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
for the doing of it but the other not only teacheth by writing or by preaching but ministreth also grace to worke in the heart obedience to that that it teacheth g August de sp lit cap. 20. Propter veteru hominis noxam quae per literam rubeâ—rem minantem minimè fanabitur dicitur illud testamentuÌ„ vitas hoc verò nonum propter nouitatem spiritus qua hominem nouum sanâ—tà vitio vetustatis The old Testament saith S. Austin is so called because of the corruption of the old man which was not healed by the commanding and threatening letter but the other the new because of the newnesse of the spirit which healeth the new man from the old corruption But we would gladly know of M. Bishop how it is true which the Apostle saith that h 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is inspired of God if it be true which he saith that God did not giue his lawes written with inke and paper If the Gospell might well enough haue bene kept in mens hearts without writing why were the faithfull so instant with S. Marke first after with S. Iohn as we haue seene before for the writing of their Gospels Why doth the Apostle tell the Philippians that i Phil. 3.1 it was necessary for them that he should write vnto them the same things that he had preached vnto them if there were no such necessitie Why is S. Iohn in the Reuelation so often commaunded k Reuel 1.11 cap. 2.1 c cap. 14.13 to write to write if tradition might serue as well as writing Surely Irenaeus telleth vs that it was l Jren. â—ib 3 c. 1. Euangelium per voluntatem Dei in Scripturu nobâ—s tradiderunt by the will of God that the Apostles deliuered vnto vs the Gospell in writing as we haue shewed before So likewise we haue heard S. Austin saying that m Aug. supra sect 14. Christ commanded his disciples to write what he would haue vs to reade of his sayings and doings The same S. Austine saith againe that n Idem in epist Ioan. tract 2. Contra insidiosos errores Deus voluit pouere firmamentum in scripturis sanctis contra quas nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum God would place a bulwarke against deceiptfull errors in the holy Scriptures against which no man dare speake that will in any sort be taken for a Christian man Do these Fathers tell vs that it was the will of God the commaundement of Christ that his lawes should be deliuered vnto vs written with inke and paper and will M. Bishop perswade vs that it was not the will of God But I would further question with him What are they all so perfect in the Gospell at Rome as that they neede no written Gospell Is it so setled in their hearts remembrances by tradition only as that without any Scriptures it might be preserued amoÌ„gst them If M. Bishop say yea he knoweth himselfe to be a lyer If he say no what is the reason that he setteth thus lightly by inke and paper Fie vpon this wilfull blindnesse how strange a thing is it that any man should thus cast a veile ouer his owne eyes He telleth vs further that Christ endowed his Apostles with the blessed spirit of truth with a most diligeÌ„t care of instructing others that all their posteritie might learne of them al the points of Christian doctrin Now thus far he saith true but his purpose is with a little truth to colour a great lye For he addeth that we should giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word Sycophant what haue we here to do with the vnwritten word The vnwritten word is the matter in question and must it here be presumed before it be proued Let it first be made good that the Apostles meant to leaue behind them any vnwritten word We say that because they had care that all posteritie by them should learne all the points of Christian doctrine therefore they had care that all the points of Christian doctrine should be committed to writing that as S. Luke professeth to haue written to the intent that Theophilus o Luk. 1.4 might thereby acknowledge the certainty of those things wherof he had bene instructed so by his writings and the rest we should acknowledge the certaintie and assured truth of their doctrine and not lye open to the illusions of such impostors and cosiners as M. Bishop is who vnder the names of the Apostles should broach those things which the Apostles neuer thought Whereof we haue a notable example in p Euseb hist lib. 3. ca. 36. Papias who succeeded immediatly after the time of the Apostles who whilest he was not contented with those things which were left in writing but was still hearkening after euery one that tooke vpon him to haue bin a follower of any of the Apostles and enquiring what any of them had said or done swallowed manie gudgeons giuen him by such deceiuers and deliuered * Alia taÌ„quam ex viua trad tione ad se relata et peregrâ—naâ— quasdam seruatoris parabolas doctrinas cum non nullis fobâ—losis adijcit c. Apostolicas dâ—sputationes non rectè accepit c. Quamplurimis â—os se ecclesiasticis viris ciroris causam dedit quiad antiquitatem ipsius respexerunt c. as reported to him by tradition many fabulous things and strange doctrines conceiuing himselfe by that meanes amisse of the Apostles speeches and giuing occasion to many other to erre as he did whilest for his antiquitie they respected him very much This is the end of M. Bishops vnwritteÌ„ word they wil teach vs what pleaseth their Lord god the Pope theÌ„ make vs beleeue it is a part of the vnwritten word But yet he addeth again that our crediting the Apostles shold be more for the meaning of the word then for the word it self Where it is not in any good meaning that he thus nicely distinguisheth betwixt the word it self the meaning of the word leauing it forsooth to be vnderstood that they left the word one way and the meaning of the word another way the one in writing and the other by tradition But what will M. Bishop haue vs thinke that the Apostles would write words and not meane by their words to signifie their meaning Is it likely that they would write one thing and in meaning intend another Did they not write to that very end that in their writing it should appeare to all ages what doctrine they taught Surely they were honest and plaine dealing men they wold not beguile vs they wold not mock vs they haue simply told vs what their mind is There are manie difficulties in their writings and in the whole Scriptures it is true but yet there are perspicuities also so farre as is needful for the clearing of them There is to exercise the strong but yet there
epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant wil appeer by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus who M. Bishop sayth by the Apostles words receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretickes Let his author speake and let the Reader iudge how honestly he dealeth in this citation The words are the words of Irenaeus of whom Eusebius reporteth that in certaine speeches against Florinus the hereticke he saith of himselfe hauing bene with Polycarpus when he was very yong g Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. ca. 18. Commemorare queaÌ„ sermones eius quos fecit ad multitudineÌ„ quomodo se cum Ioanne ac reliquis qui DominuÌ„ viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit sermones ecruÌ„ memorauerit quae ex illis de Domino audierant de virtutibus eius doctrina tanquaÌ„ ex ijs qui ipsi verbuÌ„ vitae viderant et cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recensuerit I remember the sermons that he made to the people and how he told that he had bene conuersant with Iohn and others that saw the Lord and mentioned their speeches and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and concerning his miracles and doctrine as receiued from them who themselues had seene the Word of life and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures Here was then the tradition of Polycarpus containing nothing else but according to the Scripture As touching the tradition that h See the Answer to the Epistle sect 11. Irenaeus speaketh of it hath bene before shewed that it containeth nothing else but the elementall articles of Christian faith for the auouching whereof he was forced to appeale to the tradition and successiue doctrine of the Church because he had to do with heretickes that refused the triall of the Scriptures He saith rightly that if nothing had bene written we must haue rested vpon Tradition but because God knew that Tradition was too vncertaine and weake a meanes for preseruation of truth therefore as he hath before said the Apostles deliuered the Gospel which they preached in writing and that by the will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our faith In a word when he saith What if the Apostles had not writteÌ„ any thing at all must we not then haue followed the order of tradition he intimateth that now that they haue written we are to follow that which they haue written for the certaintie assurance of our faith He forceth the order of tradition in this sort vpon the heretiks because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but the matters whereof he treateth are cleerly taught therein as euery where he sheweth throughout his whole booke His next allegation is vaine and childish Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by tradition to baptize infants whereas Bellarmine himselfe proueth it to be necessary by the Scriptures as I haue shewed i Sect 12. before That of Athanasius is as little to the purpose as all the rest The thing that he hath in hand in the k Athanas lib. Quòd Nicena synod u congruis pijs verbis decreta sua super Ariana haeresi exposuerit booke cited is to giue a reason of the decree of the Nicene Councell that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father He sheweth that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures Constantine also so directing them as we haue seene before The matter was so cleared as that the heretickes for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded vpon Yet he declareth that afterwards they fell to cauilling that the words whereby the Councell expressed their meaning were not found in the Scriptures that they deuised them of themselues and that none of the former Fathers had vsed the same He answereth that l Cognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam quâ—m Scripturae volunt hoc ipsum sonaere c. Whosoeuer is of a studious mind or desirous to learne will know that those words though they be not found in the Scriptures yet haue the same meaning which the Scriptures intend and do signifie the very same Further against their other cauil he sheweth by diuers places alledged that the Fathers of former times had vsed the same words and maner of speech as the Councell did Hereupon he concludeth m Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiaÌ„ à patribus ad patres quasi per manâ—â— traditaÌ„ esse Vos autem nouâ— Iudeâ— Cataphaeque discipuli quos verboruÌ„ vestroruÌ„ patreâ—ac maiores demonstraâ—uâ— Behold we shew that this sentence hath bene deliuered from fathers to fathers as it were from hand to hand but O you new Iewes and sons of Caiphas what fathers or auncesters will ye shew vs for your termes Now shall not we thinke that M. Bishop hath here brought vs a stout proofe for traditions vnwritten and doctrines beside the Scripture Euen as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellowes Behold we shew you that which we say of the sufficiencie of the Scriptures deliuered from fathers to fathers euen as it were from hand to hand and he should herupon cite vs for witnesses of their traditions As much wit should he shew in this as he now doth in that The place of Basil is answered at large n Sect. 16. before He further referreth vs to the first oration of o Greg Naziâ—n contra Julian erat 1. Doctrina nostra insigâ—â—reÌ„ videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditioâ—e acceptas in hunc vsque dieÌ„ seruaâ—â—mus c. Idem hic cogit 〈◊〉 scholas in omnibus ciuitatibus extruere parabat sacraria se desque partim altiores partim depressiores prophaâ—â—â—um dogmatum lectiones â—xplicationes instituere tum precaâ—oâ—um alternatim caâ—â—â—arum fâ—rmam c. Gregorie Nazianzen against Iulian but was ashamed to set downe any words of his because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians which Iulian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganisme were schools and formes higher and lower lectures hospitals monasteries companies of virgins singing by turnes and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church and what are these to prooue traditions that is matters of doctrine not contained in the Scriptures We admit almost all those things which he there speaketh of and yet we condemne traditions in that sence as we here make question of them Surely M. Bishops traditions are in a miserable case that in all antiquity can find no better foundations wherupon to build them A man would not thinke that in so serious a matter he would so trifle as he hath done bringing not one place in any sort appliable to his purpose but only that of Basill
his owne bosome he was well priuie that his cause was quite vndone W. BISHOP But you proceed and say pag. 7. that we further hold that the bloud of the Saints and Martyrs was not shed in Rome but in Hierusalem Here is a confusion of men and matters for we say that the bloud of many Saints rehearsed in the Apoc. was shed in Rome by the tyrannicall Emperors but the martyring of those two principall witnesses Cap. 17. Enoch and Elias recorded in the eleuenth of the same shall be at Hierusalem aswell because the text is very plaine for it Ver. 8. specifying that their bodies shall lie in the streetes of that great citie where the Lord was crucified as for that the ordinarie interpreters of that place do so take it But M. Perkins holdeth that the place where Christ was crucified signifieth here not Hierusalem but Rome because Christ was crucified there in his members so it might as well signifie any other place of persecution as Rome the reason therefore being nought worth he fortifieth it with the name of S. Hierome but citeth in the margent a letter of two vertuous matrons Paula and Eustochium Good sir if S. Hierome had meant that that Epistle should haue had his authoritie Epist 17. Epist 17. he would haue set it out in his owne name which seeing he thought not expedient set the authoritie of it aside and vrge his reasons if you thinke it woorth your labour and you shall be answered In the meane season I hope all sober Christians will take the place where our Sauiour Christ was nailed on the crosse to signifie rather Hierusalem then Rome And consequently all that you haue alledged out of Scripture to proue the whore of Babylon to figure the ecclesiasticall state of Rome not to be woorth a rush R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins alledgeth is according to their common fancie that Antichrist shall haue his seate kingdome at Hierusalem therfore shall there shed the bloud of the Martyrs of Christ For some of theÌ„ perceiuing as M. Bishop might do if his eyes were matches that the Prophecie of S. Iohn cannot be determined vnder the heathen Empire of Rome do post vs off to Hierusalem there to find the whore of Babylon drunke with the bloud of Gods Saints and so vnderstand that which is said of the slaughter of a Apoc. 11.3.8 the two witnesses whose bodies are said to lie in the streets of the great citie where our Lord also was crucified Thus because Rome is most euidently described by S. Iohn they tell vs one while that these things are indeed to be referred to Rome but vnder the heathen Emperours and because there are some things that cannot possibly be applied to the time of the heathen Emperours they another while put all ouer to Hierusalem and will by no meanes admit of Rome albeit it be most manifestly pointed out for the place thereof But as touching the place of the death of those two witnesses M. Perkins rightly saith that it is not meant of Hierusalem but of Rome It is called the great citie and what the great citie importeth we vnderstand by the mention of it afterwards b Cap. 17.18 the great citie that raigneth ouer the kings of the earth That was Rome and not Hierusalem as hath beene before declared Hierusalem was destroyed 20. yeares or more before S. Iohn saw this Reuelation and c Hieron in Ier. lib. 4. cap. 19. Ciuitas eorum in aeterâ—os caneres collapsa est usque ad consummationem seculi ruinae Hierusalem permansurae sunt was fallen into dust for euer as Hierome speaketh the ruines or destructions thereof shall continue vntill the worlds end d Theodoret in Diu. cap. 9. Vsque ad finem seculi consummatio desolationis absque vlla mutatione permanebit Euen to the end of the world saith Theodoret the consummation of her desolation shall continue without any change The words of the Prophets are fully verified in her e Ierem. 19 11. I will breake this citie as a man breaketh a potters vessell that cannot be made whole againe f Mich 3 12. Sion shall be plowed as a field and Hierusalem shall be an heape and the mountaine of the house shall be as the high places of the forrest Saue onely for three turrets and a part of the wals on the west side left to shew what a citie the Romanes had ouercome it was so destroyed g Ioseph le bello Iudaiâ— cap. 18. 2â— to the very foundations as Iosephus recordeth and layed so flat as that men would hardly haue thought that there had bene any habitation there h Arias Montan in Mich. cap. 3. Ille quae nunc Hierosolyma dicitur 〈◊〉 Aelâ—o Adriano Athae nominâ— constructâ— â—â—que antiquam faciem ne quâ— situm etiam retinet Quod obscura quaedam illâ—â— quae extant vestigia de scriptio ipsa manifestè arguunt c. Onely Aelius Adrianus the Emperour built neare vnto it another citie which of his own name he called Aelia which since hath gone with Christians vnder the name of Hierusalem but hath indeed neither the fashion nor situation of Hierusalem as Arias Montanus noteth for the iustifying of that prophecie and therefore is but wrongly and corruptly called by that name Therefore there neither is nor shall bee any Hierusalem for Antichrist to raigne in nor streets of Hierusalem wherein the corpses of those two witnesses should lie To proue that Hierusalem is not there vnderstood M. Perkins bringeth the testimonie of Hieromes epistle written in the name of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella M. Bishop answereth that if Hierome had meant that that epistle should haue had his authoritie he would haue set it out in his owne name He could not denie but that Hierome was the author of it and if Hierome would not haue had it to cary his authoritie he would not surely haue giuen it place amongst the rest of his epistles But that he should keepe it still vnder their names for whom he wrote it there was a necessarie cause because there are some circumstances in it that are appliable to them onely and not to him Now Hierome though he there deny that great citie to be Hierusalem yet doth not expound it to be Rome but that is very manifest of it selfe because it is i Verse 7â— the beast that shall fight against those two witnesses and kill them and the beast as we haue before seene is the Romane state and gouernement and Rome the citie of seuen hils the place and seate thereof But to the contrarie M. Bishop vrgeth that it is sayd to be the citie where our Lord also was crucified and that he saith all sober Christians will take rather to signifie Hierusalem then Rome Thus no man must be taken to be sober that wil not serue the Popes turne Yet we take our selues to be sober and because we are so we know that the
glory M. Bishop will haue vs think that he did amisse to aske such a questiō because there is as he saith such a reasonable correspōdence betwixt the one the other as that the one cōtrary to S. Bernards sentēce is iustly duly deserued by the other And in the same sort doth he controll Macarius who affirmeth that c Macar homil 15. Siqui◠abeo tempore quo cōditus est Adam vsque ad finē mūdi militasset cōtra diab lum omnes dolores cruciatusque perrulisset nihil magnum fecisset respectu gloriae quā cōsecuturus est in qua infinitu seculu cū Christo regnabit though a man from the time that Adam was created euen to the end of the world were in warfare against the diuell and did suffer all afflictions and sorowes yet should he do no great matter in comparison to the glory which he shall receiue being to reigne with Christ world without end Now thē because all reasonable correspondence is quite sunke Maister Bishops merit is quite drowned and his deuice of Geometricall proportion will not serue his turne But we are here to note the notable stupiditie of this merit-monger Pharisee who maketh the like correspondence betwixt the merit of man and the reward of heauen as is betwixt the well deseruing subiect and an office bestowed on him betwixt him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betwixt the seede and the corne increasing thereof Who would thinke that he could be so absurd so basely to proportion those d 1. Cor. 2.9 good things which neither eie hath seene nor eare hath heard nor haue entred into mans heart which God hath prepared for them that loue him And yet euen in these comparisons how farre is he beside the stoole For first we know that subiects do not chalenge offices at their Princes hands by right and title of merit and desert but by request of fauour and grace Whatsoeuer a man hath done he hath done the duty of a subiect and it is at the discretion and pleasure of the Prince to consider of that he hath done and what is it to him if his Prince bestow the office which he desireth vpon a man of meaner quality and woorth then he thinketh himselfe to be But if the honour and commodity of the office be farre greater as M. Bishop saith thē the merit of the man shall we not think that he meriteth a dagger a bell that will go about hereby to approoue a title of merit and desert with God For if the reward of heauen be farre greater then the merit of man why doth he seeke to make good our meriting thereof As touching his second comparison of games triall of maisteries he might easily conceiue that the prize ex condicto standeth good to him that winneth it but there is no question of the value or worth of it which haply is much lesse then to counteruaile the labour paines that is bestowed for the gaining of it As in the games of Olympus the most famous that euer were in the world the prize was but an Oliue garland nothing for worth in cōparison of the pains expence mē were at to prepare thēselues to trauell for the obtaining therof So that Tigranes whē Mardonius had perswaded Zerxes to warre against the Grecians hearing thereof said vnto him e Polydor. Virgil de inuent rerum lib. 2. ca. 13. Good Lord Mardonius what kinde of men hast thou brought vs to fight against who trie maisteries not for gaining of money but for shewing of prowesse and valour So that the correspondence betwixt the gamester and the prize may be this that the labour and paines on the one side is much and the prize on the other side woorth iust nothing nor is esteemed at all for the value and woorth of it and yet hereby forsooth Maister Bishop will set forth vnto vs a correspondence betwixt the merit of our workes and the reward of heauen As for the places of Scripture that he citeth hereof the Apostle thereby setteth foorth the consequence and order of the worke and the reward God hauing designed the one to the other as the prize is proposed in the game but as touching value and woorth as touching merit and desert he intendeth nothing therein His third comparison is that the grace of God is compared to seede as where Saint Iohn saith f 1. Iohn 3. ◠His seede remaineth in him In which place Saint Iohn hauing said that he that is borne of God sinneth not that is finally and vtterly giueth reason thereof for that being once borne of God though he do greeuously fall as did Dauid and Peter and many other yet there is still a seede remaining in him which albeit for the time it seeme couered and dead yet shall reuiue and spring againe and bring forth fruit vnto God and what is this to M. Bishops merit He telleth vs that by seede is imported the grace of God but he doth not shew vs that by seede is imported the merit of man To what end then is this brought in but to let vs see that his head is idle and doth not well aduise what he hath to say Well we must conceiue his meaning by that he saith that a little seede bringeth foorth abundance of corne But we must aske him whether there be that reasonable correspondence betwixt the seed and the increase as that the one in woorth should be esteemed with the other If M. Bishop should offer that correspondence to the husbandman for his crop would he not iudge him with his Geometricall proportion to be scarcely correspondent to a wise man Shall we then think him wel in his wits that thinketh the seed of his merits to be a valuable consideration for the receiuing of the crop of heauenly rewards Again the husbandmans increase of his seed whence proceedeth it Doth he by sowing his seed expect it as a matter of merit desert Is it not wholy the blessing of God that sendeth the early and latter raine and giueth strength to the earth to bring forth increase thereof Euen so is it in all the reward that God bestoweth vpō vs. We sow the seed of our good works but of thēselues they yeeld vs no fruit there is no worth or merit in them to require wages at Gods hands but it is only the mercy and bounty of God whereby we shall reape the increase that we expect thereof Thus M. Bishop can finde no meanes to thriue He hath bene a farmer and a free-man and an officer and a gamester and a seedman and yet euery where he is crossed in his merit and can no where light vpon a foundation to set it firme and sure And yet marke gentle Reader how with his reasonable corespondence he minceth the matter ouer that other his fellowes do The Rhemistes speake plaine English as we haue heard before and tell vs that their works are truly and properly meritorious and not
nos quod quideÌ„ tunc praeconiauerunt postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis trâ—diderunt fundamentuÌ„ columnam fidei nostrae futurum We haue not knowne the meanes of our saluation by any other but by them by whom the Gospell is come vnto vs which they verily preached then at first but afterwards by the will of God deliuered it vnto vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith This was the auncient opinion and perswasion of the Church that what the Apostles first preached they afterwards committed to writing esteeming that to be the safest and f Phil. 3.1 surest way that hereby the Church might be armed against the practises of all deceitfull and wicked heretikes that would go about to bring in their owne deuices vnder colour shew of the Apostles names Because therefore whatsoeuer doctrine the Apostles preached is written and by the ancient Church was holden so to be they made no doubt to apply these words to the writteÌ„ Gospel and to vnderstand them to be accursed that preach any thing for doctrine of the Gospell which is not thereby warranted vnto vs. Therefore Chrysostome saith vpon these words that g Chrysost in Gal. 1. Paulus etiam Angelis de coelo descendentibus praeponit Scripturas idque valdè congruentèr siquidem Angeli quamlibet magni tamen seruisunt ac ministri caeterum omnes Scriptura non à seruis sed ab vniuersorum Domino Deo venerunt ad nos Paul here preferreth the Scriptures before Angels comming from heauen and that iustly saith he for Angels albeit they be great yet are but seruants and ministers but all the Scriptures came vnto vs not from seruants but from God the Lord of all But let S. Austine briefly conclude this point and shew vs to what these words are to be referred h August cont lit Petil. li. 3. ca. 6. Siue de Christo siue de eius ecclesia siue de quacunque re alia quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram noÌ„ dicaÌ„ nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dicit Licet 〈◊〉 nos sed omninò quod secutus adiecit Si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus et Euangelicis accepistis anathema sit Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life we will not say if we but euen as he going forward addeth If an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell accursed be he The words of the Apostle to Timothie of i 1. Tim. 1.3 commaunding * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to teach any other doctrine sounding to the same effect as the other do do yeeld vs the like collection as we haue seene in them 9. W. BISHOP The fourth testimonie * 2. Tim. 3.16 The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct to righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto euery good worke In these words are contained saith M. Perkins two arguments to proue the sufficiencie of Scripture The first that which is profitable to these foure vses to teach all necessary truth is not in the text to confute errors to correct faults in manners to instruct all men in dutie is M. Perkins his addition to the text that is sufficient to saluation But the Scriptures serue for all these vses c. Answer This text of holy Scripture is so farre from yeelding our aduersaries two arguments that it affoordeth not so much as any probable colour of halfe one good argument In searching out the true sence of holy Scripture we must obserue diligently the nature and proper signification of the words as M. Perkins also noteth out of S. Augustine in his sixt obiection of this question which if the Protestants did here performe they would make no such account of this text for S. Paul saith onely that all Scripture is profitable not sufficient to teach to reproue c. How are they then caried away with their owne partiall affections that cannot discerne betweene profitable and sufficient Good timber is profitable to the building of a house but it is not sufficient without stones morter and a Carpenter Seed serues well yea is also necessary to bring forth corne but will it suffice of it selfe without manuring of the ground and seasonable weather And to fit our purpose more properly good lawes are very profitable yea most expedient for the good gouernement of the commonwealth but are they sufficient without good customes good gouerners and iudges to see the same lawes and customs rightly vnderstood and duly executed Euen so the holy Scriptures S. Paul affirmeth are very profitable as containing very good and necessary matter both to teach reproue and correct but he saith not they are sufficient or that they do containe all doctrine needfull for these foure ends And therefore to argue out of S. Paul that they are sufficient to all those purposes when he saith only that they are profitable to them is plainly not to know or not to care what a man saith and to presse such an impertinent cauil so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do is nothing else but to bewray vnto the indifferent Reader either their extreme ignorance or most audacious impudencie that thinke they can face out any matter be it neuer so impertinent The same answer I make vnto M. Perkins his second argument out of the same place that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute but not sufficient I say moreouer that M. Perkins doth falsly English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures when it signifieth all Scripture that is euery book of scripture and is there put to verifie that the old Testament only serues to instruct to saluation for in the words next before S. Paul sheweth how that Timothie from his infancy had bin trained vp in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures which saith he can instruct thee to saluation and annexeth as the confirmation thereof the text cited All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. Now in Timothies infancy no part of the new Testament was written and therefore all Scripture which is here put to proue that Scripture which Timothy in his infancy knew cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more then all the bookes of the old Testament So that there are three foule faults in this the Protestants Achilles The first in falsification of the text that it might seeme to be spoken of the whole which is spoken of euery part The second in applying that which is spoken of the old Testament vnto both the old and new The third in making that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onely to be profitable And
it true of the scriptures now that they are able so to do when as by the new Testament so much light is added for the cleering of the old The doctrine which the Apostles preached in the new Testament they confirmed by the old They taught no other faith but what was contained therein onely the faith was more plainely and cleerly deliuered by them because as S. Austin saith ſ August de catech rud In veteri testamēto est ocultatio noui in nouo testamento est manifestatio veteris in the old Testament the new is hidden and in the new Testament is the manifesting of the old t Idem in Ioan. tra 45. Tempora variata sunt nō fides c. Eadem fides vtrosque contungit The times saith he are diuers but the faith is one Seeing then the old Testament was sufficient to instruct men to the faith of Christ and the instruction thereof notwithstanding is much more manifestly deliuered in the new and no other faith is taught in the new Testament then is contained in the old who doth not see that the conclusion standeth strong on our part that much more the scripture now containeth all doctrine necessary to instruct vs to the faith of Christ Albeit it is not true which M. Bishop saith that S. Paul meaneth here only the scriptures of the old Testament For although when Timothy was a child there were no other scriptures but onely of the old Testament yet when Paul wrote these words to Timothy the greatest part of the books of the new Testament were extant He wrote this epistle newly before his death as appeareth by that he saith u 2. Tim. 4.6 I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departing is at hand He had then writtē all the rest of his epistles as we may easily conceiue neither is it likely but that the gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke with the Acts of the Apostles were written before that time the first by S. Mathew being testified to be written at the time of Pauls first imprisonment at Rome x Jren. li. 3. ca. 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorū lingua scripturā edidit Euangelij cum Petrus et Paulus Romae euangelizarent et fundarent Ecclesiam founding the Church there where S. Luke makes an end of the history of the Acts of the Apostles after which being not lōg after the beginning of the raigne of Nero the Apostle liued for the space of 12. or 13. yeares being put to death in the y Func Chronol 14. yeare of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest because he died z Hierō in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno sepultus Alexandriae in the 8. yeare of Nero as Hierome testifieth six yeares before S. Pauls death and therfore before the writing of this epistle The like also is plaine of the former epistle of S. Peter as appeareth for that his second epistle was written about the same time that S. Paul wrote this secōd epistle to Timothy S. Peter being put to death at the same time as S. Paul was and saying as he doth in the same second epistle a 2. Pet. 1.14 I know that the time is at hand that I must lay downe this my tabernacle Now therefore so many of the books of the new Testament being extant at that time who can doubt but that the Apostle naming all Scripture did speake of those bookes vnlesse he will be so mad as to say that at that time they were no Scriptures And as when we say that a man hath known the laws frō a child we do not meane to restraine his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child but will signifie his knowledge also of such lawes as haue bin since made euen so when the Apostle saith that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child he would giue to vnderstād that he was conuersant not only in the Scriptures that then were but also in such other as frō time to time thenceforward were written for the same vse Nay who would make question but that the Apostle setting downe by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture would hereby giue vs to vnderstand what to conceiue of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing to take away the euidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle and the Protestants Achilles is stronger then that he may take vpon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith But yet well fare a good stomacke for though he haue said as good as nothing yet he setteth a good face vpon the matter and concludeth this point with an inuincible argument like the inuincible nauie of Spaine Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture Very true But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needful to saluation as hath bene proued But that is not true the proofes that it doth so are pregnant and cleere but his proofes to the contrary are childish and vaine and therefore his conclusion cannot hold In steed therefore of his presumed and inuisible argument we wish him to consider of this Whatsoeuer the written word teacheth vs of it selfe that is necessary to be beleeued But the written word teacheth vs concerning it selfe that it is able to make vs wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus It is necessarie therefore for vs to beleeue that it can so and therefore to reiect all doctrine that cannot be approoued and warranted thereby 10. W. BISHOP And by the same principle I might reiect all testimonie of Antiquity as needlesse if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs heare what testimonie M. Perkins brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause Tertullian * De resur carni◠saith Take from heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand Answ Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of heathen authors and not to the traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saith M. Perkins out of the same author We need no curiositie after Iesus Christ nor inquisition after the Gospell when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for this we must beleeue that there is nothing else which we may beleeue Answer By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onely the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles no more then traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If any man
desire to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions let him reade his booke of prescriptions against heretikes where he auerreth that traditions serue better then the Scriptures themselues to confute all heresies heretikes alwayes either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures And in his book de Corona militis he formally proposeth this question whether traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no and answereth by many instances that they must be receiued concluding thus For these and the like points if thou require law out of the Scriptures thou shalt find none but Tradition is alledged to be the author of them Custome the confirmer and Faith the obseruer So that nothing is more certaine then that Tertullian thought vnwritten Traditions necessary to be beleeued R. ABBOT It followeth not that antiquitie is needlesse though all doctrine needfull to saluation be contained in the scriptures because antiquitie giueth vs many good and profitable helpes for attaining to the vnderstanding of many places and stories of the scripture when yet it teacheth vs to admit of no doctrine but what is proued thereby The first testimony alledged by M. Perkins is out of Tertullian a Tertul. de resurr carn Aufer haereticis quae cuÌ„ Ethnicis sapiunt siue vt alià s legitur quaecunque Ethnici saepiunt vt de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare noÌ„ poteruÌ„t Take from heretikes what they conceiue like the heathen or what the heathen conceiue that they may determine their questions only by the Scriptures and they cannot stand M. Bishop telleth vs for answer that Tertullian opposeth Scripture alone to the writings of heathen authors not to the trrditions of the Apostles and therfore maketh nothing against them But Tertullian speaketh not any thing there of heathen authors but of heathenish reasons fancies wherby heretikes plead against the mysteries of faith as there he giueth example by the resurrection of the dead He requireth them to forgo these and to bring their questions onely to the Scriptures or to the Scriptures alone Now to say that he opposeth not Scripture alone to the traditions of the Apostles is a ridiculous euasion when as by calling them thus to onely Scripture he giueth to vnderstand that he knew no such traditions belonging to matters of doctrine and faith for determining of questions that might arise thereof For whether he oppose the same to heathen authors or to heathenish reasons we may well take it to be absurd that he should require heretikes to be brought onely to Scripture if it be as M. Bishop telleth vs that questions cannot be determined onely by the Scriptures or if he thought any other meanes to be as necessarie as the Scriptures for the determining of theÌ„ But this sentence hath not so much strength by it selfe as it hath by that that is cited together with it b Idem de Praescript Nobis non est opus curiositate post ChristuÌ„ Iesum nec inquisitione post EuaÌ„gelium Cùm hoc credimus nihil desideramus vltra credere Hoc enim priùs credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquiry further after the Gospell when we beleeue that we desire to beleeue no more for this we beleeue that there is nothing further for vs to beleeue Where when M. Bishop saith that by the Gospell is to be vnderstood all our Christian doctrine so farre he saith truly but when he addeth written or vnwritten he beggeth the question and his Commentarie goeth without the compasse of Tertullians text He should by plaine example or reason haue giuen vs to vnderstand that Tertullian by the Gospel importeth any doctrine vnwritten otherwise he may well thinke that we scorne his interpretation hauing no warrant of it but his owne word Tertullian spake of the Gospell as the Apostle doth who saith c Rom. 1.2 that God before promised it by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and that it was d Cap. 16.26 opened and published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets We haue heard before out of Irenaeus that e Sect. 8. the Gospell which the Apostles first preached they afterwards committed to writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith and out of Chrysostome that f Sect. 7. to speake any thing that is not written is to speake of himselfe and not out of the Gospell So doth Basil of the word of God and Scripture make one and the same thing and denieth that there is any word of God beside the Scripture saying g Basil Ethic. reg 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est peccatum est sicut dicit Apostolus fides veró ex auditu auditus autem per verbum Dei ergo quicquid extra diuinam Scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est If what soeuer is not of faith be sinne and faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God then whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne If there be no Gospell but written no word of God but Scripture then surely Tertullian when he saith that we need no inquirie further after the Gospell taketh away Traditions and leaueth no place for doctrine vnwritten Whereas he saith that by the Gospell is not vnderstood onely the written word of the foure Euangelists he talketh idlely because no man vnderstood it so The doctrine deliuered in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles is no lesse the doctrine of the Gospell then that that is recorded by the foure Euangelists But here to see Tertullians iudgement of traditions he referreth his Reader to the same Tertullians booke of Prescriptions against heretikes Now this sentence alledged by M. Perkins was taken out of that booke although he quoted not the place which M. Bishop knew not because indeed he had neuer read the booke Therefore this that he here faith he saith it onely by hearesay and for ought he knoweth Tertullian may as wel speak against Traditions as any thing for them And the truth is that Tertullian speaketh no otherwise for Traditions then doth Irenaeus whome he cited before in his Epistle to the King whome I haue shewed to make nothing at all for M. Bishops purpose The occasion of both their speeches was the same hauing to do with wicked and blasphemous heretikes who admitted h Tertullian de Praescript Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adiectionibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit si recipit noÌ„ recipit integras si aliquatenus integras praestat nihilâ—minùs dâ—uersas expositiones commentatae conuerâ—it of the scriptures no otherwise then they lift themselues reiecting the bookes that specially made against them and by additions detractions framing the bookes which they did receiue to serue their owne turne and by their
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
any thing but by Scripture they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition but only by Scripture Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be if there were Tradition beside the Scripture We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deliuered by tradition in former times But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it In that that we say is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago r Hieron in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedicabant legis prophetarū vocibus comprobarūt Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets wherof it followeth against M. Bishop that they taught no doctrine by tradition but only by the scriptures As for his questions wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching c. I answer him first with the like question where had Moses the story of the creation of the world and the knowledge of those things which God in * Gen. 11.6 18.17.20 sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe I suppose he wil answer that he receiued the same from him that made the world from him that was the author of those speeches So say we that Mathew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whō Iohn Baptist preached He learned his Gospell as Paul did who saith of himself ſ Gal. 1.12 Neither receiued I it of man neither was I taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ As touching the Gospel of S. Mark Eusebius reporteth that the faithfull t Euseb hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran◠illis semel audita nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diuinae praedicationis doctrina sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditā accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint c. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset delectatū esse virorum istorū voluntate scriptum hoc Euangelium Ecclesius ad legendū authoritate suae confirmasse who had heard the preaching of S. Peter not thinking that sufficient nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word and ceased not till they had perswaded him thereto Now they say saith he that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost ioyed much in the desire of those men and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church Now this story is well worthy to be obserued The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing to that purpose they intreate Mark the scholer and follower of Peter the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost Peter acknowledgeth so much and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tradition S. Luke wrote his storie u Luke 1.2 as they deliuered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word they x 2. Cor. 13.3 in whom Christ spake and whose word was y 1. Thess 2 13. the word of God the word of the preaching of God Yea and what he wrote he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost because as S. Paul telleth vs z 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and as of prophecie so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand that a 2. Pet. 1.21 it came not by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost b August de consens Euangel lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripserunt quae ille ostendit dixit nequaquam dicendum est quôd ipse no scripserit quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt Quicquid enira ille de suis factis dictis nos legere volun hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit When the disciples wrote saith S. Austin what Christ shewed said vnto thē it is not to be said that he did not write because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same Now therefore the Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions that is vpon report from man to man but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning The word originally may import any thing that is deliuered howsoeuer either by word or writing Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs it may in this sort be called Gods tradition because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell c Cyprian lib. 2. epist 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae reuertatur In calice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem the originall of the Lords tradition and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered as before was said But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and indifferent signification of any thing that is deliuered yet in our disputation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering by word and relation onely and not by Scripture and therefore where Irenaeus saith d Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Euangeliū nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt he that should translate as M. Bishop doth they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction and confoundeth them both in one Now then the question
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
only We take it then for granted as indeed it cannot be denied that the Apostle here intended those things that are written but we wold heare an argument to proue that the Apostle meant any thing further that is not written If he might vse those words of those things that are written what hindreth but that he might vse them of those onely M. Bishop cannot proue that he did not so but we proue that he did so because in the next Chapter he telleth the same Timothy n 2. Tim. 3.15 The Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Therefore M. Bishops proofes come much too short to giue vs any assurance that S. Paule by traditions vnderstood any thing but what is to be learned by the Scriptures 17. W. BISHOP The second argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be is very necessary to saluation now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued only by Tradition wherefore it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue some Tradition M. Perkins answereth that the bookes of the Old and New Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this maner Let the man who is endued with the spirit of discerning reade the bookes and consider first the author of them who is God then the matter contained which is diuine the maner of speech which is full of maiestie in simple words lastly the end aymed at which is Gods honor and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer Reply A wise and deepe obseruation I warrant you and well worthy a graue Author Let vs examine it briefly first he will haue his man endued with the spirit of discerning who shall indue him with that spirit M. P. seemeth to say that euery sheepe of Christ hath his spirit But S. Paule * 1. Cor. 12. teacheth plainely the contrarie that some certaine onely haue the iudgement to discerne And touching this matter of discerning which bookes are Canonicall which are not not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which they were three hundred yeares after Christ was left vndefined by the best learned whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of Iohn and his Apocalypse were Canonicall or no as is confessed on all parts hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning when the best Christians wanted it Who more profound more skilfull to discerne than that subtill and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall For he in diuers places of his workes * De doct Christ cap. 8. 18. de ciuit Dei 36. lib. 2. cont Epist Gaudent 23 holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures and expresly proueth the booke of Wisedome so to be * De Praedest Sanct. 14. and yet our Protestants will not admit them See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is Come to the second His second is that he who goeth about to discerne whether the booke be Canonicall or no must consider the Author who is God If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the booke what needes any further labour it must needes be Canonicall that hath God for the Author This mans wits were surely from home when he discoursed thus and therefore it should be but folly to stand vpon his particularities let this one reason in generall serue to confute him all this manner put together serueth onely to helpe particular men to discerne which bookes are Canonicall who may easily after their diligent inquirie erre and be deceiued in this point because euery man is a lyar * Rom. 3. And if there be no more certaine meanes to assure them of this which is the ground of all their Religion then euery particular mans discretion and iudgement then out of doubt their whole Religion is most vnwisely builded vpon meane mens inuentions and discretion who also for the most part do neither vnderstand the language in which they were first penned nor the vsuall phrases of Scriptures translated that I say nothing of the figures parables prophecies and controuersies which seeme to be and many other difficulties and yet these men need not doubt hauing learned some halfe dozen lines of Master Perkins but that reading any booke they shall be able presently to discerne whether it be Canonicall or no. A goodly mockerie Men were not so taught in the Primitiue Church but the most skilfull and wisest in discerning Canonicall books trusted not vnto their owne iudgement but leaned alwaies vpon Apostolicall Traditions So did Cerapion an auncieni holy Writer as Eusebius reporteth reiect certaine bookes set out in the Apostles names because they had not receiued from their Predecessors any such The like doth Clement of Alexandria * Cap. 11. and that famous Origen * Cap. 19. of the same booke who obserue the Ecclesiasticall Canon as he had learned and receiued by Tradition So doth he deliuer his opinion of the foure Euangelists and other bookes of Canonicall Scripture and not relying on his owne wit which was excellent or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters That S. Augustine was of the same mind may be gathered out of these words of his * Lib. 35. cap. 6. Contra Faustum Of what booke can there be any assurance if the letters which the Church propagated by the Apostles and by such excellencie declared throughout all Nations doth teach and hold to be the Apostles should be vncertaine whether they be Apostles or no So that he maketh the declaration of the Church descended of the Apostles to be a sure pillar to rest vpon for the certaine knowledge of Canonicall Scripture and other spirits whatsoeuer if they follow not that rule to be reiected so farre is he off from encouraging euery sheepe of Christs fold to take that waightie matter vpon himselfe as M. P. doth And what can be more against the most prudent prouidence of the diuine wisedome then to permit euery one to be a iudge of the books of Canonicall Scripture For if al those books no other shold passe currāt for Canonical which any Christian taking vpon him the spirit of discerning would censure to be such then away with all the old Testament because diuers esteemed it to proceed of some euil spirits as witnesses Freueus * Lib 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. and Epiphanius * Haeres 6. 6. Yea not onely all the old must be abrogated but all the new also because it hath many falshoods mixed with the truth as some presuming greatly of their spirit
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
be content also to let it go leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions The first is from the words of Christ a Iohn 16.12 at the point of his passion saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Which words being of old a speciall refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin of Montanus the heretike an ancient Papist we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him But of these words so much hath bin said c Sect. 7. before as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further His second authoritie is that in the Acts concerning our Sauiours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3 by the space of fortie dayes and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God Of these things saith M. Bishop little is written in any of the Euangelists And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition and if he will name to vs these or these things we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake if he cannot proue it we reiect his foolish presumption and can much better denie then he affirme What those things were by tradition we know nothing but by Scripture we do know The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48 witnesses of those things which he spake What they witnessed appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles and writings all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke Now then to argue as we haue done before we are sure as touching the things that are written that they are of those things wherof Christ spake but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God But S. Paul f Acts 28.23 testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets The things therefore which Christ spake as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2 they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them Where we find the name of traditions which we denie not but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine we wil gratifie him so farre but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle Those things which were afterwards written must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh if we vnderstand them of doctrine because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper It is written by himselfe it is written by the Euangelists Here is then a tradition but no tradition vnwritten The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions but that is written also Another tradition he himselfe expresseth to haue bene k 1. Cor. 15.3 the death and resurrection of Christ but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his l 2. Thess 3.6 tradition that he which would not labour should not eate and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set downe in writing Now sith these were of the number of his traditions and yet are written what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these M. Bishop alledgeth the place and so leaueth it without head or taile there is the name of traditions and that is enough for him whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy n 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keepe the depositum saith he Where we see that one ape will be like another his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English and said keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe seeing that is the signification of the word depositum Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them o 2. Tim. 2.14 Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things cōmitted vnto thee to keep where they reade keep the good depositum But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe He telleth vs that it was the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and the gouernment of the Church But what of all this We expected vnwritten traditions and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture is contained in the Scripture There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places vnlesse he can make it good that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus p Theop. in t Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata tanquam Domini praecepta seruata nec horū quicquam imminues p 2. Tim.
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
in councell the controuersie was ended which S. Paule afterward deliuered in his preaching commanding all to obserue and keepe the decree and ordinance of the Apostles * Acts 16. And if it would not be tedious I could in like manner shew how in like sort euery hundredth yeare after errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written word they were confuted and reiected not by the written word onely but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles scholers and Successors See Cardinall Bellarmine * Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. I will onely record two noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquitie for the true sense of Gods word the first out of the Ecclesiasticall historie * Lib. 11. cap. 9. where of S. Gregorie Nazianzen and S. Basil two principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both Noble men brought vp together at Athens and afterward for thirteeene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes employed their studie wholy in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning whereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as were knowne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles these be the very words The other example shall be the principall pillar of the Latin Church S. Augustine who not onely exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscuritie of doubtfull questions * Lib. contra Crescon 1. c. 33 but plainely affirmeth That he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it * Conâ—ra Epist sund cap. 5. Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluin would haue them that S. Augustine had not bene at first a Christian if by the authoritie of the Church he had not bene therunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these books of the Gospell to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquitie generalitie and consent did tell him which and what they were so farre was he off from trusting to his owne skill and iudgement in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent R. ABBOT M. Bishop here setteth the stocke vpon it and at one game he is minded to winne all but indeed as a cousening gamester by shifting and iugling beguileth honest simple men so doth he abuse the simple Reader with goodly glorious words crauing leaue as it were to giue him satisfaction in a high point and applying himselfe vnder this colour most trecherously to delude him Consider saith he that our coelestiall lawgiuer gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects For this he quoteth the words of God by the Prophet Ieremy a Ierem. 31.33 After those dayes saith the Lord I will put my law into their inward parts and write it in their hearts c. and the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians b 2. Cor. 3.3 Ye are manifest to be the Epistle of Christ ministred by vs not written with inke but with the spirit of the liuing God not in tables of stone but in fleshly Tables of the heart Now therefore he will haue vs to conceiue that which Andradius one of the great masters of the Trent-Councell hath told vs that c Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 2. Non spectauit Christus vt EuaÌ„gelium literit descriptum aut in membranu exaratum iaceret sed vt verbis explicatum omni creaturae promulgaretur Christ did not looke that the Gospell should lye written in letters or printed in parchments but that by declaration of words it should be published to all creatures Where we see how they apply themselues so much as in them lyeth to impeach vilifie the authoritie of Scriptures as if they were written onely of priuate fancie and Christ had had no care or regard to haue it so But how impertinently those places are brought for proofe hereof appeareth very plainely out of the words themselues For what was the law that God promised by Ieremy to write in the hearts of his people Was it not the law giuen before by Moses concerning which Moses also expresseth the same promise that Ieremy doth d Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seede that thou maist loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule that thou maist liue Now e Exod. 34.1 that law God himselfe had deliuered in writing and f Vers 27. commaunded Moses also to write the same Therefore the words of Ieremy as touching writing Gods law in our hearts can import nothing against the writing of it with inke and paper but onely that the lawes which were before by the ministerie of Moses deliuered onely in inke and paper should by the power of the holy Ghost through the faith of Christ be wrought and written in the affections of the heart that God in Christ would not administer onely outwardly the letter of the lawe whether in writing or in preaching but would in both by the regeneration of the spirit giue grace inwardly for the fulfilling of it As little to that purpose is the other place The false Apostles laboured to impeach the credit of S. Paules Apostleship as if he had had no sufficient commission or warrant of it S. Paul for himselfe alledgeth that the Corinthians were as an Epistle from Christ whereby he was sufficiently commended and his calling testified vnto them in that the Gospell by his ministery had had so great successe taken so great effect amongst them That singular effect of his preaching he importeth to haue bene a greater assurance vnto them then any epistle written with inke and paper and to haue commended his ministerie aboue the ministerie of Moses who gaue the Law onely in tables of stone because here the spirit of God concurred with the outward seruice and wrought mightily in their hearts for the receiuing of the doctrine of the faith of Christ and conuerting of theÌ„ vnto God Now to say that the CorinthiaÌ„s were an epistle not writteÌ„ with ink nor in tables of stone what is it to shew that the celestial law-giuer gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper Surely the difference of the two testaments which is the thing that M. Bishop would insinuate was neuer holden to consist in this that the one should be written and the other vnwritten because euen in the old testament the new was written but herein it stood that the one either written or taught by word ministred onely knowledge what we ought to do not anie grace
is also to sustaine and comfort the weake There is to prouoke the appetite but yet there is also to satisfie the hunger There is q Bâ—rnard in paru ser 64. In Pelago sacra lectionâ—â— agnus ambulat elephas natat depth for the Elephant to swim but there are also shelfes and shallowes for the lambe to wade It is truly said by S. Austin that r Aug. ep 3. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tanta in eis difficultate peruentatur without any great difficultie we thereby attaine to those things that are necessary for saluation and that Å¿ Idem de vtilit credendi cap. 6. Inscripturis disciplina ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauritendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him if he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs These and their true successors be the true and liuely oracles of the true and liuing God them we must consult in all doubtfull questions and submit our selues wholy to their decree But what M. Bishop are not onely the Apostles but their successors also the liuely oracles of God Which of the successors of the Apostles euer tooke vpon him either seuerally or ioyntly so to be We haue heard that t Ephes 2.20 the houshold of God are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets but that they are built vpon the foundations of the Apostles successours we neuer heard As for consulting with the Fathers in doubtfull questions we willingly yeeld to do it that we may haue their helpe to find out in the Scripture the resolution of such doubts but that we are to submit our selues wholy to their decree as accounting them the oracles of God is a point of learning which S. Austin knew not when he said u Aug. de nat grat cap 61. Egâ— in hutusmedi quorumlibet hominum scriptu liber sum quia solis Canonicis Scripturis debeo fine vlla recusaâ—nne confensum I am free in such writings of men whatsoeuer they be because to the Canonicall Scriptures onely do I owe consent without refusall But not to stand too long vpon these fancies let one place of Hierome be an â—â—sâ—er to them all x Hier. in Psal 86. Quomodo narrabit Dominus Non verbo sed Scriptura In cutus Scriptura in populorum quae Scripturae populis omnibus legitur hoc est ve omnes intelligant c. The Lord will declare or shew in the Scripture of the people and of the Princes that haue bene in her How will the Lord declare Not by word but by writing or by Scripture In whose Scripture Euen in the Scripture of the peoples which is read to all peoples that is that all may vnderstand The Lord hath spoken by his Gospell not that a few but that all should vnderstand the Princes of Christ haue not written for a few but for all the people The Princes are the Apostles and the Euangelists Those saith he which were or haue bene in her Marke what he saith which were not which are so that the Apostles excepted whatsoeuer after shall be said is cut off and hath no authoritie Albeit therfore a man be holy albeit he be learned after the Apostles he hath no authoritie In which words he sheweth vs that the counsell of God thought good to leaue vs the Apostles doctrine not by word not by tradition but by writing that the scriptures which he hath giuen vs by them are so disposed as that they serue for the vnderstanding of all men that all authoritie of doctrine is concluded and ended in them neither hath any after them authoritie to teach vs any thing towards God that is not warranted and approued by their writings It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that Christ gaue not his lawes written with inke and paper and againe that the meaning of the word is not to be knowne by the word it selfe and againe that the successors of the Apostles also are the liuely oracles of the true and liuing God In the next place he abuseth the Apostle S. Paule and vnder colour of the names of two or three of the Fathers absurdly misapplieth his going vp to Hierusalem as if he had gone to haue his doctrine examined and approued by the Apostles that were before him He nameth S. Peter single and by himselfe as to haue vs to conceiue that S. Paul yeelded some high preheminence superiority to him But there is no such matter as he pretendeth the Apostles own declaration ouerthroweth all this fancie He professeth that y Gal. 1.12 he receiued not his Gospell of man nor was taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ After that he had receiued the reuelation of the Gospell from Christ was appointed to preach the Gospell amongst the Gentils directly against M. Bishops deuise he saith z Ver. 16.17 Immediatly I communed not with flesh and bloud neither went I vp to IerusaleÌ„ to theÌ„ that were Apostles before me but went into Arabia c. a Ambros in Gal. cap. 1. Nec consilium cutusquam petijt aut ad aliquem retulit quid esset acturus sed protinùs Christum praedicauit c. Non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se à Deo pergendâ— aâ—â— praecessores Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab eis c. He asked no mans counsell saith Ambrose nor referred it to any man what he should do but foorthwith preached Christ He saith that there was no necessity that he being chosen of God should go to the Apostles his predecessors as haply to learne any thing from them Now how badly doth M. Bishop deale to make his reader beleeue that S. Pauls doctrine was first to be examined and approued by Peter and the rest of the Apostles when as S. Paul professedly saith that he went not to take any approbation from them because he had receiued equall authoritie coÌ„mission with them He further declareth that b Ver. 18. three yeares after he went to Hierusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15. daies c Ambros ibid. Non vt alâ—quid ab eo disceret quia â—am ab authore didicerat à quo ipse Petrus fuerat instructus sed propter â—ffectum Apostolatus vt sciret Petrus hanc illi datam licentiam quam ipse acceperat Not to learne any thing of him saith Ambrose because he had already learned of the author himself by whom Peter was taught but for affection of the Apostleship that Peter might know that the same coÌ„mission was giue to him which Peter himselfe had He went to him d Theophy actâ—â—n Gal.
he doth but coupleth with him those that were with him and maketh that which he saith common to them all But it is a further point of impudency in him to force that vpoÌ„ the Pope hereby which neuer any of these fathers nor any other euer imagined that he should be in Peters place the vniuersall Iudge of Christian faith so that if S. Peter who they say was Bishop of Rome before had bene dead before that councell of Hierusalem Paul the third had succeeded in his place Paul the Apostle must haue had his Gospell confirmed by Paul the Pope as impious a caitife as euer the world bred I will not stand to take any further in this filth let them lie in it that loue it and M. Bishop hauing taken vpon him to sweare whatsoeuer Bellarmine doth lie must be content to be dawbed with his dirt He goeth on and telleth vs that he could shew how euery hundred yeeres after heresies were confuted and reiected not by the written word only but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours So then they were not reiected by the sentence and declaration of any one Iudge he is now gone from that but it was by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles schollers and successours as all Bishops were And indeede in those first Councels the Bishop of Rome had no more to do then other Bishops yea somtimes lesse then some others to whoÌ„ the moderation of the present businesse by general consent was coÌ„mitted as in the Nicene councell to f Theod. hist li. 2. ca. 15 Cuius concilij suâ—t ille non princeps Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine aboue all the rest of the Bishops who therfore g Concil Nicen. subsâ—ript in sine subscribed first of all And as for the deciding of matters it was referred onely to the authority of the written word as appeareth in the same councel of Nice where CoÌ„stantine propoundeth this rule vnto theÌ„ h Theo. l. hist li. 1. ca. 7. Euangelici Apostolici libri necnon antiquâ—ruÌ„ Prophetarum oracula planè nos instruunt quid de rebâ—s d uiâ—is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sentiendum sit proinde posita hâ—stili discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicationeâ— quaestionum The bookes of the Euangelists Apostles as also the oracles of the old Prophets do plainly instruct vs what to think concerning Gods matters therefore setting aside all hostile discord let vs take the resolutions of our questions froÌ„ the words of the holy Ghost Their sentence therfore was but to acknowledge and pronounce the sentence which the holy Ghost had giuen in the written word no otherwise did they take vpoÌ„ them to declare it but by the same word Onely for the greater satisfaction of the Church the more fully to take away all cauillations of heretikes they alledged somtimes the testimonies of such as had bene before them to shew that by the same written word they had taught no otherwise theÌ„ they did Albeit there were not alwaies general Councels for the confuting and reiecting of heresies but many times the Pastours of the Church in their priuate writings confuted and condemned them only by the verdict sentence of the written word So Hilary only by the voice of the heauenly Iudge in the Scriptures reiected the Arian heresie i Hilar. de synod cont Arian fideÌ„ NicenaÌ„ nunquaÌ„ nisi exulaturus audiui neuer hauing heard of the Nicene definition vntill he was going into banishment for that fâ—ith Yea and after the definition of the councell S. Austin did not rest vpon their sentence but vpon the sentence of the written word and therefore saith to Maximinus the Arian k August contra Maximin lib. 3. cap. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec in debes ArimineÌ„se tanquaÌ„ praeiudicaturus proferre consiliuÌ„ Nec ego huius nec tu illius authoritate deti◠〈◊〉 â—â—ripturaruÌ„ aâ—â—tibus noÌ„ 〈◊〉 â—nque propr◠〈◊〉 â—trisque comuâ— testibus res cuÌ„ re causa cuÌ„ causa ratio cuÌ„ ratione conceriet It is not for me to alledge the councell of Nice nor for thee to alledge the councell of Ariminum neither am I bound to the authoritie of the one nor thou of the other By testimonies or authorities of Scripture not proper to either of vs but coÌ„mon to both let matter try with matter cause with cause reason with reason He knew very wel that the sentence of a councel might be questâ—â—ned also therfore that the controuersie must finally rest vpon 〈◊〉 sentence of the Scripture M. Bishop further referreth vs to Bellarmine as touching those Councels euery hundred yeeres whose instructions are needlesse to vs to certifie vs of the truth in that behalfe being otherwise better to be knowne then by any thing that he can tell vs. But I would wish that he that desireth to know the qualitie and disposition of that wretched man should throughly examine that chapter that Maister Bishop quoteth wherein he hath set downe so many apparent wilfull lies as that it may well appeare what spirit it was that led him throughout his whole bookes In the next place he telleth vs an idle tale impertinent of Basil Gregory Nazianzene of whom Ruffinus reporteth that l Ruffin lib. 2. c. 9. Omnibus GraecoruÌ„ seâ—ularium libris remotis solu diuinae Sâ—ripturae volumnibus operaÌ„ dabant carumque intelligentians non ex propria praesuÌ„ptione sed ex maiorum scriptis authoritate sequebantur quos ipsos ex Apostolica successione intelligendi regulaÌ„ suscepisse constat laying aside their prophane studies they applied themselues only to the bookes of holy Scripture and sought after the vnderstanding of them not out of their own presumption but out of the writings authority of their auncients who also themselues by such as had succeeded froÌ„ the Apostles had receiued the rule of vnderstanding To what end doth he alledge this against vs Where it is said that they sought not the vnderstanding of the Scriptures out of their own presumption for the shooting of his bolt he maketh a parenthesis thus As the Protestants both do teach others to do But the Protestants would haue him know that that description of the studies of those two fathers doth rightly describe the studies of euery learned Protestant They see it to their griefe in all our bookes in the processe of this whole book it wil appeare to him that the Protestants vse the help of the fathers writings as a singular benefit of God for the true vnderstaÌ„ding of the Scriptures and for the finding out of the truth in those controuersies that are depending betwixt vs them Yea so farre are we from contenting our selues with our own vnderstanding as that we forbeare not to turne wind all Popish authors either of former or latter time that what gold we can find in their dunghils we may apply it to the furnishing
in Egypt vnder Pharao did leane or bow himselfe thereupon to worship God In a word therefore here is nothing any way to proue the religious adoration and worship of any creature but most fantastically of all other is it alledged for the worshipping of Images He further referreth vs to the Rhemish Testament but he should withall haue confuted Doctor Fulkes answer to it if he would haue had any thing there to be beleeued There is nothing there said of this matter but what is here alreadie answered 17. W. BISHOP The second reason is taken out of Exodus 3. where God said to Moses Put off thy shoes for the place where thou standest is holy Now if places be holy and to be reuerenced by reason of the presence of Angels why not aswell the Image that representeth an Angell or some Saint which is equall to Angels M. P. his answer rather confirmeth than solueth this argument for he saith that the ceremonie of putting off his shooes was commanded to strike Moses with a religious reuerence not of the place but of the person there present which was not God but an Angell as the text there expresseth * Exod. 3. The place then being holy required the reuerend respect of putting off his shoes and the reuerence done to the place struck Moses with a religious reuerence of the Angell speaking in the person of God euen so holy pictures being first duly reuerenced do strike men with a religions regard of the Saint represented To this let vs annexe that dayes be truly called holy and worshipped as the first and last dayes of the feast of Easter be * Exod. 12.16 the vestments of Priests * Exod. 28.5.2 because they are dedicated and employed to holy vses euen so Images which are made in honour of God and his Saints and erected to moue and teach vs to embrace heauenly courses R. ABBOT The place where Moses stood was holy dayes were called holy the Priests vestments were holy therefore Images are holy and must be worshipped The Sunne shines in the colehouse and the Moone in the Mustard pot therefore all M. Bishops wit lieth in his left elbow Do these men deserue any other but scorne and contempt who bring vs reasons in no other sort then as if they were outright either mad or drunke What is the medius terminus I maruell that should coÌ„uey holinesse to Images from those things which he mentioneth The place where Moses stood was holy as Origen rightly saith a Origen in Ios hom 6. Per seipsum non erat locus sanctus sed quia Dominus stabat cuÌ„ Moyse praesentia Domini sanctificauerat locum not of it selfe but because the presence of God had sanctified the place M. Bishop saith it was not God but an Angell but he speaketh therein falsely and ignorantly It was an Angell indeed but it was * Mal. 3.1 the Angell or messenger of the Lords couenant b Ios 5.14 the Captaine of the Lords hoast the second Person in Trinitie the Sonne of God vsually termed an Angell in those apparitions because he tooke vpon him the office of an Angell to do the messages of the Godhead vnto men c Euseb hist lib. 1. cap 2. Saâ—è fas non est visiones Dei in Scripturis traditas Angelis illis inferioribus ac ministris Dei tribuendas esse suspicari Surely saith Eusebius it is not lawfull to thinke that the apparitions of God deliuered in holy Scriptures are to be attributed to the inferiour Angels which minister vnto God Therefore he expoundeth them and namely this to Moses as * Ambr. in Psa 43. Quis est in rubo visus Moysi nisi rimogenitus Dei filius Sic in Epist ad Col. c. 1. Ambrose also doth of Christ the Sonne of God and proueth by the very plaine text that the Angell there mentioned was God d Exod. 3.4 When the Lord saw that Moses turned aside to sce God called vnto him out of the middest of the bush saying Moses Moses And he answered I am here Then he said Come not hither put off thy shooes from thy feete for the place where thou standest is holy ground Moreouer he said I am the God of thy Fathers the God of Abraham c. Then Moses hid his face for he was afraid to looke vpon God Thus e Act. 7.30 the Angell speaking to Moses in the bush as S. Steuen termeth him is called by our Sauiour Christ f Mar. 12.26 God speaking to Moses in the bush I did amisse therefore to terme Master Bishop ignorant in this behalfe for he could not but know the matter I should rather haue termed him impudent that to make an aduantage and yet nothing woorth wold contradict that which the Scripture so expressely saith As for daies they were appointed by God to be holy in respect of being applied to holy vse but that those daies were called worshipfull it is but M. Bishops deuice because he would haue vs to take him for a worshipfull wise man So the vestiments of the Priests were holy because as he saith they were dedicated and employed to holy vses Let all these things be taken for graunted as they are but what of all this to the holines of Images Surely we do not know but they may as well conclude that the Popes excrements are holy the parings of his nailes and the pollings of his head or whatsoeuer other filth or foolerie they will commend to vs. No maruell if there were that holinesse in the g Vide Hospinian de orig Monachat lib. 3. ca 12. Franciscan Friars weed as that men desired as a matter of great safegard to be buried therein or that the Franciscans breeches should be of great vertue to yeeld women speedy trauell for daies and vestiments of old were holy and the place where Moses stood was holy ground But it is further to be obserued that though all those things which Master Bishop nameth were holy yet none of them is found to haue bene worshipped Moses did not worship the holy ground The Israelites did not worship the holy daies nor the Priests garments The Temple was holy the altar was holy the offerings were holy the Priestes were holy and many other things and yet they worshipped none of them how then come we here to the worshipping of Images Well we must learne it our selues if we can Master Bishop can say no more then he hath done But it should be very strange that we should see more therein then the Church of the Iewes could euer see they read and knew all those things to be holy which Master Bishop nameth and yet they could neuer find the worshipping of Images He telleth vs of the Cherubims which God commaunded to be set wholy out of sight or were vsed as the pictures of Lions and Bulles and Flowers and Trees for the garnishing of the workes of the Temple and the fashion whereof no man doth know as
Perkins doth that in giuing almes as we ought we do but our dutie and that to say that by almes-deeds we may satisfie for our sinnes is the same as to say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another But yet it concerneth them to sticke hard for the maintaining of this deuice for in all the ports of Rome there is not a ship that hath brought in more rich lading then this hath done For hereby they haue had the commaundement of mens purses their goods and lands and whilest they haue borne them in hand that from necessary vses they must take somewhat for the redeeming of their sins they haue made them rob their wiues their children posteritie and friends to bestow vpon holy Church as they called the gifts which they craued for themselues By this pretence like f Exod. 10.15 the Grashoppers of Egypt they deuoured all that was greene vpon the earth whatsoeuer was delightsome and pleasant they found meanes to make it theirs And hence came those rich endowments of religious houses men vpon conscience of sinne sparing no cost in false hope to find some comfort thereby as g Answer to the Epist Ded. sect 31. before was said And this point of satisfaction was so much the more willingly entertained because they that were loth to trouble themselues with fasting and prayer yet found helpe enough hereby for that h Thom. Aquin suppleÌ„ q. 15. art 3 ad 3. Eleemosyna aliorum vices supplere potest inquantum alia satisfactionis opera per eleemosynam quisque sibi mercatur quodammodo in ijs quibus eleemosynam tribuit almes may supply or serue in steed of the rest inasmuch as by it a man in some sort buyeth for himselfe the other workes of satisfaction in them to whom he giueth almes This is the wonderfull vertue of the almes that is enioyned by a Popish Priest that when a man neither fasteth nor prayeth yet it maketh other mens fastings and prayers serue the turne for the remission of his sin And this was the notable cosening deuice of those holy votaries to make men beleeue as before hath bene mentioned that they had a facultie to transport their merits and satisfactions to the vse of them that were beneficial vnto them verifying in themselues that which the Apostle S. Peter had prophesied of them i 2. Pet. 2.3 Through couetousnesse with fained words they shall make merchandize of you But M. Bishop here in malice to the Iesuits quite passeth by religious houses as if the almes of satisfaction did not belong to them Howsoeuer he be outwardly pacified yet manet alta mente repostum it is neither forgotten nor forgiuen if he knew which way to worke his will As for Schooles Colledges Hospitals Chappels the building of them if it be in the true faith of Christ is a gracious and godly worke but when they are so done they are done as testimonies of our thankfulnesse and dutie to God not as satisfactions for our sins Now although he haue hitherto proued nothing as touching satisfaction yet presuming that he hath so done he ioyneth to that supposed proofe the testimony of Cyprian saying that k Cypr. de Eleem. Nec habebat quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas atque imbecillitas faceret nisi iteruÌ„ pietas diuina subueniens iustitiae misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret vt sordes post modum quascunque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus our frailty and weaknes could not tell what to do vnlesse the mercy of God helping vs had by shewing vs the workes of iustice and mercy opened vs away for the preseruing of our saluation that by almes-deeds we clense or wash away whatsoeuer filth of sin we contract after baptisme Which words of Cyprian if we construe them in rigour as they sound do containe a most dangerous and vnchristian assertion and such as all men rightly minded do abhorre that by Christ all our sins are forgiuen in baptisme whatsoeuer we haue done but that whatsoeuer we sinne afterwards is to be purged and cleansed by our selues Whereof it must follow that we who are baptized in infancie haue no further benefite of Christs redemption but that we receiue then for the freeing of vs from the bond of originall vncleannesse Yea and if the way wherby after baptisme we are to be cleansed from our sinnes be almes in what case must they be who onely receiue almes and haue none to giue and therefore want that meanes for the forgiuenesse of their sinnes But the true doctrine of the Gospel setteth Christ before vs not onely in baptisme but afterwards also to be l Ioh 1.29 the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world S. Iohn being baptized speaketh of himselfe amongst others and saith it to them that are baptized m 1. Ioh. 2.2 If any man sinne we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes The true confessioÌ„ of which point of faith S. Austin deliuereth in saying that n August cont 2. epis Pelag. li. 3 ca. 6. Caro Christi veruÌ„ est vnicum sacrificium pro peccatu non solùm his quae vniuersa in baptismate diluuntur verumetiam his quae post ex huius vitae infirmitate surrepuÌ„t propter quae quotidiè vniuersa in oratione ad DeuÌ„ clamat Ecclesia Dimitte nobis c. et dimittutitur nobis per singulare sacrificiuÌ„ pro peccatis the flesh of Chrst is the true and onely sacrifice for sins not onely those which altogether are washed away in baptisme but those also which afterwards steale vpon vs by the frailtie of this life for which the whole Church crieth dayly in prayer to God forgiue vs our trespasses and they are forgiuen vs by that onely sacrifice for sinnes We learne here another maner of lesson then Cyprian there teacheth that after baptisme not the sacrifice of our almes but the onely sacrifice of the bodie of Christ is the remission of our sinnes M. Bishop must giue vs leaue rather to beleeue Austine speaking according to the Scripture then Cyprian speaking directly against the Scripture And therefore wee aunswer him as the same Austine did the Donatists when they alledged an Epistle of Cyprian against him o Cont. Crescon lib. 2. cap. 31 Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriaÌ„ cuÌ„ eius quaeslibet literas à canonica diuinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus c. Et cap. 32. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor quia literâ—s Cypriani non vt canonicaâ— haebeo sed eas ex canonicis considero quod in eis diuinaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ authoritati congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non conguit cum pace eius respuo We do Cyprian no wrong to distinguish any writings of his from the authoritie of holy Scripture We are not bound to the authoritie of this epistle or sermon
because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture we receiue it with his praise but what agreeth not by his leaue we refuse it Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull that p Cyprian de orat Dom. Ipsum habemus apud PatreÌ„ AduocatuÌ„ pro peccatis nostris we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life we dare not conceiue howsoeuer his words be very harsh that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do but in the bloud of Christ he saith in another place c Idem ser de ablut pedum Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi cùm diceres mihi Reuertere non sum reuersus cùm minareris non timâ—â— cùm bonus esses lenis exasperans fui Vltra septuagies septies in coelum coram te peccaui Quis tot sordes abluet quiâ— abradet stercora coÌ„globata Quicquid dicat Petrus necesse est vt ipse nos abluas neque enim lauare nos possumus sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus c. Apud te fons vitae est et miserationum quae à seculo sunâ— profunditas infinita abluisti nos baptismo lauasti sanguine tuo semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando O mercifull Lord how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine how often O holy Lord haue I despised thy commaundements and when thou saidst vnto me Returne I haue not returned when thou threatnedst I feared not when thou wast good and gentle I haue prouoked thee beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee Who shall wash away so much filth who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together Let Peter say what he will in refusing to be washed we haue need that thou wash vs for we cannot wash our selues but in all things that we do we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie With thee is the well of life and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting thou hast washed vs in baptisme thou hast washed vs in thy bloud thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes but in the forgiuenesse of our sins He confesseth that in all that we do we stand in need of pardon and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ albeit being instant and earnest as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren are the true fruites and effects the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy and therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs but for Christs sake whom by our workes we shew that we vnfainedly seeke and do truly beleeue in him And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth though by error of the scribe perhaps it be that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie yet these words not being found in Tobie and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes but forcing the text and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth Which words of Solomon if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed d Prou. 16.6 In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen that is where mercy and truth are there is forgiuenesse of sinnes as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him he addeth for the cause thereof e Psal 85.10 Mercie and truth are met together Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith f Iohn 1.17 Grace and truth that is mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen not by any merite or worke of ours not by any satisfaction that we can make but by the mercie of God truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith the auncient Church testifying of it and the rest of the same sort as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded that g Hieron prolog galeat Igitur sapientia Solomonis Jesu filij Sirach liber Iudith Tobias non sunt in Canone Sic Ruffin in expos Symb. they are not canonicall and S. Austine affirming that h August deciuit Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictâ—resnoÌ„ tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Canoâ—e Iudaeâ—rum the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning as I haue before expressed that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and