worship the very bodies of those living creatures, which are much more excellently made, & whereof those images are but imitations, we would pronounce them to be most unhappy. In a word, those discourses which he useth to show e Idem in Psal. 113. Jlla causa est maxima impietatis in sanae quòd plùs valet in affectibus miserorum similis viventi forma quae sibi efficit supplicari quàm quòd manifestum est eam non esse viventem ut debeat à vivente contemni. Vide ibid. plura, & epist. 49. the certain danger of superstitious fancies, arising of the resemblances of images to the forms and shapes of men, do fully and without exception determine against all use of Popish images. As for Gregory, he had some special cause given him, fully to signify his mind as touching this matter of images, and albeit he approved the historical use of them in the Church, yet he absolutely condemned the worshipping of them. Serenus the Bishop of Massilia, seeing the people to worship images, broke them and defaced them. Gregory hearing thereof, writeth to him thus, f Gregor. lib. 7. epist. 109. Dudun ad nos pervenit quòd fraternitas vestra quosdam imaginum adoratores aspiciens, easdem ecclesiae imagines confregit atque proiecit. Et quidem zelun vos habuisse nequid manufactum adorari possit laudavimus, sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse iudicamus. Id ircò enim pictura inecclesiijs adhibetur ut qui literas nesciunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant quae legere in codicibus non valent. Tua ergò fraternitas & illas servare, & ab earum adoratu populum prohibere debuit, quatenus & literarum nescij haberent unde scientiam historiae colligerent & populus in picturae adoratione minimè peccaret. It is lately reported to us, that your brotherhood beholding some worshipping images, did break the same images being belonging to the Church, and threw them away. And indeed we commended you for having a zeal, that nothing made with hands should be worshipped, but yet we judge that the images should not have been broken. For therefore are pictures used in the Church, that they who are unlearned may by sight read those things at least upon the walls which in books they cannot read. Your brotherhood therefore should both have preserved the images, and yet also have forbidden the people the worshipping of them, that so the ignorant might have whence to gather the knowledge of the history, and the people might not offend in worshipping the picture. Serenus it seemeth made some scruple of that which Gregory wrote to him; whereupon the same Gregory wrote to him again to like effect as before, that g Jdem. lib. 9 epist: 9 Quia ca● adorari vetuisses omninò laudavimus; fregisse verò reprehendimus. etc. Aliud est enim picturam adorare, aliud per picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere etc. frangi non debuit quod non ad adorandum in ecclesijs sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit nescientium collocatum. etc. scripturae sacrae testimonijs ostendendum est eis quia ●mne manufactum adorare non liceat quia scriptum est, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, etc. he approved his forbidding to have them worshipped, but did blame him for breaking them. For it is one thing, saith he, to worship a picture or image, another thing by painted story to learn what is to be worshipped. It should not be broken which was set up in the Churches to be worshipped, but only to instruct the minds of ignorant men. You are to show them by testimonies of holy Scripture, that it is not lawful to worship any thing that is made with hands, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serve. After other words to the same effect he concludeth, h Ibid. Siquis imagines facere volverit minimè prohibe, adorare vero imagines modis omnibus devita. If any man will make images, forbidden them not, but by all means avoid to worship images. Consider here, gentle Reader, whether thou canst find M. Bishop's distinction in these words of Austin and Gregory; whether it be likely that they meant, that with some kind of worship which is proper to God, Images may not be worshipped, but yet that they have also their kind of worship wherewith they are to be worshipped. Think with thyself whether any Papist would speak as they speak, and if no man would so speak that meaneth as Papists do, then surely these Fathers were far enough from Popish meaning. Is any man so void of understanding, that being to show that Princes are not to be obeyed in so high degree as God, will absolutely determine that Princes are not to be obeyed? This is the case here; they expressly and without exception, define that images are not to be worshipped, and that the people are so to be taught, that they must not worship images, and would they be so mad as thus to speak if they meant as in Popery it is, that the people must be taught to worship images? Gregory saith as we see, that they are not set up to be worshipped, but only for the instrusting of the ignorant, and must we understand that they are not only for the instructing of the ignorant, but also to be worshipped. These are impudent shifts, bewraying corrupt and evil consciences of men i Tit. 3.31. condemned in themselves, and yet wrestling and fight against themselves. These Fathers knew no religious worship but what belongeth to God, and therefore resolve that to give worship to images, should be to dishonour God. Concerning Gregory's mind of placing images in Churches, I say briefly, that he might by that which then befell, have somewhat discerned the peril and danger thereof, but if he had imagined the horrible filthiness and abomination of idolatry afterwards thereof ensuing, he would have changed his mind, and have regarded the words of him that saith, k Levit. 19.14. Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind, and again, l Deut. 27.18. Cursed be he that maketh the blind to go out of his way. 16. W. BISHOP. Having now answered to all that M. Perkins objecteth against the worshipping of images: let us now examine the reasons, which he maketh in defence of it. The first by him proposed is this Psalm 98. Cast down yourselves before his footstool, which was the Ark: now if the Ark were to be worshipped, because it represented God's footstool, much more may the image be worshipped. M. Perkins answereth, that the words must be englished thus, Bow at or before the Ark, not to the ark, but to God before the Ark. Reply. If it were so, yet must they admit that we must kneel, at or before images, so we kneel to honour or pray to God: against which, some of their Preachers do cry like madmen: but the Hebrew phrase carrieth, that we must kneel to the ark, as they who be skilful in the language do know, and that the ark was worshipped of the Israelites, is otherwise very evident: for first none, but the high Priest might come into the place where it was: and it was carried before the camp with great solemnity * 1. Reg. 4. to search out a restingplace for the whole host. And when they were to fight against the Philistines, * Cap. 6. they had great confidence in the presence of the ark: and cap. 6.50000. of the Bethsamites were slain for seeing the ark; and * 2. Reg. 2. Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the ark. Doth not all this convince in what reverence the ark was had, even by Gods own testimony? To this may be added the authority of S. Jerome, * Ep. 17 cap. 3. who doth teach that it was the more worshipped for the Cherubins and pictures of Angels, that were erected at the ends of it: whereby he declareth that he thought images worthy of religious worship. To this we may join that of S. Paul, * Heb. 11. that jacob by faith adored the top of his son joseph's rod: so doth the Greek text of S. Paul say, as Erasmus also translateth it: The Protestants mangle the text pitifully, to avoid the place: see the Annot. of Rheims Testament. R. ABBOT. This was one of the notable arguments which M. Bishops Nicene Council used for the worshipping of Images, because David saith, a Psal. 99.5. Bow yourselves to his footstool. Though it be full simple and slender, yet we see for want of better they are content to use it still. If M. Bishop could show us that images are to us the Lord's footstool, as the Ark was to the jews, he would handle us somewhat shrewdly; but the spite is they want a text for that, and S. Paul moreover telleth us that b 2. Cor. 6.16. the temple of God (which was c 1. Chron. 28.2. the house of rest for the Ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God) hath no agreement with Idols. And therefore whereas upon M. Perkins answer that they were willed to bow at or before the Ark, M. Bishop inferreth it as to be admitted, that we must kneel at or before images to pray to God, it is a very drowsy conclusion, and fit to come from the head of an Idol, then of an understanding man. The Ark was no image, and why then doth he argue thus from the Ark to images? He will say that the Cherubims stood near the Ark, namely at each end one, which with their wings overshadowed the Ark. Be it so, but what is that to his purpose, seeing the Prophet here speaketh not of bowing before the Cherubims but before the Ark? Yea, but saith he, a man could not kneel before the Ark, but he must needs also kneel before the Cherubims. Well and if M. Bishop be in place where he cannot kneel to God, but he must needs have an image before him, we condemn him not. We cannot kneel to God, but there are many things before us, our Churches, our houses, the air, the heaven, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, but there is great difference what standeth before us by casual or necessary position of place, and what we set before us by intendment of affection. A man cannot kneel before the King, but they must needs be before him that are about the King, as must also the seat or the horse whereon the King sitteth, & yet we do not say that he kneeleth before them that are about the King, or before the King's seat or his horse, because he hath no intention thereof or of them, but only of the King. The Ark was the place, whereat God had promised to the jews his presence amongst them. They kneeled before the Ark to kneel to God there present, and to pray to him. The Cherubims were placed by the Ark, but their kneeling had no reference to the Cherubims, but to God only, d Numb. 7.89. Psal. 80.1. sitting between or upon the Cherubims. Take away the Ark and there was no kneeling before the Cherubims, but though the Cherubims were away (as it is thought they were long time after the taking of the Ark, till by Solomon they were renewed) yet there was still kneeling before the Ark. Now if M. Bishop could prove that we have the like promise of gods special presence at their images & idols as the jews had thereof at the Ark, there were some reason whereupon to argue, that we are to kneel at or before Images, as they were to kneel at or before the Ark. But unless he do so, we must still think they are not mad men, that cry out against such as pray at or before Images to pray to God, but rather judge than men sober and well advised, in that they condemn such mad fools, who e Origen. contra Cells. lib. 6. Incrudiussimos dicimus quos non pudet alloqui res inanimas. talk to dead things, and f Jbid. lib. 1. Qui Deos manimes accedunt, perinde faciunt ac si fabulentur cum parietibus. babble to the walls, as Heraclitus the Philosopher said, when they take upon them to pray to God. That there is no use of images for prayer to God, I refer him to those speeches of Arnobius and Lactantius which I have before set down in the fift Section. But to put his argument yet somewhat further out of joint, it is to be remembered which hath been before noted, that the Ark or footstool of God, whereto the Prophet willeth them to bow, was a thing wholly removed out of sight. It stood in the innermost part of the Temple which was Sancta sanctorum, the holiest of all, whither the high Priest only went in, and that once only in the year, and before which there was a veil or curtain drawn, that the Priests themselves coming into the holy place had no sight of it. Whereby it is manifest, that their bowing to the Ark was a far other matter then M. Bishop would have to be done to their images. He would think hardly to have this heavenly show (as before he hath termed it) locked up and imprisoned in the dark, so that men should have no sight of it, and so much the rather, for that their Nicene Council full wisely and learnedly concluded the setting up of images out of those words of Christ, g Mat. 5.15. No man lighteth a candle to put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick. Very impertinently therefore doth he bring those words of David to approve their kneeling at or before images to pray to God Albeit he is not therewith contented, but will further have it proved, that we must kneel to the images themselves: for the Hebrew phrase, saith he, carrieth, that we must kneel to the Ark, as they who are skilful in the language do know. But the skilful in the language do also know, that it is no otherwise said, Bow yourselves to his footstool, than it is said afterwards in the same Psalm, Bow yourselves to his holy mountain. The phrase is one and the same, and if by the one he will say, that they were to worship the Ark, then by the other also he must say, that they were to worship the mountain. If the latter do not prove the worshipping of the mountain, than the former doth not prove the worshipping of the Ark. And indeed the phrase importeth no other, but as we are wont to say, to kneel to the East, that is, towards the East: or to lift up his eyes to heaven, that is, towards heaven: and they are thereby taught to bend and direct themselves in their worship and devotion towards mount Zion, and the Ark and Temple seated thereupon, as the place where the Lord had promised to dwell, and from thence to hear their prayers when they should call upon him. Which they were not only to do when they were present or near at hand, but also when they were removed further off. Thus Solomon prayeth for them, h 1. King. 8.44. being gone out to battle against their enemies, when they shall pray towards the city which thou hast chosen, and towards the house which I have built for thy name, then hear thou in heaven their prayer. So being i Ver. 48. captives in their enemy's land, when they shall pray towards the Land which thou gavest unto their fathers, and towards the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name, then hear thou their prayer and supplication, etc. Thus Daniel in the captivity of Babylon, though both the city and Temple were destroyed for the time, yet because of the promise of God: k Psal. 132.14 This is my rest for ever, here will I dwell for I have a delight therein, therefore did l Dan. 6.10. set open his chamber window towards jerusalem, and kneeling upon his knees three times a day prayed and praised God. This was their kneeling to the Ark and to mount Sion, and M. Bishop in arguing hereupon, that they worshipped the Ark, dealeth as absurdly as the Pagans did of old with the Christians, who because the Christians m Tertul. Apol. cap. 16. credunt Deum nostrum, etc. Ind suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari prayed to or towards the East, thought they worshipped the Sun, and gave out that they made the Sun their God. The Christians worshipped Christ only in bending themselves towards the East, and so the faithful jews in bending or bowing towards the Ark, intended the worship of God only, and therefore a senseless part it is to allege those words of the Prophet for the defence of the worship of Popish idols. And if they would prove the worshipping of any thing thereby, or the praying at or before any thing, it should be the worshipping and praying before that that was prefigured by the Temple and the Ark. The Temple one way was a figure of heaven, as before was showed, wherein Gdd doth dwell, and hath n Dan. 7.10. thousand thousands of Angels standing before him, and ten thousand thousands ministering unto him. M. Bishop then should by his course of interpretation conclude from the Prophet's words, that we should worship heaven. But he should rather conceive, that as we worship and pray towards heaven, but yet do not worship heaven or pray to heaven, so did they also worship and pray towards the Temple and the Ark, but did not worship or pray to them. Another way the Temple was a figure of the Church of Christ, and of every faithful man: o 1. Cor. 3.16. Know ye not, saith the Apostle, that ye are the Temple of God: and again, p 2. Cor. 6.16. ye are the Temple of the living God. The Ark whereat and whereby he is present with us, and dwelleth in us, is the faith of jesus Christ our q Rom. 3.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. propitiatory and mercy-seat, and by his presence the Angels also attend upon us, r Heb. 1.14. being ministering spirits sent forth for their sakes that shall be heirs of salvation. Now therefore M. Bishop should rather prove by the Prophet's words our kneeling in our prayers before a faithful man, or worshipping a faithful man, than our kneeling before an Image, or worshipping an Image, and if it be absurd thereby to affirm the worshipping of a living man in whom God dwelleth, much more the worshipping of a dead and senseless block, which hath no fellowship with God. Yea and if by those words it were warranted to set up the images of dead men, and to worship them, what was the cause that the jews conceived not so much? Why were they without that heavenly show, as M. Bishop in the height of his earthly wisdom calleth it? If they never conceived it, never practised it, what shall we but take them for cousiners and deceivers, who offer this violence to the Scriptures, and most impudently wrest them to the maintenance of that filthiness and abomination which expressly they condemn? But yet Master Bishop telleth us, that it is otherwise very evident, that the Israelites worshipped the Ark. And how I pray you? First, none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was. Well, and what then? It was carried before the camp with great solemnity to search out a resting place for the whole host. True, and what more? When they were to fight against the Philistines, they had great confidence in the presence of the Ark. There was great cause why they should so, carrying themselves respectfully towards God, because it was the token that God had given them of his presence amongst them: let us hear the rest. Fifty thousand of the Bethsamites were slain for seeing the Ark. It is true indeed that for looking into the Ark so many of them were slain: is there any thing yet behind? Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the Ark. Well and what of all this? Doth not all this convince in what reverence the Ark was had even by Gods own testimony? As if to prove M. Bishop to be a profound Clerk, a man should say: He hath learned a little Rhetoric, and less Logic, and is per saltum a Doctor of Divinity, and per inopiam a Priest, and doth not all this convince that he hath some learning? Witless caviller, is there any thing in all those allegations that importeth the worshipping of the Ark? Nay mark (gentle Reader) that whereas he propoundeth to prove, that the Ark was worshipped, he maketh his conclusion, that the Ark was had in great reverence. But they had the temple also in great reverence, and the altars, and the offerings, and all things that by the law were commanded to be holy, and will he thereof infer, that all these were to be worshipped? They were to have the Priests in great reverence, and specially the high Priest, and shall we therefore say that they worshipped the Priests? What is this reverence but a religious respect and care of the sacred and due usage of holy things according to their kind? Thus are we to have our Churches in reverence with those utensils and implements that belong to them, that they be had and used with that decency and seemliness as fitteth to things that serve for holy ministrations. As for Hierome M. Bishop wholly abuseth & falsifieth his words: for he saith nothing at all of worshipping the Ark for the Cherubims and pictures of Angels that were erected at the ends of it (this is a very wilful and impudent forgery) but he saith, that s Hieron. ad Marcel. ut count n●gret Bethleem Venerabantur quondam judaei Sancta sanctorum quia ibi erant Cherubin, & propitiatorium & arca testamenti, Manna, virga Aaron, & altar aureum. the jews of old reverenced the Sancta sanctorum, because there were the Cherubims and the mercy-seat, and the Ark of the Testament, and Manna and Aaron's rod, and the golden altar. He knew well that if he had reported Hieroms words aright they would not sound for his purpose, but to frame them to his turn, he changeth the reverencing of the holy place, because of the Cherubims and the Ark, into worshipping the Ark because of the Cherubims, as if worship were performed properly to the Cherubims, whereas * Origen. contra Cells. lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis subdedit. by the law of Moses, as Origen saith, no worship was done to the Angels themselves, and much less to the Cherubims which represented the Angels. The word venerari which Hierome useth, albeit it be often used for worship and service done to God, yet is of so large signification, as that it is yielded to all those things to which we yield any reverend and dutiful respect. So doth t August. de doctr. Christ. li. 3. cap. 9 Sicuti est baptismi Sacramentum & celebratio corporis & sanguinis Domini Quae unusquisque imbutus agnoscit ut ea non carnali servitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur. Saint Austin use the word of the reverence that we use to the Sacraments, not only the Lords Supper, but also the Sacrament of Baptism. So doth Ambrose say, that u Ambros de ijs qui imitantur mysterijs cap. 8. Melchisedec protulit ea quae Abraham veneratus accepit. Abraham gave veneration to the bread and wine which Melchisedec brought forth, and we suppose Master Bishop is not so far gone as to say that we worship the Sacrament of Baptism, or that Abraham worshipped the bread and wine. Thus therefore Hierome saith, that the jews had a reverend regard of the Sancta sanctorum, but of religious worship as done to it, he saith nothing, and much less dreamt of any religious worship to be done to idols and images, which have no institution from God as the Sancta sanctorum had. But to help this argument Master Bishop further allegeth, that Saint Paul saith, that jacob by faith adored the top of his son joseph's rod. So doth the Greek text of Saint Paul say, saith he, as Erasmus also translateth it. And further he addeth, The Protestants pitifully mangle the text to avoid the place. But I answer him, that the Protestants do see them to be in a pitiful case, who hazard their souls upon a religion that is feign to use such pitiful arguments for the defence of it. For howsoever it were granted, that jacob foreseeing by faith the kingdom that should befall to joseph in his son Ephraim, did in token thereof make an obeisance to the rod or sceptre that was in joseph's hand, or that he yielded that obeisance or adoration in respect of joseph's present authority under Pharaoh, yet what should this be to the worshipping of images? We know that adoration or worship civilly understood is given to Princes. Abraham x Gen. 23.7. adored the Princes of the Hittites. The Israelites are said y 1. Chr. 29.10. to have adored or worshipped the Lord, and then the king, namely, king David. If jacob yielded the like adoration as to the kingdom and power of his son joseph, either present or to come, as some Greek Writers expound it, what is this, I say, to the worshipping of images? But as touching this matter Hierome saith upon the place in Genesis whence those words seem to be taken, z Hieron. quaest. ●i●●r in Genes. In hoc loco quida● frustra si ●●●am ado●asse jacob summitatem sceptri joseph quòd videlicet honorans filium, potestatem eius adoraverit, cùm in Hebraeo multo aliter legatur. Et adoravit, inquit, Israel ad caput lectuli, quòd scilicet post quam et iuraverat filius securus de petitionè quam rogaverat, adoraverit Deum contra caput lectuli sui. Sanctus quip & Deo deditus vir oppressus senectute sic habebat lectulum positum ut ipse tacentis habitus, absque difficultate ulla ad crationem esset paratus. In this place some vainly imagine, that jacob adored or worshipped the top of joseph's sceptre, to wit, that honouring his son he adored or worshipped his power or authority, whereas in the Hebrew it is read far otherwise, And Israel worshipped towards the bed's head, meaning, that after his son had sworn unto him, being now secure as touching the request that he had made unto him, he worshipped God towards the bed's head. For the holy devout man being now oppressed with old age, had his bed so set as that the fashion of his lying might without difficulty yield him readiness to pray. Thus howsoever M. Bishop cavil and wrangle, yet Hierome plainly resolveth, that it was God only and nothing else that jacob worshipped, and therefore readeth in his translation thus, that when joseph a Gen. 47.31. Vulgat. Quo iurante adoravit Israel Dominun conversus ad lectuli caput. had sworn, Israel worshipped the Lord, turning himself to the bed's head. Now the Hebrew text being manifestly against him, he taketh upon him to urge the Greek text of S. Paul, affirming it to be said there, that jacob worshipped the top of joseph's rod, not caring for his own advantage to set the holy Ghost at variance with himself, and to make him destroy in one place what he affirmeth in another. But that which he affirmeth is untrue and false: S. Paul doth not say, that jacob worshipped the top of joseph's rod: neither do the Protestants pitifully mangle the text to avoid the place, but the Papists pitifully follow a translation apparently false, that the text may seem to make for them. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he worshipped upon the top of his staff, or as we more plainly express it, leaning upon his staff. By which words the Septuagint translated the words of Moses before mentioned: Israel worshipped upon or towards the bed's head, their translation in Grammar construction fully answering the words of the Hebrew, but that for mittah, a bed or couch, they seem to have translated matteh, which signifieth a staff or a rod, making it by addition of a pronoun, his staff or his rod, or for some special reason thereto moving them, thought good in stead of the one, to take the signification of the other, being of the same derivation, & no difference betwixt them in writing, but only by the vowels, thereby to express that jacob being very aged and weak, and keeping his bed, used the help of a staff to stay himself as he worshipped upon his bed, or towards his bed's head. Thus they translated, upon what consideration we know not, but so as that they nothing prejudice that which Moses saith, because both may well stand together, that he used a staff to rest upon, and that so doing he worshipped towards the bed's head. And that they therein expressed a truth, though not set down in Moses words, yet otherwise received or conjectured, we fully and certainly believe, because the holy Ghost hath thus cited the words according to their translation, observing the same course as commonly we see the Apostles and Evangelists do in their citations from the old Testament, who so long as the place retaineth from the original that for which they cite it, and containeth no untruth, forbear not to use the translation which was commonly received and used, though haply otherwise it do not exactly accord with the same original Hebrew text. Now the matter for which the Apostle citeth those words, standeth in that that it is said, that jacob worshipped, he giving thereby to understand, that jacob by faith so fully rested assured of that which upon the promise of God he had believed, as that he worshipped and praised God, as if he had then seen and enjoyed the performance and accomplishment thereof. This therefore being expressly delivered in the text, as the Septuagint have translated it, he maketh no question of the other words, though they be not exactly sorting with that which Moses hath set down. But here the matter of question is concerning the translating of that translation. M. Bishop telleth us, that we should translate thus, And he (jacob) worshipped the top of his (that is, of joseph's) rod, and affirmeth that so it is in the Greek text. We deny it, and say that that translation is false, because it wholly leaveth out the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, answerable to the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in the Hebrew, there being no probability or likelihood of reason, why they should so do. The Hebrew Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst other significations importeth at, upon, near to, towards, over against. The word rosch signifieth the head, the top, the highest or uppermost part of a thing. Symmachus therefore translateth the Hebrew words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon the bed's head. Aquila thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon or at the top or uppermost part of the bed, as if a man would say, upon his pillow at the bed's head. Hierome in Latin, as we see before, translateth one where contra caput lectuli, over against his bed's head: another where, conversus ad caput lectuli, turning towards the beds head. Accordingly the Septuagint though differing in the signification of the last word, yet translate the former, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at or upon the top. And of their Translation S. Austin mentioneth divers translations into Latin, all expressing the Preposition, b Aug. in Gen. quaest. 162. Super caput virgae vel in capite, sive in cacumine vel super cacumen, at or upon the top. Seeing therefore they will make use of the Preposition in translating from Hebrew into Greek and Latin, and from Greek into Latin, what reason should we have in translating from Greek into English to neglect the same Preposition as if it were not there at all? They all agree thus far; He worshipped at, upon, towards the head or the top, and therefore teach us to disclaim them that say, he worshipped the top. Now then because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a staff, and better fitteth to the former words, then to translate it a rod, therefore we translate the words, He worshipped, namely, God, upon the top of his staff, that is, as we say to express the meaning more plainly, leaning upon his staff. He worshipped God inclining or bowing towards the staff which he had in his hand, resting himself upon it, and staying himself thereby. And that M. Bishop may know that we are not the devisers of this translation, let him understand that the old Syriac Interpreter, as appeareth by Tremellius, translated in the same sort: c Tremel. vers. ex Syriaca translatione Heb. 11.21. Adoravit super summitate baculi sui: he worshipped upon the top of his staff. So Theodoret expounding Genesis according to the Septuagint, albeit he refer the adoration to joseph in both respects before mentioned, which we have seen before that Hierome wholly condemneth, yet as touching the meaning of the latter words saith, that d Theodoret. in Gen. quaest. 108. Sedit & baculo innitebatur dextra apprehendens summitatem eius. jacob sat up and leaned upon his staff, taking hold of the top thereof with his right hand. S. Austin yet further justifieth us in this behalf, saying, that whereas e Aug. in Gen. quaest. 162. Quod habent Latini codices, Et adoravit super caput virgae eius, nonnulli codices emendatiùs habent, Et adoravit super caput virgae suae. in the Latin books it was read, Et adoravit super caput virgae eius, he worshipped upon the top of his rod, (that is, of joseph's rod:) many had it more truly: Et adoravit super caput virgae suae: he worshipped upon the top of his own rod. Which observation of his is of great moment for the discerning of the truth as touching this point. If that which is here said be understood of jacobs' rod, than Master Bishop knoweth well, that that which he fancieth hath no ground at all. But that S. Austin saith is the true reading, not of joseph's rod, but of his own rod, not f Ibid. Fallit eos Graecum verbum quod eisdem literis scribitur, sive eius, sive suae sed accentas dispares sunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the common Greek text readeth at this day, and by the great Linguist g Ar. Montan. text Graec interlinearis. Arias Montanus is written in that sort. Now according to this reading Saint Austin saith, that h Aug. ibid. Facilè intelligeretur senem qui v●rgam ferebat eo more, quo illa aetas baculum solet, ut se inclinavit ad Deum adorandum, id utique fecisse super cacumen virgae suae, quam sic ferebat ut super eam caput inclinando ad●raret Deum. the meaning is very plain, that the old man jacob carrying or holding a rod in such sort as old age is wont to do a staff, as he bowed himself to worship God, did it upon the top of his rod which he so carried, as that bowing himself upon it, or over it, he might or did worship God. Here is therefore nothing but the carrying or holding of a rod or a staff to lean or to rest upon, in such sort as old age is wont to do, thereby to stay himself as he inclined or bowed himself to worship God. And this construction is no whit impaired by the other reading, because by infinite examples it is manifest, that the Pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used also in the reciprocal signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, and serveth to return that whereto it is added, as belonging to the subject whereof the matter present is affirmed. But if notwithstanding they will refuse that reading, and say that they will not take it to be meant but of joseph's rod, yet Saint Austin there also excludeth them from their purpose, not reading as they do, He worshipped the top of joseph's rod, but He worshipped upon the top of joseph's rod, and adding, to show what might then be the meaning of it: i Ibid. Quid est ergo, Adoravit super cacumen virga eius, id est, filii sui joseph? An fortè tulerat ab eo virgam quando ei iurabat, idem filius & dum eam tenet post verba iurantis nondum illa reddita mox adoravit Deum? Non enim pudebat eum ferre tantisper insignae potestatis filii sui ubi figura magne rei futurae praesignabatur. Whether haply had he taken the rod of joseph, when the same joseph swore to him, and whilst he yet held it after he had taken his oath, and not yet delivered it, forthwith worshipped God. For he was not abashed so long to bear or hold the ensign of his sons power, where the figure of a great matter to come was foreshowed. Thus every way Saint Austin challengeth the adoration and worship to God, and teacheth us, that if it be spoken of joseph's rod, yet it shall import that jacob having in his hand the rod or sceptre, or mace, which was the ensign of joseph's authority in Egypt under Pharaoh, did lean or bow himself thereupon to worship God. In a word therefore here is nothing any way to prove the religious adoration and worship of any creature, but most fantastically of all other is it alleged for the worshipping of Images. He further referreth us to the Rhemish Testament, but he should withal have confuted Doctor Fulkes answer to it, if he would have had any thing there to be believed. There is nothing there said of this matter, but what is here already answered. 17. W. BISHOP. The second reason is taken out of Exodus 3. where God said to Moses, Put off thy shoes, for the place where thou standest is holy. Now if places be holy and to be reverenced by reason of the presence of Angels, why not, aswell the Image that representeth an Angel or some Saint, which is equal to Angels. M. P. his answer rather confirmeth than solueth this argument: for he saith, that the ceremony of putting off his shoes, was commanded to strike Moses with a religious reverence; not of the place, but of the person there present, which was not God, but an Angel, as the text there expresseth. * Exod. 3. The place then being holy, required the reverend respect of putting off his shoes, and the reverence done to the place, struck Moses with a religious reverence of the Angel speaking in the person of God: even so holy pictures being first duly reverenced, do strike men with a religions regard of the Saint represented. To this, let us annex that days be truly called holy and worshipped, as the first and last days of the feast of Easter be: * Exod. 12.16. & the vestments of Priests * Exod. 28.5.2. , because they are dedicated and employed to holy uses: even so Images which are made in honour of God and his Saints, and erected to move and teach us to embrace heavenly courses. R. ABBOT. The place where Moses stood was holy, days were called holy, the Priest's vestments were holy, therefore Images are holy and must be worshipped. The Sun shines in the coalhouse, and the Moon in the Mustard pot, therefore all M. Bishop's wit lieth in his left elbow. Do these men deserve any other but scorn and contempt, who bring us reasons in no other sort, then as if they were outright either mad or drunk? What is the medius terminus (I marvel) that should convey holiness to Images from those things which he mentioneth? The place where Moses stood was holy, as Origen rightly saith: a Origen. in Ios. hom. 6. Per seipsum non erat locus sanctus, sed quia Dominus stabat cum Moyse praesentia Domini sanctificaverat locum. not of itself, but because the presence of God had sanctified the place. M. Bishop saith, it was not God but an Angel, but he speaketh therein falsely and ignorantly. It was an Angel indeed, but it was * Mal. 3.1. the Angel or messenger of the Lords covenant, b Ios. 5.14. the Captain of the Lords host, the second Person in Trinity, the Son of God, usually termed an Angel in those apparitions, because he took upon him the office of an Angel, to do the messages of the Godhead unto men. c Euseb. hist. lib. 1. cap 2. Sa●è fas non est visiones Dei in Scriptures traditas Angelis illis inferioribus ac ministris Dei tribuendas esse suspicari. Surely (saith Eusebius) it is not lawful to think, that the apparitions of God delivered in holy Scriptures, are to be attributed to the inferior Angels which minister unto God. Therefore he expoundeth them, and namely, this to Moses as * Ambr. in Psa. 43. Quis est in rubo visus Moysi nisi rimogenitus Dei filius. Sic in Epist. ad Col. c. 1. Ambrose also doth of Christ the Son of God, and proveth by the very plain text, that the Angel there mentioned was God: d Exod. 3.4. When the Lord saw that Moses turned aside to sce, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, saying, Moses, Moses: And he answered, I am here. Then he said, Come not hither, put off thy shoes from thy feet, for the place where thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy Fathers, the God of Abraham, etc. Then Moses hide his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Thus e Act. 7.30. the Angel speaking to Moses in the bush, as S. Steven termeth him, is called by our Saviour Christ, f Mar. 12.26. God speaking to Moses in the bush. I did amiss therefore to term Master Bishop ignorant in this behalf, for he could not but know the matter: I should rather have termed him impudent, that to make an advantage and yet nothing worth, would contradict that which the Scripture so expressly saith. As for days they were appointed by God to be holy in respect of being applied to holy use, but that those days were called worshipful, it is but M. Bishop's device, because he would have us to take him for a worshipful wise man. So the vestments of the Priests were holy, because, as he saith, they were dedicated and employed to holy uses. Let all these things be taken for granted, as they are: but what of all this to the holiness of Images? Surely we do not know, but they may as well conclude that the Pope's excrements are holy, the parings of his nails, and the pollings of his head, or whatsoever other filth or foolery they will commend to us. No marvel if there were that holiness in the g Vide Hospinian. de orig Monachat. lib. 3. ca: 12. Franciscan Friars weed, as that men desired as a matter of great safeguard to be buried therein: or that the Franciscans breeches should be of great virtue to yield women speedy travel, for days and vestments of old were holy, and the place where Moses stood was holy ground. But it is further to be observed, that though all those things which Master Bishop nameth were holy, yet none of them is found to have been worshipped. Moses did not worship the holy ground. The Israelites did not worship the holy days, nor the Priest's garments. The Temple was holy, the altar was holy, the offerings were holy, the Priests were holy, and many other things, and yet they worshipped none of them: how then come we here to the worshipping of Images? Well, we must learn it ourselves if we can, Master Bishop can say no more than he hath done. But it should be very strange, that we should see more therein then the Church of the jews could ever see: they read and knew all those things to be holy which Master Bishop nameth, and yet they could never find the worshipping of Images. He telleth us of the Cherubims which God commanded to be set wholly out of sight, or were used as the pictures of Lions, and Bulls, and Flowers, and Trees for the garnishing of the works of the Temple, and the fashion whereof no man doth know, as before was said, but what was the reason that knowing those Scriptures whereof we speak, they could never light upon Master Bishops heavenly show of the Images of dead men? h Aug. de civit. Dei. lib. 4. ca 31. Sine simulachris castiùs dij obseruarentur. Cuius sententiae suae testem adhibet inter caetera gentem Iu●eam. Varro the heathen Roman allegeth them for example, that religion is more purely and holily observed without Images. Tertullian mentioneth out of Cornelius Tacitus, that when Pompey overcame the jews, and i Tertul. Apolo. cap: 16. Tacitus refert C●. Pompo●um cùm Hierusalem cepisset, praetereaque templum adisset speculandis Judaicae religionis arcanis, nullum illic simulachrum reperisse. entered into the Temple to view the secrets of their religion he found no Image therein. King Agrippa telleth Caligula, that in it k Philo de legate. ad Cai●●n. Nullum ibi simulachrum vel in occulto vel in propatulo. there was no Image, neither secretly nor openly, in respect whereof being strictly holden as a point of their religion, he dissuadeth the same Caligula from attempting to set up his Image therein as he went about to do. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, that l Elem. Alex. in Protrept. Qui non opera hominum aurea, aenea, & argentea, & eburnea, lignea, & lapidea hominum qui mortui sunt adorant simulachra, quae inan● consilio adorantur ab hominibus, sed fanctas vlnes tollunt ad coelum. etc. the jews worshipped not men's works of gold, of brass, of silver, of ivory, of wood and stone, namely, the Images of dead men, which men upon vain persuasion worshipped, but did holily lift up their hands to heaven. This the jews practised, this they most religiously observed, and what should be the reason hereof, if the Scriptures which Master Bishop allegeth, do make for the defence of the worshipping of Images? Surely, because they did thus for the keeping of the commandment of God, we must necessarily take Master Bishops worshipping of Images to be the invention of the Devil. 18. W. BISHOP. The third reason proposed by M. Perkins in favour of the Catholics is: It is lawful to kneel down to a chair of estate, in the absence of the King: Therefore much more to the Images of God and his Saints in heaven glorified, being absent from us. To this he answereth, that it is but a civil worship to kneel to the chair of estate, and that very commendable, to show our loyalty unto our Prince: but kneeling unto the Images of Saints is religious, and therefore not alike. Reply. He proposeth our argument to the halves, or else this answer had been prevented. For thus runneth our reason: As the chair of estate is to be worshipped with civil reverence, in respect of the temporal Prince whom it representeth: even so the Images of holy personages that reign now in heaven, are to be worshipped with a holy and religious kind of courtesy: for as Temporal honour is due unto a Temporal Prince, so religious and spiritual honour, is due unto spiritual and most holy personages. And as a good subject testifieth his loyalty and good affection towards his Prince, by honouring his regal throne: So doth a good Christian give testimony of his dutiful, both estimation and devotion toward those heavenly creatures, by giving honour unto their Images. At leastwise, why do not the Protestants exhibit civil reverence aswell unto the representations of God's Saints, as to the shadows of the secular Majesty? unless it be because they are fallen out with the Saints of God, and are become adorers of sinful men. R. ABBOT. We may here conceive that images are brought to great distress, in that from arguments in the schools they are feign to fly to the ceremonies of the Court. It should seem strange that formalities observed to Princes in their Courts for majesty and royal state, should be made patterns of religious devotions to be practised in the Church. But a man in danger of drowning is glad to catch at every twig, and this desperate cause of Images having no manner probability of any approved reason or example for the justifying of it, is glad to shift any way, and setteth forth shadows and ghosts to make show of armed and fight men. M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins answer had been prevented, if the argument had been well proposed, but now that he hath proposed it, what doth it contain but only a begging of that to be granted him which is denied in M. Perkins answer? The thing that he should have proved is, that there is a like respect of religious worship to Saints, as of civil reverence to Princes, and he only affirmeth it, but reason he hath none. But to take such stuff as he bringeth us, first, we tell him that the chair of estate is not bowed unto for that it representeth the Prince, as he very idly and fond dreameth, but for that it is the Prince's seat, it being held for a matter of princely majesty, that there be a reverence performed to those things which serve in special manner for the Prince's use. In which sort at the Prince's table, though the Prince not yet come unto it, yet the service is done upon the knee, as with bowing and obeisance also at the tables of inferior States, where we suppose M. Bishop is not so mad as to think that either the meat▪ or the table, or any thing else doth represent them in respect of whom this duty is performed. On the other side, no such duty is done to the Prince's image, because it is not a matter of the Prince's use, and if we should see M. Bishop kneeling to it, we should either think him drunk, or take him for a fool. No argument therefore can be drawn from the honour done to Princes, to approve the honour that is done to Saints, because in that kind wherein it is required to be done to Saints, it is absurd and ridiculous to be done to Princes. Yea M. Bishop may as well conclude, that the Saints should have their cloth of state, and carry sceptres in their hands, and that our Lady the Queen of heaven, as they call her, should have Ladies to bear up her train, because Kings and Queens have so, as that we are therefore to kneel to Saints images, because we kneel to the cloth of state. Well, yet Master Bishop telleth us, that as temporal honour is due to a temporal Prince, so religious and spiritual honour is due unto spiritual and most holy personages. But vainly and absurdly: for how should his proportion stand, when he putteth Princes on the one side, and subjects on the other? Let him say as he should say, As temporal honour is due to a temporal Prince, so and much more religious and spiritual honour is due to him, who spiritually, and in way of religion is our Sovereign and Prince. If he can prove, that the Saints are appointed to be spiritually our Kings and Sovereign Lords, he saith somewhat; otherwise his proportion halteth, and goeth so lame, as that it cannot carry him whither he would feign go. He telleth us, that they now reign in heaven: but we answer him, that they reign, and are Kings spiritually in heaven, by having a victory and triumph over their spiritual enemies, not by having a dominion and sovereignty over us. We are taught to acknowledge the Saints and Angels for our a Reu. 6.11. & 9.10. brethren and fellow-servants, who because they are no other, therefore will not take upon them to be our Lords, neither can we without offence ●ender our service and devotion to them. Therefore S. Austin saith, as we have seen before, b Aug. de vera relig. cap. 55. sup. We honour them not by service, but by love: they are to be honoured by imitation, not to be worshipped by religion. And of the Angels Origen saith, that c Origen. contra Cells. lib. 5. Hoc nobis Angelos Dei reddit satis propitios ut libentèr pro nobis faciant omnia quòd benè affecti sumus erga Deum, & quod Filium eius verbum complectimur, etc. contendentes indies ad clariorem eius notitiam, etc. Et paulo ante: Ne quis audeat preces offerre nisi soli Domino Deo qui unus omnibus abundè sufficiat, per Seruatorem nostrum Dei Filium, etc. this is it that gaineth their favour to us, and maketh them willingly to do all things for us, when they see us well affected towards God, and that we embrace his Son jesus Christ, striving daily to grow more and more to the knowledge of him, but no man may dare to offer his prayers but only to the Lord God, who is abundantly sufficient for all, by our Saviour the Son of God. Now therefore as servants and subjects to their fellow-servants and subjects yield affection and love, but none setteth up to other a royal throne to honour them as Princes, so we give our love and affection to the Saints, we testify and commend their virtues, we lay before us their good example, we acknowledge their bliss, we desire and long for the fruition of their company: but we make them not our spiritual Princes and Sovereigns: and therefore we give them no duty or service of religion, which is the royalty of God, knowing that they would hide their faces, and exceedingly abhor to have the same offered unto them. And hereby we see how idly M. B. goeth on in his tale, that as good subjects testify their loyalty and affection towards the Prince, by honouring the regal throne, so good Christians give testimony of their dutiful estimation and devotion towards those heavenly creatures by giving honour unto their Images. For neither have we the condition of subjects in respect of the Saints, neither do we own any such devotion or duty to them, neither have the images that are set up in their names that reference to them, as the royal throne hath to the Prince. We honour the chair of estate, because of the Princes use thereof for majesty and state: but seeing the Saints are in heaven, what have they to do with blockish idols here on earth, or if they were upon the earth? what use should they have of them? And therefore it is an idle and fond question which he asketh, why we yield not civil reverence to the representations of God's Saints, aswell as to the shadows of secular majesty, because we have no civil conversation with the Saints, as we have with Princes, neither is there any civil use of those counterfeit idols, as there is of the Prince's chair of state. Neither are we therefore fallen out with the Saints, as he vainly cavilleth, but rather we labour to be, and hope to be the same that they are. And because we hope so to be, and are neither so impious nor so foolish, as to think that men hereafter should set up idols to us to worship us thereby, therefore we hold it for impiety and folly to use any such superstition to the images of the Saints. As for Princes though they be sinful men, yet we have learned of Christ concerning them, d Mat. 22.21: to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and as they are unto us the shadows of the majesty of God, so to give unto them civiliy some shadows of the honour that belongeth unto God. 19 W. BISHOP. M.P. makes a third point of difference, that we may not worship God in any such image in which he hath appeared unto men. In this we do not differ, unless he takes it otherwise than he delivereth it. Those images we hold more reverend than any others, as representations nearer approaching unto the Divinity, yet because they do not express the Deity, God is not directly apprehended nor worshipped in them, but only by collection, as for example: The form of a grave old man in Daniel, doth not represent God's person, but we gather by that ancient form God's eternity, whereby we arise to a more perfect conceit of God, whom we adore: now other images of Christ and his Saints, do carry our minds directly upon their proper persons, whom in their images we adore and worship after their degrees. But we worship images with far meaner reverence than any of the Saints, in regard only, that they do represent such personages, and do induce us more to love and honour them, and do stir up our dullness more often and ardently to honour God in the Saints, and the Saints in their degrees: as also to imitate their holy example as hath been said more than once, that all may understand how far off we are from giving God's honour unto either Saint or Image. But this point of difference is made to bring in a common argument of theirs, to wit, that the worshipping of the golden Calf is condemned as flat idolatry: * Exod. 32. and yet the Israelites worshipped not the Calf but God in the Calf. To which we say, they did not worship the true God in the Calf, but the God of the Egyptians, which was taken by them to have the shape of a black Calf with white spots. See S. August. * Lib 18. De civit. cap. 5. And therefore making the golden Calf to represent this false God, and attributing their deliverance unto that supposed God, * 1. De nat. Deor. Verse. 4: and not unto the God of Israel, committed idolatry, which the text proveth most manifest, these be thy Gods that brought thee out of Egypt. M. Perkins answereth, that the meaning is nothing else, but that the golden Calf was a sign of the presence of the true God: such glosses without any authority of the ancient Fathers is ridiculous, being against the plain text: but saith he, we must not think them so mad, as to take a Calf made with their ear-rings to be their God, no: but we may well think them so ungrateful unto the true God their deliverer, that they did ascribe their deliverance not to him, but unto that God which the Egyptians served, whose portraiture was that Calf. R. ABBOT. It is one special faculty that men attain unto by Romish learning, that they are able at any time by a distinction to mock God. Let God say what he will, they will say the contrary, and yet by a distinction they will make it good. God commanded his people that they should make no manner a Deut. 4.16. figure, or form, or image, whereby to represent or worship him. Accordingly the faithful observed, and did throughout all their generations; they abhorred always in any meaning to set up an image unto God. They dedicated b Philo de legate. ad Caium. eximium fanum dicaretur invisibili Deo sine ulla effigy. their temple unto God without any image, saith Philo. Thomas Aquinas saith of that time of the old testament, that c Thom. Aquin. sum. part. 3. quaest. 25. art. 3. Jpsi vero Deo cùm sit incorporeus nulla corporalis imago poterat poni; quia ut dicit Damasc. insipientiae summae est & impietatis figurare quod est divinum. Sed quia in novo testamento Deus factus est homo, potest in sui imagine c●rporali adorari. to the true God being incorporal or without body, no corporal or bodily image might be set up, and to that purpose citeth out of Damascen, that it is a point of extreme folly and impiety to figure that that is divine, and therefore in the new testament approveth no images of God, but as God was made man, that is, the images of Christ. So M. Bishops Nicene fathers, albeit they were idolaters as well as Aquinas and Damascen, yet they condemned the making of images to the godhead, as before hath been showed, and approved only the images of Christ, & of the Saints. M. Bishop now telleth us that they were all fools, and made a needless scruple for want of the knowledge of his distinction; for though God be not directly to be apprehended or worshipped in an image, yet by collection he may, as by the form of a grave old man we gather God's eternity, saith he, and thereby arise to a more perfect conceit of God, whom we adore. Thus for want of his learning they wanted the means to arise to the more perfect conceit of God, because they feared to picture God in the form of a grave old man. But I have d Sect 4. & 7. before showed that this impious dream of his accordeth with the conceits of profane Philosophers, who did not think that their images did or could express the deity, but they used them only as steps, whence by collection they might ascend to the contemplation of the divine power. It hath been there also declared, that it is wholly wicked and unlawful in any signification or meaning to take upon us by an image to represent God. Whereas he seeketh out of Daniel to approve this form of a grave old man, he dealeth lewdly therein, Daniel there saith of e Dan. 7.9. the Ancient of days, his garment was white as snow, & the hair of his head like the pure wool, but of a grave old man he saith nothing. Of our Saviour Christ appearing to S. john it is also said, f revel. 1.14. His head and his hairs were white as white wool and as snow; and will M. Bishop be so fond hereupon, as to picture our Saviour Christ like a grave old man? Old age also importeth not eternity, as he fancieth, but rather decaying & declining; and therefore is very unfit to signify the infinite being of the everliving God. But leaving that to the wisdom of God, why he hath thought good thus or thus to appear to men, we harken to his commandment, who saith that in the giving of the law he appeareth in no likeness, because he would have no image or likeness set up unto him. We follow also the example and practice of the faithful people of God, who albeit they did read of these apparitions of God, yet never durst presume thereupon to make any Image, whence they might by collection arise to the more perfect conceit of him. As touching their worshipping of the Images of Christ and his Saints, and that by vain pretences they bestow upon Saints and their Images the worship due to God only, enough hath been already said. So hath it been also plainly declared already, that g Supra. Sect. 5. the Israelites in worshipping their golden Calves, intended to worship the true God, and Master Bishop's assertion that they meant thereby to worship the God of the Egyptians, is but upon his own word, and therefore we reject it as a dream. Bellarmine in this matter waveth too and fro, he saw the truth plainly enough, and therefore is forced to confess, that h Bellarmin. de Imag. sanct. cap: 13. Dicunt nec improbabiliter admitti posse quòd judaei in idolo putaverint se colere Deum verum. it is not unlikely which Abulensis and Caietan, and other of their writers say, that it may be admitted that the jews in the idol did think to worship the true God; but yet loath to stand to this, as being too directly against his purpose, he cometh in with perhaps this and perhaps that, and showeth that indeed he knew not what to say. But what sense is there in that Master Bishop saith, that the Israelites should imagine that the God of the Egyptians delivered them out of the land of Egypt? If they had carried the opinion of many Gods, it was more probable and likely for them to think, that the God of the Egyptians would rather have done a favour to the Egyptians then to them, and therefore would rather have kept them in Egypt, then have delivered them from thence. They afterwards went a whoring after other Gods, the Gods of the Sidonians, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and others, and yet to none of them did they ever ascribe the deliverance out of the land of Egypt, and how then is it likely that they should ascribe it to the Egyptians God? And if they had meant to worship the Egyptians God, there is no question but they would have worshipped him in the same manner as the Egyptians did. But the Egyptians worshipped their God not by a golden Calf, but by a living Calf, which was to be of a certain colour and certain marks, which i Ludou. Vin. Annot. in Aug. de ciu. Dei. li. 18. cap. 5. they so much regarded, as that when that Calf or Bullock was dead, they went up and down with great mourning and lamentation till they had found another coloured and spotted in the same sort. Seeing therefore this was a matter of so great moment, they would by no means have neglected it if they had meant to worship the Egyptians God. How much ra●her should we think that they intended by their golden Calf to worship their own God for receiving of him the like benefit, as for which the Egyptians worshipped their imagined God by a living calf? k Ruffin. hist. lib. 2. cap. 23. Apin feru●t cum famis tempore fru nenta apud exortation defecissent, ex proprio affaetim civibus ali menta praebuisse. Quo defuncto in honorem eius instituerunt Mēp●●s templum, in quo bos quaesi indicium optimi agricolae nutritur, etc. King Apis in a time of great dearth and famine, greatly relieved the Egyptians, and specially the city of Alexandria; whom being dead they for that cause honoured as a God for reasons diversly conjectured, naming him Serapis. For the worshipping of him, they made special choice of a calf or bullock, as fittest for memorial of the benefit for which they honoured him, because men are specially sustained and fed by the labour of the Ox. The Israelites at that time in more miraculous manner, received the like benefit at the hands of their God. He fed them with Manna from heaven when they had no means at all to provide themselves bread. Aaron therefore being required to make them Gods, being undoubtedly more intelligent, then either to impute their deliverance to the God of the Egyptians, or to think God to be like a calf, yea and not being ignorant of the construction which the Egyptians made of their Calf, made a golden calf, only as a sign and memorial of the God by whom they were nourished and fed, whence according to M. Bishop's rule they might by interpretation and collection, arise to the remembrance and conceit of God. Having then made the Calf, he saith, These are thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, in no sort referring them to the God of the Egyptians, but remembering them thereby of their own God, who by Moses brought them out of the land of Egypt. Which he doth by that rule which M. Perkins mentioned out of S. Austin, that l Aug. ad Simplic. lib. 2. q 3. Solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appella●i quarum imagines sunt. Images are wont to be called by the names of those things, whereof they are images. For the rest I refer thee, gentle Reader, to that that is said before. As for that which he saith, that the Egyptians took their God to have the shape of a black Calf with white spots, if some other man had said it, I should have said that he had spoken like a Calf. He quoteth S. Austin for witness of it, but S. Austin saith no such thing. He saith that m Aug. de civit. Dei. li. 18. ca 5. Apis being king of the Argives, came into Egypt, and dying there became Serapis the greatest of all the Gods of the Egyptians. He noteth out of Varro, that he was called Serapis of the coffin wherein he was buried, being worshipped in his coffin before any temple was built for him; the coffin being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which being added by way of composition to Apis, made Serapis, and by change of a letter was turned to Serapis. He saith that it was decreed, that no man upon pain of death should say that he was a man, and that in all temples where Isis and he were worshipped, there stood an image at the door which had the finger laid to the mouth, as requiring silence, that no man should say that they were men who were there worshipped. He addeth, that n Ille bos quem mirabili vanitate decepta Aegyptus in honorem eius delicijs affluentibus alebat, etc. Apun vocabatur. the Egyptians daintily kept and fed the bullock in the honour of Apis or Serapis, but that they took Serapis their God to be like a black calf with white spots, neither he, nor Tully, nor any other ever imagined, till Master Bishop by a mischance lighted upon it in a dream. 20. W. BISHOP. But now before we end this question, I must let you understand what worthy men they were that first began to wage battle against images: they were the jews in their Talmud. Ord. 2. tract. 1. dist. 2. See Synod. 7. act. 5. A barbarous Persian Xenias, as witnesseth Nicephorus Lib. 16. cap. 27. Then Mahomet the great God of the Turks. Alcoran. ca 15. & 17. with such like infidelds, sorcerers, and the scum of the earth. See Card. Bellarmine de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 6. I will with one or two testimonies of the ancientest Fathers finish this controversy. Lactant. In car. de pass. Christ. Kneel down and adore the venerable wood of the Cross. Hierom, in vita Paulae: She adored prostrate before the Cross, as if she had seen Christ hanging on it. Basil against julian cited, act. 2. Synod. 7. I honour the history of the Images, and do properly worship them. Finally, in the 7. general Council holden 900. years past, they are condemned of heresy, that deny the use and worshipping of holy Images. R. ABBOT. Master Bishop in this worthy conclusion will tell us what worthy men they were that first began to wage battle against Images, and first nameth unto us the jews in their Talmud. But he showeth himself a very simple man to go about to persuade us, that the jews in their Talmud were the first oppugners of the worshipping of Images, unless he had showed us withal, that their forefathers before the Talmud had entertained and practised the same. It was but a thing mistaken by him; they were the jews indeed that were the ancient oppugners of Images, but those jews were Moses and the godly Kings of judah, Asa, Hezechias, josias, and such other, together with the Prophets of God, who denounce the wrathful vengeance of God against this filthy and abominable pollution of the true worship of God. If those faithful people of God had worshipped Images, M. Bishop had had somewhat to say of the jews later detesting and abandoning of them; but because there is no example found of any godly man that ever did so or so taught, we thereby understand, that what the jews do or have done in that behalf, they have done it by observing constantly so far forth the doctrine and practice of their godly fathers. The Turks also do that which they do in respect of God's commandment. They acknowledge the law of the ten commandments to be of God, and finding the worshipping of Images to be therein condemned, they accordingly detest it. And in this respect Popery hath lain as a stumbling block in the way both of Turks and jews, and hath caused them to fall into the greater hatred and despite of the name and faith of Christ, and set a bar against them to keep them from entering into the Church of Christ. They know that the worshipping of Images is condemned of God, and therefore seeing the profession of the name of Christ to be joined to worshipping of Images, they have wholly deemed the same to be sacrilege & enmity against God, and have shunned it accordingly. This scandal God hath in part revenged already, by delivering those Eastern Churches where this idolatry was first established, by cruel destruction into the Turks hands. The Church of Rome hath seen it, and it is verified in her which Saint john prophesied, a revel. 9.20. The remnant of the men which were not killed with these plagues, repent not of the works of their hands, that they might not worship devils and idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of wood, and of stone, which neither can see, nor hear, nor go. Therefore God hath given over that filthy whore to all abomination and uncleanness both spiritual and corporal, and will in due time perform that which he hath foretold, concerning a perpetual desolation to befall unto her. As for Xenaias or Xenias the Persian, if he were otherwise faulty, he was justly for that to bear his judgement; but in oppugning the worshipping of Images, if he did so, he did the part of a just and faithful man. I refer the Reader to that before hath been said, concerning him in b Sect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King. But now that Master Bishop hath thus brought in by way of contempt, Turks, and jews, and a barbarous Persian, waging war against Images, we would look that he should bring us glorious troops of the ancient Fathers, speaking in favour of them. Behold, gentle Reader, the wretchedness of a damnable and wicked defence. He hath here offered us the verse of a Poet, the fact of a woman, and a counterfeit sentence not found in Basils' works, but fathered upon him most impudently four hundred years after his decease. Surely if Popery had been the religion that was professed of old, there could not have wanted many and most pregnant testimonies for that which they now practise. But there are none; they are put to a miserable shift to get any thing that may give but some show of grace to that which they defend. But such as they are let us examine what they say. First Lactantius by a Poetical fiction bringeth in our Saviour Christ hanging in rueful plight upon the cross, and there calling to man to behold and consider him in that state, c Lactan. carm. de pass. Christi. En aspice crines sanguine còcretoes & sanguinolenta sub i●sis Colla comis spinisque caput crudelibus haustum undique diua pluens vinum super ora cruorem, Compressos speculare oculos et luce carentes Afflictasque genas, arentem suspice linguam fell venenatam & pallentes funere vultus, Cerne manus clavis sixas tractosque lacertos Atque ingens lateri vulnus, cerne inde fluorem Sanguineum f●ssosque pedes artusque cruentoes: Flecte genu lignumque crucis venerabile adora Flebilis, innocuo terramque cruore madentem Ore petens humili lachrymis s●ffunde subortis, etc. To behold his hair and his neck all imbrued with blood; his head all rend with thorns, and shedding or distilling the warm blood upon his sacred face, his eyes closed together and warning light, his cheeks buffeted, his tongue dry and poisoned with gall, his countenance pale like death; Behold, saith he, my hands pierced with nails, my joints racked and drawn forth, a great wound in my side, and a stream of blood issuing from thence, my feet bored through, my members all bloody. Hereupon follow the words which Master Bishop citeth, Kneel down and with weeping adore the worthy wood or tree of the cross, and humbly kissing the ground bedewed with innocent blood, wash it with thy tears. Where we see all framed to Poetical manner of speaking, and may easily perceive that the Author intendeth no more, but that beholding by the spiritual contemplation and meditation of faith, the bitterness of the passion of Christ for our sakes, we should in heart and affection even fall prostrate before him, as hanging upon the Cross, and kiss the ground bedewed with his most sacred and innocent blood. We can no more suppose now the real adoring of the Cross, whereof he speaketh▪ then we can suppose the ground now really moisted with the blood of Christ, and therefore can no otherwise take it, but that he referreth our meditation to the Gospel, where d Gal, 3 1. having Christ described before our eyes as crucified amongst us, we should in mind and devotion as it were kneeling before his cross, humble ourselves to him. But that Lactantius was very far from worshipping spiritually the very wood of the cross, he plainly enough showeth when he resolveth it e Lactano institut. lib. 5. cap. 9 Nesciunt quaentum sit nefas adorare aliud praeterquam D●um. to be a thing unlawful to worship any thing beside God. Yea, and we have heard before out of Ambrose concerning the cross of Christ, even the very cross whereon he was crucified, that to worship it were f Supra Sect. 1. Ex Ambros. heathenish error and the vanity of wicked men. Whereby we learn to esteem of that which Master Bishop further citeth of Paula a noble gentlewoman of Rome, of whom Hierome reporteth, that travailing to Jerusalem, and coming to the place where Christ was crucified, g Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae. Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem hominum cerneret adorabat. falling prostrate before the cross, she worshipped as if she had seen the Lord there hanging before her. He telleth us that she worshipped, but he doth not tell us that she worshipped the cross. The present conceit of the place was a motive unto her there to fall down to worship Christ in heaven, but of worshipping the cross there is nothing said there, much less of any thing that should induce us to the worshipping of Master Bishops Images. Nay Hierome saith, h Hieron. ad Ripar. ●du Vigilant. Ne solen quidem & lunam, non Angelos, non Archangelos, non Cherubin, omne nomen quod nominatur in praesenti seculo & in futuro colimus et adoramus. We worship neither Sun, nor Moon, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphim, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come. The words cited under the name of Basil, can have no more credit than they have who are the reporters of them, which is none at all. They are alleged out of the second Nicene Council, and the Council itself is brought as a witness of the worshipping of Images, but how base account is to be made of that Council I have before given to understand in answer of the Epistle. Albeit that thou mayest, gentle Reader, more particularly understand the truth of that censure, it shall not be amiss somewhat further to note the original and process of the said Council. It hath been before showed, that in the time of Gregory Magnus Bishop of Rome, which was about six hundred years after Christ, Serenus the Bishop of Massilia seeing the people to worship the Images in the Church, in great zeal broke the Images in pieces, and threw them out of the Church, that there might be no occasion there left of any such abomination. Gregory hereupon wrote to Serenus, and though he disliked his breaking of them, yet commended him in that he could not endure the worshipping of them. This was then the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that howsoever Images might be used historically for remembrance, yet by no means might men perform devotion or worship to them. But whilst under pretence of that historical use they attained to high and honourable place in the Church, and were gloriously set forth as great ornaments thereof, Satan hereby tickled the fancy of the people, and bred in them an itching humour of damnable superstition, which grew more and more, till Idolatry was openly practised by the worship of them, and the Bishop of Rome, who before had given sentence to the contrary, became the main champion to fight for the maintenance of this abuse. This we find to have come to pass about an hundred years or very little more after the time of Gregory, at which time the Emperors of Constantinople with the most of their Bishop●, mightily opposed themselves against this new devotion, and by their edicts caused Images wholly to be defaced and abandoned out of the Churches. The pursuit of which cause when i Sigebert. Chron. anno. 725. Paulus Diacon. de gest Longo. li. 6 cap. 49. Leo Isaurus very earnestly followed, Gregory the second swerving from the steps of the former Gregory, took upon him k Zonar Anna. tom. 3. Synodico anathemate obstrinxit. etc. to excommunicate the Emperor and all that took part with him in destroying of Images. Gregory the third his successor went further, and assembled a Council at Rome, and there decreed the worshipping of Images, and having so done, renewed the former excommunication, and added thereto a sentence of deprivation, and by rebellion and treason found the means to alienate from the Emperor whatsoever▪ there was then in Italy remaining to him. Against that Roman council l Zonar. ibid. et Sigebert. an. 755, Constantinus Copronymus the son of Leo about the year of our Lord 755. assembled at Constantinople a Council of the Eastern Bishops, to the number of three hundred and thirty, which wholly determined against the worshipping of Images, thinking also the use of them in any sort to be not only unnecessary, but altogether unlawful and contrary to the word of God. The detestation that they had conceived of the impious and wicked abuse, made them for the avoiding thereof to prohibit that use which was lawful, as a man desirous to make a crooked rod strait, bendeth it too far the other way. But this determination of that Council appeased not that contention, the humour of superstition being restless and endless, never ceasing if it be able to stir, till it gain strength for the upholding of itself. So it was, that to Leo the son of Constantinus Copronymus was married Irene a proud and wicked woman, who upon the death of her husband, abusing the minority of her son, took upon herself the government of the Empire, and being of a womanish affection delighted with babies, about four and thirty years after that Council of Constantinople that generation of Bishops being in a manner quite worn out, m Func. comen. in Chronel. anno 787. 788. she commandeth another Council in the same place, the Bishops by that time being well fitted for the doing of that which she desired to have effected. The cause of their assembly being publicly known, namely that it was for the bringing in again of the worshipping of Images, the people of Constantinople gathered themselves together, and threatened to do some violence to them it they should conclude any such matter. This fear hindered them from proceeding according to that they had purposed, and hereupon Irene dissolved that meeting for that time, and the next year after caused the same to be renewed at Nice in Bythinia, where the first great and famous Council was holden against Arius the heretic under Constantine the great. But we may here easily conceive a great difference in course of proceeding betwixt that former and this latter Council. The former Council continued for the space of three years and more, long time and deliberation being taken for debating and discussing to the full the points of question that should be decided in it. This latter continued but only twenty days, being begun 8. kalend. Octob. and being ended 3. Id. Octob. so that they seem to have before determined what to conclude, and for no other cause met together but only to say what they had determined. The Precedent of this Council who managed the whole business thereof was one Tharasius, who of a courtier and a soldier, contrary to the canons of the Church, was made Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, a man very unfit and unworthy for such a place. According to the weakness of the head was the proceeding and behaviour of the whole body, wickedly abusing the Scriptures, wresting and perverting the sentences of the fathers; no reason so foolish but they admire it, no lie so gross but they applaud it, nothing there read under the name of any famous author, but it is certainly true; no man may speak against it. The first action being spent in receiving of penitents, who were a remainder of the former Council, and now for keeping of their places recanted what they had there said, they come in the second to the reading of the letters of Adrian Bishop of Rome, which being done, they all profess their consent to that which he wrote, and so an end. In those letters he singularly abuseth Constantine the great, fathering upon him a tale of a leprosy, and that when he had appointed the murdering of infants, that he might have their blood to bathe himself in for the curing of it, Peter and Paul appeared to him in his sleep, and recommended unto him the baptism and faith of Christ, and that by means thereof he should obtain his health; that to this end they willed him to send for Silvester the Bishop of Rome, who lurked in secret for fear of falling into the persecutors hands, to whom when he was come, he declared this whole matter, & asked him (if we will believe this notable cosiner) what kind of gods he thought those two to be, namely Peter and Paul, that had appeared to him? that Sylvester telling him they were● no gods, but servants and Disciples of Christ, caused their Images to be brought forth, which when he saw, he said, these are they whom I saw in that vision; (an excellent skill in the Image-maker, that he could light so just upon the visages of them that were dead almost three hundred years before:) that hereupon Constantine was baptised at Rome, and restored to his health, and did set up many goodly Images of Christ and his Saints in the Churches there. With this most impudent and shameless forgery, so plainly contradicted by a Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 4. cap. 62. Eusebius his story of the life of Constantine, by b Ambros. d●. obit. Theodos. Ambrose, by c Hieronym. in chronico. Hierome, by d Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 26. Socrates, by e Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 32. Theodoret, by f Sozomen. lib. 2. cap. 32. Sozomen, who all declare that Constantine was baptised at Nicomedia amidst many Bishops there, and that newly before his death, which was g So it is by the computation of Funccius; but Sozomen. hist. lib. 1. cap. 16. saith that julius the second after Sylvester was Bishop of Rome at the time of the Nicene Council; which being so, Sylvester must be dead at least thirtteene years before Constantine was baptised. seven years at least after the death of Sylvester; with this lewd tale, I say, Adrian maketh his onset for Images, & then proceedeth to the contaminating and profaning of the Scriptures, alleging that God made man according to his Image, as if thereupon it should concern us to make images and worship them; that No and Abraham set up altars unto God; that jacob erected a stone, and powered oil upon it, & called it God's house; that the same jacob worshipped upon the top of his rod, as if worshipping of Images were to be proved by examples of having no Images to worship; that Moses made the brazen serpent and the Cherubims, and h Si Israeliticum populum per inspectionem oenei serpentis seruatum à sua pest credimus, Christi verò Dei et seruatoris nostri omniumque sanctorum figuras contemplantes et venerantes dubitamus nos servari? if, saith he, the people of Israel were saved from their plague by looking upon the brazen serpent, do we doubt but that we are saved beholding and worshipping the Images of Christ and of all the Saints? as if there were the like reason of that which God in one kind for special cause commandeth, and that which in another kind man of his own head fond presumeth without God. For further proofs he citeth out of the Psalms, i Psal. 95. vulga. Confession and beauty are before him; k Psal. 25.8. Lord I have loved the beauty of thy house, and the place of the tabernacle of thy glory: l Psal. 26.13. My face hath sought after thee, thy face Lord will I seek: m Psal. 44.14. The rich of the people shall make their supplication before thy face; n Psal. 4.7. O Lord, the light of thy countenance is sealed upon us. Can we hold him for other than a grave and reverend Prelate, that could dispute so substantially, so wisely, so learnedly for the worshipping of Images? May not we be taken for blind buzzards, that cannot see the same sufficiently proved and warranted by these texts? or rather are we not to take him for a lewd cosiner and perverter of God's word, who would thus detort and wrest the Scriptures to that whereto they give no semblance of approbation or liking? As he dealeth with the Scriptures, so doth he with the Fathers. He allegeth amongst others one place under the name of Basil, in which the words are which M. Bishop here citeth, which yet is certain to have been written by another a long time after the death of Basil. Among other words there are these: o Confite●r deinde sanctam Mariam quae secundum carnem illum peperit hanc Deipara vocans. I confess holy Mary, who brought forth Christ according to the flesh, calling her (Deiparam) the mother of God; which there is no man so blind but seethe that they are purposely set down against the Nestorian heresy, and that without doubt after the time of the Ephesine council when that name of Deipara was first publicly avouched to the churches use, which was holden about 50. years after Basils' time. Yea and it was yet long after that also before these words were written, inasmuch as there is affirmed the worshipping of images, whereas there is no example of the worshipping of images then to be found in any Church throughout the whole world. Some other of the Fathers he handleth in the same sort, citing them all either falsely or impertinently, whilst either he impureth to them that which they never wrote, or impudently forceth to the gracing of the worshipping of images, that which they spoke only of the historical and civil use. Yet upon these silly grounds the Council proceedeth, and they profess their belief to be p Constant. juxta tevorem literarum quae ab Adrian● etc. missae sunt hominibus consentio, etc. & c● hac. fide ad tribunal Christi proficiscar, etc. Elias: perfectò eas adorans; qui verò secus consitentur eos anathematize. according to the tenor of Adrian's letters, perfectly worshipping images, saith Elias Cretensis, and I pronounce anathema to them that profess otherwise: yea q Staurat. Imagines recipio, amplector & honore velut arrbabonem existentes mea salutis; secùs autem sentientes anathematize. I receive, embrace and honour them, saith Stauratius the Bishop of Chalcedon, as being the earnest of my salvation, and I accurse them that think otherwise. See here the worthy company of M. Bishops learned men, much respecting what the grounds and proofs were that they would conclude upon. In the third action after the receiving of some other penitents, they read the communicatory letters of Tharasius, lately before chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Patriarches and Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem, and their answers to him, wherein they signify their consent to the worshipping of images. For proof they care not; it is enough to say they profess it, and the rest of that act is nothing but voices of approbation of that which they say. In the fourth action they fall roundly to their business, and bring forth their proofs, such as they have, and happy is he that can bring forth a place that but speaketh of an image; that is argument good enough for the worshipping of them. First because they would have it known that they had a Bible amongst them, they bring it forth, and there they read some few places out of Exodus, Numbers and Ezechiel concerning the making of Cherubims, to which they add the place to the Hebrews mentioning r Heb. 9.5. the Cherubims of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat. Hereupon Tharasius giveth this worthy observation, s Animaduertamus viri sacerdotes quia vetus Scriptura divina habuit Symbola, & ex haec assumpsit nova Cherubim gloriae obumbrantia propitiatorium. Sancta Synodus dixit, Rectè domine, itae est veritas. Let us mark, that because the old Testament had divine signs, the new hath from thence taken the Cherubims of glory covering the mercy-seat: the whole Synod answering, Very right, so the truth is indeed. A company of very wise men, that could not see that the new Testament no otherwise speaketh of the Cherubins then as of a matter pertaining to the old, and therefore what should hence be gathered for avouching images in the new? Tharasius goeth yet further, t Si vetus Scriptura habuit Cherubim obumbrantia propitiatorium, & nos quoque imagines jesu Christi et sanctae Deiparae, sanct●rumque habebimus ●bumbrantes altariae, If the old Testament had Cherubins covering the mercy-seat, we also will have the images of Christ and his holy mother, and the Saints to overshadow our altars. What is a gentleman but his pleasure? We will have: and is it not a stout reason that because Moses set up two Cherubims in the tabernacle out of all men's sight save the high Priests once a year, and which we do not find that ever any man did worship, therefore we should set up the images of Christ and of dead men for all men to look upon, and that they may fall down before them and worship them? They are soon weary of Scriptures, and to the Fathers they go; they bring out of Chrysostom, that the people much delighted and affected to have the picture of Meletius; and that he himself was greatly in love with a picture describing an Angel destroying an army of barbarous people: they allege that Gregory Nyssene and Cyrill say, that they had seen exquisite pictures of Abraham offering up his son Isaac; that Gregory Nazianzone in certain verses setteth forth, that a harlot being by a young man won to come unto him for practise of filthy lust, coming to the door and seeing the picture of Polemon the Philosopher, went back as it were ashamed, and left that filthiness undone; that Antipater the Bishop of Bostria maketh mention that the woman cured of the issue of blood set up an image of Christ; that Asterius mentioneth an image describing the suffering of Euphemia the martyr; all which being admitted for true, yet what is there herein for the worshipping of images? I may not here omit the collection of Theodosius the Bishop of Amorium, which he offereth to the Council after the allegation of all these things: u D●ui●● Apostolus sic docet, Quaecunque praescripta sunt, etc. Ipsae igitur sacrae imagines & picturae tum mus●cis operibus, tum colorum materia deliniatae in nostram doctrinam, zelum & typum criguntur & pictae sunt, ut et nos illis conforms, idem certamen apud Deum exhibeamus, etc. The holy Apostle thus teacheth us, saith he, Whatsoever things were written before, were written for our learning: therefore sacred images and pictures both of work and drawn in colours, are set up for our learning, zeal, and figure, that we being like unto them may yield the like fight with God, that he may place us in the same state and portion wherein they have been, and make us fellow-heirs of his heavenly kingdom. Was not here a man of a quick nose and a very sharp sent, that could smell Images in those words of the Apostle? Yea he would have us also like to the Images (for so his words sound) that so it may be verified of us which the Prophet saith, x Psal. 115.8. They that make them are like unto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them. Well, from hence they go to miracles, that in Caesarea Palestina the relics of Anastasius being to be brought thither, a certain woman denied beforehand to worship them. She is thereupon stricken in her loins with intolerable torture and pain, so continuing for the space of four days. Which being ended, in the evening Anastasius standeth by her, willeth her to go to the Church, & there to beg of him to make intercession for her that she might be made whole. As she came near to the church, beholding the image of Anastasius, she cast herself down before it, and with great lamentation and tears pacified the martyr, and straightways rose up whole and sound. If this be not true, the devil is a very knave, and as little to be trusted now as ever he was. The next is reported under the name of Athanasius, albeit it is storied by Sigebert, as before I have noted, as a thing done four hundred years after the death of Athanasius. But these men were their craftsmasters, they knew well that great lies are not easily believed but upon the credit of great names. A jew forsooth in Beryth hired a house where a Christian had dwelled, who after he had been there abiding, upon a time invited certain other jews his countrymen to dinner: as they sat at table, one of them lifting up his eyes spied there an image of Christ; a wonderful matter, that the good man of the house all this while could never see it. Well, they rail at him for having such an image, they complain of him to their Elders and chief Priests, they excommunicate him, they take the image from thence; they remember what villainy and despite their fathers had done to Christ, and the like they do to the image; at length they cause one to thrust it in the side with a spear, and forthwith streams of blood and water issued out, insomuch that a whole pail or waterpot was filled with it, and therewith all manner sick persons that came thither were cured, so as that the jews hereat were greatly amazed, and hereby converted. Afterwards the Bishop of the place being greatly in doubt what to do with all this blood and water, at length took divers glass bottles and sent portions thereof about the world into Asia, Europe and Africa; only it seemeth there was some default in the messengers, of whom there hath been no news until this day, by reason whereof we read not of any processions or solemnities used abroad for the receiving and entertaining of this wooden blood, nor any miracles done by it in any of those places to which it was sent, otherwise we should wonder that it should be dried up and no news now to be heard of it. May we not say of them that received these monstrous fables, that y 2. Thess. 2. God had sent them strong delusion that they should believe lies? But here Tharasius very unwarily took a course to mar the miracle-market, and did enough to put his fellows from the telling of many wonders of their images, but that they had good stomachs, and not easily overcome with any quaume. z Sed quispiam dixerit, Quam. obremmiracula à nostris imaginibus non eduntur? Cui sanè ita sit cum Apostolo responsum, Miracul● non credentibus data sunt, sed illis qui in incredulitate versantur H● autem qui imaginem ita iractabant erant infideles; qua de causa signum illis datum est à Deo per imaginem. Some man will say, saith he, why are no miracles done by our Images? To whom let us answer with the Apostle, Miracles are not for them that believe, but for them that are in unbelief. They who thus handled that image were infidels, and therefore a sign was given them of God by the image. Tharasius knew well enough that there were no miracles done by their images, but yet this could not stop the mouths of them that came thither prepared to tell lies. Therefore anon out they come with such other like tales of blood issuing out of the images and relics of Martyrs, of a man molested and vexed by the devil, with whom the devil conditioned to trouble him no more, so that he would give over worshipping the image of our Lady; of a man cured of a fistula in his thigh by praying to the images of Cosmas and Damianus, the same Saints coming to him that night and our Lady in the midst, saying to them, See, here is the man, help him forthwith: of another who having the pictures of Cosmas and Damianus in wax, could therewith cure the toothache or any other pains; of another who being suddenly taken with an extreme sickness and pain, applied to the place where he was pained the image of Christ, and was by and by restored; of a Goldsmith, who at the request of Neanias made a cross, upon which when it was set up, there became miraculously wrought three pictures, and over them three names written in Hebrew, Emmanuel in the midst, and on the two sides Michael and Gabriel; of a man troubled with a cruel sore, who being brought into the Church and set under the image of Christ, there dropped thence a dew into his sore, wherewith he was healed forthwith; of an image of our Lady in Zozopolis, from the hand whereof dropped ointments for the curing of diseases. Thus there were present there that knew more than Tharasius did; he knew no miracles done by Images but only to Infidels, but they knew them very common to Christians also. Amidst these and many other such gross fooleries, they allege some names of the ancient Fathers, either counterfeitly, as that of Basil mentioned before by Adrian, or impertinently, as of Athanasius and Basil speaking of Images civilly and historically used, but not saying a word for their worshipping of images. Of a latter generation they bring first Leontius a Bishop of Naples, who they say was about the time of Mauricius the Emperor, but they say it untruly, as appeareth for that he is so pregnant for Image-worship, which by Gregory Magnus was in the time of Mauricius so expressly contradicted. This Leontius to serve his turn, openly falsifieth and belieth the Scriptures, affirming that Solomon in the building of the Temple set up in it the images of men, and that Ezechiel in the pattern that was given him for re-edifying the same, was likewise willed so to do, which appeareth by the text itself to be altogether untrue. There were pictures of Cherubims, and Palmtrees, and Lions, and Bulls, and flowers for ornament of the works, as before was said, but never was there in the Temple seen the image of a man, save what by idolaters was brought in. The rest of his discourse serveth to show the jew, in what manner and meaning they worshipped images, before he hath showed him that it is lawful to worship them at all. They bring further the words of one Anastasius, putting a difference betwixt adoration and latria, making the former common to men and Angels, the other peculiar to God only; but yet not affirming any thing of either of them to belong to Images. To supply that, they bring an Epistle of Gregory the third to Germanus, who some threescore years before had been Patriarch of Constantinople, and was condemned in the former Council there holden, and three Epistles of the same Germanus himself, all by the like arguments and with the same Sophistry handling this cause of Images, and under pretence of using them for admonition and remembrance, inferring the worship of them. Which done, upon these goodly grounds they come for conclusion of that session to pronounce their anathematisms against all them that deny Images to be worshipped. In the fift session they follow the same course. First they bring in authorities nothing to the purpose, as of Cyril, noting it as an impiety in Nabuchodonosor that he took away the Cherubims out of the temple of jerusalem; and of Simeon the Eremit, complaining to the Emperor justinus the younger concerning the Samaritans spoiling a church, and with indignity defacing the images that were found in it, which, what do they appertain to the worshipping of Images? Then they bring in testimonies of no authority, the parties being of latter time and interested in this quarrel, as of one john Bishop of Thessalonica, taking upon him to satisfy a Pagan, and of Leontius before spoken of answering the jew concerning the meaning of their worshipping of Images, without any proof that it is lawful so to do. Indeed plain it is that the worshipping of Images was a scandal and bar both to Pagans and jews to hinder them from admitting the Christian faith. They could not dissuade the idolatry of the Pagans, because they themselves changing the persons did the like. They could not persuade the jews of the truth of Christian religion, because they knew well that to worship an image is a thing condemned by God's commandment. But from thence they proceed to calumniate them that impugned images, first for citing Apocryphal writings, as the journals of the Apostles, and of men unsound in the faith, as Eusebius; and secondly for taking part with evil disposed men, as Xenaias and Severus, as if it should be any hindrance to the truth that sometimes upon occasion evil men become defenders thereof: and thirdly for defacing such books as had been not long before written for defence of such idolatry, wherein whatsoever they did, they did it by just grievance and caution against the increase and growth of this abomination. Now this being but a sinister and indirect course, back they go again to their trump, that is, to miracles, and as if it had been some perfume to sweeten the room, they tell again the tale of the devil promising not to trouble a man if he would forbear to worship the image of our Lady; another of a woman who being greatly grieved at the charges that she had been at in the digging of a well and could get no water, saw one come to her in her sleep, who willed her to get the image of one Theodosius an Abbot, which being let down into the well, the water flowed abundantly: another of an Eremite, who being sometimes to go from his cave, would pray to the image of our Lady that his candle might continue burning till his coming again, and that going sometimes for two or three months, sometimes for five or six months, he found it burning in the same sort as he left it. No marvel if they could sca●t hold at the hearing of these stories, and therefore they hereupon fall to cursing them that condemned the worshipping of images, and so an end for that time. The sixth action was the reading of an answer formally penned against the acts of the former Council of Constantinople against images, the examination whereof, because it would be too long, I leave to the Read, though what it is may well be esteemed by their proceed hitherto. The seventh session which is the last, containeth the Synodical definition of the Council for images to be worshipped, and their subscriptions thereto, with their certificate thereof to the Emperor Constantine and his mother Irene the Empress, as also to the Bishops of all Churches. Thus thou hast (gentle Reader) a brief of the comedy of M. Bishops learned Council, though I confess I am far from acting it, to cause thee that mirth that the reading of the Council itself would do. Their speeches are so ridiculous, so unsavoury, so void of all Christian gravity and understanding, as that thou wouldst think they all spoke but in a dream, or as being scant sober to advise of that they say. Albeit there are two things which I wish thee therein to observe: first that they approve no other images but only of Christ incarnate and of the Saints, and do wholly condemn the making of any images of God, as appeareth by the epistles of Germanus, by the speeches of Leontius against the jew, of john Bishop of Thessalonica against the Pagan, of Constantine the Deacon the custos rotulorum of the Church of Constantinople in the fourth and fift actions. The second is that they wholly deny to images the worship of latria, which they term the worship proper to God only, as appeareth by the epistle of Tharasius to Constantine and Irene in the seventh act. In both which points the church of Rome hath gone beyond them, not doubting to make images of God the Father in the likeness of an old man, as M. Bishop hath before acknowledged, and of the holy Ghost in the form of a Dove, and by the common judgement of her Divines having affirmed that the worship of latria is to be given to the image of Christ and his cross, as hath been before showed, and by practice yielded no less to the images of all the Saints. Thus have they exceeded the measure of the idolatry there decreed, and never ceased till the superstitions of the people had in a manner fully matched all the abominations of Pagan and heathen men. The Council being ended, a copy thereof was sent to Charles the great, who at that time was king of France. He having received it, sent it over into this land to have the judgement of the Church here concerning the matter of it. What followed, let it appear by the narration of our old English historian Roger Hovedon recited also by Matthew of Westminster. a Roger. Honed. Annal. part. 1. ann. 792. Carolus rex Francorum misi● Synodalem librum ad Britanniam sibi à Constantinopoli directum in quo libro (heu proh dolour) multa inconuementia & verae fidei contraria reperiebantur; maximè quòd penè omnium Orientalium doctorum non minùs quàm trecentorum vel eo ampliùs Episcoporum unanima assertione confirmatum fuerit, imaginesadoraeri debere, quod omninò Ecclesia Dei execratur. Contra quod scripsit Albinus epistolam ex authoritate divinarum scripturarum mirabil●ter affirmatan; illamque cum eodem libro ex persona Episcoporum ac Principum nostrorum regi Francorum attulit. Idem habetur apud Mat. West monasteriensem. In the year 792. Charles the king of France sent a synodical book into Britain, which had been directed to him from Constantinople, in which book (alas for woe) many things were found inconvenient and contrary to the true faith, specially for that by the agreeing assertion of almost all the Eastern Doctor, being no less than three hundred Bishops or more, it was decreed that images ought to be worshipped, which thing the Church of God holdeth altogether accursed. Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle, wonderfully fortified by authority of holy Scriptures, and in the name of our Bishops and Nobles carried the same with the book to the king of France. By this we see what credit M. Bishops Nicene Council had with the ancient Church of this land, and that he doth but play the Sycophants part in that he goeth about now so highly to commend the same unto us, contrary to so notable a judgement of our forefathers and ancestors so long ago, yea we see how impudently they lie, in saying that our forefathers from the beginning were of the same religion that the Church of Rome is of now. But that was not all that Charles did; for he caused also a Council to be assembled at Frankford in Germany of the Bishops of Italy, France and Germany, who with common voice condemned that Nicene Council, and plainly declared that the sentence thereof for worshipping of images was contrary to the word of God. Abbas Vrspergensis speaking of this Frankford Council, having showed that therein the heresy of Felix was condemned, who held that Christ was but by adoption the Son of God, addeth further, b Abb. Vrsperg. Chron. anno 793. Synodus et●ā quae ante pautos annos in Constantinopoli co●gregata sub Irene & Constantino filio eius septima & universalis ab ipsis appellata est ut nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacuae ab omnibus ab●icata est. The Synod also which a few years before was assembled at Constantinople (for there it was first begun) under Irene and Constantine, and by them called the seventh, and an universal or general Council, was by them all rejected as void, that it should neither be called the seventh nor any thing else. So saith Regino also conèerning the same council, c 〈…〉 lib. 2. ann● 〈◊〉 Pshaw 〈◊〉 Graecor●m●●●. pro ado●●●● maginibus ●●cerant, a pe●●●ficibus reiecta est. The false Synod of the Greeks' which they had caused for the worshipping of Images, was rejected by the Bishops there. The acts of this council were published in a book under the name of Charles himself, as hath been before said, and a copy thereof was sent to Adrian the Bishop of Rome, who to the Nicene council had binone of the great masters for the worshipping of Images. He poor man playing the part of an Abbreniator, taking out of the book what he list, and as he list, taketh upon him to write an answer to it, some part whereof is still to be seen adjoined to that * Concil. tom. 3. edit surij. appen. Nicen. concil. 2. Nicene council, but it is so pitiful an answer, as may well give us to understand what is to be thought of the whole matter. Surius the Friar saw so much very well, but he handsomely to colour the matter saith: d Surius. ibid. Lectors. Plerunque dum non satis ap tè adversarijsrespondere imperito lectori videre potest, eostanquam aliud agens egregiè slagellat. Whilst commonly to the unskilful Reader he may seem not fitly enough to answer his adversaries, he as it were being about another matter scourgeth them notably. This was a Friarly device, to make the unskilful believe that there are some deep mysteries in Adrian's words which every man cannot see, whereas any wise man may see that his answers are most putide and shameful, and very unfitting indeed, as as he saith, to those things which he would seem to answer. Therefore in fine M. Bishop's defence of his Image idolatry is such as can give no wise man any just satisfaction for the approving of it. To Doctor Bishop. Thus M. Bishop, I have taken pains to give the Reader a taste of the marrow, and a feeling of the pith of your many large volumes. Wherein if my opinion deceive me not, he will find by taste so little sweetness, and by feeling so little strength, as that he will take you either for a silly and iniudicious man, who are yourself abused, or for a wilful and wicked cosiner, that seek to abuse others with such base and deceitful stuff. To touch the reputation of your judgement and learning, I know should be as the handling of a sore, very grievous to yourself, and offensive to your fellows and seduced followers, whom you have won I know not by what means so greatly to admire you. Therefore I will not here question your learning, let it be what it is thought to be; it can be no preiudce to the truth, only I exhort you to take heed that you be not found with that learning that you have to fight wilfully against God. You have given shrewd tokens in sundry places of your book, of a very malicious and wicked heart, sometimes wittingly and purposely calumniating your adversary by false imputations of saying what he saith not, sometimes guilefully concealing for your advantage many things which he doth say; dissembling allegations and authorities which you could not answer, and answering other some without ever looking what the authors say. I know the blind eateth many a fly, and they who know nothing to the contrary have taken your arguments and answers for pregnant and very sure, and your book hath gone for a great oracle amongst them. But surely he that advisedly weigheth the course and manner thereof, will easily imagine that in very many places you had one within you to tell you that you did but patch, and palter, and shift, and desperately shut your eyes against the light that most clearly shined unto you. It may doubtless be said of you which S. Austin confesseth of himself whilst he was entangled with the heresy of the Manichees, that you e August. de duaeb. animab. cont Manich. Accidebat ut quicquid dicerent mirit quibusdam modis non quia sci●bam sed quia optabam verum esse pro vero approbarens. approve the things which you have been taught for true, not because you know, but because you wish them so to be. Beware M. Bishop, of doing any thing presumptuously in this behalf. Remember him that said, f Acts. 26.14. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. By beating yourself against the rock, you do but harm yourself; the rock shall never be removed. Give glory to God by acknowledging the truth of God, the breath whereof hath already blown down the towers of Babel; the sound whereof as of the Lords trumpet hath cast down the walls of jericho, and there is a curse laid upon him that buildeth them up again. g August. de ciu. dei lib. 6. cap. 1. Ea pu●atur gloria vanitatis nullis cedere viribus veritatis. It is the glory of vanity, as S. Austin saith, not to yield to any force of truth. But the glory of vanity is but vain glory, and to take a pride in being constant or rather froward in error, is the high way to confusion and shame. You may think it to be a blot of your credit being a Doctor of divinity to yield that you have been deceived all this while, but it is no blot, M. Bishop, to confess that degrees and learning are no privilege against error. You have been content though with some impeachment, to yield to the jesuits, but it shallbe no impeachment to you to yield to jesus, whose name you with others by your Proctors have told us that that hyprocritall vermin doth singularly abuse to the cloaking and colouring of much falsehood and villainy. Take experience thereof in yourself. Whilst you have relied upon Bellarmine the chief captain of them, you see how many lies and false tales you have delivered upon his word, both generally through your whole book, and specially in your Epistle to the king. Will you be any longer led by them who thus grossly do abuse you? Return M. Bishop, and be a means for others to return out of the bondage of h 2. Thess 2. the man of sin, i 2. Tim. 2 out of the snare of the devil of whom they are holden to do his will. Submit yourself to that truth which you see, I say you see, that you are not able to resist. I speak not, I confess, as upon any opinion or hope that I have to prevail with you. I know a dry stick never bendeth till it break, and I fear you are more dry than that we may look for any bending of you. I pray God I may have occasion to say that it was but a false fear, but if not, yet these words of mine shall serve hereafter for witness betwixt God and you, and therefore for conclusion I say to you as Cyprian said to Florentius; k Cyprian. lib 4. epist. 9 Habes tis literas meas et ego tuas: in die tudicij utrumque ante tribunal Christi recitabitur. You have my writings and I have yours: at the day of judgement both shallbe recited before the tribunal seat of Christ. FINIS. Faults escaped. Pag. 93. in mark lin. 43. for voluntate, read necessitate. pa. 121. after against them put in these words: Now it should seem that their divinity is very low, where it is so high a point and not easy for the unlearned to conceive, that God is the only efficient cause of all infused grace But, etc. pag. 126. l. 30 for bring forth the seed, read bring forth fruit. pag. 159. l. 10. for not knowing, r knowing. p. 275. l. 14. for proper to say. r. proper to David to say. pag. 318. li. 4. for trial, read tiall. pag 325. li. 34. for glorifieth, read glorieth. pag. 355. l. 35 for thereof, read whereof. pag. 36. ●. l. 5. for willing, read willed. pa. 459 l. 24. for only. assisted, r. only assisted. p. 511. l. 5. for art, r. act. p. 547. l. 23. for health, r faith. p. 549. l. 27. for his opinion etc. r. his ignorance. p. 555 l. 23. for hope, r. help. p. 558. l. 29. after the commandments put in these words, When say we the very provocations themselves are a breach of the commandments For etc. p. 56. 1. l. 19 for unpossible, r. possible p. 567. l. 6. for unto us, by, read unto us by. p. 762 l. 38. put out, and the untimely fruits of a barren strumpet. p. 770. l. 34. for not the imputing, r. the not imputing. p. 963. l. 25. for the righteousness, read but the righteousness. p. 997. l. 38. for not only, read only. p. 1079. l. 14. for having, read not having. p. 1104. l. 17. for the cross, read the cross of Christ. pag. 1198. begin the first line with these words, If he can make that good, he giveth us some reason of falling