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
serued and surely if in it selfe it be not sinne why should the Apostle so much complaine of it since by the trouble it put him to it did but occasion him to shew his valour and as you Papists say was a means to make him deserue a crowne of glorie speaker W. P. Reason II. Infants baptized and regenerate die the bodily death before they come to the yeeres of discretion therfore original sin in them is sin properly or els they should not die hauing no cause of death in them for death is is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sinne As for actuall sinne they haue none if they die presently after they are borne before they come to any vse either of reason or affection speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God vvho freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bin both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therfore is it said most truely oâ— S Paul Death entred into the vvorld by sin But the other place the vvages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but Actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidelity the wages whereof if they had noâ— repented them had bâ—n hel fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Originall sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne is either to shâ—w great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sin was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it speaker A. W. Master Perkins reason is thus to be framed That which is the cause of bodilie death to infants Baptised and regenerate is sinne properly But Originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants Baptised and regenerate Therefore it is sinne properly The proposition he proues by two places of Scripture the assumption by shewing that they haue no actuall sinne and therefore since death is not but where sinne is originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants that dye before they come to any vse of reason or affection First you deny the assumption viz. that originall sinne is the cause of bodily death to infants But the reason of your deniall is insufficient For it doth not follow that originall sinne is not the cause of death to them because the meanes of their death is distemperature or externall violence For then the death of many reprobate men were no iudgement of God against sinne and though God of his absolute power may take away any mans life because he gaue it him yet it pleased his Maiestie to binde himselfe to a course in the creation that death should be the consequent of sinne The day thou eatest thou shalt dye so that wheresoeuer we see death we may conclude there is sinne either really as in all Adams posteritie or by imputation as in Christ. Then you come to the proofe of the proposition where you graunt the one place to be rightly alleaged because death indeede had not found any place of entrie had it not been for sinne The other text you say is foâ—lly abused first because the Apostle vnderstands by it eternall damnation he doth so principally but why may not death be taken as largely here as it is there from whence all these phrases of Scripture come But there it signifies both kinds of death Here S. Paul chiefely puts them in minde of the greater hauing shewed before that bodily death came into the world by the meanes of sinne and although the Apostle be occasioned to deliuer that speech by reason of the Romans actuall transgressions it doth not abate but sharpen the edge of his exhortation to expound the place of all sinne whatsoeuer for if there be no sinne no not originall but shall haue death for wages certainely these actuall transgressions shall be punisht with it Master Perkins in the place alleaged speakes of that punishment which is condemnation as the very words following declare in which he prooues that the punishment is taken away by that of the Apostle There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus It is true that bodily death also is chaunged from being a punishment yet the reason of that death is the dwelling of sinne in the regenerate which by the dissoluing of the bodie through death must be abolisht If it had pleased God to haue giuen Master Perkins life that he might haue seene this your exception being better acquainted with your sleights and his owne meaning he would haue answered you more fully as in other poynts so in this also speaker W. P. Reason III. That which lusteth against the spirit and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate lusteth against the spirit Gal. 5. 17. and tempteth as I haue said Iam. 1. 14. God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is inticed then when lust conceiueth it bringeth forth sinne And therefore it is sinne properly such as the fruite is such is the tree speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had been by nature sinne and euery thing in this world one vvay or an other tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. John All that is in the vvorld is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing vvhich allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as vvide is it from all morall vvisdome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sinnes For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sodaine passions of the mind and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text vvhich M. Perkins bringeth to persvvade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
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
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
memories which may often faile them especially in carrying away speeches of discourse and disputation speaker W. P. II. If the beleeuing of vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must beleeue the writings of the auncient Fathers as well as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes And wee may not beleeue their sayings as the worde of God because they often crie beeing subiect to errour and for this cause their authoritie when they speake of traditions may be suspected and we may not alwaies beleeue them vpon their word speaker D. B. P. His otherreason is that if we beleeue vnwritten Traditions were necessary to saluatiō then we must aswel beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall Traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their books but that vvere absurd for they might erre Ans. That doth not follovv for three causes First Apostolicall Traditions are aswell kept in the mind of the learned as in the auncient Fathers vvritings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers vvritings speaker A. W. It may be they were kept in the mind of the learned till they were written but that afterward and to this day they are in mens minds otherwise then as they haue learned them by reading it is not very likely Beside how can traditions be kept without adding and altering if they haue no better guide then the memories of men speaker D. B. P. Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimonie than any one of their writings speaker A. W. What is that to Master Perkins reason vnlesse you will say that we are as well to beleeue the writings of the fathers where more then one writ the same thing as we are one of the Apostles or Euangelists alone which I perswade my selfe you will not affirme speaker D. B. P. Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall Tradition related but of one auncient Father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his ovvne inuention because that vvas registred by him as a thing of more estimation And gaine some of the rest of those blessed and Godly personages vvould haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not binsuch indeed as it vvas tearmed Which vvhen they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the follovving for Apostolicall Tradition it so because they were taught by our Lord yet Pauls case is proper to himselfe and altogether extraordinarie The third particular is somewhat more to purpose because S. Paul hauing prooued by many reasons that women might not come into the congregations bareheaded addes in the conclusion that it was enough to stop any contentions mans mouth that the Apostles and the Churches of God allowed of no such custome But first this hatescripture Papist must be put in minde that whereas he calles these wranglers scripturists as if they had alleaged scripture for their defence there is no such thing in the text nor any one obiection so much as signified by the Apostle Secondly this custome of the Church is not alleaged because as he seemes to presume by his conclusion afterward he wanted other reason to prooue the point For as Chrysostome and others haue obserued he hath in the former part of the chapter proued it to be against nature and against scripture too Thirdly he reasons not about any matter of doctrine but about the outward carriage of men and women in the assemblie of Gods seruice Lastly it doth no way follow that because the custome of the Church must ouer-way priuate mens fancies in things indifferent therefore the Scripture containes not all things necessarie to saluation but must be supplied therein by traditions Neither doth the Apostles example warrant his conclusion The Apostle hauing proued that he exhorts to by reason and Scripture last of all alleages custome against contentious men in a thing which they tooke to be indifferent therefore wee must alleage Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they are not plaine tradition euen in matters of saluation Who sees not that this followes not vpon that Obiections for Traditions speaker W. P. First they alleadge 2. Thess. 2. 15. where the Apostle bids that Church keepe the ordinances which he taught either them by word or letter Hence they gather that beside the written word there be vnwritten traditions that are indeede necessarie to be kept and obeyed Answ. It is very likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul writ to any Church though in order it haue not the first place and therefore at the time when this Epistle was penned it might well fall out that some thinges needefull to saluation were deliuered by word of mouth not beeing as yet written by any Apostle Yet the same things were afterward set downe in writing either in the second Epistle or in the Epistles of Paul speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that insteed of Traditions according to the Greek and Latin vvord they translate Ordinances euer flying the vvord Tradition vvhere any thing is spoken in commendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the vvord Tradition although the Greeke vvord beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouery of false translation penned by M. Gregorie Martin a man most singulerly conuersant in the Greeke and Hebrevv tongues speaker A. W. Gregory Martinus cauils were answered long since by Doctor Fulke and the answer neuer yet replied to that euer I heard of by any Papist Your old translation hath in steed of traditions precepts and in the Gospell euery where traditions and yet the former place is to the commendation of traditions and all in the Gospell to their dispraise Vatablus also vseth his libertie in translating this word sometimes Instituta sometimes Constitutio sometimes Institutio the difference in our translation as farre as I can perceiue is this that we call mens precepts traditions the Apostles doctrines ordinances speaker D. B. P. Secondly is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer he wrote Surely if none of his otherwere written before it yet his first to the same Church must needs haue been written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame sometimes speaker A. W. It is easie to see that Master Perkins compares not this epistle with the other to the same Church but with other that were written to other Churches and generally with the bookes of the new Testament among which if wee may beleeue Irenaeus it was the ancientest except the former and perhaps the Gospell of S. Matthew for it was written
this gift the children of God are enabled or rather directed by the spirit of God to acknowledge those bookes to be scripture though they can not determine of euery particular among them Austins iudgement we reuerence in this and other matters though we cannot alwaies rest vpon it He calls the bookes Canonicall not properly but because they were vsed in the Church to be read as the Canonicall were but he makes them not of equall authoritie with the other because they were not then so generally receiued in which respect he made some doubt of those which were indeede Canonicall Thus we expound Austin that he may not be thought to contradict other fathers in this point speaker D. B. P. His second is that he who goeth about to discerne whether the booke be Canonicall or no must consider the Author who is God If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the booke what needs any further labour It must needs be Canonicall that hath God for the Author This mans wiâ—s were surely from home when he discoursed thus and therefore it should be but follie to stand vpon his particularities speaker A. W. Is there no difference trow you betwixt saying God is the professed Author and God is the Author Let a man consider God who is professed to be the author of these bookes and seeing how the things in them agree to that which is befitting God according as he hath learned by men and bin perswaded by the holy ghost he shall come to acknowledge them indeed to be from God wherein his glory is principally aymed at and in the penning whereof his diuine Maiestie cleerely shines speaker D. B. P. Let this one reason in generall serue to confute him all this manner put together serueth only to helpe particular men to discerne vvhich bookes are Canonicall who may easily after their dâ—lâ—gent inquirie erre and be deâ—â—iâ—ed in this point because euery man is a lyar And if there be 〈◊〉 more certaine meanes to assure them of this which is the ground of all their Religion then euery particular mans discretion and iudgement then out of doubt their whole Religion is most vnvvisely builded vpon meane mens inuentions and discretion who also for the most part doe neither vnderstand the language in which they were first penned nor the vsuall phrases of Scriptures translated that I say nothing of the figures parables prophecies and controueâ—sies which seeme to be and many other difficulties and yet these men need not doubt hauing learned some halfe-dozen-lines of Master Perkins but that reading any booke they shall be able presently to discerne whether 〈◊〉 be Canonicall or no. A goodly mocketie speaker A. W. If this reason be good since all men together are liers as well as euery man in particular and so may be deceiued though not so easily we are little the neerer at the least not sure for any help you can affoord vs. There is yet a better assurance by the holy ghosts directing the elect in this triall and teaching and assuring them so farre as shall serue for their necessarie instruction and saluation Men were not so taught in the Primitiue Church but the most skilfull and wisest in discerning Canonicall bookes trusted not vnto their ovvne iudgement but leaned alvvaies vpon Apostolicall Traditions So did Serapion an auncient holy vvriter as Euseâ—â—us reporteth reiect certaine bookes set out in the Apostles names because they had not receiued from their Predecâ—ssoâ—s any such The like doth element of Alexandria and that famous Origen of the same booke who obserue the Eâ—clesiasticall Canon as he had learned and receiued by Tradition So doth he deliuer his opinion of the foure Euangelists and other bookes of Canonicall Scripture and not relying on his owne wit which was excellent or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters That S. Augustine was of the same mind may be gathered out of these words of his * Contra Faustum Of what booke can there be any assurance if the letters which the Church propagated by the Apostles and by such excellencie declared throughout all Nations doth teach and hold to be the Apostles should be vncertaine whether they be the Apostles or no So that he maketh the declaratioÌ„ of the Church descended of the Apostles to be a sure pillar to rest vpon for the certaine knowledge of Canonical Scripture and other spirits whatsoeuer if they follow not that rule to be reiected so far is he off from encourageing euery sheepe of Christs fold to take that weighty matter vpon himselfe as M. Perkins doth And what can be more against the most prudent prouidence of the diuine wisdome than to permit euery one to be a iudge of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture For if all those books and no others should pasâ—e â—uâ—rant for Caâ—…call which any Christian taking vpon him the spirit of discerning would câ—nsure to be such then alway with all the Old Testament because diuers esteemed it to proceed of some euill spirits as witnesseâ—h Iâ—â—neus and Epâ—…s Yea not only all the Old must be abrogated but all the New also because it hath many falsehoods mixed with the truth as some prefuming greatly of their spirit and skill in dâ—…ning did teach so testifieth 〈◊〉 Augustine 〈◊〉 Faâ—…st Some would haue had but one of the foure Gospels some fiue some sixe some seauen some reiected all S. Pauls Epistles Many and those of the faithfull did not admit for Canonicall some of the other Apostles Epistles not the Reuelations If then the diuine fore-sight of our Sauiour had not preuented this most foule inconueniencie by instituting a more certaine meanes of â—iscerning and declaring which books were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost which not then by leauing it vnto euery mans discretion he might be thought to haue had but slender care of our saluation which euery true Christian hart doth abhorre to thinke and therfore we must needs admit of this most holy and prouident Tradition of them from hand to hand as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prolegomenis and also Kemnitius handling the second kind of Traditions in his examination of the Councell of Trent albeit they reiect all other Traditions besides this one speaker A. W. Neither doth Master Perkins or any Minister teach the people now to rely on their owne wit or iudgement but to vse the meanes prescribed and by prayer and faith to call and to rest vpon the spirit of God for assurance in this case The iudgement of the Church wee are so farre from discrediting that we hold it for a very speciall ground in this matter condemning them as void of shame and reason that refuse those bookes vpon their owne iudgement which haue bin from time to time euen from the Apostles dayes counted Canonicall But it is vtterly from the question in hand to dispute this point and beside diuers other Doctor Whitacker hath handled this matter
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
Churches is of great authoritie speaker A. W. Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants Origen calles the tradition of the Apostles their practise of baptizing infants which hath sufficient ground of scripture though not in expresse words as your Church also holds and as Origen himselfe acknowledgeth by shewing the reason that moued the Apostles to baptise them as hee conceiues though indeede there is also other better warrant for it speaker A. W. Athanasius saith VVe haue proued this sentence to haue been deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but yee O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas vvhat Auncestors can yee shevv of your opinion speaker A. W. Where reason failed the Arians on their side and could not moue them in behalfe of the Church Athanasius addes this as a further proofe for their confutation that the doctrine of Christ being one with his Father had been held from time to time in the Church whereas they had no consent of antiquitie for their opinion Yet had he himselfe prooued the point by many certaine reasons out of the Scripture and brought this argument from the authoritie of men for confutation of their false assertion that the former Diuines were not of that iudgement This Athanasius refuteth by the testimonies of Theognostus Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria whom he calles eloquent and one other Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Origen whom he termes painfull S. Basil hath these words VVe haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly vvritten and part vve haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both vvhich be of the same force to godlines and no man opposeth against these vvho hath at the least but meane experience of the Lavves of the Church See Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 1. in Iulian If you will giue me leaue I will defend Basils speech by that which may be gathered out of him viz. that hee holds them things to be by tradition which are not exprest in the Scriptures My ground for this exposition are these words of his Out of what Scripture haue we saith Basil the very speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine some thousand two hundred yeares agoe recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now-a-daies in the person of Maximinus an Arrian in his first booke against him in the beginning Jf thou shalt saith this Heretike bring any thing out of the Scriptures vvhich is common to all vve must needs heare thee but these vvords vvhich are vvithout the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they vvorship me teaching commaundements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten Traditions hath been afore declared The like doth S. Bernard asfirme of certaine Heretikes of his time called Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholikes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth aswell as that which is written Euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned Heretikes to reiect all traditions and to she vnto the only Scriptures speaker A. W. The Heretike Maximinus asked nothing but reason of Austin if he stood vpon the matter and not vpon the termes neither doth Austin find fault with this condition nor could he in reason because as I answered before himselfe appeales to that kind of triall in that very disputation Neither must I saith Austin to Maximinus alleage the Councell of Nice in preiudice of the matter nor you the Councell of Ariminum neither am I tyed with the authoritie of this Councell nor you with the authoritie of that let matter striue with matter 〈◊〉 with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the scriptures which are not proper to you or me but common to vs both But will you heare him speake more like Maximinus Reade me this saith Austin out of a Prophet reade it out of a Psalme recite it out of the Lawe recite it out of the Gospell recite it out of an Apostle Thence recite I the Church disperst ouer the whole world and our Lord saying my sheepe heare my voyce And a little after away with mens papers let the voyce of God sound And in another place away with our papers let Gods bookes come forth heare Christ heare the truth speaking If these speeches be hereticall we confesse our selues to be Heretikes but so that we haue Austin on our side for an Arch-Heretike Bernard speakes of the Hereticks called Apostolicks not in his 62. but in his 66. sermon vpon the Canticles where he saith neuer a word of their reiecting Traditions No more hath Austin nor Epiphanius where they write of them And if they did reiect traditions it was because they would establish their owne hereticall bookes viz. the Acts of Thomas and Andrew and the gospell of the Egyptians which to say the truth are to be counted traditions because they haue no warrant of the scripture nor are any part of the Canon It were easie for me to turne your owne sentence against you and as all men may see with good reason but it shall suffice me that I haue refuted your slaunders and shewes with sound proofe of arguments and authoritie I consider loosers must haue leaue to speake The eighth point Of Vowes Our consent speaker W. P. Touching vowes this must bee knowne that wee do not condemne them altogether but onely labour to restore the purity of doctrine touching this point which by the Church of Rome from time to time hath beene corrupted and defaced We hold therefore that a vow is a promise made to God touching some duties to be performed vnto him and it is twofold generall or speciall The generall vow is that which concernes all beleeuers and it is made in the couenant both of the law and of the Gospell I will here onely speake of the vow which is made in the couenant of the Gospell in which there be two actions one of God the other of man God in mercy on his part promiseth to men the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting and man againe for his part promiseth to beleeue in Christ and to obey God in all his commaundements All men euer made this vow vnto God as the Iewes in circumcision which also they renewed so often as they receiued the Passeouer and in the newe Testament all that are baptized doe the like And in baptisme this vow is called the stipulation of a good conscience whereby wee purpose to renounce our selues to beleeue in Christ and to bring forth the fruites of true repentance and it ought to be renued so oft as wee are partakers of the supper of the Lord.
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
condemned by the Councell of Frankfort I will omitte sundrie other heades of the Protestants Religion by all approued antiquitie reproued aad condemned that I passe not the boundes of an Epistle and seeme ouer tedious vnto your Maiestie Especially considering that these are sufficient to conuince that those points wherein the Protestants affirme the present Church of Rome to haue so farre degenerate from the auncient are the very essentiall parts of saith then maintayned by the Romans And the contrary opinions nothing else but wicked heresies of old inuented and obstinately helde against the same Roman See euen as they are now our time and of old also condemned by the same Church in her most flourishing and best estate Wherefore your most excellent Maiestie being resolute in that singular good opinion that no Church ought farther to depart from the Church of Rome then shee is departed from her selfe in her flourishing estate must needes recall the Church of England from such extrauagant opinions to ioyne with the Roman Church in the aforesaid articles which shee in her best time helde for parts of pure faith And in all others also which they cannot directly proue in a lawfull disputation before your Maiestie to haue beene altred by her particularly naming the point of Doctrine the author oâ— the chaunge the time and place where and when ht liued who followed him who resisted him and such other like circumstances which all bee easily shewed in euery such reuolte or innouation because thâ— vigilant care of the Pastors of Christs flocke haue bin alwaies so great as no such things could be vnknowne let slippe or vnrecorded Thus much for my first reason collected from the vntruth of the Protestants religion speaker A. W. What are nine points to nine skore that I may speake the least and yet it is not prooued that any of these were held by the Romanes whose faith S. Paul commends nor indeed euer can be It is enough for vs if we can shew by record of Scripture that the doctrine the Church of Rome now holds is not that she maintained in her best estate which we often haue done and alwaies will be ready to doe Is it not a good plea in law to prooue by ancient euidences and deedes that the land was mine vnlesse I can shew when and how the possession of euery house Medow Close c. was lost yet it stands you vpon to proue how you came by it and by what right you hold it Which you must doe when all comes to all by the Scripture or else your title will neuer be good speaker D. B. P. The second shall be grounded vpon the vngodlines of it where I wil let passe that high point of impiety that they make God who is goodnes it selfe the author of all wicked actions done in the world And will besides say nothing of that their blasphemie against our Sauiour Iesus Christ that he ouercome with the paines of his passion vpon the Crosse did doubt if not dispaire of his owne saluation being vnwilling to touch any other poynts then such as are afterwards discussed in this booke speaker A. W. You may well let both these passe for they are your slanders not our opinions as hath been shewed sufficiently elsewhere The triumphant Citizens of heauen who enioy the presence of God and happiest life that can be imagined are by Protestants disdainfullie termed Dead men and esteemed neither to haue credit with God to obtaine any thing nor any care or compassion on men among whom they once liued and conuersed so kindly The Saints departed we loue and honour but are forced to call them dead men as Austin doth by reason of your Idolatrie with the same disdaine in our weake measure with which the Apostle disgraced Circumcision Of their credit with God we doubt not their care of men we denie not but wee know no calling they haue to become our mediatours with dishonour to God and Christ. And as for the poore soules departed who in Purgatorie fire pay deare for their former delightes and pleasures they depriue them of all humane succour by teaching the world to beleeue that there is no such matter speaker D. B. P. We depriue them of nothing that God in the Scripture allowes them Prooue your Purgatorie thence and we will confesse our error Concerning vs Christians yet liuing on earth there is no lesse impietie in their opinions For they teach that the best Christian is no better in effect then a whited Sepulchre being inwardly full of all wickednes and mischiefe and onlie by an outwarde imputation of Christs righteousnes vnto them are accepted of God for iust To thinke that there is inherent in the soule of Man any such grace of God as doth cleanse it from sinne and make the man iust in his sight is with them to raze the foundation of Religion and to make Christ a Pseudochrist wherein I know not whether they be more enuious against the good of Man then they are iniurious either to the inestimable value of Christs blood as though it could not deserue any better estate for his fauourites or vnto the vertue and efficacie of the holy Ghost as not being able by likeliehood to purge mens soules from sinne and endue them with such Heauenly qualities I omitte the disgrace thereby don to the Blessed God-head it selfe making the Holie of Holies father willing to couer and cleake our iniquitie then to cure it And contrarie to his infinite goodnes to loue them whom hè seeth defiled with all manner of abhominations speaker A. W. We acknowledge euery true Christian to be righteous in the sight of God after iustification by inherent though imperfect righteousnes and account none whited sepulchers but those that bragge or make shee of holines being but hypocrites We ascribe our iustification wholy and onely to the mercie of God in forgiuing our sinnes for Christs obedience by accounting faith to vs for rightcousnes We enuie not the good of man but preferre Gods truth before mans pride Our Sauiour Christs sacrifice we megnifie as infinitly perfect but wee know the whole eâ—…t thereof is not perfected at once in vs though the holie Ghost be of infinit power which in respect of vs is limited by the gratious and wise prouidence of God We teach that God doth not onely couer our sinnes by forgiuing them but cure our corruption by abolishing it wholy yet by little and little His loue depends not vpon our righteousnes for he loued vs when wee were most vnrighteous but vpon the estate of being his sonnes members of his beloued sonne Iesus Christ and elected to adoption and saluation by him before the foundation of the world was laid speaker D. B. P. Vnto these paradoxes impious against God and slaunderous to man If it will please your Maiestie to adde the prophane carnallity of some other poynts of the Protestant Doctrine you
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
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
〈◊〉 ther vvith S. Augustine that in this life vve cannot attaine vnto 〈◊〉 puritie such as shall be in heauen read the begâ—…ing of his first and second booke oâ— Morals and there you shall find him commending Iob to the skyes as a good and holy man by his temptations not soyled but much â—…anced in vertue speaker A. W. These places for ought I know are of your owne deuising to be thus applied and there fore I will neuer striue about them though when occasion shal serue it will appeare that your answers to Austins and Gregories testimonies are but shifts speaker D. B. P. Novv before I depart from this large question of iustification I vvill handle yet one other question vvhich commonly ariseth about it it is WHETHER FAITH MAY BE without Charitie I Prooâ—e that it may so be first out of these vvordes of our Sauiour Many shall say vnto me in that day Lord Lord haue vve not propâ—â—cied in thy name haue vve not cast out Diuels haue vve not done many miracles to vvhom J will confesse that I neuer knevve you depart from mee all yee that vvorke iniquitie That these men beleeued in Christ and persvvaded themselues assuredly to be of the elect appeareth by their confident calling of him Lord Lord and the rest that follovveth Yet Christ Declareth manifestly that they vvanted charity in saying that they vvere vvorkers of iniquitie speaker A. W. Your proofe that they had a iustifying faith is too slender They called him Lord. What if they had called him Sauiour must they needs therefore haue had saith The rich man in hell calles vpon Abraham by the name of father shall I conclude as you doe speaker D. B. P. 2. When the King went to see his guestes He found there a man not attired in his wedding garment and therefore commanded him to be cast into vtter darknes This man had faith or else he had not been admitted vnto that table which signifieth the Sacraments yet wanted charitie which to be the wedding garment beside the euidence of the text is also prooued where in expresse tearmes The garments of Christs Spouse is declared to be the righteousnesse and good vvorkes of the Saintes And that with great reason for as S. Paul teacheth Faith shall not remaine after this life With what instrument then trow you will the Protestants lay hold on Christs righteousnesse speaker A. W. That charitie is that wedding garment S. Hierome vpon the same place doth witnesse saying That it is the fulfilling of our Lords commandements And S. Gregorâ—e doth in expresse wordes define it VVhat saith he must vve vnderstand by the vvedding garment but charitie So doe S. Hilarie and Origen and S. Chrysostome vpon that place Parables are no further any proofes than the meaning of them is certainly knowne but all your expositions of this are at least vncertaine The table signifieth the Sacraments What Baptisme too and your other fiue or how many and what Sacraments Besides your consequence is very feeble Was no man euer admitted to the Sacraments that made shew of faith when indeed he had none Your ordinarie glosse expounds it of being in the Church Chrysostome of the Scriptures which sit at the table of the Scriptures Gregory of the Church He commeth into the mariage saith Gregorie but without a wedding garment that hath faith in the Church but not charitie I might in like sort examine the rest of the parable and finde great diuersities of opinions as in such cases there must needs be But to the poynt First I say many hypocrites are in the Church that haue not so much as a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture and so absolutely want their mariage garment Secondly I adde that this man and many other might haue a generall beleefe and yet not rest vpon God for iustification by Christ without which faith there is no place for any man in heauen Thirdly let it be granted that charitie is the mariage garment what get you by it vnlesse you can prooue that the faith this man had was a true iustifying faith which you can neuer possibly doe The generall meaning of the parable seemes to be no more but this that many men thrust into the Church who when the day of trial comes will be found to haue no interest to the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiours conclusion shewes Many are called but few are chosen I denie not that sentence shall be giuen according to workes but that they which want workes haue faith This is the poynt in question and this can neuer be prooued by this parable speaker D. B. P. 3. The like argument is made of the foolish Virgins Who were part of the Kingdome of God and therefore had faith which is the gate and enterance into the seruice of God Yea in the house of God they aspired vnto more then ordinary perfection Hauing professed Virginitie yet either carried away with vaine glorie as S. Gregorie takes it Or not giuing themselues to the workes of mercy spirituall and corporall as S. Chrysostome expoundes it briefely not continuing in their former charitie for faith once had cannot after the Protestants doctrine bee lost were shut out of the Kingdome of heauen albeit they presumed strongly on the assurance of their saluation as is apparant By their confident demaunding to bee let in for they said Lord Lord open vnto vs. speaker A. W. The very like indeede and as vncertaine as the former These Virgins were part of Gods kingdome in profession but not in election and therefore neuer had iustifying faith The perfectioÌ„ you fancie might well be attained to without true faith especially the profession of such perfection which is all that they had for ought that can be proued by the text If you vnderstood the Protestants doctrine as well as you would seeme to doe you would know that we hold it as vnpossible to lose Charitie as to lose Faith affirming that he which hath not both to the end neuer had either Their confident demaunding to be let in shewes rather their desire than their hope and yet how many hope without true faith in Christ Is it not generally the case of all you Papists speaker D. B. P. 4. Many of the princes beleeued in Christ but did not confesse him for they loued more the glory of men then the glory of God What can bee more euident then that these men had faith when the holy Ghost saith expresly that they beleeued in Christ which is the onely acte of faith And yet were destitute of charitie which preferreth the glory and seruice of God before all things in this world speaker A. W. They might rest vpon him as the Messiah and yet not to iustification for who knowes not that the Iewes and especially the princes or chiefe men amongst them lookâ— for the Messiah as a temporall deliuerer not as a spirituall Sauiour Beside they
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 that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of them makes some satisfaction vvhich satisfaction is vnperfect and yet cannot be called no satisfaction at all as euery child may see speaker A. W. Satisfaction is a full discharge of the debt so that the bond thereupon is voide but hee that paies halfe or three quarters of his debt if he pay not all in such sort as the bond requireth hath the bond still against him in ful strength and vertue so that though hee hath paid part of his principall debt he hath made no satisfaction at all speaker W. P. Learned Papists make answere that Christs satisfaction and mans may stand well together For say they Christs satisfaction is sufficient in it selfe to answere the iustice of God for all sin and punishment but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applied and it must bee applied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporall punishment of our sinnes But I say againe that mans satisfaction can bee no meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ and I prooue it thus The meanes of applying Gods blessings and graces vnto man are twofold some respect God himselfe and some respect man Those which respect God are such whereby God on his part doth offer and conuey his mercies in Christ vnto man of this sort are the preaching of the worde baptisme and the Lords supper and these are as it were the hand of God whereby he reacheth downe and giueth vnto vs Christ with all his benefites The other meanes of applying on mans part are those whereby the saide benefits are receiued Of this sort there is onely one namely faith whereby we beleeue that Christ with all his benefits belong vnto vs. And this is the hand of man whereby he receiueth Christ as he is offered or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments As for other meanes beside these in Scripture we finde none Foolish therfore is the answere of the Papists that make mens satisfactions meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ vnto vs for by humane satisfactions Christ is neither offered on Gods part nor yet receiued on mans part let them prooue it if they can speaker A. W. His second is as vntrue but mans satisfaction is not to supplie the vvant of Christs satisfaction but to applie it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his vvill and ordinance First the speech is beyond any ordinarie mans vnderstanding to make satisfaction is to applie another mans satisfaction to vs. Secondly to make satisfaction is to deserue that because of our satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to our sinnes Christs satisfaction for the eternall may be auailable to vs. Thirdly if mans satisfaction be not to supplie the want of Christs satisfaction either there is no temporall punishment belonging to sinne or Christ hath made satisfaction for that as well as for the eternall and then God cannot require any satisfaction of vs because he is alreadie satisfied both for the eternall and temporall punishment Fourthly if wee doe nothing by our satisfaction but applie Christs satisfaction to vs which is onely for the eternall punishment the temporall remaines wholy without satisfaction made for it speaker D. B. P. God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sinnes and taketh fully avvay all paine due to sinne so that he vvho dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if vve doe aftervvard vngratefully forsake God and contrary to our promise transgresse against his commaundements then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauour But he vpon our repentance pardoning the sinne and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euerie man a temporall satisfaction ansvverable vnto the fault committed not to supplie Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall But that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoide sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Euery man do beare his ovvne burden speaker A. W. Here is a long discourse to little purpose neither answering any part of Master Perkins syllogisme nor defending any point of your owne answere but onely affirming that which before was said that God exacts a temporall satisfaction and affoording vs some reason to confute your opinion by in this sort If Christs satisfaction was sufficient more easily to take away the temporall punishment than the eternall how will you prooue it did not It stands you vpon to shew vs good euidence out of the record of Scripture that God agreed with Christ not to take the full desert of his sufferings and satisfaction but to leaue man still indebted to him though in truth the debt were paid If no such agreement can be shewed for my part I see not how God in iustice can aske the same debt twice being once fully satisfied That which you adde is wholy our doctrine viz. that God by smart and griefe would feare vs from sinning and make vs conformable to his Sonne our Sauiour But you teach that he punisheth vs and so takes satisfaction for sins past as if he were to be reuenged on vs at least by temporall punishment for our sinnes committed You repeate your conclusion but with no dependance vpon your former matter or proofe from that which followes where the Apostle tels the Galathians that they may not be alwaies finding fault with other men and so grow into a conceit of their owne goodnes but looke to themselues because euery man must giue an account to God for his owne sinnes and not for another mans If you will needs abuse the Apostle and applie his words to that he thought not on why doe you not by the same reason lay the eternall punishment vpon vs too for that was our burthen as well as the temporall speaker W. P. Others not content with this their former answer say that our satisfactions doe nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ because our workes haue their dignitie and merit from Christs satisfaction he meriting that our works should satisfie Gods iustice for temporal punishment But this is also absurd and false as the former was For if Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie then Christ doth make euery beleeuer to be a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer and a priest in the same order with his owne selfe But to make sinful man his own redeemer though it be but from temporall punishments is a doctrine of diuels For the holy Ghost teacheth that the
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
not to be recorded yet it is strange that Moses should not once make mention of them in generall Thomas expounds it of adding to the words of the Scripture And if it be lawful for all these prohibitions to adde other doctrines why doth Chrysostome reprooue the Iewish Priests for hauing added many things to the law though Moses with threatning charged them they should not For it is certaine they neuer added to nor any way corrupted the text But Chrysostome accuseth them of adding because they deliuered doctrines that were not written in the Scripture as our Sauiour also saith of them Cardinall Caietan wils vs to gather from this place that the law of God is perfect speaker D. B. P. Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses Lavv that therefore nothing must be added vnto the same Law is extreame dotage speaker A. W. What is it to refute that which your aduersarie saith not Master Perkins proues that Moses spake of the written law because he sets it as a preface before his Commentarie vpon the same law You answere nothing to that but crie out vpon extreame dotage for inferrring that because it is a preface to Moses law therefore nothing must be added to it Who inferres any such matter but your selfe You need not make worke you haue your hands full speaker D. B. P. Why then were the bookes of the old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these vvords or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them vvell did vvilfully transgresse against them one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alleadging of this text for the all sufficiencie of the written vvord We neither need nor will defend either of them But we denie your consequence if no man might adde any thing to the law of God deliuered by Moses then the Prophets offended in writing so many volumes The reason is that the Prophets writ not as men but as the instruments of Gods spirit inditing and penning by them God did not tie his owne hands by that commandement that he might not from time to time instruct his people as it should seeme good to his infinite wisedome To speake yet more plainly the Prophets and Apostles writings are nothing els but expositions of that the summe whereof is deliuered in the fiue bookes of Moses wherein the whole doctrine of the Law and the Gospell is contained speaker W. P. Testimonie II. Isai. 8. 20. To the law and to the testimonie If they speake not according to this worde it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth what must be done in cases of difficultie Men must not runne to the wizard or southsaier but to the law and testimonie and here he commends the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts and scruples in conscience whatsoeuer speaker D. B. P. Here the Prophet teacheth saith M. Perkins vvhat is to be done in cases of difficulty Men must not runne to the Wizards and Soothsayers but to the Lavve and to the Testament commending the vvritten vvord as sufficient to resolue all doubts By the Lavv and testimony in that place the fiue books of Moses are to be vnderstood If that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts vvhatsoeuer What need vve then the Prophets vvhat need vve the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles What Wizard vvould haue reasoned in such sort speaker A. W. The Scripture is not to resolue all doubts but all doubts and scruples of conscience whatsoeuer which you craftily leaue out in propounding our reason Your consequence is false If the fiue bookes of Moses be sufficient for the resoluing of al doubts what need any writings of the Prophets Euangelists or Apostles Is not the Ciuill and Canon law in your iudgement sufficient to resolue all doubts in cases concerning them is there therefore no need of any exposition thereof The rest of the Scripture is a Commentarie vpon those fiue bookes Besides is nothing required in the scripture but resoluing of doubts The historie of the Church is worth the knowing for our instruction comfort exhortation imitation and such like speaker D. B. P. The Prophet vvilleth there that the Israelites vvho vvanted vvit to discerne vvhether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell than vnto Wizards and Sooth-sayers to see vvhat is vvritten in the Lavv of Moses concerning that point of consulting Wizards vvhich is there plainely forbidden in diuers places Novv out of one particular case vvhereof there is expresse mention in the vvritten vvord to conclude that all doubts and scruples vvhatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great vvant of light in him as vvas in those blind Israelites speaker A. W. The Prophet doth not send them to the Law and to the testimonie to see whether it be lawfull to enquire of Soothsayers or no but tels them that they must looke into the booke of God to see whether such iudgements as the Prophets threatned should not befall them if they continued their sinning against God So that hee wils them not to hearken what the Southsayers say of their escaping the iudgements that the Prophets denounced but to trie whether their promises of safetie or the others threatning of destruction were agreeable to the word of God Though the case be particular which you put amisse yet if the triall of the Prophets doctrine be to be made by the scripture as it is wherein may we looke to vnwritten traditions speaker W. P. Testimonie III. Iohn 20. 31. These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue euerlasting life Here is set downe the full end of the Gospell and of the whole written word which is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation and therefore the whole scripture alone is sufficient to this ende without traditions speaker D. B. P. 3. Testimony These things vvere vvritten that yee might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set dovvne the full end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to vvhich the vvhole Scripture alone is sufficient vvithout Traditions Ans Here are more faults than lines First the text is craftily mangled Things being put in steed of Miracleâ— For S. Iohn saith Many other Miracles Christ did c but these vvere vvritten c. speaker A. W. Mangling is cutting off some part not putting one word for another especially such a word as containes the other Things-comprehends both doings and sayings and to both doth one of your Glosses referre this narration euen on the former verse where the word miracle is set
of Christ concerning building the temple againe This saith the Gospell the disciples then vnderstood not but after his resurrection they came to the true vnderstanding of it We say not that our Sauiour deliuered to them euery point of doctrine distinctly but that he furnished them with so much knowledge as that they might easily by that light gather and write whatsoeuer was needfull to be beleeued to the penning whereof they had the speciall direction of the spirit both for matter and maner Iansenius Bishop of Gaunt is wholie of the same opinion affirming that those many things were not diuers from those which he had taught them before but a more plaine exposition of them and to that purpose he alleages very fitly that place of the Apostle I could not speake to you as vnto spirituall men but as it were vnto carnall men to little ones in Christ. Didymus about the yeare 580. expounded the place thus This he saith that his auditors had not yet conceiued all things which he had told them that afterward they were to suffer for his name sake And afterward as yet also saith Didymus being vnder the type of the law and shadowes they could not discerne of the truth the shadow whereof the law caryed speaker D. B. P. This place of S. Iohn M. Perkins patcheth vp vvith another of S. Paul If vve or any Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing besides that vvhich we haue preached let him be accursed And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that vvhich he had taught Ans. Now we must looke vnto the Gentlemans fingers There were three corruptions in the text of S. Iohn here is one but it is a foule one Insteed of preaching vnto them another Gospell he puts preach vnto them any other thing when there is great difference betweene another Gospell and any other thing The Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith and the whole worke of Gods building in vs which S. Paul like a wise Architect had laide in the Galathians others his fellow workemen might build vpon it gold siluer and pretious stones with great merit to themselues and thanks from S. Paul Marry if any should digge vp that blessed and only foundation would lay a new one him S. Paul holdeth for accursed So that that falsification of the text is intolerable and yet when all is done nothing can be wringed out of it to proue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needfull to saluation for S. Paul speaketh there only of his Gospell that is of his preaching vnto the Galathians and not one word of any written Gospell No more doth he in that place to Timothy And so it is nothing to purpose speaker A. W. The Greeke is word forword if we or an angell from heauen shall preach vnto you beside that which we haue preached let him be accursed Your vulgar Latine all one with it in a maner praeterquam quod for praeter id quod as it is in the next verse where the greeke is all one your interlinear praeter quod in both verses You will haue the Apostle meane another gospell and so will Master Perkins for by another thing he vnderstands such another thing as shall be necessarie to saluation and yet diuers from that which the Apostle had deliuered And what is that else but another Gospell You tell vs the gospell comprehends the principall points of faith whereas before in this point you giue no more to the whole scripture but that some principall points may be gathered out of it this would haue made a contradiction in Master Perkins But is there any thing necessarie to saluation that is not a principall point of faith Is not that a principall point without which a man cannot be saued But if as you adde the gospell comprehend also the whole worke of Gods building in vs either I conceiue not what you meane by those words or else he that teacheth any other course of Gods building in vs then the gospell prescribes preacheth another gospell which doctrine will go neere to ouerthrow the greatest part of your will worship You proceed and say that the Apostle speakes of such a doctrine as digs vp the foundation What is the foundation If it be not digged vp as long as Christ is held to be the Messiah and that without him there is no saluation as you commonly expound the gospell of faith in Christ questionles the Apostle speakes not of ouerthrowing the foundation because the Galathians against whom he writes did not think that any saluation could be had without Christ but that the law morall and ceremoniall was to be ioyned with Christ to iustification If the foundation may be razed though those points be not denyed and if to ioyne the law with Christ be to lay another foundation and to preach another gospell how can your popish synagogue be a true member of Christs Church in which the foundation is shaken in coupling the law with Christ and another Gospell preached by teaching such points of doctrine for matter necessarie to saluation as the Apostles neuer deliuered Master Perkins therefore vnderstanding by any thing only things that make another Gospell as the question in hand and the other place alleaged shew A diuers doctrine may neither be charged with nor suspected of false dealing Bellarmine a Cardinall and a man of as great iudgement as you affirmes that the Apostle in that place speakes both of the written and vnwritten word not as you would haue it only of the gospel preached And Austin applies the text to the scripture of the law and of the gospell other then that which you haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures that is in the old and new Testament Basill also saith the like of the same matter that the hearers must examin those things that are deliuered by their teachers and receiue those that are agreeable to the Scripture and reiect those that are diuers which he prooues by that place to the Galathians And whereas Bellarmine would haue their testimonies vnderstood of things contrary only the very words refute him But it is apparant that all that Paul preached is in the scriptures for out of them doth he still confirme his doctrine They of Berea found that which hee taught them to agree with the scriptures and himselfe auoucheth before Festus that he preached nothing but that which Moses and the Prophets had taught And so both these places are to purpose speaker W. P. Testimonie IV. 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God is profitable to teach to improoue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute beeing made perfect vnto euerie good worke In these wordes be contained two arguments to prooue the sufficiencie of the Scripture
that the father was not begotten may be proued by the Scripture and must needs be held the words are neither in the Scripture nor bring any danger of saluation though they be denyed if the points of doctrine signified by them be beleeued yet were it a great presumption and follie for any man to refuse such words as haue bin fitlie applied by the former Churches The other point of adoring the holy ghost hath a strong foundation on those places of Scripture which prooue him to be God as many do But what is all this to the purpose for the stablishing of any doctrine necessarie to saluation by tradition speaker D. B. P. The like of the perpetuall Virginity of our B. Lady out of vvhich and many more such like vve gather most manifestly that S. Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the vvritten vvord but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions speaker A. W. The fourth heresie in Austin is the Basilidians who held no such opinion of the virgin Mary Indeed there were other heretikes the 6. in number who denyed her virginitie after our Sauiours birth falsely as we verily perswade our selues but this is no matter necessarie to saluation though it be an heresie to hold that as a matter of faith which hath no warrant from the Scripture but rather the contrarie speaker W. P. Vincentius Lyrinen saith the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient to it selfe for all things speaker D. B. P. I thinke that there is no such sentence to be found in him hesaies by way of obiection VVhat need we make recourse vnto the authority of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but throughout all his booke he proues the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church speaker A. W. Vincentius saith that the Canon of the Scripture is sufficient and more then sufficient for all things and in another place the Canon of the scripture sufficeth it selfe for all things The former place is those very words which you alleage falsely where Vincentius thus speakes Here perhaps some man will demaund what the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding of the Scripture needs seeing the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and more then sufficient to it selfe for all things His answere is that the interpretation of the Church is requisite because diuers men expound the Scripture diuersly but what is this against the sufficiencie of the Scripture or for the authoritie of traditions concerning matters not contained in the Scriptures Beside these testimonies other reasons there bee that serue to prooue this point I. The practise of Christ and his Apostles who for the confirmation of the doctrine which they taught vsed alwaies the testimonie of Scripture neither can it be prooued that they euer confirmed any doctrine by tradition Act. 26. 22. I continue vnto this day witnessing both to small and great saying none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come And by this wee are giuen to vnderstand that wee must alwaies haue recourse to the written worde as beeing sufficient to instruct vs in matters of saluation speaker D. B. P. First for our Sauiour Christ Iesus he out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you And very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do oftē note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by test monies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S. Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by Tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospel out of Tradition receiued from S. Peter as witnesseth Eusebius S. Luke testifieth of himself that he wrote his whole Gospel as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who vvere eye-vvitnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not only parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions speaker A. W. Our Sauiour doth ordinarily confirme his doctrine especially if there be any question of it out of the bookes of the old testament by that he repeld Sathan by that he confuted the Pharises and defended his disciples eating the eares of corne on the Sabbath by that he taxeth the Iewes blindnes and maintaines his owne speaking in parables By the same he ouerthrowes the Iewes traditions and rebukes their hypocrisie he refutes their errors about diuorces but what should I run ouer the particulars the Gospels are full of such examples Master Perkins hath neuer a word of the Euangelist who did but write the history of our Sauiours doings and sayings and yet euen they as your selfe confesse prooue that he is the Messiah by the Scriptures of the old Testament applying them to the things he did and suffered You deuise matters to confute Master Perkins speaketh of confirming doctrine by traditions and you answere that they wrote something out of tradition that is they set downe somewhat in writing which themselues had heard of other and not read in the old Testament And then you aske where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages euen there where Moses had the creation of the world and the whole story of Genesis From a better ground then tradition viz. from the Spirit of God the author and enditer of the Scripture from whom also the other Euangelists had the matter and penning of their Gospell though two of them Marke and Luke first came to the knowledge of those things by the preaching of the Apostles which had all one authoritie with the word written This is apparant of Marke by Eusebius himselfe who saith that the Romans intreated him to set downe in writing those things which the Apostle Peter had taught them by word of mouth and which he also had heard him deliuer The like is to be said of S. Luke who was a companion of the Apostle Paul and wrote as the other did that which he heard of him and other of the Apostles But howsoeuer the things deliuered by them came first to their knowledge it wants not much of blasphemy to make traditions the foundation of the Gospels written by them For either the holy Ghost did not inspire them with the matter and manner of their penning or else if it be as you would haue it the holy ghost built vpon tradition which is but an vncertaine kinde of knowledge depending vpon mens
when Paul taught at Athens some seuenteene or eighteene yeeres after our Lords Ascension whereas the Gospell of S. Matthew as Irenaeus saith was penned when Paul and Peter preached and founded the Church at Rome twentie yeeres or more after the Ascension Neither doth Master Perkins auow this for a truth but sets it down as very likely speaker D. B. P. To the point of the answere that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bin deliuered by word of mouth How proueth M. Perkins that the man hath such confidence in his owne word that he goeth not once about to proue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needfull to be beleeued which is not written in the word shew vs then where it is written in the word that Saint Paul wrote in his later Epistles that which he taught by word of mouth before or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it speaker A. W. It is not the answerers dutie as I haue been faine to put you in minde before to prooue his deniall but the repliers to disprooue what he answers But for your satisfaction let me tell you that if these things the Apostle speakes of were matters necessarie to saluation it is prooued that they were written afterward or before in some part of the Scripture because the a Scripture is sufficient to make a man wise to saluation speaker D. B. P. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent reader I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing and left nothing by Tradition speaker A. W. All this labour might haue been saued vnlesse it were to more purpose For wee say not that the Apostle wrote all things he spake but that all things necessarie to saluation are expresly or by consequence contained in the Scriptures It is out of doubt in my poore opinion that the Apostle preached many things which were not written by him in these two Epistles and those also matters of moment which he wils them to obserue but the question is whether it can be prooued by this text or any other that those matters are not any where recorded in the holy Scriptures and yet are points necessarie to saluation speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Comentaries vpon this text concludeth thus Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnvvritten and those things are aswell to be beleeued as the vvritten Oecumenius and Theophylactus vpon that place teach the same speaker A. W. To the testimonie out of Chrysostomes interpretation answere first that Chrysostome saith not they were matters necessarie to saluation Secondly that otherwhere he ties vs to the Scriptures if we will be beleeued in that we deliuer Thirdly that many things may be and are in other parts of the Scripture which are not to bee found in the Epistles Fourthly that it doth not follow the Apostle Paul spake something to the Thessalonians which he wrote not to them therefore the Apostles spake some things which they neuer writ For this place speakes only of S. Pauls doings not of other Apostles Yet I make no questioÌ„ but they also did in like sort but it cannot be certainly concluded from this place Fiftly I grant that all that the Apostles deliuered was to be receiued as true and fit for the Church in those times to which they were deliuered The doctrine of the Gospell is perpetuall matters of circumstance appointed by them for the vse of the Churches perpetually are as well to be obserued as the doctrine if there be any such yea traditions of this nature are equall to things written But here lies the matter we say there are no such traditions And indeed who can thinke that the Apostles would write matters of small importance which were also not to continue perpetually and leaue great and waightie points of faith vnwritten The like answer I make to Oecumenius and Theophylact whereof the one professedly sets downe Chrysostoms opinion the other according to his custome writes him out in this place word for word speaker D. B. P. S. Basil * speaketh thus I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not vvritten for the Apostle â—â—ith I commend you that yee are mindfull of my precepts and do hold the Traditions euen as I deliuered them vnto you and then alleageth this text Hold the Traditions vvhich you haue receiued of me either by VVord or Epistle speaker A. W. Basil saith not that these traditions were matters necessarie to saluation 2. He defines not what these traditions were 3. The consequence is naught The Apostle wils the Thessalonians to keepe things deliuered by mouth therefore the Church is alwaies to keepe some things not written There was a necessitie to lay that charge vpon them for else they had needed to care for no more than was set down in those Epistles 4. The Papists themselues obserue not all the traditions there mentioned as Apostolical by Basil. 5. His iudgement in this case is not much to be accounted of who pronounceth that without those traditions the Gospellis not auaileable and that they are of equall force with the Gospell to pietie speaker D. B. P. S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying That the Apostles deliuered many things vvithout vvriting S. Paul doth testifie vvhen he writeth Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions vvhich haue been taught you either by vvord of mouth or by Epistle These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul free from all partiality gather out of this text of his that many things necessary to be beleeued euen vntill their daies remained vnvvritten and were religiously obserued by Tradition which throweth fiat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition fenced with neither reason nor authority that S Paul put in vvriting aftervvard all that he had first taught by vvord of mouth speaker A. W. Damascen is neither greatly to be respected nor saith any thing but that which I haue answered alreadie and granted in part as nothing to the purpose He might well erre in matter of Tradition that accounts the Apostles Canons set out by Clement Bishop of Rome to be Canonicall scripture which opinion the Papists themselues reiect Master Perkins would gladly haue acknowledged any tradition that could haue been prooued to be Apostolicall namely so farre as it was intended by the Apostles Whatsoeuer they taught that hee would hold to bee the truth of God if they ordained any thing for those times he would confesse it to haue been most fit Did they appoint any custome to bee perpetuall M. Perkins would haue embraced it with both his armes and if occasion had been offered haue maintained it with his life But neither can
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
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
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.
would answere at aduenture I could say that God exhorts none to this vow but them on whom he hath bestowed the gift and they haue his helpe to fulfill that they haue vowed We enuie not this your speciall iudgement nor respect your slanderous challenge onely this I answere that if all the Ministers and their wiues had been as lewd as your malice can imagine they could not haue come neere the thousand part of that filthines which your Bishops Priests Friers and Nunnes committed in this land by record of popish histories Yea let iust triall be made and we will aduenture our liues that time for time there haue been since the renewing of the Gospell more and more beastly vncleane persons among your Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes Friers and Nunnes in that one Citie of Rome than among al the Ministers and their wiues in this whole realme of England speaker W. P. Yet here marke in what manner we doe it First of all though wee mislike the vowe yet wee like and commend single life Marriage indeed is better in two respects first because God hath ordained it to bee a remedie of continencie to all such persons as cannot containe secondly because it is the seminarie both of Church and Common-wealth and it bringeth forth a seede of God for the inlarging of his kingdome Yet single life in them that haue the gift of continencie is in some respects to bee preferred First because it brings libertie in persequution Thus Paul saith 1. Cor. 7. 26. I suppose it to be good for the present necessitie for a man so to bee Secondly because it frees men from the common cares molestations and distractions that bee in the familie vers 2. 28. Such shall haue trouble in the flesh but I spare you Thirdly because single parties doe commonly with more bodilie ease and libertie worship God it beeing still presupposed that they haue the gift of continencie vers 34. The vnmarried woman careth for the things of of the Lord that shee may be holy both in bodie and spirit Againe though wee mislike the vowe yet wee hold and teach that men or women being assured that they haue the gift of continencie may constantly resolue and purpose with themselues to liue and lead a single life 1. Cor. 7. 38. Hee that standeth firme in his owne heart that hee hath no neede but hath power of his owne will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keepe his virginitie he doth well And wee imbrace the saying of Theodoret on 1. Tim. cap. 4. for he doth not saith he blame single life or continencie but he accuseth them that by law enacted compel men to follow these And men made themselues chast for the kingdome of heauen Matth. 19. 12. not by vowe but by a purpose of heart which is farre lesse then a vow and may be changed vpon occasion where as a vow cannot vnlesse it doe euidently appeare to bee vnlawfull Thirdly for such persons as are able to containe to liue single for the endes before named indeede we hold it to bee no counsell of perfection yet doe wee not denie it to bee a counsell of expedience oâ— outward ease according to that which Paul saith vers 25. I giue mine aduise and 35. I speake this for your commoditie not to intangle you in a snare Lastly we thinke that if any hauing the gift of continencie doe make a vow to liue single and yet afterward marrie the said gift remaining they haue sinned Yet not because they are married but because their vowe is broken And thus said Augustine of widowes that married after their vow lib. de bono viduit c. 9. speaker D. B. P. This may serue for a reproofe of all that M. Perkins obiecteth against the Vovv of chastitie aftervvard the man vvould somewhat reason the matter by shevving hovv he condemneth not chastitie yet saith that Marriage is better than it in two respects If Iouinian was reputed by the learnedst and holiest Fathers a Christian Epicure and a Monster because he durst make marriage equall vvith Virginitie What shall this man be who saith it is better His reasons are so childish that by the like you may proue durt to be better then gold vvherefore I vvill not stand vpon them He neuerthelesse aftervvard concludeth that one may purpose constantly vvith himselfe to lead a single life but so as he may change vpon occasion and this to be a counsell of expedience but not of perfection Lastly that if any hauing the gift of continencie do Vovv and atfervvard marâ—ie the gift remaining they haue sinned vvhich is flat against his ovvne second rule vvhich prohibits vs to leese our libertie and to make any thing vnlavvfull in conscience vvhich Christian Religion leaueth at libertie Novv to supplie M. Perkins his default vvho vvas accustomed to rehearse although many times vntowardly yet lightlie alvvaies some reasons for the Catholike partie vvhich in this question he hath vvholie omitted speaker A. W. He that will but reade what Master Perkins writes and what you answere shall see a true image of popish dealing whereby you slubber ouer the matter to which you know not what to say Is it a wrong to single life or virginitie to hold that marriage in some respect is better then it I will go further then Master Perkins hath done and not doubt to affirme that it is simply better then virginitie my reason is that it belongs to the perfection of humaine nature that there should be continuance and multiplying of the kind by propagation beside God appointed it as an especiall blessing for Adam when he was in Gods especiall fauour But if that estate be worse then the single life in which he liued before God did not blesse but punish him rather by that change therefore marriage simply is better But that virginitie might haue his due Master Perkins sets downe presently after three respects wherein it is to be preserred before marriage all which you do not once name Those Christian Fathers dealt vnchristianly with Iouinian who ascribed as much to virginitie as our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles gaue to it in any place of Scripture according to that conclusion of Theodoret who ends his discourse of virginitie with these words Such things we haue receiued being appointed and decreed by men endued with the knowledge of heauenly things which are such as do not accuse marriage but exhort vs to a life void of cares This Iouinian acknowledged and worthily denied all difference of merit betwixt a married and single life which no enemy of Iouinian can disproue no more can you Master Perkins reasons though you disgrace them all you can speaker D. B. P. I vvill briefelie proue by an argument or tvvo that it is both lavvfull and verie commendable for men and vvomen of ripe yeeres and consideration hauing vvell tried their ovvne aptnesse to Vovv virginitie if by good inspirations they be thereunto invvardly called My
he euer persvvade himselfe that to vvallovv in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of the beastly apperites is as gratefull to God as to conquere and subdue them by Fasting and Prayer speaker A. W. Our captaines and ringleaders say you vowed virginitie therefore we must needs thinke the state of virginitie more perfect then that of marriage First I denie your antecedent neither our Sauiour nor his mother nor his Apostles vowed virginitie prooue it of any of them if you can Indeede our Sauiour was neuer married and all men may easily see it was no way fit he should be His mother was and therefore questionles neuer made any such vow of single life though we beleeue that as it was very fit it should be she continued a virgin till her death That some of the Apostles had wiues it is apparant by scripture that they kept them after their office vndertaken it is more then likely by the like warrant of scripture whatsoeuer some haue thought without any sufficient ground of reason or authoritie to the contrarie Peter and Philip saith Clement of Alexandria had children Philip also bestowed his daughters in marriage and Paul is not afraid in a certaine Epistle of his to mention his wife whom he did not leade about with him because he had no neede of any great seruice Your consequence also is very weake They were virgins therefore it was a state of greater perfection It was more fit for those times and their occasions yea we graunt it is a freer kind of life for Gods seruice and therefore they that can liue so do well to vse that their libertie but this prooues not that single life is simply better then marriage That which you adde of wallowing in filthie pleasure and satisfying of the beastly appetites bewraies the beastlie opinion you haue of marriage and shewes that you would be filthy though you were married what you are now as I know not so I will not iudge But this I will say that few or no married men liue so vnchastlie and abhominablie as many of your vowed virgins haue done by record of your owne stories speaker D. B. P. Finally if S. Paul giue counsell to the married to conteine during the time of Prayer Priests and religious that must alvvaies be in a readines to minister the Sacraments and to thinke vpon such things as belong vnto our Lord are therefore vpon a great consideration bound to perpetuall chastitie speaker A. W. The Apostle giueth no such counsaile but forbids the married the restraining of each others companie except it be for a time that they may giue themselues to fasting and prayer The reason is that at such speciall times speciall humiliation is requisite to which the forbearing all kind of lawfull pleasure is a principall furtherance otherwise the moderate vse of marriage is no hinderance to any dutie either of Christianitie or the Ministrie but a speciall meanes to preserue necessarie Chastitie speaker D. B. P. We vvill close vp this point vvith some sentences taken out of the auncient Fathers in praise of Virginity vvhich Master Perkins in all this question vouchsafeth scarce once to name as though Virgins and Virginitie vvere no English vvords or not as plaine as continencie speaker A. W. Wee acknowledge that virginitie where it is pure as it ought to be is worthie of very singular commendation but it consists not onely in abstaining from the outward act of marriage Master Perkins did very well approue both of the thing and the word but because it was not general enough for this question as not reaching to all that were single he rather chose to vse the word continencie being of larger extent speaker D. B. P. S. Cyprian De habitu Virginum Intitleth Virgins to be the most noble and glorious person of Christs flocke and addeth that they shall receiue of God the highest revvard and greatest recompence Saint Chrysostome saith Virginitie to be the top of perfection and the highest typ of vertue And Athanasius De Virginitate in the end bursteth out into these vvords O Virginitie a treasure that vvasteth not a garland that wythereth not the Temple of God the Palace of the Holy Ghost a pretious stone whose price is vnknown to the vulgar the ioy of the Prophets the glory of the Apostles the life of Angels the Crovvne of Saints S. Ambrose Lib. 1. de Virginibus paulo post init Virginity is a principall vertue and not therefore commendable that it is found in Martyrs but because it maketh Martyrs Who can with humane vvit comprehend it vvhich nature doth not hold vvithin her lavves it hath fetched out of Heauen that it might imitate on Earth neither vnsitly hath it sought a manner of life in heauen vvhich hath found a spouse for her in heauen This surmounting the clouds the starres and Angels hath found the vvord of God in the bosome of his Father c. See vvho list to reade more to this purpose the rest of the Fathers in their vvorkes of Virginitie of vvhich most of them haue vvritten And S. Ierome who is behind none of the rest in his bookes against Iouinian and Heluidius all vvhich doe most diligently exhort to Vovv Virginitie do teach hovv to keepe it and most vehemently inueigh against all them that do breake it And if any be so mad as to credit rather our fleshly ministers than all that honorable and holy senate of the auncient Fathers he deserueth to liue and die in perpetuall darknesse speaker A. W. In this matter I haue stayed some-vvhat longer because our carnall teachers vvith the levvde example of their dissolute Disciples haue corrupted ourage vvith fleshly and beastly libertie In the other points I vviâ—l recompence it with breuitie These hyperbolicall commendations of virginitie shew the opinion of some ancient writers concerning it but prooue nothing We disswade no man from continuing a single life so hee bee able to ouercome that burning which the Apostle condemnes yea rather wee exhort them that haue the gift to vse it But we denie either that all haue it or that they which haue it doe please God any more by the vse of it that they that haue it not but as they employ it to the better and more free seruing of God speaker W. P. The second is the vow of pouertie and Monasticall life in which men bestow all they haue on the poore and giue themselues wholy and onely to prayer and fasting This vowe is against the will of God Act. 20. 35. It is a more blessed thing to giue then to receiue Pro. 28. 7. Giue me neither riches nor pouerty Deut. 28. 22. Pouertie is numbred among the curses of the law none whereof are to be vowed And it is the rule of the holy Ghost 2. Thess. 3. 10. He that will not labour namely in some speciall and warrantable calling must not eate And vers 12. I exhort that they worke with quietnes and eate
not haue any poore cottage of his own so much as to rest his head in but would wholy liue of almes and come vnto his heauenly doctrine He teacheth a yong man whom he loued in flat words That if he would be perfect he should go and sell all he had and giue it to the poore and come and follow him and then should haue a treasure in heauen These words are so expresse and euident that there can be but one way to shift from them which M. Perkins flâ—eth vnto pag 244. to wit that these words were only meant vnto that young man and not to be applied vnto any others no more than those words to Abraham of sacrificing his sonne Isaac But this seely shift of our poore Protestants is confuted manifestly in the same Chapter of S. Matthew where a little after S. Peter saith Lord behold we haue left all things and haue followed thee what reward shall we therefore haue We haue done as S. Ierome expoundeth it and the very sequele of the text doth plainly require that which thou commandest in the words before to that yong man What answere made our Sauiour That his commandement was only meant vnto that young man and that they had done foolishly in so doing nothing lesse but promiseth that they shall therefore sit with him in twelue seats iudging the twelue tribes of Israel And that whosoeuer would forsake Father Mother Lands Goods c. for his sake should receiue an hundreth fold and possesse life euerlasting Can any thing be more plaine out of the word of God it selfe than that not this or that man but whosoeuer shall forsake all for Christ doth verie blessedly speaker A. W. If this be the best supplie that can be made who can iustly blame Master Perkins for saying nothing in defence of your Popish partie For if all you offer to prooue were granted you all were nothing to the purpose Say it bee gratefull to God to sell all and giue it to the poore doth it follow hereupon that therefore it is lawfull to vow wilfull pouertie as a state of perfection I trow not But that is the question betwixt vs. You might haue done well to omit it indeede being so little to the matter For what kinde of conclusion call you this Our Sauiour would not haue any poore cottage of his owne Therefore pouertie may be vowed as a state of perfection or therefore it is greater perfection to haue no house than to haue one Our Sauiour being to trauell from place to place both for the preaching of the Gospell and his owne safetie thought it not conuenient to haue any certaine dwelling place yet your Monkes Friers and Nunnes haue and those the pleasantest and richest for the soile and ayre that can be found in the whole countries where they are But what did our Sauiour sell that he might thereby fall into wilfull pouertie His example helps you not let vs see his doctrine he teacheth a yong man you say whom he loued that if he would be perfect he should sell all he had and giue it to the poore and follow him and then he should haue treasure in heauen First for our Sauiours louing him which yet Matthew records not but Marke who leaues out that clause of being perfect it is more then plaine that this cannot be vnderstood of any speciall loue For neither did the man beleeue in him as the Messiah and he was falsely conceited of his owne righteousnes than which nothing is a greater hinderance to saluation and therefore nothing lesse beloued by our Sauiour Christ. This loue therefore signifies not an approbation of his vaine brag or a desire of making him perfit but either a pittying of his conceit or some kind gesture vsed towards him which later signification especially both the Greeke and Syriake words will well admit Secondly I answere that our Sauiour doth not intend to shew him how he may be perfect but by vrging him to sell that he had meanes to discouer his want of loue to God and his neighbour That he meant not to perswade him to any perfection it is euident First because no man without true faith which this Iusticiary wanted can come any thing neere to perfection Secondly for that a man may sell all that he hath c. and yet not be perfect For single life in your account is a matter of no small perfection But our Sauiour would make his vanitie in the opinion of his owne righteousnes apparant to him and other as it fell out indeed For refusing to obey him in that matter he bewrayed his couetousnes which he preferd before following our Sauiour whom he acknowledged to be a worthie teacher and before the loue of his brethren Lastly I say the chiefe point of perfection here mentioned is not selling of our goods but following of Christ which is a dutie belonging to all Christians so that without it no man is a Christian. In the following of Christ by the works of charity saith your glosse perfection consists principally in wilfull pouertie but as in the beginning by way of renouncing that which hinders and disposing of vs because by it the care of temporall things is taken away which hinders the soule from the loue of God and the soule is fitted to free contemplation of God To sell all and giue to the poore sufficeth not to perfection saith Ierome vnlesse after the despising of riches we follow Christ that is leauing euill do good And after Many leaue riches but not follow our Lord. He followes our Lord who doth imitate him and treads in his steps And againe afterward Because it sufficeth not to leaue he addes that which is perfect and haue followed me So that this is no state of perfection but rather a remedie against our being drawen away from following Christ which was as necessary to saluation both before and vnder the law as it is now in this light of the Gospell and if without wilfull pouerty it cannot be done doubtles neither those worthies of the former ages Abraham Moses Dauid c. could follow Christ in duties of charitie and we not only may but must sell all we haue that we may follow him It was spoken and intended only to that yong man neither doth Peter say that the Apostles had sold all and giuen it to the poore which is no where recorded of them in the scriptures but that they had forsaken all and followed him that is had left their ordinarie callings by which in likelyhood they might haue thriuen to attend vpoÌ„ our Sauiour and to be employed in his seruice And to the following of Christ either only or specially doth that of Ierome belong Peter speakes confidently saith Ierome we haue left all And because it is not sufficient only to leaue he addes that which is perfect And haue followed thee we haue done that thou commaundest that is we haue giuen ouer the hope of
17. * Serm. 37. de verbis Apost In Enchir. cap. 70. l Aug. de verb. Dom. Ser. 37. Tom. 10. Hom. 5. Thâ— thought not so that â—â—â—sted in 〈◊〉 m Aug. lib. hom 50. homil 5. Luc. 22. Petri negat n Chrysostom Prooem in Esaiam Luk. 22. Act. 24. 10. 1. Pet. 3. Lib. 10. in Luc. Lib. 2. de poenit cap. 5. o Bellarm. de purgat lib. cap. 13. p Ambros. Ser. 46. q Ambros. ad Luc. 22. lib. 10 cap. Petrus De bono mor. r Ambros. de bono mortis cap. 12. s Ioh. 6. 35. t Hieronym in Psalm 31. u Rom. 4. 6. 7. 8 x Psal. 32. 1. 2. Lib. 2. de poenit cap. 5. y Lib. 2. de poenit cap. 5. z Chrysost. in Math. homil 42. 44. a Psal. 130. 3. b Psal. 143. 2. c Dan. 10. 19. d Dan. 9. 7. 8. 11. 20. Lib. 3. instit cap. 4. num 29. Leuit. 4. 5 6. Hovv many Not aboue two e Hebr. 10. 1. Leuit. 4. 20. The sinne as your selfe confessed vvas forgiuen before VVe deny that any man hath been punished to satisfie for his sin Numb 14. f Num 14. 22 Ioa 9 1. 2 Num. 14. 23. Numb 20. Deut. 32. g Num. 20. 11. For satisfaction vvas made by Christ. 1. Cor. 10. Numb 14. Numb 20. vers 24. Deut. 32. 51. h Deut. 27. 26. i Gal. 3. 13. k Rom. 3. 25. 26. What dotage is it for you to take one thing for another l 2. Sam. 12. 14. m Gal. 3. 13. He neuer dreamed of satisfaction in all this repentance Psal. 50. n 2. Sam. 12. 16. o Psal. 51. 8. See 12. Art part 2. art 1. 〈◊〉 Psal. 50. p Aug. ad Psa. 50. q Glossa Ordin ad Psal. 50. 6. è Castiodoâ—o r Bellarm. de poenit lib. 2. cap. 12. s 1. Reg. 21. 29 Dan 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 27. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lament 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 32. 2. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concor l. Haebraic Pagnin Auenar t Dan. 4. 22. 24. Daniell 4. Luc. 11. u Luk. 11. 41. D. B. P. Math. 3. Luc. 3. x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y Act. â—6 20. z Ephes. 4. 1. Hom. 10. in Math. Hom. 10. in Euang. In Psal 4. a Chrysost. ad Math hom 10 b Psal 37. c Chrysost. ad Math. hom 11. d Beda ad Psalm 4. ad Math. 3. ad Luc. 3. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Beda vbi supra f Lyea at Matt. 3. g Math. 11 28 Ioan. 6. 35 2. Co. 7. 10. It this he whom you so commended in the beginning The text speaketh not of appeasing Gods vvrath h Glossa Interlin ad 2. Cor. 7. 11. i Lyra ad 2. Cor. 7. k Aliena potissimum m Glossa Ordin ad 2. Cor. 7. 11. n Incontaminatos o Caretan ad 2. Cor 7. p Chrysostom Theophylact. Hieronymab Psal. 49. This of satisfying is quite beside the text a. Paral. 33. Of prayer fasting and alms-giuing See 12. Art par 2. art 2. C. * Such as your Aue-maries Hudled vp Math. 18. It is one thing to say fasting pleaseth God another to say it satisfieth for sinne Math. 6. q Luk. 7. 31. 32. 33. r Math. 6. 18. D. B. P. That is for you trauailers And already ansvvered Serm. de opere eleenios s Prou. 15. 27. t Interlin bibl Arias Mont. Chald. paraphr Vatablus u Tobi. 4. 11. VVhom may it serue No reasonable man Rom. 12. 1. 1. Epist. 2. Pardon 700. yeares Horae Virginis Mariae ad vsum Sarisburiensis Ecclesiae Fol. 42. a. Yeares 11000. Fol. 38. b. Yeares 500. Lents 500. Fol. 45. a. Daies 300. toties quoties Fol. 50. b. Deliuer 15. souls of Purgatory Conuert 15. finners Confirme 15. righteous Fol. 54 a. Yeares 32755. * Caused his pardon to be bulled Fol. 58. a. Daies 3000. for deadly sinnes Yeares 10000. Fol. 60. a. Cleane remission of all their sias perpetually enduring Daies 5465. The number vvounds that vvere in our Lords body in the time of his Passion Fol. 66. a. Yeares 1000000. Fol. 72. a. * Yet Purgatorie is to last no longer then the vvorld Hovv many of his auncients can you alledge x Tertull de poenit cap. 6. But worse for errors Hom. 3. in lib. Indic y Origen hom 3. ad Iudic. * Cyprian Epist. 10. §. 1. z Salutis Cyprian Fp. 10. §. 2. D. B. P. Lib. 1. Epist. Lib. 3. Ep. 14. Orat. in illa verba attende Libi Idem Am. â—d virg lap cap. 8 a Basil. in illa verba attende tibi Orat. in sanct lum Idem de paup amor b Nazianzen â—ratione 39. in sancta lumina c Nazianzen de pauper amore De Helia ieiun d Ambros. de Elia ieiunio cap. 20. e Prou. 13. 8. D. B. P. Epist. 82. f Ambros. Epist. 82. Ad Eustoch de obitu Paulae g Hieron ad Eustoch de obitu Paulae h Hieron ad Eustoch de virginit Epist. 54. i Aug. Epist. 54. ad Macedon D. R 〈◊〉 Lib. 〈◊〉 hom Hoâ—… 50. cap. 1â— k Aug lib. hom 5. homil 50. cap. xi Cap. 15. l Aug hom 50 cap. 15. m Psal. 51. 17. D. B. P. Li. 6. in 1. Reg. n Gregor lib. 6. cap. 15. in 1. Reg. In Psal. 1. o Beda in Psalm 1. p Pulsu grauitate r Idolatrie of the later times * De haeres ad Quod. lib. 14. s In praefat de haeres b. t Regulari definitione u Col. 2. And yet afterward you bring this very decree to proue that the Apostle Paul alleaged Tradition end rested not on 〈◊〉 Scripture O eloquence So doe we to all knovvne to be the Apostles â—ou confesse afterward that the Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith x Deut. 4. 2. y Marc. 7. 5. 13. z Thomas 3. q. 60. art 8. ad primum a Chrysost. ad Mat. hom 52. b Math. 15. 9. c Caietan ad Deut. 4. 2. A. W d 2. Pet. * Ioh. 20. 31. e I yea ad Ioa 20. 34. f In opere doctrina g Glossa Ordin ibi h Lyra. ibi i Tractat. 49. in Ioan. k Lyra ibi l Epilogo m Hugo ibi n Cyrill in Ioa. lib. 12. cap. 68. * Ioh. 16. o Ioh. 16. 12. p Tract 96. iâ— Ioan. q Glossa Interlin ibi r Aug. Tract 97. in Ioan. s Iohn 15. 15. t Iohn 14. 26. u Ioan. 2. 22. x Iansen ad Ioan. 16. y 1. Cor. 3. 1. z Didymus apud Tho. in caten ad Ioa. 16. a Omnia verborum consecuti * Gal. 1. 8. * 1. Tim. 1. 3. You giue more to the Gospell in this place then before to all the Scripture * 1. Cor. 3. 12. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Praeterquam quod d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Interlin Bib. praeter quod f Gal. 5. 1. 2. 3. g 1. Tim. 1. 3. h Bellarm. de verbo Dei non script lib. 4.
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