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
the Church and Pope of Rome He hath alledged S. Bernard before and he is answered before Further he bringeth Irenaeus saying b Iren. lib. 3. ca. 3 Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter poteâ—tiâ—â—em principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt vndique fideles â—n qui semper ab 〈◊〉 qui suâ—t vnd que conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio To this Church by reason of the more mightie principalitie it is necessarie that euery Church that is the faithfull on all sides do agree in which the tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies preserued of theÌ„ that are about her Which words he alledgeth but drawes no direct coÌ„clusion from them nor indeed can do but by begging that which is in question betwixt vs. It was necessarie in the time of Irenaeus that euery Church should accord to the Church of Rome because therein the tradition and true doctrine of the Apostles had bene faithfully preserued but will M. Bishop hereof simply conclude that it is now also necessarie for euery Church to accord with the Church of Rome It is a question now whether she retaine the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles nay it is out of question that she doth not so and therefore her former commendation is no argument that we should approue her now Ierusalem was c 2. Chron. 6.6 the city which the Lord did chuse to place his name there She was a faithfull citie so long necessarie it was that all other cities shold conforme themselues to her But d Esa 1.21 of a faithfull citie she became a harlot and departed so farre from her former steps as that she crucified the Sonne of God and killed his Saints and in the end it was said of her by a voyce from God as Iosephus recordeth e Ioseph de bello Iudaicoâ—â— 7. c. 12 Migremus hinc Let vs depart from hence So the Church of Rome was a Virgin the chast and faithfull spouse of Christ continuing stedfastly in the doctrine by which she first became the Church of Rome and so long as she so coÌ„tinued it was necessarie for al Churches to accord with her as for her to accord with all other Churches that had done the like But she is since become an vncleane filth prostituted to all manner of fornications embrued drunken with the bloud that she hath sprit so that now the voyce of God calleth to vs in like sort concerning her Go out of her my people Neither hath M. Bishop any better helpe by that that he will further alledge that Irenaeus mentioneth a potent principalitie of that Church For that potent principalitie was not intended by Irenaeus for any supremacie of the Church of Rome but imported onely an honour yeelded vnto it in respect of the imperiall state of the citie of Rome which we know men of inferior townes are wont to yeeld to them that are of high and honorable cities only for the preheminence of the place But if the Church of Rome had had any such potent principalitie as M. Bishop intendeth in respect whereof all other Churches shold yeeld subiection and obedience vnto her then would not f Jren. apud Euseb hist eccles lib. 5. cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna haue refused to yeeld to Anicetus the Bishop of Rome in matters of difference betwixt them as Irenaeus sheweth he did before his time neither would g Ibid. cap. 22. Hieron in Catal. Script Eccles in Polycrate Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of the Asian Churches haue resisted Victor in the time of Irenaeus neither would h Cypr ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephane Cyprian haue contradicted Stephanus neither would Aurelius and Austin and the rest of the Fathers in the Councell of Carthage haue i Concil Carth. 6 Aphrican cap 101. c. withstood the claime of the Bishop of Rome for authoritie to receiue appeals made from them to him neither would those sixe hundred and thirtie Bishops in the Chalcedon Councel haue yeelded to the Patriarch of Constantinople according to a former decree of a councell of k Conc Constantinop 1. cap. 2. Constantinople an equalitie of priuiledge and prerogatiue with the Bishop of Rome The matter is very plaine l Conc l. Chaâ—cedon Act. 15. ca. 28. Antiquae Romae throno quòd vrbi ilâ—a imperaret iure Patres priuâ—legiae tribuere Et eadeÌ„ consideratione moti 150 Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo nouae Romae throno aequalia priuilegia tribuere rectè iudicantes vrbem quae imperio Senatu honerata sit aequalibus cum antiquissimo Roma priuilegijs fruatur etiam in rebus ecclesiasticis non secus ac illaÌ„ extolli magnificari secundaÌ„ post illam existentem The Fathers say they haue yeelded priuiledges to the sea of old Rome because that was the Imperiall citie And the hundred and fiftie Bishops of the Councell of Constantinople being moued with the same consideration haue yeelded equall priuiledges to the sacred sea of new Rome that is Constantinople rightly iudging that the citie which is honoured with the Empire and Senate and enioyeth equall priuiledges with old Rome should also in ecclesiasticall matters be no lesse extolled and magnified then it is being the next vnto it Thus they acknowledge the principalitie of the Church of Rome to be nothing else but in respect that that citie was the seate of the Empire and therfore Constantinople being become the seate of the Empire and in respect thereof being called New Rome they gaue to the Church of Constantinople equall dignitie and principalitie with the Church of Rome leauing to the Bishop of Rome onely precedence of name and place The Legates of the Bishop of Rome would faine haue had it otherwise but the whole Councell approued the decree Now by that that hath bene said to Irenaeus the answer is plaine to that that M. Bishop further citeth out of Hierome The true faith and doctrine of the Godhead of Christ was then maintained by the Church of Rome against the remainder of the infection and poyson of the Arian heresie Hereupon Hierome writeth to Damasus Bishop of Rome to be aduertised of the vse of some words that concerned that point He commendeth the Church of Rome m Hieron ad Damasum Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum seruatur haereditae for that the inheritance of the Fathers that is the true faith was preserued vncorrupt with them onely For this cause doth he bind himselfe to the communion and fellowship of Damasus Vpon the rocke of that faith which the Church of Rome stil held he knew the Church to be built In respect of this faith he that went out of that house that is left the communion of that Church because thereby he renounced the truth he became prophane In the same respect he that gathered not with Damasus being
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
enforcing vpon them whatsoeuer it pleaseth to deuise for the seruing of it owne turne and wherein there haue bene so many innouations and alterations as that their varieties vncertainties from age to age do shew that they are departed from that one certaine rule which Christ and his Apostles first deliuered to the Church To coÌ„clude Tertullian teacheth vs to take knowledge of such heresies or falshoods as are noted to haue bene in the Apostles times and by them condemned and thereby to know them for deceiuers not only who teach the same but any that haue taken seedes from thence or being then but rude and vnfashioned are since polished and fined with more probable deuice and shew Such were then the teaching h Act. 15.1 of iustification by the workes of the law i Col. 2.18 the worshipping of Angels k Ibid. ver 23. the not sparing of the body nor hauing of it in honour to satisfie the flesh to which we may adde the l 1. Tim. 4 3. forbidding of mariage and commanding of abstinence from meates noted for time to come All which we see in the Papacie now maintained and practised and though they be glosed and coloured with trickes and shifts that they may not seeme to be the same that the Apostles spake of yet by Tertullians rule are to be taken to haue bene then condemmned inasmuch as the Apostles speaking of them as they were then vsed no restraint for warrant of them as they are defended now Thus then M. Bishop hath little cause to boast of Tertullians booke of prescriptions and better might he haue forborne the naming of him but that he hath learned of his maister Bellarmine to name authors sometimes in generall when in particular they make nothing for that he saith as in that whole booke Tertullian hath not one word for warrant of any tradition or doctrine that is not contained in the Scripture But he will make the matter sure I trow out of another place where Tertullian formally proposeth the question whether traditions vnwritten be to be admitted or not and answereth that they must so Now it is true indeede that Tertullian so resolueth and concludeth the matter in those words which Maister Bishop hath alledged but he should withall haue told vs when it was that he so resolued and then little cause should we haue to wonder at that he saith He wrote his booke of prescriptions when he yet continued in the societie of the Church but the booke which Maister Bishop citeth de Corona militis he wrote afterwards when he was fallen away and besotted with the prophecie of Montanus and purposely girdeth according to his vsuall manner at the Catholike and godly Pastors and professours of the Church and specially indeede of the Church of Rome at which it was that he was specially offended He vpbraideth them as m Tertull. de Coron militis Noui pastores corum in pace leones in praelio ceruâ—s c. Non dubito quoslam sarcinas expedire fugae accingi de ciuitate in ciuitatem nullaÌ„ aliam Euangelij memoriaÌ„ urant fearfull and faint-hearted and minding nothing more if persecution should arise then to runne away And because they had condemned Montanus with his new prophecie therefore he saith of them n Planè superest vt martyria recusare mediteÌ„tur qui prophetias musaeÌ„ sp sancti respuerunt It remaineth indeede that they thinke of shunning martyrdome who haue reiected the prophecies of the holy Ghost The matter whereupon he tooke the occasion of this writing was briefly thus A Souldiour who was a Christian comming amongst the rest to receiue the Emperours donatiue refused to weare his garland vpon his head as the manner was but came with it in his hand Being demaunded why he so did he answered that he might not do as the rest did because he was a Christian Hereupon he was taken and cast in prison and feare there was least further danger should hereby grow to the whole Church Many hereupon condemned the vndiscreete zeale of this man who without cause in a matter meerely indifferent would thus prouoke the Emperours fury both against himselfe and the whole profession of Christian faith Tertullian ready to entertaine euery such occasion taketh the matter in hand and writeth this booke as in commendation and defence of the constancie and resolution which he had shewed in this matter Now it is to be considered what it was that was said on the Churches behalfe which Tertullian taketh vpon him to oppugne o Maximè illud oppâ—nunt Vbi auteÌ„ prohibemur ne coronemur c. Vbi scriptuÌ„ est ne coronemur c. This they specially vrge saith he Where are we forbidden to weare a garland where is it written that we should not weare a garland To this he answereth that p Hanc si nulla scriptura determinauit certè consuetudo cerroborauit quae sine dubio de traditione manauit though no Scripture had so determined yet custome had so confirmed which no doubt saith he came by tradition He then bringeth in the Churches reply q EtiaÌ„ in traditionis obtentu exigenda est inquis authoritas scripta But saiest thou in pretence of tradition authority of Scripture is to be required Whereby it is manifest that the Church then reiected vnwritten traditions and where tradition was alledged required authoritie of Scripture for the warrant of it and hereupon was it that Tertullian being now become an heretike defended vnwritten traditions against the Church Therefore the latter Church of Rome in defending traditions beside the Scripture followeth the steps of Montanus the heretike and we in oppugning the same do no other but take part with the auncient Church of Rome Albeit the absurdity of Tertullians defence of traditions here doth sufficiently bewray it selfe in that he maketh it r Annon putat omni fideli licere concipcie constituere dunta aeat quod Deo coÌ„gnat quod disciplinae coÌ„ducat quod saluti proficiat c Salus traditionis respectu quocunque traditore censeatur lawfull for euery faithfull man to conceiue and set downe what may be fitting to God what helpfull to discipline what profitable to saluation and will haue tradition to be regarded whosoeuer be the author of it He maketh Å¿ Confirmata coÌ„suetume idonea teste probatae traditionis custome a sufficient witnesse for the approuing of tradition who notwithstanding else-where though stil possessed with the same humor yet much more discreetly saith that t De virgin velan Consuetudo fâ—rè initium ex ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita in vsum per successionem corroboratur na aduersus veritatem vindicatur Custome coÌ„monly hauing his beginning of ignorance or simplicity is by succession strengthened to common vse and so is maintained against the truth well obseruing withall that u Ibid. Dominus noster Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem cognominatuit c.
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
mentall reseruations to lye to periure forsweare theÌ„selues As for our own country we must tell him that the dissension betwixt Protestants Puritanes was neuer so mortall and deadly amongst vs as was the dissention of the secular Priests Iesuites amongst them the one in no sort to be coÌ„pared to the other If there might be such a garboile more then hellish or diuellish amongst them without preiudice of their religion what preiudice should it be to vs that there is some matter of difference amongst vs He wil say that the maine matter amongst them was but a matter of circumstance of gouernment and so his wisedome knoweth if he list that the matters of controuersie amongst vs are onely matters of ceremonie and forme He will say that they all accorded in the religion established by the councell of Trent and so let him know that we on both parts subscribe to the same articles of religion established amongst vs. He vvill say that there is some controuersie about the meaning of some of those articles amongst vs and so let him remember that there is great question of the meaning of some of the articles of the Trent religion amongst them In a word wee are able alwaies to iustifie that in substantiall points of faith there is no so great difference amongst vs but that there is greater to be proued to haue bene continually amongst them But now M. Bishop hauing lightly passed ouer those obseruations of M. Perkins commeth himselfe to set vs downe a course for the attaining of the true and right sence of holy Scripture For the first part whereof he bestirreth his Rhetoricall stumpes by way of declamation to shew vs how necessary it is that in the Christian Church there should be a Iudge for the deciding and determining of controuersies and questions that arise about the Scriptures and if in matters of temporall iustice Iudges be appointed and euery law-maker do ordaine gouernours and Iudges for the declaring and executing of his lawes and God tooke this course amongst the people of Israel in the old testament he telleth vs that surely Christ in the new testament would not leaue his Church vnprouided in this behalfe Where we will seeme for a time not to know his meaning but will simply answer him that Christ in this behalfe hath prouided for his Church hauing giuen thereto f Ephe. 4.11.12 Pastours and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints for the worke of the ministery and for the building vp of the body of Christ till we all meete together in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a persit man As in ciuill states there are appointed magistrates and gouernours in townes and cities for the resoluing and deciding of causes and questions of ciuil affaires so hath God appointed the ministers of his word euery one according to the portion of the Lords flocke committed vnto him to deliuer what the law of God is and to answer and resolue cases and doubts as touching faith and duty towards God g Tit. 1.9 to be able to exhort with wholsome doctrine and to improue them that speake against it to be the same to the people as God of old required the Priests to be h Malach. 2.7 The Priests lippes should preserue knowledge and men should seeke the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes If of these i Acts. 20.30 any arise speaking peruerse things to draw Disciples after them the rest are warned k Ver. 28. to take heede to the Lords flocke and therfore are by common sentence iudgement to condemne such that thereby the people of God may take knowledge to beware of theÌ„ But if in the Church any controuersie or question depend parts being taken this way that way so that the vnity of faith and peace of the Church is endangered therby the example of the Apostles is to be imitated and in solemne assembly councel the matter is to be discussed and determined the Bishops and Pastors gathering themselues together either in lesser or greater companie as the occasion doth require and applying themselues to do that that may be for the peace and edification of the Church And this hath bene the care of godly Christian Princes that l 〈◊〉 17.8 9. 2. â—â—â—on 1â— 8 as amongst the Iews there was a high court of iudgement established for the matters of the Lord to the sentence whereof they were appointed to stand yea and he that did presumptuously oppose himselfe was to die for his contempt so there should be in their Christian States consistories of iudgement assemblies and meetings of Bishops for considering and aduising of the causes of the Church and what could not be determined in a lesser meeting should be referred to a greater to a Councell prouinciall or nationall or general By their authoritie they haue gathered them together they haue sometimes bin themselues present and sitten with them as moderators and after as princes haue by their edicts ratified and confirmed what hath bene agreed vpon as we may see in m Euseb de vit Constant li 3. ca. 13. Prolatas sententias sensiâ—â— excipete vitissim ferre openi virique parit c. quid ipse sentiret eloquâ— Constantine the great in the Councel of Nice in n Synod in Trullo per tot Praesidente eodem piâ—ssimo Impeâ—tore c. Conueniente Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctioneÌ„ Constantine the fourth in the sixt Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in o Toletaâ— concil 3. Princips omnes regâ—raâ—â—â— sui pontifiâ—es in vnuÌ„ conuenire mandauit c. pâ—â—tet Reccaredus the King of Spaine in the third Councell of Toledo Now therefore albeit the Empire being diuided and many Princes of diuers dispositions possessing their seuerall kingdomes and states there be no expectation or hope of a generall councel yet M. Bishop seeth that we hold it necessary that in euery Christian state there should be Iudges appointed for the causes and matters of the Lord of the Church euen as in our church of England we haue our soueraigne Synods prouincial or national the sentence whereof we account so waighty as that no man may dare vpon peril of his soule presumptuously to gainsay the same But yet with all for the excluding of his issue he must vnderstand that in causes matters of faith and of the worship of God we make these to whom this iudgement is coÌ„mitted not lawgiuers at all but Iudges only As therfore the Iudge is not his owne mouth but the mouth of the law not to speak what he liketh but what the law directeth nor to make any other construction of the law but what is warranted by the law euen so the Iudge ecclesiasticall is to be the mouth of God not p Ezech. 13.3 to follow his owne spirit nor q Ierem. 23.16 to speake the vision of his own hart but out of
in councell the controuersie was ended which S. Paule afterward deliuered in his preaching commanding all to obserue and keepe the decree and ordinance of the Apostles * Acts 16. And if it would not be tedious I could in like manner shew how in like sort euery hundredth yeare after errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written word they were confuted and reiected not by the written word onely but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholers and Successors See Cardinall Bellarmine * Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. I will onely record two noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquitie for the true sense of Gods word the first out of the Ecclesiasticall historie * Lib. 11. cap. 9. where of S. Gregorie Nazianzen and S. Basil two principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both Noble men brought vp together at Athens and afterward for thirteeene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes employed their studie wholy in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning whereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as were knowne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles these be the very words The other example shall be the principall pillar of the Latin Church S. Augustine who not onely exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscuritie of doubtfull questions * Lib. contra Crescon 1. c. 33 but plainely affirmeth That he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it * Conâ—ra Epist sund cap. 5. Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluin would haue them that S. Augustine had not bene at first a Christian if by the authoritie of the Church he had not bene therunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these books of the Gospell to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquitie generalitie and consent did tell him which and what they were so farre was he off from trusting to his owne skill and iudgement in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent R. ABBOT M. Bishop here setteth the stocke vpon it and at one game he is minded to winne all but indeed as a cousening gamester by shifting and iugling beguileth honest simple men so doth he abuse the simple Reader with goodly glorious words crauing leaue as it were to giue him satisfaction in a high point and applying himselfe vnder this colour most trecherously to delude him Consider saith he that our coelestiall lawgiuer gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects For this he quoteth the words of God by the Prophet Ieremy a Ierem. 31.33 After those dayes saith the Lord I will put my law into their inward parts and write it in their hearts c. and the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians b 2. Cor. 3.3 Ye are manifest to be the Epistle of Christ ministred by vs not written with inke but with the spirit of the liuing God not in tables of stone but in fleshly Tables of the heart Now therefore he will haue vs to conceiue that which Andradius one of the great masters of the Trent-Councell hath told vs that c Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 2. Non spectauit Christus vt EuaÌ„gelium literit descriptum aut in membranu exaratum iaceret sed vt verbis explicatum omni creaturae promulgaretur Christ did not looke that the Gospell should lye written in letters or printed in parchments but that by declaration of words it should be published to all creatures Where we see how they apply themselues so much as in them lyeth to impeach vilifie the authoritie of Scriptures as if they were written onely of priuate fancie and Christ had had no care or regard to haue it so But how impertinently those places are brought for proofe hereof appeareth very plainely out of the words themselues For what was the law that God promised by Ieremy to write in the hearts of his people Was it not the law giuen before by Moses concerning which Moses also expresseth the same promise that Ieremy doth d Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seede that thou maist loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule that thou maist liue Now e Exod. 34.1 that law God himselfe had deliuered in writing and f Vers 27. commaunded Moses also to write the same Therefore the words of Ieremy as touching writing Gods law in our hearts can import nothing against the writing of it with inke and paper but onely that the lawes which were before by the ministerie of Moses deliuered onely in inke and paper should by the power of the holy Ghost through the faith of Christ be wrought and written in the affections of the heart that God in Christ would not administer onely outwardly the letter of the lawe whether in writing or in preaching but would in both by the regeneration of the spirit giue grace inwardly for the fulfilling of it As little to that purpose is the other place The false Apostles laboured to impeach the credit of S. Paules Apostleship as if he had had no sufficient commission or warrant of it S. Paul for himselfe alledgeth that the Corinthians were as an Epistle from Christ whereby he was sufficiently commended and his calling testified vnto them in that the Gospell by his ministery had had so great successe taken so great effect amongst them That singular effect of his preaching he importeth to haue bene a greater assurance vnto them then any epistle written with inke and paper and to haue commended his ministerie aboue the ministerie of Moses who gaue the Law onely in tables of stone because here the spirit of God concurred with the outward seruice and wrought mightily in their hearts for the receiuing of the doctrine of the faith of Christ and conuerting of theÌ„ vnto God Now to say that the CorinthiaÌ„s were an epistle not writteÌ„ with ink nor in tables of stone what is it to shew that the celestial law-giuer gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper Surely the difference of the two testaments which is the thing that M. Bishop would insinuate was neuer holden to consist in this that the one should be written and the other vnwritten because euen in the old testament the new was written but herein it stood that the one either written or taught by word ministred onely knowledge what we ought to do not anie grace
THE SECOND PART OF THE DEFENCE OF THE REFORMED CATHOLICKE VVherein the Religion established in our Church of England for the points here handled is apparently iustified by authoritie of Scripture and testimonie of the auncient Church against the vaine cauillations collected by Doctor Bishop Seminary Priest as out of other Popish writers so specially out of Bellarmine and published vnder the name of The marrow and pith of many large volumes for the oppugning thereof By ROBERT ABBOT Doctor of Diuinitie Tertul. de praescript aduer haeret Haereses de quorundam infirmitatibus habent quod valent nihil valentes si in benè valentem fidem incurrant ANCHORA SPEI LONDINI Impensis Georg. Bishop 1607. TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTIE MONARCH MY MOST DREAD and Soueraigne Lord IAMES by the grace of God King of great Britaine France and Ireland Defender of the faith MOST puissant and renowmed King albeit my qualitie and gifts are of meaner sort and worth then that I should thereupon presume thus often to solicite your Maiesties acceptation of my foretimely and vndigested fruits yet sith this businesse was by your Maiesties appointment first commaunded and one part thereof is alreadie become sacred vnto you the remainder could not in dutie be recommended to anie other then to the same most benigne and fosterous aspect of your Royall Grace In the former part I haue indeuored to cleare those mists and clouds which Doctor Bishops maleuolent breath out of the foggie vapours of their Romish filthie lakes had blowne amongst vs in his Epistle Dedicatorie to your Highnesse whereinto he had contriued in a generalitie very many malicious and blind cauils whereby he would perswade your Maiestie that the Religion by your lawes established is not consonant to the auncient and first approued truth In this latter part I haue laboured the examination and confutation of his whole booke wherein as he hath taken vpon him more particularly to oppugne the doctrine of our Church in diuers and sundrie points which are questioned betwixt vs so I haue studied according to the talent which God hath giuen me to make it plainly appeare in the same points that the cause which he maintaineth hath very slender and weake support that his fortifications of defence are but earth and clay and his offensiue weapons but as strawes and rushes and that he had more care to write a booke then conscience to weigh the force and truth of that he wrote Which that it may not be imputed to any inhabilitie of his but to the badnesse of the cause it selfe he himselfe professeth that he giueth to his Reader therein a Preface to the Reader the marrow and pith of many large volumes hauing indeede transcribed the greatest part thereof out of Bellarmines disputations who is now become their common oracle and the chiefe fountaine whereat they all draw Which may well be wondered at in Doctor Bishop that he being a secular Priest and with the rest lately caried with that importunate furie against the Iesuites and hauing bene in that cause a principall vndertaker aboue the rest should notwithstanding now be content to grace them so farre as to furnish himselfe out of their armourie to fight against vs. But it hath well enough appeared that their quarell was but to serue a turne wherein failing of their purpose albeit they haue discouered the Iesuites to be so wholly composed of fraud and villanie as should iustly cause all men to shunne and detest them yet they haue yeilded to be gathered with them againe to the feathering of one wing and though haply they be no otherwise tied together but like b Iudg. 15.4 Samsons foxes taile to taile their rancor inwardly continuing such as that they can hardly one with good countenāce behold the other yet they agree together to carrie fire betwixt them to burne and consume the heritage of the Lord. Which fire notwithstanding we hope by the mercie of God through your Maiesties religious and godly care shall be but as the fire of gun-powder against the wind returning vpon the faces of them by whom it was kindled For although the endeuours of these malignant spirits seeme apparently to tend to the detriment and danger of the Church of Christ yet that God who in the beginning c 2. Cor. 4.6 commanded the light to shine out of darknesse and when he had made all things very good and nothing but good yet gaue way to sinne and euill that thereout he might draw some further good the same God euen now turneth to the good of many that which they intend for euill it coming hereby to passe that the Scriptures are more diligently searched the truth more instantly preached and defended the Pastors of the Lords flocke occasioned more carefully to stand vpon their watch the desires of many people inkindled to find certaine resolution of the things which are so greatly questioned and though some fal away who being but d Tertull. de praescr Auolent quantum volent paleae leuis fidei c. chaffe of light beleefe haue but wanted winde to blow them out of the floore yet many more by the displaying and laying open of the trecheries and deceits of such impostors are confirmed in the faith and do learne the more deeply to detest the mystery of iniquitie whilest they see the poysoned and deadly fruites that grow out of that ground Which since they haue bene growne to so full and perfect ripenesse could not but haue their time to fall and the fall thereof hauing bene hitherto so happily begunne we hope shall vnder your Maiesties gouernement much more prosperously succeed and that God wil go forward to shake off e Deut. 32 32 33. the bitter and cruell grapes of the vine of Sodome that men may no longer gather thereof to their owne destruction In the meane time your Maiesty hath seene and must expect yet further to see f Apoc. 12.7 the dragon and his angels fighting against Michael and his Angels and g ver 15. out of his mouth as it were out of a brimstone lake casting out malice slander as flouds of water to drowne the woman and her seed and so much the more enraged because he conceiueth in likelihood h ver 12. that he hath but a short time and that the day is at hand which the Lord hath promised which shal i Iere. 51.6.11 bring vpon Babel the vengeance of the Lord the vengeance of his temple The Lord make good his word the Lord hasten his work that we may see it that that k Apoc. 17.4 purple harlot first founded in bloud and paricide and hauing since by an vnquenchable thirsting after bloud made her self the slaughter house l Ibid. 18.24 of the Saints and Martyrs of Christ may of her owne children drinke bloud her belly ful that m ver 20. the heauens may reioyce and the holy Apostles Prophets seeing the iudgement of God vpon her
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
performed vnto God the transgressing whereof to be a sinne against God not onely mediatly by not yeelding subiection to the Law-giuer but immediatly in the very thing it selfe which it hath done or left vndone It is the prerogatiue of God onely to tie the conscience in this sort and whosoeuer else taketh vpon him thus to do he is an vsurper against God And thus doth the Pope bind mens consciences he maketh his lawes matters of religion and of the worship of God and will haue men beleeue that in the very doing of the things which he commandeth they immediatly please God merit at the hands of God make satisfaction to him for their sinnes and purchase eternall life On the other side that in the trespasse thereof not onely in respect of disobedience to the higher powers but for the very not doing of the things themselues there is sinne against God a breach and wound of conscience and the guilt of euerlasting death This is one speciall matter for which we iustly detest that Romish idol and do chalenge him not onely for sitting in the Temple of God by vsurping an outward superioritie in the visible state of the Church but also for y 2. Thes 2.4 sitting as God in the temple of God by chalenging to himselfe and possessing in such sort as hath beene sayd the consciences of men in which God onely ought to raigne As for Princes and temporall gouernours if they keepe them within their bounds they make no lawes in that kind for causes seeming good vnto them they require outward conformity and obedience to their lawes for conscience sake of the authority committed vnto them of God but they leaue the conscience free from any inward opinion or perswasion of the things themselues wherein they require to be obeyed Here therefore a man is outwardly bound and seruant to the law but inwardly he still continueth free to God being perswaded that the doing or not doing of such or such a thing in and for it selfe maketh him to God neither the better nor the worse and therefore the thing in it selfe being either way indifferent to God he yeeldeth himselfe in the outward man vpon conscience of giuing obedience to the power seruiceable and comformable to the law And this is that Christian libertie which the Scripture teacheth which is not as some men would haue it a licentious immunity in outward things to do euery man what we list but a freedome of the heart from any seruile opinion of any thing that we do The doctrine whereof Luther very excellently propounded in two paradoxes as they seemed to them that vnderstood them not as touching conuersation in outward things that z Luther de libert Christiana a Christian man is free from all men a Lord and subiect to no man And again that a Christian man is a diligent seruant and vassall to all men and subiect to all Inwardly in conscience he is free and bound to nothing but saith a 1. Cor 10.23 All things are lawfull for me Outwardly in conuersation he is bound to that that is expedient and serueth for edification whereby he may yeeld obedience to gouernours loue to neighbours instruction to the ignorant strengthening to the weake comfort to the strong good example to them that are without auoiding all scandall whereby he should cause the libertie whereof he is inwardly perswaded to be blasphemed and slandered Now therefore Princes in their lawes are to be obeyed vpon conscience of their authoritie being from God but this hindereth not but that the Pope is iustly accused for thrusting Christ out of his place by requiring obedience vpon conscience of the things themselues which he commandeth As for the opening and shutting of heauen we doubt not but that the Pope if he be the minister of Christ may chalenge the office and function thereof according to the tenor of the commission wherewith Christ hath left it to his Church But he not contented with that authoritie which Christ hath left indifferently to the ministery of the Church immediatly from Christ himselfe deriued in common to the whole body of the Church vsurpeth vnto himselfe a singularity in this behalfe making himselfe in Christs steed the head from whence the power of binding and loosing is deriued to all the rest and in that respect at his owne pleasure reseruing to himselfe a prerogatiue of speciall cases and causes which are most for his aduantage wherein no man may meddle but himselfe It is true that the master by appointing afterward ouer his houshold or a porter at his gates doth not diuest himselfe of his supreme authoritie but sith it is the peculiar honour of the Lord to giue that power and to determine the offices and places of his seruants surely he who being left but afterward of a house will lift vp himselfe to be a Lieutenant generall of a Realme and of a porter will make himselfe a Potentate and take vpon him to be euen as the Lord himself he is to be taken for no other but a traytor to his Lord and therefore is by his fellow seruants to be resisted in his course This is the Popes case He had the keyes of heauen committed vnto him in common with his fellow seruants to euery man for his part and portion of the Lords house and to the great disturbance and disorder of the house he hath chalenged vnto himselfe the soueraigntie and Lordship of the whole He hath made himselfe master of the Church and all the rest seruants vnto him By this extrauagant and exorbitant power he handleth all things as he list and abuseth the keyes to shut them out of heauen so farre as he can who in the behalfe of their maister do seeke to hinder his wicked and vngodly proceedings What then shall we adiudge him but a traytor to his Lord and maister Iesus Christ vsurping that which is proper to Christ alone In a word M. Bishop must vnderstand that though the Popedome were drowned in Tiber and Babylon were cast as a milstone into the sea yet Christ needeth not to be maister and man to but without the Pope hath seruants enough to attend him in his seruice W. BISHOP Come we now to the second It is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I maruell in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merit and so become our owne sauiors This is a phrase vnheard off among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good wo kes as the Protestants auouch they do
abominations or if they haue in any part bene deuised by others yet she hath licked all those monstrous and ilfauoured bastards to their forme The Church of Rome I say that now is we apply nothing to the Church of Rome that then was which he fondly inculcateth without cause The mother we confesse was a chast matron but the daughter is growne to be a filthie harlot W. BISHOP But that it is now become idolatrous M. Perkins doth proue by his second reason gathered also I warrant you right learnedly out of the text it selfe where it is said that the tenne hornes which signifie ten kings Cap. 17. ver 16. shall hate the whore and make her desolate and naked which as he saith must be vnderstood of Popish Rome For whereas in former times all the kings of the earth did submit themselues to the whore now they haue begun to withdraw themselues and to make her desolate as the kings of Bohemia Denmarke Germany England Scotland and other parts In these his words is committed a most foule fault by grosse ouersight and ignorance in the very text What be England Scotland Denmarke as for Bohemia ruled by a Catholike Emperor it must be omitted as also many States of Germany be these Kingdoms your principall pillars of the new Gospell comprehended within the number of the ten mentioned there in S. Iohn which hate the harlot Yes marry Why then they are enemies of Christ and Satans souldiers for in the 13. verse it is said of these that they shall deliuer their power vnto the beast which signifieth either the diuell or Antichrist and shall fight with the Lambe and the Lambe shall ouercome them because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings Is not this doating in an high degree to infame so notoriously them of whom he wold speake most honor and to make the speciall Patrons of their new Gospell the diuels captaines and fiercely to wage battell against Christ Iesus See how heate of wrangling blindeth mens iudgements R. ABBOT The direct conclusion intended by M. Perkins is that S. Iohns prophecie was not accomplished in heathenish Rome whereupon it remaineth to be vnderstood of the Church of Rome The argument which he vseth to that purpose is inuincible and M. Bishop cunningly ouerslippeth it without saying any thing directly to it He chargeth M. Perkins with most foule fault and grosse ouersight and ignorance in the text and with being blinded with heate of wrangling when he himselfe poore soule knoweth not what he saith or if he do know then carieth himselfe most impudently therein The case is plaine if we do but consider that the beast and the harlot belong both to one as S. Iohn giueth vs to vnderstand by describing a Apoc 17.3.7 the woman to be sitting vpon the beast in respect whereof the Rhemish Diuines do name b Rhem. TestaÌ„ Annotat. Apoc. 131. the whore and the beast and Antichrist all as one So Ferus their Preacher of Mentz saith c Ferus in Mat. 24. Abhominationem disolationis quae est regnuÌ„ Antichristi Ioannes in Apocalypsi nunc quâ—deÌ„ per Bestiam cui draco potestatem suam dedit nunc per mulierem bestâ—â— insidentem intelliga c. The abomination of desolation which is the kingdome of Antichrist Iohn in the Apocalypse vnderstandeth sometimes by the beast to which the Dragon gaue power sometimes by the woman sitting vpon the beast and making all to drinke of the wine of her fornication S. Iohn then giueth vs to vnderstand that ten kings should arise out of the dissolution of the Empire as hath bene said Of these ten kings he saith d Ver. 13. These haue one mind and shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast Hereupon it shall follow that together with the beast e Ver. 14. they shall fight against the Lambe that is against Iesus Christ Afterward it shall come to passe that those ten kings f Ver. 16. shall hate the whore that sitteth vpon the beast and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eate her flesh and burne her with fire For that it may appeare how they shall giue their power to the beast and yet hate the whore that is submit themselues to Antichrists state and gouernment and yet hate the Babylon wherein he hath raigned he addeth g Ver. â—7 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will and to do with one consent for to giue their kingdome to the beast vntill the words of God be fulfilled So then vntill the words of God be fulfilled and he haue performed what in his secret iudgement he hath thereof decreed those ten kings shall submit themselues to the whore to the beast that is to Antichrist raigning in his Babylon But when God hath finished his worke otherwise then the kingdome of Antichrist shall be ouerthrowne the kings that before were subiect shall withdraw their obedience from him they shall hate the whore of Babylon the citie of the beast of Antichrist and hauing stript her of the state and dominion wherby she was aduanced and raigned ouer them they shall furiously bend themselues against her vntill they haue vtterly destroyed her These things we see cannot belong to the dayes of the heathen Emperours as before is said because the diuision of the Empire and these ten kings were not in those times It remaineth therefore that the prophecie belongeth to times afterwards succeeding Now being so vnderstood as necessarily it must be we see the same in part alreadie fulfilled in the Church of Rome and God in his good time will fulfill the rest The Empire hath bene diuided into many kingdomes those kings haue all submitted their scepters to the power and authoritie of the Bishop of Rome He hath plaid the Lord and tyrant ouer them and they haue patiently suffered him so to do Yet God at length hath opened some of their eyes alreadie and they haue learned to see the deceits of Antichrist and to hate the same The like mercie he will shew to the rest in his good time and they shall ioyntly apply themselues to worke the confusion of that wicked strumpet So then they whom God hath alreadie called are not now as M. Bishop cauilleth the enemies of Christ and Satans souldiers they were so so long as they gaue their power and kingdome to the beast but now they are Gods armie and the captaines of the Lords hoast to fight his battels against the beast and the whore vntill they haue wrought his iudgement vpon them Weigh the text gentle Reader and consider well how readily it yeeldeth thee that that we say thereof and hereby conceiue in what a pitifull case M. Bishop was when he was faine to passe it ouer as he hath done Yet his fellowes are beholding to him that he layeth lustily about him with words and seemeth to haue a good courage howsoeuer if he weighed the place at all it could not be but that in
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
if any man saith he be set in the Apostolike seate without the foresaid concording and canonicall election of the Cardinals and the consent of the religious states following the Cleargie and Laity he shall not be accounted Pope or Apostolicall but Apostatical which is as much to say as Antichristian The Popes then being not now nor hauing bene of long time chosen by this rule but onely by the Colledge of Cardinals are found to be Apostataes and Antichrists by the sentence and decree of the Pope himselfe Hereto M. Bishop saith not a word though he confesse that he knew M. Perkins meaning well enough which indeed was somewhat amisse set downe by putting the Antipope called Innocentius for the Pope called Innocentius He had nothing whereby to excuse the Pope from being Antichrist euen by his owne decrees and therefore putteth the matter ouer to another place where he neuer meant to say any thing of it Onely in the end he chargeth M. Perkins with a grosse fault in citing the Canon of Pope Nicholas for saying that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals bishops of Rome as though saith he there were some thirtie or fortie Bishops of Rome Belike it was darke and his eyes did not well serue him or else he might haue seene that M. Perkins did not say by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome as he hath set downe and pointed amisse but by the Cardinall Bishops of Rome that is by the Cardinals of Rome which are Bishops For they are all Cardinals of Rome but some are Cardinall bishops some Cardinall priests some Cardinall Deacons and according to this distinction M. Perkins named the Cardinall Bishops of Rome the Popes Canon requiring the Cardinall Bishops to be the Electors of the Pope As touching that which M. Bishop citeth out of S. Bernard for his opinion of the Pope I answer him that we doubt not but that S. Bernard had a very high opinion of the Popes place but I answer him withall that S. Bernard had a higher opinion of the Popes place then he had of the Pope himselfe He knew well that though the Popes place were such in the Church of Christ as he describeth it to be yet the Pope by the abusing of his place might be very Antichrist himselfe He wisheth Pope Eugenius to remember and consider what person what place and office according to his conceipt he did beare in the Church thereby to moue him vpon conscience thereof to the redressing of those intolerable enormities and corruptions that were then growne in the Church and Court of Rome For in those books De consideratione he doth purposely bend himselfe to lay foorth the deformities and abuses then preuailing to shew how the Bishop of Rome by temporall dominion and princely pompe did degenerate from Peter and the rest of the Apostles did rather succeed Constantine then him to note the defaults and corruptions of gouernment of iudiciall proceedings of appeales to Rome of the Popes dispensations of the neglect of the punishment of offendors to shew the neglect of the Cleargie in teaching the people making themselues fitter for any other vse then for that Yea such was the horrible apostasie and iniquitie raigning at that time as that by way of complaint vnto Iesus Christ he saith therof with exceeding griefe in another place r Bernard in conuers S. Pauli Ser. 1. Coniurasse contra te videtur vniuersitas Christiani populi à minimo vsque ad maximum à planta pedis vsque ad verticem non est sanitas vlla Egressa est iniquitas à senioribus Iudicibus Vi carijs tuis qui videntur regere populum tuum c. Heu heu Domine Deus quia ipsi sunt in persecutione tua primi qui videntur in Ecclesia tua diligere primatum gerere principatum Aê° cem Sion occupauerunt apprehenderunt munitiones vniuersam deinceps liberè potestatiuè tradunt incendio ciuitatem Misera eortem conuersatio plebis tuae miserabilis subuersio est c. Dati sunt sacri gradus in occasionem turpis luerâ— c. De animarum salute nouissima cogitatio est c. Iniquè agitâ—r caeteri eo â—ra Christum multique nostris temporibus sunt Antichristi The whole company of Christian people seemeth to haue conspired against thee from the least euen to the greatest from the sole of the foote to the top of the head there is nothing sound iniquitie is gone foorth from the auncients the Iudges thy Vicars which seeme to gouerne thy people Alas alas O Lord God for they are foremost in persecuting thee who seeme to loue supremacie and to beare principalitie in thy Church They haue taken possession of the tower of Sion they haue seized vpon the munitions thereof and thencefoorth freely and by authoritie they betray the whole citie to the fire Their wretched conuersation is the miserable subuersion of thy people c. The sacred degrees and orders are yeelded to opportunitie of filthie lucre the sauing of souls is the thing last thought of The rest also deale wickedly against Christ and there are many Antichrists in our times Now the due consideration of these words we suppose may somewhat qualifie M. Bishops opinion of the words by himselfe alledged because hereby we plainely vnderstand not by broken but by perfect sentences that whatsoeuer S. Bernard conceiued of the dignitie and dutie of the Popes place yet that he very well saw that by euill vsage therof the Popes in his time were become the very enemies and persecutors of Christ euen they who as he saith were Christs Vicars and had the supremacie and principalitie in the Church of Christ And so we find that the high Priest of the Iewes who by Gods owne ordinance and institution was a figure of Christ and sate in the place of Christ yet by Apostasie and iniquitie became an Antichrist a persecutor of Christ and solemnly gaue sentence against Christ In like sort therefore nothing letteth but that the Pope may now be Antichrist albeit his place had bene at the first appointed by Christ but much more now in that his place is no diuine institution but onely humane presumption affected by ambition attempted by rebellion yeelded vnto by superstition established possessed by tyrannie and crueltie by villanie and trecherie vpholden by the deuices of Sycophants and Parasites who haue vsed all manner falshood and deceipt to iniect into the minds of men an opinion of it S. Bernard therefore by errour attributed to the Pope that which indeed is none of his and although for the credit of the Popes authoritie he alledge some words out of the Gospell vsed to S. Peter yet he bringeth no Scripture to proue either that that which he giueth to the Pope in that description did euer belong to Peter or that that which in the Gospell is spoken to Peter belongeth to the Pope He attributeth to the Pope to be Å¿ Tues princeps Episcoporum summus
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
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
the Scripture onely to which he was bound without refusall to giue consent why then doth M. Bishop seeke to bind vs in a matter wherein S. Austin refused to be bound Prosper being vrged by the Pelagians with a sentence out of the booke of the Pastor reiected it m Prosper de lib. arbit Nullius authoritatis testimonium de libello Pastoris as a testimonie of no authoritie albeit Antiquitie had n Ruffiâ—â—n exposit Symb. apud Cyprian so accounted of that book as that they had ioyned it to the books of the new Testament did reade it publikely in their Churches and doth M. Bishop thinke it much that we reiect some few testimonies alledged by him of farre lesse authoritie then that was But yet Austine found in these few testimonies of the more auncient Fathers sufficient to iustifie both for him and vs o Aug. de bono perseuer cap. 19. Istitales tantique doctores dicentes non esse aliquid de quâ— tanquam de nostro quod nobis Deâ—◠〈◊〉 â—edâ—rit gloriemur nec ipsum cor nostrum cogitationes nostrariâ— potestate nostra esse tetum dantâ—s Deo atque ab ipso nos accâ—pere confitentes vt permansuâ—â— conuertamur ad cum vt id quod bonum est nobis quoque videatur â—â—â—um quod velimus illud vt honoremus Deum recipiamus Christum vt ex indenotis efficiamur deuâ—â—i religiosi vt in ipsam Trinitatem â—redamus confiteamur etiam voce quod credimus haec vtique gratiae Dei tribuunt c. that we haue nothing whereof to glorie as ours which God hath not giuen vnto vs that our heart and thoughts are not in our owne power but Gods that all is to be ascribed vnto God and that we must confesse that we receiue all wholy of him as touching our conuersion to God and continuing with him that it is wholy the gift of grace the gift of God which of him we haue and not of our selues to will that that is good to receiue Christ to beleeue in God and by voice to confesse that which we beleeue And surely howsoeuer those more ancient Fathers spake obscurely of Free will and some of them questionlesse meant amisse yet for the most part their speeches being applyed as I said before against heathen Astrologers and wicked heretickes excluding mans will wholy from being any cause either of good or euil they spake worse then they meant and if we will take their words with those qualifications and constructions wherwith S. Austin cleared some speeches of his against the Manichees as p Sect. 6. before was shewed in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle they shal easily be recoÌ„ciled to the truth Therfore iâ—arhem also that speake most amisse we find somtimes a right and true acknowledgement of the grace of God Who was a greater Patron of Free will then Origen who yet notwithstanding confesseth q Origen contra Ceisum lib 7. Nostrum propositum non est sufficiens ad hoc vt mundum cor habeamus sed Deo est opus qui tale nobis creet ideâ—rcò qui scit precari dicit Cor mundum c. that our will sufficeth not for the hauing of a cleane heart but that we haue need of God to create the same in vs and that therefore he that knoweth how to pray saith Create in me a cleane heart O God r Jbid. Bonitate ac humanitate Dei diuina ipsius gratia conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinatâ— sunt vt cognito Deo dignè viuaÌ„t c that the true knowledge of God by his mercie and grace is graunted onely vnto them who are praedestinate to liue worthy of him whom they know Å¿ Jn Mat. cap. 13. Quod gloriatione dignum est id nostrum non est sed domoÌ„ est Dei. that whatsoeuer is in vs worthie our reioycing is not our owne but the gift of God Yea where he affirmeth that there is in euery soule a strength of power and freedome of will whereby it may do euery thing that is good yet further to expresse his mind he addeth t In Cantic Homil 4. Seâ— quia hoc naturae bonuÌ„ praeuaricationis occasione deceiptum vel ad ignomimam vel ad lasciuiam fuerat inflexum vbi per gratiam reparatur per doctrinam verbi Dei restituitur odorem reddit sine dubio illum quem primus conditor Deus indiderat sed peccati culpa subtraxerat that this benefite of nature was cropped by meanes of sinne and was turned aside to shame and lasciuiousnes but that the same being repaired by grace and restored by the doctrine of the word of God doth giue that sweet sauour which God the first Creator put into it but the trespas of sin had takeÌ„ away Where it appeareth plainely that in speaking of Free will his purpose was to shew what mans will is by condition of creation and to what it may be repaired by the grace of God not what power it hath of it selfe in this state of corruption to open to God when he knocketh or to assent to God when he calleth And thus Clemens Alexandrinus affirming Free will against the heretikes Valentinus and Basilides who thought that men by an essential state of nature were some good some euill some faithfull and some vnfaiâ—hfull so as that the will of man is nothing at all either way yet reserueth due place to the grace of God saying u Clem. Alexan. Stromâ—t lib 5. Oportet mentem habere sanam c. ad quod maximè diuina opus habemus gratia rectaque doctrina castaque munda animi affectione Patris ad ipsum attractione We haue speciall need of Gods grace and true doctrine and of chast and pure affection and of the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe Where by affirming the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe he plainely excludeth the voluntarie opening and assenting and yeelding of Free will because drawing as before was shewed out of Austin importeth that there is no will in vs till God of vnwilling do make vs willing Let one speech of Austine serue to cleare all this matter x Augu. de corrept grat ca. 1 Liberum arbitrium ad malum ad bonuÌ„ faciendum confitendum est nos habere sed in ma lo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae peccati auteÌ„ seruâ—â—m bono autem liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus ab eo qui dixit Si vos filius c. We must confesse saith he that we haue Free will both to do euill and to do good This is the common assertion of the Authors whom M. Bishop opposeth against vs but let vs take the wâ—rds following withall and by them expound the same assertion For euil-doing euery man is free from righteousnesse and the seruant of sinne there he hath alreadie Free will but in that that is good no man can be
free except he be made free by him that saith If the Sonne shall make you free then are ye free indeed If any of them thought otherwise they erred in that they thought neither learned they so to thinke of the Apostles or their best scholers as M. Bishop idlely talketh but either borrowed it of heathen Philosophers or presumed it of themselues And whatsoeuer they thought or meant their manner of speaking was not Apostolike neither learned they it by the word of God and therefore those times were not the purest times which had thus in phrase and speech varied from that y Rom 6.17 character and forme of doctrine whereto the Church was first deliuered And if M. Bishop will say that they learned these things of the Apostles then he must condemne S. Austine and the whole Catholike Church of that time in which Austine liued for teaching otherwise then they taught which if he will not do he must perforce acquit vs as well as him and let the blame rest vpon them to whom it doth appertaine Whom we account no further to be pillars of Christs Church then they themselues continued built vpon the Gospell which Christ hath made z Iren lib. 3. ca 1. Euangelium nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt Apostoli columnaÌ„ fâ—â—d amentuÌ„ fâ—aci nostrae futurum the pillar and fortresse of our faith neither doubt we to say of them that they were in darknesse where the a Esa 8.10 word of the law and testimony did not giue them light Now for conclusion he vpbraideth vs againe with the heresie of the Manichees onely to shew himselfe a perfect scholer of the Pelagian schoole For so did the b Aug. contra 2. Epist Pelag li 3 cap. 9. Excogitaverunt Maâ—â—chaeoruÌ„ detestabili nomine imperitos quos potuerint dâ—terrere ne aduersus eoruÌ„ dogmata peruersissima aures accommodent veritati Pelagians obiect to Austine and other teachers of the Catholike Church that they tooke part with the Manichees and defended their heresie in the denying of Free will They called them Manichees and of theÌ„selues said c Ibid. lib. 2. ca. 1 Pro Catholica fide contra Manichaeorum sicut loquuntur profa nitatem consensionem Orientalium EpiscoporuÌ„ videntur exposcere c. that they dealt for the Catholike faith against the prophane opinion of the Manichees onely to colour their owne heresie and enmitie against the grace of God by falsly vpbraiding their aduersaries with another But S. Austin answered them d Ibid. cap. 2. Manichaei negant homini bono ex libero arbitrio fuisse initria malâ— Pelagiani dicunt etiam hominem malum sufficienter haebere liberum arbitrium ad faciendum praeceptuÌ„ bonum Catholicae vtrosque redarguit c. The Manichees deny that to man being made good Free will became the beginning of euill the Pelagians say that man being become euill hath a will sufficiently free for the doing of the commandement of good The Catholike Church condemneth them both saying to the Manichees God made man iust and to the Pelagians If the Sonne shall make you free then are you free indeed Let M. Bishop turne the name of the Pelagians into Papists and take this answer to himselfe The Pelagians and Papists are not therefore to be approued because they condemne the heresie of the Manichees but are therefore to be detested because they haue set vp another heresie of their owne e Ibid. possunt duo errores inter se esse contrarij sed ambo sunt detestandi quia sunt ambo contrarij veritati Two errors saith S. Austine may be contrarie one to the other and both to be detested because they are both contrarie to the truth So is it with the Manichees and Papists and we take the course that the auncient Church did to condemne them both But of this matter I haue spoken sufficiently before in answering his Epistle and therefore need not here to stand vpon it 15. W. BISHOP Here I wold make an end of citing Authorities 2. Inst ca. 2. q 4. were it not that Caluin saith that albeit all other auncient writers be against him yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth is clearely for him in this point but the poore man is fouly deceiued aswell in this as in most other matters I wil briefly proue and that out of those workes which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote for in his others Caluin acknowledgeth him to haue taught Free will De spi lit 34. De gra Chr. 14 Ad Simpli q. 2. Tract 72. in Ioan. Epi. 47. Of our Freedome in consenting to Gods grace he thus defineth To consent to Gods calling or not to consent lyeth in a mans owne will Againe Who doth not see euery man to come or not to come by Free will but this Free will may be alone if he do not come but it cannot be holpen if he do come In another place that we will do well God will haue it to be his ours his in calling vs ours in following him Yea more To Christ working in him a man doth cooperate that is worketh with him both his owne iustification and life euerlasting will you heare him speake yet more formally for vs. We haue dealt with your brethren and ours as much as we could that they would hold out and continue in the sound Catholike faith the which neither denieth Free will to euill or good life nor doth attribute so much to it that it is woorth any thing without grace So according to this most worthie Fathers iudgement the sound Catholike faith doth not deny Free will as the old Manichees and our new Gospellers do nor esteeme it without grace able to do any thing toward saluation as the Pelagians did Lib 4. contr Iul. c. 8. And to conclude heare S. Augustines answer vnto them who say that he when he commendeth grace denyeth Free will Much lesse wold I say that which thou lyingly dost affirme me to say Free will to be denyed if grace be commended or grace to be denyed if Free will be commended R. ABBOT Caluin indeed confesseth as the truth is that the a Institut lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 4. auncient Writers saue onely Austin haue written so diuersly and intricately or obscurely of Free wil as that hardly a man can gather from them any certainty as touching that point But yet he saith further that b Ibid. Sect. 9. albeit they went too farre sometimes in extolling Free will yet he dareth to affirme that they aimed at this marke to turne man altogether away from the confidence of his owne strength and to teach him to make the repose of his strength in God onely But whereas Caluin thinketh that Austin is cleare for him in this point M. Bishop saith the poore man was fouly deceiued as well in this as in most other matters Where I cannot but smile to see how euery ignorant brabler will haue a snatch
no further then he approoueth vnto vs that he is a follower of Christ we tie not our selues to him but vse our liberty to dissent from him and to censure him where he hath gone awry But M. Bishop and his fellowes haue their Patriarch indeede to whom they binde themselues Antichrist the man of sinne the enemie of Christ whose dirt they must be content to eate and to brooke all the filth of his abhominations and a Dist 40. si Papae though he leade them to hell yet no man may dare say vnto him Sir why do ye so Well Caluin saith that Austine hath diligently gathered the iudgement of antiquity and what then forsooth he saith further thus that b Caluin Institut lib. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 10. betweene Austine and vs there may seeme to be this difference that he dares not call the disease of concupiscence by the name of sinne but we hold it to be a sinne that a man is tickled with any lust or desire against the law of God Whereupon M. Bishop giueth his Reader these obseruations first that S. Austines opinion carieth with Caluin the credit of all antiquity which is the cause saith he that I cite him more often against them which indeede he hath full clerkly and profoundly done so as that I presume I may assure the Reader that he hath scarsely euer read ouer one booke of his Secondly saith he that he is flatly on our side but therein he reckoneth before his host for Caluin saith to the contrary that c Ibid. sect 12. Austine differeth not so much from our doctrine as in shew he seemeth to doe and that he varieth but little from our opinion Lastly saith he learne to mislike the blind boldnesse of such maisters But if Caluin were blinde alas for poore M. Bishop what can he see and yet though he can see but little he is as bold as blinde bayard and doubteth not to vilifie him to whom he might very well be a scholler yet many yeares Caluin iustly commendeth Austines iudgment and aduiseth all men to follow it and in substance flieth not from it himselfe though in termes he somewhat differ Neither did he presume vpon shallow wits not to be espied knowing well that the whole rabble of the court of Antichrist would vse their deepest wits for the sifting of that he should write but in the conscience of integrity and faithfulnes he despised all their barkings and malitious furie and with the inuincible shield of truth beareth off all the poisoned darts of their reproches He neuer taught men to rely vpon his authority but by authority of the word of God and testimony of the auncient church he laboured to establish the faith of Christ yet making men witnesses onely not authors or dictators of the truth and therefore not doubting to censure them where they swarue from the authority of the word of truth But now because M. Bishop will perswade vs that S. Austine is wholly on their part let vs somewhat more at large examine his opinion and iudgement in this behalfe Which although it may be sufficiently perceiued by those things that haue bene scatteringly alledged already yet fully to remoue this cauill let vs here lay together what shall be found necessary for the clearing thereof And first we are to obserue that sinne is considered two manner of waies one way as it is opposed to righteousnesse another way as it is opposed to forgiuenesse of sinnes Sinne properly taken as euery mans vnderstanding giueth him is opposite to righteousnesse and so whatsoeuer is contrary to righteousnesse is sinne Thus haue we before described the nature of sinne and according to this description concupiscence in the regenerate being d Rom. 7.23 Gal. 5.17 contrary to righteousnesse is sinne neither euer came it into S. Austines heart to thinke otherwise But he considereth sinne in the proper effect of sinne as it maketh guilty so that whatsoeuer is forgiuen is no sinne because forgiuenesse taketh away the guilt of sinne So long as the guilt remaineth though the thing be past and gone whereof or whereby the man is guilty yet he vnderstandeth the sinne to remaine still If the guilt be taken away though the thing still continue the same by which the man became guilty yet he taketh it not to be in the nature of sinne because the nature of sinne is to make guilty The occasion of which construction was giuen him by the Pelagian heretickes the predecessours of the Papists who when he taught against them Originall sinne and the remainder of that blot of naturall corruption in the regenerate as we doe tooke occasion to cauill against him that he e August cont duas epist Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 13. Dicunt inquit baptisma noâ— dare omnem induldgentiam peccâ—torum nec auferre criminae sed radere vt omnium peccatorum radices in mala carne reneantur quasi â—asorum in capite capillorum vnde crescant itâ—rum risecanda peccata said that baptisme did not giue remission of all sinnes neither did take away faults but onely shaue them so as that the rootes were still sticking from whence other sinnes should grow againe S. Austine the better to cleare this matter to popular vnderstanding affirmeth that baptisme doth take away all sinne because that albeit concupiscence of the flesh were still remaining yet it did not remaine in the nature of sinne because the guilt thereof in baptisme was remitted f De nupt et concupisc lib. 1. ca. 25. Dimittitur non sit sed vt in peccatuÌ„ non imputetur It is forgiuen saith he not so as that it is not but so as that it is not imputed for sinne g Ibid. cap. 26. In eis qui regeneraÌ„turr in Christo cum remissionem accipiuâ—t prorsus omnium peccatorum vâ—que necesse est vt reatus etiam huius licet manenus ad â—uc concup sâ—entiae remittatur vt in peccatum non impuâ—â—tur Nam sicut câ—ruÌ„ peccatorum quâ— manere non 〈◊〉 sunt quoâ—â—am cum 〈◊〉 pâ—etâ—reunt 〈…〉 et â—isi remiâ—â— vt 〈◊〉 in aeterâ—um maâ—eâ—â— sic illius concupiscenâ—ic quando remittitur reatus aufertur Hoc est eâ—â—im non habere peccatum non esse reâ—ym peccati Nâ—â— si quisquâ—â— veâ—â—â— gratia fecerit adueterium etiam si nunquam deâ—â—cesâ—â— faciat 〈◊〉 est adulterij donec reatus ipsias 〈…〉 Habet ergo peccatum quamuis illud quod admisâ—â—â—am non sit quia cum tempâ—re quo factum est praetiâ—â—ijt c Manâ—â—t ergo peccata nisi remittantur Sed quomodo manent si praeâ—â—â—ta sunt nisi quia praetâ—rterunt actu manent reatu Sic itaque sâ—â—rie contraâ—â— potest vt etiaÌ„ illud maneat actâ—â—â— aetereaâ— reaâ—â— In the regenerate when they receiue forgiuenesse of all their sinnes the guilt of this concupiscence though it selfe still continue is remitted so as that it is not imputed for sinne For as of those sinnes which cannot continue because
gold and siluer practised to rob the poore people of God of their substance Now therefore M. Bishop gaineth no credit to his doctrine of satisfactions by charging these enormities vpon vs inasmuch as they are found much more intolerably in the Pope himselfe and therefore much more in them who are the members of so bad a head Whosoeuer amongst vs do sinne in these kindes and cause the people of God to grieue and his enemies to blaspheme his truth we teach them and they shall finde that e 1. Thess 4.6 God is the auenger of such things and his iudgement shall in due time finde out their sinne Of the ridiculous absurditie of their satisfactorie praiers I haue spoken before His words of bitter teares are but formall Catholike eies are too tender to be made red with bitter teares and the forme of their praiers fitteth not thereto Our singing of Geneua Psalmes as he calleth them indeede Dauids Psalmes though many of them haply turned into English meeter at Geneua is a deuotion prescribed by the holy Ghost saying by the Apostle f Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously in all wisedome teaching and admonishing your owne selues in Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs singing with a grace in your hearts to the Lord. If being merry in good sort we thus sing Psalmes we therein follow the rule of S. Iames g Iames 5.13 Is any man merry let him sing Yea and we hold it for a notable token of the apostasie of the Church of Rome that it hath so abandoned this point of Christian exercise and deuotion from all both publike and priuate vse We do not raile but performe the office of carefull pastours and teachers in noting their sinnes and errours not imagined onely but verie sensible nor onely pretended but proued by the testimonie of him who is truth and cannot erre As for that which he saith of laying all paine and sorow vpon Christes shoulders it is true that we do so indeede as touching satisfaction for sinne but otherwise God wanteth not meanes to lay paines and sorowes vpon those that are his to make them know that they are not borne to pleasure and pastime but to h Act. 13.36 serue the counsell of God to glorifie his name The Church of Rome swarmeth as before hath bene noted with Atheists and Epicures that cary the shew of that perswasion but amongst the true professors of the Gospell there are no such found CHAPTER 7. OF TRADITIONS 1 W. BISHOP MAister Perkins Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by word of mouth or writing besides the written word of God His first conclusion as touching our consent Concl. 1. We hold that the verie word of God was deliuered by Tradition from Adam to Moses who was the first Pen-man of holy Scripture Item that the Historie of the new Testament as some for eight not eightie or as other think for twenty yeares went frō hand to hand by Tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approued by them Hitherto we agree but not in this which he enterlaceth that in the state of nature euery man was instructed of God immediatly in both matters of faith and religion for that God thē as euer since vsed the ministerie as well of good fathers as godly maisters as Enoch Noe Abraham and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God and true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses as M. Perkins affirmeth if no child learned any such thing of his father but was taught immediatly from God but M. Perkins seemeth to regard little such pettie contradictions R. ABBOT M. Perkins meaning is plaine enough without any contradiction God in the beginning reuealed his will vnto our father Adam not by writing but familiarly by word of mouth He left it not thenceforth meerely to passe from man to man but as he first gaue this light by immediate reuelation from himselfe so afterwards he continued renewed and confirmed the same raising vp some in all times to be neere vnto him to whom a Heb. 1.1 in diuers manners by speech by visions by dreames by sundry illuminations and inspirations he imparted the knowledge of himselfe and endued them with eminencie of gifts and authority to be b 2. Pet. 2.5 preachers of righteousnesse both to their owne families and to other whom the Lord would call It is not true then which M. Bishop would so gladly fasten on that the doctrine of faith passed by tradition in such sort as the question of traditions standeth betwixt them and vs. They pretend that Christ taught his Apostles diuers and sundry doctrines which he would haue wholy left without writing to the custody of the Church and to be reported successiuely from man to man to the worlds end But God did not in those first ages leaue his word in any such sort wholy to the memory and report of men as trusting to their fidelity for the successiue deliuering of that which at first had bene receiued but he himselfe tooke vpon himselfe the custody of his owne tradition and continued still to report what he had first taught knowing the chanel of humane conceipt to be more corrupt thē that the streame of diuine truth can long runne pure cleare therein And this may sufficiently perswade vs that our Sauiour Christ would not leaue any part of his religion to so vncertaine and doubtfull course so subiect to the corruptions of humane deuices If God would euer haue had his truth to passe altogether from hand to hand vndoubtedly he would haue taken that course in the beginning when men liuing so long might be likely to confirme and settle in their posteritie what they should beleeue But he saw there would be no safety vnlesse he himselfe still continued to be an instructour vnto them He knew how subiect men are to alteration and change how easily one man mistaketh that which is rightly deliuered by another how readily men sometimes come short sometimes go too farre how one mans fancy conceiueth one way another mans another way and that we can neuer keepe any straight and euen path so long as instruction is no otherwise had but from man to man Therefore where God himselfe attended not to keepe the fire burning which he had kindled it soone went out where men were left onely to tradition they soone degenerated from that seruice of God wherein they had bene brought vp vnder iust and righteous parents There is no likelihood therefore that God finding so little safety in tradition in the beginning would leaue his Church now to be guided by tradition in the end Nay when he thought good somwhat to withdraw himselfe from that familiar conference dealing with men he would otherwise supply the want thereof prouide for the safety of his people by appointing a
them But if Christ had left any such matters to be deliuered by traditioÌ„ then it should vndoubtedly be knowne which and what they were We desire then by M. Bishop to be aduertised particularly therof and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not beare What shal we think that Christ spake of that trash which they deliuer vnto vs vnder the name of traditions But S. Austin again cutteth him off froÌ„ all answer in that behalf u Ibid. tract 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit quis nostrum dicat ista vel illa sunt aut si dicere audeat vnde probat Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiaÌ„ vera quibus voluerit quae voluerit fine vllo testimonio diuino affirmet ea esse quae tuÌ„c dominus dicere noluit Quis hoc nostruÌ„ faciat non mâ—ximaÌ„ culpam remeritatâ— incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas Seeing Christ himself hath bin silent of those things who of vs can say they are these these or if he dare to say it how doth he proue it For who is there so vaine or so rash who though he say things that are true will affirme without any testimony froÌ„ God that those are the things which Christ wold not say Which of vs should so do and not incurre a note of great presumption not hauing any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spake then M. Bishop can haue no proofe for their traditioÌ„s hereby because wheras his words import that S. Iohn in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof though not much after the resurrectioÌ„ of Christ we see nothing in that which he recordeth but that the matter of all the rest may be contained in the rest of his and the other Apostles writings But for the more full clearing of this matter it is to be noted that our Sauior before hath said to his Apostles x Iohn 15.15 All things that I haue heard of my Father haue I made knowne to you And again in his prayer to the Father y Chap. 17.8 I haue giuen vnto them saith he the words which thou gauest me and they haue receiued them If Christ deliuered all the words of God to his disciples before his death then it must needs follow that he deliuered no other words vnto them after his resurrection Therfore those many things which he had to speake vnto them are not to be vnderstood of any other things then he had taught them before but of a more full perfect reuelatioÌ„ for the more ful perfect apprehension vnderstanding of the same things To which purpose we are againe to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection that our Sauior here saith not that he wold declare those things vnto them himself after his resurrectioÌ„ but deferreth the same to the coming of the Spirit saying z Chap. 16.13 Howbeit when he is come which is the spirit of truth he wil leade you into al truth Now how he shold lead them into all truth he hath before shewed a Chap. 14.26 He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you He shold teach them all things not by teaching them other things but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had bin taught by Christ himself Therfore here Christ saith further for he shal not speak of himself but whatsoeuer he shal heare that shal he speake Wherby he importeth that the holy Ghost shold speake according to his example and he stil professeth that b chap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himselfe that c Chap. 8.28 he doth nothing of himself but as the Father hath taught me saith he so I speake these things Christ spake d Chrysost de sanct adoran spiritu Non discessit à lege non discessit à Prophetis c. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis c. A seipso enim loqui extra legeÌ„ loqui est not of himself as Chrysostom noteth because he spake out of the Law and the Prophets for to speake of himself is to speake without or beside the Law So then the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe but as Christ spake according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets so the holy Ghost should speake according to the words of Christ and therefore according to those things that are written in the Law and the Prophets Therefore those many things which Christ had to speake vnto them and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to leade them were no other things but what were contained in the written word of the Law and the Prophets whereof as yet they were not capable because as yet they did not so well e Iohn 20.9 know the Scripture nor could do vntill he should f Luk. 24.45 open their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the same Origen vnderstandeth the words spokeÌ„ to the Apostles g Origen contra Cels l. 2. Fortassis vt Judaeis in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicenduÌ„ quae sit vera lex c. VideÌ„s perdifficile esse ex animo reuellere penè conata et vsque ad grandem aetateÌ„ coalita dogmata adeòque pro diuinis habita vt amouere illa videretur imptum c. Jdeo dictum Deducet vos in omnem veritateÌ„ id est in omnem veritatem earuÌ„ rerum in quatuÌ„ figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu DeuÌ„ colere as Iewes brought vp in the letter of Moses law our Sauior seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown vp with theÌ„ to those yeers which were taken to be of God so as that it should seeme impious to remoue them Therefore where Christ saith The spirit shall leade you into all truth it is saith he as if he had said Into all the truth of those things in the figures whereof ye haue bin conuersant thinking thereby truly to worship God Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops vnwritten mysteries here is nothing as Origen conceiueth but that the spirit shold afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law which they were not yet well able to conceiue And therefore against all illusions of heretikes pretending for their vnwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost as the Church of Rome doth Chrysostom taking it for granted that what Christ spake is set foorth vnto vs in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists giueth this most notable rule h Chrysost vt supra Si quis eoruÌ„ qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctuÌ„ ex seipso loquitur non ex Euangelijs non credite Venit Manes dicit Ego sum Paracletus c.
Quodcunque aduersus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis etiam vetus coÌ„suetudo Christ did not call himselfe custome but truth that whatsoeuer sauoureth against the truth is heresie though it be an auncient custome As for the instances which M. Bishop saith he bringeth for the iustifying of Traditions vnwritten they are partly impertinent and partly heathenish and hereticall deuises and surely if the Church had bene then fraught with traditions as the Church of Rome is now he would not haue bene so slenderly furnished for the approuing of them His first instance is that in baptisme x AquaÌ„ adituri contistamur nos renunetare diabolo pompae et Angelis eius they did professe to renounce the diuell and his pompes and his Angels But this is no other but written doctrine and the Scripture teacheth it when it nameth y Heb. 6.1 repentance from dead workes as one of the foundations of Christian profession and of the doctrines of the beginning of Christ and we vse the same renunciation in baptisme who yet disclaime traditions vnwritten Forme of words maketh no difference of doctrine though in other termes yet we do no other thing therein but what the Scripture teacheth vs to do His second instance of z De hinc ter mergitamur thrice dipping is a matter onely of ceremony not of doctrine and it is meerely indifferent whether it be done once as in the name of one God or thrice as to import the Trinity of the persons As for a Jnde suscepti lactu mellis conâ—ordiam praegustamus the tasting of milke and hony which is his third instance it was also a voluntary obseruation which may seeme first to haue bene brought in by heretikes howsoeuer after it got place in the Church because Dionysius who for his time most exactly describeth Dionys Ecclesiast hierarch cap 4. the ceremonies of the Church maketh no mention of it c Lauacro quotidâ—â—â—o 〈◊〉 die peâ— tot 〈◊〉 mâ—lâ—â— abstinemus Die dominico reiunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Eadem immunitate 〈◊〉 in Pentecosten vsque gaudemus Not to wash for a weeke after baptisme not to fast or pray kneeling vpon the Sunday or betwixt Easter and Whitsontide vvere also but positiue ceremonies subiect to the discretion of the Church vsed in some places and times and not in other insomuch that in part they are growne out of vse euen in the Curch of Rome and therfore come not within the compasse of traditions as we here dispute of them d Eucharistae SacramentuÌ„ in teÌ„pore victas c. etiam anielâ—canis caetibus nec de aliorum quam praesidentium manu suntimus To receiue the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Ministers is the institutioÌ„ of Christ and we are taught it by the written word but either to do it in the morning before day or at the time of other feeding was a meere arbitrarie and indifferent thing and the Church of Rome now vseth it at neither time e Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitijs annua die facimuâ— Offerings yeerely made for the dead and for birth-daies were first brought in by the heretike Montanus to whom now Tertullian had addicted himselfe and of whom the ecclesiasticall historie testifieth that f Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. cap. 16. Sub praetextu nomine oblationum munerum captationeÌ„ artificiose coÌ„mentus est vnder the pretence and name of offerings he cunningly deuised the taking of rewards and gifts And although the one of them by the plausible colour of it tooke such fast hold as that the streame thereof hath runne into the lakes and puddles of the Church of Rome yet the other was soone reiected or not at all admitted but onely amongst his fellowes Origen testifying that Christians g Origen in Iob. lib 3. Nos noÌ„ natiuitatis dieÌ„ celebramâ—s sed mortis c in Leâ—iâ—t hom 8 Nemo ex omnibus sanctis inuenitur dum festuÌ„ c. egisse in die natalis suâ— did not celebrate their birth-day and that it was not found that any of the Saints had made a festiuall day of his birth-day h Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terraÌ„ decuti anxit pa timur Not to endure to haue any part of the Sacrament fall to the ground is a part of that i 1. Cor 14.40 decencie and reuerence which the Scripture requireth to be vsed in sacred and holy things or if he speake it of ordinary bread and drinke the Scripture also teacheth that of those good blessings of God k Iohn 6.12 nothing should be lost The vse of l Ad omneÌ„ progressum atque promotum ad omneÌ„ aditura et exituÌ„ ad vestitum calceatum ad lauacra ad men sai ad lumina ad cubilia ad sedilia quaecunque nos conuersatio exercet frontem crucis signaculo cerâ—nus the signe of the crosse was ceremoniall also no matter of doctrine and faith but onely an occasion of remembrance and a token of the profession therof which in discretion for temporary consideration was begun and by like discretion cause so requiring might be left againe Our Church in some part where it is most free from Popish abuse vseth the signe of the crosse and yet well knoweth that vnwritten traditions as the name is vnderstood in this disputation are not iustified thereby We doubt not as touching outward vsages and ceremonies as touching positiue constitutions and ordinances of the Church but that vnder the name of traditions according to the circumstances before expressed they may be commanded and are to be obeied though they be not contained in the Scripture but for matter of faith and of the worship of God we deny that any thing may be admitted beside the written word and Tertullians instances are too weake to serue Maister Bishops turne to prooue the contrary To be short it appeareth plainly by Tertullian that the Catholike Church defended then against heretikes the same that we now defend against the Papists that pretence of Tradition without authority of Scripture auaileth not and therefore that the Papists vnder the name of Catholikes are indeede heretikes wrastling and fighting against the Church 11 W. BISHOP Come we now vnto his second testimonie out of S. Ierome * In cap. 23. Math. who writing as he saith of an opinion that S. Iohn Baptist was killed because he foretold the comming of Christ the good-man would say Zacharie S. Iohns Father for the Scripture sheweth plainly why S. Iohn lost his head * Math. 14. But S. Ierome there saith this Because it hath not authoritie from Scriptures may as easily be contemned as approued Out of which particular M. Perkins shewing himselfe a doughtie Logitian would inforce an vniuersall that forsooth all may be contemned that is not proued by Scripture As if you would proue no Protestant to be skilfull
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
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
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
Church Now then the testimony of the present Church is made of equall like authority with the holy Scriptures and Bellarmine is in as pitifull a case as M. Bishop is For the testimonie of the present Church what is it but the testimony of the learned of the present Church therfore now the mindes of the learned are as good an oracle of truth as the Scriptures are If this be not so let vs heare from M. Bishop what else is to be said hereof for if traditions be to be receiued with like deuotion reuerence as those things that we are taught in Scripture then there must be somewhat or other to commend the same vnto vs with the like authority as the Scripture doth the rest and what that is we are desirous to vnderstand Now M. Bishop addeth two further exceptions against M. Perkins argument and they are such wise ones as that we may very well think them to be his own Secondly saith he they are commonly recorded of more then one of the fathers and so haue firmer testimonie then any one of their writings But what is this to M. Perkins his speech which is not restrained to any one of the fathers writings but taketh them iointly and inferreth it as an absurdity that the writings of the fathers being taken all together should be made equall in credit to the holy Scriptures Thirdly saith he a tradition being related but by one auncient father yet should be of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a matter of more estimation But what idle babling is this what maketh this to the clearing of the point in question He will haue vs to receiue traditions with the like pietie and reuerence as we doe those things that we are instructed by the Scripture He putteth a case of a tradition reported by one onely of the fathers He should hereupon haue answered how we can in that sort admit of such a tradition as Apostolicall but by yeelding the like credit to that one father as we do to the holy Scriptures But he like a man in a wood that knoweth not which way he is to go telleth vs that this tradition is of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because it was registred by him as a matter of more estimation O the sharpe wits of these Romish Doctours that can diue so deepe into matters and talke so profoundly that they themselues vnderstand not what they say To as little purpose is that which he addeth that if that tradition were not as it was termed some of the rest of the fathers would haue reproued it which when they did not they gaue it their interpretative consent to be Apostolicall tradition But let the consent be either interpretatiue or expresse what is this against the consequence of the argument which he taketh vpon him to answer that if we must receiue traditions in that sort as they require vs and haue no where to ground them but vpon the testimonie of the fathers then we must giue as much credit to the testimonie of the fathers as we do to the holy Scriptures I am forced thus odiously to inculcate the matter in question to make the ridiculous folly of this wrangler the more plainely to appeare who hauing nothing to say yet hath not so much wit as to hold his peace In this simplicity he goeth forward to answere the place of the Acts where Saint Paule is brought in saying c Acts. 26.22 I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come In which words it is plaine that the Apostle professed in the preaching of the Gospell * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to say nothing without the compasse of those things which had beene before spoken by Moses and the Prophets M Bishop answereth that he meaneth onely of those things which he addeth That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead c. For these things saith he euidently foretold in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe Yea but what other proofe doth he vse for any other doctrine Forsooth when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles taught them to keepe them Yea but Paul preached a long while before those decrees of the Apostles were made as appeareth frō his conuersion in the ninth Chapter to the fifteenth Chapter where those decrees are made and all this while what other proofe did he vse but onely the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Do we not thinke that this man hath wonderfully hardened both his heart to God and his face to men that can apply himselfe to write in this sort He well knoweth that the question is not here of new decrees but of old traditions what proofe the Apostle had or what ground of doctrine from the old testament but onely the Scriptures of the law and the Prophets The Apostle himselfe saith he had no other he taught nothing but according to the written bookes of the old testament according to that which elsewhere he saith that d Rom. 16.26 the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets For a summarie briefe thereof he nameth the suffering and resurrection of Christ c. but he that saith that herewith he preached any thing but what was warranted by Moses and the Prophets maketh him to dally and to speake a manifest vntruth in that he saith that he spake nothing without the compasse of those things which Moses and the Prophets prophecied before Now the wise man for instance against this telleth vs that he deliuered the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them Which beside that it is nothing to the purpose as hath bene said doth also set forth his notable sillinesse and folly in that for proofe of traditions and doctrines vnwritten he bringeth the example of the Apostles decrees which are expresly mentioned to haue bene sent to the Churches in writing e Acts. 15.23 They wrote letters by them after this manner c. But in the height of his wisedome he goeth forward to proue the same by another speech When he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with tradition saying I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth Surely the mans head was wonderfull quaifie in the writing hereof or else we must thinke that he was in some traunce I deliuer vnto you not in writing but by word of mouth when notwithstanding in his Epistle he sendeth it to them in writing Or what doth he meane that the Apostle receiued it of our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth But what is that to the purpose when he deliuered
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
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
and skill in discerning did teach so testifieth S. Augustine * Lib. 32. cap. 2. Contra Faust Some would haue had but one of the foure Gospels some fiue some sixe some seauen some reiected all S. Paules Epistles many and those of the faithfull did not admit for Canonicall some of the other Apostles Epistles nor the Reuelations If then the diuine foresight of our Sauiour had not preuented this most foule inconueniencie by instituting a more certaine meanes of discerning and declaring which bookes were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost which not then by leauing it vnto euery mans discretion he might be thought to haue had but slender care of our saluation which euery true Christian heart doth abhorre to thinke and therefore we must needs admit of this most holy and prouident Tradition of them from hand to hand as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prolegomenis and also Kemnitius handling the second kind of Traditions in his examination of the Councell of Trent albeit they reiect all other Traditions besides this one R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins here saith hath his proper vse in the ordinarie receiuing of the scriptures in a Christian Church where being from our infancie baptized into Christ and bred vp in the continuall noise and sound of the word of God and hauing by this meanes some seedes of the spirit of God sowed in our hearts we simply and without controuersie or question take the scriptures presuming vpon the record of the Church and beleeuing them to be that which they are said to be that is the booke of God and in this perswasion applying our selues to the reading of them and finding therein a spirit so different from the spirit of man so great a maiestie in so great simplicitie and all things so correspondent to those shadowes of truth and righteousnesse which a Rom. 2.14.15 the worke of the law written naturally in our hearts and confirmed by light of education do represent vnto vs we resolue and fully do beleeue them to be that that at the first we presumed of them the oracles of God the words of saluation and eternall life hauing an inward testimonie and conuiction to draw from vs the assent vnmoueably to ground vs in the assurance thereof This seemeth to Master Bishop to be no wise obseruation but the reason is because he himselfe is scarcely wise When he hath said all that he can say yet this must stand for good that there is nothing that can cause the heart of man sufficiently to apprehend that the Scriptures are the word of God till the Scripture it selfe in the conscience by the spirit do euict it selfe so to be And herein it is true which Origen saith that b Origen de princip lib. 4. c. 1. Siquis cum omni studio reuerētia qua dignum est Prophetica dicta consideret in eo ipso dum legit diligentius intuetur cerium est quod aliquo diuiniore spiramine mentem sensumque pulsatus agnoscet non humanitùs esse prolatos eos quos legit sed Dei esse sermones ex semetipso sentiet non humana arte nec mortals eloquio sed diuino vt ita dixerim cothurno esse conscriptos he who with all diligence and reuerence as is meete shal consider the words of the Prophets it is certaine that in the reading and diligent viewing thereof hauing his mind and vnderstanding knocked at by a diuine inspiration he shall know that the words which he readeth were not vttered by man but are the words of God and of himselfe shall perceiue that those bookes were written not by humane art not by the word of mortall man but by a maiestie diuine In a word as the Sunne when a man is brought into the light of it not by telling but by sight and by it owne light is discerned to be that that giueth light vnto the world so the Scripture which is as it were the chariot of c Aug. in Psal 80. Est in Scripturis nostris sol iustitiae sanitas in pēnis eius the Sunne of righteousnesse when a man is brought into the sight thereof euen by it owne light is discerned to be that that ministreth vnto vs the light of euerlasting life Now the spirit of discerning of which M. Perkins speaketh is not to be vnderstood of that speciall gift of d 1. Cor 12.10 discerning spirits mētioned by S. Paul which importeth a singular and eminent dexterity in spying and finding out the secret fraudes and deceipts of counterfeit teachers and false Apostles but the cōmon spirit of the faithfull e 1. Cor. 2.12 which we receiue as the Apostle saith that we may know the things that are giuen vnto vs of God whereby it is true which our Sauiour saith f Iohn 10.27 My sheepe heare my voyce and they follow me g Ver. 4.5 they know the shepheards voice and they will not follow a stranger but they flie from him for they know not the voice of straungers h Ver. 14. I know mine and am knowne of mine Againe he saith i Cap. 7.17 If any man will do his wil he shal know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my selfe Whereby he teacheth vs that in applying our selues to learne and practise the will of God we attaine to discerne the doctrine to be of God And herein consisteth that k Col. 1.9 spirituall vnderstanding which the Apostle recommendeth generally to the faithfull in his prayer for the Colossians the vse whereof is l Phil. 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to discerne things that differ namely from the truth and m 1. Iohn 4.1 to try the spirits whether they be of God or not Now the spirit as it vseth the ministery of the Church for the deliuering of the books of scripture so it vseth the ministery of the Church to giue aduertisement of those bookes which haue not the like authoritie as the Scripture hath And this aduertisement it sealeth and confirmeth whilest hauing testified otherwhere the vndoubted doctrine of God we discerne thereby some doctrines in those bookes that are of another stampe and not correspondent to the rest For when they are in any part found to be of another spirit we conceiue of the whole that they were written with another pen and therefore albeit for the most part they cary the sauour and tast of those things which we reade in the other bookes yet in their defects we fully apprehend that which we haue bene told that they are not of like maiestie and authoritie with the rest and though we may profitably reade them for those things wherin they are deriued from the other yet that we cannot securely ground any doctrine immediatly vpon them In this simplicitie without further question many thousands receiue the Scriptures they read them and by the power of the holy Ghost they grow thereby to faith and spiritual
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
of Tobie of Iudith are not in the Canon Thus he reckoneth the Ecclesiasticall and Apocryphall bookes vnder one name of Apocryphall Some on the other side vnder the name of Canonicall bookes contained all that were not of the last sort that is of those bastards and counterfeits which were wholy exploded and reiected out of the Church Thus S. Austin doth extending the name of Canonicall to all that was admitted publikely to be read and therefore comprehending the bookes called Ecclesiastical ioyntly vnder that name But here the name of Canonicall is not properly vsed because the Scriptures are called canonicall of being the Canon that is to say the rule of our faith which those Ecclesiasticall bookes are not as before we haue heard And what doth Austine make them all of equall and like authoritie Nothing lesse for in the first place cited by Master Bishop where he setteth all those bookes downe vnder one name of canonical he giueth this rule t Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2 ca. 8. In Scripturis canonicis ecclesiaruÌ„ Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequotur c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis vt cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesus praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt in eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat caâ— quas plures grauioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatâ— ecclesiae tonent In the Canonicall Scriptures let a man follow the authority of the greater number of catholike Churches and this course he shal hold to preferre those which are receiued of all catholike Churches before those which some do not receiue and in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those which the more Churches and of greater authority do receiue before those which are holden of the fewer and of lesser authority or account He would not haue vsed any such exception if he had taken all those bookes to be alike inspired of God and therfore doth manifestly teach vs to make some difference betwixt them and coÌ„sequently not to account the bookes of Machabees properly canonicall inasmuch as few or no Churches esteemed them so to be And this may somewhat further appeare in the second place which M. Bishop citeth where speaking of the Princes of the Iewes after the reedifying of the temple he saith u Aug. de ciu Dei lib 18. cap. 36. Quorum supputatio temporum non in Scripturis sanctis quae canonicae appellantur sed in alijs inuenitur in quibus sunt MachabaeoruÌ„ libriquos non Iudaei sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabileâ— c. The account of their termes is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called canonicall but in other bookes amongst which are the bookes of the Machabees which not the Iewes but the Church reckoneth for canonicall because of the great and wonderfull sufferings of some martyrs who before the incarnation of Christ striued euen to death for the law of God Where we see him first plainly secluding those bookes from the canonicall Scriptures according as they were secluded by the Iewes albeit withall he saith that the Church in a particular respect admitted of them as canonicall that is publikely to be read to giue knowledge of the constant suffering of some therein mentioned for the testimony of the law of God But in what sort it was that the Church admitted of them and the rest of that kind Hierome giueth vs to vnderstand x Hieron praefat in lib Solom Sicut Judith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidâ—m ecclesia sed eos inter canonicaâ— Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina sapientiae Ecclesiastici legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticâ—rum dogmatum confirmandum The Church readeth them but accounteth them not amongst the canonicall Scriptures it readeth them for the edification of the people not to confirme the authority of the doctrines of the Church And this that Hierome saith is confirmed also by Austine himselfe where he teacheth that y August de ciu Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictores non tanta firâ—â—â—â—â—â— prâ—â—eruntur quae scripta non sunt in Canone Iudaeorum those things which are not written in the canon of the Iewes are not with so great strength or authority alledged against them that contradict vs. Hereby therefore they are proued to be no canonicall Scriptures properly so called because canonicall Scriptures being the rule and measure of our faith do conuince those that contradict which S. Austine acknowledgeth these do not The third place alledged by M. Bishop helpeth yet further to cleare this matter where Gaudentius the Donatist alledging the example of Razias killing himselfe in the second booke of Machabees for defence of their Circumcellions casting themselues downe froÌ„ rocks and prouoking others to kill them that they might be accounted martyrs S. Austine first condemneth the fact which the Author of that booke commendeth and then addeth for exception further z Idem cont Epist Gaudent li. 2. ca. 23. Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum Iudaei non habent sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimoniuÌ„ perhibet tanquaÌ„ testibus suis dicens Oportebat impleri c. Sed recepta est ab ecclesia noÌ„ inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à persecutoribus tam indigna atque hâ—rrenda perpessi sunt c. This Scripture which is called of the Machabees the Iewes account not as the law and the Prophets and the Psalmes to which the Lord giueth testimony as his witnesses saying All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalmes but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard specially for those Machabees who for the law of God like true martyrs suffered so vnwoorthy and horrible things at their persecutors hands Where we see how coldly he speaketh of the receiuing of that booke as rather to excuse the Church then to defend it for so doing that it was done not vnprofitably and yet with this exception if it be soberly read and the reason of the receiuing of it not for the authority of the booke but for the story of those Machabees who there are recorded so constantly to haue suffered torments for their obseruing the law of God But withall he absolutely sheweth that those bookes are none of theÌ„ a Luk. 24.44 to which Christ gaue testimonie as his witnesses who notwithstanding calleth those witnesses by the name of b Ver. 27. all Scriptures thereby giuing fully to vnderstand that these are no Scriptures Hereby therefore we conceiue that S. Austine well discerned the defect of these bookes and rightly vnderstood that they are not so
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
cauilleth but we make the Church as the hand of God whereby he putteth the Scriptures into our hands and priuate spirit doth no more but subscribe to the testification of the Church But now if Maister Bishop will question the publike testimonie of our Church as touching knowledge what Scriptures are to be deliuered we answer him that such and such onely we acknowledge and deliuer by our testimonie because by like testimonie those onely haue beene acknowledged and deliuered vnto vs. Here then we referre our selues to Tradition and therefore all that Maister Bishop alledgeth to the end of this section is but fighting with a shadow of his owne and nothing against vs. He saith in the end that Brentius and Chemnitius admit of this Tradition albeit they reiect all other Traditions beside this one whereas Chemnitius setting downe eight kindes of Traditions acknowledgeth seuen of them and determineth our defence against the Papists to consist in one kinde onely We fight not against the word we know it hath his vse Maister Perkins in three conclusions here acknowledgeth Traditions the Church of Rome hath brought it by her abuse to one speciall vse and meaning and in that vse onely wee impugne it namely as it importeth matters not of temporarie rites and ceremonies indifferently vsed but of perpetuall doctrine and faith which neither in word nor in meaning can be verified and confirmed by the written word presupposed and acknowledged to be the word of God In this sence wee denie Traditions the name otherwise we reiect not wee say that by testimonie of Tradition the notice of the canonicall Scriptures is giuen vnto vs. This Maister Bishop thinketh should make for the credit of their Church of Rome dreaming that this must be by the tradition of that Church or that that Church must be the witnesse vnto vs of this tradition But therein hee very much deceiueth himselfe amongst all the traditions mentioned by the auncient Writers wee neuer finde this tradition that for the number of the bookes of canonicall Scripture wee must take the tale and tradition of the Church of Rome If he can make good any such tradition he shall finde vs much the more fauourable for all the rest Otherwise we doe not know why it should not be as readie for the Church of England to iudge which are canonicall Scriptures as it is for the Church of Rome What meanes should they haue for the discerning of them that is not as open to vs as it is to them We take the account of holy Scriptures in the same sort as the auncient Church did o Ruffin in exposit symb Secundum traditionem patrum Sicut ex patrum monumentis acceptmus Hilar. prolog in Psal SecunduÌ„ traditiones veterum according to the tradition of the fathers and out of the monuments of the fathers Wee reckon those onely for canonicall bookes which from the time of the Apostles haue had certaine and vndoubted testimonie to be so testimonie I say of so many Churches and nations and peoples to which at first they were deliuered and thenceforth vsed amongst them to be read in their Churches expounded in their pulpits meditated in their houses which the fathers haue perpetually cited in their bookes and opposed in generall Councels against Schismatikes and heretikes to which they haue attributed all authoritie for the deciding and determining the causes and controuersies of the Church p Aug. in Ioannis epist. tract 2. Contra quas nullus audeat loqui qui se vult quoquo modo vocari Christianum against which none dare speake saith Saint Austine who will in any sort be called a Chrstian man q Idem cont faust l. 11. cap. 5. Excellentia canonicae authoritatis veteris noui testamenti Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones episcoporum propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est cui serutat omnis fidelis pius intellectus The excellencie of the canonicall authoritie of the old and new testament saith he againe being confirmed in the time of the Apostles hath by succession of Bishops and propagation of Churches beene set in a high and loftie seate that all faithfull and religious vnderstanding may be seruant vnto it Now by the Scriptures which thus irrefragably and vnquestionably haue beene receiued vniuersally of the whole Christian world wee learne to iudge of those bookes adioined to the old testament whereof question is betwixt the Church of Rome and vs. For in those bookes as touching the old testament we learne that r Rom. 2.2 to the Iewes were committed the words of God whereof it followeth that none are to be accounted the words of God that were not committed vnto them The bookes committed to them our Sauiour Christ nameth to haue beene Å¿ Luk 24.44 Moses and the Prophets and the Psalmes and calleth these t Ver. 27. all the Scriptures as before was noted Because then these are all the Scriptures and those which we seclude from the Canon are none of these it followeth that by the sentence of Christ himselfe they are declared to be no Scriptures And hereto agreeth the auncient tradition of the Church of the Iewes recorded by Iosephus who acknowledgeth that they had u Ioseph cont Apion lib. 1. SuÌ„t nobis solummodo duo viginti libri quoruÌ„ iustè fides ad nutitur Horum quinque sunt Moseos c. Amorie Moseos vsque ad Artaxerxem PersaruÌ„ regem Prophetae temporum suorum res gestas conscripserunt in tredecim libris Reliqui vero quatuor hymnes in Deum vitae humanae praecepta noscuntur continere onely two and twenty bookes to which iustly they gaue credit whereof fiue are the bookes of Moses From whom to the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia the Prophets wrote the matters of their times in thirteene bookes which are thus reckoned 1. Iosuah 2. the Iudges with Ruth 3. the two bookes of Samuel 4. the two bookes of Kings 5. the two bookes of Chronicles 6. Ezra and Nehemiah 7. Esther 8. Iob. 9. Esay 10. Ieremy 11. Ezechiel 12. Daniel 13. the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets The other foure saith he containe Hymnes and Songs to God and precepts of humane life which are the Psalmes the Prouerbs Ecclesiastes and the Canticles Of those things which were afterwards written hee saith x Ab Artaxerxe vsque ad nostrum tempus singulae sunt conscripta noÌ„ tamen priori simili fide sunt habita cò quod non fuerit certâ— successio prophetarum that they were not of like credit to the former because there was no certaine succession of Prophets amongst them This tradition the Iewes hold constantly and inuiolably till this day and in their dispersion through the world do still giue witnesse to the bookes that were deliuered to their fathers God by his prouidence appointing them to be y August cont faust lib. 12. cap. 23. Quid est hodie genâ—
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
stand good because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writting all that faith that Iob receiued by tradition Iob was g Ambros Offic. lib. 1. caep 36. Iob antiqutor Mose c. auncienter then Moses as Ambrose saith and might receiue the doctrine of faith by word and tradition of other men but yet we see that that faith is no other but what Moses after comprised in the written law Albeit what that tradition was hath bene i Sect. 1. before declared not resting in relation from one man to another but continually renewed and confirmed by reuelation and illumination immediatly from God being certainly corrupted by tradition where he did not graciously shew himselfe for the preseruation of it And as for other Gentiles whosoeuer they were that were saued after the writing of the Law they were saued onely by that faith which the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets haue described vnto vs. But M. Bishop not content to bring Moses alone for a patron of traditions telleth vs beside that not any law-maker in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by custome therefore saith he it is not likely that our Christian law should be all written Where we may iustly hisse at his grosse and wilfull absurditie that will measure the Law-maker of heauen with the law-makers of the earth and by imperfection in the lawes of men will argue imperfection in the lawes of God No vnderstanding of man can either by laws or by customes prouide for all occurrents of the commonwealth but dayly there are arising and growing the occasions of new lawes and will he then frame the light of God to the measure of our darknesse And yet what lawmaker hath there bene or is there in the world who if he were able to comprehend an absolute perfection of all lawes would not certainly take course to set the same downe in writing as being the only secure and safe way for the perpetuating therof And if we will thus conceiue of any wise and reasonable man how much more should we attribute it to the wisedome of God that knowing the slippernesse and mutabilitie of the minds thoughts of men he would for safetie and assurance set downe in writing whatsoeuer he would haue to stand for law of worship and seruice towards him I need not to stand vpon this for the comparison is of it selfe so odious and absurd as that euery man may wonder that the mans discretion should faile him so far as to reason in this sort For conclusion of this section a toy took him in the head concerning somwhat said by M. Perkins in the sectiō before It was said that it should cal the prouidence of God in question to say that any part of Scripture should be lost M. Bishop answereth that God permitteth much euill True but he permitteth no euill iniurious to his owne glory M. Perkins supposeth out of that that was said before that all Scripture was at first written for our learning To say that it was intended for our learning and yet is now lost what is it but to call in question the prouidence of God His other answer that there should be no great losse because tradition might preserue that which was then lost is a temerarious and witlesse presumption contrary to the experience of all ages whereby it is found that nothing is continued according to the first originall which is deliuered by word only from man to man And his assertion is so much the more ridiculous in this behalfe for that he knoweth not any thing that Tradition hath preserued that was written in those bookes If Tradition haue preserued any thing thereof from being lost let him acquaint vs with it or if he cannot do so let him giue vs leaue to take him for that we finde him a meere babler giuing himselfe libertie to say any thing without feare or wit 20. W. BISHOP Now insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate wishing him a messe of Pap for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of traditions Our Sauior said being at the point of his passion * Iohn 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Acts 1. Our Sauior after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11. I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1. Tim. 6. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. Chrysostome and Theophylact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and gouernement of the Church to which alludeth that auncient holy Martyr S. Irenaeus * Lib. 3. c. 4. saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholicke Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth S. Iohn who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epist 3.13 that he had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to ink and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three points of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his Father Where is it written that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour Christ Iesus no person of man but the substance of God and man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euery of these principal articles of the Christian faith and most necessary to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible Wherefore we must either admit traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euery wrangler as shall be more declared in the argument following R. ABBOT The messe of pap hath scalded M. Bishops mouth and he would faine put it off to M. Perkins He is ashamed of the childishnesse of this reason yet not denying it to be one of theirs but onely blaming M. Perkins his maner of proposing it whereas we imagine he would haue done it if he had knowne how to haue proposed it in better sort But because he is so desirous to passe it ouer let vs
be content also to let it go leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions The first is from the words of Christ a Iohn 16.12 at the point of his passion saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Which words being of old a speciall refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin of Montanus the heretike an ancient Papist we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him But of these words so much hath bin said c Sect. 7. before as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further His second authoritie is that in the Acts concerning our Sauiours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3 by the space of fortie dayes and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God Of these things saith M. Bishop little is written in any of the Euangelists And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition and if he will name to vs these or these things we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake if he cannot proue it we reiect his foolish presumption and can much better denie then he affirme What those things were by tradition we know nothing but by Scripture we do know The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48 witnesses of those things which he spake What they witnessed appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles and writings all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke Now then to argue as we haue done before we are sure as touching the things that are written that they are of those things wherof Christ spake but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God But S. Paul f Acts 28.23 testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets The things therefore which Christ spake as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2 they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them Where we find the name of traditions which we denie not but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine we wil gratifie him so farre but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle Those things which were afterwards written must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh if we vnderstand them of doctrine because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper It is written by himselfe it is written by the Euangelists Here is then a tradition but no tradition vnwritten The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions but that is written also Another tradition he himselfe expresseth to haue bene k 1. Cor. 15.3 the death and resurrection of Christ but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his l 2. Thess 3.6 tradition that he which would not labour should not eate and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set downe in writing Now sith these were of the number of his traditions and yet are written what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these M. Bishop alledgeth the place and so leaueth it without head or taile there is the name of traditions and that is enough for him whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy n 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keepe the depositum saith he Where we see that one ape will be like another his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English and said keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe seeing that is the signification of the word depositum Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them o 2. Tim. 2.14 Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things cōmitted vnto thee to keep where they reade keep the good depositum But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe He telleth vs that it was the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and the gouernment of the Church But what of all this We expected vnwritten traditions and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture is contained in the Scripture There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places vnlesse he can make it good that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus p Theop. in t Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata tanquam Domini praecepta seruata nec horū quicquam imminues p 2. Tim.
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
the mouth of the Lord neither to make other interpretation of the laws of God then by the same lawes can be iustified and made good Thus we see that as God tied the Iewes to the sentence of the Priests so he required the sentence of the Priests to be according to the law r Deut. 17.11 According to the law which law they shall teach thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee Å¿ Lyra. ibid. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica si dixerint tibi quòd dextera sit sinistra vel sinistra dextera talis sententia est tenenda quod pataet manifestè falsuÌ„ esse quòd senteÌ„tia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem hoc patet per hoc quod praemittitur in textu Indicalunt tibi iudicij veritateÌ„ postea subditur Et docuerint te iuxta legem eius Ex quo patet quòd si dicunt falsum vel declinem à lege Dei manifestè non sunt audiendi The Hebrew glose saith Lyra here teacheth that if they say to thee that the right hand is the left or the left the right this sentence is to be holden which appeareth to be manifestly false saith he because the sentence of no man is to be holden of what authoritie so-euer he be if it do manifestly containe falshood and errour and this is plaine by that that is put before in the text They shall shew thee the truth of iudgement is afterwards added They shall teach thee according to the law whereby it is plaine that if they say any thing false or decline manifestly from the law of God they are not to be hearkened vnto It is not then so to be conceiued as that obedience should be absolutely due vnto them because as in the ciuill state there may be corrupt Iudges that wrest the law and giue sentence against law so there may be corrupt men also in places of ecclesiasticall iudgement men more affected to their owne will then to the word of God seeking rather themselues then Iesus Christ It is therefore to be obserued that as in matters of ciuill iustice some things there are in the law so cleare that if the sentence of the Iudge be contrary thereto euery man may discerne and see that he swarueth from the truth neither will a man take it to be law which the Iudge pronounceth because his owne eies perceiue the contrary so those things that concerne faith and religion towards God some things by the Scripture it selfe are so apparent and plaine as that it is manifest that not for any ambiguity in themselues but by the iniquity and frowardnesse of men they are called into question and that to question the exposition is nothing else but to seeke collusion In which cases the Iudge hath no more to do but to deliuer the peremptory sentence of God himselfe t Aug. ac bapt cont Donat lib. 2. ca. 6. Ass ramuâ— fraâ—eram diuinam in scripturis sanctis in illa quid sit grauius appendamus immâ— non appendamus sed à Domino appensa recognoscamus not to weigh as S. Austine saith but to recognize and acknowledge what the Lord hath already weighed Sometimes matters are more hard and doubtfull not so much haply of themselues as by meanes of opposition and contradiction and therfore are not so readily plaine vntill they be made plaine For the explaning and declaring whereof the Church as the Iudge is to vse the help of the law it selfe that is of the holy Scripture and to that purpose to apply the rules before expressed and so not by meere authority but by testimonie and warrant to approue to the conscience of euery man the sentence that shall be giuen for determining the thing in doubt u Oâ—â—gen in Leâ—â—â— hâ—â— 5. Inductus testaâ—entâ—s lâ—â—â—t omne veâ—â—uÌ„ quod ad Deaâ—â—â—â—tinet requiri disâ—uti atque ex â—â—sis omnim rerum scientiâ—m capi Siquid auteÌ„ superficerit quod non diuina scriptura decernat nulla alia tertia scriptura debet ad authoritatem scientia suscipi sed quod superest Deo reserueniâ— By the two testaments saith Origen euery word that pertaineth to God may be seaâ—ched out and discussed and all knowledge of things may be taken from them and if there be any thing further which the holy Scripture determineth not there ought no other writing be receiued for authority of knowledge but what remaineth we must reserue to God x IdeÌ„ in Ierem. ho. â— Necesse est nobis Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare Sensus quippe nostri enarrationes siâ—e his testibus non habent fidem It is necessary for vs saith he that we call the holy Scriptures to witnesse for our sences and expositions without these witnesses haue no credit y Idem in Math. tr 25. Dibemus ad testimonium omnium verboruÌ„ quae proferimus in doctrina proferre sâ—â—sum Scripturae quâ—si confirm entera queâ— expâ—â—â—mus sensum Sicut enim omne aurum quod-quod fuerit extra templum non est sancti fiâ—arum sic omnis sensus qui â—uerit extra diuinam Scripturam quâ—muis adâ—â—rabâ—lis videatur quibusdam non est sanctus quia non continetur à sensu Scripturae quae solâ—â— cum solum sensum santifiâ—are quâ—â— in se habet We must saith he again for witnesse of all the words which we vtter in teaching bring forth the sence of Scripture as coÌ„firming the sence which we deliuer for as all the gold which was without the temple was vnholy so euery sence which is without the holy Scripture though to some it may seeme admirable is vnholy because it is not contained of the sence of Scripture which is wont to make holy only that sence which it hath in it selfe By this rule the iudgment of the Church is to proceed so to vse the gift of interpretation as that he that gainsaieth may be conuicted as by the testimony of God himselfe and they who haue not the gift of interpretation may yet see perceiue that their constructions and expositions are according to the Scripture Now if the Church in their affirming or expounding shall contrary that which the Scripture hath manifestly taught vnder pretence of being the Iudge in the causes of God shall iudge against God what shall we then do Surely as a priuate man may by ordinary knowledge of the law be able to accuse a Iudge of high treason against his Prince eueÌ„ so in this case a priuate man by ordinary knowledge of the law of God may be able to accuse the Church of high treasoÌ„ against God And as it is ridiculous in case of treasoÌ„ to alledge that it belongeth to the Iudge to giue the meaning of the law and to leaue him at liberty to expound it that it may rest therupon whether his own fact be treason or
not so it is in like sort ridiculous to alledge that it belongeth to the Church to make the meaning of the Scriptures that the Church is Iudge it must rest in the power therof by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which it selfe coÌ„mandeth be offence to God or not The Church indeede is Iudge but tied to bounds of law if the Church iudge against the euidence of the law then God himselfe by his owne word is to be the Iudge For what an absurditie shall it be further to require a Iudge where God himselfe hath pronounced a sentence or to enquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainely as the Iudge can deuise to speake When the Iudges of the people of the Iewes said z Eâ— 8.12 A confederacie and Esay the Prophet cried out say not A confederacie that is follow not them that leade you to leagues and couenants with idolatrous nations who was to be the Iudge betwixt them Esay saith to the people a Ver 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Who was to be the Iudge when the Prophet Ieremie said one thing and b Ierem 26 1â— the Priests and Prophets who were the Iudges said another They said c Ver. 15. This man is worthy to die he saith If ye put me to death ye shall bring innocent bloud vpon your selues Who was now to be iudge betwixt them Surely none but d Ver 4. the lawes which God had set before them to which he calleth them e Cap. 11. 3. 4. the couenant which he commaunded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt When our Sauiour Christ stood on the one side and the Iudges namely the high Priests and Scribes and Elders of the people on the other side where was the Iudge f Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures saith our Sauiour Christ for they are they that testifie of me We see the highest court of iudgement vnder heauen pronounceth sentence against the Sonne of God God indeed had appointed them for Iudges the righteousnesse of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures Thus it hath bene in the Church of Christ the Donatists on the one side affirmed theÌ„selues to be the Church the Catholike and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them whom did these godly Fathers make the Iudge Optatus speaking of a maine question betwixt them whether he that was already baptized though by an heretike might be baptized againe saith g Optat. contra Parmenian li. 5. Vos dicuis licèt nos dicimus Non liâ—et Jnter licâ—t vestrum non licet nestrum â—â—tant remigrant animae populoruÌ„ Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt iudices Si Christiani te viraque parte dari nosessâ—nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur Dâ—foris quaerenâ—us est iudixisi Paganus non potesi nosse secreta Christianâ—â— si liâ—â—◠〈◊〉 est Chriâ—tuâ—i baptisâ—atâ— Ergo ni â—â—rrâ—s dâ— hac reâ—ulâ—â—â— poterit reperâ—ri iudiciuÌ„ de 〈◊〉 quareâ—dus est iudex Sed vt quid pâ—â—â—sanus ad coelâ— â—â—â—m habemus hic in EuaÌ„gelio Testamentâ—m â—â—quâ—â— c. Ergo voluntas câ—â—â—vilut in Testamento sic in Euangelio inquiratur You say it is lawful and we say it is not lawfull Betweene your it is lawful and our it is not lawful the peoples soules do wauer Let none beleeue you nor vs we are all contentious men Iudges must be sought for if Christians they cannot be giuen of both sides for truth is hindred by affections A iudge without must be sought for if a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mysteries if a Iew he is an enemy of Christian baptisme No iudgement of this matter can be found on earth but froÌ„ heaueÌ„ But why knock we at heaueÌ„ wheÌ„ here we haue the testameÌ„t of Christ in the Gospell In the Gospell as in his Testament we are to enquire and search what his will is To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians whether there be sinne in infants from their birth or not h Aug. de nupt concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controuersia iudicem quaerit Iudicet ergo Christus cui reâ— mors eius profecerit ipse dicat Hic est inquit sanguis c. Judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus c. This controuersie requireth a iudge let Christ therefore be Iudge let himselfe say what his death serued for This is my bloud saith he which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes Together with him let the Apostle iudge because Christ himselfe speaketh also in the Apostle Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the Iudge or Christ himselfe in the Scripture knowing well that the iudgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already giuen by the highest Iudge To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing foorth of such things as are euident and plaine because Christ somewhere or other hath plainely spoken whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to know i Idem de vnit Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono vt quaeque aeperta manifesta deligamus c. This I say before hand and propound that we make choyce of such speeches as are open and manifest We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set downe and wrapped vp in couers of figures and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs It belongeth to acute men to iudge and discerne who doth more probably interpret those things but we will not in a cause which the people are interested in commit our disputation to such contentions of wit but let the manifest truth cry and shine foorth Reade to vs those things that are as plaine as those are that we reade to you Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it This is the course of Ecclesiastical iudgement by this meanes they are to stoppe the mouths of contentious men and to satisfie the people that are interested in the cause By all this then it appeareth that God hath not left his Church destitute of authoritie of iudgement but hath both appointed Iudges and prescribed them lawes whereby to iudge onely that we remeÌ„ber that k Psal 82.1 he is the Iudge amongst the Iudges and the sentence must be his But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aymeth at for he would faine haue it conceiued that there should be some one to be iudge and that one must be the Pope They name sometimes the Church and somtimes the Councell but the Church is but the cloake-bagge and the Councell the capcase to cary the Pope whither it pleaseth them because neither
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
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
of the temple of the Lord. But it pitieth me to think of the sillinesse of this man in vpbraiding vs with not searching the writings of the auncient fathers of whoÌ„ I am perswaded that we may truly say that he neuer read so much as one volume of any one of the fathers had bene in pitifull case for the writing of this book had not Bellarmine bene content vpoÌ„ trust to lend him the whole stock Well he hath read them that haue read the fathers if they lie be it so he cannot tell how to help either himselfe or them Thus for the finding of a Iudge we came first to the Pope and from the Pope he hath brought vs to the councels from the councels to the writings of the fathers now froÌ„ the writings of the fathers he leadeth vs to the Church He alledgeth to this purpose two sayings of S. Austin The former vpon occasion of the question betwixt the Donatists him is thus m August cont Crescon lib. 1. ca. 33. Quisquis falli metuit istius obscuritate quaestionis candem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine vlla ambiguitate sancta Scripturae demonstrat Whosoeuer feareth to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question let him seeke for aduice to that same Church which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate and point out We admit the condition we willingly hearken to the iudgement of that Church in obscure points which we do not readily vnderstand we highly esteeme the censure of that Church which otherwise by the Scripture is demonstrated to be the true Church S. Austine in those words hath reference to the whole Church from the time of the Apostles very rightly directeth him that was not able otherwise to discerne to presume that to be the truth which from the very originall had bene continued and practised in the Church This serueth not M. Bishops turne because it fitteth not to M. Bishops Church No more doth that other place which he citeth n IdeÌ„ cont epist funda cap. 5 Ego verò Euangelio non credereÌ„ nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae coÌ„mcueret authoritas I should not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the authority of the catholike Church should moue me to it M. Bishop before hand telleth vs that S. Austin did not speak this as touching his being at first a Christian but euen now being a learned and iudicious Doctor he would not beleeue but for the authority of the Church But very lewdly doth he abuse S. Austine in making him so to say as if he had resolued that it being supposed that the Church should backslide and fall away he himselfe also would play the Apostata and fall away from the faith of Christ What was his faith built vpon men and not vpon God himselfe Did he not know that though o Rom. 3.4 euery man be a liar yet God is true What if the whole world had conspired against the booke of God as not long before by Arianisme it had against the Sonne of God when Constantius the Emperour said to Liberius Bishop of Rome concerning Athanasius p Theodoret hist li. 2. ca. 16. Quota pars tiles orbis terrarum qui solus facis â—â—m homine scelerato Liberius NoÌ„ dimnuitur solitudine mea verbum fidei Who art thou to the whole world who thus alone standest with a wicked man Liberius though afterwards he yeelded yet for that time answered well The word of faith is no whit impeached by my being alone and would not think we S. Austine beare the like minde howsoeuer all other sell away yet constantly to cleaue to that which he knew to be the truth It is not all M. Bishops foolish Rhetorick that can make vs to beleeue that S. Austin would make any such protestation to that effect Yea and were not both he his fellowes very absurdly wilfull they would well enough see as haply they do by that which goeth before and that which followeth that it can be no otherwise construed but as in the person of a man at first receiuing the Christian faith to whoÌ„ it is no small motiue thereunto that the same faith hath found credit entertainment throughout the whole world But the words themselues shall best declare to what purpose they were set down q IdeÌ„ vt supra Si inuonires aliquem qui Euangelio nonduÌ„ credit quid faceres dicenti tibi Non credo Ego verò Euangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae commoueret authoritas Quibus ergo obtemperaui diceÌ„tibus Credite Euangelio cur eis non credereÌ„ diceÌ„tibus mihi Noli credere Maniâ—haeo Elige quod vâ—lis Si dixeris crede Catholicis ipsi me monent vt â—ullam fidem accoÌ„modeÌ„ vobis c Si dixeris Noli Catholicis credere noÌ„ rectè facies per EuangeliuÌ„ mo cogere ad fidem Manichaei quia ipsi Euangelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi If thou shouldest find any man who yet beleeueth not the Gospell what wouldest thou do to him saying vnto thee I do not beleeue Surely I should not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the authority of the catholike Church should moue me vnto it Whom then I haue hearkened vnto saying vnto me Beleeue the Gospell why should I not hearken to them saying to me Beleeue not Manicheus Chuse whether thou wilt If thou wilt say Beleeue theÌ„ of the catholike Church they giue me warning to giue no trust to you If thou wilt say Do not beleeue theÌ„ of the catholike Church thou shalt not do well to force me by the Gospel to the faith of Manicheus because by the preaching of them of the catholike Church I haue beleeued the Gospell We see that both the propounding and the processe of these whole words do cry out against M. Bishop and as it were with loud voice do proclaime that S. Austins meaning was no other but that the consent and authority of the Church ouerspreading the whole world was at first a mighty strong inducement vnto him to beleeue that Gospell wherein all so constantly did accord because it could not be taken but to be of God which had gotten that estimation and account with so many nations and peoples of so strange and diuers dispositions Marke the words gentle Reader What wouldest thou do to him saying I do not beleeue Surely I should not beleeue vnlesse c. vnto whoÌ„ I hearkned saying Beleeue the Gospel c. By the preaching of them I beleeued the Gospel The thing is apparent vnto any man that doth not stop his owne eies that he may not see And hereof most holily deuoutly the same S. Austin speaketh in his confessions to God euen as it were to tell vs the meaning of these words r IdeÌ„ Confess lib. 6 cap. 5 Semper credidi esse te curam nostri gerere etiamsi ignorabam vel quid sentiendum esset de substaÌ„tia tua vel quae
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
to the water of baptisme and to the sacrifice wherewith the faithfull are nourished neither of them is rightly or orderly done but he meaneth rightly or orderly in respect of the order and custome of the Church not as touching anie ordinance of God euen as if we would say that baptisme is not rightly administred with vs without adding afterwards the signe of the crosse who yet account no religion or holinesse at all in the adding of it and neither hold baptisme to be the better in the hauing nor the worse in the wanting of it The sacrifice of which S. Austine there speaketh the Protestants want not howsoeuer in respect of Popish abuse they forbeare the name He speaketh of a sacrifice wherewith the faithfull are nourished which is our Sacrament whereof they are communicants and partakers not the Popish sacrifice where they are onely lookers on See what hath bene said hereof before in b Sect. 27. answer of the Epistle to the King As for Chrisme or holy oyle as M. Bishop termeth it spoken of in the same place by S. Austin the Protestants are in no pitifull taking for the want of it because they want nothing thereby that Christ hath commanded to be had The ancient Churches vsed their ceremonies at their discretion c Faber Stapul in Dionys eccles hierarch Faber Stapulensis noteth many ceremonies of old time vsed which are now quite omitted in the Church of Rome We leaue out Chrisme by the same authoritie whereby they haue left out of their ceremonies so many publikely receiued in ancient time But so much the rather do we forgo this that we may not seeme to vphold that abhomination of Poperie wherby in their coniurations and benedictions they giue power to these impotent creatures of water oile salt and such other like to serue for soules health and for forgiuenesse of sinnes and for resisting the power of the diuell which are no other but blasphemous deuices meere illusions of Satan drawing men to put their trust in these trumperies that they may neglect true faith and trust in Christ himself d Basil de Spir. sanct cap. 27. Vt 〈…〉 eos qui spâ—â—â—â— stum collocarunt signemus c. Basil mentioneth the signe of the crosse no otherwise but in baptisme as we vse it As for his speech of Traditions what we are to attribute vnto it hath bene before shewed in the question thereof 〈…〉 Origen do nothing concerne the outward signe of the crosse made with the hand but the inward signe and print thereof consisting in faith e Orig in Exod. hom 6. Quid timent demones quid tremuns si â—e dubio crucem Christi in qua in umphati sunt in qua exuti sunt principatus coruÌ„ potestates Timor ergo tremor cadent super eos cùm signum in nobis viderint crucis fidelitèr fixum magnitudineÌ„ brachij illius quod Dominus expendit in cruce Non te ergo alitèr timebunt nisi videant in tecruceÌ„ Christi nisi tu poteris dicere Mihi absit gloriari c What do the diuels feare what do they tremble at Vndoubtedly at the crosse of Christ whereby they were triumphed ouer whereby they were stripped of their principalitie and power Therfore feare and trembling shall fall vpon them when they shall see faithfully fastened in vs the signe of the crosse the greatnesse of that arme which the Lord stretched forth vpon the crosse Therfore no otherwise will they feare thee except they see in thee the crosse of Christ except thou canst say God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ This is then the crosse or signe of the crosse where at the diuell is dismayed euen the faith of Christ crucified and our glorying and reioycing in him onely whereby we are inwardly signed and marked to be his That which Gregory Nazianzene reporteth of Iulian the Apostata we are somewhat doubtfull of because it may be a matter either misreported or misconstrued Iulian and his coniurer go into a darke caue to consult with the diuell about getting the Empire The diuell beginneth after his wonted maner to appeare Iulian being afraid signeth himselfe with the crosse The diuell hereupon departeth away Being brought againe he departeth againe vpon the same occasion The coniurer telleth Iulian that it was not for feare that the diuel weÌ„t away but because he detested his making of the signe of the crosse Now the question is how this matter cometh to be knowne for here was no bodie but Iulian and the coniurer and the diuell and we cannot well imagine who should be the true reporter of it Againe it is doubtfull whether the historians do make right construction of this accident if it were so Iulian was a vile miscreant a wretched caitife euen a limme of the diuell and what shall we thinke that with the signe of the crosse one diuell driueth away another It is likely that the coniurer knew well the meaning of the diuell that it was not for feare that he went away but onely for that he could not abide that anie that came to aske counsell of him should make anie shewe of hauing to do with Christ Whatsoeuer the matter there were we vndoubtedly resolue that it is but a meeâ—e illusion of the diuell to seeme to go away at the signe of the crosse when in the heart there is no faith or beliefe in the crosse of Christ as in Iulian there was none As for that which he citeth out of Chrysostome that f Chrysost hom Quòd Christus sit Deus Neque enim sic regia corona ornatur caput vt cruâ—â— c. the heads of kings are not so decked with their diademes as with the signe of the crosse our most noble King Iames will confesse no lesse and we will subscribe the same that the greatest honour of his Crowne is the signe of the crosse as an acknowledgement of the Sonne of God that died vpon the crosse The glorie of pearles and precious stones is mortall and transitorie but immortall is the glory of that which his Maiestie professeth by bearing the ensigne of the crosse vpon his Imperiall Crowne That otherwise the signe of the crosse is not nowe so affected and admired as Chrysostome there describeth it is partly for that there is not so great occasion thereof now as then there was when as Christians liued so commonly amongst the heathens partly for that Poperie hath so intollerably abused it and by sinister and superstitious fancies and opinions of it hath put it into the handes of coniurers sorcerers witches charmers who most damnably haue made it one of the speciall instruments of their diuellish and wicked practises Now therefore it is enough for vs that in substance of faith concerning Christ crucified we agree with the auncient Church as for the change of an accident or ceremonie it is not sufficient to put anie difference betwixt them and vs. The
and pregnant examples of all Churches for the same which they now do Many carts are not able to beare the Legends that might be written of Images and their miracles since the Church of Rome first vndertooke the patronage of them and shall we beleeue that the ancient Church was of their mind when there is so scant and silly shew of any authority or testimony for warrant thereof We may therefore see what a speciall faculty M. Bishop hath in making a conclusion and how workmanlike he can build a large house vpon a little ground But out of that wit which he hath shewed therein he telleth vs that no man in his right wits can denie but that it is and alwaies hath bene reputed a great honour to the deceased to erect him an Image to eternize the memory of his noble acts Where if his owne wits had bene right he would haue remembred that this of old was a heathenish reputation but no such honour done to the deceased amongst the people of God There was no such honor done to Abrahā and Isaac Iacob to eternize the memorie of their noble acts not to Moses nor Iosuah nor Dauid nor any other of those holy men And what shall we think that Solomon had not his right wits who in the building of the Temple neglected to set vp Images for all these to eternize the memorie of their noble acts This conceipt of Maister Bishops is prophane and foolish and sauouring wholy of Paganisme neither do we finde that the holy men of God haue euer reputed this as an honour to be done vnto dead men Nay he herein pointeth to the very roote from whence idolatry first sprung Men being by death depriued of them whom they loued would comfort themselues by making their pictures and images thereby to keepe some kind of sight and memoriall of them Thus the father did by his deceased sonne and men to them at whose hands they had receiued great benefits or whom they would seeme in speciall manner to admire From humane affection they proceeded to opinion and exercise of religion and whilest they doated vpon the Images of the dead they would thereby doe some honour and seruice to them The heart of man being gone astray from God grew more and more in the liking of this deuice and the diuell ceased not by all meanes to further the same vntill he had brought it to the height of all abhominable idolatry and found meanes to haue deuotion done to himselfe thereby vnder the name of God Thus S. Austine noteth that p August cont Faust lib. 22. cap. 17. Ex desiderio mortuotum constitutae sunt imagines vnde simulachrorum vsus exortus est maiore adulatione diuini honores deferebantur tanquam in coelum receptis pro quibus se in terris daemoniae colenda supposuerunt sibi sacrificari à deceptis per diti◠flagitarunt of desire or loue to the dead images were set vp whence the vse of Idols began and by greater flattery diuine honours were done to them as being taken vp into heauen in steed of whom the diuels here on the earth did substitute themselues and required of deceiued and wretched men to haue sacrifice done vnto them Here of the booke of Wisedome saith q Wised 14 13 The vaine-glorie of men brought in Idols into the world When a father mourned for his sonne that was taken away sodainly he made an image for him that was once dead whom now he worshippeth as a God and ordained to his seruants ceremonies and sacrifices Here is the originall and effect of that fantasticall deuice which Maister Bishop mentioneth of eternizing the memorie of men and of their noble acts by making Images and pictures of them As for that which he addeth of great incouragement hereby giuen to all beholders of such pourtraites to indeauour to imitate their glorious examples they are the glorious words of a vaine man babling his owne conceipts If God had seene this to be a fit meanes for incouragement to vertue he would not haue failed to giue to his people a commaundement thereof neither would he by speciall law haue taken away from them all vse and practise of this incouragement He telleth vs a tale out of their second Nicene Councell of a lewd woman reclaimed by the sight of Polemons picture but hee must bring vs a better authoritie if he will haue vs to beleeue him because we know it to haue bene the practise of that Councell to tell their owne lyes vnder the Fathers names Surely wee must thinke that shee was well prepared before that by the sight of a picture could be moued to leaue her vitious and vnchast life Out of doubt amongst all the pictures and Images of their Romish Church Maister Bishop cannot giue vs one example of the like But he telleth vs that the manifold commodities of Images stand in the discreete and holy practise of them and it is likely that that discretion and holinesse is worne out from amongst them and for that cause not one Curtizan learneth by the Image of our Lady that which that vnchast woman learned by the Image of Polemon and so much the lesse for that sometimes some gallant Curtizan is chosen to make our Ladies Image to her likenesse Foolish vaine man what discretion can there be in that in the practise whereof God hath pronounced men to be r Esa 44.19 voide of vnderstanding What holinesse can be in that which he affirmeth to be ſ Ibid. an abhomination what profit in that which he hath taught vs to be t Ver. 10. profitable for nothing what teaching by that which he calleth u Ierem. 10.8 the doctrine of vanity concerning which he hath said x Habac. 2.19 Woe vnto him that saith to the dumbe stone Rise vp it shall teach thee Which things considered the Superintendent of Hereford saith he but good manners would haue taught him to say the Lord Bishop of Hereford did iustly that which he did to take away crosses and pictures from such as make Idols of them and openly to burne them not transported therein with blind zeale but led thereto with mature iudgement and discretion not being like the Trent and Romish Bishops who for the most part are like the Idols which they worship carying a name of that they are not but a man of learning and grauity and wisedome giuing honour to the place wherein he is as the place hath done to him 4. W. BISHOP The difference Now to the points in controuersie which are three as M. Perkins deliuereth The first is in that the Church of Rome holds it lawfull to make Images to resemble God though not in respect of his diuine nature yet in respect of some properties and actions We contrarily saith M. Perkins hold it vnlawfull to make Images any way to represent the true God For the second commandement saith plainly * Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image nor
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
that came thither prepared to tell lies Therefore anone out they come with such other like tales of bloud issuing out of the images and reliques of Martyrs of a man molested and vexed by the diuell with whom the diuell conditioned to trouble him no more so that he would giue ouer worshipping the image of our Ladie of a man cured of a fistula in his thigh by praying to the images of Cosmas and Damianus the same Saints comming to him that night and our Ladie in the middest saying to them See here is the man helpe him forthwith of another who hauing the pictures of Cosmas and Damianus in waxe could therewith cure the tooth-ach or any other paines of another who being sodainly taken with an extreame sicknesse and paine applied to the place where he was pained the image of Christ and was by and by restored of a Goldsmith who at the request of Neanias made a crosse vpon which when it was set vp there became miraculously wrought three pictures and ouer them three names written in Hebrew Emmanuel in the middest and on the two sides Michael and Gabriel of a man troubled with a cruell sore who being brought into the Church and set vnder the image of Christ there dropped thence a deaw into his sore wherewith he was healed forthwith of an image of our Ladie in Zozopolis from the hand whereof dropped oyntments for the curing of diseases Thus there were present there that knew more then Tharasius did he knew no miracles done by Images but onely to Infidels but they knew them very common to Christians also Amidst these and many other such grosse fooleries they alledge some names of the auncient Fathers either counterfetly as that of Basil mentioned before by Adrian or impertinently as of Athanasius and Basil speaking of Images ciuilly and historically vsed but not saying a word for their worshipping of images Of a latter generation they bring first Leontius a Bishop of Naples who they say was about the time of Mauricius the Emperour but they say it vntruly as appeareth for that he is so pregnant for Image-worship which by Gregorie Magnus was in the time of Mauricius so expresly contradicted This Leontius to serue his turne openly falsifieth and belyeth the Scriptures affirming that Solomon in the building of the Temple set vp in it the images of men and that Ezechiel in the patterne that was giuen him for reedifying the same was likewise willed so to do which appeareth by the text it selfe to be altogether vntrue There were pictures of Cherubims and Palme-trees and Lions and Buls and flowers for ornament of the workes as before was said but neuer was there in the Temple seene the image of a man saue what by idolaters was brought in The rest of his discourse serueth to shew the Iew in what manner and meaning they worshipped images before he hath shewed him that it is lawfull to worship them at all They bring further the words of one Anastasius putting a difference betwixt adoration and latria making the former common to men and Angels the other peculiar to God onely but yet not affirming any thing of either of them to belong to Images To supplie that they bring an Epistle of Gregorie the third to Germanus who some threescore yeares before had bene Patriarch of Constantinople and was condemned in the former Councell there holden and three Epistles of the same Germanus himselfe all by the like arguments and with the same Sophistrie handling this cause of Images and vnder pretence of vsing them for admonition and remembrance inferring the worship of them Which done vpon these goodly grounds they come for conclusion of that session to pronounce their anathematismes against all them that denie Images to be worshipped In the fift session they follow the same course First they bring in authorities nothing to the purpose as of Cyril noting it as an impietie in Nabuchodonosor that he tooke away the Cherubims out of the temple of IerusaleÌ„ and of Simeon the Eremit complaining to the Emperor Iustinus the yonger concerning the Samaritans spoiling a church and with indignitie defacing the images that were found in it which what do they appertaine to the worshipping of Images Then they bring in testimonies of no authoritie the parties being of latter time and interested in this quarrell as of one Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica taking vpon him to satisfie a Pagan and of Leontius before spoken of answering the Iew concerning the meaning of their worshipping of Images without any proofe that it is lawfull so to do Indeed plaine it is that the worshipping of Images was a scandall and barre both to Pagans and Iewes to hinder them from admitting the Christian faith They could not disswade the idolatry of the Pagans because they themselues changing the persons did the like They could not perswade the Iewes of the truth of Christian religion because they knew well that to worship an image is a thing condemned by Gods commaundement But from thence they proceed to calumniate them that impugned images first for citing Apocryphal writings as the Iournals of the Apostles and of men vnsound in the faith as Eusebius and secondly for taking part with euil disposed men as Xenaias and Seuerus as if it should be any hinderance to the truth that sometimes vpon occasion euill men become defenders thereof and thirdly for defacing such bookes as had bene not long before written for defence of such idolatry wherein whatsoeuer they did they did it by iust grieuance and caution against the increase and growth of this abhomination Now this being but a sinister and indirect course backe they go againe to their trumpe that is to miracles and as if it had bene some perfume to sweeten the roome they tell againe the tale of the diuell promising not to trouble a man if he would forbeare to worship the image of our Ladie another of a woman who being greatly grieued at the charges that she had bin at in the digging of a well and could get no water saw one come to her in her sleepe who willed her to get the image of one Theodosius an Abbot which being let downe into the well the water flowed abundantly another of an Eremite who being sometimes to go from his caue would pray to the image of our Ladie that his candle might continue burning till his comming againe and that going sometimes for two or three moneths sometimes for fiue or sixe moneths he found it burning in the same sort as he left it No maruell if they could scaâ—t hold at the hearing of these stories and therefore they hereupon fall to cursing them that condemned the worshipping of images and so an end for that time The sixt action was the reading of an answer formally penned against the acts of the former Councell of Constantinople against images the examination whereof because it would be too long I leaue to the Reade though what it is may well be esteemed by their proceedings
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