vitam immortalitatem esse quaesitam Peter saith he suffered many things for the Church Many things also S. Paule and the rest of the Apostles suffered when they were scourged when they were stoned when they were imprisoned For by that bearing of wrongs and experience of dangers the Lords people was founded and the Church receiued increase for that other hastened to martyrdome when they saw that by those sufferings there was no impeaching of the Apostles vertues and moreouer that for this short life immortality was sought or gotten therby In the like sort doth he expound the words of the Apostle which here we speake of k Idem in Colos ca. 1. In tribulationibus quas patiebatur exultare se fatetur quia profectum suum videt in fide credentium Non est cuimâ—inants triâ—â—â—atio quando cum pro quo patitur acquirit ad vitam He professeth himselfe to reioyce in the troubles which he endured because he seeth his successe in the faith of them that beleeue for his trouble is not in vain when he gaineth him to life for whom he suffered No other thing doth Cyprian gather out of those words l Cypria de dupl Mart. Quemadmodum ille mirabili testimonio clarifi auit Patrem in ho. mundo aâ—que etiam in coelisma testimonâ—um illius quodammodo coÌ„summatur testimonio SanctoruÌ„ quasisit vna passio Domini seruorum Id nequis exiflimet parùm religiose dictum beatus Paulus nobis patrocinatur na scribens c. Quis enim nescit quam vberem prouentum effudit Ecclesiae seges Apostolorum caeterorum Martyrum sanguine irrigata Quò plus sanguinis effusum est hoc magis ac magis esstoruit muâ—titis do fidelium hoc latiùs sparsit suas propag nes illa beata vitis à Christo stirpe surgens necupans orbem vniuersum c. Euen as Christ saith he by his admirable testimonie glorified the Father in this world and also in heaueÌ„ so his testimony is after a sort consummated or made perfect in the testimonie of the Saints as if the passion of the Lord and of the seruants were all one And that no man may thinke that irreligiously spoken S. Paule warranteth the same to vs thus writing to the Colossians I now ioy in my sufferings for you and fulfill those things which are yet wanting or behind of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church For who knoweth not how plentifull increase the corne field of the Church hath yeelded being watered with the bloud of the Apostles and other Martyrs The more bloud was shed so much more more the multitude of the faithfull flourished so much the wider that blessed vine spred her branches arising from Christ her stocke and possessing the whole world Afterwards going forward to shew that m Testificatus est se esse pastorem bonum quia animam suam posuit pro euibus nobis exemplum praebens vt qui pro nostra qualicunque portione vices illius gerimus parati simus ipsi pro grege dominico sanguinem fundere nisi malumus videri mercenarij quam pastores Domini verbis congruunt verba discipulâ— Cùm enim dixisset se gaudere c. perpetiens ipse pro corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia qualia pasâ—us erat Dominus causam adiecit cur ea libenter pateretur Cuius inquit miâ—â—â—ier factus sum c. vt impeam verbuÌ„ Dei Sicut ergo mortibus Martyrum consummantur passiones Christi ita sanguine pastoruâ—â—â—â— firmantur prâ—m ssa Christâ— Nulâ—uÌ„ enim instrumentum in dubitabilius quam quod tot Martyrum sanguine signatum est Hoc â—â—mtrum si â—mpâ—ere vertum Dei hoc est replere Euangelium Christ testifying himselfe to be the good shepheard because he gaue his life for the sheepe hath therein giuen example to those that are the pastors in his stead to be ready to shed their bloud for the Lords stocke vnlesse they wil be taken for hirelings rather then for pastors he saith that thereto the words of the Apostle accord who saying that for the bodie of Christ which is the Church he suffered the like things as the Lord suffered he addeth The cause why he suffered those things willingly whereof saith he I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God which is giuen to me that I should fulfill the word of God For as by the deaths of the Martyrs the sufferings of Christ are perfected so by the bloud of the Pastors the promises of Christ are confirmed For there is no instrument more vndoubted then that which is sealed with the bloud of so many Martyrs This is indeed to fulfill the word of God this is to fulfill the Gospell In the like sort doth S. Austin make construction of the words of S. Iohn n 1. Ioh 3.16 He laid downe his life for vs therfore ought we also to lay downe our liues for the brethren namely o August in Ioan. tra 47. Sic nos debeâ—â—os ad aedificandam plebem ad fidem asserendam aminas pro fratribus ponere for the edifying of Gods people for the auouching of the faith Thus it was said that p Tertul. Apol. cap. 45. in fine Semen est sanguis Christianorum the bloud of Christians was like seed that q August in Psal 58. Sanguine seminata seges Ecclesiae fertilius pullulauit the field of the Church being sowed with bloud did more fruitfully spring and grow whilst r Idem Epist 50 Laudatur Dominus qui donare dignatus est vt serui eius passionibus suis lucrarentur fratres suos the Lord did grant that his seruants by their sefferings did win their brethren but that the bloud of Christian Martyrs was any satisfaction for the rest of the Church of Christ or any redemption of the punishments of their brethren it was neuer heard of in those times They knew nothing then of the Popes store-house of Supererogations and Satisfactions they knew nothing of that marting and chopping and changing of merits which these presumptuous Romish hypocrites now maintain in whom it is much more verified then it was in the Donatists which S. Austin saith Å¿ Idem Epist 51. Tantam sibi arrogant iustitiam vt cam iactent se non solúm habere sed etiam alijs hominibus dare They arrogate vnto themselues so great righteousnes as that they brag not only that they haue it theÌ„selues but also giue it vnto others But to conclude this point let M. Bishop know that both he and his fellowes are very impudent and shamelesse men thus to wrest the words of the Apostle to the defence of a doctrine which for aboue a thousand yeares was neuer heard of in the Church and which haue out of the auncient Church according to the Scriptures a very manifest and cleare exposition another way 5 W. BISHOP Now to M. Perkins second reason In
u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolicaâ— apud quas ipsae adâ—uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesideÌ„tur apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur c. Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos c. si Italiae adiaceâ— hâ—bes Romanam c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur vnum Deum nouit Creatorem vniuâ—sitaâ—â—â— Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria filium Creatoris carnis resurrectionem legem Prophetâ—s cum Euangelicis Apostolicis literis miscet inde fidem portat eam c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles and their authenticall Epistles were still read as of the Corinthians the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Romanes which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God the Creatour of the whole world and Iesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Sonne of the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles and thence deriuing that faith Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur vâ—um omninò Deum esse nec alium quà m mundi Creatorem qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur The rule of faith is this to beleeue that there is one onely God and the same no other but the Creator of the world who by his word first of all sent foorth made all things of nothing The same word called his Son was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes euermore heard in the Prophets last of all by the spirit and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary made flesh in her wombe and being borne of her did the part of Iesus Christ preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen wrought miracles and being nailed to a crosse rose againe the third day and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe VpoÌ„ the assertion of this rule he inferreth that y Si haec ita se habent vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo tradidit constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad eanâ—è de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertiâ—ere sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God it was hereby assured which he had before propounded that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith that z Illic igitur ScripturaruÌ„ expositionum adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae Quibus fuit propositum aliter doceÌ„di necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius ita nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio iâ—tulimus vt aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione vel transmutatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quà m sumus the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures For they saith he who intended to teach otherwise had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching For they could not teach otherwise except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach But on the contrarie side he saith As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs without the integritie of those instrumeÌ„ts by which doctrine is handled For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs What haue we brought in of our owne that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie we should remedie by adding or taking away or changing any thing What we are the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning From theÌ„ we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith pertinent to the matter here in hand wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof First it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith concerning the vnitie of the Godhead the creation of the world the Godhead and incarnation of Christ the resurrection of the dead the coming of the holy Ghost and sundry other such like They reiected such whole bookes and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles or by any diuine inspiration a Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta but foisted in yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. EmeÌ„datores Apostolorum Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures
yet I beleeue that the authoritie of the words of God should be most cleare concerning them if man without damage of saluation promised might not be ignorant thereof In which words wee see Saint Austine mentioning difficult and hard questions but we see withall that he denieth the determining of any such without assured and cleare testimonies of holy Scripture affirming that he beleeueth that there should be cleare authoritie of Gods word for the deciding of them if man and not onely simple men without losse of saluation might not be without knowledge of them Hereby then he most euidently testifieth that whatsoeuer is necessarie for the saluation of mankind hath cleere and euident testimonie of holy Scripture and that what hath not so we are to surcease from defining any thing of it How lewdly then doth M. Bishop deale to make his Reader beleeue that Saint Austine sayth for him that the resolution of harder points and difficulties which yet the learned must expresly beleeue are not contained in the Scriptures But yet he telleth vs that that is also gathered out of many other places of his workes and yet out of all those places alledgeth not any part or point of doctrine which Austine himselfe doth not vndertake to iustifie by the Scriptures It hath beene before declared that when wee say that all matters of doctrine and faith are contained in the Scripture wee vnderstand as the auncient Fathers did not that all things are literally and verbally contained in the Scripture but that all are either expressed therein or by necessary illation and consequence to be deriued from thence S. Hierome doubteth not to say as we do f Hieron contra Heluid Sicut haec quae scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus What things are written we do not denie but what are not written we reiect and yet in the same booke he saith also that it is g Jbid. Sanctae Scripturae idioma c. ea de quibus posset ambigi si noÌ„ fuissent scripta signari caetera verò nostrae intelligentiae derelinqui the propertie of the holy Scripture that those things whereof there might be doubt if they were not written are set downe but other things are left to our vnderstanding to collect and gather them thereby And in this sence Saint Austine saith h August cont Maxim Arian lib. 3. cap 3. Ex ijs quae legimus aliquae etiam quae legimus intelligimus By those things which we reade we vnderstand some things also which we do not reade Thus doth the same Saint Austine sometimes say that the Church receiueth some things that are not written not that those things are not to be proued and defended by the Scriptures but onely that they are not literally expressed in the Scriptures And so it appeareth in the first instance produced by M. Bishop as touching the rebaptizing of them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes For although Saint Austine say that i Jdem de Bapt. contra Donatist l. 5. cap. 23. Apostoli nihil exinde praeceperunt sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eoruÌ„ traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est the Apostles commaunded nothing thereof but that the custome which was opposed to Cyprian was to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall tradition yet he himselfe disputeth that point against the Donatists continually by the Scripture refuseth to haue the matter decided but onely by the Scripture and in the first propounding thereof sayth very plainly to them k Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 7. Ne humanis argumentis id agere videar c. ex Euangelio profero ceriae documenta quibus demonstro quà m rectè placuerit verè secundum DeuÌ„ vt hoc in quoquaeÌ„ schismatico vel heretico ecclesiastica medicina curaret in quo vulnere separabatur illud auteÌ„ quod sanuÌ„ maneret agnituÌ„ potiùs approbaretur quà m improbatuÌ„ vulneraretur That I seeme not to deale by humane arguments namely for that a generall Councell hath so confirmed I bring assured proofes out of the Gospell whereby I shew how rightly and truly according to God it thus seemed good to them that ecclesiasticall medicine should cure that in an hereticke or schismaticke wherein he is wounded and separated from the Church â—ut that which remaineth sound should rather be acknowledged and approued then by being disallowed should be wounded To omit many other places that might be alledged to the same purpose soone after the words alledged by M. Bishop he saith thus l Ibid. lib 5. cap 23. Contrae maendatuÌ„ Dei est quòd venientes ab haereticis si illic baptismuÌ„ Christi acceperunt baptizantur quia sanctaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ testimonijs pianè ostenditur c. It is against the commaundement of God that men comming from heretickes should be baptized if there they haue receiued the Baptisme of Christ because by testimonies of holy Scripture it is plainly shewed thus and thus Literally therefore and as touching matter of fact and example Saint Austine speaketh of it as not written in the Scripture but by Tradition so accustomed because there is nothing expresly mentioned thereof but yet sheweth that therefore this Tradition was accepted and approoued because by testimonies of Scripture it was confirmed to be right m Ibidem lib. 4. cap. 7 Quia benè perspectis ex vtroque litere disputationis rationibus Scripturarum testimonijs potest etiam dici Quod veritas declarauit hoc sequimur because the reasons and testimonies of Scripture being well considered on both sides of that controuersie it might be said What the truth hath declared that we follow And thus it is true which S. Austine addeth in the place cited n Lib. 5. cap. 23. Sicut sunt multa quae vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta benè creduntur quanquam scripta non repertiantur that there are many things which the whole Church holdeth and for that cause are beleeued to haue come froÌ„ the Apostles albeit they be not found set downe in Scripture because they be not namely word for word set down in Scripture albeit they be to be iustified by those things that are there set downe Of this kind is that which M. Bishop nameth in the next place of the custome of the church in baptizing infants which Austin saith o De Genes ad liter lib. 10. cap. 23. Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio is to be beleeued to be no other but an Apostolike tradition and we also acknowledge no lesse But what did Austin hold it a traditioÌ„ that could not be proued and warranted by the scripture Nothing lesse For he himselfe against the Pelagian heretikes proueth the necessitie thereof by the Scriptures p August epist 89. Dicunt infantem morte praeuentum non baptizatum perire non posse quoâ—â—am
the same here by writing and not by word of mouth He had heard there was some text or other there for his purpose but neither did he well know it nor had leisure to seeke it out The words of the Apostle are these I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue also deliuered vnto you Now we conceiue M. Bishops meaning though his vnderstanding being very muddie failed him so exceedingly in the expressing of it The Apostle forsooth giueth to vnderstand that he first deliuered vnto them the institution of the Lords supper not in writing but by word of mouth And what of that Doth it therefore follow that by tradition of the old testament the Apostle proued any doctrine of the new If this do not follow his allegation is bruite and bootlesse and he shooteth wholy beside the marke The Apostle professeth to haue deliuered what he receiued of the Lord but what he receiued of the Lord was according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets For the outward signes of the Sacrament were prefigured in Melchisedeck bringing forth f Genes 14.18 bread and wine for the corporall refection of Abrahams armie as the heauenly Melchisedeck should bring forth bread and wine for the spirituall refection and comfort of the sonnes of Abraham As for the doctrine and faith imported by these signes it is no other but what M. Bishop himself confesseth to haue bene euidently foretold in holy writ namely that Christ should die for our sinnes and should rise againe from the dead to become a light and saluation vnto vs the Apostle himselfe instructing vs the end thereof to be g 1. Cor. 11.26 to shew the Lords death till he come Here was then no neede to flie to vnwritten tradition but of this institution the Apostles words stand good that he said nothing but what the Prophets and Moses did say should come And thus the fathers and namely h Tertull. adu Marcion per tot Tertullian to shew against the Marcionites that there is but one God of the old and new testament and not two Gods aduerse one to the other as those heretikes blasphemously affirmed do set downe the accord of the Scriptures of the new testament with the old and the fulfilling of the one in the other but of traditions in the new testament according with traditions in the old they neuer spake a word which yet in that cause had bene very needfull if there had bene any such But M. Bishop being like the Lynx turning about and forgetting what he was feeding vpon will tell vs perhaps that whatsoeuer he had in hand his meaning in the alledging of this place was simply to proue the Apostles approuing of traditions And if he tell vs so surely we will not denie but that it is indeede full simply done The Apostle saith that he first deliuered the institution of the Sacrament by word of mouth What must we therefore thinke that it was not afterwards cōmitted to writing The contrary appeareth in that we see it here written by himselfe What is there here then to hinder but that as the Sacrament first deliuered by word was afterwards committed to writing so all other points of Christian doctrine faith though deliuered at first by word and preaching yet were afterwards set downe in writing and deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures And if nothing hinder as indeede there doth not then let him vnderstand that this place is very simply and impertinently brought for traditions vnwritten To fill vp the measure of his folly he telleth vs yet further that the Apostle in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome Where a man might oppose him very hard if he should aske him why those words of the Apostle do not belong to the Traditionist as well as to the Scripturist We know his dreames are very strong but otherwise why he should apply these words to the Scripturist he himselfe cannot well tell Againe it would be knowne of him what custome the Apostle affirmeth here We heare him saying We haue no such custome but we do not heare him saying We haue a custome And therefore M. Bishops alledging of these words in behalfe of customes of the Church may well make vs thinke that in the doing of it he had the very same head on that he is accustomed to haue to say nothing that he was much distressed for traditions and customes when he tooke not to be contentious to be an vnwritten tradition and custome of the Church So that his conclusion is like a body without either head or feete wanting strength to carie him so farre as he is desirous to go and because the Apostles doctrine was neither according to vnwritten traditions nor customes but according to the Scriptures onely we learne that neither tradition nor custome but Scripture onely must beare sway for directing and prescribing true faith and doctrine in the Church 16 W. BISHOP Hitherto I haue confuted what M. Perkins brought against Traditions Now to that which he saith for them in our behalfe First saith he the Catholikes alledge * 2. Thes 2.15 Where the Apostle bids the Church to keepe the ordinances which he taught them either by word of mouth or by Epistle Hence they gather that besides the written word there be vnwritten traditions that are necessary to be kept and obeyed M. Perkins Answer It is likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul wrote to any Church and then some things needefull to saluation might be deliuered by word of mouth but that was afterwards written in some others of his Epistles Reply Obserue first that insteede of Traditions according to the Greeke and Latine word they translate * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinances euer flying the word Tradition where any thing is spoken in cōmendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the word Tradition although the Greeke word beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouerie of false translations penned by Maister Gregory Martin a man most singularly cōuersant in the Greeke and Hebrew tongues Secondly is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer he wrote Surely if none of his other were written before it yet his first to the same Church must needes haue bene written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame some-times To the point of the answer that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bene deliuered by word of mouth How proueth M. Perkins that the man hath such confidence in his owne word that he goeth not once about to proue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needfull to be beleeued which is not written in the word Shew vs then
whether those things which they taught were so whereby it appeareth that the word which he preached in both places was no other but according to the Scriptures Thus we haue heard him before saying that h Cap. 26.22 he spake nothing beside those things which Moses and the Prophets did say should be Now all the doctrine of the Gospell that is set downe in the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets is fully contained in the Scriptures of the new Testament Seeing therefore the traditions that is those things which the Apostle deliuered to the Thessalonians were wholy according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets it must necessarily follow that in the Scriptures of the new Testament the same are fully and perfectly contained and so on both sides now can be no other but according to the Scriptures We are out of doubt that the Apostle preached to the Thessalonians the whole doctrine of the Gospell which we find set downe in writing by the Euangelists and by himselfe other the Apostles in their Epistles to other Churches In his former Epistle to the Thessalonians he did not set downe that whole doctrine which is written by them Now we cannot make question but that his meaning was to exhort them to perseuere in the whole as in those things which he expressed in his Epistle so in the rest also which we find written by himselfe and others Therefore the traditions or things deliuered by word haue a necessarie and vndeniable construction of all the rest of the written doctrine of the Gospell that is not set downe in that first Epistle to the Thessalonians Our exposition then is irrefragable and infallible that the Apostle by those words hath reference to those things which are written otherwhere but Master Bishop hath no argument to euict that he intended any thing that is written no where Because therefore we haue a meaning of the wordes whereof we are certaine and sure we rest there and list not to admit a further meaning whereof we can haue no assurance As for that which he cauilleth of whether Paule in his Epistles wrote all that he preached by word I answer him that he wrote the effect and vse of all but not all whereof that vse is to be made because many things are written by the Euangelists necessarie for the vse of Christian faith which are not written in the Epistles of Saint Paule though by him they were deliuered to the Churches to which he preached But though he wrote not all that was needfull to be written yet we beleeue the testimony that he hath giuen in that Epistle which he wrote last euen a little before his death when almost al the bookes of the new Testament were now written that i 2. Tim. 3.15 the Scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus and therefore that what by him and others there is so much written as concerneth vs to know for our instruction in the religion and faith of Iesus Christ Now whereas M. Bishop to proue the contrarie alledgeth the expositions of some of the Fathers concerning those wordes of the Apostle to the Thessalonians I may well answer him as Austine answered Hierome pressing him in the like sort with the names of sundry of the Fathers that were before theÌ„ k Aug. Epist 19 Ad ipsum confugio ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum eius tractatoribus prouoco I flie to Paul himselfe to him I appeale from all expositors of his writings that thinke otherwise He hath told vs that the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation therfore we do not beleeue theÌ„ that tell vs that his meaning is in the other place that we haue need of traditions beside the Scripture for supply of that wisedom Yea their collection as M. Bishop conceiueth of it cannot stand good It appeareth by those words of the Apostle that he deliuered more to the Thessalonians by word then is contained in his former Epistle to theÌ„ but it doth not therfore follow that he deliuered more vnto theÌ„ then is coÌ„tained in the Scriptures No reason can there be deuised to make good this coÌ„nexioÌ„ But to examine theÌ„ particularly first we may not thinke Chrysostome so forgetfull as that he should crosse that which in the very next Homily before he hath said l Chrysost in 2. Thess hom 3. Omnia clara sunt plaâ—a ex Scripturis diuinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt All things are cleare and euident by the holy Scriptures whatsoeuer things are necessarie they are manifest Surely if any thing be to be cleared by tradition beside the Scripture then it cannot be said that all necessarie things are manifest by the Scriptures And therefore whereas he saith Hereby it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnwritten and both the one and the other are alike to be beleeued we must vnderstand it of that tradition which the Church holdeth collected and gathered from the Scriptures though it be not literally expressed therein Thus the baptising of infants and the not rebaptising of them that haue bene baptized by heretikes and the administring of the Lords supper onely by the Minister and such like haue bene alwaies holden by the Church and defended by the Scriptures and yet they are no where literally contained in the Epistles of the Apostles In such things Chrysostome requireth a man to submit himself in peace to that which the Church practiseth being grounded vpon the Scripture and not contentiously to wrangle against it because it is not in very words contained therein But if any tradition be vrged vpon vs that hath no ground or warrant from the Scripture good reason we aske as Cyprian did of Stephanus m Cyprian ad Pomp. supra Sect. 5. Whence is this tradition Cometh it from the authoritie of Christ or of the Gospell or from the instructions and Epistles of the Apostles For God testifieth that we are to do those things which are written * Si ergo aut in Euangelio praecipitur aut Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur obseruetur certè haec sancta traditio Therefore if this tradition be commanded in the Gospell or in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles let it be obserued and kept for holy Whereby he will haue it vnderstood that if it be not there warranted it is not to be obserued The tradition which he there impugneth is taught indeed by the Gospell though he conceiued not so but hereby he teacheth vs that it was to stand for a certaine rule that no tradition could be iustly approued without warrant of the Gospell And therefore Chrysostome himselfe also teacheth vs otherwhere that n Chrysost in Psal 95. Siquid dicitur absque Scripturis auditorum cogitatio claudicatâ— vbi verò ex Scripturis diuinae vocit prodijt testimonium
only We take it then for granted as indeed it cannot be denied that the Apostle here intended those things that are written but we wold heare an argument to proue that the Apostle meant any thing further that is not written If he might vse those words of those things that are written what hindreth but that he might vse them of those onely M. Bishop cannot proue that he did not so but we proue that he did so because in the next Chapter he telleth the same Timothy n 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Therefore M. Bishops proofes come much too short to giue vs any assurance that S. Paule by traditions vnderstood any thing but what is to be learned by the Scriptures 17. W. BISHOP The second argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be is very necessary to saluation now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued only by Tradition wherefore it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue some Tradition M. Perkins answereth that the bookes of the Old and New Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this maner Let the man who is endued with the spirit of discerning reade the bookes and consider first the author of them who is God then the matter contained which is diuine the maner of speech which is full of maiestie in simple words lastly the end aymed at which is Gods honor and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer Reply A wise and deepe obseruation I warrant you and well worthy a graue Author Let vs examine it briefly first he will haue his man endued with the spirit of discerning who shall indue him with that spirit M. P. seemeth to say that euery sheepe of Christ hath his spirit But S. Paule * 1. Cor. 12. teacheth plainely the contrarie that some certaine onely haue the iudgement to discerne And touching this matter of discerning which bookes are Canonicall which are not not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which they were three hundred yeares after Christ was left vndefined by the best learned whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of Iohn and his Apocalypse were Canonicall or no as is confessed on all parts hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning when the best Christians wanted it Who more profound more skilfull to discerne than that subtill and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall For he in diuers places of his workes * De doct Christ cap. 8. 18. de ciuit Dei 36. lib. 2. cont Epist Gaudent 23 holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures and expresly proueth the booke of Wisedome so to be * De Praedest Sanct. 14. and yet our Protestants will not admit them See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is Come to the second His second is that he who goeth about to discerne whether the booke be Canonicall or no must consider the Author who is God If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the booke what needes any further labour it must needes be Canonicall that hath God for the Author This mans wits were surely from home when he discoursed thus and therefore it should be but folly to stand vpon his particularities let this one reason in generall serue to confute him all this manner put together serueth onely to helpe particular men to discerne which bookes are Canonicall who may easily after their diligent inquirie erre and be deceiued in this point because euery man is a lyar * Rom. 3. And if there be no more certaine meanes to assure them of this which is the ground of all their Religion then euery particular mans discretion and iudgement then out of doubt their whole Religion is most vnwisely builded vpon meane mens inuentions and discretion who also for the most part do neither vnderstand the language in which they were first penned nor the vsuall phrases of Scriptures translated that I say nothing of the figures parables prophecies and controuersies which seeme to be and many other difficulties and yet these men need not doubt hauing learned some halfe dozen lines of Master Perkins but that reading any booke they shall be able presently to discerne whether it be Canonicall or no. A goodly mockerie Men were not so taught in the Primitiue Church but the most skilfull and wisest in discerning Canonicall books trusted not vnto their owne iudgement but leaned alwaies vpon Apostolicall Traditions So did Cerapion an auncieni holy Writer as Eusebius reporteth reiect certaine bookes set out in the Apostles names because they had not receiued from their Predecessors any such The like doth Clement of Alexandria * Cap. 11. and that famous Origen * Cap. 19. of the same booke who obserue the Ecclesiasticall Canon as he had learned and receiued by Tradition So doth he deliuer his opinion of the foure Euangelists and other bookes of Canonicall Scripture and not relying on his owne wit which was excellent or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters That S. Augustine was of the same mind may be gathered out of these words of his * Lib. 35. cap. 6. Contra Faustum Of what booke can there be any assurance if the letters which the Church propagated by the Apostles and by such excellencie declared throughout all Nations doth teach and hold to be the Apostles should be vncertaine whether they be Apostles or no So that he maketh the declaration of the Church descended of the Apostles to be a sure pillar to rest vpon for the certaine knowledge of Canonicall Scripture and other spirits whatsoeuer if they follow not that rule to be reiected so farre is he off from encouraging euery sheepe of Christs fold to take that waightie matter vpon himselfe as M. P. doth And what can be more against the most prudent prouidence of the diuine wisedome then to permit euery one to be a iudge of the books of Canonicall Scripture For if al those books no other shold passe currāt for Canonical which any Christian taking vpon him the spirit of discerning would censure to be such then away with all the old Testament because diuers esteemed it to proceed of some euil spirits as witnesses Freueus * Lib 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. and Epiphanius * Haeres 6. 6. Yea not onely all the old must be abrogated but all the new also because it hath many falshoods mixed with the truth as some presuming greatly of their spirit
and skill in discerning did teach so testifieth S. Augustine * Lib. 32. cap. 2. Contra Faust Some would haue had but one of the foure Gospels some fiue some sixe some seauen some reiected all S. Paules Epistles many and those of the faithfull did not admit for Canonicall some of the other Apostles Epistles nor the Reuelations If then the diuine foresight of our Sauiour had not preuented this most foule inconueniencie by instituting a more certaine meanes of discerning and declaring which bookes were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost which not then by leauing it vnto euery mans discretion he might be thought to haue had but slender care of our saluation which euery true Christian heart doth abhorre to thinke and therefore we must needs admit of this most holy and prouident Tradition of them from hand to hand as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prolegomenis and also Kemnitius handling the second kind of Traditions in his examination of the Councell of Trent albeit they reiect all other Traditions besides this one R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins here saith hath his proper vse in the ordinarie receiuing of the scriptures in a Christian Church where being from our infancie baptized into Christ and bred vp in the continuall noise and sound of the word of God and hauing by this meanes some seedes of the spirit of God sowed in our hearts we simply and without controuersie or question take the scriptures presuming vpon the record of the Church and beleeuing them to be that which they are said to be that is the booke of God and in this perswasion applying our selues to the reading of them and finding therein a spirit so different from the spirit of man so great a maiestie in so great simplicitie and all things so correspondent to those shadowes of truth and righteousnesse which a Rom. 2.14.15 the worke of the law written naturally in our hearts and confirmed by light of education do represent vnto vs we resolue and fully do beleeue them to be that that at the first we presumed of them the oracles of God the words of saluation and eternall life hauing an inward testimonie and conuiction to draw from vs the assent vnmoueably to ground vs in the assurance thereof This seemeth to Master Bishop to be no wise obseruation but the reason is because he himselfe is scarcely wise When he hath said all that he can say yet this must stand for good that there is nothing that can cause the heart of man sufficiently to apprehend that the Scriptures are the word of God till the Scripture it selfe in the conscience by the spirit do euict it selfe so to be And herein it is true which Origen saith that b Origen de princip lib. 4. c. 1. Siquis cum omni studio reuerētia qua dignum est Prophetica dicta consideret in eo ipso dum legit diligentius intuetur cerium est quod aliquo diuiniore spiramine mentem sensumque pulsatus agnoscet non humanitùs esse prolatos eos quos legit sed Dei esse sermones ex semetipso sentiet non humana arte nec mortals eloquio sed diuino vt ita dixerim cothurno esse conscriptos he who with all diligence and reuerence as is meete shal consider the words of the Prophets it is certaine that in the reading and diligent viewing thereof hauing his mind and vnderstanding knocked at by a diuine inspiration he shall know that the words which he readeth were not vttered by man but are the words of God and of himselfe shall perceiue that those bookes were written not by humane art not by the word of mortall man but by a maiestie diuine In a word as the Sunne when a man is brought into the light of it not by telling but by sight and by it owne light is discerned to be that that giueth light vnto the world so the Scripture which is as it were the chariot of c Aug. in Psal 80. Est in Scripturis nostris sol iustitiae sanitas in pēnis eius the Sunne of righteousnesse when a man is brought into the sight thereof euen by it owne light is discerned to be that that ministreth vnto vs the light of euerlasting life Now the spirit of discerning of which M. Perkins speaketh is not to be vnderstood of that speciall gift of d 1. Cor 12.10 discerning spirits mētioned by S. Paul which importeth a singular and eminent dexterity in spying and finding out the secret fraudes and deceipts of counterfeit teachers and false Apostles but the cōmon spirit of the faithfull e 1. Cor. 2.12 which we receiue as the Apostle saith that we may know the things that are giuen vnto vs of God whereby it is true which our Sauiour saith f Iohn 10.27 My sheepe heare my voyce and they follow me g Ver. 4.5 they know the shepheards voice and they will not follow a stranger but they flie from him for they know not the voice of straungers h Ver. 14. I know mine and am knowne of mine Againe he saith i Cap. 7.17 If any man will do his wil he shal know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my selfe Whereby he teacheth vs that in applying our selues to learne and practise the will of God we attaine to discerne the doctrine to be of God And herein consisteth that k Col. 1.9 spirituall vnderstanding which the Apostle recommendeth generally to the faithfull in his prayer for the Colossians the vse whereof is l Phil. 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to discerne things that differ namely from the truth and m 1. Iohn 4.1 to try the spirits whether they be of God or not Now the spirit as it vseth the ministery of the Church for the deliuering of the books of scripture so it vseth the ministery of the Church to giue aduertisement of those bookes which haue not the like authoritie as the Scripture hath And this aduertisement it sealeth and confirmeth whilest hauing testified otherwhere the vndoubted doctrine of God we discerne thereby some doctrines in those bookes that are of another stampe and not correspondent to the rest For when they are in any part found to be of another spirit we conceiue of the whole that they were written with another pen and therefore albeit for the most part they cary the sauour and tast of those things which we reade in the other bookes yet in their defects we fully apprehend that which we haue bene told that they are not of like maiestie and authoritie with the rest and though we may profitably reade them for those things wherin they are deriued from the other yet that we cannot securely ground any doctrine immediatly vpon them In this simplicitie without further question many thousands receiue the Scriptures they read them and by the power of the holy Ghost they grow thereby to faith and spiritual
strength and attaine vnto euerlasting life So certaine are they of the truth which they learne in them as that they are readie to forsake all and to lay downe their liues for the testifying of that which they beleeue thereby Against this M. Bishop telleth vs that not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which bookes were canonicall and which not But in so saying he very greatly abuseth his reader for the scriptures of Moses the Prophets and all the bookes of the new Testament saue only those few which he mentioneth haue bene discerned and acknowledged for Canonicall without contradiction from the time that first they were deliuered to the Church Yea but for three hundred yeares after Christ saith he it was left vndefined by the best learned as touching those few the Epistles of Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the two latter of S. Iohn and the Apocalypse whether they were Canonicall or not Be it so but is this a sufficient ground for him to affirme that they discerned not which were vndoubtedly canonical Scriptures because they doubted whether these were so or not What did so many huÌ„dred thousand Martyrs suffer in the space of those 300 yeares and did they know no certaine and vndoubted grounds whereupon to build the assurance of that for which they suffered Did the Bishops and Pastors of the Church teach the people of God out of the Scriptures and yet did they not discerne whether they were Scriptures or not As for the doubt that was made of these bookes by him mentioned it was onely by some and in some places and vpon weake and vncertaine grounds as the second Epistle of S. Peter vpon difference of style the Epistle to the Hebrewes for that it seemed to some for want of vnderstanding to fauour the heresie of the Nouatians the Reuelation of Saint Iohn for that to some such like it seemed to make for the millenarie fancie of Corinthus but this was not sufficient so to ouerweigh the authoritie of them but that the former testimonie that was giuen of them preuailed still in the Church so that they were not since confirmed or first receiued into authoritie by the Church but onely acknowledged and continued still in the authoritie which they had before Therfore of the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Reuelation Hierome testifieth thus n Hieron ad Darda de terra repromiss Illud nostris dicendum est hanc Epistolà quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos non solùm ab Ecclesus Orientis sed abomnibus retrò Ecclesus Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli suscipi licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur nihil interesse cuius sit cùm Ecclesiastici viri sit quotidiè Ecclesiarum lectione celebretur Quòd sicam LatinoruÌ„ consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Ioannis eadem libertate suscipiunt tamen nos vtraque suscipimus nequaquam huius temporis consuetudinem sed veterum scriptoruÌ„ authoritatem sequentes qui plerunque vtriusque vtuntur testimonijs non vt interdum de Apocryphis facere solent c. sed quasi canonicis ecclesiasticis This must we say to our men that this Epistle to the Hebrewes not onely of the Easterne Churches but of all the former Churches and writers of the Greeke tongue hath bene receiued as the Epistie of Paule the Apostle albeit many thinke it either to haue bene written by Barnabas or Clement and that it skilleth not whose it is seeing it came from a speciall man of the Church and is daily frequented in the reading of the Churches And if the custome of the Latines receiue it not amongst Canonicall Scriptures the Churches of the Greekes by the like libertie receiue not the Reuelation of S. Iohn and yet we saith he receiue them both not following the custome of this time but the authoritie of the auncient writers who commonly vse the testimonies of them both not as they are wont sometimes to do out of the Apocryphall bookes but as being bookes Canonicall and of authoritie in the Church Herby then M. Bishop may see that it was but in his ignorance and vpon some other mans word that he saith that for three hundred yeares it was not defined whether these bookes were Canonicall or not whereas they had vndoubted authoritie in the first Church and began in latter time to be questioned without cause Of those other therefore which he mentioneth we conceiue in the like sort of which they that in their simplicitie doubted yet in the other Scriptures by the holy Ghost discerned * 2. Cor. 4.6 the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Iesus Christ and thereby became partakers of life in him Whereas he saith that we allow not S. Augustine the true spirit of discerning which bookes be canonicall because he maketh the bookes of Machabees and the booke of Wisedome to be Canonicall Scriptures and yet we will not so admit them we answer him that he hath not the spirit to vnderstand and discerne the meaning of Saint Austin Ruffinus mentioneth the bookes whereof the question was as touching the reading of them in the Church to haue bene of three sorts Some were o Ruffinan exposâ—symb apud Cyprian Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ex quibus fideâ— nostrae assertiones constare voluerant Canonicall which he reckoneth the same that we do vpon which saith he they would haue the assertions of our faith to stand Other some he calleth p Alij libri sunt qui non canonies sed ecclesiastici à maioribus appellaâ— sunt c. Ecclesiasticall bookes not Canonicall naming all those which we tearme the Apocryphall Scriptures all which saith he the Fathers would haue to be read in the Churches but not to be alledged to proue the authority of faith A third sort there were which were termed by them q Cateras Scripturas Apocryphas nominaruÌ„t quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt Apocryphall writings which they would not haue to be read in the Churches at all which were all those that are wholy reiected as bastards and counterfeits such as were r Sect. 13. before spoken of in answer to the Epistle Now of those three sorts some made but onely two and that diuersly Some reckoned vnder the name of Apocryphall Scriptures all that were not of the first sort and properly termed Canonicall as Hierome did who hauing reckoned the same bookes for Canonicall that Ruffinus doth and accounting them in number two and twenty as the Hebrewes do addeth that Å¿ Hieron in Prolog Galeata Fuâ—â—â— pariter veteris legis libri viginis duo c. we are to know that whatsoeuer is beside these is to be put amongst Apocryphall writings Therefore saith he the booke called the Wisedome of Solomon the booke of Iesus the Sonne of Syrach
cauilleth but we make the Church as the hand of God whereby he putteth the Scriptures into our hands and priuate spirit doth no more but subscribe to the testification of the Church But now if Maister Bishop will question the publike testimonie of our Church as touching knowledge what Scriptures are to be deliuered we answer him that such and such onely we acknowledge and deliuer by our testimonie because by like testimonie those onely haue beene acknowledged and deliuered vnto vs. Here then we referre our selues to Tradition and therefore all that Maister Bishop alledgeth to the end of this section is but fighting with a shadow of his owne and nothing against vs. He saith in the end that Brentius and Chemnitius admit of this Tradition albeit they reiect all other Traditions beside this one whereas Chemnitius setting downe eight kindes of Traditions acknowledgeth seuen of them and determineth our defence against the Papists to consist in one kinde onely We fight not against the word we know it hath his vse Maister Perkins in three conclusions here acknowledgeth Traditions the Church of Rome hath brought it by her abuse to one speciall vse and meaning and in that vse onely wee impugne it namely as it importeth matters not of temporarie rites and ceremonies indifferently vsed but of perpetuall doctrine and faith which neither in word nor in meaning can be verified and confirmed by the written word presupposed and acknowledged to be the word of God In this sence wee denie Traditions the name otherwise we reiect not wee say that by testimonie of Tradition the notice of the canonicall Scriptures is giuen vnto vs. This Maister Bishop thinketh should make for the credit of their Church of Rome dreaming that this must be by the tradition of that Church or that that Church must be the witnesse vnto vs of this tradition But therein hee very much deceiueth himselfe amongst all the traditions mentioned by the auncient Writers wee neuer finde this tradition that for the number of the bookes of canonicall Scripture wee must take the tale and tradition of the Church of Rome If he can make good any such tradition he shall finde vs much the more fauourable for all the rest Otherwise we doe not know why it should not be as readie for the Church of England to iudge which are canonicall Scriptures as it is for the Church of Rome What meanes should they haue for the discerning of them that is not as open to vs as it is to them We take the account of holy Scriptures in the same sort as the auncient Church did o Ruffin in exposit symb Secundum traditionem patrum Sicut ex patrum monumentis acceptmus Hilar. prolog in Psal SecunduÌ„ traditiones veterum according to the tradition of the fathers and out of the monuments of the fathers Wee reckon those onely for canonicall bookes which from the time of the Apostles haue had certaine and vndoubted testimonie to be so testimonie I say of so many Churches and nations and peoples to which at first they were deliuered and thenceforth vsed amongst them to be read in their Churches expounded in their pulpits meditated in their houses which the fathers haue perpetually cited in their bookes and opposed in generall Councels against Schismatikes and heretikes to which they haue attributed all authoritie for the deciding and determining the causes and controuersies of the Church p Aug. in Ioannis epist. tract 2. Contra quas nullus audeat loqui qui se vult quoquo modo vocari Christianum against which none dare speake saith Saint Austine who will in any sort be called a Chrstian man q Idem cont faust l. 11. cap. 5. Excellentia canonicae authoritatis veteris noui testamenti Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones episcoporum propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est cui serutat omnis fidelis pius intellectus The excellencie of the canonicall authoritie of the old and new testament saith he againe being confirmed in the time of the Apostles hath by succession of Bishops and propagation of Churches beene set in a high and loftie seate that all faithfull and religious vnderstanding may be seruant vnto it Now by the Scriptures which thus irrefragably and vnquestionably haue beene receiued vniuersally of the whole Christian world wee learne to iudge of those bookes adioined to the old testament whereof question is betwixt the Church of Rome and vs. For in those bookes as touching the old testament we learne that r Rom. 2.2 to the Iewes were committed the words of God whereof it followeth that none are to be accounted the words of God that were not committed vnto them The bookes committed to them our Sauiour Christ nameth to haue beene Å¿ Luk 24.44 Moses and the Prophets and the Psalmes and calleth these t Ver. 27. all the Scriptures as before was noted Because then these are all the Scriptures and those which we seclude from the Canon are none of these it followeth that by the sentence of Christ himselfe they are declared to be no Scriptures And hereto agreeth the auncient tradition of the Church of the Iewes recorded by Iosephus who acknowledgeth that they had u Ioseph cont Apion lib. 1. SuÌ„t nobis solummodo duo viginti libri quoruÌ„ iustè fides ad nutitur Horum quinque sunt Moseos c. Amorie Moseos vsque ad Artaxerxem PersaruÌ„ regem Prophetae temporum suorum res gestas conscripserunt in tredecim libris Reliqui vero quatuor hymnes in Deum vitae humanae praecepta noscuntur continere onely two and twenty bookes to which iustly they gaue credit whereof fiue are the bookes of Moses From whom to the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia the Prophets wrote the matters of their times in thirteene bookes which are thus reckoned 1. Iosuah 2. the Iudges with Ruth 3. the two bookes of Samuel 4. the two bookes of Kings 5. the two bookes of Chronicles 6. Ezra and Nehemiah 7. Esther 8. Iob. 9. Esay 10. Ieremy 11. Ezechiel 12. Daniel 13. the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets The other foure saith he containe Hymnes and Songs to God and precepts of humane life which are the Psalmes the Prouerbs Ecclesiastes and the Canticles Of those things which were afterwards written hee saith x Ab Artaxerxe vsque ad nostrum tempus singulae sunt conscripta noÌ„ tamen priori simili fide sunt habita cò quod non fuerit certâ— successio prophetarum that they were not of like credit to the former because there was no certaine succession of Prophets amongst them This tradition the Iewes hold constantly and inuiolably till this day and in their dispersion through the world do still giue witnesse to the bookes that were deliuered to their fathers God by his prouidence appointing them to be y August cont faust lib. 12. cap. 23. Quid est hodie genâ—
3.15 Whatsoeuer things haue bene committed vnto thee by me keepe as the commandements of the Lord and diminish nothing thereof Now although those words haue reference to more then is written in those two epistles yet they haue not reference absolutely to more then is written because in the latter of those Epistles the Apostle plainly telleth him that q the Scriptures are able to make him wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus As for that which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Irenaeus it is nothing at all to his purpose He saith that r Iren. lib. 3. ca 4. Apostili quasi in depositoriuÌ„ dâ—ues plenissimè in Ecclesiae contuleruÌ„t omnia quae sunt veritatis the Apostles haue layd vp in the Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth but how they haue laid the same vp in the Church he hath before expressed Å¿ Ibid. cap. 1. The Gospell which they first preached they after by the will of God deliuered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith Thus then the Church is the treasury of truth by hauing the Scriptures which are the oracles of all truth His last authoritie is taken from the words of S. Iohn which he vseth in his two latter Epistles Hauing many things to write vnto you I would not write with paper and inke but I trust to come vnto you and speake with you mouth to mouth We see S. Iohns words but hard it is to say how we should conclude traditions from them S. Iohn wold write no more to them in that sort or in those Epistles but doth it follow hereof that he would teach them any thing that is not contained in the Scriptures He might haue many things to write vnto them according to the Scriptures and what should leade vs to presume that he should meane it of other things whereof we are taught nothing there In a word what is there in the citing of all these authorities but impudent and shamelesse abusing of ignorant men whilest for a colour he onely setteth them downe and for shame dareth not set downe how that should be inferred that is in question betwixt vs and them But to fill vp the measure of this illusion he goeth on yet further and by way of specification asketh Where is it written that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father or that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father or that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance or that there is in Christ the substance of God and man subsisting in one second person of the Trinitie Absurd wilful wrangler where was it written which Christ said t Luke 24.46 Thus it is written and thus it behoued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his name amongst all nations Where is it written in the Prophets which S. Peter alledgeth u Acts 10.43 To him giue all the Prophets witnes that through his name all that beleeue in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes Where doe Moses and the Prophets say that which Saint Paul sayth x Ibid. 26.22.23 they do say that Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead and should shew light to the people and to the Gentiles To come nearer to him he hath told vs before that the articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures But where is it written in the Scriptures that we should beleeue in God the Father almightie maker of heauen and earth or that we should beleeue in the holy Ghost or that there is a holy Catholike Church a communion of Saints I will say as he saith here Be not all these things necessary to be beleeued and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible He will say that though they be not there written in expresse termes yet in effect and substance they are written there and are thereby to be declared and prooued and so he will verifie the words of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles Peter and Paul in those citations of Moses and the Prophets Wizard and are not those other articles then written in the Scriptures because they are not written in expresse termes Did not the Fathers conceiue all those points of faith from the Scriptures and by the Scriptures make proofe of them Is it not the rule of their owne schooles which I haue before mentioned out of Thomas Aquinas that y Supra sect 12. concerning God nothing is to be said but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures What are we maintainers of traditions in saying that faith onely iustifieth that Christ onely is our Mediator to the Father that Saints are not to be inuocated nor their images to be worshipped because these things are no where written in expresse termes Let it not offend thee gentle Reader that I be moued to see a lewd man labouring by vaine cauillations to sophisticate and delude those that are not able to vnderstand his cosinage and fraud It is the cause of God and who can beare it patiently that the soules which Christ hath bought should be intoxicated with such charmes We do not say that nothing is to be beleeued but what is written in the Scriptures in expresse termes but we say that nothing is to be beleeued but what either is expressed in the Scriptures or may be proued thereby and therefore in oppugning traditions we oppugne onely such doctrines of faith as neither are expressed in the Scriptures nor can be proued by the Scriptures Let M. Bishop proue their traditions by the Scriptures and we will not reiect them for vnwritten traditions but will receiue them for written truth But of this see what hath bene said before in the twelfth section of this question and in the eleuenth section of the answer to his Epistle to the King 21. W. BISHOP The sixt and last reason for traditions Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely if then it be put to euery Christian to take their owne exposition euery seuerall sect wil coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shal the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an instrument to confirme all errors To auoide which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the traditions and auncient records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true exposition and sence of it and thereby confute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy commentaries so that for the vnderstanding
epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant wil appeer by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus who M. Bishop sayth by the Apostles words receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretickes Let his author speake and let the Reader iudge how honestly he dealeth in this citation The words are the words of Irenaeus of whom Eusebius reporteth that in certaine speeches against Florinus the hereticke he saith of himselfe hauing bene with Polycarpus when he was very yong g Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. ca. 18. Commemorare queaÌ„ sermones eius quos fecit ad multitudineÌ„ quomodo se cum Ioanne ac reliquis qui DominuÌ„ viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit sermones ecruÌ„ memorauerit quae ex illis de Domino audierant de virtutibus eius doctrina tanquaÌ„ ex ijs qui ipsi verbuÌ„ vitae viderant et cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recensuerit I remember the sermons that he made to the people and how he told that he had bene conuersant with Iohn and others that saw the Lord and mentioned their speeches and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and concerning his miracles and doctrine as receiued from them who themselues had seene the Word of life and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures Here was then the tradition of Polycarpus containing nothing else but according to the Scripture As touching the tradition that h See the Answer to the Epistle sect 11. Irenaeus speaketh of it hath bene before shewed that it containeth nothing else but the elementall articles of Christian faith for the auouching whereof he was forced to appeale to the tradition and successiue doctrine of the Church because he had to do with heretickes that refused the triall of the Scriptures He saith rightly that if nothing had bene written we must haue rested vpon Tradition but because God knew that Tradition was too vncertaine and weake a meanes for preseruation of truth therefore as he hath before said the Apostles deliuered the Gospel which they preached in writing and that by the will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our faith In a word when he saith What if the Apostles had not writteÌ„ any thing at all must we not then haue followed the order of tradition he intimateth that now that they haue written we are to follow that which they haue written for the certaintie assurance of our faith He forceth the order of tradition in this sort vpon the heretiks because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but the matters whereof he treateth are cleerly taught therein as euery where he sheweth throughout his whole booke His next allegation is vaine and childish Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by tradition to baptize infants whereas Bellarmine himselfe proueth it to be necessary by the Scriptures as I haue shewed i Sect 12. before That of Athanasius is as little to the purpose as all the rest The thing that he hath in hand in the k Athanas lib. Quòd Nicena synod u congruis pijs verbis decreta sua super Ariana haeresi exposuerit booke cited is to giue a reason of the decree of the Nicene Councell that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father He sheweth that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures Constantine also so directing them as we haue seene before The matter was so cleared as that the heretickes for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded vpon Yet he declareth that afterwards they fell to cauilling that the words whereby the Councell expressed their meaning were not found in the Scriptures that they deuised them of themselues and that none of the former Fathers had vsed the same He answereth that l Cognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam quâ—m Scripturae volunt hoc ipsum sonaere c. Whosoeuer is of a studious mind or desirous to learne will know that those words though they be not found in the Scriptures yet haue the same meaning which the Scriptures intend and do signifie the very same Further against their other cauil he sheweth by diuers places alledged that the Fathers of former times had vsed the same words and maner of speech as the Councell did Hereupon he concludeth m Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiaÌ„ à patribus ad patres quasi per manâ—â— traditaÌ„ esse Vos autem nouâ— Iudeâ— Cataphaeque discipuli quos verboruÌ„ vestroruÌ„ patreâ—ac maiores demonstraâ—uâ— Behold we shew that this sentence hath bene deliuered from fathers to fathers as it were from hand to hand but O you new Iewes and sons of Caiphas what fathers or auncesters will ye shew vs for your termes Now shall not we thinke that M. Bishop hath here brought vs a stout proofe for traditions vnwritten and doctrines beside the Scripture Euen as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellowes Behold we shew you that which we say of the sufficiencie of the Scriptures deliuered from fathers to fathers euen as it were from hand to hand and he should herupon cite vs for witnesses of their traditions As much wit should he shew in this as he now doth in that The place of Basil is answered at large n Sect. 16. before He further referreth vs to the first oration of o Greg Naziâ—n contra Julian erat 1. Doctrina nostra insigâ—â—reÌ„ videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditioâ—e acceptas in hunc vsque dieÌ„ seruaâ—â—mus c. Idem hic cogit 〈◊〉 scholas in omnibus ciuitatibus extruere parabat sacraria se desque partim altiores partim depressiores prophaâ—â—â—um dogmatum lectiones â—xplicationes instituere tum precaâ—oâ—um alternatim caâ—â—â—arum fâ—rmam c. Gregorie Nazianzen against Iulian but was ashamed to set downe any words of his because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians which Iulian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganisme were schools and formes higher and lower lectures hospitals monasteries companies of virgins singing by turnes and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church and what are these to prooue traditions that is matters of doctrine not contained in the Scriptures We admit almost all those things which he there speaketh of and yet we condemne traditions in that sence as we here make question of them Surely M. Bishops traditions are in a miserable case that in all antiquity can find no better foundations wherupon to build them A man would not thinke that in so serious a matter he would so trifle as he hath done bringing not one place in any sort appliable to his purpose but only that of Basill
and yet neither that of sufficient waight to proue that that he hath vndertaken to proue as before hath bene shewed 24. W. BISHOP Because I haue cited already some of the Latine auncient Doctors in stead of the rest I will record out of them in a word or two how old rotten heretiks vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions and flie wholly vnto the written word See the whole book of Tertullians prescriptions against heretiks which principally handleth this very point The same doth Irenaeus witnesse of the Valentinians and Marcionists * Lib. 3. cap. 2. The Arians common song vnto the Catholickes was I will not admit to be read any words that are not written in the Scriptures as witnesseth S. Hilary in his booke against Constantius the Emperour against whom he alledgeth the preaching of the Apostles and the authoritie of the auncient Bishops expressed in his liuely colours S. Augustine some 1200. yeares ago recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now a days in the person of Maximinus an Ariā in his first book against him in the beginning If thou shalt saith this heretik bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all we must needs heare thee but these words which are without the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they worship me teaching commandements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten traditions hath bene afore declared The like doth S. Bernard affirme of certaine heretikes of his time called * Hom. 62. Cant. Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholickes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to standfast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth as well as that which is written euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned heretickes to reiect all Traditions and to flie vnto the onely Scriptures R. ABBOT For conclusion of this question he bringeth vs here a rotten tale how old rotten heretickes vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions and flie wholly to the written word To make this tale good he bringeth vs first a lie and then a fond cauill He referreth his Reader first to Tertullians booke of prescriptions the purpose whereof what it is I haue shewed before at large but in all that booke is no word of heretickes flying wholly to the written word Tertullian sheweth how they mangled and marred the Scriptures being vrged therewith reiecting what and where they list so that by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but that they did flie to the Scriptures or required triall thereby he affirmeth not And this is plaine by Irenaeus euen in that place whence M. Bishop citeth him for his second witnesse and where he speaketh of the very same heretickes of whom Tertullian spake a Iren lib. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem ipsarum conuertuntur Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate et quia variè sunt dictae quia nō possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vinam vocem ob quam causam et Paulū dixisse sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos Heretikes saith he when they are reproued by the Scriptures fall to finding fault with the Scriptures as if they were not aright nor of authoritie and that they are doubtfully set down and that by the Scriptures the truth cannot be found of them that are ignorant of tradition for they say that the truth was not deliuered by writing but by liuely voice and that therefore Paul said We speake wisedome among those that be perfect Now by these very words of Irenaeus do thou esteeme gentle Reader the trecherie of this man who beareth thee in hand that Irenaeus noteth it there for a propertie of heretickes to reiect vnwritten Traditions and to flie wholly to the written word when as it was their abusing and refusing of the Scriptures that made him to appeale to the tradition of the Church the matters of their heresies being concerning the fundamentall articles of our beleefe which are euidently taught by the written word It is truly said that heretickes shunne the Scriptures euen as the theefe doth the gallowes and as it is true in other heretickes so it is in the Papists vpon whom how iustly those words of Irenaeus light and how fully they describe their vsage towards the Scriptures hath bene b Answer to the Epistle sect 11. before declared To this apparent lie M. Bishop addeth a blind cauill for which he bringeth the speeches of Constantius the Emperour and Maximinus both Arians out of Hilary and Austine The matter is answered sundry times before Against the assertion of the Church that the Sonne of God is consubstantiall or of the same substance with the Father they excepted idlely and vainely that they would admit no words that were not written M. Bishop knoweth well that we do not so because we receiue and professe those words which they refused yea he knoweth that we say and teach that the Pope is Antichrist that the Church of Rome is the purple whore of Babylon that the Masse is an abhominable idoll and wicked prophaning of the Sacrament of Christ and such like and yet these words are no where found in the Scripture We contend not concerning words let them vse what words they will so that the doctrine imported and meant by those words be contained in the Scriptures Of those heretickes called Apostolici S. Bernard saith no such matter as he alledgeth All that he saith is that c Berna in Cant. ser 66. Instituta Ecclesiae non recipiunt they did not receiue the ordinances of the Church and what is that to the doctrines of faith taught by Christ and his Apostles which are not contained in the Scriptures Concerning which against M. Bishops conclusion I conclude this question with the saying of Saint Austin before alledged and worthy here againe to be remembred d August supra sect 8. Whether concerning Christ or his Church or any thing that belongeth vnto our faith and life I will not say if we not being to be compared to him that saith If we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you anything but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell accursed be he Hearken to it M. Bishop and let it make you afraid to pleade for Traditions any more CHAPTER 8. OF VOWES 1. W. BISHOP MAster Perkins is very intricate and tedious in deliuering his opinion concerning Vowes I will in as good order as I can briefly correct his errors herein In this passage which he intitleth of our consents he rangeth many things wherein we
committing of sinne is properly vnderstood of the externall act and accomplishment thereof and this indeed cannot be without the consent and liking of the will But the doing euill of which the Apostle speaketh is no externall act but onely the internall c August contr duas Epist Pela lib. 1. cap. 10. Facere se dixit non affectu consentiendi implendi sed ipso motis concupiscendi motion of concupiscence For we may not vnderstand the Apostles words of doing the euill which he hated and doing that which he would not d Idem de verb. Apost Ser. 5. Non sic intelligamus quod dixit Non quod volo c tanquaÌ„ velit esse castus esset adulter aut velit esse misericers esset crudelis aut velit esse pius esset impius sed volo non concupiscere concupisco Vide Epiphan haer 64. as if he had said he would haue bene chast and yet was an Adulterer or would haue bene mercifull and yet was cruell or would haue bene godly and yet was vngodly or such like but his meaning is Volo non concupiscere concupisco My will and desire is to haue no act no motion of concupiscence and yet I haue so I would not haue so much as any cogitation any affection any thought any inclination or passion of desire tending to euill and yet I cannot preuaile to be without them Now therefore M. Bishop did amisse to breede ambiguitie by chaunging of the tearmes and to put vpon the Apostle a suspition of other meaning then indeed he had But if his meaning be as it should be that no euill can be done which may truly be called a sinne without the consent and liking of the will he saith vntruly and doth therein but walke in the steppes of the Pelagian Heretickes Saint Austine answered them and we answer him that e De perfect iustit Rat. 15. Peccatum est cùm non est chaeritas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet siue hoc voluntate vitari possit siue non possit it is sinne when either there is not charity which ought to be or it is lesse then it ought to be whether it may be auoyded by the will or cannot be auoyded that is to say whether it be with the will or against the will And whereas he had defined sinne against the Manichees to be f De duab anim contr Manich. cap. 11. See of Free wil sect 18 the desire of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth and whence it is in a mans liberty to forbeare as if there were no sinne but what the will by it owne libertie doth approue and yeeld vnto he sheweth that he there defined g Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. that which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sinne So hauing affirmed h De vera reli cap. 14. Vsqueadeo peccatum voluntarium ma lum est vt nullo modo sit peccatuÌ„ si non sit voluntarium that in no sort it is sinne which is not voluntarie he giueth the same restraint againe that i Retract lib. 1. cap. 13. PeccatuÌ„ illud cogitanduÌ„ est quod tantummodo peccatum est non quod est etiam poena peccati that sinne onely must there be vnderstood which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sin as therby stil giuing to vnderstand that that sinne which is the punishment of sinne as is concupiscence or lust is rightly and truly so called though it haue not the consent and approbation of the will It was k Jbid. Non absurdè vocatur etiam voluntarium quia ex primi hominis mala voluntate contractum factum est quodammodo haereditarium voluntarie onely by the will of him by whom sinne was first committed and from him it is become originall and hereditarie vnto vs. M. Bishops exception therefore is nothing woorth neither doth it let but that concupiscence being a part of Original sin is properly called sinne in the regenerate though it be without the consent and liking of the will He saith that because the Apostle hated it therfore it is no sin but we say that therfore the Apostle hated it because it is sin For the Apostle hated it according to God neither wold he hate any thing but what God hateth And God hateth nothing in man but sin that therfore which the Apostle hated in himselfe was sin yea what is it to do euill but to sinne The name of euill we know is vsed of annoyances and inconueniences of crosses grieuances but the doing of euill is neuer affirmed but of sin Now to lust the Apostle telleth vs is to do euill To lust therfore is to sinne And because the act and motion of lusting is sinne therefore the habite of concupiscence or lust is a habite of sin also because the action alwaies hath his nature and denomination from the habit and quality from whence it doth proceed Yet M. Bishop saith that the Apostle therin was so farre from sinning as that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercoming that euill But the Scripture calleth the resisting of that euill l Heb. 12.4 the fighting against sinne and will M. Bishop say that because we fight against it therfore it is not sin See what accord here is The Scripture saith that it is sinne against which we fight M. Bishop saith that we do a vertuous deed in fighting against it and therfore it is no sin As for the place of S. Austin it helpeth him nothing at al. Reason somtimes manfully bridleth and restraineth concupiscence being moued or stirred which when it doth non labimur in peccatum we fall not into sinne Which is not a rule in the regenerate onely but also in the vnregenerate so that heathen Moralists for the auoiding of sins haue deliuered it for a precept m Tul. Offic. l. 1. Ratio praesit appetitus obtemperet Let reason rule and let lust obey Yea that moralisme which S. Austin prosecuteth in the place alledged comparing pleasure or temptation to the tempting serpent concupiscence to Eue the woman reason to Adam the man was borrowed froÌ„ the allegories of n Philo Iud. Allegor legis lib. 1. 2. Philo the Iew who would thereby shew that concupiscence should be kept in from being tempted and though by temptation it were seduced yet that reason should subdue it that it might not runne to any further euill as it desireth to do Now when this is done by 〈◊〉 â—nregenerate man and either a Iew or a heathen man bridle his passions and affections that thereby he fall not into sin will M. Bishop conclude hereof that those passions and affections which he bridleth are no sinne He will not deny the same to be sinne in the vnregenerate man and yet S. Austines words so farrefoorth do indifferently concerne both He vnderstandeth sinne morally onely and as it is
point he saith Let not this be forgotten that he himselfe aknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate True and what then How then saith he doth he say here that he doth die the death for it But he saith not so neither is it so for if he should die the death for Originall sinne he should die also the eternall death which notwithstanding by Christ is taken away This death therefore to the regenerate is not in the nature of a punishment but rather of a medicine as hath bene alreadie sayd for the vtter dissoluing and mortifying and destroying of the body of sinne that onely righteousnesse may liue in them It followeth as a wages of sinne according to the words of the Apostle in it owne nature due vnto it though now payed for other end then it was before 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third reason That which lusteth against the spirit and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate is such Ergo Answ The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had bene by nature sinne and euerie thing in this world one way or another tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. Iohn 1. Epi. 2. All that is in the world is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing which allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as wide is it from all morall wisedome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sins For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sudden passions of the mind and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text which M. Perkins bringeth to perswade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite contrary God tempteth no man Iacob 1. but euery man is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is allured after when concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking of our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedily as we ought to do the suggestion of such an enemie the which that most deepe Doctor S. Augustine sifteth out very profoundly in these words When the Apostle S. Iames saith Lib. 6. in Jul. cap. 5. euery man is tempted being drawne away and allured by his Concupiscence and afterward Concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that which bringeth it forth The dam is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sin forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sinne of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it draw vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our will to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sin which followeth after Lib. 4. in Iohan. cap. 15. vnlesse we resist manfully may be seene in S. Ciril so that by the iudgement of the most learned ancient Fathers that text of S. Iames cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sin disputeth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I answer that not concupiscence but the will of man is the Tree which bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is only an intiser vnto bad R. ABBOT Against M. Perkins first proposition M. Bishop saith that not euery thing that entiseth vs to sinne is sinne But therein he saith vntruly if he meane as he should do of that that is in man himselfe It is generally true that there is nothing that tempteth or entiseth to sinne which hath not it selfe the nature of sinne either as the subiect or as the thing it selfe so that concupiscence because it cannot be said to be the subiect must necessarily be holden to be sin it selfe His exceptions to the contrarie are very fond First that then the apple that allured Eue to sinne had bene by nature sinne and secondly that euery thing in the world one way or another tempteth vs to sinne But where hath he euer read that the apple if it were an apple tempted or intised Eue Did the apple any thing more then it did before or was it any other then it was before Surely there was no change in the apple but the change was in her selfe and therfore as it did not tempt her before so neither could it be sayd to tempt her in that temptation And what is this but to make God the tempter who was the maker of the apple contrary to the words of S. Iames that a Iam. 1.13 God tempteth no man to euill Which we must likewise say of all other things in the world if it be true that M. Bishop saith that they tempt vs to sinne For though God himselfe immediatly do not tempt vs yet if the creatures of the world do tempt vs the accusation redoundeth to him because in the creatures there is nothing but his worke They are faire beautifull they are pleasant to sight and vse but do they therfore tempt to sinne Did the Sun tempt the heathen idolaters to worship it Did b 2. Sam. 13.2 Thamar tempt Ammon to filthines or c Dan. 13.8 Susanna the wicked elders Nay as S. Iames telleth vs it is our own sinful lust that tempteth vs to abuse the good creatures of God which thēselues tēpt vs not but rather as S. Paul teacheth vs d Rom. 8.22 they grone and trauaile in pain because e Vers 20. they are subiect to our vanity and therfore f Vers 19.21 wait when the sons of God shal be reuealed that they may be deliuered from the bondage of our corruption into the glorious liberty of the sonnes of God But he alledgeth to his purpose the words of S. Iohn All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and pride of life Where if we consider the Apostles words as they lie we shall see how iustly it may be returned to himselfe which a little before he said of M. Perkins that either he sheweth great want of iudgement or else very strangely peruerteth the words of holy Scripture The thing that he hath to proue is that euery thing in this world tempteth vs to sin The words of S. Iohn are g Iohn 2.16 All that is in the world
How can this be better knowne then if we see weigh and consider well what kind of faith that was which all they had who are sayd in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice Heb. 11.7 which is by faith What faith had he That by Christs Righteousnesse he was assured of Saluation No such matter but beleeued that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of iustice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans What faith he was iustified by let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith Rom. cap. 4. hath these words He contrarie to hope beleeueth in hope that he might be made the father of manie Nations according to that which was sayd vnto him So shall thy seed be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the sea and he was not weakned in faith neither did he consider his owne bodie now quite dead whereas he was almost an hundreth yeares old nor the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but was strengthened in faith giuing glorie to God most fully knowing that whatsoeuer he promised he was able also to do therefore was it reputed to him to iustice Lo because he glorified God in beleeuing that old and barren persons might haue children if God sayd the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe he was iustified The Centurions faith was verie pleasing vnto our Sauiour who sayd in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israel What faith was that Marrie that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Math. 8. Say the word only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers and highly rewarded by our Sauiour was it any other Math. 16. Then that our Sauiour was Christ the Sonne of the liuing God And briefly let S. Iohn that great Secretarie of the holy Ghost tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell These things Iohn 20. saith he are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth verie well Rom. 10. saying This is the word of faith which we preach for if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and shalt beleeue in thy heart that God raised him from death 1. Cor. 15 thou shalt be saued And in another place I make knowne vnto you the Gospell which I haue preached and by which you shall be saued vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vaine What was that Gospell I haue deliuered vnto you that which I haue receiued that Christ died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures was buried and rose againe the third day c. So by the verdite of S. Paul the beleefe of the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which you must be saued And neither in Saint Paul nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught that a particular faith whereby we apply Christs Righteousnesse to our selues and assure our selues of our saluation is either a iustifying or any Christian mans faith but the verie naturall act of that vgly Monster presumption which being layd as the verie corner stone of the Protestants irreligion what morall and modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it R. ABBOT What the reason was why M. Perkins here propounded no obiections of the Papists M. Bishop might haue conceiued because he had a Chap. 3. Of the Certaintie of Saluation before noted and confuted the best that are alledged by them If he had not so done yet it should not be likely that he had therefore omitted them because he knew not how to answer them because this which M. Bishop bringeth for their principall reason is but a verie weake and simple reason The thing that he would proue thereby is that iustifying faith is that Catholike faith as he calleth it whereby we beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed He abuseth the name of Catholike faith whereby hath bene wont to be imported the true and sound doctrine of the Catholike Church comprised in bookes taught in Pulpits and schooles professed by the mouth which a man may preach to others and himselfe be voide of iustifying faith Thus Vigilius saith hauing discoursed of some points of doctrine b Vigil cont Eutych lib. 1. Haec est fides professio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roborauerunt fideles hucusque custodiunt This is the Catholike faith and profession which the Apostles deliuered the Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull keepe vntill this day Iustifying faith is the priuate act of the heart and conscience of the man that is iustified which though it be grounded and built vpon it yet cannot but absurdly be termed the Catholike faith But M. Bishop perhaps by Catholike faith meaneth that iustifying faith whereby he and his fellow Catholikes must hope to be iustified By which meanes he hath matched the diuel with himselfe and his Catholikes and hath made him a Catholike For if it be the only faith of a Catholike to beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed what hindereth the diuell to be a Catholike seeing he beleeueth and to his griefe well knoweth that all is true that is reuealed by God This is that which we rightly call historicall faith the obiect whereof is the word of God in generall and it is no more but credere Deo to beleeue God in that which he speaketh which is incident to diuels and damned men This historicall faith is presupposed and included in iustifying faith but the proper obiect of iustifying saith is c 2. Cor. 5.19 God in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe or the promise of Gods mercie to vs in Christ Iesus whereby we do not onely beleeue the promise in generall to be true but do trust in God and expect good at his hands according to that promise for Christs sake This faith therefore is called d Rom. 3.22 Phil. 3.9 the faith of Christ that is whereby we beleeue in Christ and is further expressed to be e Act. 3.16 faith in his name f Rom. 3.25 faith in his bloud Of which S. Austin saith g August in Ioan. tract 35. Fides Christi est credere in eum qui iustificat impium credere in mediatorem sine quo interposito non reconciliamur Deâ— credere in saluatorem qui venit quod perterat quaerâ—re atque saluare c. The faith of Christ is to beleeue in him that iustifieth the vngodly to beleeue in the Mediator without
now he maketh of it Which meaning of his cannot in any sort be true because it is faith which first heareth and beleeueth and receiueth the words of God thereby prescribeth vnto charity the way that it is to go and the duty that it is to performe without which what is charity but a wild a wandering affection easely swaruing and caried away from the due respect and loue of God so that by faith it is that charity pleaseth God and d Heb. 11.6 without faith it is vnpossible to please God Now seeing with God we cannot thinke that the greater is accepted for the lesse but rather the lesse for the greater not the mistresse so to speake for the handmaides sake but rather the handmaid for the mistresse sake we must needes make faith not the handmaide as M. Bishop doth but the mistresse because by faith it is that charity is acceptable vnto God But he telleth vs that S. Iames doth demonstrate charity to be the life and as it were the soule of faith when he saith Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charitie But he wrongeth his Reader in citing thus falsly the words of S. Iames. For S. Iames saith not so is faith without charity but so is faith without workes Now charity cannot be without works but if there might not be workes without charity S. Paul would not haue said e 1. Cor. 13.3 Though I feede the poore with all my goods and though I giue my body to be burned and haue not loue it profiteth me nothing Charity is inwardly the affection of the heart seene onely to God but workes are outwardly visible and apparant to men and therefore there is a difference to be made betwixt charity and workes which wholy ouerthroweth all that M. Bishop here goeth about to prooue For the faith whereof we here dispute is inward in the heart because with f Rom. 10.10 the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse But that which is without cannot be the life or soule of that which is within nay it selfe hath from within all the life that it hath and if it receiue not life from within it is altogether dead Workes therefore being outward and issuing from within if they be true can by no meanes be said to be the life of faith that is within But that which S. Iames saith he saith it of workes He saith nothing therefore to prooue that charity is the life and soule of faith But how then will he say doth Saint Iames make workes as it were the life and soule of faith Very well according to that meaning of faith which he there intendeth For he speaketh of faith as it is outwardly professed to men g Iam. 2.14.18 Thâ—u saiest thou hast faith shew me thy faith I will shew thee my faith Now in this respect workes are rightly said to be the lifâ— of faith not charitie but workes because charity cannot be discerned by the eies of men but workes of behauiour and conuersation are discerned Yea there may be a profession of the faith and works thereunto correspondent outwardly when yet there is neither faith nor charity within Yet where it is so men outwardly to men and to the Church go for no other but liuing mâ—mâ—â—â—s of the Church vntill such time as the winde of temptation bloweth them away and discouereth them to haue bene but chaffe when in semblance they seemed to be good corne But where there is outward profession of faith and there is not conuersation thereunto agreeing a man is accounted but a dead branch fit to be cut off his profession wanteth that that should giue it life and grace he is euery mans by word and reproch his hypocrisie is detested of all men and therefore is much more lothsome vnto God In a word S. Paul speaketh of faith in one meaning as it is inward in the heart to God S. Iames speaketh of faith in another meaning as it is outward in the face to men If we vnderstand it according to Saint Paul it is faith that giueth life to all the rest as afterwards shall further appeare If we vnderstand it according to Saint Iames workes are the life of faith and giue it name and being because a man is not accounted faithfull for his words vnlesse there be also workes agreeable to his words Now therefore Maister Bishops comparison whereby he would make charitie as the life and soule and faith as the body cannot be made good out of this place nay indeede it cannot be made good at all For that which must be as the life and soule must be the internall and essentiall forme of the thing But h Bellarm. de iustificat lib. 2. cap. 4. Forma fidei extrinseca noÌ„ intrinseca quae dei illi non vt sit sed vt moueaturâ— sit res actuosa operans charitie is to faith a forme onely extrinsecall and outward not an inward forme saith Bellarmine not giuing it his being but onely his mouing actiuitie and working Charity therefore cannot be called the life and soule of faith Now because it is but an outward and accidentall forme the mouing and working that it giueth vnto faith is but outward and accidentall For the proper and naturall act and motion of a thing cannot proceed from an accidentall forme Faith therefore hath it owne inward essentiall forme whereby it hath life being within it selfe whence proceedeth a motion working that is proper to it selfe And thus doth the Apostle set it down distinctly as a vertue absolute in it self wheÌ„ he saith i 1. Cor. 13.13 Now abide these three faith hope and loue Where to say that faith is as the body and loue as the soule is to make the Apostle to speake absurdly as if a man for two should reckoÌ„ a body a soule According to this distinction doth the scripture still set forth faith in the nature of faith to be the instrument of our iustification before God eueÌ„ according to that life soule that is that proper essentiall forme whereby it hath the being of faith which yet in iustifying vs receiueth charity as an accidentall forme to be vnto it an instrument for mouing and stirring abroad in the performance of all duties recommended vnto vs both to God and men Thus Bellarmine perforce wresteth from M. Bishop yea and from himselfe also this assertion of faith being likened to the body and charity to the soule Yet M. Bishop once againe will assay to proue it by S. Paul making charity a more excellent gift then faith reckoning faith hope and charity and concluding the greatest of these is charity But this testimony auaileth him nothing at all for it followeth not that because the eie is a more excellent member then the eare therefore the eie is as the life and soule to the eare or the eare the instrument of the eie No more doth it follow that because charity is
distinction is very plainly intimated by S. Paul when he saith r Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioice but not with God He denieth not but Abraham was iustified by workes and that he had wherein to glory and to stand vpon his iustification but yet not with God He might do it in respect of men but with God he could not do it So saith Origen vpon those words hauing first put difference betwixt iustification by faith seene onely to God and iustification by works which may be approoued of men ſ Origen in Rom. ca. 4. Abraham si ex operibus iustificatus est habet quidem gloriam ex operibus venientem sed non illam quae apud Deum est If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath the glory which commeth by works but not that which is with God And this distinction is apparant also by S. Austine who speaking as touching inherent iustice and righteousnesse of workes saith t Aug. de Temp. ser 49. Quamdiu viuitur in hac vita nemo iustificatus est sed In conspectu Dei. Nō frustrae addidit In conspectu tuo nisi quia potest esse iustificatus in cōspectu hominū Referet in conspectu Dei Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens So long as we liue in this life no man is iustified but in the sight of God Not without cause was it that Dauid added In thy sight For it may be that a man may be iustified in the sight of men but let him speake as touching Gods sight and no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Where sith S. Austine as touching iustification by workes denieth that any man in this life is iustified in the sight of God it must necessarily follow that that iustification which is by workes must not be vnderstood in the sight of God but onely in the sight of men Now then to speake of iustification before men as S. Iames doth it is true that both faith and workes do concurre and ioine in the act of iustification The faith that inwardly in the heart iustifieth to God and is outwardly professed with the mouth to men is not sufficient to approoue a man outwardly to men and to the Church of God to the sight and conscience whereof euery faithfull man is bound to acquit and cleare himselfe vnlesse it be accompanied and adorned with vertuous and vpright conuersation In this respect therefore it may be said that the better part in some sort is attributed to workes that faith is made perfect by workes that faith is as the body and good workes as the soule and that faith without workes is dead euen as the body is dead without the soule Men specially haue an eie to workes and thereto attribute more then to words He is taken for a halting and halfe Christian that maketh shew of faith and liueth not accordingly Men account him as a carion a dead carkasse lothsome detestable he is euery mans byword as I said before and his name continually carieth reproch with it Hereby it appeareth also that faith though haply it be in the heart yet is here respected onely as it is professed to men For it cannot be that the worke of the hand should giue life to the faith of the heart but rather receiueth life from it Yea M. Bishop himselfe telleth vs that charity within is the life of faith within and therefore workes which are without cannot be said to be the life of faith but as faith it selfe also is without There may be workes whereby a man outwardly may u Luk. 16.15 iustifie himselfe to men as the Pharisees did which yet are dead workes because there is neither faith nor charity to giue them life from the heart Now S. Iames must so be vnderstood as that not charity which is habitually and inuisibly within but works which are outward and apparent must be the life of faith He speaketh therefore of faith as it is outwardly professed which hath it life and grace and honour amongst men by the outward fruites of good workes correspondent to it selfe Very guilefully therefore doth M. Bishop turne his speech from workes whereof S. Iames speaketh to charity there being here so different a consideration to be had of the one and of the other yea he himselfe naming charity the fountaine of good workes and thereby importing that charity as the fountaine differeth from the good workes that issue therefrom The place that he alledgeth to the Corinthians x 1. Cor. 13.2 Though I haue all faith c. is nothing to this purpose because we speake here of a faith that is common to all the faithfull but the Apostle there speaketh of a faith that is peculiar onely to some whereof he hath said the chapter going before y Cap. 12.9.10 To one is giuen the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledge to another is giuen faith meaning the faith whereby miracles are wrought as he himselfe addeth Though I haue all faith so that I could remooue mountaines c. His purpose is to teach men not to be proud of speciall gifts of the spirit but to respect the end and vse thereof which is performed by loue without which they are onely idle shewes As touching the comparison of faith and charity there hath bene enough said z Sect. 22. before For our present state faith hath the preferment and all in all hangeth vpon our faith which is the heart and life of whatsoeuer else is in vs towards God It is faith that giueth God his glory that acknowledgeth him to be that that he is that so setteth him before vs as to draw all our affections vnto him our loue our feare our hope our delight our selues wholy both body and soule The promises of God in speciall manner are made to them that beleeue and trust in him Therefore that God esteemeth more of our charity then of our faith is not the Apostles assertion but M. Bishops fond collection and that which the whole course of Scripture doth gainsay But supposing it to be so the consequence that M. Bishop draweth therefrom is very ridiculous If God esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified by charity then by faith As if he should say A man esteemeth more of his eies then of his eares therefore he heareth better with his eies then with his eares A thing may simply absolutely be preferred before another and yet the other in some respect vse may be preferred before it Thus may it very well be said as touching this comparison of faith with charity as before is said Further he alledgeth that God to shew how acceptable Abrahams fact was to him saith Now I know that thou louest me The true text is a Gen. 22.12 Now I know that thou fearest me but thus M. Bishop shufleth and shifteth the best he can to gaine somewhat to charity against faith
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
by adoring and seruing of God we may be put out of feare of our sins and the punishment of them then doth it follow that prayers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them In Psal 31. Hierome saith The sinne that is couered is not seene not being seene it is not imputed not being imputed it is not punished Answer To wit with hell fire which is the due punishment of such mortall sin whereof he speaketh or sin may be said to be couered when not onely the fault is pardoned but all punishment also due vnto it is fully payd Lib. 2. de punit cap. 5. So doth S. Ambrose take that word couered saying The Prophet calleth both them blessed as well him whose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme as him whose sinnes are couered with good workes For he that doth penance must not onely wash away his sins with teares but also with better workes couer his former sins that they be not imputed vnto him Now we must backe againe vnto Chrysostome belike he had forgotten this when he cited the other Hom. 44. sup Math. or else this was reserued to strike it dead He saith Some men endure punishment in this life and in the life to come others in this life alone others alone in the life to come other neither in this nor in the life to come there alone as Diues here alone as the incestuous Corinthian neither here nor there as the Apostles and Prophets as also Iob and the rest of this kind for they endured no sufferings for punishment but that they might be knowne to be conquerers of the fight Answer Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures were not for their sins for they committed but ordinarie light offences for which their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly The great persecutions which they endured were first to manifest the vertue and power of God that made such fraile creatures so inuincible then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth and withall to animate and encourage his followers Finally that they like conquerers triumphing ouer all the torments of this life might enter into possession of a greater reward in the kingdome of heauen All this is good doctrine but nothing against satisfaction that their surpassing sufferings were not for their owne sinnes And thus much in answer vnto M. Perkins arguments against satisfaction R. ABBOT Against his answer to the words of Tertullian I must vrge his owne words in the section before alledged Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it Who can denie this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say Now then put these together Tertullian saith a Tertul. de haptismo Exempto reatu eximitur poena The guilt being taken away the punishment is also taken away But the pardoning of a sinne saith M. Bishop taketh away all guiltinesse belonging to it Therefore consequently it taketh away all the punishment for where there is no guilt no punishment can be Yes saith M. Bishop guiltinesse of temporall punishment doth remaine after the sinne and guilt of eternall be released But then a pardon doth not take away all the guiltinesse of sinne as before he saith it doth Oportet mendacem esse memorem A lyer must beare a braine Againe we would know some ground whereupon we may be assured that sinne hath two kinds of guilt for we conceiue but one onely guilt whereby the sinner is guiltie of all both temporall and eternal punishments Otherwise we may with as good warrant affirme guilt of infinite sorts one whereby a man is guilty of burning another whereby he is guilty of drowning another for the gowt another for the palsie and for euery seueral punishment a seueral guilt and that there may be a remitting of one of these guilts and yet a retaining of the other If M. Bishop take this to be absurd he must giue vs leaue to take him for an absurd man in thus seuering the guilt of temporall and eternal punishments Yea and this assertion of his is the denying of that that in the ground of this question is supposed and confessed For if the sinne be past and pardoned as he saith at first how remaineth there any guilt for what is the pardoning of a sinne but the remitting of the guilt The guilt is a bond whereby we stand bound to punishment the forgiuing of the sinne what is it but the releasing or loosing of this bond If the bond be released why doth he affirme that we are bound still or if we be still bound why doth he affirme the loosing of the bond If he will say that the bond is partly released and partly standeth still then let him say the sinne in part is pardoned but not wholly and then let him shew vs what warrant he hath that God in that sort forgiueth sins by patches and peeces which because he cannot do let him giue vs leaue to take him for that that he sheweth himselfe to be The words of Austine are meerly deluded with the same shift b Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 37 Suscipiendo poenam non suscipiendo culpam et culpam deleuit poenam Christ saith he by taking vpon him the punishment and not taking vpon him the fault hath done away both the fault and the punishment Iust saith M. Bishop the eternall punishment not the temporall But how doth he warrant this limitation in the one part of the sentence which cannot be iustified in the other Where it is said that Christ hath taken vpon him the punishment it is vnderstood of our punishment both temporall and eternall though that which should haue bene eternall to vs by the infinite power of his Godhead was ouercome and made temporall to him Was it S. Austins meaning then to say that Christ hauing taken vpon him our whole punishment hath deliuered vs onely from a part and left the rest to be satisfied by our selues Surely what Christ tooke vpon him for vs from the same he deliuered vs. He tooke vpon him our temporall punishments therefore hee hath taken away our temporall punishments so that they remaine not in the nature of punishments but of medicines to them that haue obtained forgiuenesse of sinnes by faith in him That the mediation of Christ extendeth to the remitting of temporall punishments I haue shewed c Sect. 2. 3. before and therfore need not stand here any longer to confute this improbable and vnlikely glose As for the place of Austine which he alledgeth for colouring hereof it hath his answer in the former section being the next words to those that are cited there d August Enchirid cap. 70. Nemini dedit laxamentū peocandi quamuis miserando deleat tā facta peccata si non satisfactio congrua negligatur God hath giuen to no man a freedome
standing oracle of a written law to which all men at all times might resort to be informed as touching duty and seruice towards God And as in the creation of the world howsoeuer the light were at first sustained and spread abroad by the incoÌ„prehensible power of God yet when he created the Sun he conueighed the whole light of the world into the body thereof so that though the Moone starres should giue light yet they should shine with no other light but what they receiued from the Sun euen so in the constitution of the Church howsoeuer God at first preserued continued the knowledge of his truth by immediate reuelation from himselfe to some chosen men by whose ministerie he would haue the same coÌ„municated to the rest yet when he gaue his word in writing he conueighed into the body of the Scriptures the whole light of his Church so that albeit there should be Pastours and teachers therein to shine as starres to giue light to others yet they should giue no other light but what by the beames of the written law was cast vpon theÌ„ Which beames albeit they shined not then altogether cleare bright many things being lapped vp in obscure dark mysteries rather signified by figuratiue ceremonies then expressed in plain words yet were they not to walk by any other light nor to go without the coÌ„passe of the writteÌ„ word only what was obscure therin God by his Prophets froÌ„ time to time made more more apparent vntill by Iesus Christ in the writings of his Apostles Euangelists he set vp a most full perfect light Now then in M. Perkins meaning it is true that from Adam to Moses the word of God passed from man to man by tradition that is by word onely not by writing and thus as M. Bishop alledgeth good fathers godly maisters taught their childreÌ„ seruants the true worship of God true faith in him But it is true also which he signifieth in the second place that they whoÌ„ God thus raised vp to be teachers instructours of others receiued not the word only by tradition from others but had reuelation confirmation thereof immediatly from God himselfe Therefore there is no argument to be taken hence to giue any colour to Popish tradition nay we may iustly argue that if God would haue had the religion of Christ to be taught in any part without writing he would haue taken the course which he did then by immediate reuelation to continue and preserue the integritie and truth thereof 2. W. BISHOP His 2. Concl. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one exaÌ„ple he puts that the blessed virgin Mary liued died a virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Helui dius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it * De haeres ad Quod. hae 84. R. ABBOT It is necessary to saluation to beleeue that our Sauiour was conceiued and borne of a virgin We perswade our selues also according to the common iudgement of the Church that she so continued and died but yet we deny it to be any matter of saluation so to beleeue We say as S. Basil doth that a Basil de human Christi generat Hoc nunc suspicionem generat ne forsan posteaquam puritate sua generationi dominicae per spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ administratae seruiuit tum demuÌ„ nuptialia opera viro Maria noÌ„ negauerit Nos verò licet nihil hoc doctrinae pretatis â—ffiâ—eret nam donec dispensabatur Christi generatio necessaria erat virginitas quid verò postea sit factuÌ„ ad mysterij huius doctrinam non anxiè coÌ„â—ungenduÌ„ est vâ—runtameÌ„ c. it should be no whit preiudiciall to the doctrine of faith that the virgin Mary after that she had in her virginity serued for the generation of Christ should performe the office of a wife to her husband Her virginity was necessary till the birth of Christ was accoÌ„plished but what was afterwards done is not too scrupulously to be adioined to the doctrine of this mysterie But yet that no man might to the scandall and offence of deuout persons affirme rashly that she ceased to be a virgin he sheweth that the places of the Gospell which seeme to giue suspition thereof do not euict it but may well be construed otherwise And therefore Heluidius for mouing an vnnecessary question hereof to giue occasion of publike disturbance and for affirming rashly that which he had no warrant sufficiently to proue was iustly condemned reiected by the Church neither can we approue any thâ—t shall do as he did 3. W. BISHOP His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances and Traditions touching time place of Gods worship And touching order comlinesse to be vsed in the same mary with these foure caneats First that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd See what a reuerent opinion this man carieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Sinagogue which is no part of the true Church Secondly that it be not imposed as any part of Gods worship This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comelinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship Thirdly that it be seuered froÌ„ superstition c. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seuered from superstition The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he termeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knowes that then which is of record there cannot be termed a Tradition R. ABBOT The cautions set downe by M. Perkins are materiall necessary against the vsurpations of the Church of Rome which hauing forsaken the direction of the spirit of God in the word of God is now led by a 1. Kings 22.23 a lying spirit by b 1. Tim. 4.1 spirits of errour and therefore in her ordinances and traditions swarueth from the grauity and wisedome of the holy Ghost The ceremonies of the Masse are apish and ridiculous toies whereby in that which Christ instituted for a most sacred and reuerend action they make the Priest more like to a iugler or to a vice vpon the stage in his duckings and turnings his kissings crossings his lifting vp and letting downe his putting together the forefinger the
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
this is all they can say out of the Scripture to proue that the written word containes al doctrine needful to saluation whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them out of their owne position Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation as hath bene proued Therefore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation R. ABBOT Here is a long discourse and a little answer and gladly M. Bishop would wind out of this sentence of the Apostle and it will not be The whole words of the Apostle entirely set downe will make the Reader plainly to vnderstand that he hath taken a great deale of paines and sayd iust nothing Speaking to Timothie he sayth a 2. Tim. 3.15 Thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures of a child which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be perfect being perfectly instructed to euery good worke The first part of which words do sufficiently inferre that which we affirme for if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then they are sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō If they be not sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō then can it not be said that they are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The force of these words cannot be deluded euery eye can see that if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then all doctrine necessary to faith and saluation is contained in the Scriptures Now for confirmation hereof the Apostle addeth The whole Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to teach the truth to improue false doctrine error to correct vice and sinne to instruct in righteousnes From hence then we must infer that which before is said that because the Scripture is able to direct a man in truth and righteousnesse therefore it is able to make him wise vnto saluation by faith in Christ for in the embracing and following of truth and righteousnesse consisteth the attainment of euerlasting life If any man will except and say that though it teacheth the truth yet it teacheth not all truth necessarie to saluation he wholly ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation For if it doe not teach all truth necessarie to saluation then it is notable to make a man wise to saluation It may be said to helpe towards it but it cannot be said to be able to do it if it containe not all things belonging to that wisedome that concerneth vs for the obtaining of saluation But the Apostle telleth vs that it so doth the things by him mentioned as that the man of God may be absolute or perfect * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfectly instructed or being furnished and prepared to euery good worke The man of God is well knowne by the phrase of Scripture to import the minister of God in which sort the Apostle hath before said to Timothie b 1. Tim. 6.11 But thou O man of God flie these things c. Here therfore he giueth to vnderstand that the Scripture is so able to make wise vnto saluation so able to instruct in truth and righteousnesse as that therein the man of God the minister of God findeth enough to make him perfect and to prepare and furnish him to euery good worke And if there be enough for the perfection of the minister of God then surely it must needs follow that much more is it able to perfect euery other man to that faith and righteousnesse that should bring vs vnto God But here M. Bishop putteth vs off with three wise answers by which he wold faine perswade vs that we altogether erre in the citing of these words First he chargeth vs with falsification of the text because we reade the whole Scripture whereas we should say all Scripture the Greek words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing as he saith the whole Scripture but euery part But why is this on our part a falsification more then it is in the Rhemists to translate according to their vulgar interpreter c Math. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole heard d Ver 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole citie e Ephes 4.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body and in their Latine f Heb. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per totum vitam through their whole life which they English through all their life If there be no falshood in these translations why must there needs be a falsification in ours Yea and when it is all one with them to say their whole life and all their life why must it be a fault in vs to say the whole Scripture where they say all Scripture Surely but that malice blindeth it selfe and wil not see that that it doth see they would conceiue that all Scripture in this place can no otherwise be taken but to signifie the whole Scripture euen as elsewhere by g Acts 20.72 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the counsell of God we vnderstand the whole counsell of God in like sort as where it is said h Gen. 18.25 Qui iudicas omnem terram Thou which iudgest all the earth that is the whole earth i Chap. 35 2. Conuocata omni domo calling together all his house that is his whole house k Exod. 12.41 Egressus est omnis exercitus Domini de terra Aegypti All the army of the Lord departed out of the land of Aegypt that is the whole army l Chap. 17.1 Profecta est omnis multitudo filiorum Israel All the multitude of the children of Israel went out of the desert of Sin that is the whole multitude m Leuit 8.3 Congregabis omnem coetum Israel Thou shalt gather together all the congregation of Israel that is the whole congregation with infinite other examples of the like sort And seeing the Apostle when in the propositiō the Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation must needs be vnderstood to meane collectiuè the whole Scripture because it cannot be said of euery part of the Scripture that it is able so to do what is it but wilfull dotage to vnderstand all Scripture as meant otherwise in the proofe Especially when it is so apparent that that which the Apostle affirmeth in the proofe fitteth to the whole Scripture and so inferreth that which is propounded to be proued but cannot agree to euery part of the Scripture because
euery part of the Scripture is not profitable to all those vses to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnesse He will say that those vses are not all ioyntly to be vnderstood but by disiunction euery part is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse though it be not profitable to all these But in thus saying he quite ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation for it doth not follow that because euery part of the Scripture is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse therefore the Scriptures are able to make a man wise to saluation because that may be said of the first chapter of Genesis or any other like that it is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse that is to one or other of these vses and yet it cannot be said that it is able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is Christ Iesus Therefore the words of the Apostle must be vnderstood of the whole scripture which being able to teach to improue c. is consequently able to make a man wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ And hereby his other cauill is taken away that we make that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onely to be profitable For the Apostle nameth not profitable as to diminish any thing frō sufficiencie but reckoning it to be profitable to all those vses that he expresseth he leaueth it plainly to be vnderstood that it is sufficient to that that he would conclude thereby For vnlesse it be in such sort profitable as that it be sufficient to teach to improue to correct to instruct it cannot be able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Therefore Athanasius alluding as it seemeth to this place sayth n Athan. contra Gentes siue cont idola Sufficiunt quidem per se sacra diuinitùs inspiratae Scriptura ad veritatis instructionem The Scriptures being holy and inspired of God are by themselues sufficient to the instruction of truth M. Bishops instances therefore are friuolous and vaine Timber is profitable for the building of a house but it is not profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of a house and therfore is not sufficient But the Apostle noteth the Scripture to be profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of the house of God and because it is so therefore it is sufficient for that building The second is against himselfe for although there must be one to sow the seede yet the seed it selfe is sufficient wherewith to sow the ground and euen so although there must be one to teach to improue to correct to instruct yet the holy Scripture is sufficient wherewith to do all these Thirdly good lawes are profitable saith he for the good gouernement of the Common-wealth but they are not sufficient without good gouerners and iudges And be lawes neuer so sufficient for the common-wealth yet they auaile nothing without gouerners and iudges seruing to put them in execution Euen so we say that albeit the holy scriptures do sufficiently instruct vs what doctrine is to be taught yet all is vaine if there be none to teach it But what a witles cauill is this that when question is of the doctrine of the Scriptures whether it be so sufficient as that they which teach are to teach no other they obiect that the doctrine of the scripures is not sufficient without one to teach We tell him therefore againe that as where lawes are sufficient to gouerne by good gouerners and iudges being necessary for execution thereof are to iudge and gouerne onely by lawes so the doctrine of the holy Scriptures being sufficient to teach by though teachers be necessary for the teaching thereof yet they are to teach nothing but onely by the Scripture and therein onely is it that we affirme the sufficiency of the Scripture But in humane lawes that sufficiencie is neuer found they neuer fit all occasions and vses of the common wealth neuer meete with all inconueniences and mischiefes neuer determine all controuersies and causes neuer prouide so perfectly for the right but that it prooueth to some mans wrong and therefore though they be profitable yet they are not profitable euery manner of way In the holy Scripture the Apostle teacheth vs it is otherwise it serueth vs for all occasions towards God there is nothing that concerneth vs but either by teaching or reprouing or correcting or instructing it applieth it selfe vnto vs o Cypriā de dupl martyr Nullus est animorum morbus cui non praesens remediū diuina scripturae suppeditat There is no sicknesse of the mind saith Cyprian referring himselfe to these words of the Apostle to which the holy Scripture yeeldeth not a present remedy p Chrysost in 2. Thes hom 3. Omnia clara sūt manifesta ex scripturis diuinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt All things are euident and cleare saith Chrysostome by the holy Scriptures whatsoeuer things aye necessary they are manifest The scriptures therefore are in such sort profitable as that they are sufficicient also fully to instruct vs as touching the meanes of obtaining eternall life As for customes they may haue their place and vse amongst the lawes of men but amongst the lawes of God they haue no place q Cypr li. 2. ep 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est nō est attendendum quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Because Christ onely is to be heard saith Cyprian we are not to regard what any before vs hath thought fit to be done but what Christ first did who is before all for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God r Tertul. de verlā virg Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem cognominauit Christ sath Tertullian called not himselfe custome but truth M. Bishop therefore dealeth but idlely to alledge the exorbitant and lawlesse customes of cōmonwealths as a colour for traditions in the church of Christ His last exception is that the Scriptures here spoken of which Timothie knew from his infancie could be no other but the scriptures of the old Testament because no part of the new Testament was then written and therefore that that is here said cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more then the old Testament charging vs hereupon with falsification in applying it to both the old and new Where the vaine man doth not see that he exceedingly strengtheneth the argument against himself for if S. Paul could say that the scriptures of the old Testament were able to make a man wise vnto saluation by the faith of Christ how much more is
it true of the scriptures now that they are able so to do when as by the new Testament so much light is added for the cleering of the old The doctrine which the Apostles preached in the new Testament they confirmed by the old They taught no other faith but what was contained therein onely the faith was more plainely and cleerly deliuered by them because as S. Austin saith ſ August de catech rud In veteri testamēto est ocultatio noui in nouo testamento est manifestatio veteris in the old Testament the new is hidden and in the new Testament is the manifesting of the old t Idem in Ioan. tra 45. Tempora variata sunt nō fides c. Eadem fides vtrosque contungit The times saith he are diuers but the faith is one Seeing then the old Testament was sufficient to instruct men to the faith of Christ and the instruction thereof notwithstanding is much more manifestly deliuered in the new and no other faith is taught in the new Testament then is contained in the old who doth not see that the conclusion standeth strong on our part that much more the scripture now containeth all doctrine necessary to instruct vs to the faith of Christ Albeit it is not true which M. Bishop saith that S. Paul meaneth here only the scriptures of the old Testament For although when Timothy was a child there were no other scriptures but onely of the old Testament yet when Paul wrote these words to Timothy the greatest part of the books of the new Testament were extant He wrote this epistle newly before his death as appeareth by that he saith u 2. Tim. 4.6 I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departing is at hand He had then writtē all the rest of his epistles as we may easily conceiue neither is it likely but that the gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke with the Acts of the Apostles were written before that time the first by S. Mathew being testified to be written at the time of Pauls first imprisonment at Rome x Jren. li. 3. ca. 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorū lingua scripturā edidit Euangelij cum Petrus et Paulus Romae euangelizarent et fundarent Ecclesiam founding the Church there where S. Luke makes an end of the history of the Acts of the Apostles after which being not lōg after the beginning of the raigne of Nero the Apostle liued for the space of 12. or 13. yeares being put to death in the y Func Chronol 14. yeare of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest because he died z Hierō in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno sepultus Alexandriae in the 8. yeare of Nero as Hierome testifieth six yeares before S. Pauls death and therfore before the writing of this epistle The like also is plaine of the former epistle of S. Peter as appeareth for that his second epistle was written about the same time that S. Paul wrote this secōd epistle to Timothy S. Peter being put to death at the same time as S. Paul was and saying as he doth in the same second epistle a 2. Pet. 1.14 I know that the time is at hand that I must lay downe this my tabernacle Now therefore so many of the books of the new Testament being extant at that time who can doubt but that the Apostle naming all Scripture did speake of those bookes vnlesse he will be so mad as to say that at that time they were no Scriptures And as when we say that a man hath known the laws frō a child we do not meane to restraine his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child but will signifie his knowledge also of such lawes as haue bin since made euen so when the Apostle saith that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child he would giue to vnderstād that he was conuersant not only in the Scriptures that then were but also in such other as frō time to time thenceforward were written for the same vse Nay who would make question but that the Apostle setting downe by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture would hereby giue vs to vnderstand what to conceiue of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing to take away the euidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle and the Protestants Achilles is stronger then that he may take vpon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith But yet well fare a good stomacke for though he haue said as good as nothing yet he setteth a good face vpon the matter and concludeth this point with an inuincible argument like the inuincible nauie of Spaine Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture Very true But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needful to saluation as hath bene proued But that is not true the proofes that it doth so are pregnant and cleere but his proofes to the contrary are childish and vaine and therefore his conclusion cannot hold In steed therefore of his presumed and inuisible argument we wish him to consider of this Whatsoeuer the written word teacheth vs of it selfe that is necessary to be beleeued But the written word teacheth vs concerning it selfe that it is able to make vs wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus It is necessarie therefore for vs to beleeue that it can so and therefore to reiect all doctrine that cannot be approoued and warranted thereby 10. W. BISHOP And by the same principle I might reiect all testimonie of Antiquity as needlesse if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs heare what testimonie M. Perkins brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause Tertullian * De resur carni◠saith Take from heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand Answ Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of heathen authors and not to the traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saith M. Perkins out of the same author We need no curiositie after Iesus Christ nor inquisition after the Gospell when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for this we must beleeue that there is nothing else which we may beleeue Answer By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onely the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles no more then traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If any man
desire to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions let him reade his booke of prescriptions against heretikes where he auerreth that traditions serue better then the Scriptures themselues to confute all heresies heretikes alwayes either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures And in his book de Corona militis he formally proposeth this question whether traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no and answereth by many instances that they must be receiued concluding thus For these and the like points if thou require law out of the Scriptures thou shalt find none but Tradition is alledged to be the author of them Custome the confirmer and Faith the obseruer So that nothing is more certaine then that Tertullian thought vnwritten Traditions necessary to be beleeued R. ABBOT It followeth not that antiquitie is needlesse though all doctrine needfull to saluation be contained in the scriptures because antiquitie giueth vs many good and profitable helpes for attaining to the vnderstanding of many places and stories of the scripture when yet it teacheth vs to admit of no doctrine but what is proued thereby The first testimony alledged by M. Perkins is out of Tertullian a Tertul. de resurr carn Aufer haereticis quae cuÌ„ Ethnicis sapiunt siue vt alià s legitur quaecunque Ethnici saepiunt vt de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare noÌ„ poteruÌ„t Take from heretikes what they conceiue like the heathen or what the heathen conceiue that they may determine their questions only by the Scriptures and they cannot stand M. Bishop telleth vs for answer that Tertullian opposeth Scripture alone to the writings of heathen authors not to the trrditions of the Apostles and therfore maketh nothing against them But Tertullian speaketh not any thing there of heathen authors but of heathenish reasons fancies wherby heretikes plead against the mysteries of faith as there he giueth example by the resurrection of the dead He requireth them to forgo these and to bring their questions onely to the Scriptures or to the Scriptures alone Now to say that he opposeth not Scripture alone to the traditions of the Apostles is a ridiculous euasion when as by calling them thus to onely Scripture he giueth to vnderstand that he knew no such traditions belonging to matters of doctrine and faith for determining of questions that might arise thereof For whether he oppose the same to heathen authors or to heathenish reasons we may well take it to be absurd that he should require heretikes to be brought onely to Scripture if it be as M. Bishop telleth vs that questions cannot be determined onely by the Scriptures or if he thought any other meanes to be as necessarie as the Scriptures for the determining of theÌ„ But this sentence hath not so much strength by it selfe as it hath by that that is cited together with it b Idem de Praescript Nobis non est opus curiositate post ChristuÌ„ Iesum nec inquisitione post EuaÌ„gelium Cùm hoc credimus nihil desideramus vltra credere Hoc enim priùs credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquiry further after the Gospell when we beleeue that we desire to beleeue no more for this we beleeue that there is nothing further for vs to beleeue Where when M. Bishop saith that by the Gospell is to be vnderstood all our Christian doctrine so farre he saith truly but when he addeth written or vnwritten he beggeth the question and his Commentarie goeth without the compasse of Tertullians text He should by plaine example or reason haue giuen vs to vnderstand that Tertullian by the Gospel importeth any doctrine vnwritten otherwise he may well thinke that we scorne his interpretation hauing no warrant of it but his owne word Tertullian spake of the Gospell as the Apostle doth who saith c Rom. 1.2 that God before promised it by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and that it was d Cap. 16.26 opened and published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets We haue heard before out of Irenaeus that e Sect. 8. the Gospell which the Apostles first preached they afterwards committed to writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith and out of Chrysostome that f Sect. 7. to speake any thing that is not written is to speake of himselfe and not out of the Gospell So doth Basil of the word of God and Scripture make one and the same thing and denieth that there is any word of God beside the Scripture saying g Basil Ethic. reg 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est peccatum est sicut dicit Apostolus fides veró ex auditu auditus autem per verbum Dei ergo quicquid extra diuinam Scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est If what soeuer is not of faith be sinne and faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God then whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne If there be no Gospell but written no word of God but Scripture then surely Tertullian when he saith that we need no inquirie further after the Gospell taketh away Traditions and leaueth no place for doctrine vnwritten Whereas he saith that by the Gospell is not vnderstood onely the written word of the foure Euangelists he talketh idlely because no man vnderstood it so The doctrine deliuered in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles is no lesse the doctrine of the Gospell then that that is recorded by the foure Euangelists But here to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions he referreth his Reader to the same Tertullians booke of Prescriptions against heretikes Now this sentence alledged by M. Perkins was taken out of that booke although he quoted not the place which M. Bishop knew not because indeed he had neuer read the booke Therefore this that he here faith he saith it onely by hearesay and for ought he knoweth Tertullian may as wel speak against Traditions as any thing for them And the truth is that Tertullian speaketh no otherwise for Traditions then doth Irenaeus whome he cited before in his Epistle to the King whome I haue shewed to make nothing at all for M. Bishops purpose The occasion of both their speeches was the same hauing to do with wicked and blasphemous heretikes who admitted h Tertullian de Praescript Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adiectionibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit si recipit noÌ„ recipit integras si aliquatenus integras praestat nihilâ—minùs dâ—uersas expositiones commentatae conuerâ—it of the scriptures no otherwise then they lift themselues reiecting the bookes that specially made against them and by additions detractions framing the bookes which they did receiue to serue their owne turne and by their
deliuered to the Church In which case they did nothing else but what we also haue done when vpon exception taken against vs as vsing the Scriptures partially for the maintenance of our religion which yet euery eye may see to be clearely iustified thereby we haue further alledged the tradition of the Church and shewed by pregnant and expresse testimonie and witnesse of the auncient Fathers and Councels both that we acknowledge all those Scriptures which were with them vndoubtedly approued for Canonicall and do gather no other assertions or doctrines but what by them were gathered from thence And if M. Bishop will not hereupon conclude vs to be patrons of their traditions as we suppose he will not then let him know that he abuseth Tertullian in seeking to make him a supporter thereof who did nothing in effect but what we do let him take knowledge of his owne singular falshood and trecherie in alledging a speech of tradition which importeth no more but the written doctrine of the Scripture thereby to colour their traditions which are both beside and contrarie to the Scripture Yea and his trecherie is so much the greater in this generall naming of Tertullians booke of Prescriptions as making for their traditions for that Tertullian which is secondly here to be noted doth plainely affirme that what they are the Scriptures are that is that they taught nothing but what the Scripture had taught them yea and that integrity of faith could not haue stood with them but by the integritie of the Scriptures by which the doctrine of faith is managed and taught thereby signifying that albeit by the importunitie of heretickes they were forced to appeale to the tradition of the Churches yet that neither their safetie nor the safetie of the Churches to which they appealed stood in tradition but in hauing the Scriptures entire as they were first deliuered vnto them that out of them they might teach what was first deliuered Yea and that so as they needed no adding to the Scriptures nor taking from them nor changing of any thing for the saluing of any thing which they taught whereby it appeareth that he meant not to leaue any place for vnwritten doctrines or any such traditions as the Church of Rome defendeth against the plaine letter and expresse word of holy Scripture onely by taking vpon her to make such meaning therof as may not touch her deuices howsoeuer they containe impious idolatrie blasphemy against God and the apparent dishonour of the name of Christ Againe we are to note that he teacheth it to haue bene some one certaine matter of doctrine which Christ at the first deliuered to his Apostles and the Apostles to the Church that that onely is true which was thus deliuered at first but whatsoeuer since hath come in is erronious and false To which purpose elsewhere also he giueth this prescription that c Contr. Marc. lib. 3 Illic proâ—uÌ„cianda est regulae interuersio vbi posteritas inuenitur we are there to affirme the peruerting of the rule where there is found laternesse of time and againe that d Ibid. lib. 4. Ei praescribens outhoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei prescribens vitiationem quod posterius reuincetur authoritie is to be yeelded to that that is the more auncient but that to be preiudicated of corruption which shall be proued to be the later Therefore in the wordes formerly alledged we see he maketh it a certaine marke of corruption and falshood not to haue bene named or mentioned by the Apostles Now if by this prescription we examine the doctrine of Poperie we shall easily perceiue and find that in it is the peruerting of the rule as wherein there are so many deuices neuer mentioned by the Apostles yea which had neither name nor place for many hundreds yea some not for a thousand yeares or more after the time of the Apostles as hath bene declared before in answer of the Epistle to the King This is a true and certaine rule and necessary to be obserued and we learne thereby to condemne for nouelties and humane presumptions whatsoeuer hath not warrant from the beginning and to admit of no faith or doctrine but what the Church receiued immediatly froÌ„ the Apostles and the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God And because what Christ receiued from God hath witnesse of the law and Prophets as we haue seene before out of Chrysostome therefore we are to know that there is no doctrine truly affirmed as belonging to the new Testament which hath not confirmation and testimonie from the old Fourthly we see that albeit Tertullian did referre his Reader to Tradition yet he tooke not this witnesse of tradition onely from the Church of Rome but also from other Churches which were founded by the Apostles as well as it So doth he also in another place saying e Contra Marc. lib. 4. Vâ—deamus quod lac à Paulo Corinthij hauserintiad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti quidlegaÌ„t Philip penses Thessalonicenses Ephesij quid etiam Romani de proxime sonent quibus Euangelium Petrus Paulus sanguine suo signatum relique runt Haebemus Ioannis alum â—as Ecclesias c Let vs see what milke the Corinthians did draw from Paul by what rule the Galathians were reformed what the Philippians Thessalonians Ephesians do reade what the Romanes also neare vnto vs do teach to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospell sealed with their bloud We haue also the Churches which were taught by S. Iohn c. And although in his prescriptions he name it as the honor of the Church of Rome that the Apostles Peter and Paul did with their bloud vtter f De praescript Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sanguine suâ— profuderunt all their doctrine to that Church yet doth he not name it as a thing proper and peculiar to it in asmuch as S. Paule plainely affirmeth that to the Church of Ephesus also he had preached g Act. 20.27 all the counsell of God and thereby leaueth vs to vnderstand that he did the like to all the Churches Herby then we descry the notable fraud of M. Bishop and his fellowes who now hang the authority of all tradition only vpon the Church of Rome and will haue nothing authenticall from other Churches but onely from that Church For although Tertullian might safely argue from tradition in the consent of many Churches and might conclude it vndoubtedly to haue bin deliuered from the Apostles which was vniformely receiued by them all when as none of them had power to obtrude or thrust vpoÌ„ other Churches any doctrines deuised by themselues and especially being so soone after the time of the Apostles as before was said yet can no such assurance be builded vpon any one Church and that so many hundreds of yeares after and especially such a Church as by tyrannie and vsurpation hath compelled other Churches to be subiect vnto it thereby
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
any thing but by Scripture they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition but only by Scripture Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be if there were Tradition beside the Scripture We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deliuered by tradition in former times But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it In that that we say is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago r Hieron in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedicabant legis prophetarū vocibus comprobarūt Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets wherof it followeth against M. Bishop that they taught no doctrine by tradition but only by the scriptures As for his questions wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching c. I answer him first with the like question where had Moses the story of the creation of the world and the knowledge of those things which God in * Gen. 11.6 18.17.20 sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe I suppose he wil answer that he receiued the same from him that made the world from him that was the author of those speeches So say we that Mathew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whō Iohn Baptist preached He learned his Gospell as Paul did who saith of himself ſ Gal. 1.12 Neither receiued I it of man neither was I taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ As touching the Gospel of S. Mark Eusebius reporteth that the faithfull t Euseb hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran◠illis semel audita nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diuinae praedicationis doctrina sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditā accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint c. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset delectatū esse virorum istorū voluntate scriptum hoc Euangelium Ecclesius ad legendū authoritate suae confirmasse who had heard the preaching of S. Peter not thinking that sufficient nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word and ceased not till they had perswaded him thereto Now they say saith he that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost ioyed much in the desire of those men and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church Now this story is well worthy to be obserued The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing to that purpose they intreate Mark the scholer and follower of Peter the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost Peter acknowledgeth so much and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tradition S. Luke wrote his storie u Luke 1.2 as they deliuered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word they x 2. Cor. 13.3 in whom Christ spake and whose word was y 1. Thess 2 13. the word of God the word of the preaching of God Yea and what he wrote he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost because as S. Paul telleth vs z 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and as of prophecie so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand that a 2. Pet. 1.21 it came not by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost b August de consens Euangel lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripserunt quae ille ostendit dixit nequaquam dicendum est quôd ipse no scripserit quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt Quicquid enira ille de suis factis dictis nos legere volun hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit When the disciples wrote saith S. Austin what Christ shewed said vnto thē it is not to be said that he did not write because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same Now therefore the Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions that is vpon report from man to man but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning The word originally may import any thing that is deliuered howsoeuer either by word or writing Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs it may in this sort be called Gods tradition because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell c Cyprian lib. 2. epist 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae reuertatur In calice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem the originall of the Lords tradition and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered as before was said But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and indifferent signification of any thing that is deliuered yet in our disputation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering by word and relation onely and not by Scripture and therefore where Irenaeus saith d Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Euangeliū nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt he that should translate as M. Bishop doth they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction and confoundeth them both in one Now then the question
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
where it is written in the word that S. Paul wrote in his latter Epistles that which he taught by word of mouth before or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent Reader I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing and left nothing by tradition Saint Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Commentaries vpon this text concludeth thus Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnwritten and those things are as well to be beleeued as the written Oecumenius and Theophylactus vpon that place teach the same S. Basil * De spu ca. 27. speaketh thus I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not written for the Apostle saith I commend you that ye are mindfull of my precepts and do hold the Traditions euen as I deliuered them vnto you and then alledgeth this text Hold the Traditions which you haue receiued of me either by Word or Epistle S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying * Lib. 4. De fide cap. 17. That the Apostles deliuered many things without writing S. Paul doth testifie when he writeth Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which haue bene taught you either by word of mouth or by Epistle These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul free from all partiality gather out of this text of his that many things necessary to be beleeued euen vntill their daies remained vnwritten and were religiously obserued by Tradition which throweth flat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition fenced with neither reason nor authority that Saint Paul put in writing afterward all that he had first taught by word of mouth Moreouer Saint Paul immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles commaundeth his deare disciple Timothy * 2. Tim. 2. To commend vnto the faithfull that which he heard of him by many witnesses and not that onely which he should finde written in some of his Epistles or in the written Gospell R. ABBOT Heere M. Bishop beginneth with the taxing of our translations for that we do not say stand fast and keepe the traditions but stand fast and keepe the ordinances or the instructions which ye haue bene taught blaming vs for that we vse the word traditions where any thing soundeth against them but vtterly reiect it where any thing is spoken in commendation of them But the reason of our translating in that sort is iust and godly because our translation maketh nothing against that tradition which the Apostle intendeth in the Greek excludeth the stumbling block that might lye in the way of the more simple Readers by meanes that Popish abuse hath caused the word to sound to a meaning altogether contrary to the intent of the Apostle Where the word traditiō carieth the same sence wherin it is now vsed we set it down but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek importeth not that which custome hath made the word tradition to sound in English good reason is there that we leaue the word tradition and take rather some other word that may come most nearely to the expressing of the Greek Tyrant of old time did signifie a King till by the abuse of Kings the name grew opprobrious and hatefull and is now vsed to signifie a cruell and vsurping king He therefore that should now translate tyrannus a king should be thought scarcely well to enioy his wits Translations are alwaies to be framed according to the proprietie and vse of words then vsually receiued when they are done and to do otherwise cannot but breed mis-understanding of many things And we would gladly know why we may not aswell translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinances or instructions as their Latine interpreter translateth it a 1. Cor. 11.2 praecepta and they precepts in their English Albeit for the auoyding of their cauill I would rather translate it b 2. Thess 2.15 Stand fast and keepe the things deliuered which ye haue bene taught either by word or by our Epistle But here M. Bishop referreth his Reader to a learned treatise as he calleth it named The discouerie of false translations penned by Gregory Martin there to see somewhat for this corruption and many other I would not wish the Reader to forbeare to looke vpon that booke onely I wish him withall to take knowledge of Doctor Fulkes answer to it and he shall see a discouerie of a number of futilous and vaine cauillations heaped together in that discouerie Gregorie Martin wrote his pretended discouerie to be a bellowes to blow vp treason and insurrection against his Prince but when he failed of his hope and his calumniations were laid open his heart neuer serued him to defend what he had written because howsoeuer some things there were that with some probabilitie he might cauill at yet in the most he was made so naked that he knew not how to couer his owne shame But he is long since gone to his iudge hath learned what it is to fight against Gods truth But to come to the matter in hand M. Perkins cannot be excused of too much negligence in his answer to this place He taketh the second Epistle to the Thessalonians to be the first and by that meanes nameth that for very likely which is very vntrue and so with mention of a bare likelihood passeth ouer the argument without giuing any good satisfaction to him that would require it Thus it is true which the Poet saith Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus and because M. Bishop dreameth so often he must needes giue him leaue to dreame somtimes To supply that wherin M. Perkins failed we answer him that the traditions which the Apostle recommendeth to the Thessalonians 1. Cor. 15.3.4 were no other but such as he mentioneth to the Corinthians according to the Scriptures S. Ambrose maketh the effect of his exhortation to be this c Ambros in 2. Thess cap 2. In traditione Euangelij standum ac perseuerandum monet to warne them to stand fast and to perseuere in the tradition of the Gospell d Rom. 1.2 The Gospell as before hath bene noted out of the Apostles wordes was promised before of God by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and therefore was accordingly e Cap. 16.26 preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets The storie saith that Paule at his being at Thessalonica f Act. 17.2.3 opened and declared by the Scriptures that it behooued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead and that this was Iesus Christ whom saith he I preach vnto you Being driuen from thence to Berea by the outrage of the Iewes he preached there also and g Ver. 11. they who receiued the word searched the Scriptures daily
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
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
not so it is in like sort ridiculous to alledge that it belongeth to the Church to make the meaning of the Scriptures that the Church is Iudge it must rest in the power therof by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which it selfe coÌ„mandeth be offence to God or not The Church indeede is Iudge but tied to bounds of law if the Church iudge against the euidence of the law then God himselfe by his owne word is to be the Iudge For what an absurditie shall it be further to require a Iudge where God himselfe hath pronounced a sentence or to enquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainely as the Iudge can deuise to speake When the Iudges of the people of the Iewes said z Eâ— 8.12 A confederacie and Esay the Prophet cried out say not A confederacie that is follow not them that leade you to leagues and couenants with idolatrous nations who was to be the Iudge betwixt them Esay saith to the people a Ver 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 Who was to be the Iudge when the Prophet Ieremie said one thing and b Ierem 26 1â— the Priests and Prophets who were the Iudges said another They said c Ver. 15. This man is worthy to die he saith If ye put me to death ye shall bring innocent bloud vpon your selues Who was now to be iudge betwixt them Surely none but d Ver 4. the lawes which God had set before them to which he calleth them e Cap. 11. 3. 4. the couenant which he commaunded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt When our Sauiour Christ stood on the one side and the Iudges namely the high Priests and Scribes and Elders of the people on the other side where was the Iudge f Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures saith our Sauiour Christ for they are they that testifie of me We see the highest court of iudgement vnder heauen pronounceth sentence against the Sonne of God God indeed had appointed them for Iudges the righteousnesse of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures Thus it hath bene in the Church of Christ the Donatists on the one side affirmed theÌ„selues to be the Church the Catholike and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them whom did these godly Fathers make the Iudge Optatus speaking of a maine question betwixt them whether he that was already baptized though by an heretike might be baptized againe saith g Optat. contra Parmenian li. 5. Vos dicuis licèt nos dicimus Non liâ—et Jnter licâ—t vestrum non licet nestrum â—â—tant remigrant animae populoruÌ„ Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt iudices Si Christiani te viraque parte dari nosessâ—nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur Dâ—foris quaerenâ—us est iudixisi Paganus non potesi nosse secreta Christianâ—â— si liâ—â—◠〈◊〉 est Chriâ—tuâ—i baptisâ—atâ— Ergo ni â—â—rrâ—s dâ— hac reâ—ulâ—â—â— poterit reperâ—ri iudiciuÌ„ de 〈◊〉 quareâ—dus est iudex Sed vt quid pâ—â—â—sanus ad coelâ— â—â—â—m habemus hic in EuaÌ„gelio Testamentâ—m â—â—quâ—â— c. Ergo voluntas câ—â—â—vilut in Testamento sic in Euangelio inquiratur You say it is lawful and we say it is not lawfull Betweene your it is lawful and our it is not lawful the peoples soules do wauer Let none beleeue you nor vs we are all contentious men Iudges must be sought for if Christians they cannot be giuen of both sides for truth is hindred by affections A iudge without must be sought for if a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mysteries if a Iew he is an enemy of Christian baptisme No iudgement of this matter can be found on earth but froÌ„ heaueÌ„ But why knock we at heaueÌ„ wheÌ„ here we haue the testameÌ„t of Christ in the Gospell In the Gospell as in his Testament we are to enquire and search what his will is To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians whether there be sinne in infants from their birth or not h Aug. de nupt concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controuersia iudicem quaerit Iudicet ergo Christus cui reâ— mors eius profecerit ipse dicat Hic est inquit sanguis c. Judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus c. This controuersie requireth a iudge let Christ therefore be Iudge let himselfe say what his death serued for This is my bloud saith he which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes Together with him let the Apostle iudge because Christ himselfe speaketh also in the Apostle Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the Iudge or Christ himselfe in the Scripture knowing well that the iudgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already giuen by the highest Iudge To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing foorth of such things as are euident and plaine because Christ somewhere or other hath plainely spoken whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to know i Idem de vnit Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono vt quaeque aeperta manifesta deligamus c. This I say before hand and propound that we make choyce of such speeches as are open and manifest We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set downe and wrapped vp in couers of figures and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs It belongeth to acute men to iudge and discerne who doth more probably interpret those things but we will not in a cause which the people are interested in commit our disputation to such contentions of wit but let the manifest truth cry and shine foorth Reade to vs those things that are as plaine as those are that we reade to you Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it This is the course of Ecclesiastical iudgement by this meanes they are to stoppe the mouths of contentious men and to satisfie the people that are interested in the cause By all this then it appeareth that God hath not left his Church destitute of authoritie of iudgement but hath both appointed Iudges and prescribed them lawes whereby to iudge onely that we remeÌ„ber that k Psal 82.1 he is the Iudge amongst the Iudges and the sentence must be his But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aymeth at for he would faine haue it conceiued that there should be some one to be iudge and that one must be the Pope They name sometimes the Church and somtimes the Councell but the Church is but the cloake-bagge and the Councell the capcase to cary the Pope whither it pleaseth them because neither
for the doing of it but the other not only teacheth by writing or by preaching but ministreth also grace to worke in the heart obedience to that that it teacheth g August de sp lit cap. 20. Propter veteru hominis noxam quae per literam rubeâ—rem minantem minimè fanabitur dicitur illud testamentuÌ„ vitas hoc verò nonum propter nouitatem spiritus qua hominem nouum sanâ—tà vitio vetustatis The old Testament saith S. Austin is so called because of the corruption of the old man which was not healed by the commanding and threatening letter but the other the new because of the newnesse of the spirit which healeth the new man from the old corruption But we would gladly know of M. Bishop how it is true which the Apostle saith that h 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is inspired of God if it be true which he saith that God did not giue his lawes written with inke and paper If the Gospell might well enough haue bene kept in mens hearts without writing why were the faithfull so instant with S. Marke first after with S. Iohn as we haue seene before for the writing of their Gospels Why doth the Apostle tell the Philippians that i Phil. 3.1 it was necessary for them that he should write vnto them the same things that he had preached vnto them if there were no such necessitie Why is S. Iohn in the Reuelation so often commaunded k Reuel 1.11 cap. 2.1 c cap. 14.13 to write to write if tradition might serue as well as writing Surely Irenaeus telleth vs that it was l Jren. â—ib 3 c. 1. Euangelium per voluntatem Dei in Scripturu nobâ—s tradiderunt by the will of God that the Apostles deliuered vnto vs the Gospell in writing as we haue shewed before So likewise we haue heard S. Austin saying that m Aug. supra sect 14. Christ commanded his disciples to write what he would haue vs to reade of his sayings and doings The same S. Austine saith againe that n Idem in epist Ioan. tract 2. Contra insidiosos errores Deus voluit pouere firmamentum in scripturis sanctis contra quas nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum God would place a bulwarke against deceiptfull errors in the holy Scriptures against which no man dare speake that will in any sort be taken for a Christian man Do these Fathers tell vs that it was the will of God the commaundement of Christ that his lawes should be deliuered vnto vs written with inke and paper and will M. Bishop perswade vs that it was not the will of God But I would further question with him What are they all so perfect in the Gospell at Rome as that they neede no written Gospell Is it so setled in their hearts remembrances by tradition only as that without any Scriptures it might be preserued amoÌ„gst them If M. Bishop say yea he knoweth himselfe to be a lyer If he say no what is the reason that he setteth thus lightly by inke and paper Fie vpon this wilfull blindnesse how strange a thing is it that any man should thus cast a veile ouer his owne eyes He telleth vs further that Christ endowed his Apostles with the blessed spirit of truth with a most diligeÌ„t care of instructing others that all their posteritie might learne of them al the points of Christian doctrin Now thus far he saith true but his purpose is with a little truth to colour a great lye For he addeth that we should giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word Sycophant what haue we here to do with the vnwritten word The vnwritten word is the matter in question and must it here be presumed before it be proued Let it first be made good that the Apostles meant to leaue behind them any vnwritten word We say that because they had care that all posteritie by them should learne all the points of Christian doctrine therefore they had care that all the points of Christian doctrine should be committed to writing that as S. Luke professeth to haue written to the intent that Theophilus o Luk. 1.4 might thereby acknowledge the certainty of those things wherof he had bene instructed so by his writings and the rest we should acknowledge the certaintie and assured truth of their doctrine and not lye open to the illusions of such impostors and cosiners as M. Bishop is who vnder the names of the Apostles should broach those things which the Apostles neuer thought Whereof we haue a notable example in p Euseb hist lib. 3. ca. 36. Papias who succeeded immediatly after the time of the Apostles who whilest he was not contented with those things which were left in writing but was still hearkening after euery one that tooke vpon him to haue bin a follower of any of the Apostles and enquiring what any of them had said or done swallowed manie gudgeons giuen him by such deceiuers and deliuered * Alia taÌ„quam ex viua trad tione ad se relata et peregrâ—naâ— quasdam seruatoris parabolas doctrinas cum non nullis fobâ—losis adijcit c. Apostolicas dâ—sputationes non rectè accepit c. Quamplurimis â—os se ecclesiasticis viris ciroris causam dedit quiad antiquitatem ipsius respexerunt c. as reported to him by tradition many fabulous things and strange doctrines conceiuing himselfe by that meanes amisse of the Apostles speeches and giuing occasion to many other to erre as he did whilest for his antiquitie they respected him very much This is the end of M. Bishops vnwritteÌ„ word they wil teach vs what pleaseth their Lord god the Pope theÌ„ make vs beleeue it is a part of the vnwritten word But yet he addeth again that our crediting the Apostles shold be more for the meaning of the word then for the word it self Where it is not in any good meaning that he thus nicely distinguisheth betwixt the word it self the meaning of the word leauing it forsooth to be vnderstood that they left the word one way and the meaning of the word another way the one in writing and the other by tradition But what will M. Bishop haue vs thinke that the Apostles would write words and not meane by their words to signifie their meaning Is it likely that they would write one thing and in meaning intend another Did they not write to that very end that in their writing it should appeare to all ages what doctrine they taught Surely they were honest and plaine dealing men they wold not beguile vs they wold not mock vs they haue simply told vs what their mind is There are manie difficulties in their writings and in the whole Scriptures it is true but yet there are perspicuities also so farre as is needful for the clearing of them There is to exercise the strong but yet there
is also to sustaine and comfort the weake There is to prouoke the appetite but yet there is also to satisfie the hunger There is q Bâ—rnard in paru ser 64. In Pelago sacra lectionâ—â— agnus ambulat elephas natat depth for the Elephant to swim but there are also shelfes and shallowes for the lambe to wade It is truly said by S. Austin that r Aug. ep 3. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tanta in eis difficultate peruentatur without any great difficultie we thereby attaine to those things that are necessary for saluation and that Å¿ Idem de vtilit credendi cap. 6. Inscripturis disciplina ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauritendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him if he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs These and their true successors be the true and liuely oracles of the true and liuing God them we must consult in all doubtfull questions and submit our selues wholy to their decree But what M. Bishop are not onely the Apostles but their successors also the liuely oracles of God Which of the successors of the Apostles euer tooke vpon him either seuerally or ioyntly so to be We haue heard that t Ephes 2.20 the houshold of God are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets but that they are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles successours we neuer heard As for consulting with the Fathers in doubtfull questions we willingly yeeld to do it that we may haue their helpe to find out in the Scripture the resolution of such doubts but that we are to submit our selues wholy to their decree as accounting them the oracles of God is a point of learning which S. Austin knew not when he said u Aug. de nat grat cap 61. Egâ— in hutusmedi quorumlibet hominum scriptu liber sum quia solis Canonicis Scripturis debeo fine vlla recusaâ—nne confensum I am free in such writings of men whatsoeuer they be because to the Canonicall Scriptures onely do I owe consent without refusall But not to stand too long vpon these fancies let one place of Hierome be an â—â—sâ—er to them all x Hier. in Psal 86. Quomodo narrabit Dominus Non verbo sed Scriptura In cutus Scriptura in populorum quae Scripturae populis omnibus legitur hoc est ve omnes intelligant c. The Lord will declare or shew in the Scripture of the people and of the Princes that haue bene in her How will the Lord declare Not by word but by writing or by Scripture In whose Scripture Euen in the Scripture of the peoples which is read to all peoples that is that all may vnderstand The Lord hath spoken by his Gospell not that a few but that all should vnderstand the Princes of Christ haue not written for a few but for all the people The Princes are the Apostles and the Euangelists Those saith he which were or haue bene in her Marke what he saith which were not which are so that the Apostles excepted whatsoeuer after shall be said is cut off and hath no authoritie Albeit therfore a man be holy albeit he be learned after the Apostles he hath no authoritie In which words he sheweth vs that the counsell of God thought good to leaue vs the Apostles doctrine not by word not by tradition but by writing that the scriptures which he hath giuen vs by them are so disposed as that they serue for the vnderstanding of all men that all authoritie of doctrine is concluded and ended in them neither hath any after them authoritie to teach vs any thing towards God that is not warranted and approued by their writings It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that Christ gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper and againe that the meaning of the word is not to be knowne by the word it selfe and againe that the successors of the Apostles also are the liuely oracles of the true and liuing God In the next place he abuseth the Apostle S. Paule and vnder colour of the names of two or three of the Fathers absurdly misapplieth his going vp to Hierusalem as if he had gone to haue his doctrine examined and approued by the Apostles that were before him He nameth S. Peter single and by himselfe as to haue vs to conceiue that S. Paul yeelded some high preheminence superiority to him But there is no such matter as he pretendeth the Apostles own declaration ouerthroweth all this fancie He professeth that y Gal. 1.12 he receiued not his Gospell of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ After that he had receiued the reuelation of the Gospell from Christ was appointed to preach the Gospell amongst the Gentils directly against M. Bishops deuise he saith z Ver. 16.17 Immediatly I communed not with flesh and bloud neither went I vp to IerusaleÌ„ to theÌ„ that were Apostles before me but went into Arabia c. a Ambros in Gal. cap. 1. Nec consilium cutusquam petijt aut ad aliquem retulit quid esset acturus sed protinùs Christum praedicauit c. Non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se à Deo pergendâ— aâ—â— praecessores Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab eis c. He asked no mans counsell saith Ambrose nor referred it to any man what he should do but foorthwith preached Christ He saith that there was no necessity that he being chosen of God should go to the Apostles his predecessors as haply to learne any thing from them Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to make his reader beleeue that S. Pauls doctrine was first to be examined and approued by Peter and the rest of the Apostles when as S. Paul professedly saith that he went not to take any approbation from them because he had receiued equall authoritie coÌ„mission with them He further declareth that b Ver. 18. three yeares after he went to Hierusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15. daies c Ambros ibid. Non vt alâ—quid ab eo disceret quia â—am ab authore didicerat à quo ipse Petrus fuerat instructus sed propter â—ffectum Apostolatus vt sciret Petrus hanc illi datam licentiam quam ipse acceperat Not to learne any thing of him saith Ambrose because he had already learned of the author himself by whom Peter was taught but for affection of the Apostleship that Peter might know that the same coÌ„mission was giue to him which Peter himselfe had He went to him d Theophy actâ—â—n Gal.
he doth but coupleth with him those that were with him and maketh that which he saith common to them all But it is a further point of impudency in him to force that vpoÌ„ the Pope hereby which neuer any of these fathers nor any other euer imagined that he should be in Peters place the vniuersall Iudge of Christian faith so that if S. Peter who they say was Bishop of Rome before had bene dead before that councell of Hierusalem Paul the third had succeeded in his place Paul the Apostle must haue had his Gospell confirmed by Paul the Pope as impious a caitife as euer the world bred I will not stand to take any further in this filth let them lie in it that loue it and M. Bishop hauing taken vpon him to sweare whatsoeuer Bellarmine doth lie must be content to be dawbed with his dirt He goeth on and telleth vs that he could shew how euery hundred yeeres after heresies were confuted and reiected not by the written word only but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours So then they were not reiected by the sentence and declaration of any one Iudge he is now gone from that but it was by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours as all Bishops were And indeede in those first Councels the Bishop of Rome had no more to do then other Bishops yea somtimes lesse then some others to whoÌ„ the moderation of the present businesse by general consent was coÌ„mitted as in the Nicene councell to f Theod. hist li. 2. ca. 15 Cuius concilij suâ—t ille non princeps Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine aboue all the rest of the Bishops who therfore g Concil Nicen. subsâ—ript in sine subscribed first of all And as for the deciding of matters it was referred onely to the authority of the written word as appeareth in the same councel of Nice where CoÌ„stantine propoundeth this rule vnto theÌ„ h Theo. l. hist li. 1. ca. 7. Euangelici Apostolici libri necnon antiquâ—ruÌ„ Prophetarum oracula planè nos instruunt quid de rebâ—s d uiâ—is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sentiendum sit proinde posita hâ—stili discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicationeâ— quaestionum The bookes of the Euangelists Apostles as also the oracles of the old Prophets do plainly instruct vs what to think concerning Gods matters therefore setting aside all hostile discord let vs take the resolutions of our questions froÌ„ the words of the holy Ghost Their sentence therfore was but to acknowledge and pronounce the sentence which the holy Ghost had giuen in the written word no otherwise did they take vpoÌ„ them to declare it but by the same word Onely for the greater satisfaction of the Church the more fully to take away all cauillations of heretikes they alledged somtimes the testimonies of such as had bene before them to shew that by the same written word they had taught no otherwise theÌ„ they did Albeit there were not alwaies general Councels for the confuting and reiecting of heresies but many times the Pastours of the Church in their priuate writings confuted and condemned them only by the verdict sentence of the written word So Hilary only by the voice of the heauenly Iudge in the Scriptures reiected the Arian heresie i Hilar. de synod cont Arian fideÌ„ NicenaÌ„ nunquaÌ„ nisi exulaturus audiui neuer hauing heard of the Nicene definition vntill he was going into banishment for that fâ—ith Yea and after the definition of the councell S. Austin did not rest vpon their sentence but vpon the sentence of the written word and therefore saith to Maximinus the Arian k August contra Maximin lib. 3. cap. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec in debes ArimineÌ„se tanquaÌ„ praeiudicaturus proferre consiliuÌ„ Nec ego huius nec tu illius authoritate deti◠〈◊〉 â—â—ripturaruÌ„ aâ—â—tibus noÌ„ 〈◊〉 â—nque propr◠〈◊〉 â—trisque comuâ— testibus res cuÌ„ re causa cuÌ„ causa ratio cuÌ„ ratione conceriet It is not for me to alledge the councell of Nice nor for thee to alledge the councell of Ariminum neither am I bound to the authoritie of the one nor thou of the other By testimonies or authorities of Scripture not proper to either of vs but coÌ„mon to both let matter try with matter cause with cause reason with reason He knew very wel that the sentence of a councel might be questâ—â—ned also therfore that the controuersie must finally rest vpon 〈◊〉 sentence of the Scripture M. Bishop further referreth vs to Bellarmine as touching those Councels euery hundred yeeres whose instructions are needlesse to vs to certifie vs of the truth in that behalfe being otherwise better to be knowne then by any thing that he can tell vs. But I would wish that he that desireth to know the qualitie and disposition of that wretched man should throughly examine that chapter that Maister Bishop quoteth wherein he hath set downe so many apparent wilfull lies as that it may well appeare what spirit it was that led him throughout his whole bookes In the next place he telleth vs an idle tale impertinent of Basil Gregory Nazianzene of whom Ruffinus reporteth that l Ruffin lib. 2. c. 9. Omnibus GraecoruÌ„ seâ—ularium libris remotis solu diuinae Sâ—ripturae volumnibus operaÌ„ dabant carumque intelligentians non ex propria praesuÌ„ptione sed ex maiorum scriptis authoritate sequebantur quos ipsos ex Apostolica successione intelligendi regulaÌ„ suscepisse constat laying aside their prophane studies they applied themselues only to the bookes of holy Scripture and sought after the vnderstanding of them not out of their own presumption but out of the writings authority of their auncients who also themselues by such as had succeeded froÌ„ the Apostles had receiued the rule of vnderstanding To what end doth he alledge this against vs Where it is said that they sought not the vnderstanding of the Scriptures out of their own presumption for the shooting of his bolt he maketh a parenthesis thus As the Protestants both do teach others to do But the Protestants would haue him know that that description of the studies of those two fathers doth rightly describe the studies of euery learned Protestant They see it to their griefe in all our bookes in the processe of this whole book it wil appeare to him that the Protestants vse the help of the fathers writings as a singular benefit of God for the true vnderstaÌ„ding of the Scriptures and for the finding out of the truth in those controuersies that are depending betwixt vs them Yea so farre are we from contenting our selues with our own vnderstanding as that we forbeare not to turne wind all Popish authors either of former or latter time that what gold we can find in their dunghils we may apply it to the furnishing
ifto euentu diligentissima fidelissima castitas sepsit quantumcunâ— Ã flupris omni post matrimoniuÌ„ excessu tantum ab incesti casu iutisumus Quidam multò securiores totam vim huius erroris virginea continentia depelluÌ„t senes puâ—ri Most diligent faithfull chastity hath hedged vs in froÌ„ such euent as far as we are froÌ„ fornication al excesse beyoÌ„d mariage so far are we from the case of incest Yea some both old yong do put away the whole force of this error by continencie of virginitie Now what is there here whereupon M. Bishop should say that the best Christians liued in perpetuall Virginitie But we must not stand vpon such matters either we must giue hime leaue to doe thus or else he must write no more Well we see now that his examples are farre from seruing his turne and therefore in steade of his blind argument gathered of selfe-conceipts we will argue thus that seeing none of our captains and ring-leaders whom God hath set before vs as examples to be followed haue giuen vs any example of the vow of virginity therfore we must condemne it as a blind a wilfull and superstitious vow Nay we will argue further Abraham our Father Å¿ Rom. 4.12 in the steps of whose faith we are to walke into whose bosome we shall be gathered was a married man not once onely but twise married So were the rest of the Patriarchs married men and so the Priests the Prophets the Apostles and almost all that the Scripture setteth before vs as examples of perfection Therfore they are lewd hypocrites and no true teachers that beare vs in hand that Christian perfection cannot stand with mariage Yea but the single man saith M. Bishop careth onely how to please God and to be holy in body and mind as the Apostle writes when as the married are choked with the cares of this world But the Apostle only telleth vs what may be by the condition of single life and the right vse thereof not what alwaies and necessarily is For we know that the maried many times lesse careth for the things of the world theÌ„ the vnmaried and the vnmaried many times lesse careth to please God then the maried doth What did M. Bishop and his fellowes care onely how to please God in that heate of spirit whereby they were caried against the Iesuites or do the Iesuits yea their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops care onely to please God Good men they haue all quite giuen ouer the world and they breath nothing but onely heauen A man may wonder at the impudency of this man who doubteth not to speake so contrarie to his own knowledge both in himselfe and the rest of them It is true that single life hath ordinarily more oportunity and liberty to the seruice of God then mariage which is the thing that the Apostle meaneth but seldome is it so vsed or neuer but that mariage in some attaineth to as great holines and perfection as single life But M. B. in great anger goeth forward saying Vnlesse a man had made a league with hell or were as blind as a beetle how can he euer perswade himselfe that to wallow in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of the beastly appetites is as gratefull to God as to conquer and subdue them by fasting and prayer Where we see a beastly filth out of a prophane mouth and stinking breath so speake of sacred holy matrimony as if there were nothing therin but wallowing in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of beastly appetites What is it a matter of sacrament with theÌ„ to wallow in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of beastly appetites Doth he teach their maried Catholike disciples that they wallow in fleshly pleasure and satiâ—fying of beastly appetites Surely the auncient Church of Rome held l Tertul. de pud Eâ—usque tameâ—o â—uit vt moderatio libidinum pudicitia credatur the moderation of lusts by mariage to be chastity as Tertullian in behalfe of Montanus vpbraideth them and Paphnutius informed the Councel of Nice they receiued it that the m Socrat. hist lib 1. cap. 8. Viri cum legitima vxore concubituÌ„ castimoniam appellatut company of a man with his owne wife is chastitie what then shal we thinke of a filthy carion that accounteth nothing to be in mariage but wallowing in fleshly pleasure satisfying of beastly appetites thereby blaspheming the sacred institution of God traducing all those holy men of God of whom before was spoken that liued in maried state Now further he telleth vs that S. Paul giueth counsell to the maried to containe during the time of prayer where I leaue it to thee gentle Reader to esteeme whether the man were sober in so reciting the words of the Apostle S. Paule saith n 1. Cor. 7.5 Defraud not one another except it be with consent for a time that ye may attend to fasting and prayer Which words haue manifest refereÌ„ce to extraordinary occasions of humbling our selues to God and of testifying vnto him the griefe and sorrow of our hearts by depriuing our selues of the vse of all those things whereof we take any ioy or delight according to the flesh or to any speciall occasions of gathering our spirits and soules more nearely vnto God whereby it concerneth vs to depart as I may say so much the further from our selues In this sort God when he was to giue the law to prepare the people to due reuerence and attention commanded them three daies before o Exod. 19.15 to be sanctified to wash their clothes and not to come at their wiues Another time being greatly offended with them he commandeth them p Cap. 33.5 to lay aside their costly raiment that they might shew the sorow of their hearts by a neglect and carelesnes of the attiring of their bodies And thus we know that fasting in such cases is vsually adioyned to prayer that the afflicting of the body may sharpen and giue edge to the affection of the soule Vpon such occasions the Apostle permitteth some withdrawing of the husband from the wife but yet with this exception that it be by consent and but onely for a time and then come together againe saith he that Satan tempt you not for your incontinencie Where when he requireth consent he giueth to vnderstand that where there is necessitie of fasting prayer and yet consent of defrauding cannot be obtained there fasting and prayer is to be vsed without defrauding because defrauding may not be without consenting Now these words belonging to speciall occasions and being only conditionall the Romish hypocrites wil haue to concerne all times and to be absolutely so meant as if ordinarily there could be no prayer where there is the company of man and wife As if the Apostle would say Let the husband giue to the wife due beneuolence and likewise the wife to the husband and yet tell them withall that if they do so they
idol is nothing that is it is no god It is nothing formally saith he that is though they be great peeces of wood or stone materially yet they represent a thing that is not that is such a thing to be a god which is nothing lesse But it is one thing not to be another thing not to be a god neither can a thing be said to be nothing because it is no god and therefore very wretchedly doth he peruert the words of Origen by drawing them from things vnderstood simply not to be to things vnderstood onely respectiuely to be no gods Yea he hereby ouerthroweth all that Origen there saith because if by representing that that is not he meane the representing of such a thing to be a god which is nothing lesse then those images and resemblances which he there speaketh of of men and beasts and birds set vp amongst the Gentiles to be worshipped shall be said also to be nothing and to represent a thing that is not because they represented such things to be gods which are nothing lesse which is wholly repugnant to that which Origen hath set downe Thus either Origen and Theodoret both must be taken with one breath instantly to crosse another or else we must take M. Bishop to be a lewd man who seeketh to father a bastard vpon them which is begotten by himselfe Albeit neither can we approue that construction which Oâ—igen maketh of the Apostles words as if an idoll were onely a representation or forme to which there is nothing correspondent in the world For who is ignorant that the idols of the Gentiles were for the most part the images of men and set vp in the names of men deceased in the like sort as Popish images Thus Tertullian vpbraideth the Pagans that in their owne Å¿ Tertul. Apolog. cap. 10. Prouocamus ad conscientiaÌ„ vestraÌ„ c. illa nos damnet si poserit negare omnes istos deos vestros homines fuisse c. testimonium perhibentibus ciuitatibus in quibus naâ—â— sunt regionibus in quibus aliquid operati vestigia reliquerunt in quibus etiam sepulti demonstrantur consciences they knew well enough that the gods which they worshipped were but men that it was to be proued in what places they were borne where they had liued and left remembrance of their workes where they were buried Therefore he telleth them of their custome of making gods t Cap. 11. Quos ante paucos dies luctu publico mortuos sunt confessi in deos consecrant They consecrate them for gods whom a little before by publicke mourning they confessed to be dead Thus did parents take vpon them to honour their owne children that were dead before them as u Lactan Instit lib. 1. cap 15. ex M. Tull. lib. de consolat Approbantibus dijs immortalibus ipsis in eorum caetâ—â— locatam ad opinionem omnium mortalium consecrabo Lactantius sheweth that Tully did his daughter Thus did the louer to his beloued as did the Emperour Adrian to his paramour x Origen contra Cels lib. 3. Antinous building a temple to him and causing him to be worshipped So did the children consecrate their parents as y Lanctant vs supra Bacchus Apollo Mercury and Pan did their father Iupiter and their children afterward the like to them And this z Cypr. de Jdolo vanit August de ciuit Dei lib. 8. cap 5. Cyprian and Austine note to haue bene reuealed to Alexander the great as a great secret by Leo an Egyptian Priest that not only their petite gods Hercules Aesculapius Romulus and such like but also those of the higher ranke Iupiter Iuno Saturnus Vesta Vulcanus and the rest were but men and women to whom such honors had begun to be yeelded after they were dead it being by custome receiued when men were renowned either for strange acts or good deserts to honour them as gods when they were dead by setting vp their images and doing sacrifice and deuotion to them Hereupon Lactantius saith as noting the most vsuall shape and forme of their idols a Lactan. Instit lib 2. cap. 18 Simulachra quae colunt effigies sunt hominum mortuorum The idols which they worship are the shapes or images of dead men Yea they who conceiued better of the conditioÌ„ of their gods acknowledged that b M. Tull de nat deor lib. 1. Quis â—aem caecus in contemplandis rebus vnquam fuit vt non videret species istas hominum â—ollatas in deos aut consilio quodem sapientuÌ„ quò faciliâ—s animos imperitorum ad decrum cultum à vitae prauitate cooâ—erterent aut superstitione vt essenisimulachra quae venerantes deos ipsos se adire crederent the shapes of men were applied vnto them and that either by the aduice of wise men that they might the more easily turne the minds of ignorant men from naughtinesse of life to the worship of the gods or of superstition that there might be images which the people comming to should beleeue that they came to the gods themselues It is plaine therefore that Origen erred in vnderstanding the Apostle to say that an idoll is nothing that is a shape fitting to nothing in the world because idols were most commonly the shapes of men and set vp as popish images in remembrance and honour of dead men supposed for their merits and good deserts to be aduanced to heauen And in this respect S. Austine preferred the Pagans and heathens before the Manichees for c August contra Faust li. 20. ca. 5. Pagani colunt c. quae sunt sed prodijs colenda non sunt c. Vos ea colitis quae omninò non sunt sed vestraruÌ„ fallaciuÌ„ fabularum vinitate finguntur the Pagans worship things that be though they be not to be worshipped but you saith he worship those things which be not at all but are fained by the vanitie of your deceitfull fables and tales The meaning then of the Apostles words An idoll is nothing is that which the Scripture elsewhere telleth vs d Esa 44 10. it is profitable for nothing e chap. 41.23 it can neither do good nor euill neither saue nor destroy neither make cleane nor vncleane f August ibid. Sunt idola sed ad salutem nihil sunt Es cap. 9. Ad salutem vel aeliquaÌ„ vtilitateÌ„ nihil sunt Idols are saith Austin but to saluation they are nothing to steed vs or profit vs they are nothing g Chrysosti in 1. Corin homil 20. Sunt quidem sed nihil possunt non magis intelliguÌ„t quaÌ„ alij lapides They are saith Chrysostome but they can do nothing they haue no more vnderstanding then other stones Hitherto then all that M. Bishop saith is but an Idoll according to his owne construction making shew to be somewhat when indeed it is nothing But yet he maketh a further challenge Let M. Perkins quote but
of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answer is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it self is the best glosse if there be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsly termed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsly termed matter of strife because it is not so of his own nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not S. Peter sayth Yes No sayth M. Perkins 1 Pet. â— because that cometh not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly termed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly that which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so termed although it be not the cause of contention in it selfe but written to take away all contention But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of Saint Augustine be good directions whereby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of Diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructions and learned commentaries but to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text is extreme rashnesse and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe wel conuersant in those rules endued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best commentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisite yet he ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his study he vnderstood not then which he did vnderstand * Epist 119. cap. 21. And shall euery simple man furnished onely with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer Why do the Lutherans to omit all former heretikes vnderstand in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrary Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the ayd of those triuial notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie without there be admitted some certain Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauior to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randon and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of temporall iustice it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Law to expound and conster the grounds of the law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquitie should not be law or when should there be any end of any hard mater one Lawyer defending one part another the other one counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one party to haue the right another as certainly auerring not that but the contrary to be law both alledging for their warrant some texts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloudy debate perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne To auoid then such garboiles and intestine contention there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker who in wisedome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens do the earth hath left his golden lawes at randon to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit no no it cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne of God In the old Testament which was but a state of bondage as it were an introduction to the new yet was there one appointed vnto whom they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Law yea and bound were they vnder paine of death to stand to his determination and shall we be so simple as to suffer our selues to be perswaded that in the glorious state of the Gospell plotted and framed by the wisedom of God himselfe worse order should be taken for this high point of the true vnderstanding of the holy Gospel it selfe being the life and soule of all the rest R. ABBOT It is truly said by Thomas Aquinas that a Thom. Aquin. sum p. 1. q. 39. art 4. c. In proprietatibus locutionum non tantum attendenda est res significata sed etiam modus significandi in propriety of speeches we are not only to regard the thing signified but also the manner of signification A speech may be true yet true only in some manner of signification which therefore in propriety of speech is not true because the thing properly of it selfe is not that that the speech importeth it to be Christ saith M. Bishop is truly called the rocke of offence Be it so yet it is true only in some manner of signification in which it is that the Scripture so calleth him in proprietie of speech it is not true because Christ of himselfe and properly is not so He becommeth so