we it Againe he saith e Ibid Ipsam fidei professioneÌ„ quae credimus in Patrem filiuÌ„ SpirituÌ„ sanctum è quibus habemus scriptis The very profession of faith whereby we beleeue in the Father the Son the holy Ghost out of what Scripture do we take it The maine matter which he laboreth there to approue by vnwritten tradition is the pronouncing of glorie to the Father and the Son together with the holy Ghost which yet he himselfe saith that f Cap. 25. Vim habet Scripturis congruentem Nihil diuersum dexero quod ad sententiae vitâ—â— attinet it hath a meaning agreeing with the Scriptures and that in meaning it nothing differeth from that which Christ saith the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost and so we also hold professe according to the Scriptures In this sense therfore we also admit of vnwritten traditions blame as he doth them who strictly vrge what things are found in the Scriptures that is admit of nothing but what in precise termes is expressed therein and therefore the words here in question thus far make nothing against vs. Yea and in the assertion of those other traditions which he mentioneth he nothing crosseth vs because we deny not traditions as was said in the beginning which are but rites and ceremonies of the Church who our selues haue such traditions in vse and deny not the liberty of other Churches for the like Such traditions he there mentioneth to haue bene in those times the signing of them which professe Christ with the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East to be thrice dipped in baptisme to pray standing all the time from Easter to Whitsontide such like Now such traditions we condemne not but we cannot but dislike that wheras these are no matters of faith perpetuall necessity but onely of arbitrarie and indifferent obseruation he notwithstanding reckoneth theÌ„ g Cap. 27 Quorum vtraque pareÌ„ vim habent ad pietatem as hauing like force to pietie with those things that are written and that the reiecting hereof shall be the h Et ea damnahimus quae in Euangelio ad salutem necessaria habentur condemning of those things which in the Gospell are accounted necessary to saluation To which assertion M. Bishop for the credit of their Church of Rome wil refuse to subscribe because they hold the most of these things to be indifferent insomuch that there is no necessity with theÌ„ of thrice dipping him that is baptised that custome of standing in prayer for the time aboue named is worne out of vse Wherin it caÌ„not be denied but that the Church of Rome hath done greatly amisse if it be true concerning such traditions which Basil there is made to say In a word Basils traditions if they be his concerne not our disputation either being such as are contained in the sense though not in the letter of the Scripture or else being onely temporarie and arbitrarie obseruations of the Church neither of which we impugne We impugne those traditions which are made necessarie and perpetuall doctrines of faith and of the worship of God and yet neither in the letter nor in the sence and consequence of the scriptures can be iustified so to be Of this sort are the Popes supremacie and succession of Peter his Pardons inuocation of Saints worshipping of images prayer for the dead the single life of Priests the curtolling of the Communion the sacrifice of the Masse a huge deale of such other baggage Wherein we may take knowledge of the notable fraud of these Romish Traditioners who tell vs out of the Fathers of traditions traditions when as in none of the auncient Catalogues of traditions those traditions are found which they especially require to be beleeued vnder that name The Fathers mention Apostolicke traditions as they call them whereof the Church of Rome obserueth nothing the Church of Rome telleth vs of Apostolicke traditions whereof there is no mention with the Fathers They agree not in their beadroll of traditions and yet we forsooth must beleeue that the traditions of Poperie are the same that they speake of and haue bene continued from the time of the Apostles But what the manner of the auncients was Hierome teacheth vs to vnderstand when he saith i Hieron ad Lucin Vnaequae que Prouincia abundeâ— in sensu suo praecepta maiâ—rum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let euery Prouince abound in it owne iudgement or opinion and thinke the precepts of their auncestours to be Apostolicke lawes This was indeed their custome whatsoeuer obseruations they had to terme them for the credit of them Apostolicke traditions howsoeuer they were but humane presumptions and sometimes contrarie to that which the Apostles practised as Hierome there sheweth of the tradition of k Jn Actibus Apostolorum dictus Pentecostes dit Dominico Apostolum Paulum cum to credentes teiunasse legimus not fasting vpon the Lords day and the daies betwixt Easter and Whitsontide which he saith that Paule and with him the faithfull did But as touching all such traditions we are to consider what the same Hierome elswhere saith that l Idem in Agg. cap. 1 Quae absque authoritate testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte râ—periunt contingunt percutit glâ—dius Dei What things men of their owne accord deuise and faine as of Apostolike tradition without testimonie and authoritie of the Scriptures the sword of God striketh downe As for Damascene whom M. Bishop alledgeth last we hold him not woorth the answering We doubt not but he defended vnwritten traditions without any qualification being a notable idol-monger and hauing no meanes for defence of his idolatrie but the pretence of vnwritten tradition M. Bishop committed much ouersight to reckon him for a man free from all partialitie who in that respect could not but be partiall in behalfe of the cause which he had vndertaken against the written truth of God But M. Bishop hath yet one string more to play vpon S. Paul commandeth Timothie saith he to commend vnto the faithfull that which he had heard of him by many witnesses and not that onely which he should find in some of his Epistles or in the written Gospell S. Paules words are these m 2. Tim. 3.2 What things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses the same deliuer to faithfull men which shall be able to teach other also He willeth Timothie in speciall manner to instruct some in those things which he had heard and receiued of him that they might be for the worke of the ministerie and serue for the instructing and teaching of others The question now is what those things were of which he speaketh M. Bishop when he saith not only that which he should find written coÌ„fesseth that the Apostle meant it of those things that are written though he will not haue it thought to be meant of those
3.15 Whatsoeuer things haue bene committed vnto thee by me keepe as the commandements of the Lord and diminish nothing thereof Now although those words haue reference to more then is written in those two epistles yet they haue not reference absolutely to more then is written because in the latter of those Epistles the Apostle plainly telleth him that q the Scriptures are able to make him wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus As for that which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Irenaeus it is nothing at all to his purpose He saith that r Iren. lib. 3. ca 4. Apostili quasi in depositoriuÌ„ dâ—ues plenissimè in Ecclesiae contuleruÌ„t omnia quae sunt veritatis the Apostles haue layd vp in the Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth but how they haue laid the same vp in the Church he hath before expressed Å¿ Ibid. cap. 1. The Gospell which they first preached they after by the will of God deliuered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith Thus then the Church is the treasury of truth by hauing the Scriptures which are the oracles of all truth His last authoritie is taken from the words of S. Iohn which he vseth in his two latter Epistles Hauing many things to write vnto you I would not write with paper and inke but I trust to come vnto you and speake with you mouth to mouth We see S. Iohns words but hard it is to say how we should conclude traditions from them S. Iohn wold write no more to them in that sort or in those Epistles but doth it follow hereof that he would teach them any thing that is not contained in the Scriptures He might haue many things to write vnto them according to the Scriptures and what should leade vs to presume that he should meane it of other things whereof we are taught nothing there In a word what is there in the citing of all these authorities but impudent and shamelesse abusing of ignorant men whilest for a colour he onely setteth them downe and for shame dareth not set downe how that should be inferred that is in question betwixt vs and them But to fill vp the measure of this illusion he goeth on yet further and by way of specification asketh Where is it written that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father or that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father or that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance or that there is in Christ the substance of God and man subsisting in one second person of the Trinitie Absurd wilful wrangler where was it written which Christ said t Luke 24.46 Thus it is written and thus it behoued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his name amongst all nations Where is it written in the Prophets which S. Peter alledgeth u Acts 10.43 To him giue all the Prophets witnes that through his name all that beleeue in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes Where doe Moses and the Prophets say that which Saint Paul sayth x Ibid. 26.22.23 they do say that Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead and should shew light to the people and to the Gentiles To come nearer to him he hath told vs before that the articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures But where is it written in the Scriptures that we should beleeue in God the Father almightie maker of heauen and earth or that we should beleeue in the holy Ghost or that there is a holy Catholike Church a communion of Saints I will say as he saith here Be not all these things necessary to be beleeued and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible He will say that though they be not there written in expresse termes yet in effect and substance they are written there and are thereby to be declared and prooued and so he will verifie the words of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles Peter and Paul in those citations of Moses and the Prophets Wizard and are not those other articles then written in the Scriptures because they are not written in expresse termes Did not the Fathers conceiue all those points of faith from the Scriptures and by the Scriptures make proofe of them Is it not the rule of their owne schooles which I haue before mentioned out of Thomas Aquinas that y Supra sect 12. concerning God nothing is to be said but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures What are we maintainers of traditions in saying that faith onely iustifieth that Christ onely is our Mediator to the Father that Saints are not to be inuocated nor their images to be worshipped because these things are no where written in expresse termes Let it not offend thee gentle Reader that I be moued to see a lewd man labouring by vaine cauillations to sophisticate and delude those that are not able to vnderstand his cosinage and fraud It is the cause of God and who can beare it patiently that the soules which Christ hath bought should be intoxicated with such charmes We do not say that nothing is to be beleeued but what is written in the Scriptures in expresse termes but we say that nothing is to be beleeued but what either is expressed in the Scriptures or may be proued thereby and therefore in oppugning traditions we oppugne onely such doctrines of faith as neither are expressed in the Scriptures nor can be proued by the Scriptures Let M. Bishop proue their traditions by the Scriptures and we will not reiect them for vnwritten traditions but will receiue them for written truth But of this see what hath bene said before in the twelfth section of this question and in the eleuenth section of the answer to his Epistle to the King 21. W. BISHOP The sixt and last reason for traditions Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely if then it be put to euery Christian to take their owne exposition euery seuerall sect wil coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shal the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an instrument to confirme all errors To auoide which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the traditions and auncient records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true exposition and sence of it and thereby confute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy commentaries so that for the vnderstanding
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
sine peccato nascitur c. Dicit Apostolus Per vnum hominem c. Jdeo non est superfluus baptismus paruulorum vt qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt per regenerationem liberentur They say saith he that an infant not being baptized cannot perish because he is borne without sinne but the Apostle saith By one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne came death and so death went ouer all forasmuch as all haue sinned c. Therefore the baptisme of infants is not superfluous that they who by generation are bound to condemnation by regeneration may be deliuered from it And in another place against the Donatists q De Baptis lib. 4. cap. 24. Si quisquam hac in re authoritatem diuinam quaerat c. Veracitèr conijcere possumus quid valeat in parâ—â—â—â—s Baptimi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit If any man saith he desire diuine authority in this behalf we may truly coniecture what the sacrament of Baptisme auaileth in infants by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people receiued So by the rest of the Fathers sundry arguments are taken from the Scriptures for the iustifying of that custome and r Bellarm de saâ—ram Baptism lib 1. cap 8 Bellarmine himselfe by the Scriptures proueth that infants are to be baptized and therefore full weakly doth M. Bishop deale to bring this for proofe of their Traditions that is of doctrines beside the Scripture In his other obiections he is as idle as in any of these or rather more idle The Arian hereticke presseth Austine to shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is read in the Scriptures Saint Austine answereth him that Å¿ August Epist 174. Respondebatur à nobis quia nos Latinè loqueremur illud Graecum esset prius quarenâ— on esset quid sit Homousion tunc exigendum vt in libris sanctis ostenderetur c. quia et si fortasse nomen ipsum non inueniretur restamen ipsa inueniretur Quid est enim contentiosius quà m vbi de reconstat certare de nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a Greeke word and they spake Latin and therefore it was first to be set down what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then to be required in the scriptures because albeit the word perhaps be not found there yet the thing it selfe is found For what greater wrangling is there then to contend about the word when there is a certaintie of the thing Where we see M. Bishop in the place which he himselfe citeth condemned for a contentious wrangler that thus vrgeth the word consubstantiall as a tradition beside the Scripture when as the thing it self and matter imported by it is contained in the Scripture yea and S. Austin himself in the same place proueth it by the Scripture and elsewhere asketh of the Arian heretike t Idem contrae Maximin lib. 3. cap 14. Quid est Homousion nisi Ego Pater vnum sumus What is Homousion consubstantiall but I and my father are one By the other word vnbegotten he taketh aduaÌ„tage against the Arian who had set downe that terme in the confession of his faith concerning God the Father He demaundeth of him whether the Scripture had vsed that word which not being found and yet approoued he concludeth u Jdem epi. 174. Vides posse fieri vt etiaÌ„ de verbo quod in scriptura Dei non est reddatur tamen ratio vnde rectè dici ostendatur sic ergo homousion quod in authoritate diuinorum librorum cogebamur ostendere etiamsi vocabuluÌ„ ipsum ibi non inuentamus fieri posse vt illud inueniamus cut hec vocabuluÌ„ rectè adhibitum iudicetur Thou seest that it may be that of a word which is not set downe in Scripture yet reason may be giuen to shew that it is rightly spoken so therefore consubstantiall also which we were required to shew by authoritie of Scripture albeit we find not the very word there yet it may be that we find that to which the word may be iudged to be rightly applied In these words therefore there is nothing imported but what we are instructed by the Scriptures the meaning is there though the letters and syllables be not there In like sort the case standeth with his other instance of the holy Ghost to be adored which we may wonder that he should be so impudent or rather so impious as to make an example of traditions beside the Scripture as if the Scriptures did not prooue that the holy Ghost is to be worshipped when as S. Austine prooueth it there against the Arian no otherwise but by the Scriptures But as touching all these points concerning the Godhead let that suffice which Thomas Aquinas hath giuen for a rule that x Thom. Aquin. sum p. 1. qu. 36. art 2. ad 1. De Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non inuenitur vel per verba vel per sensum Licet per verba non inueniatur in sacra scriptura quod spiritus sanctus procedit à Filio inuenitur tamen quantum ad sensum concerning God we ought to say nothing which is not found in Scripture either in words or in meaning Whereof he saith for example Though in very words it be not found in holy Scripture that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne yet in sense and meaning it is there found To this our assertion accordeth that no matter of faith or doctrine is to be admitted but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures Let M. Bishop shew vs the sence of their Traditions in the Scriptures and we will receiue them though we find not the words but if he alledge for Traditions beside the Scripture those things the sence and meaning whereof is in the Scriptures though the words be not he abuseth his Reader and saith nothing against vs. For this matter I referre thee further gentle Reader to that which hath bene said y Sect. 11. before in answer of his Epistle to the King As touching the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed virgin what we are to conceiue hath bene before declared S. Austin z August haeres 56 84. affirmeth it but not vnder the name of a tradition and Hierome when he would maintaine it against a Hieron aduer Heluid Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt c. Non credimus quia non legimus Heluidius tooke vpon him no otherwise to maintaine it but onely by the Scripture thereby shewing that he tooke tradition to be a very weake and vncertaine ground Now therefore it plainly appeareth that S. Austin hath pulled downe the churches treasury of traditions because M. Bishop can bring nothing to the contrary but that he plainely and truly meant that which he said that in those things which are plainly set downe in Scripture are
cauilleth but we make the Church as the hand of God whereby he putteth the Scriptures into our hands and priuate spirit doth no more but subscribe to the testification of the Church But now if Maister Bishop will question the publike testimonie of our Church as touching knowledge what Scriptures are to be deliuered we answer him that such and such onely we acknowledge and deliuer by our testimonie because by like testimonie those onely haue beene acknowledged and deliuered vnto vs. Here then we referre our selues to Tradition and therefore all that Maister Bishop alledgeth to the end of this section is but fighting with a shadow of his owne and nothing against vs. He saith in the end that Brentius and Chemnitius admit of this Tradition albeit they reiect all other Traditions beside this one whereas Chemnitius setting downe eight kindes of Traditions acknowledgeth seuen of them and determineth our defence against the Papists to consist in one kinde onely We fight not against the word we know it hath his vse Maister Perkins in three conclusions here acknowledgeth Traditions the Church of Rome hath brought it by her abuse to one speciall vse and meaning and in that vse onely wee impugne it namely as it importeth matters not of temporarie rites and ceremonies indifferently vsed but of perpetuall doctrine and faith which neither in word nor in meaning can be verified and confirmed by the written word presupposed and acknowledged to be the word of God In this sence wee denie Traditions the name otherwise we reiect not wee say that by testimonie of Tradition the notice of the canonicall Scriptures is giuen vnto vs. This Maister Bishop thinketh should make for the credit of their Church of Rome dreaming that this must be by the tradition of that Church or that that Church must be the witnesse vnto vs of this tradition But therein hee very much deceiueth himselfe amongst all the traditions mentioned by the auncient Writers wee neuer finde this tradition that for the number of the bookes of canonicall Scripture wee must take the tale and tradition of the Church of Rome If he can make good any such tradition he shall finde vs much the more fauourable for all the rest Otherwise we doe not know why it should not be as readie for the Church of England to iudge which are canonicall Scriptures as it is for the Church of Rome What meanes should they haue for the discerning of them that is not as open to vs as it is to them We take the account of holy Scriptures in the same sort as the auncient Church did o Ruffin in exposit symb Secundum traditionem patrum Sicut ex patrum monumentis acceptmus Hilar. prolog in Psal SecunduÌ„ traditiones veterum according to the tradition of the fathers and out of the monuments of the fathers Wee reckon those onely for canonicall bookes which from the time of the Apostles haue had certaine and vndoubted testimonie to be so testimonie I say of so many Churches and nations and peoples to which at first they were deliuered and thenceforth vsed amongst them to be read in their Churches expounded in their pulpits meditated in their houses which the fathers haue perpetually cited in their bookes and opposed in generall Councels against Schismatikes and heretikes to which they haue attributed all authoritie for the deciding and determining the causes and controuersies of the Church p Aug. in Ioannis epist. tract 2. Contra quas nullus audeat loqui qui se vult quoquo modo vocari Christianum against which none dare speake saith Saint Austine who will in any sort be called a Chrstian man q Idem cont faust l. 11. cap. 5. Excellentia canonicae authoritatis veteris noui testamenti Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones episcoporum propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est cui serutat omnis fidelis pius intellectus The excellencie of the canonicall authoritie of the old and new testament saith he againe being confirmed in the time of the Apostles hath by succession of Bishops and propagation of Churches beene set in a high and loftie seate that all faithfull and religious vnderstanding may be seruant vnto it Now by the Scriptures which thus irrefragably and vnquestionably haue beene receiued vniuersally of the whole Christian world wee learne to iudge of those bookes adioined to the old testament whereof question is betwixt the Church of Rome and vs. For in those bookes as touching the old testament we learne that r Rom. 2.2 to the Iewes were committed the words of God whereof it followeth that none are to be accounted the words of God that were not committed vnto them The bookes committed to them our Sauiour Christ nameth to haue beene Å¿ Luk 24.44 Moses and the Prophets and the Psalmes and calleth these t Ver. 27. all the Scriptures as before was noted Because then these are all the Scriptures and those which we seclude from the Canon are none of these it followeth that by the sentence of Christ himselfe they are declared to be no Scriptures And hereto agreeth the auncient tradition of the Church of the Iewes recorded by Iosephus who acknowledgeth that they had u Ioseph cont Apion lib. 1. SuÌ„t nobis solummodo duo viginti libri quoruÌ„ iustè fides ad nutitur Horum quinque sunt Moseos c. Amorie Moseos vsque ad Artaxerxem PersaruÌ„ regem Prophetae temporum suorum res gestas conscripserunt in tredecim libris Reliqui vero quatuor hymnes in Deum vitae humanae praecepta noscuntur continere onely two and twenty bookes to which iustly they gaue credit whereof fiue are the bookes of Moses From whom to the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia the Prophets wrote the matters of their times in thirteene bookes which are thus reckoned 1. Iosuah 2. the Iudges with Ruth 3. the two bookes of Samuel 4. the two bookes of Kings 5. the two bookes of Chronicles 6. Ezra and Nehemiah 7. Esther 8. Iob. 9. Esay 10. Ieremy 11. Ezechiel 12. Daniel 13. the booke of the twelue lesser Prophets The other foure saith he containe Hymnes and Songs to God and precepts of humane life which are the Psalmes the Prouerbs Ecclesiastes and the Canticles Of those things which were afterwards written hee saith x Ab Artaxerxe vsque ad nostrum tempus singulae sunt conscripta noÌ„ tamen priori simili fide sunt habita cò quod non fuerit certâ— successio prophetarum that they were not of like credit to the former because there was no certaine succession of Prophets amongst them This tradition the Iewes hold constantly and inuiolably till this day and in their dispersion through the world do still giue witnesse to the bookes that were deliuered to their fathers God by his prouidence appointing them to be y August cont faust lib. 12. cap. 23. Quid est hodie genâ—
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.
to vnbeleeuers onely by their default and therfore onely accidentally and respectiuely is so called set aside the respect and he cannot be truly called so Euen so the Scriptures are made a matter of strife by the iniquitie and importunity of euill men and to them onely they are so called whereas in themselues they are not so but properly serue for the ending and determining of all strife Maister Perkins therefore might iustly say that they are falsly termed the matter of strife hauing respect to the affection and intention of them by whom they were so termed For they who gaue this name gaue it by way of deprauing and disgracing the Scriptures when being required by vs to stand to the iudgement of the Scriptures they refused to do so and alledged that the Scriptures could giue no iudgement but rather were themselues matter of controuersie and strife seeking by this pretence to draw all to the determination of their owne Church But herein they offered indignity and dishonour to him who hath giuen vnto vs b Psal 119.104.105 his word to be the lanterne vnto our feete and the light vnto our steps by his precepts to get vnderstanding to hate all the waies of falshood Froward men may take occasion to striue about matters of the Scriptures when notwithstanding the Scriptures cleare those things whereabout they striue c Tertul de resur carn Videntur illis materias quasdam subministrasse ipsas quidem ijsdem literis reuincibiles The Scriptures saith Tertullian seeme to minister matter to heretikes but yet they are to be conuicted by the same Scriptures Where there is in the heart humility and obedience to the word of God there question and controuersie soone endeth but where there is frowardnesse and selfewill there will be no end of contention howsoeuer there be apparent conuiction To leaue this to come to the matter specially in hand it seemeth that M. Bishop hath much forgotten what he was about The matter in hand is to proue traditions that is doctrines of faith beside the Scriptures and he maketh here a long discourse concerning the meanes of attaining to the vnderstanding of the Scirptures Let that meanes be what it may be in the true vnderstanding of the Scriptures there is no other but the doctrine of the Scriptures and what is that to their traditions In this argument he his fellowes keepe their woont that is to trifle and say nothing to the matter whereof they pretend to speake Yet to follow them in their own steps the question is of the true interpreting and expounding of the Scriptures It is apparent they say what the Scripture saith but it is doubtfull what it meaneth There be many difficulties some expound one way some another way but how is it to be knowne who expoundeth the right way M. Perkins bringeth them in playing their old trump that we must haue recourse to the tradition of the Church imitating therein the old heretikes whose allegation was as Irenaeus recordeth that d Iren. lib. 3 cap. 2. Cū arguuntur ex Scripturis in accusationem conuertuntur ipsarum scripturarum c. quia non possit ex his inuentri veritas ab his qui nesciant traeditionem by the Scriptures the truth could not be found out by them that were ignorant of tradition To this M. Perkins answereth that the Scripture it selfe declareth it owne meaning if we obserue the analogie of faith gathered out of the manifest places of Scripture if we weigh the circumstance of the place and signification of the words if we diligently weigh and compare one place with another and vse such other like helpes as the Scripture yeeldeth With these words M. Bishop notably plaieth the sycophant as if M. Perkins hereby affirmed that euery Christian man by these means is enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text that euery simple man furnished with these three rules is able to resolue any difficulty in the Scriptures whatsoeuer Against this he bringeth in the confession of S. Austine that after so long study the things which he knew not in the Scripture were more then those which he did know Thus he setteth vp a S. Quintin for himselfe and bestoweth himselfe very valiantly in running at it But where doth M. Perkins professe this effect of those three rules with euery Christian man euery simple man nay where doth he affirme so much of any learned man be he neuer so learned He setteth downe those rules as S. Austine doth the same and many other as necessary helpes for the searching of the truth and by the exercise whereof men should labour to profit and grow in the vnderstanding of the Scriptures may attaine to the knowledge of that truth that is necessary to saluation but farre was he from conceiuing that which M. Bishop speaketh of that euery simple man may thereby resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer M. Bishop for the attaining of the sence of Scripture referreth vs to their Iudge and to the traditions and auncient records of the primitiue Church to those auncient and holy commentaries But is he so witlesse as to think that any man vsing this direction of his shall be thereby enabled in the Scriptures to resolue all difficulties whatsoeuer If he will haue no such fantasticall paradox gathered of that which he saith why doth he lay the imputation of it vpon M. Perkins when it followeth no more of M. Perkins speech one way then it doth of his the other way As for his question why the Lutherans notwithstanding these rules do vnderstand the Scriptures in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way we answer him that in his question there is more malice then wit We aske him the like question how it commeth to passe that notwithstanding their rules directions yet all these differ from them in the expounding of Scripture Now as he will answer that notwithstanding their directions be true yet that cannot hinder but that heretikes will dissent from them so we answer him that notwithstanding our rules and instructions in this behalfe be true and taken from the course of the auncient fathers yet that cannot let but that Popish heretikes and selfe-willed Lutherans and foolish mad Anabaptists will dissent from vs. If he will say that albeit all these dissent from them yet they themselues agree in one the like will be said of all other parties that albeit others do vary from them yet amongst themselues they vary not It is therefore no more prejudice to our rules that others dissent from vs then it is to Papists that we dissent from them As for the Anabaptists let him not put them to vs because we wholy detest them but rather take them home to them because being both of them the wicked ofspring of him who is e Iohn 8.44 a liar and the father of lies they haue both learned of him to teach men by equiuocations
diuell beleeueth and knoweth as well as he But to see the giddinesse of his head reeling and staggering he knoweth not whither he saith we find Christ we hold him and see him we eate him we digest him by beleeuing thus and thus when he hath plainely giuen vs before to vnderstand that for all his beleeuing he cannot tell whether he haue any thing to doe with Christ whether he haue receiued the grace of Christ whether he haue anie true repentance hope charitie and such like without which Christ is neither holden nor had at all But such darknesse is fit for them who leaue the wayes of God and make choise to tread the Labyrinthes and maze-rounds of their owne brain-sicke imaginations To his question where it is once sayd in any of these sentences that we are assured of our Saluation I answer him that it followeth of that for proofe whereof these sentences were alledged For if the office of true faith be not onely generally to beleeue but also particularly to apply that which it beleeueth as hath bene shewed and all those speeches alledged do import then it followeth that according to the measure of it it yeeldeth a particular assurance of Saluation to euerie one that doth beleeue We beleeue saith he these points and many more but yet we shall be neuer the nearer our Saluation vnlesse we obserue Gods commaundements But if we beleeue as the Scripture teacheth vs to beleeue we are thereby the nearer our Saluation though we do not obserue Gods commandements in that sort and to that end as he intendeth For therefore do we beleeue in Christ therefore do we seeke him take hold of him eate him drinke him digest him that in him we may find the comfort of Saluation which otherwise we cannot find for want of the keeping of Gods commandements Therefore saith the Apostle c Gal. 2.16 Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law not by our keeping of Gods commandements because that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified And in this respect we are not vncertaine of performing Gods commaundements as M. Bishop speaketh but verie certaine that we neuer do or can performe them hauing continually cause to demaund pardon of our wants and therefore neuer finding any assured trust of Saluation so long as we ground it hereupon But although we denie any such keeping of Gods commandements as may serue for the purchase of our iustification and Saluation yet we acknowledge a keeping thereof as a fruit of our iustification and a part of the worke of our Saluation because d Ephes 2.10 we are Gods workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which he hath prepared for vs to walke in And this keeping of Gods commandements our Sauiour hath recommended vnto vs as M. Bishop alledgeth and of it S. Iohn saith e 1. Iohn 2.4 He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandements is a lyar and the truth is not in him But this keeping of Gods commaundements cannot be seuered from the finding and receiuing and holding and eating and digesting of Christ because no man receiueth or eateth Christ by faith but who liueth by him and in whom he liueth that he may say f Gal. 2.20 Not I now but Christ liueth in me and that I now liue in the flesh I liue by the faith of the sonne of God who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Verie idlely therefore in this behalfe doth M. Bishop tell vs that by the one we are neuer a whit the nearer without the other when the one can no where be without the companie of the other Now of this keeping of Gods commandements and perseuerance therein true faith as before hath bene shewed resteth assured because God hath so promised and so farre are we from being doubtfull of Saluation by any doubt thereof as that we rather gather hence greater strength of assurance by that we perceiue the beginning of that good worke of God in vs whereby he fitteth and prepareth his vnto euerlasting life 17. W. BISHOP The second reason is Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that certainely by faith we must beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our Saluation ergo The first proposition is true The second is proued thus S. Paul saith Rom. 8. the spirit of God beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God The Papists to elude this reason alledge that it doth indeed witnesse our adoption by some comfortable feeling of Gods fauour toward vs which may often be mistaken whereof the Apostle warneth vs when he saith beleeue not euerie spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God or no. 1. Iohn 4. But saith M. Perkins by their leaue the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare feeling of Gods grace For it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts And therefore it takes away all doubting as in a bargaine the earnest giuen puts all out of question 1. Cor. 1. I answer first out of the place it selfe that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed which M. Perkins thought wisedome to conceale For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God and coheires of Christ with this condition If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if we faile in performance of the condition God stands free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receiued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of Saluation This is the direct answer to that place although the other be verie good that the testimonie of the spirit is but an inward comfort and ioy which breedeth great hope of Saluation but bringeth not assurance thereof This M. Perkins would refute by the authority of S. Bernard in the place before cited see the place and my answer there Epist 107. R. ABBOT To shew that the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie our adoption and Saluation and therefore that we are by faith to beleeue the same M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 8.15.16 We haue receiued the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba Father The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God Which words so expresse and plaine might be sufficient to stoppe the mouthes of these brabling sophisters but that they measure the portion of Gods children by their owne carnall sence and conceipt and being destitute of true faith and of the spirit of God are no more fit to iudge hereof then blind men are to iudge of colours It is apparent that the faithfull haue a testimonie of the holy Ghost bearing witnesse with their spirit that
truly not because he had sinne in him but because our sinnes were laid on his shoulders That reason is naught for he is not truly a sinner that payes the debt of sinne which an innocent and most iust person may performe but he that either hath sinne truly in him or is so by imputation stroken that the sinnes are made his owne really and he in all cases to be dealt with all as if he sinned himselfe as they hold that one iustified by imputation of Christs iustice is really in Gods sight iust and is both loued in this life and shall be rewarded in the next as if he were truly iust indeed But to auouch our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner is to say that he was auerted from God the slaue of the diuell and sonne of perdition which is plaine blasphemie That sentence out of the Prophet Isa 53. He was counted with sinners is expounded by the Euangelists that he was so taken indeed but by a wicked Iudge and a reprobate people And therefore if you allow of their sentence range your selfe with them as one of their number S. Chrysostome by him produced confirmeth the same saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner not that he was one truly Christ I know is called sinne by S. Paul but by a figure signifying that he was a sacrifice for sinne as hath bene before declared The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly affirmeth in plaine tearmes that Christ was tempted like vnto vs Heb. 4. in all things excepting sinne R. ABBOT M. Perkins yeeldeth that as we are called righteous by the Righteousnesse of Christ so Christ might be called a sinner by our sinnes not by hauing the blemish and corruption thereof but onely the guilt and imputation euen as he becommeth truly a debtor that vndertaketh anothers debt M. Bishop saith that an innocent and most iust person may pay the debt of sinne and such a one do we acknowledge the Sonne of God to be who yet being iust and innocent might by M. Bishops owne confession be termed being rightly vnderstood a sinner because he saith that he may be called truely a sinner who is so by imputation stroken as that the sinnes are made his owne really and he in all cases to be dealt with as if he had sinned himselfe For thus was the case with Christ who really though not inherently took vpon him our sinnes by vndertaking really as in our person the guilt thereof and therefore being dealt with as if he himselfe had committed the same Therefore doth Hierome apply these words to Christ a Hieron in Psal 87. Vt supra sect 5. Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie which thou wast to poure out vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes So Hilarie saith that b Hilar. in Psa 68. Omnis in eum terror desaeuientis in nos â—eÌ„pestatis in cubuit all the terrour of the tempest that raged against vs lighted or lay vpon him Therefore in right meaning to say that Christ was made a sinner in the bearing of our sinnes is not to affirme that Christ was auerted from God the slaue of the diuell and sonne of perdition as M. Bishop ignorantly collecteth because these are consequents onely of inherent corruption and sinne whereby a man is borne in sinne according to the depraued image of him of whom he is borne and not euerie one to whom sinne is imputed but c 1. Ioh. 3.8 whosoeuer committeth sinne is of the diuell Therefore the Fathers in that sence that here is spoken of haue not forborne to terme Christ a sinner in respect as he tooke vpon him the imputation of our sinnes So saith Oecumenius d Oecumen in Heb. cap. 9 Etenim Christus vehementer peccator erat vt qui totâ—â—s mundi peccata assumpserat sibique propria fecerat c. Quod enim Christus peccator fuerit audi Eum qui peccatum c. Christ was greatly a sinner as who did take vpon him the sinnes of the whole world and make them proper to himselfe For that Christ was a sinner heare the Apostle He made him sinne for vs c. Vpon which words of the Apostle Chrysostome also saith not only as M. Bishop citeth that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner but also as M. Perkins alledgeth though M. Bishop vnhonestly dissembleth it e Chrysost vt supra sect 5. He made the iust a sinner that he might make sinners iust In like sort Hierome as in one place he saith that f Hier. in Psal 21. Peccata nostra sua reputat Christ accounteth our sinnes his sinnes so in another place he affirmeth that g Jdem in Psal 37. Peccatorem se profiâ—etur qui peccata nostra portauit Christ did professe himselfe a sinner in that he bare our sinnes So saith also Saint Austin h August in Psal 37. Tanquâ—m peccauit in infirmitate tua Christus Modo enim peccata tua tanquam ex cre suo dicebat ea dicebat suae Christ after a sort sinned in thy infirmitie he mentioned thy sinnes out of his owne mouth and called them his sinnes All this the Prophet Esay confirmeth when he saith i Esa 53.12 He was counted with the transgressors which was not onely by a wicked iudge and a reprobate people as M. Bishop mentioneth but in that God made him sinne God counted him with sinners and therefore layed vpon him the curse of sinners in that he was k Gal. 3.13 Act. 5.30 hanged on a tree for the l Deut. 21.23 curse of God is vpon him that is hanged Therefore the Prophet in the same place saith that m Esa 53.6.10 the Lord did lay vpon him our iniquities the Lord would breake him and make him subiect to infirmities that we may vnderstand that God did not onely leaue him to the hands of men but himselfe counted him with sinners by the bearing of our sinnes and therefore dealt with him himselfe accordingly so that he had cause to cry out n Psal 88.6 Applied to Christ by Athanaâ— De interpret Psal by Arnob. and Hierome in Psal 87. Thine indignation lieth hard vpon me and thou hast vexed me with all thy stormes o Vers 14. Lord why abhorrest thou my soule and hidest thy face from me p Vers 16. Thy wrathfull displeasure goeth ouer me and the feare of thee hath vndone me Yet as touching the person of Christ in himselfe we acknowledge it as farre as M. Bishop that he was q Heb. 4.15 excepted from sinne that he was r Cap. 7.26 holy harmelesse vndefiled separated from sinners and because to apply vnto Christ the name of a sinner in what sort soeuer is subiect to misunderstanding and offence we wholy forbeare the same and as though a man by taking vpon him another mans debt be become a debtor yet we call him not a
giuen vnto vs and not the cause for which hee is moued to bestow the same vpon vs euen as Saint Augustine speaketh e August in Psalm 109. Via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum queÌ„ promisit the way by which hee will bring vs to that end which hee hath promised Now what sayth M. Bishop to this place of Bernard no question but he hath an answer readie though by his owne confession he neuer saw the place so notable a facultie haue these men to tell an Authors meaning before euer they looke into him forsooth Bernards meaning is that merits are not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed vpon vs out of which our merits proceed Thus he answereth Bernard by a plaine contradiction to Bernards words Bernard saith they are not the cause Yes saith M. Bishop they are the cause though they be not the whole cause But see how scholerlike he dealeth therein for it is as much as if he should say The tree is not the whole cause of the fruite that it bringeth foorth but the roote whence it proceedeth and the boughes whereupon it groweth whereas the roote and the boughes are parts of the tree without which it is not a tree and therefore the exception maketh nothing against it but that the tree is called the whole cause of the fruite So saith he Merits are not the whole cause of saluation but the grace and promise of God distinguishing merits as one part of the cause from the grace and promise of God as another part of the cause whereas merite by his owne rule in the beginning of this question doth alwayes necessarily include the promise and grace of God and can be no merite but as it proceedeth from grace and hath of God a promise of reward By this exception therefore he saith nothing to hinder but that merits are the whole cause of saluation fully and directly contrary to that that Saint Bernard saith that merites which he intendeth no otherwise but implying the grace and promise of God are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome Yet of that which he saith he telleth vs that it is Saint Bernards owne doctrine not alledging any words of Bernard to that purpose but onely quoting a sermon of his where there is nothing for his purpose as afterwards shall appeare in answering his testimonies of the Fathers In the meane time whereas he excepteth that Bernard liued a thousand yeares after Christ I must aunswer him that his testimonie is so much the more effectuall in that God in the middest of so great corruption and darknesse did still by him and others continue the light and acknowledgement of this truth The next place cited by M. Perkins is vnder S. Austins name though that booke indeed be none of his f August Manuâ—l ca. 22. Tota spes mea est in morte Domini meis mors eius meritum meum refugium meum salus vita resurrectio mea All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merite M. Bishop hereto saith that it is true in a good sence Where we see him to be an apt scholler and well to haue learned the lesson of the Index Expurgatorius g Jndex Expur in castigat Bertram We set some good sence vpon the errors of the Fathers when they are opposed against vs in contentions with our aduersaries But what is that good sence Marry by the vertue of his death and passion grace is bestowed on me to merite But surely hee doth not thinke that euer the author of those words intended that sence If he will make that sence of the one part of the sentence he must necessarily make the like of the rest The death of the Lord is my merite my refuge my saluation my life and resurrection If his meaning be the death of the Lord is my merite that is hath purchased for me that I should merite for my selfe then in the rest also shall be likewise said the death of the Lord is my refuge that is hath purchased for me that I should be a refuge for my selfe the death of the Lord is my saluation life and resurrection that is hath purchased for me to be saluation life and resurrection to my selfe So likewise where he addeth h Meritum â—â—eâ—â— miseratio Domini noÌ„sum meriti inops quamdiis miserationum Dominus non de fuerit My merite is the mercie of the Lord so long as the Lord of mercie shall not faile I shall not want merite the meaning shall likewise be the mercie of the Lord giueth mee ablenesse to merite for my selfe and so song as his mercie faileth not so long shall not I faile of good workes to merite and deserue heauen Now these constructions are lewd and absurd and indeed farre from the conscience of the writer of those words who findeth nothing in his owne workes to comfort himselfe withall and therefore flieth vnto the death and merite of Christ and the mercie of God as his onely succour and the onely stay that hee hath to rest vpon Which that the Reader may throughly vnderstand I hold it not amisse to set downe what the same author hath written in another place of the same booke euen out of the same spirit i Ibid. cap. 13. Sileat sibi ipsae anima et traÌ„seat se noÌ„ cogitaÌ„do se sed te Deus meus quoniam tu es reuera tota spes fiducia mâ—a Est enim inte Deo meo Domino nostro Iesu Christo vniuscuiusque nostrum portio et sangâ— câ—ro Vbi ergo portio mea regnat ibi regnare me credo Vbi sanguis meus dominatur ibi dominaeri me confido Vbi caro mea glorificatur ibi gloriosum me esse cognosco Quamuis peccator sim tamen de hac communione gratiae non diffido Etsi peccata mea prohibent substantia mea requirit Etsi delicta propriae mea excludunt naturae communio non repellit c. Desperare vtique potuissem propter nimia peccata mea vitiae culpas infinitas negligentias meas quas egi quotidi è indesinenter ago corde ere opere omnibus modis quibus humana fragilitas peccare potest nisi verbum tuum Deus meus caro fieret habitaret in nobis Sed desperare iam non audeo quoniam subditui ille tibi vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis tulit chyrographum peccaetorum nostrorum affigens illud cruci peccatum crucifixit mortem In ipso autem securus respiro c. Let my soule saith he be silent to it selfe and passe ouer it selfe not thinking of it selfe but of thee O my God because thou art indeed my whole hope and trust There is in thee my God and our Lord Iesus Christ the portion and flesh and bloud of euery
where it is written in the word that S. Paul wrote in his latter Epistles that which he taught by word of mouth before or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent Reader I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing and left nothing by tradition Saint Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Commentaries vpon this text concludeth thus Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnwritten and those things are as well to be beleeued as the written Oecumenius and Theophylactus vpon that place teach the same S. Basil * De spu ca. 27. speaketh thus I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not written for the Apostle saith I commend you that ye are mindfull of my precepts and do hold the Traditions euen as I deliuered them vnto you and then alledgeth this text Hold the Traditions which you haue receiued of me either by Word or Epistle S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying * Lib. 4. De fide cap. 17. That the Apostles deliuered many things without writing S. Paul doth testifie when he writeth Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which haue bene taught you either by word of mouth or by Epistle These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul free from all partiality gather out of this text of his that many things necessary to be beleeued euen vntill their daies remained vnwritten and were religiously obserued by Tradition which throweth flat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition fenced with neither reason nor authority that Saint Paul put in writing afterward all that he had first taught by word of mouth Moreouer Saint Paul immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles commaundeth his deare disciple Timothy * 2. Tim. 2. To commend vnto the faithfull that which he heard of him by many witnesses and not that onely which he should finde written in some of his Epistles or in the written Gospell R. ABBOT Heere M. Bishop beginneth with the taxing of our translations for that we do not say stand fast and keepe the traditions but stand fast and keepe the ordinances or the instructions which ye haue bene taught blaming vs for that we vse the word traditions where any thing soundeth against them but vtterly reiect it where any thing is spoken in commendation of them But the reason of our translating in that sort is iust and godly because our translation maketh nothing against that tradition which the Apostle intendeth in the Greek excludeth the stumbling block that might lye in the way of the more simple Readers by meanes that Popish abuse hath caused the word to sound to a meaning altogether contrary to the intent of the Apostle Where the word traditiō carieth the same sence wherin it is now vsed we set it down but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek importeth not that which custome hath made the word tradition to sound in English good reason is there that we leaue the word tradition and take rather some other word that may come most nearely to the expressing of the Greek Tyrant of old time did signifie a King till by the abuse of Kings the name grew opprobrious and hatefull and is now vsed to signifie a cruell and vsurping king He therefore that should now translate tyrannus a king should be thought scarcely well to enioy his wits Translations are alwaies to be framed according to the proprietie and vse of words then vsually receiued when they are done and to do otherwise cannot but breed mis-understanding of many things And we would gladly know why we may not aswell translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinances or instructions as their Latine interpreter translateth it a 1. Cor. 11.2 praecepta and they precepts in their English Albeit for the auoyding of their cauill I would rather translate it b 2. Thess 2.15 Stand fast and keepe the things deliuered which ye haue bene taught either by word or by our Epistle But here M. Bishop referreth his Reader to a learned treatise as he calleth it named The discouerie of false translations penned by Gregory Martin there to see somewhat for this corruption and many other I would not wish the Reader to forbeare to looke vpon that booke onely I wish him withall to take knowledge of Doctor Fulkes answer to it and he shall see a discouerie of a number of futilous and vaine cauillations heaped together in that discouerie Gregorie Martin wrote his pretended discouerie to be a bellowes to blow vp treason and insurrection against his Prince but when he failed of his hope and his calumniations were laid open his heart neuer serued him to defend what he had written because howsoeuer some things there were that with some probabilitie he might cauill at yet in the most he was made so naked that he knew not how to couer his owne shame But he is long since gone to his iudge hath learned what it is to fight against Gods truth But to come to the matter in hand M. Perkins cannot be excused of too much negligence in his answer to this place He taketh the second Epistle to the Thessalonians to be the first and by that meanes nameth that for very likely which is very vntrue and so with mention of a bare likelihood passeth ouer the argument without giuing any good satisfaction to him that would require it Thus it is true which the Poet saith Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus and because M. Bishop dreameth so often he must needes giue him leaue to dreame somtimes To supply that wherin M. Perkins failed we answer him that the traditions which the Apostle recommendeth to the Thessalonians 1. Cor. 15.3.4 were no other but such as he mentioneth to the Corinthians according to the Scriptures S. Ambrose maketh the effect of his exhortation to be this c Ambros in 2. Thess cap 2. In traditione Euangelij standum ac perseuerandum monet to warne them to stand fast and to perseuere in the tradition of the Gospell d Rom. 1.2 The Gospell as before hath bene noted out of the Apostles wordes was promised before of God by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and therefore was accordingly e Cap. 16.26 preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets The storie saith that Paule at his being at Thessalonica f Act. 17.2.3 opened and declared by the Scriptures that it behooued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead and that this was Iesus Christ whom saith he I preach vnto you Being driuen from thence to Berea by the outrage of the Iewes he preached there also and g Ver. 11. they who receiued the word searched the Scriptures daily
of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answer is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it self is the best glosse if there be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsly termed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsly termed matter of strife because it is not so of his own nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not S. Peter sayth Yes No sayth M. Perkins 1 Pet. â— because that cometh not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly termed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly that which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so termed although it be not the cause of contention in it selfe but written to take away all contention But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of Saint Augustine be good directions whereby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of Diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructions and learned commentaries but to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text is extreme rashnesse and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe wel conuersant in those rules endued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best commentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisite yet he ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his study he vnderstood not then which he did vnderstand * Epist 119. cap. 21. And shall euery simple man furnished onely with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer Why do the Lutherans to omit all former heretikes vnderstand in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrary Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the ayd of those triuial notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie without there be admitted some certain Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauior to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randon and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of temporall iustice it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Law to expound and conster the grounds of the law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquitie should not be law or when should there be any end of any hard mater one Lawyer defending one part another the other one counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one party to haue the right another as certainly auerring not that but the contrary to be law both alledging for their warrant some texts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloudy debate perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne To auoid then such garboiles and intestine contention there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker who in wisedome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens do the earth hath left his golden lawes at randon to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit no no it cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne of God In the old Testament which was but a state of bondage as it were an introduction to the new yet was there one appointed vnto whom they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Law yea and bound were they vnder paine of death to stand to his determination and shall we be so simple as to suffer our selues to be perswaded that in the glorious state of the Gospell plotted and framed by the wisedom of God himselfe worse order should be taken for this high point of the true vnderstanding of the holy Gospel it selfe being the life and soule of all the rest R. ABBOT It is truly said by Thomas Aquinas that a Thom. Aquin. sum p. 1. q. 39. art 4. c. In proprietatibus locutionum non tantum attendenda est res significata sed etiam modus significandi in propriety of speeches we are not only to regard the thing signified but also the manner of signification A speech may be true yet true only in some manner of signification which therefore in propriety of speech is not true because the thing properly of it selfe is not that that the speech importeth it to be Christ saith M. Bishop is truly called the rocke of offence Be it so yet it is true only in some manner of signification in which it is that the Scripture so calleth him in proprietie of speech it is not true because Christ of himselfe and properly is not so He becommeth so
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
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