faith properly so called cannot be without these then it is true which we say that true faith can neuer be without charity and good works But that he denieth in the other place and with common consent they all deny it Therefore he must denie that which here he himselfe saith that godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith is a necessary condition of faith properly so called and so as yet there is no exception but that their faith is the same with the deuils faith But taking this which he saith which indeed is true though he by no meanes must stand to it that godly and deuout submission c. is a necessary condition of true faith yet because it is but a condition adioined and not the very nature of faith it selfe surely vnlesse he describe faith in other sort then he doth he answereth yet nothing as touching the very act of faith but that the faith of deuils is all one with their faith His other exception is that the deuils trust not in God for Saluation nor indeauour any manner of way to obtaine it as Christians do Which is euen as vaine as the former was because he answereth nothing to put difference as touching faith it selfe he himselfe still denying that trust in God for a mans owne Saluation is any part of faith But he should haue answered directly to the point what there is in the very nature of faith it selfe whereby their faith is to be distinguished from the faith of deuils whereof he is not able to giue vs any certaine answer And to be short all that he hath here said is but framed for a shew to serue for present shift because he dareth not deny but that there haue bene and are many desperate rakchels yea of their Popes and Cardinals there haue not wanted such in whom there is no godly or deuout submission of vnderstanding to the obedience of faith no trust in God for Saluation no indeauour to obtaine it who yet haue had their Catholike faith to beleeue that Christ hath died and risen againe and that by his bloud there is forgiuenesse of sinnes though not for them yet for them that repent so that in that which he saith hitherto there is nothing at all whereby to put difference betwixt their faith the deuils faith and hereafter we shall see that he is able to say no more then here he hath said 4. W. BISHOP M. Perkins in his first exception graunts Pag. 54. That commonly men do not beleeue their Saluation as infallibly as they do the articles of the faith yet saith he some speciall men do Whereof I inferre by his owne confession that our particular Saluation is not to be beleeued by faith for whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith is as infallible as the word of God which assureth vs of it Then if the common sort of the faithfull do not beleeue their Saluation to be as infallible as the articles of our Creed yea as Gods owne word they are not by faith assured of it Now that some speciall good men either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of a vertuous life haue a great Certaintie of their Saluation we willingly confesse but that Certaintie doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinarie faith R. ABBOT M. Perkins rightly saith that the Scriptures in this matter of faith assurance do direct vs the duty of faith what it ought to do and what we are to pray and labour for though we do not all and alwaies attaine vnto it Secondly that though commonly men do not with the like assurance beleeue their owne Saluation as they do the doctrine of faith expressed in the articles of the Creed yet that some speciall men do so as did Abraham and the Prophets and Apostles and martyrs of God in all ages who without doubting laied downe their liues for the testimony of God and for the name of Christ assuring themselues to receiue a better resurrection And so we make no question but that by the same spirit that certified them many faithfull also now do receiue the like certificate of eternall blisse and are thereby ready if occasion serue to do the same that they haue done Now because he saith that commonly men do not so infallibly beleeue their owne Saluation though some speciall men do hereof saith M. Bishop I inferre by his owne confession that our particular Saluation is not to be beleeued by faith But of his confession followeth no such illation For he cannot conclude that therfore our own Saluation is not infallibly to be beleeued by faith because men do not cōmonly so beleeue it but rather that it is so to be beleeued by faith because some special men do beleeue it so for that in those speciall men is example to the rest what they ought to striue vnto But saith M. Bishop Whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith is as infallible as the word of God that assureth vs of it And we graunt that it is as infallible in it selfe but not alwaies so in our apprehension feeling And if he will say that it is alwaies as infallible to vs and our vnderstanding and conscience he speaketh very falsly and absurdlie for there are diuers degrees of faith a Mat. 8.26 little faith b Cap. 15.28 great faith c Rom. 4.21 full assurance of faith euen as a weake eie and a strong eie And as a weake eie seeth but weakly and vnperfectly and a strong eie seeth strongly and more fully discerneth the thing seene so a little faith beleeueth faintly though truly greater faith beleeueth more stedfastly full assurance of faith d Ibid. ver 18. beleeueth vnder hope euen against hope The disciples of Christ said vnto him e Iohn 6.69 We beleeue know that thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God Which in it selfe was infallibly true and yet they did not so infallibly apprehend it but that this faith was soone shaken and because they did not yet infallibly beleeue it our Sauiour telleth them that therefore he forewarned them of his death resurrection that f Ibid. ca. 14.29 when it was come to passe they might beleeue namely as S. Austine saith g August in Ioan. tract 79. Quo vtso illud fuerant creditu ri quòd ipse esset Christus filius Dei viui c. Creditur autem hoc no fide noua sed aucta aut certè cū mortuus esset defecta cùm resurrexisset refacta Neque enim eum Dei filium non ante credebant sed cùm in illo factū est quod ante praedixit fides illa quae tunc quādo illit loquebatur fuit parua cùm moreretur penè tā nucta reuixit creuit that he was Christ the Son of the liuing God Which as he addeth they should beleeue not with a new faith but with a faith increased which was quailed in his death but
repaired in his resurrection For they were not without this faith before that he was the Sonne of God but when it came to passe which he foretold that faith which when he spake vnto them was little and small and when he died in a manner none both reuiued and increased It was faith that made h Mat. 14.28 Peter vpoÌ„ Christes word to step into the sea to go to Christ vpoÌ„ the waters beleeuing that he should be safe but yet he beleeued it not infallibly the faintnesse of his faith made him begin to sink so that being vehemently afraid he cried out vnto Christ for help saying Maister saue me Therfore our Sauiour saith to him i Ver. 31. O thou of little faith wherefore didst thou doubt In which sort when another time the disciples were afraid by reason of a tempest vpon the sea awaked him being asleepe saying vnto him k Cap. 8.25 Maister saue vs we perish he answered theÌ„ Why are ye fearefull O ye of little faith in both these places shewing that little faith such as now the faith of the Apostles theÌ„selues was doth not make a man so infallibly to beleeue as that he is thereby wholly voided of feare and doubt yet sheweth it selfe to be true faith in that the same feare doubt maketh him alwaies to runne to Christ as expecting succour and strength in him Such is the faith whereby the common sort of faithfull men do beleeue their owne particular Saluation truly and effectually to the comfort of their soules yet not so fully and infallibly as to be altogether freed from feare and doubt For it is to be obserued which was intimated before that matters of faith concerning our owne Saluation do consist partly in principles deliuered by the word of God and partly in conclusions thence deriued to our selues Now albeit faith sometimes do wauer stagger as touching the very principles themselues and immediate words of God yet because the truth Certaintie thereof is more easily and better conceiued they are for the most part more familiarly readily beleeued But the conclusions because of themselues they are vnknowne and haue their light only from the principles are not so firmly apprehended as the principles themselues whilest doubts haply may be cast least there be any errour committed in the application vse thereof It is a principle deliuered for assurance of Saluation l Act. 16.31 Beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ thou shalt be saued Hereupon the faithful man inferreth to himself I beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ therfore I shal be saued In this either coÌ„fusely or expresly inferred he coÌ„forteth himselfe reioyceth in God in hope hereof cheerefully serueth God calleth vpoÌ„ his name in patience expecteth the reuealing of his Saluation And yet sometimes it falleth out that he questioneth his faith and not seeing such effects thereof as he supposeth there ought to be maketh doubt least haply he be deceiued and though the principle be true by which he first beleeued yet is ielous least he haue misapplied it to himselfe Thus sometimes by other temptations true faith is assaulted and greatly shaken so that he that greatly reioyced in the Saluation of the Lord by hastie cogitations is ouertaken and brought to say as Dauid in that case did m Psal 31.22 I am cast out of the sight of thine cies This was the manner of the Apostles faith at first and this manner of faith and assurance do we teach and do teach men to pray with the Apostles n Luk. 17.5 Lord increase our faith that from weaknesse of faith and slender assurance we may grow to strength of faith and full assurance as the Apostles did In the meane while therefore it is false and contrary to the word of God which M. Bishop saith that the faithfull haue not by faith assurance of Saluation vnlesse they beleeue it to be as infallible as the word of God it selfe Now for conclusion he confesseth that some either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of vertuous life haue a great Certaintie of Saluation but that he saith doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinarie faith But we answer him that there is no well grounded hope but that which is grounded vpon ordinarie faith and beleefe of that that is hoped for For hope is the proper effect of ordinary faith and nothing else as we shal see hereafter but a patient expectation of that that we beleeue shall be and if we do not beleeue that it shal be we cannot be said to hope for it in that sence wherein the Scripture teacheth hope Of ordinarie faith it is that the Apostle saith o Rom. 5.1 Being iustified by faith we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord by whom we haue accesse through faith vnto this grace wherein we stand and reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God thereby shewing that to reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God is the effect of an ordinarie faith whereby we are assured of peace with God Of ordinarie faith S. Iohn speaketh where he saith p 1. Iohn 5.13 These things haue I written vnto you that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God that ye may know that ye haue eternall life By ordinary faith therefore the faithfull are not vncertainly to hope but assuredly to know that they haue eternall life But it is here to be obserued that Maister Bishop affirmeth not onely of that Certaintie that is gotten by long exercise of vertuous life but also of that that s by reuelation from God that it rather belongeth to hope then to ordinarie faith writing he wist not what himselfe because if he be asked the question he will not deny but that whatsoeuer God hath reuealed is to be beleeued by ordinary faith because he saith afterwards that it is the Catholike faith that is ordinary â—aith to beleeue all that to be true which God hath reuealed Howsoeuer the reuelation be extraordinarie as we know he intendeth it yet it is ordinarie faith by which a man beleeueth such extraordinarie reuelation so as that neither that assurance that is had by this extraordinarie reuelation is altogether free from feares and doubts shaking sometimes the confidence of that which a man hath receiued immediatly from the oracle of Gods owne mouth or by speciall messengers directed from God for certificate in that behalfe Which is to be seene in the examples of Abraham and Isaac and Dauid and others to whom God hath giuen speciall promise of his protection and fauour and yet vpon occasions they haue bewraied great infirmitie in the apprehension thereof And if this befall to faith in those things that are extraordinarily reuealed much more we may assure our selues that it befalleth there where we haue no other but ordinary reuelation by the written word of God Therefore on euery side M. Bishops assertion is false that there can
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
not thus haue sayd with so great faith and humilitie saith S. Austin but that he did alreadie beare Christ in his heaâ—â— Wâ— doubt not but he had conceiued of Christ that he was the Sonne 〈◊〉 God the Sauiour of the world and with this faith came vnto 〈◊〉 The profession of his faith is here mentioned according to the present occasion It followeth not that because the act of faith is no further expressed here therefore there was nothing further in his faith for his iustification towards God Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say that he could be iustified without beleeuing the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ which yet is not expressed here and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring vs this example to shew what is meant by iustifying faith In the other places as touching beleeuing that d Mat. 16 16. Ioh. 20.32 Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God the question is what is meant by beleeuing that Iesus is Christ If no more but an act of vnderstanding barely to assent vnto it then the diuels professe as much e Mar. 1.24 O Iesus of Nazaret I know thee who thou art euen the holy one of God But that we may not make that beleefe a matter common to the diuell we must vnderstand it to be a compounded action not of the vnderstanding onely but of the heart of the will and affections as appeareth by the third place which to this purpose he citeth f Rom. 10.9 If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued for with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse c. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized Philip saith g Act. 8.37 If thou beleeue with all thine heart thou mayest I beleeue saith he that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God Beleefe therefore in these speeches importeth such a beleefe as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we beleeue him to be whereby we beleeue to our owne vse and comfort that which we beleeue It is such a faith as desireth seeketh embraceth holdeth ioyeth in that which it beleeueth because therein it seeth and apprehendeth peace whereby we so beleeue that Iesus is Christ as that according to that we beleeue him to be we beleeue in him and put our trust and confidence in him This is implied in the words that Iesus is Christ that is the promised Messias and Sauiour in whom is promised vnto vs and in whom we looke to find blessing peace immortalitie and euerlasting life Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith h August in Psal 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum non quomodo daemones creâ—ebant sed non diligebaÌ„t Christum ideo quamuis crederent dicebant Quid nobis tibi est fili Dei Nos autem sic credamus vt in ipsum credamus diligentes eum non dicamus Quid nebis tibi est sed potius diâ—amus Ad te pertinemus tu redimisti nos Omnes qui sic credunt tanquaÌ„ lapides sunt viui de quibus templuÌ„ Dei ad fiâ—aâ—um est tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus arâ—a illa compacta est quae in diluuâ—o merge non potuit This is to beleeue in Christ euen to loue Christ not as the diuels beleeued and loued not and therefore albeit they beleeued yet said What haue we to do with thee thou sonne of God But let vs so beleeue as that we beleeue in him louing him and let vs not say What haue we to do with thee but rather let vs say We belong to thee thou hast redeemed vs. All that thus beleeue are as liuely stones of which the temple of God is builded and as those neuer putrifying plankes and timber whereof the Arke was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood Such a faith must M. Bishop confesse to be meant in the places by him alledged that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of diuels By this the answer is plaine to the last place which mentioneth only the subiect and matter of the Gospell but of the manner of beleeuing expresseth nothing Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sinnes there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospell we beleeue as where the same Apostle saith i Rom. 4.25 He was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification which we cannot be sayd truly to beleeue vnlesse we beleeue our selues to be redeemed and iustified from our sinnes by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ Now then we deny not but that the beleefe expressed in the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which we must be saued yet not according to that historicall meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them but according to that true meaning of beleeuing in God which the Scripture teacheth whereby a man can truly say I beleeue in God which M. Bishop cannot tell whether he can say or not and therefore we are sure that he cannot say But though he cannot say it yet let him not repine at vs that can and if he list not to haue any part in that faith whereby he should apply to himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ to the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life let him leaue it vnto vs and we will ioy therein and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion because thereby Iesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone of whom we presume all things towards God who can presume nothing of our selues But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile where mentioning this faith layed as the corner stone of our religion which the sycophant as the Popes parrot to speake what he teacheth him termeth irreligion he inferreth this being so what morall or modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it It made me call to mind the morall and modest conuersation of their Popes the humilitie and deuotion of the most of their Cardinals and Bishops the sweet and cleanly life of their Votaries both religious and secular and by them to consider what good fruits M. Bishops faith hath brought forth amongst them It made me remember a storie that I haue heard out of Boccace of a conuerted Iew of whom he that conuerted him would by no meanes heare that he should go to Rome fearing that the sight of the behauiour that he should see there would make him renounce Christianitie againe It made me thinke of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon who seeing enormous behauiours so to abound at Rome refused to become Christians saying k Mâ—t. Parisan Henrico 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates dicebant Quomodo ex vno fonte aequa dulcis salsa poterit emanare Vbi
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
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
and loue to preferre the seruice of Christ before all the glory of this world Albeit it is not to be omitted that S. Iohn somtime following the Hebrew phrase vseth the terme of beleeuing in Christ abusiuely applying it to them who by the miracles of Christ and his manifest declaration of the truth were conuicted in conscience to acknowledge him to be of God but yet did not at all in their hearts submit themselues vnto him Thus he saith in another place that y Ioh. 2.23 many beleeued in the name of Christ when they saw his miracles which he did to whom yet he did not commit himselfe because he knew what was in them Thus might it be said of some of those chiefe rulers that they beleeued in Christ that is were perswaded in their minds that he spake the truth but yet preferring their credit and reputatiō with men gaue no regard vnto it But that there is another manner of beleeuing in Christ which is that wherof we speake not incident to them who cōtinue wholy possessed with such respects Christ himself sheweth saying z Ioh. 5.44 How can ye beleeue which receiue honor one of another seek not the honor that cometh of God alone They might therfore in some meaning be said to beleeue in Christ when yet they had no true faith which as appeareth by these words cannot be separated from loue and seeking of the honour that cometh of God alone which wheresoeuer it is begun beginneth to looke vnto God and winding by degrees out of all other regards yeeldeth it selfe entirely to follow him Therfore the distinction of faith being obserued which the Scripture it selfe enforceth vpon vs M. Bishop hath yet alledged nothing to proue that true faith and charitie may be diuided or that any man may be said truly to beleeue in whom there is not also loue to righteousnesse and good works 51. W. BISHOP Cap. 2. 5 This place of S. Iames What shall it profit my brethren if any man say that he hath faith but hath not works what shall his faith be able to saue supposeth very plainly that a man may haue faith without good workes that is without charitie but that it shall auaile him nothing Caluin saith that the Apostle speakes of a shadow of faith which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our Creed but not a iustifying faith Without doubt he was litle acquainted with that kind of faith by which Protestants be iustified but he directly speakes of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by saying That that faith did worke with his works and was made perfect by the workes Was this but a shadow of faith But they reply that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell and therefore cannot be a iustifying faith that followeth not for an excellent good thing may be like vnto a bad in some things as Diuels in nature are not onely like but the very same as Angels be euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a Diuels faith when it is naked and voyd of good works in two points first in both there is a perfect knowledge of all things reuealed secondly this knowledge shall not stead them any whit but only serue vnto their greater condemnation because that knowing the will of their master they did it not And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together now there are many points wherein these faiths do differ but this one is principall that Christians out of a godly and deuout affection do willingly submit their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith beleeuing things aboue humane reason yea such as seeme sometimes contrary to it But the diuell against his will beleeues all that God hath reuealed because by his naturall capacitie he knowes that God cannot teach nor testifie any vntruth Againe that faith may be without charitie is proued out of these words of the same 2. chapter Euen as the body without the spirit is dead so also faith without works is dead Hence thus I argue albeit the body be dead without the soule yet it is a true natural body in it selfe euen so faith is perfect in the kind of faith although without charity it auaile not to life euerlasting Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be without charity for they haue seuerall seates in the soule one being in the will and the other in the vnderstanding they haue distinct obiects faith respecting the truth of God and charity the goodnesse of God Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charity as charity doth faith for we cannot loue him of whom we neuer heard Neither yet doth charity naturally flow out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnes of God and of his benefits and loue towards vs into which good and deuout considerations few men do enter in comparison of them who are led into the broad way of iniquity through their inordinate passions This according to the truth and yet more different in the Protestants opinion for faith layes hold on Christs righteousnes receiues that in but charity can receiue nothing in as M. Perkins witnesseth Pa. 85. but giues it selfe forth in all duties of the 1. and 2. Table Now sir if they could not apply vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the 1. and 2. Table they should neuer apply it to them for they hold it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessary lincking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogether impossible for charity is the fulnesse of the law which they hold impossible Rom. 12. and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibility they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation R. ABBOT That faith may be without charitie and good workes it is true and we doubt not thereof according to the meaning of faith of which S. Iames speaketh which Caluin very iustly and rightly saith is but a shadow of faith For it plainely appeareth by the text that he speaketh of faith as only professed before men as before hath bene alledged Therefore he compareth it a Iam. 2.16 to the good words of him that wisheth wel to the poore man but doth nothing at all for him To this tendeth his question b Ver. 14. What auaileth it though a man say that he hath faith and his other demand c Ver. 18. shew me thy faith The vttermost that he extendeth it to by instance is a meere historicall faith d Ver. 19. Thou beleeuest that there is one God His purpose is to shew that faith if it be truly professed hath a root within from whence spring by obedience the fruites of al good workes and if it giue not foorth it selfe by workes it is no true faith Whereas M. Bishop saith that S. Iames speaketh directly of such a faith as Abraham was iustified
by he saith very vntruly and absurdly for S. Iames bringeth the example of the true and liuely and workfull faith of Abraham as opposite to that idle and dead faith concerning which he propounded that question of faith and workes Yea of Abrahams faith he sheweth that it was said e Ver. 23. Abraham beleeued God and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse which was neuer said of any man for saying that he had faith for beleeuing that there is one God for that faith that consisteth onely in profession before men Now the faith of Abraham which f Ver. 22. wrought with his workes and was made perfect by his workes g Beda in Epist Iac. cap. 2. that is saith Beda was proued by the performance of workes to be perfect in his heart this faith of Abraham I say is it whereby the Protestants hope to be iustified in the sight of God as Abraham was because h Rom 4.23 it was not written for him onely that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse but also for vs to whom it shall be imputed beleeuing in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead We alledge further that the faith whereof S. Iames speaketh is likened to the faith of diuels and therefore that it cannot be the same with that which the Scripture nameth for a iustifying faith M. Bishop answereth that that followeth not and for auouching thereof maketh Abrahams faith not onely the same with the faith of hypocrites and false Christians but also with the faith of diuels He would qualifie the matter in shew but in truth maketh no difference An excellent good thing may be like vnto a bad in some things saith he True but yet the bad cannot be like the good in that wherin standeth the goodnesse and excellencie of the good Now he maketh the Hypocrites faith if we consider the very act of faith the same that Abrahams faith was which was reputed vnto him for righteousnesse and for which the Scripture setteth him foorth as an excellent patterne of faith to be followed of all beleeuers But to auoyde the odiousnesse hereof he sophisticateth the matter and so much as in him lyeth blindeth his reader They are like saith he in two points where in the first point he comprehendeth the fulnes and perfection of that which he calleth Catholike and Christian faith consisting as here absurdly he saith in the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed as if euery one that hath their Catholike faith haue the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed but as more plainly he hath deliuered his mind before i Sect. 18. in beleeuing all to be true that God hath reuealed No more is there in Abrahams faith if we keepe within the compasse of the nature of faith no lesse in the diuell the same in euery Catholike Christian and so the diuel is become a Catholike whether he wil or not Come on M. Bishop rid vs of this doubt for we cannot find by you but that the diuell by Catholike faith is become a Catholike He goeth on Secondly this knowledge shal not steed them any whit But that is nothing to the very nature of faith whether is steede or not steed The essence act of faith whether it steed or not steed is no more but this to beleeue generally all to be true which God hath reuealed and therefore whether with good works or without the faith of the Catholike Christian in the act of faith is no other but the diuels faith Now albeit he say that these faiths differ in many points yet of those many he nameth but onely one and that nothing to the purpose For if he will shew a difference of faith betwixt Christians and diuels he must take it from faith it selfe and not from those things which to the nature of faith are meerely accidentall Christians saith he out of a godly and deuout affection do willingly submit their vnderstanding to the rules of faith But this is not to make a difference but to adde charity vnto faith This godly and deuout affection and willing submission is an act of charity and not of faith an act of the wil and affection wherein charity is seated not of the vnderstanding wherin he saith is the seat of faith And in this affection and submission faith it selfe still is no more then it was before to beleeue all to be true that God hath reuealed The diuel then still pleadeth for himselfe that if the Catholike faith which M. Bishop hath described do make a Catholike there is no reason to except against him for being a Catholike because he beleeueth all to be true which God hath reuealed Or if he wil say that true Christian faith doth alwaies actually necessarily imply this godly deuout affection and willing submission of the vnderstanding to the rules of faith then because this cannot be without charity let him grant the question let vs trauell no further about this point but let him say as we say that the true Christiā faith wherby it is said we are iustified cā neuer be separate frō charity good works Thus he casteth himself into he knoweth not what Labyrinths mazes cannot tell how to get out How much better were it for to acknowledge the simple and plaine truth of God then to intricate himselfe in these perplexities wherin he can find no place to stand secure But yet out of the words of S. Iames As the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead he will further prooue that faith may be without charitie and yet perfect in the kind of faith Now this is it that hath bene said that in the kind of faith considering faith intirely in it selfe he maketh Abrahams faith and the diuels faith to be all one As touching the words of S. Iames sufficient hath bene said before If faith be considered as outwardly professed to men as he intendeth it good workes are the life of faith If it be considered as it is inward in the heart to God good workes cannot be the life thereof because that which is without cannot giue life to that that is within Whereas he turneth workes into charitie he playeth the Sophister for it is one thing to talke of charitie another thing to talke of workes the one being in habite the other in act the one inward the other outward the one the tree the other the fruite the one the spring the other the streame But letting this passe as handled before let vs see how he argueth from the place of Iames Albeit the body be dead without the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe But that is not true for a true naturall body is that onely which hath the true members and parts of a naturall bodie which a dead bodie hath not k Arist Polit. lib. 1. cap. 1 When the body is dead saith Aristotle there shall be neither foote nor hand but onely by
semblance of name as a man tearmeth a hand of stone for in like sort is a dead hand for all parts of the bodie are defined by their office and facultie Therefore when they lye dead they are not the same but retaine onely the shew and shadow of the name The argument therefore must be turned against himselfe that as the dead body is not a true naturall bodie but onely by equiuocation is so called euen so a dead faith is no true faith but onely by equiuocation for some semblance to men it carieth the shew and shadow of the name of faith Yet he will not so giue ouer but as hauing set the stocke vpon it he will winne it in this period or else he will loose all Indeed he is like a sheepe tangled in the briars the more he struggleth and striueth the faster he tyeth himself He saith that faith charity haue seueral seats in the soule faith in the vnderstanding and charity in the will But that is not so for as hath bene before said true and vnfained faith which the Scripture commendeth for iustification is a mixt action of the vnderstanding and will Yea the Apostle expresly placeth faith in the heart which is the seate of the affections l Rom. 10.10 With the heart saith he man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued No maruell that M. Bishop cannot tell what true faith is who knoweth no other faith but onely a faith of the head consisting in speculatiue fancies and imaginations of the braines and descending no lower then the tongue whereas the Apostle speaketh of a faith of the heart a feeling faith which by feeling gathereth to it the affection and will which is not onely an act of knowledge and vnderstanding as M. Bishop dreameth but implieth an affecting desiring embracing seeking of that which it beleeueth a ioying and reuiuing of it selfe therein So I alledged before out of Oecumenius that the faith whereof Saint Paul speaketh is not a bare assent as is the faith of diuels and M. Bishops Catholike faith but m Oecumen in lac cap. 2 Consecutionem ex affectu procedentē hath some further consequence arising from the affection Againe they haue distinct obiects saith he faith respecting the truth of God and charitie the goodnesse of God Indeed the truth of God is the obiect of our faith but what is the matter of that truth but the promise of God concerning his goodnesse towards vs n Psal 27.13 I should vtterly haue fainted saith Dauid but that I beleeue verily to see the goodnesse of the Lord in the land of the liuing o Ferus in Mat. ca. 8. Fides quam Scriptura commendat nihil aliud est quà m fidere gratuita Dei miserecordia The faith saith Ferus which the Scripture cōmendeth is nothing els but to trust to the free mercie of God So then the goodnesse mercy of God is properly and truly the obiect of our faith Yea and how should the goodnesse of God be the obiect of our charitie but by being first the obiect of our faith For therefore do we loue the goodnesse of God or loue God for his goodnesse towards vs because first we beleeue the same neither can we so loue but by beleeuing For charitie consisting simply in affection apprehendeth nothing in God of it selfe but receiueth all from faith which is it as Chrysostome noteth p Chryso in Rom. hom 8. Conuenientem de Deo opinionē accipit whereby we conceiue a due and conuenient opinion concerning God Loue is not a reciprocall action the passage thereof is meerely from him that loueth to the thing that is loued Thus therefore it is in our loue to God but what we conceiue backe againe of him towards vs it is by faith and not by loue Yea M. Bishop himselfe verifieth this in that he saith We cannot loue him of whom we neuer heard For what is all our hearing but onely by beleeuing that which we heare First therefore we heare of Gods goodnesse his mercy his truth c. and by beleeuing that which we heare our affections are drawne vnto him First therfore all these are the obiects of our faith and consequently become the obiects of our loue His next difference is a meere begging of the question We say that faith though it do not presuppose charitie as a thing precedent yet alwayes supposeth and inferreth it as an immediate and necessary consequent For faith receiueth Christ q Ephes 3.17 to dwell in our hearts who commeth not but accompanied with grace and with the fruites of the spirit which alwayes grow and increase according to the increase and growth of faith Great faith hath feruent loue weaker faith hath weaker loue but alwayes hath a measure of loue answerable to it selfe Now by this that hath bene said it appeareth how vntruly M. Bishop saith for his last difference that charitie doth not naturally flow out of faith whereas indeed common sence in diuinitie doth instruct him that the original thereof is from thence and onely from thence For if we cannot loue God but by hearing beleeuing him to be that that he is then it is faith which setting God before vs such a one as he is wise mighty iust merciful louing and gracious vnto vs enamoreth our hearts and breedeth in vs affections correspondent to his grace neither is there any spark of loue but what ariseth from this ground Yea M. Bishop himselfe confesseth so much but that his wits are so besotted with his minion of Rome that he knoweth not what he saith Charitie saith he doth not naturally flow out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnesse of God and of his benefites and loue towards vs. Which is as much as if he should say it doth not naturally flow out of faith but doth naturally flow out of faith For whence is this consideration of Gods goodnes c. but from faith Do we consider these things any otherwise but as by faith we first apprehend and beleeue the same It is faith as hath bene said which affecteth and seasoneth the hart with the sweet tast and feeling of those considerations and thereby allureth and draweth vs to love him of whom we haue receiued so great loue And for want of faith it is that it cometh to passe which M. Bishop to make vp his sentence impertinently complaineth of that few men enter into these good and deuout considerations yea he and his by oppugning and destroying true faith do helpe to draw men backe from considering of these things Now all that hitherto he hath sayd he telleth vs is according to the truth whereas indeede there is not a word true as hath appeared and if it had beene true yet he had gained nothing thereby because it followeth not that those things which are deuided in facultie and
vse are therefore deuided in the subiect or may be the one without the companie of the other as by infinite examples may be seene But he maketh faith and charitie more different yet in the Protestants opinion And how For faith sayth he layeth hold of Christs righteousnesse and receiues that in but charitie receiueth nothing in but giueth it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table But what of this Will he conclude thus There is a difference betwixt faith and charitie therefore faith may be without charitie No forsooth but vnlesse faith may be without charitie the Protestants saluation is vnpossible And why so Marrie charitie is the fulnesse of the law and the Protestants hold it vnpossible to fulfill the law therefore they can haue no charitie and therefore by their owne doctrine they can haue no faith because without charitie there is no faith What a horrible disputer M. Bishop is how deepe a reach hath he into hell that hee can fetch from thence these profound conclusions against the Protestants The Protestants answer to his ridiculous and childish collections is easie and ready True and liuely faith by the consideration of the goodnesse and mercy of God towards vs in Iesus Christ enkindleth in our hearts true charitie and loue towards God and towards our brethren and neighbours for Gods sake The ayme and marke of which charitie is to giue foorth it selfe in all duties of the first and second table But charitie so long as here we liue is vnperfect in all men and but vnperfectly attaineth to that that it aymeth at Some attaine in some good sort to the performance of some duties others to the performance of some other duties but none attaineth to all as r Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 1. Nullus in isto corpusculo cunctas potest habere virtutes c. Hierome well noteth against the Pelagian heretickes yea and in those that we do attaine vnto there is also some weaknesse and default some blot and staine as hath bene shewed by the corruption of sinne Å¿ Heb. 12.1 that hangeth so fast on and presseth vs downe whilest we are labouring and striuing to ascend vpward vnto God Thus therefore faith and charitie go together weake faith and charitie vnperfect running in the way but oftentimes through frailtie stumbling and falling striuing to the keeping of all Gods commandements but yet forced to say with the Apostle t Rom. 7.19 The good that I wold I do not but the euill that I would not that I do I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man but I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne But faith is our comfort that God for Christs sake and for his righteousnes sake which he hath wrought for our redemption accepteth vs as perfectly righteous in him that he forgiueth all our sins winketh at all our imperfections and will heale all our wounds and infirmities that what is now impossible through the weaknesse of the flesh may be made expedite and readie vnto vs when there shall be no longer the flesh lusting against the spirit but sin and death and all enemies shall be destroyed and u 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Thus the linking of faith and charitie maketh no impossibilitie of our saluation but it is the spirit of error that hath dazeled M. Bishops eyes that he cannot discerne how one truth agreeth and standeth with another 52. W. BISHOP Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of antiquitie that most incorrupt iudge S. Augustine saith flatly Lib. 15. de Trin. ca. 17. con Cresc lib. 1 cap. 29. that faith may wel be without charity but it caÌ„not profit vs without charitie And That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therefore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one immaculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued onely but in which onely he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept but in which onely faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith Ephes 4. of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is in many without charitie R. ABBOT The former of these two places which he citeth out of Austin is answered a Sect. 22. before The faith of which he speaketh is not 〈◊〉 true iustifying faith but onely the outward profession of the doctrine of faith That is plaine by the second b August cont Crescon lib. 1. cap. 29. One faith is had without charitie euen without the Church that is one doctrine of faith euen as the Apostle meaneth when he saith One faith one baptisme c. Thus Saint Austin declareth it when he calleth it c Ibid cap. 28. Fides qua creditur Christum esse filium Dei viâ—i Et cap. 29. Fides qua coâ—fitemur Christum esse filium Dei viui the faith whereby it is beleeued that Christ is the Sonne of the liuing God the faith whereby we confesse Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God and in other meaning he could not say there is but one faith because of the faith of particular consciences the Scripture saith that euery man shall d Habac. 2.4 liue by his owne faith That that he maketh the matter of faith the diuels acknowledge and confesse who yet cannot truly say I beleeue in God I beleeue in Iesus Christ which is the voice and profession of a true iustifying faith and cannot be separated from hope and charitie as hath bene before made manifest by the acknowledgement of Austin himselfe yea and the doctrine of faith though in generall termes it may be sometimes found amongst heretikes yet according to the substance and true meaning thereof it is not to be found with them as the same Saint Austin acknowledgeth saying e August Enchirid cap. 5. Si diligenter quae ad Christum pertinem cogiteÌ„tur nominetenus inuenitur Christus apud quoslibet haereticos qui se Christianos vocari volunt te verò ipsa non est apudeos If diligently those things be considered which belong to Christ Christ is found as touching his name amongst all sorts of heretikes who will needs be called Christians but indeed he is not with them So as then there may be the true faith of Christ in generall words where the true meaning of the faith of Christ is denied and there may be the true meaning of the faith of Christ in the profession of the mouth when the same faith is not truly and effectually imprinted in the heart And in this sort there may be indeed faith without charitie but not the iustifying faith as hath bin often said If there be that
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.
sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit opere expleas diligentèr certus opperitor iucundissimaÌ„ fruitionem repositoruÌ„ tibi bonoruÌ„ c. Bonis perfruâ— siquidem desideres quae praescripta sunt mandata opere exequitor which God hath giuen as to guide vs by the hand to direct vs the way Wilt thou then saith he be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee Prouide diligently to do the things which the law coÌ„mandeth thee to do and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee If thou desire to enioy good things performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee By Basils iudgement then it is plaine that the words haue further meaning then to refer theÌ„ to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards But Hierome goeth yet further tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort e Hieron in Esa cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt maÌ„gis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum If ye doubt of any thing if ye would know the things that ye doubt of referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures What wil M. Bishop say now wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be that the Scripture the written word shold resolue theÌ„ of al that they doubted towards God Yea the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to coÌ„ceiue f Deut. 12.32 Whatsoeuer I coÌ„mand you take heed you do it saith Moses thou shalt put nothing therto nor take ought therefroÌ„ Those words M. Bish vulgar Latin expoundeth thus g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino What I coÌ„mand thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto c. Now we haue seene before that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commaÌ„ded If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded and all that Moses commanded was written then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord and nothing to be done but that that was written But saith M. Bishop what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles I haue answered him before but yet let me tell him here that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying I came not to destroy the lawe but to fulfill it replied that it could not be that Christ should say so because the author of the Law had said that nothing should be added to the law nor taken from it Saint Austine answereth him that h August cont Faust Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant sed vt fierent quae scripta erant quod ipsa eius verba iestantur Non enim ait Joâ—a vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt sed donec omnia fiant Christ came to fulfill the Law not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law but that the things should be done which are written therein as his words saith he do shew for he doth not say Not one iot or title of the law shall passe till the things be added which are wanting but till all things be done Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine but onely explanations of the law and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law but onely do further declare and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed prophecied in the law And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell professeth i Act. 26.22 to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner yet they spake k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua no new matter or to allude to Saint Austines words though they varied in the tense yet they differed not in the signification of the word but in both times or in all times the same doctrine was preached the same faith continued the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before 7 W. BISHOP 3. Testimony * Ioh. 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions Answ Here are more faults then lines first the text is craftily mangled things being put instead of miracles For S. Iohn saith Many other miracles Christ did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name which he clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. Perkins also concealed Now to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Answ S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him is not to care what one saith But M.P. foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles without the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting true and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word Christs miracles were sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation for many other points of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what need we the other three Gospels the Acts of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Iohns Reuelations Finally admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine termes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but
they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward of which high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnwritten R. ABBOT More faults then lines saith M. Bishop but very slender proofe doth he bring of any fault First he cauilleth that the text is mangled and things put in instead of miracles The words are thus a Ioh. 20.30 Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God and that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Where we translate the Greek relatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in the neuter gender these things because it hath not reference only to miracles mentioned in the former verse but to the matter of the whole book S. Iohn here intending to set foorth the end purpose of all that he hath written For being b Hier. Proem in Matth. Cum esset in Asia tam tunc haereticorum seminae pullularent Cerinthi Hebionis caeteroruÌ„ qui negant Christum in carne venisse coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis multaruÌ„ Ecclesiarum legationibus de diuinitate saluatoris altiùs scribere in Asia as Ierome saith and the seeds of heretickes beginning to grow of Cerinthus Ebion and others denying Christ to haue come in the flesh he was forced by almost al the bishops of Asia and by messages from other churches to write more deeply then the other Euangelists had done of the diuinity of our Sauior Christ Here then he signifieth that he hath so done these things saith he are written that ye may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God Therefore Cyrill saith hereof c Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem EuaÌ„gelij manifestat As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written he manifesteth the intent of his Gospell The first fault then pretended by M. Bishop is no fault because the relatiue implieth generally what the Euangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospell The second fault is ridiculously alledged for wheÌ„ M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saued how doth he meane it or how doth any man meane it but d Acts. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ As touching the third point it hath bene e Of Iustification Sect. 18. before declared that to beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God importeth the applying vnto vs of the merit and righteousnes of Christ For as a man may f Thom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art 2. ad 3. Credere Dâ—uÌ„ non conuenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat beleeue that there is a God or that God is and yet be still an infidell wanting that beleefe therof which is properly the act of faith as Thom. Aquinas noteth so a man may in some sort beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God yet not so beleeue it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of iustifying faith because he beleeueth it not vnder such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith If it be taken only for an act of vnderstanding as the Papists take it a maÌ„ may beleeue it without any fruit because the diuels so beleeue but the beleefe of the heart which the Scripture intendeth importeth affiance and trust and inward feeling and comfort of that which it beleeueth whilst therby we apply vnto our selues the benefite of the merit passion of Christ expecting therby the remission of our sins But now froÌ„ noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a finall answer that because S. Iohn speaketh of miracles not of doctrine therefore these words proue nothing for the sufficiency of the written word Where M. Perkins exception still standeth vnremoued that because by miracles without doctrine we caÌ„not attaine to that faith wherby we beleeue that Christ is the Son of God therfore the words of the Euangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only For others did miracles as great yea g Ioh. 14.12 greater then Christ did as by example we see when h Act. 5.15 by the shadow of Peter and by i Chap. 19.12 napkins and handkerchifes from Paules body the sicke are healed which we reade not of Christ himselfe By miracles therfore Christ is not discerned vnlesse by doctrine accoÌ„panying the same he be made known vnto vs therefore the words of the Euangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make vse of the miracles of Christ So S. Austin referreth the words both to those things which Christ did and said k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Sanctus Euangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt Electa sunt auteÌ„ quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur The holy Euangelist testifieth that Christ both did and said many things which are not written and for the ouerthrowing of M. Bishops answer and iustifying of our assertion he addeth but those things were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue Cyril speaketh more expresly l Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 68. Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata vt recta fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum coeloruÌ„ perueniamus Al things which Christ did are not writteÌ„ but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conuersation as doctrine that shining with right faith and vertuous works we may attaine to the kingdom of heauen It is not then our collection only but thus these ancient Fathers conceiued that of the miracles doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct vs to faith to the attainment of euerlasting life And this is plainly deliuered in the words of S. Iohn who could not say These things are written that ye may beleeue and beleeuing may haue eternall life if there be not that written by the beleefe whereof we may obtaine eternall life Therefore as touching Saint Iohns Gospell containing all things needfull to saluation we answer him first that indeed we affirme that there is no article of faith necessarie to saluation which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospell of S. Iohn Secondly there is no cause so to restraine the words as if Saint Iohn would meane onely in his Gospell to comprehend all that should be needfull for the instruction of the Church Nay he hath a plaine reference to those things
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
in the art of true reasoning because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed not hauing any ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law R. ABBOT M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults a Hieron in Math. 23. Some saith Hierome will haue Zacharie who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur quae probatur This saith he because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall as M. Bishop pretendeth but rightly alledgeth that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof This hath no authority out of the Scriptures therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued Why so but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture is as easily contemned as approued The argument contained in Hieromes words cannot stand good but by this supply and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall according to due course But M. Bishop telleth vs that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer the sentence being in it selfe entier and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story because it had no authority out of Scripture Yea if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture yet it might be confirmed by tradition and therfore it followeth not that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture it should hereupon be reiected b Aug. de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas In the Apocryphall writings saith Austine some truth is found albeit because there are manie things also false they haue no canonicall authority If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true then it might be confirmed by tradition and therefore not to be contemned and thereof it followeth that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture is worth nothing Which if M. Bishop will not say then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue what authority of Scripture doth not confirme saying no other thing therein but what else-where he maketh good reasoning both waies c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus We beleeue it because we reade it we beleeue it not because we do not reade it And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently as easily to be contemned as approued but would simply haue contemned it because tradition had giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus to be still a virgin and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens Whereof Origen saith d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—ta narratio nobis tradita Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition yet auailed so little in the Church because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike euen from Tertullian of whom was spoken in the former section insomuch that some of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ c. die dominico per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian are there set downe in Tertullians owne words And yet by those instances it appeareth that the words come not within the compasse of our question because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall not of matters of doctrine and faith which are necessary and perpetuall which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse as if they had beene written yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome 12 W. BISHOP Maister Perkins His third Author is Saint Augustine * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well Answer All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beliefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned
must expresly beleeue if they will be saued which distinction S. Augustine else-where doth signifie * De peccatoruÌ„ meritis cap. vlt. and is gathered out of many other places of his workes as in that matter of rebaptizing them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes He saith * Lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their writings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed froÌ„ an Apostolicall tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall Church holdeth and therefore are to be beleeued The same saith he of the custome of the Church in baptizing infants * De genes ad letra lib. 10. cap. 23. And in his Epist 174. of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he we neuer reade in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * Lib. 3. cap. 3. cont max. Arianum And Saint Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not written in the word The like of the perpetuall Virginitie of our blessed Ladie * Heresi 4. out of which and many more such like we gather most manifestly that Saint Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the written word but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions R. ABBOT It is strange to see here what stutting and stammering the man vseth loth to confesse the truth and yet forced by the very euidence thereof in a manner fully to subscribe vnto it I pray thee gentle Reader to marke well the words of Austine that are here alledged a Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae a pertè posita sunt in Scripturis inueniuntur illa omnia quae conâ—nent fidem mo â—esque vivendi In those things saith he which are plainely set downe in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and behauiour of life He saith not barely in the Scriptures but in those things which are plainly set downe in the Scriptures nor that some speciall matters of faith are found but all those things are found which containe faith and conuersation of life Now how nicely doth M. Bishop mince the matter All things saith he necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation are contained in the Scriptures as if S. Austin spake here only of simple Christians and not of those that are of learning knowledge when as his drift is in this booke to teach the Preacher how to conceiue of the Scriptures for his owne vse Then he restraineth all those necessarie things to the articles of our beleefe whereas S. Austine expoundeth himselfe as touching b Spem scilicet charitatem de quibus superiore libro traectauimus hope and charitie of which he had intreated in the former booke Then he excepteth the resolution of harder matters and many difficulties which the learned must expresly beleeue when as S Austine saith that in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and conuersation of life insomuch that we haue heard him c Suprae sect 8. before pronounce a curse to an Angell from heauen who either concerning Christ or the Church of Christ or any thing belonging to our faith and life shall preach any thing but what we haue receiued in the scriptures of the Law and the Gospell But yet if they wil haue S. Austins words to be vnderstood of all things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian we would gladly know why they require euery simple man vnder paine of damnation to beleeue the Popes supremacie his succession from Peter the power of his pardons the validitie of his dispensations to beleeue their doctrine of the Masse of Purgatorie of inuocation of Saints of prayer for the dead of worshipping idols and images and a thousand such other deuices when as these are not found in any plaine places of Scripture nay when as the plaine text of Scripture is cleerly and manifestly against them Thou must vnderstand gentle Reader that M. Bishop giueth not this answer in earnest but the euidence of S. Austines words being so pregnant against him somewhat he must say for the present to colour the matter howsoeuer it be otherwise contrary to his owne defence It is not for their thrift to graunt that what concerneth euery simple Christian vpon paine of damnation is plainely set downe in Scripture to beleeue so is the marring of a great part of their haruest But alas in this case what should he do if Saint Austine say it it is not for him to speake against it onely what he looseth here he must do his best to recouer other where But for this lame answer whereby he in part confesseth the truth against himselfe and yet laboureth in part to conceale it and keepe it backe he seeketh patronage from another place of Austine saying that Saint Austine elsewhere doth signifie that distinction He noteth in the margent de peccatorum meritis cap. vltimo but which booke it is of the three he noteth not nor what the words are Now in the last chapters of the first and third booke there is nothing incident to this purpose but that which S. Austine saith in the last chapter of the second booke is such as that we neede not wonder that M. Bishop did forbeare to set downe his words For hauing there in question whether the soule be ex traduce that is whether it be deriued and propagated by generation with other points thereupon depending he saith that the matter is d August de peccat mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 36. DisputationeÌ„ desiderat eo moderamine tempe ratam vt magis inquisitio cauta lau litur quà m praecipitata reprehendatur assertio Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur non adinuantibuâ— diuinarum Scripturarum certu clarisquè documentis cohibere se debet humana praesuÌ„ptio nihil faciens in alteram partem declinando with such moderation to be handled as that a man may be rather commended for inquiring warily then reprooued for affirming rashly For sayth he where question is of a very obscure matter without the helpe of sure and euident testimonies or instructions of holy Scriptures the presumption of man is to withhold it selfe doing nothing by inclining either way But hee goeth on yet further e Ibid. Etsi enim quod libet horum quem admodum demonstrari explicari possit ignorem illud tamen credoquòd etiam hinc diuinorum eloquioruÌ„ clarssimae esset authoritat si homo illud sine dispendio promissa salutis ignorare non posset For albeit I know not how any of these points mentioned before may be declared and made plaine
we it Againe he saith e Ibid Ipsam fidei professioneÌ„ quae credimus in Patrem filiuÌ„ SpirituÌ„ sanctum è quibus habemus scriptis The very profession of faith whereby we beleeue in the Father the Son the holy Ghost out of what Scripture do we take it The maine matter which he laboreth there to approue by vnwritten tradition is the pronouncing of glorie to the Father and the Son together with the holy Ghost which yet he himselfe saith that f Cap. 25. Vim habet Scripturis congruentem Nihil diuersum dexero quod ad sententiae vitâ—â— attinet it hath a meaning agreeing with the Scriptures and that in meaning it nothing differeth from that which Christ saith the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost and so we also hold professe according to the Scriptures In this sense therfore we also admit of vnwritten traditions blame as he doth them who strictly vrge what things are found in the Scriptures that is admit of nothing but what in precise termes is expressed therein and therefore the words here in question thus far make nothing against vs. Yea and in the assertion of those other traditions which he mentioneth he nothing crosseth vs because we deny not traditions as was said in the beginning which are but rites and ceremonies of the Church who our selues haue such traditions in vse and deny not the liberty of other Churches for the like Such traditions he there mentioneth to haue bene in those times the signing of them which professe Christ with the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East to be thrice dipped in baptisme to pray standing all the time from Easter to Whitsontide such like Now such traditions we condemne not but we cannot but dislike that wheras these are no matters of faith perpetuall necessity but onely of arbitrarie and indifferent obseruation he notwithstanding reckoneth theÌ„ g Cap. 27 Quorum vtraque pareÌ„ vim habent ad pietatem as hauing like force to pietie with those things that are written and that the reiecting hereof shall be the h Et ea damnahimus quae in Euangelio ad salutem necessaria habentur condemning of those things which in the Gospell are accounted necessary to saluation To which assertion M. Bishop for the credit of their Church of Rome wil refuse to subscribe because they hold the most of these things to be indifferent insomuch that there is no necessity with theÌ„ of thrice dipping him that is baptised that custome of standing in prayer for the time aboue named is worne out of vse Wherin it caÌ„not be denied but that the Church of Rome hath done greatly amisse if it be true concerning such traditions which Basil there is made to say In a word Basils traditions if they be his concerne not our disputation either being such as are contained in the sense though not in the letter of the Scripture or else being onely temporarie and arbitrarie obseruations of the Church neither of which we impugne We impugne those traditions which are made necessarie and perpetuall doctrines of faith and of the worship of God and yet neither in the letter nor in the sence and consequence of the scriptures can be iustified so to be Of this sort are the Popes supremacie and succession of Peter his Pardons inuocation of Saints worshipping of images prayer for the dead the single life of Priests the curtolling of the Communion the sacrifice of the Masse a huge deale of such other baggage Wherein we may take knowledge of the notable fraud of these Romish Traditioners who tell vs out of the Fathers of traditions traditions when as in none of the auncient Catalogues of traditions those traditions are found which they especially require to be beleeued vnder that name The Fathers mention Apostolicke traditions as they call them whereof the Church of Rome obserueth nothing the Church of Rome telleth vs of Apostolicke traditions whereof there is no mention with the Fathers They agree not in their beadroll of traditions and yet we forsooth must beleeue that the traditions of Poperie are the same that they speake of and haue bene continued from the time of the Apostles But what the manner of the auncients was Hierome teacheth vs to vnderstand when he saith i Hieron ad Lucin Vnaequae que Prouincia abundeâ— in sensu suo praecepta maiâ—rum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let euery Prouince abound in it owne iudgement or opinion and thinke the precepts of their auncestours to be Apostolicke lawes This was indeed their custome whatsoeuer obseruations they had to terme them for the credit of them Apostolicke traditions howsoeuer they were but humane presumptions and sometimes contrarie to that which the Apostles practised as Hierome there sheweth of the tradition of k Jn Actibus Apostolorum dictus Pentecostes dit Dominico Apostolum Paulum cum to credentes teiunasse legimus not fasting vpon the Lords day and the daies betwixt Easter and Whitsontide which he saith that Paule and with him the faithfull did But as touching all such traditions we are to consider what the same Hierome elswhere saith that l Idem in Agg. cap. 1 Quae absque authoritate testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte râ—periunt contingunt percutit glâ—dius Dei What things men of their owne accord deuise and faine as of Apostolike tradition without testimonie and authoritie of the Scriptures the sword of God striketh downe As for Damascene whom M. Bishop alledgeth last we hold him not woorth the answering We doubt not but he defended vnwritten traditions without any qualification being a notable idol-monger and hauing no meanes for defence of his idolatrie but the pretence of vnwritten tradition M. Bishop committed much ouersight to reckon him for a man free from all partialitie who in that respect could not but be partiall in behalfe of the cause which he had vndertaken against the written truth of God But M. Bishop hath yet one string more to play vpon S. Paul commandeth Timothie saith he to commend vnto the faithfull that which he had heard of him by many witnesses and not that onely which he should find in some of his Epistles or in the written Gospell S. Paules words are these m 2. Tim. 3.2 What things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses the same deliuer to faithfull men which shall be able to teach other also He willeth Timothie in speciall manner to instruct some in those things which he had heard and receiued of him that they might be for the worke of the ministerie and serue for the instructing and teaching of others The question now is what those things were of which he speaketh M. Bishop when he saith not only that which he should find written coÌ„fesseth that the Apostle meant it of those things that are written though he will not haue it thought to be meant of those
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
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
to be the importment of the crowne in this place and that the Church of Philadelphia is admonished to take heed least by relapsing from her goodnesse and vertue she should loose the honour of the condition and state of a Church which God had called her vnto euen as the Church of Ephesus is before threatned e Reuel 2.5 I will come against thee shortly and will remoue thy candlestick out of his place except thou repent the candlestick in the one place being meant of the same which by the crowne is intended in the other But if Maister Bishop will needs vnderstand the crowne to be meant of Saluation and life eternall we answer him that this crowne being proper to Gods elect cannot be lost by them to whom it is assigned yet so as that withall we say that God in his wisedome hath appointed a meanes whereby he will preserue them that they may not loose the crowne To this end he vseth many exhortations and admonitions many terrours and feares many corrections and chastisements whereby he hedgeth and compasseth them in that whereas by relinquishing their faith and obedience they should indeed runne into hauock and ruine of themselues they may hereby be wrought to perseuer and continue therein to the obtaining of the crowne Thus his Maister f Bellarm. de grat lib. arbit li. 2. ca. 13. Reuerà si non perseueraret c amitteret coronaÌ„ suam sed hac admonitione perterritus c. sine dubio fortissime tenebit quod habet eo modo tandeÌ„ perueniet ad coronam quaÌ„ non habet Bellarmine confesseth that this place hath his vse in respect of them who notwithstanding by Gods predestination are holden that they cannot lose the crowne If then we do so vnderstand the crowne yet the place auaileth M. Bishop nothing but being so taken how one man should haue the crowne and by his losing it another should receiue it in place of him all his wit and learning is not able to resolue vs. This place therefore maketh nothing against the particular assurance of faith but for proofe thereof M. Perkins hath brought that that is very pregnant and cleare First he alledgeth the words of Saint Iohn g Iohn 1.12 As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God euen to them that beleeue in his name Where he argueth that to receiue Christ and to beleeue in Christ do both import the same thing because the one of them is put for the exposition of the other Now to receiue is to take in particulars a mans selfe to apply to himselfe to apprehend or lay hold of for conueying a thing to himselfe Because therefore to beleeue in Christ is to receiue Christ it followeth that to beleeue in Christ is to take Christ to apprehend him and by hold of him with all his benefits for conueying and applying of him particularly to a mans selfe to beleeue particularly for himselfe to make vse of Christ according to that the Scripture describeth him to himselfe True faith therefore according to the measure of it assureth infallibly not in the general onely by principle but in particular also by conclusion and application to it selfe This being the collection that we make from this place and plainly noted by M. Perkins M. Bishop to it answereth nothing either his eies dazeling that he could not see or his wits failing that he knew not what to say But to delude the Reader he will say somewhat to the place though he say nothing to the purpose yet that which he doth say he saith out of the schoole of Pelagius the heretike and not out of the doctrine of Iesus Christ He gaue them power that is saith he he gaue them such grace that they were able and might if they would be the sonnes of God But what did he giue them to be able onely and did he not giue them to will also to be the sonnes of God Did he leaue them to their own will either to be or not to be the sonnes of God Of them to whom he gaue this power he saith that h Iohn 1.13 they are borne not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God who not of our will but i Iam. 1.18 of his owne will begat vs by the word of truth that we should be as the first fruites of his creatures and will M. Bishop goe about to perswade vs that it is at our owne will that we are begotten and borne againe The power here spoken of should rather be translated a prerogatiue then a power and therefore Cyrill expresseth it by the terme of k Cyril in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ascendemus ad supernaturalem dignitatem per Christum a supernaturall dignitie and affirmeth that thereby is meant l Cap. 14. the adoption and grace of God which is not such as Maister Bishop speaketh of whereby it is onely giuen vnto vs m August de corrept grat cap. 11. Est in nobis per hanc gratiam noÌ„ soluÌ„ posse quod volumus verumetiam velle quod possumus to be able if we wil but also to will not only wherby we may be but wherby we are the sonnes of God as before hath bene declared in the question of Free will And whereas he addeth He did not assure them of that neither much lesse that they should so continue vnto their liues end he should vnderstand that by n 1. Pet. 5.12 the true grace of God that comfort is ministred vnto the faithfull to say as Saint Iohn directeth them o 1. Iohn 3.1 Behold what loue the Father hath giuen vnto vs * Vt filij Dei nominâ—mur simus Vulgat that we are called and are the sonnes of God Euen new are we the sonnes of God and we know that when he shall appeare we shall be like vnto him thereby teaching the effect of faith both to giue assurance of present state and of perseuerance also to future glory But all this Maister Bishop hangeth vpon the will of man hauing learned of his father Pelagius to ascribe to God p August coâ—t Pelag. Celest lib. 1. ca. 3. Possibilitatem qua potest homo esse iustus datam confitetur à creatore naturae voluntateÌ„ actionem nostra esse asserit the power whereby we are able to be or may be but to our selues the willing and acting of our adoption whereby we are indeed the sonnes of God But of this thus briefly as being beside the matter here in hand and the question of Free will being debated at large before To shew somewhat further that point of particular assurance Maister Perkins addeth that Christ setteth forth himselfe as the bread of life and water of life and commendeth vnto vs the eating of his body and the drinking of his bloud and maketh this eating and drinking the same as to beleeue in him Hence he
diuell beleeueth and knoweth as well as he But to see the giddinesse of his head reeling and staggering he knoweth not whither he saith we find Christ we hold him and see him we eate him we digest him by beleeuing thus and thus when he hath plainely giuen vs before to vnderstand that for all his beleeuing he cannot tell whether he haue any thing to doe with Christ whether he haue receiued the grace of Christ whether he haue anie true repentance hope charitie and such like without which Christ is neither holden nor had at all But such darknesse is fit for them who leaue the wayes of God and make choise to tread the Labyrinthes and maze-rounds of their owne brain-sicke imaginations To his question where it is once sayd in any of these sentences that we are assured of our Saluation I answer him that it followeth of that for proofe whereof these sentences were alledged For if the office of true faith be not onely generally to beleeue but also particularly to apply that which it beleeueth as hath bene shewed and all those speeches alledged do import then it followeth that according to the measure of it it yeeldeth a particular assurance of Saluation to euerie one that doth beleeue We beleeue saith he these points and many more but yet we shall be neuer the nearer our Saluation vnlesse we obserue Gods commaundements But if we beleeue as the Scripture teacheth vs to beleeue we are thereby the nearer our Saluation though we do not obserue Gods commandements in that sort and to that end as he intendeth For therefore do we beleeue in Christ therefore do we seeke him take hold of him eate him drinke him digest him that in him we may find the comfort of Saluation which otherwise we cannot find for want of the keeping of Gods commandements Therefore saith the Apostle c Gal. 2.16 Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law not by our keeping of Gods commandements because that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified And in this respect we are not vncertaine of performing Gods commaundements as M. Bishop speaketh but verie certaine that we neuer do or can performe them hauing continually cause to demaund pardon of our wants and therefore neuer finding any assured trust of Saluation so long as we ground it hereupon But although we denie any such keeping of Gods commandements as may serue for the purchase of our iustification and Saluation yet we acknowledge a keeping thereof as a fruit of our iustification and a part of the worke of our Saluation because d Ephes 2.10 we are Gods workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which he hath prepared for vs to walke in And this keeping of Gods commandements our Sauiour hath recommended vnto vs as M. Bishop alledgeth and of it S. Iohn saith e 1. Iohn 2.4 He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandements is a lyar and the truth is not in him But this keeping of Gods commaundements cannot be seuered from the finding and receiuing and holding and eating and digesting of Christ because no man receiueth or eateth Christ by faith but who liueth by him and in whom he liueth that he may say f Gal. 2.20 Not I now but Christ liueth in me and that I now liue in the flesh I liue by the faith of the sonne of God who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Verie idlely therefore in this behalfe doth M. Bishop tell vs that by the one we are neuer a whit the nearer without the other when the one can no where be without the companie of the other Now of this keeping of Gods commandements and perseuerance therein true faith as before hath bene shewed resteth assured because God hath so promised and so farre are we from being doubtfull of Saluation by any doubt thereof as that we rather gather hence greater strength of assurance by that we perceiue the beginning of that good worke of God in vs whereby he fitteth and prepareth his vnto euerlasting life 17. W. BISHOP The second reason is Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that certainely by faith we must beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our Saluation ergo The first proposition is true The second is proued thus S. Paul saith Rom. 8. the spirit of God beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God The Papists to elude this reason alledge that it doth indeed witnesse our adoption by some comfortable feeling of Gods fauour toward vs which may often be mistaken whereof the Apostle warneth vs when he saith beleeue not euerie spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God or no. 1. Iohn 4. But saith M. Perkins by their leaue the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare feeling of Gods grace For it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts And therefore it takes away all doubting as in a bargaine the earnest giuen puts all out of question 1. Cor. 1. I answer first out of the place it selfe that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed which M. Perkins thought wisedome to conceale For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God and coheires of Christ with this condition If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if we faile in performance of the condition God stands free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receiued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of Saluation This is the direct answer to that place although the other be verie good that the testimonie of the spirit is but an inward comfort and ioy which breedeth great hope of Saluation but bringeth not assurance thereof This M. Perkins would refute by the authority of S. Bernard in the place before cited see the place and my answer there Epist 107. R. ABBOT To shew that the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie our adoption and Saluation and therefore that we are by faith to beleeue the same M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 8.15.16 We haue receiued the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba Father The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God Which words so expresse and plaine might be sufficient to stoppe the mouthes of these brabling sophisters but that they measure the portion of Gods children by their owne carnall sence and conceipt and being destitute of true faith and of the spirit of God are no more fit to iudge hereof then blind men are to iudge of colours It is apparent that the faithfull haue a testimonie of the holy Ghost bearing witnesse with their spirit that
iustificari hominem per fidem but go fâ—rther yet to beleeue that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is saith he the testimonie that the holy Ghost giueth in our heart saying Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee For thus doth the Apostle suppose that a man is iustified freely by faith Of imputed righteousnesse enough hath bene said before the point here is of particular faith whether a man beleeue his owne sinnes to be forgiuen him S. Bernard saith yea and saith it so plainly as that M. Bishop could not tell for his life what directly to answer to it But forsooth S. Bernard addeth conditions on our party saith he which M. Perkins craftily concealeth and here he bringeth words following a mile after where S. Bernard hath broken off the point formerly in hand which was to set forth the condition of a true iustifying and sauing faith And what I pray are the conditions that he addeth Forsooth truth of conuersion bewailing of our sinnes and confessing them and afterwards following holinesse and peace Where we see a glosing sycophant which will make the simple Reader beleeue that he giueth an answer when indeede he giueth none For when we teach the beliefe of the forgiuenesse of sinnes do we teach a man vnconuerted to beleeue the same The penitent sinner confessing and bewailing his sinnes to God and carefull as hauing felt the sting of sinne thenceforth to auoid the same is the proper and onely true subiect of this disputation of iustification by faith We denie that faith hath place in any other man and therefore denie that any other can haue the true beliefe of the forgiuenesse of his sinnes Of the conuerted man then of him that truly repenteth and forsaketh his sinne S. Bernard saith and we say that the faith whereby he is iustified is a faith whereby he particularly beleeueth the forgiuenesse of his owne sinnes What is M. Bishop now but a wrangling Sophister that thus in a mist of idle discourse seeketh to steale away where indeede he is so fast holden that he cannot vntie himselfe In like sort he dealeth with the other place of Cyprian who encouraging faithfull Christians against the terrour and feare of death saith f Cyprian de Mortal Deus tibi de hoc mundo recidenti immortalitateÌ„ pollicetur tu dubitas fluctuasi Hoc est DeuÌ„ omninò non nosse hoc est ChristuÌ„ credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fideÌ„ in domo fidei non habere God hath promised immortality vnto thee when thou departest out of this world and doest thou wauer and doubt thereof This is not to know God this is by the sinne of vnbeliefe to offend Christ the maister of beleeuers this is for a man being in the Church to be without faith in the house of faith The words are manifest He propoundeth the promise of God particularly requireth the same accordingly to be beleeued not to beleeue it so he affirmeth is to be without faith in the house of faith God promiseth to thee and doest thou doubt this is not to haue faith Cyprian then teacheth such a confidence in the promises of Christ as is to be without all wauering or doubt Yea saith M. Bishop we are secure on Christes side that he will neuer faile of his word and promise but the cause of feare lies vpon our owne infirmities Thus he is like the mother that strangleth her child so soone as she hath brought it forth He setteth vp confidence with one hand and throweth it downe with another nay he setteth it vp with one hand and throweth it downe with both What is it to vs that Christ is true of his word if we may not beleeue that his word doth appertaine to vs what confidence can it yeeld that Christ faileth not of his promise so long as we must feare least our infirmities disable vs of hauing any part therein And would Cyprian talke so idlely to bid men not wauer or doubt when they might answer they had cause to feare and doubt by reason of their owne infirmities Would he bid men not doubt to go out of the world because of the promise of God when their owne infirmities might be a sufficient cause to make them feare their departure out of this world But Cyprian knew well that we can haue nothing but feare from our selues and therefore teacheth vs to build our selues wholy vpon the promise of God that howsoeuer our owne infirmities doe offer vs occasion of distrust yet resting vpon the truth of God we beleeue with Abraham g Rom. 4.18 vnder hope against hope that God will performe what he hath spoken for his owne sake as he saith by the Prophet h Ezech. 36.22 Not for your sakes but for my holy names sake I will do it saith the Lord. Yea but we bid them not doubt saith Maister Bishop as if they were as likely to be condemned as saued But how so when they see and know in themselues that for which they may be condemned and cannot know any thing whereupon they may rest the hope of saluation For you say Maister Bishop that a man cannot tell whether he haue repentance hope charity praier whether he be iustified and in the state of grace or not and therefore how should he but thinke himselfe more likely to be condemned then otherwise You say you animate them and put them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reasons But how can you put them in hope when you teach them to feare That one reason whereby you impose feare carieth more sway in the conscience then all those twenty kinds of reasons whereby you perswade hope And when you teach that a man cannot tell whether he haue any hope or not what can there rest but horrour and despaire at leastwise anguish perplexity trembling and feare saue onely in consciences that are benummed and astonished and haue no feeling of themselues In a word in death there can be no hope but setting aside the respect of our selues to depend vpon the promise of God and to say with Hilary out of the Psalme i Hilar. in Psal 51. Spes nostra in miserecordia Domini in secuâ—um in secuâ—â—m seculi Our hope is in the mercy of God for euer and euer 18. W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne partie why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alledge in fauour of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then belike because he knew not how to answer them I will out of their store take that one principall one of the testimonie of holy Scripture and by that alone sufficiently proue that the faith required to Iustification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs Righteousnesse to be ours
we are to be iustified is the obedience of Christ for n Rom. 5.15 by the obedience of one saith the Apostle shall many be made righteous and what is the obedience of Christ but the righteousnesse of Christ The righteousnes of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and receiued for our iustification And how should we be o 2. Cor. 5.21 made the righteousnesse of God in him but by apprehending and receiuing a righteousnesse which is in him He is called the p Ierem. 23.6 Lord our righteousnes not who maketh vs righteous only but who himselfe is our righteousnes and how should he be our righteousnes but by his righteousnesse Therefore in apprehending and receiuing Christ by faith we apprehend receiue the righteousnes of Christ to be our iustification before God But I need not stand vpon this for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall proue that we receiue no gift of inherent righteousnesse whereby we can be iustified in the sight of God it followeth as is also proued that the righteousnesse which we receiue by faith for iustification is the merite and obedience of Christ imputed vnto vs. Now M. Bishop telleth vs that he can gather a disproofe of all this out of M. Perkins owne explication For saith he if faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose But such disproofes will make men thinke that he is runne not out of his learning onely but also out of his wits If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins it must be thus If faith be the onely instrument whereby we apprehend Christ what neede we anie Sacraments to offer him vnto vs And why did he not as well say what neede there anie word of God to that purpose for his disproofe standeth as good in the one as in the other But M. Perkins setteth both downe as meanes on Gods part to offer Christ vnto vs not as instruments or meanes on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ and notably obserueth how the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants in the Lords Supper is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and bloud with all his merites to euery of them by faith in him Yea saith M. Bishop but how then are infants iustified who cannot haue any such act of faith I answer him that infants dying are iustified and saued meerely by vertue of the couenant and promise of God to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents and in right whereof they are baptized and entred into the bodie of the Church God hauing sayd q Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed For where the offer of the couenant hath no place there the meanes of acceptance cannot be required but by meere and absolute gift righteousnesse and life are giuen and in the Sacrament sealed vnto them who according to the purpose of the grace of God are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithfull according to the intendment and meaning of the couenant Yet nothing hindereth but that we may conceiue that God calling infants frō hence doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit giue them light of vnderstanding and knowledge and faith of Christ as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enioy for euer Who when he will maketh babes and sucklings to praise him and euen in young children sometimes in our sight sheweth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death far beyond that their yeares are capable of As for infants baptized and continuing to elder yeares they are not alwayes iustified in being baptized but God calleth them some sooner some later some at one houre some at another according to his good will and pleasure and then the medicine long before applied beginneth to worke the effect that doth appertaine vnto it 20. W. BISHOP But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M. Perkins finds fault with it one that we teach faith to go before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Ioh. 6.54 Marrie this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answer that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthily obtaineth thereby life euerlasting as Christ saith expresly in that place And so this proofe is vaine Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they do not beleeue how shall they beleeue without a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterward to call vpon God for mercie and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification This Saint Augustine obserued De praedest sanc cap. 7. De spirit lit cap. 30. when he said Faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest And againe By the Law is knowledge of sinne by faith we obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy writ reade the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were striken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must do who willed them to do penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then lo they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification In like maner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnesse yet was he not iustified Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three dayes passed betwene S. Pauls conuersion and his iustification Act. 9. as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this saies M. Perkins is as much to say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned
plaine to the words which he alledgeth for God shall render to the faithfull h Math. 16.27 according to their workes because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ For whom God hath iustified and saued vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit working in them another nature and i Ephes 2.10 creating them in Christ Iesus vnto good works whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men So that to speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation because though we be interested to it onely by faith yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof And to speake of saluation in grosse faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes but includeth them as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone because nothing else doth giue vs anie title and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other things that are necessarie to saluation 25. W. BISHOP 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ecclesiast 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you do penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is iustified because we loue the brethren Againe of Baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. so we may also walke in newnesse of life To all these many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is onely that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wait patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it R. ABBOT Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued but neuer as causes thereof as in the question of merits shall appeare We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne M. Perkins propounded but one place for them he thought himselfe to lay on loade and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified but onely faith His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall Scripture and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him First his translation is false for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them are these a Eccles 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non poterit â—racundus vir iustificari A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified that is cannot be acquitted of doing amisse cannot be cleared of committing offence because as S. Iames saith b Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith c Eccles 23.11 he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified and againe d Cap. 26.30 a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting clearing discharging holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent approuing allowing acknowledging for iust and such like as where it is said e Esa 5.23 which iustifie the wicked for reward f Mich. 6.11 shall I iustifie the false ballance g Luk. 10.29 he willing to iustifie himselfe c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them he that is without feare cannot be iustified he is as farre off from his purpose For the words import to the same effect that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent he shall not be found free from great sinne because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue that a man is iustified by feare Againe he bringeth the words of Christ h Luk. 13.3 Vnlesse ye repent do penance saith he according to their foolerie ye shall all likewise perish And what of this Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance Yea and is doing of penance a matter of iustification now But Ambrose sayeth that the Apostle calleth them l the blessed of whom God hath decreed i Ambros in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus vt sine labore aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum Et paulò post Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantum vt credant that without labour or any obseruâ—tion they are iustified with God onely by faith there being required of them no labour of penance but onely to beleeue Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs that we are iustified by doing of penance Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance As for repentance it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne no healing of our wound The feeling of paine and sicknesse causeth a man to seeke for remedie but it is no remedie it selfe Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode but a man is not fed by being hungrie By repentance we know our selues we feele our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it is faith onely without which repentance is nothing but
example of outward life To inward holinesse and purity the other part of the sentence is to be referred He that is holy let him be sanctified still that is let him adde to his sanctification let him be more and more renewed let him still be a Ephe. 4.22.24 putting off the old man and putting on the new let him still b 2. Cor. 7.1 clense himselfe from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit and finish or perfect his sanctification in the feare of God S. Iohn would not by both those speeches import one thing therfore seeing the latter without doubt importeth inward righteousnesse the other must needs be applied to outward workes As for that of Ecclesiasticus it is nothing to vs who admit no canonicall authority of that booke yet it prooueth nothing for M. Bishop nor against vs the words truly translated being these c Eccles 18.21 deferre not till death to be iustified that is put not off till death to repent to seeke forgiuenesse of thy sinnes according to that which in the former verse he hath said d Ver. 20. Humble thy self before thou be sicke whilest thou maiest yet sinne shew thy conuersion Here is nothing at all to prooue two iustifications in that sence that we here speake of as whereby a man being first iust becoÌ„meth more iust before the iudgement seat of God Increase growth of inherent righteousnesse we ackowledge and require in all faithfull Christians and his paines is idlely bestowed in the proofe thereof We know what our Sauiour saith e Iohn 15.2 Euery one that beareth fruit in me the Father purgeth that he may bring forth more fruit what S. Peter exhorteth f 2. Per. 3.18 to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ We teach men to say with S. Paul g Phil. 3.12 Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect but one thing I do I forget that which is behind endeauour my selfe to that which is before and follow hard towards the mark c. We teach with S. Bernard h Bernard in Purif ser 3. In viae vitae non progredi est regredi In the way of life not to go forward is to go backward and againe i Epist 123. Nolle proficere est deficere not to increase is to decrease k Epist 91. Vbi incipis noâ—e fieri melior 〈◊〉 etiâ—m dâ—sinis esse iâ—â—us where a man beginneth not to care to be better there he giueth ouer being good at all He need not therefore to prooue this matter vnto vs who teach it much more faithfully carefully then they do The place of Iames prooueth no other iustification but what we confesse that is an approouing declaring of his faith and iustification His works are a testimony that the Scripture hath truly rightly said of him l Iam. 2.23 Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnes Now M. Bishop should haue told vs in what other meaning it can be taken that S. Iames saith that in his workes the Scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse For if his workes were but the fulfilling of that Scripture how absurdly doth Maister Bishop go about to prooue in his workes an augmentation of that which by that Scripture is imported formerly to be done If his workes were but the fulfilling of that that was said of his iustification before how doth he thereby seeke to proue a second iustification Now the former testimonie of his iustification is to be considered which was long after Gods first calling of him m Gen. 12. seq when he had shewed his singular faith and obedience vnto God in going out of his owne country at the word of God when he had long called vpon the name of the Lord built many altars vnto him done him much seruice when he had long trauelled from place to place vnder his protection For after all this yet was he not iustified by his workes but onely of his n Gen. 15.6 beleeuing the Lord it is testified that it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse We would haue M. Bishop to tell vs whether Abraham before the time that this testimonie was giuen him were a iustified man or not he cannot deny it because Abraham had done many good works and he hath before said that there can be no good workes before the first iustification If he were iustified before then it appeareth that to a man already iustified not his workes but his faith is counted for righteousnes and because it cannot be thought that by one meanes he was iustified before and by another now it must needes be that as before to be iustified so now still being iustified his faith is counted to him for righteousnesse according as it is written o Hab. 2.4 The iust shall liue by faith Now if after he were iustified he did continue stil to be iustified by faith then to speake properly as we do of iustification in the sight of God there is one onely iustification whereby a mans p Rom. 4 5. faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse as the Apostle speaketh It must needes therefore follow that S. Iames speaketh of iustification in some other meaning then the Apostle S. Paule doth what that meaning is let him learne not of vs but of the auncient Church q Phot. apud Oecum in Rom. cap. 4. Non habuit Abrahâ—m opera absit Opera siquidem habuit vt si cum hominibus qui simul cum eo versabantur fuisset in iudicio constitutus facilè iustificatus fuisset illisque antepositus verum vt coram Deo ex suis operibus iustificaretur tanquam dignus aequalis sese praebens dignitatis cum ea quae inde praebebatur beneficentia dono nequaquam fuisset illam assecutus Vnde ergo bâ— dignus est habituâ— ex sola fide c. Solutio patet ex bu quomodo hiâ— quidem Paulus ex fide ait iustificatum fuisse Abraham diuus autem Iaâ—obus ex operibus Had Abraham no workes saith Photius God forbid Verily he had workes so as that if he had bene brought in iudgement with the men with whom he liued he had easily bene iustified and preferred before them but that by his workes he should be iustified before God as worthie of the dignitie kindnesse and gift that was yeelded vnto him he would neuer haue attained to it but he had it by faith onely Hereby saith he the resolution is manifest how Saint Paule saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and Saint Iames that he was iustified by workes Here is a plaine distinction and difference deliuered that Saint Paule saith that by faith only a man is iustified before God but that it is before men with men that S. Iames meaneth a man is iustified by workes And this
Perkins doth that in giuing almes as we ought we do but our dutie and that to say that by almes-deeds we may satisfie for our sinnes is the same as to say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another But yet it concerneth them to sticke hard for the maintaining of this deuice for in all the ports of Rome there is not a ship that hath brought in more rich lading then this hath done For hereby they haue had the commaundement of mens purses their goods and lands and whilest they haue borne them in hand that from necessary vses they must take somewhat for the redeeming of their sins they haue made them rob their wiues their children posteritie and friends to bestow vpon holy Church as they called the gifts which they craued for themselues By this pretence like f Exod. 10.15 the Grashoppers of Egypt they deuoured all that was greene vpon the earth whatsoeuer was delightsome and pleasant they found meanes to make it theirs And hence came those rich endowments of religious houses men vpon conscience of sinne sparing no cost in false hope to find some comfort thereby as g Answer to the Epist Ded. sect 31. before was said And this point of satisfaction was so much the more willingly entertained because they that were loth to trouble themselues with fasting and prayer yet found helpe enough hereby for that h Thom. Aquin suppleÌ„ q. 15. art 3 ad 3. Eleemosyna aliorum vices supplere potest inquantum alia satisfactionis opera per eleemosynam quisque sibi mercatur quodammodo in ijs quibus eleemosynam tribuit almes may supply or serue in steed of the rest inasmuch as by it a man in some sort buyeth for himselfe the other workes of satisfaction in them to whom he giueth almes This is the wonderfull vertue of the almes that is enioyned by a Popish Priest that when a man neither fasteth nor prayeth yet it maketh other mens fastings and prayers serue the turne for the remission of his sin And this was the notable cosening deuice of those holy votaries to make men beleeue as before hath bene mentioned that they had a facultie to transport their merits and satisfactions to the vse of them that were beneficial vnto them verifying in themselues that which the Apostle S. Peter had prophesied of them i 2. Pet. 2.3 Through couetousnesse with fained words they shall make merchandize of you But M. Bishop here in malice to the Iesuits quite passeth by religious houses as if the almes of satisfaction did not belong to them Howsoeuer he be outwardly pacified yet manet alta mente repostum it is neither forgotten nor forgiuen if he knew which way to worke his will As for Schooles Colledges Hospitals Chappels the building of them if it be in the true faith of Christ is a gracious and godly worke but when they are so done they are done as testimonies of our thankfulnesse and dutie to God not as satisfactions for our sins Now although he haue hitherto proued nothing as touching satisfaction yet presuming that he hath so done he ioyneth to that supposed proofe the testimony of Cyprian saying that k Cypr. de Eleem. Nec habebat quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas atque imbecillitas faceret nisi iteruÌ„ pietas diuina subueniens iustitiae misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret vt sordes post modum quascunque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus our frailty and weaknes could not tell what to do vnlesse the mercy of God helping vs had by shewing vs the workes of iustice and mercy opened vs away for the preseruing of our saluation that by almes-deeds we clense or wash away whatsoeuer filth of sin we contract after baptisme Which words of Cyprian if we construe them in rigour as they sound do containe a most dangerous and vnchristian assertion and such as all men rightly minded do abhorre that by Christ all our sins are forgiuen in baptisme whatsoeuer we haue done but that whatsoeuer we sinne afterwards is to be purged and cleansed by our selues Whereof it must follow that we who are baptized in infancie haue no further benefite of Christs redemption but that we receiue then for the freeing of vs from the bond of originall vncleannesse Yea and if the way wherby after baptisme we are to be cleansed from our sinnes be almes in what case must they be who onely receiue almes and haue none to giue and therefore want that meanes for the forgiuenesse of their sinnes But the true doctrine of the Gospel setteth Christ before vs not onely in baptisme but afterwards also to be l Ioh 1.29 the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world S. Iohn being baptized speaketh of himselfe amongst others and saith it to them that are baptized m 1. Ioh. 2.2 If any man sinne we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes The true confessioÌ„ of which point of faith S. Austin deliuereth in saying that n August cont 2. epis Pelag. li. 3 ca. 6. Caro Christi veruÌ„ est vnicum sacrificium pro peccatu non solùm his quae vniuersa in baptismate diluuntur verumetiam his quae post ex huius vitae infirmitate surrepuÌ„t propter quae quotidiè vniuersa in oratione ad DeuÌ„ clamat Ecclesia Dimitte nobis c. et dimittutitur nobis per singulare sacrificiuÌ„ pro peccatis the flesh of Chrst is the true and onely sacrifice for sins not onely those which altogether are washed away in baptisme but those also which afterwards steale vpon vs by the frailtie of this life for which the whole Church crieth dayly in prayer to God forgiue vs our trespasses and they are forgiuen vs by that onely sacrifice for sinnes We learne here another maner of lesson then Cyprian there teacheth that after baptisme not the sacrifice of our almes but the onely sacrifice of the bodie of Christ is the remission of our sinnes M. Bishop must giue vs leaue rather to beleeue Austine speaking according to the Scripture then Cyprian speaking directly against the Scripture And therefore wee aunswer him as the same Austine did the Donatists when they alledged an Epistle of Cyprian against him o Cont. Crescon lib. 2. cap. 31 Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriaÌ„ cuÌ„ eius quaeslibet literas à canonica diuinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus c. Et cap. 32. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor quia literâ—s Cypriani non vt canonicaâ— haebeo sed eas ex canonicis considero quod in eis diuinaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ authoritati congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non conguit cum pace eius respuo We do Cyprian no wrong to distinguish any writings of his from the authoritie of holy Scripture We are not bound to the authoritie of this epistle or sermon
because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture we receiue it with his praise but what agreeth not by his leaue we refuse it Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull that p Cyprian de orat Dom. Ipsum habemus apud PatreÌ„ AduocatuÌ„ pro peccatis nostris we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life we dare not conceiue howsoeuer his words be very harsh that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do but in the bloud of Christ he saith in another place c Idem ser de ablut pedum Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi cùm diceres mihi Reuertere non sum reuersus cùm minareris non timâ—â— cùm bonus esses lenis exasperans fui Vltra septuagies septies in coelum coram te peccaui Quis tot sordes abluet quiâ— abradet stercora coÌ„globata Quicquid dicat Petrus necesse est vt ipse nos abluas neque enim lauare nos possumus sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus c. Apud te fons vitae est et miserationum quae à seculo sunâ— profunditas infinita abluisti nos baptismo lauasti sanguine tuo semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando O mercifull Lord how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine how often O holy Lord haue I despised thy commaundements and when thou saidst vnto me Returne I haue not returned when thou threatnedst I feared not when thou wast good and gentle I haue prouoked thee beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee Who shall wash away so much filth who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together Let Peter say what he will in refusing to be washed we haue need that thou wash vs for we cannot wash our selues but in all things that we do we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie With thee is the well of life and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting thou hast washed vs in baptisme thou hast washed vs in thy bloud thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes but in the forgiuenesse of our sins He confesseth that in all that we do we stand in need of pardon and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ albeit being instant and earnest as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren are the true fruites and effects the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy and therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs but for Christs sake whom by our workes we shew that we vnfainedly seeke and do truly beleeue in him And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth though by error of the scribe perhaps it be that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie yet these words not being found in Tobie and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes but forcing the text and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth Which words of Solomon if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed d Prou. 16.6 In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen that is where mercy and truth are there is forgiuenesse of sinnes as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him he addeth for the cause thereof e Psal 85.10 Mercie and truth are met together Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith f Iohn 1.17 Grace and truth that is mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen not by any merite or worke of ours not by any satisfaction that we can make but by the mercie of God truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith the auncient Church testifying of it and the rest of the same sort as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded that g Hieron prolog galeat Igitur sapientia Solomonis Jesu filij Sirach liber Iudith Tobias non sunt in Canone Sic Ruffin in expos Symb. they are not canonicall and S. Austine affirming that h August deciuit Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictâ—resnoÌ„ tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Canoâ—e Iudaeâ—rum the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning as I haue before expressed that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and
thomb and another while ioining both his hands his putting to the right eie then to the left with a number of such other absurd and foolish deuises The like absurdity haue I noted before that when the Priest hath pronounced absolution and forgiuenesse they appoint a man for penance to say Forgiue vs our trespasses and againe that they make their praiers like a charme which to worke their effect must be said ouer thus or thus many times I remember I haue read some where that one of the Popes would haue ordered that the Pope his Cardinals should ride vpon Asses in token of humility for imitation of Christ riding into Ierusalem vpō an Asse The Cardinals thought that the foole rid the Pope took this for a childish and idle fancy Now if the Pope the head of their Church could be possessed with so childish vaine a toy why should we doubt but that against their Church there is cause of the first caution that the Church is not to prescribe any thing that is childish or absurd The second caution is that nothing be imposed as any part of Gods worship This saith M. Bishop is cōtrary to the conclusion And why so For order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship saith he is some part of the worship But who taught him that deepe point of Philosophy that an accident is a part of the subiect that the beauty or comelinesse of the body is a part of the body Order and comelinesse are matters of ceremony not of substance of outward ornament not of inward deuotion properly and immediatly respecting men but by consequence onely reduced to God therfore can be no parts of the worship of God The third caution is that what the Church prescribeth be seuered from superstition opinion of merit Of opinion of merit M. Bishop saith nothing which is a case that in high degree toucheth the Church of Rome which of her own traditions hath made meritorious works and hath bewitched the people to thinke that by the obseruation thereof they may purchase deserue heauen As touching superstition he saith the caution is needelesse for if it be not absurd saith he which is the first prouiso it is already seuered frō superstition Which indeed is rightly spoken according to the truth of the thing because in truth all superstition is absurd therefore there should need no distinction betwixt that that is superstitious and that that is absurd but yet the distinction here hath vse in respect of the opinion of men because many things are superstitious which yet with men are hardly deemed absurd for that c Col. 2.23 they haue a shew of wisedome as S. Paul saith in voluntary religion and humblenesse of mind and in not sparing the body so that they many times blind the eies of thē that seem to be of very good sight And this is the case of many Popish traditions wherein as there are many things so absurd as that they are faine to vse their wits to deuise couers excuses that they may not appeare to be so grosse as they are yet many other there are which are so fairely varnished with colours of piety holinesse as that by the means therof Satan first preuailed to bring thē into the Church dazeling the eies of mē that they saw not the mischiefe that in time he should work thereby to the religion and faith of Christ The last caution is that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of traditions A thing wherof S. Austin cōplained in his time that d August epist 119. Tam multis praesumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia c. Ipsā religionem quā pancissimu manifestissimis celebrationū sacramentis miserecordia Dei esse liberam voluit scruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit cōditio Iudaeorū qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint tamē legalibus sarcinu non humanis praesumptionibus subijciunti◠all was full of manifold presumptions and that the religion which the mercy of God would haue to be free by hauing but a very few very manifest sacraments obseruations was so oppressed with seruile burdens as that the state of the Iewes was more tolerable thē it who though they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect to the burdens of Gods lawes not to mens presumptions This cautiō M. Bishop saith may passe but in this the Church of Rome hath more deepely offended then did those times whereof S. Austin complained hauing infinitely intangled the consciences of men with the multiplicity of her witchcrafts sorceries endlesse variety of superstitious obseruations These things now M. Bishop telleth vs are but meere trifles but the reason is because he wanteth vnderstanding to cōceiue the waight and importance of thē And from that want it proceedeth that he alledgeth a triflle indeed as a matter of more importance That is that M. Perkins calleth the decree registred in the fifteenth of the Acts by the name of a tradition hauing before defined traditions to be all doctrines deliuered beside the written word But if his sight had serued him he might very readily haue seene that in the first place M. Perkins had defined traditions as they are in question betwixt vs them and referreth the same only to matters of doctrine in which sort we admit of no traditions but that here he speaketh of traditions more generally in such sort as we grant traditions as he expresseth which are the positiue temporary ordinances cōstitutions of the Church The decree then of the Apostles was no tradition in that meaning wherin we questiō traditions because it was no matter of doctrine but only of cōuersation temporary obseruation but in the general vse of the name of traditions it was a matter of tradition because all ordinances of the Church are imported by that name 4. W. BISHOP The Difference Catholikes teach that besides the written Word there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must be beleeued and practised as both profitable and necessary to saluation We hold that the Scriptures containe in them all doctrine needfull to saluation whether it concerne faith or manners and acknowledge no traditions for such as he who beleeueth them not cannot be saued Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts the first we termed Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God the second Apostolical as deliuered by the holy Apostles the third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernours of the Church after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours traditions than of the foure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honour and credit do we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten
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
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
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
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
to be accounted of as those are to which Christ hath giuen witnesse by his owne word No otherwise therefore could he conceiue of the booke of Wisedome being of the same kinde and that he did so it plainly appeareth for that of that and the booke of Ecclesiasticus it was that he said that which before I mentioned that the bookes which are not in the canon of the Iewes are not alledged with so great authority against them that say against vs. And that this booke was not receiued in the Church as a booke of diuine authoritie appeareth by the very place which Maister Bishop citeth where it is shewed that Saint Austine citing a testimonie out of the said booke exception was taken against it c Aug. de praeâ—â— sanct cap. 14. Quod à me positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis tanquam non de libro canonico adhibituÌ„ For that it was taken out of a booke that was not canonicall S. Austine indeede pleadeth earnestly to gaine credit to it and alledgeth that of long time it had bene accustomed to be read in the Church and men had vsed to cite the testimonie of it as diuine but yet could not expresly say that euer it was reckoned for a Canonicall booke And as for those arguments M. Bishop is deceiued to thinke that they could proue it to be Canonicall because the booke of d Ruffinan exposit symb the Pastour was in like sort read in the Church as Ruffinus beareth witnesse in the place before alledged and yet was not accounted canonicall Scripture and Cyril and Ambrose cite the bookes of Esdras by the name of e Cyril cont Iulian lib. 1. Sic ait Scriptura diuinitùs inspirata c. Ambros de obitu frat Prophetico sermone dicitur c. â—epeto sacro Scriptura solatia tua de bono mort cap. 11 Ait propheta ad angelum c. holy Scripture and inspired of God and Ambrose calleth him by the name of a Prophet whereas Hierome calleth those bookes f Hieron praefat in Esdram Nehem. Nec apocryphorum tertij quarti libri sâ—mnijs delectetur dreames and wisheth no man to be delighted with them They vsed these bookes in their Sermons casually as we do thinking it not materiall to cite them for exhortation to the people howsoeuer they held them not of sufficient authority otherwise Therefore they cited them with condition sometimes g Hieron ad furiam Legunus in Iudith sicut tamen placet volumen recipere if we will receiue such or such a booke as Hierome doth the booke of Iudith and h Origen in Math. tract 30. Si recipitur liber qui dicit quoniaÌ„ sapientia est quae facta est populo columna nubis c. Origen the booke of Wisedome of which we here speake By these things therfore it is plaine enough that though Austin were not willing that authority should in that sort be detracted from any booke that was receiued publikely to be read in the Church yet that he was well able to discerne and so did which bookes were of diuine and infallible authority and which were to be accounted of inferiour and lesser worth iudging thereof in effect no otherwise then we do Now from this M. Bishop goeth to another cauill at that that M. Perkins saith that a man to come to know the Scriptures to be of God must first take and beleeue them so to be He saith that the mans wits were from home in so discoursing but the cause is because his wits serue him not to conceiue that which M. Perkins saith Very well and truly doth Saint Austine obserue that i Aug. in Ioan. tract 29. Jntellectus merces est fidei ergoâ—oli quaerere intelligere vt credas sed â—rede vt intelligas vnderstanding is the reward of faith Seeke not therefore saith he to vnderstand that thou maiest beleeue but first beleeue that thou maiest vnderstand He gathereth it from that which the Disciples say k Iohn 6.69 We beleeue and know that thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God They first beleeue and in beleeuing they learne to know The beliefe of which Maister Perkins speaketh is the beliefe of a learner of whom in matters of other knowledge they are woont to say Oportet discentem credere the learner must beleeue There are in all Arts and Sciences certaine propositions and principles which the learner first accepteth vpon the word of him that teacheth him which notwithstanding afterwards he attaineth so to know as that if he that taught him should say any thing to the contrary he should thinke him beside himselfe and by no meanes yeeld to him as knowing that certainly now which he did at first beleeue Euen so is it in this case a man hauing it wrought out of his owne conscience that there is a God to whom honour and worship and seruice is due and that this God vndoubtedly hath some way reuealed wherein that honour and worship doth consist betaketh himselfe vpon the testimonie of the Church to the reading and hearing of the Scriptures and in the exercise thereof findeth and feeleth that to be true which was testified vnto him and saith l Psal 48.7 Like as we haue heard so haue we seene in the Citie of our God And as the Samaritans being drawn to Christ by the report of the woman after they had seene and heard him say m Iohn 4.42 Now we beleeue not because of thy saying for we haue heard him our selues and know that this is indeede the Messias the Sauiour of the world so this man being first brought to the Scriptures by the report of the Church and thereby beleeuing the same to be of God doth by his owne experience afterwards fully apprehend the truth and certainty of that report yea more then was reported so that he saith n Origen in CaÌ„t. hom 2. Per illos quidem audiui ad te autem veni tibi credidi apud queÌ„ muliò plura viderunt oculi mei quà m annunciabantur mihi By them I heard of thee and I came to thee and haue beleeued thee with whom mine eies haue seene much more then before was told me Therefore he resteth not his faith now vpon the Church but vpon God himselfe so that though the Church should slide backe and denie that which it hath before affirmed yet he standeth secure and chooseth rather to die a thousand times then to forgoe the comfort and hope that he hath conceiued by the Scriptures which were at first deliuered vnto him by the Church Thus Christian people haue beene woont to receiue the Scriptures of the hands of the Church wherein they haue liued without seeking any further approbation and warrant thereof because in the vse of them they haue giuen a sufficient warrant and testimonie of themselues So then we rest not the Scriptures vpon the discerning of priuate spirits as Maister Bishop idlely and vainely
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
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
via duceret aut reduceret ad te Ideâ—que euÌ„ essemuâ— insirmi ad inueniendam liquida ratione veritateÌ„ obhoc nobis opâ—s esset authoritate sanctaâ—uÌ„ literarum â—am credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributuruÌ„ tam excellentum illi Scripturâ—e per omnetiâ—m terras authoritatem nisi per ipsam tibi credi per ipsam te quaerivoluisses I alwaies beleeued saith he that thou art and that thou hast care of vs albeit I knew not what to think of thy being or which way should leade me or bring me againe to thee Therefore when I was too weake by apparent reason to find out the truth and for this purpose needed the authority of the holy Scriptures I began now to beleeue that by no means thou wouldest giue that excellency of authority to those scriptures euen throughout the whole earth but that thou wouldest haue vs therby to beleeue thee and thereby to seeke thee This place sheweth the true effect of that other speech and it is great impudency and impiety in M. Bishop and his fellowes to force vpon S. Austine that protestation which they do by their false construction 23 W. BISHOP This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I will not dwell any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians * Euseb li. 3.36 To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretikes * Ibid. li. 5. c. 20. S. Irenaeus who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall traditions receiued from Polycarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought we not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the which the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleare perspicuous to define the present question For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all must we not haue followed the order of Traditions which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants * Rom. 6. Athanasius saith * Lib. de decreâ— Niceni conc We haue proued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. Basil hath these words * De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in Iulian. R. ABBOT M. Bishop is here as he was before like the melancholike merchant of Athens who reioyced at the sight of euery ship that came in perswading himselfe that it was his ship He cannot light any where vpon the name of traditions but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish vnwritten traditions And here in the first place to colour this he translateth the words of Eusebius amisse by changing the singular number into the plurall a Euseb hist lib. 3. cap. 32. Vt Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He warned them saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius that they should cleaue stedfastly to the tradition of the Apostles He saith not traditions as to note sundry doctrines left vnwritten as M. Bishop would haue it but tradition as entirely generally to signifie the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Therefore he must necessarily be vnderstood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written but there is no necessity of vnderstanding any more This tradition that is the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testifie by writing and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them euen no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing But those Epistles haue bene diuersly in hucksters hands being growne to greater number then Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times containing many things now which they had not then and many then which they haue not now Ignatius now is made to say that b Ignat. epist 5. ad Phil. p. Siquâ— dominico die reiunauerâ—t aut sabbato praeter vnum sabbatuÌ„ is est Christi interfector if any man fast vpon the Lords day or vpon the Saterday he is a murtherer of Christ whereas S. Austine confesseth that c Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus â—â—unare eporteat vel quibus non oporteat nullo Domini vel Apostolorum praecepto inuenio definitum he found it not defined by any precept of Christ or his Apostles what daies we are to fast and what not and Hierome as we haue heard before confesseth that Paul and others with him did fast vpon the Lords day He is now made to say that d Ignat. ibid. Siquâ— eum Iudaeis pascha peregeris festi eorum Symbola susceperit is particeps est socius eoruÌ„ qui Dominum occiderunt Apostolos eius if any man obserue Easter with the Iewes or shall beare the marks of their festiuall day he is a companion and partaker with theÌ„ who killed Christ and his Apostles whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history that e Euseb hist lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort refused to yeeld to Anicetus Bishop of Rome to do otherwise therefore that there was no such obseruation to which Ignatius should adioine any such censure as here is Againe Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius that f Hieron cont Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores Christ chose Apostles who were sinners aboue all men which now is not found in those Epistles that we haue Therfore sith we haue his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted it is hard from them now to gather any certaintie at all and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of are but meere forgeries conueyed into them by the Popes agents albeit the former of those traditions which I haue mentioned maketh them also murtherers of Christ because they fast vpon the Saterday or else they must denie that these