3.15 Whatsoeuer things haue bene committed vnto thee by me keepe as the commandements of the Lord and diminish nothing thereof Now although those words haue reference to more then is written in those two epistles yet they haue not reference absolutely to more then is written because in the latter of those Epistles the Apostle plainly telleth him that q the Scriptures are able to make him wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus As for that which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Irenaeus it is nothing at all to his purpose He saith that r Iren. lib. 3. ca 4. Apostili quasi in depositoriuÌ„ dâ—ues plenissimè in Ecclesiae contuleruÌ„t omnia quae sunt veritatis the Apostles haue layd vp in the Church as in a rich treasury all things that belong to the truth but how they haue laid the same vp in the Church he hath before expressed Å¿ Ibid. cap. 1. The Gospell which they first preached they after by the will of God deliuered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith Thus then the Church is the treasury of truth by hauing the Scriptures which are the oracles of all truth His last authoritie is taken from the words of S. Iohn which he vseth in his two latter Epistles Hauing many things to write vnto you I would not write with paper and inke but I trust to come vnto you and speake with you mouth to mouth We see S. Iohns words but hard it is to say how we should conclude traditions from them S. Iohn wold write no more to them in that sort or in those Epistles but doth it follow hereof that he would teach them any thing that is not contained in the Scriptures He might haue many things to write vnto them according to the Scriptures and what should leade vs to presume that he should meane it of other things whereof we are taught nothing there In a word what is there in the citing of all these authorities but impudent and shamelesse abusing of ignorant men whilest for a colour he onely setteth them downe and for shame dareth not set downe how that should be inferred that is in question betwixt vs and them But to fill vp the measure of this illusion he goeth on yet further and by way of specification asketh Where is it written that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father or that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne as well as from the Father or that there is a Trinitie that is three persons really distinct in one and the very same substance or that there is in Christ the substance of God and man subsisting in one second person of the Trinitie Absurd wilful wrangler where was it written which Christ said t Luke 24.46 Thus it is written and thus it behoued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his name amongst all nations Where is it written in the Prophets which S. Peter alledgeth u Acts 10.43 To him giue all the Prophets witnes that through his name all that beleeue in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes Where doe Moses and the Prophets say that which Saint Paul sayth x Ibid. 26.22.23 they do say that Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead and should shew light to the people and to the Gentiles To come nearer to him he hath told vs before that the articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures But where is it written in the Scriptures that we should beleeue in God the Father almightie maker of heauen and earth or that we should beleeue in the holy Ghost or that there is a holy Catholike Church a communion of Saints I will say as he saith here Be not all these things necessary to be beleeued and yet not one of them in expresse termes written in any part of the holy Bible He will say that though they be not there written in expresse termes yet in effect and substance they are written there and are thereby to be declared and prooued and so he will verifie the words of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles Peter and Paul in those citations of Moses and the Prophets Wizard and are not those other articles then written in the Scriptures because they are not written in expresse termes Did not the Fathers conceiue all those points of faith from the Scriptures and by the Scriptures make proofe of them Is it not the rule of their owne schooles which I haue before mentioned out of Thomas Aquinas that y Supra sect 12. concerning God nothing is to be said but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures What are we maintainers of traditions in saying that faith onely iustifieth that Christ onely is our Mediator to the Father that Saints are not to be inuocated nor their images to be worshipped because these things are no where written in expresse termes Let it not offend thee gentle Reader that I be moued to see a lewd man labouring by vaine cauillations to sophisticate and delude those that are not able to vnderstand his cosinage and fraud It is the cause of God and who can beare it patiently that the soules which Christ hath bought should be intoxicated with such charmes We do not say that nothing is to be beleeued but what is written in the Scriptures in expresse termes but we say that nothing is to be beleeued but what either is expressed in the Scriptures or may be proued thereby and therefore in oppugning traditions we oppugne onely such doctrines of faith as neither are expressed in the Scriptures nor can be proued by the Scriptures Let M. Bishop proue their traditions by the Scriptures and we will not reiect them for vnwritten traditions but will receiue them for written truth But of this see what hath bene said before in the twelfth section of this question and in the eleuenth section of the answer to his Epistle to the King 21. W. BISHOP The sixt and last reason for traditions Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely if then it be put to euery Christian to take their owne exposition euery seuerall sect wil coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shal the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an instrument to confirme all errors To auoide which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the traditions and auncient records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true exposition and sence of it and thereby confute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy commentaries so that for the vnderstanding
epistles do faithfully report the traditions of the Apostles But what tradition it was that Irenaeus meant wil appeer by that that is cited in the next place concerning Polycarpus who M. Bishop sayth by the Apostles words receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretickes Let his author speake and let the Reader iudge how honestly he dealeth in this citation The words are the words of Irenaeus of whom Eusebius reporteth that in certaine speeches against Florinus the hereticke he saith of himselfe hauing bene with Polycarpus when he was very yong g Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. ca. 18. Commemorare queaÌ„ sermones eius quos fecit ad multitudineÌ„ quomodo se cum Ioanne ac reliquis qui DominuÌ„ viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit sermones ecruÌ„ memorauerit quae ex illis de Domino audierant de virtutibus eius doctrina tanquaÌ„ ex ijs qui ipsi verbuÌ„ vitae viderant et cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recensuerit I remember the sermons that he made to the people and how he told that he had bene conuersant with Iohn and others that saw the Lord and mentioned their speeches and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and concerning his miracles and doctrine as receiued from them who themselues had seene the Word of life and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures Here was then the tradition of Polycarpus containing nothing else but according to the Scripture As touching the tradition that h See the Answer to the Epistle sect 11. Irenaeus speaketh of it hath bene before shewed that it containeth nothing else but the elementall articles of Christian faith for the auouching whereof he was forced to appeale to the tradition and successiue doctrine of the Church because he had to do with heretickes that refused the triall of the Scriptures He saith rightly that if nothing had bene written we must haue rested vpon Tradition but because God knew that Tradition was too vncertaine and weake a meanes for preseruation of truth therefore as he hath before said the Apostles deliuered the Gospel which they preached in writing and that by the will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our faith In a word when he saith What if the Apostles had not writteÌ„ any thing at all must we not then haue followed the order of tradition he intimateth that now that they haue written we are to follow that which they haue written for the certaintie assurance of our faith He forceth the order of tradition in this sort vpon the heretiks because by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but the matters whereof he treateth are cleerly taught therein as euery where he sheweth throughout his whole booke His next allegation is vaine and childish Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by tradition to baptize infants whereas Bellarmine himselfe proueth it to be necessary by the Scriptures as I haue shewed i Sect 12. before That of Athanasius is as little to the purpose as all the rest The thing that he hath in hand in the k Athanas lib. Quòd Nicena synod u congruis pijs verbis decreta sua super Ariana haeresi exposuerit booke cited is to giue a reason of the decree of the Nicene Councell that the Sonne of God is of the same substance with the Father He sheweth that the Fathers there assembled determined it by the Scriptures Constantine also so directing them as we haue seene before The matter was so cleared as that the heretickes for shame were content to subscribe to that which was concluded vpon Yet he declareth that afterwards they fell to cauilling that the words whereby the Councell expressed their meaning were not found in the Scriptures that they deuised them of themselues and that none of the former Fathers had vsed the same He answereth that l Cognoscet quisquis est studiosioris animi has voces tamitsi in Scripturis non reperiantur habere tamen eas eam sententiam quâ—m Scripturae volunt hoc ipsum sonaere c. Whosoeuer is of a studious mind or desirous to learne will know that those words though they be not found in the Scriptures yet haue the same meaning which the Scriptures intend and do signifie the very same Further against their other cauil he sheweth by diuers places alledged that the Fathers of former times had vsed the same words and maner of speech as the Councell did Hereupon he concludeth m Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiaÌ„ à patribus ad patres quasi per manâ—â— traditaÌ„ esse Vos autem nouâ— Iudeâ— Cataphaeque discipuli quos verboruÌ„ vestroruÌ„ patreâ—ac maiores demonstraâ—uâ— Behold we shew that this sentence hath bene deliuered from fathers to fathers as it were from hand to hand but O you new Iewes and sons of Caiphas what fathers or auncesters will ye shew vs for your termes Now shall not we thinke that M. Bishop hath here brought vs a stout proofe for traditions vnwritten and doctrines beside the Scripture Euen as if we should say to M. Bishop and his fellowes Behold we shew you that which we say of the sufficiencie of the Scriptures deliuered from fathers to fathers euen as it were from hand to hand and he should herupon cite vs for witnesses of their traditions As much wit should he shew in this as he now doth in that The place of Basil is answered at large n Sect. 16. before He further referreth vs to the first oration of o Greg Naziâ—n contra Julian erat 1. Doctrina nostra insigâ—â—reÌ„ videus ob ecclesiae figuras quas traditioâ—e acceptas in hunc vsque dieÌ„ seruaâ—â—mus c. Idem hic cogit 〈◊〉 scholas in omnibus ciuitatibus extruere parabat sacraria se desque partim altiores partim depressiores prophaâ—â—â—um dogmatum lectiones â—xplicationes instituere tum precaâ—oâ—um alternatim caâ—â—â—arum fâ—rmam c. Gregorie Nazianzen against Iulian but was ashamed to set downe any words of his because the matters of tradition that he there mentioneth amongst the Christians which Iulian the Apostata apishly would resemble in his Paganisme were schools and formes higher and lower lectures hospitals monasteries companies of virgins singing by turnes and such other matters of external order and discipline in the Church and what are these to prooue traditions that is matters of doctrine not contained in the Scriptures We admit almost all those things which he there speaketh of and yet we condemne traditions in that sence as we here make question of them Surely M. Bishops traditions are in a miserable case that in all antiquity can find no better foundations wherupon to build them A man would not thinke that in so serious a matter he would so trifle as he hath done bringing not one place in any sort appliable to his purpose but only that of Basill
to vnderstand that there shall be a triall of the worke of euery builder whereby losse shall growe to them who are not carefull to build such matter as is proportionable to the foundation Hee therefore that buildeth gold and siluer and precious stones that is true faith and doctrine according to Christ his worke shall abide the triall of the word of truth and his labour shall haue reward But if any man build vpon Christ timber hay and stubble that is the trash of humane traditions and superstitions the fire that is y Chrysost de panitent hom 8. Igne examinemus verbo scilicet doctrina the word of Doctrine as Chrysostome expoundeth it shall consume it by the word of the Gospell that which he hath builded shall be reprooued and reiected and hee shall lose both his labour and reward This is the very direct and plaine meaning of the Apostles wordes fully agreeing with the circumstance of the text But Maister Bishop perforce and against the haire draweth the text to be construed of workes and like to a sorie husband who for a penny present gaine neglecteth a shilling profit another way for the gaining of a present small aduantage is content to bereaue himselfe of that that should steede him much more in another cause For whereas they are woont generally to alledge this place and to expound the fire here spoken of for the maintenance of Purgatorie fire he for a shift here turneth Purgatorie fire into the fornace of Gods iudgement and so striketh downe a maine pillar of the Popes Kitchin and endaungereth z Act. 17.25 the craft whereby he and his fellowes haue their goods Surely if Purgatorie fire doe not burne here it is hard to say how they will get it a chimney wherein to burne any otherwhere But to the point it hath beene alreadie shewed that there is no golde or siluer of our vvorkes vvherein there is not found some drosse if triall be made thereof in the fornace of Gods iudgement no stones so precious wherein the Ieweller of heauen doth not finde speckes and flawes if he precisely take view of them so that a Aug Confess lib. 9. ca. 13. Va etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota miserecordia discutias â—am woe to the commendable life of man saith S. Austine if God set mercy aside in the iudging of it and therefore all pray that God will not enter into iudgement with them The gold notwithstanding and siluer and pretious stones which we build in our good workes through Gods mercy shall abide and haue their glory the drosse thereof the fire of repentance shall consume whilest we aske and obtaine of him pardon and forgiuenesse of all our imperfections and wants of all that timber and hay and stubble of carnall and earthly affections with the dust whereof our feet haue bene soiled and berayed in walking the path of the faith of Christ Yea he that b Mat. 3.11 baptizeth his with the holy Ghost and with fire wil by this fire purge from vs and our works this drosse and corruption more and more till he bring vs out of the fornace as the pure and perfect gold to be glorious before him for euer and euer To be short the fire of Gods iudgement mitigated and asswaged with the water and dew of his mercy shall at that day giue approbation and testimony of righteousnesse to the good workes of his seruants so as that because they are true gold which that fire consumeth not they shall not for some drosse receiue any losse or detriment therein but fully receiue that reward in the hope and expectation whereof they haue laboured in the Lord. Therefore though we would vnderstand these words of the works of holy men as without forcing them we cannot yet is there nothing whence M. Bishop can inferre that which he intendeth that good workes are wholy free from all drosse and staine of sinne As little hath he for his purpose in his next argument Many workes of righteous men please God saith he but nothing infected with sinne can please God Nothing indeed if it be considered as infected with sinne and therefore good works being touched and infected with the contagion of sinne before they can please God must haue some meanes to take away the guilt and imputation of the sinne There was c Exod. 28.38 iniquity in the holy offerings of the children of Israel but the high Priest did beare the iniquity to make the offerings acceptable before the Lord. There is iniquity in our holy offerings our spirituall sacrifices but Christ our High Priest hath borne the iniquitie and they are d 1. Pet. 2.5 acceptable to GOD by Iesus Christ. Not by themselues or by their owne perfection but by Iesus Christ being perfumed with the sweet incense of his obedience who e Ephes 5.2 for vs to make vs acceptable both in our selues and in our workes hath giuen himselfe an offering and a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God Therefore by the pardoning and not imputing of sinne through the redemption of Christ both the person and the worke are pleasing in Gods sight neither is the same to be called a sinfull worke as M. Bishop tearmeth it because it is in substance a good worke and the fruite of the good spirit of God and the default and imperfection is onely an accident to the worke Briefly we are to lay vp in our hearts that which the Prophet saith f Psal 103.13 As a father pitieth his children so is the Lord mercifull vnto them that feare him for he knoweth whereof we be made and remembreth that we are but dust And therefore as a father accepteth the readinesse and obedience of his child to that that he commaundeth though he do the thing perhaps but rawly and rudely so is God pleased through Christ with the good intendment and indeuour of his children for the doing of that that he requireth though by the weaknesse of the flesh much halting and lamenesse and imperfection appeare in that which they do By this appeareth the vanitie of his argument taken from the name of good workes which he saith could not be truly called good if they were infected with sinne For as the offerings were truly called holy offerings in which notwithstanding there was some blot of iniquitie so are the workes of the faithfull truly called good workes in which notwithstanding there is a staine of the same iniquitie and sinne They are good in the substance of the deede good in the originall of the grace and spirit of God from whence they proceed good in the will and indeauour of the person by whom they are done good in the acceptation of God in whose name and seruice they are done but yet they haue a blemish of euill g Ambros apud August contra Iulian. lib. 2. Labes corporeae concretionis by reason of the blot of bodily corruption growing fast too as Ambrose speaketh
standing oracle of a written law to which all men at all times might resort to be informed as touching duty and seruice towards God And as in the creation of the world howsoeuer the light were at first sustained and spread abroad by the incoÌ„prehensible power of God yet when he created the Sun he conueighed the whole light of the world into the body thereof so that though the Moone starres should giue light yet they should shine with no other light but what they receiued from the Sun euen so in the constitution of the Church howsoeuer God at first preserued continued the knowledge of his truth by immediate reuelation from himselfe to some chosen men by whose ministerie he would haue the same coÌ„municated to the rest yet when he gaue his word in writing he conueighed into the body of the Scriptures the whole light of his Church so that albeit there should be Pastours and teachers therein to shine as starres to giue light to others yet they should giue no other light but what by the beames of the written law was cast vpon theÌ„ Which beames albeit they shined not then altogether cleare bright many things being lapped vp in obscure dark mysteries rather signified by figuratiue ceremonies then expressed in plain words yet were they not to walk by any other light nor to go without the coÌ„passe of the writteÌ„ word only what was obscure therin God by his Prophets froÌ„ time to time made more more apparent vntill by Iesus Christ in the writings of his Apostles Euangelists he set vp a most full perfect light Now then in M. Perkins meaning it is true that from Adam to Moses the word of God passed from man to man by tradition that is by word onely not by writing and thus as M. Bishop alledgeth good fathers godly maisters taught their childreÌ„ seruants the true worship of God true faith in him But it is true also which he signifieth in the second place that they whoÌ„ God thus raised vp to be teachers instructours of others receiued not the word only by tradition from others but had reuelation confirmation thereof immediatly from God himselfe Therefore there is no argument to be taken hence to giue any colour to Popish tradition nay we may iustly argue that if God would haue had the religion of Christ to be taught in any part without writing he would haue taken the course which he did then by immediate reuelation to continue and preserue the integritie and truth thereof 2. W. BISHOP His 2. Concl. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one exaÌ„ple he puts that the blessed virgin Mary liued died a virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Helui dius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it * De haeres ad Quod. hae 84. R. ABBOT It is necessary to saluation to beleeue that our Sauiour was conceiued and borne of a virgin We perswade our selues also according to the common iudgement of the Church that she so continued and died but yet we deny it to be any matter of saluation so to beleeue We say as S. Basil doth that a Basil de human Christi generat Hoc nunc suspicionem generat ne forsan posteaquam puritate sua generationi dominicae per spirituÌ„ sanctuÌ„ administratae seruiuit tum demuÌ„ nuptialia opera viro Maria noÌ„ negauerit Nos verò licet nihil hoc doctrinae pretatis â—ffiâ—eret nam donec dispensabatur Christi generatio necessaria erat virginitas quid verò postea sit factuÌ„ ad mysterij huius doctrinam non anxiè coÌ„â—ungenduÌ„ est vâ—runtameÌ„ c. it should be no whit preiudiciall to the doctrine of faith that the virgin Mary after that she had in her virginity serued for the generation of Christ should performe the office of a wife to her husband Her virginity was necessary till the birth of Christ was accoÌ„plished but what was afterwards done is not too scrupulously to be adioined to the doctrine of this mysterie But yet that no man might to the scandall and offence of deuout persons affirme rashly that she ceased to be a virgin he sheweth that the places of the Gospell which seeme to giue suspition thereof do not euict it but may well be construed otherwise And therefore Heluidius for mouing an vnnecessary question hereof to giue occasion of publike disturbance and for affirming rashly that which he had no warrant sufficiently to proue was iustly condemned reiected by the Church neither can we approue any thâ—t shall do as he did 3. W. BISHOP His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances and Traditions touching time place of Gods worship And touching order comlinesse to be vsed in the same mary with these foure caneats First that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd See what a reuerent opinion this man carieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Sinagogue which is no part of the true Church Secondly that it be not imposed as any part of Gods worship This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comelinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship Thirdly that it be seuered froÌ„ superstition c. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seuered from superstition The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he termeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knowes that then which is of record there cannot be termed a Tradition R. ABBOT The cautions set downe by M. Perkins are materiall necessary against the vsurpations of the Church of Rome which hauing forsaken the direction of the spirit of God in the word of God is now led by a 1. Kings 22.23 a lying spirit by b 1. Tim. 4.1 spirits of errour and therefore in her ordinances and traditions swarueth from the grauity and wisedome of the holy Ghost The ceremonies of the Masse are apish and ridiculous toies whereby in that which Christ instituted for a most sacred and reuerend action they make the Priest more like to a iugler or to a vice vpon the stage in his duckings and turnings his kissings crossings his lifting vp and letting downe his putting together the forefinger the
this is all they can say out of the Scripture to proue that the written word containes al doctrine needful to saluation whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them out of their owne position Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation as hath bene proued Therefore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation R. ABBOT Here is a long discourse and a little answer and gladly M. Bishop would wind out of this sentence of the Apostle and it will not be The whole words of the Apostle entirely set downe will make the Reader plainly to vnderstand that he hath taken a great deale of paines and sayd iust nothing Speaking to Timothie he sayth a 2. Tim. 3.15 Thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures of a child which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be perfect being perfectly instructed to euery good worke The first part of which words do sufficiently inferre that which we affirme for if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then they are sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō If they be not sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō then can it not be said that they are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The force of these words cannot be deluded euery eye can see that if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then all doctrine necessary to faith and saluation is contained in the Scriptures Now for confirmation hereof the Apostle addeth The whole Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to teach the truth to improue false doctrine error to correct vice and sinne to instruct in righteousnes From hence then we must infer that which before is said that because the Scripture is able to direct a man in truth and righteousnesse therefore it is able to make him wise vnto saluation by faith in Christ for in the embracing and following of truth and righteousnesse consisteth the attainment of euerlasting life If any man will except and say that though it teacheth the truth yet it teacheth not all truth necessarie to saluation he wholly ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation For if it doe not teach all truth necessarie to saluation then it is notable to make a man wise to saluation It may be said to helpe towards it but it cannot be said to be able to do it if it containe not all things belonging to that wisedome that concerneth vs for the obtaining of saluation But the Apostle telleth vs that it so doth the things by him mentioned as that the man of God may be absolute or perfect * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfectly instructed or being furnished and prepared to euery good worke The man of God is well knowne by the phrase of Scripture to import the minister of God in which sort the Apostle hath before said to Timothie b 1. Tim. 6.11 But thou O man of God flie these things c. Here therfore he giueth to vnderstand that the Scripture is so able to make wise vnto saluation so able to instruct in truth and righteousnesse as that therein the man of God the minister of God findeth enough to make him perfect and to prepare and furnish him to euery good worke And if there be enough for the perfection of the minister of God then surely it must needs follow that much more is it able to perfect euery other man to that faith and righteousnesse that should bring vs vnto God But here M. Bishop putteth vs off with three wise answers by which he wold faine perswade vs that we altogether erre in the citing of these words First he chargeth vs with falsification of the text because we reade the whole Scripture whereas we should say all Scripture the Greek words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing as he saith the whole Scripture but euery part But why is this on our part a falsification more then it is in the Rhemists to translate according to their vulgar interpreter c Math. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole heard d Ver 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole citie e Ephes 4.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body and in their Latine f Heb. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per totum vitam through their whole life which they English through all their life If there be no falshood in these translations why must there needs be a falsification in ours Yea and when it is all one with them to say their whole life and all their life why must it be a fault in vs to say the whole Scripture where they say all Scripture Surely but that malice blindeth it selfe and wil not see that that it doth see they would conceiue that all Scripture in this place can no otherwise be taken but to signifie the whole Scripture euen as elsewhere by g Acts 20.72 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the counsell of God we vnderstand the whole counsell of God in like sort as where it is said h Gen. 18.25 Qui iudicas omnem terram Thou which iudgest all the earth that is the whole earth i Chap. 35 2. Conuocata omni domo calling together all his house that is his whole house k Exod. 12.41 Egressus est omnis exercitus Domini de terra Aegypti All the army of the Lord departed out of the land of Aegypt that is the whole army l Chap. 17.1 Profecta est omnis multitudo filiorum Israel All the multitude of the children of Israel went out of the desert of Sin that is the whole multitude m Leuit 8.3 Congregabis omnem coetum Israel Thou shalt gather together all the congregation of Israel that is the whole congregation with infinite other examples of the like sort And seeing the Apostle when in the propositiō the Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation must needs be vnderstood to meane collectiuè the whole Scripture because it cannot be said of euery part of the Scripture that it is able so to do what is it but wilfull dotage to vnderstand all Scripture as meant otherwise in the proofe Especially when it is so apparent that that which the Apostle affirmeth in the proofe fitteth to the whole Scripture and so inferreth that which is propounded to be proued but cannot agree to euery part of the Scripture because
euery part of the Scripture is not profitable to all those vses to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnesse He will say that those vses are not all ioyntly to be vnderstood but by disiunction euery part is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse though it be not profitable to all these But in thus saying he quite ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation for it doth not follow that because euery part of the Scripture is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse therefore the Scriptures are able to make a man wise to saluation because that may be said of the first chapter of Genesis or any other like that it is profitable either to teach or to improue or to correct or to instruct in righteousnesse that is to one or other of these vses and yet it cannot be said that it is able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is Christ Iesus Therefore the words of the Apostle must be vnderstood of the whole scripture which being able to teach to improue c. is consequently able to make a man wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ And hereby his other cauill is taken away that we make that to be all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onely to be profitable For the Apostle nameth not profitable as to diminish any thing frō sufficiencie but reckoning it to be profitable to all those vses that he expresseth he leaueth it plainly to be vnderstood that it is sufficient to that that he would conclude thereby For vnlesse it be in such sort profitable as that it be sufficient to teach to improue to correct to instruct it cannot be able to make a man wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Therefore Athanasius alluding as it seemeth to this place sayth n Athan. contra Gentes siue cont idola Sufficiunt quidem per se sacra diuinitùs inspiratae Scriptura ad veritatis instructionem The Scriptures being holy and inspired of God are by themselues sufficient to the instruction of truth M. Bishops instances therefore are friuolous and vaine Timber is profitable for the building of a house but it is not profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of a house and therfore is not sufficient But the Apostle noteth the Scripture to be profitable for all those vses that concerne the building of the house of God and because it is so therefore it is sufficient for that building The second is against himselfe for although there must be one to sow the seede yet the seed it selfe is sufficient wherewith to sow the ground and euen so although there must be one to teach to improue to correct to instruct yet the holy Scripture is sufficient wherewith to do all these Thirdly good lawes are profitable saith he for the good gouernement of the Common-wealth but they are not sufficient without good gouerners and iudges And be lawes neuer so sufficient for the common-wealth yet they auaile nothing without gouerners and iudges seruing to put them in execution Euen so we say that albeit the holy scriptures do sufficiently instruct vs what doctrine is to be taught yet all is vaine if there be none to teach it But what a witles cauill is this that when question is of the doctrine of the Scriptures whether it be so sufficient as that they which teach are to teach no other they obiect that the doctrine of the scripures is not sufficient without one to teach We tell him therefore againe that as where lawes are sufficient to gouerne by good gouerners and iudges being necessary for execution thereof are to iudge and gouerne onely by lawes so the doctrine of the holy Scriptures being sufficient to teach by though teachers be necessary for the teaching thereof yet they are to teach nothing but onely by the Scripture and therein onely is it that we affirme the sufficiency of the Scripture But in humane lawes that sufficiencie is neuer found they neuer fit all occasions and vses of the common wealth neuer meete with all inconueniences and mischiefes neuer determine all controuersies and causes neuer prouide so perfectly for the right but that it prooueth to some mans wrong and therefore though they be profitable yet they are not profitable euery manner of way In the holy Scripture the Apostle teacheth vs it is otherwise it serueth vs for all occasions towards God there is nothing that concerneth vs but either by teaching or reprouing or correcting or instructing it applieth it selfe vnto vs o Cypriā de dupl martyr Nullus est animorum morbus cui non praesens remediū diuina scripturae suppeditat There is no sicknesse of the mind saith Cyprian referring himselfe to these words of the Apostle to which the holy Scripture yeeldeth not a present remedy p Chrysost in 2. Thes hom 3. Omnia clara sūt manifesta ex scripturis diuinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt All things are euident and cleare saith Chrysostome by the holy Scriptures whatsoeuer things aye necessary they are manifest The scriptures therefore are in such sort profitable as that they are sufficicient also fully to instruct vs as touching the meanes of obtaining eternall life As for customes they may haue their place and vse amongst the lawes of men but amongst the lawes of God they haue no place q Cypr li. 2. ep 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est nō est attendendum quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Because Christ onely is to be heard saith Cyprian we are not to regard what any before vs hath thought fit to be done but what Christ first did who is before all for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God r Tertul. de verlā virg Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem cognominauit Christ sath Tertullian called not himselfe custome but truth M. Bishop therefore dealeth but idlely to alledge the exorbitant and lawlesse customes of cōmonwealths as a colour for traditions in the church of Christ His last exception is that the Scriptures here spoken of which Timothie knew from his infancie could be no other but the scriptures of the old Testament because no part of the new Testament was then written and therefore that that is here said cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more then the old Testament charging vs hereupon with falsification in applying it to both the old and new Where the vaine man doth not see that he exceedingly strengtheneth the argument against himself for if S. Paul could say that the scriptures of the old Testament were able to make a man wise vnto saluation by the faith of Christ how much more is
any thing but by Scripture they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition but only by Scripture Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be if there were Tradition beside the Scripture We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deliuered by tradition in former times But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions deluding the eyes of the simple with shadows and empty colours maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it In that that we say is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago r Hieron in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedicabant legis prophetarū vocibus comprobarūt Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets wherof it followeth against M. Bishop that they taught no doctrine by tradition but only by the scriptures As for his questions wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching c. I answer him first with the like question where had Moses the story of the creation of the world and the knowledge of those things which God in * Gen. 11.6 18.17.20 sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe I suppose he wil answer that he receiued the same from him that made the world from him that was the author of those speeches So say we that Mathew learned the worshipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they worshipped he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whō Iohn Baptist preached He learned his Gospell as Paul did who saith of himself ſ Gal. 1.12 Neither receiued I it of man neither was I taught it but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ As touching the Gospel of S. Mark Eusebius reporteth that the faithfull t Euseb hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran◠illis semel audita nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diuinae praedicationis doctrina sed Marcum omnigena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo traditā accepissent literis comprehensos relinquerent nec destiterunt donec viro persuaserint c. Aiunt autem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti factum hoc cognonisset delectatū esse virorum istorū voluntate scriptum hoc Euangelium Ecclesius ad legendū authoritate suae confirmasse who had heard the preaching of S. Peter not thinking that sufficient nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word and ceased not till they had perswaded him thereto Now they say saith he that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost ioyed much in the desire of those men and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church Now this story is well worthy to be obserued The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing to that purpose they intreate Mark the scholer and follower of Peter the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost Peter acknowledgeth so much and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tradition S. Luke wrote his storie u Luke 1.2 as they deliuered who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word they x 2. Cor. 13.3 in whom Christ spake and whose word was y 1. Thess 2 13. the word of God the word of the preaching of God Yea and what he wrote he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost because as S. Paul telleth vs z 2. Tim. 3.16 all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and as of prophecie so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand that a 2. Pet. 1.21 it came not by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost b August de consens Euangel lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripserunt quae ille ostendit dixit nequaquam dicendum est quôd ipse no scripserit quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt Quicquid enira ille de suis factis dictis nos legere volun hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit When the disciples wrote saith S. Austin what Christ shewed said vnto thē it is not to be said that he did not write because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same Now therefore the Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions that is vpon report from man to man but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning The word originally may import any thing that is deliuered howsoeuer either by word or writing Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs it may in this sort be called Gods tradition because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell c Cyprian lib. 2. epist 3. Adradicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae reuertatur In calice dominico offerendo custodire tradiotionis dominicae veritatem the originall of the Lords tradition and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered as before was said But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and indifferent signification of any thing that is deliuered yet in our disputation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering by word and relation onely and not by Scripture and therefore where Irenaeus saith d Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Euangeliū nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt he that should translate as M. Bishop doth they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction and confoundeth them both in one Now then the question
Church Now then the testimony of the present Church is made of equall like authority with the holy Scriptures and Bellarmine is in as pitifull a case as M. Bishop is For the testimonie of the present Church what is it but the testimony of the learned of the present Church therfore now the mindes of the learned are as good an oracle of truth as the Scriptures are If this be not so let vs heare from M. Bishop what else is to be said hereof for if traditions be to be receiued with like deuotion reuerence as those things that we are taught in Scripture then there must be somewhat or other to commend the same vnto vs with the like authority as the Scripture doth the rest and what that is we are desirous to vnderstand Now M. Bishop addeth two further exceptions against M. Perkins argument and they are such wise ones as that we may very well think them to be his own Secondly saith he they are commonly recorded of more then one of the fathers and so haue firmer testimonie then any one of their writings But what is this to M. Perkins his speech which is not restrained to any one of the fathers writings but taketh them iointly and inferreth it as an absurdity that the writings of the fathers being taken all together should be made equall in credit to the holy Scriptures Thirdly saith he a tradition being related but by one auncient father yet should be of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a matter of more estimation But what idle babling is this what maketh this to the clearing of the point in question He will haue vs to receiue traditions with the like pietie and reuerence as we doe those things that we are instructed by the Scripture He putteth a case of a tradition reported by one onely of the fathers He should hereupon haue answered how we can in that sort admit of such a tradition as Apostolicall but by yeelding the like credit to that one father as we do to the holy Scriptures But he like a man in a wood that knoweth not which way he is to go telleth vs that this tradition is of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because it was registred by him as a matter of more estimation O the sharpe wits of these Romish Doctours that can diue so deepe into matters and talke so profoundly that they themselues vnderstand not what they say To as little purpose is that which he addeth that if that tradition were not as it was termed some of the rest of the fathers would haue reproued it which when they did not they gaue it their interpretative consent to be Apostolicall tradition But let the consent be either interpretatiue or expresse what is this against the consequence of the argument which he taketh vpon him to answer that if we must receiue traditions in that sort as they require vs and haue no where to ground them but vpon the testimonie of the fathers then we must giue as much credit to the testimonie of the fathers as we do to the holy Scriptures I am forced thus odiously to inculcate the matter in question to make the ridiculous folly of this wrangler the more plainely to appeare who hauing nothing to say yet hath not so much wit as to hold his peace In this simplicity he goeth forward to answere the place of the Acts where Saint Paule is brought in saying c Acts. 26.22 I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come In which words it is plaine that the Apostle professed in the preaching of the Gospell * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to say nothing without the compasse of those things which had beene before spoken by Moses and the Prophets M Bishop answereth that he meaneth onely of those things which he addeth That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead c. For these things saith he euidently foretold in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe Yea but what other proofe doth he vse for any other doctrine Forsooth when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles taught them to keepe them Yea but Paul preached a long while before those decrees of the Apostles were made as appeareth frō his conuersion in the ninth Chapter to the fifteenth Chapter where those decrees are made and all this while what other proofe did he vse but onely the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Do we not thinke that this man hath wonderfully hardened both his heart to God and his face to men that can apply himselfe to write in this sort He well knoweth that the question is not here of new decrees but of old traditions what proofe the Apostle had or what ground of doctrine from the old testament but onely the Scriptures of the law and the Prophets The Apostle himselfe saith he had no other he taught nothing but according to the written bookes of the old testament according to that which elsewhere he saith that d Rom. 16.26 the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets For a summarie briefe thereof he nameth the suffering and resurrection of Christ c. but he that saith that herewith he preached any thing but what was warranted by Moses and the Prophets maketh him to dally and to speake a manifest vntruth in that he saith that he spake nothing without the compasse of those things which Moses and the Prophets prophecied before Now the wise man for instance against this telleth vs that he deliuered the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them Which beside that it is nothing to the purpose as hath bene said doth also set forth his notable sillinesse and folly in that for proofe of traditions and doctrines vnwritten he bringeth the example of the Apostles decrees which are expresly mentioned to haue bene sent to the Churches in writing e Acts. 15.23 They wrote letters by them after this manner c. But in the height of his wisedome he goeth forward to proue the same by another speech When he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with tradition saying I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth Surely the mans head was wonderfull quaifie in the writing hereof or else we must thinke that he was in some traunce I deliuer vnto you not in writing but by word of mouth when notwithstanding in his Epistle he sendeth it to them in writing Or what doth he meane that the Apostle receiued it of our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth But what is that to the purpose when he deliuered
and skill in discerning did teach so testifieth S. Augustine * Lib. 32. cap. 2. Contra Faust Some would haue had but one of the foure Gospels some fiue some sixe some seauen some reiected all S. Paules Epistles many and those of the faithfull did not admit for Canonicall some of the other Apostles Epistles nor the Reuelations If then the diuine foresight of our Sauiour had not preuented this most foule inconueniencie by instituting a more certaine meanes of discerning and declaring which bookes were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost which not then by leauing it vnto euery mans discretion he might be thought to haue had but slender care of our saluation which euery true Christian heart doth abhorre to thinke and therefore we must needs admit of this most holy and prouident Tradition of them from hand to hand as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prolegomenis and also Kemnitius handling the second kind of Traditions in his examination of the Councell of Trent albeit they reiect all other Traditions besides this one R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins here saith hath his proper vse in the ordinarie receiuing of the scriptures in a Christian Church where being from our infancie baptized into Christ and bred vp in the continuall noise and sound of the word of God and hauing by this meanes some seedes of the spirit of God sowed in our hearts we simply and without controuersie or question take the scriptures presuming vpon the record of the Church and beleeuing them to be that which they are said to be that is the booke of God and in this perswasion applying our selues to the reading of them and finding therein a spirit so different from the spirit of man so great a maiestie in so great simplicitie and all things so correspondent to those shadowes of truth and righteousnesse which a Rom. 2.14.15 the worke of the law written naturally in our hearts and confirmed by light of education do represent vnto vs we resolue and fully do beleeue them to be that that at the first we presumed of them the oracles of God the words of saluation and eternall life hauing an inward testimonie and conuiction to draw from vs the assent vnmoueably to ground vs in the assurance thereof This seemeth to Master Bishop to be no wise obseruation but the reason is because he himselfe is scarcely wise When he hath said all that he can say yet this must stand for good that there is nothing that can cause the heart of man sufficiently to apprehend that the Scriptures are the word of God till the Scripture it selfe in the conscience by the spirit do euict it selfe so to be And herein it is true which Origen saith that b Origen de princip lib. 4. c. 1. Siquis cum omni studio reuerētia qua dignum est Prophetica dicta consideret in eo ipso dum legit diligentius intuetur cerium est quod aliquo diuiniore spiramine mentem sensumque pulsatus agnoscet non humanitùs esse prolatos eos quos legit sed Dei esse sermones ex semetipso sentiet non humana arte nec mortals eloquio sed diuino vt ita dixerim cothurno esse conscriptos he who with all diligence and reuerence as is meete shal consider the words of the Prophets it is certaine that in the reading and diligent viewing thereof hauing his mind and vnderstanding knocked at by a diuine inspiration he shall know that the words which he readeth were not vttered by man but are the words of God and of himselfe shall perceiue that those bookes were written not by humane art not by the word of mortall man but by a maiestie diuine In a word as the Sunne when a man is brought into the light of it not by telling but by sight and by it owne light is discerned to be that that giueth light vnto the world so the Scripture which is as it were the chariot of c Aug. in Psal 80. Est in Scripturis nostris sol iustitiae sanitas in pēnis eius the Sunne of righteousnesse when a man is brought into the sight thereof euen by it owne light is discerned to be that that ministreth vnto vs the light of euerlasting life Now the spirit of discerning of which M. Perkins speaketh is not to be vnderstood of that speciall gift of d 1. Cor 12.10 discerning spirits mētioned by S. Paul which importeth a singular and eminent dexterity in spying and finding out the secret fraudes and deceipts of counterfeit teachers and false Apostles but the cōmon spirit of the faithfull e 1. Cor. 2.12 which we receiue as the Apostle saith that we may know the things that are giuen vnto vs of God whereby it is true which our Sauiour saith f Iohn 10.27 My sheepe heare my voyce and they follow me g Ver. 4.5 they know the shepheards voice and they will not follow a stranger but they flie from him for they know not the voice of straungers h Ver. 14. I know mine and am knowne of mine Againe he saith i Cap. 7.17 If any man will do his wil he shal know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my selfe Whereby he teacheth vs that in applying our selues to learne and practise the will of God we attaine to discerne the doctrine to be of God And herein consisteth that k Col. 1.9 spirituall vnderstanding which the Apostle recommendeth generally to the faithfull in his prayer for the Colossians the vse whereof is l Phil. 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to discerne things that differ namely from the truth and m 1. Iohn 4.1 to try the spirits whether they be of God or not Now the spirit as it vseth the ministery of the Church for the deliuering of the books of scripture so it vseth the ministery of the Church to giue aduertisement of those bookes which haue not the like authoritie as the Scripture hath And this aduertisement it sealeth and confirmeth whilest hauing testified otherwhere the vndoubted doctrine of God we discerne thereby some doctrines in those bookes that are of another stampe and not correspondent to the rest For when they are in any part found to be of another spirit we conceiue of the whole that they were written with another pen and therefore albeit for the most part they cary the sauour and tast of those things which we reade in the other bookes yet in their defects we fully apprehend that which we haue bene told that they are not of like maiestie and authoritie with the rest and though we may profitably reade them for those things wherin they are deriued from the other yet that we cannot securely ground any doctrine immediatly vpon them In this simplicitie without further question many thousands receiue the Scriptures they read them and by the power of the holy Ghost they grow thereby to faith and spiritual
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
thou shalt find in it the marrow and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrow roome And reade it ouer as it becometh a good Christian with a desire to find out and to follow the truth because it concerneth thy eternall saluation and then iudge without partialitie whether Religion hath better grounds in Gods word more euident testimony from the purest antiquitie and is more conformable vnto all godlinesse good life and vpright dealing the infallible marks of the best Religion and spedily embrace that Before I end this short preface I must intreate thy patience to beare with the faults in printing which are too too many but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered that it was printed farre from the Author with a Dutch composer and ouer seene by an vnskilfull Corrector the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the booke Before the printing of this part was finished I heard that M. Perkins was dead I am sorte that it commeth forth too late to do him any good Yet his worke liuing to poyson others a preseruatiue against it is neuer the lesse necessary R. ABBOT IF you had respected the glorie of God M. Bishop it should haue appeared by your respect to yeeld soueraigne honour and authoritie to the word of God God is in heauen and we are vpon the earth we haue no knowledge of him no acquaintance or dealing with him but by his word Therein we seeke him and find him therein he speaketh vnto vs and thereout we learne to speake to him If we haue the word of God God is present with vs if we be without the word of God God himselfe is absent from vs. Therefore by our honour and obedience to the word of God it must appeare that we truly and sincerely intend and seeke for the glorie of God Hereby it appeareth that you M. Bishop in this your booke haue not fought for the glorie of God but rather to glorifie a Extrauag Ioan 12. Cū inter in glossa Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam sic non potuisse statuere c. haereticum censeretur your Lord God the Pope as your Glosse of the Canon law most blasphemously hath stiled him You haue in this worke of yours vsed all maner of vntruth and falshood to vphold and iustifie his wicked proceedings against the word of God Whatsoeuer God hath taught vs whatsoeuer Christ and his Apostles haue deliuered all is nothing if your Lord God the Pope and your master Bellarmine his proctor generall do say the contrary Howsoeuer simply and plainly they speake yet they meane not as they speake if the Pope and Bellarmine will tell you another meaning As for your talent we take it to be greater in your owne opinion and the opinion of your fellowes then it is indeed But whatsoeuer it is you haue abused it to the wrong of him that gaue it not to edification but to destruction not to fortifie any in the faith but to nourish and harden them that depend vpon you in error and misbeleefe not to leade any into the right way but to intice men to b Prou. 2.15 crooked wayes and leud paths which c Ch. 7.27 go downe to the chambers of death and the end whereof is confusion and shame not to withdraw men from fancies but to draw them to other fancies from fancies in conuersation to fancies in religion that so being fed wholy with fancies they may perish in the end for want of true food And indeed men that wander in fancies are the subiect for your malice and trechery to work vpon Many that liue in the oportunitie of the knowledge of Christ yet neglect and despise the same The light shineth into their eyes and they regard it not God offereth himselfe vnto them and they say in their hearts We haue no delight nor pleasure in thee Therefore being emptie and voide of truth they lie open to be filled with error and lies and hauing vnthankfully withholden themselues from God God by iust iudgement giueth them ouer to the hands of impostors and deceiuers that it may be verified which the Apostle saith d 2. Thess 2 1◠Because they receiued not the loue of the truth that they might be saued therefore God shall send them strong delusion that they may beleeue lies that they may be damned which beleeued not the truth but tooke pleasure in vnrighteousnesse Your friend of good intelligence and iudgement that thought it very expedient that you should take in hand the confutation of M. Perkins booke spake thereof haply as Caiphas did of the death of Christ meaning it one way which was to fall out another way I doubt not but it will fall out to haue bene very expedient which you haue done because you giue hereby occasion of discouering your false doctrine and of iustifying the truth of Christ which M. Perkins was carefull to maintaine I doubt not but many by this occasion will take knowledge of your corrupt and trecherous dealing your patching and shifting your cosening and deluding of men and will discerne the weaknesse and absurdity of that bad cause which with glorious and goodly words you labour so highly to aduance As for your commendation of M. Perkins booke it is but the imitation of some vaine-glorious captains who to grace their owne victories do set out to the vttermost the aduersaries power and prowesse thinking their glory to be the greater by how much the greater men shall conceiue the might and valour of them to haue bene whom they haue ouercome You dreamed of a victorie here and you thought it to be much for your commendation that your aduersary should be deemed of as great strength as any is to be found amongst vs. But we would haue you to vnderstand that the Church of England neuer tooke M. Perkins booke to be a warriour in complete harnesse or a chalenger for the field but onely as a captaine training his souldiers at home where he wanteth much of that munition and defence wherewith he should endure the brunt of battell He wrote it very schollerlike indeed for an introduction onely to the true vnderstanding and iudgement of the controuersies betwixt vs and you but knew well that it wanted much that might haue bene added to giue it ful and perfect strength You haue taken hereof some aduantage as you conceiue and yet how pitifully are you distressed many times both to vphold that which he obiecteth for you and to answer that which he alledgeth for vs. Now if for the compiling of his booke he bestirred himselfe as the Bee going into other mens gardens for the gathering of hony into his hiue yet he made no Rabbines of them to take any thing for hony because it grew in the garden of such or such a man but vsed carefull and aduised consideration of that which he wrote esteeming the weight of his arguments and of his answers that he might
by faith only In which sence the Apostle S. Tim. 4. Paul sayth to his deare Disciple Timothie For this doing thou shalt saue both thy selfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiours infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith only good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be proued hereafter more as large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may stood them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God saith That for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shew mercy to thousands as is expresly said in the end of the first Commandement In like manner I answer vnto your third instance that for Christ to haue taken away by his blessed Passion the eternall paine due vnto our sinnes and to haue left a temporall to be satisfied by vs is not to make himselfe a false Christ but a most louing kind and withall a most prudent Redeemer Wiping away that by himselfe which passed our forces and reseruing that to vs which by the helpe of his grace we will may and ought to do not onely because it were vnseemely that the parts of the body should be disproportionalle to the head but also because it is reasonable as the Apostle holdeth Rom. 2. that we s ffer here with Christ before we raigne with him in his kingdome In your last instance you say that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to God thinking out of your simplicitie that therein we much magnifie him and sing Osanna vnto him Whereas we hold it for no 〈◊〉 â—â—â—agement vnto his diuine dignitie to make him our Int rcessor 〈…〉 to pray him to pray for vs who is of himselfe right able to helpe in all we can demaund being as well God as Man And albeit one in thought singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuine nature and person might make it an intercessor for vs Yet that being but a Metaphisicall conceipt to separate the nature from the person since the Arian heresie which held Christ to be inferior to his Father it hath not bene practised by Catholikes who alwayes pray our Sauiour Christ to haue mercy vpon vs neuer to pray for vs. And consequently make him no mediator of intercession but of redemption R. ABBOT The second instance giuen by M. Perkins to proue that the Church of Rome maketh Christ but euen as an Idol giuing him a name without the substance and effect thereof is this that they call him a Sauiour and yet make him a Sauiour onely in vs and by vs not in himselfe or immediatly by himselfe For this is all that they attribute vnto him that he putteth vs in case and state to saue our selues and to become our owne Sauiours The meaning of the instance being plaine M. Bishops question is very idle In whom he should be a Sauiour if not in vs. He should be a Sauiour in himselfe and by that that he doth himselfe and not in vs or by that that we do for our selues But to the matter he telleth vs that it is a phrase vnheard of among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour Which we confesse as touching the phrase and word but yet by their doctrine they do in truth make a man his owne Sauiour If they should so say in words they well know that all Christian eares would abhorre them and many that now admire them would spit in their faces and account them accursed and damnable hypocrites who vnder pretence of doing honour vnto Christ do rob him of his honour and bereaue him of the truth of that name wherein the Soueraigntie of his glory doth consist therefore they forbeare the words though that which they teach is the same in effect as if they sayd so It is commonly knowne that the effect is alwayes attributed to that which is the immediate and neerest efficient cause We say in Philosophie Sol homo generant hominem The sunne and a man do beget a man because by the vegetation and influence of the Sunne and heauenly powers it is deemed that a man hath power to beget a man Yet we know that the Sunne or the heauen is not called the father of the child but onely the man by whom the child is begotten So is it therefore in the matter that we haue here in hand M. Bishop saith that God a Of merits sect 1. freely bestoweth his grace vpon vs in Baptisme but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life or for want of such fruit of it fall into the miserable state of death God then giueth vs whereof to doe it but we our selues of that which God giueth must effect and deserue our owne saluation Therefore M. Bishop againe compareth the grace of God to a b Ibid. sect 3. Farme which the father bestoweth vpon his sonne who of the commodities that arise of the good vsage thereof groweth to be able to make a further purchase at his fathers hands euen of any thing that his father will set to sale In which case the father cannot be said to be the purchaser or to make the purchase for the sonne but the sonne is the purchaser for himselfe though by that which his father gaue him through the well ordering of it he became able to make the purchase Seeing then that Christ doth onely giue vs that whereof we our selues are to raise merits to deserue and purchase saluation as they teach it must needes follow by their doctrine that Christ is made the more remote and antecedent cause but we our selues are properly and immediatly the true causes of our owne saluation Howsoeuer therefore they vse not the phrase yet they teach the thing it selfe that Christ is not our Sauiour properly but we our selues by the good vsage of his gifts are the Sauiours of our selues Which absurditie M. Bishop saw that standing to their owne grounds he could by no meanes auoide and therefore is content with Pighius as it seemeth for a present shift to retire into our harbour albeit I verily thinke he vnderstandeth not himselfe nor can tell what meaning to make or that he saith The thing that followeth of the assertion of meritorious works he saith is this that by good workes we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus as saith he the Protestants auouch they do by faith onely But he should here haue told vs how his meaning is that this saluation is in Christ For if he meane as commonly he doth that it is in Christ because God for Christs sake giueth vs grace whereby to merit and deserue our saluation then he dallieth altogether and mocketh his Reader as if he should say It followeth not of the position of meritorious
of the points in question laying open the absurditie of Poperie and clearing the doctrine on our part from those lies and slaunders wherewith in corners you labour to depraue it might seeme verie likely to drawe many to the knowledge and approbation of the truth It should seeme there was some sore for that both you and your friend were so carefull to apply a plaister but your plaister by the grace of God wil make your sore a great deale worse when men shall further see how sincerely he hath dealt to deliuer truth out of the word of God and doctrine of the ancient Church and what base geere you haue brought as the marrow and pith of many large volumes for the contradicting and oppugning of it The more and greater the points are of difference betwixt the Church of Rome and vs the more doth it concerne your Catholikes if they tender their owne saluation to looke into them which if they doe they will cease to thinke basely of our religion and will begin to honour it and imbrace it as the truth of God They will see that there is in it a true reformation indeed a iust departure from the horrible idolatries and superstitions of the Romish Sinagogue and it shall grieue them that they haue so long dishonoured God by holding fellowship with him who hath no true fellowship with Iesus Christ That you thinke basely thereof M. Bishop we wonder not He that doateth vpon a harlot is wont to scorne and thinke basely of honest matrons The Scribes and Pharisees thought basely of our Sauiour Christ no maruell if you doe the like of the Gospell of Christ who liue and thriue by traditions as they did As for old rotten condemned heresies how silly a man you haue shewed your selfe in the obiecting thereof it hath appeared partly alreadie in the answer of your Epistle and shall appeare further God willing in the answer of your booke and wee will expect hereafter that you learne more wit then to babble and prate of heresies you know not your selfe what THE THEAME OF M. PERKINS Prologue And I heard another voyce from heauen say Go out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes and receiue not of her plagues Reuel 18.3 M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO M. Perkins Prologue Sect. 1. THe learned know it to be a fault Exordium Coâ—mune to make that the entrie vnto our discourse which may as properly fit him that pleadeth against vs but to vse that for our proeme which in true sence hath nothing for vs nay rather beareth strongly for our aduersarie must needs argue great want of iudgement Such is the sentence aboue cited out of S. Iohn by M. Perkins for it being truly vnderstood is so farre off from terrifying any one from the Catholike Roman Church as it doth vehemently exhort all to flie vnto it by forsaking their wicked companie that are banded against it For by the purple Harlot in that place is signified as shall be proued presently the Roman Empire as then it was the slaue of Idols and with most bloudie slaughter persecuting Christs Saints Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest vnto it so most subiect to that sacrilegious butcherie Wherefore that voyce which S. Iohn heard say Go out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes c. can haue none other meaning then that all they who desire to be Gods people must separate themselues in faith and manners from them who hate and persecute the Roman Church as did then the Heathen Emperours and now do all Heretikes Vnlesse they will be partakers of their sinnes and consequently of their plagues This shall yet appeare more plainely in the examination of this Chapter Where I will deale friendly with my aduersarie and aduantage him all that I can that all being giuen him which is any way probable it may appeare more euidently how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalipse whereof all Protestants vaunt and bragge so much both in their bookes and pulpits Well then I will admit that in the 17. and 18. Chapters of the Reuelation by the whore of Babylon is vnderstood the Roman state and regiment which in lawfull disputations they are not able to proue the most iuditious Doctor S. Augustine and diuerse others of the ancient fathers with the learned troupe of later interpreters expounding it of the whole corps and societie of the wicked And as for the seuen hils on the which they lay their foundation they are not to be taken literally the Angell of God in the very text it selfe interpreting the seuen heads of the beast to bee aswell seuen Kings as seuen hils But this notwithstanding to helpe you forward I will grant it you because some good writers haue so taken it and therefore omit as impertinent that which you say in proofe of it What can you inferre hereunto Marry that the Roman Church is that whore of Babylon Faire and soft good Sir how proue you that Thus. The whoore of Babylon is a state of the Roman regiment ergo the Roman Church is the whoore of Babylon What forme of arguing call you me this By the like sophistication you may proue that Romulus and Remus were the purple Harlot which to affirme were ridiculous or which is impious that the most Christian Emperours Constantine and Theodosius were the whoore of Babylon because these held also the state of the Roman Empire and regiment To make short the feeble force of this reason lieth in this that they who hold the state and gouerne in the same kingdome must needs bee of like affection in religion which if it were necessarie then did Queene Marie of blessed memorie and her sister Elizabeth carrie the same minds towards the true Catholike faith because they sate in the same chaire of estate and ruled in the same kingdome See I pray you what a shamefull cauill this is to raise such outcries vpon A simple Logician would blush to argue in the parâ—â—ies so loafty and yet they that take vpon them to controle the learnedst in the world often fall into such open fallacies Well then admitting the purple Harlot to signifie the Roman state we do say that the state of Rome must bee taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it that is Pagan Idolatrous and a hot persecutor of Christians Such it had bene a little before vnder that bloudie tyrant Nero and then was vnder Domitian which we confirme by the authoritie of them who expound this passage of the Roman state The commentarie on the Apocalipse vnder S. Ambrose name saith The great whoore sometime doth signifie Rome specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this did persecute the Church of God 〈◊〉 Cap. 178. but otherwise doth signifie the whole citie of the Diuell And S. Ierome who applieth the place to Rome affirmeth Libr. 2. cont Jâ—â—â—n that she had before his dayes
be very many of ours vvho say that all things that vve do are done by the helpe of God By this acknowledgement of grace Pelagius deluded the Bishops of the Easterne Churches before whom he was conuented and by that meanes was acquitted and dismissed as hauing taught nothing against the truth For as Augustin noteth b August epist 95. His audius verâ—is thommem Dei gratia adiunari Catholici antistitâ—â— nullam aliam Dei gratiam intelligere potuerunt nisi quam in libris Dei legere populis Dei praedicare consueuerunt When they heard him confesse the grace of God they could imagine no other grace but what they were wont to reade in the booke of God and preach to the people of God Which grace by this occasion the same S. Austin in diuerse and sundrie places defineth to be that c Ibid. Gratiae qua Christiani filij Dei sumus Et postea Qua praedesiinati vocamur iustificamur glorificamur whereby we are Christians and the children of God and being predestinate are called iustified and glorified d Epist 105. Qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified to be iust men e Epi. 107. Agnoscamus gratiam quae facit proasse doctrinam which maketh the doctrine of God profitable vnto vs f Cont. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 13. Vt non â—stendat tantummodo veritatem verumetiam impertiae charitatem whereby he doth not onely shew vs the truth but also inspireth loue g Ibid. cap. 30. Qua iustificamur id est qua charitas Dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris c. whereby we are iustified that is whereby the loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs h Cont. 2. Epist Pelag lib. 4. cap. 6. Haec est gratia Dei bonos faciens nos whereby we are made good i Cont Pelag c. vt supra cap. 10. Istam aliquando fateatur qua futurae gloriae magnitudo non solum promittitur verumetiam creditur speratur nec reuelatur solum sapientia verumetiam amatur nec suadetur solum omne quod bonum est verumetiam persâ—â—ad tur wherby the excellencie of heauenly glorie is not onely promised but also beleeued and hoped for nor wisedome onely reuealed but loued and euerie thing that is good is not onely aduised but fruitfully and effectually perswaded This onely grace and no other did they vnderstand to be the grace of Christ whereby as touching the worke of our saluation God is all in all whilest of him and by him meerely by his gift we are whatsoeuer we are towards him so that although k De grat lib. arbâ—t cap. 16. Certum est nos velle cum volumus sed ille facit vt velimus c. Certum est nos facere cùm facimus sedille facit vt faciamus c we will and we worke and we walke and we runne yet it is God that worketh in vs to will and to worke and to walke and to runne and in all these things we haue nothing but what we haue of him that there may be no exception to the Apostles question l 1. Cor. 4.7 What hast thou that thou hast not receiued and if thou haue receiued it why doest thou boast as if thou hadst not receiued it But this grace Pelagius could by no meanes endure he thought it absurd that all should be ascribed to God and therefore would needes deuise a course of grace that might giue way to the Free will of man The contriuing of which course if we duly consider from point to point we shall see that it most fully correspondeth and accordeth to that doctrine of grace and Free will which is now taught in the Church of Rome onely the specialties thereof their schoole diuines haue directed them to expresse somewhat more distinctly then he hath done And first they tell vs of grace preuenting exciting and stirring vp whereby saith the councell without any desert of ours we are called that by his grace raising vs vp and helping vs we may be prepared to returne to our iustification Where we are to note M. Bishops errour in his owne principles who sundry times calleth the grace of first iustification * Of Iustification sect 32. Of Merits sect 1 c. the first grace forgetting that there is a former grace to which he himselfe referreth their workes of preparation and here bringeth the councell describing it as precedent to iustification But of this preuenting grace Costerus the Iesuite saith that m Coster de lib. arbit Haec gratia praeuenitas non est illa quae in anima nomina inhabitans usstuÌ„â—onstituâ—t filium Dei efficit sed impulsus tantùm motio sp sancti adhuc foris degentis qui stat ad ostrum eordis pulsans nondum admissus ad eius domicilium it is not that that dwelleth in the soule to make a man iust but it is onely the impulsion and motion of the holy Ghost being yet without and standing knocking at the doore of the heart not being as yet let in This he expresseth by the comparison of a friend finding a man in a deepe pit as before was sayd and perswading him by diuerse reasons to be willing to be pulled out Therefore Bellarmine saith that n Bellarm. de grat li arbit lib 6. cap. 15. Nihil est aeliud nâ—si suâ—sio quae non deterâ—t nat voluntatem sed inâ—linat per moduÌ„ proponentis obiecti it is but onely a perswading which doth not determine the will but inclineth it in manner of a propounding obiect This grace Pelagius describeth in this sort o Pelag apud a August cont Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 10. Operatur in nobis velle quod bonum est velle quod sanctum est dum nos serrenis cupidit itibus deditor mutorum more animalium taentummede presentia diligeÌ„tes futurae gloriae magnitudine praeâ—â—orum pollicitatione succendit dum reuelatione sapientiae in desiderium dei stupentem suscitat voluntatem dum nobis suadet omne quod bonum est He worketh in vs to will that that is good to will that that is holy whilest finding vs giuen to earthly lusts and like bruit beasts louing onely present things note that he excludeth all former merits as the councell doth he enkindleth our minds with the greatnesse of the glorie to come and with promise of reward whilest by reuealing his wisedome he raiseth vp our astonished will to the desire and longing after God whilest he perswadeth and exhorteth vs to all good things And againe to the same purpose he saith p Ibid ca 7 Adiuuat nos Deus per doctrinam reuelationem suam dum cordis nostri oculos aperit dum nobis ne praesentibus occupemur futura demonstrat dum diaboli pandit insidiat dum nos multiformi
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
turne Because he had no great skill to answer he thought it wisedom to take heed what he did obiect But yet out of that sentence truly alledged we may take somewhat to this point The words are p Gal. 3.11 The iust shall liue by faith According to these words true faith is said alwayes to imply and containe eternall life Our Sauior Christ speaketh as of a thing presently had q Ioh. 3.36 He that beleeueth hath eternall life r Cap. 5.24 he is passed from death to life But without charitie there can be no state of eternall life because Å¿ 1. Ioh. 3 14. he that loueth not abideth in death If then wheresoeuer there be true faith there be eternall life and without charitie there can be no eternall life it must necessarily follow that wheresoeuer there is true faith there is also charitie and loue bringing forth the fruites of good workes and seeking to winne others by example of iust and holy life M. Bishops answer we see giueth checke to the holy Ghost The holy Ghost saith The iust shall liue by faith Not so saith M. Bishop he liueth by faith hope and charitie and not by faith alone Further I trouble not my selfe with his idle words which containe nothing but a begging of the matter in question and are applied onely to an argument of his owne deuice CHAPTER 5. OF MERITS 1. W. BISHOP OBserue that three things are necessary to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the work proceed from grace and be referred to the honour of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the work And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but wil purchase it by our owne works I wil here set downe what the Councell of Trent doth teach concerning Merits Sess 6. cap. vlt. Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that work wel and hope wel to the end both as grace of mercie promised to the sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their workes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace as well in respect of Gods free promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good workes vnto the worker if he perseruere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by true repentance rise to the same estate againe In infants baptized there is a kind of merit or rather dignitie of the adopted sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme wherby they are made heires of the kingdom of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life or for want of such fruite of it fall into the miserable state of death R. ABBOT M. Bishop setteth downe three things which he saith are necessary to make a work meritorious but giueth vs no ground at all whereby we may rest perswaded that where those three things do concurre a man may be said to merit or deserue at Gods hands He leaueth vs still to wonder that a sinfull wretch offending and prouoking God from day to day should dare to talke of merite and desert with God but that we know that heresie and ignorance make men bold to frame the maiestie of God to their owne brainsicke and senslesse conceits The conditions and circumstances by him mentioned we alwayes teach and require in our doctrine of good workes but farre are we from finding merit in any of them For first the adopted sonne of God standeth bound by dutie to do all things to the honor of his Father and there can be no merit in doing that which a man by dutie is bound to do Secondly if the worke proceed from the grace of God the work is Gods and not mans and therfore man can therby merit nothing Thirdly if the reward depend vpon promise then it ariseth not of the merit or worth of workes especially there being by the frailtie of the worker and the bountie of the promiser that disproportion betwixt the worke and the reward as that it is meerly absurd to imagine that the one should be merited and deserued by the other These things God willing shall further appeare in the processe of this question In the meane time M. Bishop here challengeth vs for slaundering their doctrine with some matters of truth as that they trust not in Christs merits that they need not Gods mercy for their saluation but will purchase it by their owne workes Now we wote well that they vse speech of Christes merits and Gods mercie and of trusting therein because they know that if they abandoned the mention hereof they would soone grow odious and hatefull to all men For the cuppe of poison of the whore of Babylon they must vse a couer of such good words least they make men loth to drinke thereof But let it be examined how they teach these things and their falshood will soone appeare By trust in Christs merits men conceiue the placing of the confidence of saluation immediatly therein as the proper cause for which God accepteth vs to eternall life who our selues are miserable sinners and altogether vnworthy thereof But their trust in Christs merits is that he hath purchased for vs grace if we list by free will to merite heauen for ourselues thereby to be iust before God in our selues and worthy of the kingdome of heauen as M. Bishop in the former question of a Sect. 2. Iustification hath declared So then the effect of Christs merits is tied onely to this life and thenceforth we are to depend vpon that which here we do for our selues by wel vsing that grace which the merits of Christ first purchased for vs. Therefore one Richard Hopkins translating into English a booke of Granatensis as touching prayer and meditation giueth it one where for a marginall note that our Sauiour Christ is our Aduocate for the time of this life but after our departure out of this life he is no more our Aduocate but our Iudge for the time is past saith he of dealing with God by an Aduocate c. and we shall haue our definitiue sentence according to our workes Whereby it appeareth what reckoning they make of the mercie of God which they also pen vp within the compasse of this life and denie it that place which the Apostle giueth it b 2. Tim. 1.18 at that day Yea so little vse is there with them of Gods mercie as that M. Bishop doubteth not to demaund
r August in Psal 109. Promisit hominibus diuinitatem mor talibus immortalitatem peccatoribus iustificationem abiectis glorificationem Quicquid promisit indignis promisit vt non quasi merces operibus promitteretur sed gratia à nomine suo gratis daretur quia hoc ipsā quód iustè viuit inquantum homo potest iustè viuere nō merite humani sed beneficij diuini est God promised to men participation with God immortalitie to mortall creatures iustification to sinners glorification to abiects and cast-awayes Whatsoeuer he promised he promised to men vnworthie that it might not be promised as a reward to workes but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as man can liue iustly is not a matter importing mans merit but the benefite and gift of God Where plainely he sheweth that whatsoeuer God hath promised it is his meere and onely gift that to speake simply thereof it is to be bereaued of the title of a reward of workes because God promised the same when we had no workes that it is not giuen for our woorth because it was promised when we had no woorth yea and that we haue any good workes it is an effect of the same promise it cannot be thought to make any merit on our behalfe but to set foorth grace and mercie on Gods behalfe so that all is free gift all is grace and mercie and the adding of one gift and grace and mercie to another howsoeuer sometimes in some respects as hereafter we shall see the gift of God is set foorth vnto vs vnder the name of recompence and reward In a word by that that followeth I doubt not but it will appeare that the Protestants Proctor if he must needes be so tearmed hath said nothing in this behalfe but what by S. Austine and other auncient Fathers may well be defended against this Romish prater who hath great insolencie of words but sound matter of proofe he can find none at all 3. W. BISHOP But M. Perkins will neuerthelesse prooue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth at selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one whole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious worke which must be saith he foure first That the worke be done of our selues without the helpe of another secondly That it be not otherwise due debt thirdly That it be done to the benefit of another fourthly That the worke and reward be equall in proportion These properties he sets downe pythagorically without any proofe but inserreth theron as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs manhood separated from the Godhead cannot merit because whatsoeuer he doth he doth it by grace receiued and should be otherwise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither for he receiued his Godhead from his Father and whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt And so the good man if he were let alone would disappoint vs wholly of all merits aswell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by virtue of his grace Wherefore we must a little sift his foure forged proprieties of merit and touching the first I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it For example the farther bestowes a Farme vpon his sonne freely who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same deserue his further fauour yea he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale as well as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift Which is so common a case and so sensible that euery man of meane wit may easily reach vnto it euen so by good manuring the gifts which God freely bestoweth vpon vs we may both merit the increase of them and according to his owne order and promise purchase thereby the kingdome of heauen which is plainely proued by that parable Of the talents giuen by a king to his seruants Mat. 25. the which they employing well and multiplying were therefore esteemed worthy of farre greater and withall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes M. Perkins then was not a litle ouerseene to put for the first proprietie of merit that it must be done by a man and of a man himselfe R. ABBOT M. Perkins saith very truly vpon noting the conditions necessarily required in a meritorious worke that the manhood of Christ considered a part from his Godhead because it is but a creature and hath all by the gift of God and doth all by bond of necessary dutie cannot merit at Gods hands Whereas M. Bishop against this saith that he might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither because he receiued his Godhead from the Father and therefore whatsoeuer he doth is his Fathers by due debt he bewrayeth his notable and absurd ignorance For Christ receiueth his Godhead of the Father to be equall to the Father not inferiour to be the same in substance and maiestie and glorie that the Father is Now duty and debt do necessarily enforce minoritie and subiection Seeing therefore there is no minority or subiection in the Godhead of the Sonne towards the Father there can be no debt or dutie of the Sonne in that respect towards the Father Thus the good man to repay him with his owne stoute is taken before he is aware in the nets of the Arian heresie which made Christ as God inferiour and subiect to the Father The merit of Christ therefore consisted in this as S. Paule noteth that being equall to God his Father and owing no debt or dutie did voluntarily humble himselfe to obedience and duty for our sakes So then M. Perrkins indeed a good man as M. Bishop shall one day see hath not by his assertion bereaued vs of the merits of Christ but hath taught how rightly to vnderstand the same But now he will a litle sift as he saith the foure forged proprieties of merit which M. Perkins hath set downe Whether they be forged or not will appeare by the sequele in the meane time his answers to them may seeme rather to haue come from the Smiths forge then out of the studie and from the learning of a Doctor of Diuinitie The first condition required in a meritorious worke properly so to be called to which by dutie debt and right for the workes sake reward is to be yeelded is that a man do it of himselfe and by his owne power For so saith Hilary a Hilar. de Trin. lib. 11. Mereri eius est qui ipse sib◠meriti acqui rendi author existi◠It is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the author of getting his
giuing to vnderstand that that former was not the whole meaning of Christes words r Beda in Luc. cap. 17. We are vnprofitable seruants because the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come as in another place which crowneth thee in mercy and compassion He saith not in thy merits because by whose mercy we are preuented that we may humbly serue him by his gift we are crowned to reigne with him What M. Bishop no more faith no more trust in you do you alledge Authors when they condemne your doctrine euen in the places whence you cite them Leaue of leaue of Act. 26.14 it is hard for you to kicke against the prickes You fight against the Gospell of Christ against the truth of God and do not you doubt but it will preuaile against you and the conquest thereof shall be your vtter confusion if you hold on your course 5. W. BISHOP And thus we fall vpon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious worke which is That it be done to the profit of another and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit by our workes yet doth he in the administration of his holy common-weale the Church wherein good mens seruices do much pleasure him And in this sence it is said of S. Paul That by cleansing our selues from wicked workes 2. Tim. 2. Math. 5. we shall become vessels sanctified and profitable vnto our Lord. Againe God is glorified by our good workes That seeing your good workes they may glorifie your Father which is in heauen Finally God doth reioyce at the recouerie of his lost children Ioh. 15. ver 8. Luk. 15. If then good men trauailing painfully in Gods Vineyard do yeeld him outwardly both honour ioy and commoditie that may suffice to make their worke meritorious R. ABBOT As touching this condition we contend not with Maister Bishop concerning his exposition thereof Merit must be done by the will and for the vse and behoofe of him at whose hands it must merit So Christes obedience by the will of the Father to the praise of the glory of his grace did merit and deserue at his Fathers hands in our behalfe Onely it is to be added that it must fully satisfie the vse and behoofe whereto it is intended and not faile in any point thereof Now because a Aug. Euâ—hirid cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei extitantur vt etiam spiritu suo c. tanquaÌ„ filij hominuÌ„ quibusdaÌ„ motibus humanis deficiant ad seipses c. the children of God are so moued by the spirit of God as that by their owne spirit as the sonnes of men through humane motions and affections they sometimes faile and fall backe to themselues and therefore do not so entirely and perfectly serue the vses of the Lord to yeeld either glory to God or loue to their brethren as they ought to do therefore neither do they attaine to this condition of merit nor can in any sort bind God to repay them for that broken seruice that they haue done nay if he would call matters to strict reckoning and account he hath rather occasion of quarell against them for disgracing and defiling the works that he hath wrought in them 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins fourth property is That the worke and reward be equall in proportion If he vnderstand Arithmeticall proportion that is that they be equall in quantity to wit the one to be as great or of as long continuance as the other then we denie this kinde of equality to be requisite to merit there is another sort of proportion called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometricall and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vnto the other as when a good office is giuen vnto a Citizen of desart it may be that the honour and commodity of the office is farre greater then was the merit of the man yet he being as well able to discharge it as another and hauing better deserued it is holden in true iustice worthie of it In like manner in a game where maisteries are tried the prize is giuen vnto him that doth best not because the value of the reward is iust as much woorth as that act of the man who winneth it but for that such actiuitie is esteemed woorthy of such a recompence Now the crowne of heauenly glory is likened by Saint Pule vnto a Garland in a game where he saith 1. Cor. 9. 2. Tim. 2. That we all runne but one carieth away the prize And he that striueth for the maisterie is not crowned vnlesse he striue lawfully It is also resembled vnto places of honour Math. 25. Ioh. 14. I will place thee ouer much And I go to prouide you places Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede Math. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. For the seed of God tarieth in him But a little seed cast into good ground and well manured bringeth forth abundance of corne Briefly then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subiect and the office betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betweene the seede and the corne is betweene the reward of heauen and the merit of a true seruant of God And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument more indeede to explicate the nature and condition of merit then that his reason nakedly proposed did require it R. ABBOT The proportion that maketh merit or desert must be Arithmeticall wherein the worke must fully equall the reward though not in greatnesse and continuance yet in value and woorth If the one in that sort do not counterpoise the other the one cannot be said to be deserued by the other But there is no proportion at all either Arithmeticall or Geometricall betwixt that that is finite and that that is infinite therefore none at all betwixt the worke of man and the reward of heauen the one being euery way finite the other in continuance infinite So then Maister Bishops Geometricall proportion and reasonable correspondence is excluded also because a Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. TantuÌ„ ibi graetia diuinae retributionis exuberat vt inceparabiliter atque ineffabiliter omne merituÌ„ quamuis bonae ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis operationis excedat the grace or gift of Gods reward as Fulgentius saith doth so much there abound as that incomparably and vnspeakeably it exceedeth all the merit of the will and worke of man albeit it be good and giuen vnto him of God There is no reasonable correspondence where the one incomparably and vnspeakeably exceedeth all the merit and desert of the other The same is imported by Saint Bernard who hauing said that mens merits are not such as that life eternall is due vnto theÌ„ of right giueth reason therof beside that that I mentioned before b Ber. in Annunciat Ser. 1. Quid sunt omnia merita ad tantaÌ„ gloriam For what are all merits to so great
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
wicked glosses wresting the words of scripture to the maintenance of their damnable errors They tooke vpon them to know more then the Apostles saying that the holy Ghost which Christ promised to send was not giuen to the Apostles but to theÌ„ so that the Montanists affirmed that i Dicunt Paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quà m Christum in Euangelium protulisse the holy Ghost spake more things in Montanus then Christ did commit to the Gospell and not onely more but greater and better things When they were vrged by the teachers of the Church with these corruptions and falsifications k Haec ipsi habent in nos retorquere à nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum expositionum earuÌ„ mendacia inferri c. they were ready to answer that the corrupting of the Scriptures and false expositions thereof were rather found with them by meanes whereof there was no end of reasoning with them because they could hold them to no certaine grounds wherupon to proceed against them Hereupon Tertullian referred men as Irenaeus did to consider the Churches planted by the Apostles and which had had continuance of Pastors and teachers from them by them to learne what faith and doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles as not doubting but what they deliuered was the truth as l Supra sect 4. who deuised nothing of their owne but faithfully assigned to the nations the doctrine which they had receiued of Christ He setteth it downe as a principle that vndoubtedly m Hoc propono vnuÌ„ certum aliquid institutuÌ„ esse a Christo quod credere omni modo debeant nationes there was some one and certaine thing appointed by Christ for the nations to beleeue that whatsoeuer that was Christ vndoubtedly deliuered it to his Apostles n Duodecim praecipuos lateri suo adtegerat destinatos nationibus magistros c. Si Christus Apostolos misit ad praedicandum praescribimus non alios esse recipiendos Praedicatores quà m quos Christus instituit whom he chose to be teachers of all nations and therefore that no other Preachers are to be receiued but whom Christ appointed that to say that either the Apostles knew not all things or did not make knowne all things to all men is o In vtroque Christum repreheÌ„sions subijcientes qui aut minus instructos aut parum simplices Apostolos miserit to reproue Christ as sending Apostles either vnsufficient or not dealing simply and plainely Taking it then for graunted that the Apostles deliuered al truth to the Church he moueth another doubt that haply the Churches had erred and forsaken that which at first was deliuered by the Apostles To this therefore he answereth that p Quid verisimile est vt tot ac tantae in vnam fideÌ„ errauerinit Nullus inter multos euentus vnus est exitus variassedebuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Caeterum quod apud multos vnâ— inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum it is not likely if the Churches had erred that being so many and so great they should in error light all vpon one faith that they would surely haue varied in their error one from another because where there are many going but by hap they cannot all happen vpon the same end Therefore what with many is found one saith he it is no matter of error but that that was first deliuered vnto them He goeth on further to shew that it is the marke of truth q Ab excessis reuertor ad principalitatem veritati posteritatem mendacitati deputandaÌ„ exillius quoque Parabolae patrocinio c. Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum verum quod sit prius traditum id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius immissum to be first and that what cometh in after is to be reputed a lye as appeareth by the Parable wherein the good seed or wheate was first sowed and then afterwards the tares Thus by the order it is so manifest saith he that that is of the Lord and true which was first deliuered but that strange and false which is afterwards come in Now if any of them would dare to challenge to themselues the antiquity of the Apostles he willeth them r Siquae audent se interserere aetati Apostolicae vt ideò videantur ab Apostolis traditae quia sub Apostolis fuerunt possumus dicere Acdant ergo originos Ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suoruÌ„ c. to shew the originall of their Churches and the succession of their Bishops from the Apostles which if there had bene any such they might easily haue done this being very litle more then a hundred yeres after the time of the Apostles But withal he declareth that such opinions of theirs as were meÌ„tioned in the time of the Apostles Å¿ Quae tunc sub Apostolis fuerunt ab ijsdem Apostolis demonstratae deierata were by the Apostles shewed renounced wherof he giueth sundry examples of denying the resurrection of obseruing circumcision of forbidding mariage of denying the Godhead or manhood of Christ of worshipping Angels and such like condemned in the writings of the Apostles t Nâ—m sic facilitis traduceÌ„tur dum aut iam tunc fuisse deprehenduntur aut ex illis quae tunc fuerunt semina sumpsisse c. Siue ergo taedem nunc sunt aliquanto expolitiores quae sub Apostolis rudes habeÌ„t suam exinde damnationem siue aliae quideÌ„ illae fuerunt aliae autem posteà oâ—oâ—tae sunt quasdam ex illu opâ—niones vsurpauerunt habendo cum eu consoretum praedicationis habeant etiam necesse est consortium damnationis c Et si nihil de damnaticijs participareÌ„tur de aetate sola praeiudicatentur tantò magis aduiterae quantò nec Apostolis nominâ—iae Vnde fiâ—mâ—â—â— constat has esse quae adhuc tunc nunt rebantur futurae Thus saith he they shall the more easily be traduced whilest they are found either to haue bene then or to haue taken any seedes from those that were then For whether they be now the same somewhat more polished and fined which in the Apostles times were yet rude and vnfashioned they haue their condemnation from thence or whether they were one then and other haue since sprung vp which yet haue borrowed some opinions from them surely in being partakers with them in their preaching they must needes also be partakers of their condemnation And albeit they did not participate with those that were so condemned yet saith he there should preiudice be taken against them onely for their latter age being so much the rather corruptions of the truth for that they are not so much as named by the Apostles whence it is so much the more certaine that they are those which then it was foretold should be in time to come Hereupon he referreth his Reader to sundry particular churches
Quodcunque aduersus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis etiam vetus coÌ„suetudo Christ did not call himselfe custome but truth that whatsoeuer sauoureth against the truth is heresie though it be an auncient custome As for the instances which M. Bishop saith he bringeth for the iustifying of Traditions vnwritten they are partly impertinent and partly heathenish and hereticall deuises and surely if the Church had bene then fraught with traditions as the Church of Rome is now he would not haue bene so slenderly furnished for the approuing of them His first instance is that in baptisme x AquaÌ„ adituri contistamur nos renunetare diabolo pompae et Angelis eius they did professe to renounce the diuell and his pompes and his Angels But this is no other but written doctrine and the Scripture teacheth it when it nameth y Heb. 6.1 repentance from dead workes as one of the foundations of Christian profession and of the doctrines of the beginning of Christ and we vse the same renunciation in baptisme who yet disclaime traditions vnwritten Forme of words maketh no difference of doctrine though in other termes yet we do no other thing therein but what the Scripture teacheth vs to do His second instance of z De hinc ter mergitamur thrice dipping is a matter onely of ceremony not of doctrine and it is meerely indifferent whether it be done once as in the name of one God or thrice as to import the Trinity of the persons As for a Jnde suscepti lactu mellis conâ—ordiam praegustamus the tasting of milke and hony which is his third instance it was also a voluntary obseruation which may seeme first to haue bene brought in by heretikes howsoeuer after it got place in the Church because Dionysius who for his time most exactly describeth Dionys Ecclesiast hierarch cap 4. the ceremonies of the Church maketh no mention of it c Lauacro quotidâ—â—â—o 〈◊〉 die peâ— tot 〈◊〉 mâ—lâ—â— abstinemus Die dominico reiunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Eadem immunitate 〈◊〉 in Pentecosten vsque gaudemus Not to wash for a weeke after baptisme not to fast or pray kneeling vpon the Sunday or betwixt Easter and Whitsontide vvere also but positiue ceremonies subiect to the discretion of the Church vsed in some places and times and not in other insomuch that in part they are growne out of vse euen in the Curch of Rome and therfore come not within the compasse of traditions as we here dispute of them d Eucharistae SacramentuÌ„ in teÌ„pore victas c. etiam anielâ—canis caetibus nec de aliorum quam praesidentium manu suntimus To receiue the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Ministers is the institutioÌ„ of Christ and we are taught it by the written word but either to do it in the morning before day or at the time of other feeding was a meere arbitrarie and indifferent thing and the Church of Rome now vseth it at neither time e Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitijs annua die facimuâ— Offerings yeerely made for the dead and for birth-daies were first brought in by the heretike Montanus to whom now Tertullian had addicted himselfe and of whom the ecclesiasticall historie testifieth that f Euseb hist eccl lib. 5. cap. 16. Sub praetextu nomine oblationum munerum captationeÌ„ artificiose coÌ„mentus est vnder the pretence and name of offerings he cunningly deuised the taking of rewards and gifts And although the one of them by the plausible colour of it tooke such fast hold as that the streame thereof hath runne into the lakes and puddles of the Church of Rome yet the other was soone reiected or not at all admitted but onely amongst his fellowes Origen testifying that Christians g Origen in Iob. lib 3. Nos noÌ„ natiuitatis dieÌ„ celebramâ—s sed mortis c in Leâ—iâ—t hom 8 Nemo ex omnibus sanctis inuenitur dum festuÌ„ c. egisse in die natalis suâ— did not celebrate their birth-day and that it was not found that any of the Saints had made a festiuall day of his birth-day h Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terraÌ„ decuti anxit pa timur Not to endure to haue any part of the Sacrament fall to the ground is a part of that i 1. Cor 14.40 decencie and reuerence which the Scripture requireth to be vsed in sacred and holy things or if he speake it of ordinary bread and drinke the Scripture also teacheth that of those good blessings of God k Iohn 6.12 nothing should be lost The vse of l Ad omneÌ„ progressum atque promotum ad omneÌ„ aditura et exituÌ„ ad vestitum calceatum ad lauacra ad men sai ad lumina ad cubilia ad sedilia quaecunque nos conuersatio exercet frontem crucis signaculo cerâ—nus the signe of the crosse was ceremoniall also no matter of doctrine and faith but onely an occasion of remembrance and a token of the profession therof which in discretion for temporary consideration was begun and by like discretion cause so requiring might be left againe Our Church in some part where it is most free from Popish abuse vseth the signe of the crosse and yet well knoweth that vnwritten traditions as the name is vnderstood in this disputation are not iustified thereby We doubt not as touching outward vsages and ceremonies as touching positiue constitutions and ordinances of the Church but that vnder the name of traditions according to the circumstances before expressed they may be commanded and are to be obeied though they be not contained in the Scripture but for matter of faith and of the worship of God we deny that any thing may be admitted beside the written word and Tertullians instances are too weake to serue Maister Bishops turne to prooue the contrary To be short it appeareth plainly by Tertullian that the Catholike Church defended then against heretikes the same that we now defend against the Papists that pretence of Tradition without authority of Scripture auaileth not and therefore that the Papists vnder the name of Catholikes are indeede heretikes wrastling and fighting against the Church 11 W. BISHOP Come we now vnto his second testimonie out of S. Ierome * In cap. 23. Math. who writing as he saith of an opinion that S. Iohn Baptist was killed because he foretold the comming of Christ the good-man would say Zacharie S. Iohns Father for the Scripture sheweth plainly why S. Iohn lost his head * Math. 14. But S. Ierome there saith this Because it hath not authoritie from Scriptures may as easily be contemned as approued Out of which particular M. Perkins shewing himselfe a doughtie Logitian would inforce an vniuersall that forsooth all may be contemned that is not proued by Scripture As if you would proue no Protestant to be skilfull
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
Vincentius Lyrinensis either as doing damage to vs or yeelding any gaine or aduantage to themselues 14. W. BISHOP Thus M Perkins hauing ended with the Law and Testimony addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former the first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwayes to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition Answ First for our Sauior Iesus Christ be out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from Peter as witnesseth Eusebius * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. Luke testifieth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions R. ABBOT The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpoÌ„ tradition vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also But that doth he neuer he reproueth traditions and condemneth them but neuer vseth one word to approue any M. Bishop answereth that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law But that is a very weak and silly shift yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures then we heare him saying I say vnto you as euery Reader may obserue Againe where he doth say I say vnto you he teacheth vs to vnderstand that a Iohn 14 10. he speaketh not of himselfe but what he saith he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to construe it b Chrysost supra sect 7. out of the Law and the Prophets according to the written word of the law and the Prophets deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence Thirdly it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop that where our Sauiour doth most often vse those words c Mat. 5.18.20 I say vnto you he vseth them to challenge the written Law froÌ„ the corruption of Tradition and to affirme the original truth thereof For Tradition had taught men to vnderstaÌ„d the law literally only of outward actions but he shewes in the commandements d Ver 22.28 of murther and adultery that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law and taken from it e Ver. 34. teaching onely not to forsweare but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice and where God had said Thou shalt loue thy neighbour by a corrupt glose put to it Thou shalt hate thine enemie but he teacheth that the name of f Ver. 44. a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies Thus he rectifieth that which Tradition had made crooked but for Tradition he saith nothing Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law would haue peruerted Traditions also if there had bene any and Christ would haue restored the integritie thereof but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter We heare him often saying g Mat. 19.4 Haue ye not read and h Chap. 21.13 It is written and i Luke 10.26 What is written in the law how readest thou but we neuer heare him saying Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition He telleth the Saduces k Mat. 22.29 Ye erre because ye know not the Scriptures and the cause of the Disciples error was noted l Iohn 20.9 As yet they knew not the Scripture but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tradition for any cause of error He saith m Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures they testifie of me but he neuer saith search after Traditions they are they that testifie of me n Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled saith he but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deliuered by tradition o Luke 24.27 He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him but out of Tradition he interpreted nothing vnto them p Ver. 45. He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions Thus the Euangelists from place to place vpon diuers occasions do set downe q Mat. 1.22 2.17 c. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets mentioning the things which are wriâ—â—en but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradition And what will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures and to Traditions none at all He telleth vs a childish tale that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies but their owne they do sometimes as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists who maketh that very seldome which is so often done And when it is done it is done by Scripture only neuer by Tradition which is the point whereto he should haue answered and he saith nothing to it Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader by seeming to say somwhat when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary and concerneth not that that is obiected to him To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tradition saith he proceedeth of most grosse ignorance Where had Mathew the adoring of the Sages c. Pelting brabler what is this to that that M. Perkins saith Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times they signifie the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God They neuer confirme
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
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
via duceret aut reduceret ad te Ideâ—que euÌ„ essemuâ— insirmi ad inueniendam liquida ratione veritateÌ„ obhoc nobis opâ—s esset authoritate sanctaâ—uÌ„ literarum â—am credere caeperam nullo modo te fuisse tributuruÌ„ tam excellentum illi Scripturâ—e per omnetiâ—m terras authoritatem nisi per ipsam tibi credi per ipsam te quaerivoluisses I alwaies beleeued saith he that thou art and that thou hast care of vs albeit I knew not what to think of thy being or which way should leade me or bring me againe to thee Therefore when I was too weake by apparent reason to find out the truth and for this purpose needed the authority of the holy Scriptures I began now to beleeue that by no means thou wouldest giue that excellency of authority to those scriptures euen throughout the whole earth but that thou wouldest haue vs therby to beleeue thee and thereby to seeke thee This place sheweth the true effect of that other speech and it is great impudency and impiety in M. Bishop and his fellowes to force vpon S. Austine that protestation which they do by their false construction 23 W. BISHOP This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I will not dwell any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians * Euseb li. 3.36 To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faithfull in truth and ouerthrew the heretikes * Ibid. li. 5. c. 20. S. Irenaeus who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall traditions receiued from Polycarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought we not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the which the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleare perspicuous to define the present question For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all must we not haue followed the order of Traditions which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants * Rom. 6. Athanasius saith * Lib. de decreâ— Niceni conc We haue proued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. Basil hath these words * De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See Gregory Nazianz. Orat. 1. in Iulian. R. ABBOT M. Bishop is here as he was before like the melancholike merchant of Athens who reioyced at the sight of euery ship that came in perswading himselfe that it was his ship He cannot light any where vpon the name of traditions but he presently imagineth that it is meant of their Popish vnwritten traditions And here in the first place to colour this he translateth the words of Eusebius amisse by changing the singular number into the plurall a Euseb hist lib. 3. cap. 32. Vt Apostolorum traditioni indivulsè adhaerent admonebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He warned them saith Eusebius concerning Ignatius that they should cleaue stedfastly to the tradition of the Apostles He saith not traditions as to note sundry doctrines left vnwritten as M. Bishop would haue it but tradition as entirely generally to signifie the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Therefore he must necessarily be vnderstood of the doctrine of the Apostles which is written but there is no necessity of vnderstanding any more This tradition that is the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Eusebius saith that Ignatius did testifie by writing and what he testified we should see by those writings if we had them now in such sort as he left them euen no other doctrine but what the Apostles before had left in writing But those Epistles haue bene diuersly in hucksters hands being growne to greater number then Eusebius and Hierome heard of in their times containing many things now which they had not then and many then which they haue not now Ignatius now is made to say that b Ignat. epist 5. ad Phil. p. Siquâ— dominico die reiunauerâ—t aut sabbato praeter vnum sabbatuÌ„ is est Christi interfector if any man fast vpon the Lords day or vpon the Saterday he is a murtherer of Christ whereas S. Austine confesseth that c Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus â—â—unare eporteat vel quibus non oporteat nullo Domini vel Apostolorum praecepto inuenio definitum he found it not defined by any precept of Christ or his Apostles what daies we are to fast and what not and Hierome as we haue heard before confesseth that Paul and others with him did fast vpon the Lords day He is now made to say that d Ignat. ibid. Siquâ— eum Iudaeis pascha peregeris festi eorum Symbola susceperit is particeps est socius eoruÌ„ qui Dominum occiderunt Apostolos eius if any man obserue Easter with the Iewes or shall beare the marks of their festiuall day he is a companion and partaker with theÌ„ who killed Christ and his Apostles whereas it is manifest by the ecclesiastical history that e Euseb hist lib. 5 cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna at that time kept Easter in that sort refused to yeeld to Anicetus Bishop of Rome to do otherwise therefore that there was no such obseruation to which Ignatius should adioine any such censure as here is Againe Hierome citeth this sentence out of Ignatius that f Hieron cont Pelug lib. 3. Ignatius vir Apostolicus martyr scribit audacter Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super omnes homines erant peccatores Christ chose Apostles who were sinners aboue all men which now is not found in those Epistles that we haue Therfore sith we haue his writings no otherwise but maimed and corrupted it is hard from them now to gather any certaintie at all and those some traditions which M. Bishop speaketh of are but meere forgeries conueyed into them by the Popes agents albeit the former of those traditions which I haue mentioned maketh them also murtherers of Christ because they fast vpon the Saterday or else they must denie that these
and yet neither that of sufficient waight to proue that that he hath vndertaken to proue as before hath bene shewed 24. W. BISHOP Because I haue cited already some of the Latine auncient Doctors in stead of the rest I will record out of them in a word or two how old rotten heretiks vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions and flie wholly vnto the written word See the whole book of Tertullians prescriptions against heretiks which principally handleth this very point The same doth Irenaeus witnesse of the Valentinians and Marcionists * Lib. 3. cap. 2. The Arians common song vnto the Catholickes was I will not admit to be read any words that are not written in the Scriptures as witnesseth S. Hilary in his booke against Constantius the Emperour against whom he alledgeth the preaching of the Apostles and the authoritie of the auncient Bishops expressed in his liuely colours S. Augustine some 1200. yeares ago recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now a days in the person of Maximinus an Ariā in his first book against him in the beginning If thou shalt saith this heretik bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all we must needs heare thee but these words which are without the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they worship me teaching commandements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten traditions hath bene afore declared The like doth S. Bernard affirme of certaine heretikes of his time called * Hom. 62. Cant. Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholickes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to standfast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth as well as that which is written euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned heretickes to reiect all Traditions and to flie vnto the onely Scriptures R. ABBOT For conclusion of this question he bringeth vs here a rotten tale how old rotten heretickes vsed alwayes to reiect vnwritten traditions and flie wholly to the written word To make this tale good he bringeth vs first a lie and then a fond cauill He referreth his Reader first to Tertullians booke of prescriptions the purpose whereof what it is I haue shewed before at large but in all that booke is no word of heretickes flying wholly to the written word Tertullian sheweth how they mangled and marred the Scriptures being vrged therewith reiecting what and where they list so that by the Scriptures there was no dealing with them but that they did flie to the Scriptures or required triall thereby he affirmeth not And this is plaine by Irenaeus euen in that place whence M. Bishop citeth him for his second witnesse and where he speaketh of the very same heretickes of whom Tertullian spake a Iren lib. 3. c. 2. Cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem ipsarum conuertuntur Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate et quia variè sunt dictae quia nō possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vinam vocem ob quam causam et Paulū dixisse sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos Heretikes saith he when they are reproued by the Scriptures fall to finding fault with the Scriptures as if they were not aright nor of authoritie and that they are doubtfully set down and that by the Scriptures the truth cannot be found of them that are ignorant of tradition for they say that the truth was not deliuered by writing but by liuely voice and that therefore Paul said We speake wisedome among those that be perfect Now by these very words of Irenaeus do thou esteeme gentle Reader the trecherie of this man who beareth thee in hand that Irenaeus noteth it there for a propertie of heretickes to reiect vnwritten Traditions and to flie wholly to the written word when as it was their abusing and refusing of the Scriptures that made him to appeale to the tradition of the Church the matters of their heresies being concerning the fundamentall articles of our beleefe which are euidently taught by the written word It is truly said that heretickes shunne the Scriptures euen as the theefe doth the gallowes and as it is true in other heretickes so it is in the Papists vpon whom how iustly those words of Irenaeus light and how fully they describe their vsage towards the Scriptures hath bene b Answer to the Epistle sect 11. before declared To this apparent lie M. Bishop addeth a blind cauill for which he bringeth the speeches of Constantius the Emperour and Maximinus both Arians out of Hilary and Austine The matter is answered sundry times before Against the assertion of the Church that the Sonne of God is consubstantiall or of the same substance with the Father they excepted idlely and vainely that they would admit no words that were not written M. Bishop knoweth well that we do not so because we receiue and professe those words which they refused yea he knoweth that we say and teach that the Pope is Antichrist that the Church of Rome is the purple whore of Babylon that the Masse is an abhominable idoll and wicked prophaning of the Sacrament of Christ and such like and yet these words are no where found in the Scripture We contend not concerning words let them vse what words they will so that the doctrine imported and meant by those words be contained in the Scriptures Of those heretickes called Apostolici S. Bernard saith no such matter as he alledgeth All that he saith is that c Berna in Cant. ser 66. Instituta Ecclesiae non recipiunt they did not receiue the ordinances of the Church and what is that to the doctrines of faith taught by Christ and his Apostles which are not contained in the Scriptures Concerning which against M. Bishops conclusion I conclude this question with the saying of Saint Austin before alledged and worthy here againe to be remembred d August supra sect 8. Whether concerning Christ or his Church or any thing that belongeth vnto our faith and life I will not say if we not being to be compared to him that saith If we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you anything but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell accursed be he Hearken to it M. Bishop and let it make you afraid to pleade for Traditions any more CHAPTER 8. OF VOWES 1. W. BISHOP MAster Perkins is very intricate and tedious in deliuering his opinion concerning Vowes I will in as good order as I can briefly correct his errors herein In this passage which he intitleth of our consents he rangeth many things wherein we
diuels to forbid to marrie truth if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did But we haue a more reuerend opinion of mariage than the Protestants themselues For we with the Apostle * Ephes 3. hold it to be a great Sacrament they that it is a morall contract only Notwithstanding we maintaine that such persons who being of ripe yeeres haue aduisedly vowed chastity may not marrie not because mariage is not honourable but for that they haue solemnly promised to God the contrary which we also hold to be better than if he had maried And so to vse S. Austines words He forbiddeth to marrie who saith it to be euill but not he who before this good thing preferreth a better And a little after you see saith he that there is great difference betweene perswasion to virginity by preferring the greater good before the lesser forbidding to marrie by accusing lying together for issue The first is the doctrine of the Apostles which we teach the latter only of deuils * Lib. 3. cont Faust Manich. cap. 6. R. ABBOT Because the second is like the first we presume it to carie sufficient waight and strength of argument against M. Bishops answer The Apostle reckoneth it for one of a 1. Tim. 4.1.3 the doctrines of diuels to forbid to marrie M. Bishop answereth Truth if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did But if he had vnderstood what he had said he would not here haue named Montanus for Montanus in this point was outright a Papist and condemned the Marcionites and Manichees for that opinion with which M. Bishop here chargeth him Tertullian being become by his fall the champion of Montanus and being vrged by the catholike Church with the words of the Apostle in the place here cited against b Ibid. commanding to abstaine from meates answereth the place cōcerning meates as Maister Bishop here doth concerning mariage that the holy Ghost in those words c Tertull. de Ieian Praedamnant iā haereticos perpetuam abstinentiam praecepturos ad destruenda et despiciēda opera creatoris quales inueniam apud Marcionē apud Tatiantum c. non apud paraecletum condemneth heretikes that should commaund perpetuall abstinence to destroy and disgrace the workes of the Creator Such saith he as we finde with Marcion and Tatian with whom the Manichees therein consented not with Montanus his paracletus As therefore in meates so in mariage Montanus condemned them who dishonoured the worke of Gods creation and tooke it to be a thing in it selfe vncleane and wholy to be condemned Therefore Tertullian writing againe in behalfe of Montanus concerning mariage setting the Church on the one side vnder the name of Naturalists or Carnalists and heretikes on the other side saith d Tertull. de Monogam Haeretici nuptias auferūt Psychici ingerunttilli nec semel isti nō semel nubūt c. Neque continentia eiusmodi laudanda est quia haeretica est neque licentia defendenda quia Psychica est illa blasphemat ista luxuriat illa destruit nuptiarum Deum ista confiuidit Heretikes take away mariage Carnalists vrge it they marry not so much as once these marry more then once their continency is not to be commended because it is hereticall nor the licence of the other to be defended because it is carnall the one blasphemeth the other exceedeth the one destroieth God from being the author of mariage the other shameth him Anone after he saith that e Jbid. Christum Paracletus contestabitur qualē credimus cū toto ordine creatoris their Paracletus did testifie Christ according to the faith with the whole order or ordinance of the Creator In the same place he alledgeth their soundnesse in the rule of faith namely that which summarily we professe in the articles of our Creede as an argument that those things which they taught were not of the euill spirit f Ibid. Aduersarius spiritus ex diuersitate praedicationis apparet primò regulā adulterans fidei ita ordinem adulterans disciplinae c. Fidem dicit pro eis integritas praedicationis c. Ante quis de Deo haereticus sit necesse est tunc de instituto c. Paracletus nouae disciplinae institutor c. who would first haue corrupted them in faith and then haue peruerted them in order of conuersation whereas now their integrity in preaching the faith did giue assurance or warrant for them A man saith he must first be an heretike concerning God and then as touching institution of behauiour but Montanus their Paracletus was as he saith an instructour or teacher not of any new faith but of new order and conuersation to which purpose he saith in another place hauing set downe a briefe of the articles of our beliefe g Tertull. de veland virgin Hac lege fidei manēte caetera iam disciplinae conuersationis admittūt nouitatem correctionis c. Propterea Paracletū misit vt ad perfectū perduceretur disciplina This law or rule of faith abiding other matters of discipline and conuersation do admit newnesse of correction and maketh the end of the sending of their Paracletus to be this that discipline or conuersation might be brought to perfection Montanus then denied not mariage according to the rule of faith to be Gods institution but professeth of their continencie that it h Idem de Monog Continentia religiosa legem nuptiarum honorat honoured the law of mariage and therefore M. Bishop did him great wrong to couple him in that sort with the Manichees who wholy blasphemed mariage as vncleane and hauing originall from the diuell and power of darknesse But yet he will say that Montanus taught somewhat against mariage and we acknowledge the same yet not as to condemne mariage but i Jbid. Saluo inquis iure nubēdi Planè saluo c. nihilominus tamen ex ea parte destructo qua continentiam praefert c. Praelatione continentiae imposita to preferre continency as Tertullian saith It is true that albeit he acknowledged mariage to be Gods institution yet he held the liberty thereof to be permitted but onely once and that once to be yeelded onely to the infirmity of the flesh euen as M. Bishop said before that to common Christians the Apostle said If they cannot abstaine let them marry but it is plaine by Tertullian that all this was but to commend a state of greater perfection k De veland virgin Quae Paracleti administratio nisi haec c. quòd ad meliora proficitur the ministerie of their Paracletus being that men should profit to better things and l De Monog Secundum sanctitatem caruis admonuit incedere should walke according to the holinesse
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
strength and attaine vnto euerlasting life So certaine are they of the truth which they learne in them as that they are readie to forsake all and to lay downe their liues for the testifying of that which they beleeue thereby Against this M. Bishop telleth vs that not the learnedst in the primitiue Church would take vpon him to discerne which bookes were canonicall and which not But in so saying he very greatly abuseth his reader for the scriptures of Moses the Prophets and all the bookes of the new Testament saue only those few which he mentioneth haue bene discerned and acknowledged for Canonicall without contradiction from the time that first they were deliuered to the Church Yea but for three hundred yeares after Christ saith he it was left vndefined by the best learned as touching those few the Epistles of Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the two latter of S. Iohn and the Apocalypse whether they were Canonicall or not Be it so but is this a sufficient ground for him to affirme that they discerned not which were vndoubtedly canonical Scriptures because they doubted whether these were so or not What did so many huÌ„dred thousand Martyrs suffer in the space of those 300 yeares and did they know no certaine and vndoubted grounds whereupon to build the assurance of that for which they suffered Did the Bishops and Pastors of the Church teach the people of God out of the Scriptures and yet did they not discerne whether they were Scriptures or not As for the doubt that was made of these bookes by him mentioned it was onely by some and in some places and vpon weake and vncertaine grounds as the second Epistle of S. Peter vpon difference of style the Epistle to the Hebrewes for that it seemed to some for want of vnderstanding to fauour the heresie of the Nouatians the Reuelation of Saint Iohn for that to some such like it seemed to make for the millenarie fancie of Corinthus but this was not sufficient so to ouerweigh the authoritie of them but that the former testimonie that was giuen of them preuailed still in the Church so that they were not since confirmed or first receiued into authoritie by the Church but onely acknowledged and continued still in the authoritie which they had before Therfore of the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Reuelation Hierome testifieth thus n Hieron ad Darda de terra repromiss Illud nostris dicendum est hanc Epistolà quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos non solùm ab Ecclesus Orientis sed abomnibus retrò Ecclesus Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli suscipi licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur nihil interesse cuius sit cùm Ecclesiastici viri sit quotidiè Ecclesiarum lectione celebretur Quòd sicam LatinoruÌ„ consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Ioannis eadem libertate suscipiunt tamen nos vtraque suscipimus nequaquam huius temporis consuetudinem sed veterum scriptoruÌ„ authoritatem sequentes qui plerunque vtriusque vtuntur testimonijs non vt interdum de Apocryphis facere solent c. sed quasi canonicis ecclesiasticis This must we say to our men that this Epistle to the Hebrewes not onely of the Easterne Churches but of all the former Churches and writers of the Greeke tongue hath bene receiued as the Epistie of Paule the Apostle albeit many thinke it either to haue bene written by Barnabas or Clement and that it skilleth not whose it is seeing it came from a speciall man of the Church and is daily frequented in the reading of the Churches And if the custome of the Latines receiue it not amongst Canonicall Scriptures the Churches of the Greekes by the like libertie receiue not the Reuelation of S. Iohn and yet we saith he receiue them both not following the custome of this time but the authoritie of the auncient writers who commonly vse the testimonies of them both not as they are wont sometimes to do out of the Apocryphall bookes but as being bookes Canonicall and of authoritie in the Church Herby then M. Bishop may see that it was but in his ignorance and vpon some other mans word that he saith that for three hundred yeares it was not defined whether these bookes were Canonicall or not whereas they had vndoubted authoritie in the first Church and began in latter time to be questioned without cause Of those other therefore which he mentioneth we conceiue in the like sort of which they that in their simplicitie doubted yet in the other Scriptures by the holy Ghost discerned * 2. Cor. 4.6 the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Iesus Christ and thereby became partakers of life in him Whereas he saith that we allow not S. Augustine the true spirit of discerning which bookes be canonicall because he maketh the bookes of Machabees and the booke of Wisedome to be Canonicall Scriptures and yet we will not so admit them we answer him that he hath not the spirit to vnderstand and discerne the meaning of Saint Austin Ruffinus mentioneth the bookes whereof the question was as touching the reading of them in the Church to haue bene of three sorts Some were o Ruffinan exposâ—symb apud Cyprian Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ex quibus fideâ— nostrae assertiones constare voluerant Canonicall which he reckoneth the same that we do vpon which saith he they would haue the assertions of our faith to stand Other some he calleth p Alij libri sunt qui non canonies sed ecclesiastici à maioribus appellaâ— sunt c. Ecclesiasticall bookes not Canonicall naming all those which we tearme the Apocryphall Scriptures all which saith he the Fathers would haue to be read in the Churches but not to be alledged to proue the authority of faith A third sort there were which were termed by them q Cateras Scripturas Apocryphas nominaruÌ„t quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt Apocryphall writings which they would not haue to be read in the Churches at all which were all those that are wholy reiected as bastards and counterfeits such as were r Sect. 13. before spoken of in answer to the Epistle Now of those three sorts some made but onely two and that diuersly Some reckoned vnder the name of Apocryphall Scriptures all that were not of the first sort and properly termed Canonicall as Hierome did who hauing reckoned the same bookes for Canonicall that Ruffinus doth and accounting them in number two and twenty as the Hebrewes do addeth that Å¿ Hieron in Prolog Galeata Fuâ—â—â— pariter veteris legis libri viginis duo c. we are to know that whatsoeuer is beside these is to be put amongst Apocryphall writings Therefore saith he the booke called the Wisedome of Solomon the booke of Iesus the Sonne of Syrach
turne to trifles and idlenesse Thus Ambrose also saith c Ambros in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Quoniam quae supra dixit de huiusmodi viduis contraria illicita perducent eas ad mortem idcirco consilium dat praecipit ea fieri quae licita sunt Melius est enim domus suae curam gerere quà m in aliena domo adulari Et mulium expedit nubere quà m sub bona pâ—ae professione notabiliter ìncedere Because those contrary and vnlawfull things which he hath spoken of such widowes shall bring them to death therefore he giueth counsell and chargeth that those things be done which are lawfull For it is better that they take charge of their owne house then to vse flatterie in the houses of others More expedient is it to marrie then vnder a good and godly profession to walke so as to be subiect to publike note Now then if M. Bishop will not beleeue vs yet he will not gainesay the assertion of these auncient fathers that the Apostle here for auoiding those mischiefes and inconueniences that he speaketh of giueth liberty of mariage to them who notwithstanding had bene receiued into the number of Church widowes with profession and promise not to marry any more Yea and that it may yet further appeare how farre the auncient Church was from the beastly and lewd conceipt of Romish hypocrites before expressed Cyprian speaking of virgins which had vowed virginitie saith thus d Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 11. Sise ex fide Christo dicauerunt pudicè castè sine vlla fabula perseuerent ita fortes stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent Si autem perseuerare nolunt vel non possunt melius est vt nubant quà m vt mignem suis delicijs cadant If by their faith they haue dedicated themselues to Christ let them continue purely and chastly without any euill report so let them firmely and stedfastly looke for the reward of virginitie But if they will not or cannot perseuere it is better that they marrie then that by their wantonnesse they fall into the fire M. Bishops maister Bellarmine being pitifully distressed with this testimonie that he might finde a way and meanes to answer it treacherously suppresseth the first part of the sentence faith that Cyprian spake not of those e Bellarm. iudic de lib. concord Luther art 16. Cyprianum non de ijs loqui quae coÌ„tinentiam vouerunt sed de ijs quae adhuc deliberant quid sint factura which had vowed continencie but of them who were yet in deliberation what to do whereas the very words of Cyprian as we see do mention them who by their faith haue dedicated themselues to Christ Of virgins already vowed S. Austin also saith f Aug. de sanct virginit cap. 34. Hae quae nubere volunt et ideò noÌ„ nuhunt quia impunè noÌ„ possunt meliùs nuberent quaÌ„ vrereÌ„tur id est quà m occulta concupiscentiae flamma in ipsa concupiscentia vastarentur They which would marrie and therefore do not marrie because they cannot freely do it were better to marrie then to be burned that is then by the secret flame of concupiscence to be consumed in lust S. Hierome in like sort complaining of some by whom g Hieron epist. ad Demetriadem Sanctum virginum propositum quarundam non benè se agentium nomen infamat quibus apertè dicendum est vt aut nubant si continere non possunt aut contineant si nalunt nubere the holy profession of virgins was disgraced whilest they miscaried themselues addeth who are openly to be warned either to marrie if they cannot containe or else to containe if they will not marrie To conclude Epiphanius saith that h Epiphan haer 61. Apostolic Melius est lapsuÌ„ à cursu palà m sibi vxoreÌ„ sumere secundum legem à virginitate multo teÌ„pore paenitentiam agere sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci c. et non quotidiè occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitate quae ipsi à diabolo infertur Sic nouit ecclesia praedicare haec sunt sanationis medicamenta better it is for a man that is fallen from his course of virginitie and single life openly to take a wife according to the law and long to be penitent for his fall from virginitie and so to be brought into the Church againe and not daily to be wounded with the wickednesse which by the diuell is brought vpon him Thus saith he the Church was learned to teach these are her medicines wherewith to heale This was the conceipt of the auncient Church though too much addicted to that vowing of virginity yet in the defect therof giuing place to mariage rather then to vncleane and filthy life But the Church of Rome now is become a desperate Surgeon a Surgeon did I say nay a cruell butcher and a slaughterer of the consciences of men not healing wounds but poisoning them and forsalues and medicines giuing them cords and halters to hang themselues Albeit their singular hypocrisie and impudencie in this behalfe notably appeareth when telling vs that the Apostle denounceth damnation to them that marrie after a vow of single life they notwithstanding giue to the Pope a power to dispence where he list for the breaking of this vow and to giue liberty of mariage Thus Mathew of Paris mentioneth that he dispenced with i Math. Parisâ—n Heâ—r 3. anno 1237. Elnor the daughter of King Iohn and sister to King Henry the third that hauing solemnly vowed widowhood yet shee might marrie to Simon Mounfort Earle of Leicester So doth Platina record that k Plat. de vit Pontif. in Coelâ—stin 3. Celestinus the third did by voluntarie dispensation giue Constantia the daughter of Roger King of Sicilia being professed a virgin to the Emperour Henry the sixt vpon a condition of a benefit to come to himselfe thereby Many other examples are there of the like by which they teach vs lightly to esteeme of that they say as touching this matter being in their owne account a thing wholy subiect to the Popes will As for vs we are perswaded that if the Pope herein can dispense wee may much more securely presume of that dispensation which God by his word hath giuen commaunding them to marrie that cannot containe Maister Bishop then may see that the text alledged was not a furlong from the marke but hee himselfe was gone a furlong or rather a mile from his owne wits that would go about to perswade vs that it is better for votaries to burne that is to be defiled with incontinencie then to marrie when the Apostle absolutely saith It is better to marrie then to burne yea that they are all beasts and men of seared consciences who by a vow intend to tye men more strongly from mariage then from beastly and filthy lust 8 W. BISHOP The second is much like * 1. Tim. 4. It is a doctrine of