cauilleth but we make the Church as the hand of God whereby he putteth the Scriptures into our hands and priuate spirit doth no more but subscribe to the testification of the Church But now if Maister Bishop will question the publike testimonie of our Church as touching knowledge what Scriptures are to be deliuered we answer him that such and such onely we acknowledge and deliuer by our testimonie because by like testimonie those onely haue beene acknowledged and deliuered vnto vs. Here then we referre our selues to Tradition and therefore all that Maister Bishop alledgeth to the end of this section is but fighting with a shadow of his owne and nothing against vs. He saith in the end that Brentius and Chemnitius admit of this Tradition albeit they reiect all other Traditions beside this one whereas Chemnitius setting downe eight kindes of Traditions acknowledgeth seuen of them and determineth our defence against the Papists to consist in one kinde onely We fight not against the word we know it hath his vse Maister Perkins in three conclusions here acknowledgeth Traditions the Church of Rome hath brought it by her abuse to one speciall vse and meaning and in that vse onely wee impugne it namely as it importeth matters not of temporarie rites and ceremonies indifferently vsed but of perpetuall doctrine and faith which neither in word nor in meaning can be verified and confirmed by the written word presupposed and acknowledged to be the word of God In this sence wee denie Traditions the name otherwise we reiect not wee say that by testimonie of Tradition the notice of the canonicall Scriptures is giuen vnto vs. This Maister Bishop thinketh should make for the credit of their Church of Rome dreaming that this must be by the tradition of that Church or that that Church must be the witnesse vnto vs of this tradition But therein hee very much deceiueth himselfe amongst all the traditions mentioned by the auncient Writers wee neuer finde this tradition that for the number of the bookes of canonicall Scripture wee must take the tale and tradition of the Church of Rome If he can make good any such tradition he shall finde vs much the more fauourable for all the rest Otherwise we doe not know why it should not be as readie for the Church of England to iudge which are canonicall Scriptures as it is for the Church of Rome What meanes should they haue for the discerning of them that is not as open to vs as it is to them We take the account of holy Scriptures in the same sort as the auncient Church did o Ruffin in exposit symb Secundum traditionem patrum Sicut ex patrum monumentis acceptmus Hilar. prolog in Psal SecunduÌ„ traditiones veterum according to the tradition of the fathers and out of the monuments of the fathers Wee reckon those onely for canonicall bookes which from the time of the Apostles haue had certaine and vndoubted testimonie to be so testimonie I say of so many Churches and nations and peoples to which at first they were deliuered and thenceforth vsed amongst them to be read in their Churches expounded in their pulpits meditated in their houses which the fathers haue perpetually cited in their bookes and opposed in generall Councels against Schismatikes and heretikes to which they haue attributed all authoritie for the deciding and determining the causes and controuersies of the Church p Aug. in Ioannis epist. tract 2. Contra quas nullus audeat loqui qui se vult quoquo modo vocari Christianum against which none dare speake saith Saint Austine who will in any sort be called a Chrstian man q Idem cont faust l. 11. cap. 5. Excellentia canonicae authoritatis veteris noui testamenti Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones episcoporum propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est cui serutat omnis fidelis pius intellectus The excellencie of the canonicall authoritie of the old and new testament saith he againe being confirmed in the time of the Apostles hath by succession of Bishops and propagation of Churches beene set in a high and loftie seate that all faithfull and religious vnderstanding may be seruant vnto it Now by the Scriptures which thus irrefragably and vnquestionably haue beene receiued vniuersally of the whole Christian world wee learne to iudge of those bookes adioined to the old testament whereof question is betwixt the Church of Rome and vs. For in those bookes as touching the old testament we learne that r Rom. 2.2 to the Iewes were committed the words of God whereof it followeth that none are to be accounted the words of God that were not committed vnto them The bookes committed to them our Sauiour Christ nameth to haue beene Å¿ Luk 24.44 Moses and the Prophets and the Psalmes and calleth these t Ver. 27. all the Scriptures as before was noted Because then these are all the Scriptures and those which we seclude from the Canon are none of these it followeth that by the sentence of Christ himselfe they are declared to be no Scriptures And hereto agreeth the auncient tradition of the Church of the Iewes recorded by Iosephus who acknowledgeth that they had u Ioseph cont Apion lib. 1. SuÌ„t nobis solummodo duo viginti libri quoruÌ„ iustè fides ad nutitur Horum quinque sunt Moseos c. Amorie Moseos vsque ad Artaxerxem PersaruÌ„ regem Prophetae temporum suorum res gestas conscripserunt in tredecim libris Reliqui vero quatuor hymnes in Deum vitae humanae praecepta noscuntur continere onely two and twenty bookes to which iustly they gaue credit whereof fiue are the bookes of Moses From whom to the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia the Prophets wrote the matters of their times in thirteene bookes which are thus reckoned 1. Iosuah 2. the Iudges with Ruth 3. the two bookes of Samuel 4. the two bookes of Kings 5. the two bookes of Chronicles 6. Ezra and Nehemiah 7. Esther 8. Iob. 9. Esay 10. Ieremy 11. Ezechiel 12. Daniel 13. the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets The other foure saith he containe Hymnes and Songs to God and precepts of humane life which are the Psalmes the Prouerbs Ecclesiastes and the Canticles Of those things which were afterwards written hee saith x Ab Artaxerxe vsque ad nostrum tempus singulae sunt conscripta noÌ„ tamen priori simili fide sunt habita cò quod non fuerit certâ— successio prophetarum that they were not of like credit to the former because there was no certaine succession of Prophets amongst them This tradition the Iewes hold constantly and inuiolably till this day and in their dispersion through the world do still giue witnesse to the bookes that were deliuered to their fathers God by his prouidence appointing them to be y August cont faust lib. 12. cap. 23. Quid est hodie genâ—
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
committing of sinne is properly vnderstood of the externall act and accomplishment thereof and this indeed cannot be without the consent and liking of the will But the doing euill of which the Apostle speaketh is no externall act but onely the internall c August contr duas Epist Pela lib. 1. cap. 10. Facere se dixit non affectu consentiendi implendi sed ipso motis concupiscendi motion of concupiscence For we may not vnderstand the Apostles words of doing the euill which he hated and doing that which he would not d Idem de verb. Apost Ser. 5. Non sic intelligamus quod dixit Non quod volo c tanquaÌ„ velit esse castus esset adulter aut velit esse misericers esset crudelis aut velit esse pius esset impius sed volo non concupiscere concupisco Vide Epiphan haer 64. as if he had said he would haue bene chast and yet was an Adulterer or would haue bene mercifull and yet was cruell or would haue bene godly and yet was vngodly or such like but his meaning is Volo non concupiscere concupisco My will and desire is to haue no act no motion of concupiscence and yet I haue so I would not haue so much as any cogitation any affection any thought any inclination or passion of desire tending to euill and yet I cannot preuaile to be without them Now therefore M. Bishop did amisse to breede ambiguitie by chaunging of the tearmes and to put vpon the Apostle a suspition of other meaning then indeed he had But if his meaning be as it should be that no euill can be done which may truly be called a sinne without the consent and liking of the will he saith vntruly and doth therein but walke in the steppes of the Pelagian Heretickes Saint Austine answered them and we answer him that e De perfect iustit Rat. 15. Peccatum est cùm non est chaeritas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet siue hoc voluntate vitari possit siue non possit it is sinne when either there is not charity which ought to be or it is lesse then it ought to be whether it may be auoyded by the will or cannot be auoyded that is to say whether it be with the will or against the will And whereas he had defined sinne against the Manichees to be f De duab anim contr Manich. cap. 11. See of Free wil sect 18 the desire of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth and whence it is in a mans liberty to forbeare as if there were no sinne but what the will by it owne libertie doth approue and yeeld vnto he sheweth that he there defined g Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. that which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sinne So hauing affirmed h De vera reli cap. 14. Vsqueadeo peccatum voluntarium ma lum est vt nullo modo sit peccatuÌ„ si non sit voluntarium that in no sort it is sinne which is not voluntarie he giueth the same restraint againe that i Retract lib. 1. cap. 13. PeccatuÌ„ illud cogitanduÌ„ est quod tantummodo peccatum est non quod est etiam poena peccati that sinne onely must there be vnderstood which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sin as therby stil giuing to vnderstand that that sinne which is the punishment of sinne as is concupiscence or lust is rightly and truly so called though it haue not the consent and approbation of the will It was k Jbid. Non absurdè vocatur etiam voluntarium quia ex primi hominis mala voluntate contractum factum est quodammodo haereditarium voluntarie onely by the will of him by whom sinne was first committed and from him it is become originall and hereditarie vnto vs. M. Bishops exception therefore is nothing woorth neither doth it let but that concupiscence being a part of Original sin is properly called sinne in the regenerate though it be without the consent and liking of the will He saith that because the Apostle hated it therfore it is no sin but we say that therfore the Apostle hated it because it is sin For the Apostle hated it according to God neither wold he hate any thing but what God hateth And God hateth nothing in man but sin that therfore which the Apostle hated in himselfe was sin yea what is it to do euill but to sinne The name of euill we know is vsed of annoyances and inconueniences of crosses grieuances but the doing of euill is neuer affirmed but of sin Now to lust the Apostle telleth vs is to do euill To lust therfore is to sinne And because the act and motion of lusting is sinne therefore the habite of concupiscence or lust is a habite of sin also because the action alwaies hath his nature and denomination from the habit and quality from whence it doth proceed Yet M. Bishop saith that the Apostle therin was so farre from sinning as that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercoming that euill But the Scripture calleth the resisting of that euill l Heb. 12.4 the fighting against sinne and will M. Bishop say that because we fight against it therfore it is not sin See what accord here is The Scripture saith that it is sinne against which we fight M. Bishop saith that we do a vertuous deed in fighting against it and therfore it is no sin As for the place of S. Austin it helpeth him nothing at al. Reason somtimes manfully bridleth and restraineth concupiscence being moued or stirred which when it doth non labimur in peccatum we fall not into sinne Which is not a rule in the regenerate onely but also in the vnregenerate so that heathen Moralists for the auoiding of sins haue deliuered it for a precept m Tul. Offic. l. 1. Ratio praesit appetitus obtemperet Let reason rule and let lust obey Yea that moralisme which S. Austin prosecuteth in the place alledged comparing pleasure or temptation to the tempting serpent concupiscence to Eue the woman reason to Adam the man was borrowed froÌ„ the allegories of n Philo Iud. Allegor legis lib. 1. 2. Philo the Iew who would thereby shew that concupiscence should be kept in from being tempted and though by temptation it were seduced yet that reason should subdue it that it might not runne to any further euill as it desireth to do Now when this is done by 〈◊〉 â—nregenerate man and either a Iew or a heathen man bridle his passions and affections that thereby he fall not into sin will M. Bishop conclude hereof that those passions and affections which he bridleth are no sinne He will not deny the same to be sinne in the vnregenerate man and yet S. Austines words so farrefoorth do indifferently concerne both He vnderstandeth sinne morally onely and as it is
done it because he could do it He could haue made man with wings to flie but yet he hath not done it You should proue plainly out of the Scriptures that he would so do As for worthinesse it is but a matter of conceit and fancie No creature can contend vpon worth with the Creator If Adams worth were such as he speaketh of hee had beene worthy to be preserued and he may as sawcily dispute with God that he did him wrong in suffering him to fall As for that which he alledgeth as out of Master Perkins that man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse it is a deuice of his owne neither doth Master Perkins say any thing that should yeeld him anie such construction For conclusion he telleth vs that their doctrine is better to be liked then ours if for no other reason yet for that it doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christes merits and bringeth greater dignitie vnto men Where the vaine man seeth not that by the one part of his speech he crosseth the other The thing whereto the true doctrine of the Gospell tendeth is entirely the honour and glorie of God but their doctrine forsooth serueth to bring dignitie vnto men But in that it bringeth dignitie vnto men it detracteth from the glorie of God whose light is most cleerely seene in our darknesse a 2. Cor 12.9 his power in our weaknesse his goodnesse in shewing mercy to vs that are euill his b Dan. 9.7 righteousnesse in the confession of our shame the worth of Christs merits in the true acknowledgement of our vnworthinesse and want of merits God hath appointed vs to be c Ephes 1.6 for the praise of the glorie of his grace and therefore so disposeth d 1. Cor. 1.29 that no flesh shall reioyce in his presence and e Esa 2.11 that he onely may be exalted at that day Therefore f Aug. epist 29. Cùm rex iustus sederit in throno quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor c. when the iust king shall sit vpon his throne who shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or reioyce that he is free from sinne Our plea then must not be Merit and worth but only g 2. Tim. 1.18 to find mercie with the Lord. But the thing that they seeke for as M. Bishop telleth vs is the dignitie of man as indeed it is They labour to set vp their owne righteousnesse against the righteousnesse of God They extoll their owne Merit their owne worth The Merit of Christ onely yeeldeth matter of grace to their Free vvill to worke vpon and thereby they worke for themselues they Merit for themselues they saue themselues but in seeking this glorie to themselues they purchase their owne shame What we can alledge for imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our Iustification will appeare in that that followeth 3. W. BISHOP M. Perkins first reason is this That which must be our Righteousnesse before God must satisfic the iustice of the law which saith Do these things and thou shalt liue Gal. 5. but there is nothing that can satisfie that iustice of the law but the Righteousnesse and obedience of Christ Ergo. This reason is not worth a rush for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law I demaund what law he meaneth If Moses law of which those words Gal. 5. Gal. 5. Do this and thou shalt liue are spoken Then I answer with the Apostle That you are euacuated or abolished from Christ that are iustified in the law that is he is a Iew and no Christian that would haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified must be able to fulfill Christs law I then graunt that they so be by the helpe of Gods grace which will neuer faile them before they faile of their duties But saith M. Perkins That iustice of man is vnperfect and cannot satisfie the iustice which God requires in his law Isay 6.4 and proues it out of Esay who saith All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloth I answer that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous That he speaketh of the vvicked of that nation and of that time appeareth plainely by the text it selfe For he saith before But lo thou hast bene angrie for we haue offended and haue beene euer in sinne and after There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold by thee And although the vvords be generall and seemes to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also yet that is but the manner of preachers and specially of such as become Intercessors for others vvho vse to speake in the persons of them for vvhom they sue for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lied vvhen he sayd There is none that call vpon thy name vvhen as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercie Luther and Caluin on this place all which the best learned among them marking confesse that this sentence cannot be alledged against the vertue of good vvorkes Hence gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture That vvhich the Prophet spake of some euill men of one place and at one time that he applieth vnto all good men for all times and all places R. ABBOT This reason saith M. Bishop is not worth a rush but I am sure that his answer is not worth a rush as wherein we may see the absurd blindnesse of these men who take vpon them to be the only maisters of the world That saith M. Perkins vvhich must be our Righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of the lavv vvhich saith Do these things and thou shalt liue inferring hereof that because no Righteousnesse of ours doth answer the iustice or Righteousnesse commaunded in the law therefore no Righteousnesse of ours but onely the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is our Iustification before God For answer to this M. Bishop demandeth what law he meaneth whether Moses law or Christs law But we make to him a counter-demand What he meaneth by Moses law and what by Christs law He should more plainly haue declared his distinction if he would haue made an answer of it but that that we conceiue of it is that by Moses law he meaneth the ceremonies of the law by Christs law the morall law of the commandements commonly so called But had he so little vnderstanding of the law as to thinke that of the ceremoniall law it was sayd Do this and thou shalt liue Surely the ceremonies of the law were but a Col. 2.14 a handwriting against vs because they were an acknowledgement of vncleannesse and sinne and trespasse against that law that faith Do this and thou shalt liue and because an acknowledgement of sinne therefore
whose meanes we are not reconciled vnto God to beleeue in the Sauiour which came to seeke and to saue that which is lost to beleeue in him that saith without me ye can do nothing This is the faith whereby we are saued and whereby all the faithfull haue bene saued from the beginning of the world To which purpose S. Austin againe saith h August de nat grat cap. 44 â—a fides iustes sanauit antiquos quae sanat et nos id est mediatoris Dei hominum hominis Iesu Câ—risti fides sanguinis eius fides crucis eius fides mortis resurrectionis â—ius The same faith saued the righteous of old that now saueth vs that is the faith of the man Iesus Christ the Mediator betwixt God and men the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection Thus by faith Abel in his lambe beheld i 1. Ioh. 1.29 the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world and thereby his sacrifice was accepted and in that respect is Christ called k Apoc. 13.8 the lambe that was slaine from the beginning of the world But here M. Bishop vndertaketh to tell vs and therefore let vs heare of him according to the depth of his diuinitie what kind of faith that was which all they had who are sayd in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith And first he beginneth with Noe of whom it is sayd that l Heb. 11.7 he was made heire of the righteousnesse which is by faith But what faith was that He beleeued saith he that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commanded him And what in the drowning of the world and making of an arke to saue himselfe did Noe consider nothing but the drowning of the world and the making of an arke to saue himselfe S. Austin calleth the Arke m Aug. cont Faust Manich. lib. 19 cap. 12. Sacramentum arcae in qua Noe domus à diluuio liberata est the sacrament of the Arke and in a sacrament or mysterie did the faith of Noe see no more but onely what his eyes did see n Chrysost in 1. Cor. hom 7. Mysterium appellatur quoniam non id quod credimus inituemur sed quòd alia videmus alia credimus In sacraments as Chrysostome saith we do not see that which we beleeue but we see one thing and beleeue another Noe then in the Arke did beleeue that which he did not see which what it was S. Peter giueth vs to vnderstand when he maketh our baptisme the thing that o 1. Pet. 3.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth the type and figure of the Arke which saith he saueth vs by the resurrection of Iesus Christ The Arke then was to him a figure and seale of the same whereof Baptisme is a figure and seale to vs p Rom. 4.11 a seale of the righteousnesse of faith of q Cap. 3.22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ to all and vpon all that do beleeue His deliuerance temporally was a figure of that spirituall saluation which both he and we haue by the washing away and forgiuenesse of our sinnes by the bloud and death and resurrection of Iesus Christ and in the beleefe hereof was it that he was made heire of the righteousnesse of faith In the second place Abraham is brought forth whose faith M. Bishop construeth to be no more but this that he beleeued that old and barren persons might haue children if God sayd the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe Where if he had looked into the Apostles words with the eyes of a doctor of diuinitie he would haue found the seed there spoken of to be r Gal. 3.16 Christ as the same Apostle elsewhere expoundeth it Christ in person as the head and all the faithfull gathered as members into one bodie with him Å¿ August in Psal 58. Totus Christus caput corpus post Christus est toâ—um corpus Christi the head and the bodie making one whole Christ as S. Austin speaketh God promised vnto Abraham a seed wherein t Genes 15.2 all the nations of the earth should be blessed Herein God would make him u Rom. 4.13 the heire of the world and x Vers 16.17 a father of many nations not to that seed onely which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham that we may know that a spirituall seed is here to be vnderstood which should become the children of Abraham by y Vers 12. walking in the steppes of the faith of our father Abraham and so should be made partakers of the blessing with him The performance of all this promise of blessing to Abraham and all the nations of the earth stood vpon his hauing of a sonne which God had promised vnto him The barrennes of Sara the old age both of Abraham and her might seeme to denie all hope of hauing a sonne But yet Abraham rested secure in the affiance of the power of God not doubting but that God was able and would giue him a sonne of whom Christ should come to be vnto him that blessing that God had promised This was the thing that Abrahams faith respected and to which the Apostle referreth it speaking of a promise that was to be sure not to Abraham only z Vers 16. but to all the seed both of beleeuing Iewes and Gentiles who are also called a Heb. 6.17 heires of the promise to the performance whereof to shew vnto them the stablenesse of his counsell God bound himselfe by an oath that by two immutable things wherein it was vnpossible that God should lie his promise and his oath we might haue strong consolation which haue our refuge to hold fast the hope that is set before vs. Of what that old and barren persons may haue children if God say the word O base and abiect conceipt of so diuine and heauenly a matter Nay but of the blessing which as the Apostle noteth before God did sweare vnto Abraham and vnto that seed which he would multiplie vnto him by faith to be blessed together with him Thirdly he alledgeth the faith of the Centurion of which our Sauiour testifieth that b Mat. 8.10 he had not found so great faith in Israel And what was that faith Marrie saith he that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Say the word only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed But did he only beleeue that by saying the word Christ could cure his seruant Surely he beleeued somewhat else that made him to beleeue that he beleeued somewhat else that made him to say Lord I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe c August de verb. Dom ser 6. Neque hoâ—â—ret â—um 〈…〉 He would
Abraham he noteth to be this i Fidem eius bonae opera consecuta esse demonstrat to shew that good works ensued or followed his faith The drift of his speech is against them who k Qui sic acceperunt dictum per fidem sine operibus vt putarent cùm semel in Christum credi dissent etiamsi malè operarentur flagitiosè ac facinorosè viuerent saluos se esse posse per fidem so tooke it to be said by faith without workes as that they thought that when once they had beleeued in Christ albeit they wrought euill and liued wickedly and leudly yet they might be saued by faith The error of these men he reformeth thus l Non ita intelligendum est vt accepta fide si vixerit dicamus eum iustum etiamsi walè vixerit It is not so to be vnderstood that a man is iustified by faith without workes as that hauing receiued the faith if he liue we should call him iust although he liue amisse By which phrase of receiuing the faith it appeareth that there is onely that faith here meant which consisteth in outward profession and receiuing of baptisme which is farre from that faith to which the holy Scripture attributeth iustification and saluation In all which speech S. Austin saith nothing against vs nothing which we auouch not as well as he but onely that vnder the name of iustification he containeth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes wherin iustification properly consisteth but that also which we distinctly call sanctification consisting in the inward renewing of vs to holines and righteousnesse which the Scripture plainly distinguisheth as we do In the other place alledged he notably oppugneth that which M. Bishop would faine maintaine He toucheth three things appertaining to our saluatioÌ„ which towards it we haue alreadie attained Predestination vocation iustification Of this last he saith m Aug. de ver Apost Ser 16. Quid est iustificari Audemus dicere â—am hoc tertium habere nos Et erit quisquaem nostrúm qui audeat dicere Iustus sum Puto enim hoc esse Justus sum quod est Peccator non sum si audes hoc dicere occurrit tibi Ioannes si dixerimus c. Quid ergo Nihil habemus de iustitia an habemus sed non totum habemus Hoc ergo quaramus c. What is meant by being iustified Dare we say that we haue this third thing alreadie And is there any man that dares say I am iust for I thinke it to be all one to say I am iust as to say I am no sinner If thou be bold so to say S. Iohn meeteth with thee saying If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues c. What then haue we nothing of righteousnesse or haue we But yet we haue not all Let vs then seeke after this for if we haue some part and some part we haue not let that increase which we haue and that shall be supplied which we haue not He plainely confesseth that by that iustification which he speaketh of we haue but somewhat of inherent righteousnes and that we haue still somewhat of sinne and therefore that we are not as yet so iust by that iustification as that thereby we may stand for iust in the sight of God because we cannot stand for iust in his sight before whom perforce we must confesse our selues to be sinners But M. Bishop teacheth farre otherwise as we haue seene before that a man by baptisme is made as void of sinne as Adam was in the state of innocencie and therefore hath no need greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge Now of that righteousnesse that we haue S. Austin saith that it is to grow and increase that we n Ibid. Grati simus ex eo quod habemus vt addatur quod non habemus are to be thankefull for that we haue that that may be added which we haue not c. We teach in the like sort but yet withall we teach as he doth that it neuer so farre increaseth in this life but that it leaueth vs still to confesse our selues sinners and therefore that it neuer bringeth vs to that as that we can thereby be iustified in the sight of God This is the point Increase of inward and inherent righteousnesse we say there ought to be and is no man doubteth no man maketh question of it but we deny that we merit any iustification by our workes or grow by our owne righteousnesse to be reputed iust before the iudgement seate of God neither doth Saint Austine euer affirme the same 37 W. BISHOP Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion For they holding faith to be the onely instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O ye of litle faith Mat. 8. Luc. 19. And then a litle after I haue not found so great faith in Israel and O Lord increase our faith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersitie of faith but all one Againe Master Perkins deliuereth plainely Pag. 54. That men at the first are not so well assured of their saluation as they are afterward if then in the certaintie of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe And thus much of this question The obiections which Master Perkins makes for vs in this Article Pag. 201. do belong either to the question of merits or of the possibilitie of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remit them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of merits R. ABBOT That inherent righteousnesse may be increased we confesse but we deny that our iustification before God consisteth therein but onely in the merit and obedience of Christ which needeth no increase because it is fully absolute and perfect in euery respect in it selfe But Master Bishop according to his opinion muffled in the mists of ignorance telleth vs that there must needes be diuers degrees of iustification in our meaning because there are diuers degrees of faith and diuers degrees of assurance of saluation But we answer him that that necessarily followeth not because although the instrument whereby we receiue is in some stronger and in some weaker yet the thing receiued is one and the same to both The price of redemption in the shedding of the bloud of Christ is one and alike to all and euery faithfull man but yet it is not alike apprehended by euery one There is perfect righteousnes required of vs and the same is yeelded vnto vs in Christ There
third reason is taken from the imperfection of our knowledge for it cannot be but our faith our loue our repentance our sanctification must be vnperfect so long as we haue but vnperfect knowledge to direct vs in all these things M. Bishops answer to this consisteth of two parts the one whereof is an acknowledgement against himselfe the other an assertion of apparent and manifest vntruth I would to God saith he our workes were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they be He confesseth then that our workes are not perfect according to that that we do know and if they be vnperfect to that knowledge that we haue and our knowledge come farre short of that concerneth vs by the lawe then must our workes be very farre from perfection and we farre from being truly said to fulfill the law But M. Bishop according to his skill denieth in the second part of his answer that our knowledge is vnperfect expresly contrarie to that which the Apostle saith f 1. Cor 13.9.12 We know in part we prophecie in part we see through a glasse darkely We find it and know it that there are many ignorances and errors in the best g August de spir lit ca. 36. In multis offendimus omnes duÌ„ putamus Deo quem diligimus plâ—eâ—re vel non displicere quod facimus postea cùm didicerimus quòd non placeat poenitendo deprecamur vt ignoscat We all saith S. Austine offend in many things whilest we thinke that that which we do either pleaseth God or doth not displease him when as afterwards we learne that it is not pleasing vnto him and do repent thereof h Idem soliloq cap. 1. Quisquic cognoscit te amat te plusquaÌ„ se relinquit se venit ad te vt gaudeat de te Hinc est Domine quòd non tantùm diligo quantum debeo quia non plenè cognosco te Quia parùm cognosco parum diligo quia parum te diligo parum gaudeo in te He that knoweth thee saith he in another place loueth thee more then himselfe and leaueth himselfe to come vnto thee that he may reioyce in thee Hence is it Lord that I loue thee not so much as I ought to do because I do not fully know thee because I know thee but a little I loue thee but a little and therefore do but a little reioyce in thee There is no man in this life that knoweth himselfe but knoweth well that he hath cause to pray still with the Prophet Dauid i Psal 119.12 Teach me thy statutes k Ver. 33. teach me O Lord the way of thy statutes l Ver. 73. giue me vnderstanding that I may learne thy commandements m Ver. 127. grant me vnderstanding that I may know thy testimonies If so great a Prophet were still to be taught were still to learne were still begging of God the vnderstanding and knowledge of his commandements how vaine a man is M. Bishop to make it so possible a matter for a man being yet couered in part with the veile of flesh to attaine to the full and perfect knowledge of the lawe Of this argument he saith that it is impeâ—tinent but giueth no reason why he so saith Saint Austine against the assertion of perfection in this life n August de spir lit cap. 36. produceth imperfection of knowledge as an impediment thereof and Hierome saith o Hier. ad Pela lib 1. Nullus sanctorum in isto corpusâ—ulo cunctas potest habere virtutes quia ex parte cognoscimus c. that no man in this body can haue all vertues because we know but in part and prophecie but in part and if imperfection of knowledge do hinder vertue and the perfect fulfilling of the law how doth he make it an argument impertinent to say Our knowledge is yet vnperfect therefore we are yet vnperfect to the fulfilling of the law But we must pardoÌ„ his vnperfect knowledge which if it had bin according to his will vndoubtedly we should haue seene some more skill in his answers then now we do M. Perkins fourth and last reason is taken from that that before hath bin said that the regenerate man in this life is still partly flesh and not wholly spirituall and therefore his best workes sauor partly of the flesh Not so saith M. Bishop if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit But I answer him Yes euen so because though by the spirit we mortifie the deedes of the flesh yet we do not thereby put off the flesh nor so subdue it but that it p Gal. 5.17 lusteth against the spirit so as that we cannot do the things that we would and therefore cannot fulfill the law Now if we attaine not to that that we would our will also being yet vnperfect so that we will not so perfectly as we should how farre must we needes thinke our selues to be from that integritie and vprightnesse which we shold performe according to the perfect rule of righteousnesse that is laid before vs in the law But of this further when we come to the point as touching the perfection and purity of our workes 39. W. BISHOP But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Act. 1.15 Why go ye about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples necks which neither we nor our Fathers were able to beare these words were spoken of the lawe of Moyses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answer first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and cumberous by reason of the multitude of their sacrifices sacraments and ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sence it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done Ios 11. 3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. 4. Reg. 23. Luk. 1. are now and then called impossible Now that Iosue Dauid Iosias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept R. ABBOT A more trifler then M. Bishop I thinke is seldome to be found If M. Perkins arguments were as trifling as he hath giuen them answers he might haue done well to haue spared his labor bestowed in the writing of that booke Before he haue giuen any one good answer to the reasons onely by the way alledged by M. Perkins he taketh vpon him to bring other of his owne indeed out of our books that he may shew himselfe as wise in answering the one as he hath done alreadie in the other We are wont to alledge the words of S. Peter that a Act.
owne mouth will I iudge thee thou euill seruant Thou hast despised my mercie Thou hast defined that euery one that doth not merite life must fall into the state of death Thy sentence shall stand good against thy selfe thou art farre off from meriting life and therefore thy iust portion shall be euerlasting death Let him learne in time to feare this doome and leaue off by this wilfull oppugning of the faith and doctrine of Christ to rebell against God 2. W. BISHOP With this Catholike doctrine M. Perkins would be thought to agree in two points First That merits are necessary to saluation Secondly That Christ is the roote and fountaine of all merit But soone after like vnto a shrewd cow ouerthrowes with his heele the good milke he had giuen before renouncing all merits in euery man sauing onely in the person of Christ whose prerogatiue saith he it is to be the person alone in whom God is wel pleased Then he addeth that they good Protestants by Christs merits really imputed to them do merite life euerlasting Euen as by his righteousnesse imputed vnto them they are iustified and made righteous To which I answer that we most willingly confesse our blessed Sauiours merits to be infinite and of such diuine efficacie that he hath not onely merited at his Fathers hands both pardon for all faults and grace to do all good workes but also that his true seruants workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting As for the reall imputation of his merit to vs we esteeme as a fained imagination composed of contrarieties For if it be really in vs why do they call it imputed and if it be ours only by Gods imputation then is it not in vs really Further to say that he onely is the person in whom God is well pleased is to giue the lye vnto many plaine texts of holy Scriptures Iac 2. Eccles 45. Act. 13. Ioh. 16. Rom. 1. Abraham was called the friend of God therefore God was well pleased in him Moyses was his beloued Dauid was a man according vnto his owne heart God loued Christs Disciples because they loued him Briefly all the Christians at Rome were truly called of S. Paule the beloued of God And therefore although God be best pleased in our Sauiour and for his sake is pleased in all others yet is he not onely pleased in him but in all his faithfull seruants Now to that which he saith that they haue no other merit then Christs imputed to them as they haue no other righteousnesse but by imputation I take it to be true and therefore they do very ingeniously and iustly renounce all kind of merits in their stained and defiled workes But let them tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth It is that as they haue no righteousnesse or merit of heauen but onely by a supposed imputation so they must looke for no heauen but by imputation for God as a most vpright iudge will in the end repay euery man according to his woorth wherefore not finding any reall worthinesse in Protestants but onely in conceipt his reward shall be giuen them answerably in conceipt onely which is euidently gathered out of S. Augustine Lib. 1. de mori Eccles cap. 25. where he saith That the reward cannot go before the merit nor be giuen to a man before he be worthy of it for saith he what were more iniust then that and what is more iust then God Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardie as once to demaund much lesse so impudent as to assure our selues of that crowne before we haue deserued it Seeing then that the Protestants by this their proctor renounce al such merit and desert they must needes also renounce their part of heauen and not presume so much as once to demaund it according vnto S. Augustines sentence vntill they haue first renounced their erronious opinions R. ABBOT M. Perkins hath indeed giuen good milke as M. Bishop saith euen a 1. Pet. 2.2 the syncere milke of the word which he had drawne from b August in Ioan. Epist trac 3. Est mater Ecclesia vbera eius du◠Testamenta Scripturari 〈◊〉 narū the brests of the Church the old and the new Testament the writings of the Apostles and Prophets which are c Ephes 2.20 the foundations whereupon the house of God is built He plaid not the shrewd cow to ouerthrow it when he had giuen it but what he gaue M. Bishop seeketh to corrupt by blending and mingling with it not the leauen onely but the very poison of humane traditions He renounceth and so do we all merit but what is in the person of Iesus Christ for vs and thereby onely do we lay hold of eternall life acknowledging that not for any thing that we do but onely d Mat. 3.17 in him the Father is well pleased towards vs and accepteth vs to be his children and heires of his kingdome Whereas in his pleasance he tearmeth vs good Protestants I must tell him as before that if the Protestants do not exceede the goodnesse of them who will be taken to be the very best amongst the Papistes without question they are very bad and I doubt not but he himselfe will acquit the Protestants from being so bad as he and his fellowes haue told vs that their good maisters the Iesuites be But for answer he saith that Christ did merit for his not onely pardon of all faults and grace to do all good workes but also that their workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting A strange speech and such as the Apostles and Primitiue Church were not acquainted with Forsooth Christ did not merit eternall life for vs but he merited for vs grace that so we might merit eternall life for our selues Now M. Bishop hath taught vs before that grace is nothing but as Free will adioyneth it selfe vnto it and so the conclusion is that the grace of God doth not saue man but man by the helpe of grace doth saue himselfe Thus the matter resteth vpon vs Christ offereth vs grace we may receiue it if we will and when we haue it we may if we will thereby deserue eternal life otherwise we go without it But the Scripture teacheth vs farre otherwise that e 1. Ioh. 5.10.11 the record that God hath witnessed of his Sonne is this that God hath giuen vs eternall life and this life is in his Sonne Here is no record that God hath giuen vs grace to deserue eternall life but that he hath giuen vs eternall life nor that this life is in our merits but that this life is in his Sonne so as that f Ioh 3.36 he that beleeueth in the Sonne hath euerlasting life and g 1. Ioh. 5.13 they that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God are to know that they haue eternall life God by the beginning giuing them certificate and assurance of the end The reall imputation of Christs merits to vs is
such works do merit heauen for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it M. Perkins answereth first that the reward is of meere mercie without any thing done by men But this is most apparently false for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward againe a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure which is rewarded otherwise it were to be called a gift not a reward much more the Latine and Greeke word Misthos Merces which rather signifie a mans hire and wages then a gift or reward Wherefore M. Perkins skippes to a second shift that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance but not a reward Reply We know well that it is an inheritance because it is only due vnto the adopted sonnes of God but that hindreth not it to be a reward for that it is our heauenly Fathers pleasure that all his sonnes comming to the yeares of discretion shall by their good cariage either deserue it or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answers flies to a third and granteth that eternall life is a reward yet not of our workes but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs this is that castle wherein he holds himselfe safe from all Canon-shot but he is foully abused for this answer is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sence of the Scripture examine any one of the places and a babe may discouer the incongruitie of it namely Christ saith that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake and not to his owne merits imputed and if you desire a formall sentence sâ—tting this purpose take this 1. Cor. 3. Iac. 1. Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his owne proper labour and not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him So a doer of the worke shall be blessed in his deed and not in the imputation of anothers deed R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop hauing hitherto said much and answered iust nothing falleth in hand to sharpen his tooles and weapons againe which were blunted and dulled by M. Perkins And first he opposeth places where mention is made of reward presuming that reward must necessarily suppose and enforce merit and desert To this M. Perkins hath answered that reward is twofold of debt of mercie Eternall life he saith is a reward of mercy giuen of the goodwil of God and not properly repayed as due to any thing that is done by man M. Bishop replieth that this is apparently false for the Scripture saith he expresseth the very works wherof it is a reward But I answer him againe that it is not false but very true because although the Scripture do set foorth vnto vs eternall life as the reward of such such works yet that is not to tye the originall of the reward to the worke but onely to note the sequele thereof the reward being in truth deriued from a former mercie wherby it was promised before the worke and by which both the worke and the reward are giuen vnto vs. Nay a Aug. in Psal 118. conc 13. Nondum eram quibâ—â— promitteretur ne quisquaÌ„ de meâ—itis glâ—riaritur quibus promissum est etiam ipsi promissi sunt vt totum corpus Christi dâ—â—at Gratia Dei sum id quod sum They yet were not themselues saith S. Austin to whom saluatioÌ„ was promised that no man might glory in his merits yea they to whom it was promised were also promised themselues that the whole body of Christ may say By the grace of God I am that I am b Idem in Psal 109. vt supra Sect 2. Whatsoeuer God promised saith he againe he promised it to vs being vnworthie that it might not be promised as a reward to workes but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen So that although eternall life be c Idem de grat lib. arbit cap. 8. Supra sect 8. as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet it is indeed but grace for grace as out of him also we haue heard before But saith M. Bishop a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure which is rewarded But that is not alwayes so for I doubt not but many times an English begger hath come to him and asked him a reward at whose hands notwithstanding he hath receiued no former pleasure and euen so must Master Bishop begge at Gods hands the reward of euerlasting life Yea but then it should be called a gift and not a reward and did not he know that it is called a gift d Rom 6.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eternall life saith Saint Paule is the free gift â—f God Christ saith of his sheepe e Ioh 10.28 I giue vnto them eternall life f 1 Ioh. 5.11 This is the record saith Saint Iohn that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life It may be he cannot see how it should be called both a gift and a reward I wil tell him therefore that secundum quid and in a respect it is called a reward but simply and absolutely it is onely gift Compare eternall life to the worke and looke no further and so the Scripture calleth it a reward But consider the original from whence the worke it self also proceedeth and all is meerely and wholy gift yea though in act and execution the work be before the reward yet in intendement purpose that which we call the reward is before the work and God therfore giueth vs good works because formerly by his election he giueth vs eternall life From the English word he goeth to the Greek and Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and merces saith they rather signifie hire or wages then gift or reward And what of that seeing the Apostle teacheth vs to distinguish that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wages may be reckoned to a man by fauor not by debt For he could not say g Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the wages is not imputed by fauour but by debt but that there is an imputing of wages by fauor also And this appeareth in theÌ„ who being called into the vineyard at the 11. houre yet receiued for wages h Mat. 20.10.14 by fauor not by debt as much as they who were first called and had borne the burden and heate of the day The Lord of the vineyard gaue them the same wages i Prosper de voc Gent. lib. 1. cap. 5 Non labori pretium soluens sed diuitias bonitatis suae in eos quos sine operibus eligit effundens vt etiam ij qui in multo labore sudarunt nec amplius quà m nouissimi acceperunt intelliganâ— donum se gratiae non operum accepisse mercedeÌ„ not as paying a price to their labour but powring foorth the riches of his goodnesse to them
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
euery part of the Scripture is not profitable to all those vses to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnesse He will say that those vses are not all ioyntly to be vnderstood but by disiunction euery part is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse though it be not profitable to all these But in thus saying he quite ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation for it doth not follow that because euery part of the Scripture is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse therefore the Scriptures are able to make a man wise to saluation because that may be said of the first chapter of Genesis or any other like that it is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse that is to one or other of these vses and yet it cannot be said that it is able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is Christ Iesus Therefore the words of the Apostle must be vnderstood of the whole scripture which being able to teach to improue c. is consequently able to make a man wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ And hereby his other cauill is taken away that we make that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onely to be profitable For the Apostle nameth not profitable as to diminish any thing frō sufficiencie but reckoning it to be profitable to all those vses that he expresseth he leaueth it plainly to be vnderstood that it is sufficient to that that he would conclude thereby For vnlesse it be in such sort profitable as that it be sufficient to teach to improue to correct to instruct it cannot be able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Therefore Athanasius alluding as it seemeth to this place sayth n Athan. contra Gentes siue cont idola Sufficiunt quidem per se sacra diuinitùs inspiratae Scriptura ad veritatis instructionem The Scriptures being holy and inspired of God are by themselues sufficient to the instruction of truth M. Bishops instances therefore are friuolous and vaine Timber is profitable for the building of a house but it is not profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of a house and therfore is not sufficient But the Apostle noteth the Scripture to be profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of the house of God and because it is so therefore it is sufficient for that building The second is against himselfe for although there must be one to sow the seede yet the seed it selfe is sufficient wherewith to sow the ground and euen so although there must be one to teach to improue to correct to instruct yet the holy Scripture is sufficient wherewith to do all these Thirdly good lawes are profitable saith he for the good gouernement of the Common-wealth but they are not sufficient without good gouerners and iudges And be lawes neuer so sufficient for the common-wealth yet they auaile nothing without gouerners and iudges seruing to put them in execution Euen so we say that albeit the holy scriptures do sufficiently instruct vs what doctrine is to be taught yet all is vaine if there be none to teach it But what a witles cauill is this that when question is of the doctrine of the Scriptures whether it be so sufficient as that they which teach are to teach no other they obiect that the doctrine of the scripures is not sufficient without one to teach We tell him therefore againe that as where lawes are sufficient to gouerne by good gouerners and iudges being necessary for execution thereof are to iudge and gouerne onely by lawes so the doctrine of the holy Scriptures being sufficient to teach by though teachers be necessary for the teaching thereof yet they are to teach nothing but onely by the Scripture and therein onely is it that we affirme the sufficiency of the Scripture But in humane lawes that sufficiencie is neuer found they neuer fit all occasions and vses of the common wealth neuer meete with all inconueniences and mischiefes neuer determine all controuersies and causes neuer prouide so perfectly for the right but that it prooueth to some mans wrong and therefore though they be profitable yet they are not profitable euery manner of way In the holy Scripture the Apostle teacheth vs it is otherwise it serueth vs for all occasions towards God there is nothing that concerneth vs but either by teaching or reprouing or correcting or instructing it applieth it selfe vnto vs o Cypriā de dupl martyr Nullus est animorum morbus cui non praesens remediū diuina scripturae suppeditat There is no sicknesse of the mind saith Cyprian referring himselfe to these words of the Apostle to which the holy Scripture yeeldeth not a present remedy p Chrysost in 2. Thes hom 3. Omnia clara sūt manifesta ex scripturis diuinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt All things are euident and cleare saith Chrysostome by the holy Scriptures whatsoeuer things aye necessary they are manifest The scriptures therefore are in such sort profitable as that they are sufficicient also fully to instruct vs as touching the meanes of obtaining eternall life As for customes they may haue their place and vse amongst the lawes of men but amongst the lawes of God they haue no place q Cypr li. 2. ep 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est nō est attendendum quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Because Christ onely is to be heard saith Cyprian we are not to regard what any before vs hath thought fit to be done but what Christ first did who is before all for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God r Tertul. de verlā virg Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem cognominauit Christ sath Tertullian called not himselfe custome but truth M. Bishop therefore dealeth but idlely to alledge the exorbitant and lawlesse customes of cōmonwealths as a colour for traditions in the church of Christ His last exception is that the Scriptures here spoken of which Timothie knew from his infancie could be no other but the scriptures of the old Testament because no part of the new Testament was then written and therefore that that is here said cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more then the old Testament charging vs hereupon with falsification in applying it to both the old and new Where the vaine man doth not see that he exceedingly strengtheneth the argument against himself for if S. Paul could say that the scriptures of the old Testament were able to make a man wise vnto saluation by the faith of Christ how much more is
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
that are far spred and are growne old are not to be set vpon in this sort because by long tract and continuance of time they haue had great oportunitie to steale the truth And therefore as touching all prophane heresies and schismes that are growne old we are in no sort to do otherwise but either to conuince them if need be by onely authoritie of Scripture or else to auoyde them being aunciently conuicted and condemned by generall Councell of Catholike Bishops Where we see that Vincentius affirmeth directly contrary to that that M. Bishop reporteth of him that heresies are not alwayes to be dealt with by those rules that he hath before set downe yea that heresies that haue continued long and haue bene farre spread are no otherwise to be conuicted but by onely authoritie of Scripture And thereof he giueth reason for that they haue had time and oportunitie to falsifie the rules of faith and to corrupt the bookes and writings of the auncient Fathers which heretikes alwaies labour to do so that the doctrine of faith cannot safely be ieoparded vpon their consent Now whatsoeuer M. Bishop and his fellowes dreame of this booke this rule doth so fit vs as if Vincentius had purposely studied to instruct vs in what sort we ought to deale against them and to iustifie the course that we haue vsed in that behalfe Antichrist hath set vp his kingdome aloft in the Church and the whoore of Babylon hath sitten like a Queene for many ages past She hath fulfilled that that was prophesied of her that h Apoc. 14.8 she should make all nations to drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornications i Chap. 17.2 The Kings of the earth haue committed fornication with her and the inhabitants of the earth haue bene drunke with the wine of her fornications She hath had k Gregor lib. 4. epist. 38 Rex superbiae propè est quod dici nefas est sacordotum est praeparatus exercitus c. an armie of Priests according to the saying of Gregorie an armie of Monkes and Friers of Schoolemen and Canonists who haue bin her agents and factors for the vttering of her merchandize and the vpholding of her state They haue vsed their endeuour to the vttermost for the corrupting l Erasm Epist ad Warram Archiepis Caniuar apud Hieron of the auncient monuments of the Church They haue made away many of the writings of the Fathers they haue falsified those that remaine they haue foisted in bastards and counterfeits vnder their names Most lewdly and shamefully m Ludou Viues de caus corrupt art Adscripta sunt Origeni Cypriavo Hieronymo Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per quiâ—tem quidem in mentem venerant indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs atque illa eruditione sed etiam seruis corâ— siquos Scythas habuerunt aut Seres they haue fathered vpon Origen Hierom Cyprian Austin the rest such things as they neuer dreamed of vnworthy not only of their conceit and learning but euen of their slaues if they had any that were Scythians and Barbarians By the names of such renowmed authors they haue sought to gaine credite to deuices of their owne such as the auncient Church was neuer acquainted with Now therefore Vincentius his rule standeth good on our part that inasmch as they haue had so long time and oportunitie to steale away the truth and to falsifie the Fathers writings therefore we are to conuict them by authoritie of Scripture onely knowing it to be true which Chrysostome saith that n Chrysost oper imperf in Math. hom 49. Ex quâ— heresis obtinuit Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae diuine c Nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas c. Sciens Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in nouissimis diebus esse futuram ideo mandat vt Christiani volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas Alioqui si ad alia respexerint scandalizabuntur peribunt non intelligentes qua sit vera Ecclesia per hoc incident in abhominationem desolationis qua stabit in sanctis Ecclesiae locis since heresies haue gotten foote in the Church there is no proofe of true Christianitie nor other refuge for Christians desirous to know the truth of faith but onely the Scriptures of God no way for them that are desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures Our Lord saith he knowing that there should be so great confusion of things in the last dayes doth therefore wil that Christians desirous to receiue assurance of true faith should flie to nothing but onely to the Scriptures Otherwise if they looke to any thing else they shall stumble and perish not vnderstanding which is the true Church and thereby shall light vpon the abhomination of desolation which shall stand in the holy places of the Church Now therfore we haue done nothing but that that in the course of Christianitie is iust and right to call the triall of the controuersies and questions of religion to the authoritie of the Scriptures onely and to teach men therein onely to repose the certaintie and assurance of their faith Albeit by the singular prouidence of almightie God it hath come to passe that in antiquitie as we haue the same remaining vnto vs there is yet light sufficient to discouer the apostasies abhominations of the Church of Rome to iustifie the truth of God against their falshood and lies and to make it appeare that we do rightly and truly apply the Scriptures to the reproouing and conuincing thereof as through this whole worke is most plainly and cleerly to be seene And this is so much the more manifest for that they themselues haue bene forced to complaine that they are faine o Index Expur in castig BertraÌ„ CuÌ„ in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores extenuemus ex cusemus excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensuÌ„ affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum aduersarijs c. to beare with very many errors as they call them in the old Catholike writers and to extenuate them to excuse them by some deuised shift to denie them and to set some conuenient meaning on them when they are opposed in disputations or in conflicts with their aduersaries In many questions we shew the antiquitie the vniuersalitie the vniforme consent and agreement of the auncient church for vs and against them and it is strange to see what poore and miserable shifts yea what impudent and shamelesse deuices they are driuen to and yet cannot auaile to suppresse the light thereof In a word it is plainly found that they haue no cause to bragge of
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
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
of Tobie of Iudith are not in the Canon Thus he reckoneth the Ecclesiasticall and Apocryphall bookes vnder one name of Apocryphall Some on the other side vnder the name of Canonicall bookes contained all that were not of the last sort that is of those bastards and counterfeits which were wholy exploded and reiected out of the Church Thus S. Austin doth extending the name of Canonicall to all that was admitted publikely to be read and therefore comprehending the bookes called Ecclesiastical ioyntly vnder that name But here the name of Canonicall is not properly vsed because the Scriptures are called canonicall of being the Canon that is to say the rule of our faith which those Ecclesiasticall bookes are not as before we haue heard And what doth Austine make them all of equall and like authoritie Nothing lesse for in the first place cited by Master Bishop where he setteth all those bookes downe vnder one name of canonical he giueth this rule t Aug. de doct Christ lib. 2 ca. 8. In Scripturis canonicis ecclesiaruÌ„ Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequotur c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis vt cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesus praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt in eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat caâ— quas plures grauioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatâ— ecclesiae tonent In the Canonicall Scriptures let a man follow the authority of the greater number of catholike Churches and this course he shal hold to preferre those which are receiued of all catholike Churches before those which some do not receiue and in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those which the more Churches and of greater authority do receiue before those which are holden of the fewer and of lesser authority or account He would not haue vsed any such exception if he had taken all those bookes to be alike inspired of God and therfore doth manifestly teach vs to make some difference betwixt them and coÌ„sequently not to account the bookes of Machabees properly canonicall inasmuch as few or no Churches esteemed them so to be And this may somewhat further appeare in the second place which M. Bishop citeth where speaking of the Princes of the Iewes after the reedifying of the temple he saith u Aug. de ciu Dei lib 18. cap. 36. Quorum supputatio temporum non in Scripturis sanctis quae canonicae appellantur sed in alijs inuenitur in quibus sunt MachabaeoruÌ„ libriquos non Iudaei sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabileâ— c. The account of their termes is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called canonicall but in other bookes amongst which are the bookes of the Machabees which not the Iewes but the Church reckoneth for canonicall because of the great and wonderfull sufferings of some martyrs who before the incarnation of Christ striued euen to death for the law of God Where we see him first plainly secluding those bookes from the canonicall Scriptures according as they were secluded by the Iewes albeit withall he saith that the Church in a particular respect admitted of them as canonicall that is publikely to be read to giue knowledge of the constant suffering of some therein mentioned for the testimony of the law of God But in what sort it was that the Church admitted of them and the rest of that kind Hierome giueth vs to vnderstand x Hieron praefat in lib Solom Sicut Judith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidâ—m ecclesia sed eos inter canonicaâ— Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina sapientiae Ecclesiastici legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticâ—rum dogmatum confirmandum The Church readeth them but accounteth them not amongst the canonicall Scriptures it readeth them for the edification of the people not to confirme the authority of the doctrines of the Church And this that Hierome saith is confirmed also by Austine himselfe where he teacheth that y August de ciu Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictores non tanta firâ—â—â—â—â—â— prâ—â—eruntur quae scripta non sunt in Canone Iudaeorum those things which are not written in the canon of the Iewes are not with so great strength or authority alledged against them that contradict vs. Hereby therefore they are proued to be no canonicall Scriptures properly so called because canonicall Scriptures being the rule and measure of our faith do conuince those that contradict which S. Austine acknowledgeth these do not The third place alledged by M. Bishop helpeth yet further to cleare this matter where Gaudentius the Donatist alledging the example of Razias killing himselfe in the second booke of Machabees for defence of their Circumcellions casting themselues downe froÌ„ rocks and prouoking others to kill them that they might be accounted martyrs S. Austine first condemneth the fact which the Author of that booke commendeth and then addeth for exception further z Idem cont Epist Gaudent li. 2. ca. 23. Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum Iudaei non habent sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimoniuÌ„ perhibet tanquaÌ„ testibus suis dicens Oportebat impleri c. Sed recepta est ab ecclesia noÌ„ inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à persecutoribus tam indigna atque hâ—rrenda perpessi sunt c. This Scripture which is called of the Machabees the Iewes account not as the law and the Prophets and the Psalmes to which the Lord giueth testimony as his witnesses saying All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalmes but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard specially for those Machabees who for the law of God like true martyrs suffered so vnwoorthy and horrible things at their persecutors hands Where we see how coldly he speaketh of the receiuing of that booke as rather to excuse the Church then to defend it for so doing that it was done not vnprofitably and yet with this exception if it be soberly read and the reason of the receiuing of it not for the authority of the booke but for the story of those Machabees who there are recorded so constantly to haue suffered torments for their obseruing the law of God But withall he absolutely sheweth that those bookes are none of theÌ„ a Luk. 24.44 to which Christ gaue testimonie as his witnesses who notwithstanding calleth those witnesses by the name of b Ver. 27. all Scriptures thereby giuing fully to vnderstand that these are no Scriptures Hereby therefore we conceiue that S. Austine well discerned the defect of these bookes and rightly vnderstood that they are not so
stand good because nothing letteth but that Moses might commit to writting all that faith that Iob receiued by tradition Iob was g Ambros Offic. lib. 1. caep 36. Iob antiqutor Mose c. auncienter then Moses as Ambrose saith and might receiue the doctrine of faith by word and tradition of other men but yet we see that that faith is no other but what Moses after comprised in the written law Albeit what that tradition was hath bene i Sect. 1. before declared not resting in relation from one man to another but continually renewed and confirmed by reuelation and illumination immediatly from God being certainly corrupted by tradition where he did not graciously shew himselfe for the preseruation of it And as for other Gentiles whosoeuer they were that were saued after the writing of the Law they were saued onely by that faith which the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets haue described vnto vs. But M. Bishop not content to bring Moses alone for a patron of traditions telleth vs beside that not any law-maker in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by custome therefore saith he it is not likely that our Christian law should be all written Where we may iustly hisse at his grosse and wilfull absurditie that will measure the Law-maker of heauen with the law-makers of the earth and by imperfection in the lawes of men will argue imperfection in the lawes of God No vnderstanding of man can either by laws or by customes prouide for all occurrents of the commonwealth but dayly there are arising and growing the occasions of new lawes and will he then frame the light of God to the measure of our darknesse And yet what lawmaker hath there bene or is there in the world who if he were able to comprehend an absolute perfection of all lawes would not certainly take course to set the same downe in writing as being the only secure and safe way for the perpetuating therof And if we will thus conceiue of any wise and reasonable man how much more should we attribute it to the wisedome of God that knowing the slippernesse and mutabilitie of the minds thoughts of men he would for safetie and assurance set downe in writing whatsoeuer he would haue to stand for law of worship and seruice towards him I need not to stand vpon this for the comparison is of it selfe so odious and absurd as that euery man may wonder that the mans discretion should faile him so far as to reason in this sort For conclusion of this section a toy took him in the head concerning somwhat said by M. Perkins in the sectiō before It was said that it should cal the prouidence of God in question to say that any part of Scripture should be lost M. Bishop answereth that God permitteth much euill True but he permitteth no euill iniurious to his owne glory M. Perkins supposeth out of that that was said before that all Scripture was at first written for our learning To say that it was intended for our learning and yet is now lost what is it but to call in question the prouidence of God His other answer that there should be no great losse because tradition might preserue that which was then lost is a temerarious and witlesse presumption contrary to the experience of all ages whereby it is found that nothing is continued according to the first originall which is deliuered by word only from man to man And his assertion is so much the more ridiculous in this behalfe for that he knoweth not any thing that Tradition hath preserued that was written in those bookes If Tradition haue preserued any thing thereof from being lost let him acquaint vs with it or if he cannot do so let him giue vs leaue to take him for that we finde him a meere babler giuing himselfe libertie to say any thing without feare or wit 20. W. BISHOP Now insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate wishing him a messe of Pap for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of traditions Our Sauior said being at the point of his passion * Iohn 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Acts 1. Our Sauior after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11. I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1. Tim. 6. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. Chrysostome and Theophylact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and gouernement of the Church to which alludeth that auncient holy Martyr S. Irenaeus * Lib. 3. c. 4. saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholicke Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth S. Iohn who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epist 3.13 that he had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to ink and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three points of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his Father Where is it written that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour Christ Iesus no person of man but the substance of God and man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euery of these principal articles of the Christian faith and most necessary to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible Wherefore we must either admit traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euery wrangler as shall be more declared in the argument following R. ABBOT The messe of pap hath scalded M. Bishops mouth and he would faine put it off to M. Perkins He is ashamed of the childishnesse of this reason yet not denying it to be one of theirs but onely blaming M. Perkins his maner of proposing it whereas we imagine he would haue done it if he had knowne how to haue proposed it in better sort But because he is so desirous to passe it ouer let vs
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
to vnbeleeuers onely by their default and therfore onely accidentally and respectiuely is so called set aside the respect and he cannot be truly called so Euen so the Scriptures are made a matter of strife by the iniquitie and importunity of euill men and to them onely they are so called whereas in themselues they are not so but properly serue for the ending and determining of all strife Maister Perkins therefore might iustly say that they are falsly termed the matter of strife hauing respect to the affection and intention of them by whom they were so termed For they who gaue this name gaue it by way of deprauing and disgracing the Scriptures when being required by vs to stand to the iudgement of the Scriptures they refused to do so and alledged that the Scriptures could giue no iudgement but rather were themselues matter of controuersie and strife seeking by this pretence to draw all to the determination of their owne Church But herein they offered indignity and dishonour to him who hath giuen vnto vs b Psal 119.104.105 his word to be the lanterne vnto our feete and the light vnto our steps by his precepts to get vnderstanding to hate all the waies of falshood Froward men may take occasion to striue about matters of the Scriptures when notwithstanding the Scriptures cleare those things whereabout they striue c Tertul de resur carn Videntur illis materias quasdam subministrasse ipsas quidem ijsdem literis reuincibiles The Scriptures saith Tertullian seeme to minister matter to heretikes but yet they are to be conuicted by the same Scriptures Where there is in the heart humility and obedience to the word of God there question and controuersie soone endeth but where there is frowardnesse and selfewill there will be no end of contention howsoeuer there be apparent conuiction To leaue this to come to the matter specially in hand it seemeth that M. Bishop hath much forgotten what he was about The matter in hand is to proue traditions that is doctrines of faith beside the Scriptures and he maketh here a long discourse concerning the meanes of attaining to the vnderstanding of the Scirptures Let that meanes be what it may be in the true vnderstanding of the Scriptures there is no other but the doctrine of the Scriptures and what is that to their traditions In this argument he his fellowes keepe their woont that is to trifle and say nothing to the matter whereof they pretend to speake Yet to follow them in their own steps the question is of the true interpreting and expounding of the Scriptures It is apparent they say what the Scripture saith but it is doubtfull what it meaneth There be many difficulties some expound one way some another way but how is it to be knowne who expoundeth the right way M. Perkins bringeth them in playing their old trump that we must haue recourse to the tradition of the Church imitating therein the old heretikes whose allegation was as Irenaeus recordeth that d Iren. lib. 3 cap. 2. Cū arguuntur ex Scripturis in accusationem conuertuntur ipsarum scripturarum c. quia non possit ex his inuentri veritas ab his qui nesciant traeditionem by the Scriptures the truth could not be found out by them that were ignorant of tradition To this M. Perkins answereth that the Scripture it selfe declareth it owne meaning if we obserue the analogie of faith gathered out of the manifest places of Scripture if we weigh the circumstance of the place and signification of the words if we diligently weigh and compare one place with another and vse such other like helpes as the Scripture yeeldeth With these words M. Bishop notably plaieth the sycophant as if M. Perkins hereby affirmed that euery Christian man by these means is enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text that euery simple man furnished with these three rules is able to resolue any difficulty in the Scriptures whatsoeuer Against this he bringeth in the confession of S. Austine that after so long study the things which he knew not in the Scripture were more then those which he did know Thus he setteth vp a S. Quintin for himselfe and bestoweth himselfe very valiantly in running at it But where doth M. Perkins professe this effect of those three rules with euery Christian man euery simple man nay where doth he affirme so much of any learned man be he neuer so learned He setteth downe those rules as S. Austine doth the same and many other as necessary helpes for the searching of the truth and by the exercise whereof men should labour to profit and grow in the vnderstanding of the Scriptures may attaine to the knowledge of that truth that is necessary to saluation but farre was he from conceiuing that which M. Bishop speaketh of that euery simple man may thereby resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer M. Bishop for the attaining of the sence of Scripture referreth vs to their Iudge and to the traditions and auncient records of the primitiue Church to those auncient and holy commentaries But is he so witlesse as to think that any man vsing this direction of his shall be thereby enabled in the Scriptures to resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer If he will haue no such fantasticall paradox gathered of that which he saith why doth he lay the imputation of it vpon M. Perkins when it followeth no more of M. Perkins speech one way then it doth of his the other way As for his question why the Lutherans notwithstanding these rules do vnderstand the Scriptures in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way we answer him that in his question there is more malice then wit We aske him the like question how it commeth to passe that notwithstanding their rules directions yet all these differ from them in the expounding of Scripture Now as he will answer that notwithstanding their directions be true yet that cannot hinder but that heretikes will dissent from them so we answer him that notwithstanding our rules and instructions in this behalfe be true and taken from the course of the auncient fathers yet that cannot let but that Popish heretikes and selfe-willed Lutherans and foolish mad Anabaptists will dissent from vs. If he will say that albeit all these dissent from them yet they themselues agree in one the like will be said of all other parties that albeit others do vary from them yet amongst themselues they vary not It is therefore no more prejudice to our rules that others dissent from vs then it is to Papists that we dissent from them As for the Anabaptists let him not put them to vs because we wholy detest them but rather take them home to them because being both of them the wicked ofspring of him who is e Iohn 8.44 a liar and the father of lies they haue both learned of him to teach men by equiuocations
the mouth of the Lord neither to make other interpretation of the laws of God then by the same lawes can be iustified and made good Thus we see that as God tied the Iewes to the sentence of the Priests so he required the sentence of the Priests to be according to the law r Deut. 17.11 According to the law which law they shall teach thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee Å¿ Lyra. ibid. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica si dixerint tibi quòd dextera sit sinistra vel sinistra dextera talis sententia est tenenda quod pataet manifestè falsuÌ„ esse quòd senteÌ„tia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem hoc patet per hoc quod praemittitur in textu Indicalunt tibi iudicij veritateÌ„ postea subditur Et docuerint te iuxta legem eius Ex quo patet quòd si dicunt falsum vel declinem à lege Dei manifestè non sunt audiendi The Hebrew glose saith Lyra here teacheth that if they say to thee that the right hand is the left or the left the right this sentence is to be holden which appeareth to be manifestly false saith he because the sentence of no man is to be holden of what authoritie so-euer he be if it do manifestly containe falshood and errour and this is plaine by that that is put before in the text They shall shew thee the truth of iudgement is afterwards added They shall teach thee according to the law whereby it is plaine that if they say any thing false or decline manifestly from the law of God they are not to be hearkened vnto It is not then so to be conceiued as that obedience should be absolutely due vnto them because as in the ciuill state there may be corrupt Iudges that wrest the law and giue sentence against law so there may be corrupt men also in places of ecclesiasticall iudgement men more affected to their owne will then to the word of God seeking rather themselues then Iesus Christ It is therefore to be obserued that as in matters of ciuill iustice some things there are in the law so cleare that if the sentence of the Iudge be contrary thereto euery man may discerne and see that he swarueth from the truth neither will a man take it to be law which the Iudge pronounceth because his owne eies perceiue the contrary so those things that concerne faith and religion towards God some things by the Scripture it selfe are so apparent and plaine as that it is manifest that not for any ambiguity in themselues but by the iniquity and frowardnesse of men they are called into question and that to question the exposition is nothing else but to seeke collusion In which cases the Iudge hath no more to do but to deliuer the peremptory sentence of God himselfe t Aug. ac bapt cont Donat lib. 2. ca. 6. Ass ramuâ— fraâ—eram diuinam in scripturis sanctis in illa quid sit grauius appendamus immâ— non appendamus sed à Domino appensa recognoscamus not to weigh as S. Austine saith but to recognize and acknowledge what the Lord hath already weighed Sometimes matters are more hard and doubtfull not so much haply of themselues as by meanes of opposition and contradiction and therfore are not so readily plaine vntill they be made plaine For the explaning and declaring whereof the Church as the Iudge is to vse the help of the law it selfe that is of the holy Scripture and to that purpose to apply the rules before expressed and so not by meere authority but by testimonie and warrant to approue to the conscience of euery man the sentence that shall be giuen for determining the thing in doubt u Oâ—â—gen in Leâ—â—â— hâ—â— 5. Inductus testaâ—entâ—s lâ—â—â—t omne veâ—â—uÌ„ quod ad Deaâ—â—â—â—tinet requiri disâ—uti atque ex â—â—sis omnim rerum scientiâ—m capi Siquid auteÌ„ superficerit quod non diuina scriptura decernat nulla alia tertia scriptura debet ad authoritatem scientia suscipi sed quod superest Deo reserueniâ— By the two testaments saith Origen euery word that pertaineth to God may be seaâ—ched out and discussed and all knowledge of things may be taken from them and if there be any thing further which the holy Scripture determineth not there ought no other writing be receiued for authority of knowledge but what remaineth we must reserue to God x IdeÌ„ in Ierem. ho. â— Necesse est nobis Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare Sensus quippe nostri enarrationes siâ—e his testibus non habent fidem It is necessary for vs saith he that we call the holy Scriptures to witnesse for our sences and expositions without these witnesses haue no credit y Idem in Math. tr 25. Dibemus ad testimonium omnium verboruÌ„ quae proferimus in doctrina proferre sâ—â—sum Scripturae quâ—si confirm entera queâ— expâ—â—â—mus sensum Sicut enim omne aurum quod-quod fuerit extra templum non est sancti fiâ—arum sic omnis sensus qui â—uerit extra diuinam Scripturam quâ—muis adâ—â—rabâ—lis videatur quibusdam non est sanctus quia non continetur à sensu Scripturae quae solâ—â— cum solum sensum santifiâ—are quâ—â— in se habet We must saith he again for witnesse of all the words which we vtter in teaching bring forth the sence of Scripture as coÌ„firming the sence which we deliuer for as all the gold which was without the temple was vnholy so euery sence which is without the holy Scripture though to some it may seeme admirable is vnholy because it is not contained of the sence of Scripture which is wont to make holy only that sence which it hath in it selfe By this rule the iudgment of the Church is to proceed so to vse the gift of interpretation as that he that gainsaieth may be conuicted as by the testimony of God himselfe and they who haue not the gift of interpretation may yet see perceiue that their constructions and expositions are according to the Scripture Now if the Church in their affirming or expounding shall contrary that which the Scripture hath manifestly taught vnder pretence of being the Iudge in the causes of God shall iudge against God what shall we then do Surely as a priuate man may by ordinary knowledge of the law be able to accuse a Iudge of high treason against his Prince eueÌ„ so in this case a priuate man by ordinary knowledge of the law of God may be able to accuse the Church of high treasoÌ„ against God And as it is ridiculous in case of treasoÌ„ to alledge that it belongeth to the Iudge to giue the meaning of the law and to leaue him at liberty to expound it that it may rest therupon whether his own fact be treason or
Idols but that they may not be called Idols we forbeare to adore worship them But the meaning of that Councell is otherwise that the images of Christ and his Saints being worshipped yet are not to be called idols and in this sence do they accuse them that confound them both in one Concerning which it is to be obserued that the same Councell amongst sundry other heresies c NiceÌ„ 2. Act 7. epist ad Constan et Iren. Audemus anathentatizare Arij insantam c. Nestorij idololatriam in homine accurseth the idolatry of Nestorius in or concerning the man Iesus Christ The heresie of Nestorius stood in the deuiding of the manhood of Christ from the Godhead whereby he made two distinct persons distinctly and seuerally to be acknowledged worshipped He made the Godhead only an assistant to the manhood and more eminently and effectually shewing it selfe in him then in vs but otherwise no more vnited to the manhood then it is to vs. Therefore he denied that the virgin Mary might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God or that it might be said that God suffered for our sinnes albeit the Scripture so plainly saith d Luke 1.35 That holy thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God and againe e Acts 20.28 Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud Now because he made a distinct person of the manhood of Christ and yet acknowledged to worship the man Christ he was hereby charged to beake the first commandement Thou shalt haue no other gods but me f Cyril de rect fide ad Reg. LegeÌ„ iguurirritaÌ„ c. IrritaÌ„ faceremus legem quae vni verè Deo adorationem offeri vt sapientiam loquimur c. Verè homines à cognitione Dei abducit mundum hominis cultum docet We should be so doing saith Cyril make frustrate the law which giueth worship to one onely who is truly God and affirmeth that this is to leade men away from the knowledge of God and to teach the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worshipping of a man This is it which that Nicene Councell calleth the idolatrie of Nestorius which they could not but condemne vnder that name if they would carrie any countenance of truth because by the Councell of Ephesus and the Catholicke and godly Bishops as appeareth by Cyril it had bene before in that sort notoriously condemned Here then we say if the manhood of Christ being taken seuerally and without personall vnion of the Godhead become an idol for that the name of idolatry importeth by being worshipped what should let but that the image of Christ being worshipped is much more iustly to be called an idoll which hath no manner of vnion neither to God nor man In what respect the name of Idoll is so applied shall be shewed afterwards but in the meane time we desire to know how it should be Idolatry to worship the manhood of Christ and yet it should be no idolatry to worship the image of Christ and as the image of Christ so the images of the Saints also We cannot conceiue this point and therefore we expect M. Bishop in this behalfe to be resolued by you Well then leauing him to demurre vpon it for the sauing of the credit of their Councell let vs come to the consideration of his next authoritie M. Perkins alledgeth Tertullian saying that euery forme or representation is to be termed an idoll Not so neither saith M. Bishop for he maketh Idolum a diminutiue of eidos which signifieth a forme or similitude so that Idolon is but a small similitude or slender image not so much for the quantitie as for that it representeth but darkely It seemeth that it was somewhat darke when he looked vpon Tertullian or that he tooke Tertullian for such a darke author as that he was loth to trouble himselfe to looke vpon him at all Tertullian indeed saith that g Tertul. de idol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graecè formam sonat ab eo per diminutioneÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deductuÌ„ aequè apud nos formulam fecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a forme or similitude and that from thence by diminution is deriued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which proportionably with vs maketh or importeth a little forme but by that that followeth he giueth to vnderstand that as in Latine Paxillus a naile figulus a potter mandibulum a iaw and many other like so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke is a diminutiue onely in forme and sound not in the signification and meaning of the word For he inferreth thus h Ibid. Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit Inde idololatria omnis circa omne idoluÌ„ famulatus seruituâ— Therefore euery forme or lesser forme requireth it selfe to be called an idoll and thence is idolatry which is all maner deuotion and seruice about any such idoll It is plaine then that he maketh the name of an Idoll to extend to all formes or representatioÌ„s whether greater or lesser expresly saying that i Nihil interest quale sit qua de materia qua de effigie ne qui puâ—et id solùm idoluÌ„ habendum quod humana effigie sit consecratum it skilleth not what a one it be of what matter or what shape that no man may thinke that that only is an idoll which is consecrated in the shape of man To whatsoeuer forme then or likenes we yeeld deuotion or seruice we therein commit idolatry and it is that which properly we call an idoll But to make this yet more plaine he addeth further a little after k Omnia colit humanus error praeter ipsum omniuÌ„ conditoreÌ„ Eorum imagines idolaâ— consecratio imaginum idololatria Humane error worshippeth all things saue him that made all The images of those things are idols the consecration of images is idolatry Idols then by Tertullians Iudgement are all manner images set vp to represent either men or any other creatures and coÌ„secrated to haue religious duty performed vnto them And so elsewhere he saith of deifying men by their images after their death l Jdem de Coro mil. Mortui idolastatim fiunt habitu cultu coÌ„secrationis Being dead they are made Idols by their habit and seruice of consecration It is consecration then or dedication that of an image maketh an Idoll and therefore are Idols termed sacred images and consecrated images as before I haue shewed out of Lactantius and other writers Hereby then we may conceiue that M. Bishop surely wrote in the darke when he set downe Tertullian affirming Idoll to import representing darkly when he saith not any one word tending to that effect but leaueth them the same as are the representations of Popish images Neither doth Eustathius make any more for him then the rest who when he calleth the ghosts of dead men m Eustath
Tertul. Apol. cap. 16. Solem credunt Deum nostrum c. Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari prayed to or towards the East thought they worshipped the Sunne and gaue out that they made the Sunne their God The Christians worshipped Christ onely in bending themselues towards the East and so the faithfull Iewes in bending or bowing towards the Arke intended the worship of God onely and therefore a senslesse part it is to alledge those wordes of the Prophet for the defence of the worship of Popish idols And if they would proue the worshipping of any thing thereby or the praying at or before any thing it should be the worshipping and praying before that that was prefigured by the Temple and the Arke The Temple one way was a figure of heauen as before was shewed wherein Gdd doth dwell and hath n Dan. 7.10 thousand thousands of Angels standing before him and tenne thousand thousands ministring vnto him M. Bishop then should by his course of interpretation conclude from the Prophets words that we should worship heauen But he should rather conceiue that as we worship and pray towards heauen but yet do not worship heauen or pray to heauen so did they also worship and pray towards the Temple and the Arke but did not worship or pray to them Another way the Temple was a figure of the Church of Christ and of euery faithfull man o 1. Cor. 3.16 Know ye not saith the Apostle that ye are the Temple of God and againe p 2. Cor. 6.16 ye are the Temple of the liuing God The Arke whereat and whereby he is present with vs and dwelleth in vs is the faith of Iesus Christ our q Rom. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiatorie and mercy-seate and by his presence the Angels also attend vpon vs r Heb. 1.14 being ministring spirits sent foorth for their sakes that shall be heires of saluation Now therefore M. Bishop shold rather proue by the Prophets words our kneeling in our prayers before a faithfull man or worshipping a faithfull man then our kneeling before an Image or worshipping an Image and if it be absurd thereby to affirme the worshipping of a liuing man in whom God dwelleth much more the worshipping of a dead and senslesse blocke which hath no fellowship with God Yea and if by those words it were warranted to set vp the images of dead men and to worship them what was the cause that the Iewes conceiued not so much Why were they without that heauenly shew as M. Bishop in the height of his earthly wisedome calleth it If they neuer conceiued it neuer practised it what shall we but take them for cousiners and deceiuers who offer this violence to the Scriptures and most impudently wrest theÌ„ to the maintenance of that filthinesse and abhomination which expresly they condemne But yet Master Bishop telleth vs that it is otherwise very euident that the Israelites worshipped the Arke And how I pray you First none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was Well and what then It was carried before the campe with great solemnitie to search out a resting place for the whole hoast True and what more When they were to fight against the Philistines they had great confidence in the presence of the Arke There was great cause why they should so carrying themselues respectfully towards God because it was the token that God had giuen them of his presence amongst them let vs heare the rest Fiftie thousand of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the Arke It is true indeed that for looking into the Arke so many of theÌ„ were slaine is there any thing yet behind Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the Arke Well and what of all this Doth not all this conuince in what reuerence the Arke was had euen by Gods owne testimonie As if to proue M. Bishop to be a profound Clearke a man should say He hath learned a little Rhetoricke and lesse Logicke and is per saltum a Doctor of Diuinity and per inopiam a Priest and doth not all this conuince that he hath some learning Witlesse cauiller is there any thing in all those allegations that importeth the worshipping of the Arke Nay marke gentle Reader that whereas he propoundeth to prooue that the Arke was worshipped he maketh his conclusion that the Arke was had in great reuerence But they had the temple also in great reuerence and the altars and the offerings and al things that by the law were coÌ„manded to be holy and will he thereof inferre that all these were to be worshipped They were to haue the Priests in great reuerence and specially the high Priest and shall we therefore say that they worshipped the Priests What is this reuerence but a religious respect and care of the sacred and due vsage of holy things according to their kind Thus are we to haue our Churches in reuerence with those vtensils and implements that belong to them that they be had and vsed with that decencie and seemelinesse as fitteth to things that serue for holy ministrations As for Hierome M. Bishop wholy abuseth falsifieth his words for he saith nothing at all of worshipping the Arke for the Cherubims and pictures of Angels that were erected at the ends of it this is a very wilfull and impudent forgerie but he saith that Å¿ Hieron ad Marcel vt cont nâ—gret Bethleem Venerabantur quondam Iudaei Sancta sanctoruÌ„ quia ibi erant Cherubim propitiatorium arca testameÌ„ti Manna virga Aaron altare aureum the Iewes of old reuerenced the Sancta sanctorum because there were the Cherubims and the mercy-seate and the Arke of the TestameÌ„t and Manna and Aarons rod and the golden altar He knew well that if he had reported Hieroms words aright they would not sound for his purpose but to frame them to his turne he changeth the reuerencing of the holy place because of the Cherubims and the Arke into worshipping the Arke because of the Cherubims as if worship were performed properly to the Cherubims whereas * Origen contra Cels lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis subdedit by the lawe of Moses as Origen saith no worship was done to the Angels themselues and much lesse to the Cherubims which represented the Angels The word venerari which Hierome vseth albeit it be often vsed for worship and seruice done to God yet is of so large signification as that it is yeelded to all those things to which we yeeld any reuerend and dutifull respect So doth t August de doctr Christ li. 3. cap. 9. Sicuti est baptismi Sacramentum celebratio corporis sanguinis Domini Quae vnusquisque imbutus agnoscit vt ea noÌ„ carnali seruitute sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur Saint Austine vse the word of the reuerence that we vse to the Sacraments not onely the