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
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.
in the art of true reasoning because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed not hauing any ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law R. ABBOT M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults a Hieron in Math. 23. Some saith Hierome will haue Zacharie who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur quae probatur This saith he because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall as M. Bishop pretendeth but rightly alledgeth that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof This hath no authority out of the Scriptures therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued Why so but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture is as easily contemned as approued The argument contained in Hieromes words cannot stand good but by this supply and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall according to due course But M. Bishop telleth vs that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer the sentence being in it selfe entier and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story because it had no authority out of Scripture Yea if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture yet it might be confirmed by tradition and therfore it followeth not that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture it should hereupon be reiected b Aug. de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas In the Apocryphall writings saith Austine some truth is found albeit because there are manie things also false they haue no canonicall authority If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true then it might be confirmed by tradition and therefore not to be contemned and thereof it followeth that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture is worth nothing Which if M. Bishop will not say then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue what authority of Scripture doth not confirme saying no other thing therein but what else-where he maketh good reasoning both waies c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus We beleeue it because we reade it we beleeue it not because we do not reade it And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently as easily to be contemned as approued but would simply haue contemned it because tradition had giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus to be still a virgin and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens Whereof Origen saith d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—ta narratio nobis tradita Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition yet auailed so little in the Church because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike euen from Tertullian of whom was spoken in the former section insomuch that some of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ c. die dominico per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian are there set downe in Tertullians owne words And yet by those instances it appeareth that the words come not within the compasse of our question because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall not of matters of doctrine and faith which are necessary and perpetuall which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse as if they had beene written yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome 12 W. BISHOP Maister Perkins His third Author is Saint Augustine * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well Answer All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beliefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned
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
words are not to be vnderstood of that that is not but of that that is and therefore not of Hierusalem which neither is nor shall be as hath bene sayd but of Rome which is and shall bee vntill God bring vpon it the destruction which he hath pronounced For that we are not properly there to vnderstand the place where Christ was crucified beside that we conceiue it by the course of the whole booke k Hieron de 5. quaest Marcellae Omnis ille liber spiritualitèr intelligendus est which as Hierome saith is spiritually to be vnderstood the place it selfe plainely directeth vs thereto The great citie saith S. Iohn which spiritually is called Sodome and Egypt where our Lord also was crucified It is spiritually called Sodome and Egypt and it is spiritually the place where our Lord was crucified Now the citie where our Lord was corporally crucified being vtterly perished there is no other great city to which we haue any reason in speciall maner to referre it spiritually but onely the city of Rome l Rhem. Testam Annot. Apoc. 17. 18. By authoritie of the Romane Empire as the Rhemists rightly acknowledge Christ himselfe was put to death and by the same Romish authoritie the members of Christ were put to death both in Rome it selfe and throughout the whole world The members of Christ are spiritually Christ he reckoneth and accounteth them as himselfe Of the members of his mysticall body he saith m Math. 25.40 In as much as ye haue done it to one of the least of these my brethren ye haue done it vnto me n Acts 9.4 Saul Saul why persecutest thou me o Origen in Ierem hom 11. Per singulis martyres Iesus coÌ„demnatur Si coâ—emnatur Christianus 〈◊〉 tantiâ—â— quod Christianus est Christus est qu. condemnatur In euery of the martyrs Iesus is condemned If a Christian be condemned onely for that hee is a Christian it is Christ that is condemned Therefore those things that are done to the faithfull for the name and faith of Christ are termed p Phil. 3.10 Christs sufferings q 2. Cor. â— 10 the death of the Lord Iesus r Heb. 13.13 the reproach of Christ Å¿ Gal. 6.17 the markes of the Lord Iesus therein they are sayd t Ibid. 2.19 to be crucified with Christ Seeing then the bloud of the martyrs hath bene shed so abundantly in the streetes of Rome it selfe and by authoritie from Rome the like bloud hath bene shed and spilt in the streetes of all other cities and places throughout the world which because they were vnder the dominion of the citie of Rome may well bee called the streetes of Rome therefore Rome aboue all other is the place whereof it may be truly sayd that it is the great citie where spiritually our Lord was crucified and in the streetes whereof the Lords witnesses were slaine And that Christ was crucified at Rome M. Bishop must not deny because he must not deny that which Ambrose reporteth concerning Peters being crucified at Rome He telleth that u Ambros lib. 5. epist 32. in Orat. cont Auxent when the Pagan infidels sought for Peter to put him to death the faithfull requested him that for a while he should go aside and should reserue himselfe to instruct and strengthen the people of Christ Whereupon at night he was going out and seeing Christ to meete him in the gate and to be entring into the citie he saith vnto him Lord whither goest thou x Respondit Christâ— venio Romam uerum crucifiga Intellexit ergò Petrus quod iterum Christus erat crucifegendus in seruulo c. Christ answered I come to Rome to be crucified againe Peter then vnderstood that Christ was in his seruant to be crucified againe Therefore he went backe of his owne accord and when the Christians demaunded the matter he gaue them this answer and being streight wayes taken he glorified the Lord Iesus Sith then that in the crucifying of Peter Christ was crucified and Peter was crucified at Rome it cannot be denied but that Christ also was crucified at Rome and therefore that Rome is rightly called the citie where our Lord was crucified As for that that hee saith that the two witnesses there spoken of are Enoch and Elias it is a meere fable and hath no probabilitie or likelihood of truth Some curious heads finding mention of two witnesses must needs vse their wits to deuise to what two particular men they might apply that name Arethas saith y Areth. in Apo 11. Extraditione praeâ—â—â— Christi inuariabilitèr in ecclesia receptum est Enoch venturum esse cum â—lia Thesbite that it was constantly receiued that they should be Enoch and Elias But Victorinus who was farre more ancient then Arethas telleth vs otherwise z Victorin in Apoc. 11 apud sixt senens B blioth lib. 6. annot 34â— Multiputant vnum ex hic testibus esse EliaÌ„ alterum aut Elizeum aut Moseâ— sed vtrique mortui sunt Jeremiae autem mors non inuenitur quia omnes veteres nostri tradiderunt illuÌ„ esse Ieremiam Many thinke they did but thinke that one of these witnesses is Elias the other either Elizeus or Moses but they are both dead Marry the death of Ieremy is not found for all our ancients haue deliuered that that other is Ieremie Yet a Hilar. in Mat. can 20 Mosen Eliam duos prophetas intelligimus praeuementes aduentum Antichristi c. Hilary thinketh that he that shall come with Elias shall be Moses and no other Such vncertaintie is there in mens presumptions when they will determine of that which God hath said only by their conceipts Very probable it is that it is an allusion to that b Iohn 8.17 that is written in the law as our Sauior saith that the witnesse of two is true God therby giuing to vnderstand that notwithstanding the furie of the beast the crueltie of persecutors tyrants yet he will neuer want two witnesses that is sufficient for the iustifying of his truth We may otherwise though to the same effect refer it to the c Zach. 4.3.12 two oliue branches spokeÌ„ of by the prophet Zachary which did drop oyle into the lampe that was to burne and giue light before the Lord as to signifie that God would prouide alwayes to haue some by whom he would preserue the light of the Church and no lesse vphold it then by the two oliue branches that is the kingdome and the priesthood he did amongst the people of the Iewes S. Austin in his Homilies vpon the Apocalypse if at least he were the author of them expoundeth d August in Apoc. hom 8. Beda in Apo. 11. the two witnesses to be the two testaments whom Beda also followeth therein and that we may know the vanitie of that tale of Enoch and Elias he saith that e August ibid. Excluditur omnis suspicio quorundam qui putant
way stirreth yet the inward corrupt qualitie sticketh still euen as a man is truly said to be i Jbid. Sicut inest timiditas ho mini tâ—â—ido etiaÌ„ quando ne sumet timorous fearfull when yet for the present time he feareth nothing Now the question here is of both these both the sticking euill qualitie and the first and immediate motions and stirrings thereof before they be apprehended and consented vnto by the will For many times euill cogitations and thoughts arise in the heart which yet a man checketh and for which he is grieued at himselfe and reproueth himselfe and by no meanes will yeeld way vnto them Of these therefore together with the fountaine whence they spring the controuersie is whether they do properly vndergo the name of sinne Now what sinne is the Apostle Saint Iohn briefly instructeth vs saying that k 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law His word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth all priuation or defect whereby we come short of that that is commaunded or required by the lawe To which purpose the Apostle Saint Paule telleth vs that l Rom. 3.20 by the lawe is the knowledge of sinne and that m Cap 7.7 he had not knowne sinne but by the law For how is sinne knowne by the lawe but by that we vnderstand it to be sinne whatsoeuer declineth or swarueth from the lawe euen as the Apostle for example addeth that he had not knowne lust to be sinne except the lawe had said Thou shalt not lust presuming it as graunted that it is sinne whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe And this the Apostle Saint Iohn further confirmeth in that he saith that n 1. Ioh 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne For what is vnrighteousnesse but the transgressing of the lawe which is the rule of righteousnesse If then all vnrighteousnesse be sin and all transgression of the lawe be vnrighteousnesse then all transgression of the lawe is sinne The heathen Orator Tully could say that o Tul. Paradox 3. Est peccare tanquam transire lineas peccare to sinne is as a man would say to go without or beyond the bounds or lines We are listed and bounded by the lawe of God it draweth vs lines within the compasse whereof we are to keepe our selues What is it then to sinne with vs but to breake the bounds prescribed vnto vs and to go beside that which we are directed by the law Therfore saith Origen p Origen in Ro. cap 7. Peccati natura hac est si fiat quod lex fieri vetat This is the nature of sin if any thing be done which the law forbiddeth to be done Oecumenius out of the ancient Commentaries of the Fathers saith to the like purpose that q Oecum in 1. Joan cap. 3. Conueniunt inter se circa idem sunt Rectè discipulus Domini vtrunque in ideÌ„ commutauit sin and transgression of the law do agree together and that rightly S. Iohn did make them both one So r Grego Moral lib. 11. cap. 21. Inter peccatum iniquitatem nihil distare perhibet Ioannes qui ait peccatuÌ„ est iniquitas Gregorie Bishop of Rome calling transgression of the law by the name of iniquity as the vulgar Latin translateth it saith that betwixt sin and iniquity that is betwixt sin and the transgression of the law S. Iohn doth witnesse that there is no difference In like sort Bede saith that Å¿ Beda in 1. IoaÌ„ 3. Omne quod ab aequitatis ratione discrepat in peccatis numeratur all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is sinne Caesarius the brother of Gregory Nazianzene telleth vs that t Caesar dialog 3. apud Nazianz. Peccatum mihi esse videtur omnis aduersus virtuum resistende coâ—atus repugnantia he taketh it that sinne is all assay of resistance and all repugnancie against vertue Saint Austine saith that u Aug. de nat grat cap. 14. Ideo est peccatuÌ„ quia non debet fieri therefore a thing is sinne because it ought not to be done and that x Contra Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 3. Qui malè facit aliquid profecto peccat to do any thing amisse is to sinne Againe he defineth y August cont Faust Manich. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum vel dictuÌ„ vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam sinne to be euery thing that is said or done or coueted against the euerlasting law of God Yea Thomas Aquinas saith that z Thom Aquin. 1. 2. q. 109. art 4. in corp Nihil est aliud peccare quà m transgredi diuina mandata to sinne is nothing else but to transgresse the commandements of God In a word the curse of God belongeth to nothing saue to sinne onely But the curse of God belongeth to euery swaruing from the law of God for a Gal. 3.10 cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to do them Therefore euery swaruing from the lawe of God is properly and truly reckoned to be sinne And surely this is a truth so apparant and euident as that we may wonder not at the blindnesse for vndoubtedly they see it well enough but at the extreame peruersenesse and impudencie of the Papists that so stiffely stand in the deniall thereof Now then the question being whether concupiscence or lust in it selfe be sinne in the regenerate man the resolution is very readie and plaine and the answer manifestly apparant that because euery diuerting or swaruing from the lawe is sinne therefore concupiscence must necessarily be sinne in as much as it is a declining from the lawe saying Thou shalt not lust And therefore doth the Apostle say that he knew lust to be sinne as before was noted because the law sayd Thou shalt not lust He calleth and tearmeth it sinne againe and againe so as that we may wonder that he should call it sinne sinne and yet his meaning should be that it is not sinne For as Tertullian saith b Tertul. aduers Hermogen Acuius habitu quid diuertit pariter à vocatu eius recedit Looke from the being and nature whereof a thing departeth it departeth also from the name and calling thereof If therefore concupiscence had lost the nature of sinne it should consequently also be depriued of the name But now whereas M. Perkins alledged the words of the Apostle that sinne dwelling in him made him to do the euill which he hateth M. Bishop telleth vs that contrarie to M. Perkins purpose and intention those words do proue that sinne must be there taken improperly And how so I pray you For saith he if it made him to do the euill which he hated then could it not be sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will Where by Aequiuocation of tearmes he meerely abuseth his Reader For the
last day being assured that as a head wil not suffer a member of it owne body to perish which it hath in his power to preserue so Christ hauing made him a member of his body and hauing power to saue him will not suffer him to perish but as a faithfull Mediatour will performe that charge which z Iohn 6.39 the will of the heauenly Father hath laid vpon him that of all that he hath giuen him he should loose nothing but should raise it vp at the last day Now M. Bishop saith that he beleeueth that God for the merits of Christes passion doth forgiue them that are heartily sorie for their sinnes and humbly confesse them with a full purpose of a new life And this he hopeth that he hath done but he cannot assure himselfe that he hath done it or that he hath done it so well as he ought to do and therefore cannot beleeue the forgiuenesse of his sinnes Where we see that the merit of Christes passion is not sufficient in his opinion to purchase for him the forgiuenesse of sinnes but it must further hang vpon the sufficiencie and perfection of his owne repentance It is not enough that he truly repent vnlesse he repent so well as he ought to do that his repentance may deserue the pardon that he seeketh for But we for our parts know and confesse that our repentance our faith our righteousnesse are neuer such as they ought to be we are short and vnperfect in the sorow for our sinnes our purposes of new life and amendment of our defaults proue often times like a Ose 6.4 the morning dew that is quickly dried vp And therefore it is not the value and woorth of our repentance that we rest vpon to merit pardon and forgiuenesse but we require a sincerity and truth thereof faithfully to craue the same being but as the paine and greefe which maketh to seeke the medicine whereby it is eased as the hunger and thirst which maketh to craue the food whereby it is releeued as the feeling of beggerie and want which maketh to seeke the treasure and riches by which it is supplied Which supply and reliefe spiritually we find in this that b Rom. 3.24 we are iustified freely by the grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus whom God hath set forth to be an attonement for vs not by the merit of our repentance but by faith in his bloud c Rhem. Testam Explicat of certaine words in the end Freely for god a mercy for nothing as the Rhemists expound the word gratis willing to shew a little truth in giuing the right signification of the word but craftily suppressing the same truth and plainly contradicting it by a colourable glose deuised against the text of the Apostle and against the signification of the word which force of truth hath wrested from themselues d Ambros in Rom. cap. 3. Gratit quia nihil operantes neque vitem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei Freely saith Ambrose because hauing no works nor yeelding any requitall euen of the gift of God we are iustified by faith onely e Chrysost ni Rom. hom 7. Nullu ad hoc vsus operibus sed fidem tamum exigens Freely saith Chrysostome because he vseth hereto no works of ours but requireth faith onely And he requireth faith onely onely as a hand whereby we receiue not as a worke whereby we deserue this forgiuenesse of our sinnes that so the true penitent may firmly expect it in Christ onely by beleeuing not hang in suspense of it by being in doubt of vnsufficiencie in repenting God hauing therefore appointed it to be f Rom. 4.16 by faith that it may be of grace that the promise thereof may be sure not in it selfe not with God who doubteth but in that respect it is sure enough but to all the seed that is to euery one that beleeueth the promise being that g Act. 10.43 through the name of Christ euery one that beleeueth in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes Which faith though it be yet but weake and little and sometimes interrupted with feares and doubts yet God accepteth it and cherisheth it that by more experience it may grow to more strength neither is it true which M. Bishop saith that in matter of faith there is no feare or doubt as anone after shall appeare In the mean time he further addeth as touching the article of Eternall life that he beleeueth he shall haue it if he shall keepe all Gods commandements but because he is not assured that he shall so do he remaineth in feare And very iustly may he be in feare that looketh for eternall life vpon no other condition then he doth The Apostle indeed doth plainly debarre him from all hope and expectation therof when he saith h Gal. 3.10 So many as are of the works of the law are vnder the curse for it is written Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them Where he plainly taketh it for graunted that no man continueth in all things that are written in the law that is that no man keepeth all Gods commandements and therefore concludeth that he that for eternall life dependeth vpon keeping all Gods commandements cannot auoid the curse Yea but Christ saith to the yong man in the Gospell i Mat. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements It is true but Christ saith it to induce the young man to the knowledge of himselfe and very ill is it applied to seduce men from the true acknowledgement of the faith of Christ The young man asketh what he might do to inherit eternall life Our Sauiour Christ referreth him to the law as k Gal. 3.25 the Schoolemaister to traine him vnto Christ that finding it l Rom. 8.3 Gal. 3.21 a thing impossible for the law to giue him life and therefore casting off all vaine confidence of the righteousnesse thereof he might be fitted to embrace m Act. 4.12 the faith of that name in which onely life and Saluation is offered vnto vs. Which it plainlie appeareth this young man conceiued not by reason of a presumption that he had by misunderstanding the law that he had obserued the law The vaine opinion whereof to discouer our Sauiour biddeth him to sell all giue to the poore promising him treasure in heauen and willing him in the meane time to come and follow him that it might appeare how far he was frō that loue of God and his neighbour which the law required in whose heart the loue of riches bare so great a sway as that he could not be content at Gods cōmandement vpō promise of heauenly treasure to bestow the same to the necessity of his neighbour Now if he had rightly esteemed of himselfe how farre he was from being answerable to the righteousnesse of the law he would
a conuiction of guilt of death incurred thereby and yet could yeeld no remedie against death being afterwards b Heb. 7.18 disanulled because of the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse thereof so farre should we be from thinking that of the ceremoniall law it should be sayd Do this and thou shalt liue The yong man demandeth of Christ c Mat. 19.16 What good thing shall I do that I may haue eternall life Now looke of what law our Sauior answereth him as M. Bishop hath cited before d Vers 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements of the selfe same law doth he answer another to the same question vpon recitall of a briefe of the commandements e Luc. 10.28 This do and thou shalt liue namely of the morall law to which it hath reference f Leuit. 18.5 where it is first spoken as appeareth by that that followeth for declaration of it Of which also it is rehearsed by g Ezech. 18.11.13 c. Ezechiel the Prophet and is by the Apostle Saint Paul further alledged to shew the difference betwixt h Rom. 10.5 the Righteousnesse of the law and the Righteousnesse of faith Moses saith he this describeth the Righteousnesse of the lavv that the man vvhich doth these things shall liue thereby i Gal. 3.12 The lavv is not of faith but he that doth these things shall liue in them Of which law he saith k Rom. 3.20 By the lavv commeth the knowledge of sinne that it saith l Cap. 7. ver 7.16.22 Thou shalt not lust that he consenteth to it that it is good that he delighteth in it as touching the inner man that the m Cap. 13. v. 9. Gal. 5.14 summe thereof is Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe all which doe vndeniably point out vnto vs the morall law as both n August de spir lit ca. 14. Saint Austine and o Hieron epist ad Ctesiphont Saint Hierome out of the same and such like places haue expresly affirmed Of the same law therefore he saith p Gal. 3.10 So manie as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse for it is written Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them And because no man continueth in all he concludeth hereof q Ver. 11. cap. 2.16 that by the law no man is iustified in the sight of God that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified Now of the selfe same law doth he say that which M. Bishop hath cited for the cutting of his owne throat r Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law thereby teaching vs to resolue that Iustification by Christ and Iustification by the worke of the law cannot possibly concurre in one Now whereas the Apostle for auouching Iustification onely by faith in Christ taketh it for a ground that no man fulfilleth the Righteousnesse of the law M. Bishop that he may be wholy thwart and crosse vnto him affirmeth that by the helpe of Gods grace men are made able to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby Against which assertion to proue that the Righteousnesse of the regenerate and faithfull is not such as that it can answer the iustice and Righteousnesse required in the law M. Perkins alledgeth the common confession of all endited by the Prophet Esay Å¿ Esa 64.6 All our Righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloth For if the Righteousnesse commaunded by the law be most exact and perfect and no righteousnesse is performed by vs but what by our weaknesse and corruption is blemished and stained then can no righteousnesse of ours satisfie the commandement of the law But M. Bishop answereth that the Prophet speaketh these words in the person of the wicked of that nation and that time and therefore that they are madly applied vnto the righteous Where a man would wonder that he should be so mad as to imagine that prayer to be vttered in the person of wicked men or that wicked men should make mention or any their Righteousnesse vnto God And as for the time it fitteth not the age wherein the Prophet himselfe liued but was prophetically written in respect of a time long after succeeding He foresaw in the spirit the desolation of Ierusalem and the temple and that whole land and thereupon putteth himselfe into the person of the faithfull and maketh himselfe as one of them that should liue at that time This is verie apparent by the Prophets words t Vers 10. Thine holy cities lye wast Sion is a wildernesse and Ierusalem a desert The house of our sanctuarie and of our glorie where our fathers praised thee is burnt vp with fire and all our pleasant things are vvasted This prayer then was to serue for a direction to the faithfull that then should be to make their mone vnto God and to intreat mercie at his hands And very answerable to this propheticall prayer is the prayer of the Prophet Daniel made presently at that time For whereas M. Bishop to proue that the Prophet speaketh in the person of the wicked alledgeth those words u Esa 64 5. Lo thou hast bene angrie for we haue offended and haue euer bene in sinne the Prophet Daniel likewise saith x Dan 9.5 We haue sinned and haue committed iniquitie and done wickedly y Vers 7. O Lord Righteousnesse belongeth vnto thee and vnto vs open shame z Vers 10. We haue not obeyed the voyce of the Lord our God to walke in his wayes c. And whereas he alledgeth the other words a Esa 64.7 There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold of thee the Prophet Daniel in like sort saith b Dan. 9.13 We haue not made our prayer before the Lord our God Both of them say We haue offended We haue sinned We haue not prayed as shewing plainely that they so spake of other men as that they implied themselues also Nay saith M. Bishop that is but the manner of Preachers and specially of such as become Intercessours for others who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue Where he maketh the holy Prophets and seruants of God as verie hypocrites to God as he himselfe is as if they tooke vpon them to accuse themselues to God when they intended nothing lesse But to driue him out of this hole the Prophet Daniel saith of himselfe that in that prayer c Dan. 9.20 he confessed his owne sinnes and the sinnes of his people and why should Daniel the Prophet be sayd to confesse his owne sinnes and not the Prophet Esay or those iust and faithfull in whose person Esay spake Nay both the one and the other spake out of the true affection of the faithfull at all times who alwayes find in themselues defects and defaults whereby they find iust
for it selfe or as it is an act or worke as if it were any part of our iustice or righteousnesse but as the heart giueth life to the body not by the substance of it selfe which is but flesh as the rest of the body is but by the vitall and quickning power of the soule that is seated therein and as the hand feedeth the body not as being it selfe the foode of the body but by receiuing and ministring vnto it the meat wherewith it is sustained euen so faith iustifieth and giueth life by receiuing Christ to be our righteousnesse and life in him d Act. 26.18 receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and inheritance amongst them that are sanctified vnto eternall life But M. Bishop telleth vs that the Apostles meaning in those places is to exclude all such works as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of theÌ„selues so thought that by theÌ„ they had deserued to be made Christians A goodly toy Forsooth after they had bene Christians a long time they began to dispute reason the matter whether it were for the works that before they had don that they were made ChristiaÌ„s whether they had deserued by their works to be made Christians wheÌ„ e Ephe. 2.3 they had their coÌ„uersation in the lusts of the flesh in fulfilling the wil of the flesh of the mind walking according to the course of this world and after the Prince that ruleth in the aire the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience as the Apostle describeth the condition both of Iewes and Gentiles before they were partakers of the grace of Christ Were the Christians then of so slender vnderstanding as that they should make question of their deserts in that estate Was that the thing so much laboured by the false Apostles to perswade men that for their former deserts they were become Christians and had the Apostle so much businesse to weane them and withhold them from the conceipt and opinion of such deserts What should a man spend time and labour to refute so ridiculous so senslesse and absurd deuices Who would thinke that M. Bishop a Doctor of Diuinitie by title should be so simple a man as that his Maister Bellarmine could gull him and gudgeon him with so vaine a tale The matter is plaine After that men had accepted the faith of Christ and were become f Act. 15.1.10 brethren and disciples there came vnto them the false Apostles and preached vnto them g Ver. 2. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saued They sought to perswade men that to the faith of Christ they must adde the obseruation of Moses law Here was no question whether by any deserts they were become Christians but being now Christians what it was wherein they should repose themselues for iustification and saluation The Galathians were amongst others intangled by those false Apostles and hauing before h Gal 1.9 receiued the Gospell i Cap. 4.27 hauing bene baptized into Christ k Cap. 3.2 hauing receiued the spirit yea and l Ibid. Ver. 4. hauing suffered many things for the Gospell yet were brought to the adioining of circumcision and the law to the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified thereby This the Apostle inueyeth against and reducing the state of the question from the ceremonies of the law to the whole law determineth not concerning the Popish first iustification but concerning iustification wholy concerning men beleeuing alreadie and in the state of grace that they must be m Ro. 3.20.28 Gal. 3.11 iustified by faith and not by the works of the law yea without the workes of the law yea and saith n Gal. 2.16 we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law The Papist saith we beleeue in Christ that we may be iustified by the works of the law but the Apostle saith we beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law giueth a reason why we that beleeue in Christ cannot be iustified by the works of the law o Jbid. because by the works of the law no flesh shall be iustified And whereas the Papist againe saith that by Christ and by his grace we are enabled to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby the Apostle peremptorily denounceth p Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law And that we may vnderstand what law he meaneth S. Hierome hauing mentioned those words that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified saith thereof q Hieron ad Ctesiphont Quod ne de lege Moysâ— tantum dictum puâ—es non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine ontinentur ideÌ„ Apostolus scribit dicens coÌ„sentio legi c. Which that thou maiest not thinke to be spoken onely of the law of Moses that is the ceremoniall law but of all the commaundements which are contained vnder the one name of the law the same Apostle writeth saying I consent to the law or delight in the law of God as touching the inner man But of that before in the third section Hereby then it appeareth that being members of Christ and baptized into him our iustification still consisteth not in workes but onely in the faith of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop by a new qualification telleth vs that all works both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification Not then from being any cause but onely from being any meritorious cause For he hath r Sect. 21. before told vs that that vertuous disposition of which he here speaketh is the cause of iustification But if they be causes how then is it true that he saith here that the first iustification is freely bestowed For Å¿ Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end Gratis freely as the Rhemists tell vs is as much to say as for nothing and if it be bestowed for this vertuous dispositions sake then it is not bestowed for nothing but for hope for charity c. Thus they turne and winde this way and that way and can finde nothing whereupon to stand Saint Austine giueth it for a rule that t August cont Pelag. Celest li. 2. ca. 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fueriâ— gratuita omnimodo the grace of God shall not be grace in any sort except it be free in euery respect And how is it free in euery respect if our workes of preparation or disposition be properly the causes for which it is bestowed vpon vs And what is it but a mockery to say that the Apostle so often absolutely determining against iustification by workes should meane notwithstanding that workes are the very causes of iustification onely that they are not meritorious causes
to the same grace and therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following he mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes signifying the first to be of our selues the second to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth Works simply the second Good workes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then was it to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it R. ABBOT The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded how farre foorth good workes are required to iustification namely before God which he determineth thus that they are required not as causes for which we are iustified either in the beginning of grace or in the proceeding thereof but onely as effects and fruites of iustification Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said of being iustified by faith alone yet neither as touching first nor second iustification is directly handled by M. Perkins but only in this place Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof and bringeth his arguments directly to that point First the Apostle saith a Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law M. Bishop excepteth against this place as meant of the first iustification of a sinner not appertaining to the second iustification But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule both beginning and continuing in faith for being still sinners so long as here we liue it must needes be that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it For he writeth these things to the Romaines to the Galathians which long before had beleeued and bene baptized and yet now still informeth them that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law still he saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law Christ dyed in vaine yea he proueth by the Prophets words not that the sinner onely but c Cap. 3.11 the iust shall liue by faith as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words d Psal 55.7 vulg Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos He will saue them for nothing addeth e Hieron aduer Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei salâ—aÌ„tur clementia No doubt but he meaneth the iust who are not saued by their owne merit but by the mercie of God But it is further to be noted that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid a man according to Gods owne hart who from his childhood had bene called of God yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in the f Rom. 4.6 Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient and that not only at a mans first entraÌ„ce into the state of grace which he calleth the first iustificatioÌ„ but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification His acknowledgement that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only without any merit of the sinner himselfe is a meere collusion and mockerie For if a man be iustified by workes then it is not by meere grace He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified and determineth still that hope feare repentance charitie concurre as causes thereof Yea but saith he they are no meritorious causes there is the merit of Christ onely and no merit of the sinner himselfe So then iustification is by workes but not by merits But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes of merits he saith nothing he speaketh of that that is not of that that cannot be workes there may be but merit there can be none as is afterwards to be declared See then the madnesse of these men the Apostle saith h Gal. 2.16 Ephes 2.9 Not by workes yes say they it is by works but it is not by merits the Apostle saith i Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes yes say they it is both by grace and by workes but it is not by merits Thus impudently they confront the Apostle and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith They will seeme to vphold grace by excluding merit when as the Apostle testifieth they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes because as hath bene before alledged out of Austin grace is not grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit but affirme the same k Bellar. de iust lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort euen in their first iustificatioÌ„ as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine Thus they play fast and loose and wold faine say but cannot well tell what to say With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God and yet they so teach it as that they make it of no effect Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God therefore M. Perkins saith that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue meaning that we do nothing at all wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God M. Bishop saith that this is absurd because a man must beleeue and to beleeue is an action But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man who vnderstandeth not what he readeth To beleeue is an action but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand if ignorance had not blinded him that we place no part of righteousnesse in the very act of faith but in the thing receiued thereby Christ onely is our righteousnesse and him we receiue by faith God iustifieth we are iustified God imputeth righteousnesse to vs it is imputed God then is the agent we the subiect whereon he worketh patients receiuers and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine For although they say that by faith hope charitie repentance which are actions they obtaine
to bestow his grace vpon vs as I haue shewed a Sect. 21. before Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul onely against merits but simply against works that he affirmeth b August li. 83. quaest 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse Dicit posse homineÌ„ sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fideÌ„ Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before that he teacheth that not for any good worke past a man attaineth to the iustification of faith that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification but the faith in which our iustification is begun as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place c Jdem de verb. Apost ser 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus Si fideÌ„ habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we haue no righteousnesse we haue no faith but if we haue faith we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification from being any causes thereof and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes so as that d Idem epist 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secunduÌ„ Deum vlla ratione omninò noÌ„ possumus without the grace of God which with him is no other but the grace e Epist 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification he neuer speaketh word nor euer giueth intimation of any such nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same as we haue seene in the question of f Sect. 5. Free will 33. W. BISHOP Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law Hence thus he argueth If a mâ—n will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the law according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Apollo Saint Paul onely saith in these words That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses Maister Perkins That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the law Which are as iust as Germains lips as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcized did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this R. ABBOT The force of the sentence alledged that a Gal. 5.3 he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law dependeth vpon the verse going before and that that followeth after He saith before b Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest that c August cont Faust Man lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putareÌ„t suam spem salutemque continerâ— it was certaine destruction for them to thinke that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision as being a speciall matter then spoken of so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law ye are fallen from grace If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ Being abandoned from Christ and his grace he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation but by the law He cannot be iustified by the law but by perfect obseruing of it because it is said e Cap. 3.10 Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them What then is said of circumcision belongeth to all the workes of the law He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same and if he be any where a trespasser he cannot be iustified by the law And rightly doth M. Perkins say that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision as he shall well perceiue that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatioÌ„ by the law to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law Therefore in the words alledged this argument is implied He that wil be iustified by the law is bound to fulfill the whole law He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision seeketh to be iustified by the law he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law As for that which M. Bishop saith that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer For what is Iudaisme but a profession of iustification by the law the Iewes f Rom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith but as it were by the workes of the lâ—w Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law against which the Apostles ground is as hath bene said that he that professeth to be iustified by the law doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach being by the law guilty of death if he be found to transgresse in any sort Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law so as to be iustified thereby it shall appeare God willing in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof 34. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answer That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of Moses law but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop to answer the argument auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme that Gods election is vpon foresight of
may be a difference in vs but Christ cannot be diuided neither is there in him any difference from himselfe Where he goeth he goeth whole and therefore what he is to the strong the same is he to the faint and feeble soule There is greater assurance and lesse assurance but the matter wherof each doth take assurance is the whole mercie of God in Christ 38. W. BISHOP Whether it be possible for a man in grace to fulfill Gods law Pag. 95. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible first for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admit it were so Gal. 5. I then wold answer that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the lawe cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace Rom. 8. he might be able to do it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith that that which was vnpossible to the lawe is made by the grace of Christ possible 2 Obiect The liues and workes of most righteous men are imperfect and stayned with sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article 3 Obiect Our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our workes were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh Rom. 8.13 Not so if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth R. ABBOT The deniall of the possibility of keeping Gods commandement or of fulfilling the law is not absolutely meant God forbid that we should say that God hath commanded any thing vnpossible to be done We beleeue that Adam was created in state to fulfill all the righteousnesse of the law We beleeue that Christ in our nature hath fulfilled the same for vs and that we by Christ in the end shall fully be restored to the perfection thereof In the meane time also we keepe the commandements of God and frame our liues according to the line and rule thereof and herein we labour and trauell to grow and increase from day to day but we attaine not to perfection here that which we do is more in will then in worke more in desire then in deede In the midst of our righteousnesse we condemne our selues of sin we carry our vncleannesse in our hands and thereby do yeeld confession thereof to the Lord if we will say that we fulfill the law our owne mouth shall condemne vs who accordingly as we are taught do daily aske forgiuenes for our transgressions of the lawe There is no man so long as he liueth but must confesse that he is too weake to the bearing of that burthen and cometh much short euery manner of way of that that is required by the law And this S. Paule tooke indeed for the ground of his whole disputation against iustification by the law For rightly he saith a Gal. 3.21 If there had bene a lawe giuen which could haue giuen life then righteousnes shold haue bene by the law He taketh it for granted that the law could not giue life not because it was defectiue in it selfe but because by our defect we were not capable of the life that was offered thereby euen as the Sunne cannot giue light to the blind not for any want that is in it but because the blind hath not meanes to make benefit and vse of the light that most clearely shineth from the Sunne Which reason the Apostle more plainely declareth otherwhere when he saith that b Rom. 8.3 it was impossible for the law namely to iustifie and saue vs because it was weakened by the flesh Wherby he signifieth that the default resteth vpon our weaknesse and the corruption of our sinfull flesh whereby we are vnable in any sort to attaine to that righteousnesse and perfect integritie and innocencie that the law requireth of vs. Now if flesh do hinder the law from being able to iustifie vs then so long as flesh continueth there must needes be still a weaknesse of the law in that behalfe But so long as here we liue there is still c Gal. 5.17 the flesh lusting against the spirit and d Rom. 7.23 rebelling against the law of the mind We can neuer therefore whilest we liue attaine to the fulfilling of the law to be iustified thereby This remainder of flesh doth argue that we haue yet receiued the grace of God but onely in part It hath begun to heale vs but a great part of our disease and weaknesse continueth still We are therefore as yet but in part onely enabled thereby to fulfill the law and if we keepe it but in part we keepe it not so as to be iustified by the law because by the sentence of the law e â—al 3.10 cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written therin This meaning the Apostle plainely deliuereth neither doth M. Bishop gather any other meaning from him but by the corrupting of his words alledging him as if he had said That that was impossible to the law is made by the grace of Christ possible But why doth he put in that vnder the Apostles name which the Apostle doth not say he neither saith nor meant to say that to fulfill the law is made possible by the grace of Christ but rather that in Christ that iustification is supplied vnto vs which it is vnpossible should be yeelded vnto vs by the law And how could he gather that meaning from him when he could not but know that notwithstanding the grace of Christ he affirmeth still in part a remainder of that impediment by which it was vnpossible before to fulfill the lawe But of this text there will be further occasion to speake in the three and fortieth section The second reason alledged by M. Perkins against the opinion of fulfilling the law is that the liues and workes of the most righteous men are vnperfect and stained with sinne M. Bishop very quipperly demandeth Ergo quid he knew the ergo well inough Ergo no man can fulfill the law For if the most righteous faile in that behalfe then it followeth that generally all are excluded from that power If all must confesse themselues to be vnperfect if all must acknowledge themselues to be sinners then all must confesse as I said before that they faile of the performance of the law The connexion would haue bene considered here but M. Bishop pretily passeth it ouer vnder pretence of a seuerall article for the handling of the proposition what he saith of that we shal see anone M. Perkins
15.10 the law was a yoke which saith he neither we nor our fathers were able to beare Whence euen by the very words it must needs follow that we are not able to fulfill the law M. Bishops answer is that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without further ayde of Gods grace As though they had not the grace of God who notwithstanding complained of the law as of a yoke too heauie for them to beare euen in that state of grace Therefore we will say to M. Bishop as Orosius did to the Pelagian hereticke b Oros Apolog. de arbit libert Samuel Elias c. Patres sine dubio nostri sunt eâ—â—neminem Patrum Petrus affirmat sed neque semel ipsos hoc est Apostolos cuÌ„ essent Judaei â—nus legis ferre potuisse sed fide Christi secundum spem gratiae fuisse saluatos An fortè secundum te omnes isti sansti Patres Dei adiutorium non habebant Samuel Elias Elizeus Esay Ieremie Daniel Zachary all those holy ones either Iudges or Kings or Prophets were vndoubtedly our Fathers and Peter affirmeth that none of the Fathers no nor themselues that is the Apostles being Iewes could beare the burden of the lawe but were saued by the faith of Christ according to the help of grace What had not all these holy Fathers thinkest thou the hope of grace Hauing then the helpe of the grace of God yet they still acknowledged the law to be a heauier burthen then that they were able to stand vnder the waight thereof To this purpose he vrgeth the hereticke with that which is written in the law c Deut. 6.5 Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. d Oros ibid. Responde non mihi sed Deo non vâ—co sed conscientia si ita ex toto corde Deum diligis vt nullam vn quam in eo cogitationem quae absque timore dilectione Dei intelligi possit admittas ita in tota anima sequeris vt suscepta semel cruce in nullam penitus oblectationem habita ad tempus iâ—cunditatu succedas c. Answer saith he not to me but to God not with thy voyce but with thy conscience whether thou so loue God with all thy heart as that thou neuer admit any thought therein that may be conceiued to be without the feare and loue of God whether thou so follow him with all thy soule as that hauing once vndertaken the crosse thou be neuer caried for the time to fall into any delight or contentment of pleasure c. Where as he sheweth how farre it is beyond our power to keep our selues within the lists bounds of this commandement so he taketh away M. Bishops second exception that the law was thus called a yoke c. in respect of the sacrifices sacraments and ceremonies by the multitude whereof he saith that it was so burdensome and comberous as that it could hardly be kept by the helpe of ordinary grace For if the law be there vnderstood which saith Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God c. as Orosius declareth then it is false which M. Bishop saith that that speech is to be referred to the ceremonies of the law But the reader is well to obserue the manner of his speech It could hardly be kept It could then or might be kept though hardly be kept No question then but some did keepe it if it might be kept But the yoke of which S. Peter speaketh is such as none was able to beare It is not then to be vnderstood of the ceremonies of the law And indeed there is no doubt but that the ceremoniall law by ordinary grace of God as touching the outward practise thereof might exactly be performed The multitude of those obseruations is equalled in the Romish Church and yet they haue nimble fellowes that can attaine to all But out of M. Bishops words we will argue à minori ad maius if the law of ceremonies were so heauie a yoke which consisted only in outward obseruations how much heauier is that that giueth law to the whole man to all his thoughts and words and deedes taking exception against any thing either inwardly or outwardly whereby we step aside from the rule thereof And yet he as a man void of sence conscience saith of the ceremonies that they could very hardly be obserued but of the rest of the commaundements that they are very possible and easie to be kept as we shall see anon In the meane time to proue it he bringeth exaÌ„ple of diuers who he saith did fulfill all the lawe but he is preuented and bereaued of those examples by Cyprian who saith of all those excellent men and Priests and Prophets before Christ that e Cyprian de Ieiun tent Christi Fuerant ante Christum viri insignes Prophetae Sacerdotes sed in peccatis concepti nati nec originali nec personali caruere delicto inuenta est in omnibus vel ignorantia vel insufficientia in quibus erronei peccauerunt egu erunt misericor dia Dei per quaÌ„ edocti restituti gratias egeruâ—t Deo ad plenitudinem iustitiae multùm sibi de esse confessi sunt sperantes in Deo nullam sibi soliditatem attri buere praesumpserunt being conceiued and borne in sinnes they were neither without originall nor personall fault and there was found in them all either ignorance or vnsufficiencie by which going astray they sinned and stood in need of the mercy of God by which being instructed and restored they gaue thankes to God and confessed that much was wanting vnto them to perfection of righteousnesse and trusting in God presumed not to attribute any soundnesse to themselues As touching them all we must answer the same that Saint Austine answered the Pelagian hereticks f August de pec mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 14. Scripturarum testimonijs quibus de illorum laudibus credimus hoc etiam credimus non iustificari in conspectu Dei omnem vinentem ideo rogari ne inireâ— in iudicium cum seruis suis By the testimonies of the Scripture which we beleeue as touching their commendations we beleeue this also that no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God and that therefore he is requested not to enter into iudgement with his seruants Whereby what we meane when we request it the same S. Austin sheweth g Jdem de Tem. Ser 49. Nestes micum in iudicio exigendo à me omnia quae praece pisti omnia quae iussisiâ— NaÌ„ me inuenies reuÌ„ si in iudicium iniraueris mecuÌ„ c. Stand not with me in iudgement by exacting of me all that thou hast commanded and all that thou hast charged vs. For thou shalt find me guiltie if thou enter into iudgement with me This S. Austine maketh the common confession of all the seruants of God that
they do not fulfil all and M. Bishop saith of them whom he nameth that they did fulfill all The Pelagians alledged amongst others Zacharie and Elizabeth as M. Bishop doth because it is said of theÌ„ h Luk. 1.6 Both were iust before God and walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe S. Austin answereth them i Aug. contra Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap 48. Dictum est quantuÌ„ mihi videtur secundum quandaÌ„ inter homines conuersationem probabilem atque laudabilem quaÌ„ nullus hominum iustè posset in accusationis criminationis querelam vocare Quam proptereà in conspectu Dei habuâ—sse referuntur quia in ea homines nulla dissimulatione fallebant sed vt apparebant homi nibus ita noti erant oculis Dei It is spoken as seemeth to me as touching a commendable and prayse-worthy conuersation amongst men which no man could iustly caâ— into quarrell of accusation or crime Which therefore they are said to haue had before God because they therein did not deceiue men by any dissimulation but as they appeared to men so they were knowne to the eyes of God Therefore he maketh of that which was said of them no more but that which the Apostle saith of himselfe k Phil. 3.6 As touching the righteousnesse of the law I was vnrebukable when as yet he was not called to the grace of Christ l Aug. de pecca mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 13. Quid de illis laudabile dictuÌ„ est quod non in eo comprehendatur quod de se Apostolus cùm in Christum non dum credidisset professus est c. What commendable thing is spoken of theÌ„ saith he which is not comprehended in that which the Apostle professed of himselfe when as yet he had not beleeued in Christ that according to the righteousnesse that is in the law he was without reproofe m Oros Apolog de arbit libert Sine crimine dici quenquam sine querela non est perfectionis testimonium sed conuersationis ezemplum In being said in the Scripture to be without crime or reproofe saith Orosius is not imported a testimonie of perfection but an example of conuersation It is manifest therefore that that which is written concerning them is not to be drawne to the auouching of that fulfilling of the lawe which M. Bishop here defendeth for iustification before God Yea and it is further to be noted that Zachary was a Priest and the Priests manner was n Heb. 7.27 first to offer sacrifice for his owne sinnes then for the peoples Zachary therefore offered sacrifice for his owne sins But o 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law if Zachary then were a transgressor of the lawe it is false that Master Bishop saith that he fulfilled the whole lawe Still therefore it standeth good against all subuerters of truth as touching the morall lawe that in respect of iustificatioÌ„ it is a yoke which neither Iosue nor Dauid nor Iosias nor Zachary and Elizabeth nor any of those others whom M. Bishop meaneth haue bene able to beare and therefore we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified in him 40. W. BISHOP Rom. 7. To will is in me but I find not how to performe If S. Paule could not performe that which he would how can others Answer He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not marry he could well by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them The like answer we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbors goods his wife or seruants which as they say is vnpossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commandement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue ill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man Lib. 10. conf cap. 7. euen when he is asleepe and testifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good facility in propounding our arguments but he hath very ill hap in answering of them S. Paule would willingly haue auoyded all euill motions saith he but he could not Therefore say we he could not fulfill the lawe He could subdue those prouocations to sinne saith he and not suffer them to lead him to the breach of any of the commandements For what is it whereof the Apostle saith as is alledged a Rom. 7 18. To will is present with me but I find not how to performe that that is good It is euen the commaundement whereof he hath said before b Ver. 12. The commandement is holy and iust and good for instance whereof and clearer euidence he setteth downe the commandement c Ver. 7. Thou shalt no lust which he still prosecuteth vnder the name of good Paul then confesseth that though he had a will to keepe and fulfill the law and namely the commandement Thou shalt not lust yet he could not find meanes to attain to that perfection and why then doth M. Bishop attribute to him the keeping of all the commandements so as not to be led to the breach of any one of them d August de nupt concup lib. 1. cap. 27. Lex non vult vt concupiscam quae dicit Non concupisces ego nolo coÌ„cupiscere Concupiscere nolebat tamen concupiscebat The law would haue him not to lust in that it saith Thou shalt not lust and he was willing not to lust but yet he did lust how then should we say that he did fulfill the law If the law forbid euil motions and prouocations and it is not possible for vs to auoid them or to free our selues from them it must follow that it is not possible for vs to fulfill the law But we forsooth do not vnderstand the commandement rightly which M. Bishop telleth vs doth not prohibit euill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but onely consent vnto them So then the law saith Thou shalt not lust but M. Bishop saith Yes thou maist lust without any sinne but thou maist not consent vnto thy lust But farre otherwise S. Austin saith that e Idem Epist 200. In iustitia nondum consummata perseueranter proficientes ad eius consummationem quandoque veniemus vbi peccati concupiscentia non cohibenda atque fraenanda sed nulla sit Hoc enim posuit lex dicendo Non coÌ„cupisces the law in saying Thou shalt not lust doth set downe that there shall be no
burthen which notwithstanding being recouered and fully cured he can beare with ease so it is not possible for vs so long as we are compassed about with corruption and frailtie to obserue and keep the law and righteousnesse thereof which yet being deliuered from all bondage of corruption and sinne we shall easily attaine vnto His second shift is as absurd as the former that though we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet we may fulfill the law because it is not broken but by mortall sinnes But the law it selfe saith e Gal. 3.10 Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them Therefore concerning all sinnes the sentence of the Apostle must stand good that f Rom. 6.23 the wages of sinne is death So our Sauiour Christ testifieth g Mat. 5.19 He that breaketh one of the least of these commandements and teacheth men so he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen that is saith S. Austin h August in Ioan. tract 122. Consequens est vt qui minimus est in regno coelâ—rum non intrâ—t in regnum coelâ—rum he shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen But we will demand of M. Bishop are those veniall sinnes forbidden by the law or not If they be not forbidden then they are no sinnes for i Rom. 4 15. where there is no law there is no trespasse and k Aug. de pece mer. rem lib. 2 cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit si quid erit si non diuiuitùs â—ubeatur vt non sit sinne shall be no sinne if God do not forbid the being of it But if they be forbidden how doth he say that to do them is no transgression of the law for what is it but a transgression of the law to do that which the law forbiddeth to be done The Apostle saith that l Rom. 3.20 by the law cometh the knowledge of sinne Veniall sinnes then by the law are knowne to be sinnes how are they knowne to be sinnes by the law but that they violate the reason and purport of the law But let S. Iohn here stop M. Bishops mouth m 1. Ioh. 3.4 Whosoeuer committeth sinne transgresseth also the law for sinne is the transgression of the law Veniall sinne as he tearmeth it is sinne therefore veniall sinne is the transgression of the law he therefore that committeth onely those which he calleth veniall sinnes cannot be said to fulfill the lawe 42. W. BISHOP Lastly it may be obiected that the way to heauen is streight and the gate narrow which is so true that it seemeth vnpossible to be kept by flesh and bloud but that which is impossible to men of themselues is made possible and easie too by the grace of God which made Saint Paule to say Phil. 4. Psal 118. I can do all things in him that strengtheneth and comforteth me and the Prophet Dauid After thou O Lord hadst dilated my heart and with thy grace set it at liberty I did runne the wayes of thy commandements that is I did readily and willingly performe them Of the louing of God with all our heart c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop maketh the commandements of God not only possible but possible and easie too But I answer him againe as Hierome did the Pelagian hereticke a Hier. ad Ctefiphont Facilia dicis Dei esse mandata tamen nullum proferre potes qui vniuersa compleuerit Responde mihi facilia sunt an difficilia si facilia profer quis impleuerit cur Dominus in Euangelio Intrate inquit per angustam portam sin autem difficilia cur ausus es dicere facilia esse Dei mandata quae nullus impleuerit Thou sayest the commandements of God are easie but yet thou bringest foorth no man that hath fulfilled them all Tell me saith he are they easie or are they hard to be done If they be easie shew vs who hath fulfilled them and why our Sauiour saith in the Gospell Enter in at the straite gate But if they be hard why doest thou dare to say that the commaundements of God are easie which no man hath fulfilled Thus Hierome plainly excepteth against his answer to those words of Christ for they to whom Christ speaketh those words were and are men endued with the grace of God and yet he giueth them to vnderstand that the gate of life shall be strait and narrow vnto them Therefore S. Austine saith that b Aug. de praedest grat ca. 9 Arduum est virtutis iter quanquaÌ„ adiuuaÌ„te gratia Dei non sine labore gradiendum the way of vertue is hard and though the grace of God do helpe yet is not to be traueled without labour and paines Now if it be so hard a matter and so full of trauaile and paines to compasse that c Jdem cont 2. epist Pelag lib. 3. ca. 7. Ista parua iustitia Et epist 200. Iustitia nondum coÌ„summata small and vnperfect righteousnesse which here we haue is it an easie matter with M. Bishop to atchieue that absolute and perfect righteousnesse that is described in the law Some helpe he thinketh to haue in that the Apostle saith d Phil. 4.13 I am able to do all things in Christ or by the helpe of Christ that strengtheneth me But the Apostle himselfe excludeth him from that helpe in that he so plainly testifieth of himselfe that he could not finde how to performe the good that he would as we haue seene before yea telleth vs that though the spirit be in vs lusting against the flesh yet by reason of the e Gal. 5.17 flesh lusting against the spirit we cannot do the things that we would He that could do all things yet could not repell the f 2. Cor. 12.7 buffeting Angell of Satan by whom he was greeuously afflicted nor was thought able to withstand the temptations of pride and vaine glory vpon the abundance of his reuelations as appeareth in that this sting of Satan was occasioned to bridle him therefrom The place it selfe plainly sheweth the meaning of it selfe that he was enabled to all things that is to the enduring of all things that coÌ„cerned him in the seruice that he had in hand that neither abounding nor wanting neither fulnesse nor hunger should hinder him froÌ„ going on therein for the preaching testifying of the Gospel for enlarging coÌ„firming of the Church of Christ accordingly as elsewhere he saith g 2. Tim. 2.10 I suffer all things for the elects sake But the restraint that Bernard vseth is not to be omitted h Bernard de dilig Deo In illo omma potest quae tamen possâ— prosit He is able to do all things that is all which it is behoouefull that he be able to do Now what is behoouefull it is not for
shall perfectly restore vs to our spirituall health and strength it shall be easie and delightfull vnto vs to keepe all the righteousnesse which God hath commanded but so long as we continue in this weakenesse and frailety we can by no meanes be said to attaine to the perfection of the law But here M. Bishop vnstringeth his tongue against God and faith that it is the part of a tyrant not of a true lawmaker to commaund his subiects to do that vpon paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe A silly foolish man that by his brainsicke fancies measureth the wisedome and righteousnesse of God and taketh vpon him presumptuously to giue law vnto God in what sort he shall make lawes for men But God is able in this behalfe to acquit himselfe z Rom. 3.4 that he may be iustified in his sayings and found cleare when he is iudged For the iust God was not in making of lawes to regard mans ablenesse but his owne righteousnesse and therefore to forbid all sinne that he might not seeme to approoue any and to commaund all righteousnesse that he might not seeme to neglect any It should not haue bene knowne to be sinne which he had not regarded to forbid nor taken for righteousnesse which he had not vouchsafed to commaund Was it fit that the rule of righteousnesse should haue bene abridged in fauour of mans sinne when the want of power to fulfill the law was not by Gods default in creating man but by mans disabling himselfe in turning away from God But M. Bishops folly and ignorance appeareth herein very plainly for that the Scripture teacheth vs that the vse of the law we not being able to fulfill it was to be a Gal. 3.24 our Schoolemaister to traine vs vnto Christ God had not any opinion in giuing the law of our performance thereof but he intended it to be as a glasse for vs to see our selues and to conceiue thereby our owne estate that finding our selues to be miserable and vtterly lost in our selues we might the more readily accept of the saluation that is freely offered vnto vs by Iesus Christ Thus saith the Apostle againe b Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse to euery one that beleeueth Therefore S. Austine saith that c Aug. de nat grat cap. 12. Haec est intentio legis arguentu vt propter ea quae perperà m fiuâ—t confugiatur ad gratiam Domini miseraÌ„tis c. vbi et remittantur quae malè fiunt eadeÌ„ gratia iuuante noÌ„ fiant the intent of the law reproouing vs is this to make vs for our misdoings to flie to the grace of the mercifull God where what we do amisse may be pardoned and by the helpe of the same grace may not be done To some part whereof we are come already by repentance and amendment of life and mortification of fleshly lusts but yet not so but that still we do many things amisse and stand in neede of pardon The law in the meane time serueth vs for a patterne of true righteousnesse teaching vs what we are to striue vnto what the purity is whereunto God hath called vs that though in the prison of corruptible flesh we cannot fully answer the same yet we may still be labouring towards it sighing groaning at that infirmity and disease that hindereth vs from it praying instantly vnto God to bring vs to it that his grace and mercy may in the end make vs partakers of our desire and thenceforth we may neuer do amisse d Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 17. Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamuis eam in hac vita nemo habeat NoÌ„ enim rectè curritur si quò currendum est nesciatur Quomodo auteÌ„ sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur Why should not this perfection be commaunded to man saith Austine although no man haue it in this life For we cannot runne aright if we know not to what to runne And how should we know if by no commaundements it were declared vnto vs Againe he saith e De grat lib. arbit cap. 16. MagnuÌ„ aliquid Pelagians se scire putant quaÌ„dâ— dicunt Non iuberet Deuâ— quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri The Pelagians he might haue said the Papists thinke they know some great matter when they say God would not commaund that which he knew could not be done by man Let M. Bishop take knowledge of his obiection vsed of old by the Pelagian heretikes S. Austine answereth f Quis hoc nesciat sed ideò iubet aliqua quae non possumus vt sciamus quid ab illo petere debeamus Ipsa est fides quae orando impetrat quod lex imperat Who knoweth not so much But therefore doth he commaund some things which we cannot do that we may know what we are to aske of him It is faith which by praier obtaineth that which the law commaundeth The commaundements of God then are not vnpossible for if they were vnpossible we could neuer hope to attaine to the keeping of them But now we pray vnto God that he will and according to his promise we beleeue that he will bring vs to that state of innocencie and perfection wherein we shall fully answer the image of perfect righteousnesse which is set before vs in the law In the meane time there is a let that hindereth vs and holdeth vs backe that it is not possible for vs so long as it continueth to do those things which yet are possible to be done The Arausican Councell saith nothing of fulfilling the law but speaketh generally of doing those things which belong to saluation Now to our saluation it belongeth to know and confesse that g Rom. 3.20 by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God To our saluation belongeth an humble acknowledgement of our vnablenesse to satisfie the law true repentance of our sinnes the faith of Iesus Christ that by him and in him we may haue supply of that wherein we are found defectiue by the law In a word it is the way to exclude vs from saluation to place our affiance and trust of obtaining the same in our fulfilling of the law the Apostle telling vs that h Gal. 3.10 so many as are of the works of the law are vnder the curse because it is written Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them whereas i Eccles 7.22 there is not a man iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not The words of Christ k Mat. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements were spoken to the young man to the same end to which the law generally was giuen to giue him occasion to measure and know himselfe by the commaundements that so he might seeke the way of
we offend in one commaundement we are guiltie of the whole Law but no man can fulfill the whole Law ergo Answer I denie the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite as by all the properties of merite may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merite set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sin he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good father Luc. â—5 Do on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bene proued at large in a seuerall question To that of Saint Iames although it belong not to this matter I answer that he who offendeth in one is made guiltie of all that is hee shall be as surely condemned as if he had broken all See Saint Augustine Epist 29. ad Hieron R. ABBOT M. Perkins saith that he that will merite must fulfill the whole Law M. Bishop denieth that and saith that one good work done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite Now happie men are they with whom one good worke is of so great worth But what doth a man merite by that one worke Surely if it be a merite of heauen I doubt not but M. Bishop for his part in that meriting facultie wherein he liueth hath in his opinion by many merits deuoured a number of the heauens of Democritus his innumerable worlds But I pray you tell vs M. Bishop if he be a Gal. 3.10 cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law how should any man merite by performing onely one thing If life be tied onely to the doing of all why do you make so many merites of that which by the sentence of the Law can yeeld onely one Nay S. Iames plainely telleth vs as M. Perkins alledgeth that b Iam. 2.10 he that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guiltie of all that is he is in generall guiltie of breaking the Law and therefore lieth vnder the curse that is pronounced by the Law But this place M. Bishop saith belongeth not to this matter and why but because he knew not what to say vnto it for that that he doth say doth fully make against himselfe For how should one worke done with his due circumstances bring forth merite when notwithstanding the doing of many workes with their due circumstances a man for offending in any one is as surely to be condemned as if he had broken all Marry saith he a man may merite and after by falling into any mortall sinne he loseth his merite But that cannot be for the Law as hath bene said maketh no promise but to him that fulfilleth all and therefore till a man haue fulfilled all he can merite nothing and therefore hath merited nothing by any former act or acts if afterward he fall into any trespasse of the Law Now therefore there can be no rising againe to former merit where there is no merite at all and the place which he citeth in that sort as he citeth it may import a renewing to the former estate but as touching merit it importeth nothing at all But whether those words of S. Iames belong to this matter or not let S. Ierom tel him who thereupon infers thus c Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 2. Quis nostruÌ„ aliquando non peccauit Si autem peccauit quod negari nou potest per vnum peccatum omnium est reui peccatorum non suis viribus sed Dei misericordia saluatur Which of vs hath not sometime sinned And if he haue sinned which cannot be denied and by one sinne be guiltie of all sinnes then is he not saued by his owne power but by Gods mercie The place then by his iudgement taketh away from man all power of being saued by any thing in himselfe and leaueth him to be saued onely by the mercie of God To the other proposition of M. Perkins argument he answereth also by deniall and saith that in a seuerall question he hath proued that a man may fulfill the whole law but by that he hath read the disproofe of his proofe it will appeare to him I hope that he hath proued nothing Now it is to be obserued how silly he omitteth the place of S. Iohn alledged by M. Perkins d 1. Ioh. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues c. which inuincibly proueth that no man fulfilleth the whole law because there is no man without sin and euery sinne is e Cap. 3.4 the transgression of the law 12. W. BISHOP His fift reason We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our dayly bread where we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God much more must we confesse heauen to be Answ M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomly that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerly the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our penie or trauell we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Pauls rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not eate Yet because our trauels are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God dayly to giue vs our nouriture either by sending or preseruing the fruites of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stirring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse termes R. ABBOT It well appeareth that M. Perkins better vnderstood the Lords prayer then that he had any need to learne of any such slender master as M. Bishop is The argument which he vseth is very effectuall and strong If we cannot merit the food of this life but must craue it of gift much lesse can we merite euerlasting life But saith M. Bishop our dayly bread is not so meerly the gift of God but that we must either make it ours with our penie or trauell we must labour for our lining c.
as written For inke and paper brought no new holinesse nor gaue any force vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had bene written Here the question is principally of diuine traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the holy Ghost the sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed R. ABBOT Traditions saith M. Bishop are of three sorts Diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Which distinction in some meaning standeth good but as he expresseth the meaning of it it is absurd For if Apostolike traditions be expounded of doctrines as he expoundeth them what warrant hath he to put difference betwixt diuine and Apostolike traditions when the Apostles for doctrine deliuered nothing but what they themselues had receiued froÌ„ God Our Sauiour limited their commission in this sort a Mat. 28.20 teaching them to do whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Accordingly they professed to do b 1. Coâ— 11.23 I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue deliuered vnto you saith Saint Paul c 1. Thess 4.2.8 We gaue you commaundements by the Lord Iesus and he that despiseth these things despiseth not man but God d Gal. 1.11 12. The Gospell which was preached by me I receiued it not of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ Therefore Tertullian saith of them that e Tertul. de praescript Nec ipsi Apostoli quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegeruÌ„t sed acceptam à Christo disciplâ—nam fideliter nationibus adsignauerunt they did not vpon their liking make choise of any thing to bring in but faithfully assigned to the Nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ So that if Traditions be vnderstood of doctrine there is no reason to make any difference betwixt the traditions of Christ the traditions of the Apostles because they are both one But if we wil make difference betwixt them we must call Apostolike traditions onely such ordinances whether written or vnwritten as the Apostles prescribed for ceremony vsage in the Church as the obseruation of the memoriall of the natiuity death resurrection of Christ the alteration of the seuenth day from the Iewes Sabbath to the day of Christes resurrection the precept of the Apostle of preaching bareheaded such like And in these traditions we may note that they were sometimes subiect to diuersity according to diuersity of places as was at first the feast of Easter sometimes subiect to alteration change where there might be reason of any such alteration as were f Iude vers 12. the feasts of charity first vsed by the Apostles afterwards abolished for the abuse of them as that order of the Apostle for preaching bareheaded it being by the custome of that time a signe of honour and authority so to do whereas since it is become a matter of authority to preach with the head couered The obseruation of g Acts. 20.7 Apoc. 1.10 the Lords day we hold perpetuall vnchangeable because we find it noted in the Scriptures to haue bene froÌ„ the Apostles and there can be no reason of reuersing or altering what they ordered therin If thus M. Bishop will speake of Apostolike traditions we acknowledge the name of theÌ„ but Apostolike doctrines we know none but such as are also to be acknowledged for diuine Thus therefore the question is of diuine traditions that is doctrines of faith of the worship and seruice of God which we deny to be any but what are comprised in the written word of God Now of diuine traditions he telleth vs some parabables which it seemeth he himselfe did not well vnderstand We hold them saith he to be necessary to saluation to determine matters of greater difficulty Be like then they are not necessary for theÌ„selues but only to determine matters of greater difficulty and those that are not necessary for the determining of matters of greater difficulty are not necessary to saluation By this meanes a number of their traditions must fall Purgatory praier for the dead inuocation of Saints Popes Pardons worshipping of idols images and the rest because no matters of difficulty are determined thereby Againe we deny not saith he but that some such principall points of our faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the Scriptures It seemeth then that the simple are not bound vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the rest that cannot be gathered out of the Scriptures if he say they be so bound then that clause of his was very idlely and impertinently inferred But we must pardon him it seemeth he wanted sleepe the night before and therefore being very drowsie could not well consider of that he wrote 5 W. BISHOP M. Perkins goeth about to proue by these reasons following that the Scriptures containe all matter of beliefe necessary to saluation Testimonie * Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not adde to the words that I coÌ„mand thee nor take any thing there from Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation If it be said that this is spoken as well of the vnwritten as written word for there is no mention in the text of the written word then M. Perkins addeth that it must be vnderstood of the written word onely because these words are as a certaine preface set before a long Commentarie made vpon the written Law Answer Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtractioÌ„ change or peruert Gods commandements whether they be written or vnwritten Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses law that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same law is extreame dotage Why theÌ„ were the bookes of the old Testament written afterward if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these words or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them well did wilfully transgresse against theÌ„ one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alledging of this text for the al-sufficieÌ„cy of the writteÌ„ word R. ABBOT M. Bishops allegations are too simple childish to moue the Protestants to surcease the opposing of that text of Moses against vnwritten traditions doctrines a Deut.
the written word i Tertul aduers Hermog Adoro scripturae plemdinem c. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non sit scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum I reuerence the fulnesse or perfection of the Scripture saith Tertullian Let the schoole of Hermogenes shew me that that which he saith is written if it be not written let him feare the wo that is appointed to them that adde or take away And so Basil saith that k Basil ser de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbia virium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est cùm Dominus dicat Oues meae vocem meam audiunt alienum autâ—m non sequuntur Apostolus per humanum exemplum vehemeÌ„tèr prohibeat aliquid in diuinis scripturis vel addere vel demere cum dicit Hominis quidem Testamentum c. it is a manifest falling from faith and an apparent sinne of pride either to refuse any thing that the Scripture hath or to bring in any thing that is not written seeing our Lord Iesus Christ saith My sheepe heare my voice they do not follow a stranger and the Apostle by a humane example greatly forbiddeth in the holy Scriptures either to adde any thing or take away when he saith A mans testament when it is coÌ„firmed no man refuseth or addeth any thing to it Hereby then it is plaine that the forbidding to adde or take away hath reference to the written word of God and therefore that the doctrine of faith and religion is to be taken from thence onely and nothing therin to be admitted but what hath the warrant of the holy Scriptures 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins His 2. testimony * Esa 8.20 To the law and testimony if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth saith M.P. what is to be done in cases of difficulty men must not run to the Wisards and Southsayers but to the law and to the testimony commending the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer Answ By the law and testimony in that place the 5. bookes of Moses are to be vnderstood if that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles what Wizard would haue reasoned in such sort The Prophet willeth here that the Israelites who wanted wit to discerne whether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell then vnto Wizards and Soothsayers do see what is written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting-Wizards which is there plainely forbidden in diuerse places Now out of one particular case whereof there is expresse mention in the written word to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blind Israelites R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had thought himselfe to be so wise as M. Bishop doth himselfe we should certainely haue condemned him for a wizard what we thinke of M. Bishop in the meane time we leaue it to him to consider of The Prophet in the place alledged dehorteth the faithfull from yeelding to the wicked motions and counsels of hypocrites and vnbeleeuers who casting away all trust and confidence in God and relinquishing the yoke of obedience to him sought by other helpes and meanes to secure and establish themselues against the daungers which they imagined to themselues who as they had giuen themselues ouer to idolatrie so followed the course of idolaters in this behalfe and for aduice and direction in such things as concerned theÌ„ for their safetie they sought taught one another to seeke to Southsayers and such as vsed familiar spirits and tooke vpon them to call vp the soules of dead men to giue answer to such things as should be demanded of theÌ„ By them they would be instructed what to do and what course to take for their owne good hereby were hardened in their abhominations and apostacie froÌ„ God to the further prouocation of his wrath against themselues He therefore aduertiseth the faithfull and godly not to ioyne with them in any such doings but when they shold perswade them to enquire of any such wicked persons rather to answer them a Esa 8.19 Should not a people enquire at their God Euery nation seeketh to their owne God The Lord is your God will ye not seeke to him will ye go for the liuing to them that are dead Hereupon he addeth the words here questioned b Vers 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Wherin he giueth to the people of God a generall direction to go to the law to the testimony to be instructed what waies they ought to walke in and to hearken to none to follow none but only such as speake vnto them according to that word The Prophets of God called men one way false Prophets wizards and Southsayers called men another way he teacheth them therefore a sure way to know to whom to commit themselues by considering who spake according to that word Now to this the wizard giueth vs a wizard like answer that the Prophets willed them to see what was written in the law of Moses concerning that point of consulting wizards So then there is no more here said but this that if the wizards do not say vnto theÌ„ that they are not to consult with wizards it is because there is no light in them and who but a wizard would haue made such a construction of the place The Prophet teacheth them in generall to seeke to the law of God for aduice and answer of such things as touching which they went to consult with wizards southsayers to be directed thereby in seeking to prouide for their owne safetie thence to take resolution of their doubts and to take it for certain that they led them in darknesse whosoeuer should draw them to other waies then could be warranted thereby c Basil in Esa cap. 8. Vnaquaeque natiorem ambagiosam quaestionem de quae cupiebat edoceri suo proporebat Deo dissoluendaÌ„ Quos supponebaÌ„t esse Deos his offerebant diluendas inquisitiones suas Euery nation saith Basil vpon that place did propound to their God the doubt and question wherof they desired to be taught to haue resolution thereof whom they tooke to be gods to them they offred their questions to be answered Therfore he sheweth that the people of God for answer of their doubts should go to God in going to the law and to the testimony d Aducit Deus legem velut manuductionem viam tibi praemumentem Vis certò persuaderi quae sint futura Prouide
which were before written by Moses and the Prophets who all prophecied of the Messias the Christ and annointed of the Lord in whom God should be God with vs who should procure our peace with God the remission of our sins and euerlasting blisse m Rom. 1.2 In their writings the Gospell was promised n Cap. 3.21 they testified the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ to all and vpon all that do beleeue o Act. 10.43 they gaue witnesse that through his name euery one that beleeueth in him should haue forgiuenesse of sinnes by them the doctrine of saluation was from time to time published to the Church The perfection and accomplishment of this hope depended vpon the incarnation death and resurrection of Iesus Christ These things in the p Gal. 4.4 fulnesse of time God made good he sent his Son made of a woman and made vnder the law to redeeme them that were vnder the law who to that end q 1. Cor. 15.3 died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures and was buried and arose the third day according to the Scriptures It remained now that it should be knowne that this was he whom the Father had sealed and sent for the working of our redemption Therefore S. Iohn to that effect saith These things are writtē that ye may beleeue that this Iesus is that Messias that Christ r Ioh. 1.41.45 of whom Moses in the law and of whom the Prophets did write the hope of the Fathers the light of the Gentiles the glory of Israel that so beleeuing ye may according to the promise of God haue life through his name Albeit therefore he hath in his Gospell cōprehended the summe of all that we beleeue yet we may conceiue that he vseth those words not so much to set forth the fulnes of that that he himselfe hath written as to signifie that he hath sufficiently set foorth the accomplishment of those things which were written by Moses the Prophets in the beleefe wherof consisteth the obtaining of euerlasting life And yet thirdly without impeachment of any thing already said it is very likely that S. Iohn writing his Gospell last of al cōpiling together the 4. Gospels spake these words not only as touching that which he himself had written but also of all written by the rest of the Euangelists to signifie the vse therof in such sort as I haue said to which Cyrils words before mentioned seem to haue respect But howsoeuer we wil conceiue thereof we cannot doubt but that S. Iohn would giue to vnderstand that by the written Gospel and word of God we are sufficiently instructed to that faith in Christ whereby we attaine to liue with him As for M. Bishops question if S. Iohns gospell alone be sufficient what need the other three gospels the Acts of the Apostles c it is but his cuckoes song which he hath sung before And he may euen as well say what needed any Euangelist to write any story which another had before written whē S. Mathew had written the passiō of Christ what needed the rest to mentiō again any thing that he had written When S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians had first handled the question of iustification what need was there that he should handle it again in his Epistle to the Romanes When Dauids thanksgiuing for deliuerance from his enemies was set downe in the 18. Psalme what needed the same to be mentioned againe in the ſ 2. Sam. 22.1 second book of Samuel A number of such idle questions he might make of diuers things set downe in diuers places in the very self same words and of an infinite number of sayings which haue other to answer thē to the very same effect But the wisedom of God hath thus thought good to prouide for our saluation not onely sufficiently but abundantly by the consent of diuers persons writing diuersly in diuers places and at diuers times to confirme vs so much the more in the beleef of those things that are written to giue vs oftē occasion to remember and consider the same things to exercise our meditation and studie in comparing those things that are diuersly set downe to sharpen our diligence in searching out the accord of those things that seem to differ to set forth in the variety of his words the riches of his wisdome that there may be therin both to edify the simple and weake and yet to busie the heads and vnderstanding of the learned that it may neither be abhorred by the one nor contemned by the other For these and other causes it hath pleased God that what is written sufficiently by one should yet be writtē by other also But M. Bishop in the end howsoeuer the matter go prouideth sufficiently for himself For he telleth vs finally that although S. Iohns gospel were al-sufficient yet should not traditions be excluded And why so for Christ saith in it in plaine termes saith he that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterwards And how then must we think that he deliuered those things Marry of those high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his gospel after Christs resurrectiō and so many of them must be deliuered by tradition vnwritten Here thou seest gentle Reader a budget large inough to receiue all the Popes traditions we shal not need to doubt now but that he wil proue what he list if it be for his turne without question it was one of those things that the disciples could not beare til after Christ was risen from the dead and then he left it to them by tradition But I wold haue thee to obserue what a note S. Austin gaue long ago concerning that speech of Christ August in Ioā tract 97. Omnes insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt au dacias figmentorum suorū quas maximè exhorret sensus humanut hac occasione Euangelicae sententiae colorare conatur vbi Dominus au Adhuc multa c. quasi haec ipsa sint quae tunc discipul◠portare non poterant t All foolish heretiks who yet desire to be called Christians do seek to colour the presumptions of their deuices euē such as humane sense abhorreth by the pretence of that sentence of the Gospell where Christ saith I haue many things yet to say vnto you but ye are not yet able to beare them as if these were the things which the disciples then were not able to beare M. Bishop then by alledging this place for the making good of their traditions hath gained thus much that we must now account him as also his fellows in the like case amongst foolish heretiks who affirming wicked abhominable deuices which they cannot proue wil make vs beleeue that they are things which Christ had to say to his disciples and they were not able to beare
Vincentius Lyrinensis either as doing damage to vs or yeelding any gaine or aduantage to themselues 14. W. BISHOP Thus M Perkins hauing ended with the Law and Testimony addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former the first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwayes to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition Answ First for our Sauior Iesus Christ be out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from Peter as witnesseth Eusebius * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. Luke testifieth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions R. ABBOT The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpoÌ„ tradition vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also But that doth he neuer he reproueth traditions and condemneth them but neuer vseth one word to approue any M. Bishop answereth that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law But that is a very weak and silly shift yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures then we heare him saying I say vnto you as euery Reader may obserue Againe where he doth say I say vnto you he teacheth vs to vnderstand that a Iohn 14 10. he speaketh not of himselfe but what he saith he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to construe it b Chrysost supra sect 7. out of the Law and the Prophets according to the written word of the law and the Prophets deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence Thirdly it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop that where our Sauiour doth most often vse those words c Mat. 5.18.20 I say vnto you he vseth them to challenge the written Law froÌ„ the corruption of Tradition and to affirme the original truth thereof For Tradition had taught men to vnderstaÌ„d the law literally only of outward actions but he shewes in the commandements d Ver 22.28 of murther and adultery that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law and taken from it e Ver. 34. teaching onely not to forsweare but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice and where God had said Thou shalt loue thy neighbour by a corrupt glose put to it Thou shalt hate thine enemie but he teacheth that the name of f Ver. 44. a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies Thus he rectifieth that which Tradition had made crooked but for Tradition he saith nothing Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law would haue peruerted Traditions also if there had bene any and Christ would haue restored the integritie thereof but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter We heare him often saying g Mat. 19.4 Haue ye not read and h Chap. 21.13 It is written and i Luke 10.26 What is written in the law how readest thou but we neuer heare him saying Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition He telleth the Saduces k Mat. 22.29 Ye erre because ye know not the Scriptures and the cause of the Disciples error was noted l Iohn 20.9 As yet they knew not the Scripture but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tradition for any cause of error He saith m Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures they testifie of me but he neuer saith search after Traditions they are they that testifie of me n Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled saith he but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deliuered by tradition o Luke 24.27 He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him but out of Tradition he interpreted nothing vnto them p Ver. 45. He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions Thus the Euangelists from place to place vpon diuers occasions do set downe q Mat. 1.22 2.17 c. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets mentioning the things which are wriâ—â—en but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradition And what will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures and to Traditions none at all He telleth vs a childish tale that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies but their owne they do sometimes as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists who maketh that very seldome which is so often done And when it is done it is done by Scripture only neuer by Tradition which is the point whereto he should haue answered and he saith nothing to it Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader by seeming to say somwhat when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary and concerneth not that that is obiected to him To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tradition saith he proceedeth of most grosse ignorance Where had Mathew the adoring of the Sages c. Pelting brabler what is this to that that M. Perkins saith Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times they signifie the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God They neuer confirme
Church Now then the testimony of the present Church is made of equall like authority with the holy Scriptures and Bellarmine is in as pitifull a case as M. Bishop is For the testimonie of the present Church what is it but the testimony of the learned of the present Church therfore now the mindes of the learned are as good an oracle of truth as the Scriptures are If this be not so let vs heare from M. Bishop what else is to be said hereof for if traditions be to be receiued with like deuotion reuerence as those things that we are taught in Scripture then there must be somewhat or other to commend the same vnto vs with the like authority as the Scripture doth the rest and what that is we are desirous to vnderstand Now M. Bishop addeth two further exceptions against M. Perkins argument and they are such wise ones as that we may very well think them to be his own Secondly saith he they are commonly recorded of more then one of the fathers and so haue firmer testimonie then any one of their writings But what is this to M. Perkins his speech which is not restrained to any one of the fathers writings but taketh them iointly and inferreth it as an absurdity that the writings of the fathers being taken all together should be made equall in credit to the holy Scriptures Thirdly saith he a tradition being related but by one auncient father yet should be of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a matter of more estimation But what idle babling is this what maketh this to the clearing of the point in question He will haue vs to receiue traditions with the like pietie and reuerence as we doe those things that we are instructed by the Scripture He putteth a case of a tradition reported by one onely of the fathers He should hereupon haue answered how we can in that sort admit of such a tradition as Apostolicall but by yeelding the like credit to that one father as we do to the holy Scriptures But he like a man in a wood that knoweth not which way he is to go telleth vs that this tradition is of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because it was registred by him as a matter of more estimation O the sharpe wits of these Romish Doctours that can diue so deepe into matters and talke so profoundly that they themselues vnderstand not what they say To as little purpose is that which he addeth that if that tradition were not as it was termed some of the rest of the fathers would haue reproued it which when they did not they gaue it their interpretative consent to be Apostolicall tradition But let the consent be either interpretatiue or expresse what is this against the consequence of the argument which he taketh vpon him to answer that if we must receiue traditions in that sort as they require vs and haue no where to ground them but vpon the testimonie of the fathers then we must giue as much credit to the testimonie of the fathers as we do to the holy Scriptures I am forced thus odiously to inculcate the matter in question to make the ridiculous folly of this wrangler the more plainely to appeare who hauing nothing to say yet hath not so much wit as to hold his peace In this simplicity he goeth forward to answere the place of the Acts where Saint Paule is brought in saying c Acts. 26.22 I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come In which words it is plaine that the Apostle professed in the preaching of the Gospell * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to say nothing without the compasse of those things which had beene before spoken by Moses and the Prophets M Bishop answereth that he meaneth onely of those things which he addeth That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead c. For these things saith he euidently foretold in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe Yea but what other proofe doth he vse for any other doctrine Forsooth when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles taught them to keepe them Yea but Paul preached a long while before those decrees of the Apostles were made as appeareth frō his conuersion in the ninth Chapter to the fifteenth Chapter where those decrees are made and all this while what other proofe did he vse but onely the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Do we not thinke that this man hath wonderfully hardened both his heart to God and his face to men that can apply himselfe to write in this sort He well knoweth that the question is not here of new decrees but of old traditions what proofe the Apostle had or what ground of doctrine from the old testament but onely the Scriptures of the law and the Prophets The Apostle himselfe saith he had no other he taught nothing but according to the written bookes of the old testament according to that which elsewhere he saith that d Rom. 16.26 the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets For a summarie briefe thereof he nameth the suffering and resurrection of Christ c. but he that saith that herewith he preached any thing but what was warranted by Moses and the Prophets maketh him to dally and to speake a manifest vntruth in that he saith that he spake nothing without the compasse of those things which Moses and the Prophets prophecied before Now the wise man for instance against this telleth vs that he deliuered the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them Which beside that it is nothing to the purpose as hath bene said doth also set forth his notable sillinesse and folly in that for proofe of traditions and doctrines vnwritten he bringeth the example of the Apostles decrees which are expresly mentioned to haue bene sent to the Churches in writing e Acts. 15.23 They wrote letters by them after this manner c. But in the height of his wisedome he goeth forward to proue the same by another speech When he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with tradition saying I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth Surely the mans head was wonderfull quaifie in the writing hereof or else we must thinke that he was in some traunce I deliuer vnto you not in writing but by word of mouth when notwithstanding in his Epistle he sendeth it to them in writing Or what doth he meane that the Apostle receiued it of our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth But what is that to the purpose when he deliuered
of Tobie of Iudith are not in the Canon Thus he reckoneth the Ecclesiasticall and Apocryphall bookes vnder one name of Apocryphall Some on the other side vnder the name of Canonicall bookes contained all that were not of the last sort that is of those bastards and counterfeits which were wholy exploded and reiected out of the Church Thus S. Austin doth extending the name of Canonicall to all that was admitted publikely to be read and therefore comprehending the bookes called Ecclesiastical ioyntly vnder that name But here the name of Canonicall is not properly vsed because the Scriptures are called canonicall of being the Canon that is to say the rule of our faith which those Ecclesiasticall bookes are not as before we haue heard And what doth Austine make them all of equall and like authoritie Nothing lesse for in the first place cited by Master Bishop where he setteth all those bookes downe vnder one name of canonical he giueth this rule t Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2 ca. 8. In Scripturis canonicis ecclesiaruÌ„ Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequotur c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis vt cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesus praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt in eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat caâ— quas plures grauioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatâ— ecclesiae tonent In the Canonicall Scriptures let a man follow the authority of the greater number of catholike Churches and this course he shal hold to preferre those which are receiued of all catholike Churches before those which some do not receiue and in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those which the more Churches and of greater authority do receiue before those which are holden of the fewer and of lesser authority or account He would not haue vsed any such exception if he had taken all those bookes to be alike inspired of God and therfore doth manifestly teach vs to make some difference betwixt them and coÌ„sequently not to account the bookes of Machabees properly canonicall inasmuch as few or no Churches esteemed them so to be And this may somewhat further appeare in the second place which M. Bishop citeth where speaking of the Princes of the Iewes after the reedifying of the temple he saith u Aug. de ciu Dei lib 18. cap. 36. Quorum supputatio temporum non in Scripturis sanctis quae canonicae appellantur sed in alijs inuenitur in quibus sunt MachabaeoruÌ„ libriquos non Iudaei sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabileâ— c. The account of their termes is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called canonicall but in other bookes amongst which are the bookes of the Machabees which not the Iewes but the Church reckoneth for canonicall because of the great and wonderfull sufferings of some martyrs who before the incarnation of Christ striued euen to death for the law of God Where we see him first plainly secluding those bookes from the canonicall Scriptures according as they were secluded by the Iewes albeit withall he saith that the Church in a particular respect admitted of them as canonicall that is publikely to be read to giue knowledge of the constant suffering of some therein mentioned for the testimony of the law of God But in what sort it was that the Church admitted of them and the rest of that kind Hierome giueth vs to vnderstand x Hieron praefat in lib Solom Sicut Judith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidâ—m ecclesia sed eos inter canonicaâ— Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina sapientiae Ecclesiastici legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticâ—rum dogmatum confirmandum The Church readeth them but accounteth them not amongst the canonicall Scriptures it readeth them for the edification of the people not to confirme the authority of the doctrines of the Church And this that Hierome saith is confirmed also by Austine himselfe where he teacheth that y August de ciu Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictores non tanta firâ—â—â—â—â—â— prâ—â—eruntur quae scripta non sunt in Canone Iudaeorum those things which are not written in the canon of the Iewes are not with so great strength or authority alledged against them that contradict vs. Hereby therefore they are proued to be no canonicall Scriptures properly so called because canonicall Scriptures being the rule and measure of our faith do conuince those that contradict which S. Austine acknowledgeth these do not The third place alledged by M. Bishop helpeth yet further to cleare this matter where Gaudentius the Donatist alledging the example of Razias killing himselfe in the second booke of Machabees for defence of their Circumcellions casting themselues downe froÌ„ rocks and prouoking others to kill them that they might be accounted martyrs S. Austine first condemneth the fact which the Author of that booke commendeth and then addeth for exception further z Idem cont Epist Gaudent li. 2. ca. 23. Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum Iudaei non habent sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimoniuÌ„ perhibet tanquaÌ„ testibus suis dicens Oportebat impleri c. Sed recepta est ab ecclesia noÌ„ inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à persecutoribus tam indigna atque hâ—rrenda perpessi sunt c. This Scripture which is called of the Machabees the Iewes account not as the law and the Prophets and the Psalmes to which the Lord giueth testimony as his witnesses saying All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalmes but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard specially for those Machabees who for the law of God like true martyrs suffered so vnwoorthy and horrible things at their persecutors hands Where we see how coldly he speaketh of the receiuing of that booke as rather to excuse the Church then to defend it for so doing that it was done not vnprofitably and yet with this exception if it be soberly read and the reason of the receiuing of it not for the authority of the booke but for the story of those Machabees who there are recorded so constantly to haue suffered torments for their obseruing the law of God But withall he absolutely sheweth that those bookes are none of theÌ„ a Luk. 24.44 to which Christ gaue testimonie as his witnesses who notwithstanding calleth those witnesses by the name of b Ver. 27. all Scriptures thereby giuing fully to vnderstand that these are no Scriptures Hereby therefore we conceiue that S. Austine well discerned the defect of these bookes and rightly vnderstood that they are not so
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
the written law therefore some other remedie was delivered for them by tradition Further he alledgeth that there was remedy for children dying before the eight day before which they might not be circumcised but there is none found written therefore it was deliuered by tradition O the excellent wit of this man he hath with these arguments so troubled the whole pack of the Protestants as that not one of them can tel what to say But for our learning M. Bishop we are desirous to know of you what these remedies were that you speake of What was the ceremonie for the freeing of women from originall sinne and children dying before eight dayes old Where haue ye found or how can ye prooue that there was any such Surely you that can see so farre into a milstone of traditions are able I trow to informe vs what it was if any such thing were Ridiculous vain man bringing in steed of proofes fantasticall imaginations whereof he hath no ground nor can giue vs any testimony at all either from the Iewes themselues or from other ancient writers but only out of the presumptions and idle dreames of some of their owne schoolmen Yea and in this deuice of his he crosseth the doctrine of his owne part for tell vs M. Bishop did circumcision take away originall sin If it did so what difference then betwixt the sacraments of the old Testament and of the new You are wont to tell vs that the sacraments of the old Testament did signifie grace but not giue grace that they did signifie the taking away of sinne but not take it away that they did signifie iustification but did not iustifie Therefore Bellarmine accordingly determineth that circumcision did not iustifie or take away sinne but in that respect was of as little force as vncircumcision yea and argueth that if circumcision had iustified then iustification should haue bene proper to men because men onely are circumcised so farre is he from conceiuing that some other remedie was prouided for women in steede of circumcision For expounding the Apostles words b Rom 3.29 Is God the God of the Iewes onely as if he had said c Bellar. de effec sacram cap. 14. Quasi dicat Deus est omnium Deus quomodo igitur credibile est cum dedisse remedium contra peccatū solis Iudaeis Possumus nos etiam hinc alitèr argumentari An masculorū Deus tantū nonne et foeminarum Quis ergo credat Deum dedisse remedium quod solis masculis prosit God the God of all how then is it credible that he should giue remedy against sinne to the Iewes onely he addeth We may hence also argue Is God the God of men onely is he not also the God of women Who then will beleeue that he gaue a remedy against sinne that should be auaileable for men onely His resolution then is that circumcision was no remedie against sin because God would not appoint a remedy against sinne as he conceiueth which should not be common to the Gentiles as well as to the Iewes to women as well as men Now therefore inasmuch as M. Bishops foundation faileth surely that which he buildeth vpon it must needs fall and looke what he will say was the deliuering of men from originall sinne the same he must confesse hath bene the deliuering of women also so that either he must resolue one meanes for both out of the written word or passe ouer to tradition vnwritten and if he haue not a tradition for both then all his matter of Iewish tradition must come to naught and there is nothing proued but that Moses committed all to the written law But his phrase of deliuering from originall sinne implieth an errour before confuted in the question of that point Our regeneration consisteth in the forgiuenesse of sinnes and the first fruites of the sanctification of the holy Ghost the same spirit working sometimes without any signe or sacrament of initiation as in the fathers vntil the time of Abraham who himselfe was iustified before the sacrament of Circumcision sometimes with that signe of circumcision proper in execution to men onely but yet sealing the fruite of Gods promise and the effect of his spirit both to men and women d Ephes 1.5.9 according to the purpose of the grace of God sometimes with a signe common both to men and women as in our baptisme we see thereby shewing that he worketh freely according to his owne will not tying himselfe to outward signes but sauing onely by his grace either with signes where they are or without where either there is no institution as in the beginning or there wanteth meanes and oportunitie of execution as oft befell in circumcision of the old Testament and doth befall in baptisme of the new Now as touching M. Bishops third reason it is as reasonlesse as the former so that we may wonder that the author of it should be so without reason Iob and many such like Gentiles saith he were saued Very true But 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 But that is not true for seeing there is but e Eph. 4.5 one faith f 2. Corin. 4.13 the same spirit of faith of the whole body of Christ from the beginning to the end by that faith that is written in the law of Moses we know what they had to beleeue and according to that faith how they ought to liue Yea and where it is written what they did beleeue and how they did liue there it is written what they had to beleue and how they were to liue But in the booke of Iob it is written of himself and of his friends what they did beleeue and what the ordering of their life was all according to the law of Moses and the faith therein contained It is therefore vntrue which M. Bishop saith that it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they were to liue But yet giuing the man his way let vs see what his conclusion is Therefore saith he many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition We may see his head was troubled and he had forgotten what he was to conclude for this his conclusion should haue bene Therefore Moses committed not all to writing But this would not follow for though it were not namely written of Iob what he had to beleeue yet we cannot hereof inferre that therefore he had any thing else to beleeue but that that is written What hindereth I say but that Moses may be conceiued to set downe the faith whereby Iob was to be saued though he do not expresly say that Iob was to beleeue thus But it may be that M. Bishop meant that that conclusion should be subordinate to the former and so would reason thus Iob and such like receiued many things by tradition therefore Moses committed not all to writing Yet neither can this
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
be content also to let it go leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions The first is from the words of Christ a Iohn 16.12 at the point of his passion saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Which words being of old a speciall refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin of Montanus the heretike an ancient Papist we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him But of these words so much hath bin said c Sect. 7. before as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further His second authoritie is that in the Acts concerning our Sauiours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3 by the space of fortie dayes and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God Of these things saith M. Bishop little is written in any of the Euangelists And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition and if he will name to vs these or these things we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake if he cannot proue it we reiect his foolish presumption and can much better denie then he affirme What those things were by tradition we know nothing but by Scripture we do know The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48 witnesses of those things which he spake What they witnessed appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles and writings all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke Now then to argue as we haue done before we are sure as touching the things that are written that they are of those things wherof Christ spake but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God But S. Paul f Acts 28.23 testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets The things therefore which Christ spake as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2 they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them Where we find the name of traditions which we denie not but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine we wil gratifie him so farre but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle Those things which were afterwards written must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh if we vnderstand them of doctrine because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper It is written by himselfe it is written by the Euangelists Here is then a tradition but no tradition vnwritten The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions but that is written also Another tradition he himselfe expresseth to haue bene k 1. Cor. 15.3 the death and resurrection of Christ but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his l 2. Thess 3.6 tradition that he which would not labour should not eate and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set downe in writing Now sith these were of the number of his traditions and yet are written what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these M. Bishop alledgeth the place and so leaueth it without head or taile there is the name of traditions and that is enough for him whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy n 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keepe the depositum saith he Where we see that one ape will be like another his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English and said keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe seeing that is the signification of the word depositum Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them o 2. Tim. 2.14 Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things cōmitted vnto thee to keep where they reade keep the good depositum But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe He telleth vs that it was the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and the gouernment of the Church But what of all this We expected vnwritten traditions and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture is contained in the Scripture There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places vnlesse he can make it good that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus p Theop. in t Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata tanquam Domini praecepta seruata nec horū quicquam imminues p 2. Tim.
via duceret aut reduceret ad te Ideâ—que euÌ„ essemuâ— insirmi ad inueniendam liquida ratione veritateÌ„ obhoc nobis opâ—s esset authoritate sanctaâ—uÌ„ literarum â—am credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributuruÌ„ tam excellentum illi Scripturâ—e per omnetiâ—m terras authoritatem nisi per ipsam tibi credi per ipsam te quaerivoluisses I alwaies beleeued saith he that thou art and that thou hast care of vs albeit I knew not what to think of thy being or which way should leade me or bring me againe to thee Therefore when I was too weake by apparent reason to find out the truth and for this purpose needed the authority of the holy Scriptures I began now to beleeue that by no means thou wouldest giue that excellency of authority to those scriptures euen throughout the whole earth but that thou wouldest haue vs therby to beleeue thee and thereby to seeke thee This place sheweth the true effect of that other speech and it is great impudency and impiety in M. Bishop and his fellowes to force vpon S. Austine that protestation which they do by their false construction 23 W. BISHOP This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I will not dwell any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians * Euseb li. 3.36 To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretikes * Ibid. li. 5. c. 20. S. Irenaeus who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall traditions receiued from Polycarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought we not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the which the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleare perspicuous to define the present question For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all must we not haue followed the order of Traditions which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants * Rom. 6. Athanasius saith * Lib. de decreâ— Niceni conc We haue proued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. Basil hath these words * De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in Iulian. R. ABBOT M. Bishop is here as he was before like the melancholike merchant of Athens who reioyced at the sight of euery ship that came in perswading himselfe that it was his ship He cannot light any where vpon the name of traditions but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish vnwritten traditions And here in the first place to colour this he translateth the words of Eusebius amisse by changing the singular number into the plurall a Euseb hist lib. 3. cap. 32. Vt Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He warned them saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius that they should cleaue stedfastly to the tradition of the Apostles He saith not traditions as to note sundry doctrines left vnwritten as M. Bishop would haue it but tradition as entirely generally to signifie the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Therefore he must necessarily be vnderstood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written but there is no necessity of vnderstanding any more This tradition that is the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testifie by writing and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them euen no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing But those Epistles haue bene diuersly in hucksters hands being growne to greater number then Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times containing many things now which they had not then and many then which they haue not now Ignatius now is made to say that b Ignat. epist 5. ad Phil. p. Siquâ— dominico die reiunauerâ—t aut sabbato praeter vnum sabbatuÌ„ is est Christi interfector if any man fast vpon the Lords day or vpon the Saterday he is a murtherer of Christ whereas S. Austine confesseth that c Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus â—â—unare eporteat vel quibus non oporteat nullo Domini vel Apostolorum praecepto inuenio definitum he found it not defined by any precept of Christ or his Apostles what daies we are to fast and what not and Hierome as we haue heard before confesseth that Paul and others with him did fast vpon the Lords day He is now made to say that d Ignat. ibid. Siquâ— eum Iudaeis pascha peregeris festi eorum Symbola susceperit is particeps est socius eoruÌ„ qui Dominum occiderunt Apostolos eius if any man obserue Easter with the Iewes or shall beare the marks of their festiuall day he is a companion and partaker with theÌ„ who killed Christ and his Apostles whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history that e Euseb hist lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort refused to yeeld to Anicetus Bishop of Rome to do otherwise therefore that there was no such obseruation to which Ignatius should adioine any such censure as here is Againe Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius that f Hieron cont Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores Christ chose Apostles who were sinners aboue all men which now is not found in those Epistles that we haue Therfore sith we haue his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted it is hard from them now to gather any certaintie at all and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of are but meere forgeries conueyed into them by the Popes agents albeit the former of those traditions which I haue mentioned maketh them also murtherers of Christ because they fast vpon the Saterday or else they must denie that these
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
which the Apostle gaue for the direction of Christian life 18. W. BISHOP The next place is * Pro. 30.8 Giue me neither riches nor pouerty Answer The Prayer is good and fitteth the persons of honest men who liue in the world and was of some perfection too in the state of Moses law in which it was made as disswading from couetousnesse of great riches but it commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell wherein we are counselled to esteeme as dung all worldly riches R. ABBOT He blamed M. Perkins answer in the former Section as deuoid of natural wit and sence but I pray thee gentle Reader if thou light vpon him to aske him where his wits were when he gaue this answer To the one part he answereth a Pro. 30.8 Giue me not riches but to the other part Giue me not pouerty which is the thing vrged against him he answereth nothing We are counselled in the Gospel he saith to esteem as dung all worldly riches True therfore we say Giue me not riches But yet in the Gospell we are taught to pray for that that is conuenient according to our place and condition when we say Giue vs this day our daily bread and therefore we say Giue me not pouertie whereupon it is added Feede me with foode conuenient for me The praier saith he fitteth the persons of honest men that liue in the world Hypocrite who taught thee this distinction of praiers Hath the spirit of God set it down as a praier of the wisest man and is it now come to be posted ouer to I know not what honest men It was of some perfection he saith in the state of Moses law but commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell Hypocrite the Apostle hath taught vs that b Rom. 15.4 whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning and must we vpon the word of an idle Sophister be perswaded that that praier is too base for vs to learn And what were not men taught in the state of Moses law to esteeme as dung all worldly riches Did not Dauid say c Psal 62.10 If riches increase set not your heart vpon them Did not Solomon say of riches d Prou. 23.5 Wilt thou cast thine eies vpon that that is nothing Did not Esay say e Esa 40.6 All flesh is grasse and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field Were they not as fully taught to despise the world and to ioy in God as we are But the man so dreameth of perfection perfection as that we may very well thinke that there is some very great imperfection in his head In a word therefore God hath taught a man to say Giue me not pouerty but they teach a man to say I will vow pouerty and what do they then but teach a man to contrary that which God hath taught 19. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his third reason is taken out of Deut. 28.22 where pouerty is numbred among the curses of the law none of which are to be vowed Answer It is one thing to be punished with pouerty for transgressing of Gods law and another I trow for the loue of God to giue away all we haue to the poore The former was a curse in the law of Moses the latter is a blessing and the first blessing in the Gospell * Luc. 6. Blessed are the poore for theirs is the kingdome of heauen Which sentence albeit it may be applied very well vnto humility yet more literally signifieth voluntary pouerty as by the sentence opposed against it is manifest * Ver. 23. Woe be to you rich men c. R. ABBOT The words of Moses are a Deut. 28.44 The stranger shall lend to thee and thou shalt not haue to lend to him b Ver. 48. Thou shalt serue thine enemies in hunger and thirst and in nakednes and in need of all things Christ hath taught vs before that it is a blessing to haue wherof to giue and Moses teacheth vs that it is a curse to be in want not to haue wherof to lend what is then the vow of pouerty but the renouncing of a blessing and the voluntary vndergoing of a curse M. Bishop answereth that it is one thing to be punished with pouerty for trāsgressing the law of God another for the loue of God to giue all to the poore But then is it done for the loue of God when God calleth vs to the doing of it otherwise it is no matter of the loue of God but of humane presumption and selfwil Therfore his answer here is al one as if he shold say It is one thing for a man to be accursed of God another thing voluntarily to lay Gods curse vpon himself and how wel that serueth his turne let himselfe iudge Yet he will proue that it is a blessing yea the first blessing in the Gospel And how forsooth because Christ saith c Luke 6.20 Blessed are the poore for theirs is the kingdom of heauē We may see the poore man was driuē to poore shifts when he was faine to vse this text for the making good of his vow of pouerty If his leisure had serued him he would haue turned to the fift of Mathew and there haue seen our Sauior expounding himself d Mat. 5.2 Blessed are the poore in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heauen Now a man would think that M. Bishops learning should haue taught him long before this that a man may be rich in worldly goods and yet poore in spirit and that vndoubtedly Abraham the father of all beleeuers was such a one Yea saith he it may wel be applied to humilitie yet more literally it signifieth voluntary pouerty And how may that appeare forsooth by the sentence opposed against it it is manifest Wo be to you rich men But I maruel what strings M. Bishop hath to tie this argument together Christ saith Wo be to you rich men therfore that which he saith before Blessed are ye poore must necessarily be vnderstood of volūtary pouerty What doth Christ absolutely meane wo to all that be rich When he expoundeth the poore to be poore in spirit doth he not teach vs proportionably to vnderstand the rich This childish collection is reproued by our Sauior Christ whē his disciples being astonished at that which he said e Mark 10.23 How hardly do they that haue riches enter into the kingdome of God he answereth f Ver. 24. Children therby reprouing their weaknes of vnderstanding how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God The wo then is not to all that are rich but to such as trust in riches but there are men who g 1. Tim. 6.17 are rich in this world who yet are not high minded and trust not in vncertaine riches but in the liuing God Christ hauing shewed the end of the man that trusted in riches addeth