the same here by writing and not by word of mouth He had heard there was some text or other there for his purpose but neither did he well know it nor had leisure to seeke it out The words of the Apostle are these I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue also deliuered vnto you Now we conceiue M. Bishops meaning though his vnderstanding being very muddie failed him so exceedingly in the expressing of it The Apostle forsooth giueth to vnderstand that he first deliuered vnto them the institution of the Lords supper not in writing but by word of mouth And what of that Doth it therefore follow that by tradition of the old testament the Apostle proued any doctrine of the new If this do not follow his allegation is bruite and bootlesse and he shooteth wholy beside the marke The Apostle professeth to haue deliuered what he receiued of the Lord but what he receiued of the Lord was according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets For the outward signes of the Sacrament were prefigured in Melchisedeck bringing forth f Genes 14.18 bread and wine for the corporall refection of Abrahams armie as the heauenly Melchisedeck should bring forth bread and wine for the spirituall refection and comfort of the sonnes of Abraham As for the doctrine and faith imported by these signes it is no other but what M. Bishop himself confesseth to haue bene euidently foretold in holy writ namely that Christ should die for our sinnes and should rise againe from the dead to become a light and saluation vnto vs the Apostle himselfe instructing vs the end thereof to be g 1. Cor. 11.26 to shew the Lords death till he come Here was then no neede to flie to vnwritten tradition but of this institution the Apostles words stand good that he said nothing but what the Prophets and Moses did say should come And thus the fathers and namely h Tertull. adu Marcion per tot Tertullian to shew against the Marcionites that there is but one God of the old and new testament and not two Gods aduerse one to the other as those heretikes blasphemously affirmed do set downe the accord of the Scriptures of the new testament with the old and the fulfilling of the one in the other but of traditions in the new testament according with traditions in the old they neuer spake a word which yet in that cause had bene very needfull if there had bene any such But M. Bishop being like the Lynx turning about and forgetting what he was feeding vpon will tell vs perhaps that whatsoeuer he had in hand his meaning in the alledging of this place was simply to proue the Apostles approuing of traditions And if he tell vs so surely we will not denie but that it is indeede full simply done The Apostle saith that he first deliuered the institution of the Sacrament by word of mouth What must we therefore thinke that it was not afterwards cōmitted to writing The contrary appeareth in that we see it here written by himselfe What is there here then to hinder but that as the Sacrament first deliuered by word was afterwards committed to writing so all other points of Christian doctrine faith though deliuered at first by word and preaching yet were afterwards set downe in writing and deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures And if nothing hinder as indeede there doth not then let him vnderstand that this place is very simply and impertinently brought for traditions vnwritten To fill vp the measure of his folly he telleth vs yet further that the Apostle in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome Where a man might oppose him very hard if he should aske him why those words of the Apostle do not belong to the Traditionist as well as to the Scripturist We know his dreames are very strong but otherwise why he should apply these words to the Scripturist he himselfe cannot well tell Againe it would be knowne of him what custome the Apostle affirmeth here We heare him saying We haue no such custome but we do not heare him saying We haue a custome And therefore M. Bishops alledging of these words in behalfe of customes of the Church may well make vs thinke that in the doing of it he had the very same head on that he is accustomed to haue to say nothing that he was much distressed for traditions and customes when he tooke not to be contentious to be an vnwritten tradition and custome of the Church So that his conclusion is like a body without either head or feete wanting strength to carie him so farre as he is desirous to go and because the Apostles doctrine was neither according to vnwritten traditions nor customes but according to the Scriptures onely we learne that neither tradition nor custome but Scripture onely must beare sway for directing and prescribing true faith and doctrine in the Church 16 W. BISHOP Hitherto I haue confuted what M. Perkins brought against Traditions Now to that which he saith for them in our behalfe First saith he the Catholikes alledge * 2. Thes 2.15 Where the Apostle bids the Church to keepe the ordinances which he taught them either by word of mouth or by Epistle Hence they gather that besides the written word there be vnwritten traditions that are necessary to be kept and obeyed M. Perkins Answer It is likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul wrote to any Church and then some things needefull to saluation might be deliuered by word of mouth but that was afterwards written in some others of his Epistles Reply Obserue first that insteede of Traditions according to the Greeke and Latine word they translate * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinances euer flying the word Tradition where any thing is spoken in cōmendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the word Tradition although the Greeke word beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouerie of false translations penned by Maister Gregory Martin a man most singularly cōuersant in the Greeke and Hebrew tongues Secondly is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer he wrote Surely if none of his other were written before it yet his first to the same Church must needes haue bene written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame some-times To the point of the answer that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bene deliuered by word of mouth How proueth M. Perkins that the man hath such confidence in his owne word that he goeth not once about to proue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needfull to be beleeued which is not written in the word Shew vs then
h Luk. 12 21. So is euery one that gathereth riches to himselfe and is not rich in God Wo be to them that are rich in this world and are not rich in God but a man may be rich in this world yet rich in God also by acknowledging spiritually his owne pouerty in himself and receiuing all things of Gods mercy Seeing therefore a man may be rich according to this world and yet none of them to whom Christ saith Wo be to rich men surely nothing hindereth but that a man may be rich and yet may be one of those poore whom Christ pronounceth to be blessed and therfore M. Bishops argument is idle and proueth nothing lesse then that Christs sentence is to be vnderstood of voluntary pouertie so that still it remaineth good that the vow of pouerty and beggery is the voluntary casting away of the blessing of God and the vndertaking of his curse 20. W. BISHOP Thus M. Perkins his texts of Scripture against pouertie failing him he fetcheth about another way saying that it is a rule of the holy Ghost He that will not labour namely in some speciall and warrantable calling must not eate * Thess 2. Ans I allow both the text and the glosse and find nothing there against religious persons whose calling is speciall perfect and therefore best warrantable not so saith he because they giue thēselues to prayer fasting What a profane stupiditie is this Is not a life giuen to prayer and fasting agreeable to the wil of God and lawes of his church albeit many religious men do ouer and besides very great seruices to Gods church in preaching teaching and writing of most learned books But suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray did they not very well deserue their sustenance yes much better then they which trauell all the yeare about the prouiding of it For in vaine do men labor if God blesse not their worke with seasonable weather which he doth rather at the prayer and instance of such good innocent soules that are to be fed with it then for the Plough-mans owne labors sake And if by their fasting watching and such like afflictions of their bodies they do partly satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh and teach vs by their good example to bridle and correct it do they not deserue at our hands bodily sustenance And who better performes all duties of the second table then they being most obedient to all their superiours and not hurting their neighbour in life person or any maner of their goods And so in their seuerall callings offend no honest men and do much good both vnto the Church and Common-wealth R. ABBOT If S. Paul whē he said a 2. Thess 3.10 He that wil not labor let him not eate did take praying to be laboring then the Messalians had as wel to answer for themselues as the begging Friers because they took as great paines in praying as the begging Friers cā do yea those idle loiterers concerning whō the Apostle speaketh had sufficient to answer for them selues that there was reason for them to eate because they did pray Surely M. Bishop is a good proctor for such thriftles drones who wil be content to pray apace as much as the Friers do if that may be reckned a labor for which to require their meate But praier is a cōmon duty seruice of all callings not a distinct labor of any one Till M. Bish blotted this paper I think it was neuer read that praier fasting was a calling saue only in the conceit of those Euchites or Messalians of whō I spake albeit they indeed fasted not But wheras M. Perkins saith that men liuing apart giuing themselues only to praier and fasting do liue in no calling M. Bishop because he cannot proue the contrary beggeth it What a profane stupiditie is this saith he Is not a life giuen to prayer and fasting put in as it should be only to prayer and fasting agreeable to the wil of God and lawes of his Church You should not haue asked the question M. Bishop but haue proued it so to be because therin stood the question which it was your stupidity not to see The argument propoundeth to you that it is necessary for euery man to labor in some calling that he may haue according to Gods ordināce wherof to eate It alledgeth that to liue apart to be giuen only to praier fasting is not to labor in a calling and do you answer al with Is it not so To make vp the matter he addeth that many religious men do ouer and beside very great seruices to Gods church in preaching teaching and writing of most learned books Ye say wel M. Bishop such mē because they labor may iustly eate but these matters are accidental and their vow religion may stand without them and therfore the matter is not answered by them I admit that which he saith but there might here worthy stories be told of the preachings of their Friers of all sorts But M. Bishop himselfe knowing that this is but impertinent goeth on Suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray did they not very well deserue their sustenance If they did nothing but fast pray it should be with them according to the Apostles rule because then they should eate nothing But now beside fasting and praying they eate also which the Apostle sayth they should not do because they do not worke They fast a little that they may eate enough and there is no idle lozell but would be content with their fasting so that he may haue their diet otherwise In a word M. Bishop may keepe his opinion to him selfe but the Apostle sufficiently teacheth vs that because they labour not therefore they do not so well deserue sustenance as they who labour all the yeare for the prouiding of it As for the blessing of God it dependeth not vpon the prayers of such who haue no warrant for the state of life wherein they pray and the ploughmans prayer is more acceptable to God then theirs because he followeth that rule of life which God hath taught who neuer prescribed any rule of Monkish trade Good innocent soules saith he whereas by all stories it appeareth that there hath not bene a more stinking vermine vpon the earth euen some of their owne men haue discouered them so to be But M. Bishop is not satisfied vnlesse to folly he adde blasphemie saying that they satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh Impious man Christ is the satisfaction for our sins what haue we to do with the satisfactions of wretched men who damnably sinne in those things wherein they take vpon them to satisfie for others sins And what M. Bishop is there any superfluous pampering of the flesh to be found amongst you Alas how haue ye deceiued vs all this while We thought that you had bene nothing but spirit and that superfluous pampering of the
obit Theodos Ambrose by c Hieronym in chronico Hierome by d Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 26. Socrates by e Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 32. Theodoret by f Sozomen lib. 2. cap. 32. Sozomen who all declare that Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia amidst many Bishops there and that newly before his death which was g So it is by the computation of Funccius but Sozomen hist lib. 1. cap. 16. saith that Iulius the second after Syluester was Bishop of Rome at the time of the Nicene Councell which being so Syluester must be dead at least thirtteene yeares before Constantine was baptized seuen yeares at least after the death of Syluester with this leud tale I say Adrian maketh his onset for Images then proceedeth to the contaminating and prophaning of the Scriptures alledging that God made man according to his Image as if thereupon it should concerne vs to make images and worshippe them that Noe and Abraham set vp altars vnto God that Iacob erected a stone and powred oile vpoÌ„ it called it Gods house that the same Iacob worshipped vpon the top of his rod as if worshipping of Images were to be prooued by examples of hauing no Images to worship that Moses made the brasen serpent and the Cherubims and h Si IsraeliticuÌ„ populum per inspectionem oenei serpentis seruatuÌ„ à sua peste credimus Christi verò Dei et seruatoris nostri omniumque sanctorum figuras contemplantes et venerantes dubitamus nos seruari if saith he the people of Israel were saued from their plague by looking vpon the brasen serpent doe we doubt but that we are saued beholding and worshipping the Images of Christ and of all the Saints as if there were the like reason of that which God in one kinde for speciall cause commaundeth and that which in another kinde man of his owne head fondly presumeth without God For further proofes he citeth out of the Psalmes i Psal 95. vulga Confession and beauty are before him k Psal 25.8 Lord I haue loued the beautie of thy house and the place of the tabernacle of thy glory l Psal 26.13 My face hath sought after thee thy face Lord will I seeke m Psal 44.14 The rich of the people shall make their supplication before thy face n Psal 4.7 O Lord the light of thy countenance is sealed vpon vs. Can we hold him for other then a graue and reuerend Prelate that could dispute so substantially so wisely so learnedly for the worshipping of Images May not we be taken for blinde buzzards that cannot see the same sufficiently prooued and warranted by these texts or rather are we not to take him for a lewde cosiner and peruerter of Gods word who would thus detort and wrest the Scriptures to that whereto they giue no semblance of approbation or liking As he dealeth with the Scriptures so doth he with the Fathers He alledgeth amongst others one place vnder the name of Basil in which the words are which M. Bishop here citeth which yet is certaine to haue bene written by another a long time after the death of Basil AmoÌ„gst other words there are these o Confiteâ—r deinde sanctam Mariam quae secundum carnem illum peperit hanc Deipara vocans I confesse holy Mary who brought forth Christ according to the flesh calling her Deiparam the mother of God which there is no maÌ„ so blind but seeth that they are purposely set down against the NestoriaÌ„ heresie and that without doubt after the time of the Ephesine couÌ„cel when that name of Deipara was first publikely auouched to the churches vse which was holden about 50. years after Basils time Yea and it was yet long after that also before these words were written inasmuch as there is affirmed the worshipping of images whereas there is no example of the worshipping of images then to be found in any Church throughout the whole world Some other of the Fathers he handleth in the same sort citing them all either falsly or impertinently whilest either he impureth to them that which they neuer wrote or impudently forceth to the gracing of the worshipping of images that which they spake onely of the historicall and ciuill vse Yet vpon these silly grounds the Councell proceedeth and they professe their beleefe to be p Constant iuxta teuorem literaruÌ„ quae ab Adrianâ— c. missae sunt hominibus consentio c. câ— hac fide ad tribunal Christi proficiscar c. Elias perfectò eas adorans qui verò secus consitentur eos anathematizâ— according to the tenour of Adrians letters perfectly worshipping images saith Elias Cretensis and I pronounce anathema to them that professe otherwise yea q Staurat Imagines recipio amplector honore velut arrbaboneÌ„ existentes mea salutis secùs autem sentientes anathematize I receiue embrace and honour them saith Stauratius the Bishop of Chalcedon as being the earnest of my saluation and I accurse them that thinke otherwise See here the worthy companie of M. Bishops learned men much respecting what the grounds and proofes were that they would conclude vpon In the third action after the receiuing of some other penitents they reade the communicatorie letters of Tharasius lately before chosen Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarchs and Bishops of Antioch and Hierusalem and their answers to him wherein they signifie their consent to the worshipping of images For proofe they care not it is enough to say they professe it and the rest of that act is nothing but voyces of approbation of that which they say In the fourth action they fall roundly to their businesse and bring foorth their proofes such as they haue and happie is he that can bring foorth a place that but speaketh of an image that is argument good enough for the worshipping of them First because they would haue it knowne that they had a Bible amongst them they bring it foorth and there they reade some few places out of Exodus Numbers and Ezechiel concerning the making of Cherubims to which they adde the place to the Hebrewes mentioning r Heb. 9.5 the Cherubims of glorie ouershadowing the mercie-seate Hereupon Tharasius giueth this worthie obseruation Å¿ Animaduertamus viri sacerdotes quia vetus Scriptura diuina habuit Symbola ex haec assumpsit noua Cherubim gloriae obumbrantia propitiatorium Sancta Synodus dixit Rectè domine itae est veritas Let vs marke that because the old Testament had diuine signes the new hath from thence taken the Cherubims of glorie couering the mercie-seate the whole Synod answering Verie right so the truth is indeed A companie of very wise men that could not see that the new Testament no otherwise speaketh of the Cherubins then as of a matter pertaining to the old and therefore what should hence be gathered for auouching images in the new Tharasius goeth yet further t Si vetus
blotted out that blasphemie written in her forehead because then the state was Christian which before had bene Heathen so that vnto the partie Pagan and not vnto the Church of God he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot which also the very text it selfe doth conuince for it hath That she was drunk with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus Verse 6. Now the Church of Rome had not then by the confession of all men drawne any bloud of Christs Saints but in testimonie of his truth had powred out abundance of her best bloud Wherefore it is most manifest that the harlot could not signifie the Church of Rome so pure and free from slaughter but the Roman Empire which was then full gorged with that most innocent and holy bloud Againe that whoore is expounded Verse 18. To be a citie which had kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth But the Church of Rome had then no kingdom ouer the earth or any temporall dominion at all but the Roman Emperours had such soueraigne commaundement ouer manie Kings wherefore it must be vnderstood of them and not of the Church Now to take kingdome not properly for temporall soueraigntie but for spirituall Iurisdiction as some shifters do is to flie without any warrant from the natiue signification of the word vnto the phantasticall and voluntarie imagination And whereas M. Perkins saith pag. 5. that Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and crueltie against the Saints is all one with the heathenish Empire he both seeketh to deceiue and is greatly deceiued he would deceiue in that he doth apply words spoken of Rome aboue 1500. yeares ago vnto Rome as it is at this day and yet if that were granted him he erreth fouly in euery one of his particles For first touching princely dominion the Roman Empire held then all Italy all France all Spaine all England a great part of Germanie of Asia and also of Africke hauing their Proconsuls and other principall Officers in all those Countries drawing an hundred thousand millions in money and many other commodities out of them Wherefore in princely dominion and magnificall state it surmounted Ecclesiasticall Rome which hath not temporall dominion ouer the one halfe of that one kingdome of Italy more then an hundred degrees And as for persecution the Empire slue and caused to be slaine more Saints of God in one yeare then the Church of Rome hath done of reprobates and obstinate heretikes in 1600. yeares R. ABBOT WE see that M. Bishop hath some skill in Oratory but it seemeth he hath learned one precept aboue the rest of extenuation or diminution to giue semblance of making light of his aduersaries arguments and not to be touched therewith when notwithstanding hee is galled with them and wounded at the heart Of this lesson he maketh good vse throughout his whole booke but here in the beginning hauing his wits yeâ— fresh he goeth somewhat beyond it and will make his Reader beleeue that that text of the Apocalipse which M. Perkins propounded for the matter of his Prologue Go out of her my people c. is so farre from making against them as that it is an aduertisement to all men to forsake the societie and fellowship of all them that shew themselues aduersaries to the Church of Rome The Apostle telleth vs a 1. Cor. 11.19 There must be heresies that they which are approued may be knowne Because there must be heresies there must be heretickes men giue vp to reprobate sence obstinate and wilfull in their wicked fancies euen then when they are b Tit. 3 11. condemned in themselues Otherwise such is the light and euidence of Scripture in directing that admonition as a caueat against the Church of Rome at least wise to euerie mans eyes and sight there is that probabilitie thereof as that a man would not beleeue but that the handling of this point should haue made M. Bishop to tremble and feare and to surcease from going any further in the rest specially seeing that for the safeguard of his minion of Rome he is faine to go so directly contrarie to the euidence that stood against him Yet we see how gloriously hee carieth himselfe here in the beginning and maketh shew of great largesse and of giuing his aduersarie all the aduantage he can But let him remember what Solomon saith c Prou. 25.14 A man that boasteth of false liberalitie is like clouds and wind without raine His words shew more courage then wisedome and he giueth his aduersarie no aduantage at all but what hee must haue whether he will or not The question is whether Babylon and the whoore of Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation be to be vnderstood of Rome or not He alledgeth out of Austin and some other ancient though not indeed so ancient writers and out of a learned troupe of later interpreters as it pleaseth him to terme them that by Babylon is vnderstood the whole corps and societie of the wicked But his maister Bellarmine hauing mentioned that exposition for answer to our obiection leaueth it and saith d Bellarm de Aâ—tichrist cap. 13 secunâ—o dici potest meâ— iudiciomeliùs per mercâ—â—â—em intell giâ—â— mam It may be sayd and in my iudgement better that by the harlot is vnderstood Rome So had he before sayd that S. Iohn e Ibid. cap. 5. Explicat mulierem esse vrbem magnamquae sedet super septem câ—lles id est Romanâ— declareth that the woman is the citie that sitteth vpon seuen hils that is saith he Rome The verie cleere light of the truth made him to confesse that in the description of the whoore of Babylon Rome must necessarily bee vnderstood he must shift otherwise as hee might but he saw that to denie this would be no shift Yea and the exposition that M. Bishop bringeth maketh nothing to the contrarie For although we vnderstand that Babylon do import the whole corps and societie of the wicked yet we are also to vnderstand that this corps and societie hath a head from whence the name is deriued to the whole body and therefore the notification of the body specially being a body so confused must needs be by the description of the head The affirming I say of Babylon to be the whole corps and societie of the wicked doth not exclude Rome from being meant by the whoore of Babylon because the head is necessarily implied in the whole body and Rome is described and set forth vnto vs as being the head of that societie And that the head is here properly meant is inuincibly manifest because the speech is here of f Apoc. 14.8 17.2 her that maketh all nations drunke with her fornications and is therefore to be distinguished from the body of the wicked of all nations which are made drunke by her But for declaring of this point S. Austin in sundrie places diuideth the whole body of mankind by g August in Psal 26. 61.
bene blinded with the doating loue of his mistresse he would haue seene that Antichrist certainly had bene come because the certaine and infallible token of the comming of Antichrist which was the ruine of the Roman Empire was apparantly fulfilled For it was the temporall Empire that the ancient fathers spake of they neuer were so mad as to dreame of a spirituall empire to be diuided to ten kings Of the temporall and ciuill state of the Empire it was that Tertullian said d Tertul. de resur carnis Romani imperij abscessio in decem reges dâ—uisa Antichristum superduceâ— The decay of the Roman empire diuided to ten kings shall be the bringing in of Antichrist Of the fulfilling whereof Eberhard Archbishop of Iuuauia aboue three hundred and fiftie yeares ago spake thus in an assembly of the states of Bâ—uaria e Auencâ—â— Annal lib. â— Ro ani maiestas populi qua oâ—â—m orbis regabatur sublâ—â—â— est do terrâ—â— c. Imperator vana appellaâ—â—s folâ— vmbra est Regen decem parâ—â—â—r existuâ—â— quâ— orbem tâ—rrae Romanum quondaÌ„ imperium non ad regendum sed ad consumendum parâ—â—ti sunt Decem cornua Turcae Graeci Aegyptij Afri Hispani Galle Angli Germani Siculi Itali Romanas prouincias possident Romanosque in hiâ— excidere colonos Cornu paruulum sub his sucereuit c. The maiestie of the people of Rome by which the world in times past was ruled is taken out of the earth The Emperour is a vaine title and onely a shadow There are ten kings being together who haue diuided the world which was sometimes the Roman empire not to gouerne but to consume it The ten hornes the Turkes Greekes Egyptians Africans Spaniards French English Germans Sicilians Italians do possesse the Roman prouinces and haue thence worne out the colonies of the Romans A little horne is growne vp vnder these which hath eies and a mouth speaking great things Thereof Lyra also saith f Lyra. in 2 Thess cap. 2 A Romano imperio recesserunt quaso omnia regna negantia ei subijci reâ—ditionem tributi Iam à multis annis imperiuÌ„ illud caruit imperatore All kingdomes in a manner are gone from the empire of Rome denying to it subiection and payment of tribute now for manie yeares hath that empire beene without an Emperour The empire of Rome then is long ago abolished and come to nought all Bellarmines deuices cannot set it vp againe The Empire that now is is but a meere title the name without the thing and not to bee accounted so much as the shadow of the Romane empire Yea what it is it is the Germane not the Roman empire for how should he be called Emperour of Rome who hath nothing to do in Rome For the Pope these many hundred yeeres hath vsurped Rome and taken it for his owne wholy excluding the Emperour from thence g Auent Annal. li 6. Aâ—ulia nostra cum vrbe Romana est non Imperatoris Romae nostra sedeâ— est Imperatoris est Aquis c. The citie of Rome is ours saith Adrian the fourth not the Emperors our seate is at Rome the Emperours seate is at Aquez in Arduenna which is a wood in France h Theodoric à Num. li 3. ca. 43. Si ad Romam Italiam respexeris fuit illa quidam veteris Impeâ—â—j sedes sed nunc Imperator nihil de ea habet quà m titulum If a man looke to Rome Italy saith Theodoricus it was indeed the seate of the ancient empire but now the Emperour hath nothing thereof but a title onely So then it is but a mockery now to call him the Roman Emperour he shall vnder the name of an Emperour be onely one of those ten kings to whom the Empire should be diuided And hereby the Bishop of Rome is infallibly knowne to be Antichrist because in the fall of the Empire he is risen vp and insteed of the temporall maiestie he hath set vp a spirituall empire and iurisdiction of his owne As for temporall dominion he needeth not to make him Antichrist to haue any more but onely the state and territorie of Rome The Emperor was the sixt Antichrist the Empire being dissolued must be the seuenth head of that Romane state which the Pope hath long time bene and i Bâ—llar de Rom. Pontif. lâ—b 5. ca 9 Bellarmine defendeth him so to be But to make him equall to the heathen Emperours in state and princely dominion his spirituall iurisdiction hath bene fully sufficient in respect whereof k Blond instaur Romae lib. 3. Omnes principes orbis terrarum pontificem vt summum deum honoram colunâ— c. Maiora vel certè parta priscorum temâ—â—rum vectâ—g â—libus Eur papenè omnâ— tributa Romam mittit all princes of the world as saith Bloudus the Popes secretarie did honor the Pope as the highest God and almost all Europe did send their tributes to Rome greater or at least equall to the reuenues of ancient times Yea euen out of this realme of England there went greater reuenues to Rome as l Math. Parisâ—â—â— Henr. 3. Mathew of Paris and others haue noted then were the reuenues of the Crowne Therefore a very simple euasion doth M. Bishop vse in saying that by temporall dominion the Pope is a hundred degrees lesse then the Emperour was when as he knoweth that by his spirituall empire and kingdome he hath beene as great and indeed greater then euer the Emperour was Now I would haue him to remember what his maister Bellarmine saith that m Bellarm. de Antichr cap. 15. Exiâ— Antichristus vltimus rex qui teneâ— it Romanum imperium tamen sine nomine Romani Imperatoris Antichrist shal be the last that shall hold the Romane empire and yet without the name of the Romane Emperour He would not see it but indeed he doth thereby rightly describe the Pope who without the name of the Emperour hath vnder another name of spirituall iurisdiction holden the Empire in subiection to himselfe This he should do because the temporall dominion was to bee diuided to ten kings This he hath done and hath holden those kings vnder his obedience and yet these men stop their eyes and will not see him to be that that indeed he is As for that which M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins seeketh to deceiue in that hee applieth to Rome at this day that which was spoken of Rome 1500 yeares ago hee is therein much deceiued himselfe because those things which were spoken of Rome 1500. yeares ago were spoken by way of prophecie to discouer Rome vnto vs as it is at this day His last exception is that the Empire slue more saints of God in one yeare then the Church of Rome hath done of obstinate heretikes in 1600. yeeres Where after the manner of the persecutors vnder the old empire he calleth them reprobate and obstinate heretikes who were indeed the Saints of God Of
them the Church of Rome slue none at all vntill by vsurpation of the Pope she became the seate and kingdom of Antichrist but how she hath played her part since it may be esteemed by that that Bellarmine himselfe reporteth that by n Bellar de notis eccles cap 18. eight thousand which as Mathew of Paris noteth were the Popes o Math. Paris in Ioanne anno 1213. crosse-marked souldiers there were slaine at once in Fraunce a hundred thousand of the Albigenses in the time of Innocentius the third Mathew Paris againe mentioneth that not long after in the time of Pope Gregorie the ninth there were slain of theÌ„ in Almaine p Idem in Henr. 3. anno 1234. an infinite number besides a great multitude of them destroyed in Spaine Now these Albigenses although they will not haue it so taken were professors of the Gospell euen of the same faith and religion which we now professe of whom it were infinit to record how many hundreds and thousands they haue slaine vnder the names of Waldenses Leonists Lollards Wicleuists Hussites Hugonots and such like But of later times Paulus Vergerius who himselfe had bin one of the Inquisition spake vpon good knowledge of his own declared that by the same very Inquisition within the space of thirtie yeeres there had bin martyred q Bale de Act. Rom. Pontif. lib. 7. in fine ex Vergeâ—o a hundred and fiftie thousand men and women onely for the Gospels sake The French massacres and butcheries will not bee forgotten wherein M. Stow mentioneth that r Stowes Annals anno 1562. in marg the slaughters at Vassey Paris Sens Tholouse Blois Tours Angiers and other places by credible estimation reported out of France in the yeare 1562. were to the number of a hundred thousand persons within the space of sixe moneths After which about the space of ten yeares followed the slaughter of Bartâ—emewtide most barbarous and cruell wherein some thirtie or fortie thousand were destroyed in Paris and other cities of France within a very short space and thereupon great gratulations made at Rome with processions and other tokens of publike ioy Thus they haue made no end of martyring the Saints of Christ and haue equalled the crueltie of the heathen Empire to the vttermost and yet this hypocrite being instructed by his maister Bellarmine and hauing sold himselfe to dub his lies telleth vs that his Romane Church or the Pope the head therof hath not at all shed so much bloud as by the heathen Empire was shed within the compasse of one yeare The bloud that they haue shed crieth for reuenge and they shall receiue it in due time W. BISHOP Hauing thus proued that the whore of Babylon signifieth the heathen state of Rome and not the Ecclesiasticall let vs now heare what you say against it Marrie that the distinction of the Empire of Rome and Church of Rome is foolish and coyned of late to serue our turne which to be farre otherwise I proue out of those very Authors who do interpret that harlot to signifie Rome who are neither foolish nor of late dayes you haue heard it before out of S. Ambrose commentaries And farther we gather it out of S. Hierome in the Epistle which you cite for he hauing resembled Rome vnto Babylon for the multitude of the wicked which yet remained in it pointeth out a more pure part saying There is indeed the holy Church there are the triumphant monuments of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the faith praised by the Apostle c. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome Againe Tertullian who liued in the second hundreth yeare vnder those persecuting Emperours saith in one place Lib. cont Iud. Depraescript cap. 16. that Babylon is a figure of Rome in respect of her proud Empire and persecution of the Saints And in another that Rome was most happie for her holy Church vnto which the Apostles with their bloud had poured forth their whole doctrine See a plaine distinction betweene the Heathen Empire and the holy Church of Rome â— Pet. 5. which finally may be gathered out of the expresse word of God Where the Church in Babylon coelect is distinguished from the rest of that city which was Pagan You say but without any author that Babylon there doth not signifie Rome but either a city in Egypt or Assyria But Eusebius lib. 2. his cap. 14. S. Ierome de Eccles script vers Marcus with other Authors more worthie of credit do expound it of Rome And you your selues take Babylon for Rome where you thinke that any hold may be taken against it as in the 17. of the Reuelation but in S. Peters Epistle they will none of it because it would proue too plainly that S. Peter had bene at Rome R. ABBOT We haue here a friuolous and idle discourse onely to giue a mocke to the vnlearned Reader We doubt not but that there was a difference of old to be made betwixt the prophane state of the Empire and the state of the Christian Romane Church and who would go about to make any question of that matter Nay we say further that there is exceeding great difference betwixt the Church of Rome that then was and the Church of Rome that now is because the church of Rome that now is is become in dominion and princely state like to the Empire that then was And in this respect is it that M. Perkins calleth that a foolish distinction not because it putteth difference betwixt the heathen Empire and the church that was but because it distinguisheth to no purpose the Empire of Rome that was from the church of Rome that now is when as the Bishops sea is now turned into the Emperours court and by pretence of spirituall iurisdiction the beast that now is is become the perfect a Apoc. 13.12.14 image of the former beast Some difference there is in that the Empire was wholy Pagan and the church in some sort professeth Christ but in pompe and pride in filthinesse idolatry and crueltie the church is now the same that the Empire was He bringeth a place of Peter needlesly to proue his distinction and in that place will needs haue it that by Babylon must bee meant Rome We are well content at his offer to take it so but so as that he must remember that being once Babylon it should neuer finally surcease that name vntill it caried Antichrist for the seuenth head thereof vnder whom the abhominations of it shall grow to their full measure that that heauie destruction may fall vpon it which God hath threatned for full vengeance W. BISHOP Well M. Perkins is content in fine to allow of that distinction of Heathenish and Ecclesiasticall Rome which before he esteemed so foolish and then will proue that not the Heathenish but Ecclesiasticall Rome is resembled to the purple Harlot See what confidence this man hath in his
the grace of God he saith which Pelagius also would say but both teaching no other grace but what the heathens themselues confessed that m Arist de mundo Cic. de Nat. Deer Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatud uino vnquam suit Neminem nisi inuante Deo talem fuisse creuoÌ„ dum est neuer any man proued great and excellent without some diuine instinct so that Aristotle and Tully and such other acknowledging the same must now be taken for Preachers of the grace of God Wherein we may wonder at their impudencie that doubt not to affirme a thing so plainely absurd and so resolued against by S. Austin in his defences against the Pelagians concluding by imitation of the Apostles words that n Aug de nat grat cap. 2. Seâ—er uniturum iullâ—â—a sutilla fâ—dâ— assiâ—â—s Christi resurrectious instâ—tans cego Câ—â—ssâ—â— gratis â—â—â—â—us est if by the law of nature there be righteousnesse without the faith of the passion and resurrection of Christ then Christ died in vaine And againe that o Ibid. cap. 9. Fece quod est crutem Chr sti euâ—cuare sine illa quenquam per naturalem legem voluntatis arbitrium iustificari posse contendere to affirme that a man may be iustified by the law of nature and Free will is to make the crosse of Christ of no effect But by all this we see that their speech of grace for conuerting of man to God is but collusion and meere Pelagian hypocrisie as whereby indeed they attribute no greater a work to God in bringing man to righteousnesse then to the diuell in bringing man to sinne Which being condemned in the p Frosp de lib. arbit Ostendere volun inter boni mali contrarius suasiones ita omnem hâ—minem proprie discretiom esse commissum â—t câ—â—mplus a Deo praesidij quà m a Diabolo fis periculi Pelagians as a horrible impietie and blasphemie yet by Costerus the Iesuite in his Enchiridion is manifestly acknowledged to be their meaning q Coster Enchirid cap 5. Sicut daemon tentatione mentem nostram praua cogâ—tatione concupiscentiae motu tangit ac pulsat afficereque conatur voluntatem vtiâ— peccatum consentiat quae sua libertate motiones has omnes admittere potest reijcere tia sunt in nobis dâ—umi quidam insiuxus aliquddo quidem aliquando constantiores qui cor nostrum pulsant relicta interim voluntati sua libertate qua fieri potest vt vel susciptan tur vel repulsam patiantur that as the diuell by temptation and suggestion toucheth our minds and knocketh at the doore of the heart and seeketh to moue the will to consent to sinne which notwithstanding is at it owne libertie to admit or reiect the same so are the influences of Gods preuenting grace whether sudden or more constant which do beate and knocke at the hart but so as it is left in the libertie of the wil to accept or refuse euen in as plain termes as Pelagius said r August Epist 107. Consentire hominis libero arbitrio constitutum est c. Libertate naturali si vult facit si non vult non facit that to consent to God consisteth in mans Free wil and that by libertie of nature he doth so if he will This paines I haue taken to vnhood M. Bishop and his Councell of Trent and to make good that that I haue before affirmed that the Church of Rome now maintaineth the heresie of Pelagius which anciently was condemned by the Church of Rome That which he alledgeth out of Thomas Aquinas is of the same stampe neither can his antiquitie of three hundred yeares adde any grace to that which eight hundred yeares before him was vniuersally condemned by the whole Church Whether M. Perkins his reasons do destroy their assertion of Free will vpon determining the state of the question in the next section it shall appeare 6. W. BISHOP Now the verie point controuersed concerning Free will M. Perkins hath quite omitted which consisteth in these two points expressed in the Councell First whether we do freely assent vnto the said grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it And secondly when we concurre and worke with it whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of which our Author is silent only by the way in his fourth reason toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul which are commonly alledged against Free will R. ABBOT This true point of the controuersie is contained in the proposition of the Pelagians that a Aug. ep 107. Vt Euangelio consentiamus non est donum Dei sed hoc nobis est à nobis id est expropria voluntate quam nobis in nostro corde non operatus est ipso to consent to the Gospell is not the gift of God but that this we haue of our selues that is to say of our owne will which he hath not wrought for vs in our hearts For thus you haue M. Bishop all this while affirmed that grace hauing performed and done what appertained to it for the conuersion of man there is behind a distinct and proper act of the will which either by consenting and yeelding maketh good or by dissenting and refusing maketh frustrate all that grace hath done This you all inculcate beate vpon that that when God hath wholy done his part it is in mans will either to make or marre and so do plainly teach with Pelagius that God doth helpe b Idem de grat Certisti to it Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 25. possibilitatem naturae our naturall power that we may be able to consent and will but actually to consent and will is left still free to our owne will and choise And thus M. Bishop you your selfe informe vs when propounding the first part of the question Whether we do freely assent vnto grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it you hold affirmatiuely that by Free will we assent vnto grace hauing it in our power and choise to refuse the same Whether this be so or not is the point and we resolue with S. Austin c Idem ibid. Non solùm Deus posse nostrum donauit atque adiuuat sid etiam velle operatioperatur in nobis that God doth not onely giue vs and helpe vs to be able to will and to worke but also worketh in vs to will and to worke he doth not so offer vs grace as to leaue vs to assent vnto it if we will but himselfe worketh also in vs to be willing and to giue our assent vnto it who d De praedest sanct cap. 20. Cum Deus vult aliquid fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibus oportet fieri incitnantur eorum cordae vt hoc vt
aut aliquid huiusmodi At verò nunc si dâ—câ—ret quia nigâ—â—dinem non haberet seipsaÌ„ seduceret c. in the place of her pilgrimage with the comelinesse of her feature she wanteth not her mole or spot of blacknesse It shall be otherwise in her countrey saith he when the bridegroome of glorie shall make her to himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinkle or any such thing But now if she should say she hath no blacknesse she should deceiue her selfe and there were no truth in her And yet we see that euen now the bridegroome speaking to her saith q Cant. 1.7 O thou fairest among women r Cap. 4 1. Behold thou art faire my loue behold thou art faire She is Å¿ Ezech. 16.14 faire by his beautie which he hath set vpon her but remaineth yet still a Blacke-moore by that that she hath remaining of her selfe Therefore he saith O thou fairest but yet addeth amongst women S. Bernard telleth the meaning t Berâ—ar in CaÌ„t. ser 38 Ego te dico pulchram sed inter mulieres id est ex parte I call thee faire but amongst women that is in part or partly faire thereby giuing againe to vnderstand that partly she continueth a Blacke-moore still And what doth M. Bishop thinke it amisse to confesse so much of himselfe doth he take it in scorne to be likened to a Blacke-moore Let him be well assured that if he thinke scorne to confesse himselfe a Black-moore he shall neuer be any of them that shall be clothed in white Nay because being a Blacke-moore and very blacke he setteth nought by the white garment of Iesus Christ let him know that his shame and nakednesse lieth open and his filthinesse continueth lothsome and hatefull in the sight of God As for his exaggeration I omit it because it is but the running ouer of his vncleane mouth which ceaseth not to crie full of iniquitie full of iniquitie of him whom Christ hath begunne to purge from iniquitie and framed in conuersation to depart from iniquitie as we professe of euery one that is iustified by faith in him 8. W. BISHOP M. Perkins last reason is taken from the consent of the auncient Church and yet citeth sauing one two lines nothing out of any auncient writer nor out of any other but out of onely S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ so that he signifieth that there is little releefe to be had in antiquity Which Caluin declareth more plainly for he commonly setting light by all other in this question reiecteth also S. Augustine saying Lib. 3. Instit cap. 11. num 15. Yeâ— not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter who attributeth our sanctification to grace wherewith we are regenerate in newnesse of life by the spirit And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Councel of Trent saith We contend not how the Fathers take iustification And a little after I am not ignorant that they spake otherwise then we do of it Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himselfe with some few broken sentences of later writers But was S. Bernard trow you in this one point a Protestant Nothing lesse His words be these The iustice of another is assigned vnto man who wanted his owne Epist 190. man was indebted and man made paiment c. But better let his owne reason there cited serue for exposition of his former words which is this For why may not iustice be from another as well as guiltinesse is from another Now guiltinesse from Adam is not by imputation but euery one contracts his owne by taking flesh from him euen so iustice is from Christ powred into euery man that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost In the second place he saith That mans iustice is the mercifulnesse of God that is by Gods free grace and mercie it is bestowed vpon vs. With S. Bernard in the third place we acknowledge that we haue no iustice of our owne that is from our selues but from the goodnesse of God through the merits of our blessed Sauiors passion reade his first sermon vpoÌ„ these words of the Prophet Isay Vidi DominuÌ„ c. Ser. 1. Super Isaiam There you shall see him speake plainly of inherent iustice and how it is a distinct thing from the iustice of Christ Another broken peece of a sentence In Psal 22. there is cited out of S. Augustine Christ made his iustice our iustice That is by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vs as he expoundeth himselfe Tract 27. in Ioan. What is this the iustice of God and the iustice of man The iustice of God is here called that not whereby God is iust but that which God giueth to man that man may be iust through God R. ABBOT S. Bernard may be sufficient to testifie vnto vs the doctrine and consent of the auncient Church vnlesse M. Bishop can charge him to haue departed therefrom which because he dares not do least haply he should make an heretike of him whom his holy Father hath made a Saint he must needes yeeld that antiquitie hath acknowledged the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ because S. Bernard hauing so learned of antiquitie hath giuen expresse testimonie and witnesse of it Yea but Maister Bishop telleth vs that Caluin plainly declareth that for this there is liâ—â—le reliefe to be had in antiquitie who commonly setting light by all the rest in this question reiecteth also Saint Austine Now he citeth certaine words of Caluin very lewdly falsified and wrested from the purpose to which they were spoken The thing that Caluin there speaketh of is the signification of the name of grace He taxeth the Maister of the Sentences for his misconstruction of it who he saith though taking vpon him to follow Austine yet varied from him both obscuring and corrupting him But the schoolemen that came after he condemneth much more for that they neuer gaue ouer till they were growne in a maner to Pelagianisme Hereupon he addeth a Caluin Instit lib. 3. ca. 11. sect 15. Ac ne Augustins quidem sententia vel saltem loquendi ratio per omnia recipienda est Tametsi enim egregiè homineÌ„ omni iustitiae laude spoliet ac totam Dei gratiae transcribit gratiam tamen ad sanctificationem refert qua in vitae nouitatem per spirâ—tum regeneramur And indeed the sentence of Austine or at leastwise his manner of speaking is not in all respects to be receiued For although he do notably bereaue man of all commendation of righteousnesse and do ascribe it wholy to the grace of God yet he referreth grace to sanctification whereby through the spirit we are borne againe to newnesse of life Compare these words gentle Reader with those that M. Bishop hath cited consider whether thou maiest dare hereafter to trust him vpoÌ„ his word Caluin noteth Austine only for some vnproper
Be it so and yet by all our expence and labors and trauels we merite nothing we looke for nothing by desert but craue it of the blessing and free gift of God Let M. Bishop say Is there any man who by his labour and paines can challenge at Gods hands a morsell of bread as of merite and desert If he cannot but is still bound to crie amidst all his trauels Giue vs this day our dayly bread why doth he put man in opinion of meriting at Gods hands eternall life who cannot by all his workes bind God vnto him for his dayly bread We labour therefore to lay hold of eternall life by such meanes as God hath ordained and by the exercise of good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in but after all our labour we still beg eternall life at Gods hands as of his meere blessing and gift that it may be true both in the beginning and in the end that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Yet he telleth vs that God hath appointed good workes for vs to walke in to deserue eternall life But where hath he so appointed We find that God b 1. Ioh. 5.11 in his Sonne hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and that he hath c Ephes 2.10 prepared for vs good workes to walke in as the Apostle speaketh namely to that eternall life which he hath giuen vs but that he hath appointed vs good workes to deserue eternall life M. Bishop cannot tell vs where to find Now because the spirit of God hath not any where taught vs so to conceiue what is it but Satanicall insolencie thus to teach against the doctrine of the spirit And whereas he saith that Saint Austine and the best spirit of men since Christs time haue taught that heauen may be merited we first tell him that all that is nothing vnlesse Christ himselfe haue so taught and secondly that he falsly fathereth vpon the Fathers this misbegotten bastard of merite which in that meaning as he and his fellowes teach it was neuer imagined by the Fathers as partly hath appeared alreadie and shall God willing appeare further 13. W. BISHOP But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the ancient Church and then beginneth with S. Bernard who liued a thousand yeares after Christ he in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things which we call merits are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of raigning I answer that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Ser. 68. in Cantie which is Bernards owne doctrine Manuâ—l cap. 22. Secondly he citeth S. Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sence that is by vertue of his death and passion my sins are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to do good workes and so to merit In Psal 114. Thirdly Basil Eternall life is reserued for them that haue striuen lawfully not for the merite of their doing but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combat and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the workes but in a fuller measure according vnto the bountie of so liberall a Lord where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits Psal 120. 4. M. Perkins turnes backe to Augustine vpon the Psal 120. where he saith as M. Perkins reporteth He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Answ S. Augustine was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. What congruitie is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits It had bene better said He crowneth thee not c. But he mistooke belike this sentence of S. Augustins When God crowneth thee he crowneth his gifts not thy merites De grat lib. arb cap. 6. Which is true being taken in that sence which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crowne his owne gifts not thy merits if thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then we may as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose Psal 142. but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainly now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie R. ABBOT The place of Bernard is in the very end of his booke De gratia libero arbitrio where hauing before deuided a Bernar. de grat et lib arbit Dona sua Deus in merita diuisit proemia the gifts of God into merits and rewards he sheweth that merites are wholly to be ascribed vnto God because b Non equidem quòd consensus ip se in quo merituÌ„ omne consistit ab ipso libero arbitrio sit c. Deus facit volenteÌ„ hoc est voluntati suae consentientem to consent to God which is the thing wherein merite wholly consisteth is not of our free will but of God himselfe So that although God in the worke of mans saluation do vse the will of man himselfe yet there is nothing in the will of man to that purpose but what is c Totum ex illa wholly of the grace of God Now hauing disputed and shewed these things at large in the end of the booke he shutteth vp all with this conclusion d Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita spei quaedam sunt seminaria charitatis inceÌ„tiua occuliae praedâ—stinationis iudiciâ— futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noÌ„ causa regnandi If properly we will terme those which we call our merites they are the seedgrounds of our hope incitements of our loue tokens of our secret predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our raigning or of our hauing the kingdome Where plainely he giueth to vnderstand that whatsoeuer is spoken of our merites is but vnproperly spoken that God hauing purposed vnto vs eternall life bestoweth his grace vpon vs to leade a godly life as a foretoken thereof and therefore that our good workes are but the way wherein God leadeth vs to his kingdome which hee of his owne mercie hath intended and
standing oracle of a written law to which all men at all times might resort to be informed as touching duty and seruice towards God And as in the creation of the world howsoeuer the light were at first sustained and spread abroad by the incoÌ„prehensible power of God yet when he created the Sun he conueighed the whole light of the world into the body thereof so that though the Moone starres should giue light yet they should shine with no other light but what they receiued from the Sun euen so in the constitution of the Church howsoeuer God at first preserued continued the knowledge of his truth by immediate reuelation from himselfe to some chosen men by whose ministerie he would haue the same coÌ„municated to the rest yet when he gaue his word in writing he conueighed into the body of the Scriptures the whole light of his Church so that albeit there should be Pastours and teachers therein to shine as starres to giue light to others yet they should giue no other light but what by the beames of the written law was cast vpon theÌ„ Which beames albeit they shined not then altogether cleare bright many things being lapped vp in obscure dark mysteries rather signified by figuratiue ceremonies then expressed in plain words yet were they not to walk by any other light nor to go without the coÌ„passe of the writteÌ„ word only what was obscure therin God by his Prophets froÌ„ time to time made more more apparent vntill by Iesus Christ in the writings of his Apostles Euangelists he set vp a most full perfect light Now then in M. Perkins meaning it is true that from Adam to Moses the word of God passed from man to man by tradition that is by word onely not by writing and thus as M. Bishop alledgeth good fathers godly maisters taught their childreÌ„ seruants the true worship of God true faith in him But it is true also which he signifieth in the second place that they whoÌ„ God thus raised vp to be teachers instructours of others receiued not the word only by tradition from others but had reuelation confirmation thereof immediatly from God himselfe Therefore there is no argument to be taken hence to giue any colour to Popish tradition nay we may iustly argue that if God would haue had the religion of Christ to be taught in any part without writing he would haue taken the course which he did then by immediate reuelation to continue and preserue the integritie and truth thereof 2. W. BISHOP His 2. Concl. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one exaÌ„ple he puts that the blessed virgin Mary liued died a virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Helui dius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it * De haeres ad Quod. hae 84. R. ABBOT It is necessary to saluation to beleeue that our Sauiour was conceiued and borne of a virgin We perswade our selues also according to the common iudgement of the Church that she so continued and died but yet we deny it to be any matter of saluation so to beleeue We say as S. Basil doth that a Basil de human Christi generat Hoc nunc suspicionem generat ne forsan posteaquam puritate sua generationi dominicae per spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ administratae seruiuit tum demuÌ„ nuptialia opera viro Maria noÌ„ negauerit Nos verò licet nihil hoc doctrinae pretatis â—ffiâ—eret nam donec dispensabatur Christi generatio necessaria erat virginitas quid verò postea sit factuÌ„ ad mysterij huius doctrinam non anxiè coÌ„â—ungenduÌ„ est vâ—runtameÌ„ c. it should be no whit preiudiciall to the doctrine of faith that the virgin Mary after that she had in her virginity serued for the generation of Christ should performe the office of a wife to her husband Her virginity was necessary till the birth of Christ was accoÌ„plished but what was afterwards done is not too scrupulously to be adioined to the doctrine of this mysterie But yet that no man might to the scandall and offence of deuout persons affirme rashly that she ceased to be a virgin he sheweth that the places of the Gospell which seeme to giue suspition thereof do not euict it but may well be construed otherwise And therefore Heluidius for mouing an vnnecessary question hereof to giue occasion of publike disturbance and for affirming rashly that which he had no warrant sufficiently to proue was iustly condemned reiected by the Church neither can we approue any thâ—t shall do as he did 3. W. BISHOP His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances and Traditions touching time place of Gods worship And touching order comlinesse to be vsed in the same mary with these foure caneats First that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd See what a reuerent opinion this man carieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Sinagogue which is no part of the true Church Secondly that it be not imposed as any part of Gods worship This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comelinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship Thirdly that it be seuered froÌ„ superstition c. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seuered from superstition The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he termeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knowes that then which is of record there cannot be termed a Tradition R. ABBOT The cautions set downe by M. Perkins are materiall necessary against the vsurpations of the Church of Rome which hauing forsaken the direction of the spirit of God in the word of God is now led by a 1. Kings 22.23 a lying spirit by b 1. Tim. 4.1 spirits of errour and therefore in her ordinances and traditions swarueth from the grauity and wisedome of the holy Ghost The ceremonies of the Masse are apish and ridiculous toies whereby in that which Christ instituted for a most sacred and reuerend action they make the Priest more like to a iugler or to a vice vpon the stage in his duckings and turnings his kissings crossings his lifting vp and letting downe his putting together the forefinger the
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
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
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
Quodcunque aduersus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis etiam vetus coÌ„suetudo Christ did not call himselfe custome but truth that whatsoeuer sauoureth against the truth is heresie though it be an auncient custome As for the instances which M. Bishop saith he bringeth for the iustifying of Traditions vnwritten they are partly impertinent and partly heathenish and hereticall deuises and surely if the Church had bene then fraught with traditions as the Church of Rome is now he would not haue bene so slenderly furnished for the approuing of them His first instance is that in baptisme x AquaÌ„ adituri contistamur nos renunetare diabolo pompae et Angelis eius they did professe to renounce the diuell and his pompes and his Angels But this is no other but written doctrine and the Scripture teacheth it when it nameth y Heb. 6.1 repentance from dead workes as one of the foundations of Christian profession and of the doctrines of the beginning of Christ and we vse the same renunciation in baptisme who yet disclaime traditions vnwritten Forme of words maketh no difference of doctrine though in other termes yet we do no other thing therein but what the Scripture teacheth vs to do His second instance of z De hinc ter mergitamur thrice dipping is a matter onely of ceremony not of doctrine and it is meerely indifferent whether it be done once as in the name of one God or thrice as to import the Trinity of the persons As for a Jnde suscepti lactu mellis conâ—ordiam praegustamus the tasting of milke and hony which is his third instance it was also a voluntary obseruation which may seeme first to haue bene brought in by heretikes howsoeuer after it got place in the Church because Dionysius who for his time most exactly describeth Dionys Ecclesiast hierarch cap 4. the ceremonies of the Church maketh no mention of it c Lauacro quotidâ—â—â—o 〈◊〉 die peâ— tot 〈◊〉 mâ—lâ—â— abstinemus Die dominico reiunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Eadem immunitate 〈◊〉 in Pentecosten vsque gaudemus Not to wash for a weeke after baptisme not to fast or pray kneeling vpon the Sunday or betwixt Easter and Whitsontide vvere also but positiue ceremonies subiect to the discretion of the Church vsed in some places and times and not in other insomuch that in part they are growne out of vse euen in the Curch of Rome and therfore come not within the compasse of traditions as we here dispute of them d Eucharistae SacramentuÌ„ in teÌ„pore victas c. etiam anielâ—canis caetibus nec de aliorum quam praesidentium manu suntimus To receiue the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Ministers is the institutioÌ„ of Christ and we are taught it by the written word but either to do it in the morning before day or at the time of other feeding was a meere arbitrarie and indifferent thing and the Church of Rome now vseth it at neither time e Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitijs annua die facimuâ— Offerings yeerely made for the dead and for birth-daies were first brought in by the heretike Montanus to whom now Tertullian had addicted himselfe and of whom the ecclesiasticall historie testifieth that f Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. cap. 16. Sub praetextu nomine oblationum munerum captationeÌ„ artificiose coÌ„mentus est vnder the pretence and name of offerings he cunningly deuised the taking of rewards and gifts And although the one of them by the plausible colour of it tooke such fast hold as that the streame thereof hath runne into the lakes and puddles of the Church of Rome yet the other was soone reiected or not at all admitted but onely amongst his fellowes Origen testifying that Christians g Origen in Iob. lib 3. Nos noÌ„ natiuitatis dieÌ„ celebramâ—s sed mortis c in Leâ—iâ—t hom 8 Nemo ex omnibus sanctis inuenitur dum festuÌ„ c. egisse in die natalis suâ— did not celebrate their birth-day and that it was not found that any of the Saints had made a festiuall day of his birth-day h Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terraÌ„ decuti anxit pa timur Not to endure to haue any part of the Sacrament fall to the ground is a part of that i 1. Cor 14.40 decencie and reuerence which the Scripture requireth to be vsed in sacred and holy things or if he speake it of ordinary bread and drinke the Scripture also teacheth that of those good blessings of God k Iohn 6.12 nothing should be lost The vse of l Ad omneÌ„ progressum atque promotum ad omneÌ„ aditura et exituÌ„ ad vestitum calceatum ad lauacra ad men sai ad lumina ad cubilia ad sedilia quaecunque nos conuersatio exercet frontem crucis signaculo cerâ—nus the signe of the crosse was ceremoniall also no matter of doctrine and faith but onely an occasion of remembrance and a token of the profession therof which in discretion for temporary consideration was begun and by like discretion cause so requiring might be left againe Our Church in some part where it is most free from Popish abuse vseth the signe of the crosse and yet well knoweth that vnwritten traditions as the name is vnderstood in this disputation are not iustified thereby We doubt not as touching outward vsages and ceremonies as touching positiue constitutions and ordinances of the Church but that vnder the name of traditions according to the circumstances before expressed they may be commanded and are to be obeied though they be not contained in the Scripture but for matter of faith and of the worship of God we deny that any thing may be admitted beside the written word and Tertullians instances are too weake to serue Maister Bishops turne to prooue the contrary To be short it appeareth plainly by Tertullian that the Catholike Church defended then against heretikes the same that we now defend against the Papists that pretence of Tradition without authority of Scripture auaileth not and therefore that the Papists vnder the name of Catholikes are indeede heretikes wrastling and fighting against the Church 11 W. BISHOP Come we now vnto his second testimonie out of S. Ierome * In cap. 23. Math. who writing as he saith of an opinion that S. Iohn Baptist was killed because he foretold the comming of Christ the good-man would say Zacharie S. Iohns Father for the Scripture sheweth plainly why S. Iohn lost his head * Math. 14. But S. Ierome there saith this Because it hath not authoritie from Scriptures may as easily be contemned as approued Out of which particular M. Perkins shewing himselfe a doughtie Logitian would inforce an vniuersall that forsooth all may be contemned that is not proued by Scripture As if you would proue no Protestant to be skilfull
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
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
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
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—
the Epistles in generall if any thing in Paules Epistles sound to him as contrary to the doctrine of the Catholike Church it is vnknowne what Church they meane he faileth of the right sense Thus howsoeuer clearely the scripture soundeth yet it meaneth not that which it saith if it be contrarie to that which they affirme To this impudent deuise they are driuen because they see that the scripture condemneth them vnlesse they themselues haue the managing of the scripture that if the scripture be admitted for iudge it peremptorily pronounceth sentence against them so that they haue no meanes to colour their abhominations but by challenging to themselues to be iudges of the scripture As for vs we hang the doctrine of faith not vpon our expositions but vpon the very words of God himselfe we make the holy scripture the iudge not in ambiguous and doubtfull speeches but in cleare and euident sentences where the very words declare what the meaning is It is a question betwixt vs and them whether Saints images be to be worshipped or not they say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge speake x Exod. 20.4 Deut. 5.8 Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any likenesse of any thing in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the waters vnder the earth thou shalt not now down to them nor worship them It is a question whether there be now any sacrifice to be offered for the forgiuenesse of sins They say there is so in their Masse we say there is none Let the Iudge speake y Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you for many for remission of sins z Heb. 10.18 Now where remission of sins is there is no more offering for sin It is a question betwixt vs whether the Saints be our Mediators vnto God or not They say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge determine it a 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God saith he and one Mediatour betwixt God and man euen the man Iesus Christ It is a question whether a man be iustified before God by workes or not They say it must be so we say it cannot be Let the Iudge answer it b Rom. 3.20 By the workes of the lawe shall no flesh be iustified in his sight c Gal. 3.11.12 That no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God it is euident for the iust shall liue by faith and the law is not of faith but the man that shall do those things shall liue in them They alledge that the Iudge saith that d Iam. 2.24 a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely we say that that is onely in the sight of men or with men they say that it is in the sight of God Let the iudge end it e Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioyce but not with God It is a question whether the crosses and sufferings of the Saints do yeeld vs any helpe with God or any part of satisfaction for our sinnes They say they do we say they do not let the iudge tell vs whether they do or not f 1. Cor. 1.13 Was Paul crucified for you g Gal 6.14 God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ It is a question whether the people ought to be partakers of the Lords cup they say no we say yea Let the iudge decide it h Mat. 26.27 Drinke ye all of this Thus in all matters betwixt them and vs the iudge speaketh clearely on our side his words are so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Yet notwithstanding they tell vs that all these things haue another meaning which we must take vpon the Popes word The commādement forsooth is meant of the idols of the Gentiles not of the images of Saints As if a whore-monger should say that the lawe forbiddeth whoredome of Christians with heathens not one with another The Scripture they say intendeth there is no other Mediator of redemption but one but Mediators of intercession there are many As if an adulterous woman should say that she may haue but one husband of this or that sort but of another sort she may haue many And yet they make them mediators of redemption also because they make them mediators of satisfaction and redemption is nothing else but the paiment of a price of satisfaction Thus they dally in the rest and shew themselues impudent and shameles men let them for their meanings reade to vs as plaine words of the iudge as those are that we reade to them and we will admit of them If not they must giue vs leaue to stand to the sentence of the iudge of heauen and earth and to account the Pope as he is a corrupt and wicked iudge although were he what he should be yet void of all title of being iudge to vs. 22. W. BISHOP Giue me leaue gentle Reader to stay somewhat longer in this matter because there is nothing of more importance and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke Consider then with your selfe that our coelestiall Law-maker gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects * Ierem. 31. 2. Cor. 3. endowing them with the blessed spirit of truth * Iohn 16. and with a most diligent care of instrusting others that all their posteritie might learne of them all the points of Christian doctrine and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word and more for the true meaning of the word then for the word it selfe These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God them must we consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion and submit our selues wholy to their decree S. Paule that vessell of election may serue vs for a singular modell and patterne of the whole who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospell from God yet went vp to Hierusalem with Barnaby to conferre with the chiefe Apostles the Gospell which he preached lest perhaps he might runne in vaine and had runne as in expresse words he witnesseth himselfe * Gal. 2. Vpon which fact and words of S. Paule the auncient Fathers do gather that the faithful would not haue giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine vnlesse by S. Peter and the other Apostles it had bene first examined and approued * Tertul lib. 4. in Marc. Hier. Ep. 89 quae est 11. inter Ep. Augustini August lib. 28. contra Faustū cap. 4. Againe when there arose a most dangerous question of abrogating Moses lawe was it left to euery Christian to decide by the written word or would many of the faithfull beleeue S. Paule that worthy Apostle in the matter Not so but vp they went to Hierusalem to heare what the pillars of the Church would say where by the decree of the Apostles
in councell the controuersie was ended which S. Paule afterward deliuered in his preaching commanding all to obserue and keepe the decree and ordinance of the Apostles * Acts 16. And if it would not be tedious I could in like manner shew how in like sort euery hundredth yeare after errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written word they were confuted and reiected not by the written word onely but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholers and Successors See Cardinall Bellarmine * Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. I will onely record two noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquitie for the true sense of Gods word the first out of the Ecclesiasticall historie * Lib. 11. cap. 9. where of S. Gregorie Nazianzen and S. Basil two principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both Noble men brought vp together at Athens and afterward for thirteeene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes employed their studie wholy in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning whereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as were knowne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles these be the very words The other example shall be the principall pillar of the Latin Church S. Augustine who not onely exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscuritie of doubtfull questions * Lib. contra Crescon 1. c. 33 but plainely affirmeth That he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it * Conâ—ra Epist sund cap. 5. Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluin would haue them that S. Augustine had not bene at first a Christian if by the authoritie of the Church he had not bene therunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these books of the Gospell to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquitie generalitie and consent did tell him which and what they were so farre was he off from trusting to his owne skill and iudgement in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent R. ABBOT M. Bishop here setteth the stocke vpon it and at one game he is minded to winne all but indeed as a cousening gamester by shifting and iugling beguileth honest simple men so doth he abuse the simple Reader with goodly glorious words crauing leaue as it were to giue him satisfaction in a high point and applying himselfe vnder this colour most trecherously to delude him Consider saith he that our coelestiall lawgiuer gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects For this he quoteth the words of God by the Prophet Ieremy a Ierem. 31.33 After those dayes saith the Lord I will put my law into their inward parts and write it in their hearts c. and the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians b 2. Cor. 3.3 Ye are manifest to be the Epistle of Christ ministred by vs not written with inke but with the spirit of the liuing God not in tables of stone but in fleshly Tables of the heart Now therefore he will haue vs to conceiue that which Andradius one of the great masters of the Trent-Councell hath told vs that c Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 2. Non spectauit Christus vt EuaÌ„gelium literit descriptum aut in membranu exaratum iaceret sed vt verbis explicatum omni creaturae promulgaretur Christ did not looke that the Gospell should lye written in letters or printed in parchments but that by declaration of words it should be published to all creatures Where we see how they apply themselues so much as in them lyeth to impeach vilifie the authoritie of Scriptures as if they were written onely of priuate fancie and Christ had had no care or regard to haue it so But how impertinently those places are brought for proofe hereof appeareth very plainely out of the words themselues For what was the law that God promised by Ieremy to write in the hearts of his people Was it not the law giuen before by Moses concerning which Moses also expresseth the same promise that Ieremy doth d Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seede that thou maist loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule that thou maist liue Now e Exod. 34.1 that law God himselfe had deliuered in writing and f Vers 27. commaunded Moses also to write the same Therefore the words of Ieremy as touching writing Gods law in our hearts can import nothing against the writing of it with inke and paper but onely that the lawes which were before by the ministerie of Moses deliuered onely in inke and paper should by the power of the holy Ghost through the faith of Christ be wrought and written in the affections of the heart that God in Christ would not administer onely outwardly the letter of the lawe whether in writing or in preaching but would in both by the regeneration of the spirit giue grace inwardly for the fulfilling of it As little to that purpose is the other place The false Apostles laboured to impeach the credit of S. Paules Apostleship as if he had had no sufficient commission or warrant of it S. Paul for himselfe alledgeth that the Corinthians were as an Epistle from Christ whereby he was sufficiently commended and his calling testified vnto them in that the Gospell by his ministery had had so great successe taken so great effect amongst them That singular effect of his preaching he importeth to haue bene a greater assurance vnto them then any epistle written with inke and paper and to haue commended his ministerie aboue the ministerie of Moses who gaue the Law onely in tables of stone because here the spirit of God concurred with the outward seruice and wrought mightily in their hearts for the receiuing of the doctrine of the faith of Christ and conuerting of theÌ„ vnto God Now to say that the CorinthiaÌ„s were an epistle not writteÌ„ with ink nor in tables of stone what is it to shew that the celestial law-giuer gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper Surely the difference of the two testaments which is the thing that M. Bishop would insinuate was neuer holden to consist in this that the one should be written and the other vnwritten because euen in the old testament the new was written but herein it stood that the one either written or taught by word ministred onely knowledge what we ought to do not anie grace
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
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
true worship of God that they were in practise before Moses Law is euident by that vow which Iacob made * Gen. 28. of setting vp a stone which should be called the house of God and of paying the tenthes of all his goods Out of which vow we also gather that God holdeth for agreeable any kind of good seruice offered vnto him out of our owne deuotion albeit he hath not commaunded it for no such thing as Iacob there vowed was commanded him but he being well assured that it would be well taken by God which was offered of good will to his greater honour he vowed it and is in holy Scripture commended for it Againe that when Saint Paul * Colos 2. seemeth to disalow voluntarie worship he must be vnderstood to speake either of erronious or of friuolous and foolish things promised to God which do not properly serue to the setting forth of his honour R. ABBOT Our diuine seruice our praiers and thanksgiuings to God our hearing of his word and receiuing of his sacraments are indeede the worship of God and our publike assemblies are instituted hereby to honour God but as for the externall ceremonies of time place apparell kneeling standing and sitting if M. Bishops wits stood right he would know that they are things accidentall to the worship of God but no parts thereof God is not honoured by our meeting at such a time or by being in such a place or by wearing such or such apparell or by our kneeling or standing or sitting but by the things which according to his commaundement we do in the vsage of these things The Church was wont to forbeare kneeling in their praiers from Easter to Whitsontide and yet we suppose M. Bishop is not so absurd as to say that therefore they failed to do to God some part of his worship A number of apish gestures for many hundred yeeres were wanting in the masse and was there some part of Gods worship wanting all that while This matter needeth not to be stoode vpon nor would there haue bene occasion to speake of it at all but that mens senses commonly faile them most when they thinke to vse them most acutely against God He calleth our congregations irreligious and saith they are assembled against Christ and his Church but God hath iustified our congregations to theiâ— shame and confusion and for the maintenance of them hath so shewed his prouidence power that as the Aegyptians said a Exod. 14.25 The Lord fighteth for Israel against the Aegyptians so the Romish idolaters haue bene forced to say The Lord fighteth for the English congregations against vs. But to come to the matter he findeth fault with M. Perkins his report of their doctrine and therefore himselfe reporteth it that they hold that neither in the old nor new law any man is bound to vow but that it euer was a counsell and no commandement yet neuerthelesse a thing of great deuotion and perfection in both states and intrinsecally belonging to the true worship of God Where as touching ceremoniall vowes he saith truly that in the old law no maÌ„ was expresly bound to vow but that those vowes were matters of perfection in the old law if we will take it vpon his word we may but how to proue it he cannot tell it is a meere dotage neither is there any ground whereupon to affirme that euer they were taken so to be Nay euen then was it true which Origen saith b Origen in â—â—um hom 24. Seâ—â—tipsuâ— Deo offètre hoc est perfectius emineâ—tuâ— omnibus votis quod qui facit imitator est Christi To offer a mans selfe to God was a matter of greater perfection and eminencie then all vowes which he that doth saith he is the follower of Christ But as touching vowes promises of spirituall duties and seruices which were figured in those ceremoniall deuotions it is vtterly false which he saith whether in the old or new law that we are not bound vnto them and his owne words do plainly shew the coÌ„trary For he telleth vs that vowes do intrinsecally belong to the true worship of God and who doubteth but that God hath required and commaunded whatsoeuer belongeth intrinsecally to his worship and seruice For if they be not commaunded there is no necessity of them If there be no necessity of them then the religion and worship of God may stand perfect without them If the worship of God may stand without them then they do not intrinsecally belong to the true worship of God But because the true vowes are intrinsecally and essentially belonging to the true worship of God therefore we must vnderstand and know them to be commaunded of God and that he hath not left any intrinsecall part of his true worship to depend vpon our will And this will yet further appeare by Maister Bishops proofe who setting downe the matter and forme of a vow the matter the good thing which is vowed the forme the promise it selfe made to God telleth vs that this promise and the performance of it are substantiall parts of Gods worship For by promising saith he of any good thing to God we acknowledge and professe that God is the soueraigne goodnesse it selfe Now if vowes be a substantiall part of Gods worship and yet not commaunded of God then some part of the substance of Gods worship hangeth vpon our discretion and choise whether to yeeld it him or not and wee may yeeld him a maimed worship wanting some part of the substance of it and yet commit no trespasse against him So likewise if vowes be the acknowledging and professing of the soueraigne goodnesse of God and yet not commaunded of God we may without sinne forbeare some part of the acknowledgement and profession of the soueraigne goodnesse of God If thereby wee testifie that he is most maiesticall reuerend and dreadfull and yet God haue not commaunded them we may refuse to giue this testimony without any impeachment of the maiestie of God But God is not worshipped in that sort he hath not left our acknowledgement of him arbitrary to the discretion of our will He hath commanded vs c Psal 96.8 to giue vnto him the glory of his name that is the glory that belongeth is due vnto him and if vowes be a part of that glory as M. Bishop telleth vs they be they cannot be exempted from that commandement Christ hath commanded vs d Mat. 22.21 to giue to God the things that are Gods If vowes be a substantiall part of the worship of God we are tied to giue the same vnto him neither may we thinke our selues bound for one part onely and at our own liberty for the other Now all this paines that he taketh to proue that vowes are a part of the worship of God is but lost as touching vs because he fighteth without an aduersary proueth that which we deny not but it giueth vs aduantage against them to charge them with
reason Master Perkins had to allow of the ciuill and historicall vse of Images I thinke it expedient to note here how in the purest antiquitie Images were made and respected That famous Image of our blessed Sauiour which the woman cured of the bloudie fluxe * Mat 9. set vp in brasse at Caesarea Philippi vpon a pillar of stone is not vnknowne vnto any that haue read the Ecclesiasticall History of Eusebius Lib. 7. cap. 14. And how God did approue it by giuing vertue vnto an herbe when it did grow to touch the hemme of that Picture to cure all manner of diseases Which Image Eusebius himselfe did see standing vntill his dayes which was 1300. yeares agoe as he there testifieth as also that he saw diuers others namely of Saint Peter and Paule This goodly stature being most memorable both for antiquitie of it being made our Sauior yet liuing and for the miracles wrought by that herbe growing at the foote of it Iulian the Apostata for malice against our Sauior caused to be broken downe and set vp his owne image in the place of us but his was presently with lightning and thunder from heaueÌ„ consumed into ashes and our Sauiours by the Christians carried into their Church as witnessech Zozomenus * Lib. 5. hist cap. 20. Another picture of our Sauiours visage he himselfe is reported to haue sent vnto Abgarus Prince of Edessa as witnesseth Metaphastes In vita Constantini Damascene * Lib. 10. de Imaginibus and Euagrius * Lib. 4. hist c p. â— who doth in the same chapter rehearse a notable miracle wrought by the same Image to deliuer the towne from the sacking of the Persians And in his fifth booke and 18. chapter recordeth another miracle done by the image of the blessed Virgin Marie in a prison at Antioch The third Image representing our blessed Sauiour is said to haue bene made by Nicodemus his secret Disciple which afterward was taken by the Iewes and in despite of Christ was crucified and to their confusion much bloud issued out of it This historie is in the worke of S. Athanasius that sound pillar of the Church intituled De passione imaginis and is either his or some other verie ancient and graue writer For it is related in the seuenth generall Councell act 4. That Saint Luke the Euangelist drew the picture of our blessed Laedie is registred by Theodorus Lector 1000. yeares ago and * Lib. 1. collectaÌ„ Metaphrastes In vita Lucae and Nicephorus * Li. 14 hist 1 2. Tertullian an author of the second hundredth yeare after Christ hath left written * Lib. 2. de pudic that the Image of Christ in shape of a shepheard carying a sheepe on his shoulders was engrauen vpon the holy Chalices vsed in the Church In the time of S. Chrysostome they were so common that they were caried in rings drawne on cups painted in chambers See Theodoret. in histor relig in vita Simeonis Stelitae August lib. 2. de cons Euang. cap. 10. And the 7. Synod Act. 4. R. ABBOT This Section M. Bishop writeth neither against M. Perkins nor against vs but onely against some hoter brethren indeed against his owne shadow because I know none that do not allowe of the ciuill and historicall vse of Images But yet it shall not be amisse to note somewhat as touching some of the examples that he bringeth because albeit by his owne wordes it appeareth and is true that they are nothing to his purpose yet his drift is by such examples of Images to gaine some credite to their corruption and abuse of them It is true that Eusebius maketh mention of such an Image set vp a Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 17. at Caesarea Philippi by the woman whom Christ cured of the bloudie issue and that an herbe grewe at the foote of it which when it grew to a certaine height cured all diseases miraculously but that he himselfe saw it he saith nor neither doth he speake of anie religion or deuotion in anie sort done vnto it If Poperie had then swayed what a worke would there haue bene about that Image what pilgrimages what offerings what kneeling what censing and no end of superstition But there was no such matter nor anie manner of seruice done for the honour of it Of the erecting of that Image Eusebius himselfe there saith b Ibid. Nec mi rum videri dâ—â—â—â— eos qui ex gertibus olim a Seruatore nostro curata suntasta secissâ— quando Apostolorum illus imagines Pauli videl cet Petri conâ—que apsius Christiâ—â— tabulâ— colorious depictaâ— assâ—ruari vidimus quòd veteres ex geÌ„tili consuetudine eos quos seruatores putâ—rum hunc in modum honorare solui sunt It neede not seeme strange that those of the Gentiles who of old were cured by our Sauiour Christ did such things for that we haue seene the Images of his Apostles Peter and Paule yea and of Christ himselfe kept painted with colours in tables for that of old they haue bene wont by a heathenish custome thus to honour them whom they tooke to be preseruers and sauiours of them Where it is duely to be noted that Eusebins referreth the originall hereof to the Gentiles to heathenish custome and imitation not to anie-institution of Christ or of his Apostles and Euangelistes or other Pastours and Bishops of the Church Againe that which he saith of other Images of Christ and Peter and Paule he saith as of a matter verie seldome and rare We haue seene such saith he as importing it was no common and ordinarie thing As for that which M. Bishop maketh the speciall commendation of this Image which is the herbe growing at the foote of it it maketh me greatly to suspect that in the report of it somewhat is amisse do thou iudge gentle Reader whether there be not iust cause of such suspition First Eusebius himselfe reporteth the matter onely by hearesay c Ibid. Domum eius ostendi beneficijque Seruatoris illam collati admiraÌ„da trophaea durare serunt c Hanc statuaÌ„ imaginem Iesis habere dicuÌ„t c MaÌ„sit ad nostra vsque tempora sicut vinere potest ab ijs qui in illam citatateÌ„ commigrant They say saith he that the womans house is yet shewed and that there continueth a notable monument of the benefite done to her by our Sauiour they say that the same hath the Image of Iesus It hath continued euen vntill this time and may be seene of them that trauell to that Citie If he had reported this matter as of his owne sight and knowledge some more reason there had bene to giue credite to it but he doth not so report it and therfore we cannot so firmely rest vpon that which he saith Secondly we so much the lesse beleue it for that it hath no other testimony but only his hearesay there being no other of the ancient fathers that giueth vs any
idolatrie or in perill thereof Take away the feare of superstition and against images or pictures we say nothing If therefore some of the Fathers not fearing or suspecting that heathenish abhomination wold get place in the Church were more secure in this behalfe and doubted not to adorne their Churches or other places with pictures images of Christ and his Apostles of Saints and Martyrs we wonder not thereat but yet how rare a matter this was may appeare by the poore store of examples that M. Bishop bringeth thereof That of Tertullian was onely p Tertul. de pudicitia ProcedaÌ„t picturae Calicum vestrorum si vel in illis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius ouis perditae à Domino requisitae humeris eius reuectae a picture vpon the chalice of a shepheard carying his lost sheepe vpon his shoulder as in figure of Christ seeking mankind recouering him to God of which kind of picture no man maketh any question The second example is of the Image that stood in the street at Cesarea Philippi which in the time of Iulian the Apostata was broken in peeces by the Paganes and the Christians q Sozomen hist lib. 5. cap. 20. Christiani cùm eius fragmenta collegissent in Ecclesia posueruÌ„t tooke vp the fragments thereof and set it in the Church Gregorie Nazianzene mentioneth certaine r Gregor Naz. Epist 49. Nequâ— enim si statuae deijciantur hoc nos excruciat c. images in the Church of Diocaesarea but what they were or whose they were it appeareth not but by his words of trimming not the images but Å¿ TempluÌ„ quod exstruximus omneque nostrum in eo exornando studium the Church it appeareth that they were onely for the ornament thereof Basil onely mentioneth an image or picture that did represent the t Basil Orat. de Barlaam Abibo certaminum ac victoriarum Martyris à vobis posita imagine victus c. Video manus ad ignem luctam exactiù◠à vobis descriptam c. burning of the hand of Barlaam the Martyr more liuely set foorth then he could by words declare it of which kind M. Bishop may see many in the stories of our Martyrs Their Pontificall is but a bastard witnesse and of too late yeares to tell vs what Constantine did he must bring vs better proofe or else we beleeue not that which he reporteth by it though to vs it be nothing The last instance out of u Chrysost demonstrat Quòd Christus sit Deuâ— In fronte nostra figuratur sic in sacramensa in sacerdotum ordinationibus sic iterum cum corpore Christi in mysticis caenis fulget Chrysostome and x August de sanct Ser. 49. Cum crucis charactere Altaris sacramenta confistuntur Austin though that out of Austin de Sanctis be a meere forgerie concerneth onely the signe of the Crosse vsed at the Sacrament as before was said not any standing image either of the Crosse or of him that was crucified and therefore is wholy impertinent to the matter here in question Hereby then the Reader may suppose that the vse of Pictures and Images in the Primitiue Church was not great but specially of those standards whereof our question is principally intended and by which idolatrie hath specially bene committed inasmuch as there are so few certaine and pregnant examples thereof to be found But whether it were greater or lesse experience hath since taught vs to misdoubt that which they misdoubted not We haue found it to be true which the author of the booke of Wisedome saith that y Wisd 14.10 images are a snare to the feet of the vnwise and that z Cap. 15.5 the sight of an image stirreth vp the desire of the ignorant so that he is in loue with the forme that hath no life euen of a dead image a August Epist 40. Cum his sedibus honorabili sublimitate locantur vt à precantibus immolantibus attendantur ipsa similitudine animatorum membrorum atque sensuum quam uis insensata exanima affiâ—iunt insumos animos vt viuere ac spirate videantur When they are honorably set vp in places aloft saith S. Austin that they may be beholden of men praying and offering vnto them euen by the very semblance of liuing members and senses albeit they be senslesse and without life they so affect weake minds as that they seeme to be aliue and to take breath b Idem in Psal 113 Ducit infirmo quodam affectu rapit infirma corda mortalium formae similitudo membrorum imitata compago post Quis adorat vel orat intuens simulachrum qui non sic assicitur vt ab eo se exaudiri putet ab eo sibi praestari quod desiderat speret The similitude of the forme saith he againe and imitation of the frame of the members leadeth and draweth by an infirmity of affection the weake hearts of men and who worshippeth or prayeth beholding an image but he is so affected as that he thinketh the same heareth him and hopeth that that which he desireth shall thereby be done for him Hauing then found this by experience to be true we are carefull to shunne all the danger of such superstition and therfore where we find Images subiect to such abuse as in the hands of Popish Recusants we deface and destroy them and otherwise that there may be no occasion of such abuse we eschew and auoide the setting vp of the like as haue bene vsually worshipped amongst theÌ„ chusing rather to garnish our Churches with sentences of Scripture or with such Imagerie as Solomon did the temple wherof there may be no daunger then with glorious standards and images of men which may againe giue occasion of stumbling and falling to the weake minds of simple and ignorant men As for M. Bishops reason why images of holy men should be placed in Churches it standeth vpon so fickle ground as that it must needes fall He alledgeth that the Apostle Heb. 9. maketh the Church to be a resemblance of heauen But that which the Apostle there saith is not of our Churches nor can be drawne thereto but is spoken of the Sancta sanctorum the most holy place of the temple of Hierusalem into which onely the high Priest entred in figure of Iesus Christ once in the yeare wherby saith he c Heb. 9.8 the holy Ghost signified that the way into the holiest of all that is into heauen was not yet opened while as yet the first tabernatle was standing Hence then we argue against M. Bishop out of his owne grounds that seeing in the most holy place of the temple which was indeed the resemblance of heauen there were admitted no images of holy men therefore in our Churches though they be granted to carrie a resemblance of heauen which he cannot proue yet it followeth not that Images should be admitted to haue any place Yea and the
men And they verily who are worshipped are dead but they bring in their images to be worshipped which neuer were aliue the mind going a whoring from the true and only God euen as a common strumpet absurdly desiring variety of carnall coÌ„pany is past being content with the lawfull mariage of one man Hereby appeareth the falshood of that which Epiphanius the deacon in the place here cited by M. Bishop saith as touching this Epiphanius the Bishop that in his booke against heresies he set downe none as touching images when as expresly he coÌ„demneth in those heretiks the making of the image of the virgin Mary as I haue said and offering to it as their manner was to offer to it a cake whence they had that name of Collyridians giuen to them And hereby may be conceiued what account we are to make of M.B. third reason that in the same Councell other two places were brought as it were out of Epiphanius works which were found to be none of his Where M. Bishop turneth one place into two and the same one more likely to be forged by him that mentioneth it if it were forged then by any man else The words are cited as out of an Epistle of Epiphanius to Theodosius the Emperour in the end wherof he saith these words were b Synod Nicen 2 Act. 6 Epiphan resp tom 5. Saepe cum comministris meis de ablatione imaginuÌ„ egi sed ab iijs noÌ„ receptus sum neque vel in pauciâ— vocem meam audire sustinuerunt I haue often dealt with my fellow Ministers for the taking away of images but I haue not bene accepted of them neither would they suffer that in some few words I should speake vnto theÌ„ These words or rather the whole Epistle Epiphanius the deacon affirmeth not to haue bene written by the other Epiphanius but alledgeth nothing to proue it so Only like a wily Sophister he reckoneth vp of the Bishops that liued in the time of Epiphanius diuerse chiefe men as Basil Gregory Nazianzene Gregory Nyssene Chrysostome Ambrose Amphilochius and Cyril so carying the matter as if these were the men with whom Epiphanius had dealt and hereupon inferring that if these so worthy men would not yeeld to him for the taking away of images theÌ„ there should be no reason now to take them away whereas he had no reason at all whereupon to imagine that these or any of these should be the men whom Epiphanius meant Now beside that Epistle he importeth that some other writings there were alledged of Epiphanius directed against Images which that being the readiest way to put them off he without any proofe at all affirmeth to be counterfeit but seeing we haue found him false as touching those workes which he confesseth to haue bene written by Epiphanius we can giue him no credit for the deniall of the rest Whatsoeuer they were we see they haue taken course to make theÌ„ away and indeed what hath lien in them they haue laboured to suppresse whatsoeuer most clearely did make against them and in place thereof to fâ—ist in bastards and counterfeits such as are fit to serue their turne but are altogether vnworthy of them whose names they are forced to beare The last reason of Epiphanius his scholers erecting an image to him and setting it in the Church of what waight it is may be esteemed by that that hath bene said It resteth only vpon the credit of Epiphanius the DeacoÌ„ that is little in this case Epipha the Bishop of Cyprus liued 400 years before this Epiph. the deacoÌ„ that is before the time of that 2. Nicen Councell If they wold haue bin beleeued as touching a matter foure hundred yeares before they should haue brought meete proofe and testimonie thereof which sith they did not wee cannot hold it for truth inasmuch as otherwise wee finde them so many waies culpable of vntruth But whereas Maister Bishop saith that those Schollers of Epiphanius would neuer haue done so if he had taught the same to be against the Scripture it is his bare presumption not any necessary conclusion because though Moses had taught the children of Israel from God that they should make no Idols or worship them yet when he was but a little gone from them they made them yea Aaron himselfe made for them a golden Calfe As touching the other sentence of Epiphanius cited by Maister Perkins out of the Councel of Constantinople it is this i Synod Constantinop apud NiceÌ„ 2. Act. 6 Estote memores dilecti filij ne in ecclesiaÌ„ imagines inferatis neque in sanctorum caemeterijs eas statuatu sed perpetuò circuÌ„ferte Deum in cordibus vestris Quinetiam neque in domo coÌ„mmuni tolerentur Neque enim fas est Christianum per â—culos suspensuÌ„ teneri sed per occupationeÌ„ meÌ„tis Be mindfull beloued sonnes not to bring Images into the Church neither to set them in the Churchyards but alwaies carie God about in your hearts Yea let them not be suffered in the ordinarie house for it is not fit for a Christian man to be holden by the eies but by the occupation of the minde M. Bishop answereth that Images must be suffered in all places that we may the better carie God in our hearts being by sight thereof put in minde of him But how vaine this answer is hereby appeareth for that wee finde in the Scriptures that the setting vp of such Idols is propounded to be the k Deut. 4.23.25 forgetting of Gods couenant and the corrupting of our selues but finde it no where commended in the Scripture to be a meanes of remembring him He hath set before vs the heauen and earth as a glasse wherein we may behold l Rom. 1.20 his power and Godhead and thereby be moued to make enquirie after him He hath giuen vs his word to answer vs what is needefull when we enquire of him He hath appointed the Sacraments for seales of that grace and mercy that hee hath reuealed in his word He setteth the spectacles of his prouidence and mercie and iudgement continually before our eies By these meanes he hath taught vs to be put in minde of him and to learne to carie him in our hearts but to be put in minde of him by an Image it is onelie a vaine and friuolous pretence of Idolaters and no direction or instruction of the holy Ghost It is enough for vs that the people of God who were to remember God as well as wee yet neuer found it lawfull to set vp an Idoll to remember him thereby 11. W. BISHOP Now I come vnto a third point which M. Perkins maketh the second of our difference that images may be not onely made and set in churches but also worshipped M. Perkins holds the contrary and his principall ground is the second commandement which containes saith he two parts The first forbids the making of images to resemble God the second the worshipping of them or God in