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.
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
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 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
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
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
u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolicaâ— apud quas ipsae adâ—uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesideÌ„tur apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur c. Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos c. si Italiae adiaceâ— hâ—bes Romanam c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur vnum Deum nouit Creatorem vniuâ—sitaâ—â—â— Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria filium Creatoris carnis resurrectionem legem Prophetâ—s cum Euangelicis Apostolicis literis miscet inde fidem portat eam c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles and their authenticall Epistles were still read as of the Corinthians the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Romanes which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God the Creatour of the whole world and Iesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Sonne of the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles and thence deriuing that faith Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur vâ—um omninò Deum esse nec alium quà m mundi Creatorem qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur The rule of faith is this to beleeue that there is one onely God and the same no other but the Creator of the world who by his word first of all sent foorth made all things of nothing The same word called his Son was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes euermore heard in the Prophets last of all by the spirit and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary made flesh in her wombe and being borne of her did the part of Iesus Christ preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen wrought miracles and being nailed to a crosse rose againe the third day and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe VpoÌ„ the assertion of this rule he inferreth that y Si haec ita se habent vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo tradidit constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad eanâ—è de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertiâ—ere sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God it was hereby assured which he had before propounded that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith that z Illic igitur ScripturaruÌ„ expositionum adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae Quibus fuit propositum aliter doceÌ„di necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius ita nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio iâ—tulimus vt aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione vel transmutatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quà m sumus the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures For they saith he who intended to teach otherwise had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching For they could not teach otherwise except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach But on the contrarie side he saith As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs without the integritie of those instrumeÌ„ts by which doctrine is handled For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs What haue we brought in of our owne that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie we should remedie by adding or taking away or changing any thing What we are the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning From theÌ„ we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith pertinent to the matter here in hand wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof First it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith concerning the vnitie of the Godhead the creation of the world the Godhead and incarnation of Christ the resurrection of the dead the coming of the holy Ghost and sundry other such like They reiected such whole bookes and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles or by any diuine inspiration a Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta but foisted in yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. EmeÌ„datores Apostolorum Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures
deliuered to the Church In which case they did nothing else but what we also haue done when vpon exception taken against vs as vsing the Scriptures partially for the maintenance of our religion which yet euery eye may see to be clearely iustified thereby we haue further alledged the tradition of the Church and shewed by pregnant and expresse testimonie and witnesse of the auncient Fathers and Councels both that we acknowledge all those Scriptures which were with them vndoubtedly approued for Canonicall and do gather no other assertions or doctrines but what by them were gathered from thence And if M. Bishop will not hereupon conclude vs to be patrons of their traditions as we suppose he will not then let him know that he abuseth Tertullian in seeking to make him a supporter thereof who did nothing in effect but what we do let him take knowledge of his owne singular falshood and trecherie in alledging a speech of tradition which importeth no more but the written doctrine of the Scripture thereby to colour their traditions which are both beside and contrarie to the Scripture Yea and his trecherie is so much the greater in this generall naming of Tertullians booke of Prescriptions as making for their traditions for that Tertullian which is secondly here to be noted doth plainely affirme that what they are the Scriptures are that is that they taught nothing but what the Scripture had taught them yea and that integrity of faith could not haue stood with them but by the integritie of the Scriptures by which the doctrine of faith is managed and taught thereby signifying that albeit by the importunitie of heretickes they were forced to appeale to the tradition of the Churches yet that neither their safetie nor the safetie of the Churches to which they appealed stood in tradition but in hauing the Scriptures entire as they were first deliuered vnto them that out of them they might teach what was first deliuered Yea and that so as they needed no adding to the Scriptures nor taking from them nor changing of any thing for the saluing of any thing which they taught whereby it appeareth that he meant not to leaue any place for vnwritten doctrines or any such traditions as the Church of Rome defendeth against the plaine letter and expresse word of holy Scripture onely by taking vpon her to make such meaning therof as may not touch her deuices howsoeuer they containe impious idolatrie blasphemy against God and the apparent dishonour of the name of Christ Againe we are to note that he teacheth it to haue bene some one certaine matter of doctrine which Christ at the first deliuered to his Apostles and the Apostles to the Church that that onely is true which was thus deliuered at first but whatsoeuer since hath come in is erronious and false To which purpose elsewhere also he giueth this prescription that c Contr. Marc. lib. 3 Illic proâ—uÌ„cianda est regulae interuersio vbi posteritas inuenitur we are there to affirme the peruerting of the rule where there is found laternesse of time and againe that d Ibid. lib. 4. Ei praescribens outhoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei prescribens vitiationem quod posterius reuincetur authoritie is to be yeelded to that that is the more auncient but that to be preiudicated of corruption which shall be proued to be the later Therefore in the wordes formerly alledged we see he maketh it a certaine marke of corruption and falshood not to haue bene named or mentioned by the Apostles Now if by this prescription we examine the doctrine of Poperie we shall easily perceiue and find that in it is the peruerting of the rule as wherein there are so many deuices neuer mentioned by the Apostles yea which had neither name nor place for many hundreds yea some not for a thousand yeares or more after the time of the Apostles as hath bene declared before in answer of the Epistle to the King This is a true and certaine rule and necessary to be obserued and we learne thereby to condemne for nouelties and humane presumptions whatsoeuer hath not warrant from the beginning and to admit of no faith or doctrine but what the Church receiued immediatly froÌ„ the Apostles and the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God And because what Christ receiued from God hath witnesse of the law and Prophets as we haue seene before out of Chrysostome therefore we are to know that there is no doctrine truly affirmed as belonging to the new Testament which hath not confirmation and testimonie from the old Fourthly we see that albeit Tertullian did referre his Reader to Tradition yet he tooke not this witnesse of tradition onely from the Church of Rome but also from other Churches which were founded by the Apostles as well as it So doth he also in another place saying e Contra Marc. lib. 4. Vâ—deamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthij hauserintiad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti quidlegaÌ„t Philip penses Thessalonicenses Ephesij quid etiam Romani de proxime sonent quibus Euangelium Petrus Paulus sanguine suo signatum relique runt Haebemus Ioannis alum â—as Ecclesias c Let vs see what milke the Corinthians did draw from Paul by what rule the Galathians were reformed what the Philippians Thessalonians Ephesians do reade what the Romanes also neare vnto vs do teach to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospell sealed with their bloud We haue also the Churches which were taught by S. Iohn c. And although in his prescriptions he name it as the honor of the Church of Rome that the Apostles Peter and Paul did with their bloud vtter f De praescript Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sanguine suâ— profuderunt all their doctrine to that Church yet doth he not name it as a thing proper and peculiar to it in asmuch as S. Paule plainely affirmeth that to the Church of Ephesus also he had preached g Act. 20.27 all the counsell of God and thereby leaueth vs to vnderstand that he did the like to all the Churches Herby then we descry the notable fraud of M. Bishop and his fellowes who now hang the authority of all tradition only vpon the Church of Rome and will haue nothing authenticall from other Churches but onely from that Church For although Tertullian might safely argue from tradition in the consent of many Churches and might conclude it vndoubtedly to haue bin deliuered from the Apostles which was vniformely receiued by them all when as none of them had power to obtrude or thrust vpoÌ„ other Churches any doctrines deuised by themselues and especially being so soone after the time of the Apostles as before was said yet can no such assurance be builded vpon any one Church and that so many hundreds of yeares after and especially such a Church as by tyrannie and vsurpation hath compelled other Churches to be subiect vnto it thereby
in the art of true reasoning because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed not hauing any ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law R. ABBOT M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults a Hieron in Math. 23. Some saith Hierome will haue Zacharie who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur quae probatur This saith he because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall as M. Bishop pretendeth but rightly alledgeth that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof This hath no authority out of the Scriptures therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued Why so but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture is as easily contemned as approued The argument contained in Hieromes words cannot stand good but by this supply and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall according to due course But M. Bishop telleth vs that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer the sentence being in it selfe entier and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story because it had no authority out of Scripture Yea if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture yet it might be confirmed by tradition and therfore it followeth not that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture it should hereupon be reiected b Aug. de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas In the Apocryphall writings saith Austine some truth is found albeit because there are manie things also false they haue no canonicall authority If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true then it might be confirmed by tradition and therefore not to be contemned and thereof it followeth that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture is worth nothing Which if M. Bishop will not say then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue what authority of Scripture doth not confirme saying no other thing therein but what else-where he maketh good reasoning both waies c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus We beleeue it because we reade it we beleeue it not because we do not reade it And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently as easily to be contemned as approued but would simply haue contemned it because tradition had giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus to be still a virgin and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens Whereof Origen saith d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—ta narratio nobis tradita Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition yet auailed so little in the Church because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike euen from Tertullian of whom was spoken in the former section insomuch that some of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ c. die dominico per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian are there set downe in Tertullians owne words And yet by those instances it appeareth that the words come not within the compasse of our question because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall not of matters of doctrine and faith which are necessary and perpetuall which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse as if they had beene written yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome 12 W. BISHOP Maister Perkins His third Author is Saint Augustine * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well Answer All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beliefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned
must expresly beleeue if they will be saued which distinction S. Augustine else-where doth signifie * De peccatoruÌ„ meritis cap. vlt. and is gathered out of many other places of his workes as in that matter of rebaptizing them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes He saith * Lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their writings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed froÌ„ an Apostolicall tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall Church holdeth and therefore are to be beleeued The same saith he of the custome of the Church in baptizing infants * De genes ad letra lib. 10. cap. 23. And in his Epist 174. of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he we neuer reade in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * Lib. 3. cap. 3. cont max. Arianum And Saint Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not written in the word The like of the perpetuall Virginitie of our blessed Ladie * Heresi 4. out of which and many more such like we gather most manifestly that Saint Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the written word but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions R. ABBOT It is strange to see here what stutting and stammering the man vseth loth to confesse the truth and yet forced by the very euidence thereof in a manner fully to subscribe vnto it I pray thee gentle Reader to marke well the words of Austine that are here alledged a Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae a pertè posita sunt in Scripturis inueniuntur illa omnia quae conâ—nent fidem mo â—esque vivendi In those things saith he which are plainely set downe in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and behauiour of life He saith not barely in the Scriptures but in those things which are plainly set downe in the Scriptures nor that some speciall matters of faith are found but all those things are found which containe faith and conuersation of life Now how nicely doth M. Bishop mince the matter All things saith he necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation are contained in the Scriptures as if S. Austin spake here only of simple Christians and not of those that are of learning knowledge when as his drift is in this booke to teach the Preacher how to conceiue of the Scriptures for his owne vse Then he restraineth all those necessarie things to the articles of our beleefe whereas S. Austine expoundeth himselfe as touching b Spem scilicet charitatem de quibus superiore libro traectauimus hope and charitie of which he had intreated in the former booke Then he excepteth the resolution of harder matters and many difficulties which the learned must expresly beleeue when as S Austine saith that in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and conuersation of life insomuch that we haue heard him c Suprae sect 8. before pronounce a curse to an Angell from heauen who either concerning Christ or the Church of Christ or any thing belonging to our faith and life shall preach any thing but what we haue receiued in the scriptures of the Law and the Gospell But yet if they wil haue S. Austins words to be vnderstood of all things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian we would gladly know why they require euery simple man vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the Popes supremacie his succession from Peter the power of his pardons the validitie of his dispensations to beleeue their doctrine of the Masse of Purgatorie of inuocation of Saints of prayer for the dead of worshipping idols and images and a thousand such other deuices when as these are not found in any plaine places of Scripture nay when as the plaine text of Scripture is cleerly and manifestly against them Thou must vnderstand gentle Reader that M. Bishop giueth not this answer in earnest but the euidence of S. Austines words being so pregnant against him somewhat he must say for the present to colour the matter howsoeuer it be otherwise contrary to his owne defence It is not for their thrift to graunt that what concerneth euery simple Christian vpon paine of damnation is plainely set downe in Scripture to beleeue so is the marring of a great part of their haruest But alas in this case what should he do if Saint Austine say it it is not for him to speake against it onely what he looseth here he must do his best to recouer other where But for this lame answer whereby he in part confesseth the truth against himselfe and yet laboureth in part to conceale it and keepe it backe he seeketh patronage from another place of Austine saying that Saint Austine elsewhere doth signifie that distinction He noteth in the margent de peccatorum meritis cap. vltimo but which booke it is of the three he noteth not nor what the words are Now in the last chapters of the first and third booke there is nothing incident to this purpose but that which S. Austine saith in the last chapter of the second booke is such as that we neede not wonder that M. Bishop did forbeare to set downe his words For hauing there in question whether the soule be ex traduce that is whether it be deriued and propagated by generation with other points thereupon depending he saith that the matter is d August de peccat mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 36. DisputationeÌ„ desiderat eo moderamine tempe ratam vt magis inquisitio cauta lau litur quà m praecipitata reprehendatur assertio Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur non adinuantibuâ— diuinarum Scripturarum certu clarisquè documentis cohibere se debet humana praesuÌ„ptio nihil faciens in alteram partem declinando with such moderation to be handled as that a man may be rather commended for inquiring warily then reprooued for affirming rashly For sayth he where question is of a very obscure matter without the helpe of sure and euident testimonies or instructions of holy Scriptures the presumption of man is to withhold it selfe doing nothing by inclining either way But hee goeth on yet further e Ibid. Etsi enim quod libet horum quem admodum demonstrari explicari possit ignorem illud tamen credoquòd etiam hinc diuinorum eloquioruÌ„ clarssimae esset authoritat si homo illud sine dispendio promissa salutis ignorare non posset For albeit I know not how any of these points mentioned before may be declared and made plaine
found all things belonging to our faith and conuersation of life and thereby leaueth no place to M. Bishops matters of faith that are not contained in the written word 13. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his last testimonie is taken out of Vincentius Lyrinensis who saith as he reporteth that the canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient for all things Answ I think that there is no such sentence to be found in him the says by way of obiection What need we make recourse vnto the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but through all his booke he proues out the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sence and interpretation of the Catholike Church R. ABBOT The words of Vincentius are vttered first by way of obiection thus a Vincen. Lyrin Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis supèrque sufficiat quid opus est vt et Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae â—ungatur authoritas Some man happely may ask seeing the Canon of Scriptures is perfect and in it selfe abundantly sufficient for all matters what needeth it that the authority of Ecclesiastical vnderstanding shold be ioyned vnto it He hath taught a man in the words before to ground and settle his faith b Duplici modo fidem munire primo diuinae legis authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione first by the authoritie of the law of God and then by the tradition of the Catholike Church meaning by tradition as appeareth the interpretation or exposition of Scripture deliuered by the Church not any matters of doctrine to be receiued beside the Scripture Hereupon he asketh the question seeing the Scripture is abundantly sufficient what need is there to adde the tradition of the Church taking it for a thing receiued and by all men approued that the Scripture in it selfe is abundantly sufficient to instruct vs euery way and in all things belonging to faith and godlinesse and therefore making it a doubt why the other should be needfull And that we may vnderstand that he meant it not only by way of obiection but positiuely in the repeating of the same points afterwards he setteth downe this exception and reason c Jbid. Non quia canon solas non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina plerique pro suo arbitratis interpretantes varias opiniones erroresque concipiant Not but that the Canon alone is in it selfe sufficient for all things but because many interpreting the words of God as they list do conceiue diuers opinions and errors there from M. Bishops answer then is false that Vincentius affirmeth not that the Scriptures be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion for Vincentius affirmeth it peremptorily and therefore teacheth vs to shun them who after the Scriptures and interpretation thereof teach vs that there are yet other matters of Christian doctrine and faith that are not contained in the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that through all his booke he proues the contrary But what is that contrary Marry that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by onely Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church Whereby we see that either he hath not read that booke of Vincentius or doth impudently falsifie that which he hath read True it is that Vincentius in respect that heretikes do often very guilefully alledge the Scriptures and wrest them to the maintenance and defence of their new deuices doth referre a man for his safetie to the iudgement and resolution of the Catholicke church not as they loudly beare vs in hand of the church of Rome as if by it the Catholike Church were to be vnderstood but so as d Vt id teneamus quod vbique quod semper quod a omnibus credituÌ„ est hoc est etenim verè proprièque CatholicuÌ„ quod ipsa vis nominis raâ—ieque declarat quae omnia verè vniuersaliter comprebendit that we hold that which hath bene beleeued euery where and alwaies and of all for this saith he is truly and properly Catholike as the nature and signification of the word declareth which indeed comprehendeth vniuersally all Hereto he frameth those rules of antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent idlely bragged of many times by the Papists when as according to the declarations of Vincentius they are not able to make good any one point of their doctrine oppugned by vs but in diuers and sundry points are conuicted thereby But the matter that toucheth M. Bishop very neerly is the restraint and limitation of this rule which he saith is e Quae tamen antiquae sanctorum Patrum consensio non in omnibus diuinae legis quaestiunculis sed solùm certè praecipuè in fidei regula mag no nobis studio inuestigandae sequenda est not to be followed in all questions of the word of God but onely or chiefly in the rule of faith whereby he meaneth those things that concerne the articles of the Creed f In ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus tetius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur in those questions as he repeateth afterwards vpon which the foundations of the whole Catholike faith do rest It is vntrue then which M. Bishop saith that Vincentius holdeth no heresie to be suppressed or confuted but by the tradition of the Catholike Church when as he applieth his rule only or at least chiefly to those heresies which touch the maine pillars foundations of Christian faith And it is yet further vntrue because Vincentius further addeth that g Sed neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt sed nouitiae recentesquè tantummodo cùm primum scilitet exoriuntur antequam infalsarint vetustae fidei regulas ipsius temporis vetentur augustijs ac priusquam mananie latùs veneno maiorum volumina vitiare conentur Caeterùm si dilatatae inueteratae hareses nequaquam hac via aggrediendae sunt eò quòd prolixo ten porum tractu longa ijs furandae veritatis patuerit occasio Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores vel schismatum vel haereseoÌ„n prophanitatet nullo modâ— nos oportet nisi aut sola si opus est Scripturarum authoritate conuincere aut certè iam antiquitùs vniuersalibus sacerdotum Catholicorum Concilijs conuictas damnatásque vitare neither alwayes nor yet all heresies are to be impugned in that sort but onely those that are new and fresh namely when as they first spring vp before they haue falsified the rules of auncient faith and are therein hindered by the straitnesse of the time and before the poison spreading further abroad they labor to corrupt the bookes of the auncient Fathers But heresies
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
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
to be accounted of as those are to which Christ hath giuen witnesse by his owne word No otherwise therefore could he conceiue of the booke of Wisedome being of the same kinde and that he did so it plainly appeareth for that of that and the booke of Ecclesiasticus it was that he said that which before I mentioned that the bookes which are not in the canon of the Iewes are not alledged with so great authority against them that say against vs. And that this booke was not receiued in the Church as a booke of diuine authoritie appeareth by the very place which Maister Bishop citeth where it is shewed that Saint Austine citing a testimonie out of the said booke exception was taken against it c Aug. de praeâ—â— sanct cap. 14. Quod à me positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis tanquam non de libro canonico adhibituÌ„ For that it was taken out of a booke that was not canonicall S. Austine indeede pleadeth earnestly to gaine credit to it and alledgeth that of long time it had bene accustomed to be read in the Church and men had vsed to cite the testimonie of it as diuine but yet could not expresly say that euer it was reckoned for a Canonicall booke And as for those arguments M. Bishop is deceiued to thinke that they could proue it to be Canonicall because the booke of d Ruffinan exposit symb the Pastour was in like sort read in the Church as Ruffinus beareth witnesse in the place before alledged and yet was not accounted canonicall Scripture and Cyril and Ambrose cite the bookes of Esdras by the name of e Cyril cont Iulian lib. 1. Sic ait Scriptura diuinitùs inspirata c. Ambros de obitu frat Prophetico sermone dicitur c. â—epeto sacro Scriptura solatia tua de bono mort cap. 11 Ait propheta ad angelum c. holy Scripture and inspired of God and Ambrose calleth him by the name of a Prophet whereas Hierome calleth those bookes f Hieron praefat in Esdram Nehem. Nec apocryphorum tertij quarti libri sâ—mnijs delectetur dreames and wisheth no man to be delighted with them They vsed these bookes in their Sermons casually as we do thinking it not materiall to cite them for exhortation to the people howsoeuer they held them not of sufficient authority otherwise Therefore they cited them with condition sometimes g Hieron ad furiam Legunus in Iudith sicut tamen placet volumen recipere if we will receiue such or such a booke as Hierome doth the booke of Iudith and h Origen in Math. tract 30. Si recipitur liber qui dicit quoniaÌ„ sapientia est quae facta est populo columna nubis c. Origen the booke of Wisedome of which we here speake By these things therfore it is plaine enough that though Austin were not willing that authority should in that sort be detracted from any booke that was receiued publikely to be read in the Church yet that he was well able to discerne and so did which bookes were of diuine and infallible authority and which were to be accounted of inferiour and lesser worth iudging thereof in effect no otherwise then we do Now from this M. Bishop goeth to another cauill at that that M. Perkins saith that a man to come to know the Scriptures to be of God must first take and beleeue them so to be He saith that the mans wits were from home in so discoursing but the cause is because his wits serue him not to conceiue that which M. Perkins saith Very well and truly doth Saint Austine obserue that i Aug. in Ioan. tract 29. Jntellectus merces est fidei ergoâ—oli quaerere intelligere vt credas sed â—rede vt intelligas vnderstanding is the reward of faith Seeke not therefore saith he to vnderstand that thou maiest beleeue but first beleeue that thou maiest vnderstand He gathereth it from that which the Disciples say k Iohn 6.69 We beleeue and know that thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God They first beleeue and in beleeuing they learne to know The beliefe of which Maister Perkins speaketh is the beliefe of a learner of whom in matters of other knowledge they are woont to say Oportet discentem credere the learner must beleeue There are in all Arts and Sciences certaine propositions and principles which the learner first accepteth vpon the word of him that teacheth him which notwithstanding afterwards he attaineth so to know as that if he that taught him should say any thing to the contrary he should thinke him beside himselfe and by no meanes yeeld to him as knowing that certainly now which he did at first beleeue Euen so is it in this case a man hauing it wrought out of his owne conscience that there is a God to whom honour and worship and seruice is due and that this God vndoubtedly hath some way reuealed wherein that honour and worship doth consist betaketh himselfe vpon the testimonie of the Church to the reading and hearing of the Scriptures and in the exercise thereof findeth and feeleth that to be true which was testified vnto him and saith l Psal 48.7 Like as we haue heard so haue we seene in the Citie of our God And as the Samaritans being drawn to Christ by the report of the woman after they had seene and heard him say m Iohn 4.42 Now we beleeue not because of thy saying for we haue heard him our selues and know that this is indeede the Messias the Sauiour of the world so this man being first brought to the Scriptures by the report of the Church and thereby beleeuing the same to be of God doth by his owne experience afterwards fully apprehend the truth and certainty of that report yea more then was reported so that he saith n Origen in CaÌ„t. hom 2. Per illos quidem audiui ad te autem veni tibi credidi apud queÌ„ muliò plura viderunt oculi mei quà m annunciabantur mihi By them I heard of thee and I came to thee and haue beleeued thee with whom mine eies haue seene much more then before was told me Therefore he resteth not his faith now vpon the Church but vpon God himselfe so that though the Church should slide backe and denie that which it hath before affirmed yet he standeth secure and chooseth rather to die a thousand times then to forgoe the comfort and hope that he hath conceiued by the Scriptures which were at first deliuered vnto him by the Church Thus Christian people haue beene woont to receiue the Scriptures of the hands of the Church wherein they haue liued without seeking any further approbation and warrant thereof because in the vse of them they haue giuen a sufficient warrant and testimonie of themselues So then we rest not the Scriptures vpon the discerning of priuate spirits as Maister Bishop idlely and vainely
epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant wil appeer by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus who M. Bishop sayth by the Apostles words receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretickes Let his author speake and let the Reader iudge how honestly he dealeth in this citation The words are the words of Irenaeus of whom Eusebius reporteth that in certaine speeches against Florinus the hereticke he saith of himselfe hauing bene with Polycarpus when he was very yong g Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. ca. 18. Commemorare queaÌ„ sermones eius quos fecit ad multitudineÌ„ quomodo se cum Ioanne ac reliquis qui DominuÌ„ viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit sermones ecruÌ„ memorauerit quae ex illis de Domino audierant de virtutibus eius doctrina tanquaÌ„ ex ijs qui ipsi verbuÌ„ vitae viderant et cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recensuerit I remember the sermons that he made to the people and how he told that he had bene conuersant with Iohn and others that saw the Lord and mentioned their speeches and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and concerning his miracles and doctrine as receiued from them who themselues had seene the Word of life and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures Here was then the tradition of Polycarpus containing nothing else but according to the Scripture As touching the tradition that h See the Answer to the Epistle sect 11. Irenaeus speaketh of it hath bene before shewed that it containeth nothing else but the elementall articles of Christian faith for the auouching whereof he was forced to appeale to the tradition and successiue doctrine of the Church because he had to do with heretickes that refused the triall of the Scriptures He saith rightly that if nothing had bene written we must haue rested vpon Tradition but because God knew that Tradition was too vncertaine and weake a meanes for preseruation of truth therefore as he hath before said the Apostles deliuered the Gospel which they preached in writing and that by the will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our faith In a word when he saith What if the Apostles had not writteÌ„ any thing at all must we not then haue followed the order of tradition he intimateth that now that they haue written we are to follow that which they haue written for the certaintie assurance of our faith He forceth the order of tradition in this sort vpon the heretiks because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but the matters whereof he treateth are cleerly taught therein as euery where he sheweth throughout his whole booke His next allegation is vaine and childish Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by tradition to baptize infants whereas Bellarmine himselfe proueth it to be necessary by the Scriptures as I haue shewed i Sect 12. before That of Athanasius is as little to the purpose as all the rest The thing that he hath in hand in the k Athanas lib. Quòd Nicena synod u congruis pijs verbis decreta sua super Ariana haeresi exposuerit booke cited is to giue a reason of the decree of the Nicene Councell that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father He sheweth that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures Constantine also so directing them as we haue seene before The matter was so cleared as that the heretickes for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded vpon Yet he declareth that afterwards they fell to cauilling that the words whereby the Councell expressed their meaning were not found in the Scriptures that they deuised them of themselues and that none of the former Fathers had vsed the same He answereth that l Cognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam quâ—m Scripturae volunt hoc ipsum sonaere c. Whosoeuer is of a studious mind or desirous to learne will know that those words though they be not found in the Scriptures yet haue the same meaning which the Scriptures intend and do signifie the very same Further against their other cauil he sheweth by diuers places alledged that the Fathers of former times had vsed the same words and maner of speech as the Councell did Hereupon he concludeth m Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiaÌ„ à patribus ad patres quasi per manâ—â— traditaÌ„ esse Vos autem nouâ— Iudeâ— Cataphaeque discipuli quos verboruÌ„ vestroruÌ„ patreâ—ac maiores demonstraâ—uâ— Behold we shew that this sentence hath bene deliuered from fathers to fathers as it were from hand to hand but O you new Iewes and sons of Caiphas what fathers or auncesters will ye shew vs for your termes Now shall not we thinke that M. Bishop hath here brought vs a stout proofe for traditions vnwritten and doctrines beside the Scripture Euen as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellowes Behold we shew you that which we say of the sufficiencie of the Scriptures deliuered from fathers to fathers euen as it were from hand to hand and he should herupon cite vs for witnesses of their traditions As much wit should he shew in this as he now doth in that The place of Basil is answered at large n Sect. 16. before He further referreth vs to the first oration of o Greg Naziâ—n contra Julian erat 1. Doctrina nostra insigâ—â—reÌ„ videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditioâ—e acceptas in hunc vsque dieÌ„ seruaâ—â—mus c. Idem hic cogit 〈◊〉 scholas in omnibus ciuitatibus extruere parabat sacraria se desque partim altiores partim depressiores prophaâ—â—â—um dogmatum lectiones â—xplicationes instituere tum precaâ—oâ—um alternatim caâ—â—â—arum fâ—rmam c. Gregorie Nazianzen against Iulian but was ashamed to set downe any words of his because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians which Iulian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganisme were schools and formes higher and lower lectures hospitals monasteries companies of virgins singing by turnes and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church and what are these to prooue traditions that is matters of doctrine not contained in the Scriptures We admit almost all those things which he there speaketh of and yet we condemne traditions in that sence as we here make question of them Surely M. Bishops traditions are in a miserable case that in all antiquity can find no better foundations wherupon to build them A man would not thinke that in so serious a matter he would so trifle as he hath done bringing not one place in any sort appliable to his purpose but only that of Basill
faithfully performe what he did vndertake But far otherwise haue you dealt M. Bishop in your marrow and pith as you cal it of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrow roome You haue made Bellarmine specially your Rabbine your magister noster you take all vpon his word if he say it you will sweare it if he haue once written it you will write it againe without any further examination whether it be true or false We are beholding to you for translating so much of him into English for their sakes that do not vnderstand the Latine tongue But Bellarmine mocketh and abuseth you M. Bishop as he doth euery one that giueth him any trust He was a man of corrupt and euill conscience wholy prostituted to Antichrist and sold to his deceits by which means he maketh you to ly many times when you do not thinke ye lie For which cause I would aduise you when you will write any more bookes out of Bellarmine to make due triall of that which he saith It may haply doe you good to make you detest his fraud and falshood and to hate that profession which cannot be vpholden but by such meanes There is cause you should so do who from many large volumes can gather no better marrow no sounder pith then that which you haue sent vs for the marrow and pith of many large volumes Your marrow is but dust your pith is but rottennesse there is nothing in your booke fit to satisfie the conscience of a man desirous to be instructed in the truth It will I hope sufficiently appeare that you haue neither grounds from the word of God nor any approued testimonie of antiquitie to warrant any man to embrace that which you maintaine He that readeth your booke as it becometh a good Christian to do and conferreth it with M. Perkins booke and our defence thereof to iudge without partialitie I presume he will take you for a leud and naughtie man impudent and vnshamefast regarding onely to vphold a side without any entire regard to learne or to teach the truth In your postscript you tell vs that you are sorie M. Perkins being dead that your booke commeth forth too late to do him any good Whereby we conceiue that you haue a good opinion of it but we must tell you as touching doing him good in your sence he was not a man so weake as to be moued with such a toy Indeed if he had liued we need not doubt but it would haue done him much good and bene great ioy to him to see that in the marrow and pith of many large volumes there should be so little matter of moment to be said against that which he had written so little and so bad as that we hope that your preseruatiue will become your owne poison and the bane of that which you thought to strengthen thereby M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO MAISTER PERKINS HIS EPISTLE DEDICATORY MAster Perkins in his Epistle Dedicatory saith It is a policie of the diuel to think that our religion the religion of the present church of Rome are all one in substance or that they may be vnited Before I am to deliuer my opinion concerning this point I had need to be informed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion For there being great diuersities of pretended Religions currant in the world all contrary to the Church of Rome how can I certainly know whether of them he professeth Wherefore good sir may it please you to declare what religion you vnderstand when you say our Religion Is it that which Martin Luther a licentious Frier first preached in Germanie or rather that which the martiall minister Zuinglius contended with sword and shield to set vp in Zwitzerland or perhaps that which Iohn Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneua expelling the lawful magistrate thence and by the ayde of Beza a dissolute turnecoate spread into many corners of France Or if by your Religion you meane onely to comprehend the Religion now practised in England yet are you farther to shew whether you vnderstand that established by the State or the other more refined as it is thought by many and embraced by them who are called Puritans for of their leauen sauoureth that position of yours That the article of Christs descent into hel crept into the Creed by negligence and some other such like in this booke These principall diuisions of the new Gospell to omit sundry subdiuisions being famous and receiued of diuers in England according to each mans fantasie it is meet you expresse whether of them you speake of that it may be duly considered how the Romane Religion and it agree and what vnion may be made betweene them Now if you meane the hotchpotch and confusion of all these new Religions together as by the opposition here vnto the Church of Rome and by the articles following may be gathered then I am cleare for you in this that there can be no more concord between these two Religions then there is between light and darknes faith and infidelitie Christ and Belial Notwithstanding I thinke that the reason by you produced to proue the impossibilitie of this 〈◊〉 is of no value to wit that they of the Romane church haue razed the foundation for though in words they honor Christ yet in deed they turne him into a PseudoChrist and an Idoll of their owne braine A very sufficient cause no doubt of eternall breach and diuision if it could be verified But how proue you that we Romane Catholikes who beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man and the onely Redeemer of mankind make him a false Christ and an idol or before you go about to proue it tel me I pray you how this can wel stand with your owne definition of a reformed Catholike in your Preface There you affirme him to be a Catholike reformed to your liking that holdeth the same necessary heads of Religion with the Romane Church Now can there be any more necessary head of Religion then to haue a right faith in Christ can any other foundation be layd besides Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. If then your reformed Catholike must agree with the Romane Church in necessarie heads of Religion as you hold he must either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation and maketh not Christ a PseudoChrist as you say here or else you teach your disciples very perniciously to hold the same necessary heads of Religion with it But to leaue you to the reconciliation of these places let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox that the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ which you go about to proue by foure instances The first is because the seruant of his seruants may change and adde to his commaundements hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whom he list and bind the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ Here are
but he considereth her respectiuely onely vnder the title of the mother of Christ Therefore more plainely S. Austin deliuereth Christs answer h Aug ◠〈…〉 My mother whom ye call blessed is therfore blessed because she keepeth the word of God not because the word became flesh in her Epiphanius further obserueth that when Christ another time saith vnto his mother Woman what haue I to do with thee mine houre is not yet come He therefore i E◠〈…〉 Virgiâ—â—◠〈…〉 appellaâ—â—â— veâ—uâ— prophetaâ—â— quae futura ess◠〈…〉 sectarum ac haeresâ—â—â— gratia vt ne aliqud 〈…〉 sanctaâ—â— in hanc haeres◠〈…〉 called her woman that none might thinke too highly of the holy Virgin as prophecying what should come to passe in the earth by Sects and heresies that none admiring her saith he should fall into this heresie and the dotages thereof speaking there as touching the heresie of the Collyridians who set vp the image of the Virgin Mary and thereto offered Collyridem a cake in the honour of her and thereof they had their name As touching all this blind deuotion which the Papists haue renewed to the full he telleth vs that k Ibid Est â—â—dibrâ—um tota râ—s amcularum fabula it is a toy and an old wiues fable and asketh as we do l Quae Scripturae ae hoc naâ—â—auitâ— What Scripture hath told vs any thing hereof And that we may vnderstand how leudly M. Bishop belyeth antiquitie in saying that Antiquitie tearmed the Virgin Marie Our Ladie and Queene exalted aboue all quiers of Angels he reasoneth thus against that heresie m Quis Prophetarum praecepâ—â— hominem adorari nedum multâ—â—rem Which of the Prophets hath taught that any man is to be worshipped much lesse a woman And againe n St Angelos adorari nonâ—uliâ— quantò magis eam quae genitae est ab Anna. If God will not haue the Angels to be worshipped how much more will he not haue the daughter of Anna to be worshipped And againe o Mariam nemâ— adoret non dico mulurem imò neque vtrum Deo debetur hoc mysterium neque Angelicapiunt talem glorificationem Let no man worship Mary I say not a woman no not a man this mysterie belongeth vnto God the Angels receiue not any such glorie And againe as touching the name of the Queene of heauen he addeth p Ne turbent orbem terrarum ne dicant honoramus reginam coeli Let not these women trouble the world let them not say We do honour to the Queene of heauen We see how farre Epiphanius was from the conceipt of those supersticious fooleries which M. Bishop here so solemnely discourseth vnto vs. We see how the Church of Rome walketh iust in the path and steppes of these heretikes which were of old condemned by the Church They argued as M. Bishop here full simply doth from the vnright rule of crooked reason she was his best beloued mother he tooke flesh of her he sucked her breasts surely he would bestow vpon her his speciall fauours he would without doubt do more for her then for strangers to whom he was not at all beholding he would replenish her with such grace as should make her fit for that place which he neuer gaue her These are fantasticall presumptious of silly doting women and blind ignorant dottrels they haue no sauour at all of the spirit of God They might vpon these grounds argue for the brethren and cosins of Christ and conceiue as the mother of Iames and Iohn did that being his kinsmen they should be more respected then others and as they were nearer him in bloud so should be preferred in dignitie place and therefore should q Mat. 20 2â— sit one on his right hand and the other on his left hand in his kingdome But the kingdome of Christ is not administred by such fancies neither do carnal titles serue to giue preferment there And as touching the blessed Virgin Epiphanius further against such conceipts obserueth that Christ r Ibid. Non peâ—â— siâ— ipsidare baptisma non benedicere discipulis 〈◊〉 â—t terra â—mperaâ—â—â—ussit sed solaâ— ipsaâ— saâ—ctificationem esse dignam factam esse regnâ— ipsius permitted her not to baptize gaue her not power to blesse his disciples did not appoint her to raigne or rule in the earth but her only sanctification was to be made worthy of his kingdome It was therefore an hereticall deuice to make her Queene of heauen and it hath bene since one of the forgeries of Antichrist to attribute vnto her a power and authoritie to command the Sonne of God But M. Bishop telleth vs that this is no doctrine of the Romane Church nor found in all her seruice yet knoweth well enough that this was the doctrine of the Romane Church and commonly found in all her seruice Harlots that haue little shame yet blush at some things and the harlot of Rome though of an iron forehead yet saw some things to be so grossely blasphemous and inexcusable as that she could not for shame but remoue them out of the Church when question began to be made of them Such was that prayer concerning Thomas Becket which before I mentioned in the answer to the Epistle Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit That is By the bloud of Thomas which for thee he did spend Make vs O Christ to clime whither Thomas did ascend Which prayer was found in all their Portesses though now it be taken out So they were wont also very solemnely to sing throughout the whole Church of Rome Iube filio foelix puerpera Iure matris impera Redemptori c. Bid thy Sonne O blessed Mother By mothers right command our Redeemer This Duraeus the Iesuite acknowledgeth Å¿ Duraeus contr Whitaker lib. 9. Ad libros Rituales confugâ—â— ex quibus obsoleta quaedam corradis ex libris Ritualibus out of their bookes of rites and ceremonies by which their Church-seruice was directed Yea M. Bishop himselfe very well knoweth that the words are not to be denied and therefore as Duraeus doth so doth he also make a fauourable construction thereof that the Author of that prayer deemed the Virgins prayers to her Sonne to be as forcible in kindnesse as if they were commandements and in that sence called theÌ„ commandements Thus as M. Harding vnder a colour of t Harding Confut of the Apologâ—â— part 2. spirituall sporting and dalliance so these men vnder opinion of kindnesse do labour to hide open blasphemie and spirituall idolatrie They sticke not to speake apparantly to the derogation of the Sonne of God and then turne it to matter of iest like him of whom Solomon speaketh who u Pro. 26.18.19 faining himselfe mad casteth firebrands arrowes and deadly tooles and then saith Am not I in sport But how ill their sporting construction fitteth with the humour of those times let
it appeare by another hymne of theirs which will not be so answered x Histor secundum chorum Augustensâ—de commemor Virginis Mariae Gaude matrona coelica exultando magnifica Deum tuum salutarem qui te fecit singularem Tu ancillam Iesu Christi te vocare voluisti Sed vt docet lex diuina tu ipsius es Domina Nam ius habet ratio matrem prae esse filio Ergo ora supplicitèr praecipe sublimiter Vt nos in mundi vespera ad regna ducat suprema That is to say Be glad O matron heauenly and with reioycing magnifie Thy God thy Sauior who thee hath singled out in dignity The handmaiden of Iesus Christ thy selfe to call thou wast content But thou his Ladie mistresse art as teacheth Gods commandement For right and reason doth require the mother be aboue the Sonne Pray therefore as a suppliant and command as a higher one That in the end of this worlds dayes He bring vs to his heauenly ioyes Here is then right and reason and Gods Commandement to approue and iustifie that the Virgin Mary as the Mother should haue power ouer her sonne and authoritie to commaund him And to no other purpose soundeth that which M. Bishop acknowledgeth as being yet in their vse y In hymn Ecclesiastic Monstrate esse matrem Shew thy selfe to be a mother He saith it is not added by commanding thy sonne but he should haue told vs how otherwise it should be meant because we know not nor can conceiue in what meaning they should request her to shew her selfe to be his mother but onely vpon opinion of some motherly superioritie and authoritie to commaund him For as for that which he saith followeth in that place Sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus Let him by thee receiue our prayers who for vs yeelded to be thy sonne it giueth vs no light at all to the contrary but that she should shew her motherly commaund by causing him to accept the prayers that are made vnto him which he seeing translateth the words falsly Present our prayers vnto him c. And thus the common people were perswaded by them and specially women that they had better hope and readier accesse to God and more assured safetie by our Lady then they had by the Sonne of God And no maruell when they lifted her vp into the seate of Christ and inuested her in their publike seruice with all the titles of mercy and grace that are proper vnto him Now therefore M. Bishop there is cause sufficient for vs to forbeare to be reconciled to the Church of Rome which vnder pretence of magnifying Christ hath put the Pope and the Virgin Marie and the rest of the Saints in the place of Christ and coloureth her Antichristian presumptions and vsurpations vnder the feigned title of the gifts of Christ You deuise what you lift and fill the Church with your abhominations and vse the name of Christ as a cloake to couer your filthinesse and shame If they came naked in their owne likenesse all men would detest them and detest you for perswading them therefore it is the policie of the whore of Babylon to offer the z Apoc. 17.4 filthinesse of her fornications in the golden cup of the name of Christ that the glory of the cup may bewitch them not to suspect any poyson to bee contained therein As for vs we esteeme of the power merits and satisfaction of Christ as he himselfe hath taught vs to esteeme we assume no part or parcell therof to our selues because by the letters patents of his Gospell we haue no warrant so to do Because then we vnfeignedly seeke the true honour of Iesus Christ and cannot brooke the dishonour that is done vnto him in the Church of Rome vnder the counterfeit termes of his diuine gifts we make choise to hearken to the voyce of God a Apoc. â—8 4 Come out of her my people and be not partakers of her sinnes lest ye be partakers of her plagues M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. PERKINS Preface to the Reader VPon your preface to the Reader I will not stand because it toucheth no point of controuersie let it be declared in your next what you meane when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with the Roman Church for if the Roman Church doth erre in the matter of faith and iustification in the number and vertue of the Sacraments in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist and an Idol to omit twentie other errors in substantiall points of faith as in this your small discourse you would perswade there will remaine verie few necessarie heads of Religion for them to agree in And be you well assured that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke to a better liking of your Religion that you haue taken the high way to leade them to a farre greater dislike of it by teaching that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs For all Catholikes hold for most assured that which the most ancient learned and holy Doctor Athanasius in his Creed deliuereth in the 2. verse Which Catholike faith vnlesse euerie man obserue wholy and inuiolably not omitting or sh inking from any one article of it without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly If S. Basil that reuerend and blessed Father of the Church doth hold it the duty of euerie good Christian rather to loose hiâ— life then to condescend to the alteration of any one syllable in matter of faith Theod. 4. his cap. 17. you may be sure that we Catholikes cannot but cary a very base conceipt of your doctrine who go about vnder the ouerworne and threedbare cloake of reformation to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion specially when they shall perceiuâ— the most points of your pretended reformation to be nothing else but ld â—otten condemned heresies new scoured vp and furbushed and so â—â—shew made more saleable vnto the vnskilfull as in this treatise shall be proued in euerie Chapter R. ABBOT YOur demaund M. Bishop is alreadie satisfied before M. Perkins by those necessarie heads of Religion vnderstandeth such generall grounds as stand vnquestioned betwixt vs and the Romish Church which for the matters handled hee commonly setteth downe by the name of our consents in the entring of euery question There are some maine points of doctrine to which the Church of Rome subscribeth as well as we The Reformed Catholike is still to hold those though hee depart from the corruptions and abhominations to the maintenance whereof the same Church of Rome doth wickedly misapply them As for his winning of Catholikes to the liking of our Religion I assure my selfe that you M. Bishop your selfe and your friend of good intelligence and iudgement were iealous and doubtfull thereof His plaine debating
Pontifex prince of Bishops and highest Bishop directly against the decree of the African Councell one Canon whereof is that t Concil â—pâ—ric cap. 6. Vt primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodi sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus the Bishop of the first sea which was Rome should not be called prince of Bishops or highest Bishop or such like but onely the Bishop of the first sea His error therefore is apparant in this point by the sentence of the Councell but it is more absurd in some other words that he vseth howsoeuer we presume that his meaning was more tolerable then his words For to say as he doth that the Pope is u Ordine Melchisedec vnctio de Christus by order Melchisedec and by annointing Christ what construction he would make of his owne words we know not and M. Bishop by omitting those words sheweth that he was ashamed of them but we know that it soundeth little lesse then blasphemie against Christ W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholike Author flieth to a late Heretike called Ioachim and quoteth Iewel for relator of it A worshipfull testimonie of one Heretike and that vpon the report of another and he the most lying Author of these dayes As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easily be answered but because he quoteth no place I will not stand to answer it But to close vp this first combat a sentence is set downe out of the famous Martyr Irenaeus that Antichrist should be Lateinos a Romane Here be as many faults as words That learned auncient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name out of these words of the Reuelation Cap. 13. the number of the beast is 666. and obseruing the letters of the Greeke Alphabet by which they do number as we do by cyphers saith that among others the word Lateinos doth conteine those letters which amount iust to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might be Lateinos but more likely it is to be Teitan as he saith there and lastly that it is most vncertaine what his name shall be See the place gentle reader and learne to beware of such deceitfull merchants as make no conscience to corrupt the best Authors and being often warned of it will neuer learne to amend Irenaeus leaueth it most doubtfull what shall be Antichrists name And among diuerse words esteemeth Lateinos to bee the vnlikeliest And yet M. Perkins reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall bee Lateinos and then to make vp the matter turneth Lateinos a proper name with S. Irenaeus into Romane an appellatiue which noteth only his countrey Fie vpon that cause which cannot bee vpholden and maintained but by a number of such paltry shifts R. ABBOT It followeth not that euery man who in a point of doctrine conceiueth amisse is presently an heretike for so many should be heretikes both of ancienter and later writers who notwithstanding by M. Bishop himselfe are reckoned for good Catholikes Ioachim indeed deliuered against Peter Lombard a pernicious opinion concerning the godhead The councell of Laterane condemned his opinion but because he was not wilfull in his error it made no hereticke of him Therefore in that councell it is noted in the margent a Concil Lateran cap. 2. in marg Non ipse Joachim sed eius liber damnatur Not Ioachim himselfe but his booke is condemned M. Bishop therfore is too presumptuous to pronounce him an heretike whom the councell did not so pronounce M. Perkins citeth the words of Ioachim out of Bishop Iewels sermons but he is also reiected as another heretike yea and the most lying Author of these dayes But we would gladly haue M. Bishop to learne that point of honest ciuilitie and good maners not to speake so rudely of them whom he knoweth not I dare say hee neuer read Bishop Iewell nor doth know whether he tel truth or not only the Magistri nostri haue told him that so he must say And indeed it concerneth them that Bishop Iewell be taken for a lying author for if he haue reported truth then in miserable case are they But his true faithful dealing wil sufficiently iustifie it selfe to them that are carefull to learne the truth euen to the shame and confusion of these Sycophants who labour by impeaching the truth of others to gaine opinion and credit to their owne lies But for this matter if he will not take it to be true vpon Bishop Iewels report I will do him the fauour to referre him to another author who is liable to no exception That is Roger Houeden who writeth that Ioachim the Abbot in a discourse before king Richard the first of our land b Rog. Houed Annal. lib. 2. anno 1190. De isto Antichristo dicit idem Ioachim quod iaâ— natus est in ciuitate Romane in sede Apostolica sublimaintur did say concerning Antichrist that he was then borne in Rome and should be set vp aloft in the Apostolike sea Then was indeede the Bishop of Rome growne to that height of insolencie and pride as that he openly practised rebellion against the Emperour his Lord and maister Yea such was the incredible arrogancie and impudencie of this Antichristian beast as that soone after that speech of Ioachim c Idem anno 1191. Celestinus the third being to crowne the Emperour Henry the sixt tooke the Crowne betwixt his two feete and made the Emperour to bow downe that with his feete he might set it vpon his head which hauing done with one of his feet he strooke it off againe to giue him to vnderstand that it was in his power againe to bereaue him of the Crowne As for Petrarch I let him passe because though freely vttering what he thought he called Rome Babylon spake many things to touch the triple crowne yet it seemeth that for feare of displeasure hee was afterwards content to make the best of that he had sayd There remaineth onely Irenaeus who setting downe diuers coniectures as touching the name of the beast which S. Iohn saith shall containe the number 666. bringeth this for one that d λ. 30. α. 1. Ï„. 300. â— 5. ι. 10. â— 50. ο. 70. Ï‚. 200.  666. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name imported by that number and that Antichrist happily shall be knowne by that name Against this M. Bishop hath sundrie exceptions and all to little purpose First he saith that Irenaeus amongst diuerse words esteemeth Lateinos to bee the vnlikeliest But whether that be true let the Reader esteeme by Irenaeus his owne words e Jerenaeus li. 5. Sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen sexcentoruÌ„ sexaginta sex numerum habens valdè verisimile est quomam veâ—â—ssimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant sed non
legerdemaine He will not be thought captious and yet for two whole pages here in the beginning is nothing but captious His â—â—â—ing the text of M. Perkins his booke to passe whole in places indifferent is nothing but a dismembring and mangling of the text His paring off onely of superfluous words is the paring off of such arguments and authorities as he knew not how to answer His adding of annotations the sophisticating of his reader with idle and friuolous corrections His resting onely vpon points of controuersie the wresting of those things to controuersie whereof there is no controuersie at all M. Perkins defineth Freewill to be a mixt power of the minde and will of man whereby esteeming what is good and what is euill he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same A little to please himselfe hee giueth a snatch at this definition of Free will as not formal enough onely to shew himselfe more formall then wise the definition being more fitly expressed then that which he hath put in place of it and he honestly is content because it is more popular to let it passe Whereas M. Perkins in his first conclusion affirmeth in the first estate of man as he was created a libertie of nature M. Bishop giueth thereof this learned note that this libertie preceeded not from mans owne nature but from originall iustice wherein he was created as if he should say that the shining of the Sunne proceedeth not from the nature of the Sunne but from the light of it whereas the light is a part of the nature of the Sunne as was originall iustice a part of the nature of man being the a Ephes 4.24 image and likenesse of God in which and according to which he was created And to say that Free will did proceed from originall iustice is wholy against himselfe because it must thereof follow that in the fall of originall iustice must needs be implied the losse of Free wil which cannot stand without that from which it doth proceed so that man in his fall must necessarily be sayd to haue lost his Free will But he should rather haue sayd that God gaue vnto man Free will as the steward and disposer of originall iustice and righteousnesse and as b Tertul adu Marcion lib. 2. Libertas potestas arbitrij quasi ubripens emancipatia deo boni the ballance to turne either to or fro the benefit that God had put into the hands and power of man In the third estate of man as he is renewed M. Perkins affirmeth libertie of grace Carry this in minde saith M. Bishop that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will As though either he or any of vs had made question thereof who all acknowledge by the Gospell that it is the worke of Christ c Iohn 8.36 to make vs free d Rom 6 18. free from sinne e Cap. 8.21 free from the bondage of corruption that in holinesse wee may bee seruants vnto God Nay that the reader may the more cleerly conceiue the truth of this whole matter we deny not Free will in any estate of man For it is true which S. Austin saith f August de ciuit dei lib 5. cap. 10. Necesse est esse vt cùm volumus libero velimus arbitrio that whatsoeuer we will we will the same by Free will because the will is not subiect to compulsion but willeth alwayes freely and of it owne accord or else looseth the nature and name of will Which freedome of will by originall institution stood indifferent either to good or euill yet was not to continue so but vpon election once made to be free onely in that whereto of it selfe it should betake it selfe free onely in euill if it should apply it selfe to euill free only in good if it should make choise to continue therein Therefore the Angels which kept their originall habitation and estate haue their g Bernard de grat liâ— arb Angeli sancti ita sunt boni vt non possuit esse â—â—ali Free wil by Gods election and grace stablished in goodnes so that it is not inclineable to any thing that is euill But the Angels which sinned and abode not in the truth haue their Free will by it selfe and of it selfe h Ibâ—d praeuaricatores angeli ita sunt mali vt 〈◊〉 non valeant esse boni obdured and hardened in that that is euill so that it is not at all appliable to any thing that is good Man therefore by sinne hath not lost Free will for by i August cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 1. cap 2 Liberum arbitrium vsque aâ—â—o in peccatore non perijâ— vt per illud peccant maximè omnes qui cum delectatione peccant lib. 3. ca. 8 Non nisi ad peccatuâ— vâ—let Free wil it is that now he sinneth yea and can nothing but sinne But this Free will that is thus free in sinne hath no freedome at all as S. Austin in sundry places expresseth to righteousnesse and to the seruice of God vntill it be rectified and made free by Iesus Christ no freedome or power at all but what is newly and meerely k Idem de peccat mer. rem lib. 2. cap. 6. Ipsum liberum arbitrium ad dei gratiam hoc est ad Dei dona pertinere non ambigens c. the grace and gift of God Therfore hauing affirmed the freedome of the will to sinne he addeth that l Cont 2. epist Pelag. l. 3. cap. 8. Ad iustitiam nisi diuinitùs liberatum aduitumque non valet to righteousnesse but as it is made free and helped of God it auaileth nothing m Ibid. lib. 4 ca. 8 Quid mihi obiâ—â—dâ—s liberum arbitrium quod ad faciendam iustitiam liberum non erit nisi ouis fuerit Qui facit igitur òues homines ipse ad obedientiam pietatie humanas liberat voluntates What tellest thou me of Free will saith he which to the doing of righteousnesse shall not be free except thou become a sheepe of Gods he then who of men maketh his sheepe euen he maketh the wils of men Free to the obedience of godlinesse n Epist 107. Liberum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum primi peccati granditate perdidimus antea Gratia nostrum ad de linandum à malo faciendum bonum liberatur arbitrium We lost free will to loue God by the greatnesse of the first sinne saith he but by grace our will is made free to decline from euill and do good So then we do not deny Free will to be righteousnesse but yet we haue regard to that caution which S. Austin giueth against Pelagians and Papists o Ibid. si verè volumus defenders liberum arbitrium non oppugnemus vâ—de â—ic liberum if wee will defend Free will aright not to oppugne that whence it is made free What p Cont. 2. ep Pelag. l. 4
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
c. not onely the delight but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still Whereby it appeareth that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies consents yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule such as God abhorreth albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not And this haply God would haue to be considered in that that by the law he was vncleane from whom by such fancies n Leuit. 15.16 the seed of generation had issued by night the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within And to the clearing of this whole point that sin may be where the will consenteth not we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses arising of those things which were either natural or casual without any procurement therof by the will Which Gregory plainly approueth when speaking of the womans monethly disease for which by the law she was vncleane he saith thereof that o Gregor apud Bedam hist eccles gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est videlicet quia naturaliter accidit sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus it is no sin because it commeth naturally but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted of sinne came that infirmity wherein the nature of man may take knowledge in what case it is become by the iudgement of God whilest man that sinned by his will doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will euen by p Jbid. Resp 11. in fix◠Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus the delight of concupiscence which he beareth in him against his will as he expresseth it afterward Let M. Bishop therefore learne that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature of man for that sinne that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth two as he citeth them but indeed but one and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last for in the other place Austine hath no such words He saith indeed that q August de vera relig cap. 14 suprae sect 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary and this is so manifest as that neither the small number of the learned nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom But as he saith so so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of r Retract lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne saith he which is onely sinne not which is also the punishment of sinne that is to say of Actuall not of Originall sinne But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation those words make nothing against vs albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man as before was said Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh are learned enough to see that he wanted not onely learning but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him 12. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike is this Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of Originall sinne is taken away ergo M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it which we hold to be neither the forme 1. 2. q. art 3. nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it See S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall iustice is the forme of Originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of Originall sinne which consisteth in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince R. ABBOT Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is The question then is wherin consisteth the forme of sinne what it is that giueth to it properly the nature name of sin M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion there is great reason that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth But herein appeareth their singular falshood they shew plainly that they alledge him but onely for a colour knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth their opinion cannot stand Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for thē that concupiscence is no sinne when in one meaning it is that he denieth it and they deny it in another S. Austine as before I haue shewed placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it which is to make a man guilty When it doth not so he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne opposing sinne not to righteousnesse as we vnderstand it in this question but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes He saith that a August de nupt et concup lib. 1. ca. 26. supra sect 9. to be guilty of sinne is to haue sinne not to be guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne b Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra sect 9. The baptized is without all sinne but not without all euill that is saith he he is without the guilt of all
inferreth a proportion betwixt eating and beleeuing that as he that eateth receiueth and taketh to himselfe the meat that he eateth and digesteth the same to the nourishment of euery part euen so he that beleeueth doth by his faith as the hand and mouth and stomach of the soule receiue and take vnto him Iesus Christ with all his benefits to become particularly his strength and comfort and nourishment vnto euerlasting life Now all this speech of eating and beleeuing and applying vnto vs the benefits of Christ M. Bishop saith he omitteth as an vnsauorie discourse but the reason is because pearles are vnsauorie to swine and grosse Capernaites know no eating of Christ but by the mouth nor receiuing of him but into the belly But most ridiculous is that which he addeth He might be ashamed to make this discourse vnto vs that admit no part of it to be true For so might I briefly reiect his whole booke with the same words that he might be ashamed to write the same to vs that admit no part of it to be true He should vnderstand that M. Perkins had in hand to write that that is the truth and not that that they would admit to be true who are sworne to Antichrist to maintaine his vntruthes And seeing he hath so pregnantly shewed thereby the nature of true and liuely faith not by any inuention of his owne but out of the verie words of Christ M. Bishop might himselfe be iustly ashamed to answer it so childishly and simply as he hath done I confesse sayth he that faith hath his part therein But Saint Austine attributeth to faith not onely a part therein but to be the thing it selfe euen the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ q August in Ioan. tract 26. Credere in Christum hoc est maÌ„ducare panem viuum To beleeue in Christ saith he is to eate the bread of life he that beleeueth eateth Why doth he refuse to speake as Saint Austine speaketh but that like a carnall Anthropophagus he referreth it to the mouth and to the bellie to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud not listening to that that M. Perkins had alledged vnto him out of the same Austine r Ibid. tract 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly beleeue and thou hast eaten But faith he saith hath his part therein if it be ioyned with charitie and frequentation of the Sacraments Which if of his is verie idle to vs who hold no true faith but that Å¿ Gal. 5.6 which worketh by charity and seeketh after the Sacraments as being t Rom. 4.11 the seales of the righteousnesse of faith the verie proper vse thereof is to giue particular assurance to the faithfull of the mercie of God towardes them in Iesus Christ For as in humane contracts and gifts somewhat commonly is deliuered by earnest or seale for confirming and sure-making of the maine so hath God thought good in his couenants and promises of grace to appoint his Sacraments particularly to be vsed and applied to euerie man that euerie beleeuer knowing Christ by the same Sacraments to be figured and offered vnto vs may take knowledge by the deliuerie thereof that Christ is his to eternall life by faith in his name it being in effect sayd vnto him thereby Thou belâ—euest the promises of God in Christ concerning grace and forgiuenesse of sinnes vnto euerlasting life take this for seale and assurance that by thy faith in Christ the whole benefit thereof appertaineth vnto thee Therefore Christ saith very effectually Take eate this is my body Drinke ye this is my bloud as by the Sacrament deliuering himselfe vnto vs and in himselfe the whole fruit and benefit of that that he hath done for vs. Why doth he deliuer these seales of the righteousnesse of of faith particularly vnto me but that he would haue me know that the promises of righteousnesse are thereby through my faith sealed particularly vnto me Thus therefore saith ioyned with frequentation of the Sacraments doth so much the more effectually minister vnto vs this comfort of particular assurance towards God All this is vnsauorie to M. Bishop but let vs leaue him to his acornes and draffe and let him leaue this feeding to them who therein haue learned to u 1. Pet. 2 3. tast how gracious the Lord is Now to shew that the vse of faith is to receiue M. Perkins alledgeth the words of S. Paul that x Gal. 3.14 through faith we receiue the promise of the spirit importing thereby that faith is as it were the hand into which being holden forth vnto God he giueth the spirit which he hath promised that faith apprehendeth and imbraceth the promise of God concerning this gift of his spirit and that thereby we become partakers thereof To this also M. Bishop answereth nothing onely he will seeme to alledge the words and wholy peruerteth them For whereas the Apostle maketh the spirit the thing promised he citeth the place as if the spirit were named as the promiser And whereas the Apostle speaketh as of a thing y Ibid. ver 2. alreadie performed to them to whom he wrote he citeth it as of a thing futurely to be performed and that with a condition if we obserue those things which Christ hath commanded whereas the spirit is promised not if we obserue but z Ezech. 36.27 to cause vs to keepe his statutes and obserue his iudgemens and do them Yet hereupon he demaundeth What is this to the Certaintie of Saluation I answer that it is so strong to proue the Certaintie of Saluation as that against it he could find nothing more safe for himselfe then to say nothing to it For if to beleeue in Christ be to receiue Christ and so to receiue him as that thereby we eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud the beleeuer hath this for a certaintie deliuered vnto him by Christ himselfe that he hath eternall life and that Christ will raise him vp at the last day For a Iohn 6.54 whosoever eateth my flesh satih Christ and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day The beleeuer therefore by his faith conceiueth a particular certaintie and assurance of his owne Saluation and is thereby b 1. Iohn 5.13 to know that he hath eternall life Now to shew the effect of faith M. Perkins bringeth sundrie places of Austin Ambrose Chrysostome Tertullian Bernard that by faith we touch Christ we lay hold of him we find him we see him we eate him we digest him Whereto M. Bishop answereth full wisely we find Christ we hold Christ we see Christ by faith beleeuing him to be the sonne of God and redeemer of the world and iudge of quicke and dead thereby making this finding and seeing and holding and digesting of Christ by faith to be no other thing but what is incident to the diuell because all these things the
f Aug. in Psa 83 Fides nidus est pullorum tuoruÌ„ in hoc nido operare opera tua the nest wherein we are to lay our workes that we may hatch them vnto God Faith is g Prosp de voc gen l. 1 c. 8. Fides bonae voluntatis iustae actionis est genitrix the mother of a good will and iust and righteous conuersation Our faith in Christ is h Aug. in Ps 120 Christus in corde vestro fides est Christ in vs and i Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 21. Mihi sol ille caelestis mea fide vel minuttur vel augetur that heauenly Sunne is either impaired or increased vnto me saith Ambrose according to my faith In a word S. Austin telleth vs that k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Vnde mors in anima Quia fides noÌ„ est Ergo animae tuae anima fides est faith is the soule of our soule what is that to say but the life of all our life It is faith then and not charitie that giueth influence to all the rest euen to charitie it selfe as faith increaseth so other graces are increased as faith decreaseth so other graces decrease the life of faith is our life the strength of faith is our l Cyprian ad Quirinum lib. 3. cap. 43. Tantum possumus quantum credimus strength if our faith be weake there is nothing else wherby we can be strong Therfore M. Bishop goeth much awry yet no otherwise then he is wont to do in assigning to charitie to giue the spirit of life and influence to faith when as it is by faith that we m Galath 3.14 receiue the spirit which is the author of all spiritual life and grace on which all our state dependeth towards God 24. W. BISHOP The fourth reason if faith alone do iustifie then faith alone will saue but it wil not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an innocent babe die shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shal he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therfore this first shift was very friuolous Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith alone we shal also be saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time wil reÌ„der vnto euery man according to his works But of this more amply in the question of merits R. ABBOT Tertullian rightly saith a Tertul. de poenit Horum bonorum vnus est â—itulus salâ—s hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione praemissa the saluation of man is the one title of all the benefites of God forgiuenesse of sinnes being put in the first place If saluation be the whole and iustification but a part then more is required to saluation then to iustification because more is required to the whole then to a part Vnder saluation we comprehend both iustification and sanctification in this world life and blisse eternall in the world to come The first act of our saluation is our iustification but God hauing by iustification reconciled vs vnto him goeth forward by sanctification b Col. 1 12. to make vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light To iustification belongeth only faith to sanctification all other vertues and graces wherein consisteth that c Heb. 12.14 holinesse without which no man shall see the Lord. His exception as touching infants dying after baptisme is very idle They are not onely iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctified by the spirit of grace neither is there any man iustified to the title of eternall life but the same is together also sanctified to the possession thereof and therfore hath more to saluation then onely iustification But as touching the verie point his minor proposition is false We say that we are saued also by faith onely according to that that before I alledged out of Origen that d Origen in Ro. cap. 3 sup sect 21 for faith only Christ said to the woman Thy faith hath saued thee Hath saued thee saith he as a thing alreadie done according to the vsuall phrase of the Scripture in that behalfe For so it is said of Zacheus e Luk. 19.9 This day saluation is come to this house So saith the Apostle f 2. Tim. 1.9 He hath saued vs and called vs with a holy calling g Tit. 3.5 of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. The reason whereof is because in iustification as I haue sayd our saluation is begun and in that we are iustified we are saued Christ therein being giuen vs and in him the interest and title of eternall life thenceforth by that right onely to be continued and performed vnto vs. Being then iustified by faith alone we are saued by faith alone the gift of sanctification to holinesse and good works being necessarily coÌ„sequent not as by vertue wherof we are to be saued whom the Scripture pronounceth to be already saued but as the processe of Gods worke for accomplishment of that saluation whereto in iustification we are begotten and in way of inheritaÌ„ce intitled by faith alone We are saued by faith alone saith M. Perkins because faith alone is the instrument whereby we apprehend Christ who onely is our saluation Where obserue gentle Reader what M. Bishop maketh of that speech that for faith alone we are saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Os impudens Where doth M. Perkins say that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement What a Doctor of diuinitie to lye wilfully to lye What is this but meere varletrie to abuse his Reader not being carefull haply to looke into M. Perkins booke but taking it vpon his word But if thou haue M. Perkins booke I pray thee to looke to the obiections and answers set down in the end of this question of Iustification which M. Bishop hath vnhonestly left out and there in the answer to the sixt Obiection thou shalt find these words In equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life By which words thou mayest esteeme how little faith or credite is to be yeelded to this wretched man who doubteth not here with manifest falshood to affime that M. Perkins saith that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement And by the same words the solution is
example of outward life To inward holinesse and purity the other part of the sentence is to be referred He that is holy let him be sanctified still that is let him adde to his sanctification let him be more and more renewed let him still be a Ephe. 4.22.24 putting off the old man and putting on the new let him still b 2. Cor. 7.1 clense himselfe from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit and finish or perfect his sanctification in the feare of God S. Iohn would not by both those speeches import one thing therfore seeing the latter without doubt importeth inward righteousnesse the other must needs be applied to outward workes As for that of Ecclesiasticus it is nothing to vs who admit no canonicall authority of that booke yet it prooueth nothing for M. Bishop nor against vs the words truly translated being these c Eccles 18.21 deferre not till death to be iustified that is put not off till death to repent to seeke forgiuenesse of thy sinnes according to that which in the former verse he hath said d Ver. 20. Humble thy self before thou be sicke whilest thou maiest yet sinne shew thy conuersion Here is nothing at all to prooue two iustifications in that sence that we here speake of as whereby a man being first iust becoÌ„meth more iust before the iudgement seat of God Increase growth of inherent righteousnesse we ackowledge and require in all faithfull Christians and his paines is idlely bestowed in the proofe thereof We know what our Sauiour saith e Iohn 15.2 Euery one that beareth fruit in me the Father purgeth that he may bring forth more fruit what S. Peter exhorteth f 2. Per. 3.18 to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ We teach men to say with S. Paul g Phil. 3.12 Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect but one thing I do I forget that which is behind endeauour my selfe to that which is before and follow hard towards the mark c. We teach with S. Bernard h Bernard in Purif ser 3. In viae vitae non progredi est regredi In the way of life not to go forward is to go backward and againe i Epist 123. Nolle proficere est deficere not to increase is to decrease k Epist 91. Vbi incipis noâ—e fieri melior 〈◊〉 etiâ—m dâ—sinis esse iâ—â—us where a man beginneth not to care to be better there he giueth ouer being good at all He need not therefore to prooue this matter vnto vs who teach it much more faithfully carefully then they do The place of Iames prooueth no other iustification but what we confesse that is an approouing declaring of his faith and iustification His works are a testimony that the Scripture hath truly rightly said of him l Iam. 2.23 Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnes Now M. Bishop should haue told vs in what other meaning it can be taken that S. Iames saith that in his workes the Scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse For if his workes were but the fulfilling of that Scripture how absurdly doth Maister Bishop go about to prooue in his workes an augmentation of that which by that Scripture is imported formerly to be done If his workes were but the fulfilling of that that was said of his iustification before how doth he thereby seeke to proue a second iustification Now the former testimonie of his iustification is to be considered which was long after Gods first calling of him m Gen. 12. seq when he had shewed his singular faith and obedience vnto God in going out of his owne country at the word of God when he had long called vpon the name of the Lord built many altars vnto him done him much seruice when he had long trauelled from place to place vnder his protection For after all this yet was he not iustified by his workes but onely of his n Gen. 15.6 beleeuing the Lord it is testified that it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse We would haue M. Bishop to tell vs whether Abraham before the time that this testimonie was giuen him were a iustified man or not he cannot deny it because Abraham had done many good works and he hath before said that there can be no good workes before the first iustification If he were iustified before then it appeareth that to a man already iustified not his workes but his faith is counted for righteousnes and because it cannot be thought that by one meanes he was iustified before and by another now it must needes be that as before to be iustified so now still being iustified his faith is counted to him for righteousnesse according as it is written o Hab. 2.4 The iust shall liue by faith Now if after he were iustified he did continue stil to be iustified by faith then to speake properly as we do of iustification in the sight of God there is one onely iustification whereby a mans p Rom. 4 5. faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse as the Apostle speaketh It must needes therefore follow that S. Iames speaketh of iustification in some other meaning then the Apostle S. Paule doth what that meaning is let him learne not of vs but of the auncient Church q Phot. apud Oecum in Rom. cap. 4. Non habuit Abrahâ—m opera absit Opera siquidem habuit vt si cum hominibus qui simul cum eo versabantur fuisset in iudicio constitutus facilè iustificatus fuisset illisque antepositus verum vt coram Deo ex suis operibus iustificaretur tanquam dignus aequalis sese praebens dignitatis cum ea quae inde praebebatur beneficentia dono nequaquam fuisset illam assecutus Vnde ergo bâ— dignus est habituâ— ex sola fide c. Solutio patet ex bu quomodo hiâ— quidem Paulus ex fide ait iustificatum fuisse Abraham diuus autem Iaâ—obus ex operibus Had Abraham no workes saith Photius God forbid Verily he had workes so as that if he had bene brought in iudgement with the men with whom he liued he had easily bene iustified and preferred before them but that by his workes he should be iustified before God as worthie of the dignitie kindnesse and gift that was yeelded vnto him he would neuer haue attained to it but he had it by faith onely Hereby saith he the resolution is manifest how Saint Paule saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and Saint Iames that he was iustified by workes Here is a plaine distinction and difference deliuered that Saint Paule saith that by faith only a man is iustified before God but that it is before men with men that S. Iames meaneth a man is iustified by workes And this
third reason is taken from the imperfection of our knowledge for it cannot be but our faith our loue our repentance our sanctification must be vnperfect so long as we haue but vnperfect knowledge to direct vs in all these things M. Bishops answer to this consisteth of two parts the one whereof is an acknowledgement against himselfe the other an assertion of apparent and manifest vntruth I would to God saith he our workes were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they be He confesseth then that our workes are not perfect according to that that we do know and if they be vnperfect to that knowledge that we haue and our knowledge come farre short of that concerneth vs by the lawe then must our workes be very farre from perfection and we farre from being truly said to fulfill the law But M. Bishop according to his skill denieth in the second part of his answer that our knowledge is vnperfect expresly contrarie to that which the Apostle saith f 1. Cor 13.9.12 We know in part we prophecie in part we see through a glasse darkely We find it and know it that there are many ignorances and errors in the best g August de spir lit ca. 36. In multis offendimus omnes duÌ„ putamus Deo quem diligimus plâ—eâ—re vel non displicere quod facimus postea cùm didicerimus quòd non placeat poenitendo deprecamur vt ignoscat We all saith S. Austine offend in many things whilest we thinke that that which we do either pleaseth God or doth not displease him when as afterwards we learne that it is not pleasing vnto him and do repent thereof h Idem soliloq cap. 1. Quisquic cognoscit te amat te plusquaÌ„ se relinquit se venit ad te vt gaudeat de te Hinc est Domine quòd non tantùm diligo quantum debeo quia non plenè cognosco te Quia parùm cognosco parum diligo quia parum te diligo parum gaudeo in te He that knoweth thee saith he in another place loueth thee more then himselfe and leaueth himselfe to come vnto thee that he may reioyce in thee Hence is it Lord that I loue thee not so much as I ought to do because I do not fully know thee because I know thee but a little I loue thee but a little and therefore do but a little reioyce in thee There is no man in this life that knoweth himselfe but knoweth well that he hath cause to pray still with the Prophet Dauid i Psal 119.12 Teach me thy statutes k Ver. 33. teach me O Lord the way of thy statutes l Ver. 73. giue me vnderstanding that I may learne thy commandements m Ver. 127. grant me vnderstanding that I may know thy testimonies If so great a Prophet were still to be taught were still to learne were still begging of God the vnderstanding and knowledge of his commandements how vaine a man is M. Bishop to make it so possible a matter for a man being yet couered in part with the veile of flesh to attaine to the full and perfect knowledge of the lawe Of this argument he saith that it is impeâ—tinent but giueth no reason why he so saith Saint Austine against the assertion of perfection in this life n August de spir lit cap. 36. produceth imperfection of knowledge as an impediment thereof and Hierome saith o Hier. ad Pela lib 1. Nullus sanctorum in isto corpusâ—ulo cunctas potest habere virtutes quia ex parte cognoscimus c. that no man in this body can haue all vertues because we know but in part and prophecie but in part and if imperfection of knowledge do hinder vertue and the perfect fulfilling of the law how doth he make it an argument impertinent to say Our knowledge is yet vnperfect therefore we are yet vnperfect to the fulfilling of the law But we must pardoÌ„ his vnperfect knowledge which if it had bin according to his will vndoubtedly we should haue seene some more skill in his answers then now we do M. Perkins fourth and last reason is taken from that that before hath bin said that the regenerate man in this life is still partly flesh and not wholly spirituall and therefore his best workes sauor partly of the flesh Not so saith M. Bishop if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit But I answer him Yes euen so because though by the spirit we mortifie the deedes of the flesh yet we do not thereby put off the flesh nor so subdue it but that it p Gal. 5.17 lusteth against the spirit so as that we cannot do the things that we would and therefore cannot fulfill the law Now if we attaine not to that that we would our will also being yet vnperfect so that we will not so perfectly as we should how farre must we needes thinke our selues to be from that integritie and vprightnesse which we shold performe according to the perfect rule of righteousnesse that is laid before vs in the law But of this further when we come to the point as touching the perfection and purity of our workes 39. W. BISHOP But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Act. 1.15 Why go ye about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples necks which neither we nor our Fathers were able to beare these words were spoken of the lawe of Moyses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answer first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and cumberous by reason of the multitude of their sacrifices sacraments and ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sence it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done Ios 11. 3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. 4. Reg. 23. Luk. 1. are now and then called impossible Now that Iosue Dauid Iosias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept R. ABBOT A more trifler then M. Bishop I thinke is seldome to be found If M. Perkins arguments were as trifling as he hath giuen them answers he might haue done well to haue spared his labor bestowed in the writing of that booke Before he haue giuen any one good answer to the reasons onely by the way alledged by M. Perkins he taketh vpon him to bring other of his owne indeed out of our books that he may shew himselfe as wise in answering the one as he hath done alreadie in the other We are wont to alledge the words of S. Peter that a Act.
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
one of vs. Where my portion raigneth I beleeue that I also raigne where my bloud ruleth I beleeue that I also haue dominion where my flesh is glorified I know that I also am glorious Albeit I be a sinner yet I doubt not of this fellowship of grace Albeit my sinnes hold backe yet my substance namely being now of his flesh and his bones requireth it Albeit mine owne defaults doe exclude me yet fellowship of nature putteth mee not away I might despaire because of my exceeding great sinnes and corruptions my defaults and infinite negligences which I haue committed and dayly without ceasing doe commit in thought and word and worke and euery way that humane frailtie can sinne but that thy Word O my God became flesh and dwelt amongst vs. But now I dare not despaire because he being obedient vnto thee vnto death euen the death of the crosse hath taken away the hand-writing of our sinnes and fastening it to the crosse hath crucified sinne and death Now securely I take breath and heart againe in him who sitteth at thy right hand and maketh intercession for vs. By these words and many other that might be alledged out of that booke the Reader may iudge of the construction that M. Bishop maketh of the words cited by M. Perkins We see nothing here but confession of sinnes in himselfe no other hope but onely forgiuenes of sins in Christ Surely these are not the speeches of a man dreaming of an ablenesse giuen vnto him to deserue eternall life No no it was neuer heard of in the world that the meaning of these words My hope is wholly in the death and merite of Christ should be that we hope to be able by Christ to merite and deserue saluation vntill these brazen faced hypocrites were hired and set to worke by Antichrist for the confusion of soules by making them to leane vpon the broken staffe of their owne merites in steed of the onely sauing merite of the bloud of Christ The faithful haue alwayes in their end betaken themselues to this hold and many returning vnto God euen at the last gaspe hauing nothing in themselues to comfort themselues haue securely reposed their hope in the merit and death of Christ and with ioy and comfort haue gone to God who if they had vnderstood hope in Christ according to M. Bishops exposition thereof of being to be made able by Christ to merite heauen would haue bene rent and torne in peeces with perplexitie and feare neither could haue conceiued any comfort thereof at all But let him alone he shall one day vnderstand the vntruth of his answer when he shall be glad to make vse of those words which we haue spoken of or the like without that good sence as hee calleth it which now his senslesse and dead heart imagineth of them The place of Basil is as cleare as the light yet he laboureth to cast a mist before it also but cannot so doe it but that hee is forced in part to acknowledge the truth on our behalfe k Basil in Psal 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is layd vp eternall rest saith he for them that striue lawfully in this life not to be rendered according to debt for workes but prouided according to the grace of the bountifull God for them that trust in him Where apparently Basill alludeth to the words of the Apostle l Rom. 44. To him that worketh that is to him that hath the righteousnes of workes the reward is not imputed * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by fauour but by debt and therefore the phrases being borowed from the Apostle must with him haue the same meaning as with the Apostle they haue His meaning then is plaine that that eternall rest is not rendered by way of debt but by way of fauour and grace and neuer hath any ecclesiasticall writer vnderstood those phrases otherwise Onely M. Bishop telleth vs that Basils meaning is that it is not rendered according to the debt of workes that is according to the iust rate of workes but in a fuller measure and aboue our merites But his masters of Rhemes reiect this commentary of his and doe tell him that our workes are m Rhem. Testam Annot. 2. Tim. 4. fully worthy of euerlasting life God then doth not exceed the rate of our workes as they say but giueth onely what we are fully worthy of what we fully and iustly merite and deserue thereby Yea and they saw well that to teach otherwise as M. Bishop doth is to ouerthrow merite For if God do giue vs aboue our merits then we do not merite that which God giueth or if we do merite it then it cannot be sayd to be aboue our merites But it is aboue our merites sayth M. Bishop therefore it followeth necessarily that we doe not merite or deserue it Yea wee haue seene before out of Fulgentius and Bernard that Gods reward doth so incomparably exceede all the merite and worke of man as that eternall life is not due thereunto by right neither should God doe any wrong if hee did not giue it and therefore the sentence of Basill is true according to the Apostles intendment of those termes which he vseth that eternall life is not rendered by way of debt for workes but by grace that is freely bestowed to them that trust in him M. Bishop telleth vs that hee maketh eternall life to be the prize of the combat but what of that seeing hee giueth vs to vnderstand that this prize is with fauour and mercie proposed and with the same mercie and fauour rendered to them that fight the combat Therefore hee sayth in another place n Basil de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is nothing left thee O man to glorie of whose glorying and hope consisteth in this that thou mortifie all that is thine and seeke in Christ the life to come whereof hauing the first fruites we are now therein liuing wholly by the grace and gift of God There is then with Basil no merit no debt in any sort because we liue wholy by the grace and gift of God so that M. Bishops exposition is but a meere falsification of Basils words M. Perkins further alledgeth a saying of Austin He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits M. Bishop answereth that S. Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. He questioneth the matter What congruitie is it to say thus He directeth a better forme of speech It had bene better sayd thus Now if the sentence be S. Austins what will men but take M. Bishop for a foole that wold so vnaduisedly befoole S. Austin and take vpon him to correct his words when he had no cause The place indeed is misquoted either by M. Perkins mistaking or by the ouersight of the Printer for in steed of Psal 102. he hath quoted Psal 120. by misplacing of the figure a very small and easie ouersight But S.
b Gal. 6.5 Euery man shall beare his owne burden it had bene his part to make it plaine first that the burden there spoken of is to be vnderstood of temporall afflictions Secondly if it be so to be vnderstood he should againe haue told vs how it followeth that those afflictions must necessarily be taken to be satisfactions Thirdly if they be satisfactions it would haue bene considered how this place standeth with the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome which the Apostle saying Euery man shall beare his owne burden that is if we beleeue M. Bishop shall satisfie for himselfe doth notwithstanding appoint one man to beare the burden and satisfactions of another If euery man beare his owne burden why doth the Pope pretend by his Pardons to impart to one man the satisfactions of another or if the Pope doe thereby impart the satisfactions of Saints and Martyrs to the helpe of those that want why doth Maister Bishop tell vs that of temporall satisfactions it is said that euery man shall beare his owne burden But thus he is wont to cite texts at all aduenture be they with him or against him all is one they helpe to fill vp a booke and that is enough for his purpose But the meaning of those words plainely appeareth out of the circumstance of the place The Apostle labouring to withdraw men from iudging and condemning others and from iustifying themselues by measuring comparing themselues to them whom they condemned wisheth euery man to consider himselfe in himselfe to make triall of his owne worke not to content himselfe for that he seemeth to himself to be preferred before another but to endeuour without comparison to others to be approued in himselfe To this meaning are these words c 〈◊〉 ◠Let euery man proue his own worke then shall he haue reioycing in himselfe and not in another For reason hereof he addeth for euery man shall beare his owne burden as if he should say It concerneth not one man what another is the burdening of another shall be no disburdening of thee what is amisse in him he shall answer for himselfe but looke thou to thine owne burden for whatsoeuer it is thou shalt answer to God for it The burden then which the Apostle speaketh of is as Thomas Aquinas saith d Tho. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 6. lect 1. Onus reddendae rationis c. in die iudicij the burden of our reckoning account to be made vnto God at the day of iudgment and his words are to the very same meaning as elsewhere he saith e Rom. 14.12 Euery one of vs shall giue accounts of himselfe to God So that M. Bishops argument falleth out in the end to be this Euery man at the day of iudgement must giue reckoning to God for himselfe Therefore Christ hath left vs to make temporal satisfaction to God for our owne sinnes Thou must take it as it is gentle Reader for he can make it no better then it will be denie his argument and he hath no more to say 3 W. BISHOP Nay saith M. Perkins we must then be new Christes and Redeemers and Priests of the same order with himselfe Nothing so but hauing grace from him we may in vertue thereof satisfie not for the crime it selfe or euerlasting punishment which is linked with it because that would require an infinite vertue but for the tēporall pain of it one indued with grace may satisfie for the measure of stripes must not exceede the rate of the fault the punishment then resting vnsatisfied being limited a creature may pay it And that the Reader may better perceiue what we meane by the temporall paine let him consider that in sin are two things the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning vnto the thing for the loue of which we offend as for glory lust lucre or such like the sinner transgresseth now when he is by the grace of God conuerted his turning away from God both the sin and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure which he tooke in the sin the man himselfe is to satisfie and so according vnto the greatnesse of that his pleasure he is to do pennance R. ABBOT M. Perkins gaue argument and reason of that which he said but M. Bishop like a reasonlesse man without giuing any reason affirmeth that againe against which M. Perkins argued He rightly alledgeth that no part of the Priesthood of Christ can be said to haue passed from him to vs that to make satisfaction for sinnes whether temporally or eternally is a part of the Priesthood of Christ and therefore that it is not a thing passed from him to vs to make satisfaction for our sinnes Againe to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer high Priest is to make vs Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues But to attribute to vs to make fatisfaction for sinnes either temporally or eternally is to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer and high Priest It is therfore the same as to affirme vs to be Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues M. Bishop answereth ridiculously and childishly Not so but Christ hath satisfied for the eternall punishment which required an infinite vertue as for the temporall paine it may be satisfied by vs. But what is here for exception to our collection that sith the name office of Christ of a Redeemer and Priest standeth in satisfying for sinne therefore if we be said to satisfie temporally for our selues then as Christ is our Christ Redeemer and Priest in respect of satisfying for the eternall punishment of our sinnes so we are Christs Redeemers and Priests for our selues in respect of making temporally an attonement for our selues But that it belongeth to the Priesthood of Christ to make attonement for temporall punishments is plaine in the law where we reade that the plague being begun the high Priest in figure of our high Priest Iesus Christ maketh attonement for the staying of it a Numb 16.46 Take the censer saith Moses to Aaron and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein Incense and go quickly to the Cōgregation and make an attonement for thē for there is wrath gone out frō the Lord the plague is begun He did so the plague was staid The like we see in the plague that followed vpō Dauids numbring of the people b 2. Sam. 24.25 he offered burnt offerings peace offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the land and the plague ceased frō Israel And hereby we vnderstād that all the sacrifices of the law wherin c August Enchirid cap. 33. Singulare sacrificium Christi cuius erant vmbrae omnia sacrificia legis prophetarum Christ was alwaies set before them had a respect of appeasing the wrath of God not onely for euerlasting
because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture we receiue it with his praise but what agreeth not by his leaue we refuse it Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull that p Cyprian de orat Dom. Ipsum habemus apud PatreÌ„ AduocatuÌ„ pro peccatis nostris we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life we dare not conceiue howsoeuer his words be very harsh that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do but in the bloud of Christ he saith in another place c Idem ser de ablut pedum Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi cùm diceres mihi Reuertere non sum reuersus cùm minareris non timâ—â— cùm bonus esses lenis exasperans fui Vltra septuagies septies in coelum coram te peccaui Quis tot sordes abluet quiâ— abradet stercora coÌ„globata Quicquid dicat Petrus necesse est vt ipse nos abluas neque enim lauare nos possumus sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus c. Apud te fons vitae est et miserationum quae à seculo sunâ— profunditas infinita abluisti nos baptismo lauasti sanguine tuo semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando O mercifull Lord how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine how often O holy Lord haue I despised thy commaundements and when thou saidst vnto me Returne I haue not returned when thou threatnedst I feared not when thou wast good and gentle I haue prouoked thee beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee Who shall wash away so much filth who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together Let Peter say what he will in refusing to be washed we haue need that thou wash vs for we cannot wash our selues but in all things that we do we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie With thee is the well of life and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting thou hast washed vs in baptisme thou hast washed vs in thy bloud thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes but in the forgiuenesse of our sins He confesseth that in all that we do we stand in need of pardon and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ albeit being instant and earnest as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren are the true fruites and effects the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy and therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs but for Christs sake whom by our workes we shew that we vnfainedly seeke and do truly beleeue in him And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth though by error of the scribe perhaps it be that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie yet these words not being found in Tobie and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes but forcing the text and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth Which words of Solomon if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed d Prou. 16.6 In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen that is where mercy and truth are there is forgiuenesse of sinnes as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him he addeth for the cause thereof e Psal 85.10 Mercie and truth are met together Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith f Iohn 1.17 Grace and truth that is mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen not by any merite or worke of ours not by any satisfaction that we can make but by the mercie of God truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith the auncient Church testifying of it and the rest of the same sort as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded that g Hieron prolog galeat Igitur sapientia Solomonis Jesu filij Sirach liber Iudith Tobias non sunt in Canone Sic Ruffin in expos Symb. they are not canonicall and S. Austine affirming that h August deciuit Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictâ—resnoÌ„ tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Canoâ—e Iudaeâ—rum the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning as I haue before expressed that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and
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.
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
the written word i Tertul aduers Hermog Adoro scripturae plemdinem c. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non sit scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum I reuerence the fulnesse or perfection of the Scripture saith Tertullian Let the schoole of Hermogenes shew me that that which he saith is written if it be not written let him feare the wo that is appointed to them that adde or take away And so Basil saith that k Basil ser de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbia virium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est cùm Dominus dicat Oues meae vocem meam audiunt alienum autâ—m non sequuntur Apostolus per humanum exemplum vehemeÌ„tèr prohibeat aliquid in diuinis scripturis vel addere vel demere cum dicit Hominis quidem Testamentum c. it is a manifest falling from faith and an apparent sinne of pride either to refuse any thing that the Scripture hath or to bring in any thing that is not written seeing our Lord Iesus Christ saith My sheepe heare my voice they do not follow a stranger and the Apostle by a humane example greatly forbiddeth in the holy Scriptures either to adde any thing or take away when he saith A mans testament when it is coÌ„firmed no man refuseth or addeth any thing to it Hereby then it is plaine that the forbidding to adde or take away hath reference to the written word of God and therefore that the doctrine of faith and religion is to be taken from thence onely and nothing therin to be admitted but what hath the warrant of the holy Scriptures 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins His 2. testimony * Esa 8.20 To the law and testimony if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth saith M.P. what is to be done in cases of difficulty men must not run to the Wisards and Southsayers but to the law and to the testimony commending the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer Answ By the law and testimony in that place the 5. bookes of Moses are to be vnderstood if that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles what Wizard would haue reasoned in such sort The Prophet willeth here that the Israelites who wanted wit to discerne whether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell then vnto Wizards and Soothsayers do see what is written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting-Wizards which is there plainely forbidden in diuerse places Now out of one particular case whereof there is expresse mention in the written word to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blind Israelites R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had thought himselfe to be so wise as M. Bishop doth himselfe we should certainely haue condemned him for a wizard what we thinke of M. Bishop in the meane time we leaue it to him to consider of The Prophet in the place alledged dehorteth the faithfull from yeelding to the wicked motions and counsels of hypocrites and vnbeleeuers who casting away all trust and confidence in God and relinquishing the yoke of obedience to him sought by other helpes and meanes to secure and establish themselues against the daungers which they imagined to themselues who as they had giuen themselues ouer to idolatrie so followed the course of idolaters in this behalfe and for aduice and direction in such things as concerned theÌ„ for their safetie they sought taught one another to seeke to Southsayers and such as vsed familiar spirits and tooke vpon them to call vp the soules of dead men to giue answer to such things as should be demanded of theÌ„ By them they would be instructed what to do and what course to take for their owne good hereby were hardened in their abhominations and apostacie froÌ„ God to the further prouocation of his wrath against themselues He therefore aduertiseth the faithfull and godly not to ioyne with them in any such doings but when they shold perswade them to enquire of any such wicked persons rather to answer them a Esa 8.19 Should not a people enquire at their God Euery nation seeketh to their owne God The Lord is your God will ye not seeke to him will ye go for the liuing to them that are dead Hereupon he addeth the words here questioned b Vers 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Wherin he giueth to the people of God a generall direction to go to the law to the testimony to be instructed what waies they ought to walke in and to hearken to none to follow none but only such as speake vnto them according to that word The Prophets of God called men one way false Prophets wizards and Southsayers called men another way he teacheth them therefore a sure way to know to whom to commit themselues by considering who spake according to that word Now to this the wizard giueth vs a wizard like answer that the Prophets willed them to see what was written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting wizards So then there is no more here said but this that if the wizards do not say vnto theÌ„ that they are not to consult with wizards it is because there is no light in them and who but a wizard would haue made such a construction of the place The Prophet teacheth them in generall to seeke to the law of God for aduice and answer of such things as touching which they went to consult with wizards southsayers to be directed thereby in seeking to prouide for their owne safetie thence to take resolution of their doubts and to take it for certain that they led them in darknesse whosoeuer should draw them to other waies then could be warranted thereby c Basil in Esa cap. 8. Vnaquaeque natiorem ambagiosam quaestionem de quae cupiebat edoceri suo proporebat Deo dissoluendaÌ„ Quos supponebaÌ„t esse Deos his offerebant diluendas inquisitiones suas Euery nation saith Basil vpon that place did propound to their God the doubt and question wherof they desired to be taught to haue resolution thereof whom they tooke to be gods to them they offred their questions to be answered Therfore he sheweth that the people of God for answer of their doubts should go to God in going to the law and to the testimony d Aducit Deus legem velut manuductionem viam tibi praemumentem Vis certò persuaderi quae sint futura Prouide
which were before written by Moses and the Prophets who all prophecied of the Messias the Christ and annointed of the Lord in whom God should be God with vs who should procure our peace with God the remission of our sins and euerlasting blisse m Rom. 1.2 In their writings the Gospell was promised n Cap. 3.21 they testified the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ to all and vpon all that do beleeue o Act. 10.43 they gaue witnesse that through his name euery one that beleeueth in him should haue forgiuenesse of sinnes by them the doctrine of saluation was from time to time published to the Church The perfection and accomplishment of this hope depended vpon the incarnation death and resurrection of Iesus Christ These things in the p Gal. 4.4 fulnesse of time God made good he sent his Son made of a woman and made vnder the law to redeeme them that were vnder the law who to that end q 1. Cor. 15.3 died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures and was buried and arose the third day according to the Scriptures It remained now that it should be knowne that this was he whom the Father had sealed and sent for the working of our redemption Therefore S. Iohn to that effect saith These things are writtē that ye may beleeue that this Iesus is that Messias that Christ r Ioh. 1.41.45 of whom Moses in the law and of whom the Prophets did write the hope of the Fathers the light of the Gentiles the glory of Israel that so beleeuing ye may according to the promise of God haue life through his name Albeit therefore he hath in his Gospell cōprehended the summe of all that we beleeue yet we may conceiue that he vseth those words not so much to set forth the fulnes of that that he himselfe hath written as to signifie that he hath sufficiently set foorth the accomplishment of those things which were written by Moses the Prophets in the beleefe wherof consisteth the obtaining of euerlasting life And yet thirdly without impeachment of any thing already said it is very likely that S. Iohn writing his Gospell last of al cōpiling together the 4. Gospels spake these words not only as touching that which he himself had written but also of all written by the rest of the Euangelists to signifie the vse therof in such sort as I haue said to which Cyrils words before mentioned seem to haue respect But howsoeuer we wil conceiue thereof we cannot doubt but that S. Iohn would giue to vnderstand that by the written Gospel and word of God we are sufficiently instructed to that faith in Christ whereby we attaine to liue with him As for M. Bishops question if S. Iohns gospell alone be sufficient what need the other three gospels the Acts of the Apostles c it is but his cuckoes song which he hath sung before And he may euen as well say what needed any Euangelist to write any story which another had before written whē S. Mathew had written the passiō of Christ what needed the rest to mentiō again any thing that he had written When S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians had first handled the question of iustification what need was there that he should handle it again in his Epistle to the Romanes When Dauids thanksgiuing for deliuerance from his enemies was set downe in the 18. Psalme what needed the same to be mentioned againe in the ſ 2. Sam. 22.1 second book of Samuel A number of such idle questions he might make of diuers things set downe in diuers places in the very self same words and of an infinite number of sayings which haue other to answer thē to the very same effect But the wisedom of God hath thus thought good to prouide for our saluation not onely sufficiently but abundantly by the consent of diuers persons writing diuersly in diuers places and at diuers times to confirme vs so much the more in the beleef of those things that are written to giue vs oftē occasion to remember and consider the same things to exercise our meditation and studie in comparing those things that are diuersly set downe to sharpen our diligence in searching out the accord of those things that seem to differ to set forth in the variety of his words the riches of his wisdome that there may be therin both to edify the simple and weake and yet to busie the heads and vnderstanding of the learned that it may neither be abhorred by the one nor contemned by the other For these and other causes it hath pleased God that what is written sufficiently by one should yet be writtē by other also But M. Bishop in the end howsoeuer the matter go prouideth sufficiently for himself For he telleth vs finally that although S. Iohns gospel were al-sufficient yet should not traditions be excluded And why so for Christ saith in it in plaine termes saith he that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterwards And how then must we think that he deliuered those things Marry of those high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his gospel after Christs resurrectiō and so many of them must be deliuered by tradition vnwritten Here thou seest gentle Reader a budget large inough to receiue all the Popes traditions we shal not need to doubt now but that he wil proue what he list if it be for his turne without question it was one of those things that the disciples could not beare til after Christ was risen from the dead and then he left it to them by tradition But I wold haue thee to obserue what a note S. Austin gaue long ago concerning that speech of Christ August in Ioā tract 97. Omnes insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt au dacias figmentorum suorū quas maximè exhorret sensus humanut hac occasione Euangelicae sententiae colorare conatur vbi Dominus au Adhuc multa c. quasi haec ipsa sint quae tunc discipul◠portare non poterant t All foolish heretiks who yet desire to be called Christians do seek to colour the presumptions of their deuices euē such as humane sense abhorreth by the pretence of that sentence of the Gospell where Christ saith I haue many things yet to say vnto you but ye are not yet able to beare them as if these were the things which the disciples then were not able to beare M. Bishop then by alledging this place for the making good of their traditions hath gained thus much that we must now account him as also his fellows in the like case amongst foolish heretiks who affirming wicked abhominable deuices which they cannot proue wil make vs beleeue that they are things which Christ had to say to his disciples and they were not able to beare
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
that are far spred and are growne old are not to be set vpon in this sort because by long tract and continuance of time they haue had great oportunitie to steale the truth And therefore as touching all prophane heresies and schismes that are growne old we are in no sort to do otherwise but either to conuince them if need be by onely authoritie of Scripture or else to auoyde them being aunciently conuicted and condemned by generall Councell of Catholike Bishops Where we see that Vincentius affirmeth directly contrary to that that M. Bishop reporteth of him that heresies are not alwayes to be dealt with by those rules that he hath before set downe yea that heresies that haue continued long and haue bene farre spread are no otherwise to be conuicted but by onely authoritie of Scripture And thereof he giueth reason for that they haue had time and oportunitie to falsifie the rules of faith and to corrupt the bookes and writings of the auncient Fathers which heretikes alwaies labour to do so that the doctrine of faith cannot safely be ieoparded vpon their consent Now whatsoeuer M. Bishop and his fellowes dreame of this booke this rule doth so fit vs as if Vincentius had purposely studied to instruct vs in what sort we ought to deale against them and to iustifie the course that we haue vsed in that behalfe Antichrist hath set vp his kingdome aloft in the Church and the whoore of Babylon hath sitten like a Queene for many ages past She hath fulfilled that that was prophesied of her that h Apoc. 14.8 she should make all nations to drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornications i Chap. 17.2 The Kings of the earth haue committed fornication with her and the inhabitants of the earth haue bene drunke with the wine of her fornications She hath had k Gregor lib. 4. epist. 38 Rex superbiae propè est quod dici nefas est sacordotum est praeparatus exercitus c. an armie of Priests according to the saying of Gregorie an armie of Monkes and Friers of Schoolemen and Canonists who haue bin her agents and factors for the vttering of her merchandize and the vpholding of her state They haue vsed their endeuour to the vttermost for the corrupting l Erasm Epist ad Warram Archiepis Caniuar apud Hieron of the auncient monuments of the Church They haue made away many of the writings of the Fathers they haue falsified those that remaine they haue foisted in bastards and counterfeits vnder their names Most lewdly and shamefully m Ludou Viues de caus corrupt art Adscripta sunt Origeni Cypriavo Hieronymo Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per quiâ—tem quidem in mentem venerant indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs atque illa eruditione sed etiam seruis corâ— siquos Scythas habuerunt aut Seres they haue fathered vpon Origen Hierom Cyprian Austin the rest such things as they neuer dreamed of vnworthy not only of their conceit and learning but euen of their slaues if they had any that were Scythians and Barbarians By the names of such renowmed authors they haue sought to gaine credite to deuices of their owne such as the auncient Church was neuer acquainted with Now therefore Vincentius his rule standeth good on our part that inasmch as they haue had so long time and oportunitie to steale away the truth and to falsifie the Fathers writings therefore we are to conuict them by authoritie of Scripture onely knowing it to be true which Chrysostome saith that n Chrysost oper imperf in Math. hom 49. Ex quâ— heresis obtinuit Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae diuine c Nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas c. Sciens Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in nouissimis diebus esse futuram ideo mandat vt Christiani volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas Alioqui si ad alia respexerint scandalizabuntur peribunt non intelligentes qua sit vera Ecclesia per hoc incident in abhominationem desolationis qua stabit in sanctis Ecclesiae locis since heresies haue gotten foote in the Church there is no proofe of true Christianitie nor other refuge for Christians desirous to know the truth of faith but onely the Scriptures of God no way for them that are desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures Our Lord saith he knowing that there should be so great confusion of things in the last dayes doth therefore wil that Christians desirous to receiue assurance of true faith should flie to nothing but onely to the Scriptures Otherwise if they looke to any thing else they shall stumble and perish not vnderstanding which is the true Church and thereby shall light vpon the abhomination of desolation which shall stand in the holy places of the Church Now therfore we haue done nothing but that that in the course of Christianitie is iust and right to call the triall of the controuersies and questions of religion to the authoritie of the Scriptures onely and to teach men therein onely to repose the certaintie and assurance of their faith Albeit by the singular prouidence of almightie God it hath come to passe that in antiquitie as we haue the same remaining vnto vs there is yet light sufficient to discouer the apostasies abhominations of the Church of Rome to iustifie the truth of God against their falshood and lies and to make it appeare that we do rightly and truly apply the Scriptures to the reproouing and conuincing thereof as through this whole worke is most plainly and cleerly to be seene And this is so much the more manifest for that they themselues haue bene forced to complaine that they are faine o Index Expur in castig BertraÌ„ CuÌ„ in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores extenuemus ex cusemus excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensuÌ„ affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum aduersarijs c. to beare with very many errors as they call them in the old Catholike writers and to extenuate them to excuse them by some deuised shift to denie them and to set some conuenient meaning on them when they are opposed in disputations or in conflicts with their aduersaries In many questions we shew the antiquitie the vniuersalitie the vniforme consent and agreement of the auncient church for vs and against them and it is strange to see what poore and miserable shifts yea what impudent and shamelesse deuices they are driuen to and yet cannot auaile to suppresse the light thereof In a word it is plainly found that they haue no cause to bragge of
of Tobie of Iudith are not in the Canon Thus he reckoneth the Ecclesiasticall and Apocryphall bookes vnder one name of Apocryphall Some on the other side vnder the name of Canonicall bookes contained all that were not of the last sort that is of those bastards and counterfeits which were wholy exploded and reiected out of the Church Thus S. Austin doth extending the name of Canonicall to all that was admitted publikely to be read and therefore comprehending the bookes called Ecclesiastical ioyntly vnder that name But here the name of Canonicall is not properly vsed because the Scriptures are called canonicall of being the Canon that is to say the rule of our faith which those Ecclesiasticall bookes are not as before we haue heard And what doth Austine make them all of equall and like authoritie Nothing lesse for in the first place cited by Master Bishop where he setteth all those bookes downe vnder one name of canonical he giueth this rule t Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2 ca. 8. In Scripturis canonicis ecclesiaruÌ„ Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequotur c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis vt cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesus praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt in eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat caâ— quas plures grauioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatâ— ecclesiae tonent In the Canonicall Scriptures let a man follow the authority of the greater number of catholike Churches and this course he shal hold to preferre those which are receiued of all catholike Churches before those which some do not receiue and in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those which the more Churches and of greater authority do receiue before those which are holden of the fewer and of lesser authority or account He would not haue vsed any such exception if he had taken all those bookes to be alike inspired of God and therfore doth manifestly teach vs to make some difference betwixt them and coÌ„sequently not to account the bookes of Machabees properly canonicall inasmuch as few or no Churches esteemed them so to be And this may somewhat further appeare in the second place which M. Bishop citeth where speaking of the Princes of the Iewes after the reedifying of the temple he saith u Aug. de ciu Dei lib 18. cap. 36. Quorum supputatio temporum non in Scripturis sanctis quae canonicae appellantur sed in alijs inuenitur in quibus sunt MachabaeoruÌ„ libriquos non Iudaei sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabileâ— c. The account of their termes is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called canonicall but in other bookes amongst which are the bookes of the Machabees which not the Iewes but the Church reckoneth for canonicall because of the great and wonderfull sufferings of some martyrs who before the incarnation of Christ striued euen to death for the law of God Where we see him first plainly secluding those bookes from the canonicall Scriptures according as they were secluded by the Iewes albeit withall he saith that the Church in a particular respect admitted of them as canonicall that is publikely to be read to giue knowledge of the constant suffering of some therein mentioned for the testimony of the law of God But in what sort it was that the Church admitted of them and the rest of that kind Hierome giueth vs to vnderstand x Hieron praefat in lib Solom Sicut Judith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidâ—m ecclesia sed eos inter canonicaâ— Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina sapientiae Ecclesiastici legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticâ—rum dogmatum confirmandum The Church readeth them but accounteth them not amongst the canonicall Scriptures it readeth them for the edification of the people not to confirme the authority of the doctrines of the Church And this that Hierome saith is confirmed also by Austine himselfe where he teacheth that y August de ciu Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictores non tanta firâ—â—â—â—â—â— prâ—â—eruntur quae scripta non sunt in Canone Iudaeorum those things which are not written in the canon of the Iewes are not with so great strength or authority alledged against them that contradict vs. Hereby therefore they are proued to be no canonicall Scriptures properly so called because canonicall Scriptures being the rule and measure of our faith do conuince those that contradict which S. Austine acknowledgeth these do not The third place alledged by M. Bishop helpeth yet further to cleare this matter where Gaudentius the Donatist alledging the example of Razias killing himselfe in the second booke of Machabees for defence of their Circumcellions casting themselues downe froÌ„ rocks and prouoking others to kill them that they might be accounted martyrs S. Austine first condemneth the fact which the Author of that booke commendeth and then addeth for exception further z Idem cont Epist Gaudent li. 2. ca. 23. Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum Iudaei non habent sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimoniuÌ„ perhibet tanquaÌ„ testibus suis dicens Oportebat impleri c. Sed recepta est ab ecclesia noÌ„ inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à persecutoribus tam indigna atque hâ—rrenda perpessi sunt c. This Scripture which is called of the Machabees the Iewes account not as the law and the Prophets and the Psalmes to which the Lord giueth testimony as his witnesses saying All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalmes but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard specially for those Machabees who for the law of God like true martyrs suffered so vnwoorthy and horrible things at their persecutors hands Where we see how coldly he speaketh of the receiuing of that booke as rather to excuse the Church then to defend it for so doing that it was done not vnprofitably and yet with this exception if it be soberly read and the reason of the receiuing of it not for the authority of the booke but for the story of those Machabees who there are recorded so constantly to haue suffered torments for their obseruing the law of God But withall he absolutely sheweth that those bookes are none of theÌ„ a Luk. 24.44 to which Christ gaue testimonie as his witnesses who notwithstanding calleth those witnesses by the name of b Ver. 27. all Scriptures thereby giuing fully to vnderstand that these are no Scriptures Hereby therefore we conceiue that S. Austine well discerned the defect of these bookes and rightly vnderstood that they are not so
he doth but coupleth with him those that were with him and maketh that which he saith common to them all But it is a further point of impudency in him to force that vpoÌ„ the Pope hereby which neuer any of these fathers nor any other euer imagined that he should be in Peters place the vniuersall Iudge of Christian faith so that if S. Peter who they say was Bishop of Rome before had bene dead before that councell of Hierusalem Paul the third had succeeded in his place Paul the Apostle must haue had his Gospell confirmed by Paul the Pope as impious a caitife as euer the world bred I will not stand to take any further in this filth let them lie in it that loue it and M. Bishop hauing taken vpon him to sweare whatsoeuer Bellarmine doth lie must be content to be dawbed with his dirt He goeth on and telleth vs that he could shew how euery hundred yeeres after heresies were confuted and reiected not by the written word only but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours So then they were not reiected by the sentence and declaration of any one Iudge he is now gone from that but it was by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours as all Bishops were And indeede in those first Councels the Bishop of Rome had no more to do then other Bishops yea somtimes lesse then some others to whoÌ„ the moderation of the present businesse by general consent was coÌ„mitted as in the Nicene councell to f Theod. hist li. 2. ca. 15 Cuius concilij suâ—t ille non princeps Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine aboue all the rest of the Bishops who therfore g Concil Nicen. subsâ—ript in sine subscribed first of all And as for the deciding of matters it was referred onely to the authority of the written word as appeareth in the same councel of Nice where CoÌ„stantine propoundeth this rule vnto theÌ„ h Theo. l. hist li. 1. ca. 7. Euangelici Apostolici libri necnon antiquâ—ruÌ„ Prophetarum oracula planè nos instruunt quid de rebâ—s d uiâ—is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sentiendum sit proinde posita hâ—stili discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicationeâ— quaestionum The bookes of the Euangelists Apostles as also the oracles of the old Prophets do plainly instruct vs what to think concerning Gods matters therefore setting aside all hostile discord let vs take the resolutions of our questions froÌ„ the words of the holy Ghost Their sentence therfore was but to acknowledge and pronounce the sentence which the holy Ghost had giuen in the written word no otherwise did they take vpoÌ„ them to declare it but by the same word Onely for the greater satisfaction of the Church the more fully to take away all cauillations of heretikes they alledged somtimes the testimonies of such as had bene before them to shew that by the same written word they had taught no otherwise theÌ„ they did Albeit there were not alwaies general Councels for the confuting and reiecting of heresies but many times the Pastours of the Church in their priuate writings confuted and condemned them only by the verdict sentence of the written word So Hilary only by the voice of the heauenly Iudge in the Scriptures reiected the Arian heresie i Hilar. de synod cont Arian fideÌ„ NicenaÌ„ nunquaÌ„ nisi exulaturus audiui neuer hauing heard of the Nicene definition vntill he was going into banishment for that fâ—ith Yea and after the definition of the councell S. Austin did not rest vpon their sentence but vpon the sentence of the written word and therefore saith to Maximinus the Arian k August contra Maximin lib. 3. cap. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec in debes ArimineÌ„se tanquaÌ„ praeiudicaturus proferre consiliuÌ„ Nec ego huius nec tu illius authoritate deti◠〈◊〉 â—â—ripturaruÌ„ aâ—â—tibus noÌ„ 〈◊〉 â—nque propr◠〈◊〉 â—trisque comuâ— testibus res cuÌ„ re causa cuÌ„ causa ratio cuÌ„ ratione conceriet It is not for me to alledge the councell of Nice nor for thee to alledge the councell of Ariminum neither am I bound to the authoritie of the one nor thou of the other By testimonies or authorities of Scripture not proper to either of vs but coÌ„mon to both let matter try with matter cause with cause reason with reason He knew very wel that the sentence of a councel might be questâ—â—ned also therfore that the controuersie must finally rest vpon 〈◊〉 sentence of the Scripture M. Bishop further referreth vs to Bellarmine as touching those Councels euery hundred yeeres whose instructions are needlesse to vs to certifie vs of the truth in that behalfe being otherwise better to be knowne then by any thing that he can tell vs. But I would wish that he that desireth to know the qualitie and disposition of that wretched man should throughly examine that chapter that Maister Bishop quoteth wherein he hath set downe so many apparent wilfull lies as that it may well appeare what spirit it was that led him throughout his whole bookes In the next place he telleth vs an idle tale impertinent of Basil Gregory Nazianzene of whom Ruffinus reporteth that l Ruffin lib. 2. c. 9. Omnibus GraecoruÌ„ seâ—ularium libris remotis solu diuinae Sâ—ripturae volumnibus operaÌ„ dabant carumque intelligentians non ex propria praesuÌ„ptione sed ex maiorum scriptis authoritate sequebantur quos ipsos ex Apostolica successione intelligendi regulaÌ„ suscepisse constat laying aside their prophane studies they applied themselues only to the bookes of holy Scripture and sought after the vnderstanding of them not out of their own presumption but out of the writings authority of their auncients who also themselues by such as had succeeded froÌ„ the Apostles had receiued the rule of vnderstanding To what end doth he alledge this against vs Where it is said that they sought not the vnderstanding of the Scriptures out of their own presumption for the shooting of his bolt he maketh a parenthesis thus As the Protestants both do teach others to do But the Protestants would haue him know that that description of the studies of those two fathers doth rightly describe the studies of euery learned Protestant They see it to their griefe in all our bookes in the processe of this whole book it wil appeare to him that the Protestants vse the help of the fathers writings as a singular benefit of God for the true vnderstaÌ„ding of the Scriptures and for the finding out of the truth in those controuersies that are depending betwixt vs them Yea so farre are we from contenting our selues with our own vnderstanding as that we forbeare not to turne wind all Popish authors either of former or latter time that what gold we can find in their dunghils we may apply it to the furnishing
pollutam nec in malè blandiâ— mortiferis huius mundi voluptatibus vsque ad exitum vitae suae absque remedio poenitentiae infoelici perseuerantia colligatam not such only as are chast in body but rather or specially euery Church which keepeth or holdeth pure faith not polluted with the adulterous commixtion of heretickes nor vnhappily continuing to the end without repentance in the dangerously flattering and deadly pleasures of this world and citeth the place before mentioned to the Corinthians for declaration therof Thus we dissent then froÌ„ Austin as touching the application of those places of Scripture which he alledgeth to his purpose the reader may perceiue that it is not without cause that we so do Another thing wherein we cannot accord with him is that he assigneth vnto virgins a speciall glory peculiar to themselues and eminent aboue all others which vnder correction of so learned a father we hold to be a very fabulous and vaine conceipt For although virginitie and single life do yeeld the oportunitie of greater reward by giuing liberty of greater worke yet it followeth not that they haue any thing so appropriated vnto theÌ„ but that in married estate they that do the like worke may rest in expectation of the like reward The portion of all that Å¿ Gal. 3.9 are of the faith is to be blessed with faithfull Abraham t Luk 16.22 to be caried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome u Mat. 8.11 to sit downe with Abraham and Isaac and Iacob in the kingdome of God Abraham and Isaac and Iacob were maried men and therefore virgins shall haue their place all one with those that haue bene married Our Sauiour Christ told his Apostles who all saue Iohn were married that x Mat. 19.28 they should sit vpon twelue seates to iudge the twelue tribes of Israel He gaue them seates indifferently he gaue not Iohn a speciall seate higher then all the rest and shall we thinke that other virgins shall haue seates aboue all them They are mentioned as hauing y Reâ— 21.14 their names written alike vpon the twelue foundations of the Church and shall we say that one of their names was written in letters of gold and all the rest with inke Moses a married man and Elias a virgin z Luk. 9.31 appeared with Christ not in any diuerse but both in the same glorie Therfore Ignatius a virgin also saith of himselfe a Ignat. ad Philadelph Opio dignus Deo inueÌ„tus ad vestigia eorum qui nuptijs operam dederunt in regno mutuirit stiut Abraham Jsaac Iacob Ioseph Esatae alioruÌ„ Prophetarum siâ—ut Petri Pauli alicruÌ„ Apostolorum qui nuptijs operaÌ„ dederunt I wish being found worthy of God to be found in Gods kingdome at the feet of them that were maried as of Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph Esay and the other Prophets as of Peter and Paul marke that he reckoneth Paul for a married man and other the Apostles who were maried men In a word it was but S. Austins too great opinion of virginitie in the flesh that made him without any good grounds to entertaine that conceipt of some different and speciall glory in name thereof to be assigned vnto virgins Truth saith the wisedome of God saith that they who of religious purpose do forbeare mariage and vse the gift of continencie do make themselues chast for the kingdom of heauen but truth doth not say neither doth the wisdome of God say that in name of virginity or continency they haue greater reward then others but only as they vse the same more earnestly to seeke the kingdome of heauen which if the married do alike as they they shall haue reward alike But saith M. Bishop the Apostle assureth that single life is better for the seruice of God And what had not M. Perkins said so much to him do not we say the same but we adde that it is better and more commodious where the gift of continencie is but where the gift of continencie is not there marriage is much better for the seruice of God Againe we say it is most commonly not alwaies so for b Chrysost in 1. Tim. hom 10. Ita assum possunt nuptiae vt perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint mariage saith Chrysostome may be so taken as that it shall be no hinderance to perfect life euen as the Ecclesiasticall historie saith of Spiridion a bishop that c Soz omen li 1. cap. 11. Vxorem habebat liberos non tamen propterea res diuinas negligeÌ„tiùs obijt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had wife and children and was thereby no whit the worse about things pertaining to God As for the words which he citeth out of the book of Wisdom beside that they are no canonical Scripture they make nothing for him They are an allusion to the words of Esay only signifie that to the Eunuch that worketh righteousnes shal be giuen that excellent gift that belongeth vnto faith a portioÌ„ or state in the Lords temple which is a thing acceptable and blessed aboue all things and that d Psal 27.4 one thing aboue all things to be desired but as touching comparison of portions in the house of God it intendeth nothing 14. W. BISHOP Secondly all the Protestants doctrine for mariage against vowes is notably confuted by S. Paul * 1. Tim. 5. where he saith That there were then certaine widowes who when they waxed wanton against Christ would marrie hauing damnation saith he because they made void and cast away their first faith which was as S. Augustin * De sanct vir cap. 23. and the rest of the Fathers expound it they had vowed continencie but would not performe it Now these young widowes if the Protestants doctrine were true not hauing the gift of continencie did very well to marry and were in no sort bound to keepe their vowes which was not in their power but the Apostle doth not acquit them of their vow but teacheth that they were bound to keepe it in that he pronounceth damnation to them if they marrie R. ABBOT To all that is here said I haue fully answered before in the 7. SectioÌ„ The ProtestaÌ„ts indeed say they make it good that those yoÌ„g widowes not hauing the gift of continency did well to marry and were by the Apostle willed to marrie lest haply any of them should by waxing wanton against Christ fall into the like damnation as some other had done An impious and diuellish tyrannie it is when any haue vowed rashly that that is not in their power to tye them to their vow and so to cause them by filthy lust and vncleannesse to runne into damnation who by repentance of their vnaduised rashnesse and vsing the remedy ordained by God should keepe themselues in purenesse and peace of conscience to saluation 15. W. BISHOP Thirdly the example of our heauenly Sauior who
but one commaundement and therefore that which they make but one must be deuided into two His other reason is of the same moment as the former that reward and punishment belonging alike to all the commaundements must be placed either with the first or with the last But Maister Bishop considereth not that there is a punishment or threatning annexed also vnto the third commaundement and yet it is no argument to say that therefore it must be the first Againe hee considereth not that God annexeth that promise and threatning to the second commaundement not for the order but for the matter of it to moue his people so much the more attentiuely to regard it as giuing to vnderstand that it most highly prouoketh him to haue the honour that belongeth to him giuen to stockes and stones and that men should fall downe to the workes of their owne hands And this the Scripture most plentifully teacheth vs that God in so high manner detesteth this aboue other sinnes as that for this y Rom 1.24.26.28 he giueth men ouer to their owne hearts lusts to vile affections to a reprobate sense to do those things that are not conuenient that by all filthinesse and vncleannesse they may dishonour themselues who haue in so base and vile sort dishonored him Very pregnant example whereof we haue in the Church of Rome which since it gaue entertainment to this idolatry hath made it selfe a verie sinke of sinne stinking and lothsome both to Christians and Infidels neuer ceasing running headlong from one corruption to another from one wickednesse to another vntill it had made vp a full measure of all abhomination and became according to the words of S. Iohn z Iohn 18.2 an habitation of diuels the hold of all foule spirits and a cage of euery vncleane and hatefull bird Now therefore God knowing how prone and readie his people were to this grosse idolatrie whereof they presently gaue example in worshipping the golden Calfe giueth them a speciall warning in this behalfe telleth them that he is a ielous God and thereby signifieth that as the ielousie of the husband cannot endure that the wife vnder any pretence yeeld the vsage of her body to another nor can be satisfied by hauing it answered to him that she doth it not as to her husband but onely as to her husbands friend and for loue to her husband so he cannot brooke the communicating of his worship vnder any pretence to idols and images to blockes and stones nor taketh it for answer that we account them not as gods but do it thereby to honour God but most seuerely reuengeth this filthy polluting of the religion that is due vnto him This is the cause of annexing the threatning to this second commaundement and very simply doth the Romane Catechisme gather thereof the confounding of it with the first 5. W. BISHOP But M. Perkins goeth on and saith that our distinction betweene Image and Idoll that an Image representeth a thing that is but an Idoll a thing supposed to be but is not is false and against the auncient writers who make it all one We proue the contrary first by the authoritie of the ancient Doctors Origen * Hom. 8. iâ— Exod. and Theodoret * Qu. 38. in Ex. who in expresse words deliuer the same difference of Image and Idoll which is taken out of S. Paul * 1. Cor. 8. saying that an Idoll is nothing in the world that is such idols as the heathen take for their gods are nothing formally that is though they be great peeces of wood or stone materially yet they represent a thing that is not that is such a thing to be a god which is nothing lesse Let M. Perkins but quote one place in the whole Bible where they are vsed both for one I will cite some where if you vse the one for the other you must offend all good Christian eares as where a man is said to be made after the image of God may you say after the idoll of God Christ is said to be the image of his Father will you call him the idoll of his Father Surely he cannot denie but the seuenth generall Councell holden about nine hundred yeares past and gone is so farre off from making Image and Idol all one that it doth accurse all them who call the image of Christ and his Saints Idols But Tertullian * De Jdololâ—â— saith M. Perkins affirmeth them to be all one not so neither for he maketh Idolum a diuinitie of eidos which signifieth a forme or similitude so that Idolon is but a small similitude or slender image not so much for the quantitie as for that it representeth but darkely Eustathius an excellent Greeke interpreter vpon the eleuenth booke of Homers Odissea describeth Idolum to signifie a vaine and vanishing image as the shadow of a man a ghost or phantasticall imagination And so it cannot be that all prophane Authors vse these two words indifferently seeing both in proper signification and by the declaration of the learned there is great difference betweene them But Saint Stephen cals the golden Calfe an Idoll so it was indeed What is that to the purpose And Saint Hierome sayth that Idols are the images of dead men adde that are taken for gods True many Idols be Images all such as truly represent any person that was once liuing here but no Images be Idols vnlesse it be taken for a god And so Idols requires besides the Image that it be made a god or the image of a false god R. ABBOT Here is nothing but fraud and falshood and a ridiculous shifting of the commaundement of God by an idle distinction of Idols and Images They tell vs that the second commaundement forbiddeth Idols onely and not Images when as in truth euery Image to which deuotion or worship is performed is no other but an Idol The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke signifieth originally the same that Imago doth in Latine that is an image forme or shape as appeareth by the vse of the word generally amongst all prophane authors But by Ecclesiasticall vse the signification thereof is restrained and it is made the proper name of those Images to which any religious seruice or deuotion is done The name of an Image then continueth more general in signification noting euery forme or likenesse of any thing described or shaped to whatsoeuer purpose or intent as is the Princes Image vpon the coyne and the likenesses of men beasts birds trees flowers wherewith embroderers painters grauers caruers adorne and beautifie their workes and in a word euery impression and forme whereby one thing carieth the resemblance of another The Image then of it selfe is but an Image and seruing barely to resemble any creature it hath no offence in it but adde worship vnto it and spirituall deuotion and it becommeth thereby an Idoll and the deuotion that is done vnto it is idolatry that is the worship of an
hitherto The seuenth session which is the last containeth the Synodicall definition of the Councell for images to be worshipped and their subscriptions thereto with their certificate thereof to the Emperour Constantine and his mother Irene the Emperesse as also to the Bishops of all Churches Thus thou hast gentle Reader a briefe of the comedy of M. Bishops learned Councell though I confesse I am farre from acting it to cause thee that mirth that the reading of the Councell it selfe would do Their speeches are so ridiculous so vnsauoury so voide of all Christian grauitie and vnderstanding as that thou wouldest think they al spake but in a dreame or as being scant sober to aduise of that they say Albeit there are two things which I wish thee therein to obserue first that they approoue no other images but onely of Christ incarnate and of the Saints and do wholy condemne the making of any images of God as appeareth by the epistles of Germanus by the speeches of Leontius against the Iew of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica against the Pagan of Constantine the Deacon the custos rotulorum of the Church of Constantinople in the fourth and fift actions The second is that they wholy deny to images the worship of latria which they terme the worship proper to God onely as appeareth by the epistle of Tharasius to Constantine and Irene in the seuenth act In both which points the church of Rome hath gone beyond them not doubting to make images of God the Father in the likenesse of an old man as M. Bishop hath before acknowledged and of the holy Ghost in the forme of a Doue and by the common iudgement of her Diuines hauing affirmed that the worship of latria is to be giuen to the image of Christ and his crosse as hath bene before shewed and by practise yeelded no lesse to the images of all the Saints Thus haue they exceeded the measure of the idolatrie there decreed and neuer ceased till the superstitions of the people had in a manner fully matched all the abhominations of Pagan and heathen men The Councell being ended a copie thereof was sent to Charles the great who at that time was king of France He hauing receiued it sent it ouer into this land to haue the iudgement of the Church here concerning the matter of it What followed let it appeare by the narration of our old English historian Roger Houedon recited also by Mathew of Westminster a Roger. Honed Annal. part 1. ann 792. Carolus rex Francorum misiâ— Synodalem libruÌ„ ad Britanniam sibi à Constantinopoli directuÌ„ in quo libro heu proh dolor multa inconuementia verae fidei contraria reperiebantur maximè quòd penè omnium Orientalium doctorum non minùs quà m trecentorum vel eo ampliùs EpiscoporuÌ„ vnanima assertione confirmatum fuerit imaginesadoraeri debere quod omninò Ecclesia Dei execratur CoÌ„tra quod scripsit Albinus epistolam ex authoritate diuinarum scripturarum mirabilâ—ter affirmataÌ„ illamque cum eodeÌ„ libro ex persona Episcoporum ac PrincipuÌ„ nostroruÌ„ regi FrancoruÌ„ attulit Idem habetur apud Mat. West monasteriensem In the yeare 792. Charles the king of France sent a synodicall booke into Brittaine which had bin directed to him from Constantinople in which booke alas for wo many things were found inconuenient and contrary to the true faith specially for that by the agreeing assertion of almost all the Easterne Doctor being no lesse then three hundred Bishops or more it was decreed that images ought to be worshipped which thing the Church of God holdeth altogether accursed Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle wonderfully fortified by authoritie of holy Scriptures and in the name of our Bishops and Nobles caried the same with the booke to the king of France By this we see what credite M. Bishops Nicene Councell had with the auncient Church of this land and that he doth but play the Sycophants part in that hee goeth about now so highly to commend the same vnto vs contrary to so notable a iudgement of our forefathers and auncesters so long ago yea we see how impudently they lie in saying that our forefathers from the beginning were of the same religion that the Church of Rome is of now But that was not all that Charles did for he caused also a Councell to be assembled at Franckford in Germanie of the Bishops of Italy France and Germanie who with common voyce condemned that Nicene Councell and plainly declared that the sentence thereof for worshipping of images was contrary to the word of God Abbas Vrspergensis speaking of this Franckford Councell hauing shewed that therein the heresie of Felix was condemned who held that Christ was but by adoption the Sonne of God addeth further b Abb. Vrsperg Chron. anno 793. Synodus etâ—aÌ„ quae ante pautos aÌ„nos in ConstaÌ„tinopoli coâ—gregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacuae ab omnibus abâ—icata est The Synod also which a few yeares before was assembled at Constantinople for there it was first begun vnder Irene and Constantine and by them called the seuenth and an vniuersall or generall Councell was by them all reiected as voide that it should neither be called the seuenth nor any thing else So saith Regino also conèerning the same councell c 〈…〉 lib. 2. ann◠〈◊〉 Pse◠〈◊〉 Graecorâ—mâ—â—â— pro adoâ—â—â—â— maginibus â—â—cerant a peâ—â—â—ficibus reiecta est The false Synod of the Greekes which they had caused for the worshipping of Images was reiected by the Bishops there The acts of this councell were published in a booke vnder the name of Charles himselfe as hath bene before said and a copy thereof was sent to Adrian the Bishop of Rome who to the Nicene couÌ„cel had binone of the great maisters for the worshipping of Images He poore man playing the part of an Abbreniator taking out of the booke what he list and as he list taketh vpon him to write an answer to it some part whereof is still to be seene adioined to that * Concil tom 3. edit surij appen Nicen. concil 2. Nicene councell but it is so pitifull an answer as may well giue vs to vnderstand what is to be thought of the whole matter Surius the Friar saw so much very well but he handsomely to colour the matter saith d Surius ibid. Lectors Plerunque dum non satis ap tè aduersarijsrespondere imperito lectori videre potest eostanquaÌ„ aliud agens egregiè slagellat Whilest commonly to the vnskilfull Reader he may seeme not fitly enough to answer his aduersaries he as it were being about another matter scourgeth them notably This was a Friarly deuice to make the vnskilfull beleeue that there are some deep mysteries in Adrians words which euery man cannot see whereas any wise man may see that his answers are
wicked glosses wresting the words of scripture to the maintenance of their damnable errors They tooke vpon them to know more then the Apostles saying that the holy Ghost which Christ promised to send was not giuen to the Apostles but to theÌ„ so that the Montanists affirmed that i Dicunt Paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quà m Christum in Euangelium protulisse the holy Ghost spake more things in Montanus then Christ did commit to the Gospell and not onely more but greater and better things When they were vrged by the teachers of the Church with these corruptions and falsifications k Haec ipsi habent in nos retorquere à nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum expositionum earuÌ„ mendacia inferri c. they were ready to answer that the corrupting of the Scriptures and false expositions thereof were rather found with them by meanes whereof there was no end of reasoning with them because they could hold them to no certaine grounds wherupon to proceed against them Hereupon Tertullian referred men as Irenaeus did to consider the Churches planted by the Apostles and which had had continuance of Pastors and teachers from them by them to learne what faith and doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles as not doubting but what they deliuered was the truth as l Supra sect 4. who deuised nothing of their owne but faithfully assigned to the nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ He setteth it downe as a principle that vndoubtedly m Hoc propono vnuÌ„ certum aliquid institutuÌ„ esse a Christo quod credere omni modo debeant nationes there was some one and certaine thing appointed by Christ for the nations to beleeue that whatsoeuer that was Christ vndoubtedly deliuered it to his Apostles n Duodecim praecipuos lateri suo adtegerat destinatos nationibus magistros c. Si Christus Apostolos misit ad praedicandum praescribimus non alios esse recipiendos Praedicatores quà m quos Christus instituit whom he chose to be teachers of all nations and therefore that no other Preachers are to be receiued but whom Christ appointed that to say that either the Apostles knew not all things or did not make knowne all things to all men is o In vtroque Christum repreheÌ„sions subijcientes qui aut minus instructos aut parum simplices Apostolos miserit to reproue Christ as sending Apostles either vnsufficient or not dealing simply and plainely Taking it then for graunted that the Apostles deliuered al truth to the Church he moueth another doubt that haply the Churches had erred and forsaken that which at first was deliuered by the Apostles To this therefore he answereth that p Quid verisimile est vt tot ac tantae in vnam fideÌ„ errauerinit Nullus inter multos euentus vnus est exitus variassedebuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Caeterum quod apud multos vnâ— inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum it is not likely if the Churches had erred that being so many and so great they should in error light all vpon one faith that they would surely haue varied in their error one from another because where there are many going but by hap they cannot all happen vpon the same end Therefore what with many is found one saith he it is no matter of error but that that was first deliuered vnto them He goeth on further to shew that it is the marke of truth q Ab excessis reuertor ad principalitatem veritati posteritatem mendacitati deputandaÌ„ exillius quoque Parabolae patrocinio c. Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum verum quod sit prius traditum id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius immissum to be first and that what cometh in after is to be reputed a lye as appeareth by the Parable wherein the good seed or wheate was first sowed and then afterwards the tares Thus by the order it is so manifest saith he that that is of the Lord and true which was first deliuered but that strange and false which is afterwards come in Now if any of them would dare to challenge to themselues the antiquity of the Apostles he willeth them r Siquae audent se interserere aetati Apostolicae vt ideò videantur ab Apostolis traditae quia sub Apostolis fuerunt possumus dicere Acdant ergo originos Ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suoruÌ„ c. to shew the originall of their Churches and the succession of their Bishops from the Apostles which if there had bene any such they might easily haue done this being very litle more then a hundred yeres after the time of the Apostles But withal he declareth that such opinions of theirs as were meÌ„tioned in the time of the Apostles Å¿ Quae tunc sub Apostolis fuerunt ab ijsdem Apostolis demonstratae deierata were by the Apostles shewed renounced wherof he giueth sundry examples of denying the resurrection of obseruing circumcision of forbidding mariage of denying the Godhead or manhood of Christ of worshipping Angels and such like condemned in the writings of the Apostles t Nâ—m sic facilitis traduceÌ„tur dum aut iam tunc fuisse deprehenduntur aut ex illis quae tunc fuerunt semina sumpsisse c. Siue ergo taedem nunc sunt aliquanto expolitiores quae sub Apostolis rudes habeÌ„t suam exinde damnationem siue aliae quideÌ„ illae fuerunt aliae autem posteà oâ—oâ—tae sunt quasdam ex illu opâ—niones vsurpauerunt habendo cum eu consoretum praedicationis habeant etiam necesse est consortium damnationis c Et si nihil de damnaticijs participareÌ„tur de aetate sola praeiudicatentur tantò magis aduiterae quantò nec Apostolis nominâ—iae Vnde fiâ—mâ—â—â— constat has esse quae adhuc tunc nunt rebantur futurae Thus saith he they shall the more easily be traduced whilest they are found either to haue bene then or to haue taken any seedes from those that were then For whether they be now the same somewhat more polished and fined which in the Apostles times were yet rude and vnfashioned they haue their condemnation from thence or whether they were one then and other haue since sprung vp which yet haue borrowed some opinions from them surely in being partakers with them in their preaching they must needes also be partakers of their condemnation And albeit they did not participate with those that were so condemned yet saith he there should preiudice be taken against them onely for their latter age being so much the rather corruptions of the truth for that they are not so much as named by the Apostles whence it is so much the more certaine that they are those which then it was foretold should be in time to come Hereupon he referreth his Reader to sundry particular churches