of satisfaction speaker A. W. To let passe your propounding the argument otherwise then Master Perkins doth I answere to your Enthymem by denying the consequence Their sinnes say you were pardoned vpon their faith and repentance therefore their sacrifices and other painefull works were works of satisfaction It followes not for these very works were part of their repentance which without them when they could be done was insufficient and they were as requisite for the pardon of the eternall punishment I speake as you Papists do as of the temporall speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins ansvvereth many things as men do commonly vvhen they cannot vvell tell vvhat to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices vvere types of Christs suffering on the Crosse vvhat is this to the purpose speaker A. W. How many things trow you doth Master Perkins answer But poore two and those more to the purpose than you would The obiection was That those sacrifices which Moses prescribed seuerall persons were satisfactions for sinne This Master Perkins denieth directly saying that they were appointed to be types of Christs satisfaction which is most certaine Do you aske what this is to the purpose To shew that there was another end of these sacrifices than you imagine But you will say this doth not disprooue their being for satisfaction Remember your selfe Master Perkins answers and you replie who must prooue he or you He hath giuen you a reason of his deniall which is as much as in extremitie can bee looked for of an answerer Further replie shall haue further answere speaker D. B. P. Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and vvhat needed that vvhen they had offended God only and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth speaker A. W. The sacrifices for those sins by which the congregation had not been offended were not properly for the satisfaction thereof but onely thus farre that the people might perceiue how carefull each man was to repent euen of his secret sinnes and to haue them also purged by the blood of the Messiah to come whereof those sacrifices were types speaker D. B. P. Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation hovv much more reason is it that it be made to God Read those Chapters and you shall find that they vvere principally made to obtaine remission of God as these vvords also do vvitnesse And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices vvere to satisfie God vvho thereupon forgaue the sinne and all paine due to it speaker A. W. First satisfaction was made to God alreadie by the sacrifice of the Messiah to come in whom they beleeued Secondly there was danger to the congregation by their sin which might be an example of sinne to other Thirdly the people by these sacrifices was to be taught that their sinnes prouoked the wrath of God and were to be purged by the sacrifice of the Messiah There is nothing in those chapters to prooue that the end of those sacrifices was the obtaining of Gods mercie otherwise for temporall punishment than for eternall And I am sure you will not say they were to satisfie in that respect though vpon that sacrifice the sinne should be forgiuen that is vpon their faith and repentance of which those sacrifices were enioyned to be proofes and parts speaker W. P. Obiect 11. Men whose sinnes are all pardoned haue afterward sundrie crosses and afflictions laide vpon them vnto the ende of their daies therefore in all likelihoode they make satisfaction to God for temporall punishments As for example the Israelites for murmuring against the Lord in the wildernesse were barred all from the lande of promise and the like befell Moses and Aron for not glorifying God as they should haue done at the waters of strife Answ. Man must bee considered in a twofold estate as he is vnder the law and as he is vnder grace In the first estate all afflictions are curses or legall punishments be they little or great but to them that are in the second estate beleeue in Christ though the same afflictions remaine yet doe they change their habite or condition and are the actions of a Father seruing to be trials corrections preuentings admonitions 1. Cor. 11. 32. When wee are iudged wee are nurtured of the Lord and Heb. 12. 7. If we indure chastisment God offereth himselfe vnto you as children And Chrysostome saith 1. Cor. hom 28. When wee are corrected of the Lord it is more for our admonition then damnation more for a medicine then for a punishment more for a correction then for a penaltie And whereas God denied the beleeuing Israelites with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be prooued that it was a punishment or penaltie of the law vpon them The Scripture saith no more but that it was an admonition to all men in all ages following to take heede of offences as Paul writeth All these things came vnto them for ensamples and were written for our admonition 1. Corinth 10. 11. speaker D. B. P. The reason for vs vvhich indeed is the very ground-vvorke of satisfaction may thus be framed many after pardon obtained of their sins haue had temporall punishment laide vpon them for the same sins and that by Gods ovvne order vvherfore after the forgiuenes of the sinne and the eternall punishment of it through Christs satisfaction there remaineth some temporall paine to be endured by the party himselfe for the same sinne vvhich is most properly that vvhich vve call satisfaction They deny that any man hath been punished temporally for any sinne vvhich vvas once pardoned speaker A. W. If this groundworke of satisfaction prooue ruinuos the whole building will quickly fall But it cannot be sound because it is deceitfully laid If by enduring temporall punishment for sinne you meane no more but that by occasion of sinne committed many men haue had such chastisements we grant your conclusion But if you vnderstand by it as the question is that they haue borne these punishments to satisfie some part of Gods wrath to which our Sauiours sacrifice either could not or vpon composition betwixt his Father and him was not to reach we denie the antecedent of your Enthymem and say that no man beleeuing in the Messiah euer suffered any such punishment for sinne speaker D. B. P. We proue it first by the example of the Israelits vvhose murmuration against God vvas at Moses intercession pardoned yet all the elder sort of them vvho had seene the miracles vvrought in Aegypt for their deliuerance vvere by the sentence of God depriued of the â—â—ght of the Land of promise and punished vvith death in the vvildernesse for the verie same their murmuration speaker A. W. Was the eternall punishment due to this their murmuring pardoned at Moses request If it were not your example is not to the purpose for our question is of them onely who haue
that forgiuen If it were then al the people had true faith in the Messiah which is a very bold assertion without all likelihood of truth But no doubt some of them were indeed true beleeuers They were and of them it remaines to be prooued that their shutting out of Canaan was to appease the remaines of Gods wrath against their murmuring There is no such thing in the text but that God did it to make all the earth see his glorie Adde hereunto that this punishment was not occasioned by this sinne onely but by former murmurings and those many perhaps not at all pardoned by any such speciall entreatie of Moses speaker D. B. P. The like iudgement vvas giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron for not glorifying Gad at the vvaters of contradiction both of them had their sinne pardoned yet vvere they both aftervvard for the same de barred from the entrance into the holy Land speaker A. W. The like answere I make to the example of Moses and Aaron that is I denie the antecedent Moses and Aaron were not punished that God might be satisfied for the temporall punishment belonging to their sinne but that they and the people might learne to put their trust in Gods promises made to them and to weight on him with patience The end of their punishment was not Gods satisfaction but their reformation and the peoples speaker D. B. P. To this M. Perkins ansvvereth first that man must be considered in a tvvofold estate as he is vnder the lavv and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions vvere curses of the lavv in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into trials corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into vvhat you vvill else sauing satisfaction Novv to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleeuing Israelits vvith Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it vvas a punishment or penaltie of the law laide vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it vvas an admonition vnto all ages follovving to take heed of like offences as Paul vvriteth All thâ—se things came vnto them for examples and vvere vvritten for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion needs not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moses intercession for them and the obtaining of their pardon and lastlie after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Againe Aaron shall not enter into the land because he hath been disobedient to my voyce and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the vvaters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their daies were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so deaâ—eth daily with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies not that this punishment was laid vpon them for those sinnes but that the Scripture affoords any proofe to shew that it was a penaltie of the law as a part of the Curse which appertaines to sinners by the law for which Christ hath fully satisfied The punishments in themselues were penalties of the law but they are notsuch to them who by true faith in Christ haue all their sinnes fully satisfied for by him speaker W. P. Obiect III. Dauid was punished after his repentance for his adulterie for the child died and he was plagued in his owne kind in the incest of Absolon and when hee had numbred the people hee was yet punished in the death of his people after his owne repentance Answ. I answere as before that the hand of God was vpon Dauid after his repentance but yet the iudgements which befell him were not curses vnto him properly but corrections for his sinnes and triall of his faith and meanes to preuent further sinne and to renew both his faith and repentance as also they serued to admonish others in like case for Dauid was a publike person and his sinnes were offensiue both within the Church of God and without speaker D. B. P. What dotage is this to graunt the very same thing which he would be thought to deny but yet in other tearmes that the simple whom only he can beguile may not perceiue it If the hand of God were vpon Dauid correcting him for his sinne and that after his repentance did not Dauid then suffer temporall punishment for his sinnes before forgiuen Which is most properly to satisfie for them speaker A. W. Dauid was punished but not to satisfie Gods wrath remaining after the eternall punishment was taken away by the sactifice of the Messiah made effectuall to Dauid by his faith The reason of his punishment as the Scripture expresly saith was the stopping of the Heathens mouthes who were likely to blaspheme God because of Dauids sin as if God either would not haue seene or had not cared what manner of man by his speciall prouidence he had preferred to the kingdome of Israel Master Perkins truly and constantly denies the same thing still viz. that Dauids punishment was for satisfaction to God by bearing part of the curse due to sinners by the law which onely is to satisfie The reason of this deniall that I may answere once againe for all is that Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law being made a curse for vs. speaker D. B. P. Yea ouer and beside this punishment inflicted by God he of his owne deuotion performed farre greater satisfaction by putting on sack-cloath lying on the bare ground by watering his couch with teares and making ashes his food and in this most pittifull plight he made most humble supplication vnto God to wash him more and more from his iniquitie he neuer dreamed that this his satisfaction should be any derogation vnto the satisfaction of his Lord and Sauiour but in the Psalme saith That such an humble and contrite hart is a sweete sacrifice vnto God speaker A. W. Dauid had not so little feeling either of his Sauiours loue or his owne sinne as to thinke that the one had satisfied by halues or the other by such outward cariage could be satisfied for His praying and humbling of himselfe was to another end partly to intreate for the childs life whom he loued most dearely and partly to obtaine the recouerie of that ioy and comfort which he had formerly taken in the sense of Gods loue to him to which
a sentence of his in commendation of Pope Eugenius which is so full of flatterie that I say not impietie that it can carrie no credit with any modest Christian. It should seeme you saw so much your selfe and therefore craftily left out these absurd and vile speeches viz. Thou art Abel in primacie Noah in gouernment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in authoritie of iudging Samuel in vnction that is either in annoynting or in being annoynted Christ. If this be not a blinde sentence on Bernards part and a broken sentence on yours there is nothing but may abide the light be it neuer so false and be accounted whole be it neuer so mangled It is rather grosse ignorance in you to finde fault with that you vnderstand not Master Perkins neither saith nor meanes that there were many Bishops of Rome at once and yet there haue been three Popes together but according to the Canon cals the Cardinals Bishops of Rome referring this word of Rome not to Bishops simply but to Cardinall Bishops Now all Cardinals were Cardinals of Rome or of the Romish Church The Canon indeede puts not in those words of Rome but the sense is nothing altered by the adding of them For the cleere vnderstanding of the matter we are to know that all Cardinals are either Cardinall Bishops whom the Canon appoints first to consult about electing of the Pope or Cardinall Clerkes that is of some inferiour order of the Clergie the general name wherof is Clerke whether it be Priesthood Deaconship c and these must in the second place be called to the election Now let men iudge whether Master Perkins or you are in fault This Canon is brought to prooue the former proposition that he is no lawfull Pope who is chosen only by the Cardinals and not also by the consent of the rest of the Clergie and people If you had been as carefull to auoide slandering as that reuerend and learned writer was to take heede of vntruths you would neuer haue raised such a suspition of him in this point For the cleering of him let his owne desence against Master Hardings reproches speake For the present Roger Houeden who liued in that time records the historie and sets downe Ioachims words to King Richard That Antichrist was alreadie borne in the citie of Rome and that he should be exalted into the Apostolike seate But you except against Ioachim as an heretike so doth not Bellarmine but onely denies that he writ any such thing It is true that the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocent the third condemned a certaine booke that Abbat Ioachim writ against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris commonly called the Master of the Sentences concerning the vnitie or essence of the Trinitie but it did not reiect him as an heretike yea the Councell specially addes that they will not by their sentence any way derogate from the Abbey of Florence whereof he was the orderer as well because the orders in it were good as also for that he had submitted all his writings to the Apostolike see Therefore Iodocus Coccius makes him one of his Latin Doctors out of whom he confirmes your Popish doctrine And Trithemius saith that he was a man studious and exercised in the Scriptures and that he writ many things against the Iewes and other aduersaries of the Catholike faith Petrark one of the lights of his age for learning wrote about 250. yeeres since that Rome was become Babylon and not onely Babylon but false and wicked Babylon Further in the same place he calles her The fountaine of griefe the lodge of wrath the schoole of error the temple of heresie a shamelesse strumpet which hauing been founded in chastitie humilitie and pouertie hath lifted vp her hornes against her founders the Emperours In another place he calles her couetous Babylon that hath filled vp the measure of Gods wrath with impious and wicked vices so that it runnes ouer In a third he termes her impious Babylon from whom all shame is fled the lodge of griefe and mother of errors in whom there is no goodnes I set not down all he speakes against her somewhat I haue touched that I might see how easily you will answere his words but I thinke he that hath read Bellarmine of this point may gesse before hand what you can say in the matter Irenaeus as you truly say determines not what shall be Antichrists name and leanes more to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet neither doth he allow of that because a man as hee saith may with likelihood gather by many things that his name perhaps shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirmes that it is very likely and giues his reason of it because the most true kingdome had that name Master Perkins expounded it not as a proper name but as an appellatiue because neither the Euangelist nor Irenaeus doe intend to shew Antichrists proper name but to make knowne the name of the Beast which Antichrist should make all take Now the Beast being the Romane or Latin state the name also must be sutable thereunto as wee see it is our Papists calling themselues Romane that is Latin Catholikes I will not fall into exhortation hereupon only I desire all men that haue care of their saluation to consider without preiudice whether it be not euident that the state of Rome whereof the Pope is head is the whore of Babylon prophecied of by S. Iohn Reuelat 17. speaker W. P. Againe this commandement must not so much be vnderstood of a bodily departure in respect of cohabitation and presence as of a spirituall separation in respect of faith and religion And the meaning of the holy Ghost is that men must depart from the Romish Church in regard of Iudgement and doctrine in regard of their faith and the worship of God Thus then we see that the words containe a commaundement from God inioyning his Church and people to make a separation from Babylon Whence I obserue That all those who will bee saued must depart and separate themselues from the faith and religion of this present church of Rome And whereas they are charged with schisme that separate on this manner the truth is they are not schismatiks that doe so because they haue the commandement of God for their warrant and that partie is the schismatike in whom the cause of this separation lieth and that is in the Church of Rome namely the cup of abomination in the whores hand which is their heretical and schismaticall religion speaker D. B. P. And because I purpose God willing not only to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholike doctrine but some what also in euerie Chapter to fortifie and confirme it I will here deliuer what some of the most auncient most learned
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
not to be recorded yet it is strange that Moses should not once make mention of them in generall Thomas expounds it of adding to the words of the Scripture And if it be lawful for all these prohibitions to adde other doctrines why doth Chrysostome reprooue the Iewish Priests for hauing added many things to the law though Moses with threatning charged them they should not For it is certaine they neuer added to nor any way corrupted the text But Chrysostome accuseth them of adding because they deliuered doctrines that were not written in the Scripture as our Sauiour also saith of them Cardinall Caietan wils vs to gather from this place that the law of God is perfect speaker D. B. P. Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses Lavv that therefore nothing must be added vnto the same Law is extreame dotage speaker A. W. What is it to refute that which your aduersarie saith not Master Perkins proues that Moses spake of the written law because he sets it as a preface before his Commentarie vpon the same law You answere nothing to that but crie out vpon extreame dotage for inferrring that because it is a preface to Moses law therefore nothing must be added to it Who inferres any such matter but your selfe You need not make worke you haue your hands full speaker D. B. P. Why then were the bookes of the old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these vvords or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them vvell did vvilfully transgresse against them one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alleadging of this text for the all sufficiencie of the written vvord We neither need nor will defend either of them But we denie your consequence if no man might adde any thing to the law of God deliuered by Moses then the Prophets offended in writing so many volumes The reason is that the Prophets writ not as men but as the instruments of Gods spirit inditing and penning by them God did not tie his owne hands by that commandement that he might not from time to time instruct his people as it should seeme good to his infinite wisedome To speake yet more plainly the Prophets and Apostles writings are nothing els but expositions of that the summe whereof is deliuered in the fiue bookes of Moses wherein the whole doctrine of the Law and the Gospell is contained speaker W. P. Testimonie II. Isai. 8. 20. To the law and to the testimonie If they speake not according to this worde it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth what must be done in cases of difficultie Men must not runne to the wizard or southsaier but to the law and testimonie and here he commends the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts and scruples in conscience whatsoeuer speaker D. B. P. Here the Prophet teacheth saith M. Perkins vvhat is to be done in cases of difficulty Men must not runne to the Wizards and Soothsayers but to the Lavve and to the Testament commending the vvritten vvord as sufficient to resolue all doubts By the Lavv and testimony in that place the fiue books of Moses are to be vnderstood If that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts vvhatsoeuer What need vve then the Prophets vvhat need vve the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles What Wizard vvould haue reasoned in such sort speaker A. W. The Scripture is not to resolue all doubts but all doubts and scruples of conscience whatsoeuer which you craftily leaue out in propounding our reason Your consequence is false If the fiue bookes of Moses be sufficient for the resoluing of al doubts what need any writings of the Prophets Euangelists or Apostles Is not the Ciuill and Canon law in your iudgement sufficient to resolue all doubts in cases concerning them is there therefore no need of any exposition thereof The rest of the Scripture is a Commentarie vpon those fiue bookes Besides is nothing required in the scripture but resoluing of doubts The historie of the Church is worth the knowing for our instruction comfort exhortation imitation and such like speaker D. B. P. The Prophet vvilleth there that the Israelites vvho vvanted vvit to discerne vvhether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell than vnto Wizards and Sooth-sayers to see vvhat is vvritten in the Lavv of Moses concerning that point of consulting Wizards vvhich is there plainely forbidden in diuers places Novv out of one particular case vvhereof there is expresse mention in the vvritten vvord to conclude that all doubts and scruples vvhatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great vvant of light in him as vvas in those blind Israelites speaker A. W. The Prophet doth not send them to the Law and to the testimonie to see whether it be lawfull to enquire of Soothsayers or no but tels them that they must looke into the booke of God to see whether such iudgements as the Prophets threatned should not befall them if they continued their sinning against God So that hee wils them not to hearken what the Southsayers say of their escaping the iudgements that the Prophets denounced but to trie whether their promises of safetie or the others threatning of destruction were agreeable to the word of God Though the case be particular which you put amisse yet if the triall of the Prophets doctrine be to be made by the scripture as it is wherein may we looke to vnwritten traditions speaker W. P. Testimonie III. Iohn 20. 31. These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue euerlasting life Here is set downe the full end of the Gospell and of the whole written word which is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation and therefore the whole scripture alone is sufficient to this ende without traditions speaker D. B. P. 3. Testimony These things vvere vvritten that yee might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set dovvne the full end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to vvhich the vvhole Scripture alone is sufficient vvithout Traditions Ans Here are more faults than lines First the text is craftily mangled Things being put in steed of Miracleâ— For S. Iohn saith Many other Miracles Christ did c but these vvere vvritten c. speaker A. W. Mangling is cutting off some part not putting one word for another especially such a word as containes the other Things-comprehends both doings and sayings and to both doth one of your Glosses referre this narration euen on the former verse where the word miracle is set
downe He shewes saith Lyra the insufficiencie of the Scripture in respect of Christs excellencie in worke and doctrine speaker D. B. P. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith vve shall be saued but beleeuing vve should haue saluation in his name vvhich he clipped off speaker A. W. What saith Master Perkins more than your glosse doth acknowledge That faith may be anowed by which life may be had And another glosse expounds that beleeuing of faith formed by charitie which you grant iustifies It helpes vs nothing at all to leaue out those words in his name and therefore there was no clipping in it speaker D. B. P. Thirdly remember to vvhat faith S. John ascribes the meanes of our saluation not to that vvhereby vve applie vnto our selues Christs righteousnes but by vvhich vve beleeue Jesus to be Christ the Messias of the Ievves and the Sonne of God vvhich M. Perkins also concealed speaker A. W. The faith spoken of in this text is not properly iustifying faith but that is signified in the latter part of the verse where it is said that we haue life in his name that is by resting vpon his power to saue vs. The concealing of those words doth more hurt than helpe vs. speaker W. P. If it bee said that this place must bee vnderstood of Christs miracles onely I answere that miracles without the doctrine of Christ and knowledge of his sufferings can bring no man to life euerlasting and therefore the place must bee vnderstood of the doctrine of Christ and not of his miracles alone as Paul teacheth Gal. 8. 1. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing beside that which wee haue preached let him bee accursed And to this effect hee blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught 1. Tim. 1. 3. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell vvere vvritten that vve might beleeue Iesus to be the Son of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the vvritten vvord containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Ans. S. Iohn speaks not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiencie of Doctrine out of him is not to care vvhat one saith But M. Perkins foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles vvithout the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting True and therefore that text speaking only of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiency of the vvritten Word Christs miracles vvere sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias But that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all Doctrine needfull to saluation For many other points of faith must be beleeued also speaker A. W. Master Perkins prooues that the Euangelist speakes not only of miracles because he speakes of such a faith as will bring a man to euerlasting life which the faith that comes by miracles only will not doe You offer not to answere his reason which stands still in force against you but denie the conclusion that he speakes not onely of miracles This reason wee haue confirmed as also the interpretation by that place of Austin Iohn the Euangelist saith â—ustin witnesseth that our Lord Christ both said and did many things that are not written But those things were chosen out to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the beleeuers And whereas you would restraine the text only to the proofe of Christs being the Messiah Lyra may teach you that in this conclusion the profit also of the doctrine is declared And Hugo Cardinalis saith that in these words specially the intent of the booke but generally the end of all the Scripture is declared Now the end of the Scripture is our saluation To the same purpose writes Cyrill All things that our Lord did are not written but those that the writers thought to be sufficient for manners and doctrine that we glistering with true faith good workes and vertue might come to the kingdome of heauen speaker D. B. P. And if it alone be sufficient vvhat neede vve the other three Gospels the Actes of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Johns Reuelations speaker A. W. There are some that thinke and the opinion is not vnlikely that the Euangelist speakes of all the bookes of the new Testament which hee saw before his writing of this Gospell vnlesse perhaps the reuelation were penned by him afterward But the obiection shewes it selfe to be vaine by my former answer to the like about the fiue bookes of Moses speaker D. B. P. Finally admit that S. Johns Gospell vvere all-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine tearmes that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but they as then being not able to beare it he reserueth that to be deliuered vnto them aftervvard of vvhich high mysteries S. John recordeth not much in his Gospell after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnvvritten speaker A. W. First if it be granted that our Sauiour had at that time some new matter to deliuer which they had not heard of what get you by it It will not follow thereupon either that all things necessarie to saluation are not contained in the scriptures or that your traditions are the things that our Sauiour meant for as Austin truly affirmeth since Christ hath not signified any where in scripture what they were it is rashnes for any man to presume to say they were such or such things No man saith your Glosse may determine what they were Secondly there is no shew of consequence in your reasoning Christ had many things to say not long before his death Therefore though the Gospell be all sufficient yet there are many things not written which were needfull to be beleeued Because they were afterward to be spoken therefore were they not written at all by the Apostles and Euangelists sure Christ forbad not the writing of them in those words Thirdly this is the place which heretikes abuse to the countenancing of their traditions as you do of yours All foolish heretikes saith Austin that will haue themselues counted Christians indeuour to colour their bold fantasticall inuentions with that sentence of the Gospell I haue yet many things to say to you Lastly I answere that those many things of which Christ speakes were the same that before he had taught them which they partly vnderstood not and partly remembred not I prooue it thus Our Sauiour said before that he had taught them all things which he had heard of his father and promised to send them the holie ghost that should teach them and cause them to remember whatsoeuer he had said to them whereof we haue a worthie example in that speech
in his steed to which he may haue recourse as often as any truth is to be taught any error to be confuted any fault to be reprooued or any good dutie to be enioyned Further we vnderstand by the Apostle himself that the Scriptures are able to make him wise to saluation And thence we conclude that they containe all things necessarie to saluation And if any thing els were requisite it is strange that the Apostle should not commend the especiall meditation thereof vnto him since without it he could not be perfect speaker W. P. The second that which can make the man of God that is Prophets and Apostles and the Ministers of the word perfect in all the duties of their callings that same worde is sufficient to make all other men perfect in all good works But Gods word is able to make the man of God perfect Therefore it is sufficient to prescribe the true and perfect way to eternall life without the helpe of vnwritten traditions speaker D. B. P. The same ansvvere I make vnto M. Perkins his second argument out of the same place that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute but not sufficient speaker W. P. The same replie make I against this answer that both the Apostle and the interpreters alleaged proue that they are so profitable that they make the man of God sufficient Besides any man may obserue that you answer to neither part of Master Perkins syllogisme but roue at the imagined exposition of the place speaker D. B. P. I say moreouer that Master Perkins doth falsely English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures when it signifieth all Scripture that is euery booke of Scripture and is there put to verifie that the old Testament only serues to instruct to saluation For in the words next before S. Paul sheweth how that Timothy from his infancie had been trained vp in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures which saith he can instruct thee to saluation And annexeth as the confirmation thereof the Text cited All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. Now in Timothies infancie no part of the new Testament was written and therefore all Scripture which is here put to proue that Scripture which Timothie in his Infancie knew cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more than all the bookes of the old Testament speaker A. W. The words are rightly translated that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these places manifestly prooue Col. 2. 9. In him dwels the whole fulnes of the Godhead Act. 20. 27. The whole counsaile of God Luk. 21. 32. All the people Ephes. 4. 16. The whole bodie Rom. 4. 16. The whole seede 2. Thess. 1. 11. All the good pleasure Matth. 3. 5. All Iudea and all the region thereabout That it must be so taken in this place Dionysius the Carthusian witnesseth All that is the whole Canonicall scripture The Scriptures saith your ordinarie Glosse And in that sense did the Interpreters expound it If we take it as you doe euery Psalme euery verse yea euery word as being from God by inspiration must haue all these properties For whereas you would restraine it to euery booke of scripture the words will not beare it If the old Testament onely without the new had this sufficiencie can it be insufficient now the new is added which indeed is rather an explication than an addition to the former It is more than can be prooued that no part of the new Testament was written in Timothies childhood he being at this time but a young man and this being one of the last Epistles if not the very last that euer the Apostle wrote a little before his martyrdome speaker D. B. P. So that there are three foule faults in this the Protestants Achilles The first in falsification of the text that it might seeme to be spoken of the whole which is spoken of euery part The second in applying that which is spoken of the olde Testament vnto both the olde and new The third in making that to bee all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onley to bee profitable And this is all they can say out of the Scripture to proue that the vvritten Word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation speaker A. W. Your first and second faults are none at all The translation is true and the reason good though you expound the place onely of the old Testament The third is sufficiently cleere that the profit the Scripture brings is the perfecting of the man of God to euery good worke speaker D. B. P. Whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them out of this their ovâ—ne 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 been proued Therfore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation speaker A. W. Your inuincible reason is like your great Masters inuincible Armada so strong in your conceit not in truth I denie the assumption of your syllogisme as it lies that place of Timothie if there were no more prooues the matter sufficiently But if by written in the Scripture you meane set downe in plaine words I denie also the proposition For many things are contained in the Scripture that are not expresly deliuered and that your great champion Bellarmine knew well enough when he propounded your opinion so craftily by that word expresse expresly speaker D. B. P. And by the same principle I might reiect all testimony of Antiquitie as needlesse if the Scriptures be so al-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs here what testimony M. Perkins brings out of antiquity in fauour of his cause speaker A. W. Not only you may but you must also reiect all testimonie of antiquitie that would bring in any doctrine necessarie to saluation which cannot be prooued by scripture Indeed the writings of the ancients are as you call them testimonies that is witnesses of the truth deliuered in the scripture not autenticall records of any other truth To this purpose they are highly to be esteemed when they agree with the truth and to beheld as agreeing when there is not some good reason to be brought to the contrarie speaker W. P. V. the iudgement of the Church Turtul saith Take from hereticks opinions which they maintaine with the heathen that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand speaker D. B. P. Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of Heathen Authors and not to the Traditions of the Apostles and therefore make nothing against them speaker A. W. The Scripture is here appealed to as the onely competent Iudge in matters of controuersie about religion For otherwise if
Heretikes would flie to reuelations and thereby defend their errors they might be said not to do against this rule of Tertullian Yea if traditions were of force to prooue they might easily answere Tertullian in this case that it skilled not though they could not maintaine their opinions by Scripture as long as traditions perhaps might make for them But Tertullian condemnes their errors because they cannot be auowed by the Scripture making that the onely triall speaker W. P. Againe We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquisition after the Gospell When we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing beside for this we first beleeue that there is nothing more which we may beleeue speaker D. B. P. By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not only the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we only beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giuesuch credit as their writings do deserue speaker A. W. By the Gospell the doctrine of saluation by Christ is vnderstood which is no lesse plainly and fully deliuered in the other writings of the new Testament than in those foure bookes which we call by that particular name But that traditions should be commended vnder the title of the Gospell it is neither true nor likely You must shew some place of this author or of some other about his time to giue credit to your interpretation But it is apparant you answered at aduenture not knowing where it is to be found in Tertullian speaker D. B. P. If any man desire to see Tertullians iudgement of Traditions let him read his book of prescriptions against Heretikes where he auerreth that Traditions serue better than the Scriptures themselues to confute all Heresies Heretikes alwaies either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures speaker A. W. He that hath to doe with such Heretikes as Tertullians aduersaries then were and you Papists in part now are must of necessitie haue recourse to the iudgement of the Church For what other meanes can be vsed against them that denie the sufficiencie of the Scripture Therefore Tertullian and Irenaeus too who had to deale with the same kinde of men labours to beate them with their owne weapons and yet bring not in any new doctrine beside the Scripture but maintaine the doctrine of the Scripture against them that condemne the Scripture by the testimonies of learned men custome of the Church but he saith nothing of giuing like authoritie to the traditions and written word Beside here is no speech of doctrine but only of obseruing certaine outward ceremonies not necessarie to saluation speaker W. P. Augustine booke 2. cap. 9. de doct Christ. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well speaker D. B. P. All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties vvhich the more learned must expresly beleeue if they vvill be saued vvhich distinction S. Augustine else-vvhere doth signifie speaker A. W. The question is only of such points as are necessarie to saluation which are all one to the learned and vnlearned vnlesse there be diuers meanes of saluation for them True it is that a Minister ought to haue more knowledge then an ordinarie Christian and that the neglect of laboring for it is damnable to him as all sinne is damnable but that which is necessarie to saluation is equallie necessarie for all men neither doth Austen allow any such distinction but refutes it rather in that verie place for he saith that all that feare God do seeke the will of God in the Canonicall scripture but the words alleaged are most plaine All those points that containe faith and manners of liuing well that is hope and charitie Now what is necessarie for any man to saluation that is not comprized in one of these speaker D. B. P. And is gathered out of many other places of his vvorkes as in that matter of rebaptizing them vvho became Catholikes after they had bin baptized by Heretikes He saith The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their vvritings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall Tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall church holdeth and therfore are to be beleeued speaker A. W. In that place Austen makes no mention of any such difference betwixt the learned and vnlearned to saluation but teacheth directlie contrary to your doctrine in both points For the hard matters you speake of thus saith Austin when we dispute of darke matters where the certain and cleere instructions of the holy Scriptures do not help vs a mans presumption must restraine it selfe and not incline to either side This is Austens iudgement he leades vs not in these cases to traditions as you do Now for the other point he addes presently after that if the knowledge of hard questions could not be wanted without losse of saluation there would be some cleere authoritie of Scripture to instruct vs in them so far was Austen from seeking to any traditions as necessarie to saluation This testimonie is falsely alleaged by you in the later part of it which is thus in Austin and therefore are to be beleeued to haue bin enioyned by the Apostles You put the matter indefinitly are to be beleeued that so they may be thought necessarie to saluation of which there is not a word in this place of Austen speaker D. B. P. The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing Infants And in his Epist. 174. of the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he vve neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * And S. Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not vvritten in the vvord speaker A. W. Of the custome of baptising infants Austin saith that it is not to be despised nor by any meanes to be thought superfluous and that it were not at all to be beleeued vnlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition where he speakes not of any doctrine necessary to saluation but of the Churches practise and that indeede in a case grounded on the Scripture We speake of doctrine not of words as Austin doth in those places The matter which is signified by those words that Christ is of the same substance with his father
that the father was not begotten may be proued by the Scripture and must needs be held the words are neither in the Scripture nor bring any danger of saluation though they be denyed if the points of doctrine signified by them be beleeued yet were it a great presumption and follie for any man to refuse such words as haue bin fitlie applied by the former Churches The other point of adoring the holy ghost hath a strong foundation on those places of Scripture which prooue him to be God as many do But what is all this to the purpose for the stablishing of any doctrine necessarie to saluation by tradition speaker D. B. P. The like of the perpetuall Virginity of our B. Lady out of vvhich and many more such like vve gather most manifestly that S. Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the vvritten vvord but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions speaker A. W. The fourth heresie in Austin is the Basilidians who held no such opinion of the virgin Mary Indeed there were other heretikes the 6. in number who denyed her virginitie after our Sauiours birth falsely as we verily perswade our selues but this is no matter necessarie to saluation though it be an heresie to hold that as a matter of faith which hath no warrant from the Scripture but rather the contrarie speaker W. P. Vincentius Lyrinen saith the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient to it selfe for all things speaker D. B. P. I thinke that there is no such sentence to be found in him hesaies by way of obiection VVhat need we make recourse vnto the authority of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but throughout all his booke he proues the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church speaker A. W. Vincentius saith that the Canon of the Scripture is sufficient and more then sufficient for all things and in another place the Canon of the scripture sufficeth it selfe for all things The former place is those very words which you alleage falsely where Vincentius thus speakes Here perhaps some man will demaund what the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding of the Scripture needs seeing the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and more then sufficient to it selfe for all things His answere is that the interpretation of the Church is requisite because diuers men expound the Scripture diuersly but what is this against the sufficiencie of the Scripture or for the authoritie of traditions concerning matters not contained in the Scriptures Beside these testimonies other reasons there bee that serue to prooue this point I. The practise of Christ and his Apostles who for the confirmation of the doctrine which they taught vsed alwaies the testimonie of Scripture neither can it be prooued that they euer confirmed any doctrine by tradition Act. 26. 22. I continue vnto this day witnessing both to small and great saying none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come And by this wee are giuen to vnderstand that wee must alwaies haue recourse to the written worde as beeing sufficient to instruct vs in matters of saluation speaker D. B. P. First for our Sauiour Christ Iesus he 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 oftē note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by test monies 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 Gospel out of Tradition receiued from S. Peter as witnesseth Eusebius S. Luke testifieth of himself that he wrote his whole Gospel as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who vvere eye-vvitnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not only parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions speaker A. W. Our Sauiour doth ordinarily confirme his doctrine especially if there be any question of it out of the bookes of the old testament by that he repeld Sathan by that he confuted the Pharises and defended his disciples eating the eares of corne on the Sabbath by that he taxeth the Iewes blindnes and maintaines his owne speaking in parables By the same he ouerthrowes the Iewes traditions and rebukes their hypocrisie he refutes their errors about diuorces but what should I run ouer the particulars the Gospels are full of such examples Master Perkins hath neuer a word of the Euangelist who did but write the history of our Sauiours doings and sayings and yet euen they as your selfe confesse prooue that he is the Messiah by the Scriptures of the old Testament applying them to the things he did and suffered You deuise matters to confute Master Perkins speaketh of confirming doctrine by traditions and you answere that they wrote something out of tradition that is they set downe somewhat in writing which themselues had heard of other and not read in the old Testament And then you aske where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages euen there where Moses had the creation of the world and the whole story of Genesis From a better ground then tradition viz. from the Spirit of God the author and enditer of the Scripture from whom also the other Euangelists had the matter and penning of their Gospell though two of them Marke and Luke first came to the knowledge of those things by the preaching of the Apostles which had all one authoritie with the word written This is apparant of Marke by Eusebius himselfe who saith that the Romans intreated him to set downe in writing those things which the Apostle Peter had taught them by word of mouth and which he also had heard him deliuer The like is to be said of S. Luke who was a companion of the Apostle Paul and wrote as the other did that which he heard of him and other of the Apostles But howsoeuer the things deliuered by them came first to their knowledge it wants not much of blasphemy to make traditions the foundation of the Gospels written by them For either the holy Ghost did not inspire them with the matter and manner of their penning or else if it be as you would haue it the holy ghost built vpon tradition which is but an vncertaine kinde of knowledge depending vpon mens
when Paul taught at Athens some seuenteene or eighteene yeeres after our Lords Ascension whereas the Gospell of S. Matthew as Irenaeus saith was penned when Paul and Peter preached and founded the Church at Rome twentie yeeres or more after the Ascension Neither doth Master Perkins auow this for a truth but sets it down as very likely speaker D. B. P. To the point of the answere that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bin deliuered by word of mouth How proueth M. Perkins that the man hath such confidence in his owne word that he goeth not once about to proue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needfull to be beleeued which is not written in the word shew vs then where it is written in the word that Saint Paul wrote in his later Epistles that which he taught by word of mouth before or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it speaker A. W. It is not the answerers dutie as I haue been faine to put you in minde before to prooue his deniall but the repliers to disprooue what he answers But for your satisfaction let me tell you that if these things the Apostle speakes of were matters necessarie to saluation it is prooued that they were written afterward or before in some part of the Scripture because the a Scripture is sufficient to make a man wise to saluation speaker D. B. P. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent reader I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing and left nothing by Tradition speaker A. W. All this labour might haue been saued vnlesse it were to more purpose For wee say not that the Apostle wrote all things he spake but that all things necessarie to saluation are expresly or by consequence contained in the Scriptures It is out of doubt in my poore opinion that the Apostle preached many things which were not written by him in these two Epistles and those also matters of moment which he wils them to obserue but the question is whether it can be prooued by this text or any other that those matters are not any where recorded in the holy Scriptures and yet are points necessarie to saluation speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Comentaries vpon this text concludeth thus Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnvvritten and those things are aswell to be beleeued as the vvritten Oecumenius and Theophylactus vpon that place teach the same speaker A. W. To the testimonie out of Chrysostomes interpretation answere first that Chrysostome saith not they were matters necessarie to saluation Secondly that otherwhere he ties vs to the Scriptures if we will be beleeued in that we deliuer Thirdly that many things may be and are in other parts of the Scripture which are not to bee found in the Epistles Fourthly that it doth not follow the Apostle Paul spake something to the Thessalonians which he wrote not to them therefore the Apostles spake some things which they neuer writ For this place speakes only of S. Pauls doings not of other Apostles Yet I make no questioÌ„ but they also did in like sort but it cannot be certainly concluded from this place Fiftly I grant that all that the Apostles deliuered was to be receiued as true and fit for the Church in those times to which they were deliuered The doctrine of the Gospell is perpetuall matters of circumstance appointed by them for the vse of the Churches perpetually are as well to be obserued as the doctrine if there be any such yea traditions of this nature are equall to things written But here lies the matter we say there are no such traditions And indeed who can thinke that the Apostles would write matters of small importance which were also not to continue perpetually and leaue great and waightie points of faith vnwritten The like answer I make to Oecumenius and Theophylact whereof the one professedly sets downe Chrysostoms opinion the other according to his custome writes him out in this place word for word speaker D. B. P. S. Basil * speaketh thus I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not vvritten for the Apostle â—â—ith I commend you that yee are mindfull of my precepts and do hold the Traditions euen as I deliuered them vnto you and then alleageth this text Hold the Traditions vvhich you haue receiued of me either by VVord or Epistle speaker A. W. Basil saith not that these traditions were matters necessarie to saluation 2. He defines not what these traditions were 3. The consequence is naught The Apostle wils the Thessalonians to keepe things deliuered by mouth therefore the Church is alwaies to keepe some things not written There was a necessitie to lay that charge vpon them for else they had needed to care for no more than was set down in those Epistles 4. The Papists themselues obserue not all the traditions there mentioned as Apostolical by Basil. 5. His iudgement in this case is not much to be accounted of who pronounceth that without those traditions the Gospellis not auaileable and that they are of equall force with the Gospell to pietie speaker D. B. P. S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying That the Apostles deliuered many things vvithout vvriting S. Paul doth testifie vvhen he writeth Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions vvhich haue been taught you either by vvord of mouth or by Epistle These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul free from all partiality gather out of this text of his that many things necessary to be beleeued euen vntill their daies remained vnvvritten and were religiously obserued by Tradition which throweth fiat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition fenced with neither reason nor authority that S Paul put in vvriting aftervvard all that he had first taught by vvord of mouth speaker A. W. Damascen is neither greatly to be respected nor saith any thing but that which I haue answered alreadie and granted in part as nothing to the purpose He might well erre in matter of Tradition that accounts the Apostles Canons set out by Clement Bishop of Rome to be Canonicall scripture which opinion the Papists themselues reiect Master Perkins would gladly haue acknowledged any tradition that could haue been prooued to be Apostolicall namely so farre as it was intended by the Apostles Whatsoeuer they taught that hee would hold to bee the truth of God if they ordained any thing for those times he would confesse it to haue been most fit Did they appoint any custome to bee perpetuall M. Perkins would haue embraced it with both his armes and if occasion had been offered haue maintained it with his life But neither can
you shew any such tradition nor he is to proue the contrarie But you are to make good your proposition that the Apostles left some doctrines necessarie to be beleeued to saluation by word of mouth onely without any ground in Scripture for the particulars either expresly or by good and necessary consequence Proue this and the controuersie is at an end Moreouer S. Paul immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles commandeth his deare Disciple Timothie To commend vnto the faithfull that vvhich he heard of him by many vvitnesses and not that only vvhich he should find vvritten in some of his Epistles or in the vvritten Gospell I deny your consequence Paul wils Timothy to commend to the faithfull those things which he had heard of him therefore he deliuered some things which are not written in any part of the Scripture I might adde and those necessary to saluation but the other hath worke enough for you speaker W. P. Obiect II. That Scripture is Scripture is a point to be beleeued but that is a tradition vnwritten and therefore one tradition there is not written that we are to beleeue Answ. That the bookes of the olde and new Testament are Scripture it is to bee gathered and beleeued not vpon bare tradition but from the very bookes themselues on this manner Let a mā that is indued with the spirit of discerning reade the seuerall bookes withall let him consider the professed authour thereof which is God himselfe and the matter therein contained which is a most diuine and absolute truth full of pietie the manner and forme of speech which is full of maiestie in the simplicity of words The end whereat they wholy aime which is the honor and glory of God alone c. and he shal be resolued that scripture is scripture euen by the Scripture it selfe Yea and by this meanes hee may discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer Thus then Scripture prooues it selfe to be Scripture and yet wee despise not the vniuersal consent or tradition of the Church in this case which though it doe not perswade the conscience yet is it a notable inducement to mooue vs to reuerence and regard the writings of the Prophets and Apostles It will be said where is it written that Scripture is Scripture I answere not in any one particular place or booke of scripture but in euerie line and page of the whole Bible to him that can read with the spirit of discerning and can discerne the voice of the true Pastour as the sheepe of Christ can doe speaker D. B. P. The second Argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they vvhich are commonly taken so to be is very necessary to saluation novv this is not to be found vvritten in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued only by Tradition vvherefore it is necessary to saluation to beleeue some Tradition speaker A. W. You propound not Master Perkins reason but frame one of your owne To which I answer that is called in this question necessarie to saluation without the beleefe where of a man cannot be saued but the knowledge of the number of the bookes of Scripture and what they be is not so necessarie but that without it a man may attaine to saluation Yea who doubts that he may be saued which knowes not that there are any bookes of scripture at all so that by the preaching of the word he beleeues truly in Iesus Christ And if those two points be absolutely necessarie what shall we thinke of them that haue doubted of some parts of Scripture as the Epistles to the Hebrews and that of Iames Damascen added one to the number your Papists many speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins ansvvereth that the bookes of the Old and Nevv Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this manner Let the man vvho is indued vvith the spirit of discerning reade the bookes and consider first the Author of them vvho is God then the matter contained vvhich is diuine the manner of speech vvhich is full of maiestie in simple vvords Lastly the end aymed at vvhich is Gods honor and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the vvritings of men vvhatsoeuer speaker A. W. Reply A vvise and deepe obseruation I vvarrant you and vvell vvorthie a graue Author Let vs examine it briefly first he vvill haue his man endued vvith the spirit of discerning Who shall endue him vvith the spirit M. Perkins seemeth to say that euery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit But S. Paul teacheth plainly the contrary that some certaine only haue the iudgement to discerne And touching this matter of discerning vvhich books are Canonical vvhich are not Not the learnedst in the Primitiue Church vvould take vpon him to discerne vvhich they were three hundred yeares after Christ was left vndefined by the best learned whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn and his Apocalyps were Canonicall or no as is confessed on all parts hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning when the best Christians wanted it Who more profound more skilfull to discerne than that subtile and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall For he in diuers places of his workes holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures and expresly proueth the booke of Wisdome so to be * And yet our Protestants will not admit them See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is Come to the second Master Perkins denies the assumption of the contract syllogisme propounded by himselfe affirming that the scripture is to be beleeued to be scripture vpon bare tradition If you will refute him you must prooue that assumption till that be done his answere must stand for sufficient howsoeuer that he addes for the confirmation of it be true or false But let vs examin that he brings First he saith a man must haue the spirit of discerning to which you knowing not what to answere tell vs that Master Perkins seemes to say that euery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit If he did say so plainely he saith no more then our Sauiour himselfe doth and his Apostle Paul But he doth not once glaunce at that point in any part of his answere yet you refute that but slenderly for the Apostle speakes of an extraordinarie gift bestowed vpon some men not denying this generall abilitie which all true Christians haue in some measure neither doth the Apostle speake of discerning doctrine but spirits that is saith your glosse and Lombard Thomas and Caietan that he may discerne that he heares with what spirit it is spoken with a good spirit or with a bad By
very sufficiently though euery man cannot reade his disputation because it is latine but for the matter in hand concerning traditions it falls not into this question to be disputed what is scripture and what is not For it is presupposed that the Scriptures are the word of God and thereupon this doubt ariseth whether the word of God conteine all things necessarie to saluation or no. If that be doubted of it is idle and absurd to enquire whether there be besides that another word of God diuers from it though not contrarie which is not written but only as men haue now and then set downe some part of it in their writings so then leauing this point let vs come to those which follow speaker W. P. Obiect III. Some bookes of the canon of the Scripture are lost as the booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. The booke of the iust Iosu. 10. 13. the bookes of Chronicles of the Kinges of Israel and Iuda 1. King 14. 19. the bookes of certaine Prophets Nathan Gad Iddo Ahiah and Semiah and therfore the matter of these bookes must come to vs by tradition Answ. Though it be graunted that some bookes of Canonicall Scripture bee lost yet the Scripture still remaines sufficient because the matter of those bookes so farforth as it was necessarie to saluation is contained in these bookes of Scripture that are now extant speaker D. B. P. The two next arguments for Traditions be not well propounded by M. Perkins The third is to be framed thus Either all the bookes of holy Scripture conteine all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine of them without the rest not some of them without the rest for then the other should be superfluous which no man holdeth therfore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue been loâ—t therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written Word and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. Perkins answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answere supposeth speaker A. W. Because you thinke the reason makes for your aduantage as you haue framed it your selfe I will follow your steps and leaue his argument as you do That I may answere orderly I deny your assumption All things necessarie to saluation are conteined in some certaine bookes of the scripture so that although the rest were wanting we should haue sufficient to saluation for the matter To your reason I say farther that the consequence is naught if some certaine are sufficient to saluation the rest are superfluous for first it cannot be superfluous to haue any booke of Gods word kept for the vse of the Church though the matter of it be in some other Secondly if your consequence be good it is also superfluous to haue the same psalme or story recorded in two places of the scripture especially the later But to say so were to condemne the holy ghost of hauing taken superfluous paines to no purpose which were blasphemie I prooue it by these particulars for example Psal. 18. is in the booke of Psalmes and in the second booke of Samuell The history of Ezechiah is 2. Reg. 29. and so forward and Isai 36. 37. 38. The like I might bring out of the bookes of Kings and Chronicles Thirdly though the matter be all fully and perfectly in certaine bookes yet euery point is not so plaine in one booke as in another and therefore it is not superfluous to haue all these bookes though all matter necessarie to saluation be comprised in some few of them Fourthly the purpose of the holy ghost in penning the scriptures was not only to teach matters necessarie to saluation but to set forth the glorie of God in his prouidence iustice mercie wisdome and such like to afford vs examples of diuers kinds of vertues to exhort vs to faith and good works and in a word to prouide for Gods glorie by vs heere as well as for our glorifying by him in heauen to which there is no booke nor sentence of scripture but serues more or lesse and therefore no booke of it can be thought supersluous though the necessarie matters belonging to saluation be conteined in certaine of them very sufficiently speaker W. P. Againe I take it to bee a truth though some thinke otherwise that no part of the Canon is lost for Paul saith Whatsoeuer things were written aforetime were written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures c. Rom. 15. 4. where he takes it for granted that the whole Canon of holie Scripture was then extant For if he had thought that some bookes of Scripture had beene lost hee would haue said whatsoeuer was written and is now extant was written for our learning and comfort For bookes that are lost serue neither for learning nor comfort Againe to hold that any bookes of Scripture should be lost calls into question Gods prouidence and the fidelitie of the Church who hath the bookes of God in keeping and is therfore called the pillar and ground of truth And touching the bookes before mentioned I answere thus The booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. might bee some short bill or narration of thinges done among the Israelites which in the daies of Moses went from hand to hand For sometime a booke in Scripture signifieth a roule or Catalogue as the first chapter of Matthew which containeth the genealogie of our Sauiour Christ is called the booke of the generation of Iesus Christ. Againe the booke of the iust and the books of Chronicles which are said to be lost were but as the Chronicles of England are with vs euen politicke records of the acts and euents of things in the kingdome of Iuda and Israel out of which the Prophets gathered things necessarie to be knowne and placed them in holy Scripture As for the bookes of Iddo Ahiah Semiah Gad and Nathan they are contained in the bookes of the Kinges and Chronicles and in the bookes of Samuel which were not written by him alone but by sundrie Prophets 1. Chro. 29. 29. as also was the booke of Iudges As for the bookes of Salomon which are lost they did not concerne religion and matters of saluation but were concerning matters of Philosophie and such like things speaker D. B. P. Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrarie vnto the plaine Scriptures as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be proued out of the historie of Paralâ—pomeneon which they translate Chronicles
man conclude the point out of them and we will yeeld if wee shew not a reasonable cause to the contrarie Secondly I adde fuâ—thâ—r that if it were granted that there were some such traditiâ—…s â—â—et as Austin saith of the first place who can say these or those be they For the most part of the traditions that are now thrust vpon the Church by you Papists are in comparison but new and very trifles or meere superstitious speaker D. B. P. Our Sauiour said being at the point of his passion That he had manie things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Our Sauiour after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking vvith them of the kingdome of God of vvhich little is vvritten in any of the Euangelists I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you speaker A. W. Now for the particulars the first is answered alreadie the second makes a bad consequence Christ spake often with his Disciples of the kingdome of God of which little is written in the Euangelists therfore there are some points necessarie to saluation not recorded in Scripture His talke with them might be for exhortation and consolation especially Who can say whatsoeuer it were that it is not written in the Epistles By traditions Ambrose vnderstands in the 2. Thessal nothing but the Gospell in that place to the Corinthians the Apostle seemes in all likelihood to speake of ceremonies or circumstances in their carriage about Gods seruice which neither is matter of saluation nor to be alwaies alike in all places and at al times So doth Ambrose vnderstand him speaker D. B. P. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that vvhich I deliuered thee to keepe Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to 〈◊〉 vvhich vvas as S. Chrysostom and Thesphilact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sense of holy Scriptures the right admini words be not set downe in Scripture yet the matter is if not expresly which is not needfull yet by necessarie consequence as it may euidently appeare by the Councill and Fathers wherein and by whom the contrarie to those opinions is condemned and confuted The first point is implied necessarily in all those places by which our Sauiour is prooued to be true God that is the same God with his Father which you shall finde in Athanasius writings and the first Councill of Nice The second of the holy Ghosts proceedings from the Sonne as well as from the Father is prooued by Thomas out of the Scripture and by other against the Greeke Church The third beside that place of Iohn is necessarily concluded since there can be but one God out of the texts that prooue euery one of them seuerally to be God and by that of Matthew The fourth is prooued out of Scripture by the first Councill of Ephesus against Nestorius so that for these points we neede no traditions speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Sundrie places of Scripture be doubtfull and euery religion hath his seuerall exposition of them as the Papists haue theirs and the Protestants theirs Now then seeing there can be but one truth when question is of the interpretation of Scripture recourse must be had to the tradition of the Church that the true sense may be determined and the question ended Ans. It is not so but in doubtfull places Scripture it selfe is sufficient to declare his owne meaning first by the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places of Scripture secondly by the circumstances of the place and the nature and signification of the wordes thirdly by conference of place with place By these and like helps contained in Scripture wee may iudge which is the truest meaning of any place Scripture it selfe is the text and the best glosse And the Scripture is falsly tearmed the matter of strife it beeing not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man And thus much for our consent concerning Traditions wherein we must not be wauering but steadfast because notwithstanding our renouncing of Poperie yet Popish inclinations and dispositions bee rife among vs. Our common people maruelouslie affect humane traditions yea mans nature is inclined more to bee pleased with them then with the word of God The feast of the natiuitie of our Sauiour Christ is onely a custome and tradition of the Church and yet men are commonly more carefull to keepe it then the Lords day the keeping whereof stands by the morall law Positiue lawes are not sufficient to restraine vs from buying and selling on the Sabbath yet within the twelue daies no man keepes market Againe see the truth of this in our affection to the ministerie of the word let the Preacher alleage Peter and Paul the people count it but common stuffe such as any man can bring but let men come and alleadge Ambrose Austin and the rest of the fathers oh he is the man hee is alone for them Againe let any man bee in danger any way and straight hee sendeth to the wise man or wizzard Gods worde is not sufficient to comfort and direct him All this argues that Poperie denied with the mouth abides still in the heart and therefore wee must learne to reuerence the written word by ascribing vnto it all manner of perfection speaker D. B. P. 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 his owne exposition euery seuerall sect will coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shall the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors To auoid 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 sense of it and thereby consute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy Commentaries So that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture Traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answere is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it selfe is the best glosse If these be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the cleerest places Secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words Thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsely tearmed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man speaker A. W. First this reason can conclude nothing against our
opinion We must haue recourse to traditions for the expounding of doubtfull places Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation I denie the consequence This rather prooues the sufficiencie of the Scripture as being sufficient in it selfe if it be rightly vnderstood Secondly I say there is no such danger as you imagine For though some may abuse it to confirme error yet may their false interpretations be confuted by diligent examination of the text without resting vpon the authoritie of mans interpretation as it appeares manifestly by the courses that the ancient writers tooke for the confuting of all heresies And if without this it could not haue been done what should haue become of the truth before the writings of men were extant in any number For it were ridiculous to imagine that euery particular text was expounded by the Apostles and so left by tradition to the Church Thirdly who shall determine when the time to count ancientnes by ended especially since euery mans writings were new when they were written and cannot grow in truth as they doe in age by continuance we acknowledge them for helpes of interpretation not for warrants speaker D. B. P. Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsely tearmed matter of strife because it is not so of his owne nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not Saint Peter saith Yes No saith M. Perkins because that commeth not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly tearmed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly That which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so tearmed although it be not the cause of contention in it self but written to take away all contention speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the scripture to be matter of strife and that it may so bee slandered to the disgrace of it as some Papists haue most shamelesly spoken of it to draw people from the reading and louing of it What blasphemies almost haue not your writers vttered against the holy word of God Pighius calls them dumbe iudges and in another place commends the truth and pleasantnes of his speech that compared the scriptures to a nose of waxe Did not Hosius say of Dauids Psalmes we write poems euery body learned and vnlearned speaker D. B. P. But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of S. Augustine be good directions wherby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructors and learnëd Commentaries But to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnes and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe well conuersant in these rules indued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more then thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best Cōmentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisit yet be ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his studie he vnderstood not then vvhich he did vnderstand And shall euery simple man furnished only with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficulty in them whatsoeuer Why doe the Lutherans to omit all former Heretikes vnderstand them in one sort the Caluinists after another The Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne Country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants finde one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrarie Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the sense and meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the aide of those triuiall notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie vvithout there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauiour to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randome and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of Temporall iustice it should be permitted to euerie contentious smatterer in the Law to expound conster the grounds of the Law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisdome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquity should not be Law or when should there be any end of any hard matter one Lawyer defending one part an other the other One counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one partie to haue the right another as certainely auerring not that but the contrary to be Law both alledging for their warrant sometexts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloody debate and perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne speaker A. W. No man saith so but that by these a man may iudge which is the truest that is the likeliest interpretation of a doubtfull place But I pray you tell me can you or any Papist by the help of tradition added to the other three rules certainely determine what is the sense of euery hard place of scripture If you can S. Austin by that meanes was likelier to haue it then any of you as he was neerer the Apostles from whom those traditions are said to haue come If you rest vpon the Commentaries of the Auntient what meanes had they to further them in vnderstanding the Scripture that we now want is it not apparant that we haue all they had and their paines and iudgement beside You aske then how chance diuers men vnderstand them diuersly not because they want the tradition you talke of For who knowes not that the Fathers differ exceedingly one from another in their expositions And do all the popish interpretations agree who it should seeme by you haue recourse to that maine help of Tradition He
shall we doe where they say nothing where their expositions are contraried by those you name and other about their time But this can be no rule of vnderstanding any more of the Scripture than that which they haue expounded which is very little and Origen one of the ancientest and greatest expositors is generally condemned for an Heretike by Epiphanius Ierome Austin and the best writers in Diuinitie Yea Bellarmine sheweth that Origen was seene in hell with Arius and Nestorius and affirmeth that the fift Synod cursed him amongst other Heretikes This rule if it be a rule will serue in very few places of the Scripture speaker D. B. P. The other example shall be the principal pillar of the Laten Church S. Augustine who not only exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscurity of doubtfull questions but plainly affirmeth That he vvould not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluine would haue them that S. Augustine had not bin at first a Christian if by the authority of the Church he had not bin thereunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against Heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these bookes of the Gospel to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others and this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquity generality and consent did tell him which and what they were So farre was he oft from trusting to his owne skill and iudgment in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I wil not dwel 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 speaker A. W. Austin wils vs to consult with that Church which the holy Scripture shewes vs to be the Church without any ambiguitie the ancient Church hee names not but by the Church so commended hee vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church as he calles it that is he appeales in the question about Baptisme among the Donatists to the generall practise of the Church in the seuerall congregations which no doubt is of great force to perswade any reasonable man in any matter that cannot be decided by the scripture For in matters of indifferencie the Churches iudgement is a kinde of law so that he which in such things would not be deceiued cannot doe better than to follow it There is no word in that place of Austin to allow your interpretation of that sentence but rather the whole course of the speech makes for Caluin I will propound the matter let any indifferent man iudge Manes or Manicheus in his epistle of the foundation as he termed it called himselfe the Apostle of Christ Austin answeres that he did not beleeue him to be so and then demaunds of the Manichean what course hee would take to prooue it to him Perhaps saith Austin you will reade the Gospell to me and assay to prooue Manicheus person to me out of it But what if you should light vpon one that doth not yet beleeue the Gospell I truly had not beleeued the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church had not moued me why should I not obey them saith Austin when they will me not to beleeue Manicheus whom I obeyed when they willed me to beleeue the Gospell These are Austins words to which I will adde those that follow afterward that First wee beleeue that which as yet we cannot discerne that being made stronger in faith we may attaine to the vnderstanding of that we doe beleeue not men now but God himselfe confirming and enlightening our minde within speaker A. W. S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing I shewed before what little credit many of the writings wee haue of Ignatius deserue Eusebius authoritie is more worth but hee is neither quoted nor alleaged truly The former I take to be the Printers fault the latter must needes be yours Ignatius saith Eusebius as he past through Asia vnder guard in euery Citie where he came by preaching and exhortation strengthened the parishes that they should especially take heed of heresies then first newly sprung vp and should cleaue fast to the Tradition of the Apostles which also for more suretie he thought it necessarie for him to write Now the heresies which at that time troubled the Church were those of the Simonians Menadcians Ebionites Nicolaitans Cerinthians Saturninians Basilidians for the refuting whereof the scripture is alsufficient to a reasonable man speaker D. B. P. Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the 〈…〉 truth and ouerthrew the Heretikes speaker A. W. Polycarpus might well refute them by authoritie of the Apostles words which himselfe had heard if without the Scripture they would beleeue him that hee heard them of the Apostles But Eusebius reports of him in Irenaus words that he recited all things in that refutation agreeable to the holy Scriptures It was much for the perswading of the people to whom as Irenaeus saith he spake those things that he could truly say he had heard those things of the Apostles by word of mouth which they might finde written in the Scriptures speaker D. B. P. S. Ireneus who imprinted in his hart Apostolicall Traditions receiued from Policarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought vve not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the vvhich the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleere and perspicuous to define the present question For vvhat if the Apostles had not vvritten any thing at all must vve not haue follovved the order of Traditions vvhich they deliuered to them to vvhom they deliuered the Churches speaker A. W. Irenaeus in his epistle to Florinus aboue mentioned saith that he imprinted in his heart the whole carriage and discourse of Polycarpus refuting the Heretikes but of Apostolicall traditions hee speakes neuer a word more than that Polycarpus had heard those things of the Apostles which he then deliuered agreeable to the Scriptures In any such meane question as is not resolued of in Scripture it was fit to haue recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles had liued yea if they had written nothing we must haue repaired to the books of the old Testament the knowne word of God for all matters of substance in things indifferent the iudgment of such
2. Synod 7. I honour the historie of the Images and doe properly worship them Finally in the 7. general Councell holden 900. yeeres past they are condemned of heresie that denie the vse and vvorshipping of holy Images speaker A. W. Lactantius though he were an ancient Christian was not diuine and in these verses if they be his he sheweth himselfe liker a light Poet then a graue writer whose authority should be taken in so great a matter Ierom reporteth what Paula did in Ierusalem For which he that well considereth what it was may find more cause to commend her zeale then to like of her actions She went into the Sepulcher and kist the stone of his resurrection which the Angell had remoued from the doore of the Tombe The place of his bodie where the Lord had lien as if she had thirsted for the desired waters she lickt with her faithfull tongue who sees not more zeale then knowledge in this behauiour Neither Pâ—ter nor Iohn nor any of the Disciples are reported to haue done any such thing though they came to the graue by and by after our Sauiours resurrection Was she more deuout no but more ignorant and passionat This testimony of Basil is no where to be found but in this Councell which was packed for the nonst to confirme Idolatrous Image worshippers I shewed the like practise of the Councell before concerning other writers Now for a conclusion of this point I will briefly note the beginning of Images among the Christians and speake a little of that seauenth Councell so often alleadged against vs. The first vse of any Images after our Sauiours ascension was brought in by Simon the Sorcerer who was also the first and principall Heretik Of whom Theodoret and Austin write that he gaue his owne and his strumpet Selenes Images to his followers to be worshipped by them After him one Marcellina of the sect as it is said of the Carpocratians worshipped the Images of Iesus Paul Homer and Pythagoras The Gnosticks presently after her worshipped the Images of Christ and are condemned for it by Irenaeus They haue painted Images saith Epiphanius of Carpocrates and the Gnosticks which they say are the Images of Iesus and that they were made vnder Pontius Pilate while our Sauiour liued but they keepe these Images secret yet as he obserueth they worshipped those Images Amongst true Christians the beginning of Images may wel be thought to haue bin such as Eusebius guesseth it was namely an imitation of the Gentiles who vsed to make and keepe the Images of them by whom they had receiued any speciall good Yea the Gentiles being newly conuerted could not by and by be weaned from all vse of Images more then from other superstitions It was necessary saith Tertullian in former times to yeeld many things to the Christians who for the most part were conuerted from Paganisme to religion when they were old and so could hardlie leaue those things to which all their life time they had bin accustomed But as yet they had no Churches nor vse of Images in their assemblies That seemes to haue growen by the painting of the histories of Martyrs in tables and setting them vp in Churches Which aduantage the Deuill that alwaies watcheth his oportunitie to bring in Idolatry by little and little greedilie apprehended and followed and at the last brought to such a height that the Emperour Leo the third surnamed Isaurius was faine to call a Councell at Constantinople about the yeere 729. wherein it was decreed that the Images should be pulled downe This Gregorie the second Bishop of Rome who some 13. yeeres before had caused Images to be allowed in a Councell at Rome tooke very hainously and so much the rather because the Emperour had required obedience of the Latin Church to the decrees past in that Councell at Constantinople But the Bishop was so farre from yeelding obedience that he tooke this commandement of the Emperour as an occasion to withdraw his allegeance from his Soueraigne and seized into his hands all the authoritie that was yet remaining to the Empire in Italie This contention after the death of Leo grew more hot in so much that his sonne Constantine Copronymus to make some good end of the matter assembled another Councell at Constantinople about the yeere 755. which he calleth the seauenth general Councel where there were present 308. Bishops and wherein Images were again condemned About some 34. yeeres after Irene daughter to a King of the Tartars and widow to the Emperour Leo the 4. a Pagan by birth and little better in religion during the nonage of her sonne Constantine called a Councell at Constantinople wherein a great number of Bishops maintained by the word of God that Images ought to bee abolished Which the Empresse perceiuing found meanes to break vp the Councill and afterwards appointed another again the next yeere at Nice in Bythinia wherein it was decreed that Images should bee worshipped and that Councill of Nice should be counted the seuenth generall Councell and not the other which had been held before at Constantinople against Images This is that seauenth Councell which our Papists so magnifie and it passeth vnder the name of that famous Councell of Nice wherein Arius was condemned euery man not knowing that this was a second Councell betwixt three and foure hundred yeere after the former But that all men may be the better able to iudge of this foresaid Councell let me propound the speeches of some of the Bishops on the behalfe of Images I receiue and embrace honorablie saith Constantine Bishop of Constans in Cyprus holy and reuerend Images according to the seruice of adoration which I performe to the Consubstantiall and life giuing Trinitie And them that do not so thinke nor glorifie them I separate from the Catholike and Apostolicall Church and lay them vnder the Cursse and ioyne them with such as haue denied the Incarnation of Christ our God for our saluation The holy Father hath said plainly that the Image of the King is called the King and yet there are not two Kings so that it is cleere that he which shall adore the Image and say it is Christ sinnes not The most holy Patriarke Tharasius said let vs obserue that the old Scripture â—ad signes and that out of it the new hathtaken Cherubins of glorie shaddowing the propitiatory The holie Synode answered very well Sir so is the truth The most holy Patriarke said if the old Scripture had Cherubins shadowing the Propitiatorie we also will haue the Images of Iesus Christ and of the holy mother of God and of the Saints shadowing our Altars Theodosius Bishop of Ancyra said whatsoeuer things are written are written for our learning therfore the holy Images and Pictures grauen and painted are painted and set vp for our learning zeale and example Elias the most holy Bishop of Creet said According
to the most reuerend letters of Adrian most holy Pope of old Rome I confesse and hold Images to be holy and worthy of worship neuer laying them away but adoring them perfectly them that confesse otherwise I accursse The othet most holy Bishops and venerable Monkes cried out And we all together receiue and embrace and adore Images with very great honour Stauratius Bishop of Chalcedon said I receiue embrace and honour Images as being the pledges of my saluation Peter Bishop of Nichor said I receiue venerable Images and adore them and will alwaies teach the doctrine that I may one day giue account to God our Iudge in the world to come Iohn the most religious Priest Lieue-tenant of the Apostolike thrones said Therefore an Image is greater then prayer And this is come to passe by the prouidence of God for ignorant mens sakes The same man counteth the denying of worship to Images the worst of all heresies as that which ouerthrowes the gouernment of our Sauiours house I forbeare to set downe their reasons which are taken from Tradition miracles and some places of Scripture so ridiculously applied that it is little better then blasphemie to make the holy Ghost president of so Idolatrous and sottish a Councell Constantine hauing subscribed to this Councell by his mothers perswasion and example in his none-age after he came to yeeres of discretion and his owne gouernment by the aduise of diuers learned men repealed the decrees of it concerning Images and ere long after tooke the whole sway of the Empire from his mother who had vsurped it as protectrix into his owne hands which dealing of his did incense the ambitious and idolatrous woman that shee caused certaine traitours first to plucke out his eyes and afterward to murder him yea so great was her malice and feare that shee ceased not till shee had made his sonnes her grand-childrens or neuewes eyes to be pulled out also such an author and patrones had that Idolatrous and wicked Councell the chiefe foundation of Popish Images Such as it was notwithstanding the decrees of it were sent by Pope Adrian the first to the Emperour Charlemaine that he might allow of them But he held another Councell at Franckfort wherin it was concluded that the second Councell of Nice whereof we haue spoken should not be held either for generall or for the seauenth or for a thing of any worth The decrees of that Councell condemning Images were by this repealed and a book written by expresse commandement of the Councell of Franckfort and published in the name of Charlemaine in which as the Councell of Constantinople is reproued for taking away all vse of Images euen for history and memory so that second Councell of Nice is particularly confuted and condemned The like entertainment found the decrees of that Councell amongst our countri-men here in England as you shall see by the testimony of a Monke that writ 300. yeeres agoe The same yeere saith Mathew of Westminster Charles King of the French-men sent into Britaine a booke of decrees wherin many things were found contrary to the true faith and that especially that it was determined by the ioynt consent of almost all the Doctors of the East That Images are to be adored which the Catholike Church vtterly detests Against this Albinus writ an Epistle wonderfully endited according to the authority of the holy Scriptures â—â—d carried together with that booke of decrees to the King of Frâ—…ce in the name of the Bishops and Nobles Yet was not this Councell of Franckfort nor the Epistle written by Albinus nor the booke set out in Charlemaines name of sufficient strength to stop the course of Idolatry so violent it is where it finds any way made for it whereupon Claudius Bishop of Turin hauing bin brought vp and preferred by Charlemaine opposed himselfe by writing afresh against it and as Ionas Bishop of Orleans saith who writ against him proceeded farther to cast them out of all the Churches of his dioces This opinion and fact of his Ionas writ against yet so as that he wholy agreed with him about the vnlawfulnes of adoring Images against the second Councell of Nice But in the East the quarrels about Images were more hot and dangerous which mooued the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus to send their Embassadors into France to the Emperour Lewis the curteous sonne of Charlemaine about the yeare 823 to signifie to him that the superstitious abuse of Images in their dominions had made them assemble a Councell about the matter in which it was decreed that they should not be worshipped with incense lights kneeling prayers songs and seruice before them all which notwithstanding that some of their clergy refusing to yeeld obedience had withdrawne themselues to the Pope of old Rome complaining to him and slandering the East Church that they therefore had sent their Ambassadors both to him and to the Pope for the clearing of themselues of all such false imputations and that they might vnderstand what the iudgement of their Churches was in those points Hereupon Lewis the Emperour called a nationall Councel at Paris the yere following 824. wherein the conclusion was as in the Councell of Franckfort against both pulling downe and worshipping of Images as appeareth by an Epistle sent from the said Synode to Lewis and Lotharius by two Bishops Italitgarius and Flamarius and according thereunto answere was returned to the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus Thus much I thought good to set downe as briefely as I could hee that would reade of these matters more at large may finde enough to content him in that excellent treatise of the Lord Plessy against the Masse in the second booke the second third and fourth Chapters The iudgement of all these matters I leaue to all men whatsoeuer that will vouchsafe to waigh things by the Ballance of the Sanctuary with the hand of true reason Others that had rather beleeue what is told them then try that they beleeue I commit and commend to the mercy of God Whom I beseech according to his good pleasure to enlighten our hearts and incline our affections euery day more and more that we may discerne and acknowledge his most holy truth to his glory the good of his Church and our owne euerlasting saluation through his Sonne Iesus Christ. To whom with the Father and holy Spirit one God immortall inuisible and only wise be all glorie power obedience and thanksgiuing for euer and euer Amen FINIS Errata Pag. 11. lin 1. read in our time p. ead l. 29. r. yes p. 17. l. 11. r. were not dedicated p. 36. l. 22. r. out p. 44. l. 10. in the margin r. Popes breast p. 45 l. 21. r. and that p. 57. l. 17. r. c. p. ead l. 35. r. them Cardinall p. 68. lin 18. r. is moued p. cad l. 22. dele as p. 87. l. 4. in the margin r.