a maintainer of the true faith be must needes be a scatterer He could not be of Christ that refused them that tooke part with Christ and therefore must be of Antichrist In this respect he renounced Vitalis Milesius and Paulinus because n Erasm schol ibid. they were all either knowne or suspected to be partakers of the heresie of Arius and therefore very deceitfully doth M. Bishop alledge that he would not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus who was no meane man but the Patriarch of Antioch as hereby to adde a superioritie to the Bishop of Rome when as there was otherwise so apparant cause why he should refuse so to do In all this therefore Hierome saith no more of the Bishop and Church of Rome then he might haue said of any other Bishop and Church professing true faith and doctrine as the Church of Rome then did but very farre was he from teaching or intending any perpetuall necessitie that all Churches for euer should conforme themselues to the Church of Rome And that he neuer had any such meaning let it appeare by himselfe when being vrged with the example of the Church of Rome he answereth o Hieron Epist. ad Euagr. Quid mihi profers vntus vrbis consuetudinem quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas What dost thou bring to me the custome of one citie why dost thou maintaine a paucitie or fewnesse whence hath growne proud vsurping vpon the lawes of the Church He had said a little before p Ibid. Si autoritas quaeritur orbis maior est vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus siue Romae siue Eugubij siue CoÌ„stantinopoli siue Rhegij siue Alexandriae siue Tanis eiusdem meriti est eiusdeÌ„ sacerdotij Potentia diuitiaruÌ„ pauperiatis humilitas sâ—l linuorem vel inferiorem EpiscopuÌ„ non facit caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt If we demaund authority the world is greater then the citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be whether of Rome or of Eugubium whether at Constantinople or at Rhegium whether at Alexandria or at Tanes he is of the same worth and of the same office of Bishopricke Power of wealth or basenesse of pouertie maketh a Bishop neither higher nor lower but they are all successors of the Apostles Thus he spake purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome charging the same with proud domineering ouer the lawes of the Church affirming the authoritie of the Churches through the world to be greater then the authority of the Church of Rome attributing to euery Bishop of whatsoeuer place equalitie in office with the Bishop of Rome because all are alike successors of the Apostles Yea and to shew that the Church of Rome receiued no more by Peter then other Churches did by the rest of the Apostles he saith in another place that q Idem adu Iouin lib. 1. At dicis super PetruÌ„ fit datur Ecclesia liceta idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelerum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur the Church is built vpon all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the strength of the Church is equally grounded vpon them Whereby it plainely appeareth that Hierome neuer meant to make the Church of Rome any such perpetuall Mistris and ruler of other Churches as M. Bishop dreameth her to be Yea but S. Ambrose further saith I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome But why did M. Bishop giue ouer there not adde also that that followeth r Ambros de Sacram lib. 3. cap. â— In omnibus cupio sequi Romanâ—m Ecclesiam sed tamen nos homines sensum habentus ideo quod alibi rectiùs seruatur nos rectè custodimus I desire saith he in all things to follow the Church of Rome but yet we are also men that haue vnderstanding and therefore what is more rightly obserued otherwhere we also iustly obserue the same S. Ambrose being Bishop of Millaine not farre from Rome sheweth that he yeelded a reuerend respect vnto the Church of Rome but yet professeth that things might be better in other places then they were at Rome and that his Church of Millaine had vnderstanding to iudge what was fit aswell as the Church of Rome and therefore that they held not themselues tyed by any necessarie dutie to the example thereof but would do what they thought more rightly performed in any other Church Now then what shall we thinke of M. Bishop who thus shamefully seeketh to blind his reader by alledging one part of a sentence for his purpose when the other part thereof expresly crosseth that for which he alledgeth it And thus much concerning M. Bishops answer to M. Perkins Prologue For the rest I will God willing follow him in like sort steppe by steppe according to his owne words in more honest and faithfull manner then he hath dealt with M. Perkins and that in such sort I hope as that the meaner learned shall vnderstand that the learning which he would teach them is naught and the more iudicious shall be able to iudge that it is a very bad cause to which the marrow and pith of many large volumes can yeeld no better defence then he hath brought CHAPTER 1. OF FREE WILL. 1. W. BISHOP THat I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath sayd agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off onely superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning Free will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free will both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will onely whereby we chuse or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more popular M. Perkins 1. Conclusion Man must be considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renued as he shall be glorified In the first state we ascribe vnto mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or will either good or euill note that this libertie proceeded not from his owne nature but of originall Iustice in which he was created In the third libertie of grace in the last libertie of glorie Annot. Cary this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will R. ABBOT MAister Bishop here dealeth as iuglers are wont to do who make shew of faire play when they vse nothing but
shalt be saued This whether spoken publikly or priuatly the conscience of the hearer apprehendeth this he beleeueth and therein beleeueth not the minister but the word of Christ and because he beleeueth in Iesus Christ and by the word of Christ beleeueth that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued therefore he beleeueth concerning himselfe that he shall be saued Thus much is implied though not expressed in M. Perkins answer now let vs heare what M. Bishop saith to the contrarie and there we shall heare not one wise word Good Sir saith he seeing euery man is a lyer as M. Bishop namely for example and may both deceiue and be deceiued and the minister telling may erre how doth he know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect I answer him Good Sir M. Perkins no where telleth you that the minister taketh vpon him to know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect but doth onely assure him that if he beleeue in Christ he shall be saued and therein the minister knoweth and the man to whom he speaketh knoweth that be mistaketh not when vnder this condition he assureth him of saluation because he assureth him not vpon any deceiueable word or warrant of his owne but vpon the vndeceiueable word and warrant of Christ that n Rom. 9.33 whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not be confounded He goeth on To affirme as you do that the Minister is to be beleeued as well as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie I answer him againe To talke as you do you know not what is the part of a brabling Sophister not of a learned diuine For M. Perkins doth not affirme that the minister is to be beleeued as well as Christ himselfe but that the word of the Gospell preached by the minister is to be beleeued as if Christ himselfe did here personally speake because it is the word of Christ himselfe who when he saith whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued doth therein say Cornelius beleeue and thou shalt be saued Peter beleeue and thou shalt he saued or if he meane not so cannot truly say whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued And for this he hath the warrant of Gods word and commission from Christ because being for Christ a minister of the Gospell his office is to preach the Gospell and it is the word of the Gospell that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life Therefore this is not to say that the ministers word counteruailes Gods word or to make euery pelting minister Gods mate as the paltry shaueling prateth but it is to challenge assent and credit to the word of God to the Gospell of Christ vpon which onely and not vpon the minister the faithfull beleeuer doth rely himselfe But to quit M. Bishop with a question we will aske him Good Sir may Iohn a Stile beleeue that you haue authorie from Christ to giue him absolution of all his sinnes You will vndoubtedly tell him Yes that he must so in any case But Iohn a Stile asketh againe I pray Sir where doth Christ speake of you or of me For I do not find in the Gospell that euer Christ made mention of either of vs. M. Bishop will tell him that Christ said to the Apostles to all Priests their successors o Iohn 20.23 Whose soeuer sinnes ye remit they are remitted and because he is a Priest therefore this authoritie belongeth to him So then because Christ hath sayd to all Priests whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted though he sayd it to farre other purpose then M. Bishop practiseth it therefore Iohn a Stile must beleeue that M. Bishop hath authoritie from Christ to absolue him from all his sinnes Now will not M. Bishop be so fauourable to vs as that from a generall we may inferre a particular as well as he Surely if when Christ sayd Whose sinne sye remit they are remitted he spake in effect of M. Bishop and Iohn a Stile we see no reason why we should not be permitted the like construction that when Christ saith Whosoeuer beleeueth in me shall not perish but haue euerlasting life he saith and by the minister may be reported to say in effect to this man or that man Beleeue thou in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt haue eternal life This matter need not so many words but that we haue to do with impudent wranglers who being blinded with malice are as farre from common discretion as they are from truth Whereupon it is that in the next words he cauilleth againe as if M. Perkins had sayd that the minister knowes who is predestinate or did say to Peter for example Thou art one of the elect whereas he hath not a letter or syllable to giue any shew hereof but onely expresseth a conditionall assurance by the word of the Gospell to this man or that man or whomsoeuer that if he repent and beleeue the Gospell he shall be saued the minister not taking vpon him to know that any man truly repenteth or beleeueth which God onely can know but leauing the man to apprehend the promise vpon conscience of his owne repentance and faith in Christ Therefore all this idle talke of M. Bishops is but for want of matter as his alledging of the words of the Apostle to proue that whereof there is no question made that the Lord onely knoweth who are his and none else but only as it is reuealed from him He goeth on and telleth vs that M. Perkins flieth from the assurance of the minister and leaues him to speake at randon as the blind man casts his club Bur M. Perkins flieth from nothing that he had before sayd but still leaueth the word of Christ onely preached by the minister in Christs name to be the onely assurance for the faithfull to build vpon Neither doth the minister speake at randon but certainly and definitely he affirmeth by the same word to him that repenteth and beleeueth that he shall be saued though he know not who it is that shall repent or beleeue and so be saued and therefore in that respect if M. Bishop will needs haue it so speakes at randon euen as the blind man casts his club not knowing whom he shall strike as the fisherman casts his net not knowing what fish he shall catch no otherwise then the Apostles did at whose preaching some beleeued other some blasphemed and beleeued not according to that which S. Austin saith p August de praedest sanct cap. 6. Many heare the word of truth some of them beleeue it some contradict and speake against it So therfore the minister as touching the effect of preaching speaketh vncertatnly not knowing where the seed shall grow but yet certainly deliuering that wheresoeuer it shall bring forth the fruit of faith it shall also bring forth eternall life Which assurance he giueth by the word of Christ and the faith of the hearer thence apprehendeth and thereof concludeth assurance
hos duos testes duos vn oâ— esse ante aduentum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse Quomodo autem potuerunt habitantes terram de duorum nece gaudere â—um in vna ciuitate marerentur munera inuiceÌ„ mittere si tres dies sunt quo antequaÌ„ gaudeant de nece contristentur de resurrectione their conceipt is wholy excluded who thinke that those two witnesses shall be two certaine men and that they bee ascended to heauen in the clouds before the comming of Christ For how saith he should the inhabitants of the earth reioyce of the death of two when as they should dye in one citie and how should they send gifts one to another if there be but three dayes that before they can reioyce of their death they shall haue sorow againe of their resurrection He gathereth out of the very text it selfe that the place cannot be meant of two particular men because the inhabitants through the world can haue no such reioycing of two men put to death in one place who within three dayes must rise againe and therefore necessarily we must admit another construction thereof That is briefly this as more at large might be shewed if occasion so required that the seruants of God for the word of their testimonie the doctrine of Iesus Christ witnessed by the old and new testament should be murthered and slaine in the streets and cities of the Romane Empire and their bodies dishonorably cast forth and left to the foules and beasts whom yet notwithstanding God after a time certainly determined would chalenge from that despite and reproach and make their name glorious so that they should seeme euen to rise from death to life and as it were from hell to be raised vp to heauen which came afterwards to passe when God by Constantine freed his Church from the persecution of that time W. BISHOP Now let vs come to the ancient and learned men whom you cite in fauour of your exposition The first is S. Bernard who saith that they are the ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist Of whom speaketh that good religious Father forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome Good who were as he saith the ministers of Christ because they were lawfully called by the Pope to their places but serued Antichrist for that they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings And so this maketh more against you then for you approuing the lawfull officers of Rome to be Christs ministers The second place is alledged out of him yet more impertinently your selfe confessing presently that those words were not spoken of the Pope but of his enemie The reason yet there set downe pleaseth you exceedingly which you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you for you inferre that that Pope and all others since that time be vsurpers out of this reason of S. Bernard Because forsooth that the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the King of Almaine Fraunce England c. and their whole cleargie and people For if Innocentius were an Antichrist and vsurper because he was elected by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope This your words declare but your meaning as I take it is quite contrarie But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter if need require It sufficeth for this present that you find no reliefe at all in S. Bernard touching the maine point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might maruell if out of so sweet a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope any such poyson might be sucked specially weighing well what he hath written vnto one of them Lib. 2. de Cons ad Eugen. to whom he speaketh thus Go to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time Who art thou A great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignitie Aaron in authoritie Moses in Power Peter thou art he to whom the Keyes were deliuered to whom the sheepe were committed There are indeed also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flockes allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleare opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certaine blind places and broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but verie Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicholas as he citeth it that the Pope was to bee created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some thirtie or fortie Bishops of Rome at once but of the matter of election else where R. ABBOT I confesse the places of S. Bernard do not serue directly to that purpose to which they are brought In naming Antichrist he did not intend thereby that we should vnderstand the Pope yet M. Bishop without cause taketh aduantage of his first words because the Pope being Antichrist indeed nothing hindreth but that they who by office and calling and dutie are the ministers and seruants of Christ may in action and practise perfidiously and trecherously yeeld their seruice to the Pope Antichrist shall a 2. Thes 2.4 sit in the temple of God and therefore the officers of the temple of God shall be subiect vnto him That which by institution is the house of God shall by his occupation become a den of theeues they who by dutie are subiects shall in following him be rebels and traitors pastors shall become beasts watchmen shall be blind men and they who haue places for one vse shall turne them to another Thus S. Bernard saith of the Cleargie of Rome b Bernard in Cant. ser 32. Ministri Christi sunt seruiunt Antichristo They are the ministers of Christ and they serue Antichrist the true vse of their places is the seruice of Christ but they abuse the same to the helping forward of the kingdome of Antichrist He describeth at large in that place the horrible corruption of the Church of Rome c Ibid serpit hodie putidatabes per omne corpus ecclesiae et quo la tâ—uâ— eo desperatitâ— coque perititiosius quo interâ—tis A filthie contagion saith he is creeping through the whole bodie of the Church by how much the more generally so much the more desperatly and so much the more dangerously by how much the more inwardly He sheweth how the Pastours of Churches Deanes Archdeacons Bishops
is shed for the remission of the sinnes of the brethren which Christ hath done for vs and in that hath yeelded vs not any thing to imitate and follow but what to reioyce of For if any man will compare himselfe to the power of Christ in thinking himselfe to heale the sin of another man it is too much for him he is not capable thereof He is the rich man saith he who being not subiect to any debt either hereditarie or of his owne is both iust himselfe and iustifieth others euen Iesus Christ. Do not aduaunce thy selfe against him being so poore as that thou appearest in thy prayer daily a begger of the forgiuenesse of sinnes There is no forgiuenesse of sinnes then by the bloud of Martyrs there is no ablenesse in one man to heale the sinne of another or to pay anothers debt euery man is poore euery man a begger crauing from day to day the release and remission of owne debts This was S. Pauls case thus he praied daily as Christ had taught him and why then doth Maister Bishop make him so rich as that he should be able to make paiment of our debts that he should purchase a release of the punishment of our sinnes that he should take vpon him y Tho. Aquint supplem q. 12. art 2. ad 1. Satisfactio est quaedaÌ„ illatae iniuriae recoÌ„pensatio Et q. 14. Ablatio offensae art 1. in corp to make recompence for the wrongs that we haue done to God and to take away our offence towards God or Gods offence and displeasure towards vs as their name of Satisfaction doth import It was a farre other matter that the Apostle intended in that he saith that he endured afflictions for the Churches sake It was to confirme vnto the Church the truth of the Gospell of Christ to cause the greater opinion of that doctrine which he preached in that he yeelded himselfe for the testifying thereof to hazard and bestow his temporall life to encourage comfort the faithful to continue constant in the faith of Christ according to the example that they had seen in him to embolden other men to preach the word notwithstanding the opposition that was made against it And thus doth the Apostle expresse the ends and vses of his afflictions z Phil. 1.7 the confirmation of the Gospell a Ver. 12. the furthering of the Gospel b Ver. 17. the defence of the Gospell c Ver. 20. the magnifying of Christ d 2. Cor. 1.6 If we be afflicted saith he it is for your coÌ„solation and saluation which is wrought in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer Not then as to purchase any thing towards their saluation by his afflictions but as to hearten and comfort them to the patient bearing of afflictions in the enduring whereof God had intended to bring their saluation to effect Thus Thomas Aquinas where his eies were open coÌ„ceiued both of this text of that to the Colossians which is here in question who writing vpon the words of the Apostle Was Paule crucified for you vseth these words e Tis. Aquin in 1. Cor. cap. 1 lect 2. Hoc proprium est Christo vt sua passioâ—e morte nostram salutem operatus fuerit c. Sed contra hoc esse v. letur quod Apostolus dicit Gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Sed dicendum quod passio Christi fuit nâ—bis salutifera non solum per modum exempli sed etiaÌ„ per modum meriti efficaciae inquaÌ„tuÌ„ eius sanguine redempti iustificati sumus c. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solùm per moduÌ„ exempli secundum 2 Cor. 1. Sine tribulamur c. This is proper to Christ that he by his passion and death hath wrought our saluation But it seemeth to be against this which the Apostle saith Col. 1. Now I reioyce in my sufferings for you c. But we are to say that the passion of Christ was the cause of our saluation not onely by way of example but also by way of merit and effectuall working in that by his bloud we are redeemed and iustified but the sufferings of others is furthering to our saluation only by way of example according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted it is for your comfort and saluation c. Againe in another place propounding by way of obiection that f Idem p. 3. q. 48. art 5. arg 3. Non soluÌ„ cassio Christi sed etiam alioruÌ„ sanctorum preficua fuit ad salutem nostram vt Col. 1 Gaudeâ— in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Dicendum quod passiones sanctoruÌ„ proficiunt Ecclesiae non quideÌ„ per modum redemptionâ—â— sed per modum exempli exhortationis secundum illud 2. Cor. 1 Sine tribulamur c. not onely the passion of Christ but also of other Saints was helpfull to our saluation according to the saying of the Apostle Col. 1. Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you c. and therefore that Christ onely cannot be called our Redeemer but also other Saints he answereth thus We are to say that the passions of the Saints are helpful or profitable to the Church not by way of redemption but by way of example comfort or encouragement according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted c. So where the Apostle saith g 2. Tâ—m 2.10 I suffer all things for the elects sake that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus he asketh h In â— Tim. 2. lect 2 Sed nunquid sufficit Christi passio Dicenduâ— quòd siâ— effectiâ—â— sed passio Apostoli dupliciter expiediebat Primo quia dabat exâ—mplum perfistendi in fide Seâ—undo quia confirmabatur fides ex hoc indâ—cebantur ad salutem what was not the passion of Christ sufficient Yes saith he as touching the working of saluation but the Apostles suffering was two waies expedient First because he gaue example thereby of continuing in the faith Secondly because thereby the faith was confirmed and by that meanes they were induced and drawne on to saluation Thus then we haue example confirmation comfort encouragement in the sufferings of the Apostles and Saints but we cannot finde any satisfaction for our sinnes And that M. Bishop may know that we speake this from better authority then onely Thomas Aquinas let S. Ambrose tell in what sence the Apostles suffered for the Church i Ambrosâ—n Psal 43. Petrus pro Ecclesia multa toleraâ—â—it Multa etiaÌ„ Paulus raeterique Apâ—stoli pertulerunt cùm caederentur vâ—rgis cùm lapidarentur cùm in carceres truderentur Illa enim tolerantia amurtaruÌ„ vsu periculorum Doâ—â—ni fundatus est populus ecclesia incrementum est consecâ—â— cùm caeteri ad martyrium festinarent vilentes per illas passiones nihil Apostâ—lorum decessisse virtutibus sed etiaÌ„ propter hanc breâ—em
is also to sustaine and comfort the weake There is to prouoke the appetite but yet there is also to satisfie the hunger There is q Bâ—rnard in paru ser 64. In Pelago sacra lectionâ—â— agnus ambulat elephas natat depth for the Elephant to swim but there are also shelfes and shallowes for the lambe to wade It is truly said by S. Austin that r Aug. ep 3. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tanta in eis difficultate peruentatur without any great difficultie we thereby attaine to those things that are necessary for saluation and that Å¿ Idem de vtilit credendi cap. 6. Inscripturis disciplina ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauritendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him if he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs These and their true successors be the true and liuely oracles of the true and liuing God them we must consult in all doubtfull questions and submit our selues wholy to their decree But what M. Bishop are not onely the Apostles but their successors also the liuely oracles of God Which of the successors of the Apostles euer tooke vpon him either seuerally or ioyntly so to be We haue heard that t Ephes 2.20 the houshold of God are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets but that they are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles successours we neuer heard As for consulting with the Fathers in doubtfull questions we willingly yeeld to do it that we may haue their helpe to find out in the Scripture the resolution of such doubts but that we are to submit our selues wholy to their decree as accounting them the oracles of God is a point of learning which S. Austin knew not when he said u Aug. de nat grat cap 61. Egâ— in hutusmedi quorumlibet hominum scriptu liber sum quia solis Canonicis Scripturis debeo fine vlla recusaâ—nne confensum I am free in such writings of men whatsoeuer they be because to the Canonicall Scriptures onely do I owe consent without refusall But not to stand too long vpon these fancies let one place of Hierome be an â—â—sâ—er to them all x Hier. in Psal 86. Quomodo narrabit Dominus Non verbo sed Scriptura In cutus Scriptura in populorum quae Scripturae populis omnibus legitur hoc est ve omnes intelligant c. The Lord will declare or shew in the Scripture of the people and of the Princes that haue bene in her How will the Lord declare Not by word but by writing or by Scripture In whose Scripture Euen in the Scripture of the peoples which is read to all peoples that is that all may vnderstand The Lord hath spoken by his Gospell not that a few but that all should vnderstand the Princes of Christ haue not written for a few but for all the people The Princes are the Apostles and the Euangelists Those saith he which were or haue bene in her Marke what he saith which were not which are so that the Apostles excepted whatsoeuer after shall be said is cut off and hath no authoritie Albeit therfore a man be holy albeit he be learned after the Apostles he hath no authoritie In which words he sheweth vs that the counsell of God thought good to leaue vs the Apostles doctrine not by word not by tradition but by writing that the scriptures which he hath giuen vs by them are so disposed as that they serue for the vnderstanding of all men that all authoritie of doctrine is concluded and ended in them neither hath any after them authoritie to teach vs any thing towards God that is not warranted and approued by their writings It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that Christ gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper and againe that the meaning of the word is not to be knowne by the word it selfe and againe that the successors of the Apostles also are the liuely oracles of the true and liuing God In the next place he abuseth the Apostle S. Paule and vnder colour of the names of two or three of the Fathers absurdly misapplieth his going vp to Hierusalem as if he had gone to haue his doctrine examined and approued by the Apostles that were before him He nameth S. Peter single and by himselfe as to haue vs to conceiue that S. Paul yeelded some high preheminence superiority to him But there is no such matter as he pretendeth the Apostles own declaration ouerthroweth all this fancie He professeth that y Gal. 1.12 he receiued not his Gospell of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ After that he had receiued the reuelation of the Gospell from Christ was appointed to preach the Gospell amongst the Gentils directly against M. Bishops deuise he saith z Ver. 16.17 Immediatly I communed not with flesh and bloud neither went I vp to IerusaleÌ„ to theÌ„ that were Apostles before me but went into Arabia c. a Ambros in Gal. cap. 1. Nec consilium cutusquam petijt aut ad aliquem retulit quid esset acturus sed protinùs Christum praedicauit c. Non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se à Deo pergendâ— aâ—â— praecessores Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab eis c. He asked no mans counsell saith Ambrose nor referred it to any man what he should do but foorthwith preached Christ He saith that there was no necessity that he being chosen of God should go to the Apostles his predecessors as haply to learne any thing from them Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to make his reader beleeue that S. Pauls doctrine was first to be examined and approued by Peter and the rest of the Apostles when as S. Paul professedly saith that he went not to take any approbation from them because he had receiued equall authoritie coÌ„mission with them He further declareth that b Ver. 18. three yeares after he went to Hierusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15. daies c Ambros ibid. Non vt alâ—quid ab eo disceret quia â—am ab authore didicerat à quo ipse Petrus fuerat instructus sed propter â—ffectum Apostolatus vt sciret Petrus hanc illi datam licentiam quam ipse acceperat Not to learne any thing of him saith Ambrose because he had already learned of the author himself by whom Peter was taught but for affection of the Apostleship that Peter might know that the same coÌ„mission was giue to him which Peter himselfe had He went to him d Theophy actâ—â—n Gal.
apparently false that y Tertul. contra Marc. lib. 4. Ascendit ad consultandos Apostolos ne fortè secunduÌ„ illos non credidisset non secundum illos euangelizaret Paul went to Hierusalem to consult with the Apostles lest haply he had not beleeued as they did or did not preach the Gospell as they did As though it were likely that the Apostle would haue continued his preaching for 17. years not knowing whether he preached right or wrong As though he knew not that which he preached to be the truth hauing receiued it as before is shewed by the reuelation of Iesus Christ That which Ierome saith must be esteemed according to the humor wherein he wrote it which was in great choler and stomacke towards S. Austin for disliking his opinion as touching Peters dissimulation mentioned in the chapter wherof we here speake His words are that z Hieron apud August Epi. 11. Ostendens se non habuisse securitateÌ„ Euangelij praedicandi nisi Petri illorum qui cum illo eraÌ„t fuisset sententia roboratum Paul had not had securitie of preaching the Gospell had it not bene confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those that were with him As though he had preached 17. yeares as before was said without warrant of preaching As though he expected confirmation now froÌ„ Peter or those that were with him who so long before had had confirmatioÌ„ froÌ„ Christ himselfe As though he became an Apostle by warrant of Peter those that were with him who in the beginning of his Epistle writeth himselfe a Gal. 1.1 Paul an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Iesus Christ with many other words before mentioned disclaiming the receiuing of any authority froÌ„ men Ieromes heat made him forget that which is before cited out of his exposition vpoÌ„ that Epistle that confereÌ„ce importeth equality therfore that the Apostle shewing that he went to confer with the rest of the Apostles importeth that he receiued of theÌ„ no warrant of authority but only by coÌ„sent As for that which is quoted out of S. Austine it maketh nothing to M. Bishops purpose b August cont Faust lib. 28. ca. 4 Si non inueniret in carne Apostolos quibus coÌ„muâ—icando cuÌ„ quibus EuangeliuÌ„ conferendo eiusdeÌ„ societatis esse appareres ecclesia illi omnino no crederet Sed cùm cognouisset eum hoc annuntiantem quod etiam illâ— annuntiabant et in eorum comunione atque vnitate viuentem accedentibus etiam per eum talibus signis qualia illi operabantur ita eam Domino coÌ„mendante â—â—ruit authoritateÌ„ vt verba illius hodie sic audiantur in ecclesia tanquam in illo Christus sicut ipse verissimè dixit lâ—cutus audiatur If there had bene no Apostles liuing that Paul in communicating with them and conferring with them of the Gospell might appeare to be of the same societie the Church would not haue beleeued him But when they knew him preaching the same which they preached and liuing in their vnity and fellowship doing also the same miracles which they did God thus commending it he obtained authority that his words are now heard in the Church as if Christ were heard speaking in him as he himselfe most truly saith In which words he attributeth to the rest of the Apostles the giuing of a testimonie that he was of the same societie and fellowship with them but importeth nothing at all of any their iudiciall power or superiority ouer him The occasion of the words will shew the purport of them Manicheus the heretike wrote an Epistle as the Apostle of Christ contrarying those things which were written by the true Apostles The Manichees vrged this Epistle as the true story of Christ alledging that the Gospels were corrupted and not true S. Austine questioneth how the Church should take him for an Apostle or admit that for truth which he wrote concerning Christ when as he liued not in the time of the Apostles nor was knowne to be one of them by hauing communion and fellowship with them For euen Paul saith he if he had liued after their times and had not bene knowne to haue society and company with them and by his preaching miracles together with them had not bene commended to the Church by God the Church could not haue taken him for an Apostle of Christ nor beleeued him vpon his owne word This is all that is said and nothing intended that the rest of the Apostles should giue him warrant as Iudges but only as witnesses testifie him to be one of them But now admit that they were as Iudges were to giue commission warrant to S. Paul what is it that M. Bishop would proue thereby Forsooth that there were some of authority for iudgement and deciding the controuersies of the Church Be it so but why doth he take paines for that which we do not denie Yea but it is that Peter may be knowne to be the Iudge Be it so that Peter amongst the rest was one yea a chiefe man amongst them because S. Paul saith that c Gal. 2.9 Iames and Peter and Iohn seemed to be pillars that is speciall and chiefe men amongst the Apostles Yea but that is not enough but Peter must be the high soueraigne Iudge and the rest only assistants helpers to him But that is apparently false because in that iudgment of which S. Paul speaketh Iames sate as the chiefe and accordingly pronounced the definitiue sentence d Chrysost in Act. hom 33. Iacobus fert non resilit illi erat principatus concreduus to him saith Chrysostome the principality or chiefty was committed Yet let vs yeeld so much that Peter was the highest Iudge in this assembly what of that Marry forsooth the Pope succeedeth in Peters place he must therefore be the one high supreme Iudge ouer all Churches This is the issue that M. Bishop driueth at but for his life cannot tell how to conueigh the Pope into S. Peters place This conclusion Bellarmine maketh out of three places that are here alledged quoting them only as M. Bishop doth froÌ„ him but citing no words saying of them that they e Bellar. de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 5. Disertè affirmaÌ„t EcclesiaÌ„ noÌ„ fuisse Paulo credituraÌ„ nisi Euangelium eius à Peâ—â—o confirmatuÌ„ fuisset Ergo Petrâ— erat tunc proinde successâ—ris eius nunc de doctrina fidei expresly affirme that the Church would not haue beleeued Paul had not his Gospell bene confirmed by S. Peter Therefore it belonged to Peter then and now to his successour to iudge of the doctrine of faith Where we see him to be outright a Iesuite that is a man of a brazen face a wicked conscience for that he knew well that two of these do not mention Peter but speake generally of the Apostles the third which is Hierome nameth not Peter alone as
diuers reasons hudled vp in one but all of little moment for all these eueral faculties which the Pope enioyeth being receiued by the free gift of Christ and to be employed in his seruice onely and to his honour and glorie are so farre off from making Christ a PseudoChrist that they do highly recommend his most singular bountie towards his followers without any derogation to his owne diuine prerogatiues The particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter Now I say in a word that Christs Vicar cannot change any one of Gods commandements nor adde any contrary vnto them but may well enact and establish some other conformable vnto them which do bind the conscience for that power is granted of God to euery soueraigne gouernor as witnesseth S. Paul saying Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers Rom. 13. And that as it is in the fift verse following of necessitie not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake So that to attribute power vnto one that is vnder Christ to bind our consciences is not to make Christ a PseudoChrist but to glorifie him much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to giue vnto men In like maner what an absurd illation is that from the power to open and shut heauen gates which all both Catholikes and Protestants confesse to haue bin giuen to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to inferre that Christ is made a PseudoChrist as who should say the master spoiled himself of his supreame authority by appointing a steward ouer his houshold or a porter at his gates he must be both master and man to belike And thus much of the first instance R. ABBOT We may well thinke that M. Bishop did not well enioy his wits that would write a booke and not know what it is whereof he writeth He hath written a whole booke such a one as it is purposely against our religion and yet will seeme here in the beginning not to know what our religion is But he knoweth it well enough and although by an apish limitation of the foolery of some of his companions he would make it seeme of many fashions and sorts by diuersity of names and by termes of diuisions and subdiuisions yet he seeth and they all see and by the harmony of confessions of al the reformed churches it appeares to their exceeding great griefe that there is amongst them as great vniformitie and consent of religion as euer was to be found in their confederacie and banding of themselues against religion Yea there are many more material differences to be found amongst them then can be reckoned amongst vs. He that would follow M. Bishops veine might demaund of him what they meane by the religion of the Church of Rome whether it be the religion of Pope Iohn the 23. who publikely maintained that a Const â—â—tiens Concil sess 11. Perâ—nâ—cuâ—â— dixit asseruit dogmati zauit adstruxit vitam aeternam non esse neque aliam post hanc c. there is no eternall life no resurrection and that the soule of man perisheth with his body as doth the soule of the bruite beast or whether it be the religion of Pope b Bale de Act. Rom. Pontif. in Leo 10. QuantuÌ„ nobis ac coetui nostro profuit ista fabula de Iesu Christo Leo the tenth that held all the faith of Christ to be but a fable Whether it be the religion of the Councell of c Sess 4. Generali concilio quilibet cuiuscunq status vel dignitatis etiamsi Papalis fuerit 〈◊〉 tenetur Constance maintaining the Councell to be aboue the Pope or the religion of the Councell of Basill decreeing the Pope to be aboue the Councell Whether it be the religion of them d Erasus epist ad oper Hilarâ— Asseueraus virginem matreÌ„ immunem à peccato originis apud Dominicales haereticus est apud Scoustas oribotanus that hold the virgin Marie to haue bene conceiued without originall sinne or of them that hold her to haue bene conceiued in sinne Whether it be the religion of Thomas Aquinas that holdeth e Thom. Aquin p. 3. q. 80. art 3. ad 3 that a dogge or a swine eating the Sacrament doth eate the very bodie of Christ or the religion of the f Sent 4. dist 13. Maister of the sentences who cannot tell what the dogge eateth or the religion of them that say as g Vt supra Aquinas reporteth that so soone as the dogge or the mouse toucheth the Sacrament straightwayes the bodie of Christ is taken vp into heauen Whether it be the religion of h Pigh de peccato originali Catharin de lapsu hominis c. cap. 6. Pighius and Catharinus who hold originall sinne to be a meere priuation or the religion of Dominicus a Soto who holdeth it as his fellowes do to be a positiue corruption Whether it be the religion of the i Colon. in Antididag Diuines of Colein who with k Pigh de fide instif Pighius hold that we are iustified by the imputed righteousnesse of Christ as the Protestants or of the rest that hold that we are iustified by a formall inherent righteousnesse of our owne Whether it be the religion of l Osor de Iust lib 9. Osorius condemning the doctrine of S. Austine concerning predestination or the religion of m Baron Annal lib. 6. Caesar Baronius who acknowledgeth the same to be true Whether it be the religion of n Alfons aduer haeres lib. 1 cap. 4 8. Alfonsus de Castro affirming that the Pope may erre or the religion of them that affirme he cannot erre Whether it be the religion of the Iesuits maintaining o Declarat saecerd ad Clement 8. pag. 29. that a man who is no Christian may be Pope and that stewes are as lawfull at Rome as the Pope himselfe or the religion of the Seculars that condemne these for wicked and false positions Whether it be the religion of p Dureus contra Whitaker lib. 1. Dureus the Iesuite defending that the Church may make a booke canonicall Scripture which from the beginning was not so or the religion of q Andrad defens fidei Trident lib. 3. Andradius affirming that the Church hath no such authoritie I might leade him along through Bellarmines controuersies and shew how he alledgeth two three foure and sometimes more opinions amongst them of sundry points of their religion and in euery of them I might question whether or which we shall take to be the religion of the Church of Rome Now if he will answer that men may haue priuate opinions and followers therein which yet may not be vrged as preiudiciall to the currant and commonly receiued doctrine of the Church in which sort their r Alfons de Caestro aduersus haer lib. 1. cap. 7. Thomists and Scotists and Occamists haue bene deuided one from another in the bosome of their
the fire but still we say what is this to satisfaction We still require his proofe that for the vertue and woorth of these fruites it is that God is appeased towards vs. But that cannot be for a man cannot bring forth good fruite except first of all he be made a good tree for e Chap. 7.17 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruite then God must first be appeased towards him which is by the faith of Iesus Christ f Rom. 3.25 whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or attonement through faith in his bloud Our good fruites then are not the causes but the effects of Gods being appeased towards vs. If we haue none we are sure that we are in state of iudgement and damnation and the sentence of Saint Iohn taketh hold of vs but if we haue them we are not to account them the redemption of our sinnes but testimonies of the remission and forgiuenesse thereof Yea but Saint Iohn saith M. Bishop seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Where or in what words Marry because he saith Say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face whē he wrote this that the paper might not see him blush Why what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Forsooth he saith to them it will not helpe you to say that ye are the sonnes of Abraham who was father of all true beleeuers Well but what is this yet to laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith It is as much saith he as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off ye generation of vipers This is a strange construction that say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father should be as much as to say Trust not to your faith But it grew at Rome and we know that things farre fetched are woont to be very strange As for vs we conceiue in our simplicity that Iohns meaning was to reprooue them for flattering themselues for that carnally they were the seede of Abraham as if that were sufficient security for them towards God when as in the meane time they neglected the repentance and faith and workes of Abraham The true children of Abraham are they g Rom. 4.12 who walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham and h Iohn 8.39 do the workes of Abraham which they not regarding could not be accounted the sonnes of Abraham whose of-spring was reckoned according to the spirit not according to the flesh Thus doth our Sauiour testifie of them that they beleeued not saying vnto them i Math. 21.31 Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdome of God For Iohn came vnto you in the way of righteousnesse and ye beleeued him not but Publicans and harlots beleeued him and ye though ye saw it were not moued with repentance afterward that ye might beleeue him Now is it not a wonder that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith yet Iohn Baptist should say vnto them Trust not to your faith Well all this is nothing he cannot serue the Popes turne that will not notably cogge and lye The rest of his commentarie accordeth with this where he foisteth in the satisfying of Gods iustice there being nothing in the words of S. Iohn that foundeth to that effect 14. W. BISHOP Cor. 7.10 The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof one is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainments properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments onely from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must do Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We graunt that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his bodie and mind too as Saint Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians but this sorow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chastisement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished for where there is no feare of paines much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester sort And an emulation and desire to flie as farre from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs frō that sorow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul R. ABBOT The Greeke fathers Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius and Hierome amongst the Latines do referre the reuenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the lawes of God But we further very willingly yeeld that by reuenge is also meant a wreaking of a mans anger as I may terme it vpon himselfe being offended and grieued at himselfe for the sinne that he hath done and therefore bending himselfe to crosse and thwart those desires by which he was led vnto it This the Scripture teacheth vs by the termes of a Math. 16.24 denying our selues b Col. 3.5 mortifying our earthly members c 1. Pet. 4.1 suffering in the flesh d Gal. 5.24 crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it and e Rom. 6.6 destroying of the body of sinne Thus men occasion requiring giue themselues ouer to fasting and weeping and mourning and forbearing of accustomed delights yea and to open rebuke and shame with men hauing by publike offence made themselues a scandall to the Church This reuenge we denie not we say that hereby we testifie both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we haue taken against our selues we teach others to take heed and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we haue fallen we labour hereby that the tēptations of sin may no more in the like sort preuaile against vs but we are still
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.
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
any thing but by Scripture they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition but only by Scripture Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be if there were Tradition beside the Scripture We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deliuered by tradition in former times But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it In that that we say is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago r Hieron in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedicabant legis prophetarū vocibus comprobarūt Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets wherof it followeth against M. Bishop that they taught no doctrine by tradition but only by the scriptures As for his questions wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching c. I answer him first with the like question where had Moses the story of the creation of the world and the knowledge of those things which God in * Gen. 11.6 18.17.20 sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe I suppose he wil answer that he receiued the same from him that made the world from him that was the author of those speeches So say we that Mathew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whō Iohn Baptist preached He learned his Gospell as Paul did who saith of himself ſ Gal. 1.12 Neither receiued I it of man neither was I taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ As touching the Gospel of S. Mark Eusebius reporteth that the faithfull t Euseb hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran◠illis semel audita nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diuinae praedicationis doctrina sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditā accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint c. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset delectatū esse virorum istorū voluntate scriptum hoc Euangelium Ecclesius ad legendū authoritate suae confirmasse who had heard the preaching of S. Peter not thinking that sufficient nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word and ceased not till they had perswaded him thereto Now they say saith he that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost ioyed much in the desire of those men and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church Now this story is well worthy to be obserued The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing to that purpose they intreate Mark the scholer and follower of Peter the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost Peter acknowledgeth so much and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tradition S. Luke wrote his storie u Luke 1.2 as they deliuered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word they x 2. Cor. 13.3 in whom Christ spake and whose word was y 1. Thess 2 13. the word of God the word of the preaching of God Yea and what he wrote he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost because as S. Paul telleth vs z 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and as of prophecie so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand that a 2. Pet. 1.21 it came not by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost b August de consens Euangel lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripserunt quae ille ostendit dixit nequaquam dicendum est quôd ipse no scripserit quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt Quicquid enira ille de suis factis dictis nos legere volun hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit When the disciples wrote saith S. Austin what Christ shewed said vnto thē it is not to be said that he did not write because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same Now therefore the Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions that is vpon report from man to man but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning The word originally may import any thing that is deliuered howsoeuer either by word or writing Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs it may in this sort be called Gods tradition because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell c Cyprian lib. 2. epist 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae reuertatur In calice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem the originall of the Lords tradition and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered as before was said But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and indifferent signification of any thing that is deliuered yet in our disputation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering by word and relation onely and not by Scripture and therefore where Irenaeus saith d Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Euangeliū nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt he that should translate as M. Bishop doth they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction and confoundeth them both in one Now then the question
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
and yet neither that of sufficient waight to proue that that he hath vndertaken to proue as before hath bene shewed 24. W. BISHOP Because I haue cited already some of the Latine auncient Doctors in stead of the rest I will record out of them in a word or two how old rotten heretiks vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions and flie wholly vnto the written word See the whole book of Tertullians prescriptions against heretiks which principally handleth this very point The same doth Irenaeus witnesse of the Valentinians and Marcionists * Lib. 3. cap. 2. The Arians common song vnto the Catholickes was I will not admit to be read any words that are not written in the Scriptures as witnesseth S. Hilary in his booke against Constantius the Emperour against whom he alledgeth the preaching of the Apostles and the authoritie of the auncient Bishops expressed in his liuely colours S. Augustine some 1200. yeares ago recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now a days in the person of Maximinus an Ariā in his first book against him in the beginning If thou shalt saith this heretik bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all we must needs heare thee but these words which are without the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they worship me teaching commandements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten traditions hath bene afore declared The like doth S. Bernard affirme of certaine heretikes of his time called * Hom. 62. Cant. Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholickes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to standfast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth as well as that which is written euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned heretickes to reiect all Traditions and to flie vnto the onely Scriptures R. ABBOT For conclusion of this question he bringeth vs here a rotten tale how old rotten heretickes vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions and flie wholly to the written word To make this tale good he bringeth vs first a lie and then a fond cauill He referreth his Reader first to Tertullians booke of prescriptions the purpose whereof what it is I haue shewed before at large but in all that booke is no word of heretickes flying wholly to the written word Tertullian sheweth how they mangled and marred the Scriptures being vrged therewith reiecting what and where they list so that by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but that they did flie to the Scriptures or required triall thereby he affirmeth not And this is plaine by Irenaeus euen in that place whence M. Bishop citeth him for his second witnesse and where he speaketh of the very same heretickes of whom Tertullian spake a Iren lib. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem ipsarum conuertuntur Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate et quia variè sunt dictae quia nō possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vinam vocem ob quam causam et Paulū dixisse sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos Heretikes saith he when they are reproued by the Scriptures fall to finding fault with the Scriptures as if they were not aright nor of authoritie and that they are doubtfully set down and that by the Scriptures the truth cannot be found of them that are ignorant of tradition for they say that the truth was not deliuered by writing but by liuely voice and that therefore Paul said We speake wisedome among those that be perfect Now by these very words of Irenaeus do thou esteeme gentle Reader the trecherie of this man who beareth thee in hand that Irenaeus noteth it there for a propertie of heretickes to reiect vnwritten Traditions and to flie wholly to the written word when as it was their abusing and refusing of the Scriptures that made him to appeale to the tradition of the Church the matters of their heresies being concerning the fundamentall articles of our beleefe which are euidently taught by the written word It is truly said that heretickes shunne the Scriptures euen as the theefe doth the gallowes and as it is true in other heretickes so it is in the Papists vpon whom how iustly those words of Irenaeus light and how fully they describe their vsage towards the Scriptures hath bene b Answer to the Epistle sect 11. before declared To this apparent lie M. Bishop addeth a blind cauill for which he bringeth the speeches of Constantius the Emperour and Maximinus both Arians out of Hilary and Austine The matter is answered sundry times before Against the assertion of the Church that the Sonne of God is consubstantiall or of the same substance with the Father they excepted idlely and vainely that they would admit no words that were not written M. Bishop knoweth well that we do not so because we receiue and professe those words which they refused yea he knoweth that we say and teach that the Pope is Antichrist that the Church of Rome is the purple whore of Babylon that the Masse is an abhominable idoll and wicked prophaning of the Sacrament of Christ and such like and yet these words are no where found in the Scripture We contend not concerning words let them vse what words they will so that the doctrine imported and meant by those words be contained in the Scriptures Of those heretickes called Apostolici S. Bernard saith no such matter as he alledgeth All that he saith is that c Berna in Cant. ser 66. Instituta Ecclesiae non recipiunt they did not receiue the ordinances of the Church and what is that to the doctrines of faith taught by Christ and his Apostles which are not contained in the Scriptures Concerning which against M. Bishops conclusion I conclude this question with the saying of Saint Austin before alledged and worthy here againe to be remembred d August supra sect 8. Whether concerning Christ or his Church or any thing that belongeth vnto our faith and life I will not say if we not being to be compared to him that saith If we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you anything but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell accursed be he Hearken to it M. Bishop and let it make you afraid to pleade for Traditions any more CHAPTER 8. OF VOWES 1. W. BISHOP MAster Perkins is very intricate and tedious in deliuering his opinion concerning Vowes I will in as good order as I can briefly correct his errors herein In this passage which he intitleth of our consents he rangeth many things wherein we