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.
they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings And so this maketh more against you then for you approouing the lavvfull officers of Rome to be Christs Ministers The second plaâ—e is alleadged out of him yet more impertinently your selfe confessing presently that those vvords vvere not spoken of the Pope but of his enemy The reason yet there set dovvne pleaseth you exceedingly vvhich you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you for you inferre that the Pope and all others since that time be vsurpers out of this reason of S. Bâ—â—nard Because forsooth that the Antipope called Innocentius vvas chosen by the King of Almaine France England c and their vvhole Clergie and people For if fnnocentius vvere an Antichrist and vsurper because he vvas elected by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope This your vvords declare but your meaning as I take it is quite contrary But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter if need require It sufficieth for this present that you finde no reliefe at all in S. Bernard touching the maine point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might meruaile if out of so sweet a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope any such poison might be sucked specially weighing wel what he hath written vnto one of them to whom he speaketh thus Goe to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time VVho art thou A great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignitie Aaron in authoritie Moses in povver Peter thou art he to vvhom the Keyes were deliuered to vvhom the sheepe vvere committed There are indeede also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flockes allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleere opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certaine blind places and broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but very Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicolas as he citeth it that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some 30. or 40. Bishops at once but of the matter of election else where M. Perkins hauing lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholike Authour flieth to a late hereâ—â—ke called Ioachim and quoteth Iewell for relator of it A worshipfull testimony of one heretike and that vpon the report of an other and he the most lying Authour of these daies As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easilie be answered but because he quoteth no place I will not stand to answere it But to close vp this first combat a sentence is set downe out of the famous Martyr Ireneus that Antichrist should be Lateinos a Roman Here be as many faults as words That learned auncient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name out of these words of the Reuel the number of the beast is 666. And obseruing the letters of the Greeke Alphabet by which they doe number as wee doe by ciphers saith that among others the word Lateinos doth containe those letters which amount iust to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might be Lateinos but more likely it is to be Teitan as he saith there lastly that it is most vncertaine what his name shall be See the place gentle reader and learne to beware of such deceitefull merchants as make no conscience to corrupt the best Authours and being often warned of it will neuer learne to amend Jreneus leaueth it most doubtfull what shall be Antichrists name And among diuers words esteemeth Lateinos to be the vnlikeliest And yet M. Perkins reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall be Lateinos and then to make vp the matter turneth Lateinos a proper name with S. Ireneus into Romane an appellatiue which noteth onely his country Fie vpon that cause which cannot be vpholden and maintained but by a number of such paltrie shirtes Thus come we at length to the end of M. Perkins proofes and reproofes in his prologue where we finding litle fidelitie in his allegations of the Fathers badde construction and foule ouersight in the text of holy Scripture briefely great malice but slender force against the Church of Rome we are to returne the words of his theame to all good Christians Goe out of her my people Forsake the enemies of the Romane Church And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours who drew out her most pure blood so let vs file in matters of faith and Religion from all heretakes that of late also spared not to shedde abundance of the same most innocent blood vnlesse to your greater condemnation you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes and receiue of her plagues speaker A. W. They were the Ministers of Christ by their profession as the Pope calls himselfe the seruant of seruants though both he is in truth Antichrist and they his ministers M. Perkins reason out of Bernard lyeth thus He that gets into Peters chaire without the consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Christendome is the beast spoken of in the Apocalypse But all the Popes from that schisme hitherto haue so gotten into Peters chaire viz. with consent of the Cardinals onely Therefore all the Popes since that schisme are the beast in the Apocalypse The proposition is Bernards in effect though notin words for he pronounces the Pope to be the Beast in the Reuelation because he was not chosen by consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Almaine France England c. And this Master Perkins sets downe very plaine at these words And thus Bernard c. How wide then are you from his meaning who make the quite contrarie collection in his name For if Innocentius say you were Antichrist and an vsurper because he was chosen by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chisen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope He concludes out of Bernard that he was Antichrist because he was not chosen by the Kings Clergie and people but onely by the Cardinals you that he was true Pope because he was not chosen by the Kings and but onely by the Cardinals The reason out of Bernard you answere not but shift off the matter with alleaging
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
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
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
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
may open and shut heauen to whom he will and bind the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ. speaker D. B. P. But to leaue to you the reconciliation of these places let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox That the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ which you goe about to proue by foure instances The first is because the seruant of his seruants may chaunge and adde to his commandements hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whom he will and biâ—de the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker oâ— the spirituall kâ—ngdome of Christ. Here are diuerse reasons huâ—â—â—d vp in one but all of 〈◊〉 moment for all these seuerall faculties which the Pope enioyeth being receiued by the free gift of Christ and to be employed in his seruice only and to his honour and glorie are so farre off from making Christ a Pseudochrist that they doe highly recommend his most singular bountie towardes his followers without any derogation to his owne diuine prerogatiues â—he particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter Now I say in a word that Christs Vicar cannot change any one of Gods commaundements nor adde any contrarie vnto them but may well enact and establish some other conformable vnto them which doe bind in conscience for that power is graunted of God to euery soueraigne gouernour as witnesseth S. Paul saying Let euery soule be subiect to higher povvers And that as it is in the fifth verse following of necessitie not only for vvrath but also for conscience sake So that to at tribute power vnto one that is vnder Christ to binde our consciences is not to make Christ a Pseudochrist but to glorifie him much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to giue vnto men In like manner what an absurde illation is that from the power to open and shut heauen gates which all both Catholikes and Protestants confesse to haue been giuen to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to inferre that Christ is made a Pseudochrist as who should say the Master spoiled himselfe of his supreame authoritie by appoynting a stevvard ouer his householde or a porter at his gates he must be both Master and Man too belike And thus much of the first instance speaker A. W. First you begge the question in taking it as granted that the Popes power is receiued of Christ. Secondly it doth not follow that Christ is not made a Pseudochrist if the power be receiued of Christ to be imployed in his seruice only For it may be imployed by the Pope to another end than it is giuen by Christ. As an armie committed to a Generall by his Soueraigne may bee turned against the Prince to his ouerthrow He that can dispense with Gods commandements so that either a man shall be freed from doing that which is inioyned or haue libertie to doe that which is forbidden can change Gods commandements But such dispensations haue been giuen by Popes and may as well be still In all things inioyned by the commandements of God the law of the Magistrate bindes men in conscience to obedience by vertue of the matter commanded In things indifferent the conscience is not alwaies charged with sinne where that which is appointed is not done but you Papists as it appeares by your Catechismes make the Commandements of the Church equall or superiour to Gods commandements The opening and shutting of heauen by the worke of the Ministerie which is the power that was giuen to the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospell is not to be executed at their pleasure but depends vpon the people as much as vpon them if not more For whosoeuer will repent and beleeue shall be saued though all the Popes Priests and Ministers that euer were are and shall be would shut him out of heauen Therefore the Pope hath no authoritie nor power to open the doore to one man more than to another much lesse to let in and shut out whom he list He must open it if he be a Minister of the Gospell as much as lies in him to al if they wil enter they may without any further leaue or power from him speaker W. P. Againe they call him a Sauiour but yet in Vs in that he giues this grace vnto vs that by our merits we may partake in the merits of the Saints speaker D. B. P. Come we now to the second it is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I meruaile in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merite and so become our owne Sauiours This is a phrase vnheard of among Catholiks that any man is his owne Sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we applie vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good works as the Protestants auouâ—h they doe by faith onely In which sence the Apostle S. Paul saith to his deare Disciple Timothie For this doing thou shalt saue both thyselfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiour infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith only good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be proued hereafter more at large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may steede them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God saith that for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shew mercy vnto thousands as is expressely said in the end of the first commandement speaker A. W. Christ is a sauiour of vs by redeeming vs not a sauiour in vs by making vs redeeme our selues Though the speech be not yours the matter is For if Christ be therefore a Sauiour because by his merits we are saued looke how much wee merit our saluation so much wee are sauiours of our selues yea how much merit there is in our workes so much there wanted in Christs satisfaction or else our saluation is in part twice merited The Minister saues not by meriting but by preaching the word of saluation works must needs diminish Christs glorie more than faith because this saues not by meriting they doe the matter cannot be deduced from such places The mercie God shewes in that respect is either for the blessings of this life or at the most for the outward meanes of saluation speaker W. P. And they acknowledge that he died and suffered
Heretikes would flie to reuelations and thereby defend their errors they might be said not to do against this rule of Tertullian Yea if traditions were of force to prooue they might easily answere Tertullian in this case that it skilled not though they could not maintaine their opinions by Scripture as long as traditions perhaps might make for them But Tertullian condemnes their errors because they cannot be auowed by the Scripture making that the onely triall speaker W. P. Againe We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquisition after the Gospell When we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing beside for this we first beleeue that there is nothing more which we may beleeue speaker D. B. P. By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not only the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we only beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giuesuch credit as their writings do deserue speaker A. W. By the Gospell the doctrine of saluation by Christ is vnderstood which is no lesse plainly and fully deliuered in the other writings of the new Testament than in those foure bookes which we call by that particular name But that traditions should be commended vnder the title of the Gospell it is neither true nor likely You must shew some place of this author or of some other about his time to giue credit to your interpretation But it is apparant you answered at aduenture not knowing where it is to be found in Tertullian speaker D. B. P. If any man desire to see Tertullians iudgement of Traditions let him read his book of prescriptions against Heretikes where he auerreth that Traditions serue better than the Scriptures themselues to confute all Heresies Heretikes alwaies either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures speaker A. W. He that hath to doe with such Heretikes as Tertullians aduersaries then were and you Papists in part now are must of necessitie haue recourse to the iudgement of the Church For what other meanes can be vsed against them that denie the sufficiencie of the Scripture Therefore Tertullian and Irenaeus too who had to deale with the same kinde of men labours to beate them with their owne weapons and yet bring not in any new doctrine beside the Scripture but maintaine the doctrine of the Scripture against them that condemne the Scripture by the testimonies of learned men custome of the Church but he saith nothing of giuing like authoritie to the traditions and written word Beside here is no speech of doctrine but only of obseruing certaine outward ceremonies not necessarie to saluation speaker W. P. Augustine booke 2. cap. 9. de doct Christ. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well speaker D. B. P. All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties vvhich the more learned must expresly beleeue if they vvill be saued vvhich distinction S. Augustine else-vvhere doth signifie speaker A. W. The question is only of such points as are necessarie to saluation which are all one to the learned and vnlearned vnlesse there be diuers meanes of saluation for them True it is that a Minister ought to haue more knowledge then an ordinarie Christian and that the neglect of laboring for it is damnable to him as all sinne is damnable but that which is necessarie to saluation is equallie necessarie for all men neither doth Austen allow any such distinction but refutes it rather in that verie place for he saith that all that feare God do seeke the will of God in the Canonicall scripture but the words alleaged are most plaine All those points that containe faith and manners of liuing well that is hope and charitie Now what is necessarie for any man to saluation that is not comprized in one of these speaker D. B. P. And is gathered out of many other places of his vvorkes as in that matter of rebaptizing them vvho became Catholikes after they had bin baptized by Heretikes He saith The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their vvritings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall Tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall church holdeth and therfore are to be beleeued speaker A. W. In that place Austen makes no mention of any such difference betwixt the learned and vnlearned to saluation but teacheth directlie contrary to your doctrine in both points For the hard matters you speake of thus saith Austin when we dispute of darke matters where the certain and cleere instructions of the holy Scriptures do not help vs a mans presumption must restraine it selfe and not incline to either side This is Austens iudgement he leades vs not in these cases to traditions as you do Now for the other point he addes presently after that if the knowledge of hard questions could not be wanted without losse of saluation there would be some cleere authoritie of Scripture to instruct vs in them so far was Austen from seeking to any traditions as necessarie to saluation This testimonie is falsely alleaged by you in the later part of it which is thus in Austin and therefore are to be beleeued to haue bin enioyned by the Apostles You put the matter indefinitly are to be beleeued that so they may be thought necessarie to saluation of which there is not a word in this place of Austen speaker D. B. P. The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing Infants And in his Epist. 174. of the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he vve neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * And S. Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not vvritten in the vvord speaker A. W. Of the custome of baptising infants Austin saith that it is not to be despised nor by any meanes to be thought superfluous and that it were not at all to be beleeued vnlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition where he speakes not of any doctrine necessary to saluation but of the Churches practise and that indeede in a case grounded on the Scripture We speake of doctrine not of words as Austin doth in those places The matter which is signified by those words that Christ is of the same substance with his father
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
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
for this fable writ 800. yeeres after Christ and setteth it downe but as a report as you might haue seene if you had looked in him which by the wrong quotation it should seeme you did not Eusebius who writ the Ecclesiasticall historie 400. yeeres before Damascen and set downe that matter out of the record of Abgarus owne countrey hath not one word of any such Image Yea in his epistle to the Empresse Constantine Augusta who writ to him for an image of Christ he sheweth that her desire is not warrantable and discourses that matter at large Euagrius another of your authors about sixe hundred yeeres after Christ telleth such a storie as you mention not vpō his own but Procopius credit who liued in the same age with him and writ that miracle by the report of I know not what old men It is enough to discredit it that Eusebius maketh no mentiō of any such Image though he writ the historie of that matter betwixt our Sauiour and Abgarus at large and that as I said before out of the records of Edessa where Abgarus ruled If these former authors cannot procure credit to that storie what should Simeon Metaphrastes doe who came some hundreds of yeeres after Procopius and Euagrius But of this and like miracles if they were indeed wrought we heard Biels iudgment before speaker D. B. P. The third Image representing our blessed Sauiour is said to haue bin made by Nicodemus his secret Disciple vvhich aftervvard vvas taken by the Ievves and in despight of Christ vvas crucified and to their confusion much blood issued out of it This history is in the ◅orke of S. Athanasius that sound piller of the Church intituled De passione imaginis and is either his or some other very auncient and graue vvriters For it is related in the seauenth generall councell Act. 4. speaker A. W. There is no likelihood that Athanasius would record any such storie his other writings are so directly against all Idolatrie But which of the two copies will ye ascribe to Athanasius For hee that reades them aduisedly will rather take them for two seuerall mens doings than thinke either of them to be written by Athanasius And therefore Nanius a great Doctor of Louaine makes no bones to place it amongst those writings which are none of Athanasiuses neither indeed was it euer knowne till that idolatrous second Councill of Nice eight hundred yeeres after Christ very neere Yea the storie it selfe seemes to haue bin yonger than Athanasius almost foure hundred yeeres For Sigibort affirmes it happened in the yeere 775 the historie of Lombardie in the yeere 750. speaker A. W. That S. Luke the Euangell drew the Picture of our blessed Ladie is registred by Theodorus Lector 1000. yeeres ago and Metaphrasies In vita Lucae and Nicephorus Those fragments of Theodorus gathering deserue no such credit that a thing done more than fiue hundred yeres before he was borne and recorded by none of his ancients that are knowne should vpon his bare word be held for true But let vs grant as much as you desire that S. Luke drew the Virgin Maries counterfeit What of that will it follow that therefore it is fit or lawfull to make Images now in this certaine daunger of Idolatrie when no man knowes any more of the Virgins fauour and feature than he doth of our great Grandmother Euahs It should seeme Nicephorus did not giue any great credit to the storie though Theodorus had written it long before him For he brings it in with a suspitious preface It is said And I marueile if you reade it in Nicephorus your selfe that you adde not the rest of his report in that place of the Euangelist Lukes picturing our Sauiour also and the chiefe of his Apostles Simeon Metaphrastes is too young to witnesse a matter done so many yeeres before his birth speaker D. B. P. Tertullian an author of the second hundreth yeere after Christ hath left writen that the Image of Christ in shape of a shepheard carrying a sheep on his shoulders was ingrauen vpon the holy Chalices vsed in the Church speaker A. W. Tertullian hath left this written that the image of a Shepheard carrying a sheepe was engrauen vpon the Cups or Chalices but he neuer giues any signification of the holinesse of those Cups nor approbation of the picture further than to make them serue his purpose to shew that by the sheep all kind of men are signified as well Heathen as Christians And surely he that reades his booke of Idolatrie and considers that hee makes Idols and Images all one for their nature will not thinke him any fauourer of Images speaker D. B. P. In the time of S. Chrysostom they were so common that they were carried in rings drawen on cups painted in Chambers See Theodoret. Jn histor relig in vita Simeonis Stelitae Aug. lib. 2. de cons. Euang. cap. 10. And the 7. Synod Act. 4. This briefly of Images in generall Now a word or two of the signe of the Crosse which our Protestants haue banished from all their followers Neuerthelesse it cannot be denied to haue been in most frequent vse among the best Christians of the Primitiue Church speaker A. W. We also as they had in Chrysostomes time and in all times and places where the Art of grauing and painting was vsed haue Images in Rings Cups Chambers But what Images or to what purpose you neither tell vs what they were nor quote the place that wee may looke and examine the matter Theodoret speakes not of Images in Rings Cups or Chambers but onely tels of a report that the people of Rome did set vp little Images of Simeon in all their shopdoores and walking places or galleries But Artificers are no fit iudges in such controuersies and yet it is but a report that they did so Austin iesting at them who say that our Sauiour Christ writ certaine books to his Apostles Peter and Paul wherein the art whereby he wrought his miracles was contained I belecue saith he they hit vpon these two Apostles as the men to whom he writ because they had seene him and them in many places painted together But what approbation giues he to the vse of these pictures So saith he they deserue to erre that seeke Christ and his Apostles not in the holy books but vpon painted walles As for that idolatrous Synod it is ridiculous to vrge the authoritie of that against vs when you know wee wholy disclaime it and pleade against it from the Councill of Franckford and the book of Charlemaigne the Emperour in both which it was refuted and condemned If you bring no better proofe for the Crosse in particular than you haue for mages in generall I doubt me the Protestants will not repeale the act of banishment made against it whatsoeuer you talke of the most frequent vse thereof
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
them he must needs be furiously transported with blind zeale that makes warre against Crosses and burnes holy Pictures as of late the Superintendent of Hereford did in the market place openly Here is not one sufficient testimonie as I haue shewed to prooue that euer there were any such Images as you speake of then what miracles could be wrought for the countenancing of our Sauiour by them It is an honour indeed to haue Images erected in memorie of the deceased but not for him that is God neither is it a religious honour but a ciuill proceeding not from our deuotion but from our loue whatsoeuer the ground of our loue be in respect of them whom we so honour How slight and vaine a motion to the imitation of any mans vertues the sight of his Image is let all experience testifie which indeed can bring no more but the remembrance of it at the most But suppose there were some more force in it all the helps that can be imagined likely to come by it will not counteruaile the danger of Idolatrie and so the breach of Gods commandement in erecting them for any vse of Religion whereupon Idolatrie will most certainly ensue That fable of I cannot tell what woman moued to some ciuill outward carriage by the beholding of Polemons Image seemes to haue been deuised out of the Heathen historie of another Polemon who was brought to the like ciuill vertue by hearing the Philosopher Xenocrates discourse of continencie and temperancie a farre more likely matter whether it be true or false But what haue we to doe with that lying Conuenticle which tels vs of such a thing out of Athanasius as was written if they say true some foure hundred yeeres before and neuer heard of vntill that time when there was such speciall need of it No no that dealing of that Councill is too well knowne to purchase any credit with mē that will not wilfully be blinded In the like sort they deale with Basil Cyril Ambrose Chrysostome Gregorie and the Apostles themselues whose decrees they fetch out of a counterfeit Synod at Antioch The difference speaker W. P. Our dissent from them touching images stands in three points I. The Church of Rome holds it lawfull for them to make images to resemble God though not in respect of his diuine nature yet in respect of some properties and actions Wee on the contrarie hold it vnlawfull for vs to make any image any way to represent the true God or to make an image of any thing in way of religion to worship God much lesse the creature thereby For the second commandement saith plainely Exod. 20. 4. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image or the likenesse of any thing in heauen c. The Papists say the commaundement is meant of the images of false gods But will they nill they it must be vnderstood of the images of the true Iehouah and it forbids vs to resemble God either in his nature properties or works or to vse any resemblance of him for any sacred vse as to help the memorie when we are about to worship God Thus much the holy Ghost who is the best expoūder of himself teacheth most plainly Deut. 4. 15. 16. Thou sawest no image at al either of false or true god and therefore thou shalt not make any likenes of anything And againe the Prophet Esay c. 40. 18. reprouing idolaters asketh to whom they will liken God or what similitude will they set vp to him And vers 21. Know ye nothing haue ye not heard hath it not bin told you from the beginning as if he should say haue yee forgotten the second commaundement that God gaue vnto your fathers And thus he flatly reprooues all them that resemble the true God in images speaker D. B. P. This passeth all kind of impudencie to quote the Roman Catechisme in defence of that opinion which it doth of set purpose disproue It teacheth indeed that the very nature and substance of God which is wholy spirituall cannot be expressed and figured by corporall lineaments and colours and all edgeth the places produced by M. Perkins to proue that vnlawfull yet by and by annexeth these words Let no man therefore thinke it to be against religion and the Law of God vvhen any person of the most holy Trinities is pourtraied in such sort as they haue appeared either in the Old or Nevv Testament c. But let the Pastor teach that not the nature of God but certaine properties and actions appertaining to God are represented in such Pictures If the man be not past grace he wil surely blush at such a foule error His textes of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechisme and do proue only that Gods proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporall shape or liknes speaker A. W. If you would haue dealt as kindly with Master Perkins in this quotation as I haue dealt with you in many you might haue applied it to the former part that the commandement is meant of the Images of the true Iehouah which your Catechisme grants though onely so farre as concernes the expressing of his forme by an Image as your selfe also confesse And the Councill of Trent affirmes that to be vn being al one in the coueting of wife and coueting of house seruant maide oxe asse and whatsoeuer els as the Apostle expresseth it without mētioning any particular But the two first differ almost as much as may be The first forbidding the worship of any other God but the true the second prohibiting the worshipping of him by an Image or Idoll The last reason which only your Catechisme brings beside Austins authoritie and custome of your Church is insufficient also For it was very fit that God should adde that reason of promise and threatning to that rather than any of the rest because hee had speciall care of that and knew that the Iewes and all men generally were likely to worship him after their owne deuices and namely by Images Beside is not the reason annexed to the third Commandement as generall that God will not hold him guiltlesse which breakes any of his lawes why then doe you not make that also a part of the first Commandement speaker W. P. And the distinction they make that an Image is the representation of true things an Idol of things supposed is false speaker D. B. P. But Master Perkins goeth on and saith that our distinction betweene Image and Idoll that an Image representeth a thing that is but Idoll a thing supposed to be but is not is false and against the auncient writers vvho make it all one We proue the contrary First by the authority of the auncient Doctors Origen and Theodoret vvho in expresse vvords deliuer the same difference of Image and Idoll vvhich is taken out of S. Paul laying that an Idoll is nothing in the vvorld that is such Idols as the Heathen take for