your Maiesties recorded in the aforesaid Conference speaker A. W. I doubt not but if those learned treatises you bragge of be come to his Maiesties hands either they haue had or shal ere long receiue sufficient answere In the meane while let vs consider these your reasons speaker D. B. P. And because that argument is as most sensible so best assured which proceedeth from a principle that is either euident in it selfe or else granted and confessed for true My first proofe shall be grounded vpon that your Maiesties owne resolute and constant opinion as it appeareth in the said Conference to wit That no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the Church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremonie then she hath departed from her selfe vvhen she vvas in her flourishing and best estate From whence I deduce this reason The principall Pillers of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in all poynts of Religion the same Doctrine that she now holdeth and teacheth and in expresse tearmes condemneth for error and heresie most of those Articles which the Protestants esteeme to be the principall parts of their reformed Gospell Therefore if your Maiestie will resolutely imbrace and constantly defend that doctrine which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate you must forsake the Protestant and take the Catholike into your Princely protection speaker A. W. The most flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome is that out of question of the sinceritie whereof wee haue witnes in the Scripture from which no Church ought or may depart not because they may not dissent from the Church of Rome but because they must hold the true faith for which the Apostle commends the Church of Rome that then was The antecedent of your reason is false The Church of Rome in the Apostles time did not teach many of those points that the Popish Romish Church now holds witnes the Epistle to the Romanes wherein diuers maine matters of her faith are recorded speaker D. B. P. To demonstrate vnto your Maiestie that we now hold in all poynts the very same Doctrine which the most approoued auncient Doctors and holy Fathers held and deliuered Because it is too long for an Epistle I reserue it to the booke it selfe for the poynts it handleth and will here briefly note out of it some such old reprooued errors that the Protestants doe reuiue receiue and auowe as the very sinnewes of their Gospell speaker A. W. The most approued ancient Doctors holy fathers were the Apostles with whom how you shew your agreement in the points this booke handles wee shall see in the particulars All other writers haue those properties in a farre inferiour degree from among whom if I would deale strictly with you I might pick the Fathers of the Greeke Churches and all those of the Latin that were not members of the Romane as it was a distinct Church from all other For so is the Romane Church conceiued and spoken of by his Maiestie But I will not presse you so hard though I may chance to put you in minde of it now and then All points that haue been reprooued by some of the ancient writers are not errors and many times the same words haue not the same meaning speaker D. B. P. Martin Luther the ring-leader of the new pretended reformation layeth for the ground-worke of his Religion That man is iustified by only saith and in this he is applauded and followed of all Protestants and yet as testifieth the most sound witnes of antiquitie S. Austin that only faith is sufficient to Saluation was an error sprung vp in the Apostles dayes against which the Catholike Epistles of S. Peter and S. Iames and S. Iohn were principally directed And the author of that error was that infamous Sorcerer Simon Magus as the blessed Martyr Ireneus hath recorded in his first booke against heresies speaker A. W. For the doctrine of iustification by faith onely I referre the reader to the article of iustification That we are vnlike the heretikes of whom S. Augustine speakes it may thus apâ—… The faith they so magnified was a dead faith The Apostle 〈◊〉 Austin in refutation of them speaks not of euery kind â—… by which we beleeue in God but of that wholesome and truly â—…angelicall faith the workes whereof proceede from loue And againe How long therefore will they be deceiued that promise themselues euerlasting life by a dead faith Besides they despised good workes as needles either before or after iustification They thought saith Augustine that Paul wild vs to doe euill that good might come of it But it was not the Apostles meaning saith he that by the professing and inioyning of faith good workes of righteousnes should be despised But that euery man might know that he may be iustified though he haue not done the workes of the Law before For they follow him that is iustified not goe before him that is to be iustified Yea Simon the Sorcerer doubted not blasphemously to affirme that the commandements of holy life were giuen by the Angels that made the world who thereby brought men into slaâ—â—rie Of whom Theodâ—ret saith that because men are saued by grace and faith therefore he gaue by all meanes 〈◊〉 to commit wickednes speaker A. W. An other principall piller of Fryer Luthers Religion conâ—… niall of free will wherein he iumpeth with the olde rotten 〈…〉 Manes of whom the Maniâ—d cans were named Manes so denied free will that he tooke away all assent of the will in mens daily sinnes making the necessitie of sinning naturall from the creation as proceeding from the euill god or beginning which he blasphemously and absurdly deuised He saith Augustine made two diuers beginnings each contrary to other and both eternall And from these two natures and substances of good and euill so that he ascribed the beginning of sinne not to the freedome of will but to the substance of the aduerse faction Yea so faire proceeded the Manichees that they affirmed saith the same Augustine that euery liuing creature had two soules one from light another from darknes Manes brought in fatall necessitie saith Socrates and tooke away free will We contrariwise acknowledge that there is but one God or author of all things created that he made vs in our kinde perfectly good That sinne came in first by freedome of will both in men and Angels and that by free will without any necessitie of constraint it is daily committed It appeares further to our comfort in that place of S. Hierome that the Catholikes or true Christians in his time were in like sort charged by the Pelagians with the Manichees error in denying free will because they would not confesse that a man may be without sinne if he will which is one point of difference betwixt vs and the Papists speaker D. B. P. One Proâ—lus an erronius
for vs but with this caueat that the Fault being pardoned we must satisfie for the temporall punishment either in this world or in Purgatorie speaker D. B. P. In like manner I answere vnto your third instance that for Christ to haue taken away by his blessed Passion the eternall paine due vnto our sinnes and to haue left a temporall to be satisfied by vs is not to make himselfe a false Christ but a most louing kind and withall a most prudent Redeemer Wiping away that by himselfe which passed our forces and reseruing that to vs which by the helpe of his grace we well may and ought to doe not only because it were vnseemely that the parts of the body should be disproportionable to the head but also because it is reasonable as the Apostle holdeth that we suffer here vvith Christ before vve raigne vvith him in his Kingdome speaker A. W. To leaue halfe of our punishment for vs to beare is to be but halfe a Sauiour and so a false Christ there is neither kindnes nor wisedome in it to leaue either our saluation doubtfull or punishment for vs perhaps of 1000. yeeres or more in Purgatorie That as Christ hath been afflicted so should we taste of affliction it is proportionable and reasonable That wee should bee like him in making satisfaction for our sinnes by punishment is to make vs redeemers with him though not in the highest degree speaker W. P. In a word they make him our Mediatour of Intercession vnto God but withall his Mother must be the Queene of Heauen and by the right of a Mother commaund him there Thus in word they crie Osanna but indeede they crucifie Christ. speaker D. B. P. In your last instance you say that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to God thinking out of your simplicity that therein we much magnifie him sing Osanna vnto him Whereas we hold it for no small disparagement vnto his diuine dignitie to make him our Intercessor that is to pray him to pray for vs who is of himselfe right able to helpe vs in all we can demaund being aswell God as Man And albeit one in thought singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuine nature and person might make it an intercessor for vs Yet that being but a Metaphysical conceipt to separate the nature from the person since the Arrian heresie which held Christ to be inferior to his Father it hath not been practised by Catholikes who alwaies pray our Sauiour Christ to haue mercy vpon vs neuer to pray for vs. And consequentlie make him no mediator of intercession but of redemption And to come to your grieuous complaint that vvithall his Mother must be Queene of heauen and by right of a mother commaund him there Who can sufficiently meruaile at their vnnaturall grosse pares who take it for a disgrace to the Sonne to aduaunce his owne good Mother or else who well in his wits considering Christs bountie to strangers and his enemies will not be perswaded that on his best beloued mother he did bestow his most speciall fauours For hauing taken flesh of her hauing suckt her breasts receiued his nutriture and education of her in his tender yeares and being aswell followed of her as of any other is it possible that he should not be as good to her as to others vnto whom he was not at all beholding Againe the very place of a mother requiring preheminence before all seruants and subiects of what dignitie soeuer doth not the right rule of reason lead vs to thinke that Christ the fountaine of all wisedome repleâ—â—shed the B. Virgin Mary his deare Mother with such grace as should make her fit for that place it lying in his hands and free choise to doe it And therefore is she truely tearmed of holy and learned Antiquity our Lady and Queene exalted aboue all quyers of Angels That which you impute vnto vs farther that she must in the right of a mother commaund her Sonne is no doctrine of the Romane Church nor said in all her seruice We say Shevv thy selfe to be a mother but it is not added by commaunding thy Sonne that is your glosse which is accursed because it corrupteth the text for it followeth in that place Sumat per te preces c. Present our prayers to him that vouchsafed to be borne of thee for vs. If any priuate person by meditation pearcing more profoundly into the mutuall loue and affection of such a Sonne towards so worthie a Mother doe deeme her prayers as forcible in kindnes as if they were commaundements and in that sense call them commaundements according to the French phrase Vos priers me sont des commandements that may be done without derogation to Christs supreame dignity and with high commendation of his tender affection vnto his reuerent and best beloued mother speaker A. W. We do not pray to Christ to pray for vs but we account his loue to vs and his graciousnes with God his Father to be such that whatsoeuer wee aske of God in his name by our owne prayers shall certainly be obtained as well as if all the Saints in heauen should intreate him for vs. And this is to make him our Mediatour of intercession not simply as he is maÌ„ but as he is the Aduocate betwixt God and man in which respect the Scripture saith that he makes request to God for vs whatsoeuer was true and lawfull before the Arian heresie is so still There was as much reason why he should make her head of the Church here on earth as that she should be Queene of the Church in heauen or Queene of heauen But whatsoeuer she may be once a Mediatrix she may not be for that is Christs office now in heauen Those hyperbolicall speeches of the ancients shew their zeale but maintaine not your error If those words Roga patrem iube natum iure matris impera Command in the right of a mother be not in any part of your Romish seruice yet these speeches are in one that is no meane man Incline the countenance of God toward vs compell him to haue mercie vpon sinners And why may she not compell if as you terme her she be Empresse and Ladie of the world If she be the finder out of grace if she constrained the vncreated word to take flesh of her because she was a most humble Ladis But will you haue the very word of commanding O our Empresse and Ladie most bountifull by the right of a mother commaund thy most beloued sonne that he vouchsafe to lift vp our mindes to heauenly desires from the loue of earthly things What doctrine is this and for what Churches seruice was not Bonauenture the author of all these speeches a Cardinall of your Romish Church your Seraphicall Doctor and which is most of all is he not a Saint canonized by your Pope that cannot erre Is
then admitting the purpel harlot to signifie the Roman state wee doe say that the state of Rome must bee taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it that is Pagan Idolatrous and a hot persecutor of Christians Such it had beene a little before vnder that bloodie Tyrant Nero and then was vnder Domitian which we confirme by the authoritie of them who expound this passage of the Roman state The commentary on the Apocalyps vnder Saint Ambrose name sayth the great where sometime doth signifie Rome specially vvhich at that time vvhen the Apostle vvrote this did persecute the Church of God but othervvise doth signifie the whole Citie of the Diuell And Saint Ierome who applieth the place to Rome affirmeth that she had before his dayes blotted out that blasphemie vvritten in her forhead because then the state was Christian which before had beene Heathen so that vnto the partie Pagan and not vnto the Church of God he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot which also the very text it selfe doth conuince for it hath That she vvas drunke vvith the blood of the Martâ—rs of Iesus Now the Church of Rome hath not then by the confession of all men drawne any blood of Christs Saints but in testimonie of his trueth had powred out abundance of her best blood Wherefore it is most manifest that the harlot could not signifie the Church of Rome so pure and free from slaughter but the Romane Empire vvhich vvas then full gorged vvith that most innocent and holy blood Againe that vvhoore is expounded To be a Citie vvhich had kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth But the Church of Rome had then no kingdome ouer the earth or any temporall dominion at all but the Romane Emperours had such soueraigne commaundement ouer many Kings vvherefore it must be vnderstood of them and not of the Church Novv to take Kingdome not properly for temporall soueraignty but for spirituall Iâ—…isdiction as some shifters doe is to she vvithout any vvarrant from the natiue signification of the vvord vnto phantasticall and voluntarie imagination And vvhereas M. Perkins saith that Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and cruelty against the Saints is all one vvith the heathâ—…sh Empire he both seeketh to deceiue and is greatly deceiued he vvould deceiue in that he doth applie vvords spoken of Rome aboue 1500. yeares agoe vnto Rome as it is at this day and yet if that were granted him he erreth foâ—â—e in euery one of his particulars For first touching princâ—â—e dominion the Romane Empire held then all Italy all Fraunce all Spayne all England a great part of Germanie of Asia and also of Afrike hauing their Proconsulles and other principall Officers in all those Countries drawing an hundred thousand millions in mony and many other commodities out of them Wherefore in princely dominion and magnificall state it surmounted Ecclesiasticall Rome which hath not temporall dominion ouer the one halfe of that one kingdome of Italy more then an hundred degrees And as for persecution the Empire slew and caused to be slaine more Saints of God in one yeare then the Church of Rome hath done of reprobates and obstinate heretikes in 1600. yeares Hauing thus proued that the whoore of Babilon signifieth the heathen state of Rome and not the Ecclesiasticall let vs now heare what you say against it Marry that the distinction of the Empire of Rome and Church of Rome is foolish and coyned of late to serue our turne which to be farre otherwise I proue out of those verie Authors who doe interpret that harlot to signifie Rome who are neither foolish nor of late daies you haue heard it before out of S. Ambrose commentaries And farther we gather it out of S. Hierome in the Epistle which you cite for he hauing resembled Rome vnto Babilon for the multitude of the wicked which yet remained in it pointeth out a more pure part saying There is in deede the holy Church there are the triumphant monuments of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the faith praised by the Apostle c. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome Againe Tertullian who liued in the second hundred yeare vnder those persecuting Emperours saith in one place that Babilon is a figure of Rome in respect of her proud Empire and persecution of the Saints And in an other that Rome was most happie for her holy Church vnto vvhich the Apostles vvith their blood had poured forth their vvhole doctrine see a plaine distinction betweene the Heathen Empire and the holie Church of Rome Which finallie may be gathered out of the expresse word of God VVhere the Church in Babilon coelect is distinguished from the rest of that citie which was Pagan You say but without any authour that Babilon there doth not signifie Rome but either a citie in Aegypt or Assyria But Eusebins lib. 2. hist. c. 14. and S. Jerom. de Eccles. script vers Marcus with other Authors more worthie of credit doe expound it of Rome And you your selues take Babilon so Rome where you thinke that any hold may be taken against it as in the 17. of the Reuel but in S. Peters Epistle they will none of it because it would proue too plainely that S. Peter had been at Rome speaker A. W. Master Perkins hauing prooued that by Babylon Rome is signified proceedes to answere two obiections First that the citie of Rome stands not now vpon seuen hils But it did in S. Iohns daies as his reason lies and at this day popish Churches or Monasteries are situated vpon them vnder the Popes authoritie Secondly that by the whore the companie of the wicked vnder their head the diuell is vnderstood But this the text will not beare the whore being opposed to the Kings of the earth and ruling ouer them vpon this foundation Master Perkins thus builds his reason Either Rome Heathenish or Rome Christian is the whore of Babylon But Rome Heathenish is not Therefore Rome Christian is This is plainly his reason and not that which you gather The proposition is euident because the state of Rome was neuer but either Heathenish or Christian. The assumption Master Perkins proues But I must be faine to leaue his course and to follow this reformers steps The state of Rome must be taken as it is the seate of Antichrist but it was not the seate of Antichrist in S. Iohns daies for Antichrist according to your doctrine is not yet come Againe it was no mysterie for heathenish Rome to be an Idolatrous and bloody persecutor of the Christians Thirdly the state that S. Iohn calles the harlot continues till the finall destruction spoken of by him and S. Paul but the estate of heathenish Rome was decayed long since Your proofe is insufficient for you alleage but two of many that make Rome Babylon who as they deserue
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
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
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
will doubtles in short time loath it As for example I hat it is as good and godly by eating to feede the bodie as to chastize it by fasting That it is as holy to fulfill the fleshly desires of it by Mariage as by Continencie to mortifie them yea that it is flat against the word of God to vow Virginitie And also contrarie to his blessed will to bestowe our goods on the poore and to giue our selues wholy to prayer and fasting All which this Aduocate of the English Congregation teacheth expressâ—e Is this the puritie of the Gospell Or is it not rather the high way to Epicurisme and to all worldly vanitie and iniquitie speaker A. W. To chastice the bodie by fasting wee hold it not only good but of tentimes necessary though we acknowledge neither merit nor satisfaction in it which accompanie your popish fasts Mortification of all kindes of lusts not only that one we account a necessarie part of sanctification neither doe wee allow mariage to fulfill the lust of the flesh but to remedie it vowing of virginitie we approoue not because a man cannot be sure that he shall keepe his vow alwaies though for a time he be able besides all lawfull vowes being things indifferent charitie must giue iudgement of excediencie in making thâ—n To make prayer and fasting our whole worke is to liue in the world without a calling To giue away our goods to the poore so to become chargeable to others is to tempt God and burthen the Church to doe it with opinion of merit is popish pride against Gods glorie speaker D. B. P. I neede not ioyne hereunto that they teach it to be impossible to keepe Gods Commaundements and therefore in vaine to goe about it And faâ—ther that the best worke of the righteous man is defiled with sinne Wherefore as good for him to leane all vndone as to doe any Nay if this position of theirs were true it would to low necessarilie that all men were bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doe any good deede to long as they liue for that their good deede being stayned with sinne cannot but deserue the hyre of sinne which according to the Apostle is Death euerlasting If your Maiesties important affaires would once permit you to consider maturely of these impieties and many other like absurdities wherewith the Protestant Doctrine is stuffed I dare be bold to say that you would speedely either commaund them to reforme themselues and amend their errors or fairely giue them their Congie speaker A. W. We say it is impossible to keepe Gods commandements perfectly to iustification but wee denie that therefore it is in vaine to goe about it Yea we truly affirme that we are bound to doe our best endeuour and shall haue acceptation and reward of our workes from God though not vpon any desert of ours That our best workes are tainted with imperfections we professe plainly That they are therefore to be left vndone neither we say nor you can prooue The imperfection that cleaues to them is by all good meanes to be auoyded but the workes to be performed for it is not the worke but the imperfection in it that is forbidden speaker D. B. P. I will close vp this my second reason with this Epiphoneme That it is impossible for a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his ovvne Religion to hope for any saluation For they doe and needes must graunt that no man can be saued without a liuely faith and also that a liuely faith cannot be without charitie for otherwise it were dead Now then to the purpose No Protestant can haue charitie for as witnesseth Saint Iohn This is the charitie of God that vve keepe his commaundements But it is impossible according to the Protestants to keepe the commandements therfore also impossible to haue charitie VVhich is the â—ulnes of the lavve and consequently impossible to haue a liuely faith which cannot be without charitie And so finally through want of that lâ—uely feeling faith whereby they should lay hold on Christs righteousnesse to hale and apply that vnto themselues they can haue no hope at all of any fauour and grace at Gods hands Without which they must needes assure themselues of eternall damnation in steede of their pretended certainâ—… of saluation speaker A. W. True charitie though not perfect may be had in this life and by it the commandements of God may bee and are kept though not perfectly so that a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his religion may yet hope for saluation speaker D. B. P. To these two arguments gathered out of the treatise following I adde a third collected from these your owne memorable wordes related in the aboue named conference viz. Are wee now come to that passe that we must appeache Constantine of Poperie and superstition Which argueth that your Maiestie iudgeth them to haue little regard of either piety or ciuility that would admit such a thought into their minde as that the first Christian Emperour our most renowned countriman should bee nousled and brought vp in superstition wherein your Maiestie hath great reason for he was most carefully instructed and taught the Christian Religion by such holy Confessors whose sinceritie in faith had bin tried in the hotte furnace of many strange persecutions And he farther had the good happe to see and heare together in the first generall Councell of Nice many of the holiest and best learned Bishops of Christendome Therefore is it most vnlikely that so Royall a Person deuoted to Religion add hauing so good meanes to attayne to the perfect knowledge thereof as no man could haue better should neuerthelesse in the purest time of it be mis-ledde into errour and superstition If then it may be prooued that this most Christian Emperour the glittering ornament of our noble Iland did beleeue such articles of the present Roman Church as the Protestants teach not to be beleeued Will not your Maiestie rather ioyne in faith with so peeâ—les a Prince who by the consent of all antiquitie was for certaine right well enformed then with these whome doubtles most men deeme to be pittifullie deceiued ' Now that Constantine was of the same opinion in matter of Religion with the present Church of Rome may euidently bee gathered out of this that followeth speaker A. W. He that denies Constantine to haue been a worthie a singular instrument of God for the good of his Church wrongs the worthie Emperour and sinnes against God But the triall of doctrine is to be fetched not from the opinions and examples of men though neuer so holie but from the Holie of Holies It may not seeme strange if superstition were crept into the Church before Constantines time when the Apostle witnesses that euen in his daies the mysterie of iniquitie was alreadie begun speaker D. B. P. First he was so affectionate vnto the signe of the Crosse that hee
day by day of these suites of eternall saluation we must take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken VVe must alvvaies pray and neuer be vveary And 〈◊〉 to doubt but vve shall in the end receiue it But because vve are in doubt whether we shall obserue those necessary circumstances of prayerer no therefore we cannot be so well assured to obtaine our suite although we be on Gods part must assured that he is most bâ—…ful and readier to giue then vve are to a â—e speaker A. W. I denie your consequence and answere to the proofe of it as before that our faith is not without some doubting and our feeling not so strong as it should and may be If that were the condition we could neuer looke to obtaine any thing of God for wee are sure that we neuer obserue all the circumstances required but we are out of all doubt that God will grant our requests in his good time if we make them in Christs name though we faile in circumstances and pray not euery day as we ought For the spirit we haue receiued will rouse vs vp from our deadnes and teach vs so to pray that we shall speede as it may be most for Gods glorie and our owne saluation speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins S. Iohn noteth out this particular faith calling it Our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his vvill But vvhere find vve that it is Gods vvill to assure euery man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall saluation is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauiour tovvards him speaker A. W. Where finde you that we hold any such opinion Nay we teach the contrarie that this assurance comes not at the first but by little and little as God sees it requisite according to the triall he hath appointed to make of vs. But because God hath commanded vs to labour for the perfection of al graces we are sure this must be intreated for and haue promise that it shall be granted as God seeth meete both for the time and the measure of it speaker D. B. P. The proposition is true yet commonly denied by all Protestants for God commaunds vs to keepe his commaundements and they hold that to be impossible but to the assumption That God commaunds vs to beleeue our saluation is proued saith M. Perkins by these vvords Repent and beleeue the Gospell Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici Where is it vvritten in that Gospell beleeue your ovvne particular saluation thevv vs once but one cleare text for it and vve vvill beleeue it I doe beleeue in Christ and hope to be saued through his mercy and merits but knovv vvell that vnlesse I keepe his words I am by him likened to a foole that built his house vpon the sanas He commands me to vvatch and pray least I fall into temptation and else vvhere vvaâ—neth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming or else I am most certaine to be shut out vvith the foolish Virgins An hundred such admonitions find vve in holy Scriptures to shake vs out of this security of our saluation and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie and dâ—…gent to traine our selues in godly exercises of all vertue speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath answered your obiection against his proposition that it is not a commandement of the Gospell but of the law Doe this and thou shalt liue His proofe is easilier laughed at than answered To beleeue saith he is particularly to acknowledge Christ to be my Sauiour that is to put my confidence in him for my saluation which I cannot doe vnlesse I be resolued of my reconciliation with him To this you answere not a word but barely alleage the first proofe and denie it All these things and such like our Sauiour commaunds and assures me that God will inable me to the performing of them because I rest vpon him for this grace in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Hope indeed of heauen makes a man most couragiously beare out all stormes of persecution and not to be ashamed of Christs Crosse but to professe his faith most boldly before the most bloody tyrants of the world our harts being by charity fortified and made inuincible And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place and saith before that the faithfull glory in the hope of the sonnes of God And doe not vaunt themselues of the certainty of their saluation This certainty of hope is great in those that haue long liued vertuously specially when they haue also endured manifold losses much disgrace great wrongs and iniuries for Christs sake for he that cannot faile of his word hath promised to requite all such with an hundred fold But what is this to the certainety of faith which the Protestants will haue euery man to be endued with at his first entrance into the seruice of God When as S. Paul inâ—…th that godly men paâ— takers of the holy Ghost yea after they haue tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come that is haue receiued besides faith great fauours of Gods spirit and felt as it were the ioyes of heauen haue after all this so fallen from God that there was small hope of their recouery speaker A. W. He that hopes for any thing and glories in that hope must needes be ashamed of his follie and presumption if he faile to obtaine it but the children of God hope for euerlasting life and glorie in this hope of theirs Now the Apostle saith they shall not be ashamed of this hope and therefore it must needes be that they shall haue euerlasting life This interpretation your owne glosse auowes Hope makes not a man blush because it is fulfilled and expounding that which followes of the loue of God it saith It is certaine it shall be fulfilled because we haue the spirit to pledge So doth Lyra also interpret that hope so Theodoret so Chrysostome so Theophylact c. And wherein I pray you differs this from the assurance of faith which wee teach and you condemne This growes euery day in the hearts of true beleeuers who neuer fall away though they are sometimes shaken Those that the Apostle speakes of neuer had true faith to iustification as I will prooue otherwhere The fourth poynt Touching the iustification of a sinner speaker W. P. That we may see how farre we are to agree with them and where to differ first I will set downe the doctrine on both parts and secondly the maine differences wherein we are to stand against them euen to death Our doctrine touching the iustification of a sinner I propound in foure rules Rule I. That iustification is an action of God whereby he absolueth a sinner and accepteth him to life
glosse expounds it and he is counted a perfect man but not simply without any spot in this patience speaker D. B. P. 2 King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there vvas no iniquity found in me It must needs then be granted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinnes and iniquitie And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you vvill beleeue it read then vvhere it is of record That Dauid did that vvhich vvas right in the sight of our Lord and not only in the sight of men and turned from nothing that he commaunded him all the daies of his life except only the matter of Vrias the Hethite speaker A. W. Dauid in that place doth not cleare himselfe of all sinne but only protesteth his innocency in respect of any hurt intended by him against Saul and the rest of his persecutors Dauid meaneth not saith Lyra to say that he is free from all sin but that he had committed no euill against Saul for which he should persecute him It was one thing for Dauids workes to be righteous in Gods sight an other thing for them to be perfect The former we graunt the later you can no way proue That commendation the holy Ghost giues to his works must needs be spoken in comparison as Lyra affirmeth because it is certaine he wronged Mephthosheth and numbred the people but these sins were not comparable to that against Vrâ—ah especially for the dishonouring of God by it in the account of the heathen This deed saith Nathan hath caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme speaker D. B. P. 3 The Apostle affirmeth That some men doe build vpon the only foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choyce members of Christs Catholike Church doe many perfect good vvorks such as being trâ—â—d in the fornace of Gods iudgement vvill suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherfore they must needs be pure and free from all drosse of sinne othervvise hauing been so proued in fire it vvould haue been found out speaker A. W. The Apostle doth not say so but this onely that if any man build on this foundation gold siluer precious stones timber hay or stubble euery mans worke shall be made manifest But put case he had said so he speaketh of doctrine built vpon the true foundation as the whole allegory proues especially vers 10. As a skilfull master builder I haue laid the foundation and an other builds vpon it now in good works one man layeth not the foundation and another buildeth vpon it but euery man begins and ends his owne worke himselfe Farther vers 9. The Ministers are said to be Gods labourers the people not euery mans worke Gods husbandrie and Gods building because he builds them vp by their labour This place is applied by you Papists to proue Purgatory euen by Bellarmine himself but with what successe let any man iudge that either reads our answeres to him or considers the text speaker D. B. P. 4 Many vvorkes of righteous men please God Make your bodies a quicke sacrifice holy and acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God And S. Paul calleth almes bestovved on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of svveet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected vvith sinne all vvhich he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his fight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sinne or as the Protestants speake not impure it to the person but to say that a sinful vvorke is of svveet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him vvere blasphemie vvherefore vve must needs confesse that such vvorks vvich so vvell pleased him vvere not defiled vvith any kind of sinne speaker A. W. Your Reason is thus framed No workes infected with sinne please God Many workes of righteous men please God Therefore many workes of righteous men are not infected with sinne I graunt your assumption though the proofe of it by the first testimony is insufficient for it doth not follow that we can do this or that because we are exhorted to the doing of it Your proposition I deny no sin can please God nor any action as it is sinfull but God both can and doth pardon the faultines of his childrens workes and accept the worke it selfe in Christ yea and reward it too with increase of glorie speaker D. B. P. Finally many vvorkes in holy vvrite be called good as That they may see your good works to be rich in good vvorks VVe are created in Christ Iesus to good vvorkes but they could not truly be called good vvorkes if they vvere infected vvith sin For according to the iudgement of all learned Diuines it can be no good vvorke that fayleth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it For Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore vve must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good vvhich vvere blasphemy or else acknovvledge that there be many good vvorkes free from all infection of sinne speaker A. W. No workes infected with sinne can be truly called good Many workes are called good in Scripture Therefore many workes are not infected with sinne Here is the same fault againe Your assumption is true but your proofe naught For the places you alleage proue no more but that the works which we should do are good not that they are good as we doe them Your proposition is false as the other was For the works enioyned by God are very good but they haue some allay and abasement by our doing of them which argueth not that they are not truely but that they are not perfectly good speaker D. B. P. In lieu of the manifold testimonies of Antiquitie which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellency of them I will set downe one passage of S. Augustine wherein this verie controuersie is distinctly declared and determined thus he beginneth The iustice through vvhich the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the vvhich although it be vvorthilie called in some men perfect according to the capacity of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater vvhich man made equall to Angels shall receiue VVhich heauenly iustice he that had not as yet saide himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that vvas in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that vvhich he vvanted But certainely this lesser iustice or righteousnes breedeth and bringeth forth merits and that greater is the revvard thereof VVherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that
of men when they are wronged All these we maintain as necessary for neither Church nor common-wealth can well bee without them considering they are notable meanes to vphold ciuill peace and otherwhiles they are fruits of true faith as the satisfaction of Zacheus was speaker A. W. This is wittily acknowledged by him but little exercised among Pro testants for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting there men vse very seldome to recompence so much as onefold for their extorsion bribes vsury and other craftie ouer-reaching of their neighbours Whatsoeuer our practice be and yet if it did not exceed yours we had good cause to be ashamed of it the question is now of our doctrine which Master Perkins hath truly deliuered As for the helpe you would haue imagined to come from Auricular confession to the exercise of satisfaction who is so ignorant of your courses in appointing penance that he knowes not how little you inioyne this satisfaction and how easily it may be bought out if it be enioyned with some contribution to some of your Abbeyes Frieries Churches Chappels and such like speaker D. B. P. But of this kind of Satisfaction which we commonly call restitution vve are not here to treate nor of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly speaker A. W. There was reason to mention this publike penance as well that all men might the better vnderstand what is in question as also because the testimonies which in this case your men alleage are wholy or principally of that kinde of satisfaction speaker D. B. P. But of such priuate penance which is either enioyâ—ed by the confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sinnes past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in Purgatorie if we die before we haue fully satisfied here speaker A. W. Your speech and matter are both very strange who would speak so By visitation that is by punishment to purge men from paine that should be endured May a man satisfie against his will or without his knowledge for both these fall out in Gods visitations that a man is visited against his will wholy if hee could helpe it and that hee doth not so much as once thinke vpon satisfying for his sinnes by it yea sometimes if he should he should thinke amisse for all visitations of God are not chastisements for sinne but speciall trials and meanes of Gods glorie speaker W. P. Conclus II. Wee acknowledge Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall satisfaction and that is when any hauing giuen offence to the Church of God or any part thereof doe make an open publike testimonie of their repentance Mirian for murmuring against Moses was stricken with leprosie and afterward by his prayer shee was clensed and yet for all that shee must goe seuen daies out of the tent and congregation that shee might make a kinde of satisfaction to the people for her trespasse And in the old testament sackcloth and ashes were signes of their satisfaction Conclus III. We hold that no man can be saued vnlesse he make a perfect satisfaction to the iustice of God for all his sinnes because God is infinite in iustice and therefore will either exact an euerlasting punishment or satisfaction for the same The dissent and difference The points of our difference and dissent are these The Church of Rome teacheth and beleeueth that Christ by his death hath made a satisfaction for all the sinnes of men and for the eternall punishment of them all yet so as they themselues must satisfie the iustice of God for the temporall punishment of their offences either on earth or in purgatorie Wee teach and beleeue that Christ by his death and passion hath made a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men and for the whole punishment thereof both eternall and temporall Thus wee differ and herein wee for our parts must for euer stand at difference with them so as if there were no more points of variance but this one it should bee sufficient to keepe vs alwaies from vniting our religions and cause vs to obey the voyce of Christ Come out of her my people For as in the former points so in this also the papists erre not in circumstance but in the very foundation and life of religion speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins in his third conclusion decreeth very solemnely That no man can be saued vnlesse bs make a perfect satisfaction vnto the iustice of God for all his sinnes Yet in the explication of the difference betvveene vs defineth as peremptonly that no man is to satisfie for any one of all his sinnes or for any temporall paine due to them Which be flat contradictorie propositions and therefore the one of them must needs be false But such odde broken rubbish doth he commonly cast into the ground vvorke of his questions and therupon raiseth the tottering building of his nevv doctrine and lets not like a blind man to make an outcrie that in this matter the Papists erre in the very foundation and life of religion speaker A. W. Is it contradiction to say that euery man must make satisfaction and that Christ hath made satisfaction Might you not easily haue vnderstood if you did not that the satisfaction which Christ hath made is made by euery one that beleeues in him So then the latter proposition doth not contradict the former but shew by what meanes that satisfaction is made which in the former was required Euerie man must satisfie and euery man doth satisfie by and in Christ are not contradictorie propositions as a man with halfe an eye may see The very foundation and life of religion is the acknowledging of full redemption by the sacrifice of Iesus Christ. But how can that be acknowledged where satisfaction remaines to be made by perhaps many thousand yeeres punishment Our reasons speaker W. P. I. A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is indeede no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they doe adde a supply by humane satisfactions and thus much a learned schooleman Biel in plaine words confessed Although saith he the passion of Christ be the principal merit for which grace is conferred the opening of the kingdome and glory yet is it neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause it is manifest because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke as the merit of congruitie or condignity of him that receiueth grace or glorie if hee bee of yeeres and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason For that which admitts a supply by another is imperfect in it selfe Therefore humane satisfactions cannot stand speaker D. B. P. This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon vvhich hath both propositions false The first is childish for
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
Heretikes would flie to reuelations and thereby defend their errors they might be said not to do against this rule of Tertullian Yea if traditions were of force to prooue they might easily answere Tertullian in this case that it skilled not though they could not maintaine their opinions by Scripture as long as traditions perhaps might make for them But Tertullian condemnes their errors because they cannot be auowed by the Scripture making that the onely triall speaker W. P. Againe We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquisition after the Gospell When we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing beside for this we first beleeue that there is nothing more which we may beleeue speaker D. B. P. By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not only the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we only beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giuesuch credit as their writings do deserue speaker A. W. By the Gospell the doctrine of saluation by Christ is vnderstood which is no lesse plainly and fully deliuered in the other writings of the new Testament than in those foure bookes which we call by that particular name But that traditions should be commended vnder the title of the Gospell it is neither true nor likely You must shew some place of this author or of some other about his time to giue credit to your interpretation But it is apparant you answered at aduenture not knowing where it is to be found in Tertullian speaker D. B. P. If any man desire to see Tertullians iudgement of Traditions let him read his book of prescriptions against Heretikes where he auerreth that Traditions serue better than the Scriptures themselues to confute all Heresies Heretikes alwaies either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures speaker A. W. He that hath to doe with such Heretikes as Tertullians aduersaries then were and you Papists in part now are must of necessitie haue recourse to the iudgement of the Church For what other meanes can be vsed against them that denie the sufficiencie of the Scripture Therefore Tertullian and Irenaeus too who had to deale with the same kinde of men labours to beate them with their owne weapons and yet bring not in any new doctrine beside the Scripture but maintaine the doctrine of the Scripture against them that condemne the Scripture by the testimonies of learned men custome of the Church but he saith nothing of giuing like authoritie to the traditions and written word Beside here is no speech of doctrine but only of obseruing certaine outward ceremonies not necessarie to saluation speaker W. P. Augustine booke 2. cap. 9. de doct Christ. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well speaker D. B. P. All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties vvhich the more learned must expresly beleeue if they vvill be saued vvhich distinction S. Augustine else-vvhere doth signifie speaker A. W. The question is only of such points as are necessarie to saluation which are all one to the learned and vnlearned vnlesse there be diuers meanes of saluation for them True it is that a Minister ought to haue more knowledge then an ordinarie Christian and that the neglect of laboring for it is damnable to him as all sinne is damnable but that which is necessarie to saluation is equallie necessarie for all men neither doth Austen allow any such distinction but refutes it rather in that verie place for he saith that all that feare God do seeke the will of God in the Canonicall scripture but the words alleaged are most plaine All those points that containe faith and manners of liuing well that is hope and charitie Now what is necessarie for any man to saluation that is not comprized in one of these speaker D. B. P. And is gathered out of many other places of his vvorkes as in that matter of rebaptizing them vvho became Catholikes after they had bin baptized by Heretikes He saith The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their vvritings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall Tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall church holdeth and therfore are to be beleeued speaker A. W. In that place Austen makes no mention of any such difference betwixt the learned and vnlearned to saluation but teacheth directlie contrary to your doctrine in both points For the hard matters you speake of thus saith Austin when we dispute of darke matters where the certain and cleere instructions of the holy Scriptures do not help vs a mans presumption must restraine it selfe and not incline to either side This is Austens iudgement he leades vs not in these cases to traditions as you do Now for the other point he addes presently after that if the knowledge of hard questions could not be wanted without losse of saluation there would be some cleere authoritie of Scripture to instruct vs in them so far was Austen from seeking to any traditions as necessarie to saluation This testimonie is falsely alleaged by you in the later part of it which is thus in Austin and therefore are to be beleeued to haue bin enioyned by the Apostles You put the matter indefinitly are to be beleeued that so they may be thought necessarie to saluation of which there is not a word in this place of Austen speaker D. B. P. The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing Infants And in his Epist. 174. of the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he vve neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * And S. Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not vvritten in the vvord speaker A. W. Of the custome of baptising infants Austin saith that it is not to be despised nor by any meanes to be thought superfluous and that it were not at all to be beleeued vnlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition where he speakes not of any doctrine necessary to saluation but of the Churches practise and that indeede in a case grounded on the Scripture We speake of doctrine not of words as Austin doth in those places The matter which is signified by those words that Christ is of the same substance with his father
that the father was not begotten may be proued by the Scripture and must needs be held the words are neither in the Scripture nor bring any danger of saluation though they be denyed if the points of doctrine signified by them be beleeued yet were it a great presumption and follie for any man to refuse such words as haue bin fitlie applied by the former Churches The other point of adoring the holy ghost hath a strong foundation on those places of Scripture which prooue him to be God as many do But what is all this to the purpose for the stablishing of any doctrine necessarie to saluation by tradition speaker D. B. P. The like of the perpetuall Virginity of our B. Lady out of vvhich and many more such like vve gather most manifestly that S. Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the vvritten vvord but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions speaker A. W. The fourth heresie in Austin is the Basilidians who held no such opinion of the virgin Mary Indeed there were other heretikes the 6. in number who denyed her virginitie after our Sauiours birth falsely as we verily perswade our selues but this is no matter necessarie to saluation though it be an heresie to hold that as a matter of faith which hath no warrant from the Scripture but rather the contrarie speaker W. P. Vincentius Lyrinen saith the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient to it selfe for all things speaker D. B. P. I thinke that there is no such sentence to be found in him hesaies by way of obiection VVhat need we make recourse vnto the authority of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but throughout all his booke he proues the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church speaker A. W. Vincentius saith that the Canon of the Scripture is sufficient and more then sufficient for all things and in another place the Canon of the scripture sufficeth it selfe for all things The former place is those very words which you alleage falsely where Vincentius thus speakes Here perhaps some man will demaund what the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding of the Scripture needs seeing the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and more then sufficient to it selfe for all things His answere is that the interpretation of the Church is requisite because diuers men expound the Scripture diuersly but what is this against the sufficiencie of the Scripture or for the authoritie of traditions concerning matters not contained in the Scriptures Beside these testimonies other reasons there bee that serue to prooue this point I. The practise of Christ and his Apostles who for the confirmation of the doctrine which they taught vsed alwaies the testimonie of Scripture neither can it be prooued that they euer confirmed any doctrine by tradition Act. 26. 22. I continue vnto this day witnessing both to small and great saying none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come And by this wee are giuen to vnderstand that wee must alwaies haue recourse to the written worde as beeing sufficient to instruct vs in matters of saluation speaker D. B. P. First for our Sauiour Christ Iesus he out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you And very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do oftē note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by test monies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S. Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by Tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospel out of Tradition receiued from S. Peter as witnesseth Eusebius S. Luke testifieth of himself that he wrote his whole Gospel as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who vvere eye-vvitnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not only parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions speaker A. W. Our Sauiour doth ordinarily confirme his doctrine especially if there be any question of it out of the bookes of the old testament by that he repeld Sathan by that he confuted the Pharises and defended his disciples eating the eares of corne on the Sabbath by that he taxeth the Iewes blindnes and maintaines his owne speaking in parables By the same he ouerthrowes the Iewes traditions and rebukes their hypocrisie he refutes their errors about diuorces but what should I run ouer the particulars the Gospels are full of such examples Master Perkins hath neuer a word of the Euangelist who did but write the history of our Sauiours doings and sayings and yet euen they as your selfe confesse prooue that he is the Messiah by the Scriptures of the old Testament applying them to the things he did and suffered You deuise matters to confute Master Perkins speaketh of confirming doctrine by traditions and you answere that they wrote something out of tradition that is they set downe somewhat in writing which themselues had heard of other and not read in the old Testament And then you aske where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages euen there where Moses had the creation of the world and the whole story of Genesis From a better ground then tradition viz. from the Spirit of God the author and enditer of the Scripture from whom also the other Euangelists had the matter and penning of their Gospell though two of them Marke and Luke first came to the knowledge of those things by the preaching of the Apostles which had all one authoritie with the word written This is apparant of Marke by Eusebius himselfe who saith that the Romans intreated him to set downe in writing those things which the Apostle Peter had taught them by word of mouth and which he also had heard him deliuer The like is to be said of S. Luke who was a companion of the Apostle Paul and wrote as the other did that which he heard of him and other of the Apostles But howsoeuer the things deliuered by them came first to their knowledge it wants not much of blasphemy to make traditions the foundation of the Gospels written by them For either the holy Ghost did not inspire them with the matter and manner of their penning or else if it be as you would haue it the holy ghost built vpon tradition which is but an vncertaine kinde of knowledge depending vpon mens
you shew any such tradition nor he is to proue the contrarie But you are to make good your proposition that the Apostles left some doctrines necessarie to be beleeued to saluation by word of mouth onely without any ground in Scripture for the particulars either expresly or by good and necessary consequence Proue this and the controuersie is at an end Moreouer S. Paul immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles commandeth his deare Disciple Timothie To commend vnto the faithfull that vvhich he heard of him by many vvitnesses and not that only vvhich he should find vvritten in some of his Epistles or in the vvritten Gospell I deny your consequence Paul wils Timothy to commend to the faithfull those things which he had heard of him therefore he deliuered some things which are not written in any part of the Scripture I might adde and those necessary to saluation but the other hath worke enough for you speaker W. P. Obiect II. That Scripture is Scripture is a point to be beleeued but that is a tradition vnwritten and therefore one tradition there is not written that we are to beleeue Answ. That the bookes of the olde and new Testament are Scripture it is to bee gathered and beleeued not vpon bare tradition but from the very bookes themselues on this manner Let a mā that is indued with the spirit of discerning reade the seuerall bookes withall let him consider the professed authour thereof which is God himselfe and the matter therein contained which is a most diuine and absolute truth full of pietie the manner and forme of speech which is full of maiestie in the simplicity of words The end whereat they wholy aime which is the honor and glory of God alone c. and he shal be resolued that scripture is scripture euen by the Scripture it selfe Yea and by this meanes hee may discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer Thus then Scripture prooues it selfe to be Scripture and yet wee despise not the vniuersal consent or tradition of the Church in this case which though it doe not perswade the conscience yet is it a notable inducement to mooue vs to reuerence and regard the writings of the Prophets and Apostles It will be said where is it written that Scripture is Scripture I answere not in any one particular place or booke of scripture but in euerie line and page of the whole Bible to him that can read with the spirit of discerning and can discerne the voice of the true Pastour as the sheepe of Christ can doe speaker D. B. P. The second Argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they vvhich are commonly taken so to be is very necessary to saluation novv this is not to be found vvritten in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued only by Tradition vvherefore it is necessary to saluation to beleeue some Tradition speaker A. W. You propound not Master Perkins reason but frame one of your owne To which I answer that is called in this question necessarie to saluation without the beleefe where of a man cannot be saued but the knowledge of the number of the bookes of Scripture and what they be is not so necessarie but that without it a man may attaine to saluation Yea who doubts that he may be saued which knowes not that there are any bookes of scripture at all so that by the preaching of the word he beleeues truly in Iesus Christ And if those two points be absolutely necessarie what shall we thinke of them that haue doubted of some parts of Scripture as the Epistles to the Hebrews and that of Iames Damascen added one to the number your Papists many speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins ansvvereth that the bookes of the Old and Nevv Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this manner Let the man vvho is indued vvith the spirit of discerning reade the bookes and consider first the Author of them vvho is God then the matter contained vvhich is diuine the manner of speech vvhich is full of maiestie in simple vvords Lastly the end aymed at vvhich is Gods honor and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the vvritings of men vvhatsoeuer speaker A. W. Reply A vvise and deepe obseruation I vvarrant you and vvell vvorthie a graue Author Let vs examine it briefly first he vvill haue his man endued vvith the spirit of discerning Who shall endue him vvith the spirit M. Perkins seemeth to say that euery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit But S. Paul teacheth plainly the contrary that some certaine only haue the iudgement to discerne And touching this matter of discerning vvhich books are Canonical vvhich are not Not the learnedst in the Primitiue Church vvould take vpon him to discerne vvhich they were three hundred yeares after Christ was left vndefined by the best learned whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn and his Apocalyps were Canonicall or no as is confessed on all parts hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning when the best Christians wanted it Who more profound more skilfull to discerne than that subtile and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall For he in diuers places of his workes holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures and expresly proueth the booke of Wisdome so to be * And yet our Protestants will not admit them See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is Come to the second Master Perkins denies the assumption of the contract syllogisme propounded by himselfe affirming that the scripture is to be beleeued to be scripture vpon bare tradition If you will refute him you must prooue that assumption till that be done his answere must stand for sufficient howsoeuer that he addes for the confirmation of it be true or false But let vs examin that he brings First he saith a man must haue the spirit of discerning to which you knowing not what to answere tell vs that Master Perkins seemes to say that euery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit If he did say so plainely he saith no more then our Sauiour himselfe doth and his Apostle Paul But he doth not once glaunce at that point in any part of his answere yet you refute that but slenderly for the Apostle speakes of an extraordinarie gift bestowed vpon some men not denying this generall abilitie which all true Christians haue in some measure neither doth the Apostle speake of discerning doctrine but spirits that is saith your glosse and Lombard Thomas and Caietan that he may discerne that he heares with what spirit it is spoken with a good spirit or with a bad By
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