this is all they can say out of the Scripture to proue that the written word containes al doctrine needful to saluation whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them out of their owne position Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation as hath bene proued Therefore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation 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 downe will make the Reader plainly to vnderstand that he hath taken a great deale of paines and sayd iust nothing Speaking to Timothie he sayth a 2. Tim. 3.15 Thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures of a child which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be perfect being perfectly instructed to euery good worke The first part of which words do sufficiently inferre that which we affirme for if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then they are sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō If they be not sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō then can it not be said that they are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The force of these words cannot be deluded euery eye can see that if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then all doctrine necessary to faith and saluation 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 improue false doctrine error to correct vice and sinne to instruct in righteousnes From hence then we must infer that which before is said that because the Scripture is able to direct a man in truth and righteousnesse therefore it is able to make him wise vnto saluation by faith in Christ for in the embracing and following of truth and righteousnesse consisteth the attainment of euerlasting life If any man will except and say that though it teacheth the truth yet it teacheth not all truth necessarie to saluation he wholly ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation For if it doe not teach all truth necessarie to saluation then it is notable to make a man wise to saluation It may be said to helpe towards it but it cannot be said to be able to do it if it containe not all things belonging to that wisedome that concerneth vs for the obtaining of saluation But the Apostle telleth vs 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 euery good worke The man of God is well knowne by the phrase of Scripture to import the minister of God in which sort the Apostle hath before said to Timothie b 1. Tim. 6.11 But thou O man of God flie these things c. Here therfore he giueth to vnderstand that the Scripture is so able to make wise vnto saluation so able to instruct in truth and righteousnesse as that therein the man of God the minister of God findeth enough to make him perfect and to prepare and furnish him to euery good worke 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 euery other man to that faith and righteousnesse that should bring vs vnto God But here M. Bishop putteth vs off with three wise answers by which he wold faine perswade vs that we altogether erre in the citing of these words First he chargeth vs with falsification of the text because we reade the whole Scripture whereas we should say all Scripture the Greek words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing as he saith the whole Scripture but euery part But why is this on our part a falsification more then it is in the Rhemists to translate according to their vulgar interpreter c Math. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole heard d Ver 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole citie e Ephes 4.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body and in their Latine f Heb. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per totum vitam through their whole life which they English through all their life If there be no falshood 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 vs to say the whole Scripture where they say all Scripture Surely but that malice blindeth it selfe and wil not see that that it doth see they would conceiue that all Scripture in this place can no otherwise be taken but to signifie the whole Scripture euen as elsewhere by g Acts 20.72 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the counsell of God we vnderstand the whole counsell of God in like sort as where it is said h Gen. 18.25 Qui iudicas omnem terram Thou which iudgest 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 Aegypt 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 Leuit 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 propositiō the Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation must needs be vnderstood to meane collectiuè the whole Scripture because it cannot be said of euery part of the Scripture that it is able so to do what is it but wilfull dotage to vnderstand all Scripture as meant otherwise in the proofe Especially when it is so apparent that that which the Apostle affirmeth in the proofe fitteth to the whole Scripture and so inferreth that which is propounded to be proued but cannot agree to euery part of the Scripture because
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 wold heare an argument to proue that the Apostle meant any thing further that is not written If he might vse those words of those things that are written what hindreth but that he might vse them of those onely M. Bishop cannot proue that he did not so but we proue 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 vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Therefore M. Bishops proofes come much too short to giue vs any assurance that S. Paule by traditions vnderstood any thing but what is to be learned by the Scriptures 17. W. BISHOP The second argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be is very necessary to saluation now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued only by Tradition wherefore it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue some Tradition M. Perkins answereth that the bookes of the Old and New Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this maner Let the man who is endued with the spirit of discerning reade the bookes and consider first the author of them who is God then the matter contained which is diuine the maner of speech which is full of maiestie in simple words lastly the end aymed at which is Gods honor and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer Reply A wise and deepe obseruation I warrant you and well worthy a graue Author Let vs examine it briefly first he will haue his man endued with the spirit of discerning who shall indue him with that spirit M. P. seemeth to say that euery sheepe of Christ hath his spirit But S. Paule * 1. Cor. 12. teacheth plainely the contrarie that some certaine onely haue the iudgement to discerne And touching this matter of discerning which bookes are Canonicall which are not not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which they were three hundred yeares after Christ was left vndefined by the best learned whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of Iohn and his Apocalypse were Canonicall or no as is confessed on all parts hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning when the best Christians wanted it Who more profound more skilfull to discerne than that subtill and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall For he in diuers places of his workes * De doct Christ cap. 8. 18. de ciuit Dei 36. lib. 2. cont Epist Gaudent 23 holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures and expresly proueth the booke of Wisedome so to be * De Praedest Sanct. 14. and yet our Protestants will not admit them See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is Come to the second His second is that he who goeth about to discerne whether the booke be Canonicall or no must consider the Author who is God If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the booke what needes any further labour it must needes be Canonicall that hath God for the Author This mans wits were surely from home when he discoursed thus and therefore it should be but folly to stand vpon his particularities let this one reason in generall serue to confute him all this manner put together serueth onely to helpe particular men to discerne which bookes are Canonicall who may easily after their diligent inquirie erre and be deceiued in this point because euery man is a lyar * Rom. 3. And if there be no more certaine meanes to assure them of this which is the ground of all their Religion then euery particular mans discretion and iudgement then out of doubt their whole Religion is most vnwisely builded vpon meane mens inuentions and discretion who also for the most part do neither vnderstand the language in which they were first penned nor the vsuall phrases of Scriptures translated that I say nothing of the figures parables prophecies and controuersies which seeme to be and many other difficulties and yet these men need not doubt hauing learned some halfe dozen lines of Master Perkins but that reading any booke they shall be able presently to discerne whether it be Canonicall or no. A goodly mockerie Men were not so taught in the Primitiue Church but the most skilfull and wisest in discerning Canonicall books trusted not vnto their owne iudgement but leaned alwaies vpon Apostolicall Traditions So did Cerapion an auncieni holy Writer as Eusebius reporteth reiect certaine bookes set out in the Apostles names because they had not receiued from their Predecessors any such The like doth Clement of Alexandria * Cap. 11. and that famous Origen * Cap. 19. of the same booke who obserue the Ecclesiasticall Canon as he had learned and receiued by Tradition So doth he deliuer his opinion of the foure Euangelists and other bookes of Canonicall Scripture and not relying on his owne 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 booke can there be any assurance if the letters which the Church propagated by the Apostles and by such excellencie declared throughout all Nations doth teach and hold to be the Apostles should be vncertaine 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 vpon for the certaine knowledge of Canonicall Scripture and other spirits whatsoeuer if they follow not that rule to be reiected so farre is he off from encouraging euery sheepe of Christs fold to take that waightie matter vpon himselfe as M. P. doth And what can be more against the most prudent prouidence of the diuine wisedome then to permit euery one to be a iudge of the books of Canonicall Scripture For if al those books no other shold passe currāt for Canonical which any Christian taking vpon him the spirit of discerning would censure to be such then away with all the old Testament because diuers esteemed it to proceed of some euil spirits as witnesses Freueus * Lib 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. and Epiphanius * Haeres 6. 6. Yea not onely all the old must be abrogated but all the new also because it hath many falshoods mixed with the truth as some presuming greatly of their spirit
3.15 Whatsoeuer things haue bene committed vnto thee by me keepe as the commandements of the Lord and diminish nothing thereof Now although those words haue reference to more then is written in those two epistles yet they haue not reference absolutely to more then is written because in the latter of those Epistles the Apostle plainly telleth him that q the Scriptures are able to make him wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus As for that which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Irenaeus it is nothing at all to his purpose He saith that r Iren. lib. 3. ca 4. Apostili quasi in depositoriuÌ„ dâ—ues plenissimè in Ecclesiae contuleruÌ„t omnia quae sunt veritatis the Apostles haue layd vp in the Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth but how they haue laid the same vp in the Church he hath before expressed Å¿ Ibid. cap. 1. The Gospell which they first preached they after by the will of God deliuered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith Thus then the Church is the treasury of truth by hauing the Scriptures which are the oracles of all truth His last authoritie is taken from the words of S. Iohn which he vseth in his two latter Epistles Hauing many things to write vnto you I would not write with paper and inke but I trust to come vnto you and speake with you mouth to mouth We see S. Iohns words but hard it is to say how we should conclude traditions from them S. Iohn wold 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 haue many things to write vnto them according to the Scriptures and what should leade vs to presume that he should meane 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 shamelesse abusing of ignorant men whilest for a colour he onely setteth them downe and for shame dareth not set downe how that should be inferred that is in question betwixt vs and them But to fill vp the measure of this illusion he goeth on yet further and by way of specification asketh Where is it written that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father or that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father or that there is a Trinitie 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 Trinitie Absurd wilful wrangler where was it written which Christ said t Luke 24.46 Thus it is written and thus it behoued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his name amongst all nations Where is it written in the Prophets which S. Peter alledgeth u Acts 10.43 To him giue all the Prophets witnes that through his name all that beleeue in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes Where doe Moses and the Prophets say that which Saint Paul sayth 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 shew light to the people and to the Gentiles To come nearer to him he hath told vs before that the articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures But where is it written in the Scriptures that we should beleeue in God the Father almightie maker of heauen and earth or that we should beleeue in the holy Ghost or that there is a holy Catholike Church a communion of Saints I will say as he saith here Be not all these things necessary to be beleeued and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible He will say that though they be not there written in expresse termes yet in effect and substance they are written there and are thereby to be declared and prooued and so he will verifie the words of our Sauiour 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 expresse termes Did not the Fathers conceiue all those points of faith from the Scriptures and by the Scriptures make proofe of them Is it not the rule of their owne schooles which I haue 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 sence is contained in the Scriptures What are we maintainers of traditions in saying that faith onely iustifieth that Christ onely is our Mediator to the Father that Saints are not to be inuocated nor their images to be worshipped because these things are no where written in expresse termes Let it not offend thee gentle Reader that I be moued to see a lewd man labouring by vaine cauillations to sophisticate and delude those that are not able to vnderstand his cosinage and fraud It is the cause of God and who can beare it patiently that the soules which Christ hath bought should be intoxicated with such charmes We do not say that nothing is to be beleeued but what is written in the Scriptures in expresse termes but we say that nothing is to be beleeued but what either is expressed in the Scriptures or may be proued thereby and therefore in oppugning traditions we oppugne onely such doctrines of faith as neither are expressed in the Scriptures nor can be proued by the Scriptures Let M. Bishop proue their traditions by the Scriptures and we will not reiect them for vnwritten traditions but will receiue them for written truth But of this see what hath bene said before in the twelfth section of this question and in the eleuenth section of the answer to his Epistle to the King 21. W. BISHOP The sixt and last reason for traditions Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely if then it be put to euery Christian to take their owne exposition euery seuerall sect wil coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shal the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an instrument to confirme all errors To auoide which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the traditions and auncient records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true exposition and sence of it and thereby confute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy commentaries so that for the vnderstanding
iustificari hominem per fidem but go fâ—rther yet to beleeue that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is saith he the testimonie that the holy Ghost giueth in our heart saying Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee For thus doth the Apostle suppose that a man is iustified freely by faith Of imputed righteousnesse enough hath bene said before the point here is of particular faith whether a man beleeue his owne sinnes to be forgiuen 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 iustifying and sauing faith And what I pray are the conditions that he addeth Forsooth truth of conuersion bewailing of our sinnes and confessing them and afterwards following holinesse and peace Where we see a glosing sycophant which will make the simple Reader beleeue that he giueth an answer when indeede he giueth none For when we teach the beliefe of the forgiuenesse of sinnes do we teach a man vnconuerted to beleeue the same The penitent sinner confessing and bewailing his sinnes to God and carefull as hauing felt the sting of sinne thenceforth to auoid the same is the proper and onely true subiect of this disputation of iustification by faith We denie that faith hath place in any other man and therefore denie that any other can haue the true beliefe of the forgiuenesse of his sinnes Of the conuerted man then of him that truly repenteth and forsaketh his sinne S. Bernard saith and we say that the faith whereby he is iustified is a faith whereby he particularly beleeueth the forgiuenesse of his owne sinnes What is M. Bishop now but a wrangling Sophister that thus in a mist of idle discourse seeketh to steale away where indeede he is so fast holden that he cannot vntie himselfe In like sort he dealeth with the other place of Cyprian who encouraging faithfull Christians against the terrour and feare of death saith f Cyprian de Mortal Deus tibi de hoc mundo recidenti immortalitateÌ„ pollicetur tu dubitas fluctuasi Hoc est DeuÌ„ omninò non nosse hoc est ChristuÌ„ credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fideÌ„ in domo fidei non habere God hath promised immortality vnto thee when thou departest out of this world and doest thou wauer and doubt thereof This is not to know God this is by the sinne of vnbeliefe to offend Christ the maister of beleeuers 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 beleeued not to beleeue it so he affirmeth is to be without faith in the house of faith God promiseth to thee and doest thou doubt this is not to haue faith Cyprian then teacheth such a confidence in the promises of Christ as is to be without all wauering or doubt Yea saith M. Bishop we are secure on Christes side that he will neuer faile of his word and promise but the cause of feare lies vpon our owne infirmities Thus he is like the mother that strangleth her child so soone as she hath brought it forth He setteth vp confidence with one hand and throweth it downe with another nay he setteth it vp with one hand and throweth it downe with both What is it to vs that Christ is true of his word if we may not beleeue that his word doth appertaine to vs what confidence can it yeeld that Christ faileth not of his promise so long as we must feare least our infirmities disable vs of hauing any part therein And would Cyprian talke so idlely to bid men not wauer or doubt when they might answer they had cause to feare and doubt by reason of their owne infirmities Would he bid men not doubt to go out of the world because of the promise of God when their owne infirmities might be a sufficient cause to make them feare their departure out of this world But Cyprian knew well that we can haue nothing but feare from our selues and therefore teacheth vs to build our selues wholy vpon the promise of God that howsoeuer our owne infirmities doe offer vs occasion of distrust yet resting vpon the truth of God we beleeue with Abraham g Rom. 4.18 vnder hope against hope that God will performe what he hath spoken for his owne 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 Maister Bishop as if they were as likely to be condemned as saued But how so when they see and know in themselues that for which they may be condemned and cannot know any thing whereupon they may rest the hope of saluation For you say Maister Bishop that a man cannot tell whether he haue repentance hope charity praier whether he be iustified and in the state of grace or not and therefore how should he but thinke himselfe 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 feare That one reason whereby you impose feare carieth more sway in the conscience then all those twenty kinds of reasons whereby you perswade hope And when you teach that a man cannot tell whether he haue any hope or not what can there rest but horrour and despaire at leastwise anguish perplexity trembling and feare saue onely in consciences that are benummed and astonished and haue no feeling of themselues In a word in death there can be no hope but setting aside the respect of our selues to depend vpon the promise of God and to say with Hilary out of the Psalme i Hilar. in Psal 51. Spes nostra in miserecordia Domini in secuâ—um in secuâ—â—m seculi Our hope is in the mercy of God for euer and euer 18. W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne partie why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alledge in fauour of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then belike because he knew not how to answer them I will out of their store take that one principall one of the testimonie of holy Scripture and by that alone sufficiently proue that the faith required to Iustification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs Righteousnesse to be ours
How can this be better knowne then if we see weigh and consider well what kind of faith that was which all they had who are sayd in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice Heb. 11.7 which is by faith What faith had he That by Christs Righteousnesse he was assured of Saluation No such matter but beleeued that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of iustice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans What faith he was iustified by let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith Rom. cap. 4. hath these words He contrarie to hope beleeueth in hope that he might be made the father of manie Nations according to that which was sayd vnto him So shall thy seed be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the sea and he was not weakned in faith neither did he consider his owne bodie now quite dead whereas he was almost an hundreth yeares old nor the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but was strengthened in faith giuing glorie to God most fully knowing that whatsoeuer he promised he was able also to do therefore was it reputed to him to iustice Lo because he glorified God in beleeuing that old and barren persons might haue children if God sayd the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe he was iustified The Centurions faith was verie pleasing vnto our Sauiour who sayd in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israel What faith was that Marrie that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Math. 8. Say the word only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers and highly rewarded by our Sauiour was it any other Math. 16. Then that our Sauiour was Christ the Sonne of the liuing God And briefly let S. Iohn that great Secretarie of the holy Ghost tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell These things Iohn 20. saith he are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth verie well Rom. 10. saying This is the word of faith which we preach for if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and shalt beleeue in thy heart that God raised him from death 1. Cor. 15 thou shalt be saued And in another place I make knowne vnto you the Gospell which I haue preached and by which you shall be saued vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vaine What was that Gospell I haue deliuered vnto you that which I haue receiued that Christ died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures was buried and rose againe the third day c. So by the verdite of S. Paul the beleefe of the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which you must be saued And neither in Saint Paul nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught that a particular faith whereby we apply Christs Righteousnesse to our selues and assure our selues of our saluation is either a iustifying or any Christian mans faith but the verie naturall act of that vgly Monster presumption which being layd as the verie corner stone of the Protestants irreligion what morall and modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it R. ABBOT What the reason was why M. Perkins here propounded no obiections of the Papists M. Bishop might haue conceiued because he had a Chap. 3. Of the Certaintie of Saluation before noted and confuted the best that are alledged 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 principall reason is but a verie weake and simple reason The thing that he would proue thereby is that iustifying faith is that Catholike faith as he calleth it whereby we beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed He abuseth the name of Catholike faith whereby hath bene wont to be imported the true and sound doctrine of the Catholike Church comprised in bookes taught in Pulpits and schooles professed by the mouth which a man may preach to others and himselfe be voide of iustifying faith Thus Vigilius saith hauing discoursed of some points of doctrine b Vigil cont Eutych lib. 1. Haec est fides professio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roborauerunt fideles hucusque custodiunt This is the Catholike faith and profession which the Apostles deliuered the Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull keepe vntill this day Iustifying faith is the priuate act of the heart and conscience of the man that is iustified which though it be grounded and built vpon it yet cannot but absurdly be termed the Catholike faith But M. Bishop perhaps by Catholike faith meaneth that iustifying faith whereby he and his fellow Catholikes must hope to be iustified By which meanes he hath matched the diuel with himselfe and his Catholikes and hath made him a Catholike For if it be the only faith of a Catholike to beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed what hindereth the diuell to be a Catholike seeing he beleeueth and to his griefe well knoweth that all is true that is reuealed by God This is that which we rightly call historicall faith the obiect whereof is the word of God in generall and it is no more but credere Deo to beleeue God in that which he speaketh which is incident to diuels and damned men This historicall faith is presupposed and included in iustifying faith but the proper obiect of iustifying saith is c 2. Cor. 5.19 God in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe or the promise of Gods mercie to vs in Christ Iesus whereby we do not onely beleeue the promise in generall to be true but do trust in God and expect good at his hands according to that promise for Christs sake This faith therefore is called d Rom. 3.22 Phil. 3.9 the faith of Christ that is whereby we beleeue in Christ and is further expressed to be e Act. 3.16 faith in his name f Rom. 3.25 faith in his bloud Of which S. Austin saith g August in Ioan. tract 35. Fides Christi est credere in eum qui iustificat impium credere in mediatorem sine quo interposito non reconciliamur Deâ— credere in saluatorem qui venit quod perterat quaerâ—re atque saluare c. The faith of Christ is to beleeue in him that iustifieth the vngodly to beleeue in the Mediator without
we are to be iustified 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 righteousnesse of Christ The righteousnes of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and receiued for our iustification And how should we be o 2. Cor. 5.21 made the righteousnesse of God in him but by apprehending and receiuing a righteousnesse which is in him He is called the p Ierem. 23.6 Lord our righteousnes not who maketh vs righteous only but who himselfe is our righteousnes and how should he be our righteousnes but by his righteousnesse Therefore in apprehending and receiuing Christ by faith we apprehend receiue the righteousnes of Christ to be our iustification before God But I need not stand vpon this for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall proue that we receiue no gift of inherent righteousnesse whereby we can be iustified in the sight of God it followeth as is also proued that the righteousnesse which we receiue by faith for iustification is the merite and obedience of Christ imputed vnto vs. Now M. Bishop telleth vs that he can gather a disproofe of all this out of M. Perkins owne explication For saith he if faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose But such disproofes will make men thinke that he is runne not out of his learning onely but also out of his wits If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins it must be thus If faith be the onely instrument whereby we apprehend Christ what neede we anie Sacraments to offer him vnto vs And why did he not as well say what neede there anie word of God to that purpose for his disproofe standeth as good in the one as in the other But M. Perkins setteth both downe as meanes on Gods part to offer Christ vnto vs not as instruments or meanes on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ and notably obserueth how the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants in the Lords Supper is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and bloud with all his merites to euery of them by faith in him Yea saith M. Bishop but how then are infants iustified who cannot haue any such act of faith I answer him that infants dying are iustified and saued meerely by vertue of the couenant and promise of God to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents and in right whereof they are baptized and entred into the bodie of the Church God hauing sayd q Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed For where the offer of the couenant hath no place there the meanes of acceptance cannot be required but by meere and absolute gift righteousnesse and life are giuen and in the Sacrament sealed vnto them who according to the purpose of the grace of God are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithfull according to the intendment and meaning of the couenant Yet nothing hindereth but that we may conceiue that God calling infants frō hence doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit giue them light of vnderstanding and knowledge and faith of Christ as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enioy for euer Who when he will maketh babes and sucklings to praise him and euen in young children sometimes in our sight sheweth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death far beyond that their yeares are capable of As for infants baptized and continuing to elder yeares they are not alwayes iustified in being baptized but God calleth them some sooner some later some at one houre some at another according to his good will and pleasure and then the medicine long before applied beginneth to worke the effect that doth appertaine vnto it 20. W. BISHOP But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M. Perkins finds fault with it one that we teach faith to go before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Ioh. 6.54 Marrie this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answer that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthily obtaineth thereby life euerlasting as Christ saith expresly in that place And so this proofe is vaine Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they do not beleeue how shall they beleeue without a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterward to call vpon God for mercie and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification This Saint Augustine obserued De praedest sanc cap. 7. De spirit lit cap. 30. when he said Faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest And againe By the Law is knowledge of sinne by faith we obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy writ reade the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were striken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must do who willed them to do penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then lo they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification In like maner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnesse yet was he not iustified Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three dayes passed betwene S. Pauls conuersion and his iustification Act. 9. as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this saies M. Perkins is as much to say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned
example of outward life To inward holinesse 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 adde 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 clense himselfe from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit and finish or perfect his sanctification in the feare of God S. Iohn would not by both those speeches import one thing therfore seeing the latter without doubt importeth inward righteousnesse the other must needs be applied to outward workes As for that of Ecclesiasticus it is nothing to vs who admit no canonicall authority of that booke yet it prooueth nothing for M. Bishop nor against vs the words truly translated being these c Eccles 18.21 deferre not till death to be iustified that is put not off till death to repent to seeke forgiuenesse of thy sinnes according to that which in the former verse he hath said d Ver. 20. Humble thy self before thou be sicke whilest thou maiest yet sinne shew thy conuersion Here is nothing at all to prooue two iustifications in that sence that we here speake of as whereby a man being first iust becoÌ„meth more iust before the iudgement seat of God Increase growth of inherent righteousnesse we ackowledge and require in all faithfull Christians and his paines is idlely bestowed in the proofe thereof We know what our Sauiour saith e Iohn 15.2 Euery 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 Sauiour Iesus 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 endeauour my selfe to that which is before and follow hard towards the mark c. 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 againe i Epist 123. Nolle proficere est deficere not to increase is to decrease k Epist 91. Vbi incipis noâ—e fieri melior 〈◊〉 etiâ—m dâ—sinis esse iâ—â—us where a man beginneth not to care to be better there he giueth ouer being good at all He need not therefore to prooue this matter vnto vs who teach it much more faithfully carefully then they do The place of Iames prooueth no other iustification but what we confesse that is an approouing declaring of his faith and iustification His works are a testimony that the Scripture hath truly rightly said of him l Iam. 2.23 Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnes Now M. Bishop should haue told vs in what other meaning it can be taken that S. Iames saith that in his workes the Scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse For if his workes were but the fulfilling of that Scripture how absurdly doth Maister Bishop go about to prooue in his workes an augmentation of that which by that Scripture is imported formerly to be done If his workes were but the fulfilling of that that was said of his iustification before how doth he thereby seeke to proue a second iustification Now the former testimonie of his iustification is to be considered which was long after Gods first calling of him m Gen. 12. seq when he had shewed his singular faith and obedience vnto God in going out of his owne country at the word of God when he had long called vpon the name of the Lord built many altars vnto him done him much seruice when he had long trauelled from place to place vnder his protection For after all this yet was he not iustified by his workes but onely of his n Gen. 15.6 beleeuing the Lord it is testified that it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse We would haue M. Bishop to tell vs whether Abraham before the time that this testimonie was giuen him were a iustified 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 workes before the first iustification If he were iustified before then it appeareth that to a man already iustified not his workes but his faith is counted for righteousnes and because it cannot be thought that by one meanes he was iustified before and by another now it must needes be that as before to be iustified so now still being iustified his faith is counted to him for righteousnesse according as it is written o Hab. 2.4 The iust shall liue by faith Now if after he were iustified he did continue stil to be iustified by faith then to speake properly as we do of iustification in the sight of God there is one onely iustification whereby a mans p Rom. 4 5. faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse as the Apostle speaketh It must needes therefore follow that S. Iames speaketh of iustification in some other meaning then the Apostle S. Paule doth what that meaning is let him learne not of vs but of the auncient Church q Phot. apud Oecum in Rom. cap. 4. Non habuit Abrahâ—m opera absit Opera siquidem habuit vt si cum hominibus qui simul cum eo versabantur fuisset in iudicio constitutus facilè iustificatus fuisset illisque antepositus verum vt coram Deo ex suis operibus iustificaretur tanquam dignus aequalis sese praebens dignitatis cum ea quae inde praebebatur beneficentia dono nequaquam fuisset illam assecutus Vnde ergo bâ— dignus est habituâ— ex sola fide c. Solutio patet ex bu quomodo hiâ— quidem Paulus ex fide ait iustificatum fuisse Abraham diuus autem Iaâ—obus ex operibus Had Abraham no workes saith Photius God forbid Verily he had workes so as that if he had bene brought in iudgement with the men with whom he liued he had easily bene iustified and preferred before them but that by his workes he should be iustified before God as worthie of the dignitie kindnesse and gift that was yeelded vnto him he would neuer haue attained to it but he had it by faith onely Hereby saith he the resolution is manifest how Saint Paule saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and Saint Iames that he was iustified by workes Here is a plaine distinction and difference deliuered that Saint Paule saith that by faith only a man is iustified before God but that it is before men with men that S. Iames meaneth a man is iustified by workes And this
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 cleering 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 onely the faith was more plainely and cleerly deliuered by them because as S. Austin saith ſ August de catech rud In veteri testamēto est ocultatio noui in nouo 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 Ioan. tra 45. Tempora variata sunt nō fides c. Eadem fides vtrosque contungit The times saith he are diuers 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 deliuered in the new and no other faith is taught in the new Testament then 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 vs 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 onely 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 writtē all the rest of his epistles as we may easily conceiue neither is it likely but that the gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke with the Acts of the Apostles were written before that time the first by S. Mathew being testified to be written at the time of Pauls first imprisonment at Rome x Jren. li. 3. ca. 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorū lingua scripturā edidit Euangelij cum Petrus et Paulus Romae euangelizarent 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 lōg after the beginning of the raigne of Nero the Apostle liued for the space of 12. or 13. yeares being put to death in the y Func Chronol 14. yeare of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest because he died z Hierō in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno sepultus Alexandriae in the 8. yeare of Nero as Hierome testifieth six yeares before S. Pauls death and therfore before the writing of this epistle The like also is plaine 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 secōd 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 downe 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 speake of those bookes vnlesse 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 frō a child we do not meane to restraine his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child but will signifie his knowledge also of such lawes as haue bin since made euen so when the Apostle saith that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child he would giue to vnderstād that he was conuersant not only in the Scriptures that then were but also in such other as frō time to time thenceforward were written for the same vse Nay who would make question but that the Apostle setting downe by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture would hereby giue vs to vnderstand what to conceiue of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing to take away the euidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle and the Protestants Achilles is stronger then that he may take vpon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith But yet well fare a good stomacke for though he haue said as good as nothing yet he setteth a good face vpon the matter and concludeth this point with an inuincible argument like the inuincible nauie of Spaine Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture Very true But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needful to saluation as hath bene proued But that is not true the proofes that it doth so are pregnant and cleere but his proofes to the contrary are childish and vaine and therefore his conclusion cannot hold In steed therefore of his presumed and inuisible argument we wish him to consider of this Whatsoeuer the written word teacheth vs of it selfe that is necessary to be beleeued But the written word teacheth vs concerning it selfe that it is able to make vs wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus It is necessarie therefore for vs to beleeue that it can so and therefore to reiect all doctrine that cannot be approoued and warranted thereby 10. W. BISHOP And by the same principle I might reiect all testimonie of Antiquity as needlesse if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs heare what testimonie M. Perkins brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause Tertullian * De resur carni◠saith Take from heretikes 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 euery one may see vnto the writings of heathen authors and not to the traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saith M. Perkins out of the same author We need no curiositie after Iesus Christ nor inquisition after the Gospell when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for this we must beleeue that there is nothing else which we may beleeue Answer By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onely the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles no more then traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If any man
yet I beleeue that the authoritie of the words of God should be most cleare concerning them if man without damage of saluation promised might not be ignorant thereof In which words wee see Saint Austine mentioning difficult and hard questions but we see withall that he denieth the determining of any such without assured and cleare testimonies of holy Scripture affirming that he beleeueth that there should be cleare authoritie of Gods word for the deciding of them if man and not onely simple men without losse of saluation might not be without knowledge of them Hereby then he most euidently testifieth that whatsoeuer is necessarie for the saluation of mankind hath cleere and euident testimonie 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 deale to make his Reader beleeue that Saint Austine sayth for him that the resolution of harder points and difficulties which yet the learned must expresly beleeue are not contained in the Scriptures But yet he telleth vs that that is also gathered out of many other places of his workes and yet out of all those places alledgeth not any part or point of doctrine which Austine himselfe doth not vndertake to iustifie by the Scriptures It hath beene before declared that when wee say that all matters of doctrine and faith are contained in the Scripture wee vnderstand as the auncient 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 deriued 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 denie but what are not written we reiect and yet in the same booke he saith also that it is g Jbid. Sanctae Scripturae idioma c. ea de quibus posset ambigi si noÌ„ fuissent scripta signari caetera verò nostrae intelligentiae derelinqui the propertie of the holy Scripture that those things whereof there might be doubt if they were not written are set downe but other things are left to our vnderstanding to collect and gather them thereby And in this sence Saint Austine saith h August cont Maxim Arian lib. 3. cap 3. Ex ijs quae legimus aliquae etiam quae legimus intelligimus By those things which we reade we vnderstand some things also which we do not reade Thus doth the same Saint Austine sometimes say that the Church receiueth some things that are not written not that those things are not to be proued and defended by the Scriptures but onely 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 Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes For although Saint Austine say that i Jdem de Bapt. contra Donatist l. 5. cap. 23. Apostoli nihil exinde praeceperunt sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eoruÌ„ traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est the Apostles commaunded nothing thereof but that the custome which was opposed to Cyprian was to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall tradition yet he himselfe disputeth that point against the Donatists continually by the Scripture refuseth to haue the matter decided but onely by the Scripture and in the first propounding thereof sayth very plainly to them k Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 7. Ne humanis argumentis id agere videar c. ex Euangelio profero ceriae documenta quibus demonstro quà m rectè placuerit verè secundum DeuÌ„ vt hoc in quoquaeÌ„ schismatico vel heretico ecclesiastica medicina curaret in quo vulnere separabatur illud auteÌ„ quod sanuÌ„ maneret agnituÌ„ potiùs approbaretur quà m improbatuÌ„ vulneraretur That I seeme not to deale by humane arguments namely for that a generall Councell hath so confirmed I bring assured proofes out of the Gospell whereby I shew how rightly and truly according to God it thus seemed good to them that ecclesiasticall medicine should cure that in an hereticke or schismaticke wherein he is wounded and separated from the Church â—ut that which remaineth sound should rather be acknowledged and approued then by being disallowed should be wounded To omit many other places that might be alledged to the same purpose soone after the words alledged by M. Bishop he saith thus l Ibid. lib 5. cap 23. Contrae maendatuÌ„ Dei est quòd venientes ab haereticis si illic baptismuÌ„ Christi acceperunt baptizantur quia sanctaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ testimonijs pianè ostenditur c. It is against the commaundement of God that men comming from heretickes should be baptized if there they haue receiued the Baptisme of Christ because by testimonies of holy Scripture it is plainly shewed thus and thus Literally therefore and as touching matter of fact and example Saint Austine speaketh of it as not written in the Scripture but by Tradition so accustomed because there is nothing expresly mentioned thereof but yet sheweth that therefore this Tradition was accepted and approoued because by testimonies of Scripture it was confirmed to be right m Ibidem lib. 4. cap. 7 Quia benè perspectis ex vtroque litere disputationis rationibus Scripturarum testimonijs potest etiam dici Quod veritas declarauit hoc sequimur because the reasons and testimonies of Scripture being well considered on both sides of that controuersie it might be said What the truth hath declared that we follow And thus it is true which S. Austine addeth in the place cited n Lib. 5. cap. 23. Sicut sunt multa quae vniuersa 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 beleeued to haue come froÌ„ the Apostles albeit they be not found set downe in Scripture because they be not namely word for word set down in Scripture albeit they be to be iustified by those things that are there set downe Of this kind is that which M. Bishop nameth in the next place of the custome of the church in baptizing infants which Austin saith o De Genes ad liter lib. 10. cap. 23. Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio is to be beleeued to be no other but an Apostolike tradition and we also acknowledge no lesse But what did Austin hold it a traditioÌ„ that could not be proued and warranted by the scripture Nothing lesse For he himselfe against the Pelagian heretikes proueth the necessitie thereof by the Scriptures p August epist 89. Dicunt infantem morte praeuentum non baptizatum perire non posse quoâ—â—am
found all things belonging to our faith and conuersation of life and thereby leaueth no place to M. Bishops matters of faith that are not contained in the written word 13. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his last testimonie is taken out of Vincentius Lyrinensis who saith as he reporteth that the canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient for all things Answ I think that there is no such sentence to be found in him the says by way of obiection What need we make recourse vnto the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but through all his booke he proues out the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sence and interpretation of the Catholike Church R. ABBOT The words of Vincentius are vttered first by way of obiection thus a Vincen. Lyrin Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis supèrque sufficiat quid opus est vt et Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae â—ungatur authoritas Some man happely may ask seeing the Canon of Scriptures is perfect and in it selfe abundantly sufficient for all matters what needeth it that the authority of Ecclesiastical vnderstanding shold be ioyned vnto it He hath taught a man in the words before to ground and settle his faith b Duplici modo fidem munire primo diuinae legis authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione first by the authoritie of the law of God and then by the tradition of the Catholike Church meaning by tradition as appeareth the interpretation or exposition of Scripture deliuered by the Church not any matters of doctrine to be receiued beside the Scripture Hereupon he asketh the question seeing the Scripture is abundantly sufficient what need is there to adde the tradition of the Church taking it for a thing receiued and by all men approued that the Scripture in it selfe is abundantly sufficient to instruct vs euery way and in all things belonging to faith and godlinesse and therefore making it a doubt why the other should be needfull And that we may vnderstand that he meant it not only by way of obiection but positiuely in the repeating of the same points afterwards he setteth downe this exception and reason c Jbid. Non quia canon solas non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina plerique pro suo arbitratis interpretantes varias opiniones erroresque concipiant Not but that the Canon alone is in it selfe sufficient for all things but because many interpreting the words of God as they list do conceiue diuers opinions and errors there from M. Bishops answer then is false that Vincentius affirmeth not that the Scriptures be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion for Vincentius affirmeth it peremptorily and therefore teacheth vs to shun them who after the Scriptures and interpretation thereof teach vs that there are yet other matters of Christian doctrine and faith that are not contained in the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that through all his booke he proues the contrary But what is that contrary Marry that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church Whereby we see that either he hath not read that booke of Vincentius or doth impudently falsifie that which he hath read True it is that Vincentius in respect that heretikes do often very guilefully alledge the Scriptures and wrest them to the maintenance and defence of their new deuices doth referre a man for his safetie to the iudgement and resolution of the Catholicke church not as they loudly beare vs in hand of the church of Rome as if by it the Catholike Church were to be vnderstood but so as d Vt id teneamus quod vbique quod semper quod a omnibus credituÌ„ est hoc est etenim verè proprièque CatholicuÌ„ quod ipsa vis nominis raâ—ieque declarat quae omnia verè vniuersaliter comprebendit that we hold that which hath bene beleeued euery where and alwaies and of all for this saith he is truly and properly Catholike as the nature and signification of the word declareth which indeed comprehendeth vniuersally all Hereto he frameth those rules of antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent idlely bragged of many times by the Papists when as according to the declarations of Vincentius they are not able to make good any one point of their doctrine oppugned by vs but in diuers and sundry points are conuicted thereby But the matter that toucheth M. Bishop very neerly is the restraint and limitation of this rule which he saith is e Quae tamen antiquae sanctorum Patrum consensio non in omnibus diuinae legis quaestiunculis sed solùm certè praecipuè in fidei regula mag no nobis studio inuestigandae sequenda est not to be followed in all questions of the word of God but onely or chiefly in the rule of faith whereby he meaneth those things that concerne the articles of the Creed f In ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus tetius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur in those questions as he repeateth afterwards vpon which the foundations of the whole Catholike faith do rest It is vntrue then which M. Bishop saith that Vincentius holdeth no heresie to be suppressed or confuted but by the tradition of the Catholike Church when as he applieth his rule only or at least chiefly to those heresies which touch the maine pillars foundations of Christian faith And it is yet further vntrue because Vincentius further addeth that g Sed neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt sed nouitiae recentesquè tantummodo cùm primum scilitet exoriuntur antequam infalsarint vetustae fidei regulas ipsius temporis vetentur augustijs ac priusquam mananie latùs veneno maiorum volumina vitiare conentur Caeterùm si dilatatae inueteratae hareses nequaquam hac via aggrediendae sunt eò quòd prolixo ten porum tractu longa ijs furandae veritatis patuerit occasio Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores vel schismatum vel haereseoÌ„n prophanitatet nullo modâ— nos oportet nisi aut sola si opus est Scripturarum authoritate conuincere aut certè iam antiquitùs vniuersalibus sacerdotum Catholicorum Concilijs conuictas damnatásque vitare neither alwayes nor yet all heresies are to be impugned in that sort but onely those that are new and fresh namely when as they first spring vp before they haue falsified the rules of auncient faith and are therein hindered by the straitnesse of the time and before the poison spreading further abroad they labor to corrupt the bookes of the auncient Fathers But heresies
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
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 haue heard him before saying that h Cap. 26.22 he spake nothing beside those things which Moses and the Prophets did say should be Now all the doctrine of the Gospell that is set downe 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 deliuered to the Thessalonians were wholy 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 Gospell which we find set downe in writing by the Euangelists and by himselfe other the Apostles in their Epistles to other Churches In his former Epistle to the Thessalonians he did not set downe that whole doctrine which is written by them Now we cannot make question but that his meaning was to exhort them to perseuere in the whole as in those things which he expressed in his Epistle so in the rest also which we find written by himselfe and others Therefore the traditions or things deliuered by word haue a necessarie and vndeniable construction of all the rest of the written doctrine of the Gospell that is not set downe 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 euict that he intended any thing that is written no where Because therefore we haue a meaning of the wordes whereof we are certaine and sure we rest there and list not to admit a further meaning whereof we can haue no assurance As for that which he cauilleth of whether Paule in his Epistles wrote all that he preached by word I answer him that he wrote the effect and vse of all but not all whereof that vse is to be made because many things are written by the Euangelists necessarie for the vse of Christian faith which are not written in the Epistles of Saint Paule though by him they were deliuered to the Churches to which he preached But though he wrote not all that was needfull to be written yet we beleeue the testimony that he hath giuen in that Epistle which he wrote last euen a little before his death when almost al the bookes of the new Testament were now written that i 2. Tim. 3.15 the Scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus and therefore that what by him and others there is so much written as concerneth vs to know for our instruction in the religion and faith of Iesus Christ Now whereas M. Bishop to proue the contrarie alledgeth the expositions of some of the Fathers concerning those wordes of the Apostle to the Thessalonians I may well answer him as Austine answered Hierome pressing him in the like sort with the names of sundry of the Fathers that were before theÌ„ k Aug. Epist 19 Ad ipsum confugio ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum eius tractatoribus prouoco I flie to Paul himselfe to him I appeale from all expositors of his writings that thinke otherwise He hath told vs that the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation therfore we do not beleeue theÌ„ that tell vs that his meaning is in the other place that we haue need of traditions beside the Scripture for supply of that wisedom Yea their collection as M. Bishop conceiueth of it cannot stand good It appeareth by those words of the Apostle that he deliuered more to the Thessalonians by word then is contained in his former Epistle to theÌ„ but it doth not therfore follow that he deliuered more vnto theÌ„ then is coÌ„tained in the Scriptures No reason can there be deuised to make good this coÌ„nexioÌ„ But to examine theÌ„ particularly first we may not thinke Chrysostome so forgetfull as that he should crosse that which in the very next Homily before he hath said l Chrysost in 2. Thess hom 3. Omnia clara sunt plaâ—a ex Scripturis diuinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt All things are cleare and euident by the holy Scriptures whatsoeuer things are necessarie they are manifest Surely if any thing be to be cleared by tradition beside the Scripture then it cannot be said that all necessarie things are manifest by the Scriptures And therefore whereas he saith Hereby it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnwritten and both the one and the other are alike to be beleeued we must vnderstand 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 haue bene baptized by heretikes and the administring of the Lords supper onely by the Minister and such like haue bene alwaies 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 Chrysostome requireth a man to submit himself in peace to that which the Church practiseth being grounded vpon the Scripture and not contentiously to wrangle against it because it is not in very words contained therein But if any tradition be vrged vpon vs that hath no ground or warrant from the Scripture good reason we aske as Cyprian did of Stephanus m Cyprian ad Pomp. supra Sect. 5. Whence is this tradition Cometh it from the authoritie of Christ or of the Gospell 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 Euangelio praecipitur aut Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur obseruetur certè haec sancta traditio Therefore if this tradition be commanded in the Gospell or in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles let it be obserued and kept for holy Whereby he will haue it vnderstood that if it be not there warranted it is not to be obserued The tradition which he there impugneth is taught indeed by the Gospell though he conceiued not so but hereby he teacheth vs that it was to stand for a certaine rule that no tradition could be iustly approued without warrant of the Gospell And therefore Chrysostome himselfe also teacheth vs otherwhere that n Chrysost in Psal 95. Siquid dicitur absque Scripturis auditorum cogitatio claudicatâ— vbi verò ex Scripturis diuinae vocit prodijt testimonium
to be accounted of as those are to which Christ hath giuen witnesse by his owne word No otherwise therefore could he conceiue of the booke of Wisedome being of the same kinde and that he did so it plainly appeareth for that of that and the booke of Ecclesiasticus it was that he said that which before I mentioned that the bookes which are not in the canon of the Iewes are not alledged with so great authority against them that say against vs. And that this booke was not receiued in the Church as a booke of diuine authoritie appeareth by the very place which Maister Bishop citeth where it is shewed that Saint Austine citing a testimonie out of the said booke exception was taken against it c Aug. de praeâ—â— sanct cap. 14. Quod à me positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis tanquam non de libro canonico adhibituÌ„ For that it was taken out of a booke that was not canonicall S. Austine indeede pleadeth earnestly to gaine credit to it and alledgeth that of long time it had bene accustomed to be read in the Church and men had vsed to cite the testimonie of it as diuine but yet could not expresly say that euer it was reckoned for a Canonicall booke And as for those arguments M. Bishop is deceiued to thinke that they could proue it to be Canonicall because the booke of d Ruffinan exposit symb the Pastour was in like sort read in the Church as Ruffinus beareth witnesse in the place before alledged and yet was not accounted canonicall Scripture and Cyril and Ambrose cite the bookes of Esdras by the name of e Cyril cont Iulian lib. 1. Sic ait Scriptura diuinitùs inspirata c. Ambros de obitu frat Prophetico sermone dicitur c. â—epeto sacro Scriptura solatia tua de bono mort cap. 11 Ait propheta ad angelum c. holy Scripture and inspired of God and Ambrose calleth him by the name of a Prophet whereas Hierome calleth those bookes f Hieron praefat in Esdram Nehem. Nec apocryphorum tertij quarti libri sâ—mnijs delectetur dreames and wisheth no man to be delighted with them They vsed these bookes in their Sermons casually as we do thinking it not materiall to cite them for exhortation to the people howsoeuer they held them not of sufficient authority otherwise Therefore they cited them with condition sometimes g Hieron ad furiam Legunus in Iudith sicut tamen placet volumen recipere if we will receiue such or such a booke as Hierome doth the booke of Iudith and h Origen in Math. tract 30. Si recipitur liber qui dicit quoniaÌ„ sapientia est quae facta est populo columna nubis c. Origen the booke of Wisedome of which we here speake By these things therfore it is plaine enough that though Austin were not willing that authority should in that sort be detracted from any booke that was receiued publikely to be read in the Church yet that he was well able to discerne and so did which bookes were of diuine and infallible authority and which were to be accounted of inferiour and lesser worth iudging thereof in effect no otherwise then we do Now from this M. Bishop goeth to another cauill at that that M. Perkins saith that a man to come to know the Scriptures to be of God must first take and beleeue them so to be He saith that the mans wits were from home in so discoursing but the cause is because his wits serue him not to conceiue that which M. Perkins saith Very well and truly doth Saint Austine obserue that i Aug. in Ioan. tract 29. Jntellectus merces est fidei ergoâ—oli quaerere intelligere vt credas sed â—rede vt intelligas vnderstanding is the reward of faith Seeke not therefore saith he to vnderstand that thou maiest beleeue but first beleeue that thou maiest vnderstand He gathereth it from that which the Disciples say k Iohn 6.69 We beleeue and know that thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God They first beleeue and in beleeuing they learne to know The beliefe of which Maister Perkins speaketh is the beliefe of a learner of whom in matters of other knowledge they are woont to say Oportet discentem credere the learner must beleeue There are in all Arts and Sciences certaine propositions and principles which the learner first accepteth vpon 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 thinke him beside himselfe and by no meanes yeeld to him as knowing that certainly now which he did at first beleeue Euen so is it in this case a man hauing it wrought out of his owne conscience that there is a God to whom honour and worship and seruice is due and that this God vndoubtedly hath some way reuealed wherein that honour and worship doth consist betaketh himselfe vpon the testimonie 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 vnto him and saith l Psal 48.7 Like as we haue heard so haue we seene in the Citie of our God And as the Samaritans being drawn to Christ by the report of the woman after they had seene and heard him say m Iohn 4.42 Now we beleeue not because of thy saying for we haue heard him our selues and know that this is indeede the Messias the Sauiour of the world so this man being first brought to the Scriptures by the report of the Church and thereby beleeuing the same to be of God doth by his owne experience afterwards fully apprehend the truth and certainty of that report yea more then was reported so that he saith n Origen in CaÌ„t. hom 2. Per illos quidem audiui ad te autem veni tibi credidi apud queÌ„ muliò plura viderunt oculi mei quà m annunciabantur mihi By them I heard of thee and I came to thee and haue beleeued thee with whom mine eies haue seene much more then before was told me Therefore he resteth not his faith now vpon the Church but vpon God himselfe so that though the Church should slide backe and denie that which it hath before affirmed yet he standeth secure and chooseth rather to die a thousand times then to forgoe the comfort and hope that he hath conceiued by the Scriptures which were at first deliuered vnto him by the Church Thus Christian people haue beene woont to receiue the Scriptures of the hands of the Church wherein they haue liued without seeking any further approbation and warrant thereof because in the vse of them they haue giuen a sufficient warrant and testimonie of themselues So then we rest not the Scriptures vpon the discerning of priuate spirits as Maister Bishop idlely and vainely
words among all when they should translate in all and the Adiectiue being put without a Substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it and not men wherefore the text being sincerely put into English it would carry no colour of their error For the Apostles saying is Let mariage be honorable in all things and the bed vndefiled Here is no willing of any man to marry but onely a commaundement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage to keepe as elsewhere he saith their vessels in sanctification and not in dishonor and then shall their mariage be honorable in all things that is in all points appertaining to matrimonie so that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the vow of chastitie R. ABBOT A double corruption saith M. Bishop and yet there is neither of them to be seene and vnlesse we wil take his simple word he is able to proue none First he blameth vs for saying Mariage is honorable telling vs that we should rather say Let mariage be honorable and seeth not in the meane time that our translation is implied in his owne for why should the Apostle say Let mariage be honorable but because it is so as if he should say let it be so reckoned of as it is a thing honorable amongst all But without any implicatioÌ„ the latter part of the sentence being affirmatiue sheweth that the Apostle meant to speake affirmatiuely in the former also In this sort S. Austine conceiued the Apostles meaning who mentioning the good things that are in mariage due order of generation fidelity of chastity and the sacred bond of mariage it selfe addeth a August cont Pelag. Celest lib. 2. cap. 34. Propter haec omnia honorabiles nuptiae in omnibus thorus immaculatus In all these respects mariage is honorable in all and the bed is vndefiled So also Chrysostom vnderstandeth it as we translate it that the Apostle b Chrysostom ad Heb. hom 33. Cùm posuisset honorabile coniugium thoruÌ„ immaculatum ostendat quod meritò inferat quae sequuntur setteth downe that mariage is honorable in all So likewise Theophylact rendereth the words affirmatiuely c Theoph. in Heb. 13. Connubium honorabile est honore dignum est Mariage is honorable mariage is worthy of honor and in the very same sort d Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 8. Paphnutius in the Councel of Nice and the e Sext. Synod can 13. Fathers and Bishops of the sixt Synod in Trullo cite it as an affirmatiue speech Mariage is honorable in all and therfore we reiect M. Bishops assertion as childish and vaine that this cannot be the course of the Apostles speech The sentences before and after are vttered according as the matter requireth but it more fitteth here for the inferring of the latter part of the verse that the Apostle say affirmatiuely Mariage is honorable then Let it so be that fornicators and adulterers may vnderstand themselues to be without excuse in that mariage is appointed as an honorable state and remedy for the auoiding of such sinne And thus doth Chrysostome tie the two parts of the verse together f Chrys vt supra Si enim connubium concessum est iustè scortator supplicijs afficitur For if mariage be granted then the fornicator is iustly punished So Oecumenius g Oecumen in Heb. cap. 13. NaÌ„ si coniugium permissum est sine peccato licet ad explendae concupiscentiam quis erit excusationis praetextus scortatoribus adulteris For if mariage be permitted and be lawfull without sin to satisfie concupiscence what pretence of excuse shall there be for fornicators and adulterers The former part of the sentence then is an assertioÌ„ that mariage is permitted is lawful without sin Yea but then saith M. Bishop we must take him to say that the bed also is vndefiled amongst all which saith he is not true But he should haue told vs why it is not true where if he had answered that the bed of mariage is not vndefiled amoÌ„gst all because some pollute it by adultery and whoredom it would haue appeared that his vnderstanding was very short that could not conceiue that the Apostle telleth vs what the mariage bed is of it selfe not what it becometh by the vsage of it He saith elsewhere h 1. Cor. 3 17. The temple of God is holy which ye are and yet withall he saith If any man destroy the temple of God him will God destroy as giuing to vnderstand that the vncleannesse of men may defile that which God hath made holy So is it in this case the bed of mariage is holy and vndefiled God reputeth no vncleannes or pollution to it It is lawfull without sinne as Oecumenius hath before expounded it * Primaes in Heb. 13. Immaculatus lectustimmaculati illi inde surgentes hoc est maculam peccati iâ—de non trahentes They that rise from it are vndefiled saith Primasius not drawing from thence any spot of sinne but the vncleannesse is when the bed of mariage is made the bed of adultery and mans filthinesse polluteth that which God hath sanctified In a word that which the Apostle saith of all the creatures of God is to be applied to the mariage bed it is i Tit. 1.15 cleane to them that are cleane that is to them who by chast conuersation preserue in it that holinesse and honour that God hath attributed vnto it Now by that that hath bene said appeareth the vanitie of his second cauill where he saith that in steed of in all things we say amongst all or amongst al men The greek words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in all and the sentence being so read Mariage is honorable in all what else doth it sound but mariage is honorable in all men And this is indeed the true and proper translating of the words for we in reading amongst all do disaduantage our selues by not expressing literally the words of the Apostle For we know that that may be honorable amongst all which yet all are not capable of The calling of the minister and of the magistrate is honorable amongst all but yet all cannot be ministers and magistrates But the Apostle saith that mariage is honorable in all to signifie that it is a state of life which God hath instituted to be free for al men And that this is the true meaning of the Apostle appeareth by that that hath bin before said For if these words do serue to bereaue fornicators and adulterers of all pretence of excuse then they must be so taken as that fornicators and adulterers must vnderstand that they appertaine to them And how shall they vnderstand that the words do appertain to them vnles we take them in this sort that mariage is honorable in all men for otherwise they may haply say
verie shamefull and miserable shifts to giue shew of answer to it Do thou learne hereby to loue the truth which thus triumpheth in the aduersaries owne campe and euen in their owne bookes insulteth ouer them whilest either perforce they subscribe it or shew themselues so exceedingly distressed to resist or stand against it Take no offence whosoeuer thou art at the continuance of this fight because the order must stand which God set downe in the beginning betwixt the Woman and the Serpent a Gen. 3.15 I will put enmitie betwixt her and thee betwixt her seede and thy seede and therefore there shall neuer want b 2. Thess 3.2 absurd or vnreasonable men * 1. Tim. 4.2 hauing their consciences seared with a hote Iron with whom no euidence of truth shall preuaile to make them desist from oppugning the seede that is contrarie to them The beginning of which absurditie is to be seene in wicked Cain towards his brother Abel whom the voice of God personally speaking to him could not diuert from that malice whereby hee had intended the destruction of his brother The succession whereof we may behold in the Scribes and Pharisees and Elders of the Iewes whom neither the innocencie of the life of Christ neither the authoritie of his doctrine neither the glory of his miracles nor any euidence of the hand of God working with him could any way moue but that they were stil cauilling and quarelling against him stil accusing and condemning him and neuer ceasing euen against their owne consciences to fight against him What maruell is it then that the voice of God speaking to vs in the scriptures and testifying what the faith and religion is that we are to yeeld vnto him doth not end the quarel and appease the fury of our aduersaries against vs but that in a mad conceit of themselues and of their Church they go on still to make of religion what they list and with impudent faces labour to perswade men that howsoeuer in plaine words the Scriptures seeme to make for vs yet in meaning they are against vs. And surely incredible it were but that we see it that men hauing vse of wit and will should dare in that sort as they do to mocke and delude the word of God At their pleasure they bring in their abhominations into the Church and when the Scriptures are alledged against them they tell vs by lame distinctions which stand one legge in the Scriptures the other quite beside that the Scriptures meane thus or thus but in no sort touch that which is done by them though the verie letter of the text do apparently contradict them As if the adulterer should say that the Scripture condemneth not his adulterie with a Christian woman but onely that which is with Infidels and Pagans or the drunkard should alledge that it meaneth nothing of his drunkennesse but onely of the drunkennesse of them who haue not wherewith to maintaine their drinking How many distinctions haue they whereof there is no greater reason to be giuen then may be giuen of these answers Now what heresie what idolatrie what damnable fancies haue there euer beene in the world which may not finde meanes for their defence if this licencious kinde of distinctions and deuices may take place If these mockeries be deemed intolerable in the laws of men what impiety what wickednesse is it thus to dally with and to mocke the word of God But the light of the Scripture doth plainly discouer the vanitie of these shifts and that is the cause why they hate and shun the Scriptures as the theefe doth the gallowes and the Beare the stake What a worke do they make how many deuices do they vse how readie are they to apprehend euery pretence to discourage the people from medling with the Scriptures and to breed in them an vncertaintie and doubt of resting their faith there But there is no cause for thee to be moued at such bugs and scar-crowes wherewith these malignant aduersaries seeke to fright thee out of the garden of Iesus Christ desiring to haue thee rather to continue vpon their stinking dunghils then to gather the sweete and delightsome flowers that yeeld the sauour of life vnto eternall life Assure thy selfe that the most absolute assurance of truth is in the voice of truth it selfe and thou mayst be secure that howsoeuer men may speake partially and may deceiue thee yet God who speaketh to thee in the Scriptures which the aduersary himselfe dareth not denie will neuer deceiue thee They pretend great difficulties and obscurities in the holy Scriptures but is it a reason for thee to forbeare to drinke and to wash thy selfe in the shallow places of the riuers of God because there are also gulfes and depthes the bottome 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 Austine d Idē de doct Christ lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae apertae posita sunt in Scripturis inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi In which are contained or found all things that belong to faith and behauiour of life God speaketh as a familiar friend without glosing or guile to the hart both of the learned vnlearned e Hieron in Psal 86. Non vt pauci intelligerent sed vt omnes not that a few saith Hierome but that all may vnderstand the Scripture being f Gregor ad Leand. de exposit lib. Iob. Fluuius in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet a riuer saith Gregorie wherein both the lambe may wade and the Elephant may swimme g August de vtil cred ca 6. Planè ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum deuotè ac pie vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof being so tempered saith Saint Austine againe as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him so that he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do When they then seeke to barre thee from the vse of this heauenly light what canst thou conceiue but that they are the agents and factors of the Prince of darknesse The h Tertul. contra Marcion Sepia or Cuttle-fish Tertullian saith when he is in danger to be taken casteth about him a blacke inkie matter wherewith he darkeneth the water that the fisherman cannot see him What is the reason why those men in that sort seeke to compasse themselues about with the blacke and dark clouds of ignorance of the scriptures but that their owne consciences tel them that their deuotions must needs be descried to be superstitious and damnable if they come to be viewed and surueyed by
the reseruing of temporall satisfaction he hath shewed himselfe a most prudent redeemer as if his foolish braines were the measure of the wisedome of Christ or the selfe-will conceipts of carnall men were to determine the power and effect of the crosse of Christ Christ is z Ioh. 1.29 the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world and if he take away our sinnes then they remaine not by vs to be satisfied for The forgiuenesse of our sinnes by Christ is a 2. Cor. 5.19 the not imputing of our sinnes 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 vnto Christ as members to the head We must c 2. Tim. 2.12 suffer with Christ that we may raigne with Christ But what of this We denie not but that by suffering when God will and as he will we must be conformed to Christ our head but we deny this conformitie in suffering to be any satisfaction for our sinnes Which as it hath no shew of proofe out of those words of the Apostle so that it cannot otherwise bee proued shall be shewed 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 reserue to his mother the blessed Virgin their Queene of heauen an authoritie to rule him and commaund him there This M. Bishop thinketh to be a matter of simplicitie in M. Perkins that he should thinke it a magnifying of Christ to acknowledge Christ a Mediatour of intercession whereas they make him as hee telleth vs no Mediator of intercession but a redeemer Now in this we see his honest mind that he is loth that M. Perkins should say better of them then they deserue and will haue vs to know that they bereaue Christ of one speciall part of his office and Priesthood which is to make intercession for vs. The reason is because they must haue a dignitie belonging to the Saints and therefore because they know not how to doe it otherwise they diuide the office of Christs mediation reseruing vnto Christ though not that wholy neither to be our Mediator of redemption do assigne the mediatorship of intercession to the Saints And yet the Scripture expresly telleth vs that Christ d Rom. 8. â—4 sitteth at the right hand of God to make intercession for vs that e Heb. 7.25 he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him seeing hee euer liueth 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 vt sacerdâ—s nostâ—r orat in nobis vt caput nostrum oratur à nobis vt Deus noster Christ prayeth for vs and prayeth in vs and is prayed vnto of vs. He prayeth for vs as our Priest he prayeth in vs as our head he is prayed vnto of vs as our God Yea he sayth that g Jn Psal 64. Solus ibi ex his quâ— carnem gustauerunt iâ—terpellâ—â— pro nobis in heauen Christ alone of them that haue bene partakers of flesh maketh intercession for vs insomuch that h Câ—nt epist Parâ—â—en li. 2. ca 8. Si Joanâ—es â—ta diceret siquis peccauerit aduocatumâ—ne habe â—is apud patrem ego exore pro pâ—â—catâ—s vestris quis eum sicut disâ—â—pulum Câ—risti non sicut Antichristum ipsum iniueretur if S. Iohn should haue sayd If any man sinne ye haue me for an aduocate with the father I make intercession for your sinnes he should haue bene holden not for a Disciple of Christ but rather for Antichrist himselfe Thus he doth not onely make Christ our Mediator of intercession but also the onely Mediator of intercession and therefore condemneth M. Bishop of wicked sacriledge that taketh away this part of his office from him to bestow it vpon the Saints But this prayer and intercession Christ performeth not now by vocall words as in the time of his humiliation here vpon the earth neither doth he infinitely busie himself by renewing his petitions supplications to the Father when we call vpon him but his intercession for vs is his i Heb. 9.24 appearing in the sight of God for vs whereby as k Cyprian ser de bapt Christi manifestat Trâ—nit the sacrifice which he offered vpon the crosse is no lesse effectuall now then it was the day when water and bloud issued out of his wounded side still requiring our saluation as the reward of his obedience euen so the voyce of his intercession in the dayes of his flesh still soundeth aloud in the eares of God and by the power thereof both we our selues and all our prayers and requests are most effectually recommended to his mercie Therefore we do not now pray to him to pray for vs but we l Iohn 16.23 aske the father in his name as he himselfe hath taught vs presenting still the memorie of the merit and intercession that he hath performed for vs. And because m Iohn 5 27. the father hath giuen him power to execute iudgement euen as he is the sonne of man euen n Mat. 28.18 all power both in heauen and earth and o Ephes 1.22 hath made all things subiect vnder his feete and set him as head and ruler ouer all things to the behoofe of his Church therefore we do not onely pray to the Father but we pray to him also euen as he is the sonne of man we do not onely p Bernard super Misâ—us est Hom. 3. Jpsum oculâ—s patris ipsum offeramus suis offer or present him to his Fathers eyes but we present him also to his owne eyes that for that intercessions sake which q August in Psal 34. In meipso humanitas in meipso diuinitatem interpellat in himselfe as man he made to himselfe as God he will both God and man bee mercifull vnto vs. As for M. Bishops Metaphysicall or rather Nestorian-like and heretical conceipt of singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuinitie to make it an intercessor for vs let him burie it in his owne braines where it was bred but for vs we know that to pray to Christ to be our intercessor to the Father according to that he promiseth r Iohn 14.16 I will pray the Father and he shall giue you another Comforter doth no more require the singling or separating of the manhood from the Godhead then do all other his workes for our reconciliation vnto God in which the vnion of two natures doth alwayes giue force and strength to that which is properly acted but in one W. BISHOP And to come to your grieuous complaint that withall his Mother must be Queene of heauen and by right of a
of her my people Forsake the enemies of the Romane Church And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours who drew out her most pure bloud so let vs flie in matters of faith and religion from all heretikes that of late also spared not to shed abundance of the same most innocent bloud vnlesse to your greater condemnation you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes and receiue of her plagues And because I purpose God willing not onely to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholike doctrine but somewhat also in euery Chapter to fortifie and confirme it I will here deliuer what some of the most ancient most learned and most holy Fathers doe teach concerning ioyning with the Church and Pope of Rome from whose societie Protestants labour tooth and naile to withdraw vs. And because of this we must treat more amply in the question of supremacie I will vse here their authoritie onely whom M. Perkins citeth against vs. S Bernard is cited alreadie S. Irenaeus Scholer of S. Policarpe and he of S. Iohn the Euangelist of the Church of Rome writeth thus To this Church Lib. 3. cap. 3◠by reason of her more mightie principalitie it is necessarie that euerie Church that is the faithfull on all sides do condescend and agree in and by which alwayes the tradition of the Apostles hath bene preserued by them that be round about her Saint Ierome writing to Damasus Pope of Rome saith I following none as chiefest but Christ do in participation ioyne with thy blessednesse that is with the chaire of Peter I knowe the Church to be builded vpon that Rocke Whosoeuer doth eate the Paschall Lambe out of this house is a profane fellow hee that is not found within the Arke of Noe shall when the flouds arise perish And a little after I know not Vitalie I refuse Meletius I take no notice of Paulinus he that gathereth not with thee scattereth that is he that is not with Christ is with Antichrist Marke and embrace this most learned Doctors iudgement of ioyning with the See of Rome in all doubtfull questions he would not trust to his owne wit and skill which were singular nor thought it safe to rely vpon his learned and wise neighbours he durst not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus who was a man of no meane marke but the Patriarke of Antioch but made his assured stay vpon the See of Rome as vpon an vnmoueable Rocke with which saith he if we do not communicate in faith and Sacraments we are but profane men voide of all Religion In a word we belong to Christ but be of Antichrists traine See how flat contrarie this most holy ancient Father is to M. Perkins M. Perkins would make vs of Antichrists band because we cleaue vnto the Bishop of Rome Whereas S. Hierome holdeth all to appertaine to Antichrist who be not fast lincked in matters of Religion with the Pope and See of Rome And so to conclude with this point euery true Catholike must say with S. Ambrose Lib 3 de Sacra cap. 1. I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome And thus much of his prologue Afterward he taketh vpon him to prescribe and shewe vs how farre foorth wee may ioyne with the Church of Rome by proposing many points in controuersie betweene vs and them and in each shewing in what points wee consent together and in what we differ I meane by Gods grace to followe him step by step although he hath made many a disorderly one as well to discouer his deceits and to disproue their errors as also to establish the Catholike doctrine the which I will endeuour to performe by the helpe of God with all simplicitie of language and with as much breuitie as such a weightie matter will permit Yet I hope with that perspicuity as the meaner learned may vnderstand it and with such substance of proofe both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers as the more iudicious to whose profite it is principally dedicated may not contemne it R. ABBOT What the dealing of M. Perkins and M. Bishop on each part hath bene I leaue it to the Reader to iudge by examining of both who I doubt not will acknowledge M. Perkins fidelitie of allegations true construction of holy Scriptures and sufficient argument to make all men iealous of the Church of Rome And seeing Hierom of old hath giuen light as before hath bene shewed that of Rome it is said Go out of her my people and there can be thencefoorth no other Rome to which we may apply it but onely the corrupted state of the Church of Rome therefore he will take it I presume as a warning from God to take heed of and to eschue the filthy fornications idolatries and abominations of that vncleane strumpet and will deride the sillinesse of those collections whereby M. Bishop laboureth to perswade the contrarie As for that which he saith of vs vnder the name of heretikes that of late we spared not to shed abundance of their most innocent bloud it setteth foorth the singular impudencie and remorselesse malice of these notorious hypocrites For whereas he talketh of abundance of bloud he well knoweth that in fiue and fortie yeares of Queene Elizabeth there was not so much bloud of theirs shed by vs as was of ours by them in fiue yeares of the raigne of Queene Mary And whereas he calleth it innocent bloud they themselues M. Bishop I meane and his fellow Seculars by their Proctor a Watsons Quodlibet◠Watson haue cleared the State as hauing iust cause to proceed against thē that were put to death against the Iesuites as immediate actors of treason against the Priests as being employed by them for the effecting thereof It pleased God by that quarrell of theirs against the Iesuites to make them witnesses of the innocencie of the State in the shedding of their bloud and by their owne mouth to make it knowne that the Iesuites were still deuising practising for the death of the Queen and for the ruine and ouerthrow of the Realme and that the Priests were vsed by them as instruments for the compassing and atchieuing of their traiterous designes so that the nature of their fact could be no lesse then treason and therefore what conscience may we thinke there is in this leud hireling contrarie to their owne cōfession to renew a complaint against the State of shedding innocent bloud as if there had bene no cause but meerely Religion towards God why they were put to death But if that had bene the quarrell many more would haue bene in like sort to be touched being openly knowne to be professors of that Religion who notwithstanding as we know saue onely for a pecuniarie mulct for trespassing the law liued at their owne libertie and fully with vs enioyed the benefite of the State To let this passe M. Bishop will now tel vs somwhat out of the Fathers to warrant our ioyning with
committing of sinne is properly vnderstood of the externall act and accomplishment thereof and this indeed cannot be without the consent and liking of the will But the doing euill of which the Apostle speaketh is no externall act but onely the internall 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 vnderstand the Apostles words of doing the euill 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 c tanquaÌ„ 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 haue bene chast and yet was an Adulterer or would haue bene mercifull and yet was cruell or would haue bene godly and yet was vngodly or such like but his meaning is Volo non concupiscere concupisco My will and desire is to haue no act no motion of concupiscence and yet I haue so I would not haue so much as any cogitation any affection any thought any inclination or passion of desire tending to euill and yet I cannot preuaile to be without them Now therefore M. Bishop did amisse to breede ambiguitie by chaunging of the tearmes and to put vpon the Apostle a suspition of other meaning then indeed he had But if his meaning be as it should be that no euill can be done which may truly be called a sinne without the consent and liking of the will he saith vntruly and doth therein but walke in the steppes of the Pelagian Heretickes Saint Austine answered them and we answer him that e De perfect iustit Rat. 15. Peccatum est cùm non est chaeritas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet siue hoc voluntate vitari possit siue non possit it is sinne when either there is not charity which ought to be or it is lesse then it ought to be whether it may be auoyded by the will or cannot be auoyded that is to say whether it be with the will or against the will And whereas he had defined sinne against the Manichees to be f De duab anim contr Manich. cap. 11. See of Free wil sect 18 the desire of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth and whence it is in a mans liberty to forbeare as if there were no sinne but what the will by it owne libertie doth approue and yeeld vnto he sheweth that he there defined g Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. that which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sinne So hauing affirmed h De vera reli cap. 14. Vsqueadeo peccatum voluntarium ma lum est vt nullo modo sit peccatuÌ„ si non sit voluntarium that in no sort it is sinne which is not voluntarie he giueth the same restraint againe that i Retract lib. 1. cap. 13. PeccatuÌ„ illud cogitanduÌ„ est quod tantummodo peccatum est non quod est etiam poena peccati that sinne onely must there be vnderstood which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sin as therby stil giuing to vnderstand that that sinne which is the punishment of sinne as is concupiscence or lust is rightly and truly so called though it haue 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 voluntarie onely by the will of him by whom sinne was first committed and from him it is become originall and hereditarie vnto vs. M. Bishops exception therefore is nothing woorth neither doth it let but that concupiscence being a part of Original sin is properly called sinne in the regenerate though it be without the consent and liking of the will He saith that because the Apostle hated it therfore it is no sin but we say that therfore the Apostle hated it because it is sin For the Apostle hated it according to God neither wold he hate any thing but what God hateth And God hateth nothing in man but sin that therfore which the Apostle hated in himselfe was sin yea what is it to do euill but to sinne The name of euill we know is vsed of annoyances and inconueniences of crosses grieuances but the doing of euill is neuer affirmed but of sin Now to lust the Apostle telleth vs is to do euill To lust therfore is to sinne And because the act and motion of lusting is sinne therefore the habite of concupiscence or lust is a habite of sin also because the action alwaies hath his nature and denomination from the habit and quality from whence it doth proceed Yet M. Bishop saith that the Apostle therin was so farre from sinning as that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercoming that euill But the Scripture calleth the resisting of that euill l Heb. 12.4 the fighting against sinne and will M. Bishop say that because we fight against it therfore it is not sin See what accord here is The Scripture saith that it is sinne against which we fight M. Bishop saith that we do a vertuous deed in fighting against it and therfore it is no sin As for the place of S. Austin it helpeth him nothing at al. Reason somtimes manfully bridleth and restraineth concupiscence being moued or stirred which when it doth non labimur in peccatum we fall not into sinne Which is not a rule in the regenerate onely but also in the vnregenerate so that heathen Moralists for the auoiding of sins haue deliuered 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 alledged comparing pleasure or temptation to the tempting serpent concupiscence to Eue the woman reason to Adam the man was borrowed froÌ„ the allegories of n Philo Iud. Allegor legis lib. 1. 2. Philo the Iew who would thereby shew 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 runne to any further euill as it desireth to do Now when this is done by 〈◊〉 â—nregenerate man and either a Iew 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 sinne He will not deny the same to be sinne in the vnregenerate man and yet S. Austines words so farrefoorth do indifferently concerne both He vnderstandeth sinne morally onely and as it is
repaired in his resurrection For they were not without this faith before that he was the Sonne of God but when it came to passe which he foretold that faith which when he spake vnto them was little and small and when he died in a manner none both reuiued and increased It was faith that made h Mat. 14.28 Peter vpoÌ„ Christes word to step into the sea to go to Christ vpoÌ„ the waters beleeuing that he should be safe but yet he beleeued it not infallibly the faintnesse of his faith made him begin to sink so that being vehemently afraid he cried out vnto Christ for help saying Maister saue me Therfore our Sauiour 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 vpon the sea awaked him being asleepe saying vnto him k Cap. 8.25 Maister saue vs we perish he answered theÌ„ Why are ye fearefull O ye of little faith in both these places shewing that little faith such as now the faith of the Apostles theÌ„selues was doth not make a man so infallibly to beleeue as that he is thereby wholly voided of feare and doubt yet sheweth it selfe to be true faith in that the same feare doubt maketh him alwaies to runne to Christ as expecting succour and strength in him Such is the faith whereby the common sort of faithfull men do beleeue their owne particular Saluation truly and effectually to the comfort of their soules yet not so fully and infallibly as to be altogether freed from feare and doubt For it is to be obserued which was intimated before that matters of faith concerning our owne Saluation do consist partly in principles deliuered by the word of God and partly in conclusions thence deriued to our selues Now albeit faith sometimes do wauer stagger as touching the very principles themselues and immediate words of God yet because the truth Certaintie thereof is more easily and better conceiued they are for the most part more familiarly readily beleeued But the conclusions because of themselues they are vnknowne and haue their light only from the principles are not so firmly apprehended as the principles themselues whilest doubts haply may be cast least there be any errour committed in the application vse thereof It is a principle deliuered for assurance of Saluation l Act. 16.31 Beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ thou shalt be saued Hereupon the faithful man inferreth to himself I beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ therfore I shal be saued In this either coÌ„fusely or expresly inferred he coÌ„forteth himselfe reioyceth in God in hope hereof cheerefully serueth God calleth vpoÌ„ his name in patience expecteth the reuealing of his Saluation And yet sometimes it falleth out that he questioneth his faith and not seeing such effects thereof as he supposeth there ought to be maketh doubt least haply he be deceiued and though the principle be true by which he first beleeued yet is ielous least he haue misapplied it to himselfe Thus sometimes by other temptations true faith is assaulted and greatly shaken so that he that greatly reioyced in the Saluation of the Lord by hastie cogitations is ouertaken and brought to say as Dauid in that case did m Psal 31.22 I am cast out of the sight of thine cies 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 weaknesse of faith and slender assurance we may grow to strength of faith and full assurance as the Apostles did In the meane while therefore it is false and contrary to the word of God which M. Bishop saith that the faithfull haue not by faith assurance of Saluation vnlesse they beleeue it to be as infallible as the word of God it selfe Now for conclusion he confesseth that some either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of vertuous life haue a great Certaintie of Saluation but that he saith doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinarie faith But we answer him that there is no well grounded hope but that which is grounded vpon ordinarie faith and beleefe of that that is hoped for For hope is the proper effect of ordinary faith and nothing else as we shal see hereafter but a patient expectation of that that we beleeue shall be and if we do not beleeue that it shal be we cannot be said to hope for it in that sence wherein the Scripture teacheth hope Of ordinarie faith it is that the Apostle saith o Rom. 5.1 Being iustified by faith we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord by whom we haue accesse through faith vnto this grace wherein we stand and reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God thereby shewing that to reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God is the effect of an ordinarie faith whereby we are assured of peace with God Of ordinarie faith S. Iohn speaketh where he saith p 1. Iohn 5.13 These things haue I written vnto you that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God that ye may know that ye haue eternall life By ordinary faith therefore the faithfull are not vncertainly to hope but assuredly to know that they haue eternall life But it is here to be obserued that Maister Bishop affirmeth not onely of that Certaintie that is gotten by long exercise of vertuous life but also of that that s by reuelation from God that it rather belongeth to hope then to ordinarie faith writing he wist not what himselfe because if he be asked the question he will not deny but that whatsoeuer God hath reuealed is to be beleeued by ordinary faith because he saith afterwards that it is the Catholike faith that is ordinary â—aith to beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed Howsoeuer the reuelation be extraordinarie as we know he intendeth it yet it is ordinarie faith by which a man beleeueth such extraordinarie reuelation so as that neither that assurance that is had by this extraordinarie reuelation is altogether free from feares and doubts shaking sometimes the confidence of that which a man hath receiued immediatly from the oracle of Gods owne mouth or by speciall messengers directed from God for certificate in that behalfe Which is to be seene in the examples of Abraham and Isaac and Dauid and others to whom God hath giuen speciall promise of his protection and fauour and yet vpon occasions they haue bewraied great infirmitie in the apprehension thereof And if this befall to faith in those things that are extraordinarily reuealed much more we may assure our selues that it befalleth there where we haue no other but ordinary reuelation by the written word of God Therefore on euery side M. Bishops assertion is false that there can
to be the importment of the crowne in this place and that the Church of Philadelphia is admonished to take heed least by relapsing from her goodnesse and vertue she should loose the honour of the condition and state of a Church which God had called her vnto euen as the Church of Ephesus is before threatned e Reuel 2.5 I will come against thee shortly and will remoue thy candlestick out of his place except thou repent the candlestick in the one place being meant of the same which by the crowne is intended in the other But if Maister Bishop will needs vnderstand the crowne to be meant of Saluation and life eternall we answer him that this crowne being proper to Gods elect cannot be lost by them to whom it is assigned yet so as that withall we say that God in his wisedome hath appointed a meanes whereby he will preserue them that they may not loose the crowne To this end he vseth many exhortations and admonitions many terrours and feares many corrections and chastisements whereby he hedgeth and compasseth them in that whereas by relinquishing their faith and obedience they should indeed runne into hauock and ruine of themselues they may hereby be wrought to perseuer and continue therein to the obtaining of the crowne Thus his Maister f Bellarm. de grat lib. arbit li. 2. ca. 13. Reuerà si non perseueraret c amitteret coronaÌ„ suam sed hac admonitione perterritus c. sine dubio fortissime tenebit quod habet eo modo tandeÌ„ perueniet ad coronam quaÌ„ non habet Bellarmine confesseth that this place hath his vse in respect of them who notwithstanding by Gods predestination are holden that they cannot lose the crowne If then we do so vnderstand the crowne yet the place auaileth M. Bishop nothing but being so taken how one man should haue the crowne and by his losing it another should receiue it in place of him all his wit and learning is not able to resolue vs. This place therefore maketh nothing against the particular assurance of faith but for proofe thereof M. Perkins hath brought that that is very pregnant and cleare First he alledgeth the words of Saint Iohn g Iohn 1.12 As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God euen to them that beleeue in his name Where he argueth that to receiue Christ and to beleeue in Christ do both import the same thing because the one of them is put for the exposition of the other Now to receiue is to take in particulars a mans selfe to apply to himselfe to apprehend or lay hold of for conueying a thing to himselfe Because therefore to beleeue in Christ is to receiue Christ it followeth that to beleeue in Christ is to take Christ to apprehend him and by hold of him with all his benefits for conueying and applying of him particularly to a mans selfe to beleeue particularly for himselfe to make vse of Christ according to that the Scripture describeth him to himselfe True faith therefore according to the measure of it assureth infallibly not in the general onely by principle but in particular also by conclusion and application to it selfe This being the collection that we make from this place and plainly noted by M. Perkins M. Bishop to it answereth nothing either his eies dazeling 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 schoole of Pelagius the heretike and not out of the doctrine of Iesus Christ He gaue them power that is saith he he gaue them such grace that they were able and might if they would be the sonnes of God But what did he giue them to be able onely and did he not giue them to will also to be the sonnes of God Did he leaue them to their own will either to be or not to be the sonnes of God Of them to whom he gaue this power he saith that h Iohn 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 Iam. 1.18 of his owne will begat vs by the word of truth that we should be as the first fruites of his creatures and will M. Bishop goe about to perswade vs that it is at our owne will that we are begotten and borne againe The power here spoken of should rather be translated a prerogatiue then a power and therefore Cyrill expresseth it by the terme of k Cyril in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ascendemus ad supernaturalem dignitatem per Christum a supernaturall dignitie and affirmeth that thereby is meant l Cap. 14. the adoption and grace of God which is not such as Maister Bishop speaketh of whereby it is onely giuen vnto vs m August de corrept grat cap. 11. Est in nobis per hanc gratiam noÌ„ soluÌ„ posse quod volumus verumetiam velle quod possumus to be able if we wil but also to will not only wherby we may be but wherby we are the sonnes of God as before hath bene declared in the question of Free will And whereas he addeth He did not assure them of that neither much lesse that they should so continue vnto their liues end he should vnderstand that by n 1. Pet. 5.12 the true grace of God that comfort is ministred vnto the faithfull to say as Saint Iohn directeth them o 1. Iohn 3.1 Behold what loue the Father hath giuen vnto vs * Vt filij Dei nominâ—mur simus Vulgat that we are called and are the sonnes of God Euen new are we the sonnes of God and we know that when he shall appeare we shall be like vnto him thereby teaching the effect of faith both to giue assurance of present state and of perseuerance also to future glory But all this Maister Bishop hangeth vpon the will of man hauing learned of his father Pelagius to ascribe to God p August coâ—t Pelag. Celest lib. 1. ca. 3. Possibilitatem qua potest homo esse iustus datam confitetur à creatore naturae voluntateÌ„ actionem nostra esse asserit the power whereby we are able to be or may be but to our selues the willing and acting of our adoption whereby we are indeed the sonnes 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 shew somewhat further that point of particular assurance Maister Perkins addeth that Christ setteth forth himselfe as the bread of life and water of life and commendeth vnto vs the eating of his body and the drinking of his bloud and maketh this eating and drinking the same as to beleeue in him Hence he
diuell beleeueth and knoweth as well as he But to see the giddinesse of his head reeling and staggering he knoweth not whither he saith we find Christ we hold him and see him we eate him we digest him by beleeuing thus and thus when he hath plainely giuen vs before to vnderstand that for all his beleeuing he cannot tell whether he haue any thing to doe with Christ whether he haue receiued the grace of Christ whether he haue anie true repentance hope charitie and such like without which Christ is neither holden nor had at all But such darknesse is fit for them who leaue the wayes of God and make choise to tread the Labyrinthes and maze-rounds of their owne brain-sicke imaginations To his question where it is once sayd in any of these sentences that we are assured of our Saluation I answer him that it followeth of that for proofe whereof these sentences were alledged For if the office of true faith be not onely generally to beleeue but also particularly to apply that which it beleeueth as hath bene shewed and all those speeches alledged do import then it followeth that according to the measure of it it yeeldeth a particular assurance of Saluation to euerie one that doth beleeue We beleeue saith he these points and many more but yet we shall be neuer the nearer our Saluation vnlesse we obserue Gods commaundements But if we beleeue as the Scripture teacheth vs to beleeue we are thereby the nearer our Saluation though we do not obserue Gods commandements in that sort and to that end as he intendeth For therefore do we beleeue in Christ therefore do we seeke him take hold of him eate him drinke him digest him that in him we may find the comfort of Saluation which otherwise we cannot find for want of the keeping of Gods commandements Therefore saith the Apostle c Gal. 2.16 Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law not by our keeping of Gods commandements because that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified And in this respect we are not vncertaine of performing Gods commaundements as M. Bishop speaketh but verie certaine that we neuer do or can performe them hauing continually cause to demaund pardon of our wants and therefore neuer finding any assured trust of Saluation so long as we ground it hereupon But although we denie any such keeping of Gods commandements as may serue for the purchase of our iustification and Saluation yet we acknowledge a keeping thereof as a fruit of our iustification and a part of the worke of our Saluation because d Ephes 2.10 we are Gods workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which he hath prepared for vs to walke in And this keeping of Gods commandements our Sauiour hath recommended vnto vs as M. Bishop alledgeth and of it S. Iohn saith e 1. Iohn 2.4 He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandements is a lyar and the truth is not in him But this keeping of Gods commaundements cannot be seuered from the finding and receiuing and holding and eating and digesting of Christ because no man receiueth or eateth Christ by faith but who liueth by him and in whom he liueth that he may say f Gal. 2.20 Not I now but Christ liueth in me and that I now liue in the flesh I liue by the faith of the sonne of God who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Verie idlely therefore in this behalfe doth M. Bishop tell vs that by the one we are neuer a whit the nearer without the other when the one can no where be without the companie of the other Now of this keeping of Gods commandements and perseuerance therein true faith as before hath bene shewed resteth assured because God hath so promised and so farre are we from being doubtfull of Saluation by any doubt thereof as that we rather gather hence greater strength of assurance by that we perceiue the beginning of that good worke of God in vs whereby he fitteth and prepareth his vnto euerlasting life 17. W. BISHOP The second reason is Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that certainely by faith we must beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our Saluation ergo The first proposition is true The second is proued thus S. Paul saith Rom. 8. the spirit of God beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God The Papists to elude this reason alledge that it doth indeed witnesse our adoption by some comfortable feeling of Gods fauour toward vs which may often be mistaken whereof the Apostle warneth vs when he saith beleeue not euerie spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God or no. 1. Iohn 4. But saith M. Perkins by their leaue the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare feeling of Gods grace For it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts And therefore it takes away all doubting as in a bargaine the earnest giuen puts all out of question 1. Cor. 1. I answer first out of the place it selfe that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed which M. Perkins thought wisedome to conceale For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God and coheires of Christ with this condition If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if we faile in performance of the condition God stands free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receiued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of Saluation This is the direct answer to that place although the other be verie good that the testimonie of the spirit is but an inward comfort and ioy which breedeth great hope of Saluation 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 shew that the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie our adoption and Saluation and therefore that we are by faith to beleeue the same M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 8.15.16 We haue receiued the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba Father The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God Which words so expresse and plaine might be sufficient to stoppe the mouthes of these brabling sophisters but that they measure the portion of Gods children by their owne carnall sence and conceipt and being destitute of true faith and of the spirit of God are no more fit to iudge hereof then blind men are to iudge of colours It is apparent that the faithfull haue a testimonie of the holy Ghost bearing witnesse with their spirit that
as he interpreteth it in his preface we make Christ a Pseudochrist we auerre that herein we do much more magnifie Christ then they doe for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men worthie of the ioyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but onely that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrariwise do so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestimable merits that we hold them well able to purchase at Gods hands a farre inferiour iustice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them do giue such force and value that they make a man iust before God and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued Againe they do great iniurie to Gods goodnesse wisedome and iustice in their Iustification for they teach that inward iustice or sanctification is not necessary to Iustification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers whited on the out side with an imputed iustice but within full of iniquity and disorder Then the wisedome of God must either not discouer this masse of iniquity or his goodnesse abide it or his iustice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse Why can any thing be hid from his fight it is madnesse to think it And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whom he for his Sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such iustice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be done as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam in state of innocencie Pag 77. And M. Perkins seemes to graunt That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse If then we had no other reason for vs but that our Iustification doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and bringeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alledge one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or ancient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our iustification as shall be seene in the reasons following and do much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisedome and goodnesse Now to their reasons R. ABBOT It is truly said by Maister Perkins that the Church of Rome in teaching Iustification 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 righteousnesse be by the law then Christ died in vaine Therefore peremptorily he denounceth b Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law Yet M. Bishop telleth vs that they do therein much more magnifie Christ then we do But I answer him that they do truly magnifie Christ who yeeld him that honour to say or teach nothing of him but what he hath reuealed and taught of himselfe They do not magnifie Christ who measure and describe him by the foolish presumptions of their owne shallow and short wits As for vs we do not make the effect of Christs merits to serue onely that sinne is not imputed vnto vs as this sycophant cauilleth but affirme the same to be such as that for his sake and c Ephes 1.8 in him God blesseth vs with all manner of spirituall blessings in heauenly things and that d 1. Cor. 1.30 he is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption that is all in all that he that reioyceth may reioyce onely in the Lord. But of his magnifying Christs merits we may rightly say as Saint Austin vpon occasion said to the Donatists e August cont lit Petil lib. 2. ca. 84. Verba sunt hominum extollentium glorians homini sub nomine Christi vt gloria minuatuâ— ipsius Christi They are the words of men extolling the glorie of man vnder the name of Christ to the abasing of the glorie of Christ himselfe Christ forsooth hath purchased for them iustice and merits of such force and value as that they make them iust before God and worthy of the kingdome of heauen These are gallants that thinke scorne to receiue the reward of heauen as a poore man doth an almes but will needs haue whereof to say I am iust I haue iustly and worthily deserued heauen Foolish hypocrite that affirmeth that of the merits of Christ which neither he nor any of his can shew to be performed in himselfe nay which his owne conscience controleth by experience of himselfe The word of God teacheth vs no such iustice or merit they themselues find it not in themselues their Iesuites and Priests to say nothing of the rest which are the teachers hereof are men in the eyes of the world notorious for trecherie for villanie for cosinage for vncleane and filthy life and so one by another discouered to be yea and of their followers a great number that prate of their merits are knowne for extortioners whoremongers drunkards swearers prophane and vile persons and yet must we needs beleeue that they are endued with such iustice and merits Nay we rather beleeue that the iust iudgement of God is vpon them to deliuer them vp to sinne who thus wilfully yeeld themselues to such palpable illusions of the man of sinne But by this meanes Christ with them after baptisme is no otherwise a Sauiour but because he giueth such iustice as whereby it is in their power by free will to saue themselues and by their merits to purchase and deserue heauen This is it Maister Bishop for which we iustly detest you as wicked peruerters of the Gospell of Christ and subuerters of true faith Thus in seeming to set vp Christes merits you pull them downe and set vp your selues in steede of Christ But the Gospell teacheth vs to acknowledge Christ immediatly and wholy our righteousnesse and saluation f 2. Cor. 5.21 in whom and not in our selues we are made the righteousnesse of God that is iust in the sight of God in that his obedience and righteousnesse performed and wrought in our name and for our behoofe is imputed vnto vs g Rom. 3.25 by faith in his bloud But so as that this saluation to which he entitleth vs by faith in him consisteth not onely in the remission of sinnes or
not thus haue sayd with so great faith and humilitie saith S. Austin but that he did alreadie beare Christ in his heaâ—â— Wâ— doubt not but he had conceiued of Christ that he was the Sonne 〈◊〉 God the Sauiour of the world and with this faith came vnto 〈◊〉 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 iustification towards God Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say that he could be iustified without beleeuing the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ which yet is not expressed here and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring vs this example to shew what is meant by iustifying faith In the other places as touching beleeuing that d Mat. 16 16. Ioh. 20.32 Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God the question is what is meant by beleeuing that Iesus is Christ If no more but an act of vnderstanding barely to assent vnto it then the diuels professe as much e Mar. 1.24 O Iesus of Nazaret I know thee who thou art euen the holy one of God But that we may not make that beleefe a matter common to the diuell we must vnderstand it to be a compounded action not of the vnderstanding onely 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 confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued for with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse c. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized Philip saith g Act. 8.37 If thou beleeue with all thine heart thou mayest I beleeue saith he that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God Beleefe therefore in these speeches importeth such a beleefe as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we beleeue him to be whereby we beleeue to our owne vse and comfort that which we beleeue It is such a faith as desireth seeketh embraceth holdeth ioyeth in that which it beleeueth because therein it seeth and apprehendeth peace whereby we so beleeue that Iesus is Christ as that according to that we beleeue him to be we beleeue in him and put our trust and confidence in him This is implied in the words that Iesus is Christ that is the promised Messias and Sauiour in whom is promised vnto vs and in whom we looke to find blessing peace immortalitie and euerlasting life Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith h August in Psal 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum non quomodo daemones creâ—ebant sed non diligebaÌ„t Christum ideo quamuis crederent dicebant Quid nobis tibi est fili Dei Nos autem sic credamus vt in ipsum credamus diligentes eum non dicamus Quid nebis tibi est sed potius diâ—amus Ad te pertinemus tu redimisti nos Omnes qui sic credunt tanquaÌ„ lapides sunt viui de quibus templuÌ„ Dei ad fiâ—aâ—um est tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus arâ—a illa compacta est quae in diluuâ—o merge non potuit This is to beleeue in Christ euen to loue Christ not as the diuels beleeued and loued not and therefore albeit they beleeued yet said What haue we to do with thee thou sonne of God But let vs so beleeue as that we beleeue in him louing him and let vs not say What haue we to do with thee but rather let vs say We belong to thee thou hast redeemed vs. All that thus beleeue are as liuely stones of which the temple of God is builded and as those neuer putrifying plankes and timber whereof the Arke was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood Such a faith must M. Bishop confesse to be meant in the places by him alledged that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of diuels By this the answer is plaine to the last place which mentioneth only the subiect and matter of the Gospell but of the manner of beleeuing expresseth nothing Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sinnes there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospell we beleeue as where the same Apostle saith i Rom. 4.25 He was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification which we cannot be sayd truly to beleeue vnlesse we beleeue our selues to be redeemed and iustified from our sinnes by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ Now then we deny not but that the beleefe expressed in the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which we must be saued yet not according to that historicall meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them but according to that true meaning of beleeuing in God which the Scripture teacheth whereby a man can truly say I beleeue 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 vs that can and if he list not to haue any part in that faith whereby he should apply to himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ to the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life let him leaue it vnto vs and we will ioy therein and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion because thereby Iesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone of whom we presume all things towards God who can presume nothing of our selues But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile where mentioning this faith layed as the corner stone of our religion which the sycophant as the Popes parrot to speake what he teacheth him termeth irreligion he inferreth this being so what morall or modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it It made me call to mind the morall and modest conuersation of their Popes the humilitie and deuotion 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. Bishops faith hath brought forth amongst them It made me remember a storie that I haue heard out of Boccace of a conuerted Iew of whom he that conuerted him would by no meanes heare that he should go to Rome fearing that the sight of the behauiour that he should see there would make him renounce Christianitie againe It made me thinke of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon who seeing enormous behauiours so to abound at Rome refused to become Christians saying k Mâ—t. Parisan Henrico 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates dicebant Quomodo ex vno fonte aequa dulcis salsa poterit emanare Vbi
plaine to the words which he alledgeth for God shall render to the faithfull h Math. 16.27 according to their workes because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ For whom God hath iustified and saued vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit working in them another nature and i Ephes 2.10 creating them in Christ Iesus vnto 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 speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation because though we be interested to it onely by faith yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof And to speake of saluation in grosse faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes but includeth them as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone because nothing else doth giue vs anie title and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other things that are necessarie to saluation 25. W. BISHOP 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ecclesiast 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you do penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is iustified because we loue the brethren Againe of Baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. so we may also walke in newnesse 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 saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is onely that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wait patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it R. ABBOT Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued but neuer as causes thereof as in the question of merits shall appeare We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne M. Perkins propounded but one place for them he thought himselfe to lay on loade and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified but onely faith His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall Scripture and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him First his translation is false for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them are these a Eccles 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non poterit â—racundus vir iustificari A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified that is cannot be acquitted of doing amisse cannot be cleared of committing offence because as S. Iames saith b Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith c Eccles 23.11 he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified and againe d Cap. 26.30 a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting clearing discharging holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent approuing allowing acknowledging for iust and such like as where it is said e Esa 5.23 which iustifie the wicked for reward f Mich. 6.11 shall I iustifie the false ballance g Luk. 10.29 he willing to iustifie himselfe c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them he that is without feare cannot be iustified he is as farre off from his purpose For the words import to the same effect that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent he shall not be found free from great sinne because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue that a man is iustified by feare Againe he bringeth the words of Christ h Luk. 13.3 Vnlesse ye repent do penance saith he according to their foolerie ye shall all likewise perish And what of this Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance Yea and is doing of penance a matter of iustification 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 vt sine labore aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum Et paulò post Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantum vt credant that without labour or any obseruâ—tion they are iustified with God onely by faith there being required of them no labour of penance but onely to beleeue Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs that we are iustified by doing of penance Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance As for repentance it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne no healing of our wound The feeling of paine and sicknesse causeth a man to seeke for remedie but it is no remedie it selfe Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode but a man is not fed by being hungrie By repentance we know our selues we feele our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it is faith onely without which repentance is nothing but
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
distinction is very plainly intimated by S. Paul when he saith r Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioice but not with God He denieth not but Abraham was iustified by workes and that he had wherein to glory and to stand vpon his iustification but yet not with God He might do it in respect of men but with God he could not do it So saith Origen vpon those words hauing first put difference betwixt iustification by faith seene onely to God and iustification by works which may be approoued of men ſ Origen in Rom. ca. 4. Abraham si ex operibus iustificatus est habet quidem gloriam ex operibus venientem sed non illam quae apud Deum est If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath the glory which commeth by works but not that which is with God And this distinction is apparant also by S. Austine who speaking as touching inherent iustice and righteousnesse of workes saith t Aug. de Temp. ser 49. Quamdiu viuitur in hac vita nemo iustificatus est sed In conspectu Dei. Nō frustrae addidit In conspectu tuo nisi quia potest esse iustificatus in cōspectu hominū Referet in conspectu Dei Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens So long as we liue in this life no man is iustified but in the sight of God Not without cause was it that Dauid added In thy sight For it may be that a man may be iustified in the sight of men but let him speake as touching Gods sight and no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Where sith S. Austine as touching iustification by workes denieth that any man in this life is iustified in the sight of God it must necessarily follow that that iustification which is by workes must not be vnderstood in the sight of God but onely in the sight of men Now then to speake of iustification before men as S. Iames doth it is true that both faith and workes do concurre and ioine in the act of iustification The faith that inwardly in the heart iustifieth to God and is outwardly professed with the mouth to men is not sufficient to approoue a man outwardly to men and to the Church of God to the sight and conscience whereof euery faithfull man is bound to acquit and cleare himselfe vnlesse it be accompanied and adorned with vertuous and vpright conuersation In this respect therefore it may be said that the better part in some sort is attributed to workes that faith is made perfect by workes that faith is as the body and good workes as the soule and that faith without workes is dead euen as the body is dead without the soule Men specially haue an eie to workes and thereto attribute more then to words He is taken for a halting and halfe Christian that maketh shew of faith and liueth not accordingly Men account him as a carion a dead carkasse lothsome detestable he is euery mans byword as I said before and his name continually carieth reproch with it Hereby it appeareth also that faith though haply it be in the heart yet is here respected onely as it is professed to men For it cannot be that the worke of the hand should giue life to the faith of the heart but rather receiueth life from it Yea M. Bishop himselfe telleth vs that charity within is the life of faith within and therefore workes which are without cannot be said to be the life of faith but as faith it selfe also is without There may be workes whereby a man outwardly may u Luk. 16.15 iustifie himselfe to men as the Pharisees did which yet are dead workes because there is neither faith nor charity to giue them life from the heart Now S. Iames must so be vnderstood as that not charity which is habitually and inuisibly 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 fruites of good workes correspondent to it selfe Very guilefully therefore doth M. Bishop turne his speech from workes whereof S. Iames speaketh to charity there being here so different a consideration to be had of the one and of the other yea he himselfe naming charity the fountaine of good workes and thereby importing that charity as the fountaine differeth from the good workes that issue therefrom The place that he alledgeth to the Corinthians x 1. Cor. 13.2 Though I haue all faith c. is nothing to this purpose because we speake here of a faith that is common to all the faithfull but the Apostle there speaketh of a faith that is peculiar onely to some whereof he hath said the chapter going before y Cap. 12.9.10 To one is giuen the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledge to another is giuen faith meaning the faith whereby miracles are wrought as he himselfe addeth Though I haue all faith so that I could remooue mountaines c. His purpose is to teach men not to be proud of speciall gifts of the spirit but to respect the end and vse thereof which is performed by loue without which they are onely idle shewes As touching the comparison of faith and charity there hath bene enough said z Sect. 22. before For our present state faith hath the preferment and all in all hangeth vpon our faith which is the heart and life of whatsoeuer else is in vs towards God It is faith that giueth God his glory that acknowledgeth him to be that that he is that so setteth him before vs as to draw all our affections vnto him our loue our feare our hope our delight our selues wholy both body and soule The promises of God in speciall manner are made to them that beleeue 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 esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified by charity then by faith As if he should say A man esteemeth more of his eies then of his eares therefore he heareth better with his eies then with his eares A thing may simply absolutely be preferred before another and yet the other in some respect vse 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 alledgeth that God to shew how acceptable Abrahams fact was to him saith Now I know that thou louest 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 gaine somewhat to charity against faith
by he saith very vntruly and absurdly for S. Iames bringeth the example of the true and liuely and workfull faith of Abraham as opposite to that idle and dead faith concerning which he propounded that question of faith and workes Yea of Abrahams faith he sheweth that it was said e Ver. 23. Abraham beleeued God and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse which was neuer said of any man for saying that he had faith for beleeuing that there is one God for that faith that consisteth onely in profession before men Now the faith of Abraham which f Ver. 22. wrought with his workes and was made perfect by his workes g Beda in Epist Iac. cap. 2. that is saith Beda was proued by the performance of workes to be perfect in his heart this faith of Abraham I say is it whereby the Protestants hope to be iustified in the sight of God as Abraham was because h Rom 4.23 it was not written for him onely that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse but also for vs to whom it shall be imputed beleeuing in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead We alledge further that the faith whereof S. Iames speaketh is likened to the faith of diuels and therefore that it cannot be the same with that which the Scripture nameth for a iustifying faith M. Bishop answereth that that followeth not and for auouching thereof maketh Abrahams faith not onely the same with the faith of hypocrites and false Christians but also with the faith of diuels He would qualifie the matter in shew but in truth maketh no difference An excellent good thing may be like vnto a bad in some things saith he True but yet the bad cannot be like the good in that wherin standeth the goodnesse and excellencie of the good Now he maketh the Hypocrites faith if we consider the very act of faith the same that Abrahams faith was which was reputed vnto him for righteousnesse and for which the Scripture setteth him foorth as an excellent patterne of faith to be followed of all beleeuers But to auoyde the odiousnesse hereof he sophisticateth the matter and so much as in him lyeth blindeth his reader They are like saith he in two points where in the first point he comprehendeth the fulnes and perfection of that which he calleth Catholike and Christian faith consisting as here absurdly he saith in the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed as if euery one that hath their Catholike faith haue the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed but as more plainly he hath deliuered his mind before i Sect. 18. in beleeuing all to be true that God hath reuealed No more is there in Abrahams faith if we keepe within the compasse of the nature of faith no lesse in the diuell the same in euery Catholike Christian and so the diuel is become a Catholike whether he wil or not Come on M. Bishop rid vs of this doubt for we cannot find by you but that the diuell by Catholike faith is become a Catholike He goeth on Secondly this knowledge shal not steed them any whit But that is nothing to the very nature of faith whether is steede or not steed The essence act of faith whether it steed or not steed is no more but this to beleeue generally all to be true which God hath reuealed and therefore whether with good works or without the faith of the Catholike Christian in the act of faith is no other but the diuels faith Now albeit he say that these faiths differ in many points yet of those many he nameth but onely one and that nothing to the purpose For if he will shew a difference of faith betwixt Christians and diuels he must take it from faith it selfe and not from those things which to the nature of faith are meerely accidentall Christians saith he out of a godly and deuout affection do willingly submit their vnderstanding to the rules of faith But this is not to make a difference but to adde charity vnto faith This godly and deuout affection and willing submission is an act of charity and not of faith an act of the wil and affection wherein charity is seated not of the vnderstanding wherin he saith is the seat of faith And in this affection and submission faith it selfe still is no more then it was before to beleeue all to be true that God hath reuealed The diuel then still pleadeth for himselfe that if the Catholike faith which M. Bishop hath described do make a Catholike there is no reason to except against him for being a Catholike because he beleeueth all to be true which God hath reuealed Or if he wil say that true Christian faith doth alwaies actually necessarily imply this godly deuout affection and willing submission of the vnderstanding to the rules of faith then because this cannot be without charity let him grant the question let vs trauell no further about this point but let him say as we say that the true Christiā faith wherby it is said we are iustified cā neuer be separate frō 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 plaine truth of God then to intricate himselfe in these perplexities wherin he can find no place to stand secure But yet out of the words of S. Iames As the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead he will further prooue that faith may be without charitie and yet perfect in the kind of faith Now this is it that hath bene said that in the kind of faith considering faith intirely in it selfe he maketh Abrahams faith and the diuels faith to be all one As touching the words of S. Iames sufficient hath bene said before If faith be considered as outwardly professed to men as he intendeth it good workes are the life of faith If it be considered as it is inward in the heart to God good workes cannot be the life thereof because that which is without cannot giue life to that that is within Whereas he turneth workes into charitie he playeth the Sophister for it is one thing to talke of charitie another thing to talke of workes the one being in habite the other in act the one inward the other outward the one the tree the other the fruite the one the spring the other the streame But letting this passe as handled before let vs see how he argueth from the place of Iames Albeit the body be dead without the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe But that is not true for a true naturall body is that onely which hath the true members and parts of a naturall bodie which a dead bodie hath not k Arist Polit. lib. 1. cap. 1 When the body is dead saith Aristotle there shall be neither foote nor hand but onely by
vse are therefore deuided in the subiect or may be the one without the companie of the other as by infinite examples may be seene But he maketh faith and charitie more different yet in the Protestants opinion And how For faith sayth he layeth hold of Christs righteousnesse and receiues that in but charitie receiueth nothing in but giueth it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table But what of this Will he conclude thus There is a difference betwixt faith and charitie therefore faith may be without charitie No forsooth but vnlesse faith may be without charitie the Protestants saluation is vnpossible And why so Marrie charitie is the fulnesse of the law and the Protestants hold it vnpossible to fulfill the law therefore they can haue no charitie and therefore by their owne doctrine they can haue no faith because without charitie there is no faith What a horrible disputer M. Bishop is how deepe a reach hath he into hell that hee can fetch from thence these profound conclusions against the Protestants The Protestants answer to his ridiculous and childish collections is easie and ready True and liuely faith by the consideration of the goodnesse and mercy of God towards vs in Iesus Christ enkindleth in our hearts true charitie and loue towards God and towards our brethren and neighbours for Gods sake The ayme and marke of which charitie is to giue foorth it selfe in all duties of the first and second table But charitie so long as here we liue is vnperfect in all men and but vnperfectly attaineth to that that it aymeth at Some attaine in some good sort to the performance of some duties others to the performance of some other duties but none attaineth to all as r Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 1. Nullus in isto corpusculo cunctas potest habere virtutes c. Hierome well noteth against the Pelagian heretickes yea and in those that we do attaine vnto there is also some weaknesse and default some blot and staine as hath bene shewed by the corruption of sinne Å¿ Heb. 12.1 that hangeth so fast on and presseth vs downe whilest we are labouring and striuing to ascend vpward vnto God Thus therefore faith and charitie go together weake faith and charitie vnperfect running in the way but oftentimes through frailtie stumbling and falling striuing to the keeping of all Gods commandements but yet forced to say with the Apostle t Rom. 7.19 The good that I wold I do not but the euill that I would not that I do I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man but I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne But faith is our comfort that God for Christs sake and for his righteousnes sake which he hath wrought for our redemption accepteth vs as perfectly righteous in him that he forgiueth all our sins winketh at all our imperfections and will heale all our wounds and infirmities that what is now impossible through the weaknesse of the flesh may be made expedite and readie vnto vs when there shall be no longer the flesh lusting against the spirit but sin and death and all enemies shall be destroyed and u 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Thus the linking of faith and charitie maketh no impossibilitie of our saluation but it is the spirit of error that hath dazeled M. Bishops eyes that he cannot discerne how one truth agreeth and standeth with another 52. W. BISHOP Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of antiquitie that most incorrupt iudge S. Augustine saith flatly Lib. 15. de Trin. ca. 17. con Cresc lib. 1 cap. 29. that faith may wel be without charity but it caÌ„not profit vs without charitie And That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therefore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one immaculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued onely but in which onely he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept but in which onely faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith Ephes 4. of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is in many without charitie R. ABBOT The former of these two places which he citeth out of Austin is answered a Sect. 22. before The faith of which he speaketh is not 〈◊〉 true iustifying faith but onely the outward profession of the doctrine of faith That is plaine by the second b August cont Crescon lib. 1. cap. 29. One faith is had without charitie euen without the Church that is one doctrine of faith euen as the Apostle meaneth when he saith One faith one baptisme c. Thus Saint Austin declareth it when he calleth it c Ibid cap. 28. Fides qua creditur Christum esse filium Dei viâ—i Et cap. 29. Fides qua coâ—fitemur Christum esse filium Dei viui the faith whereby it is beleeued that Christ is the Sonne of the liuing God the faith whereby we confesse Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God and in other meaning he could not say there is but one faith because of the faith of particular consciences the Scripture saith that euery man shall d Habac. 2.4 liue by his owne faith That that he maketh the matter of faith the diuels acknowledge and confesse who yet cannot truly say I beleeue in God I beleeue in Iesus Christ which is the voice and profession of a true iustifying faith and cannot be separated from hope and charitie as hath bene before made manifest by the acknowledgement of Austin himselfe yea and the doctrine of faith though in generall termes it may be sometimes found amongst heretikes yet according to the substance and true meaning thereof it is not to be found with them as the same Saint Austin acknowledgeth saying e August Enchirid cap. 5. Si diligenter quae ad Christum pertinem cogiteÌ„tur nominetenus inuenitur Christus apud quoslibet haereticos qui se Christianos vocari volunt te verò ipsa non est apudeos If diligently those things be considered which belong to Christ Christ is found as touching his name amongst all sorts of heretikes who will needs be called Christians but indeed he is not with them So as then there may be the true faith of Christ in generall words where the true meaning of the faith of Christ is denied and there may be the true meaning of the faith of Christ in the profession of the mouth when the same faith is not truly and effectually imprinted in the heart And in this sort there may be indeed faith without charitie but not the iustifying faith as hath bin often said If there be that
Perkins doth that in giuing almes as we ought we do but our dutie and that to say that by almes-deeds we may satisfie for our sinnes is the same as to say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another But yet it concerneth them to sticke hard for the maintaining of this deuice 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 haue had the commaundement of mens purses their goods and lands and whilest they haue borne them in hand that from necessary vses they must take somewhat for the redeeming of their sins they haue made them rob their wiues their children posteritie and friends to bestow vpon holy Church as they called the gifts which they craued for themselues By this pretence like f Exod. 10.15 the Grashoppers of Egypt they deuoured all that was greene vpon the earth whatsoeuer was delightsome and pleasant they found meanes to make it theirs And hence came those rich endowments of religious houses men vpon conscience of sinne 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 loth to trouble themselues with fasting and prayer yet found helpe enough hereby for that h Thom. Aquin suppleÌ„ 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 almes may supply or serue in steed of the rest inasmuch as by it a man in some sort buyeth for himselfe the other workes of satisfaction in them to whom he giueth almes This is the wonderfull vertue of the almes that is enioyned by a Popish Priest that when a man neither fasteth nor prayeth yet it maketh other mens fastings and prayers serue the turne for the remission of his sin And this was the notable cosening deuice of those holy votaries to make men beleeue as before hath bene mentioned that they had a facultie to transport their merits and satisfactions to the vse of them that were beneficial vnto them verifying in themselues that which the Apostle S. Peter had prophesied of them i 2. Pet. 2.3 Through couetousnesse with fained words they shall make merchandize of you But M. Bishop here in malice to the Iesuits quite passeth by religious houses as if the almes of satisfaction did not belong to them Howsoeuer he be outwardly pacified yet manet alta mente repostum it is neither forgotten nor forgiuen if he knew which way to worke his will As for Schooles Colledges Hospitals Chappels the building of them if it be in the true faith of Christ is a gracious and godly worke but when they are so done they are done as testimonies of our thankfulnesse and dutie to God not as satisfactions for our sins Now although he haue hitherto proued nothing as touching satisfaction yet presuming that he hath so done he ioyneth to that supposed proofe the testimony of Cyprian saying that k Cypr. de Eleem. Nec habebat quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas atque imbecillitas faceret nisi iteruÌ„ pietas diuina subueniens iustitiae misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret vt sordes post modum quascunque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus our frailty and weaknes could not tell what to do vnlesse the mercy of God helping vs had by shewing vs the workes of iustice and mercy opened vs away for the preseruing of our saluation that by almes-deeds we clense or wash away whatsoeuer filth of sin we contract after baptisme Which words of Cyprian if we construe them in rigour as they sound do containe a most dangerous and vnchristian assertion and such as all men rightly minded do abhorre that by Christ all our sins are forgiuen in baptisme whatsoeuer we haue done but that whatsoeuer we sinne afterwards is to be purged and cleansed by our selues Whereof it must follow that we who are baptized in infancie haue no further benefite of Christs redemption but that we receiue then for the freeing of vs from the bond of originall vncleannesse Yea and if the way wherby after baptisme we are to be cleansed from our sinnes be almes in what case must they be who onely receiue almes and haue none to giue and therefore want that meanes for the forgiuenesse of their sinnes But the true doctrine of the Gospel setteth Christ before vs not onely in baptisme but afterwards also to be l Ioh 1.29 the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world S. Iohn being baptized speaketh of himselfe amongst others and saith it to them that are baptized m 1. Ioh. 2.2 If any man sinne we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes The true confessioÌ„ of which point of faith S. Austin deliuereth in saying that n August cont 2. epis Pelag. li. 3 ca. 6. Caro Christi veruÌ„ est vnicum sacrificium pro peccatu non solùm his quae vniuersa in baptismate diluuntur verumetiam his quae post ex huius vitae infirmitate surrepuÌ„t propter quae quotidiè vniuersa in oratione ad DeuÌ„ clamat Ecclesia Dimitte nobis c. et dimittutitur nobis per singulare sacrificiuÌ„ pro peccatis the flesh of Chrst is the true and onely sacrifice for sins not onely those which altogether are washed away in baptisme but those also which afterwards steale vpon vs by the frailtie of this life for which the whole Church crieth dayly in prayer to God forgiue vs our trespasses and they are forgiuen vs by that onely sacrifice for sinnes We learne here another maner of lesson then Cyprian there teacheth that after baptisme not the sacrifice of our almes but the onely sacrifice of the bodie of Christ is the remission of our sinnes M. Bishop must giue vs leaue rather to beleeue Austine speaking according to the Scripture then Cyprian speaking directly against the Scripture And therefore wee aunswer him as the same Austine did the Donatists when they alledged an Epistle of Cyprian against him o Cont. Crescon lib. 2. cap. 31 Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriaÌ„ cuÌ„ eius quaeslibet literas à canonica diuinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus c. Et cap. 32. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor quia literâ—s Cypriani non vt canonicaâ— haebeo sed eas ex canonicis considero quod in eis diuinaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ authoritati congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non conguit cum pace eius respuo We do Cyprian no wrong to distinguish any writings of his from the authoritie of holy Scripture We are not bound to the authoritie of this epistle or sermon
because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture we receiue it with his praise but what agreeth not by his leaue we refuse it Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull that p Cyprian de orat Dom. Ipsum habemus apud PatreÌ„ AduocatuÌ„ pro peccatis nostris we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life we dare not conceiue howsoeuer his words be very harsh that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do but in the bloud 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 Reuertere non sum reuersus cùm minareris non timâ—â— cùm bonus esses lenis exasperans fui Vltra septuagies septies in coelum coram te peccaui Quis tot sordes abluet quiâ— abradet stercora coÌ„globata Quicquid dicat Petrus necesse est vt ipse nos abluas neque enim lauare nos possumus sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus c. Apud te fons vitae est et miserationum quae à seculo sunâ— profunditas infinita abluisti nos baptismo lauasti sanguine tuo semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando O mercifull Lord how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine how often O holy Lord haue I despised thy commaundements and when thou saidst vnto me Returne I haue not returned when thou threatnedst I feared not when thou wast good and gentle I haue prouoked thee beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee Who shall wash away so much filth who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together Let Peter say what he will in refusing to be washed we haue need that thou wash vs for we cannot wash our selues but in all things that we do we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie With thee is the well of life and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting thou hast washed vs in baptisme thou hast washed vs in thy bloud thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes but in the forgiuenesse of our sins He confesseth that in all that we do we stand in need of pardon and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ albeit being instant and earnest as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren are the true fruites 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 therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs but for Christs sake whom by our workes we shew that we vnfainedly seeke and do truly beleeue in him And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth though by error of the scribe perhaps it be that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie yet these words not being found in Tobie and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes but forcing the text and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth Which words of Solomon if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed d Prou. 16.6 In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen that is where mercy and truth are there is forgiuenesse of sinnes as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him he addeth for the cause thereof e Psal 85.10 Mercie and truth are met together Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith f Iohn 1.17 Grace and truth that is mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen not by any merite or worke of ours not by any satisfaction that we can make but by the mercie of God truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith the auncient Church testifying of it and the rest of the same sort as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded that g Hieron prolog galeat Igitur sapientia Solomonis Jesu filij Sirach liber Iudith Tobias non sunt in Canone Sic Ruffin in expos Symb. they are not canonicall and S. Austine affirming that h August deciuit Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictâ—resnoÌ„ tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Canoâ—e Iudaeâ—rum the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning as I haue before expressed that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and
thomb and another while ioining both his hands his putting to the right eie then to the left with a number of such other absurd and foolish deuises The like absurdity haue I noted before that when the Priest hath pronounced absolution and forgiuenesse they appoint a man for penance to say Forgiue vs our trespasses and againe that they make their praiers like a charme which to worke their effect must be said ouer thus or thus many times I remember I haue read some where that one of the Popes would haue ordered that the Pope his Cardinals should ride vpon Asses in token of humility for imitation of Christ riding into Ierusalem vpō an Asse The Cardinals thought that the foole 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 vaine 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 Gods worship This saith M. Bishop is cōtrary to the conclusion And why so For order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship saith he is some part of the worship But who taught him that deepe point of Philosophy that an accident is a part of the subiect that the beauty or comelinesse of the body is a part of the body Order and comelinesse are matters of ceremony not of substance of outward ornament not of inward deuotion properly and immediatly respecting men but by consequence onely reduced to God therfore can be no parts of the worship of God The third caution is that what the Church prescribeth be seuered 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 thinke that by the obseruation thereof they may purchase deserue heauen As touching superstition he saith the caution is needelesse for if it be not absurd saith he which is the first prouiso it is already seuered frō 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 vse 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 haue a shew of wisedome as S. Paul saith in voluntary religion and humblenesse of mind and in not sparing the body so that they many times blind the eies of thē 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 faine to vse their wits to deuise couers excuses that they may not appeare to be so grosse as they are yet many other there are which are so fairely varnished with colours of piety holinesse as that by the means therof Satan first preuailed to bring thē into the Church dazeling the eies of mē that they saw not the mischiefe 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 wherof S. Austin cōplained in his time that d August epist 119. Tam multis praesumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia c. Ipsā religionem quā pancissimu manifestissimis celebrationū sacramentis miserecordia Dei esse liberam voluit scruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit cōditio Iudaeorū qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint tamē legalibus sarcinu non humanis praesumptionibus subijciunti◠all was full of manifold presumptions and that the religion which the mercy of God would haue to be free by hauing but a very few very manifest sacraments obseruations was so oppressed with seruile burdens as that the state of the Iewes was more tolerable thē it who though they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect to the burdens of Gods lawes not to mens presumptions This cautiō M. Bishop saith may passe but in this the Church of Rome hath more deepely offended then did those times whereof S. Austin complained hauing infinitely intangled the consciences of men with the multiplicity of her witchcrafts sorceries endlesse variety of superstitious obseruations These things now M. Bishop telleth vs are but meere trifles but the reason is because he wanteth vnderstanding to cōceiue the waight and importance of thē And from that want it proceedeth that he alledgeth a triflle indeed as a matter of more importance That is that M. Perkins calleth the decree registred in the fifteenth of the Acts by the name of a tradition hauing before defined traditions to be all doctrines deliuered beside the written word But if his sight had serued him he might very readily haue seene that in the first place M. Perkins had defined traditions as they are in question betwixt vs 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 positiue temporary ordinances cōstitutions of the Church The decree then of the Apostles was no tradition in that meaning wherin we questiō traditions because it was no matter of doctrine but only of cōuersation temporary obseruation but in the general vse 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 Catholikes teach that besides the written Word there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must be beleeued and practised as both profitable and necessary to saluation We hold that the Scriptures containe in them all doctrine needfull to saluation whether it concerne faith or manners and acknowledge no traditions for such as he who beleeueth them not cannot be saued Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts the first we termed Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God the second Apostolical as deliuered by the holy Apostles the third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernours of the Church after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours traditions than of the foure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honour and credit do we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten
as written For inke and paper brought no new holinesse nor gaue any force vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had bene written Here the question is principally of diuine traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the holy Ghost the sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed R. ABBOT Traditions saith M. Bishop are of three sorts Diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Which distinction in some meaning standeth good but as he expresseth the meaning of it it is absurd For if Apostolike traditions be expounded of doctrines as he expoundeth them what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt diuine and Apostolike traditions when the Apostles for doctrine deliuered nothing but what they themselues had receiued froÌ„ God Our Sauiour limited their commission in this sort a Mat. 28.20 teaching them to do whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Accordingly they professed to do b 1. Coâ— 11.23 I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue deliuered vnto you saith Saint Paul c 1. Thess 4.2.8 We gaue you commaundements by the Lord Iesus and he that despiseth these things despiseth not man but God d Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospell which was preached by me I receiued it not of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ Therefore Tertullian saith of them that e Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegeruÌ„t sed acceptam à Christo disciplâ—nam fideliter nationibus adsignauerunt they did not vpon their liking make choise of any thing to bring in but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ So that if Traditions be vnderstood of doctrine there is no reason to make any difference betwixt the traditions of Christ the traditions of the Apostles because they are both one But if we wil make difference betwixt them we must call Apostolike traditions onely such ordinances whether written or vnwritten as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony vsage in the Church as the obseruation of the memoriall of the natiuity death resurrection of Christ the alteration of the seuenth day from the Iewes Sabbath to the day of Christes resurrection the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded such like And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subiect to diuersity according to diuersity of places as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subiect to alteration change where there might be reason of any such alteration as were f Iude vers 12. the feasts of charity first vsed by the Apostles afterwards abolished for the abuse of them as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded it being by the custome of that time a signe of honour and authority so to do whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head couered The obseruation of g Acts. 20.7 Apoc. 1.10 the Lords day we hold perpetuall vnchangeable because we find it noted in the Scriptures to haue bene froÌ„ the Apostles and there can be no reason of reuersing or altering what they ordered therin If thus M. Bishop will speake of Apostolike traditions we acknowledge the name of theÌ„ but Apostolike doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for diuine Thus therefore the question is of diuine traditions that is doctrines of faith of the worship and seruice of God which we deny to be any but what are comprised in the written word of God Now of diuine traditions he telleth vs some parabables which it seemeth he himselfe did not well vnderstand We hold them saith he to be necessary to saluation to determine matters of greater difficulty Be like then they are not necessary for theÌ„selues but only to determine matters of greater difficulty and those that are not necessary for the determining of matters of greater difficulty are not necessary to saluation By this meanes a number of their traditions must fall Purgatory praier for the dead inuocation of Saints Popes Pardons worshipping of idols images and the rest because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby Againe we deny not saith he but that some such principall points of our faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the Scriptures It seemeth then that the simple are not bound vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures if he say they be so bound then that clause of his was very idlely and impertinently inferred But we must pardon him it seemeth he wanted sleepe the night before and therefore being very drowsie could not well consider of that he wrote 5 W. BISHOP M. Perkins goeth about to proue by these reasons following that the Scriptures containe all matter of beliefe necessary to saluation Testimonie * Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not adde to the words that I coÌ„mand thee nor take any thing there from Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation If it be said that this is spoken as well of the vnwritten as written word for there is no mention in the text of the written word then M. Perkins addeth that it must be vnderstood of the written word onely because these words are as a certaine preface set before a long Commentarie made vpon the written Law Answer Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtractioÌ„ change or peruert Gods commandements whether they be written or vnwritten Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses law that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same law is extreame dotage Why theÌ„ were the bookes of the old Testament written afterward if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these words or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them well did wilfully transgresse against theÌ„ one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alledging of this text for the al-sufficieÌ„cy of the writteÌ„ word R. ABBOT M. Bishops allegations are too simple childish to moue the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against vnwritten traditions doctrines a Deut.
the written word i Tertul aduers Hermog Adoro scripturae plemdinem c. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non sit scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum I reuerence the fulnesse or perfection of the Scripture saith Tertullian Let the schoole of Hermogenes shew me that that which he saith is written if it be not written let him feare the wo that is appointed to them that adde or take away And so Basil saith that k Basil ser de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbia virium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est cùm Dominus dicat Oues meae vocem meam audiunt alienum autâ—m non sequuntur Apostolus per humanum exemplum vehemeÌ„tèr prohibeat aliquid in diuinis scripturis vel addere vel demere cum dicit Hominis quidem Testamentum c. it is a manifest falling from faith and an apparent sinne of pride either to refuse any thing that the Scripture hath or to bring in any thing that is not written seeing our Lord Iesus Christ saith My sheepe heare my voice they do not follow a stranger and the Apostle by a humane example greatly forbiddeth in the holy Scriptures either to adde any thing or take away when he saith A mans testament when it is coÌ„firmed no man refuseth or addeth any thing to it Hereby then it is plaine that the forbidding to adde or take away hath reference to the written word of God and therefore that the doctrine of faith and religion is to be taken from thence onely and nothing therin to be admitted but what hath the warrant of the holy Scriptures 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins His 2. testimony * Esa 8.20 To the law and testimony if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth saith M.P. what is to be done in cases of difficulty men must not run to the Wisards and Southsayers but to the law and to the testimony commending the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer Answ By the law and testimony in that place the 5. bookes of Moses are to be vnderstood if that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles what Wizard would haue reasoned in such sort The Prophet willeth here that the Israelites who wanted wit to discerne whether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell then vnto Wizards and Soothsayers do see what is written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting-Wizards which is there plainely forbidden in diuerse places Now out of one particular case whereof there is expresse mention in the written word to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blind Israelites R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had thought himselfe to be so wise as M. Bishop doth himselfe we should certainely haue condemned him for a wizard what we thinke of M. Bishop in the meane time we leaue it to him to consider of The Prophet in the place alledged dehorteth the faithfull from yeelding to the wicked motions and counsels of hypocrites and vnbeleeuers who casting away all trust and confidence in God and relinquishing the yoke of obedience to him sought by other helpes and meanes to secure and establish themselues against the daungers which they imagined to themselues who as they had giuen themselues ouer to idolatrie so followed the course of idolaters in this behalfe and for aduice and direction in such things as concerned theÌ„ for their safetie they sought taught one another to seeke to Southsayers and such as vsed familiar spirits and tooke vpon them to call vp the soules of dead men to giue answer to such things as should be demanded of theÌ„ By them they would be instructed what to do and what course to take for their owne good hereby were hardened in their abhominations and apostacie froÌ„ God to the further prouocation of his wrath against themselues He therefore aduertiseth the faithfull and godly not to ioyne with them in any such doings but when they shold perswade them to enquire of any such wicked persons rather to answer them a Esa 8.19 Should not a people enquire at their God Euery nation seeketh to their owne God The Lord is your God will ye not seeke to him will ye go for the liuing to them that are dead Hereupon he addeth the words here questioned b Vers 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Wherin he giueth to the people of God a generall direction to go to the law to the testimony to be instructed what waies they ought to walke in and to hearken to none to follow none but only such as speake vnto them according to that word The Prophets of God called men one way false Prophets wizards and Southsayers called men another way he teacheth them therefore a sure way to know to whom to commit themselues by considering who spake according to that word Now to this the wizard giueth vs a wizard like answer that the Prophets willed them to see what was written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting wizards So then there is no more here said but this that if the wizards do not say vnto theÌ„ that they are not to consult with wizards it is because there is no light in them and who but a wizard would haue made such a construction of the place The Prophet teacheth them in generall to seeke to the law of God for aduice and answer of such things as touching which they went to consult with wizards southsayers to be directed thereby in seeking to prouide for their owne safetie thence to take resolution of their doubts and to take it for certain that they led them in darknesse whosoeuer should draw them to other waies then could be warranted thereby c Basil in Esa cap. 8. Vnaquaeque natiorem ambagiosam quaestionem de quae cupiebat edoceri suo proporebat Deo dissoluendaÌ„ Quos supponebaÌ„t esse Deos his offerebant diluendas inquisitiones suas Euery nation saith Basil vpon that place did propound to their God the doubt and question wherof they desired to be taught to haue resolution thereof whom they tooke to be gods to them they offred their questions to be answered Therfore he sheweth that the people of God for answer of their doubts should go to God in going to the law and to the testimony d Aducit Deus legem velut manuductionem viam tibi praemumentem Vis certò persuaderi quae sint futura Prouide
sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit opere expleas diligentèr certus opperitor iucundissimaÌ„ fruitionem repositoruÌ„ tibi bonoruÌ„ c. Bonis perfruâ— siquidem desideres quae praescripta sunt mandata opere exequitor which God hath giuen as to guide vs by the hand to direct vs the way Wilt thou then saith he be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee Prouide diligently to do the things which the law coÌ„mandeth thee to do and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee If thou desire to enioy good things performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee By Basils iudgement then it is plaine that the words haue further meaning then to refer theÌ„ to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards But Hierome goeth yet further tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort e Hieron in Esa cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt maÌ„gis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum If ye doubt of any thing if ye would know the things that ye doubt of referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures What wil M. Bishop say now wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be that the Scripture the written word shold resolue theÌ„ of al that they doubted towards God Yea the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to coÌ„ceiue f Deut. 12.32 Whatsoeuer I coÌ„mand you take heed you do it saith Moses thou shalt put nothing therto nor take ought therefroÌ„ Those words M. Bish vulgar Latin expoundeth thus g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino What I coÌ„mand thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto c. Now we haue seene before that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commaÌ„ded If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded and all that Moses commanded was written then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord and nothing to be done but that that was written But saith M. Bishop what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles I haue answered him before but yet let me tell him here that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying I came not to destroy the lawe but to fulfill it replied that it could not be that Christ should say so because the author of the Law had said that nothing should be added to the law nor taken from it Saint Austine answereth him that h August cont Faust Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant sed vt fierent quae scripta erant quod ipsa eius verba iestantur Non enim ait Joâ—a vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt sed donec omnia fiant Christ came to fulfill the Law not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law but that the things should be done which are written therein as his words saith he do shew for he doth not say Not one iot or title of the law shall passe till the things be added which are wanting but till all things be done Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine but onely explanations of the law and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law but onely do further declare and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed prophecied in the law And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell professeth i Act. 26.22 to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner yet they spake k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua no new matter or to allude to Saint Austines words though they varied in the tense yet they differed not in the signification of the word but in both times or in all times the same doctrine was preached the same faith continued the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before 7 W. BISHOP 3. Testimony * Ioh. 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions Answ Here are more faults then lines first the text is craftily mangled things being put instead of miracles For S. Iohn saith Many other miracles Christ did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name which he clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. Perkins also concealed Now to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Answ S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him is not to care what one saith But M.P. foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles without the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting true and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word Christs miracles were sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation for many other points of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what need we the other three Gospels the Acts of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Iohns Reuelations Finally admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine termes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but
they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward of which high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnwritten R. ABBOT More faults then lines saith M. Bishop but very slender proofe doth he bring of any fault First he cauilleth that the text is mangled and things put in instead of miracles The words are thus a Ioh. 20.30 Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God and that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Where we translate the Greek relatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. Iohn here intending to set foorth 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 caeteroruÌ„ qui negant Christum in carne venisse coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis multaruÌ„ Ecclesiarum legationibus de diuinitate saluatoris altiùs scribere in Asia as Ierome saith and the seeds of heretickes beginning to grow of Cerinthus Ebion and others denying Christ to haue come in the flesh he was forced by almost al the bishops of Asia and by messages from other churches to write more deeply then the other Euangelists had done of the diuinity of our Sauior Christ Here then he signifieth that he hath so done these things saith he are written that ye may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God Therefore Cyrill saith hereof c Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem EuaÌ„gelij manifestat As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written he manifesteth the intent of his Gospell The first fault then pretended by M. Bishop is no fault because the relatiue implieth generally what the Euangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospell The second fault is ridiculously alledged for wheÌ„ M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saued how doth he meane it or how doth any man meane it but d Acts. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ As touching the third point it hath bene e Of Iustification Sect. 18. before declared that to beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God importeth the applying vnto vs of the merit and righteousnes of Christ For as a man may f Thom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art 2. ad 3. Credere Dâ—uÌ„ non conuenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat beleeue that there is a God or that God is and yet be still an infidell wanting that beleefe therof which is properly the act of faith as Thom. Aquinas noteth so a man may in some sort beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God yet not so beleeue it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of iustifying faith because he beleeueth it not vnder such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith If it be taken only for an act of vnderstanding as the Papists take it a maÌ„ may beleeue it without any fruit because the diuels so beleeue but the beleefe of the heart which the Scripture intendeth importeth affiance and trust and inward feeling and comfort of that which it beleeueth whilst therby we apply vnto our selues the benefite of the merit passion of Christ expecting therby the remission of our sins But now froÌ„ noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a finall answer that because S. Iohn speaketh of miracles not of doctrine therefore these words proue nothing for the sufficiency of the written word Where M. Perkins exception still standeth vnremoued that because by miracles without doctrine we caÌ„not attaine to that faith wherby we beleeue that Christ is the Son of God therfore the words of the Euangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only For others did miracles as great yea g Ioh. 14.12 greater then 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 Paules body the sicke are healed which we reade not of Christ himselfe By miracles therfore Christ is not discerned vnlesse by doctrine accoÌ„panying the same he be made known vnto vs therefore the words of the Euangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make vse 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 Euangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt Electa sunt auteÌ„ quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur The holy Euangelist testifieth that Christ both did and said many things which are not written and for the ouerthrowing of M. Bishops answer and iustifying of our assertion he addeth but those things were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue Cyril speaketh more expresly l Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 68. Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata vt recta fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum coeloruÌ„ perueniamus Al things which Christ did are not writteÌ„ but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conuersation as doctrine that shining with right faith and vertuous works we may attaine to the kingdom of heauen It is not then our collection only but thus these ancient Fathers conceiued that of the miracles doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct vs to faith to the attainment of euerlasting life And this is plainly deliuered in the words of S. Iohn who could not say These things are written that ye may beleeue and beleeuing may haue eternall life if there be not that written by the beleefe whereof we may obtaine eternall life Therefore as touching Saint Iohns Gospell containing all things needfull to saluation we answer him first that indeed we affirme that there is no article of faith necessarie to saluation which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospell of S. Iohn Secondly there is no cause so to restraine the words as if Saint Iohn would meane onely in his Gospell to comprehend all that should be needfull for the instruction of the Church Nay he hath a plaine reference to those things
desire to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions let him reade his booke of prescriptions against heretikes where he auerreth that traditions serue better then the Scriptures themselues to confute all heresies heretikes alwayes either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures And in his book de Corona militis he formally proposeth this question whether traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no and answereth by many instances that they must be receiued concluding thus For these and the like points if thou require law out of the Scriptures thou shalt find none but Tradition is alledged to be the author of them Custome the confirmer and Faith the obseruer So that nothing is more certaine then that Tertullian thought vnwritten Traditions necessary to be beleeued R. ABBOT It followeth not that antiquitie is needlesse though all doctrine needfull to saluation be contained in the scriptures because antiquitie giueth vs many good and profitable helpes for attaining to the vnderstanding of many places and stories of the scripture when yet it teacheth vs to admit of no doctrine but what is proued thereby The first testimony alledged by M. Perkins is out of Tertullian a Tertul. de resurr carn Aufer haereticis quae cuÌ„ Ethnicis sapiunt siue vt alià s legitur quaecunque Ethnici saepiunt vt de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare noÌ„ poteruÌ„t Take from heretikes what they conceiue like the heathen or what the heathen conceiue that they may determine their questions only by the Scriptures and they cannot stand M. Bishop telleth vs for answer that Tertullian opposeth Scripture alone to the writings of heathen authors not to the trrditions of the Apostles and therfore maketh nothing against them But Tertullian speaketh not any thing there of heathen authors but of heathenish reasons fancies wherby heretikes plead against the mysteries of faith as there he giueth example by the resurrection of the dead He requireth them to forgo these and to bring their questions onely 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 euasion when as by calling them thus to onely Scripture he giueth to vnderstand 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 heretikes to be brought onely to Scripture if it be as M. Bishop telleth vs that questions cannot be determined onely by the Scriptures or if he thought any other meanes to be as necessarie as the Scriptures for the determining of theÌ„ But this sentence hath not so much strength by it selfe as it hath by that that is cited together with it b Idem de Praescript Nobis non est opus curiositate post ChristuÌ„ Iesum nec inquisitione post EuaÌ„gelium Cùm hoc credimus nihil desideramus vltra credere Hoc enim priùs credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquiry further after the Gospell when we beleeue that we desire to beleeue no more for this we beleeue that there is nothing further for vs to beleeue Where when M. Bishop saith that by the Gospell is to be vnderstood all our Christian doctrine so farre he saith truly but when he addeth written or vnwritten he beggeth the question and his Commentarie goeth without the compasse of Tertullians text He should by plaine example or reason haue giuen vs to vnderstand that Tertullian by the Gospel importeth any doctrine vnwritten otherwise he may well thinke that we scorne his interpretation hauing no warrant of it but his owne word Tertullian spake of the Gospell 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 haue heard before out of Irenaeus that e Sect. 8. the Gospell which the Apostles first preached they afterwards committed to writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith and out of Chrysostome that f Sect. 7. to speake any thing that is not written is to speake of himselfe and not out of the Gospell 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 diuinam Scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est If what soeuer is not of faith be sinne and faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God then whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne If there be no Gospell but written no word of God but Scripture then surely Tertullian when he saith that we need no inquirie further after the Gospell taketh away Traditions and leaueth no place for doctrine vnwritten Whereas he saith that by the Gospell is not vnderstood onely the written word of the foure Euangelists he talketh idlely because no man vnderstood it so The doctrine deliuered in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles is no lesse the doctrine of the Gospell then that that is recorded by the foure Euangelists But here to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions he referreth his Reader to the same Tertullians booke of Prescriptions against heretikes Now this sentence alledged by M. Perkins was taken out of that booke although he quoted not the place which M. Bishop knew not because indeed he had neuer read the booke Therefore this that he here faith he saith it onely by hearesay and for ought he knoweth Tertullian may as wel speak against Traditions as any thing for them And the truth is that Tertullian speaketh no otherwise for Traditions then doth Irenaeus whome he cited before in his Epistle to the King whome I haue shewed to make nothing at all for M. Bishops purpose The occasion of both their speeches was the same hauing to do with wicked and blasphemous heretikes who admitted h Tertullian de Praescript Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adiectionibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit si recipit noÌ„ recipit integras si aliquatenus integras praestat nihilâ—minùs dâ—uersas expositiones commentatae conuerâ—it of the scriptures no otherwise then they lift themselues reiecting the bookes that specially made against them and by additions detractions framing the bookes which they did receiue to serue their owne turne and by their
deliuered to the Church In which case they did nothing else but what we also haue done when vpon exception taken against vs as vsing the Scriptures partially for the maintenance of our religion which yet euery eye may see to be clearely iustified thereby we haue further alledged the tradition of the Church and shewed by pregnant and expresse testimonie and witnesse of the auncient Fathers and Councels both that we acknowledge all those Scriptures which were with them vndoubtedly approued for Canonicall and do gather no other assertions or doctrines but what by them were gathered from thence And if M. Bishop will not hereupon conclude vs to be patrons of their traditions as we suppose he will not then let him know that he abuseth Tertullian in seeking to make him a supporter thereof who did nothing in effect but what we do let him take knowledge of his owne singular falshood and trecherie in alledging a speech of tradition which importeth no more but the written doctrine of the Scripture thereby to colour their traditions which are both beside and contrarie to the Scripture Yea and his trecherie is so much the greater in this generall naming of Tertullians booke of Prescriptions as making for their traditions for that Tertullian which is secondly here to be noted doth plainely affirme that what they are the Scriptures are that is that they taught nothing but what the Scripture had taught them yea and that integrity of faith could not haue stood with them but by the integritie of the Scriptures by which the doctrine of faith is managed and taught thereby signifying that albeit by the importunitie of heretickes they were forced to appeale to the tradition of the Churches yet that neither their safetie nor the safetie of the Churches to which they appealed stood in tradition but in hauing the Scriptures entire as they were first deliuered vnto them that out of them they might teach what was first deliuered Yea and that so as they needed no adding to the Scriptures nor taking from them nor changing of any thing for the saluing of any thing which they taught whereby it appeareth that he meant not to leaue any place for vnwritten doctrines or any such traditions as the Church of Rome defendeth against the plaine letter and expresse word of holy Scripture onely by taking vpon her to make such meaning therof as may not touch her deuices howsoeuer they containe impious idolatrie blasphemy against God and the apparent dishonour of the name of Christ Againe we are to note that he teacheth it to haue bene some one certaine matter of doctrine which Christ at the first deliuered to his Apostles and the Apostles to the Church that that onely is true which was thus deliuered at first but whatsoeuer since hath come in is erronious and false To which purpose elsewhere also he giueth this prescription that c Contr. Marc. lib. 3 Illic proâ—uÌ„cianda est regulae interuersio vbi posteritas inuenitur we are there to affirme the peruerting of the rule where there is found laternesse of time and againe that d Ibid. lib. 4. Ei praescribens outhoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei prescribens vitiationem quod posterius reuincetur authoritie is to be yeelded to that that is the more auncient but that to be preiudicated of corruption which shall be proued to be the later Therefore in the wordes formerly alledged we see he maketh it a certaine marke of corruption and falshood not to haue bene named or mentioned by the Apostles Now if by this prescription we examine the doctrine of Poperie we shall easily perceiue and find that in it is the peruerting of the rule as wherein there are so many deuices neuer mentioned by the Apostles yea which had neither name nor place for many hundreds yea some not for a thousand yeares or more after the time of the Apostles as hath bene declared before in answer of the Epistle to the King This is a true and certaine rule and necessary to be obserued and we learne thereby to condemne for nouelties and humane presumptions whatsoeuer hath not warrant from the beginning and to admit of no faith or doctrine but what the Church receiued immediatly froÌ„ the Apostles and the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God And because what Christ receiued from God hath witnesse of the law and Prophets as we haue seene before out of Chrysostome therefore we are to know that there is no doctrine truly affirmed as belonging to the new Testament which hath not confirmation and testimonie from the old Fourthly we see that albeit Tertullian did referre his Reader to Tradition yet he tooke not this witnesse of tradition onely from the Church of Rome but also from other Churches which were founded by the Apostles as well as it So doth he also in another place saying e Contra Marc. lib. 4. Vâ—deamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthij hauserintiad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti quidlegaÌ„t Philip penses Thessalonicenses Ephesij quid etiam Romani de proxime sonent quibus Euangelium Petrus Paulus sanguine suo signatum relique runt Haebemus Ioannis alum â—as Ecclesias c Let vs see what milke the Corinthians did draw from Paul by what rule the Galathians were reformed what the Philippians Thessalonians Ephesians do reade what the Romanes also neare vnto vs do teach to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospell sealed with their bloud We haue also the Churches which were taught by S. Iohn c. And although in his prescriptions he name it as the honor of the Church of Rome that the Apostles Peter and Paul did with their bloud vtter f De praescript Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sanguine suâ— profuderunt all their doctrine to that Church yet doth he not name it as a thing proper and peculiar to it in asmuch as S. Paule plainely affirmeth that to the Church of Ephesus also he had preached g Act. 20.27 all the counsell of God and thereby leaueth vs to vnderstand that he did the like to all the Churches Herby then we descry the notable fraud of M. Bishop and his fellowes who now hang the authority of all tradition only vpon the Church of Rome and will haue nothing authenticall from other Churches but onely from that Church For although Tertullian might safely argue from tradition in the consent of many Churches and might conclude it vndoubtedly to haue bin deliuered from the Apostles which was vniformely receiued by them all when as none of them had power to obtrude or thrust vpoÌ„ other Churches any doctrines deuised by themselues and especially being so soone after the time of the Apostles as before was said yet can no such assurance be builded vpon any one Church and that so many hundreds of yeares after and especially such a Church as by tyrannie and vsurpation hath compelled other Churches to be subiect vnto it thereby
in the art of true reasoning because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed not hauing any ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law R. ABBOT M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults a Hieron in Math. 23. Some saith Hierome will haue Zacharie who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur quae probatur This saith he because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall as M. Bishop pretendeth but rightly alledgeth that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof This hath no authority out of the Scriptures therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued Why so but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture is as easily contemned as approued The argument contained in Hieromes words cannot stand good but by this supply and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall according to due course But M. Bishop telleth vs that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer the sentence being in it selfe entier and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story because it had no authority out of Scripture Yea if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture yet it might be confirmed by tradition and therfore it followeth not that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture it should hereupon be reiected b Aug. de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas In the Apocryphall writings saith Austine some truth is found albeit because there are manie things also false they haue no canonicall authority If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true then it might be confirmed by tradition and therefore not to be contemned and thereof it followeth that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture is worth nothing Which if M. Bishop will not say then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue what authority of Scripture doth not confirme saying no other thing therein but what else-where he maketh good reasoning both waies c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus We beleeue it because we reade it we beleeue it not because we do not reade it And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently as easily to be contemned as approued but would simply haue contemned it because tradition had giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus to be still a virgin and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens Whereof Origen saith d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—ta narratio nobis tradita Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition yet auailed so little in the Church because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike euen from Tertullian of whom was spoken in the former section insomuch that some of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ c. die dominico per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian are there set downe in Tertullians owne words And yet by those instances it appeareth that the words come not within the compasse of our question because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall not of matters of doctrine and faith which are necessary and perpetuall which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse as if they had beene written yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome 12 W. BISHOP Maister Perkins His third Author is Saint Augustine * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well Answer All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beliefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned
must expresly beleeue if they will be saued which distinction S. Augustine else-where doth signifie * De peccatoruÌ„ meritis cap. vlt. and is gathered out of many other places of his workes as in that matter of rebaptizing them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes He saith * Lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their writings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed froÌ„ an Apostolicall tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall Church holdeth and therefore are to be beleeued The same saith he of the custome 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 neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he we neuer reade in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten 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 perpetuall Virginitie of our blessed Ladie * 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 Churches treasurie of Traditions R. ABBOT It is strange to see here what stutting and stammering the man vseth loth to confesse the truth and yet forced by the very euidence thereof in a manner fully to subscribe vnto it I pray thee gentle Reader to marke well the words of Austine that are here alledged a Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae a pertè posita sunt in Scripturis inueniuntur illa omnia quae conâ—nent fidem mo â—esque vivendi In those things saith he which are plainely set downe in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and behauiour of life He saith not barely in the Scriptures but in those things which are plainly set downe in the Scriptures nor that some speciall matters of faith are found but all those things are found which containe faith and conuersation of life Now how nicely doth M. Bishop mince the matter All things saith he necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation are contained in the Scriptures as if S. Austin spake here only of simple Christians and not of those that are of learning knowledge when as his drift is in this booke to teach the Preacher how to conceiue of the Scriptures for his owne vse Then he restraineth all those necessarie things to the articles of our beleefe whereas S. Austine expoundeth himselfe as touching b Spem scilicet charitatem de quibus superiore libro traectauimus hope and charitie of which he had intreated in the former booke Then he excepteth the resolution of harder matters and many difficulties which the learned must expresly beleeue when as S Austine saith that in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and conuersation of life insomuch that we haue heard him c Suprae sect 8. before pronounce a curse to an Angell from heauen 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 haue receiued in the scriptures of the Law and the Gospell But yet if they wil haue S. Austins words to be vnderstood of all things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian we would gladly know why they require euery simple man vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the Popes supremacie his succession from Peter the power of his pardons the validitie of his dispensations to beleeue their doctrine of the Masse of Purgatorie of inuocation of Saints of prayer for the dead of worshipping idols and images and a thousand such other deuices when as these are not found in any plaine places of Scripture nay when as the plaine text of Scripture is cleerly and manifestly against them Thou must vnderstand gentle Reader that M. Bishop giueth not this answer in earnest but the euidence of S. Austines words being so pregnant against him somewhat he must say for the present to colour the matter howsoeuer it be otherwise contrary to his owne defence It is not for their thrift to graunt that what concerneth euery simple Christian vpon paine of damnation is plainely set downe in Scripture to beleeue so is the marring of a great part of their haruest But alas in this case what should he do if Saint Austine say it it is not for him to speake against it onely what he looseth here he must do his best to recouer other where But for this lame answer whereby he in part confesseth the truth against himselfe and yet laboureth in part to conceale it and keepe it backe he seeketh patronage from another place of Austine saying that Saint Austine elsewhere doth signifie that distinction He noteth in the margent de peccatorum meritis cap. vltimo but which booke it is of the three he noteth not nor what the words are Now in the last chapters of the first and third booke there is nothing incident to this purpose but that which S. Austine saith in the last chapter of the second booke is such as that we neede not wonder that M. Bishop did forbeare to set downe his words For hauing there in question whether the soule be ex traduce that is whether it be deriued 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. DisputationeÌ„ desiderat eo moderamine tempe ratam vt magis inquisitio cauta lau litur quà m praecipitata reprehendatur assertio Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur non adinuantibuâ— diuinarum Scripturarum certu clarisquè documentis cohibere se debet humana praesuÌ„ptio nihil faciens in alteram partem declinando with such moderation to be handled as that a man may be rather commended for inquiring warily then reprooued for affirming rashly For sayth he where question is of a very obscure matter without the helpe of sure and euident testimonies or instructions of holy Scriptures the presumption of man is to withhold it selfe doing nothing by inclining either way But hee goeth on yet further e Ibid. Etsi enim quod libet horum quem admodum demonstrari explicari possit ignorem illud tamen credoquòd etiam hinc diuinorum eloquioruÌ„ 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 plaine
sine peccato nascitur c. Dicit Apostolus Per vnum hominem c. Jdeo non est superfluus baptismus paruulorum vt qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt per regenerationem liberentur They say saith he that an infant not being baptized cannot perish because he is borne without sinne but the Apostle saith By one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne came death and so death went ouer all forasmuch as all haue sinned c. Therefore the baptisme of infants is not superfluous that they who by generation are bound to condemnation by regeneration may be deliuered from it And in another place against the Donatists q De Baptis lib. 4. cap. 24. Si quisquam hac in re authoritatem diuinam quaerat c. Veracitèr conijcere possumus quid valeat in parâ—â—â—â—s Baptimi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit If any man saith he desire diuine authority in this behalf we may truly coniecture what the sacrament of Baptisme auaileth in infants by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people receiued So by the rest of the Fathers sundry arguments are taken from the Scriptures for the iustifying of that custome and r Bellarm de saâ—ram Baptism lib 1. cap 8 Bellarmine himselfe by the Scriptures proueth that infants are to be baptized and therefore full weakly doth M. Bishop deale to bring this for proofe of their Traditions that is of doctrines beside the Scripture In his other obiections he is as idle as in any of these or rather more idle The Arian hereticke presseth Austine to shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is read in the Scriptures Saint Austine answereth him that Å¿ August Epist 174. Respondebatur à nobis quia nos Latinè loqueremur illud Graecum esset prius quarenâ— on esset quid sit Homousion tunc exigendum vt in libris sanctis ostenderetur c. quia et si fortasse nomen ipsum non inueniretur restamen ipsa inueniretur Quid est enim contentiosius quà m vbi de reconstat certare de nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a Greeke word and they spake 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 it selfe is found For what greater wrangling is there then to contend about the word when there is a certaintie of the thing Where we see M. Bishop in the place which he himselfe citeth condemned for a contentious wrangler that thus vrgeth the word consubstantiall as a tradition beside the Scripture when as the thing it self and matter imported by it is contained in the Scripture yea and S. Austin himself in the same place proueth it by the Scripture and elsewhere asketh of the Arian heretike t Idem contrae Maximin lib. 3. cap 14. Quid est Homousion nisi Ego Pater vnum sumus What is Homousion consubstantiall but I and my father are one By the other word vnbegotten he taketh aduaÌ„tage against the Arian who had set downe that terme in the confession of his faith concerning God the Father He demaundeth of him whether the Scripture had vsed that word which not being found and yet approoued he concludeth u Jdem epi. 174. Vides posse fieri vt etiaÌ„ de verbo quod in scriptura Dei non est reddatur tamen ratio vnde rectè dici ostendatur sic ergo homousion quod in authoritate diuinorum librorum cogebamur ostendere etiamsi vocabuluÌ„ ipsum ibi non inuentamus fieri posse vt illud inueniamus cut hec vocabuluÌ„ rectè adhibitum iudicetur Thou seest that it may be that of a word which is not set downe in Scripture yet reason may be giuen to shew that it is rightly spoken so therefore consubstantiall also which we were required to shew by authoritie of Scripture albeit we find not the very word there yet it may be that we find that to which the word may be iudged 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 prooue that the holy Ghost is to be worshipped when as S. Austine prooueth 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 giuen 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 inuenitur vel per verba vel per sensum Licet per verba non inueniatur in sacra scriptura quod spiritus sanctus procedit à Filio inuenitur 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 Sonne 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 sence is contained in the Scriptures Let M. Bishop shew vs the sence of their Traditions in the Scriptures and we will receiue them though we find not the words but if he alledge for Traditions beside the Scripture those things the sence and meaning whereof is in the Scriptures though the words be not he abuseth his Reader and saith nothing against vs. For this matter I referre thee further gentle Reader to that which hath bene said y Sect. 11. before in answer of his Epistle to the King As touching the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed virgin what we are to conceiue hath bene before declared S. Austin z August haeres 56 84. affirmeth it but not vnder the name of a tradition and Hierome when he would maintaine it against a Hieron aduer Heluid Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt c. Non credimus quia non legimus Heluidius tooke vpon him no otherwise to maintaine it but onely by the Scripture thereby shewing that he tooke tradition to be a very weake and vncertaine ground Now therefore it plainly appeareth that S. Austin hath pulled downe the churches treasury of traditions because M. Bishop can bring nothing to the contrary but that he plainely and truly meant that which he said that in those things which are plainly set downe in Scripture are
that are far spred and are growne old are not to be set vpon in this sort because by long tract and continuance of time they haue had great oportunitie to steale the truth And therefore as touching all prophane heresies and schismes that are growne old we are in no sort to do otherwise but either to conuince them if need be by onely authoritie of Scripture or else to auoyde them being aunciently conuicted and condemned by generall Councell of Catholike Bishops Where we see that Vincentius affirmeth directly contrary to that that M. Bishop reporteth of him that heresies are not alwayes to be dealt with by those rules that he hath before set downe yea that heresies that haue continued long and haue bene farre spread are no otherwise to be conuicted but by onely authoritie of Scripture And thereof he giueth reason for that they haue had time and oportunitie to falsifie the rules of faith and to corrupt the bookes and writings of the auncient Fathers which heretikes alwaies labour to do so that the doctrine of faith cannot safely be ieoparded vpon their consent Now whatsoeuer M. Bishop and his fellowes dreame of this booke this rule doth so fit vs as if Vincentius had purposely studied to instruct vs in what sort we ought to deale against them and to iustifie the course that we haue vsed in that behalfe Antichrist hath set vp his kingdome aloft in the Church and the whoore of Babylon hath sitten like a Queene for many ages past She hath fulfilled that that was prophesied of her that h Apoc. 14.8 she should make all nations to drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornications i Chap. 17.2 The Kings of the earth haue committed fornication with her and the inhabitants of the earth haue bene drunke with the wine of her fornications She hath had k Gregor lib. 4. epist. 38 Rex superbiae propè est quod dici nefas est sacordotum est praeparatus exercitus c. an armie of Priests according to the saying of Gregorie an armie of Monkes and Friers of Schoolemen and Canonists who haue bin her agents and factors for the vttering of her merchandize and the vpholding of her state They haue vsed their endeuour to the vttermost for the corrupting l Erasm Epist ad Warram Archiepis Caniuar apud Hieron of the auncient monuments of the Church They haue made away many of the writings of the Fathers they haue falsified those that remaine they haue foisted in bastards and counterfeits vnder their names Most lewdly and shamefully m Ludou Viues de caus corrupt art Adscripta sunt Origeni Cypriavo Hieronymo Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per quiâ—tem quidem in mentem venerant indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs atque illa eruditione sed etiam seruis corâ— siquos Scythas habuerunt aut Seres they haue fathered vpon Origen Hierom Cyprian Austin the rest such things as they neuer dreamed of vnworthy not only of their conceit and learning but euen of their slaues if they had any that were Scythians and Barbarians By the names of such renowmed authors they haue sought to gaine credite to deuices of their owne such as the auncient Church was neuer acquainted with Now therefore Vincentius his rule standeth good on our part that inasmch as they haue had so long time and oportunitie to steale away the truth and to falsifie the Fathers writings therefore we are to conuict them by authoritie of Scripture onely knowing it to be true which Chrysostome saith that n Chrysost oper imperf in Math. hom 49. Ex quâ— heresis obtinuit Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae diuine c Nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas c. Sciens Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in nouissimis diebus esse futuram ideo mandat vt Christiani volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas Alioqui si ad alia respexerint scandalizabuntur peribunt non intelligentes qua sit vera Ecclesia per hoc incident in abhominationem desolationis qua stabit in sanctis Ecclesiae locis since heresies haue gotten foote in the Church there is no proofe of true Christianitie nor other refuge for Christians desirous to know the truth of faith but onely the Scriptures of God no way for them that are desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures Our Lord saith he knowing that there should be so great confusion of things in the last dayes doth therefore wil that Christians desirous to receiue assurance of true faith should flie to nothing but onely to the Scriptures Otherwise if they looke to any thing else they shall stumble and perish not vnderstanding which is the true Church and thereby shall light vpon the abhomination of desolation which shall stand in the holy places of the Church Now therfore we haue done nothing but that that in the course of Christianitie is iust and right to call the triall of the controuersies and questions of religion to the authoritie of the Scriptures onely and to teach men therein onely to repose the certaintie and assurance of their faith Albeit by the singular prouidence of almightie God it hath come to passe that in antiquitie as we haue the same remaining vnto vs there is yet light sufficient to discouer the apostasies abhominations of the Church of Rome to iustifie the truth of God against their falshood and lies and to make it appeare that we do rightly and truly apply the Scriptures to the reproouing and conuincing thereof as through this whole worke is most plainly and cleerly to be seene And this is so much the more manifest for that they themselues haue bene forced to complaine that they are faine o Index Expur in castig BertraÌ„ CuÌ„ in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores extenuemus ex cusemus excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensuÌ„ affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum aduersarijs c. to beare with very many errors as they call them in the old Catholike writers and to extenuate them to excuse them by some deuised shift to denie them and to set some conuenient meaning on them when they are opposed in disputations or in conflicts with their aduersaries In many questions we shew the antiquitie the vniuersalitie the vniforme consent and agreement of the auncient church for vs and against them and it is strange to see what poore and miserable shifts yea what impudent and shamelesse deuices they are driuen to and yet cannot auaile to suppresse the light thereof In a word it is plainly found that they haue no cause to bragge of
we it Againe he saith e Ibid Ipsam fidei professioneÌ„ quae credimus in Patrem filiuÌ„ SpirituÌ„ sanctum è quibus habemus scriptis The very profession of faith whereby we beleeue in the Father the Son the holy Ghost out of what Scripture do we take it The maine matter which he laboreth there to approue by vnwritten tradition is the pronouncing of glorie to the Father and the Son together with the holy Ghost which yet he himselfe saith that f Cap. 25. Vim habet Scripturis congruentem Nihil diuersum dexero quod ad sententiae vitâ—â— 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 professe according to the Scriptures In this sense therfore we also admit of vnwritten traditions blame as he doth them who strictly vrge what things are found in the Scriptures that is admit of nothing but what in precise termes is expressed therein and therefore the words here in question thus far make nothing against vs. Yea and in the assertion of those other traditions which he mentioneth he nothing crosseth vs because we deny not traditions as was said in the beginning which are but rites and ceremonies of the Church who our selues haue such traditions in vse and deny not the liberty of other Churches for the like Such traditions he there mentioneth to haue bene in those times the signing of them which professe Christ with the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East to be thrice dipped in baptisme to pray standing all the time from Easter to Whitsontide such like Now such traditions we condemne not but we cannot but dislike that wheras these are no matters of faith perpetuall necessity but onely of arbitrarie and indifferent obseruation he notwithstanding reckoneth theÌ„ g Cap. 27 Quorum vtraque pareÌ„ vim habent ad pietatem as hauing like force to pietie with those things that are written and that the reiecting hereof shall be the h Et ea damnahimus quae in Euangelio ad salutem necessaria habentur condemning of those things which in the Gospell are accounted necessary to saluation To which assertion M. Bishop for the credit of their Church of Rome wil refuse to subscribe because they hold the most of these things to be indifferent insomuch that there is no necessity with theÌ„ of thrice dipping him that is baptised that custome of standing in prayer for the time aboue named is worne out of vse Wherin it caÌ„not be denied but that the Church of Rome hath done greatly amisse if it be true concerning such traditions which Basil there is made to say In a word Basils traditions if they be his concerne not our disputation either being such as are contained in the sense though not in the letter of the Scripture or else being onely temporarie and arbitrarie obseruations of the Church neither of which we impugne We impugne those traditions which are made necessarie and perpetuall doctrines of faith and of the worship of God and yet neither in the letter nor in the sence and consequence of the scriptures can be iustified so to be Of this sort are the Popes supremacie and succession of Peter his Pardons inuocation of Saints worshipping of images prayer for the dead the single life of Priests the curtolling of the Communion the sacrifice of the Masse a huge deale of such other baggage Wherein we may take knowledge of the notable fraud of these Romish Traditioners who tell vs out of the Fathers of traditions traditions when as in none of the auncient Catalogues of traditions those traditions are found which they especially require to be beleeued vnder that name The Fathers mention Apostolicke traditions as they call them whereof the Church of Rome obserueth nothing the Church of Rome telleth vs of Apostolicke traditions whereof there is no mention with the Fathers They agree not in their beadroll of traditions and yet we forsooth must beleeue that the traditions of Poperie are the same that they speake of and haue bene continued from the time of the Apostles But what the manner of the auncients was Hierome teacheth vs to vnderstand when he saith i Hieron ad Lucin Vnaequae que Prouincia abundeâ— in sensu suo praecepta maiâ—rum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let euery Prouince abound in it owne iudgement or opinion and thinke the precepts of their auncestours to be Apostolicke lawes This was indeed their custome whatsoeuer obseruations they had to terme them for the credit of them Apostolicke traditions howsoeuer they were but humane presumptions and sometimes contrarie to that which the Apostles practised as Hierome there sheweth of the tradition of k Jn Actibus Apostolorum dictus Pentecostes dit Dominico Apostolum Paulum cum to credentes teiunasse legimus not fasting vpon the Lords day and the daies betwixt Easter and Whitsontide which he saith that Paule and with him the faithfull did But as touching all such traditions we are to consider what the same Hierome elswhere saith that l Idem in Agg. cap. 1 Quae absque authoritate testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte râ—periunt contingunt percutit glâ—dius Dei What things men of their owne accord deuise and faine as of Apostolike tradition without testimonie and authoritie of the Scriptures the sword of God striketh downe As for Damascene whom M. Bishop alledgeth last we hold him not woorth the answering We doubt not but he defended vnwritten traditions without any qualification being a notable idol-monger and hauing no meanes for defence of his idolatrie but the pretence of vnwritten tradition M. Bishop committed much ouersight to reckon him for a man free from all partialitie who in that respect could not but be partiall in behalfe of the cause which he had vndertaken against the written truth of God But M. Bishop hath yet one string more to play vpon S. Paul commandeth Timothie saith he to commend vnto the faithfull that which he had heard of him by many witnesses and not that onely which he should find in some of his Epistles or in the written Gospell S. Paules words are these m 2. Tim. 3.2 What things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses the same deliuer to faithfull men which shall be able to teach other also He willeth Timothie in speciall manner to instruct some in those things which he had heard and receiued of him that they might be for the worke of the ministerie and serue 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 coÌ„fesseth that the Apostle meant it of those things that are written though he will not haue it thought to be meant of those
strength and attaine vnto euerlasting life So certaine are they of the truth which they learne in them as that they are readie to forsake all and to lay downe their liues for the testifying of that which they beleeue thereby Against this M. Bishop telleth vs that not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which bookes were canonicall and which not But in so saying he very greatly abuseth his reader for the scriptures of Moses the Prophets and all the bookes of the new Testament saue only those few which he mentioneth haue bene discerned and acknowledged for Canonicall without contradiction from the time that first they were deliuered to the Church Yea but for three hundred yeares after Christ saith he it was left vndefined by the best learned as touching those few the Epistles of Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the two latter of S. Iohn and the Apocalypse whether they were Canonicall or not Be it so but is this a sufficient ground for him to affirme that they discerned not which were vndoubtedly canonical Scriptures because they doubted whether these were so or not What did so many huÌ„dred thousand Martyrs suffer in the space of those 300 yeares and did they know no certaine and vndoubted grounds whereupon to build the assurance of that for which they suffered Did the Bishops and Pastors of the Church teach the people of God out of the Scriptures and yet did they not discerne whether they were Scriptures or not As for the doubt that was made of these bookes by him mentioned it was onely by some and in some places and vpon weake and vncertaine grounds as the second Epistle of S. Peter vpon difference of style the Epistle to the Hebrewes for that it seemed to some for want of vnderstanding to fauour the heresie of the Nouatians the Reuelation of Saint Iohn for that to some such like it seemed to make for the millenarie fancie of Corinthus but this was not sufficient so to ouerweigh the authoritie of them but that the former testimonie that was giuen of them preuailed still in the Church so that they were not since confirmed or first receiued into authoritie by the Church but onely acknowledged and continued still in the authoritie which they had before Therfore of the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Reuelation Hierome testifieth thus n Hieron ad Darda de terra repromiss Illud nostris dicendum est hanc Epistolà quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos non solùm ab Ecclesus Orientis sed abomnibus retrò Ecclesus Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli suscipi licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur nihil interesse cuius sit cùm Ecclesiastici viri sit quotidiè Ecclesiarum lectione celebretur Quòd sicam LatinoruÌ„ consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Ioannis eadem libertate suscipiunt tamen nos vtraque suscipimus nequaquam huius temporis consuetudinem sed veterum scriptoruÌ„ authoritatem sequentes qui plerunque vtriusque vtuntur testimonijs non vt interdum de Apocryphis facere solent c. sed quasi canonicis ecclesiasticis This must we say to our men that this Epistle to the Hebrewes not onely of the Easterne Churches but of all the former Churches and writers of the Greeke tongue hath bene receiued as the Epistie of Paule the Apostle albeit many thinke it either to haue bene written by Barnabas or Clement and that it skilleth not whose it is seeing it came from a speciall man of the Church and is daily frequented in the reading of the Churches And if the custome of the Latines receiue it not amongst Canonicall Scriptures the Churches of the Greekes by the like libertie receiue not the Reuelation of S. Iohn and yet we saith he receiue them both not following the custome of this time but the authoritie of the auncient writers who commonly vse the testimonies of them both not as they are wont sometimes to do out of the Apocryphall bookes but as being bookes Canonicall and of authoritie in the Church Herby then M. Bishop may see that it was but in his ignorance and vpon some other mans word that he saith that for three hundred yeares it was not defined whether these bookes were Canonicall or not whereas they had vndoubted authoritie in the first Church and began in latter time to be questioned without cause Of those other therefore which he mentioneth we conceiue in the like sort of which they that in their simplicitie doubted yet in the other Scriptures by the holy Ghost discerned * 2. Cor. 4.6 the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Iesus Christ and thereby became partakers of life in him Whereas he saith that we allow not S. Augustine the true spirit of discerning which bookes be canonicall because he maketh the bookes of Machabees and the booke of Wisedome to be Canonicall Scriptures and yet we will not so admit them we answer him that he hath not the spirit to vnderstand and discerne the meaning of Saint Austin Ruffinus mentioneth the bookes whereof the question was as touching the reading of them in the Church to haue bene of three sorts Some were o Ruffinan exposâ—symb apud Cyprian Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ex quibus fideâ— nostrae assertiones constare voluerant Canonicall which he reckoneth the same that we do vpon which saith he they would haue the assertions of our faith to stand Other some he calleth p Alij libri sunt qui non canonies sed ecclesiastici à maioribus appellaâ— sunt c. Ecclesiasticall bookes not Canonicall naming all those which we tearme the Apocryphall Scriptures all which saith he the Fathers would haue to be read in the Churches but not to be alledged to proue the authority of faith A third sort there were which were termed by them q Cateras Scripturas Apocryphas nominaruÌ„t quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt Apocryphall writings which they would not haue to be read in the Churches at all which were all those that are wholy reiected as bastards and counterfeits such as were r Sect. 13. before spoken of in answer to the Epistle Now of those three sorts some made but onely two and that diuersly Some reckoned vnder the name of Apocryphall Scriptures all that were not of the first sort and properly termed Canonicall as Hierome did who hauing reckoned the same bookes for Canonicall that Ruffinus doth and accounting them in number two and twenty as the Hebrewes do addeth that Å¿ Hieron in Prolog Galeata Fuâ—â—â— pariter veteris legis libri viginis duo c. we are to know that whatsoeuer is beside these is to be put amongst Apocryphall writings Therefore saith he the booke called the Wisedome of Solomon the booke of Iesus the Sonne of Syrach
ipsa nisi quaedaÌ„ scriniaria Christianorum baâ—ulans legem Prophetas in testimonium assertionis ecclesiae the roll-keepers of the Christians as Saint Austine noteth carying the law and the Prophets for the testimonie of that which the Church teacheth If God then haue appointed them to be witnesses of those bookes of the old Testament which should serue for the assertion of our faith in the new wee should doe amisse to admit of other bookes of the old Testament for assertion of our faith whereof they giue no witnesse This computation of the Scriptures according to their tradition is followed by the fathers of the Christian Church professing exactly to set downe the number of Canonicall bookes as by z Euseb lib. 4 cap. 25. Veteris instrumenti libros diligenter cogritos subieci Where wisedome in the Greeke is added by apposition to the Prouerbs so called by the auncients Melito Bishop of Sardis by a Jdem lib 6. cap. 24. Where a fault is committed by Eusebius in leauing out the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets for the two and twentith Origen by b Athan. in Synopsi Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria by c Epiphan de mens pond Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus by the whole Councell of d Concil Laodic cap. 59. Laodicea for the Greeke and Easterne Churches and for the Latine and Westerne Churches by e Hilar. Prolog in Psal Ita secundum traditiones veterum deputantur Hilarie by f Hieron in Prolog Galeato Hierome by g Ruffinus in expositione Symboli Ruffinus all reckoning for Canonicall Scriptures the same that wee doe and excluding from the Canon the same that wee exclude The same reckoning we finde in the Canons which haue gone in the Church of Rome vnder the name of the Canons of the Apostles onely h Canon Apostol 84. three bookes of Machabees are foisted in of which we reade not to that purpose any other-where 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 Machabees 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 noÌ„ canonicis sed taâ—â—n ad ecclesiae edificationeÌ„ editis exempliâ—m proferamus Eleazar enim c. Of this thing we shall not doe amisse to bring an example out of the bookes though not canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church In which words he plainly sheweth that neither the bookes of Machabees nor the rest of that sort were holden for canonicall 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. Austine reckoneth them amongst the canonicall bookes but because he confesseth as we haue seene that in contradiction they haue not that k August cont faust lib. 28. cap. 4. Confirmatiua authoritate clarescerent confirmatiue authority which elsewhere he nameth for the prerogatiue of the Scriptures he thereby confesseth that they are not truly canonicall because it is for that authorities sake that the name of canonicall Scriptures is giuen to those to which it doth appertaine Therefore we reckon him also as a witnesse of this tradition whereby our Church discerneth what books wee are to approoue for determining faith and doctrine in the Church and vnder that name to commend as the infallible Oracles of God to the deuotion of the people But now Maister Bishop will aske what the reason is that admitting this tradition we do not admit also of other their traditions of which we also reade in the writings of the fathers Whereto to say nothing that their traditions are vncertaine as touching their beginning variable in their proceeding corrupt in their vse and many of them vpstart deuices shamefully and lewdly attributed to the fathers whereas this tradition of the Scriptures without alteration or interruption hath had constant perpetuall acknowledgment both of the whole nation of the Iewes and of the whole Christian Church throughout the whole world from the beginning vntill this day wee answere him that by this tradition it selfe wee are instructed against the admitting of their traditions For this tradition or deliuering of the Scriptures from God is as the deliuering of a commission from a Prince For as by the commission the subiect is directed what to do in the Princes seruice 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 vpon his owne head so by this commission of holy Scripture deliuered vnto vs by the Church from God we are instructed and limited what to beleeue and what to doe as touching faith and dutie towards God and are iustly to be punished if we shall dare in any sort to go beyond the bounds and warrant of this commission yea and the Church it selfe is to hold and professe it selfe so tied to the precepts and rules of this commission as that it may not presume to obtrude or thrust any thing vpon the people of God to be beleeued and taught but whereof it hath thereby receiued 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 receiue checke and controlement from this writ of Gods commission neither are we to thinke our selues discharged for that we are thus told by the bearer of the writ so long as by the writ it selfe we are commaunded 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 bookes of holy Scripture containe all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine 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 bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue bene 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 needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answer supposeth therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrary vnto the plaine Scriptures * 1. Paral. vit 2 Paral. 9. as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth * Hom. 9. in Mat. Et hom 7 an priorem ad Corinth where he hath these expresse words
That many of the Propheticall bookes were lost may be proued out of the history of Paralipomenon which they translate Chronicles Now as for M. Perkins guesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little roles of paper some prophane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word onely without either any reason or authoritie R. ABBOT Of this argument well propounded we deny the minor propositiō We say that some of the Scriptures though some other had miscaried should containe all doctrine needfull to saluation The consequence that he maketh thereof that then those other are superfluous is childish and absurdly iniurious to the Scripture The same doctrines are contained in a hundred places of holy Scripture and who will hereupon conclude that they are superfluous in one place because they are contained in another The Euangelists diuers times record the same stories and euen word for word and must it follow that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set downe There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one booke of holy Scripture but the same hath testimonie and witnesse of other bookes Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where which otherwhere are not mentioned but points of necessary doctrine and faith haue manifold testimonie of the written word Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith that some of the old bookes were lost which the wisedome of God thought necessary for those times though vnnecessary for vs yet it cannot be inferred hereof that any doctrine was thereby lost because though there might be some matters of storie there onely mentioned yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law And if Maister Bishop will needs perswade vs that some points of doctrine were there deliuered that are not in other scripture and must now be learned by tradition we desire to vnderstand whether by tradition he haue learned what those traditions were and that out of their Churches treasury of traditions he will discouer these secrets of which neither the Prophets nor Euangelists nor Apostles nor Fathers nor Councels were euer able to informe vs. He telleth vs that Chrysostome affirmeth the losse of those books but doth Chrysostome tell him of any doctrines deriued by tradition from those books Surely he wanted some proofe for the Popes triple crowne his yeare of Iubile and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome and dreaming it in his sleepe beleeued it when he was awake that these matters were written of in these bookes and the bookes being now lost they come to vs by a tradition of which the world neuer heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand yeares But we must thinke that he wrote not these things for vs but for them who he thought would be more ready to beleeue him then we are Now M. Perkins further answereth that though those bookes were lost yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost because there might be bookes which were not reckoned for Scripture bookes For proofe hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 15.4 Whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning arguing hereof that because bookes that be lost cannot serue for our learning and all the books of scripture that were formerly written were to serue for our learning therefore no bookes of scripture formerly written could be lost M. Bishop after his manner calleth it a shamefull answer but saith not a word to disproue it He telleth vs that there were such bookes but he proueth not that they were bookes of scripture and to the reason alledged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all and therefore I passe him ouer without any further answer 19. W. BISHOP Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our argument is this Moses who was the pen-man of the old Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certain points needfull to saluation by tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therfore not likely that our Christian law should be all written That Moses did not pen all thus we proue it was as necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applied to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedy prouided in the writen law to deliuer women from that sinne therefore some other remedy for them was deliuered by tradition Item if the child were likely to die before the eight day there was remedy for them as the most learned do hold yet no where written in the law Also many Gentiles during the state of the old Testament were saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I answer that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that tradition might preserue what was then lost R. ABBOT It concerneth M. Bishop to speake well of the Iewish Cabala for if the Cabala be not good certainly Popish traditions are starke naught the Iews hauing as good warrant for the one as the Papists for the other Both of them to purchase credit to their owne fancies and deuices betooke themselues to this shifting pretence that the word of God was deliuered first by Moses and then by Christ and his Apostles partly written and partly vnwritten Whatsoeuer they haue listed to bring in either of curiositie or for profit they haue referred it to the vnwritten word and this hath bene the sinke of all both Iewish and Popish superstition both verifying in themselues that which our Sauiour obiecteth to the one a Mat. 15.6 Ye haue made the commaundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition M. Bishop here like a louing brother taketh the Iewes by the hand and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions that by them he may gaine some reputatiō to his owne His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in cōparisō of him were neuer able for themselues to deuise the like That Moses committed not all to writing he proueth because it was necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sin but they could not be deliuered from it by circumcision not being capable therof and no other remedy is prouided in
be content also to let it go leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions The first is from the words of Christ a Iohn 16.12 at the point of his passion saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Which words being of old a speciall refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin of Montanus the heretike an ancient Papist we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him But of these words so much hath bin said c Sect. 7. before as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further His second authoritie is that in the Acts concerning our Sauiours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3 by the space of fortie dayes and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God Of these things saith M. Bishop little is written in any of the Euangelists And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition and if he will name to vs these or these things we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake if he cannot proue it we reiect his foolish presumption and can much better denie then he affirme What those things were by tradition we know nothing but by Scripture we do know The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48 witnesses of those things which he spake What they witnessed appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles and writings all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke Now then to argue as we haue done before we are sure as touching the things that are written that they are of those things wherof Christ spake but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God But S. Paul f Acts 28.23 testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets The things therefore which Christ spake as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2 they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them Where we find the name of traditions which we denie not but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine we wil gratifie him so farre but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle Those things which were afterwards written must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh if we vnderstand them of doctrine because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper It is written by himselfe it is written by the Euangelists Here is then a tradition but no tradition vnwritten The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions but that is written also Another tradition he himselfe expresseth to haue bene k 1. Cor. 15.3 the death and resurrection of Christ but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his l 2. Thess 3.6 tradition that he which would not labour should not eate and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set downe in writing Now sith these were of the number of his traditions and yet are written what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these M. Bishop alledgeth the place and so leaueth it without head or taile there is the name of traditions and that is enough for him whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy n 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keepe the depositum saith he Where we see that one ape will be like another his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English and said keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe seeing that is the signification of the word depositum Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them o 2. Tim. 2.14 Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things cōmitted vnto thee to keep where they reade keep the good depositum But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe He telleth vs that it was the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and the gouernment of the Church But what of all this We expected vnwritten traditions and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture is contained in the Scripture There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places vnlesse he can make it good that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus p Theop. in t Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata tanquam Domini praecepta seruata nec horū quicquam imminues p 2. Tim.
of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answer is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it self is the best glosse if there be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe 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 falsly termed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsly 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 beleeue not S. Peter sayth Yes No sayth M. Perkins 1 Pet. â— because that cometh not of Christ but of themselues 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 euery obstinate heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so termed although it be not the cause of contention in it selfe but written to take away all contention But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of Saint Augustine be good directions whereby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of Diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructions and learned commentaries but to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text is extreme rashnesse and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe wel conuersant in those rules endued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best commentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisite yet he ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his study he vnderstood not then which he did vnderstand * Epist 119. cap. 21. And shall euery simple man furnished onely with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer Why do the Lutherans to omit all former heretikes vnderstand in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrary Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the ayd of those triuial notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie without there be admitted some certain Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauior to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randon and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of temporall iustice it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Law to expound and conster the grounds of the law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquitie should not be law or when should there be any end of any hard mater one Lawyer defending one part another the other one counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one party to haue the right another as certainly auerring not that but the contrary to be law both alledging for their warrant some texts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloudy debate perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne To auoid then such garboiles and intestine contention there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker who in wisedome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens do the earth hath left his golden lawes at randon to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit no no it cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne 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 vnto whom they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Law yea and bound were they vnder paine of death to stand to his determination and shall we be so simple as to suffer our selues to be perswaded that in the glorious state of the Gospell plotted and framed by the wisedom of God himselfe worse order should be taken for this high point of the true vnderstanding of the holy Gospel it selfe being the life and soule 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 it selfe is not that that the speech importeth it to be Christ saith M. Bishop is truly called the rocke 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 proprietie of speech it is not true because Christ of himselfe and properly is not so He becommeth so
not so it is in like sort ridiculous to alledge that it belongeth to the Church to make the meaning of the Scriptures that the Church is Iudge it must rest in the power therof by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which it selfe coÌ„mandeth be offence to God or not The Church indeede is Iudge but tied to bounds of law if the Church iudge against the euidence of the law then God himselfe by his owne word is to be the Iudge For what an absurditie shall it be further to require a Iudge where God himselfe hath pronounced a sentence or to enquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainely as the Iudge can deuise to speake When the Iudges of the people of the Iewes said z Eâ— 8.12 A confederacie and Esay the Prophet cried out say not A confederacie that is follow not them that leade you to leagues and couenants with idolatrous nations who was to be the Iudge betwixt them Esay saith to the people a Ver 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Who was to be the Iudge when the Prophet Ieremie said one thing and b Ierem 26 1â— the Priests and Prophets who were the Iudges said another They said c Ver. 15. This man is worthy to die he saith If ye put me to death ye shall bring innocent bloud vpon your selues Who was now to be iudge betwixt them Surely none but d Ver 4. the lawes which God had set before them to which he calleth them e Cap. 11. 3. 4. the couenant which he commaunded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt When our Sauiour Christ stood on the one side and the Iudges namely the high Priests and Scribes and Elders of the people on the other side where was the Iudge f Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures saith our Sauiour Christ for they are they that testifie of me We see the highest court of iudgement vnder heauen pronounceth sentence against the Sonne of God God indeed had appointed them for Iudges the righteousnesse of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures Thus it hath bene in the Church of Christ the Donatists on the one side affirmed theÌ„selues to be the Church the Catholike and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them whom did these godly Fathers make the Iudge Optatus speaking of a maine question betwixt them whether he that was already baptized though by an heretike might be baptized againe saith g Optat. contra Parmenian li. 5. Vos dicuis licèt nos dicimus Non liâ—et Jnter licâ—t vestrum non licet nestrum â—â—tant remigrant animae populoruÌ„ Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt iudices Si Christiani te viraque parte dari nosessâ—nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur Dâ—foris quaerenâ—us est iudixisi Paganus non potesi nosse secreta Christianâ—â— si liâ—â—◠〈◊〉 est Chriâ—tuâ—i baptisâ—atâ— Ergo ni â—â—rrâ—s dâ— hac reâ—ulâ—â—â— poterit reperâ—ri iudiciuÌ„ de 〈◊〉 quareâ—dus est iudex Sed vt quid pâ—â—â—sanus ad coelâ— â—â—â—m habemus hic in EuaÌ„gelio Testamentâ—m â—â—quâ—â— c. Ergo voluntas câ—â—â—vilut in Testamento sic in Euangelio inquiratur You say it is lawful and we say it is not lawfull Betweene your it is lawful and our it is not lawful the peoples soules do wauer Let none beleeue you nor vs we are all contentious men Iudges must be sought for if Christians they cannot be giuen of both sides for truth is hindred by affections A iudge without must be sought for if a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mysteries if a Iew he is an enemy of Christian baptisme No iudgement of this matter can be found on earth but froÌ„ heaueÌ„ But why knock we at heaueÌ„ wheÌ„ here we haue the testameÌ„t of Christ in the Gospell In the Gospell as in his Testament we are to enquire and search what his will is To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians whether there be sinne in infants from their birth or not h Aug. de nupt concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controuersia iudicem quaerit Iudicet ergo Christus cui reâ— mors eius profecerit ipse dicat Hic est inquit sanguis c. Judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus c. This controuersie requireth a iudge let Christ therefore be Iudge let himselfe say what his death serued for This is my bloud saith he which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes Together with him let the Apostle iudge because Christ himselfe speaketh also in the Apostle Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the Iudge or Christ himselfe in the Scripture knowing well that the iudgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already giuen by the highest Iudge To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing foorth of such things as are euident and plaine because Christ somewhere or other hath plainely spoken whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to know i Idem de vnit Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono vt quaeque aeperta manifesta deligamus c. This I say before hand and propound that we make choyce of such speeches as are open and manifest We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set downe and wrapped vp in couers of figures and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs It belongeth to acute men to iudge and discerne who doth more probably interpret those things but we will not in a cause which the people are interested in commit our disputation to such contentions of wit but let the manifest truth cry and shine foorth Reade to vs those things that are as plaine as those are that we reade to you Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it This is the course of Ecclesiastical iudgement by this meanes they are to stoppe the mouths of contentious men and to satisfie the people that are interested in the cause By all this then it appeareth that God hath not left his Church destitute of authoritie of iudgement but hath both appointed Iudges and prescribed them lawes whereby to iudge onely that we remeÌ„ber that k Psal 82.1 he is the Iudge amongst the Iudges and the sentence must be his But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aymeth at for he would faine haue it conceiued that there should be some one to be iudge and that one must be the Pope They name sometimes the Church and somtimes the Councell but the Church is but the cloake-bagge and the Councell the capcase to cary the Pope whither it pleaseth them because neither
Church nor Councell can define any thing but as shall be pleasing to the Pope The Church cannot erre the Councell cannot erre but the reason is because the Pope cannot erre Set aside the Pope and the Church may erre and the Councell may erre but the Pope onely cannot erre This is a drunken fancie witlesse senslesse such as the auncient Fathers neuer imagined or dreamed of nay vnworthy whereof there shold be any question whether those godly Fathers approued it or not If we would argue froÌ„ the temporall state as M. Bishop doth what state is there or hath bene that maketh one man Iudge and interpreter of all lawes He nameth it to haue bene so in the old Testament amongst the Iewes but either he knoweth not or impudently falsifieth the storie in that behalfe For the law of Moses did not make the high Priest alone a Iudge but onely as elsewhere it is expounded l 2. Chro. 19.11 the chiefe of them that were appointed Iudges for al matters of the Lord. There was a whole Councell to which those causes were referred and by common consultation and iudgement things were agreed vpon and the sentence accordingly pronounced by the Priest He had not to say I determine thus or thus but as we haue example in the Gospell he said m Mat. 26.66 What thinke ye as being to haue consent of the rest before he could giue a sentence Therefore Moses setteth all downe in the plurall number as of many n Deut. 17.8.9 If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement and thou shalt do according to all that they of that place shall shew thee According to the law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do c. Onely because the sentence in common agreed vpon was pronounced by the Priest as the chiefe therefore it is added o Ver. 12. And the man that shall do presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest as touching matters of the Lord or to the Iudge as touching ciuill causes for we see these two plainely distinguished each from other that man shal die Now if God would not in that small kingdome haue all to depend vpon the iudgement of any one how improbable is it that to one should be committed a iudgement of all matters of the Lord throughout the whole world And how do they make it good that any such power or authoritie should belong vnto him They tell vs much of Peter but we find not that attributed to Peter which they ascribe to the Pope neither do they giue vs any warrant froÌ„ Christ that that is descended to the Pope which is attributed to Peter Surely if Christ would haue had the Pope to succeed in Peters place the Popes should haue bene qualified as Peter was But we see the contrarie for amongst all the generations of men since the world was it cannot be shewed that euer there was such a succession of rake-hels and hel-hounds such monsters and incarnate diuels as haue bene amongst them men that haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as their owne stories do report Heretikes Apostaties Atheists dogges most vnworthy of all other to haue the Sunne shine vpon them or the earth to beare them Alphonsus de Castro said once though afterwards he was made to vnsay it p Alphâ—nsâ—â—e Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres CuÌ„ consâ—â—t plâ—â—res corâ—â—â— adâ—â—â—sse illâ—teratos vt Graâ—â—â—atram penitùs ignoraÌ„t qui fit vt sicras literas interpretari pâ—â—sâ—â—t Thus it was printed twice at first but after for thâ— Popes credit he was instructed to leaue it out When as it is certaine that many Popes are so vnlearned as that they are vtterly ignorant of their very Grammer how can it be that they should be able to expound the Scriptures Surely very vnlikely it is and who doth not see it to be the most certaine and ineuitable danger of the Church that the moderation thereof and the detennining of the faith should be committed to one but specially to such a one Gregorie Bishop of Rome saw it well when the Patriarch of Constantinople making claime to be vniuersall Bishop he gaue this for one reason against that vniuersalitie for that q Gregor lib. 4. Ep. 32. Vniuersa Ecclâ—sia quod absit à statu suo corruâ—t quando is qui appellâ—tur vâ—â—uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Epâ— 24. if there be one to be vniuersall Bishop in his fall must be the fall of the whole Church And that God by the multitude of the ouerseers of his church hath prouided for the safetie thereof Cyprian well obserueth who one where affirming that r Cipria de simp Praelat Episcopatus vâ—â—â—â— est câ—â—â—â—â— a singulis in sâ—â—â—dum pâ—â—â— tâ—â—â—tur the office of Bishopricke is but one whereof euery Bishop fully hath his part and therefore signifying that none hath therein to challenge prerogatiue aboue another addeth further in another place that Å¿ Idâ—â—â— lib. 3. Ep. 13 〈…〉 erâ—â—runt c. vt si quis ex hoc coâ—â—â—â—io haereâ—â—◠〈◊〉 gregeÌ„ Christ â—â—cerare vâ—stare tâ—â—â—rit saâ—ueni 〈◊〉 caererâ— quasi pâ—â—teres vtilâ—s 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cordâ—s 〈◊〉 Dominicâ—s 〈…〉 therefore the corporation of Bishops consisteth of many that if any one of this Colledge or company shall assay to bring in heresie and to rend and waste the flocke of Christ the rest shold helpe and as good and compassionate Pastors should gather the Lordes sheepe into his fold This prouision of God Antichrist the man of sinne the Bishop of Rome being to bring the abhomination of desolation into the church of Christ hath defeated and made voide challenging to himselfe alone an vniuersall power and authoritie of iudgement ouer the whole Church and vnder pretence thereof deuising and establishing in the Church whatsoeuer he list to the dishonour of God to the peruerting of the faith of Christ and to the destruction of infinite soules making a meaning of the word of God to serue his turne that nothing which he saith or doth may seeme to be controlled or checked thereby To this purpose they haue bewitched the world to entertaine this paradoxe which in the old Christian world was neuer heard of that t Hosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae etiaÌ„si nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbuÌ„ Dei if a man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture albeit he neither know nor vnderstand whether and how it agreeth with the words of the Scripture yet he hath the very word of God And in like sort do our Rhemish impostors labour to perswade their Reader that u Rhem. Testam Argument of
the Epistles in generall if any thing in Paules Epistles sound to him as contrary to the doctrine of the Catholike Church it is vnknowne what Church they meane he faileth of the right sense Thus howsoeuer clearely the scripture soundeth yet it meaneth not that which it saith if it be contrarie to that which they affirme To this impudent deuise they are driuen because they see that the scripture condemneth them vnlesse they themselues haue the managing of the scripture that if the scripture be admitted for iudge it peremptorily pronounceth sentence against them so that they haue no meanes to colour their abhominations but by challenging to themselues to be iudges of the scripture As for vs we hang the doctrine of faith not vpon our expositions but vpon the very words of God himselfe we make the holy scripture the iudge not in ambiguous and doubtfull speeches but in cleare and euident sentences where the very words declare what the meaning is It is a question betwixt vs and them whether Saints images be to be worshipped or not they say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge speake x Exod. 20.4 Deut. 5.8 Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any likenesse of any thing in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the waters vnder the earth thou shalt not now down to them nor worship them It is a question whether there be now any sacrifice to be offered for the forgiuenesse of sins They say there is so in their Masse we say there is none Let the Iudge speake y Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you for many for remission of sins z Heb. 10.18 Now where remission of sins is there is no more offering for sin It is a question betwixt vs whether the Saints be our Mediators vnto God or not They say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge determine it a 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God saith he and one Mediatour betwixt God and man euen the man Iesus Christ It is a question whether a man be iustified before God by workes or not They say it must be so we say it cannot be Let the Iudge answer it b Rom. 3.20 By the workes of the lawe shall no flesh be iustified in his sight c Gal. 3.11.12 That no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God it is euident for the iust shall liue by faith and the law is not of faith but the man that shall do those things shall liue in them They alledge that the Iudge saith that d Iam. 2.24 a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely we say that that is onely in the sight of men or with men they say that it is in the sight of God Let the iudge end it e Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioyce but not with God It is a question whether the crosses and sufferings of the Saints do yeeld vs any helpe with God or any part of satisfaction for our sinnes They say they do we say they do not let the iudge tell vs whether they do or not f 1. Cor. 1.13 Was Paul crucified for you g Gal 6.14 God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ It is a question whether the people ought to be partakers of the Lords cup they say no we say yea Let the iudge decide it h Mat. 26.27 Drinke ye all of this Thus in all matters betwixt them and vs the iudge speaketh clearely on our side his words are so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Yet notwithstanding they tell vs that all these things haue another meaning which we must take vpon the Popes word The commādement forsooth is meant of the idols of the Gentiles not of the images of Saints As if a whore-monger should say that the lawe forbiddeth whoredome of Christians with heathens not one with another The Scripture they say intendeth there is no other Mediator of redemption but one but Mediators of intercession there are many As if an adulterous woman should say that she may haue but one husband of this or that sort but of another sort she may haue many And yet they make them mediators of redemption also because they make them mediators of satisfaction and redemption is nothing else but the paiment of a price of satisfaction Thus they dally in the rest and shew themselues impudent and shameles men let them for their meanings reade to vs as plaine words of the iudge as those are that we reade to them and we will admit of them If not they must giue vs leaue to stand to the sentence of the iudge of heauen and earth and to account the Pope as he is a corrupt and wicked iudge although were he what he should be yet void of all title of being iudge to vs. 22. W. BISHOP Giue me leaue gentle Reader to stay somewhat longer in this matter because there is nothing of more importance and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke Consider then with your selfe that our coelestiall Law-maker gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects * Ierem. 31. 2. Cor. 3. endowing them with the blessed spirit of truth * Iohn 16. and with a most diligent care of instrusting others that all their posteritie might learne of them all the points of Christian doctrine and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word and more for the true meaning of the word then for the word it selfe These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God them must we consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion and submit our selues wholy to their decree S. Paule that vessell of election may serue vs for a singular modell and patterne of the whole who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospell from God yet went vp to Hierusalem with Barnaby to conferre with the chiefe Apostles the Gospell which he preached lest perhaps he might runne in vaine and had runne as in expresse words he witnesseth himselfe * Gal. 2. Vpon which fact and words of S. Paule the auncient Fathers do gather that the faithful would not haue giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine vnlesse by S. Peter and the other Apostles it had bene first examined and approued * Tertul lib. 4. in Marc. Hier. Ep. 89 quae est 11. inter Ep. Augustini August lib. 28. contra Faustū cap. 4. Againe when there arose a most dangerous question of abrogating Moses lawe was it left to euery Christian to decide by the written word or would many of the faithfull beleeue S. Paule that worthy Apostle in the matter Not so but vp they went to Hierusalem to heare what the pillars of the Church would say where by the decree of the Apostles
via duceret aut reduceret ad te Ideâ—que euÌ„ essemuâ— insirmi ad inueniendam liquida ratione veritateÌ„ obhoc nobis opâ—s esset authoritate sanctaâ—uÌ„ literarum â—am credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributuruÌ„ tam excellentum illi Scripturâ—e per omnetiâ—m terras authoritatem nisi per ipsam tibi credi per ipsam te quaerivoluisses I alwaies beleeued saith he that thou art and that thou hast care of vs albeit I knew not what to think of thy being or which way should leade me or bring me againe to thee Therefore when I was too weake by apparent reason to find out the truth and for this purpose needed the authority of the holy Scriptures I began now to beleeue that by no means thou wouldest giue that excellency of authority to those scriptures euen throughout the whole earth but that thou wouldest haue vs therby to beleeue thee and thereby to seeke thee This place sheweth the true effect of that other speech and it is great impudency and impiety in M. Bishop and his fellowes to force vpon S. Austine that protestation which they do by their false construction 23 W. BISHOP This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I will not dwell any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians * Euseb li. 3.36 To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretikes * Ibid. li. 5. c. 20. S. Irenaeus who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall traditions receiued from Polycarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought we not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the which the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleare perspicuous to define the present question For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all must we not haue followed the order of Traditions which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants * Rom. 6. Athanasius saith * Lib. de decreâ— Niceni conc We haue proued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. Basil hath these words * De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in Iulian. R. ABBOT M. Bishop is here as he was before like the melancholike merchant of Athens who reioyced at the sight of euery ship that came in perswading himselfe that it was his ship He cannot light any where vpon the name of traditions but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish vnwritten traditions And here in the first place to colour this he translateth the words of Eusebius amisse by changing the singular number into the plurall a Euseb hist lib. 3. cap. 32. Vt Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He warned them saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius that they should cleaue stedfastly to the tradition of the Apostles He saith not traditions as to note sundry doctrines left vnwritten as M. Bishop would haue it but tradition as entirely generally to signifie the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Therefore he must necessarily be vnderstood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written but there is no necessity of vnderstanding any more This tradition that is the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testifie by writing and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them euen no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing But those Epistles haue bene diuersly in hucksters hands being growne to greater number then Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times containing many things now which they had not then and many then which they haue not now Ignatius now is made to say that b Ignat. epist 5. ad Phil. p. Siquâ— dominico die reiunauerâ—t aut sabbato praeter vnum sabbatuÌ„ is est Christi interfector if any man fast vpon the Lords day or vpon the Saterday he is a murtherer of Christ whereas S. Austine confesseth that c Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus â—â—unare eporteat vel quibus non oporteat nullo Domini vel Apostolorum praecepto inuenio definitum he found it not defined by any precept of Christ or his Apostles what daies we are to fast and what not and Hierome as we haue heard before confesseth that Paul and others with him did fast vpon the Lords day He is now made to say that d Ignat. ibid. Siquâ— eum Iudaeis pascha peregeris festi eorum Symbola susceperit is particeps est socius eoruÌ„ qui Dominum occiderunt Apostolos eius if any man obserue Easter with the Iewes or shall beare the marks of their festiuall day he is a companion and partaker with theÌ„ who killed Christ and his Apostles whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history that e Euseb hist lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort refused to yeeld to Anicetus Bishop of Rome to do otherwise therefore that there was no such obseruation to which Ignatius should adioine any such censure as here is Againe Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius that f Hieron cont Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores Christ chose Apostles who were sinners aboue all men which now is not found in those Epistles that we haue Therfore sith we haue his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted it is hard from them now to gather any certaintie at all and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of are but meere forgeries conueyed into them by the Popes agents albeit the former of those traditions which I haue mentioned maketh them also murtherers of Christ because they fast vpon the Saterday or else they must denie that these
epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant wil appeer by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus who M. Bishop sayth by the Apostles words receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretickes Let his author speake and let the Reader iudge how honestly he dealeth in this citation The words are the words of Irenaeus of whom Eusebius reporteth that in certaine speeches against Florinus the hereticke he saith of himselfe hauing bene with Polycarpus when he was very yong g Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. ca. 18. Commemorare queaÌ„ sermones eius quos fecit ad multitudineÌ„ quomodo se cum Ioanne ac reliquis qui DominuÌ„ viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit sermones ecruÌ„ memorauerit quae ex illis de Domino audierant de virtutibus eius doctrina tanquaÌ„ ex ijs qui ipsi verbuÌ„ 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 bene conuersant with Iohn 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 receiued from them who themselues had seene 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 bene before shewed that it containeth nothing else but the elementall articles of Christian faith for the auouching whereof he was forced to appeale to the tradition and successiue doctrine of the Church because he had to do with heretickes that refused the triall of the Scriptures He saith rightly that if nothing had bene written we must haue rested vpon Tradition but because God knew that Tradition was too vncertaine and weake a meanes for preseruation of truth therefore as he hath before said the Apostles deliuered 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 writteÌ„ any thing at all must we not then haue followed the order of tradition he intimateth that now that they haue written we are to follow that which they haue written for the certaintie assurance of our faith He forceth the order of tradition in this sort vpon the heretiks because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but the matters whereof he treateth are cleerly taught therein as euery where he sheweth throughout his whole booke His next allegation is vaine and childish Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by tradition to baptize infants whereas Bellarmine himselfe proueth it to be necessary by the Scriptures as I haue shewed 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 booke cited is to giue a reason of the decree of the Nicene Councell that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father He sheweth that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures Constantine also so directing them as we haue seene before The matter was so cleared as that the heretickes for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded vpon Yet he declareth that afterwards they fell to cauilling that the words whereby the Councell expressed their meaning were not found in the Scriptures that they deuised them of themselues and that none of the former Fathers had vsed the same He answereth that l Cognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam quâ—m Scripturae volunt hoc ipsum sonaere c. Whosoeuer is of a studious mind or desirous to learne will know that those words though they be not found in the Scriptures yet haue the same meaning which the Scriptures intend and do signifie the very same Further against their other cauil he sheweth by diuers places alledged that the Fathers of former times had vsed the same words and maner of speech as the Councell did Hereupon he concludeth m Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiaÌ„ à patribus ad patres quasi per manâ—â— traditaÌ„ esse Vos autem nouâ— Iudeâ— Cataphaeque discipuli quos verboruÌ„ vestroruÌ„ patreâ—ac maiores demonstraâ—uâ— Behold we shew that this sentence hath bene deliuered from fathers to fathers as it were from hand to hand but O you new Iewes and sons of Caiphas what fathers or auncesters will ye shew vs for your termes Now shall not we thinke that M. Bishop hath here brought vs a stout proofe for traditions vnwritten and doctrines beside the Scripture Euen as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellowes Behold we shew you that which we say of the sufficiencie of the Scriptures deliuered from fathers to fathers euen as it were from hand to hand and he should herupon cite vs for witnesses of their traditions As much wit should he shew in this as he now doth in that The place of Basil is answered at large n Sect. 16. before He further referreth vs to the first oration of o Greg Naziâ—n contra Julian erat 1. Doctrina nostra insigâ—â—reÌ„ videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditioâ—e acceptas in hunc vsque dieÌ„ seruaâ—â—mus c. Idem hic cogit 〈◊〉 scholas in omnibus ciuitatibus extruere parabat sacraria se desque partim altiores partim depressiores prophaâ—â—â—um dogmatum lectiones â—xplicationes instituere tum precaâ—oâ—um alternatim caâ—â—â—arum fâ—rmam c. Gregorie Nazianzen against Iulian but was ashamed to set downe any words of his because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians which Iulian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganisme were schools and formes higher and lower lectures hospitals monasteries companies of virgins singing by turnes and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church and what are these to prooue 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 condemne traditions in that sence 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 wherupon to build them A man would not thinke 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
Mariage indeed is honorable but it did not belong to vs. For suppose that Popes and Popish Priests be fornicators as their Canon law telleth vs that k Dist. 81. Maximianes in glos CoÌ„muniter dicum quòd Clericus pro simplici fornicatione deponi non debet quia pauci sine illo vitio inueniuntur few of them are found without that fault how shall they be depriued here of the excuse of their filthinesse if they may say We held marriage to be honorable but it was not lawful for vs to marry But the words do serue to take away from all adulterers and fornicators all excuse of such vncleannes They must therefore be taken to affirme indeed that which they seeme to do that mariage is honorable in all men And so doth Theophylact apparently expound it l Theoph. in Heb. 13. Non quia nuptiae aetate prouectioribus minùs conueniant adolescentulos verâ— admocuÌ„ deccant sed cunctis art honori sunt He saith not that mariage is vnfitting for the elder and fit onely for yong men but honorable for all though withall he expound those words in all as importing n Vel in omnibus hoc est quibusuit modis quouis tempore euery way and at all times But M. Bishop bringeth vs to the Grammar and telleth vs that the adiectiue being put without a substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it Full wisely I warrant you and with great skill as though where the Apostle saith n 1. Cor. 8.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not to translate there is not knowledge in all men or all men haue not knowledge but rather there is not knowledge in all things because the adiectiue is there put without a substantiue and where the Apostle saith o 2. Thess 3.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we should not say all men but all things haue not saith and where he saith p 1. Tim. 2.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we should not translate who gaue himselfe a redemption for all men but for all things because in these places the adiectiue is put without the substantiue as in infinite other places it is where notwithstanding it must necessarily be vnderstood not of all things but of all men It is not passion then as he obiecteth to vs but plaine frenzie as it seemeth that maketh him to vse these blind and ignorant cauillations and the places of Scripture which M. Perkins hath alledged against their vow of continencie stand still firme and sure for ought that he hath bene able to say against them 10. W. BISHOP The Scripture being so barren for him he shall belike recompence it with the abundant testimonie of antiquitie in fauour of his cause but oh vnhappie chance he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church what was there not one Father who with some one broken fragment of a sentence or other would releeue you in this your combat against the Vow of Chastitie I will helpe you to one but I feare me you will scarce thanke me for my paines it is such a one as is neither holy nor father but the auncient Christian Epicure Iouinian who as S. Augustine hath recorded * Haeres 82. ad Qued vult and S. Ierome * Lib. 1. contra Iouin did hold that virginitie of professed persons men and women was no better then the continencie of the married So that many professed virgins beleeuing him did marry yet himselfe did not marry as Frier Luther did not because he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come with a greater crowne of glory but because it was fit for the present necessitie to auoyd the troubles of marriage see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants But this heresy saith S. Augustin in the same place was quickly suppressed and extinguished it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests And in another place thus * Lib. 2. reâ—rec 22 he speaketh of Iouinian Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster So that no maruell if that M. Perkins could find small releefe in antiquitie for this his assertion which the best of them esteemed no better then a monstrous sacrilegious heresie R. ABBOT How simply M. Bishop hath dealt in the answering of the Scriptures alledged against him we haue very well seene already and it hath bene made appeare to him that we want not testimony of antiquitie for the applying thereof in such sort as we do Albeit we freely say to him that our faith resteth entirely vpon the word of God and where God hath spoken plainly to vs we wil not suspend our assent vpon question whether men thinke the same that God hath told vs. If men haue giuen testimony thereof we take their witnesse and vse it if not we say as in another case Cyprian doth a Cypr. lib. 2. ep 5. Non sunt expectaÌ„da testiâ—onia humana cùm praecedunt diuina suffragia We are not to looke for the testimonies of men where we haue warrant already from God himselfe and with the Apostle Saint Paul b Rom. 3.4 Let God be true and euery man a liar In the meane time we do but suffer M. Bishop here to c Prou. 7.22 go like a foole to the stockes for correction not imagining whither he goeth and like the poore fish to dally play with the baite wherein he receiueth his owne bane He sporteth himselfe with Iouinian and in the cause of Iouinian we bring not a broken fragment of a sentence of some father but in a manner a whole Church and no meane Church but euen the Church of Rome defending and maintaining that virginitie of professed persons is no better with God then the continencie of the married The old Church of Rome condemned the doctrine of Montanus which was the same in effect as before I haue said that the Church of Rome now maintaineth The old Church of Rome vpheld the doctrine of Iouinian which was the same that we now defend against the Church of Rome This matter gentle Reader hath bene declared before at large d Sect 8. in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle and thither I refer thee for the full vnderstanding of it Here I will onely briefly remember thee that the doctrine of Hierome against Iouinian found generall opposition in the Romane Church and how scandalously and offensiuely it was taken his owne words may giue vs to vnderstand when in his apologie he saith e Hieron apolog pro lib. aduer Iouin Grande piaculuÌ„ euersae sum ecclesiae orbis audire non potest si virginitatem diximus esse muÌ„diorem quà m nuptias A great offence the Churches are ouerthrowne the world cannot abide to heare it that I haue said that virginitie is more pure or holy then marriage It was no small matter that made him thus to speake to hold that virginitie is more holy then
him insomuch as it sayth nothing positiuely for the drawing and painting of the holy Ghost in the forme of a doue and doth approue those speeches which generally condemne the resembling of the godhead in any forme A relation is made of one Seuerus who at Daphne tooke away the Doues framed in gold and siluer and hanged ouer the fonts as in figure of the holy Ghost saying that they ought not to vse the name of the holy Ghost coÌ„cerning anie such forme of a Doue Hereupon Tharasius readie to apprehend euery thing that might make for their Image-idolatrie answereth thus l Nicen. 2. Act. 5 Si in nomine sancti Spiritus dedicaetas columbas sancti Patres receperunt quantò magis corpus incarnati verbi in terris in corpore visi recipiendum If the holy Fathers receiued doues dedicated in the name of the holy Ghost how much more is the body of the incarnat Word seene vpon the earth in a body to be receiued 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 keepe a concubine or a harlot much more should it be thought lawfull for him to marrie a wife and yet doth not therefore approue that it should be lawfull for a Popish Priest to keepe a concubine or harlot And that the Councell did not approue it as a thing lawfull it is manifest by those narrations and authorities which they do approue and alledge for the approuing of their Images They alledge a Sermon of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica containing a disputation betwixt a Pagan and a Christian where the Pagan obiecting in defence of their Images that Christians also did make Images not onely to their Saints but also to their God the Christian answereth as touching God thus m Ibid. ex Ser. Joan. Episc Thess Dei auteÌ„ imaginem dico Seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quemadmodum ipse super terraÌ„ eum hominibus conuersatus est pingimus non vt ipsae natura Deus est Quae enim posset esse Dei similitudâ— aut quae figura incorporei ineffigiabilisque verbi Patris Deus enim vt scriptum est spiritus est Quoniam visum est Deo Patri vnigenitum filiuÌ„ suum è coelis demittere quo pro nostra salute ex Spiritu sancto inâ—olata virgine Dâ—â—para incarnaretur nos eius humanitateÌ„ ea ratione pingimus non illius incorpoream Deitatem The image of God I meane of our Sauior Iesus Christ we make according as he was conuersant with men vpon the earth not as by nature he is God for what likenesse 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 downe from heauen his onely begotten Sonne that by the holy Ghost he might be incarnate of the pure Virgin the mother of God therefore we paint his humanitie in that sort but not his incorporall Godhead Afterwards out of Leontius there is read a disputation betwixt a Iew and a Christian the Iew professing to beleeue that Christ is the Sonne of God but that he was offended to see Christians contrarie to the commandement to fall downe before Images and the Christian thereto answering n Ibid. ex Leont Deo vt talis est Scriptura iubet non esse faciendaÌ„ similitudinem ne que aliquam imaginem adorandam esse vt Deum Imagines enim quas vides ad memoriam Iesu Christi salutaris nobis incarnationis pinguntur Personam illius humanitatis ex primentes SanctoruÌ„ auteÌ„ imagines eodem modo vniuscuiusque praelia contra diabolum mundum victoriasque significant The Scripture commandeth that to God as he is God no similitude or likenesse 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 Iesus Christ which hath yeelded saluation to vs. But the Saints images do in like sort signifie the battels and victories of euery of them against the Diuell and the world Againe it is alledged out of the confessions of certaine Martyrs thus o Ibid. ex Const. Diacon Chartophyl Non enim diuinuÌ„ simplex existens incomprehensibile formis figuris assimilamus neque cera lignis supersubstantialeÌ„ ante principia existentem substantiam honorare decreuimus We do not by formes and shapes resemble God being simple and incomprehensible neither haue we intended by waxe and wood to honour the substance whith is aboue all substance and hath his being before beginning By al which it is euident that they wholy disclaimed the painting and picturing of the Godhead so that their whole decree throughout the Councell proceedeth onely as touching the images of Christ p Jbid Act. 7. Epist. ad ConstaÌ„ Iren. Quatenus scilicet perfectus homo suit as he was perfect man and of the Angels and Saints as appeareth also by their Synodall Epistle in the end of the Councell but of images of the Godhead they decree nothing Whereby we see that M. Bishop is a man of an euill nature and disposition who will thus make a bad matter worse then it is A good mind will make things better and not worse but whereas the Councell was bad enough in decreeing worship to the images of Christ and his Saints he maketh it worse then it was by fathering vpon it the approuing of the images of the holy Ghost We see then that he hath no proofe at all for making an image of God and therefore it was but a point of indiscretion in him to tell vs in what manner and meaning they picture and resemble God it being alledged that it is not lawfull many manner or meaning so to do As for his discourse of motiues that come by sight it sauoureth of the grosse conceipt of all idolaters who cannot endure to be without babies and puppets and no longer think they haue a God then they haue a God to looke vpon To heare of God or to reade of him in his word and to behold him in his workes it is not sufficient but by an image they must needes haue him set foorth more nearely to feed their eyes Surely if the wisedome of God had thought it fit that we should haue learned him by painting and caruing he would not haue failed to haue giuen vs instruction thereof But sith he hath not so taught vs yea sith he hath taught the contrarie and condemned them as hath bene before shewed who haue pretended to be instructed by such meanes what a simple man doth Master Bishop shew himselfe to reason against God and to say If Angels and vertues may be figured and represented why may not some propertie or action of God be in like
places onely they might not haue them painted vpon the wall But the wise man had forgotten the first part of the Canon It seemeth good to vs that there shall be no pictures in the Church not that there shall be no pictures vpon the Church wals but that there shall be no pictures in the Church Whereby it appeareth plainly that they supposed no other being of them in the Church but onely by being painted vpon the wals and if they had intended the hauing of them any otherwise in the Church as vpon the altar or in any other place they would not haue forbidden the hauing of them in the Church by a flat contradiction to that which they intended There were yet no standards of images in the Churches only they had begun to adorne them with historical pictures paintings The fathers thinking it a dishonour to him whom we adore and worship to be pictured vpon a wall to take away that abuse forbid the hauing of any pictures in the Church referring their words to that kinde of images because there was no other kinde to which they had occasion to direct them But Bellarmines exception standeth still good against this answer that the reason of the Canon fitteth not to it which is not for any feare of the pictures falling into the hands of infidels but that that which we worship be not painted vpon the wals And by the same reason he excepteth also against the third answer which is taken out of Alanus Copus that Christians worshipped their images as Gods in that sence the Councell did forbid them for then saith he it should not haue bene said least that which is adored be painted but rather least that which is painted be adored The last answer to which he saith the reason of the Canon doth most fitly agree is that good stuffe which M. Bishop here addeth for supply that pictures painted vpoÌ„ such poore wals as they had then to their Churches would either by the moisture of the wals or other incommoditie he knoweth not what haue bene quickly disfigured therefore for the honour of such sacred things those graue Fathers thought it not meete to haue them drawne vpon the wals there being many more meete places for them in the Church So then those graue Fathers are forced in effect to say thus We will not haue any pictures in the Church because there are many meete places for them in the Church and they will soone be disfigured being painted vpon the walls Wee thinke good to haue no pictures in the Church that that which is worshipped may not be painted vpon the walls that is We wil haue pictures in the Church and that painted which is worshipped onely for feare of being too soone disfigured our Church walls being subiect to much moisture it shall not be done vpon the wall albeit if that inconuenience may be preuented we doe not dislike but that that which is worshipped may be painted vpon the wall Hypocrite what doest thou with that soule which Christ hath so dearlie bought wilt thou sell it wilfully to lies and falshood The Canon directly forbiddeth the hauing of pictures in the Church The reason is because they would not haue that which they worshipped to be painted vpon the walls They knew it might as well be painted on the wall as any where else but they were acquainted with no other hauing of pictures in the Church but onely by painting on the walls Therefore to exclude them wholy out of the Church which is the thing that they propound they giue reason of an vndecencie and vnfitnesse that that which is worshipped should be painted on the wals Bellarmine therefore seeing well that none of those answers can satisfie any reasonable man that readeth the Canon it selfe thought it best for a farewel to disgrace the Councel in such sort as I haue before shewed and much better should M. Bishop haue done the same and acknowledged that the Councel speaketh against them but they regard it not then thus to seeke to smother a truth with a manifest and wilfull lye 10. W. BISHOP The second obiection is out of a post-script of Epiphanius letter vnto Iohn Patriarke of Ierusalem in which is written as M. Perkins falsly reporteth that it is against the authority of Scripture to see the pictures of Christ or of any Saint to hang in the Church Answer It is there only to see the picture of a man Now that he should meane of Christ or of some Saint is only gathered yet M. Perkins makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text euen so do we thinke that some old enemie of images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter Our reasons are because it hath no coherence with the former letter or stile Againe in the seuenth Councell when all that could be found out of antiquitie was cited against images no tidings there of this place which if it had bene true might haue bene one of the principall Thirdly in the same Councell * Act. â— other two places brought as it were out of Epiphanius workes were found to be none of his And for images was alledged that Epiphanius owne disciples erected an image to their maister and set it in the Church which they would neuer haue done if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to do M. Perkins obserues a speciall reason in Epiphanius other counterfeit testimonie That images must not be suffered in the common house because we must carrie God in our mindes To which we answer that images must be suffered in all places that we may the better carrie God in our hearts being by the sight of them both often put in minde of him and much moued to honour and loue him R. ABBOT That all this answer is but a meere shift appeareth by Alphonsus de Castro who confesseth that Epiphanius did hold this errour as he calleth it against images as did also after him Serenus Bishop of Massilia in the time of Gregorie the great but maketh this excuse for them a Alphon. adu haeres lib. 8. tit Imago Res non erat adeò aperta nec de illa re quod sciaÌ„ vnquaÌ„ ecclesia illo teÌ„pore definierat quapropter liberuÌ„ tunc erat eis â—itra haeresis notam ita sentire that the matter was not then so manifest neither had the Church at that time defined any thing of it and therefore it was free for them without any note of heresie to be of that minde I pray thee gentle Reader here to obserue that the worshipping of images was no point of Christian faith or doctrine in the time of Gregorie the great that is for sixe hundred yeares after the time of Christ and that it was free for men without being questioned of heresie all that while to speake against it Hereby then esteeme who they are that are to be accounted new maisters bringers in of new doctrines and setters vp of new religions in the
Church of Christ M. Bishop is loth to deale plainly as Alphonsus did and therfore will by no meanes haue it thought that Epiphanius was of that minde but bringeth vs certaine woodden deuices to perswade men that he meant some other matter or rather that the testimonie alledged is none of his Maister Perkins briefely alledgeth that Epiphanius saith it is against the authoritie of the Scriptures to see the image of Christ or of any Saints hanging in the Church Maister Bishop saith that it is there onely to see the picture of a man that hee should meane of Christ or of some Saint is onely gathered and both are thrust into the text Whether it be so or not let it appeare by Epiphanius himselfe b Epiphan epist ad IoanneÌ„ Hierosolymit Inueni ibi velum pendem in foribus eiusdeÌ„ ecclesia tinctuÌ„ et depictuÌ„ imaginem habens quaesi Christi vel saÌ„cti euâ—usdaÌ„ noÌ„ enim satis memini cuâ—â—s imago fuerit CuÌ„ ergò vidissem in ecclesia Christi coÌ„tra authoritatem scripturaruÌ„ hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud magis dedi coÌ„silium custodibus eiusdem loci vt paupereÌ„ mortuum eo obuoluerent efferrent c. I found there in the Church at Anablatha a veile hanging at the dores of the Church died and painted and hauing 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 authoritie of the Scriptures there was the image of a man hanging in the Church I cut it and aduised the wardens of the place that they should burie some poore man in it It is here very euident 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 seeme to be blinde but indeed he saw this well enough and therfore seeketh other shifts because this could not serue He would make vs beleeue that some old enemie of images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter calling that a post-script which is a iust and substantiall part of a letter or Epistle seeking to haue it accounted an addition by another man which all copies both of Epiphanius his workes in Greeke and Hieromes translation of that Epistle into Latine doe vniformly deliuer as written by Epiphanius himselfe But yet it shall not be amisse 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 iustly accord The thing was done as Epiphanius and Iohn the Bishop of Ierusalem to whom the Epistle was written were going together to Bethel It was in the diocesse of the said Iohn Epiphanius had promised the people of the place to send them another veile for that which he cut He sendeth it to the Bishop and requesteth him to cause the same to be receiued by the ministers of the place and them withall c Ibid Et dein ceps praecipere in ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela quae contra religionem nostram ventunt non appendi to giue charge that such veiles which make against our religion be not hanged vp in the Church of Christ Thus therefore hauing other occasion to write to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem to cleare himselfe as touching some grieuances which the said Iohn had conceiued against him there was apparent occasion and reason of the adding of this matter As for the difference of stile it is a very fond and friuolous allegation there being no manner of ground whereupon he should conceiue it or whereby he can affirme it His second reason is because in the seuenth Councell when all that could be found out of antiquity was cited against images there was no tidings of this place which might haue bene one of the principall if it had bene true But therein againe his maister doth exceedingly abuse him For in the Councell of Constantinople related by that seuenth Councell and to whose citations it is that Bellarmine referreth that speech there are set downe but onely eight authorities or testimonies of former antiquitie and that eight testimonies are not all that can be alledged out of antiquity against images I hope M. Bishop will easily conceiue and finde by this discourse Yea and the Fathers of that Councell professe d Synod ConstaÌ„tino tom 5. apud Nicen. 2. Act. 6. Ex multis pauca testimonia collâ—cauimus â—reliquis quae infinita sunt voleâ—tes supersedimus vt qui velint ipsi requirant to set downe but few testimonies of many willingly passing ouer the rest which say they are infinite that they who will may search them themselues And as touching Epiphanius citing one place out of them they adde e Jbid. Idem in alijs quoque sermonibus suis de Imaginum subuersione multa dixit quae studiosi quaerentes facilè inuenient The same Father in other of his Sermons hath said many things for the casting downe of Images which they that are studious by search shall easily finde It appeareth therefore that those Fathers had no meaning to bring all that might be brought and it is a wilfull falshood to say that they did so And that there was more to haue bene alledged out of Epiphanius it is plaine not onely for that he calleth f Epiphan de haer cap. 1. Nondum erat inuentum aliquod aliud quà m sola scortatio excogitatio simulaechrorum Sic in Ancorato the deuising of images a whoredome or fornication and setteth it downe for a matter of the Carpocratian heresie that amongst other they worshipped the image of Christ as before was said but also for that he condemneth the Collyridian heretikes for making the image of the virgin Mary and offering to it whose heresie for that cause he calleth g Jdem haer 79. Huius simulachrisicae haeresis radicibuâ— excisis c. Et post Simulachrificum hoc studium diabolicus conatus Praetextu enim iustitia semper subiens hominum menteÌ„ Diabolus mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans statuas humanas imagines praeseferentes per artium varietatem expres sit Et illi quidem mortus sunt qui adorantur ipsorum verò imagi neâ— quae nunquaÌ„ vt â—erunt c. adorandas introducunt adulterante mente à solo vno Deo velut commune scortum ad multam multiplicis coitus absurditatem irritatum quod temperantiaÌ„ legitimi coniugij vnius viri detriuit the image-making heresie or an heresie giuen to making of images and calleth the desire of making images a diuellish practise For the diuel saith he stealing into mens minds vnder pretence of righteousnesse deifieth the mortall nature in the eies of men and by variety of artes frameth standards bearing in shew the images of
them in these words Thou shalt not bow downe to them Answ If it be onely forbidden to make the image of God and to adore it then the making and worshipping of the image of Christ or of any other creature is not there prohibited and so this second commandement more then thrise alledged will not serue the turne against any other Image but God onely And in plaine reason according also to M. Perkins his owne confession the commandements of the first table touch onely our dutie towards God that we giue him all his due honour and do not giue any part thereof vnto any thing else whatsoeuer Wherefore diuine and godly worship is onely there spoken of and not such worship as we giue vnto any creature or to the picture of it And consequently there is nothing there against the worshipping of our holy images Obserue that there is a soueraigne worship due to God as to the creator and gouernor of all the world and to giue this to any creature is idolatry Another honour by infinite degrees inferiour yet absolute in it self is ascribed vnto Angels and men as creatures endued with reason and made after the likenesse of God and to exhibite this to whom it is due is ciuilitie and not idolatry This honour may be deuided into two parts because these creatures are like to God as wel in their naturall powers and qualities as in their supernatural And that honor which is giuen to man or Angel in respect of any natural qualitie may be called morall or ciuil but that which is attributed vnto them in regard of their supernaturall gifts may wel be called religious and spirituall because it is due vnto theÌ„ onely for their spirituall and religious qualities There is a third kind of worship yet meaner then the other which is a kind of dependant and respectiue worship as when a seruant is honoured or cherished not for his owne but for his masters sake And this is that worship which we allow vnto images which for the Saints sake whom it doth represent we do either reuerently regard or take off our hat or bow our knee vnto it This third kind of worship being all we allow vnto pictures were he not that vnderstands it more then halfe franticke that should thinke it a great desparagement vnto the incomprehensible worship of God that to one of his seruants pictures I should yeeld some such pettie reuerence or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten commaundements nothing lesse R. ABBOT It is true that the commaundements of the first table do touch onely our duty towards God requiring that we giue him all his due honor and do not giue any part thereof to any thing else whatsoeuer Therefore the second commandement for preseruing entirely the honour of God forbiddeth the making of any image whereby to represent or resemble him and not onely so but any image whatsoeuer to bow downe to it or to worship it yea not only the making and worshipping of Images but also the worshipping of the creatures themselues any whatsoeuer either in heauen or earth Both the words of the commaundement and the Scriptures of particular lawes that are referred vnto it do plainly shew that all these things are to be vnderstood therein Now then seeing the law saith both of images and of creatures Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them it must follow that they who make the images of Saints and doe bow downe to them and worship them do trespasse against this commandement and therefore the commandement is by M. Perkins rightly and well applied against Popish Images But M. Bishop telleth vs that onely diuine or godly worship is there spoken of and not such worship as they giue to any creature or to the picture of it And we acknowledge that onely diuine and godly worship is there spoken of but diuine or godly worship we say is all manner worship pertaining to godlinesse and religion and therfore that they in giuing religious worship to Saints and to their images do contrary to the commaundement giue vnto them diuine and godly worship But M. Bishop with a distinction of worship taketh vpon him as do his fellows to mock God and albeit they commit all absurdity of idolatry yet by a school-trick will make him beleeue that they do him no wrong at all He telleth vs of a soueraigne worship due to God and of ae religious or spirituall worship due to Angels and Saints and of a dependent and respectiue worship due to Images But what is not the soueraigne worship of God a religious and spirituall worship or what do they make of their worship of images is there no religion therein and do they account it onely a profane and carnall seruice If on all parts there be religious and spiritual worship as he wil not deny what a wise part doth he play to giue vs a distinction of three members whereof one comprehendeth all Well howsoeuer he fumble in his termes yet we must take vpon vs to vnderstand his meaning well enough namely that they make three kinds of worship one belonging to God another to Angels and Saints and a third to Images They are wont to make but two kinds latria to God and doulia to Angels and Saints and both these seuerally to be performed to their images and we can hardly take M. Bishops word for any warrant that they are now minded otherwise It hath bene their common rule that a Thom. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. art 3. ex Damascen Honor imaginis ad prototypum peruenit the honor of the image redoundeth to him whose image it is Therefore Thomas Aquinas resolueth that b Jbid. in corp EadeÌ„ reuerentia exhibetur imagini Christi ipsi Christo Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae consequens est quòd eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda the same reuerence is giuen to the image of Christ and to Christ himselfe and because Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of latria that is diuine and godly worship it followeth that his image also is to be worshipped with the same worship of latria Therefore Andradius saith as hath bene c Sect. 1. before shewed We denie not but that we worship the crosse of Christ with this worship of latria So then inasmuch as the Saints are to be worshipped with the worship of doulia therefore they hold that their Images are in like sort to be worshipped Bellarmine simpereth somewhat at the matter and telleth vs that d Bellarmin de Imag. sanct c. 23 Admitti potest imagines posse coli impropriè per accidens eodem genere cultus quo exemplar ipsuÌ„ colitur it may be admitted that improperly and accidentally images may be worshipped with the same kinde of worship wherewith their principals are worshipped but one of his fellow Iesuites affirmeth simply and plainely that e Azor. Inâ—â—itut lib. 9 cap. 6.
hitherto The seuenth session which is the last containeth the Synodicall definition of the Councell for images to be worshipped and their subscriptions thereto with their certificate thereof to the Emperour Constantine and his mother Irene the Emperesse as also to the Bishops of all Churches Thus thou hast gentle Reader a briefe of the comedy of M. Bishops learned Councell though I confesse I am farre from acting it to cause thee that mirth that the reading of the Councell it selfe would do Their speeches are so ridiculous so vnsauoury so voide of all Christian grauitie and vnderstanding as that thou wouldest think they al spake but in a dreame or as being scant sober to aduise of that they say Albeit there are two things which I wish thee therein to obserue first that they approoue no other images but onely of Christ incarnate and of the Saints and do wholy condemne the making of any images of God as appeareth by the epistles of Germanus by the speeches of Leontius against the Iew of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica against the Pagan of Constantine the Deacon the custos rotulorum of the Church of Constantinople in the fourth and fift actions The second is that they wholy deny to images the worship of latria which they terme the worship proper to God onely as appeareth by the epistle of Tharasius to Constantine and Irene in the seuenth act In both which points the church of Rome hath gone beyond them not doubting to make images of God the Father in the likenesse of an old man as M. Bishop hath before acknowledged and of the holy Ghost in the forme of a Doue and by the common iudgement of her Diuines hauing affirmed that the worship of latria is to be giuen to the image of Christ and his crosse as hath bene before shewed and by practise yeelded no lesse to the images of all the Saints Thus haue they exceeded the measure of the idolatrie there decreed and neuer ceased till the superstitions of the people had in a manner fully matched all the abhominations of Pagan and heathen men The Councell being ended a copie thereof was sent to Charles the great who at that time was king of France He hauing receiued it sent it ouer into this land to haue the iudgement of the Church here concerning the matter of it What followed let it appeare by the narration of our old English historian Roger Houedon recited also by Mathew of Westminster a Roger. Honed Annal. part 1. ann 792. Carolus rex Francorum misiâ— Synodalem libruÌ„ ad Britanniam sibi à Constantinopoli directuÌ„ in quo libro heu proh dolor multa inconuementia verae fidei contraria reperiebantur maximè quòd penè omnium Orientalium doctorum non minùs quà m trecentorum vel eo ampliùs EpiscoporuÌ„ vnanima assertione confirmatum fuerit imaginesadoraeri debere quod omninò Ecclesia Dei execratur CoÌ„tra quod scripsit Albinus epistolam ex authoritate diuinarum scripturarum mirabilâ—ter affirmataÌ„ illamque cum eodeÌ„ libro ex persona Episcoporum ac PrincipuÌ„ nostroruÌ„ regi FrancoruÌ„ attulit Idem habetur apud Mat. West monasteriensem In the yeare 792. Charles the king of France sent a synodicall booke into Brittaine which had bin directed to him from Constantinople in which booke alas for wo many things were found inconuenient and contrary to the true faith specially for that by the agreeing assertion of almost all the Easterne Doctor being no lesse then three hundred Bishops or more it was decreed that images ought to be worshipped which thing the Church of God holdeth altogether accursed Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle wonderfully fortified by authoritie of holy Scriptures and in the name of our Bishops and Nobles caried the same with the booke to the king of France By this we see what credite M. Bishops Nicene Councell had with the auncient Church of this land and that he doth but play the Sycophants part in that hee goeth about now so highly to commend the same vnto vs contrary to so notable a iudgement of our forefathers and auncesters so long ago yea we see how impudently they lie in saying that our forefathers from the beginning were of the same religion that the Church of Rome is of now But that was not all that Charles did for he caused also a Councell to be assembled at Franckford in Germanie of the Bishops of Italy France and Germanie who with common voyce condemned that Nicene Councell and plainly declared that the sentence thereof for worshipping of images was contrary to the word of God Abbas Vrspergensis speaking of this Franckford Councell hauing shewed that therein the heresie of Felix was condemned who held that Christ was but by adoption the Sonne of God addeth further b Abb. Vrsperg Chron. anno 793. Synodus etâ—aÌ„ quae ante pautos aÌ„nos in ConstaÌ„tinopoli coâ—gregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacuae ab omnibus abâ—icata est The Synod also which a few yeares before was assembled at Constantinople for there it was first begun vnder Irene and Constantine and by them called the seuenth and an vniuersall or generall Councell was by them all reiected as voide that it should neither be called the seuenth nor any thing else So saith Regino also conèerning the same councell c 〈…〉 lib. 2. ann◠〈◊〉 Pse◠〈◊〉 Graecorâ—mâ—â—â— pro adoâ—â—â—â— maginibus â—â—cerant a peâ—â—â—ficibus reiecta est The false Synod of the Greekes which they had caused for the worshipping of Images was reiected by the Bishops there The acts of this councell were published in a booke vnder the name of Charles himselfe as hath bene before said and a copy thereof was sent to Adrian the Bishop of Rome who to the Nicene couÌ„cel had binone of the great maisters for the worshipping of Images He poore man playing the part of an Abbreniator taking out of the booke what he list and as he list taketh vpon him to write an answer to it some part whereof is still to be seene adioined to that * Concil tom 3. edit surij appen Nicen. concil 2. Nicene councell but it is so pitifull an answer as may well giue vs to vnderstand what is to be thought of the whole matter Surius the Friar saw so much very well but he handsomely to colour the matter saith d Surius ibid. Lectors Plerunque dum non satis ap tè aduersarijsrespondere imperito lectori videre potest eostanquaÌ„ aliud agens egregiè slagellat Whilest commonly to the vnskilfull Reader he may seeme not fitly enough to answer his aduersaries he as it were being about another matter scourgeth them notably This was a Friarly deuice to make the vnskilfull beleeue that there are some deep mysteries in Adrians words which euery man cannot see whereas any wise man may see that his answers are
u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolicaâ— apud quas ipsae adâ—uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesideÌ„tur apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur c. Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos c. si Italiae adiaceâ— hâ—bes Romanam c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur vnum Deum nouit Creatorem vniuâ—sitaâ—â—â— Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria filium Creatoris carnis resurrectionem legem Prophetâ—s cum Euangelicis Apostolicis literis miscet inde fidem portat eam c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles and their authenticall Epistles were still read as of the Corinthians the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Romanes which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God the Creatour of the whole world and Iesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Sonne of the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles and thence deriuing that faith Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur vâ—um omninò Deum esse nec alium quà m mundi Creatorem qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur The rule of faith is this to beleeue that there is one onely God and the same no other but the Creator of the world who by his word first of all sent foorth made all things of nothing The same word called his Son was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes euermore heard in the Prophets last of all by the spirit and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary made flesh in her wombe and being borne of her did the part of Iesus Christ preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen wrought miracles and being nailed to a crosse rose againe the third day and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe VpoÌ„ the assertion of this rule he inferreth that y Si haec ita se habent vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo tradidit constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad eanâ—è de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertiâ—ere sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God it was hereby assured which he had before propounded that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith that z Illic igitur ScripturaruÌ„ expositionum adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae Quibus fuit propositum aliter doceÌ„di necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius ita nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio iâ—tulimus vt aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione vel transmutatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quà m sumus the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures For they saith he who intended to teach otherwise had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching For they could not teach otherwise except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach But on the contrarie side he saith As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs without the integritie of those instrumeÌ„ts by which doctrine is handled For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs What haue we brought in of our owne that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie we should remedie by adding or taking away or changing any thing What we are the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning From theÌ„ we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith pertinent to the matter here in hand wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof First it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith concerning the vnitie of the Godhead the creation of the world the Godhead and incarnation of Christ the resurrection of the dead the coming of the holy Ghost and sundry other such like They reiected such whole bookes and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles or by any diuine inspiration a Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta but foisted in yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. EmeÌ„datores Apostolorum Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures