illa finiretur poena the punishment is continued longer then the sinne lest the sinne should be esteemed but small if the punishment should be ended together with it And this M. Perkins well obserueth in generall concerning that example of the Israelites that God though his iudgment proceeded not one way yet would haue it to be seene another way though not for punishment to them that repented and beleeued yet for example to future times to take heed of cutting themselues off by vnbeleefe and disobedience from the heauenly rest as these had done from the seale and Sacrament thereof the Apostle to that purpose saying k 1. Cor. 10.11 These things came to them for ensamples and are written to admonish vs vpon whom the ends of the world are come Now as we conceiue in generall of the faithfull of that people so we do in particular of Moses and Aaron M. Bishop vrgeth it set downe that therfore they entred not because they trespassed because they were disobedient And who maketh doubt but that their trespasse and disobedience was the originall cause of the debarring of them But stil we say that the cause of this debarring of them being forgiuen the effect still continued for other vse which in them was not onely morall but also mystical God willing thereby to giue to vnderstand that the Law which was giuen by Moses and the Priesthood that was executed by Aaron could not bring vs to that eternall inheritance which was figured by the land of Canaan but onely Iesus who was figured by Iosuah could yeeld vnto vs the possession thereof Thus S. Austin maketh mysticall and spirituall application thereof affirming that l August contra Faust Man lib. 16. cap. 19. Non introducebat populum in terram promissionis ne videlicet lex per Mosen non ad saluandum sed ad conuincenduÌ„ peccatorem data introducere putaretur Ita Tertulaâ—iuer Marcionem lâ—b 3. Moses did not bring the people of Israel into the land of promise lest the law which was giuen by Moses not to saue but to conuict the sinner shold be thought to bring vs into the kingdome of heauen But fully to answer this point and to stop M. Bishops mouth let vs take that which the same S. Austin saith in another place m Idem in Psa 98. Quaerimus vindictam in Moyse propè nullam habet nisi quòd ad extremuÌ„ aâ—t illi Deut Ascende in montem morere Aâ—t seni Morere tam peregeras â—etates suas nunquid nunquam erat moriturus Quaelis illa vindicta Ostendit ibi vindictam suam vt diceret Non intrabis in terraÌ„ promissionis quaÌ„ intraturus erat populus QuandaÌ„ figuram quorundam gerebat Moyses Nam qui in regnum coeloruÌ„ intrauit magna illa poena crat adieâ—ram illam non venire qua ad tempas erat promissa vt vmbram osteude ret transiâ—eâ—â— Nonne mulit perfiâ—â—ntrauerunt in illam terram Nonne in illa terra viuentes multa mala feceruÌ„t Deum offenderunt Nonne idolotriam secuti sunt in terra illa Magnum erat non dedisse terram istam Moysi sed Moses voluit gestare figuram eorum qui sub lege erant quia per Moysen data est lex ostendit eos qui sub lege esse vellent sub gratia esse nollent non intraturos interram promisâ—ionis Ergo illud quod dictum est Moysi figura erat non poena Seâ— mers quae poena Non intrare in illam terram quae poena quo intrauerunt indigni We seeke Gods punishment in Moses saith he and he had in a manner none but that God at last saith to him Go vp into the hill and die He saith to an old man Go die he had now finished his yeares what shold he neuer die what punishment is this He shewed him there his punishment in that he said Thou shalt not enter into the land of promise to which the people was to enter Moses did here beare a figure of some for he being to enter into the kingdome of heaueÌ„ was it a great punishment not to come to that land which was promised for a time to cary a shadow and so to passe away Did not many vnfaithfull men enter into that land did not they that liued in that land commit many euils and offend God did they not follow idolatry in that land A great matter it was not to giue this land vnto Moses but Moses was to beare a figure of them which are vnder the law because the law was giuen by Moses and he sheweth that they which would be vnder the law and would not be vnder grace should not enter into the land of promise Therefore that which was said to Moses was a figure not a punishment what punishment was it to an old man to die what punishment was it not to enter into that land into which vnworthy men did enter Here then it is plaine that the not suffering of Moses to enter into the land of Canaan was not a matter of punishmeÌ„t but a matter of figure God took the occasion therof of his trespasse but the trespasse being remitted it was turned from being a punishment to him to be a mystery of faith both to him and vs. But it were woorth the while here to question with M. Bishop how he should make the not entring of all these into the land of Canaan to be any satisfaction for their sins what did they or suffered they that might carie the name of a satisfaction Did any thing herein befall them but what befell to many iust and godly Fathers before that time He saith their dayes were shortened but how were the dayes of Moses and Aaron shortened when the one liued to n Deut. 34.7 120. and the other to o Numb 33.39 123. yeares almost double to that nuÌ„ber of yeres which Moses noted for the ordinary time of the life of man p Psal 90.10 The dayes of our age are threescore yeares and ten Yea Moses was so old as that he said q Deut. 31.2 I am a hundred and twentie yeare old I can no more go in and out Againe we wonder whereas M. Bishop hath told vs before that such excellent holy personages by their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly for their sinnes how it came to passe that all Moses deuotions for the space of r Deut. 2.14 eight and thirty yeares after could not satisfie for that one sinne of his but that it still hindred him froÌ„ entring into the promised land Surely M. Bishop cannot well tell vs how these things hang together But to conclude this point M. Perkins had set downe by the words of the holy Ghost the vse of Gods chastisements towards his children and M. Bishop as loth to be acquainted therwith saith nothing of it Å¿ 1. Cor. 11.32 When we are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world
in Hom. Odyss lib. 11 Genus diuinationis Ethnicis vsitatum quo videbant hominum mortuorum idolae obscura euanida c. obscure and vanishing Idols importeth thereby the large signification of the word Idols as belonging to all manner shapes and representations both which are solide and constant and abiding and those also that are aierie and darksome and lightly vanish and passe away For if the word Idols had imported onely such darke and vanishing shadowes to what end should he adde those Epithetons the force whereof was alreadie contained in the signification of the word And if Homer or any other do apply the name of Idols to fancies and dreames and shadowes it is nothing against vs who know and confesse that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the originall signification extendeth so largely as to be fitly vsed thereof euen as the word image may also as appeareth by S. Austine who of the words of Christ The sonne can do nothing of himselfe but what he seeth the father do c. saith that n Aug. in Ioan. tract 19. Quaesi intelligantur secuÌ„dum humanuÌ„ sensum carnalitèr nihil aliud nobis facit animae plena phaÌ„tasmatis nisi quasdam imagines velut duorum hominuÌ„ patris filij vnius osteÌ„dentis alterius videntis vnius loquentis alterius audieÌ„tis quae omnia idolae cordis sunt if they be vnderstood carnally according to humane conceipt the soule full of fancies doth no other but frame certaine images as of two men a father and a sonne the one of them shewing and the other seeing the one speaking and the other hearing all which saith he are the idols of the heart In a word whatsoeuer he can seeme to alledge out of prophane Authors concerning the signification of the word Idoll it auaileth him nothing the case standing as I haue shewed that ecclesiasticall custome of speech hath termed euery consecrated image by the name of an Idoll neither can hee alledge anie vvhose testimonie is in this case to be regarded with whom an Image to which worship is done is any other then an Idoll M. Perkins further alledgeth that the golden calfe of the Israelites was an Idoll What is that to the purpose saith M. Bishop Very much against that toy of his that an Idoll is that that representeth a thing that is not for a calfe is a thing that is and therfore the golden calfe cannot be said to represent a thing that is not Yea but saith he it represented that to be a God which was nothing lesse But that is a sophisticall peruerting of the words of his authors as hath bene before shewed and being but his owne foolish fancy what is it to vs His authorities make only that an Idoll which representeth in shape a thing that simply is not Albeit neither will that shift of his rid him froÌ„ this obiection for it is manifest that the Israelites made the golden Calfe to be vnto them a visible signe and representation of the true God by which they would haue some token of his presence amongst them and his conducting and guiding of them By their first propounding the matter it appeareth that they would haue the Idol in place of Moses by whom because he was as it were a Mediatour betwixt God and them they conceiued God to be present with them Therefore they say o Exod. 32.1 Make vs Gods to go before vs for as for this Moses which brought vs out of the land of Egipt we know not what is become of him making the want of Moses the only cause why they required Gods When the Idoll is made they say p Ver 4. These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee out of the land of Egipt They had said before this Moses which brought vs out of the land of Egipt and they knew well that the Calfe being newly made was not it that brought them out of the land of Egipt Therefore as they acknowledged Moses only as the minister of that God by whom they were brought out of the land of Egypt so they require the Calfe only as a signe and representation of that God by whom they were brought out of the land of Egypt and only in that sence they say These be thy Gods ô Israel c. Therefore they proclaime accordingly Ver. 5. To morrow shall be the holy day not to the Calfe or to any other god but to Iehouah the Lord which was the proper name of the only true God And thus q Abulens in Exod. ca. â—2 q. 7. Deus qui te eduxit c. iste est quem hic cerniâ— id est in isto corpore aureo laetet eius virtus Abulensis the great Schooleman vpon that place confesseth that by the Calfe they intended to worship God as doth also r Ferus in Act. â—ap 7. Ferus their own Preacher at Mentz yea and the Romane or Trent catechisme before spoken of which affirming that to resemble the Godhead by an image is the breach of the coÌ„mandement to shew that the Israelites coÌ„mitted this breach inferreth thus Å¿ Catechis Trideut in explicat praecept 1. Quocirca Israelitae qui ante vituli simulachruÌ„ clamabant Hi sunt dij tut c. idololatrae sunt appellati qui mutaruÌ„t gloriam suam in similitudineÌ„ vituli comedentis faenum Wherefore the Israelites crying before the image of a Calfe These are thy gods O Israel c. were called idolaters because they changed their glory which was their God to the similitude of a Calfe that eateth hay Which words are altogether inconsequent vnlesse it be taken that the Israelites in their Calfe intended the worship of their God And this appeareth further in the Calues that were set vp at Bethel Dan to the worship wherof when Ieroboam would induce the people he propounded vnto them as Iosephus reporteth it t Ioseph Antiq. li. 8. ca. 3. Nullus locus Deo est vacuus is nulla certo loco includitur sed vbique notae exandit vbique cultores suot respicit Quare noÌ„ placet mihi vos Hierosolyma proficisci religionis ergò c. Ega duas vnulas aureas consecravi alteraÌ„ in Bethelis alteraÌ„ in Dana vt pro locoruÌ„ opportunitatet ex propinquioribus oppidu ad eas confluentes illie Deum ritè adoretis that God is absent from no place nor is included or compassed any where but as he knoweth all things so heareth euery where and euery where respecteth them that worship him therefore that he liked not that for exercise or religion they should go vp to Hierusalem but he had consecrated two golden calues at Dan and Bethel that at either of those places according to their dwelling they might more neere at hand in due manner worship God By which words it is plaine that in the worship of the Calues he made shew of no other but thereby to worship God and therefore Iehu destroying the worship
workes that we are our owne sauiours but that we apply vnto our selues by good workes that whereby we are made our owne sauiors But if he meane as the Protestants do when they auouch that by faith onely we apply vnto our selues the saluation which is in Christ Iesus that is that this saluation is entirely in the merits of Christ deseruing and purchasing the same for vs and that meerely and immediatly for Christs sake God bestoweth the same vpon vs that we do but onely stretch foorth the hand and that by his gift also to receiue that which freely and of his meere mercy he giueth vnto vs then his meritorious workes are come to nought and he bestoweth a great deale of labour in vaine for the proofe thereof We would gladly see which way he will shift Surely if our good workes do but apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ then they cannot be said to merit saluation theÌ„selues For that that applyeth doth not worke the effect of that which it doth apply The hand that applieth the medicine cannot be said it self to worke the cure for if it performe the effect it selfe to what end doth it apply another thing for the same purpose But if our workes do merit saluation themselues then they do more then apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus and we must be said according to the absurditie before mentioned to be thereby our owne sauiours Let the Reader well obserue how he stealeth away in a cloud of ambiguous words which notwithstanding howsoeuer he expound do worke inconuenience to himselfe But by his owne words he giueth answer to the place which he obiecteth of Paule saying to Timothie that c 1. Tim. 4.10 so doing he should both saue himselfe and them that heard him that he did not meane that Timothie should do that for himselfe by vertue whereof he should be saued but onely that he should apply vnto himselfe the saluation which is in Christ Iesus He was to saue them that heard him not by meriting their saluation for them but by preaching vnto them d 1. Cor. 15.2 the Gospell by which they were saued So was he also to saue himselfe by continuing in the same faith and doctrine of the Gospell whereby the way of saluation is set foorth vnto vs. In the same manner S. Peter exhorteth the Iewes who were pricked in their hearts at the hearing of his preaching e Act. 2.10 Saue your selues from this wicked generation namely by receiuing and accepting the message of saluation by Iesus Christ We are said to saue our selues as we are said to feed our selues and to cure our selues We feed our selues not by being food and nourishment to our selues but by receiuing that which is our food We cure our selues not by being a medicine to our selues but by taking and applying to vs that whereby we are cured So we saue our selues onely by embracing Iesus Christ by whom onely we are saued And this we intend when we say that we are saued by faith onely namely that faith only is the instrument whereby we lay hold of Iesus Christ in whose onely merits our saluation wholy and immediatly doth consist Which doctrine of faith wholy aduanceth the glorie of Christ because it referreth all entirely to him not onely for that we confesse that faith is the gift of Christ but also because we teach that it is not by any vertue of faith it selfe by which we are saued but onely by the merit and power of Christ whom we receiue by faith How then doth M. Bishop say that their assertion of our merits doth no more diminish the glory of the merits of Christ then it doth that we say that we are saued by faith onely when as they leaue so much for man to glorie of in himselfe his assenting to grace and working therewith by his owne free will and his well vsing thereof to merit and deserue saluation for himselfe when as we say that we are saued meerely by the merits of Christ and haue nothing in any sort to attribute to our selues and they say that we are not saued meerely by the merits of Christ but the merits of Christ do onely make vs able by free will to deserue our owne saluation But of this as he saith we shall haue further occasion to speake in the question of merits Now here M. Perkins noteth it for a further absurditie of their doctrine of merits that they do not onely make men their owne sauiours but make one man also the sauiour of another whilest that in the want of our owne merits we may be partakers in the merits of the Saints M. Bishop being a man of a wide throate to swallow and of a strong stomacke to digest without any trouble all the filth of the Romish Church sticketh not at the matter but plainely affirmeth that other good mens merits may steed them that want some of their owne and saith that it may be deduced out of an hundred places of Scripture whereas of that hundred there is not so much as one that will yeeld him ground of any such deduction For as for that which he alledgeth out of the first Commaundement that God sheweth mercy vnto thousands in them that loue him and keepe his commandements how he should draw mans merit from thence where God professeth onely his mercie both to the fathers and the children no wise man can easily conceiue It is true that God sometimes in the Scriptures is said for one mans sake to shew mercy to another it is neuer said that it is for one mans merits that he shewes mercy to another but only for his own loue and promise sake Thus do the people of God somtimes make mention of f Deut. 9. â—7 Abraham Isaac Iacob g Psal 132 10. Dauid not as to begge of God for their merits sake but as to vrge God with his couenant and promise that he made vnto these who shewed all that mercy and loue vnto their seed h Deut. 7.8 9.5 because he would keepe the oath which he had sworne vnto their fathers And surely seeing it was onely for his mercies sake that he respected the fathers themselues it is vnlikely that for the fathers merits he shold respect the children i Oecumen in Rom cap. 4. Siquis illum demostrare nitaâ—urper opera dignum fuisse c. Vides quod nihil omninò hâ—beat ne vestigâ—um quâ—dem operum adhuiusmodi beneficia quae ipse à Deo accepit Vnde ergo his dignus habitus est Ex sola side Abraham saith Oecumenius was not by his workes worthy of the benefites of God he had nothing at all not any shew of workes to the benefites that he receiued of God but was accounted worthy thereof by faith onely The cause of all was that which Moses said k Deut. 4.37 He loued thy fathers therefore he chose their seed And what was it for their merits that he
to bestow his grace vpon vs as I haue shewed a Sect. 21. before Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul onely against merits but simply against works that he affirmeth b August li. 83. quaest 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse Dicit posse homineÌ„ sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fideÌ„ Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before that he teacheth that not for any good worke past a man attaineth to the iustification of faith that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification but the faith in which our iustification is begun as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place c Jdem de verb. Apost ser 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus Si fideÌ„ habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we haue no righteousnesse we haue no faith but if we haue faith we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification from being any causes thereof and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes so as that d Idem epist 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secunduÌ„ Deum vlla ratione omninò noÌ„ possumus without the grace of God which with him is no other but the grace e Epist 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification he neuer speaketh word nor euer giueth intimation of any such nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same as we haue seene in the question of f Sect. 5. Free will 33. W. BISHOP Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law Hence thus he argueth If a mâ—n will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the law according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Apollo Saint Paul onely saith in these words That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses Maister Perkins That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the law Which are as iust as Germains lips as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcized did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this R. ABBOT The force of the sentence alledged that a Gal. 5.3 he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law dependeth vpon the verse going before and that that followeth after He saith before b Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest that c August cont Faust Man lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putareÌ„t suam spem salutemque continerâ— it was certaine destruction for them to thinke that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision as being a speciall matter then spoken of so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law ye are fallen from grace If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ Being abandoned from Christ and his grace he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation but by the law He cannot be iustified by the law but by perfect obseruing of it because it is said e Cap. 3.10 Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them What then is said of circumcision belongeth to all the workes of the law He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same and if he be any where a trespasser he cannot be iustified by the law And rightly doth M. Perkins say that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision as he shall well perceiue that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatioÌ„ by the law to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law Therefore in the words alledged this argument is implied He that wil be iustified by the law is bound to fulfill the whole law He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision seeketh to be iustified by the law he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law As for that which M. Bishop saith that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer For what is Iudaisme but a profession of iustification by the law the Iewes f Rom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith but as it were by the workes of the lâ—w Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law against which the Apostles ground is as hath bene said that he that professeth to be iustified by the law doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach being by the law guilty of death if he be found to transgresse in any sort Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law so as to be iustified thereby it shall appeare God willing in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof 34. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answer That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of Moses law but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop to answer the argument auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme that Gods election is vpon foresight of
they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward of which high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnwritten R. ABBOT More faults then lines saith M. Bishop but very slender proofe doth he bring of any fault First he cauilleth that the text is mangled and things put in instead of miracles The words are thus a Ioh. 20.30 Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God and that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Where we translate the Greek relatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in the neuter gender these things because it hath not reference only to miracles mentioned in the former verse but to the matter of the whole book S. Iohn here intending to set foorth the end purpose of all that he hath written For being b Hier. Proem in Matth. Cum esset in Asia tam tunc haereticorum seminae pullularent Cerinthi Hebionis caeteroruÌ„ qui negant Christum in carne venisse coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis multaruÌ„ Ecclesiarum legationibus de diuinitate saluatoris altiùs scribere in Asia as Ierome saith and the seeds of heretickes beginning to grow of Cerinthus Ebion and others denying Christ to haue come in the flesh he was forced by almost al the bishops of Asia and by messages from other churches to write more deeply then the other Euangelists had done of the diuinity of our Sauior Christ Here then he signifieth that he hath so done these things saith he are written that ye may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God Therefore Cyrill saith hereof c Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem EuaÌ„gelij manifestat As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written he manifesteth the intent of his Gospell The first fault then pretended by M. Bishop is no fault because the relatiue implieth generally what the Euangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospell The second fault is ridiculously alledged for wheÌ„ M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saued how doth he meane it or how doth any man meane it but d Acts. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ As touching the third point it hath bene e Of Iustification Sect. 18. before declared that to beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God importeth the applying vnto vs of the merit and righteousnes of Christ For as a man may f Thom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art 2. ad 3. Credere Dâ—uÌ„ non conuenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat beleeue that there is a God or that God is and yet be still an infidell wanting that beleefe therof which is properly the act of faith as Thom. Aquinas noteth so a man may in some sort beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God yet not so beleeue it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of iustifying faith because he beleeueth it not vnder such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith If it be taken only for an act of vnderstanding as the Papists take it a maÌ„ may beleeue it without any fruit because the diuels so beleeue but the beleefe of the heart which the Scripture intendeth importeth affiance and trust and inward feeling and comfort of that which it beleeueth whilst therby we apply vnto our selues the benefite of the merit passion of Christ expecting therby the remission of our sins But now froÌ„ noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a finall answer that because S. Iohn speaketh of miracles not of doctrine therefore these words proue nothing for the sufficiency of the written word Where M. Perkins exception still standeth vnremoued that because by miracles without doctrine we caÌ„not attaine to that faith wherby we beleeue that Christ is the Son of God therfore the words of the Euangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only For others did miracles as great yea g Ioh. 14.12 greater then Christ did as by example we see when h Act. 5.15 by the shadow of Peter and by i Chap. 19.12 napkins and handkerchifes from Paules body the sicke are healed which we reade not of Christ himselfe By miracles therfore Christ is not discerned vnlesse by doctrine accoÌ„panying the same he be made known vnto vs therefore the words of the Euangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make vse of the miracles of Christ So S. Austin referreth the words both to those things which Christ did and said k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Sanctus Euangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt Electa sunt auteÌ„ quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur The holy Euangelist testifieth that Christ both did and said many things which are not written and for the ouerthrowing of M. Bishops answer and iustifying of our assertion he addeth but those things were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue Cyril speaketh more expresly l Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 68. Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata vt recta fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum coeloruÌ„ perueniamus Al things which Christ did are not writteÌ„ but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conuersation as doctrine that shining with right faith and vertuous works we may attaine to the kingdom of heauen It is not then our collection only but thus these ancient Fathers conceiued that of the miracles doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct vs to faith to the attainment of euerlasting life And this is plainly deliuered in the words of S. Iohn who could not say These things are written that ye may beleeue and beleeuing may haue eternall life if there be not that written by the beleefe whereof we may obtaine eternall life Therefore as touching Saint Iohns Gospell containing all things needfull to saluation we answer him first that indeed we affirme that there is no article of faith necessarie to saluation which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospell of S. Iohn Secondly there is no cause so to restraine the words as if Saint Iohn would meane onely in his Gospell to comprehend all that should be needfull for the instruction of the Church Nay he hath a plaine reference to those things
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