4.2 Ye shall put nothing to the word that I command you saith Moses neither shall ye take ought there from that ye may keepe the commandements of the Lord your God which I command you thereby giuing to vnderstand that euery putting too or taking fro is a breach of the coÌ„mandement of the Lord. Against the exception which M. Bishop vseth that these words may be vnderstood of commandements as wel vnwritten as written M. Perkins answereth that these words are as a preface to a long coÌ„mentary or exposition of the written law therfore do import that to the written law nothing is to be added nothing to be taken from it but that onely was to be done which is contained therein Now howsoeuer M. Bishop doat yet the case is plaine that because Moses spake thus in respect of the written law therefore the Israelites were to admit of nothing but what was written in the law But saith he why then were there bookes of the old Testament and of the Prophets written afterwards if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught but that one booke of Deuteronomy Behold a cosening Sophister who seeth well and knoweth that saue onely by falshood and deceipt he auaileth nothing We say not that of the booke of Deuteronomy onely but of the whole written law Moses said Ye shall put nothing to it c. Againe we do not say that God did forbid any more bookes to be written or taught but that no matter of doctrine of faith or of the worship of God should be receiued or written or taught but what was deriued from the written law Now then I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue how the wise man in his owne answer circumuenteth and ouerthroweth himselfe Moses saith Ye shall put nothing to the word which I coÌ„mand you nor take ought therefrom now tell vs M. Bishop of what word did he say this He telleth vs that we must vnderstand it of the word whether written or vnwritten Be it so but you will confesse then that to the word of God deliuered by Moses written or vnwritten nothing is to be added because the words of Moses plainly expresse so much and how then came it to passe that so many bookes were written afterwards We hope you will not deny but that Moses therein taught the Israelites whatsoeuer was necessary to saluation how then doth it stand that the rest of the Prophets added so much more in writing To vse your owne words shall we thinke that the Prophets read not these words or vnderstood them not or did wilfully transgresse them We would gladlie heare whether of these you vvill say The man is mute and he hath nothing to answer if he answer as he must his answer fully serueth our turne for defending the onely written law of Moses that the bookes that were after written by the Prophets serue to explane and declare the law to shew the experiment practise of it but adde no point of doctrine nor teach any article of religion towards God but what Moses hath written in the Law But for the further strengthening of this argument it is to be noted that Moses testifieth of himself that b Exod. 24.4 he wrote all the words of God In another place it is said c Deut. 31.9.10 Moses wrote this law and deliuered it to the Priests and to all the Elders of Israel and coÌ„manded them saying Euery seuenth yeare thou shalt reade this law before all Israel The law then which he gaue them he gaue them in writing that they might read it it might be read vnto them It could not haue bene said Moses wrote this law if he had written but a part of it and left another part vnwritten Nay it is said further afterwards d Ver. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a booke vntill he had finished them then Moses commanded the Leuites saying Take the booke of this law and put it in the side of the Arke c. It is apparent then that Moses gaue not ouer writing the words of the law vntill he had finished them that is vntill he had written all the words of the law so that there was no word of the law but that that was written in the booke of the law And therfore that which is set downe by Moses e Deut. 27.26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them is thus related by the Apostle f Gal. 3.10 Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do theÌ„ therby to shew that all the words of the law are written in the booke of the law nothing left vnwritten that was any part or parcel thereof Thus when God would giue direction to Iosuah g Iosuah 1.7 to obserue and do according to all the law which Moses had commanded him giuing him charge according to the instruction of Moses here spoken of not to turne away from it to the right hand or to the left either by putting too or taking fro to shew what he meant by all the law he addeth Let not this booke of the law depart out of thy mouth but meditate therein day and night that thou maiest obserue and do according to all that is written therein Here againe it is plaine that to obserue all the law of Moses is to obserue all that is written in the booke of the law And out of this place Cyprian being vrged by Stephanus Bishop of Rome with tradition argueth against the receiuing of vnwritten traditions h Cyprian ad PoÌ„petum Vnde est ista traditriot Virumnè de dominica EuaÌ„gelica authoritate descendens an de Apostolarum mandatis atque epistolu veniens Ea enim faâ—ienda esse quae scripta sunt Deus testatur protonit Iesu Naue diceus NoÌ„ recedet c. Whence is this tradition faith he Whether descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or commeth it froÌ„ the coÌ„mandements and epistles of the Apostles For that those things must be done which are written God testifieth saying to Iosuah The booke of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Where he plainely sheweth that out of these words he intendeth this conclusion that concerning faith and deuotion towards God as we are to do the things that are written so what is not written we are not to do And this now is cleare by the place that we haue here in hand for if all that Moses commanded were written and nothing was to be added to that that Moses commanded then nothing was to be added to that that was written and those things which were written afterwards were no additions but only declarations and confirmations of those things which he had before written And thus did the ancient Fathers vnderstand that that is said of adding or diminishing as touching
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
only We take it then for granted as indeed it cannot be denied that the Apostle here intended those things that are written but we wold heare an argument to proue that the Apostle meant any thing further that is not written If he might vse those words of those things that are written what hindreth but that he might vse them of those onely M. Bishop cannot proue that he did not so but we proue that he did so because in the next Chapter he telleth the same Timothy n 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Therefore M. Bishops proofes come much too short to giue vs any assurance that S. Paule by traditions vnderstood any thing but what is to be learned by the Scriptures 17. W. BISHOP The second argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be is very necessary to saluation now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued only by Tradition wherefore it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue some Tradition M. Perkins answereth that the bookes of the Old and New Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this maner Let the man who is endued with the spirit of discerning reade the bookes and consider first the author of them who is God then the matter contained which is diuine the maner of speech which is full of maiestie in simple words lastly the end aymed at which is Gods honor and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer Reply A wise and deepe obseruation I warrant you and well worthy a graue Author Let vs examine it briefly first he will haue his man endued with the spirit of discerning who shall indue him with that spirit M. P. seemeth to say that euery sheepe of Christ hath his spirit But S. Paule * 1. Cor. 12. teacheth plainely the contrarie that some certaine onely haue the iudgement to discerne And touching this matter of discerning which bookes are Canonicall which are not not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which they were three hundred yeares after Christ was left vndefined by the best learned whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of Iohn and his Apocalypse were Canonicall or no as is confessed on all parts hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning when the best Christians wanted it Who more profound more skilfull to discerne than that subtill and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall For he in diuers places of his workes * De doct Christ cap. 8. 18. de ciuit Dei 36. lib. 2. cont Epist Gaudent 23 holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures and expresly proueth the booke of Wisedome so to be * De Praedest Sanct. 14. and yet our Protestants will not admit them See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is Come to the second His second is that he who goeth about to discerne whether the booke be Canonicall or no must consider the Author who is God If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the booke what needes any further labour it must needes be Canonicall that hath God for the Author This mans wits were surely from home when he discoursed thus and therefore it should be but folly to stand vpon his particularities let this one reason in generall serue to confute him all this manner put together serueth onely to helpe particular men to discerne which bookes are Canonicall who may easily after their diligent inquirie erre and be deceiued in this point because euery man is a lyar * Rom. 3. And if there be no more certaine meanes to assure them of this which is the ground of all their Religion then euery particular mans discretion and iudgement then out of doubt their whole Religion is most vnwisely builded vpon meane mens inuentions and discretion who also for the most part do neither vnderstand the language in which they were first penned nor the vsuall phrases of Scriptures translated that I say nothing of the figures parables prophecies and controuersies which seeme to be and many other difficulties and yet these men need not doubt hauing learned some halfe dozen lines of Master Perkins but that reading any booke they shall be able presently to discerne whether it be Canonicall or no. A goodly mockerie Men were not so taught in the Primitiue Church but the most skilfull and wisest in discerning Canonicall books trusted not vnto their owne iudgement but leaned alwaies vpon Apostolicall Traditions So did Cerapion an auncieni holy Writer as Eusebius reporteth reiect certaine bookes set out in the Apostles names because they had not receiued from their Predecessors any such The like doth Clement of Alexandria * Cap. 11. and that famous Origen * Cap. 19. of the same booke who obserue the Ecclesiasticall Canon as he had learned and receiued by Tradition So doth he deliuer his opinion of the foure Euangelists and other bookes of Canonicall Scripture and not relying on his owne wit which was excellent or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters That S. Augustine was of the same mind may be gathered out of these words of his * Lib. 35. cap. 6. Contra Faustum Of what booke can there be any assurance if the letters which the Church propagated by the Apostles and by such excellencie declared throughout all Nations doth teach and hold to be the Apostles should be vncertaine whether they be Apostles or no So that he maketh the declaration of the Church descended of the Apostles to be a sure pillar to rest vpon for the certaine knowledge of Canonicall Scripture and other spirits whatsoeuer if they follow not that rule to be reiected so farre is he off from encouraging euery sheepe of Christs fold to take that waightie matter vpon himselfe as M. P. doth And what can be more against the most prudent prouidence of the diuine wisedome then to permit euery one to be a iudge of the books of Canonicall Scripture For if al those books no other shold passe currāt for Canonical which any Christian taking vpon him the spirit of discerning would censure to be such then away with all the old Testament because diuers esteemed it to proceed of some euil spirits as witnesses Freueus * Lib 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. and Epiphanius * Haeres 6. 6. Yea not onely all the old must be abrogated but all the new also because it hath many falshoods mixed with the truth as some presuming greatly of their spirit
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 which in so many places hee repeateth n 〈…〉 32 83. 109. de verb. Dom. Ser. 31. Non dicimus illi Redde quod accipisti sed Redde quod pro◠〈…〉 Wee say not vnto God Repay that which thou hast receiued but Pay that which thou hast promised Yea hee plainely argueth that o Jn Psal 32. Cum ab illo habeamus quicquid illi offerimus ex illo sit quiâ—quid boni sumus c. 〈…〉 quid dedimus tenemus debitorem Vnde debitorem Quia promissor est sith wee haue of him whatsoeuer wee offer to him and all our goodnesse is of him therefore wee haue not yeelded any thing to him to hold him debtor thereby Whence then haue wee him a debtor Marry saith hee because hee is a promiser See here Maister Bishop because all our good workes are of God wee cannot haue him a debtor vnto vs by any merit of workes that wee doe vnto him but hee is a debtor onelie for his promise sake p Ibid. Teâ—eamus fidelissimum debitorem quia habemus miserecordissimum promissorem Let vs hold him a most faithfull debtor saith hee because wee haue him a most mercifull promiser The promise vvas made in mercie the performance thereof now dependeth vpon the fidelity of the promiser not vpon the merit of the worker euen as the same Saint Austine saith q In Psal 88. Non secundum merita nostra sed secundum misericordiam illius firma est promissio The promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercie But to the obiection here made M. Perkins answereth by distinguishing the couenant promise of God that one is of the Law another of the Gospell one of workes the other of faith one of the old testament the other of the new By the old couenant of the Law the promise is made only to the worke neither is the person accepted but for the works sake Now by this couenant God r Heb. 8 9. hath no delight in vs because we continue not in his couenant there being none found that perfectly fulfilleth the righteousnes of the law By the new couenant the person is first accepted by faith for Christes sake and then the worke is accepted and rewarded not for the merit of it selfe but for the condition of the person By the first couenant the worke is reiected if it haue not the vttermost that it ought to haue By the second couenant Å¿ 2. Cor. 8.12 if there be first a willing minde it is accepted according to that a man hath not according to that that he hath not so that though there be by humane frailtie some imperfection in the worke yet God pardoning the imperfection accepteth of it and rewardeth it dealing as fathers with their children who accept their good endeauours when in the workes haply there is nothing woorthie to be respected Here therefore the promises of God properly respect the person working and not the desert or worthinesse of the worke But Maister Bishop in the height of his ignorance answereth that all the places by him cited are out of the new Testament vnderstanding by the new Testament the bookes which wee call the new Testament and the old Testament for the bookes that goe vnder that name Whereas Maister Perkins distinguisheth the two Testaments as God himselfe doth not by the bookes but by the matter of the bookes there being in the bookes of the old Testament many things that belong to the new and many things repeated in the bookes of the new Testament that belong properly to the old Such are the sentences by Maister Bishop alledged t Luk. 16.28 Do this and thou shalt liue u Math. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements though according to his reading he so citeth the former of them out of the olde Testament as if it were not spoken in the new But these though by occasion they be mentioned in the Gospell yet are conditions indeede properly belonging to the Law Now in the old testament according to M. Bishops meaning we may see example of that that M. Perkins saith where it is said of Cain and Abel x Genes 4.4.5 The Lord had a respect to Abel and his offering but to Cain and his offering he had no regard First he had respect to Abel because of his faith in Christ and consequently to his offering but he had no respect to Cain being voide of true faith and therefore he had no respect to Cains offering For it is here true which the Law saith Cuius persona non placet nec caetera placent where the person is not pleasing nothing else can please and therefore S. Bernard saith y Bernard in Câ—nt Ser. 24. Quid miraris â— Cain quòd munera tua non respicit qui te despicit What wonderest thou Cain that he hath no reâ—pect to thy gifts who despiseth thee Wherfore it should not seeme strange to M. Bishop which M. Perkins hath obserued that God rendering to the faithfull according to their workes should be said notwithstanding not to do it for their works sake because their works are secondarily accepted for their owne sakes they are accepted for Christes sake and both they and their workes are rewarded by vertue of that attonement whereby he hath reconciled them vnto God And thus howsoeuer Maister Bishops simple vnderstanding conceiueth it not greater workes haue greater reward and lesser workes haue lesser reward and yet for Christes sake it is that greater or lesser haue either greater or lesse reward But it is further demaunded if workes do not merit why are they mentioned in the promises Not because they merit saith Maister Perkins but Maister Bishop repeateth it Not because they are rewarded whereas Maister Perkins denieth not but that workes are rewarded onely he denieth that they are rewarded by vertue of their owne merit and woorth but by vertue of Christes mediation for whose sake they are accepted in the sight of God But we must not think strangely of this because he doth therein but as he is woont to do It is further added that good workes are mentioned in the promises as the proper markes and signes of them to whom appertaine the promises that are made freely for Christes sake as tokens that the doer of them is in Christ through whose merits the promise shall be accomplished This to M. Bishop is an addle inuention not woorth the confuting it is so flat contrary to the text But it is his addle head that taketh this for an addle inuention and his ignorance of the text that maketh him thinke it so flat contrary to the text The text saith he ascribeth distinctly that reward vnto the workeman for his works and not for Christes obedience imputed vnto him But we tell him againe that it is for the imputation of Christes obedience that the text ascribeth any reward to the workman for his worke as is
as written For inke and paper brought no new holinesse nor gaue any force vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had bene written Here the question is principally of diuine traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the holy Ghost the sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed R. ABBOT Traditions saith M. Bishop are of three sorts Diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Which distinction in some meaning standeth good but as he expresseth the meaning of it it is absurd For if Apostolike traditions be expounded of doctrines as he expoundeth them what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt diuine and Apostolike traditions when the Apostles for doctrine deliuered nothing but what they themselues had receiued froÌ„ God Our Sauiour limited their commission in this sort a Mat. 28.20 teaching them to do whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Accordingly they professed to do b 1. Coâ— 11.23 I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue deliuered vnto you saith Saint Paul c 1. Thess 4.2.8 We gaue you commaundements by the Lord Iesus and he that despiseth these things despiseth not man but God d Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospell which was preached by me I receiued it not of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ Therefore Tertullian saith of them that e Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegeruÌ„t sed acceptam à Christo disciplâ—nam fideliter nationibus adsignauerunt they did not vpon their liking make choise of any thing to bring in but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ So that if Traditions be vnderstood of doctrine there is no reason to make any difference betwixt the traditions of Christ the traditions of the Apostles because they are both one But if we wil make difference betwixt them we must call Apostolike traditions onely such ordinances whether written or vnwritten as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony vsage in the Church as the obseruation of the memoriall of the natiuity death resurrection of Christ the alteration of the seuenth day from the Iewes Sabbath to the day of Christes resurrection the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded such like And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subiect to diuersity according to diuersity of places as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subiect to alteration change where there might be reason of any such alteration as were f Iude vers 12. the feasts of charity first vsed by the Apostles afterwards abolished for the abuse of them as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded it being by the custome of that time a signe of honour and authority so to do whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head couered The obseruation of g Acts. 20.7 Apoc. 1.10 the Lords day we hold perpetuall vnchangeable because we find it noted in the Scriptures to haue bene froÌ„ the Apostles and there can be no reason of reuersing or altering what they ordered therin If thus M. Bishop will speake of Apostolike traditions we acknowledge the name of theÌ„ but Apostolike doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for diuine Thus therefore the question is of diuine traditions that is doctrines of faith of the worship and seruice of God which we deny to be any but what are comprised in the written word of God Now of diuine traditions he telleth vs some parabables which it seemeth he himselfe did not well vnderstand We hold them saith he to be necessary to saluation to determine matters of greater difficulty Be like then they are not necessary for theÌ„selues but only to determine matters of greater difficulty and those that are not necessary for the determining of matters of greater difficulty are not necessary to saluation By this meanes a number of their traditions must fall Purgatory praier for the dead inuocation of Saints Popes Pardons worshipping of idols images and the rest because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby Againe we deny not saith he but that some such principall points of our faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the Scriptures It seemeth then that the simple are not bound vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures if he say they be so bound then that clause of his was very idlely and impertinently inferred But we must pardon him it seemeth he wanted sleepe the night before and therefore being very drowsie could not well consider of that he wrote 5 W. BISHOP M. Perkins goeth about to proue by these reasons following that the Scriptures containe all matter of beliefe necessary to saluation Testimonie * Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not adde to the words that I coÌ„mand thee nor take any thing there from Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation If it be said that this is spoken as well of the vnwritten as written word for there is no mention in the text of the written word then M. Perkins addeth that it must be vnderstood of the written word onely because these words are as a certaine preface set before a long Commentarie made vpon the written Law Answer Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtractioÌ„ change or peruert Gods commandements whether they be written or vnwritten Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses law that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same law is extreame dotage Why theÌ„ were the bookes of the old Testament written afterward if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these words or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them well did wilfully transgresse against theÌ„ one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alledging of this text for the al-sufficieÌ„cy of the writteÌ„ word R. ABBOT M. Bishops allegations are too simple childish to moue the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against vnwritten traditions doctrines a Deut.
nos quod quideÌ„ tunc praeconiauerunt postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis trâ—diderunt fundamentuÌ„ columnam fidei nostrae futurum We haue not knowne the meanes of our saluation by any other but by them by whom the Gospell is come vnto vs which they verily preached then at first but afterwards by the will of God deliuered it vnto vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith This was the auncient opinion and perswasion of the Church that what the Apostles first preached they afterwards committed to writing esteeming that to be the safest and f Phil. 3.1 surest way that hereby the Church might be armed against the practises of all deceitfull and wicked heretikes that would go about to bring in their owne deuices vnder colour shew of the Apostles names Because therefore whatsoeuer doctrine the Apostles preached is written and by the ancient Church was holden so to be they made no doubt to apply these words to the writteÌ„ Gospel and to vnderstand them to be accursed that preach any thing for doctrine of the Gospell which is not thereby warranted vnto vs. Therefore Chrysostome saith vpon these words that g Chrysost in Gal. 1. Paulus etiam Angelis de coelo descendentibus praeponit Scripturas idque valdè congruentèr siquidem Angeli quamlibet magni tamen seruisunt ac ministri caeterum omnes Scriptura non à seruis sed ab vniuersorum Domino Deo venerunt ad nos Paul here preferreth the Scriptures before Angels comming from heauen and that iustly saith he for Angels albeit they be great yet are but seruants and ministers but all the Scriptures came vnto vs not from seruants but from God the Lord of all But let S. Austine briefly conclude this point and shew vs to what these words are to be referred h August cont lit Petil. li. 3. ca. 6. Siue de Christo siue de eius ecclesia siue de quacunque re alia quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram noÌ„ dicaÌ„ nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dicit Licet 〈◊〉 nos sed omninò quod secutus adiecit Si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus et Euangelicis accepistis anathema sit Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life we will not say if we but euen as he going forward addeth If an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell accursed be he The words of the Apostle to Timothie of i 1. Tim. 1.3 commaunding * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to teach any other doctrine sounding to the same effect as the other do do yeeld vs the like collection as we haue seene in them 9. W. BISHOP The fourth testimonie * 2. Tim. 3.16 The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct to righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto euery good worke In these words are contained saith M. Perkins two arguments to proue the sufficiencie of Scripture The first that which is profitable to these foure vses to teach all necessary truth is not in the text to confute errors to correct faults in manners to instruct all men in dutie is M. Perkins his addition to the text that is sufficient to saluation But the Scriptures serue for all these vses c. Answer This text of holy Scripture is so farre from yeelding our aduersaries two arguments that it affoordeth not so much as any probable colour of halfe one good argument In searching out the true sence of holy Scripture we must obserue diligently the nature and proper signification of the words as M. Perkins also noteth out of S. Augustine in his sixt obiection of this question which if the Protestants did here performe they would make no such account of this text for S. Paul saith onely that all Scripture is profitable not sufficient to teach to reproue c. How are they then caried away with their owne partiall affections that cannot discerne betweene profitable and sufficient Good timber is profitable to the building of a house but it is not sufficient without stones morter and a Carpenter Seed serues well yea is also necessary to bring forth corne but will it suffice of it selfe without manuring of the ground and seasonable weather And to fit our purpose more properly good lawes are very profitable yea most expedient for the good gouernement of the commonwealth but are they sufficient without good customes good gouerners and iudges to see the same lawes and customs rightly vnderstood and duly executed Euen so the holy Scriptures S. Paul affirmeth are very profitable as containing very good and necessary matter both to teach reproue and correct but he saith not they are sufficient or that they do containe all doctrine needfull for these foure ends And therefore to argue out of S. Paul that they are sufficient to all those purposes when he saith only that they are profitable to them is plainly not to know or not to care what a man saith and to presse such an impertinent cauil so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do is nothing else but to bewray vnto the indifferent Reader either their extreme ignorance or most audacious impudencie that thinke they can face out any matter be it neuer so impertinent The same answer I make vnto M. Perkins his second argument out of the same place that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute but not sufficient I say moreouer that M. Perkins doth falsly English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures when it signifieth all Scripture that is euery book of scripture and is there put to verifie that the old Testament only serues to instruct to saluation for in the words next before S. Paul sheweth how that Timothie from his infancy had bin trained vp in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures which saith he can instruct thee to saluation and annexeth as the confirmation thereof the text cited All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. Now in Timothies infancy no part of the new Testament was written and therefore all Scripture which is here put to proue that Scripture which Timothy in his infancy knew cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more then all the bookes of the old Testament So that there are three foule faults in this the Protestants Achilles The first in falsification of the text that it might seeme to be spoken of the whole which is spoken of euery part The second in applying that which is spoken of the old Testament vnto both the old and new The third in making that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onely to be profitable And
it true of the scriptures now that they are able so to do when as by the new Testament so much light is added for the cleering of the old The doctrine which the Apostles preached in the new Testament they confirmed by the old They taught no other faith but what was contained therein onely the faith was more plainely and cleerly deliuered by them because as S. Austin saith ſ August de catech rud In veteri testamēto est ocultatio noui in nouo testamento est manifestatio veteris in the old Testament the new is hidden and in the new Testament is the manifesting of the old t Idem in Ioan. tra 45. Tempora variata sunt nō fides c. Eadem fides vtrosque contungit The times saith he are diuers but the faith is one Seeing then the old Testament was sufficient to instruct men to the faith of Christ and the instruction thereof notwithstanding is much more manifestly deliuered in the new and no other faith is taught in the new Testament then is contained in the old who doth not see that the conclusion standeth strong on our part that much more the scripture now containeth all doctrine necessary to instruct vs to the faith of Christ Albeit it is not true which M. Bishop saith that S. Paul meaneth here only the scriptures of the old Testament For although when Timothy was a child there were no other scriptures but onely of the old Testament yet when Paul wrote these words to Timothy the greatest part of the books of the new Testament were extant He wrote this epistle newly before his death as appeareth by that he saith u 2. Tim. 4.6 I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departing is at hand He had then writtē all the rest of his epistles as we may easily conceiue neither is it likely but that the gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke with the Acts of the Apostles were written before that time the first by S. Mathew being testified to be written at the time of Pauls first imprisonment at Rome x Jren. li. 3. ca. 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorū lingua scripturā edidit Euangelij cum Petrus et Paulus Romae euangelizarent et fundarent Ecclesiam founding the Church there where S. Luke makes an end of the history of the Acts of the Apostles after which being not lōg after the beginning of the raigne of Nero the Apostle liued for the space of 12. or 13. yeares being put to death in the y Func Chronol 14. yeare of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest because he died z Hierō in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno sepultus Alexandriae in the 8. yeare of Nero as Hierome testifieth six yeares before S. Pauls death and therfore before the writing of this epistle The like also is plaine of the former epistle of S. Peter as appeareth for that his second epistle was written about the same time that S. Paul wrote this secōd epistle to Timothy S. Peter being put to death at the same time as S. Paul was and saying as he doth in the same second epistle a 2. Pet. 1.14 I know that the time is at hand that I must lay downe this my tabernacle Now therefore so many of the books of the new Testament being extant at that time who can doubt but that the Apostle naming all Scripture did speake of those bookes vnlesse he will be so mad as to say that at that time they were no Scriptures And as when we say that a man hath known the laws frō a child we do not meane to restraine his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child but will signifie his knowledge also of such lawes as haue bin since made euen so when the Apostle saith that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child he would giue to vnderstād that he was conuersant not only in the Scriptures that then were but also in such other as frō time to time thenceforward were written for the same vse Nay who would make question but that the Apostle setting downe by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture would hereby giue vs to vnderstand what to conceiue of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing to take away the euidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle and the Protestants Achilles is stronger then that he may take vpon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith But yet well fare a good stomacke for though he haue said as good as nothing yet he setteth a good face vpon the matter and concludeth this point with an inuincible argument like the inuincible nauie of Spaine Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture Very true But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needful to saluation as hath bene proued But that is not true the proofes that it doth so are pregnant and cleere but his proofes to the contrary are childish and vaine and therefore his conclusion cannot hold In steed therefore of his presumed and inuisible argument we wish him to consider of this Whatsoeuer the written word teacheth vs of it selfe that is necessary to be beleeued But the written word teacheth vs concerning it selfe that it is able to make vs wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus It is necessarie therefore for vs to beleeue that it can so and therefore to reiect all doctrine that cannot be approoued and warranted thereby 10. W. BISHOP And by the same principle I might reiect all testimonie of Antiquity as needlesse if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs heare what testimonie M. Perkins brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause Tertullian * De resur carni◠saith Take from heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand Answ Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of heathen authors and not to the traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saith M. Perkins out of the same author We need no curiositie after Iesus Christ nor inquisition after the Gospell when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for this we must beleeue that there is nothing else which we may beleeue Answer By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onely the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles no more then traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If any man
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
shall perfectly restore vs to our spirituall health and strength it shall be easie and delightfull vnto vs to keepe all the righteousnesse which God hath commanded but so long as we continue in this weakenesse and frailety we can by no meanes be said to attaine to the perfection of the law But here M. Bishop vnstringeth his tongue against God and faith that it is the part of a tyrant not of a true lawmaker to commaund his subiects to do that vpon paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe A silly foolish man that by his brainsicke fancies measureth the wisedome and righteousnesse of God and taketh vpon him presumptuously to giue law vnto God in what sort he shall make lawes for men But God is able in this behalfe to acquit himselfe z Rom. 3.4 that he may be iustified in his sayings and found cleare when he is iudged For the iust God was not in making of lawes to regard mans ablenesse but his owne righteousnesse and therefore to forbid all sinne that he might not seeme to approoue any and to commaund all righteousnesse that he might not seeme to neglect any It should not haue bene knowne to be sinne which he had not regarded to forbid nor taken for righteousnesse which he had not vouchsafed to commaund Was it fit that the rule of righteousnesse should haue bene abridged in fauour of mans sinne when the want of power to fulfill the law was not by Gods default in creating man but by mans disabling himselfe in turning away from God But M. Bishops folly and ignorance appeareth herein very plainly for that the Scripture teacheth vs that the vse of the law we not being able to fulfill it was to be a Gal. 3.24 our Schoolemaister to traine vs vnto Christ God had not any opinion in giuing the law of our performance thereof but he intended it to be as a glasse for vs to see our selues and to conceiue thereby our owne estate that finding our selues to be miserable and vtterly lost in our selues we might the more readily accept of the saluation that is freely offered vnto vs by Iesus Christ Thus saith the Apostle againe b Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse to euery one that beleeueth Therefore S. Austine saith that c Aug. de nat grat cap. 12. Haec est intentio legis arguentu vt propter ea quae perperà m fiuâ—t confugiatur ad gratiam Domini miseraÌ„tis c. vbi et remittantur quae malè fiunt eadeÌ„ gratia iuuante noÌ„ fiant the intent of the law reproouing vs is this to make vs for our misdoings to flie to the grace of the mercifull God where what we do amisse may be pardoned and by the helpe of the same grace may not be done To some part whereof we are come already by repentance and amendment of life and mortification of fleshly lusts but yet not so but that still we do many things amisse and stand in neede of pardon The law in the meane time serueth vs for a patterne of true righteousnesse teaching vs what we are to striue vnto what the purity is whereunto God hath called vs that though in the prison of corruptible flesh we cannot fully answer the same yet we may still be labouring towards it sighing groaning at that infirmity and disease that hindereth vs from it praying instantly vnto God to bring vs to it that his grace and mercy may in the end make vs partakers of our desire and thenceforth we may neuer do amisse d Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 17. Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamuis eam in hac vita nemo habeat NoÌ„ enim rectè curritur si quò currendum est nesciatur Quomodo auteÌ„ sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur Why should not this perfection be commaunded to man saith Austine although no man haue it in this life For we cannot runne aright if we know not to what to runne And how should we know if by no commaundements it were declared vnto vs Againe he saith e De grat lib. arbit cap. 16. MagnuÌ„ aliquid Pelagians se scire putant quaÌ„dâ— dicunt Non iuberet Deuâ— quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri The Pelagians he might haue said the Papists thinke they know some great matter when they say God would not commaund that which he knew could not be done by man Let M. Bishop take knowledge of his obiection vsed of old by the Pelagian heretikes S. Austine answereth f Quis hoc nesciat sed ideò iubet aliqua quae non possumus vt sciamus quid ab illo petere debeamus Ipsa est fides quae orando impetrat quod lex imperat Who knoweth not so much But therefore doth he commaund some things which we cannot do that we may know what we are to aske of him It is faith which by praier obtaineth that which the law commaundeth The commaundements of God then are not vnpossible for if they were vnpossible we could neuer hope to attaine to the keeping of them But now we pray vnto God that he will and according to his promise we beleeue that he will bring vs to that state of innocencie and perfection wherein we shall fully answer the image of perfect righteousnesse which is set before vs in the law In the meane time there is a let that hindereth vs and holdeth vs backe that it is not possible for vs so long as it continueth to do those things which yet are possible to be done The Arausican Councell saith nothing of fulfilling the law but speaketh generally of doing those things which belong to saluation Now to our saluation it belongeth to know and confesse that g Rom. 3.20 by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God To our saluation belongeth an humble acknowledgement of our vnablenesse to satisfie the law true repentance of our sinnes the faith of Iesus Christ that by him and in him we may haue supply of that wherein we are found defectiue by the law In a word it is the way to exclude vs from saluation to place our affiance and trust of obtaining the same in our fulfilling of the law the Apostle telling vs that h Gal. 3.10 so many as are of the works of the law are vnder the curse because it is written Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them whereas i Eccles 7.22 there is not a man iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not The words of Christ k Mat. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements were spoken to the young man to the same end to which the law generally was giuen to giue him occasion to measure and know himselfe by the commaundements that so he might seeke the way of
desire to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions let him reade his booke of prescriptions against heretikes where he auerreth that traditions serue better then the Scriptures themselues to confute all heresies heretikes alwayes either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures And in his book de Corona militis he formally proposeth this question whether traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no and answereth by many instances that they must be receiued concluding thus For these and the like points if thou require law out of the Scriptures thou shalt find none but Tradition is alledged to be the author of them Custome the confirmer and Faith the obseruer So that nothing is more certaine then that Tertullian thought vnwritten Traditions necessary to be beleeued R. ABBOT It followeth not that antiquitie is needlesse though all doctrine needfull to saluation be contained in the scriptures because antiquitie giueth vs many good and profitable helpes for attaining to the vnderstanding of many places and stories of the scripture when yet it teacheth vs to admit of no doctrine but what is proued thereby The first testimony alledged by M. Perkins is out of Tertullian a Tertul. de resurr carn Aufer haereticis quae cuÌ„ Ethnicis sapiunt siue vt alià s legitur quaecunque Ethnici saepiunt vt de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare noÌ„ poteruÌ„t Take from heretikes what they conceiue like the heathen or what the heathen conceiue that they may determine their questions only by the Scriptures and they cannot stand M. Bishop telleth vs for answer that Tertullian opposeth Scripture alone to the writings of heathen authors not to the trrditions of the Apostles and therfore maketh nothing against them But Tertullian speaketh not any thing there of heathen authors but of heathenish reasons fancies wherby heretikes plead against the mysteries of faith as there he giueth example by the resurrection of the dead He requireth them to forgo these and to bring their questions onely to the Scriptures or to the Scriptures alone Now to say that he opposeth not Scripture alone to the traditions of the Apostles is a ridiculous euasion when as by calling them thus to onely Scripture he giueth to vnderstand that he knew no such traditions belonging to matters of doctrine and faith for determining of questions that might arise thereof For whether he oppose the same to heathen authors or to heathenish reasons we may well take it to be absurd that he should require heretikes to be brought onely to Scripture if it be as M. Bishop telleth vs that questions cannot be determined onely by the Scriptures or if he thought any other meanes to be as necessarie as the Scriptures for the determining of theÌ„ But this sentence hath not so much strength by it selfe as it hath by that that is cited together with it b Idem de Praescript Nobis non est opus curiositate post ChristuÌ„ Iesum nec inquisitione post EuaÌ„gelium Cùm hoc credimus nihil desideramus vltra credere Hoc enim priùs credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquiry further after the Gospell when we beleeue that we desire to beleeue no more for this we beleeue that there is nothing further for vs to beleeue Where when M. Bishop saith that by the Gospell is to be vnderstood all our Christian doctrine so farre he saith truly but when he addeth written or vnwritten he beggeth the question and his Commentarie goeth without the compasse of Tertullians text He should by plaine example or reason haue giuen vs to vnderstand that Tertullian by the Gospel importeth any doctrine vnwritten otherwise he may well thinke that we scorne his interpretation hauing no warrant of it but his owne word Tertullian spake of the Gospell as the Apostle doth who saith c Rom. 1.2 that God before promised it by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and that it was d Cap. 16.26 opened and published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets We haue heard before out of Irenaeus that e Sect. 8. the Gospell which the Apostles first preached they afterwards committed to writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith and out of Chrysostome that f Sect. 7. to speake any thing that is not written is to speake of himselfe and not out of the Gospell So doth Basil of the word of God and Scripture make one and the same thing and denieth that there is any word of God beside the Scripture saying g Basil Ethic. reg 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est peccatum est sicut dicit Apostolus fides veró ex auditu auditus autem per verbum Dei ergo quicquid extra diuinam Scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est If what soeuer is not of faith be sinne and faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God then whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne If there be no Gospell but written no word of God but Scripture then surely Tertullian when he saith that we need no inquirie further after the Gospell taketh away Traditions and leaueth no place for doctrine vnwritten Whereas he saith that by the Gospell is not vnderstood onely the written word of the foure Euangelists he talketh idlely because no man vnderstood it so The doctrine deliuered in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles is no lesse the doctrine of the Gospell then that that is recorded by the foure Euangelists But here to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions he referreth his Reader to the same Tertullians booke of Prescriptions against heretikes Now this sentence alledged by M. Perkins was taken out of that booke although he quoted not the place which M. Bishop knew not because indeed he had neuer read the booke Therefore this that he here faith he saith it onely by hearesay and for ought he knoweth Tertullian may as wel speak against Traditions as any thing for them And the truth is that Tertullian speaketh no otherwise for Traditions then doth Irenaeus whome he cited before in his Epistle to the King whome I haue shewed to make nothing at all for M. Bishops purpose The occasion of both their speeches was the same hauing to do with wicked and blasphemous heretikes who admitted h Tertullian de Praescript Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adiectionibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit si recipit noÌ„ recipit integras si aliquatenus integras praestat nihilâ—minùs dâ—uersas expositiones commentatae conuerâ—it of the scriptures no otherwise then they lift themselues reiecting the bookes that specially made against them and by additions detractions framing the bookes which they did receiue to serue their owne turne and by their
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.
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
whether those things which they taught were so whereby it appeareth that the word which he preached in both places was no other but according to the Scriptures Thus we haue heard him before saying that h Cap. 26.22 he spake nothing beside those things which Moses and the Prophets did say should be Now all the doctrine of the Gospell that is set downe in the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets is fully contained in the Scriptures of the new Testament Seeing therefore the traditions that is those things which the Apostle deliuered to the Thessalonians were wholy according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets it must necessarily follow that in the Scriptures of the new Testament the same are fully and perfectly contained and so on both sides now can be no other but according to the Scriptures We are out of doubt that the Apostle preached to the Thessalonians the whole doctrine of the Gospell which we find set downe in writing by the Euangelists and by himselfe other the Apostles in their Epistles to other Churches In his former Epistle to the Thessalonians he did not set downe that whole doctrine which is written by them Now we cannot make question but that his meaning was to exhort them to perseuere in the whole as in those things which he expressed in his Epistle so in the rest also which we find written by himselfe and others Therefore the traditions or things deliuered by word haue a necessarie and vndeniable construction of all the rest of the written doctrine of the Gospell that is not set downe in that first Epistle to the Thessalonians Our exposition then is irrefragable and infallible that the Apostle by those words hath reference to those things which are written otherwhere but Master Bishop hath no argument to euict that he intended any thing that is written no where Because therefore we haue a meaning of the wordes whereof we are certaine and sure we rest there and list not to admit a further meaning whereof we can haue no assurance As for that which he cauilleth of whether Paule in his Epistles wrote all that he preached by word I answer him that he wrote the effect and vse of all but not all whereof that vse is to be made because many things are written by the Euangelists necessarie for the vse of Christian faith which are not written in the Epistles of Saint Paule though by him they were deliuered to the Churches to which he preached But though he wrote not all that was needfull to be written yet we beleeue the testimony that he hath giuen in that Epistle which he wrote last euen a little before his death when almost al the bookes of the new Testament were now written that i 2. Tim. 3.15 the Scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus and therefore that what by him and others there is so much written as concerneth vs to know for our instruction in the religion and faith of Iesus Christ Now whereas M. Bishop to proue the contrarie alledgeth the expositions of some of the Fathers concerning those wordes of the Apostle to the Thessalonians I may well answer him as Austine answered Hierome pressing him in the like sort with the names of sundry of the Fathers that were before theÌ„ k Aug. Epist 19 Ad ipsum confugio ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum eius tractatoribus prouoco I flie to Paul himselfe to him I appeale from all expositors of his writings that thinke otherwise He hath told vs that the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation therfore we do not beleeue theÌ„ that tell vs that his meaning is in the other place that we haue need of traditions beside the Scripture for supply of that wisedom Yea their collection as M. Bishop conceiueth of it cannot stand good It appeareth by those words of the Apostle that he deliuered more to the Thessalonians by word then is contained in his former Epistle to theÌ„ but it doth not therfore follow that he deliuered more vnto theÌ„ then is coÌ„tained in the Scriptures No reason can there be deuised to make good this coÌ„nexioÌ„ But to examine theÌ„ particularly first we may not thinke Chrysostome so forgetfull as that he should crosse that which in the very next Homily before he hath said l Chrysost in 2. Thess hom 3. Omnia clara sunt plaâ—a ex Scripturis diuinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt All things are cleare and euident by the holy Scriptures whatsoeuer things are necessarie they are manifest Surely if any thing be to be cleared by tradition beside the Scripture then it cannot be said that all necessarie things are manifest by the Scriptures And therefore whereas he saith Hereby it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnwritten and both the one and the other are alike to be beleeued we must vnderstand it of that tradition which the Church holdeth collected and gathered from the Scriptures though it be not literally expressed therein Thus the baptising of infants and the not rebaptising of them that haue bene baptized by heretikes and the administring of the Lords supper onely by the Minister and such like haue bene alwaies holden by the Church and defended by the Scriptures and yet they are no where literally contained in the Epistles of the Apostles In such things Chrysostome requireth a man to submit himself in peace to that which the Church practiseth being grounded vpon the Scripture and not contentiously to wrangle against it because it is not in very words contained therein But if any tradition be vrged vpon vs that hath no ground or warrant from the Scripture good reason we aske as Cyprian did of Stephanus m Cyprian ad Pomp. supra Sect. 5. Whence is this tradition Cometh it from the authoritie of Christ or of the Gospell or from the instructions and Epistles of the Apostles For God testifieth that we are to do those things which are written * Si ergo aut in Euangelio praecipitur aut Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur obseruetur certè haec sancta traditio Therefore if this tradition be commanded in the Gospell or in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles let it be obserued and kept for holy Whereby he will haue it vnderstood that if it be not there warranted it is not to be obserued The tradition which he there impugneth is taught indeed by the Gospell though he conceiued not so but hereby he teacheth vs that it was to stand for a certaine rule that no tradition could be iustly approued without warrant of the Gospell And therefore Chrysostome himselfe also teacheth vs otherwhere that n Chrysost in Psal 95. Siquid dicitur absque Scripturis auditorum cogitatio claudicatâ— vbi verò ex Scripturis diuinae vocit prodijt testimonium
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
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
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
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