4.2 Ye shall put nothing to the word that I command you saith Moses neither shall ye take ought there from that ye may keepe the commandements of the Lord your God which I command you thereby giuing to vnderstand that euery putting too or taking fro is a breach of the coÌ„mandement of the Lord. Against the exception which M. Bishop vseth that these words may be vnderstood of commandements as wel vnwritten as written M. Perkins answereth that these words are as a preface to a long coÌ„mentary or exposition of the written law therfore do import that to the written law nothing is to be added nothing to be taken from it but that onely was to be done which is contained therein Now howsoeuer M. Bishop doat yet the case is plaine that because Moses spake thus in respect of the written law therefore the Israelites were to admit of nothing but what was written in the law But saith he why then were there bookes of the old Testament and of the Prophets written afterwards if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught but that one booke of Deuteronomy Behold a cosening Sophister who seeth well and knoweth that saue onely by falshood and deceipt he auaileth nothing We say not that of the booke of Deuteronomy onely but of the whole written law Moses said Ye shall put nothing to it c. Againe we do not say that God did forbid any more bookes to be written or taught but that no matter of doctrine of faith or of the worship of God should be receiued or written or taught but what was deriued from the written law Now then I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue how the wise man in his owne answer circumuenteth and ouerthroweth himselfe Moses saith Ye shall put nothing to the word which I coÌ„mand you nor take ought therefrom now tell vs M. Bishop of what word did he say this He telleth vs that we must vnderstand it of the word whether written or vnwritten Be it so but you will confesse then that to the word of God deliuered by Moses written or vnwritten nothing is to be added because the words of Moses plainly expresse so much and how then came it to passe that so many bookes were written afterwards We hope you will not deny but that Moses therein taught the Israelites whatsoeuer was necessary to saluation how then doth it stand that the rest of the Prophets added so much more in writing To vse your owne words shall we thinke that the Prophets read not these words or vnderstood them not or did wilfully transgresse them We would gladlie heare whether of these you vvill say The man is mute and he hath nothing to answer if he answer as he must his answer fully serueth our turne for defending the onely written law of Moses that the bookes that were after written by the Prophets serue to explane and declare the law to shew the experiment practise of it but adde no point of doctrine nor teach any article of religion towards God but what Moses hath written in the Law But for the further strengthening of this argument it is to be noted that Moses testifieth of himself that b Exod. 24.4 he wrote all the words of God In another place it is said c Deut. 31.9.10 Moses wrote this law and deliuered it to the Priests and to all the Elders of Israel and coÌ„manded them saying Euery seuenth yeare thou shalt reade this law before all Israel The law then which he gaue them he gaue them in writing that they might read it it might be read vnto them It could not haue bene said Moses wrote this law if he had written but a part of it and left another part vnwritten Nay it is said further afterwards d Ver. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a booke vntill he had finished them then Moses commanded the Leuites saying Take the booke of this law and put it in the side of the Arke c. It is apparent then that Moses gaue not ouer writing the words of the law vntill he had finished them that is vntill he had written all the words of the law so that there was no word of the law but that that was written in the booke of the law And therfore that which is set downe by Moses e Deut. 27.26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them is thus related by the Apostle f Gal. 3.10 Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do theÌ„ therby to shew that all the words of the law are written in the booke of the law nothing left vnwritten that was any part or parcel thereof Thus when God would giue direction to Iosuah g Iosuah 1.7 to obserue and do according to all the law which Moses had commanded him giuing him charge according to the instruction of Moses here spoken of not to turne away from it to the right hand or to the left either by putting too or taking fro to shew what he meant by all the law he addeth Let not this booke of the law depart out of thy mouth but meditate therein day and night that thou maiest obserue and do according to all that is written therein Here againe it is plaine that to obserue all the law of Moses is to obserue all that is written in the booke of the law And out of this place Cyprian being vrged by Stephanus Bishop of Rome with tradition argueth against the receiuing of vnwritten traditions h Cyprian ad PoÌ„petum Vnde est ista traditriot Virumnè de dominica EuaÌ„gelica authoritate descendens an de Apostolarum mandatis atque epistolu veniens Ea enim faâ—ienda esse quae scripta sunt Deus testatur protonit Iesu Naue diceus NoÌ„ recedet c. Whence is this tradition faith he Whether descendeth it from the authoritie of the Lord and of the Gospell or commeth it froÌ„ the coÌ„mandements and epistles of the Apostles For that those things must be done which are written God testifieth saying to Iosuah The booke of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Where he plainely sheweth that out of these words he intendeth this conclusion that concerning faith and deuotion towards God as we are to do the things that are written so what is not written we are not to do And this now is cleare by the place that we haue here in hand for if all that Moses commanded were written and nothing was to be added to that that Moses commanded then nothing was to be added to that that was written and those things which were written afterwards were no additions but only declarations and confirmations of those things which he had before written And thus did the ancient Fathers vnderstand that that is said of adding or diminishing as touching
That many of the Propheticall bookes were lost may be proued out of the history of Paralipomenon which they translate Chronicles Now as for M. Perkins guesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little roles of paper some prophane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word onely without either any reason or authoritie R. ABBOT Of this argument well propounded we deny the minor propositiō We say that some of the Scriptures though some other had miscaried should containe all doctrine needfull to saluation The consequence that he maketh thereof that then those other are superfluous is childish and absurdly iniurious to the Scripture The same doctrines are contained in a hundred places of holy Scripture and who will hereupon conclude that they are superfluous in one place because they are contained in another The Euangelists diuers times record the same stories and euen word for word and must it follow that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set downe There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one booke of holy Scripture but the same hath testimonie and witnesse of other bookes Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where which otherwhere are not mentioned but points of necessary doctrine and faith haue manifold testimonie of the written word Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith that some of the old bookes were lost which the wisedome of God thought necessary for those times though vnnecessary for vs yet it cannot be inferred hereof that any doctrine was thereby lost because though there might be some matters of storie there onely mentioned yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law And if Maister Bishop will needs perswade vs that some points of doctrine were there deliuered that are not in other scripture and must now be learned by tradition we desire to vnderstand whether by tradition he haue learned what those traditions were and that out of their Churches treasury of traditions he will discouer these secrets of which neither the Prophets nor Euangelists nor Apostles nor Fathers nor Councels were euer able to informe vs. He telleth vs that Chrysostome affirmeth the losse of those books but doth Chrysostome tell him of any doctrines deriued by tradition from those books Surely he wanted some proofe for the Popes triple crowne his yeare of Iubile and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome and dreaming it in his sleepe beleeued it when he was awake that these matters were written of in these bookes and the bookes being now lost they come to vs by a tradition of which the world neuer heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand yeares But we must thinke that he wrote not these things for vs but for them who he thought would be more ready to beleeue him then we are Now M. Perkins further answereth that though those bookes were lost yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost because there might be bookes which were not reckoned for Scripture bookes For proofe hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 15.4 Whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning arguing hereof that because bookes that be lost cannot serue for our learning and all the books of scripture that were formerly written were to serue for our learning therefore no bookes of scripture formerly written could be lost M. Bishop after his manner calleth it a shamefull answer but saith not a word to disproue it He telleth vs that there were such bookes but he proueth not that they were bookes of scripture and to the reason alledged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all and therefore I passe him ouer without any further answer 19. W. BISHOP Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our argument is this Moses who was the pen-man of the old Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certain points needfull to saluation by tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therfore not likely that our Christian law should be all written That Moses did not pen all thus we proue it was as necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applied to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedy prouided in the writen law to deliuer women from that sinne therefore some other remedy for them was deliuered by tradition Item if the child were likely to die before the eight day there was remedy for them as the most learned do hold yet no where written in the law Also many Gentiles during the state of the old Testament were saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I answer that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that tradition might preserue what was then lost R. ABBOT It concerneth M. Bishop to speake well of the Iewish Cabala for if the Cabala be not good certainly Popish traditions are starke naught the Iews hauing as good warrant for the one as the Papists for the other Both of them to purchase credit to their owne fancies and deuices betooke themselues to this shifting pretence that the word of God was deliuered first by Moses and then by Christ and his Apostles partly written and partly vnwritten Whatsoeuer they haue listed to bring in either of curiositie or for profit they haue referred it to the vnwritten word and this hath bene the sinke of all both Iewish and Popish superstition both verifying in themselues that which our Sauiour obiecteth to the one a Mat. 15.6 Ye haue made the commaundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition M. Bishop here like a louing brother taketh the Iewes by the hand and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions that by them he may gaine some reputatiō to his owne His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in cōparisō of him were neuer able for themselues to deuise the like That Moses committed not all to writing he proueth because it was necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sin but they could not be deliuered from it by circumcision not being capable therof and no other remedy is prouided in
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
for the doing of it but the other not only teacheth by writing or by preaching but ministreth also grace to worke in the heart obedience to that that it teacheth g August de sp lit cap. 20. Propter veteru hominis noxam quae per literam rubeâ—rem minantem minimè fanabitur dicitur illud testamentuÌ„ vitas hoc verò nonum propter nouitatem spiritus qua hominem nouum sanâ—tà vitio vetustatis The old Testament saith S. Austin is so called because of the corruption of the old man which was not healed by the commanding and threatening letter but the other the new because of the newnesse of the spirit which healeth the new man from the old corruption But we would gladly know of M. Bishop how it is true which the Apostle saith that h 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is inspired of God if it be true which he saith that God did not giue his lawes written with inke and paper If the Gospell might well enough haue bene kept in mens hearts without writing why were the faithfull so instant with S. Marke first after with S. Iohn as we haue seene before for the writing of their Gospels Why doth the Apostle tell the Philippians that i Phil. 3.1 it was necessary for them that he should write vnto them the same things that he had preached vnto them if there were no such necessitie Why is S. Iohn in the Reuelation so often commaunded k Reuel 1.11 cap. 2.1 c cap. 14.13 to write to write if tradition might serue as well as writing Surely Irenaeus telleth vs that it was l Jren. â—ib 3 c. 1. Euangelium per voluntatem Dei in Scripturu nobâ—s tradiderunt by the will of God that the Apostles deliuered vnto vs the Gospell in writing as we haue shewed before So likewise we haue heard S. Austin saying that m Aug. supra sect 14. Christ commanded his disciples to write what he would haue vs to reade of his sayings and doings The same S. Austine saith againe that n Idem in epist Ioan. tract 2. Contra insidiosos errores Deus voluit pouere firmamentum in scripturis sanctis contra quas nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum God would place a bulwarke against deceiptfull errors in the holy Scriptures against which no man dare speake that will in any sort be taken for a Christian man Do these Fathers tell vs that it was the will of God the commaundement of Christ that his lawes should be deliuered vnto vs written with inke and paper and will M. Bishop perswade vs that it was not the will of God But I would further question with him What are they all so perfect in the Gospell at Rome as that they neede no written Gospell Is it so setled in their hearts remembrances by tradition only as that without any Scriptures it might be preserued amoÌ„gst them If M. Bishop say yea he knoweth himselfe to be a lyer If he say no what is the reason that he setteth thus lightly by inke and paper Fie vpon this wilfull blindnesse how strange a thing is it that any man should thus cast a veile ouer his owne eyes He telleth vs further that Christ endowed his Apostles with the blessed spirit of truth with a most diligeÌ„t care of instructing others that all their posteritie might learne of them al the points of Christian doctrin Now thus far he saith true but his purpose is with a little truth to colour a great lye For he addeth that we should giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word Sycophant what haue we here to do with the vnwritten word The vnwritten word is the matter in question and must it here be presumed before it be proued Let it first be made good that the Apostles meant to leaue behind them any vnwritten word We say that because they had care that all posteritie by them should learne all the points of Christian doctrine therefore they had care that all the points of Christian doctrine should be committed to writing that as S. Luke professeth to haue written to the intent that Theophilus o Luk. 1.4 might thereby acknowledge the certainty of those things wherof he had bene instructed so by his writings and the rest we should acknowledge the certaintie and assured truth of their doctrine and not lye open to the illusions of such impostors and cosiners as M. Bishop is who vnder the names of the Apostles should broach those things which the Apostles neuer thought Whereof we haue a notable example in p Euseb hist lib. 3. ca. 36. Papias who succeeded immediatly after the time of the Apostles who whilest he was not contented with those things which were left in writing but was still hearkening after euery one that tooke vpon him to haue bin a follower of any of the Apostles and enquiring what any of them had said or done swallowed manie gudgeons giuen him by such deceiuers and deliuered * Alia taÌ„quam ex viua trad tione ad se relata et peregrâ—naâ— quasdam seruatoris parabolas doctrinas cum non nullis fobâ—losis adijcit c. Apostolicas dâ—sputationes non rectè accepit c. Quamplurimis â—os se ecclesiasticis viris ciroris causam dedit quiad antiquitatem ipsius respexerunt c. as reported to him by tradition many fabulous things and strange doctrines conceiuing himselfe by that meanes amisse of the Apostles speeches and giuing occasion to many other to erre as he did whilest for his antiquitie they respected him very much This is the end of M. Bishops vnwritteÌ„ word they wil teach vs what pleaseth their Lord god the Pope theÌ„ make vs beleeue it is a part of the vnwritten word But yet he addeth again that our crediting the Apostles shold be more for the meaning of the word then for the word it self Where it is not in any good meaning that he thus nicely distinguisheth betwixt the word it self the meaning of the word leauing it forsooth to be vnderstood that they left the word one way and the meaning of the word another way the one in writing and the other by tradition But what will M. Bishop haue vs thinke that the Apostles would write words and not meane by their words to signifie their meaning Is it likely that they would write one thing and in meaning intend another Did they not write to that very end that in their writing it should appeare to all ages what doctrine they taught Surely they were honest and plaine dealing men they wold not beguile vs they wold not mock vs they haue simply told vs what their mind is There are manie difficulties in their writings and in the whole Scriptures it is true but yet there are perspicuities also so farre as is needful for the clearing of them There is to exercise the strong but yet there
sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit opere expleas diligentèr certus opperitor iucundissimaÌ„ fruitionem repositoruÌ„ tibi bonoruÌ„ c. Bonis perfruâ— siquidem desideres quae praescripta sunt mandata opere exequitor which God hath giuen as to guide vs by the hand to direct vs the way Wilt thou then saith he be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee Prouide diligently to do the things which the law coÌ„mandeth thee to do and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee If thou desire to enioy good things performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee By Basils iudgement then it is plaine that the words haue further meaning then to refer theÌ„ to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards But Hierome goeth yet further tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort e Hieron in Esa cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt maÌ„gis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum If ye doubt of any thing if ye would know the things that ye doubt of referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures What wil M. Bishop say now wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be that the Scripture the written word shold resolue theÌ„ of al that they doubted towards God Yea the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to coÌ„ceiue f Deut. 12.32 Whatsoeuer I coÌ„mand you take heed you do it saith Moses thou shalt put nothing therto nor take ought therefroÌ„ Those words M. Bish vulgar Latin expoundeth thus g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino What I coÌ„mand thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto c. Now we haue seene before that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commaÌ„ded If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded and all that Moses commanded was written then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord and nothing to be done but that that was written But saith M. Bishop what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles I haue answered him before but yet let me tell him here that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying I came not to destroy the lawe but to fulfill it replied that it could not be that Christ should say so because the author of the Law had said that nothing should be added to the law nor taken from it Saint Austine answereth him that h August cont Faust Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant sed vt fierent quae scripta erant quod ipsa eius verba iestantur Non enim ait Joâ—a vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt sed donec omnia fiant Christ came to fulfill the Law not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law but that the things should be done which are written therein as his words saith he do shew for he doth not say Not one iot or title of the law shall passe till the things be added which are wanting but till all things be done Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine but onely explanations of the law and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law but onely do further declare and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed prophecied in the law And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell professeth i Act. 26.22 to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner yet they spake k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua no new matter or to allude to Saint Austines words though they varied in the tense yet they differed not in the signification of the word but in both times or in all times the same doctrine was preached the same faith continued the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before 7 W. BISHOP 3. Testimony * Ioh. 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions Answ Here are more faults then lines first the text is craftily mangled things being put instead of miracles For S. Iohn saith Many other miracles Christ did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name which he clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. Perkins also concealed Now to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Answ S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him is not to care what one saith But M.P. foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles without the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting true and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word Christs miracles were sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation for many other points of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what need we the other three Gospels the Acts of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Iohns Reuelations Finally admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine termes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but
them But if Christ had left any such matters to be deliuered by traditioÌ„ then it should vndoubtedly be knowne which and what they were We desire then by M. Bishop to be aduertised particularly therof and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not beare What shal we think that Christ spake of that trash which they deliuer vnto vs vnder the name of traditions But S. Austin again cutteth him off froÌ„ all answer in that behalf u Ibid. tract 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit quis nostrum dicat ista vel illa sunt aut si dicere audeat vnde probat Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiaÌ„ vera quibus voluerit quae voluerit fine vllo testimonio diuino affirmet ea esse quae tuÌ„c dominus dicere noluit Quis hoc nostruÌ„ faciat non mâ—ximaÌ„ culpam remeritatâ— incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas Seeing Christ himself hath bin silent of those things who of vs can say they are these these or if he dare to say it how doth he proue it For who is there so vaine or so rash who though he say things that are true will affirme without any testimony froÌ„ God that those are the things which Christ wold not say Which of vs should so do and not incurre a note of great presumption not hauing any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spake then M. Bishop can haue no proofe for their traditioÌ„s hereby because wheras his words import that S. Iohn in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof though not much after the resurrectioÌ„ of Christ we see nothing in that which he recordeth but that the matter of all the rest may be contained in the rest of his and the other Apostles writings But for the more full clearing of this matter it is to be noted that our Sauior before hath said to his Apostles x Iohn 15.15 All things that I haue heard of my Father haue I made knowne to you And again in his prayer to the Father y Chap. 17.8 I haue giuen vnto them saith he the words which thou gauest me and they haue receiued them If Christ deliuered all the words of God to his disciples before his death then it must needs follow that he deliuered no other words vnto them after his resurrection Therfore those many things which he had to speake vnto them are not to be vnderstood of any other things then he had taught them before but of a more full perfect reuelatioÌ„ for the more ful perfect apprehension vnderstanding of the same things To which purpose we are againe to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection that our Sauior here saith not that he wold declare those things vnto them himself after his resurrectioÌ„ but deferreth the same to the coming of the Spirit saying z Chap. 16.13 Howbeit when he is come which is the spirit of truth he wil leade you into al truth Now how he shold lead them into all truth he hath before shewed a Chap. 14.26 He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you He shold teach them all things not by teaching them other things but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had bin taught by Christ himself Therfore here Christ saith further for he shal not speak of himself but whatsoeuer he shal heare that shal he speake Wherby he importeth that the holy Ghost shold speake according to his example and he stil professeth that b chap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himselfe that c Chap. 8.28 he doth nothing of himself but as the Father hath taught me saith he so I speake these things Christ spake d Chrysost de sanct adoran spiritu Non discessit à lege non discessit à Prophetis c. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis c. A seipso enim loqui extra legeÌ„ loqui est not of himself as Chrysostom noteth because he spake out of the Law and the Prophets for to speake of himself is to speake without or beside the Law So then the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe but as Christ spake according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets so the holy Ghost should speake according to the words of Christ and therefore according to those things that are written in the Law and the Prophets Therefore those many things which Christ had to speake vnto them and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to leade them were no other things but what were contained in the written word of the Law and the Prophets whereof as yet they were not capable because as yet they did not so well e Iohn 20.9 know the Scripture nor could do vntill he should f Luk. 24.45 open their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the same Origen vnderstandeth the words spokeÌ„ to the Apostles g Origen contra Cels l. 2. Fortassis vt Judaeis in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicenduÌ„ quae sit vera lex c. VideÌ„s perdifficile esse ex animo reuellere penè conata et vsque ad grandem aetateÌ„ coalita dogmata adeòque pro diuinis habita vt amouere illa videretur imptum c. Jdeo dictum Deducet vos in omnem veritateÌ„ id est in omnem veritatem earuÌ„ rerum in quatuÌ„ figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu DeuÌ„ colere as Iewes brought vp in the letter of Moses law our Sauior seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown vp with theÌ„ to those yeers which were taken to be of God so as that it should seeme impious to remoue them Therefore where Christ saith The spirit shall leade you into all truth it is saith he as if he had said Into all the truth of those things in the figures whereof ye haue bin conuersant thinking thereby truly to worship God Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops vnwritten mysteries here is nothing as Origen conceiueth but that the spirit shold afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law which they were not yet well able to conceiue And therefore against all illusions of heretikes pretending for their vnwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost as the Church of Rome doth Chrysostom taking it for granted that what Christ spake is set foorth vnto vs in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists giueth this most notable rule h Chrysost vt supra Si quis eoruÌ„ qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctuÌ„ ex seipso loquitur non ex Euangelijs non credite Venit Manes dicit Ego sum Paracletus c.
u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolicaâ— apud quas ipsae adâ—uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesideÌ„tur apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur c. Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos c. si Italiae adiaceâ— hâ—bes Romanam c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur vnum Deum nouit Creatorem vniuâ—sitaâ—â—â— Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria filium Creatoris carnis resurrectionem legem Prophetâ—s cum Euangelicis Apostolicis literis miscet inde fidem portat eam c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles and their authenticall Epistles were still read as of the Corinthians the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Romanes which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God the Creatour of the whole world and Iesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Sonne of the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles and thence deriuing that faith Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur vâ—um omninò Deum esse nec alium quà m mundi Creatorem qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur The rule of faith is this to beleeue that there is one onely God and the same no other but the Creator of the world who by his word first of all sent foorth made all things of nothing The same word called his Son was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes euermore heard in the Prophets last of all by the spirit and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary made flesh in her wombe and being borne of her did the part of Iesus Christ preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen wrought miracles and being nailed to a crosse rose againe the third day and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe VpoÌ„ the assertion of this rule he inferreth that y Si haec ita se habent vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo tradidit constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad eanâ—è de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertiâ—ere sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God it was hereby assured which he had before propounded that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith that z Illic igitur ScripturaruÌ„ expositionum adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae Quibus fuit propositum aliter doceÌ„di necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius ita nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio iâ—tulimus vt aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione vel transmutatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quà m sumus the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures For they saith he who intended to teach otherwise had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching For they could not teach otherwise except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach But on the contrarie side he saith As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs without the integritie of those instrumeÌ„ts by which doctrine is handled For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs What haue we brought in of our owne that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie we should remedie by adding or taking away or changing any thing What we are the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning From theÌ„ we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith pertinent to the matter here in hand wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof First it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith concerning the vnitie of the Godhead the creation of the world the Godhead and incarnation of Christ the resurrection of the dead the coming of the holy Ghost and sundry other such like They reiected such whole bookes and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles or by any diuine inspiration a Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta but foisted in yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. EmeÌ„datores Apostolorum Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
stand good because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writting all that faith that Iob receiued by tradition Iob was g Ambros Offic. lib. 1. caep 36. Iob antiqutor Mose c. auncienter then Moses as Ambrose saith and might receiue the doctrine of faith by word and tradition of other men but yet we see that that faith is no other but what Moses after comprised in the written law Albeit what that tradition was hath bene i Sect. 1. before declared not resting in relation from one man to another but continually renewed and confirmed by reuelation and illumination immediatly from God being certainly corrupted by tradition where he did not graciously shew himselfe for the preseruation of it And as for other Gentiles whosoeuer they were that were saued after the writing of the Law they were saued onely by that faith which the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets haue described vnto vs. But M. Bishop not content to bring Moses alone for a patron of traditions telleth vs beside that not any law-maker in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by custome therefore saith he it is not likely that our Christian law should be all written Where we may iustly hisse at his grosse and wilfull absurditie that will measure the Law-maker of heauen with the law-makers of the earth and by imperfection in the lawes of men will argue imperfection in the lawes of God No vnderstanding of man can either by laws or by customes prouide for all occurrents of the commonwealth but dayly there are arising and growing the occasions of new lawes and will he then frame the light of God to the measure of our darknesse And yet what lawmaker hath there bene or is there in the world who if he were able to comprehend an absolute perfection of all lawes would not certainly take course to set the same downe in writing as being the only secure and safe way for the perpetuating therof And if we will thus conceiue of any wise and reasonable man how much more should we attribute it to the wisedome of God that knowing the slippernesse and mutabilitie of the minds thoughts of men he would for safetie and assurance set downe in writing whatsoeuer he would haue to stand for law of worship and seruice towards him I need not to stand vpon this for the comparison is of it selfe so odious and absurd as that euery man may wonder that the mans discretion should faile him so far as to reason in this sort For conclusion of this section a toy took him in the head concerning somwhat said by M. Perkins in the sectiō before It was said that it should cal the prouidence of God in question to say that any part of Scripture should be lost M. Bishop answereth that God permitteth much euill True but he permitteth no euill iniurious to his owne glory M. Perkins supposeth out of that that was said before that all Scripture was at first written for our learning To say that it was intended for our learning and yet is now lost what is it but to call in question the prouidence of God His other answer that there should be no great losse because tradition might preserue that which was then lost is a temerarious and witlesse presumption contrary to the experience of all ages whereby it is found that nothing is continued according to the first originall which is deliuered by word only from man to man And his assertion is so much the more ridiculous in this behalfe for that he knoweth not any thing that Tradition hath preserued that was written in those bookes If Tradition haue preserued any thing thereof from being lost let him acquaint vs with it or if he cannot do so let him giue vs leaue to take him for that we finde him a meere babler giuing himselfe libertie to say any thing without feare or wit 20. W. BISHOP Now insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate wishing him a messe of Pap for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of traditions Our Sauior said being at the point of his passion * Iohn 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Acts 1. Our Sauior after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11. I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1. Tim. 6. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. Chrysostome and Theophylact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and gouernement of the Church to which alludeth that auncient holy Martyr S. Irenaeus * Lib. 3. c. 4. saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholicke Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth S. Iohn who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epist 3.13 that he had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to ink and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three points of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his Father Where is it written that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour Christ Iesus no person of man but the substance of God and man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euery of these principal articles of the Christian faith and most necessary to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible Wherefore we must either admit traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euery wrangler as shall be more declared in the argument following R. ABBOT The messe of pap hath scalded M. Bishops mouth and he would faine put it off to M. Perkins He is ashamed of the childishnesse of this reason yet not denying it to be one of theirs but onely blaming M. Perkins his maner of proposing it whereas we imagine he would haue done it if he had knowne how to haue proposed it in better sort But because he is so desirous to passe it ouer let vs
mentall reseruations to lye to periure forsweare theÌ„selues As for our own country we must tell him that the dissension betwixt Protestants Puritanes was neuer so mortall and deadly amongst vs as was the dissention of the secular Priests Iesuites amongst them the one in no sort to be coÌ„pared to the other If there might be such a garboile more then hellish or diuellish amongst them without preiudice of their religion what preiudice should it be to vs that there is some matter of difference amongst vs He wil say that the maine matter amongst them was but a matter of circumstance of gouernment and so his wisedome knoweth if he list that the matters of controuersie amongst vs are onely matters of ceremonie and forme He will say that they all accorded in the religion established by the councell of Trent and so let him know that we on both parts subscribe to the same articles of religion established amongst vs. He vvill say that there is some controuersie about the meaning of some of those articles amongst vs and so let him remember that there is great question of the meaning of some of the articles of the Trent religion amongst them In a word wee are able alwaies to iustifie that in substantiall points of faith there is no so great difference amongst vs but that there is greater to be proued to haue bene continually amongst them But now M. Bishop hauing lightly passed ouer those obseruations of M. Perkins commeth himselfe to set vs downe a course for the attaining of the true and right sence of holy Scripture For the first part whereof he bestirreth his Rhetoricall stumpes by way of declamation to shew vs how necessary it is that in the Christian Church there should be a Iudge for the deciding and determining of controuersies and questions that arise about the Scriptures and if in matters of temporall iustice Iudges be appointed and euery law-maker do ordaine gouernours and Iudges for the declaring and executing of his lawes and God tooke this course amongst the people of Israel in the old testament he telleth vs that surely Christ in the new testament would not leaue his Church vnprouided in this behalfe Where we will seeme for a time not to know his meaning but will simply answer him that Christ in this behalfe hath prouided for his Church hauing giuen thereto f Ephe. 4.11.12 Pastours and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints for the worke of the ministery and for the building vp of the body of Christ till we all meete together in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a persit man As in ciuill states there are appointed magistrates and gouernours in townes and cities for the resoluing and deciding of causes and questions of ciuil affaires so hath God appointed the ministers of his word euery one according to the portion of the Lords flocke committed vnto him to deliuer what the law of God is and to answer and resolue cases and doubts as touching faith and duty towards God g Tit. 1.9 to be able to exhort with wholsome doctrine and to improue them that speake against it to be the same to the people as God of old required the Priests to be h Malach. 2.7 The Priests lippes should preserue knowledge and men should seeke the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes If of these i Acts. 20.30 any arise speaking peruerse things to draw Disciples after them the rest are warned k Ver. 28. to take heede to the Lords flocke and therfore are by common sentence iudgement to condemne such that thereby the people of God may take knowledge to beware of theÌ„ But if in the Church any controuersie or question depend parts being taken this way that way so that the vnity of faith and peace of the Church is endangered therby the example of the Apostles is to be imitated and in solemne assembly councel the matter is to be discussed and determined the Bishops and Pastors gathering themselues together either in lesser or greater companie as the occasion doth require and applying themselues to do that that may be for the peace and edification of the Church And this hath bene the care of godly Christian Princes that l 〈◊〉 17.8 9. 2. â—â—â—on 1â— 8 as amongst the Iews there was a high court of iudgement established for the matters of the Lord to the sentence whereof they were appointed to stand yea and he that did presumptuously oppose himselfe was to die for his contempt so there should be in their Christian States consistories of iudgement assemblies and meetings of Bishops for considering and aduising of the causes of the Church and what could not be determined in a lesser meeting should be referred to a greater to a Councell prouinciall or nationall or general By their authoritie they haue gathered them together they haue sometimes bin themselues present and sitten with them as moderators and after as princes haue by their edicts ratified and confirmed what hath bene agreed vpon as we may see in m Euseb de vit Constant li 3. ca. 13. Prolatas sententias sensiâ—â— excipete vitissim ferre openi virique parit c. quid ipse sentiret eloquâ— Constantine the great in the Councel of Nice in n Synod in Trullo per tot Praesidente eodem piâ—ssimo Impeâ—tore c. Conueniente Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctioneÌ„ Constantine the fourth in the sixt Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in o Toletaâ— concil 3. Princips omnes regâ—raâ—â—â— sui pontifiâ—es in vnuÌ„ conuenire mandauit c. pâ—â—tet Reccaredus the King of Spaine in the third Councell of Toledo Now therefore albeit the Empire being diuided and many Princes of diuers dispositions possessing their seuerall kingdomes and states there be no expectation or hope of a generall councel yet M. Bishop seeth that we hold it necessary that in euery Christian state there should be Iudges appointed for the causes and matters of the Lord of the Church euen as in our church of England we haue our soueraigne Synods prouincial or national the sentence whereof we account so waighty as that no man may dare vpon peril of his soule presumptuously to gainsay the same But yet with all for the excluding of his issue he must vnderstand that in causes matters of faith and of the worship of God we make these to whom this iudgement is coÌ„mitted not lawgiuers at all but Iudges only As therfore the Iudge is not his owne mouth but the mouth of the law not to speak what he liketh but what the law directeth nor to make any other construction of the law but what is warranted by the law euen so the Iudge ecclesiasticall is to be the mouth of God not p Ezech. 13.3 to follow his owne spirit nor q Ierem. 23.16 to speake the vision of his own hart but out of
Thomas Aquinas his braines who seeing that that which he was to say for their other vowes could not well hang together if the promise of baptisme should be taken for a perfect vow hewed and pared the definition of a vow that it might be fitted for his turne Azorius the Iesuite telleth vs that e Azor. lib. 11. cap 14. Baptisma esse votū propriè dictum veteres Theologi cū magistro videntur sentire sed probabilius est quod scholastici alij tenent the auncient Diuines as also the Master of the Sentences seeme to thinke that baptisme is a vow properly and truly so called but saith he it is more probable which the rest of the Schoole-men hold Thus against the iudgement of the ancient Diuines they frame all things as they list and we must take euery of their blinde sophismes to be a certaine rule of truth But we refuse them to be our masters and chuse to follow that which the Church before them hath followed accounting all those things the matters of our vowes to God which were figured by those ceremonies and sacrifices which were vowed by the law euen all the spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing and al good works whereby we honor and glorifie almightie God all which according to our state of life we promise to God in baptisme and therefore do account that promise a vow because it containeth the spiritual substance of those ancient vows The compiler of the book of Sentences in S. Austins works hath frō one or other gathered this sentence f Sent. apud August to 3. in fine Quisquis benè cogitat quae voueat Deo quae vouendo persoluat seipsum voueat reddat Hoc exigiur hoc debetur Whosoeuer well bethinketh him what to vow to God and what in vowing to pay let him vow himselfe and pay himself This is required of God and this is due to God If this be the right conceit of a vow then the promise of baptisme is a vow and it is not true which M. Bishop saith that there is no vow properly so called of necessary duties because we vow that which God requireth and which is due to God Albeit for conclusion I am to aduertise thee gentle Reader that we make not the matter of vowes to consist onely in necessary duties that is such duties as God namely requireth of vs but that sometimes we vow those things which rest vpon our choise and whereof in particular we are commanded nothing For albeit God require thankfulnesse and dutie for the mercies which we haue receiued of him yet he hath not precisely set downe that by way of thanks a man should always do this or that but hath left the deuout and thankfull minde to cast and consider which way he may testifie the affection of his heart by doing some good worke whereof he hath vnderstanding by the word of God that it shal be acceptable vnto him Thus a man though not bound to it yet may vow to do seruice to God in the ministery of the Church and being a minister conceiuing his seruice in this or that sort to be profitable to the Church may by vowing himself thereto abridge himselfe of that libertie which otherwise he might enioy So may a man vow a part of his goods to the poore as g Luke 19.8 Zacheus did when as by no commaundement he is vrged so to do The like may men do for the building and endowing of Schools Hospitals Colledges and such other godly charitable vses when yet these things by precept are not necessarily layd vpō them Yea neither do we question but that a man vpon good grounds and so long as he shal not therby be h 1. Cor. 7.35 intangled in a snare may priuatly vow vnto God a single life to the end that he may the more commodiously apply himselfe to the seruice of i Mat. 19.12 the kingdome of God this vow being conditionall only so far as it shal be seconded with the gift of God and so long as it shal stand with peace of conscience towards him In these such like is the true imitation of the outward ceremony of the law wherin men were at their liberty whether to vow or not works wherof generally we haue warrant by the word of God but whereof in particular there is no necessitie imposed vpon vs being left vnto vs at large thereby freely and voluntarily to exercise our zeale and deuotion towards God Wherin notwithstanding we are to remember that caution that Chrysostome giueth k Chrysos in psal 49. Si quis autē exactè perpenderit etsi minimè promittatur virtus tamen ei debetur Id Christus fignificans dicebat Quae debuimus facere fecimus If a man exactly weigh the matter our vertues are due to God albeit they be not promised or vowed which Christ signifieth when he saith We haue done that that was our dutie to do For seeing we are bound l Luke 10.17 to loue the Lord our God with all our hart with al our soule with all our mind with al our strength we must conceiue that though nothing be directed vnto vs in particular as touching the necessity of such or such a worke yet in the generall we do nothing therein but what we owe to God because whatsoeuer is within vs or whatsoeuer is without vs we owe all to him Yea and the vow of our baptisme doth after a sort containe all these other vowes in that being there consecrated wholy to God we vndertake thereby to take all occasions and oportunities to do honor vnto God As for popish vows being as they are for the most part brainsick idle fancies such as whereof neither in the general nor in the particular we haue any testimonie from God that they are accepted in his sight they are onely apish counterfeits of those legall and ceremoniall vowes but do no way carrie the true resemblance of them nor that life of spirituall worship and seruice that was shadowed thereby 2. W. BISHOP The second point of our supposed consent is that Vowes were some part of Gods worship in Moses law but are not so in the Gospell which we also deny M. Perk. proues his assertion thus Vows belonged to the ceremonies of Moses law but all those ceremonies are abolished by Christs passion Ans That Vowes in thēselues were no part of the ceremonies of Moses law but true parts of the worship of God in all estates as well in the state of nature and the Gospel as in Moses law but this point M. Perk. handleth againe in the first point of our difference where it shall be discussed Thirdly he saith that speciall vowes may be made in the new law to performe some bodily exercise for some good end as to fast to taske our selues to prayers or study of holy Scripture and such like but many rules must then be obscrued that we vow an honest thing agreeable to
Gods word this we allow Secondly that it be so made that it may stand with Christian libertie that is that it make not such things necessarie in conscience which Christian religion leaues at libertie This rule of his is flat repugnant to the nature of a vow and contrary to himselfe For he saith a little before that a Christian may vow fasting prayer almes-deeds I then demaund hauing vowed these things is he not bound to performe them Yes or else he breakes his vow with which God is highly displeased * Deut 23. Eccles 30. An vnfaithfull promise displeaseth God Then is it manifest that all vowes do abridge vs of our libertie and make that vnlawfull for vs which before our vow was lawfull which is so euident of it selfe that I maruell where the mans wit and memorie was when he wrote the contrary His other rules that a vow be made with good deliberation and with consent of our superiours and not onely of things possible but also of the better sort Quaest 88. we allow for they are taken out of our Doctors See S. Thom. R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins saith is true that in the law of Moses the ceremoniall worke it selfe was a part of the worship of God and was to be done in it selfe by way of obedience to God He speaketh not of the act of vowing simply by it selfe as M. Bishop falsly wresteth his words but of the vow of a ceremoniall dutie in the way of seruice to God which if M. Bishop do not acknowledge to be abolished he must become a Iew and practise the sacrifices and offerings prescribed by Moses law But of this he telleth vs that we shall heare more hereafter and we are content to wait his leisure As touching vowes vnder the Gospell M. Perkins affirmeth that they may be made as touching the performance of some outward bodily exercise for some good ends and purposes as when a man seeing himselfe prone to drunkennesse doth by vow bind himselfe for a time to the forbearing of wine and strong drinke or vpon occasions tieth himselfe to set fasting and prayer and reading of the Scriptures and giuing of some set almes and such like But as touching such vowes he deliuereth certaine cautions to be obserued The first M. Bishop alloweth that our vow be agreeable to the will and word of God The second he vnderstandeth not and therefore cauilleth at it It is required that our vow stand with Christian libertie that is that by vowing we intangle not our consciences with any opinioÌ„ of the necessity of the things themselues which we haue vowed as if any worship or holinesse consisted in those externall and formall obseruations but that in our practise of them we know that in themselues they are no matters of conscience nor do yeeld vs any part of righteousnesse with God Now this which M. Perkins applieth against the conceipt of the very things themselues which a man hath vowed M. Bishop construeth as if he meant it of being at liberty from the performing of his vow But a man may religiously performe his vow and yet know that the thing it selfe is of no value with God which he performeth and therefore M. Perkins wits did not faile in deliuering but M. Bishops in vnderstanding Those other conditions that such vowes must be made with consent of superiours and of things that are in our power to do and agreeable to our vocation and calling and with good deliberation and for a good end M. Bishop approueth also and therefore not questioning whence they were taken and telling him that our vprightnesse appeareth therin if we be content to take of them what is consonant agreeable to the truth we so let them go 3 W. BISHOP Now to the points in difference First the Church of Rome saith M. Perkins teacheth that in the new testament we are as much bound to make vowes as was the Church of the Iewes we say no Considering that the Ceremoniall Law is now abolished and we haue only two Ceremonies by commandement to be obserued for parts of Gods worship Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. Answer What is not your Holy-day seruice which you call diuine seruice any part of Gods worship in your owne opinions Can a publike assembly instituted to honour God by prayer and thankesgiuing with externall ceremony of time place apparell kneeling standing and sitting be no part of Gods worship in your irreligious Congregations assembled together against Christ and his catholike Church be it so But admitting as you do your seruice to be good it could not truly be denied to belong vnto the worship of God But to the matter of difference you grow very carelesse in your reports of our doctrine for we hold that neither in the old nor new law any man is bound to vow but that it is and euer was a councell and no commandement neuerthelesse a thing of great deuotion and perfection in both states intrinsecally belonging and much furthering to the true worship of almightie God which we proue in this sort In a vow are two things the one is the good which is vowed called the materiall part for example Fasting c. The other the promise it selfe made to God which is the forme the materiall parts do belong vnto their seuerall vertues but this promise and performance of it be substantiall parts of Gods worship For by promising of any good thing vnto God we acknowledge and professe that God is the soueraigne goodnesse it selfe and taketh great pleasure in all good purposes and determinations therefore to honour and worship him we make that good promise againe in performing that good seruice of God we testifie that he is most maiesticall reuerend and dreadfull And consequently that all promises made to him are to be accomplished most diligently and without delay wherein we honour and worship him as contrariwise they doe much dishonour him who breake with him as if hee were of no better account then to be so deluded This thing in it selfe is so certaine and cleare that he who denies it must needes either be ignorant in the nature of a vow or not know wherein the true worship of God consisteth for according vnto the holy Scriptures it selfe all good dâ—edes done to the glory of God be acts of the true worship of God And Saint Anne * Luk. 1. did worship God by fasting and prayer And * Phil. 4. almes bestowed on Gods prisoners is called a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God And it is said * Iac. 5. to be a pure religion before God to visite Orphanes and widdowes If then all other vertuous duties done to the glory of God be parts of his true worship much more vowes which by speciall promise dedicate a good deede to Gods honour they then being of their owne nature speciall parts of his true worship of God it followeth necessary that at all times they were and may be vsed to the
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
manifest and abhominable idolatry in that confessing vowes to be a substantiall part of the worship of God they communicate this honour to the Saints and make vowes to them of fastings praiers pilgrimages churches altars tapers and what not a thing so voide of all testimonie of Scripture as that Bellarmine is content to say e Bellar. de cultu sanct ca 9. Cum scriberentur scripturae sanctae nondum caeperat vsus vouendi sanctis that when the holy Scriptures were written the custome of vowing to Saints was not yet begun It is nothing therefore against vs that he alledgeth that Iacob made a vow thereby to proue that there was vse of vowes before the time of Moses law but whereas he saith that the things which Iacob vowed were out of his owne deuotion and not commanded of God he speaketh it but at all aduenture and hath no ground for that that he saith For if his reason be because we do not read that any thing was commanded to Iacob in that behalfe we may likewise argue that he did all other deuotions out of his owne heart and receiued them not by commaundement from God because we reade nothing of any such commaundement But it is true which Origen saith that f Origen cont Cels lib 7. Nemo qui oculis animae cernit alio modo DeuÌ„ colit quà m sicut ipse docuit no man that seeth with the eies of his soule worshippeth God otherwise then as he himselfe hath taught and which Hilary saith that g Hilar. de Trinit lib. 4. Neu potest aliâ—er de Deo quà m vt ipse est de se testatus intelligi we may not vnderstand otherwise concerning God then as he himselfe hath witnessed of himselfe M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to make Iacob as blind as he himselfe is that he should go about to worship God with deuotions of his own deuice He receiued instruction of the will of God from the fathers that were before him he had also immediate reuelation illumination from God himself We see that God afterwards in the law giueth commandement of the same things of building altars and paying tithes and vndoubtedly God gaue not commaundements of things which he had learned of Iacob but which Iacob had bene taught by him Yea and because the Apostle S. Paul condemneth h Col. 2.23 will worship or voluntary religion that is all such deuotions as men vndertake of their owne deuice thereby giuing to vnderstand that God neuer approueth any such surely we may wel resolue that Iacob would not be guilty of any such presumption but would first open his eare to learne of God what to do before he would put forth the hand to do any thing vnto God But saith M. Bishop S. Paul when he seemeth to disallow voluntary worship must be vnderstood to speake either of erronious or of friuolous and foolish things promised to God which do not properly serue for the setting forth of his glory Where we see the very patterne of an erroneous and friuolous and foolish answer The Apostle simply taxeth will worship as erroneous and friuolous and foolish and M. Bishop telleth vs that he meaneth that will worship that is erroneous or friuolous and foolish He must be vnderstood of friuolous and foolish things saith M. Bishop and the Apostle telleth vs that he speaketh of such things as i Ibid. haue a shew of wisedome and therefore not to sight but onely to spirituall iudgement are friuolous and foolish And therfore doth the Apostle make them erroneous and affirme that k Ver. 24. they perish in the vsing because they are after the doctrines and commandements of men alluding to that which our Sauiour in the Gospel citeth out of the Prophet l Mat. 15.9 In vaine do they worship me teaching for doctrines the precepts of men but M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that the Apostles meaning is not to reproue generally the doctrines and commandements of men but onely some that be erroneous In a word set them one against another and hearken well what they say The Apostle saith voluntary religion or worship is erroneous because it is after the doctrines and commandements of men Maister Bishop saith all voluntary worship is not erroneous but onely that that is erroneous But here we must thinke that when he thus tooke exception against promising to God friuolous and foolish things he was quite out of the remembrance of the vowes of their religious orders We must in charity be perswaded that he thought not of them because he would haue considered that in condemning the vowing of friuolous and foolish things he should condemne them as in which there are so many fantasticall and friuolous toies as touching their apparell and other vsage as that we may wonder that euer such drunken deuices could come from sober men if at least they were sober that were the deuisers of them And if he had remembred them or when he doth remember them I meruaile what qualification or distinction he would haue vsed or will vse to salue the matter that so ridiculous fooleries should be thought as properly seruing to the setting foorth of the honour of God Albeit it may be that though being subtile and wise hee afterwards pro forma disputeth in the behalfe of those vowes that hee may not walke too openly yet carying still a splene to the Iesuites and for their sakes to all the rest hee would first giue vs to vnderstand that in his mind he accounteth all those vowes as superstitions and wholy condemned by the sentence of the Apostle We are very desirous to construe his meaning the best way 4. W. BISHOP Now that Vowes should be frequented in the state of the Gospell besides the euidence of Saint Paules Vowe * Act. 18. and diuerse other such like the Prophet Esay did foretell in these words * Esa 19.18 They shall worship him with sacrifice and gifts and they shall vow vowes vnto our Lord and performe them To which Maister Perkins answereth first that by such ceremoniall worship as then was in vse the Prophet doth expresse the spirituall worship of the new Testament This exposition is voluntarie and nothing proper For what is more vild and absurd then to declare that Christians shall make no Vowes to say that they shall make Vowes as though one contrarie were fit or would serue to expresse the other This exposition being very vnmeete Maister Perkins adioyneth a second that in the new Testament wee haue vowes of Morall and Euangelicall duties but such are not any part of Gods worship so that first you shall haue no vowes at all Secondly the winde being changed you shall haue them but as no parts of Gods worship as though Morall and Euangelicall duties vndertaken and performed to Gods greater glory be not the very sinewes and substance of his seruice and worship R. ABBOT By the euidence of a Act. 18.18 S. Pauls vow it
we go backe from thee reuiue thou vs and we will call vpon thy name y 86.11 Teach me thy way O Lord and I will walke in thy truth z 119.33.34 Teach me the way of thy statutes and I will keepe it vnto the end giue me vnderstanding and I will keepe thy law yea I will keepe it with my whole heart a Ver. 106. I haue sworne and will performe it that I will keepe thy righteous iudgements Thus doth Osee the Prophet instruct the people of God b Osc 14.3 Take you wordes and turne to the Lord and say vnto him Take away all our iniquitie and receiue vs graciously so will we render the calues of our lips These vowes are recommended vnto vs in the new Testament when we are taught c Mat. 16.24 to deny our selues and to take vp the crosse of Christ that we may follow him d Col. 3.5 to mortifie our earthly members e Rom. 6.13 to giue our selues vnto God our members as weapons of righteousnesse vnto God f Cap. 12.1 to offer our bodies a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice vnto God g 1. Cor. 6.20 to glorifie God both in our bodies and in our spirits as being both his h 2 Cor. 5.15 to liue vnto him which died for vs and rose againe These vowes we made to God in our baptisme and we professe the continuing and renewing of them from time to time in coming to the table of the Lord as also in our daily prayers and meditations and in all those promises which the remembrance of our owne waies draweth from vs euery while Of these the Prophet Esay spake in the section before of these the Prophet Dauid here saith Vow vnto the Lord your God and performe the same all ye that be round about him Now then it is true that vowes are to the honor glory of God and that we are to consider the dreadfull maiestie of God that we may be moued carefully to performe the vowes that we haue made vnto him and that these vowes are such as may be made by all sorts of men inhabiting the earth and what of all this either against M. Perkins or against vs As for S. Austin he confirmeth all that hath bene here said of the exposition of these vowes that the things that we are here willed to vow are i Supra sect 1. ex August in Psal 75. to beleeue in God to trust in him to liue a good life to hope to receiue of him eternall life and such like as we haue seene before Now it is true that he saith further that k Ibid. Alius vouet castitatem coniugalem vt praeter vxorem suam noÌ„ nouerit aliam c. Alij vouent experti tale contugium nihil tale vltra patiâ—â—lij virginitatem ab ipsi ineuâ—te aet â—te vouint alâ—j voueÌ„t domum suam hospâ—talem omnibus sanctis alij vouent relinquere omnia sua c. some vow chastitie in mariage by keeping theÌ„selues the husband to his owne wife onely or the wife onely to her owne husband some hauing bene married vow not to marrie againe some from the beginning vow virginitie some to vse their houses for hospitalitie to the Saints some to distribute all their goods to the poore some of which vowes we question not the rest are afterwards to be considered of But that which M. Bishop citeth of his exhorting men not to forbeare vowing for the necessitie of the performance thereof but for that to trust to the helpe of God to proue that he tooke those words to belong to his auditors and not onely to the Iewes it is a proofe needlesse because we acknowledge so much in such sort as hath bene said before As for that which he further addeth of setting contraries together that each may more liuely appeare in his kind it is but the liuely setting forth of his owne indiscretion folly M. Perkins to shew what may be vnderstood by vowes in the place here haÌ„dled alledgeth a speech of Dauid in a former Psalme l Psal 56.12 Thy vowes are vpon me O God that is the vowes which I haue made to thee are lying on me to be performed I will render praises vnto thee In which place we see that the Prophet expoundeth vowes concerning praises to God whereupon M. Perkins alledgeth that vowes likewise in the other place may be construed of praises and thankesgiuing vnto God Against this M. Bishop excepteth ful wisely I warrant you as not likely that the Psalme fiftie sixe written first should be the exposition of the Psalme seuenty fiue which was conceited and vttered after But did not his vnderstanding serue to instruct him that Dauid though not expounding the latter Psalme in the former yet in the former expounding vowes to be praises doth teach vs how to expound vowes when they are mentioned in a latter Psalme or in anie other Scripture sounding to like effect And who but he is ignorant that Scriptures formerly written do often giue vs light and helpe for the vnderstanding and expounding of Scriptures that are written later His second exception is as good as that namely that Dauid in the latter Psalme speaketh to others in the former of himself And what then What should hinder but that by the name of vowes he should signifie the praises of God in speaking to others when he himselfe expoundeth vowes to be the praises of God in speaking of himselfe Albeit he mistaketh in making Dauid the author of the latter Psalme which is rather thought to be written in the time of Ezechias but questionlesse after Dauids time In his third exception his head being wild he telleth vs that the Prophets words in Psalme fiftie sixe confirme rather that which he taught before Where before when as the Psalme fiftie sixe is the former of the two Psalmes I thinke he cannot well tell what he meant by this speech But what is the thing confirmed That all considerate vowes are praises and parts of Gods worship What he meaneth by considerate vowes we know not but we take those onely to be considerate vowes wherby we vow those things which God hath warranted vs to vow Thus are vowes a part of Gods worship when we vow those things which he hath taught vs to be belonging to his worship Such were for the time the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Law not for themselues but for the spirituall dutie that was implyed in them and acted by them If they were not put to this vse God held them not for anie part of his worship Dauid therefore hauing respect to this signifieth that the thing which he properly intended by his vowes was praise and thankes to God This is all that Dauid sayth and was by Maister Perkins fitly alledged for that that he had in hand 6. W. BISHOP Let vs now come to the second point wherein we dissent They saith M. Perkins hold vowes made of things not commanded
in way of deuotion seruice to him or the image of any other thing whatsoeuer to yeeld thereto or otherwise without an image to yeeld to the thing it selfe any part of deuotion and religion which is a thing belonging to God onely And we cannot doubt but that there is one commaundement for preseruing the externall worship of God entire and pure to which as to the head these ten commandements o Philo Iud. de Decalog Leges sunt capitae legum particularium being not onely lawes but also heads or capitall points of particular lawes as Philo well noteth all the particular lawes as touching that matter of the worship of God are to be referred Which because they cannot be taken to be contained in any of the other three commandements therefore we must necessarily take this as a distinct commaundement to which all those particulars must belong And thus the Iewes whose testimonie in this behalfe is of great moment took them to be distinct as appeareth by p Ioseph Antiq. lib. 3. cap. 4. Primum praeceptum Deum esse vnum hunc solum colenduÌ„ secunduÌ„ Nullius animalis simulachruÌ„ adoranduÌ„ Sic Philo de Decalogo Iosephus and Philo reckoning the first commaundement that there is one God and he onely to be worshipped the second that no image of any creature is to be adored In the same sort doth Athanasius distinguish them q Athanas in Synop. Exod. Primum est Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus Alierum Non factes tibijpsi simulachruÌ„ c. The first is I am the Lord thy God the second Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an image or any likenesse Origen saith that r OrigeÌ„ in Exod. hom 8. Haec omnia nonnulli putant vnum esse mandatuÌ„ Quòd si ita putetur noÌ„ complebitur deceÌ„ numerus mandatoruÌ„ vbi tam erit Decalogi veritas some tooke those two commandements to be one but if we so take them saith he we shall not make vp the number of ten coÌ„mandements and where then shall be the truth of the name of the Decalogue namely which signifieth ten commaundements He saw well that there can be no reason of deuiding the last commaundement as we reckon it into two and therfore that there can be but nine vnles we distinguish the two first in such sort as hath bin said But the Romane catechisme M. Bishop telleth vs doth otherwise following therein the diuision of Austine and Clâ—mens Alexandrinus deuiding the Protestants lâ—st commaundement into two Where we see the course that they follow in the vse of the Fathers writings namely that howsoeuer they professe to stand to the generall accord and agreement of them yet if some one or two varying from all the rest doe serue their turne they leaue all the rest and the matter shall go with them As for the Schoole-doctors M. Bishop did but put them in to fill vp the roome for little reason is there that the streames of our religion should be taken to runne out of puddles that haue bene so lately digged and as well might he haue named himselfe and his fellowes as haue named them But by reason he will make it good that there is more reason to confound the two first commaundements then to make one of that which we call the last because the first forbidding inward and the second outward idolatry the outward and inward actions about the same obiect are not so distinct as the desiring of so diuers things as a mans wife for lechery and his goods of couetousnesse Which reason of his is alreadie ouerthrowne by that that hath bene said of the difference of two first commandements For thereby we see that as God and the worship of God are two distinct things so the commaundements must be diuers which instruct vs to conceiue of our dutie in respect of both The first commandement requireth of vs an acknowledgement of one true God the second requireth the true worspping of him A man may acknowledge one onely God and that he onely is to be worshipped according to the first commandement and yet breake the second commandement by worshipping him amisse as by setting vp an image whereby to worship him which he there forbiddeth to be done Therefore those termes of inward and outward idolatrie do not sufficiently distinguish those two commaundements because the first commaundement is broken by outward idolatrie in the outward professing and following of any false god and there is inward idolatry against the second commaundement in the inward framing of idol-seruice vnto the true God Here is then very materiall ground of difference betwixt the first and second commandement but a silly reason is it to alledge a difference of things coueted and desired to make thereby a diuision of the last commaundement The thing there forbidden is lust and concupiscence as the roote and fountaine of all sinne and wickednesse and therefore the Apostle setteth downe for the whole effect of that commaundement Å¿ Rom. 7.7 Thou shalt not lust and calleth it often t Ver. 8 9 10. the commaundement the commandement as to note that it is but one commandement which saith Thou shalt not lust He exemplifieth lust in the commandement by some obiects leauing the rest to be vnderstood but if we wil deuide the coÌ„mandement of lusting because the things are diuers that are lusted after there must be a necessitie of making more commandements because as there are lusts tending to couetousnesse and lechery so there are also that tend to disobedience to murther to lying and slaundering and such like and therefore by M. Bishops reason there should be so many seuerall commaundements against lust But to shew that that diuision which they follow is not good we may note that whereas they make the ninth commaundement Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife and the tenth Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house c. which order may not be broken if we will deuide the commaundements as they do Moses himselfe doth alter the same and setteth it downe as it was first endited thus u Exod. 20.17 Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife nor his seruant c. as it was after repeated thus x Deut. 5.27 Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house nor his seruant c. and by so indifferent placing of those two branches infallibly prooueth that they are not two commandements but one only If M. Bishop wil not yeeld this we would know how he will order the commandements as in the twentith of Exodus they were first deliuered from the mouth of God If he will make the ninth commandement Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house then he must say that the ninth and tenth do both serue to forbid the coueting of our neighbours goods If he will not say so he must accord with vs that those two which they deuide are
doing of it therfore we must not adore images True if the Image were M. Bezaes ensigne or of their master the diuell or any of his hel-hounds R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop was disposed to play the Sycophants part or else he might haue seene that M. Perkins meaning was otherwise then to frame any such argument as he hath hewed his words to The point in question is the worshipping of Images M. Perkins for our principall ground against it alledgeth the second commaundement To declare the meaning of the commandement he alledgeth the example of our Sauiour Christ who when the diuell requireth him a Mat. 4.9 to fall downe and worship him vpon promise to giue him the whole world taketh exception against him not by the indignitie of his person but by the commaundement of the law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue importing thereby that the law doth forbid the doing of that which the diuel required to any saue to God onely He reiecteth him I say not in the name of a diuell but generally in the name and condition of a creature teaching by the law that no creature none but only God is to be holden capable of that which he demaunded to himselfe Now then if M. Bishops wits stand right the argument standeth good that sith Christ by the law challengeth to God onely that which the diuel required of him which was to fall downe and worship him we are thereby to learne that we are not to fall downe and to worship any creature not the Saints themselues much lesse the vile idols that are set vp in their names Here I know what they are ready to except that Christ saith not there Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God onely but Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and leaueth only to the other part Him only thou shalt serue as not denying but that other things may be worshipped beside God but only denying vnto thē the seruice of latria the word there being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence latria is deriued which they say is the seruice peculiar vnto God But how vaine this exception is appeareth by considering the originall words of the law which saith in like sort of both b Deut. 10.20 Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and thou shalt serue him adding the word onely to neither part The name of feare is more generall and containeth all religion and deuotion towards God but in steed thereof our Sauiour Christ nameth worship which is a part of that feare fitting the words to the present occasion and yet not forcing the law because the challenge that God maketh to the whole must necessarily be vnderstood of euery part Now whereas the sentences in the law are set downe without the limitation of the word onely our Sauiour Christ to shew the meaning of the Scripture in such speeches concerning God addeth that limitation to the latter part not as to make that onely peculiar to God and to leaue the former in common to others but in the one teaching vs what we are to vnderstand in both because by what reason the one is appropriated to God by the same is the other also and leauing vs to conceiue that whatsoeuer God challengeth as a part of his worship and glory the same is to be giuen to no other beside him To which purpose Tertullian very wel saith c Tertull aduer Hermog Veritas sic vnum Deum exigit defendēdo vt solius sit quicquid ipsius est ita eum ipsius erit si fuerit solius Truth so requireth in the defending of one God that what is his be his alone for so shall it be his if it be onely his And so did Ambrose vnderstand the words of Christ when he sayth d Ambros de Spir sanct lib. 2. cap. 12. Neque adorandum quic quam praeter Deū legimus quia scriptum est Dominū Deum c. We reade that nothing beside God is to be worshipped because it is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue And to take it otherwise taketh away the force of Christs exception against the diuell for it is no sufficient reason to say I will not worship thee because it is said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God if other things may be worshipped beside God If to make good the answer of Christ they will rest the strength thereof vpon the latter part of the words they confound themselues and make our assertion good For if in the words of the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him onely thou shalt serue be an exception against that which the diuell requireth of Christ to fall downe and worship him it must necessarily be granted that to fall downe and worship is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to performe a seruice of latria to do that seruice which belongeth to God only Wherefore wil they nill they they must confesse that the law intendeth to say Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only and thereof we rightly gather that because God only is to be worshipped therefore we may not worship any creature whatsoeuer but least of all dead and senslesse blocks M. Perkins wits therefore were not wilde in the propounding of the argument but M. Bishops honestie failed in the collecting of it and that because his wits failed for the answering of it As for his other terms I wil briefly answer him that M. Beza is there now where he is free from being touched with the barking of such dogs and that they haue the diuell for their master to whō that belongeth which S. Iohn saith e Reuel 9.20 They worshipped diuels and idols of gold of siluer and of brasse and of stone and of wood which neither can see nor heare nor go which hath no where to be verified but in the Popish Church and lastly that they are to be accounted the diuels hel-hounds who haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as many of M. Bishops holy fathers haue done and namely for the present f Platin. in Syluest 2. Totum se diabolo tradiderat Pontificatū adiuuāte diabolo cōsecutus est hac lege vt post mortē totus illius esset Syluester the second for the gaining of the Popedome 14. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his fourth reason A man saith he may be worshipped with ciuill honor not with religious which is wholy prescribed in the first table and yet the meanest man is a more excellent image of God then any painted one Answ A man may be worshipped with religious honor in respect of his supernaturall gifts as well as with ciuill honor of his naturall properties as hath bene before declared and no other religious honor is either prescribed or proscribed in the first table then such onely as is proper to God But saith he Thomas of Watering * 3. Part. qu. 25. art 3. holds that the Crucifixe is to be adored with the same honor
Tertul. Apol. cap. 16. Solem credunt Deum nostrum c. Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari prayed to or towards the East thought they worshipped the Sunne and gaue out that they made the Sunne their God The Christians worshipped Christ onely in bending themselues towards the East and so the faithfull Iewes in bending or bowing towards the Arke intended the worship of God onely and therefore a senslesse part it is to alledge those wordes of the Prophet for the defence of the worship of Popish idols And if they would proue the worshipping of any thing thereby or the praying at or before any thing it should be the worshipping and praying before that that was prefigured by the Temple and the Arke The Temple one way was a figure of heauen as before was shewed wherein Gdd doth dwell and hath n Dan. 7.10 thousand thousands of Angels standing before him and tenne thousand thousands ministring vnto him M. Bishop then should by his course of interpretation conclude from the Prophets words that we should worship heauen But he should rather conceiue that as we worship and pray towards heauen but yet do not worship heauen or pray to heauen so did they also worship and pray towards the Temple and the Arke but did not worship or pray to them Another way the Temple was a figure of the Church of Christ and of euery faithfull man o 1. Cor. 3.16 Know ye not saith the Apostle that ye are the Temple of God and againe p 2. Cor. 6.16 ye are the Temple of the liuing God The Arke whereat and whereby he is present with vs and dwelleth in vs is the faith of Iesus Christ our q Rom. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiatorie and mercy-seate and by his presence the Angels also attend vpon vs r Heb. 1.14 being ministring spirits sent foorth for their sakes that shall be heires of saluation Now therefore M. Bishop shold rather proue by the Prophets words our kneeling in our prayers before a faithfull man or worshipping a faithfull man then our kneeling before an Image or worshipping an Image and if it be absurd thereby to affirme the worshipping of a liuing man in whom God dwelleth much more the worshipping of a dead and senslesse blocke which hath no fellowship with God Yea and if by those words it were warranted to set vp the images of dead men and to worship them what was the cause that the Iewes conceiued not so much Why were they without that heauenly shew as M. Bishop in the height of his earthly wisedome calleth it If they neuer conceiued it neuer practised it what shall we but take them for cousiners and deceiuers who offer this violence to the Scriptures and most impudently wrest theÌ„ to the maintenance of that filthinesse and abhomination which expresly they condemne But yet Master Bishop telleth vs that it is otherwise very euident that the Israelites worshipped the Arke And how I pray you First none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was Well and what then It was carried before the campe with great solemnitie to search out a resting place for the whole hoast True and what more When they were to fight against the Philistines they had great confidence in the presence of the Arke There was great cause why they should so carrying themselues respectfully towards God because it was the token that God had giuen them of his presence amongst them let vs heare the rest Fiftie thousand of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the Arke It is true indeed that for looking into the Arke so many of theÌ„ were slaine is there any thing yet behind Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the Arke Well and what of all this Doth not all this conuince in what reuerence the Arke was had euen by Gods owne testimonie As if to proue M. Bishop to be a profound Clearke a man should say He hath learned a little Rhetoricke and lesse Logicke and is per saltum a Doctor of Diuinity and per inopiam a Priest and doth not all this conuince that he hath some learning Witlesse cauiller is there any thing in all those allegations that importeth the worshipping of the Arke Nay marke gentle Reader that whereas he propoundeth to prooue that the Arke was worshipped he maketh his conclusion that the Arke was had in great reuerence But they had the temple also in great reuerence and the altars and the offerings and al things that by the law were coÌ„manded to be holy and will he thereof inferre that all these were to be worshipped They were to haue the Priests in great reuerence and specially the high Priest and shall we therefore say that they worshipped the Priests What is this reuerence but a religious respect and care of the sacred and due vsage of holy things according to their kind Thus are we to haue our Churches in reuerence with those vtensils and implements that belong to them that they be had and vsed with that decencie and seemelinesse as fitteth to things that serue for holy ministrations As for Hierome M. Bishop wholy abuseth falsifieth his words for he saith nothing at all of worshipping the Arke for the Cherubims and pictures of Angels that were erected at the ends of it this is a very wilfull and impudent forgerie but he saith that Å¿ Hieron ad Marcel vt cont nâ—gret Bethleem Venerabantur quondam Iudaei Sancta sanctoruÌ„ quia ibi erant Cherubim propitiatorium arca testameÌ„ti Manna virga Aaron altare aureum the Iewes of old reuerenced the Sancta sanctorum because there were the Cherubims and the mercy-seate and the Arke of the TestameÌ„t and Manna and Aarons rod and the golden altar He knew well that if he had reported Hieroms words aright they would not sound for his purpose but to frame them to his turne he changeth the reuerencing of the holy place because of the Cherubims and the Arke into worshipping the Arke because of the Cherubims as if worship were performed properly to the Cherubims whereas * Origen contra Cels lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis subdedit by the lawe of Moses as Origen saith no worship was done to the Angels themselues and much lesse to the Cherubims which represented the Angels The word venerari which Hierome vseth albeit it be often vsed for worship and seruice done to God yet is of so large signification as that it is yeelded to all those things to which we yeeld any reuerend and dutifull respect So doth t August de doctr Christ li. 3. cap. 9. Sicuti est baptismi Sacramentum celebratio corporis sanguinis Domini Quae vnusquisque imbutus agnoscit vt ea noÌ„ carnali seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur Saint Austine vse the word of the reuerence that we vse to the Sacraments not onely the