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
present as it is plaine because the Angell was lehouah And lehouah saw that he turned to see And lehouah said Yea the whole discourse sheweth that God himselfe was the Angell namely the second person in Trinitie who is called the Angell of the Conenant because he was sent for the saluation of Gods elect So Stephen though he call him an Angell calleth him asse the Lord. And indeed who but God could say I am that I am as the Angell there doth Secondly you say the Answere rather confirmes than solues the Argument Because as that astion strucke Moses with a reuerence of the Angell so holy Pictures duly reuerenced strike men with a religious regard of the Saint represented What is this but to beg the question you take it as graunted that there may be Images and that religious reuerence may be giuen to them but these are the verie doubts we dispute of Inded if it were true that there may be such Images and that religious honour is to be yeelded to creatures there were somewhat in your Similitude to the purpose and yet similitudes doe not proue but illustrate The sorce of your reason is that Moses was commanded by god to put off his shoes that he might be striken thereby with reuerence of God Therefore we must worship Images that we may be striken with reuerence of Angels and Saints The consequence is naught Gods particular charge to Moses at that time warranteth not men to enioyne worship to Images that Angels may be worshipped by them speaker D. B. P. To this let vs annexe that dayes be truely called holy and vvorshipped as the first and last daies be truely called holy and vvorshipfull as the first and last daies of the feast of Easter be And the vestments of Priests because they are dedicated and employed to holy vses euen so Images vvhich are made in honour of God and his Saints and erected to mooue and teach vs to embrace heauenly courses speaker A. W. Adde it if you will that dayes appointed by God are called holy for of worshipfull dayes I thinke no man euer heard though your Latine translation say The seauenth day shall be venerable with the same festiuitie that is shall be kept with like solemnitie to the first The words in the Hebrew are all one in the former and later part of the verse and therefore so should the translation be Now in the former your translation is the first day shall be holy and solemne The Hebrew as Montanus translateth it on the first day shall be a conuocation of holines and on the seauenth day shall be a conuocation of holines that is as Vatablus truly expounds the Hebrew phrase An holy Conuocation So doth Pagnine also translate it But this holines which you rightly expound to be a dedication or employment to Gods seruice neither doth require nor will admit any worshipping of the dayes or garments but Images are not holy for they are neither commaunded of God nor allowed speaker W. P. Obiect III. It is lawfull to kneele downe to a chaire of estate in the absence of the king or Queene therefore much more to the images of God and of Saintes in heauen glorified being absent from vs. Answ. To kneele to the chaire of estate is no more but a ciuill testimonie or signe of ciuill reuerence by which all good subiects when occasion is offered shew their loyaltie and subiection to their lawfull Prince And this kneeling being on this manner and to no other ende hath sufficient warrant in the word of God But kneeling to the image of any Saint departed is religious and consequently more then ciuill worship as the Papists themselues confesse The argument then prooueth nothing vnlesse they will keepe themselues to one and the same kind of worship speaker D. B. P. He proposeth our argument to the halfes or else this answere had been preuented For thus runneth our reason As the chaire of estate is to bee worshipped with ciuill reuerence in respect of the temporall Prince whom it representeth euen so the Images of holy personages that raigne now in heauen are to bee worshipped with a holy and religious kinde of curtesie for as Temporall honour is due vnto a Temporal Prince so religious and spirituall honour is due vnto spirituall and most holy personages And as a good subiect testifyeth his loyaltie and good affection towardes his Prince by honouring his regall throne So doth a good Christian giue testimonie of his dutiful both estimation deuotion toward those heauenly creatures by giuing honour vnto their Images At leastwise why do not the Protestants exhibit ciuill reuerence aswell vnto the representations of Gods Saintes as to the shaddowes of the secular maiestie vnlesse it be because they are fallen out with the Saintes of God and are become adorers of sinfull men speaker A. W. Master Perkins drew your argument from a comparison of quantitie as the Logicians call it from the greater to the lesse you fetch it from a comparison of qualitie by way of Similitude which as I answered before serues to make a thing more plaine not to prooue it true as the other comparison doth if it be rightly made You report his answere by halues for he denies the consequence of the argument which he propounded adding this reason of his deniall that the ciuill worship hath warrant sufficient in the word of God but your religious worship hath not so that either you must make your worshipping of Images ciuill or else your comparison holds not His answere is sufficient to ouerthrow your reason as you propound it for it denies that the things are alike adding farther against your proofe that no religious honour is due to any but God only if you can shew warrant for it in the word he yeelds But alas you cannot your chiefe Champion Thomas of Aquine hauing made an obiection against worshipping of the image of Christ with diuine worship because there is no tradition to be found in Scripture for the adoring of Images is faine for answere to flee to vnwritten traditions We must answere saith Thomas that the Apostles by the familiar instinct of the holy ghost deliuered certaine things to the Churches to be obserued which they haue not left in writing but only in the obseruation of the Church by the succession of the faithfull And surely he that will take paines to consider the allegations of the seauenth Council the sâ—…d at Nice which was called of purpose to establish the worshipping of Images shall finde very pittifull proofe out of Scripture Therefore hauing warrant and charge to performe all ciuill honor to princes we do accordingly hauing neither for any deuotion or religious reuerence to Angels or men departed though Saincts in heauen we dare not worship their images which also we know to be particularly forbidden in Scripture And that is the reason why we giue no reuerence to any idolatrous representations
without vnwritten verities The first that which is profitable to these foure vses namely to teach all necessarie trueth to confute all errours to correct faults in manners and to instruct in righteousnesse that is to informe all men in all good duties that is sufficient to saluation But scripture serueth for all these vses and therefore it is sufficient and vnwritten traditions are superfluous speaker D. B. P. In these words are contained saith M. Perkins two arguments to proue the sufficiencie of Scripture The first that which is profitable to these foure vses to teach all necessary truth is not in the text to confute errors to correct faults in manners to instruct all men in all dutie is M. Perkins his addition to the text that is sufficient to saluation But the Scriptures serue for all these vses c. Ans. This text of holy Scripture is so farre from yeelding our aduersaries two Arguments that it affoordeth not so much as any probable colour of halfe one good argument In searching out the true sense of holy Scriptures we must obserue diligently the nature and proper signification of the words as M. Perkins also noteth out of S. Augustine in his sixt obiection of this question which if the Protestants did here performe they would make no such account of this text for S. Paul saith only that all Scripture is profitable not sufficientâ— to teach to proue c. How are they then carried away with their owne partiall affections that cannot discerne betweene profitable and sufficient Good Timber is profitable to the building of an house but it is not sufficient without stones morter and a Carpenter Seed serues well yea is also necessary to bring forth corne but will it suffice of itself without manuring of the ground and seasonable weather And to fit our purpose more properly good lawes are very profitable yea most expedient for the good gouernment of the common-vvealth But are they sufficient vvithout good customes good gouernours and iudges to see the same law and customes rightly vnderstood and duly executed Euen so the holy Scriptures S. Paul affirmeth are very profitable as contayning very good and necessarie matter both to teach reproue and correct but he saith not they are sufficient or that they do containe all doctrine needfull for these foure ends And therefore to argue out of S. Paul that they are sufficient for all those purposes vvhen he saith only that they are profitable to them is plainly not to knovv or not to care vvhat a man â—…h And to presse such an impertinent cauil so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do is nothing else but to bevvray vnto the indifferent reader either their extreame ignorance or most audacious impudency that thinke they can face out any matter be it neuer so impertinent speaker A. W. The text was set downe before without any addition now Master Perkins shewes how he gathers his argument out of the text without adding to it at all but interpreting it Now whereas hee saith all necessarie truth how much lesse affirmes Lyra when he addes to teach the truth for if by that word he should meane no more but some truth it were but a bare exposition but that he vnderstands by it all truth I gather out of his other exposition that followes for which also you blame Master Perkins to instruct all men in all dutie The word is in all righteousnes that is to make him righteous with legall righteousnes saith Lyra which is all or euery vertue That the profitablenes of the Scripture to those purposes argues a sufficiencie it is the iudgement of the best Interpreters There is no sicknes of the soule saith Cyprian for which the Scripture of God affoords not a present remedie He proues it by the place of Timothy Ierome saith The Scripture was giuen to teach vs that doing all things by the aduice thereof we might doe iust things iustly Chrysostome is yet more plaine If we be to learne or to be ignorant of any thing there we shall learne it if to conuince falsehood thence we shall fetch it if we be to correct or chastice for exhortation if any comfort be wanting which must be had out of the Scripture we shall learne it And vpon those words That the man of God may be perfit Therefore without the Scripture hee cannot bee made perfect In steed of me saith Paul thou hast the Scriptures if thou desire to learne any thing thence thou shalt or there thou maist haue it The Scripture saith Theophylact is profitable to vs teaching vs if any thing be to be learned For there is nothing that cannot be answered by the holy Scripture If vaine and false things be to be reprooued thence also it may be done if any thing be to be corrected if any man be to be instructed that is to be taught to righteousnes that is that he he may do that which is righteous this also is ready for thee in the Scripture And afterward he makes the Apostle speake thus to Timothy If thou wilt be perfect and holy c. let the Scriptures be thy Counsellors in steed of me And vpon these words Perfect to euery good worke Not simply saith Theophylact partly fitted to good workes but perfect not so that he shall be fitted to this and not to that but to euery good worke That he may be perfect to euery good worke saith Peter Lombard expounding the word instructus which is in your vulgar translation Thomas goes further to euery good worke Not onely to those workes which are for necessitie of saluation but to those also that are of supererogation And a little before If the effect of holy Scripture be fourefold to teach the truth to conuince falsehood for speculation to draw from euill and bring to good for practise the last effect of it is that it brings men to perfection For it doth not make a man good in part but perfectly It is proper to the holy Scripture saith Caietan to teach the igrant and that he may be perfect in all things that belong to the perfecting of a man of God And afterward See whether the profit of the holy Scripture teads to the perfection of the man of God that is of him who giues himselfe whâ—ly to God to such a perfection I say that he may be perfect to the practisâ— of eâ—ery good worke I haue been somâ— what the larger in this because this Papist chargeth vs so hard not to know or not to â—…e what wee say And yet what say we that hath not been said before by the ancient writers and many Papiâ—…s themselues Now for the further confirmation of this exposition though against a Papist there needes no further wee may obserue out of Chrysostome and Theophylact that the Apostle Paul being as he saith afterwards shortly to be offered vp commends the Scriptures to Timothy for instructers
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
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
Now as for M. Perkins gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of paper some profane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word only without either any reason or authoritie speaker A. W. Sauing the better iudgement of Chrysostome and other learned men I cannot perswade my selfe that any part of the Canonicall scripture is lost when you haue brought your proofe out of any place of the scripture I will either answere or yeeld to it But it makes nothing to your argument whether any be lost or no for as you see I deny your assumption and the proofe of it which ouerthrowes your whole reason The Iewes and the skilfullest Christians in the Rabbines and antiquities of the Iewes that I know are of a diuers iudgement from Chrysostome concerning this point speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Moses in mount Sina beside the written law receiued from God a more secret doctrine which he neuer writ but deliuered by tradition or word of mouth to the Prophets after him and this the Iewes haue now set downe in their Cabala Answ. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage For if Moses had knowne any secret doctrine beside the written law he could neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this Moses who was the pen man of the old Law committed not all to vvriting but deliuered certaine points needfull to saluation by Tradition nor any Lavv-maker that euer was in any Country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likely that our Christian Lavv should be all vvritten speaker A. W. Your argument is in effect all one with his but let vs take yours Moses committed all to writing that was necessarie to saluation so doe all wise lawmakers and if any thing be left vnprouided for that is of moment it is because the lawgiuer perceiued it not or knew not how to helpe it which in Gods lawes and Moses the holie Ghosts Scribes writing could be no hinderances For what is there that God seeth not by his wisedome or cannot order as he list by his power speaker D. B. P. That Moses did not pen all thus vve proue It vvas as necessarie for vvomen to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedy for men could not possibly be applied to vvomen as euery one vvhoknovveth vvhat circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the vvritten lavv to deliuer vvomen from that sin Therefore some other remedie for them vvas deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. Circumcision was not prouided for remedie of originall sinne any more than for actuall neither did it remedie the one or the other nay it was not of Moses appointing but was long before him The remedie for all sinne is the sacrifice of the Messiah the meanes to applie it faith which Moses taught in diuers places of those fiue bookes If women without circumcision cannot be freed from originall sinne how were Adam and Eue freed and all that died before God enioyned it to Abraham speaker D. B. P. Item if the Child vvere likly to die before the eight day there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no vvhere vvritten in the Lavv Also many Gentiles during that state of the old Testament vvere saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Lavv or any other part of the old Testament it is not vvritten vvhat they had to beleeue or how they should liue vvherefore many things needfull to saluation vvere then deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. The remedie for infants aswell before the eight day as vpon it and after it was the mercie of God vpon his couenant As for the meanes you would imagine which were you cannot tell what and deuised by you cannot tel whom remember what you answered about the Chaldee word in Daniel To meanes and authors in the ayre no thing need be nor can be answered speaker D. B. P. To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I ansvvere that God permiteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue vvhat was then lost Although God in his prouidence permits much euill it followes not nor is at al likely that he would suffer his own holie word indited by his spirit to perish Neither can it helpe the matter that tradition might preserue the truth vnlesse God should miraculously hold in men from mingling their inuentions with his traditions Experience makes the matter cleere few things or none yet remaining that are indeede of antiquitie both for the substance and vse of them But what answere you to Master Perkins other reason out of S. Paul That was too heauie for your shoulders speaker W. P. Obiect V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods word is of two sortes milk and strong meate By milke we must vnderstand the worde of God written wherein God speakes plainely to the capacitie of the rudest but strong meate is vnwritten traditions a doctrine not to bee deliuered vnto all but to those that grow to perfection Answ. We must know that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it For being deliuered generally and plainely to the capacitie of the simplest it is milke but beeing handled particularly and largely and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding it is strong meate As for example the doctrine of the creation of mans fall and redemption by Christ when it is taught ouerly and plainly it is milke but when the depth of the same is throughly opened it is strong meate And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine to imagine that some vn written word is meant by strong meate speaker A. W. Novv insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I vvill set dovvne some authorities out of the vvritten Word in proofe of Traditions I make no question but Master Perkins had al the reasons he propounds for you in any matter in some of your owne writers as perhaps hereafter vpon better search at more leisure I shall finde and prooue to all the world To the testimonies I answere in generall that no argument can be drawne from any or all of them to proue that any doctrine necessarie to saluation is to be learned by tradition and is not written in the Scripture Let any
to expresse the diuine nature If it be extended vnto all sorts of Images I answere that they were then forbidden to be drawen vpon the Church vvalles but not to be set in Tables vpon the Altar or in any other place The reason is because that Councell vvas holden in time of persecution as appeareth by the twenty fiue Canon of it and then if the persecutor had found out the place of their assembly as they often did those Pictures must needs either haue been defaced by themselues or left vnto the derision and despight of the Heathens And Pictures also painted vpon such poore walles as they had then to their Churches vvould either by the moysture of the vvalles or other incommoditie haue bin quickly disfigured wherefore to the greater honor of such sacred things those graue Fathers thought it not meete to haue them dravven vpon the Church vvalles there being many more meete places for them in the Churches speaker A. W. You come backe now to those two allegations which should and might haue been answered as fitly in their due place Your first answere hath no shew of reason in it For it is absurd to imagine that any Christians to whom onely the Councill speakes would thinke the diuine nature which is spirituall and infinite could be exprest by any picture But if it be possible for the people to be so blind yet the Bishops and Ministers who had the charge of such places must needs know it to bee vnlawfull and vnpossible Besides if they meant to forbid such Images onely why doe they not call them Idols after your distinction why doe not they expresse their meaning more plainly but speake so dangerously to make all Images thought vnlawfull As the word Adored was in your opinion a warrant for Master Perkins to applie that Canon to the Images of God so by the same reason is the other word worshipped which the Councill hath a sufficient authoritie to stretch the decree to all Images that may bee worshipped Your coniectures are meere shifts refuted by the very words of the Councill It is decreed saith the Councill that there may be no Images in the Church what will become then of your Images vpon Altars vnlesse you will remoue your Altars out of the Church That which followeth doth not respect the walles more than any other part of the Church but names them specially vpon which Images most commonly were painted But what a toy is it that you talke of persecutors finding out the place of their assemblie when they could hold a Councill and had Churches to repaire to Could their Churches be vnknowne Further if their care had bin to prouide that the moysture of the walles might not disfigure the Images they would haue said plainly We will haue no Images on Church walles least that which is adored and worshipped come to some disgrace and this would also haue included the other reason of the persecutors despight But it is manifest that the meaning of the decree is this that they will not suffer any Images in Churches because that which is worshipped and adored may not bee resembled by pictures The decree indeede speakes onely of the Images of God to whom only religious adoration and worship is due and may lawfully be performed speaker D. B. P. The second obiection is out of a post-script of Epiphanius letter vnto Iohn Patriarke of Ierusalem in which is written as M. Perkins falsely reporteth that it is against the authority of Scripture to see the Pictures of Christ or of any Saint to hang in the Church Ans. It is there only to see the Picture of a man Novv that he should meane of Christ or of some Saint is only gathered yet M. Perkins makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text euen so do we thinke that some old enemy of Images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter Our reasons are because it hath no coherence with the former letter or stâ—e Againe in the seauenth Councell when all that could be found out of antiquity vvas cited against Images no tidings there of this place which if it had bin true might haue bin one of the principall Thirdlie in the same Councell other tvvo places brought as it were out of Epiphanius vvorkes vvere found to be none of his And for Images vvas alleadged that Epiphanius ovvne disciples erected an Image to their Master and set it in the Church vvhich they would neuer haue done if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to doe speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not vndertake to report Epiphanius words but his matter which hee performes truly I found saith Epiphanius speaking of a Church at Anablatha in his trauell to Bethel in the Church doore a vaile hanging stained and painted and hauing the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I remember not well whose image it was When I saw this that against the authoritie of the Scripture the image of a man hung in the Church of Christ I rent it These are Epiphanius words whereout I obserue first that it is against the authoritie of the Scripture and therfore against Gods Commandement that the image of a man should hang in Christs Church But the Images of al your Saints are such those of the Trinitie too except that Doue for the holie Ghost Secondly I adde that it is rightly gathered by necessarie consequence which is as good euery whit as plaine words that it is against Scripture to haue the picture of Christ or any Saint in the Church For he saith expresly that the Image he saw was the image of Christ or some Saint and that it was vnlawfull to haue any Image of a man there There is no reason to call it a post-script vnlesse euerie last point of any letter not depending vpon the former be a post-script Hierome that translated the Epistle out of Greeke into Latin found no such diuersitie of stile in it neither indeed is it to be found and this latter part is brought in according to the course of writing in the former Epiphanius cleeres himselfe to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem for hauing ordered a Deacon in his Diocesse he begins his excuse thus I haue heard c. In the latter part he defends himselfe concerning the renting of the vaile and begins that also in the like sort I haue heard This was written and translated three hundred yeeres before that Idolatrous Councill though perhaps they thought it no wisedome to take knowledge of it The other places brought in that Councill were for Images and so allowed of by that Councill and haue since been discerned to be counterfeit as that is of his Disciples no thankes to that counterfeit Synod which dealeth in the same sort also with Basil you afterward alleage the place for Images with Cyrill Ambrose Athanasius Chrysostome Gregorie and the Apostles themselues as I shewed before speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins obserues a special reason
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
Kingdomes your principall pillers of the new Gospell comprehended within the number of the ten mentioned there in S. Iohn which hate the harlot Yes marie Why then they are enemies of Christ and Satans souldiers for in the 13. verse it is said of these that they shall deliuer their power vnto the beast which signifieth either the Diuell or Antichrist and shall sight with the Lambe and the Lambe shall ouercome them because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings Is not this doating in an high degree to infame so notoriouslie them of whom he would speake most honour and to make the special Patrons of their new Gospel the Diuels Captaines and fiercely to wage battaile against Christ Iesus See how heate of wrangling blindeth mens iudgements But you proceed and say that we further hold that the blood of the Saints and Martyrs was not shed in Rome but in Ierusalem Here is a confusion of Men and matters for we say that the blood of many Saints reheaised in the Apoc. was shed in Rome by the tyrannicall Emperours but the martyring of those tvvo principall witnesses Enoch and Elias recorded in the cleauenth of the same shall be at Ierusalem aswell because the text is very plainc for it specifying that their bodies shall lie in the streetes of that great Citie where their Lord was crucified as for that the ordinarie interpreters of that place doe so take it But M Perkins holdeth that the place where Christ was crucified signifieth here not Ierusalem but Rome because Christ was crucified there in his members so it might aswell signifie any other place of persecution as Rome The reason therefore being naught worth befo rt fiath it with the name of S. Ierome but citeth in the margent a letter of two vertuous Matrons Paula and Eustochium Good Sir if S. â—â—reme had meant that that Epistle should haue had his authoritie he would haue set it out in his owne name vvhich seeing he thought not expedient set the authoritie of it aside and vige his reasons iâ— you thinke it vvorth your labour and you shall be ansvvered In the meane season I hope all sober Christians vvill take the place vvhere our Sauiour Christ vvas nailed on the Crosse to signifie rather Ierusalem then Rome And consequently all that you haue alleadged out of Scripture to proue the vvhore of Babylon to figure the Ecclesiasticall state of Rome not to be vvorth a rush speaker A. W. To make the world drunke with the wine of the wrath of her fornication is not to inforce men by file and sword as the Roman Emperors did but to allure them by poysoned doctrine and counterfeite holines which course hath been almost proper to the Church of Rome The like signification hath the other speech of committing fornication with the Kings of the earth which argueth a delight whereby they were drawne not a violence of inforcement yea the idolatrie the Apostle speakes of is not the grosse worshipping of salse gods by profest idolatrie but in a mysterie the false worshipping of the true God Against his reason you except not but charge him with doting in a high degree for making the Kings of England Scotland c. Satans souldiers And such in deed they were when they gaue their power to the beast and as long as they continued the Popes seruants but the Apostle shewes that at the last after their drunkennes and fornication the Lord hauing discouered their shame vnto them they should hate the whore c. which they haue happily done yea euen Bohemia though a Popish Emperour for this present gouerns it and shall in Gods good time wholy consume her flesh with fire It is neither diuinity nor reason to imagine that Henoch and Eltas hauing been taken from the earth by God to their reward should come againe into the world and be slaine by Antichrist As vntrue is it that by that great city Ierusalem is meant for that terme is neuer giuen to it in all the Reuelation but to Rome ordinarily especially chapters 17. 18. yea our Sauiour himselfe was not crucified in Ierusalem but without it In the great city that is in the Romane Empire he was indeed crucified yet is he also daily crucified in his members by the instigation and appointment of the Pope of Rome by whom all the later persecutions of true Christians haue been raised in seuerall countries howsoeuer the secular power hath been the instrument of his crueltie speaker W. P. M. Perkins brings not onely Hieroms name but his iudgment that Epistle being of his writing in the name of those two Matrons yet we stand nor vpon his authoritie though we might well inough against you and your ordinarie interpreters without name but vpon the reasons before deliuered which proue that the great city is not Ierusalem but Rome Which exposition besides the authoritie of the text hath the sauour and defence of auncient and learned men Bernard saith They are the ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist Againe The beast spoken of in the Apocalyps to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphemies and to make warre with the Saints of God is now gotten into Peters chaire as a lyon prepared to his pray It will be said that Bernard spake these latter wordes of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation It is true indeed but wherefore was he an vsurper He rendreth a reason thereof in the same place because the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Almaine France England Scotland Spaine Hierusalem with consent of the whole Clergie and people in these nations and the other was not And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but all the Popes for this many yeeres are the beast in the Apocalyps because now they are onely chosen by the colledge of Cardinals To this agreeth the decree of Pope Nicholas the second ann 1059. that the Pope shall afterward be created by the suffrages of the Cardinall Bishops of Rome with the consent of the rest of the Clergie and people and the Emperor himselfe and all Popes are excommunicate and accursed as Antichrists that enter otherwise as all now doe Ioachimus Abbas saith Antichrist was long since borne in Rome and shall be yet aduanced higher in the Apostolike See Petrarch saith Once Rome now Babylon And Ireneus booke 5. chap. last said before all these that Antichrist should be Lateinus a Romane speaker D. B. P. Novv let vs come to the auncient and learned men vvhom you cite in fauour of your exposition The first is S. Bernard vvho saith that they are the ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist Of vvhom speaketh that good religious Father forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome Good vvho vvere as he saith the ministers of Christ because they vvere lavvfully called by the Pope to their places but serued Antichrist for that
vvhen it is offered vs that is vvhether it lie in our povver to refuse it And secondly vvhen vve concurre and vvorke vvith it vvhether vve could if vve listed refuse to vvorke vvith it In both vvhich points vve hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of vvhich our Authour is silent only by the vvay in his fourth reason toucheth tvvo texts out of S. Paul vvhich are commonly alleaged against free vvill The firâ—â— I haue saith he laboured more abundantly then all they yet not I but the grace of God vvhich is in me attributing the vvhole vvorke to grace To vvhich I briefely ansvvere that they doe corrupt the text to make it seeme more currant for them the Greeke hath only He sun emoi vvhich is vvith me not vvhich is in me so that the vvord in true construction makes much more for vs then against vs Saint Paul affirmeth the grace of God vvhich vvas vvorking vvith him to haue done these things And so Saint Augustine vvhom they pretend to follovv most in this matter expoundeth it Yet not I but the grace of God vvith me that is not I alone but the grace of God with me And by this neither the grace of God alone neither he alone but the grace of God vvith him thus Saint Augustine The like sentence is in the booke of Wisdome Send that vvisdome from thy holy heauen that it may be vvith me and labour vvith me speaker A. W. Master Perkins tooke that as the most principall point which doth most diminish the glorie of God the end of all true religion Now what opinion is more derogatorie to Gods glorie than that which giues mans will a power by nature to receiue grace ofered vpon an inward motion of God without any incliniâ—g of the will by him And this answers your former quesion denying that it lies in our owne power to refuse graâ—e though we freely assent vnto it There is a necessity of inâ—…llibilitie so that it cannot come to passe that a man inclinâ—d by Gods spirit should not receiue grace there is notwthstanding a freedome of will because the will is not compelled to assent The second question is like the former and answered in like sort viz. that we might refuse in reâ—…ect of the nature of our will which is not forced to the choise that in the euent we cannot refuse because God frames our will ineuitably to make that choise You saw it was not for you to deale with Master Perkins reasons as they were set downe by him for then it would haue been looked for that yoâ— should haue answered directly to all the places of Scripâ—ure hee brings against the strength of frâ—â—will by nature Therefore you shift off the matter and outof nine texts alleaged in this question you chuse onely thâ—e Against which you thinke you are able to say somewhâ— And what is it you say That Master Perkins attributes he whole to grace vtterly vntrue For hee saith plainly â—at there is a supernaturall cooperation of mans will with Gods sâ—rit by grace enabling him to will his conuersion And addes fterwards Not I that is I by any thing in me but Gods grace â—…e enabling my will to doe that good I do If that translation â—rrupt the text Hierome corrupted it not we and to sayâ—e truth it is all one to vs whether you reade in me or whâ—me so you acknowledge the strength whereby the Apole workes to be of God and not of nature But for the prase the grace of God in the Scripture signifies either the loue and fauour of God which is wholy without a man or some gift of his which is a qualitie in the soule Now it is a great deale more likely that the Apostle speakes of some gift of God within him whereby hee is made able to labour than of the fauour of God without him wherby his labour is blessed We subscribe to S. Austin That in all our good workes we have a part or rather that the worke it selfe is wholieours though both the grace whereby we are enabled to do it and the inclination whereby we are brought to doe iâ— proceede from the spirit of God speaker D. B. P. The second text is It is God that woreth in vs both to vvill and to accomplish We graunt that it is God buâ—ot he alone without vs for in the next words before Saint Paul saith Worke your saluation vvith feare and trembling So that God worketh pincipally by stirring vs vp by his grace and also helping forward our wil to accomplish the worke but so sweetly and conâ—ormablie to our naure that his working taketh not away but helpeth forward our will toconcurre with him Againe the whole may be attributed vnto God considering that the habits of grace infused be from him as sole efficient cause of them our actions indued also with grace being onely disposiâ—ons and no efficient cause of those habits but this is an high point of â—choole Diuinitie very true but not easily to be conceiued of the vnleaâ—ed speaker A. W. We also grant as I haue said that it is God with vs herein wee differ that you ascribe no more to God in our first conuersion but a stirring of vs vp and helpng forward of our will leauing the euent to our choise anâ— so vncertaine we affirme that God doth so work that he â—…clines the will so that the euent shall in fallibly ensue therâ—…on The whole may not be attributed to God though the habits of grace infused be from him as a sole efficient case of them For the question is not how we come by theseâ—abits but whether the actions done when we haue the hbits be ours or no speaking of good workes after iustifiâ—tion If the question be of our first conuersion we say â— tâ—… act of beleeuing is ours but the grace by which we are eabled to beleeue is giuen by God and made effectual 〈◊〉 made to produce this effect of beleeuing by God also speaker D. B. P. One other obiection may be collected ouâ— of 〈◊〉 Perkins third reason against free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words VVhen vve vvere dead in sinnes If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Ansvvere Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickned and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath been said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath free will in naturall and ciuill actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good workes necessarie to life euerlasting As for
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
infallible as the articles of our creede yea as Gods owne word they are not by faith assured of it Now that some speciall good men either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of a vertuous life haue a great certainty of their saluation we willingly confesse but that certainty doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinary faith Your answere vpon Master Perkins grant is insufficient Commonly saith Master Perkins men do not beleeue their saluation as they doe the Articles of faith Therefore say you by his owne confession our particular saluation is not to be beleeued by faith I denie the consequence your conclusion is not rightly inferred men doe not commonly therefore they are not bound to doe or therefore it is not possible they should Either of both the meanes you name is sufficient to breed assurance of faith For the former who euer durst imagine that reuelation from God breedes not certaintie of faith The latter also passeth hope for a life truly vertuous argues true sanctification and that iustification which is not attained to but by true faith and whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued As for falling away from faith it is impossible as if neede be shall be prooued when occasion is offered speaker W. P. Object III. We are taught to pray for the pardon of our sinnes day by day Matth. 6. 12. and all this were needelesse if wee could be assured of pardon in this life Ans. The fourth petition must be vnderstood not so much of our old debts or sins as of our present and new sinnes for as we goe on from day to day so we adde sinne to sinne and for the pardon of them we must humble our selues and pray I answere againe that wee pray for the pardon of our sinnes not because wee haue no assurance thereof but because our assurance is weake and smal wee grow on from grace to grace in Christ as children doe to mans estate by little and little The heart of euery beleeuer is like a vessell with a narrow necke which being cast into the sea is not filled at the first but by reason of the straight passage receiueth water droppe by droppe God giueth vnto vs in Christ euen a sea of mercie but the same on our parts is apprehended and receiued onely by little and little as faith groweth from age to age and this is the cause why men hauing assurance pray for more speaker D. B. P. Good Sir doe you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe If your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and as strong as the truth of God We giue God thankes for those giftes which we haue receiued at his bountifull hands and desire him to encrease or continue them if they may be lost But to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by faith is as fond and friuolous as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen of which they are in full and assured possession And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for vs are very substantiall and sufficient to assure euery good Christian that he may well hope for saluation doing his duty but may not without great presumption assure him by faith of it speaker A. W. It is necessarie for vs daily to craue pardon although before we were assured of it in some measure first because we haue a commandement which must be simply obeyed secondly because we must renew our repentance as we renew our sinnes Our assurance though it be weake is the assurance of faith failing not in truth for the nature of it but in quantitie for the measure it should be without doubt but it is not speaker A. W. To these I will adde two or three others which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions as he tearmes them â—o his first exception I haue answered before The second I will put last for orders sake and answere to the third Master Perkins hauing answered the popish obiections propounded by him proceeds to confirme our doctrine by sixe reasons whereof the fiue first are drawne from the Scriptures Against which the Papists except three waies To those exceptions Master Perkins answeres in their order and place That order this Papist alters and to serue his own turne answers the exceptions before he propound the reasons to which they are taken Afterward he shifts off the reasons as well as he can The plainest course for me is to set downe Master Perkins words and by A. B. C. to referre the reader to the Papists answers and replies as they belong to Master Perkins disputation Our reasons to the contrarie speaker W. P. Reason I. The first reason may bee taken from the nature of faith on this manner True faith is both an vnfallible assurance and a particular assurance of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainely and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainly and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting That this reason may bee of force two things must bee prooued first that true faith is a certaine assurance of Gods mercie to that partie in whom it is Secondly that faith is a particular assurance thereof For the first that faith is a certaine assurance Christ saith to Peter Matthew 14. 31. O thou of little faith wherefore diddest thou doubt Where he makes an opposition betweene faith and doubting whereby giuing vs directly to vnderstand that To be certaine and to giue assurance is of the nature of faith Rom. 4. 20. 22. Paul saith of Abraham that he did not doubt of the promise of God through vnbeleefe but was strengthened in faith and gaue glorie to God beeing fully assured that hee which had promised was able to doe it where I obserue first that doubting is made a fruit of vnbeleefe and therfore vnfallible certainty and assurance being contrary to doubting must needes proceede from true faith considering that contrary effects come of contrary causes and contrary causes produce contrarie effects Secondly I note that the strength of Abrahams faith did stand in fulnes of assurance for the text saith hee was strengthened in the faith beeing fully assured and againe Heb. 11. 1. true sauing faith is said to bee the ground and subsistence of things hoped for and the euidence or demonstration of things that are not seene but faith can be no ground or euidence of things vnles it bee for nature certaintie it selfe and thus the first point is manifest The second that sauing faith is a particular assurance is proued by this that the property of faith is to apprehend and applie the promise and the thing promised Christ with his benefits Ioh. 1. 12. As
onely but of indisposition also which is a reason to make euery one despaire in regard of himselfe though in respect of Gods mercie he may conceiue some hope For if no man should find fauour but he that is disposed or fitted for it perfectly sure wee must needes despaire of attaining to that fitnes how can we in respect of that looke for saluation the worthines which is in them that shall come to heauen is both in Christ by whom they are worthie as members of his mysticall bodie and also in themselues who departing out of this world are made perfectly righteous by inherent righteousnes which before was begun in them speaker D. B. P. If God bidde vs pray that we fall not into temptation and promiseth an issue forth then the assurance depends vpon prayer and not vpon our former faith What then if wee doe not pray so as we should may not the enemy then not only wound but kill vs to it cannot be denied and therein as in diuers other workes of pietie many haue been too too slacke as the pitifull fall of thousands haue taught vs. speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not say that prayer doth assure vs of perseuerance but that wee resting vpon God by faith and calling on him are vpheld from falling away not because our prayer is for the manner and measure such as it ought to be for all should be perfect but because God-hath promised to keepe his children and that he may fulfill his promise stirres them vp to pray according to his will though with many imperfections speaker D. B. P. Oh saith M. Perkins it cannot be that he vvhich vvas once a member of Christ can euer after be vvholy cut off O shamelesse assertion and contrary to many plaine texts and examples of holy Scriptures Doth not our Sauiour say in expresse words That euery braunch in me not bearing fâ—… he vvill take it avvay And againe If any abide not in me he shall be cast forth as the branch and shall vvither and be cast into the fire which doth demonstrate that some which were members of Christ be wholie cut off and that for euer Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our aduersaries owne confession and doth not our blessed Sauiour say expounding the Parable of the sower That the seed vvhich fell vpon the rocke doth signifie them vvho vvith ioy receiue the vvord and these saith he haue no roote but for a time they beleeue and in time of temptation reuolt Doth not S. Paul in expresse tearmes say That some hauing faith and good conscience expelling good conscience haue made shipvvrack of their faith of whom were by name Hymenaeus and Alexander The like That in the last daies some should reuolt from the faith Againe That some for couetousnes sake had erred from the saith speaker A. W. Doe you call that a shamelesse assertion which is so oft auowed by our Sauiour himselfe He that drinkes of that water that I shall giue him shall neuer thirst but it shall be in him a well of water springing vp to euerlasting life Againe My sheepe heare my voyce and I know them and they follow me and I giue them eternall life and they shall neuer perish neither shall any plucke them out of my hand And in another place I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall not hunger and he that beleeues in me shall neuer thirst This is the will of him that sent me that euery one that sees the Sonne and beleeues in him should haue euerlasting life and I will raise him vp at the last day Now the places you alleage prooue no more but that if any man fall away from Christ he shall perish and that some may forsake the truth of doctrine or hauing had some shew of a iustifying faith for a time may afterward manifest themselues not to haue beleeued in Christ to iustification Of the former kinde are those two places of Iohn of the latter all the rest speaker D. B. P. And for example amongst other take Saul the first King of Israell who was at his election as the holy Ghost witnesseth so good a man that there vvas no better then he in Jsraell and yet became reprobate as is in the Scripture signified The like is probable of Salomon and in the new Testament of Judas the traytour and Simon Magus whom S. Luke saith that he also himselfe beleeued and after became an Arch heretike and so died the like almost may be verified of all Arch-heretikes who before they fell were of the faithfull speaker A. W. That you say of Saul is vtterly false for the Scripture neither in that text nor any where else speakes so of him And indeed how could it Samuel being then aliue so holie and good a man But the place you meane is in the ninth chapter where Samuel saith to him whose shall all the best things of Israel be as your translation reades it That is saith your glosse the dignitie of the King who may take the best things of the people subiect to him The goodly things saith the 70. All that is to be desired Pagnin What soeuer is to be desired in Israel saith Vatablus and in his marginall note All the desire of Israel as if he should say Thou shalt be King of Israel And this agrees both with the word and with the context Care not for the asses saith Samuel for they are found and besides whose shall all the wealth of Israel be Thus haue you graced Saul and belied the holy Ghost so haue you disgraced Salomon whom the holy Ghost honored with speaking by his mouth and writing by his penne the great mysteries of God Euery Papist hath not power like the Pope to make whom he will a Saint and whom he list a reprobate Iudas Simon Hymeneus Alexander and the rest beleeued the truth of the Gospell at least in part for a time but neuer any one of these had at any time true iustifying faith to rest vpon Christ for saluation speaker D. B. P. But what neede we further proofe of this matter seeing that this is cosen-german if not the very same with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles condemned and registred by S. Hierome and S. Augustine who held that iust men after Baptisme could not sin and if they did sinne they were indeed washed with water but neuer receiued the spirit of grace his ground was that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace could not sinne after which is iust M. Perkins proposition so that to vphold an errour he falleth into an old condemned heresie speaker A. W. We denie not that a man may sinne yea we confesse that the very best men doe sinne but wee say the Lord by his spirit keepes them that are iustified from falling away from Christ either finally or totally He that is
borne of God sinneth not for his seed remaineth in him neither can he sinne because he is borne of God speaker D. B. P. And which is yet more absurd in the next confirmation he letteth slippe at once a brace of other heresies these be his words And if by sin one vvere vvholâ— seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptised the second time Where you haue first rebaptizing which is the principall error of the Anabaptists and withall the heresie of the Nouatians who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme there was no remedy left in Gods Church for their recouery but must be left to God so saith M. Perkins for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo so that the common saying is verified in him one absurdity being graunted a thousand follovv after But doth he know no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet wherwith they begin their common prayer VVhat houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne c. With them repentance and with vs the Sacrament of Penance serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ. speaker A. W. Baptisme being the sacrament of imitating and ingrafting men into Christ must needes be equally necessarie for all that are out of Christ. As for repentance vpon which God forgiues a sinner it is common to the baptized with the vnbaptized now you hold it needfull at the first as doubtlesse it is so that the wilfull neglect of it is damnable though a man haue repented why should it be needlesse afterward when a man is wholy out of Christ as in the beginning he was Your superstitious and proud satisfactorie penance wee reiect as Antichristian neither allowing any second baptisme nor excluding them that fall neuer so grieuously either from heauen or the Church in this world if they repent speaker D. B. P. But we must answere vnto that of S. Iohn They vvent out from vs but they vvere not of vs for if they had bin of vs they vvould haue continued vvith vs. I answere If they went out from vs they were before with vs which confirmeth our assertion that men may depart from their faith and Christs profession but such men were not indeed of the number of the elect of which S. Iohn was for then either they would haue continued with them in the Christian faith or else by hartie repentance would haue returned vnto it backe againe which is S. Augustines owne exposition And these be the Arguments for the Catholikes vvhich M. Perkins through his confused order toucheth here and there speaker A. W. Who denies they were with the Church or who can prooue they were of it you grant as much as we desire that they were not of the elect who onely are in case to fall away from Christ because the rest were neuer in him Their returning by repentance is not into Christs mysticall body as if they had been out of it but either into the congregation of the faithfull or into Gods fauour in respect of their owne feeling speaker D. B. P. To which I vvill adde one taken out of the words of S. Paul But thou by faith dost stand be not too highly vvise but feare if God hath not spared the naturall boughes lest perhaps he vvill not spare thee neither And againe VVorke your saluation vvith feare and trembling There be aboue an hundred such texts in holy vvrite vvherein the holy Ghost exhorteth vs to stand in feare of our saluation out of vvhich I thus frame my argument No man must stand in feare of that of vvhich he is by faith assured But the faithfull must stand in feare of their saluation Ergo they bee not assured of it by saith The Minor or second proposition is plainly proued by these places cited before the Maior is manifest there is no feare in faith he that feareth vvhether the thing be assured or no cannot giue a certaine assent thereunto Dubius in side in fidelis est Put the case in another article to make it more euident He that feareth vvhether there be a God or no doe vve esteeme that he beleeueth in God So he that feareth vvhether Iesus Christ be God is he a Christian hath he a true faith You must needs anssvere no. So he that feareth vvhether he shall be saued or no can haue no faith of his saluation speaker A. W. I may grant your conclusion the faithfull are not ordinarily assured of their saluation by such a faith as hath no doubting annexed vnto it Yet is our assertion true that they are assured of it by such a faith as shall neuer deceiue them And againe yet they ought to be assured without doubting But I will answere to your syllogisme first by distinguishing on your proposition no man must nor indeed can stand in feare of that of which he is assured by such a measure of faith as admits no doubt but his faith being weake he may and must for this feare is an especiall meanes to keepe him from falling away In which respect the holy Ghost exhorts to it by reason our faith is not perfect Secondly for your assumption I say the faithfull are not simply willed to be afraid that they shall not be saued but onely are appointed to vse the meanes of securing of themselues by warines because else it will come to passe that they shall fall away in their owne sense and feeling Your example prooues nothing the measure of faith being so diuers and further hee may truly beleeue in God that in some temptation falles into doubting for a time whether there be a God or no as you must needes know if you haue any experience of the temptations which sometimes befall the deare children of God speaker D. B. P. To these inuincible reasons grounded vpon Gods word let vs ioyne some plaine testimonies taken aswell out of the holy Scripture as out of the auncient Fathers First what can be more manifest to warrant vs that the faithfull haue not assurance infallible of their saluation then these words of the Holy Ghost There be iust and therefore faithfull and vvise men and their vvorkes be in the hand of God and neuerthelesse a man doth not knovv vvhether he be worthy of hatred er loue but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come Where is then the Protestants certainety And because one heretike cauilleth against the Laten translation saying that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned heare how S. Ierome who was most cunning in the Hebrew text doth vnderstand it The sense is saith he J haue sound the vvorkes of iust men to be in the hand of God and yet themselues not to knovv vvhether they be loued of God or no. speaker A. W. Whether there be cause or no to finde fault with
righteousnes of Christ neither doth he for that purpose bring this testimonie but to shew what that faith is by which wee are iustified Secondly you accuse Master Perkins for cutting off certaine conditions added on our part by Bernard but where are these conditions added The words you alleage are aboue thirtie lines after those that he cites and depend not vpon them but are spoken concerning the certaintie of saluation So therefore saith Bernard doth this glorie viz. the inward glorie and witnes of our conscience as in the words immediatly before dwell here in our earth if mercie and truth meete together and righteousnes and peace kisse each other For it is necessarie that the truth of our conuersion meete with mercie preuenting it And that afterward we follow holinesse and peace without which no man shall see God This and such like sentences declare that it is in vaine for a man to promise himselfe iustification without sanctification But they answere not the former testimonie which shewes that iustifying faith is a particular applying of Christ by beleeuing the forgiuenes of our sinnes speaker W. P. Cyprian God promiseth thee immortalitie when thou goest out of this world and doest thou doubt This is indeede not to know God and this is for a member of the Church in the house of faith not to haue faith If we beleeue in Christ let vs beleeue his words and promises and wee shall neuer die and shall come to Christ with ioyfull securitie with him to raigne for euer speaker D. B. P. S. Cyprian encourageth good Christians dying to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ and so doe all Catholikes and bidde them be secure too on that side that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise but say that the cause of feare lies in our owne infiâ—mities and yet bids them not to doubt as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued but animats them and puts them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reasons speaker A. W. Cyprian affirmes confidently that God hath promised euery true Christian immortalitie when he goes out of the world so that if hee beleeue this promise and rest vpon God for the performance of it by Christ he shall certainly be made partaker of it Your comfort is so cold that a man were as good be without it when his hope shall depend especially vpon the good vse of his owne free will in beleeuing and keeping the law of Christ. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne party why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alleadge in fauor of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then beliâ—e because he knew not how to answere them I will out of their fromâ— take that one principall of the testimony of holy Scripture And by that alone â—…ly proue that the faith required to iustification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be ours speaker A. W. It should seeme the reason was that hauing as he said before prooued our opinion to be true he doth but adde aâ— argument or two to his former proofe For that it was easie for him to answere those you bring I hope it shall be manifest to all men at the least it had not been hard for him to chuse out some that he could haue answered speaker D. B. P. How can this be better knowne then if we see weigh and consider well what kinde of faith that was which all they had who are saide in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith speaker A. W. Your reason is thus to be framed If the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all that which was reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs then iustifying faith is so But the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all which by God is reueiled c. Therefore a iustifying faith is a beleefe of all that which is reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs First we must remember that wee speake of that faith by which they were iustified for else the consequence of the proposition may be doubted of This being vnderstood I denie the assumption and to the proofe of it I answere first in generall that your examples are either effects of iustifying faith or the way and meanes to it but not the faith it selfe speaker D. B. P. S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice which is by faith What faith had he That by Christs righteousnes he was assured of saluation No such matter but beleeue that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him speaker A. W. Secondly I say for the particulars that this was not the faith by which Noe was iustified For it is apparant that he was iustified before he beleeued that God would drown the world Adde hereunto that this faith of his was also a resting vpon God for safetie according to his promise The Apostle in this and the like propounds not the meanes of iustification but some notable effect of faith Neither doth he declare what this righteousnes of faith was but saith that the righteousnes of faith remained as Lyra expounds it in him onely and his children in which respect he is called the heire of it Chrysostome saith By this he appeared to be iust because he beleeued God speaker D. B. P. Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of iustice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans What 〈◊〉 he was iustified by Let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith hath these words He contrary to hope beleeued in hope that he might be made the Father of manie Nations according to that which vvas said vnto him So shall thy seed be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the sea and he vvas not vveakened in faith neither did he consider his ovvne body novv quite dead vvhereas he vvas almost an hundred yeares old not the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but vvas strengthned in saith giuing glorie to God most fully knovving that vvhaâ—soeâ—eâ— he promised he vvas able also to doe therfore vvas it reputed to him to iustice Loe because he glorified God in beleeuing that old and barren persons might haue children if God said the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe he was iustified speaker A. W. Od Abraham I answere as
alone we shall also be saued and that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time vvill render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits speaker A. W. His second answere is that the assumption is false vpon this distinction that by sauing wee vnderstand being brought into the state of saluation For that is performed on our part by beleeuing onely Now in this case wee are said to bee saued because whosoeuer is once iustified by saith shall certainly haue other things ministred vnto him by which God hath appointed to bring him to saluation It is your slander not Master Perkins error that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement speaker W. P. Reason V. We are saued by hope therefore not by faith alone Answ. We are saued by hope not because it is any cause of our saluation Pauls meaning is onely this that wee haue not saluation as yet in possession but waite patiently for it in time to come to be possessed of vs expecting the time of our ful deliuerance that is all that can iustly be gathered hence speaker D. B. P. There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first offeare it is said He that is vvithout feare cannot be iustified VVe are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe psnance you shall all in like sort perish VVe are translated from death to life that is iustified because vve loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of vvater and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our evil liues For vve are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen againe from the dead c. Sâ— vve may also vvalke in nevvnes of life speaker A. W. Master Perkins answered as much as hee propounded that which you haue brought I will examine and I trust satisfie He that is without feare cannot be iustified It is a strange course of prouing to bring that against vs for scripture which you know wee denie to be scripture and that with the consent of the ancient writers and your owne of late Arias Montanus and they that ioyned with him haue left all the Apocryphall out of the Interlinear Bible The Greeke which is the originall is farre otherwise An angrie man and so it is translated in the great Bible set out by Arias Montanus and before that by Pagnin who also interpreteth it shall not be iustified cannot be thought iust referring it to mans iudgement rather than to Gods Vatablus also so translateth it and addes in the margin that some copies reade vniust anger and for your being iustified he translateth as Pagnin doth cannot be counted iust Besides I denie the consequence he that is without feare cannot be iustified therefore iustification is ascribed in Gods word to some other vertue and not to faith onely For though a man that is without feare cannot be iustified yet he is not iustified in respect of his feare To omit the absurditie of the translation doe penance for repent who makes any doubt that they shall perish that repent not What will you conclude thence Therefore repentance iustifieth and not faith onely I denie your consequence see the reason in the former section The Apostle makes not the loue of our brethren the cause but the proofe of our iustification as it is apparant by his words We know we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren he that loueth not his brother abideth in death We are not translated by reason of our louing for indeed we must be translated before we can loue them but we know by louing them that we are translated And that is the scope of the Apostle In this are the children of God knowne and the children of the diuell whosoeuer doth not righteousnes is not of God neither he that loueth not his brother Let vs not loue in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth For thereby wee know that we are of the truth and shall before him assure our hearts First you take that as granted which is full of doubt that our Sauiour Christ speaketh in that place of baptisme Secondly admitting that I denie absolute necessitie of baptisme as well as of the other Sacrament for which in your iudgement those words are as strong Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Thirdly I say we are iustified by baptisme as Abraham was by Circumcision Fourthly I denie the consequence here also None can enter into heauen except they be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Therefore not onely faith but also some other vertues are respected by God in our iustification The end of baptisme is our sanctification by dying to sinne and liuing to righteousnes therefore iustification and saluation are ascribed to other vertues beside faith I denie the consequence For though we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our liues yet God doth not iustifie vs in regard that we haue such a purpose but only in respect of our beleeuing neither to speake truly doth this purpose goe before iustification but follow it speaker D. B. P. To all these and many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answere in that one You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must waire patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternal saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to think as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it speaker A. W. S. Paul doth not affirme that it is any cause of saluation but onely saith as Master Perkins hath truly answered that we must come to the possession of saluation by continuing our hope of it with patience To which purpose the Apostle saith that we had need of patience that after wee haue done the will of God we may receiue the promise Neither is the question of saluation but of iustification so that here the consequence may iustly be denied we are saued by
third of more certainty speaker D. B. P. The former is S. Augustines S. Hieromes S. Gregories in his Commentaries vpon that place who say that no creature ordinarily liueth without many veniall sinnes for the which in iustice they may be punished sharpely either in this life or else afterward in Purgatory Wherfore the best men do very prouidently pray vnto God not to deale with them according vnto their deserts for if he should so doe they cannot be iustified and cleared from many veniall faults And therefore they must all craue pardon for these faults or else endure Gods iudgements for them before they can attaine vnto the reward of their good deeds speaker A. W. Austin hath not a word in that place of any veniall sinne but deliuereth the latter exposition of comparison with Gods righteousnes Iudge me not saith Austin according to thee who art without sinne and that which shall be in the world to come That which he saith shall not be iustified he referres to that perfection of righteousnes which is not in this life Neither saith Ierome any such thing but speaketh absolutely of all sinne as the other places alledged by him to the same purpose manifestly shew God hath shut vp all vnder sinne All haue sinned If they sin against thee for there is no man that sinneth not c. Neither doth Gregory make that interpretation vnlesse we shall say that there are no sinnes in the heart but veniall Many saith he though they sinne not in deed yet slip now and then by vaine and peruerse thoughts After he concludes thus Therefore he shall not be iustified in Gods sight that sinnes in heart vpon which God looketh Where he vseth not the word l slipping but sinning as before of the deed Therfore this first exposition hath not so much as any one authoritie truly alleaged to countenance it selfe withall speaker D. B. P. The second exposition is more ordinarie with all the best writers vpon the Psalmes as S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Arnobius S 〈◊〉 and others Which is also S. Augustine S. Gregorie All these say that mans iustice in comparison of the iustice of God will seeme to be no iustiâ—e at all and so take these words No creature neither man nor Angell shall be iustified in thy sight that is if his iustice appeare before thine and be compared to it for as the starres be bright in themselues and sâ—…ne also goodly in a cleare â—ight yet in the presence of the glittâ—… sunne beames they appeare not at all euen so mans iustice although considered by it selfe it be great and perfect in his kind yet set in the sight and presence of Gods iustice it vanisheth away and is not to be seene This exposition is taken out of Job where he saith I knoâ—… 〈◊〉 it is euen so that no man compared to God shall be iustified Take the words of the Psalme in whether sense you list that either we haue many veâ—â—all faults for which we cannot be iustified in Gods sight or else that in the sight of Gods most bright iustice ours will not appeare at all and it cannot be thereof iustly concluded that euery worke of the righteous man is stained with sin And consequently the place is not to purpose speaker A. W. Let vs see the other exposition and first what Hilarie saith for it who indeede applieth it to a comparison with Gods iustice but not onely in degree of righteousnes For he reciteth there diuers passions of anger griefe lust ignorance c. which are the cause why we cannot be iustified Erasmus hath brought good reasons to prooue that Commentarie on the Psalmes to be none of Hieromes I will adde one which I thinke may put the matter out of question that Hierome refuteth that interpretation which this Papist would confirme by that place They saith Hierome delude this testimonie none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight vnder a shew of godlinesse by a new kinde of reasoning For they say that none is perfect in comparison of God as if the scripture had said thus Here is your exposition denied to be the meaning of this scripture What is then the meaning When he saith in thy sight he will haue this vnderstood saith Hierome that euen those which to men seeme holy in Gods knowledge and approbation are not holy for man looks vpon the face but God lookes into the heart Now if no man be righteous when he lookes into and considers the heart whom the secrets of the heart doe not deceiue it is manifestly shewed that the heretikes doe not extoll men on high but derogate from the power of God Hierome then is so farre from bringing that interpretation for his owne that he reiects and refutes it and that which is worth the obseruing euen in that place which this Papist alleaged for his former exposition It is no marueile if these men can prooue any thing by the Fathers Arnobius indeed doth so interpret it But if wee rest vpon authoritie his bare exposition is not to ouerweigh Hieroms reason Besides he is farre from thinking a man righteous in such perfection as you dreame of as it is plaine by his former words Who dares say to God saith Arnobius heare me in thy truth and in thy righteousnes for it is true and iust that he which hath sinned should be most sharply punished Vpon the beginning of the second verse he hath these words It is thy righteousnes that being Lord thou shouldest think skorne to enter into iudgement with thy seruant Euthymius denieth that a man can be iustified if he be examined according to Gods perfect iustice But he addes further Or if we consider the benefits of God or his commandements So that the righteous breake euen the Commandements of God and are vnrighteous It is a needlesse matter to heape vp authorities for the proofe of that whereof there is no question Who doubts that both men and Angels in comparison of Gods infinite perfection are imperfectly righteous And this is all Austin saith But how can this prooue that the Psalme is to be vnderstood of mans righteousnes compared with Gods This is to deceiue your reader with bare names of men not to perswade him by the consent of the ancient Neither doe you remember that Austin where purposely he expounds that Psalme giues no such interpretation of it but makes in his sight to be as it is indeed in his iudgement Euery liuing man saith Austin may perhaps iustifie himselfe before himselfe but not before thee And afterward How vpright soeuer I seeme to my selfe thou bringest a rule out of thy treasurie thou laiest me to it and I am found euill So that Austin vnderstands this place wholy as we doe Gregory is as truly alleaged as Austin and as himselfe was before For he doth not
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
For if we say we haue no sin wee deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1. 7. And he that sinnes against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law And what can he merit that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law speaker D. B. P. I deny the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit as by all the properties of merit may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merit set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good Father Doe on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bin proued at large in a seuerall question To that of S. Iames although it belong not to this matter I answere that he who offendeth in one is made guilty of all that is he shall be as surely condomned as if he had broken all See S. Augustine speaker A. W. You denie the proposition but if you did remember that the question is of meriting euerlasting life which requires the keeping of the whole law you would neuer stick at it for no man can be guiltie of the whole law as euery one is that failes in any one commandement and yet deserue euerlasting life The reason of your deniall is not sufficient for no one worke done with neuer so due circumstances can bring forth any merit of euerlasting life whereof Master Perkins speakes in his definition Indeede this reason is nothing but a bare deniall of Master Perkins proofe That you add of a mans losing and recouering his merit is liker a dreame then a point of diuinitie as it may well appeare by the poore proofe you bring of it viz. a speech out of an allegory and that also falsly translated his former garment for that best or principall garment Your vulgar latine calls it the first garment Pagnin that principall your interlinear glosse expounds it to signifie the garment of the holie ghost and the ordinarie glosse giues a reason why it is called the first because it is the garment of innocency in which the first man was created which interpretation is taken out of Austin But to the matter What reason is there that merit should not be recompenced according to iustice If a man haue once deserued euerlasting life why should he not haue it Or if that merit be once lost how can it be restored againe but only by Gods acceptation and then how can it be truly and properly merit You must not only say but shew too that the place of S. Iames belongs not to this matter els it is an easie matter to answere any authority of scripture Let vs grant your owne interpretation that he which breakes one commandement shall be certainely condemned how then can he deserue euerlasting life without keeping all the commandements And what a strange and vnsauorie doctrine is it that he which hath merited euerlasting life may be damned But the meaning of the Apostle is that the seuerall commandements are as it were seuerall conditions of a couenant betwixt God and man whereof if any one be broken the whole bond is forfeited how exactly soeuer all the rest haue bin performed what merit then can there be of life where the partie is liable to damnation speaker W. P. Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our daily bread Wherein we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be euery way the gift of God It must needs therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine that hee can by his workes merit eternall life who cannot merit bread speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomely that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerely the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our peny or trauaile we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Paules rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not cate Yet because our trauailes are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God daily to giue vs our nuriture either by sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stir ring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes speaker A. W. You take greater paines to disgrace Master Perkins Arguments then to disproue or vnderstand them his reason lyes thus He that cannot merit bread cannot merit euerlasting life But no man can merit bread Therefore no man can merit euerlasting life The proposition stands vpon the comparison of inequality from the lesse to the greater for it is a lesse matter to deserue bread then to merit euerlasting life The assumption is proued by that clause of the Lords prayer wherein we beg our dayly bread which we might claime of due debt if we could deserue it In stead of answering some part of the syllogisme you tell vs that we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle without our owne trauell or cost which is as much to purpose as if you should say we must eate our bread when we haue it if we will be fed It is but a mockery to pray to God for it if we know we haue deserued it vnlesse perhaps we thinke him so vniust that it is well if we can get our owne of him by any meanes whatsoeuer We deny not that we are to vse the meanes both for the one and the other but that we can deserue either by vsing the meanes speaker W. P. Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church Bernard Those which we call our merits are the way to the kingdome and not the cause of raigning speaker D. B. P. But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the auncient Church and then beginneth
he doth it by rote and not by skill not caring what their meaning was but gessing what in his conceit it might be If he had lookt for the place here alleaged he would certainly haue answered that Austin hath no such speech vpon that Psalme and then perhaps he might with more reason haue denied that he hath it at all The truth is the Printer misplaced the cypher and of Psalme 102. made 120. But Master Perkins truly alleaged Austins words and sentence which this bold censurer calles foolish and confidently affirmes that Austin would not let any such foolish sentence passe his penne Let himselfe iudge whether Austin say so or no. We saith Austin that are ouercome in our selues haue ouercome in him therefore he crownes thee because he crownes his owne gifts not thy merits The sense is that if God should looke to our actions of striuing against sinne as they are weakly performed by vs hee would neuer crowne them but considering that wee striue by his grace he vouchsafes them a reward though on our part altogether vndeserued speaker D. B. P. But he mistooke belike this sentence of Saint Augustine VVhen God crovvneth thee he crovvneth his gifts not thy merits Which is true being taken in that sense which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crovvne his ovvne gifts not thy merits If thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working vvith vs then may vve as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and revvard of merits speaker A. W. Austin hath the same sentence for the substance of it in many other places and namely in that you alleage though not altogether as you alleage it For after those words If thy merits be of thy selfe it followes in Austin for these if they be such are naught those that are naught God crownes not but if they be good they be the gifts of God The rest and the greater halfe of the sentence is none of Austins but yours yet closely conueied by you as if it were his no lesse than the former speaker W. P. And Psal. 142. Lord thou wilt quicken me in thy iustice not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou hast compassion speaker D. B. P. His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainely now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie speaker A. W. It will not serue the turne to say It is not to this purpose but speakes of the first iustification of a sinner For Dauid who is held to be the penner of it was truly iustified before the writing of that Psalme yea the whole course of the Psalme it selfe manifestly prooues that it was the prayer of one greatly in Gods fauour and strongly perswaded of his succour But what neede I seeke any proofes Haue you forgotten that a few lines before you confest as much when as you would haue shifted off that place in the second verse of this Psalme by answering that the Prophet prayed onely for veniall and light sinnes How then is the case so suddenly altred Forsooth because he saith Thou shalt quicken me For so indeed he saith and not Quicken me as you write But this quickning is not giuing him grace to iustification but comforting and relieuing him in the troubles hee speakes of and as Lyra truly expounds it deliuering him from the daunger of death which hung ouer his head by reason of his sonne Absoloms vnnaturall rebellion Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. In sundrie places of Scripture promise of reward is made to them that beleeue and do good workes therefore our workes doe merit for a reward and merit be relatiues Answ. Reward is twofold of debt and of mercie Life euerlasting is not a reward of debt but of mercie giuen of the good will of God without anything done of man speaker D. B. P. Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alleaged against merittes Let vs see what can be said for them following as neere as I can M. Perkins order First in sundry places of Scripture promise of reward is made vnto good workes If thou doe vvell shalt thou not receiue To him that doth vvell there is a faithfull revvard Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the revvard of God remaineth for euer and. VVhen you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen And a hundred such like therefore such workes doe merit heauen for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it M. Perkins answereth first that the reward is of meere mercie without any thing done by men But this is most apparantly false for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward Againe a reward in English supposeth a former pleasure which is rewarded otherwise it were to be called a gift and not a reward and much more the Latin and Greek word Misthos Merces which rather signifie a mans hire and wages then a gift or reward speaker A. W. M. Perkins saith not that reward is promised to workes but to them that beleeue and doe good workes where if there be any desert it is wholy in the person if not onely Yea all the places you needlesly alleage mention reward to the doer not to the deed To the former part of the place out of Ecclesiasticus I answered before I adde now concerning the latter which belongs to this argument viz. Because the reward of God remaines for euer that it is not in the Greeke copie nor in Caraffas Latin nor in Pagnines Vatablus hath it indeede but within two hookes as a sentence suspected The edition of Complutum and Aâ—â—as Montanus wholy omit it There is nothing done by man that can deserue such a reward though there be something done for which the doer is rewarded A reward supposeth some action which is rewarded but not alwaies vpon desert It may well be called a reward because it is giuen in respect of the worke howsoeuer not for the worth of it The Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin merces signifie a reward for somewhat done either vpon couenant or otherwise but prooue not any merit in the worke speaker W. P. Secondly the kingdome of heauen is properly an inheritance giuen of a father to a child and therefore it is called a reward not properly but by a figure or by resemblance For as a workeman hauing ended his labour receiueth his wages so after men haue lead their liues and finished their course in keeping faith and good
euery one shall liue for euer and not one longer then another but many mansions do signifie the different dignities of merits in the same euerlasting life speaker A. W. And Saint Gregorie in most expresse tearmes doth teach the same doctrine saying Because in this life there is a difference of vvorkes amongst vs there shall be in the other life vvithout all doubt a distinction of dignities that as one here exceedeth another in merit so there one surpasseth another iâ— revvard Finally S. Augustine and S. Hierome condemne it as an heresie to hold that there is not diuersitie of merits in this life and revvards in the next Whereon follovveth most manifestly that there be merits and revvards Al this labour of heaping vp needlesse testimonies might well haue been spared especially since they proue not that which you should haue assumed That greater reward is due but that which you did assume That greater reward is prouided Wherefore letting passe the three former which are nothing to the purpose to the last I answere that by merits good works are meant as by meriting working not that which is truly and properly desert Beside it is expresly set downe in that testimony out of Gregory wherein that which is termed worke in the former part of the sentence in the latter is called merit The same answere I make to the other two testimonies of Austin and Ierome granting a diuersitie of reward according to the diuers dignitie and number of good workes speaker W. P. Obict V. Christ saith Reuel 3. 4. that the faithfull in the Church of Sardis shall walke with him in white for they are worthie therefore beleeuers merit Answ. Euery beleeuer is worthie to walke with Christ yet not worthie in himselfe but in Christ to whom he is vnited and made bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh And by reason of this coniunction it is that men are said to be worthie because they are inriched with Christs merits and righteousnesse speaker A. W. The fift reason is taken out of those texts vvhich reach that men are vvorthy of eternall life They shall walke with me in whites because they be vvorthy God proued them and found them vvorthy of himselfe That you may be esteemed vvorthie of the kingdome of God Novv if men be vvorthy of eternall life it must needs be graunted that they haue deserued it I denie the consequence of the proposition First because infants at the least in your doctrine are worthie of euerlasting life and yet it were hard to say they haue deserued it Secondly in that we are the sonnes of God we haue a certaine worthinesse of our inheritance yet haue we not truly and wholy deserued euerlasting life Thirdly there is also a worthinesse in Gods acceptation whereof the Apostle speakes That you may be esteemed worthie and our Sauiour They that shall be esteemed worthie Fourthly they that are iustified shall haue a speciall worthinesse in themselues when they come to receiue their inheritance because they shall be truly and fully sanctified speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that they were indeed worthy but not for their owne merits but for Christs imputed vnto them This is his only refuge yet hath he not nor cannot shew any one text in Scripture that speaketh so speaker A. W. Master Perkins rightly vnderstanding the question that it is of such a worthinesse as truly and fully deserues euerlasting life for wages denies that they of Sardis were in that sort worthie of heauen by any other thing than by being members of Christs mysticall bodie and so partakers of his worthinesse in their measure Which Master Perkins proues though he name not the place by shewing that we are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh receiuing as our resurrection so euerlasting life by and with him our head speaker D. B. P. But to refell him turne only to the places and there you shall finde that this worthinesse rose of good workes as Christ saith I knovv thy vvorkes and find them not full yet there be some amongst yoâ— vvho â—aue not defiled their garments but haue their workes full they shall vvalke vvith me in whites because they be vvorthy speaker A. W. That this worthinesse is not such as the Councill of Trent speakes of that truly and wholy deserues heauen as wages it may easily appeare because the holie Ghost giues this commendation rather for refraining from those sinnes whereof the Sardians generally were guiltie than for any principall workes of obedience Now whereas you adde but haue their workes full it is without authoritie from the text though it be in the second verse Yea the change of the phrase in this verse may cause vs to think that by that want in the former verse some actuall transgressions are signified by which their garments were defiled as the holie Ghost here speakes So that this worthinesse was by Christs acceptation and in comparison of the rest of the Sardians speaker D. B. P. And By susteining persecutions they vvere made vvorthy of that Kingdome And in the words following the Apostle signifieth that it is as iust for God to requite good workes with the ioyes of heauen as he doth punish wicked with the paines of hell speaker A. W. That which I said of the Sardians is euident as I shewed before of the Thessalonians who were esteemed worthie for their workes Yet not precisely for the value of them being such as they were bound to doe and could not without sinne leaue vndone The iustice of God which you vrge out of the Apostle prooues nothing but this that in iustice the persecutors are to be punished and the persecuted relieued But it doth not prooue an equalitie of desert on each side because to suffer for Christ if occasion be is a dutie and many imperfections ouertake the best in suffering and ouerthrow all true merit speaker W. P. Obiect VI. 2. Tim. 4. 8. Euerlasting life is termed a crowne and a crowne of righteousnes to be giuen of a iust iudge therfore maÌ„ for his part by his works deserues the same Answ. Euerlasting life is called a crowne onely in resemblance For as hee which runneth a race must continue and runne to the ende and then be crowned euen so must we continue to walke in good workes vnto the end and then receiue eternall life speaker D. B. P. The sixt reason M. Perkins deliuereth thus Eternall life is tearmed a crowne and a crowne of righteousnes to be giuen by a iust iudge therfore in this life it must be iustly deserued otherwise it were not well called a crowne of iustice nor could be saide to be rendred by a iust iudge speaker A. W. It should seeme you like the deliuering of it well enough or else it is to be presumed you would haue mended it or blamed it whereof you make a shew by your preface to it The proofe of the consequence which
he was not to be restored but vpon earnest repentance at Gods good pleasure speaker D. B. P. We deny not but the punishment of one is a warning and admonition vnto another to take heed of the like so may not they deny but that correction is to the party himselfe as an admonition to beware afterward so a correction and punishment of the fault past Which S. Augustine vpon this verse of the Psalme Thou hast loued truth teacheth most plainely saying Thou hast not left their sins vvhom thou didest pardon vnpunished for thou before diddest so shevv mercy that thou mightest also preserue truth thou doest pardon him that confesseth his fault thou doest pardon him but so as he do punish himselfe and by that meanes both mercy and truth are preserued speaker A. W. That punishment of a mans self which Austin speaketh of is not to make satisfaction but to shew repentance as it may well be gathered because it is ioyned to forgiuenes which can haue no place where the debt is paid If I make satisfaction God forgiues me not If God forgiue me what doe I satisfie for Therefore the griefe and humiliation of a sinner is not to satisfie God that he neede not be forgiuen but to repent that hee may be forgiuen So farre is Dauid from pleading satisfaction by punishing himselfe that hee intreates for pardon vpon confession of his fault Because saith the Glosse out of Cassiodorus he had told the truth by confessing which God desires more than sacrifice therefore he intreates for helpe speaker W. P. Obiect IV. The Prophets of God when the people are threatned with the plague famine sword captiuitie c. exhort them to repent and to humble themselues in sackcloth and ashes and thereby they turned away the wrath of God that was then comming forth against them Therefore by temporall humiliation men may escape the temporall punishments of the Lord. Answ. Famine sworde banishment the plague and other iudgements sent on Gods people were not properly punishments of sinne but onely the corrections of a father whereby hee humbled them that they might repent speaker D. B. P. Our fourth reason the Prophets of God when the people were threatned with Famine the Sword the Plague or such lâ—ke punishments for their sinnes did commonly exhort them to works of penance as fasting prayer haire-cloath and the like to appease Gods wrath iustly kindled against them which being performed by them God was satisfied So for example sake the Niniuits at Ionas preaching doing penance in sack-cloath and ashes turned away the sentence of God against them M. Perkins answereth that famine the plague and such like scourgeâ— of God were not punishments of sins but corrections of a Father Reply This is most flat against a thousand expresse texts of the Scripture which declare that for the transgressions of Gods commaundements he hath sent those punishments vpon the people of Israell And what is the correction of a Father but the punishing of a shrewde sonne for some fault committed yet in a milde sort Or doth the Schoolmaster which is Caluins example whip the Scholler or strike him with the fâ—â—ula but to punish him for some fault So that great Rabbins seeme not to vnderstand what they say themselues when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father but not the punishment for a fault As though Fathers vsed to correct those sonnes who neuer offended them Or Masters to beat such Scholers as commit no faults speaker A. W. It is against neuer a one of those places if there were ten thousand of them Sinne was the occasion of those punishments but they were not properly punishments for sinne to any of the people who were pardoned by resting vpon Christs satisfaction through faith and manifested their true repentance by their humiliation And such is the correction of a father oftentimes perhaps more seuere than some punishment of a Magistrate yet not for reuenge and satisfaction but properly for correction and admonition You much mistake the matter when you thinke we denie that they are laid vpon vs for sinne and because of your owne error condemne our writers of not vnderstanding what they say Correction is for the fault but not to satisfie for it speaker W. P. Oâ— thus they were punishments tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins these punishments be tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction what senselesse ryming is this By due correction of the fault the party is satisfied in iustice and when he that hath offended doth abide such punishment as the grieuousnes of his offence did require there is both due correction of the offendour and due satisfaction vnto the party offended speaker A. W. A professed scholler might know how to make difference betwixt rymes figures of Rhetorike Did you neuer heare of Epistrophe when the like sound is repeated in the clauses of sentences It is very like Master Perkins did not regard the figure but hit vpon it as it were by chance Howsoeuer it is not a ryme because the vowels in the syllables which haue the accent are diuers Well for the matter you answer That a punishment may be both for satisfaction and correction What then Therfore these are so I denie the consequence because if I may repeate the same answere as oft as you bring the same obiection satisfaction is in this case made alreadie by Christ for as many as truly beleeue in him speaker W. P. And the punishments of God are turned from them not because they satisfie the iustice of God in their owne sufferings but because by faith they lay hold on the satisfaction of the Messias and testifie the same by their humiliation and repentance speaker D. B. P. As we first grant that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God dwelling in vs which is giuen vs for Christs sake so to say that Christs satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction is iust to begge the principall point in question and therefore an old triuants tricke to giue that for a finall answere which was set in the beginning to be debated speaker A. W. The answerer is not said to begge the question but the replier For to begge the questioÌ„ is to take that for a proofe which is in question Now it belongs not to the answerer to proue but to the replier whose person in this argument not Master Perkins but you sustaine speaker D. B. P. Looke vpon the forenamed example of the Niniuits of whom it is not certaine that they had any expresse knowledge of the Messias and therefore were farre enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction But most certaine and euident it is in the text that God vpon the contemplation of their workes of penance tooke compassion on them and was satisfied as by turning away the threatned subuersion is most manifest speaker A. W. The example of the Niniuites is
to the poore they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents and by vsury and crafty bargaines are not ashamed to cousen their nearest kinne Finally in place of prayer and washing away their owne sins by many bitter teares they sing meerely a Geneua Psalme and raile or heare a railing at our imagined sinnes or pretended errors And so leaue and lay all paine and sorrow vpon Christs shoulders thinking themselues belike to be borne to pleasure and pastime and to make merry in this world speaker A. W. This spitefull and slanderous inuectiue of yours sauouring neither of conscience nor ciuilitie whereby you charge your soueraigne his counsailers nobles gentrie and all that any where in sinceritie professe the Gospell of Iesus Christ with flat Epicurisme I wittingly omit holding it more Christian like to be railed vpon without cause then to raile vpon desert We vse our libertie with moderation how you priests and Iesuits obserue that which feare of damnation hope of reward the lawes of your superiors and your owne vowes bind you to I had rather euery man should iudge according to his knowledge then suspect by my reporting of that which would not seeme very vnlikely The seuenth point Of Traditions speaker W. P. Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by word of mouth or by writing beside the written word of God Our consent Conclus I. Wee hold that the very worde of God hath beene deliuered by tradition For first God reuealed his will to Adam by word of mouth and renewed the same vnto the Patriarkes not by writing but by speech by dreames and other inspirations and thus the worde of God went from man to man for the space of two thousand and foure hundred yeeres vnto the time of Moses who was the first pen-man of holy scripture For as touching the prophesie of Enoch we commonly holde it was not penned by Enoch but by some Iew vnder his name And for the space of this time men worshipped God and helde the articles of their faith by tradition not from men but immediately from God himselfe And the historie of the new testament as some say for eightie yeeres as some others thinke for the space of twenty yeeres and more went from hand to hand by tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approoued by them speaker D. B. P. Hitherto we agree but not in this which he interlaceth that in the state of nature euery man was instructed of God immediately in both matters of faith and religion For that God then as euer since vsed the ministerie aswell of good fathers as godly masters as Enoch Noe Abraham and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God and true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses as M. Perkins affirmeth If no child learned any such thing of his Father but was taught immediately from God but M. Perkins seemeth to regard lâ—â—tle such petty contradictions speaker A. W. If you were not more desirous to pick quarrels then to acknowledge truth you would neuer faine such contradictions Master Perkins sayes no such thing as you charge him with but speakes only of the Patriarks by whose ministerie the rest were taught as he shewes otherwhere making it an argument to perswade housholders to the like dutie speaker W. P. Conclus II. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but either came to vs or to our ancetours onely by tradition As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is said that Iannes and Iambres were the Magitians that withstood Moses now in the books of the olde testament wee shall not finde them once named and therefore it is like that the Apostle had their names by tradition or by some writings then extant among the Iewes So Hebr. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle recordeth of Moses that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai he said I tremble and am afraide which words are not to be found in all the bookes of the old testament In the Epistle of Iude mention is made that the Diuell stroue with Michael the Archangell about the bodie of Moses which point as also the former considering it is not to be found in holy writ it seemes the Apostle had it by tradition from the Iewes That the Prophet Esai was killed with a fullers clubbe is receiued for truth but yet not recorded in Scripture and so likewise that the Virgin Mary liued and died a virgin And in Ecclesiasticall writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded and receiued of vs for truth which neuerthelesse are not set downe in the bookes of the olde or new Testament And many things wee holde for truth not written in the worde if they bee not against the word speaker D. B. P. His 2. Conclus We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one example he puts that the blessed Virgin Marie liued and died a Virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Heluidius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith nothing of the necessitie of beleeuing That point of the virgin Maries perpetuall virginitie we hold to be true but we dare not lay a burthen vpon any mans conscience where the scripture is silent S. Austins iudgement though he were a singular light of the Church is not of waight inough to determine without all warrant of scripture what is heresie and what is not especially since himselfe confesseth that it cannot at all or very hardly be declared by a lawfull definition what makes a man an heretike Besides Austin thus deliuers the matter concerning the Heluidians heresie The Heluidians saith he so gaine said the virginitie of Mary that they confidentlie affirme she had other children after Christ by her husband Ioseph So that it may well be Austin counted them heretikes especially for auouching that peremptorily which they could no way make good by scripture speaker W. P. Conclus III. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances rules or traditions touching time and place of Gods worship and touching order and comelines to bee vsed in the same and in this regard Paul 1. Cor. 11. 2. commendeth the Church of Corinth for keeping his traditions and Act. 15. the Counceil at lerusalem decreed that the Churches of the Gentiles should abstaine from blood and from things strangled This decree is tearmed a tradition and it was in force among them so long as the offence of the Iewes remained And this kinde of traditions whether made by generall Councels or particular Synods
we haue care to maintaine and obserue these caueats being remembred first that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done speaker D. B. P. See what a â—…erent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Synagogue which is no part of the true Church speaker A. W. Hee that obserues what your Romish synagogue hath brought into Gods seruice and remembers that the Church that is men which beare sway in it may fondly erre will acknowledge this caueat most needfull No stage-play is so full of fooleries as your Masse-game speaker W. P. Secondly that they bee not imposed as any parts of Gods worship speaker D. B. P. This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship speaker A. W. Order and comelinesse are no parts of Gods worship but adiuncts seruing to the better performance thereof as the obseruation of due and fit circumstances giue a grace and furtherance to any action whatsoeuer speaker W. P. Thirdly that they be seuered from superstition or opinion of merit speaker D. B. P. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seneted from superstition speaker A. W. That is absurd which is contrarie to common reason or sense but all things superstitious are not so yea many points of superstition haue so much shew of reason for them that without Gods commandement to the contrarie a wise man might thinke them very fit meanes of Gods worship and meritorious Such was the Gentiles worshipping of Angels supposing they had worshipped none but God such is your worshipping of Angels and he saincts and she saincts now adayes such is your feare of displeasing God if you eate flesh on saincts eauens or in Lent and such like speaker W. P. Lastly that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of them And thus much wee hold touching Traditions speaker D. B. P. The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he tearmeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Actes of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Actes of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knovves That then vvhich is of record there cannot be tearmed a Tradition Though the Acts of the Apostles be a part of the written word yet was not the booke written when that decree was first obserued neither doth Master Perkins giue it the name of himselfe but saith it is tearmed a tradition The difference speaker W. P. Papists teach that beside the written worde there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must bee beleeued as profitable and necessarie to saluation And these they say are twofold Apostolicall namely such as were deliuered by the Apostles and not written and Ecclesiasticall which the Church decreeth as occasion is offered Wee hold that the Scriptures are most perfect containing in them all doctrines needfull to saluation whether they concerne faith or manners and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written worde which shall bee necessarie to saluation so as hee which beleeueth them not cannot be saued speaker D. B. P. Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts The first we rearme Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God Thesecond Apostolicall as deliuered by the holy Apostles The third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernors of the Curch after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of Traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours Traditions than of thefoure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honor and credit doe we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten as written For incke and paper brought no new holines nor gaue any force and vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had been written Here the question is principally of diuine Traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed speaker A. W. Diuine traditions are such as were deliuered by our Sauiour say you and are diuers from those that the Apostles left So that the controuersie is principally of those matters that Christ only spake and neither the Euangelists nor Apostles haue set downe in writing But that we may vnderstand what wee doe it is further to be knowne that the question is not whether if there be any such traditions wee are bound to beleeue them for that is out of all doubt but whether there be any such or no or whether the Scriptures doe not containe sufficient direction for the determining of al matters of importance to saluation and for the substance of religion You that you may discredit the Scriptures to aduance traditions doe not so much as acknowledge that the maine grounds of doctrine are there plainly taught but mince the matter with your some such principall points and may be gathered out of the holy Scripture whereas not onely those two you name but if not all yet many more are manifestly therein declared Our reasons speaker W. P. Testimonie I. Deutr. 4. 2. Thou shalt not adde to the words that I commande thee nor take anything therefrom therefore the written worde is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to saluation If it bee said that this commandement is spoken as well of the vnwritten as of the written word I answere that Moses speaketh of the written word onely for these very words are a certaine preface which hee set before a long commentarie made of the written lawe for this ende to make the people more attentiue and obedient speaker D. B. P. Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtraction chaunge or peruert Gods commaundements whether they be written or vnwritten speaker A. W. To interpret this place of vnwritten traditions is to strengthen the Iewes error and to voide our Sauiours reproofe And if there were any such though the particulars were
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
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
that lookes into your Commentaries and bookes of controuersies shall finde very diuers and sometimes contrarie expositions Our Sauiour Christ hath prouided sufficientlie for his Church by deliuering in scripture the grounds of religion so plainely some here some there that any reasonable man may with small labour vnderstand them from which they that haue knowledge of the tongues and arts especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick may come to vnderstand the harder places though perhaps not euery one yet at the least so many and such as shall serue to instruct the people of God in the knowledge of his will for the obtaining of euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. To auoid then such garboyles and intestine contention there vvas neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all boubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Lavv-maker who in vvisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens doe the earth hath left his golden Lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit no no It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Son of God speaker A. W. For the auoiding of outward garboiles by force or preaching false doctrine our Sauiour hath appointed principallie the ciuill magistrate secondarily the gouernors of the Churches For the keeping of his children from perishing by error he hath ordeined beside the outward helps of Pastors and Doctors the most certaine direction of his vicegerent the holy spirit who preserues all that are Christs from falling away from the substance and foundation of truth to damnation Not that euery man may take vpon him to interpret scripture vpon pretence of I know not what spirit but that he may assure himselfe of being kept from all error that may ouerthrow his saluation by the direction of Gods spirit vpon whom he calls by prayer and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before sure and who therefore were appointed to be heard without exception This befals not any men nowadayes and therefore none can iustly claime any such credit The auncients that so wrot in this point of S. Pauls going to see Peter haue wholie mistaken the Apostle who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him For he saith First that he was not an Apostle of men nor by man Secondly that he went vp to Ierusalem not to haue confirmation of his doctrine from them who were no way superior to him but that the Gentiles might know he taught the same things that the other Apostles did If he had done it for his owne assurance he had not beleeued the vision and discredited our Sauiours extraordinarie teaching of him and had taught for a time such things as he was not sure to be the truth of God But if this should be his case he had sinned grieuously in his former preaching and he had wholie ouerthrowne the authoritie of his ministrie which in these two Chapters he labors especially to vphold auouching that he neither learned any doctrine nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames Cephas and Iohn which were esteemed to be pillers yea he did openly reprooue Peter if not of error in doctrine yet of misbehauiour in his conuersation As for the controuersie of abrogating Moses law it was a case determined by scripture and no man might refuse to obey any one of the Apostles charge coÌ„cerning that point But that the Brethren might haue the better satisfaction it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by ioynt consent of themselues and the brethren there assembled which any one of them might of himselfe haue ended But because diuers parts of the Church were conuerted by diuers Apostles and each Church made most account of their owne Apostle the readiest and safest way was to conclude of the matter by common consultation so afterward in all lawfull Councels the written word was held sufficient for the consutation of the heresies that arose from time to time but for the better stopping of the heretikes mouths and satisfying of all men sometimes the consent of former Diuines Churches and Councels was added in good discretion for mens sake not for the matter which might be and was abundantlie prooued or discouered as occasion serued by the scriptures speaker D. B. P. See Cardinall Bellarmine I vvill only record tvvo noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquity for the true sense of Gods vvord The first out of the Ecclesiastical History whereof Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and Saint Basil tvvo principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And aftervvard for thirteene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes imployed their studie vvholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning vvhereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as vvere knovvne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the very words speaker A. W. The examples you bring are nothing against vs in this question Nazianzen and Basil sought the true sense of the Scripture not out of their owne iudgement but out of their predecessors writings and authoritie What then Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation This consequence hath often been disprooued Neither is the Antecedent true if it be generally taken For their owne writings shew euery where that they vsed the help of learning and discourse to finde out the sense of scripture in many places and set downe that in their Commentaries which by study they came to vnderstand If any thing were doubtfull we presume they did as we are sure the Protestants now doe where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie rest vpon the authoritie of their predecessors rather than vpon their owne This reuerence wee giue to the Fathers writings and reade them with as great diligâ—… as they that make more bragges of thâ—ir knowledge in â—heâ— And if that rule which the storie 〈◊〉 and or you name not but it is Austin speakes of 〈◊〉 one of them which we follw in searching out thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the Scripture â—…treate â—ou to make 〈◊〉 to vs and you shall finde that we will take it 〈◊〉 and vse it diligently if we cannot shew you certaine reasons to the contrarie If the rule be to take for truth whatsoeuer the ancients haue deliuered how many things yea contrarie expositions shal we hold for true If you say the rule is to beleeue the ancientest what
after prooue no such thing rather the opposition in the later part of the verse shewes that it should be is marriage is honorable but whoremongers and adulterers God will iudge whereas if it had bin so intended as you would haue it the other part must haue bin for God will iudge by way of a reason as your vulgar translation reades it without ground If we corrupt the text by adding the verb is what do Theodoret Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenins and Heutenius the Papist that translated him Hesychius Fulgentius Damasâ—en who so expound it Primasius giues the reason why the Apostle speaketh so because some at that time condemned mariage as vncleane speaker A. W. Againe if you will haue the Apostle say that Marriage is honorable among all men we must also needs take him to say that the bedde is also vndefiled among all which was not true Also that their conuersation was without couetousnes c. For there is no reason why this word is should be ioyned with the one more than with the other And nothing but passion doth cause them to make the middle sentence an affirmatiue when they turne both the other into exhortations speaker D. B. P. There is great reason why it should be ioyned with the one as hath been shewed With the other as you ioyne it it is absurd but it must thus be ioyned that is honorable be repeated and the bed vndefiled is honorable In the sentence following it cannot be vnderstood with any reason and therefore the vulgar Latin puts in sint and the Rhemists English let be which in the former verse neither of them doth You so interpret it The second corruption is in these words among all when they should translate in all and the adiectiue being put without a substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it and not men wherfore the text being sincerely put into English it would carrie no colour of their error For the Apostles saying is Let marriage be honorable in all things and the bed vndefiled Here is no willing of any man to marrie but only a commandement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage to keepe as he else where saith their vessels in sanctification and not in dishonor and then shall their marriage be honorable in all things that is in all points appertaining to Matrimonie So that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the Vow of chastitie speaker A. W. The Adiectiue may be as well the Masculine as the Newter and that which followeth in the other part of the verse of whoremongers and adulterers directs vs to expound it of the persons So doth Theophyl vnderstand it In all saith Theophylact is not onely in men of riper age and not in young men also but in all men or in all meanes and times not in affliction onely and in rest otherwise not honourable and pretious in this part in that part otherwise but the whole throughout is honourable So that both your cauils at the translation are vaine and the sense is wholy for vs. speaker D. B. P. The Scripture being so barren for him he shall be like recompence it with the abundant testimony of antiquitie in fauour of his cause but oh vnhappy chance he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church What was there not one Father who vvith some one broken fragment of a sentence or other would releeue you in this your combate against the Vow of Chastitie I will help you to one but I feare me you will scarse thanke me for my paines It is such a one as is neither holy nor father but the auncient Christian Epicure Jouinian who as S. Augustine hath recorded and Saint Ierom did hold that Virginity of professed persons men and women was no better then the continencie of the married So that many professed Virgins beleeuing him did marrie yet himselfe did not marrie as Fryer Luther did not be cause he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come with a greater crowne of glory but because it was fit for the present necessity to auoid the troubles of marriage see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants But this heresie saith S. Augustine in the same place was quicklie suppressed and extinguished it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests And in another place thus he speaketh of Iouinian Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster So that no maruaile if that M. Perkins could find smal reliefe in antiquitie for this his assertion which the best of them esteemed no better than a monstrous sacrilegious heresie speaker A. W. But the Fathers are not for vs. What then is nothing true that cannot be confirmed by their testimonie Then are there very many vntruths in Poperie Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the ancient writers that they were too highly conceited of single life The vse whereof a kinde of necessitie bred at first by reason of persecution experience of constant profession confirmed and opinion of holinesse thereupon at the last perfected so that it is not to be lookt for that antiquitie should affoord vs any testimonie against the practise and iudgement of those daies And yet it is apparant in those places I alleaged before and diuers other that neither the Clergie as you call it was bound to make any such vow and that after it was made it was held a lesse sinne to breake it than to continue it in vncleannes which tained then to vow but first to vow and then to looke for strength from God to fit vs for the keeping of our vow is against all Diuinitie and reason And therefore the perswasion to vow vpon presumption of abilitie to performe that which is vowed shewes at the least zeale without knowledge and can be no matter of commendation to the ancient Church if they simply allowed it Howsoeuer they were farre better than you because they enioyned breach of vow rather than encrease of sinne speaker D. B. P. But to the further confirmation of this point let vs heare what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibilitie of this Vow speaker A. W. You labour to disprooue Master Perkins Antecedent by the testimonie of the ancient writers To which I answere in generall that as wee freely acknowledge their authoritie where there is nothing but meÌ„s authoritie to be waighed so we account it lighter than nothing in all cases contrarie to Scripture such as we can prooue this to be speaker D. B. P. Tertullian neere the end expounding these words He that can take let him take Chuse saith hâ— that vvhich is good if thou say thou canst not it is because thou vvilt not for that thou mightest if thou vvouldest he doth declare vvho hath left both to thy choise speaker A. W.
their owne bread Now when as men liue apart from others giuing themselues onely to prayer and fasting they liue in no calling And it is against the generall vowe made in Baptisme because it freeth men from sundrie duties of the morall law and changeth the proper ende of mans life For euery man must haue two callings The first is a general calling of a Christiā by vertue of which he performeth worship vnto God and duties of loue to men The second is a particular calling wherein according to his gift he must doe seruice to men in some function pertaining either to the Church or Common-wealth whereof he is a member And the first of these twaine must be performed in the second and the second in and with the first The end of mans life is not onely to serue God by the duties of the first table but by seruing of man in the duties of the second table to serue God And therefore the loue of our neighbour is called the fulfilling of the whole law Rom. 13. 10. because the law of God is practised not apart but in and with the loue of our neighbour This beeing so it is manifest that vowed pouertie in Monkish life makes many vnprofitable members both of Church and Common-wealth speaker D. B. P. Concerning the Vovv of pouertie and monasticall life in vvhich as M. Perkins acknovvledgeth men bestovv all they haue vpon the poore and giue themselues to Prayer and Fasting yet he is not ashamed to auouch that this Vow is against the vvill of God and assaieth to proue it Act. cap. 20. vers 35. It is a more blessed thing to giue than to receiue Ans. As the verie proposition that it is displeasing to God to cut off all cares of the vvorld and to betake our selues vvholy to his holy seruice and contemplation of heauenly matters is in it selfe profane and vngodly so the proofe thereof is deuoid of naturall wit and sense Marke the Argument It is against Gods vvill to giue avvay all because it is more blessed to giue than to receiue Why if it be a more blessed thing to giue then they please God better that giue So that this his proofe improues flatly his ovvne assertion But the dreamer meanes perhaps that if you giue all at once you shall not be able to giue aftervvard but rather stand in need to receiue Reply But no such humane prudence can be dravven out of that sentence vvhich encourageth rather to giue for the present then to prouide for hereafter speaker A. W. The true meaning of the place is to exhort Christians to labour and trauaile at vacanttimes to get their ovvne liuing and to prouide some thing also to bestovv vpon them vvho stand in need rathēr then to be idle and to stand in need of almes as S. Paul himselfe did vvhich they did best performe vvho had sold all they had and distributed it to the poore as the example of Paul himselfe and the first Christians doth sufficiently declare vvho sold all and laid the price at the Apostles feete The proposition is true that it is displeasing to God for a man to seuer himselfe from all cares of the world to serue him in contemplation without respect of any dutie to his brethren For the cares of the world are part of euery mans lot in this life and the good of our brethren is to be preferred for a time before our owne happinesse in heauen neither is any seruice of praying and fasting continually so much to Gods glorie as a Christian carriage in some lawfull calling The argument is good For he that giues away that vpon which he should liue as your Votaries doe brings himselfe into a lesse blessed estate to liue on other mens almes than spirit The like is to be said of hungring and thirsting being full and satisfied which followeth in the same place speaker D. B. P. Thus M. Perkins his texts of Scripture against pouerty failing him he fetcheth about another vvay saying that it is a rule of the holy Ghost He that vvill not labour namely in some speciall and vvarrantable calling must not eate Ans. I allow both the text and the glosse and finde nothing there against religious persons whose calling is speciall perfect and therefore best warrantable not so saith he because they giue themselues to prayer and fasting What a profane stupiditie is this Is not a life giuen to praier and fasting agreeable to the wil of God and Laws of his Church albeit many religious men doe ouer and besides very great seruices to Gods Church in preaching teaching writing of most learned books But suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray did they not verie well deserue their sustenance yes much better than they which trauaile all the yeere about the prouiding of it For in vaine do men labour if God blesse not their worke with seasonable weather which he doth rather at the prayer and instance of such good innocent soules that are to be fed with it than for the Plough-mans owne labours sake And if by their Fasting Watching and such like afflictions of their bodies they do partly satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh and teach vs by their good example to bridle and correct it doe they not deserue at our hands bodily sustenance And who better performes all duties of the second Table than they being most obedient to all their Superiours and not hurting their neighbour in life persons or any manner of their goods And so in their seuerall callings offend no honest men and doe much good both vnto the Church and common-wealth speaker A. W. It is no lawfull calling nor agreeable to the will of God that any man should liue in the Church without any charge or meanes to profit the Church by Fasting and praying are both lawfull and acceptable but they are generall duties of all Christians and may not therefore be made proper callings of certaine men For callings differ as other things by their speciall forme but their praying and fasting is diuers from the same exercise practised by other Christians onely in quantitie more or lesse The seruices these men doe beside are meerely voluntarie and not lying vpon them by any dutie of their calling which is onely I know not what stinted deuotion after the lawes of each seuerall order of Monkes Friers Nunnes and such like They no way deserue their sustenance since they haue vowed to take no course whereby they may prouide for it Their prayers do no good no not so much as to themselues being made with a proud opinion to merit by a conceited perfection A poore husbandman that labours all the week for his liuing and vseth the best meanes he can to grow in knowledge and obedience to God may looke for a greater blessing from God vpon his bodily and spirituall labours by his owne poore prayers and the supplications of the Congregation in which he liueth than by all
among the best Christians in the Primitiue Church speaker D. B. P. Tertullian hath these words At euery going forward and returne wheÌ„ we dresse vs and pull on our shoes when we wash and sit downe at the lighting of Candels and entring into our Chambers finally when we set ourselues to any thing we make the signe of the Crosse on our foreheads speaker A. W. The signe of the crosse as it is here spoken of by you doth not indeed belong to this question which is of such images as are set vp to be outwardly worshipped such as this signe of the crosse neuer was among the auncient Christians But because as you say it is the forme that you worship which is made though it continue not and for that your Diuines mainteine the worshipping of it euen outwardly as I will shew let it passe in the rancke where you haue set it Now that the signe of the crosse is so to be worshipped first Bellarmine shews where he saith The signe of the crosse which is made vpon the forehead or in the ayer is holy and to be worshipped Costerus his fellow Iesuit speaketh more plaine Christians saith he euer since Christes time haue alwaies worshipped with great reuerence both the wood of our Lords crosse it self and the signe of the crosse with which they daily fence themselues Suarez another Iesuit is more plaine then he The signe of the crosse saith he is worthie of reuerence and adoration for it hath the vse and signification of a Sacrament And it skils not that it is made in a matter or by an action that passeth away because the only difference of the matter when the fashion is all one hinders not the adoration Iacobus de Graphijs giueth also the reason of this We worship it saith he with diuine honor for that it puts vs in mind of our Lords passion which is performed by the signe of the crosse on the forehead as well as by a crosse painted on the wall Lastly Gabriell Vasquez saith that the crosse of Christ by what meanes soeuer exprest is worthie of veneration as well as the crosse it selfe on which he suffered That the crosse was in common vse among the auncient Christians it was neuer denied yet haue we no record of it in any auncient authenticall writer before Ireneus as Doctor Fulke hath truly auouched against Martiall As for the counterfeit writings of Ignatius Martialis of Burdeaul and Dionysius Areopagita both the stile and the matter refute the titles and bewray partly ignorance euen in the language and partly authors of later times Xystus Betuleius would haue vs beleeue his word that the ceremony of crossing was vsed euen when the Apostles laid on their hands but neither doth the scripture affirme any such thing neither brings he any authoritie or reason to prooue it But let the author of it be vnknowne as he is yet if the occasion and vse of it were certaine and warrantable there were more reason to finde fault with the leauing of it But who can resolue vs of this doubt Austin seemes to be very vncertaine fetching this custome of crossing from a desire to make profession of Christianitie in the sight of the pagans He seemes otherwhere to attribute it to an imitation of the Iewish Ceremony in marking the dore posts with the blood of the paschall lambe What should I speake of the doubt concerning the forme it selfe which is the thing that you professedly worship What is that forme the sauâ—â—oir or S. Andrews crosse resembling as some thinke not the crosse of our Sauiour but the first letter of his name in Greeke which also was set on the top of Constantines standerd Or is it nothing else but two crosse lines cutting each other in a right angle as it is commonly made which some will haue to be resembled by that standerd of Constantines the staffe and the baner making such a crosse like to the mast and the sayle yard It is all one what the forme was if the vse were good and lawfull But how shall that be auowed when it is not certaine what it was All which notwithstanding we are desirous so to interpret the auncients concerning this point as that we may free them from superstition if it be possible We would gladly therfore expound their speaches of the efficacie and vertue of the crosse not of the wood nor of the forme but of the passion and sufferings of our Sauiour Christ in which sense the scripture speakes of it most truly and gloriously I could to this purpose alleage diuers places out of the Fathers but I must needs confesse that I can bring many other out of their writings which will not beare that exposition What if I should say that they vsed it only as an outward gesture when they prayed to God for any blessing and therefore continually signed themselues as Tertullian and Austin shew I could cite some places by which this coniecture might be made somewhat likely yea I could adde hereunto the iudgement of your late Iesuits who acknowledge that vse of the crosse amongst them and denie that it puts any vertue into the thing that is signed But neither would this content you and many speeches of the auncients are such as can admit no such interpretation Wherefore all that I will answere is this that howsoeuer the vse of crossing as it was amongst the Fathers within 200. yeares after our Sauiours ascension and for a long time afterward cannot be sufficientlie warranted by any ground of scripture yet the Crosse was neuer made an Idoll by any outward worship amongst them as it is altogether with you Papists Whereupon it followes that the testimonies which you alleage out of the Fathers are falsely applied by you to countenance such Idolatry as they neuer dreamed of speaker D. B. P. S. Ambrose exhort vs to begin all our vvorkes vvith the signe of the Crosse. speaker A. W. To that of Ambrose I answere more particularly first that your quotation of his 84. Sermon is false for there is not a word of any such matter in all that Sermon Secondly that in the place you meane he saith not we must begin all our works with the signe of the crosse but rather speaketh of prayer according as before I expounded him We must saith Ambrose when we rise giue thanks to God and do euery worke we take in hand all the day in the signe of our Sauiour that is with prayer to Christ. speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine What is that ensigne of Christ which all men knovv but the Crosse of Christ the vvhich signe vnlesse it be made on the foreheads of the faithfull yea on the vvater by vvhich they are regenerate and on the Oyle and Chrisme vvherewith they are annoynted and on the sacrifice vvherevvith they are nourished not one of them are orderly
But to answere plainly to your false allegation of Ieromes authoritie what an indignitie were it to the Maiestie of God that the assurance of his presence should be the more worshipped because of the Cherubins and pictures of Angels that were erected at the ends of it which also with the Arke it selfe were hid from all mens sight in the Holie of Holies Ierome meaneth that those things made the people conceiue more reuerently of that Holie of Holies and strooke them with a kind of awe speaker D. B. P. To this vve may ioyne that of S. Paul that Jacob by faith adored the top of his sonne Iosephs rod so doth the Greeke text of S. Paul say as Erasmus also translateth it The Protestants mangle the text pitifully to auoyde the place see the Annotations of Rhemes Testament speaker A. W. The text in the Greeke is according to your owne editions worship vpon the top of his owne staffe So doth your Interlinear read it So Arias Montanus Erasmus notes the error of your old translator in leauing out the preposition ☠which hee himselfe interpreteth ad as it were to ward the top The Syriak translateth as we do vpon the top of his staffe Pagnine thus he worshipped leaning vpon his staffe Vatablus keepeth the words of the old translation but he expoundeth them in this sort Adored that is saith Vatablus giue thankes The top of his staffe 〈◊〉 toward the top of his staffe that is Leaning vpon his staffe for age Theodoret maketh the adoration ciuill to figure out the kingdome of Israel in the tribe of Ephraim Iacobs younger sonne Your Glosse saith he worshipped Christ by whom he had domination and a scepter of authoritie in Aegypt or the kingdome of Christ which in that was sigured to be and to come among the Gentiles Another glosse saith directly he worshipped God presently vpon his sonne Ioseph swearing Lyra layeth out the matter more largely and plainly after this manner Iacob saith Lyra beleeued that Christ should be buried and rise againe in the Land of promise therefore he made Ioseph sweare that he would cause his body to be carried thither After he had sworne he worshipped God with thankes turning himselfe towards the beds head according to the translation of S. Ierome as it appeareth Genes 47. The 70. translate as it is in this place and both are true For he worshipped towards the beds head which stood west toward which part the Iewes doe worship and because he was old he had a staffe vpon the top whereof he leaned when he gaue thankes to God Therefore we must not conceiue that he worshipped the top of the Scepter or staffe but he worshipped God leaning vpon the staffe So doth Theophylact expound it Leaning and resting vpon his staffe for age Though he doth also follow the exposition of Chrysostome concerning the kingdome of Israel in the Tribe of Ephraim The same exposition bringeth Occumenius the Greeke Scholiast out of Photius vpon the top of his staffe that is being now old the same bring Lombard Thomas and Caietan It is strange that a man professing knowledge should speak so vntruly Do we mangle the text pittifully or rather do not you slaunder vs shamefully we neither take away nor alter any word syllable letter or accent in the text but leauing that whole onlie adde two words in a different letter to make the meaning more plaine and that by Augustines authority as your Rhemists confesse and as I haue shewed with the allowance of your best Interpreters for both the words I will conclude with that of Ierome in this place saith he some faine without cause that Iacob worshipped the top of Iosephs Scepter because forsooth honouring his son he honoured his power But in the Hebrew it is farre otherwise And Israel worshipped saith the Hebrew toward his beds head namely because after his sonne had sworne to him being assured of the thing he had requested he worshipped God ouer against his beds head speaker W. P. Obiect II. Exod. 3. 5. God said to Moses Stand a farre off and put off thy shooes for the place is holy Now if holy places must bee reuerenced then much more holy images as the crosse of Christ and such like Ans. God commanded the ceremonie of putting off the shooes that hee might thereby strike Moses with a religious reuerence not of the place but of his owne Maiestie whose presence made the place holy Let them shew the like warrant for images speaker D. B. P. The second reason is taken out of Exodus 3. Where God said to Moses Put off thy shoes for the place where thou standest is holy Novv if places be holy and to be reuerenced by reason of the presence of Angels vvhy not asvvâ—ll the Image that representeth an Angell or some Saint vvhich is equall to Angels Master Perkins his ansvvere rather confirmeth than solueth this argument for he saith that the Ceremonie of putting off his shoes vvas commaunded to strike Moses vvith a religious reuerence not of the place but of the person there present vvhich vvas not God but an Angell as the text there expresseth The place then being holy required the reuerend respect of putting off his shoes and that reuerence done to the place stroke Moses vvith a religious reuerence of the Angelspeaking in the person of God euen so holy pictures being first duely reuerenced doe strike men vvith a religious regard of the Saint represented speaker A. W. Your second reason is thus framed If places be holy and to be reuerenced by reason of the presence of Angels why not aswell the Image that represents an Angell or some Saint which is equall to an Angell But places are holy and to be reuerenced by reason of the presence of Angels Therefore the Image that represents an Angell or some Saint equall to an Angell is holie and to be reuerenced I deny your whole Antecedent and first the consequence of your proposition Because although we should grant that some place were holy because of the presence of the Angels yet would it not follow that therfore Images are holy where there is no presence of an Angell For all your consecrating and coniuring of Images cannot make any Angel or Saint to afford his presence in them Your assumption is false There is no holines in places because of the presence of Angels as may appeare by the Scriptures where their apparitions are described no action of reuerence at all being performed to the places of their presence In particular to your proofe M. Perkins answereth that this was done not because the place where Angels appeare is holy but vpon an especiall commandement of God to strike Moses with a reuerence of Gods Maiestie who was there present You reply first that God was not present there but an Angell I answere that God was there
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.
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
for it with losse both of victorie and life Zachary is conuicted of sinne and striken with dumnes for not beleeuing the Angell and yet in all probabilitie he was as holie as his wife Elizabeth both truly but not perfectly righteous To vvill is in mee but I finde not hovv to performe If Saint Paul could not performe that which he would how can others Ans. He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not Marry he could wel by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them speaker A. W. Those very motions were no other than sinnes arising from his naturall corruption and preuailing with him so farre that they ouercame him sometimes and led him captiue speaker D. B. P. The like answere we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbours goods his wife or seruants which as they say is impossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commaundement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue euill motions of couetousnes and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man euen when he is a sleepe And restifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it speaker A. W. If this be the meaning of it what is it but a needlesse repetition of that which was before forbidden For who knoweth not that consent to those sinnes was condemned in the 7. and 8. Commandements Besides the Apostle might know by nature that consent to lust was sinne but the true meaning of the commandement he knew not but by the law so that withholding consent from these motions is not enough to free vs from sinning by them and yet perhaps that would not seeme so easie if wee did not flatter our selues now and then The quotation out of Austin is false and being of no great moment I passe it ouer speaker D. B. P. VVe doe all offend in many things And if vve say vve haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Ans. I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily ledde by the craft of the Diuell into many offences which we might auoide if vve were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the lavv which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we committe some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing vvith it But of this matter more fully in some other place speaker A. W. It is an idle speculation to imagine a Christian as Tully doth an Orator and Castiglio a Courtier And what else is he whom in this answere you fancie Such an one since the fall of Adam neuer was not in this world euer shall be Doe you not see your selfe what pitifull shifts these be Veniall sinnes disagree with the law but they do not violate the purport and reason of it Are they not against the purenes of Gods image in which we were created are they not in a naturall man damnable Our obedience is to be squared according to the commandement of God neither haue we any warrant from him to excuse our selues by the conceited reason and I know not what purport of the law For my part though I acknowledge a great difference in degrees of sinnes yet I see little reason why it should not be as mortall a sinne to be led away by carelesnes to the committing of those things which we might easily auoide as after a long and tedious fight to be led captiue by the violence of some mightie temptation For this striuing argueth a desire to please and serue God but that needlesse sinning shewes either presumption or want of ordinarie regard speaker D. B. P. Lastly it may be obiected that the way to heauen is straite and the gate narrow which is so true that it seemeth impossible to be kept by flesh and blood but that which is impossible to men of themselues is made possible and easie too by the grace of God speaker A. W. Not euery thing for there are many impossible to man that are neuer made possible and easie by the grace of God So farre as it pleaseth God to make things possible so farre they are made possible But this possibilitie is not communicated to any the examples of the most righteous doe make it more than manifest Which made S. Paul to say I can doe all things in him that strengtheneth and comforteth me speaker A. W. He that confesseth he cannot doe that good he would sheweth plainly that God doth not enable him to all things which in this place are to be restrained according to the text I can doe all things that is saith your glosse I can vse all fortunes and estates well So doe Theodoret and Oecumenius take it So doe other of your Interpreters restraine it shewing that he meaneth not he can do all things but that he could not doe all those things that is be content with any estate were it not for the strength and comfort hee hath from Christ. speaker D. B. P. And the Prophet Dauid after thou O Lord hadest dilated my hart and with thy grace let it at liberty I did runne the waâ—es of thy commaundements that is I did readily and willingly performe them Of the louing of God with all our hart c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice speaker A. W. The Prophet Dauid ranne indeed and that an excellent race but not without stumbling staying and turning a little out of the way now and then as the last action in his health declareth speaker D. B. P. Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to proue the impossibility of keeping Gods commandements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plaine for it saying That which vvas impossible to the lavv in that it is weakned by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the lavv might be fulfilled in vs vvho vvalke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace
of holy men now in heauen deuised by men to a purpose that hath no warrant by commaundement or example in scripture As for ciuill reuerence it is due to them only with whom we haue some dealing in worldly matters and so cannot belong to any in heauen and much lesse to their pictures without any liking of themselues speaker W. P. Differ III. The Papists also teach that God may be lawfully worshipped in images in which he hath appeared vnto men as the Father in the image of an old man the Sonne in the image of a man crucified and the holy Ghost in the liknes of a doue c. But we hold it vnlawfull to worship God in by or at any image for this is the thing which as I haue prooued before the second commandement forbiddeth speaker D. B. P. Master perkins makes a third point of difference that wee may not worship God in any such Image in which bee hath appeared vnto men In this we do not differ vnlesse he takes it otherwise then he deliuereth it Those Images wee hold more reuerend than any others as representations neerer approching vnto the diuinitie yet because they doe not expresse the deitie God is not directly apprehended not worshipped in them but onely by collection as for example The forme of a â—raue old man in Daniel doth not represent Gods person but wee gather by that ancient forme Gods eternity whereby wee aâ—â—se to a more perfect conceit of God whom wee adore now other Images of Christ and his Saintes doe carry ouâ— mindes directly vpon their proper persons whom in their Images we adore and worship after their degrees But wee worship Images with farre meaner reuerence than any of the Saintes in regard onely that they doe represent such presonages and do induce vs more to loue and honour them and do stirre vp our dulnesse more often and ardently to honour God in the Saints and the Saints in their degrees as also to imitate their holy example as hath bin said more than once that all may vnderstand how far off we are from giuing Gods honour vnto either Saint or Image speaker A. W. Do you not differ from Master Perkins in worshipping God in the images in which he hath appeared First he saith that it is vnlawfull to worship God in by or at an Image those are his words in this very place Secondly do you only hold those Images more reuerend then other Do you not giue them diuine honour euen the same honor that is due to God himselfe though accidentally as you hold against Bellarmine Is not Thomas his reason for worshipping the Image and Crosse of Christ with diuine honour as strong for the image of God the Father and of God the holy ghost But what should I goe about to prooue so plaine a matter I would your being ashamed to defend so grosse Idolatry would make you forsake it Do you not graunt that you worship God in these Images though as you say here not directly How do you then agree with Master Perkins who deliuers his meaning plainely that in such images God may not be at all worshipped no not by them nor at them and yet for very shame you would not be thought to speake against so manifest a truth though without shame you make shew of agreement where there is none and against all equall dealing accuse Master Perkins of seeming to take the matter otherwise then he deliuers it By person you meane one property of God common to all three persons or else the nature of the Godhead But I pray you tell me by what warrant of scripture you paint God the Father like this old man in Daniell if you do it not by the authoritie of this place If it be the end of this picture to signifie Gods eternitie surely he that appropriates this image to the Father makes the Father only eternall This is that more perfect conceipt of God that you come to by this image namely to denie the Eternitie and so the Godhead of the Sonne and the Holy Ghost Further giue me leaue to vnderstand you if I can What can you possibly know concerning Gods eternitie by the sight of this graue old man If you did not beleeue that God is eternall before you looked vpon that image it is not possible you should learne it or giue credit to it by seeing the picture especially if it represent not as you speake the person of God But indeede the gazing on such Idols is more likely to draw men into a conceipt that God growes old and so his eternitie is wearing away then to teach them that he neuer had beginning and neuer shall haue end You will replie that Daniell doth so describe him True as the scripture euery where doth for our capacitie applying affections parts and actions of men to God The Lord who of his infinite wisdome appointed the penning of these things for our instruction hath promised a blessing to euery part of his word that it may be read heard without danger but Idols are accursed by him euen such pictures of old men because whatsoeuer the pretence of making them be they fill ignorant people with error and superstition What Images meane you sure not all for you worship the image of the Father of Christ of the holy ghost yea the wood of the crosse on which he died and euery part and peece of it though neuer so little a scrap with diuine honor To other Images as I shewed before out of your owne writers you giue the same honour that you do to the Saincts themselues because Thomas teacheth you out of Aristotle that there is but one motion of our vnderstanding and will towards the Sainct and the image of the Sainct speaker W. P. And the fact of the Israelites Exod. 32. in worshipping the golden calfe is condemned as flat idolatrie albeit they worshipped not the calfe but God in the calfe for vers 5. Aaron saith To morrow shall be the solemnitie of Iehouah whereby he doth giue vs to vnderstand that the calfe was but a signe of â—ehouah whom they worshipped Obiect It seemes the Israelites worshipped the calfe For Aaron saith verse 4. These be thy Gods O Israel that brought thee out of Egypt Answ. Aarons meaning is nothing else but that the golden calfe was a signe of the presence of the true God And the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe as vpon a stage hee is called a King that represents the King And Augustine saith that images are wont to be called by the names of things whereof they are images as the counterfeit of Samuel is called Samuel And wee must not esteeme them all as mad men to think that a calfe made of their earings being but one or two daies old should bee the God that brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand many daies before And these are the pointes of difference touching Images wherein wee must stand