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
Now as for M. Perkins gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of paper some profane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word only without either any reason or authoritie speaker A. W. Sauing the better iudgement of Chrysostome and other learned men I cannot perswade my selfe that any part of the Canonicall scripture is lost when you haue brought your proofe out of any place of the scripture I will either answere or yeeld to it But it makes nothing to your argument whether any be lost or no for as you see I deny your assumption and the proofe of it which ouerthrowes your whole reason The Iewes and the skilfullest Christians in the Rabbines and antiquities of the Iewes that I know are of a diuers iudgement from Chrysostome concerning this point speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Moses in mount Sina beside the written law receiued from God a more secret doctrine which he neuer writ but deliuered by tradition or word of mouth to the Prophets after him and this the Iewes haue now set downe in their Cabala Answ. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage For if Moses had knowne any secret doctrine beside the written law he could neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this Moses who was the pen man of the old Law committed not all to vvriting but deliuered certaine points needfull to saluation by Tradition nor any Lavv-maker that euer was in any Country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likely that our Christian Lavv should be all vvritten speaker A. W. Your argument is in effect all one with his but let vs take yours Moses committed all to writing that was necessarie to saluation so doe all wise lawmakers and if any thing be left vnprouided for that is of moment it is because the lawgiuer perceiued it not or knew not how to helpe it which in Gods lawes and Moses the holie Ghosts Scribes writing could be no hinderances For what is there that God seeth not by his wisedome or cannot order as he list by his power speaker D. B. P. That Moses did not pen all thus vve proue It vvas as necessarie for vvomen to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedy for men could not possibly be applied to vvomen as euery one vvhoknovveth vvhat circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the vvritten lavv to deliuer vvomen from that sin Therefore some other remedie for them vvas deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. Circumcision was not prouided for remedie of originall sinne any more than for actuall neither did it remedie the one or the other nay it was not of Moses appointing but was long before him The remedie for all sinne is the sacrifice of the Messiah the meanes to applie it faith which Moses taught in diuers places of those fiue bookes If women without circumcision cannot be freed from originall sinne how were Adam and Eue freed and all that died before God enioyned it to Abraham speaker D. B. P. Item if the Child vvere likly to die before the eight day there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no vvhere vvritten in the Lavv Also many Gentiles during that state of the old Testament vvere saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Lavv or any other part of the old Testament it is not vvritten vvhat they had to beleeue or how they should liue vvherefore many things needfull to saluation vvere then deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. The remedie for infants aswell before the eight day as vpon it and after it was the mercie of God vpon his couenant As for the meanes you would imagine which were you cannot tell what and deuised by you cannot tel whom remember what you answered about the Chaldee word in Daniel To meanes and authors in the ayre no thing need be nor can be answered speaker D. B. P. To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I ansvvere that God permiteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue vvhat was then lost Although God in his prouidence permits much euill it followes not nor is at al likely that he would suffer his own holie word indited by his spirit to perish Neither can it helpe the matter that tradition might preserue the truth vnlesse God should miraculously hold in men from mingling their inuentions with his traditions Experience makes the matter cleere few things or none yet remaining that are indeede of antiquitie both for the substance and vse of them But what answere you to Master Perkins other reason out of S. Paul That was too heauie for your shoulders speaker W. P. Obiect V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods word is of two sortes milk and strong meate By milke we must vnderstand the worde of God written wherein God speakes plainely to the capacitie of the rudest but strong meate is vnwritten traditions a doctrine not to bee deliuered vnto all but to those that grow to perfection Answ. We must know that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it For being deliuered generally and plainely to the capacitie of the simplest it is milke but beeing handled particularly and largely and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding it is strong meate As for example the doctrine of the creation of mans fall and redemption by Christ when it is taught ouerly and plainly it is milke but when the depth of the same is throughly opened it is strong meate And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine to imagine that some vn written word is meant by strong meate speaker A. W. Novv insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I vvill set dovvne some authorities out of the vvritten Word in proofe of Traditions I make no question but Master Perkins had al the reasons he propounds for you in any matter in some of your owne writers as perhaps hereafter vpon better search at more leisure I shall finde and prooue to all the world To the testimonies I answere in generall that no argument can be drawne from any or all of them to proue that any doctrine necessarie to saluation is to be learned by tradition and is not written in the Scripture Let any
Churches is of great authoritie speaker A. W. Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants Origen calles the tradition of the Apostles their practise of baptizing infants which hath sufficient ground of scripture though not in expresse words as your Church also holds and as Origen himselfe acknowledgeth by shewing the reason that moued the Apostles to baptise them as hee conceiues though indeede there is also other better warrant for it speaker A. W. Athanasius saith VVe haue proued this sentence to haue been deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but yee O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas vvhat Auncestors can yee shevv of your opinion speaker A. W. Where reason failed the Arians on their side and could not moue them in behalfe of the Church Athanasius addes this as a further proofe for their confutation that the doctrine of Christ being one with his Father had been held from time to time in the Church whereas they had no consent of antiquitie for their opinion Yet had he himselfe prooued the point by many certaine reasons out of the Scripture and brought this argument from the authoritie of men for confutation of their false assertion that the former Diuines were not of that iudgement This Athanasius refuteth by the testimonies of Theognostus Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria whom he calles eloquent and one other Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Origen whom he termes painfull S. Basil hath these words VVe haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly vvritten and part vve haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both vvhich be of the same force to godlines and no man opposeth against these vvho hath at the least but meane experience of the Lavves of the Church See Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 1. in Iulian If you will giue me leaue I will defend Basils speech by that which may be gathered out of him viz. that hee holds them things to be by tradition which are not exprest in the Scriptures My ground for this exposition are these words of his Out of what Scripture haue we saith Basil the very speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine some thousand two hundred yeares agoe recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now-a-daies in the person of Maximinus an Arrian in his first booke against him in the beginning Jf thou shalt saith this Heretike bring any thing out of the Scriptures vvhich is common to all vve must needs heare thee but these vvords vvhich are vvithout the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they vvorship me teaching commaundements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten Traditions hath been afore declared The like doth S. Bernard asfirme of certaine Heretikes of his time called Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholikes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth aswell as that which is written Euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned Heretikes to reiect all traditions and to she vnto the only Scriptures speaker A. W. The Heretike Maximinus asked nothing but reason of Austin if he stood vpon the matter and not vpon the termes neither doth Austin find fault with this condition nor could he in reason because as I answered before himselfe appeales to that kind of triall in that very disputation Neither must I saith Austin to Maximinus alleage the Councell of Nice in preiudice of the matter nor you the Councell of Ariminum neither am I tyed with the authoritie of this Councell nor you with the authoritie of that let matter striue with matter 〈◊〉 with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the scriptures which are not proper to you or me but common to vs both But will you heare him speake more like Maximinus Reade me this saith Austin out of a Prophet reade it out of a Psalme recite it out of the Lawe recite it out of the Gospell recite it out of an Apostle Thence recite I the Church disperst ouer the whole world and our Lord saying my sheepe heare my voyce And a little after away with mens papers let the voyce of God sound And in another place away with our papers let Gods bookes come forth heare Christ heare the truth speaking If these speeches be hereticall we confesse our selues to be Heretikes but so that we haue Austin on our side for an Arch-Heretike Bernard speakes of the Hereticks called Apostolicks not in his 62. but in his 66. sermon vpon the Canticles where he saith neuer a word of their reiecting Traditions No more hath Austin nor Epiphanius where they write of them And if they did reiect traditions it was because they would establish their owne hereticall bookes viz. the Acts of Thomas and Andrew and the gospell of the Egyptians which to say the truth are to be counted traditions because they haue no warrant of the scripture nor are any part of the Canon It were easie for me to turne your owne sentence against you and as all men may see with good reason but it shall suffice me that I haue refuted your slaunders and shewes with sound proofe of arguments and authoritie I consider loosers must haue leaue to speake The eighth point Of Vowes Our consent speaker W. P. Touching vowes this must bee knowne that wee do not condemne them altogether but onely labour to restore the purity of doctrine touching this point which by the Church of Rome from time to time hath beene corrupted and defaced We hold therefore that a vow is a promise made to God touching some duties to be performed vnto him and it is twofold generall or speciall The generall vow is that which concernes all beleeuers and it is made in the couenant both of the law and of the Gospell I will here onely speake of the vow which is made in the couenant of the Gospell in which there be two actions one of God the other of man God in mercy on his part promiseth to men the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting and man againe for his part promiseth to beleeue in Christ and to obey God in all his commaundements All men euer made this vow vnto God as the Iewes in circumcision which also they renewed so often as they receiued the Passeouer and in the newe Testament all that are baptized doe the like And in baptisme this vow is called the stipulation of a good conscience whereby wee purpose to renounce our selues to beleeue in Christ and to bring forth the fruites of true repentance and it ought to be renued so oft as wee are partakers of the supper of the Lord.
Origenist taught that sinne was not taken away in Baptisme but only couered as is recorded by that holy man and auncient Father Eâ—…anius M. Perâ—ins in the name of the Church of England affirmeth in like manner that originall sinne remaineth still and raigneth in the regenerate albeit it is not imputed vnto them speaker A. W. Neither Methodius out of whom Epiphanius recites Proclus opinions in many leaues together word for word nor Epiphanius himselfe refute that of the remainders of sin after Baptisme rather they both confesse that the sproutes and branches of concupiscence abide in vs yea that sinne dwels in vs by which the diuell preuailes The Apostle saith Methodius Rom. 7. seemes to make a three-fold law The first the law of the minde according to that good that is ingrafted in vs. The second by the assault of the diuell vrging and distracting the minde by imaginations full of passion The third which triumphs in the flesh by sinne which the Apostle calles the law of sinne dwelling in our members That Hierom is of our opinion in this point it appeares in his booke against the Pelagians speaker D. B. P. Iouinian was accounted a Monster by S. Augustine for defending honest Marriage to be of equall vertue and merite with chaste Virginitie and saith further that this heresie was so sottish and fleshly that it could not deceiue any one learned Priest but onely some few simple and carnall women Yet this our English champion blusheth not to affirme that marriage is not only equall but better also in diuers respects than Virginitie speaker A. W. S. Austin was neither so ancient nor so holie as S. Paul hauing him on our side we neede not feare the other But the report you make of him is vntrue For these are his words in English This heresie preuailed so much in the citie of Rome that it is said to haue throwne into the estate of mariage euen some vowed virgins of whose chastitie there had been no suspition before So farre is Augustine from calling them simple and carnall Beside he addes though you will not be knowne of it that he weakned and ouerthrew the holy single life of holie men by rehearsing and commending the Fathers Abraham Isaack Iacob who were married men And whereas he saith it could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests for learned and any one is your glosse besides the text he seemes to attribute it to the short continuance thereof It was saith he quickly opprest and extinguished and could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests speaker D. B. P. The same olde reprobate heretike barked also against approoued feasts and fasting dayes so doe most of our Ministers at this time speaker A. W. Our Ministers doe all generally approoue both of feasts and fasting daies keeping the former more religiously than you doe ordinarily the Sabbath The latter we obserue with reuerence and humilitie whensoeuer they are appointed Fish daies superstitiously abused by you are ciuilly retained by vs with lesse riot than your selues doe vse speaker D. B. P. Vigilantius was sharpely reprooued by S. Hierome in a booke written against him and hath been euer since vnto this day esteemed a wicked heretike for denying prayer to Saints and honour to be done vnto their Reliâ—es And yet what poynt of Doctrine is more currant among the Protestants than this speaker A. W. Erasmus not without cause findes want of modestie in that treatise of Hieroms he might haue found want of truth too if Vigilantius held no worse opinion than those you recite But of the former namely praying to Saints neither the one nor the other speakes a word And indeede it was not the manner in those daies to pray to the Martyrs but to pray at their Tombes which custome it should seeme remained till that time according to the former practise of the Christians who assembled ordinarily where the Martyrs were buried before they were suffered to haue any Churches speaker A. W. In like sorte one Aërius to the Arrian heresie added this of his owne That we must not pray for the soules of our friends departed as S. Augustine hath registred And doe not all Protestants imbrace and earnestly defend the same This doctrine of prayer for the dead the deniall whereof is counted an errour in Aërius hath no foundation in the Scripture but was built vpon the tradition of the Fathers as he from whom Austin takes the accusation confesseth speaker A. W. A common custome it was of the Arrians and of other more auncient heretikes to reiect all Traditions and to rely onely vpon the written word as testifieth S. Ireneus and S. Augustine Doe not ours the same reiecting all Traditions as Mans Inuention A perilous error no doubt to rest wholy vpon the written word that is to beleeue none but God in matters of his owne worship and religion Ireneus in the places alleaged hath no word of reiecting traditions rather hee speakes the contrarie of Simon Maguâ— who reiected the Scripture to establish his owne deuices S. Austin findes no fault with Maximinus for resting vpon the Scriptures nor indeede reasonably could for it is his own doctrine in that conference with the Heretike and other where speaker D. B. P. Xeaâ—…s a Barbaâ—ous Persian indeed yet in shew a counterfeited Christian is noted for one of the first among Christians that inueyed against the Images of Saints and the worship done by true Christians vnto them as both Nicephorus and Cedâ—… comppenâ—… doe recorde The reprobate Iewes indeede before him and after euen vntill this day the misâ—râ—anâ— Turkes enemies of all Christianitie doe dwell still in the same erâ—…r And yet is not this most vehemently auerâ—ed by our Protestants and all â—aluiâ—â—sts although they cannot denie but that aboue 900. yeares agoe in the second generall Councell holden at Nice they are by the conâ—â—nt of the best and most learned of the world for euer accursed that doe denie reuerence and worshippe to be giuen vnto the Images of Saints speaker A. W. Nicephorus you should haue added Callistus that the reader might haue knowne whom you meant and haue quoted lib. 16. not 10. who liued not 400. yeeres since and Cedrenus who liued as it is thought about the yeere 1058. are neither of antiquitie nor credit to auow a historie not recorded by any of their ancients But how could Xenaias about the yeere 478. be one of the first if the Commentarie vpon Damascen say true That the worshipping of Images was condemned as superstitious by some about the beginning of the Gospell preached Cedrenus saith be was one of the first Callistus after him more then 200. yeeres saith he was the first speaker D. B. P. The second Councel of Nice was a conuenticle of Idolaters neither of the best nor of the most learned and was presently after
For if we say we haue no sin wee deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1. 7. And he that sinnes against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law And what can he merit that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law speaker D. B. P. I deny the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit as by all the properties of merit may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merit set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good Father Doe on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bin proued at large in a seuerall question To that of S. Iames although it belong not to this matter I answere that he who offendeth in one is made guilty of all that is he shall be as surely condomned as if he had broken all See S. Augustine speaker A. W. You denie the proposition but if you did remember that the question is of meriting euerlasting life which requires the keeping of the whole law you would neuer stick at it for no man can be guiltie of the whole law as euery one is that failes in any one commandement and yet deserue euerlasting life The reason of your deniall is not sufficient for no one worke done with neuer so due circumstances can bring forth any merit of euerlasting life whereof Master Perkins speakes in his definition Indeede this reason is nothing but a bare deniall of Master Perkins proofe That you add of a mans losing and recouering his merit is liker a dreame then a point of diuinitie as it may well appeare by the poore proofe you bring of it viz. a speech out of an allegory and that also falsly translated his former garment for that best or principall garment Your vulgar latine calls it the first garment Pagnin that principall your interlinear glosse expounds it to signifie the garment of the holie ghost and the ordinarie glosse giues a reason why it is called the first because it is the garment of innocency in which the first man was created which interpretation is taken out of Austin But to the matter What reason is there that merit should not be recompenced according to iustice If a man haue once deserued euerlasting life why should he not haue it Or if that merit be once lost how can it be restored againe but only by Gods acceptation and then how can it be truly and properly merit You must not only say but shew too that the place of S. Iames belongs not to this matter els it is an easie matter to answere any authority of scripture Let vs grant your owne interpretation that he which breakes one commandement shall be certainely condemned how then can he deserue euerlasting life without keeping all the commandements And what a strange and vnsauorie doctrine is it that he which hath merited euerlasting life may be damned But the meaning of the Apostle is that the seuerall commandements are as it were seuerall conditions of a couenant betwixt God and man whereof if any one be broken the whole bond is forfeited how exactly soeuer all the rest haue bin performed what merit then can there be of life where the partie is liable to damnation speaker W. P. Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our daily bread Wherein we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be euery way the gift of God It must needs therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine that hee can by his workes merit eternall life who cannot merit bread speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomely that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerely the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our peny or trauaile we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Paules rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not cate Yet because our trauailes are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God daily to giue vs our nuriture either by sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stir ring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes speaker A. W. You take greater paines to disgrace Master Perkins Arguments then to disproue or vnderstand them his reason lyes thus He that cannot merit bread cannot merit euerlasting life But no man can merit bread Therefore no man can merit euerlasting life The proposition stands vpon the comparison of inequality from the lesse to the greater for it is a lesse matter to deserue bread then to merit euerlasting life The assumption is proued by that clause of the Lords prayer wherein we beg our dayly bread which we might claime of due debt if we could deserue it In stead of answering some part of the syllogisme you tell vs that we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle without our owne trauell or cost which is as much to purpose as if you should say we must eate our bread when we haue it if we will be fed It is but a mockery to pray to God for it if we know we haue deserued it vnlesse perhaps we thinke him so vniust that it is well if we can get our owne of him by any meanes whatsoeuer We deny not that we are to vse the meanes both for the one and the other but that we can deserue either by vsing the meanes speaker W. P. Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church Bernard Those which we call our merits are the way to the kingdome and not the cause of raigning speaker D. B. P. But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the auncient Church and then beginneth
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
memories which may often faile them especially in carrying away speeches of discourse and disputation speaker W. P. II. If the beleeuing of vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must beleeue the writings of the auncient Fathers as well as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes And wee may not beleeue their sayings as the worde of God because they often crie beeing subiect to errour and for this cause their authoritie when they speake of traditions may be suspected and we may not alwaies beleeue them vpon their word speaker D. B. P. His otherreason is that if we beleeue vnwritten Traditions were necessary to saluatiō then we must aswel beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall Traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their books but that vvere absurd for they might erre Ans. That doth not follovv for three causes First Apostolicall Traditions are aswell kept in the mind of the learned as in the auncient Fathers vvritings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers vvritings speaker A. W. It may be they were kept in the mind of the learned till they were written but that afterward and to this day they are in mens minds otherwise then as they haue learned them by reading it is not very likely Beside how can traditions be kept without adding and altering if they haue no better guide then the memories of men speaker D. B. P. Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimonie than any one of their writings speaker A. W. What is that to Master Perkins reason vnlesse you will say that we are as well to beleeue the writings of the fathers where more then one writ the same thing as we are one of the Apostles or Euangelists alone which I perswade my selfe you will not affirme speaker D. B. P. Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall Tradition related but of one auncient Father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his ovvne inuention because that vvas registred by him as a thing of more estimation And gaine some of the rest of those blessed and Godly personages vvould haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not binsuch indeed as it vvas tearmed Which vvhen they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the follovving for Apostolicall Tradition it so because they were taught by our Lord yet Pauls case is proper to himselfe and altogether extraordinarie The third particular is somewhat more to purpose because S. Paul hauing prooued by many reasons that women might not come into the congregations bareheaded addes in the conclusion that it was enough to stop any contentions mans mouth that the Apostles and the Churches of God allowed of no such custome But first this hatescripture Papist must be put in minde that whereas he calles these wranglers scripturists as if they had alleaged scripture for their defence there is no such thing in the text nor any one obiection so much as signified by the Apostle Secondly this custome of the Church is not alleaged because as he seemes to presume by his conclusion afterward he wanted other reason to prooue the point For as Chrysostome and others haue obserued he hath in the former part of the chapter proued it to be against nature and against scripture too Thirdly he reasons not about any matter of doctrine but about the outward carriage of men and women in the assemblie of Gods seruice Lastly it doth no way follow that because the custome of the Church must ouer-way priuate mens fancies in things indifferent therefore the Scripture containes not all things necessarie to saluation but must be supplied therein by traditions Neither doth the Apostles example warrant his conclusion The Apostle hauing proued that he exhorts to by reason and Scripture last of all alleages custome against contentious men in a thing which they tooke to be indifferent therefore wee must alleage Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they are not plaine tradition euen in matters of saluation Who sees not that this followes not vpon that Obiections for Traditions speaker W. P. First they alleadge 2. Thess. 2. 15. where the Apostle bids that Church keepe the ordinances which he taught either them by word or letter Hence they gather that beside the written word there be vnwritten traditions that are indeede necessarie to be kept and obeyed Answ. It is very likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul writ to any Church though in order it haue not the first place and therefore at the time when this Epistle was penned it might well fall out that some thinges needefull to saluation were deliuered by word of mouth not beeing as yet written by any Apostle Yet the same things were afterward set downe in writing either in the second Epistle or in the Epistles of Paul speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that insteed of Traditions according to the Greek and Latin vvord they translate Ordinances euer flying the vvord Tradition vvhere any thing is spoken in commendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the vvord Tradition although the Greeke vvord beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouery of false translation penned by M. Gregorie Martin a man most singulerly conuersant in the Greeke and Hebrevv tongues speaker A. W. Gregory Martinus cauils were answered long since by Doctor Fulke and the answer neuer yet replied to that euer I heard of by any Papist Your old translation hath in steed of traditions precepts and in the Gospell euery where traditions and yet the former place is to the commendation of traditions and all in the Gospell to their dispraise Vatablus also vseth his libertie in translating this word sometimes Instituta sometimes Constitutio sometimes Institutio the difference in our translation as farre as I can perceiue is this that we call mens precepts traditions the Apostles doctrines ordinances speaker D. B. P. Secondly is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer he wrote Surely if none of his otherwere written before it yet his first to the same Church must needs haue been written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame sometimes speaker A. W. It is easie to see that Master Perkins compares not this epistle with the other to the same Church but with other that were written to other Churches and generally with the bookes of the new Testament among which if wee may beleeue Irenaeus it was the ancientest except the former and perhaps the Gospell of S. Matthew for it was written
that lookes into your Commentaries and bookes of controuersies shall finde very diuers and sometimes contrarie expositions Our Sauiour Christ hath prouided sufficientlie for his Church by deliuering in scripture the grounds of religion so plainely some here some there that any reasonable man may with small labour vnderstand them from which they that haue knowledge of the tongues and arts especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick may come to vnderstand the harder places though perhaps not euery one yet at the least so many and such as shall serue to instruct the people of God in the knowledge of his will for the obtaining of euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. To auoid then such garboyles and intestine contention there vvas neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all boubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Lavv-maker who in vvisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens doe the earth hath left his golden Lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit no no It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Son of God speaker A. W. For the auoiding of outward garboiles by force or preaching false doctrine our Sauiour hath appointed principallie the ciuill magistrate secondarily the gouernors of the Churches For the keeping of his children from perishing by error he hath ordeined beside the outward helps of Pastors and Doctors the most certaine direction of his vicegerent the holy spirit who preserues all that are Christs from falling away from the substance and foundation of truth to damnation Not that euery man may take vpon him to interpret scripture vpon pretence of I know not what spirit but that he may assure himselfe of being kept from all error that may ouerthrow his saluation by the direction of Gods spirit vpon whom he calls by prayer and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before sure and who therefore were appointed to be heard without exception This befals not any men nowadayes and therefore none can iustly claime any such credit The auncients that so wrot in this point of S. Pauls going to see Peter haue wholie mistaken the Apostle who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him For he saith First that he was not an Apostle of men nor by man Secondly that he went vp to Ierusalem not to haue confirmation of his doctrine from them who were no way superior to him but that the Gentiles might know he taught the same things that the other Apostles did If he had done it for his owne assurance he had not beleeued the vision and discredited our Sauiours extraordinarie teaching of him and had taught for a time such things as he was not sure to be the truth of God But if this should be his case he had sinned grieuously in his former preaching and he had wholie ouerthrowne the authoritie of his ministrie which in these two Chapters he labors especially to vphold auouching that he neither learned any doctrine nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames Cephas and Iohn which were esteemed to be pillers yea he did openly reprooue Peter if not of error in doctrine yet of misbehauiour in his conuersation As for the controuersie of abrogating Moses law it was a case determined by scripture and no man might refuse to obey any one of the Apostles charge coÌ„cerning that point But that the Brethren might haue the better satisfaction it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by ioynt consent of themselues and the brethren there assembled which any one of them might of himselfe haue ended But because diuers parts of the Church were conuerted by diuers Apostles and each Church made most account of their owne Apostle the readiest and safest way was to conclude of the matter by common consultation so afterward in all lawfull Councels the written word was held sufficient for the consutation of the heresies that arose from time to time but for the better stopping of the heretikes mouths and satisfying of all men sometimes the consent of former Diuines Churches and Councels was added in good discretion for mens sake not for the matter which might be and was abundantlie prooued or discouered as occasion serued by the scriptures speaker D. B. P. See Cardinall Bellarmine I vvill only record tvvo noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquity for the true sense of Gods vvord The first out of the Ecclesiastical History whereof Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and Saint Basil tvvo principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And aftervvard for thirteene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes imployed their studie vvholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning vvhereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as vvere knovvne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the very words speaker A. W. The examples you bring are nothing against vs in this question Nazianzen and Basil sought the true sense of the Scripture not out of their owne iudgement but out of their predecessors writings and authoritie What then Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation This consequence hath often been disprooued Neither is the Antecedent true if it be generally taken For their owne writings shew euery where that they vsed the help of learning and discourse to finde out the sense of scripture in many places and set downe that in their Commentaries which by study they came to vnderstand If any thing were doubtfull we presume they did as we are sure the Protestants now doe where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie rest vpon the authoritie of their predecessors rather than vpon their owne This reuerence wee giue to the Fathers writings and reade them with as great diligâ—… as they that make more bragges of thâ—ir knowledge in â—heâ— And if that rule which the storie 〈◊〉 and or you name not but it is Austin speakes of 〈◊〉 one of them which we follw in searching out thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the Scripture â—…treate â—ou to make 〈◊〉 to vs and you shall finde that we will take it 〈◊〉 and vse it diligently if we cannot shew you certaine reasons to the contrarie If the rule be to take for truth whatsoeuer the ancients haue deliuered how many things yea contrarie expositions shal we hold for true If you say the rule is to beleeue the ancientest what
in baptisme speaker D. B. P. Ans. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme which is in question but only hat the best men for want of perfect Charity doe oâ—ten sin venially which we graunt speaker A. W. Indeede as you pare it leauing out all these words By which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sin there is no truth in vs there is not much to prooue the poynt but your c. hath cut off that which is most materiall viz. By reason of our defect or failing in charitie which comes from our naturall corruption no man can say he is without sinne and by reason of which we must call vpon God for pardon of our sinnes speaker W. P. Indeede Augustine in sundrie places seemes to denie concupiscence to bee sinne after baptisme but his meaning is that concupiscence in the regenerate is not the sinne of the person in whom it is For thus he expounds himselfe This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne And The law of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ended And Let not sinne raigne he saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne For as long as thou liuest of necessitie sinne will be in thy members at the least looke it raigne not in thee c. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose insteed of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundrie places denieth concupiscence to be sin but expounds him to meane that it is not sin in that person but in it selfe which is already confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person speaker A. W. Master Perkins as the places he brings out of Austin shew doth not deny it simply to be the sinne of the person in whom it is but to be his to condemnation of it selfe it deserues to be punisht with eternall death but in him it is not a sinne procuring this punishment This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne speaker D. B. P. But it the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of Saint Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the olde writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turne who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certainety of the iudgement of antiquity Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmity then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hâ—ld that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquitie Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is â—â—â—tly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we doe consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnes of such Masters who hauing so highly coÌ„mended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it Doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe Presuming that some vvould be so shalovv-vvitted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whoâ—e consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them speaker A. W. Caluin saith not as you translate him Betweene him and vs there is this difference but this may seeme to be the difference because he was loth to speake so plaine as we now are forced to doe though in Caluin his opinion his iudgement was all one with ours speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that J may for example sake touch one of them concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlavvfull riot of it S. Bernard vvhom M. Perkins often citeth against vs and therefore may sometimes be alleadged for vs hath these vvords Sinne is at the doore but if thou doe not open it it vvill not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou vvillingly yeeld vnto it it shall doe thee no hurt vvithâ—old thy consent and it preuaileth not speaker A. W. S. Augustine and S. Cyrill haue been cited already S. Hierome and S. Gregory shall be hereafter vvho vvith the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquitie is vvholy for vs. And if any desire to knovv the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius vvhere he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken avvay in Baptisme but are only couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Chrysostome speakes of the affections as they are naturall in which respect indeede they are not sinnes but only as they are disordered against the law of God in their creation The concupiscence he names is not originall sinne whereof we dispute but the naturall desire which Adam had by creation and which is not in it selfe euill but as by our corruption it inclines now to euill and hath euill mingled with it in the act of desiring Any man may see that Bernard intends not to proue that originall sinne is properly sinne but that it shall not preuaile to make vs commit grosse sinne outwardly vnlesse we consent to it and thereby incourageth Christian men to resist it affirming that it shal not hurt them to condemnation in which respect Austin denies it to be sinne Proclus howsoeuer deceiued by Origen he erred in the point of the resurrection yet in this matter taught nothing but that which he sufficiently confirmed by S. Pauls authoritie of whom he had learned the doctrine neither doe Epiphanius or Methodius bring any good proofe against his opinion or for
to the poore they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents and by vsury and crafty bargaines are not ashamed to cousen their nearest kinne Finally in place of prayer and washing away their owne sins by many bitter teares they sing meerely a Geneua Psalme and raile or heare a railing at our imagined sinnes or pretended errors And so leaue and lay all paine and sorrow vpon Christs shoulders thinking themselues belike to be borne to pleasure and pastime and to make merry in this world speaker A. W. This spitefull and slanderous inuectiue of yours sauouring neither of conscience nor ciuilitie whereby you charge your soueraigne his counsailers nobles gentrie and all that any where in sinceritie professe the Gospell of Iesus Christ with flat Epicurisme I wittingly omit holding it more Christian like to be railed vpon without cause then to raile vpon desert We vse our libertie with moderation how you priests and Iesuits obserue that which feare of damnation hope of reward the lawes of your superiors and your owne vowes bind you to I had rather euery man should iudge according to his knowledge then suspect by my reporting of that which would not seeme very vnlikely The seuenth point Of Traditions speaker W. P. Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by word of mouth or by writing beside the written word of God Our consent Conclus I. Wee hold that the very worde of God hath beene deliuered by tradition For first God reuealed his will to Adam by word of mouth and renewed the same vnto the Patriarkes not by writing but by speech by dreames and other inspirations and thus the worde of God went from man to man for the space of two thousand and foure hundred yeeres vnto the time of Moses who was the first pen-man of holy scripture For as touching the prophesie of Enoch we commonly holde it was not penned by Enoch but by some Iew vnder his name And for the space of this time men worshipped God and helde the articles of their faith by tradition not from men but immediately from God himselfe And the historie of the new testament as some say for eightie yeeres as some others thinke for the space of twenty yeeres and more went from hand to hand by tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approoued by them speaker D. B. P. Hitherto we agree but not in this which he interlaceth that in the state of nature euery man was instructed of God immediately in both matters of faith and religion For that God then as euer since vsed the ministerie aswell of good fathers as godly masters as Enoch Noe Abraham and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God and true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses as M. Perkins affirmeth If no child learned any such thing of his Father but was taught immediately from God but M. Perkins seemeth to regard lâ—â—tle such petty contradictions speaker A. W. If you were not more desirous to pick quarrels then to acknowledge truth you would neuer faine such contradictions Master Perkins sayes no such thing as you charge him with but speakes only of the Patriarks by whose ministerie the rest were taught as he shewes otherwhere making it an argument to perswade housholders to the like dutie speaker W. P. Conclus II. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but either came to vs or to our ancetours onely by tradition As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is said that Iannes and Iambres were the Magitians that withstood Moses now in the books of the olde testament wee shall not finde them once named and therefore it is like that the Apostle had their names by tradition or by some writings then extant among the Iewes So Hebr. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle recordeth of Moses that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai he said I tremble and am afraide which words are not to be found in all the bookes of the old testament In the Epistle of Iude mention is made that the Diuell stroue with Michael the Archangell about the bodie of Moses which point as also the former considering it is not to be found in holy writ it seemes the Apostle had it by tradition from the Iewes That the Prophet Esai was killed with a fullers clubbe is receiued for truth but yet not recorded in Scripture and so likewise that the Virgin Mary liued and died a virgin And in Ecclesiasticall writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded and receiued of vs for truth which neuerthelesse are not set downe in the bookes of the olde or new Testament And many things wee holde for truth not written in the worde if they bee not against the word speaker D. B. P. His 2. Conclus We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one example he puts that the blessed Virgin Marie liued and died a Virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Heluidius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith nothing of the necessitie of beleeuing That point of the virgin Maries perpetuall virginitie we hold to be true but we dare not lay a burthen vpon any mans conscience where the scripture is silent S. Austins iudgement though he were a singular light of the Church is not of waight inough to determine without all warrant of scripture what is heresie and what is not especially since himselfe confesseth that it cannot at all or very hardly be declared by a lawfull definition what makes a man an heretike Besides Austin thus deliuers the matter concerning the Heluidians heresie The Heluidians saith he so gaine said the virginitie of Mary that they confidentlie affirme she had other children after Christ by her husband Ioseph So that it may well be Austin counted them heretikes especially for auouching that peremptorily which they could no way make good by scripture speaker W. P. Conclus III. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances rules or traditions touching time and place of Gods worship and touching order and comelines to bee vsed in the same and in this regard Paul 1. Cor. 11. 2. commendeth the Church of Corinth for keeping his traditions and Act. 15. the Counceil at lerusalem decreed that the Churches of the Gentiles should abstaine from blood and from things strangled This decree is tearmed a tradition and it was in force among them so long as the offence of the Iewes remained And this kinde of traditions whether made by generall Councels or particular Synods
we haue care to maintaine and obserue these caueats being remembred first that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done speaker D. B. P. See what a â—…erent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Synagogue which is no part of the true Church speaker A. W. Hee that obserues what your Romish synagogue hath brought into Gods seruice and remembers that the Church that is men which beare sway in it may fondly erre will acknowledge this caueat most needfull No stage-play is so full of fooleries as your Masse-game speaker W. P. Secondly that they bee not imposed as any parts of Gods worship speaker D. B. P. This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship speaker A. W. Order and comelinesse are no parts of Gods worship but adiuncts seruing to the better performance thereof as the obseruation of due and fit circumstances giue a grace and furtherance to any action whatsoeuer speaker W. P. Thirdly that they be seuered from superstition or opinion of merit speaker D. B. P. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seneted from superstition speaker A. W. That is absurd which is contrarie to common reason or sense but all things superstitious are not so yea many points of superstition haue so much shew of reason for them that without Gods commandement to the contrarie a wise man might thinke them very fit meanes of Gods worship and meritorious Such was the Gentiles worshipping of Angels supposing they had worshipped none but God such is your worshipping of Angels and he saincts and she saincts now adayes such is your feare of displeasing God if you eate flesh on saincts eauens or in Lent and such like speaker W. P. Lastly that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of them And thus much wee hold touching Traditions speaker D. B. P. The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he tearmeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Actes of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Actes of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knovves That then vvhich is of record there cannot be tearmed a Tradition Though the Acts of the Apostles be a part of the written word yet was not the booke written when that decree was first obserued neither doth Master Perkins giue it the name of himselfe but saith it is tearmed a tradition The difference speaker W. P. Papists teach that beside the written worde there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must bee beleeued as profitable and necessarie to saluation And these they say are twofold Apostolicall namely such as were deliuered by the Apostles and not written and Ecclesiasticall which the Church decreeth as occasion is offered Wee hold that the Scriptures are most perfect containing in them all doctrines needfull to saluation whether they concerne faith or manners and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written worde which shall bee necessarie to saluation so as hee which beleeueth them not cannot be saued speaker D. B. P. Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts The first we rearme Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God Thesecond Apostolicall as deliuered by the holy Apostles The third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernors of the Curch after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of Traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours Traditions than of thefoure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honor and credit doe we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten as written For incke and paper brought no new holines nor gaue any force and vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had been written Here the question is principally of diuine Traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed speaker A. W. Diuine traditions are such as were deliuered by our Sauiour say you and are diuers from those that the Apostles left So that the controuersie is principally of those matters that Christ only spake and neither the Euangelists nor Apostles haue set downe in writing But that we may vnderstand what wee doe it is further to be knowne that the question is not whether if there be any such traditions wee are bound to beleeue them for that is out of all doubt but whether there be any such or no or whether the Scriptures doe not containe sufficient direction for the determining of al matters of importance to saluation and for the substance of religion You that you may discredit the Scriptures to aduance traditions doe not so much as acknowledge that the maine grounds of doctrine are there plainly taught but mince the matter with your some such principall points and may be gathered out of the holy Scripture whereas not onely those two you name but if not all yet many more are manifestly therein declared Our reasons speaker W. P. Testimonie I. Deutr. 4. 2. Thou shalt not adde to the words that I commande thee nor take anything therefrom therefore the written worde is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to saluation If it bee said that this commandement is spoken as well of the vnwritten as of the written word I answere that Moses speaketh of the written word onely for these very words are a certaine preface which hee set before a long commentarie made of the written lawe for this ende to make the people more attentiue and obedient speaker D. B. P. Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtraction chaunge or peruert Gods commaundements whether they be written or vnwritten speaker A. W. To interpret this place of vnwritten traditions is to strengthen the Iewes error and to voide our Sauiours reproofe And if there were any such though the particulars were
when Paul taught at Athens some seuenteene or eighteene yeeres after our Lords Ascension whereas the Gospell of S. Matthew as Irenaeus saith was penned when Paul and Peter preached and founded the Church at Rome twentie yeeres or more after the Ascension Neither doth Master Perkins auow this for a truth but sets it down as very likely speaker D. B. P. To the point of the answere that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bin deliuered by word of mouth How proueth M. Perkins that the man hath such confidence in his owne word that he goeth not once about to proue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needfull to be beleeued which is not written in the word shew vs then where it is written in the word that Saint Paul wrote in his later Epistles that which he taught by word of mouth before or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it speaker A. W. It is not the answerers dutie as I haue been faine to put you in minde before to prooue his deniall but the repliers to disprooue what he answers But for your satisfaction let me tell you that if these things the Apostle speakes of were matters necessarie to saluation it is prooued that they were written afterward or before in some part of the Scripture because the a Scripture is sufficient to make a man wise to saluation speaker D. B. P. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent reader I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing and left nothing by Tradition speaker A. W. All this labour might haue been saued vnlesse it were to more purpose For wee say not that the Apostle wrote all things he spake but that all things necessarie to saluation are expresly or by consequence contained in the Scriptures It is out of doubt in my poore opinion that the Apostle preached many things which were not written by him in these two Epistles and those also matters of moment which he wils them to obserue but the question is whether it can be prooued by this text or any other that those matters are not any where recorded in the holy Scriptures and yet are points necessarie to saluation speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Comentaries vpon this text concludeth thus Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnvvritten and those things are aswell to be beleeued as the vvritten Oecumenius and Theophylactus vpon that place teach the same speaker A. W. To the testimonie out of Chrysostomes interpretation answere first that Chrysostome saith not they were matters necessarie to saluation Secondly that otherwhere he ties vs to the Scriptures if we will be beleeued in that we deliuer Thirdly that many things may be and are in other parts of the Scripture which are not to bee found in the Epistles Fourthly that it doth not follow the Apostle Paul spake something to the Thessalonians which he wrote not to them therefore the Apostles spake some things which they neuer writ For this place speakes only of S. Pauls doings not of other Apostles Yet I make no questioÌ„ but they also did in like sort but it cannot be certainly concluded from this place Fiftly I grant that all that the Apostles deliuered was to be receiued as true and fit for the Church in those times to which they were deliuered The doctrine of the Gospell is perpetuall matters of circumstance appointed by them for the vse of the Churches perpetually are as well to be obserued as the doctrine if there be any such yea traditions of this nature are equall to things written But here lies the matter we say there are no such traditions And indeed who can thinke that the Apostles would write matters of small importance which were also not to continue perpetually and leaue great and waightie points of faith vnwritten The like answer I make to Oecumenius and Theophylact whereof the one professedly sets downe Chrysostoms opinion the other according to his custome writes him out in this place word for word speaker D. B. P. S. Basil * speaketh thus I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not vvritten for the Apostle â—â—ith I commend you that yee are mindfull of my precepts and do hold the Traditions euen as I deliuered them vnto you and then alleageth this text Hold the Traditions vvhich you haue receiued of me either by VVord or Epistle speaker A. W. Basil saith not that these traditions were matters necessarie to saluation 2. He defines not what these traditions were 3. The consequence is naught The Apostle wils the Thessalonians to keepe things deliuered by mouth therefore the Church is alwaies to keepe some things not written There was a necessitie to lay that charge vpon them for else they had needed to care for no more than was set down in those Epistles 4. The Papists themselues obserue not all the traditions there mentioned as Apostolical by Basil. 5. His iudgement in this case is not much to be accounted of who pronounceth that without those traditions the Gospellis not auaileable and that they are of equall force with the Gospell to pietie speaker D. B. P. S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying That the Apostles deliuered many things vvithout vvriting S. Paul doth testifie vvhen he writeth Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions vvhich haue been taught you either by vvord of mouth or by Epistle These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul free from all partiality gather out of this text of his that many things necessary to be beleeued euen vntill their daies remained vnvvritten and were religiously obserued by Tradition which throweth fiat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition fenced with neither reason nor authority that S Paul put in vvriting aftervvard all that he had first taught by vvord of mouth speaker A. W. Damascen is neither greatly to be respected nor saith any thing but that which I haue answered alreadie and granted in part as nothing to the purpose He might well erre in matter of Tradition that accounts the Apostles Canons set out by Clement Bishop of Rome to be Canonicall scripture which opinion the Papists themselues reiect Master Perkins would gladly haue acknowledged any tradition that could haue been prooued to be Apostolicall namely so farre as it was intended by the Apostles Whatsoeuer they taught that hee would hold to bee the truth of God if they ordained any thing for those times he would confesse it to haue been most fit Did they appoint any custome to bee perpetuall M. Perkins would haue embraced it with both his armes and if occasion had been offered haue maintained it with his life But neither can
very sufficiently though euery man cannot reade his disputation because it is latine but for the matter in hand concerning traditions it falls not into this question to be disputed what is scripture and what is not For it is presupposed that the Scriptures are the word of God and thereupon this doubt ariseth whether the word of God conteine all things necessarie to saluation or no. If that be doubted of it is idle and absurd to enquire whether there be besides that another word of God diuers from it though not contrarie which is not written but only as men haue now and then set downe some part of it in their writings so then leauing this point let vs come to those which follow speaker W. P. Obiect III. Some bookes of the canon of the Scripture are lost as the booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. The booke of the iust Iosu. 10. 13. the bookes of Chronicles of the Kinges of Israel and Iuda 1. King 14. 19. the bookes of certaine Prophets Nathan Gad Iddo Ahiah and Semiah and therfore the matter of these bookes must come to vs by tradition Answ. Though it be graunted that some bookes of Canonicall Scripture bee lost yet the Scripture still remaines sufficient because the matter of those bookes so farforth as it was necessarie to saluation is contained in these bookes of Scripture that are now extant speaker D. B. P. The two next arguments for Traditions be not well propounded by M. Perkins The third is to be framed thus Either all the bookes of holy Scripture conteine all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine of them without the rest not some of them without the rest for then the other should be superfluous which no man holdeth therfore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue been loâ—t therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written Word and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. Perkins answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answere supposeth speaker A. W. Because you thinke the reason makes for your aduantage as you haue framed it your selfe I will follow your steps and leaue his argument as you do That I may answere orderly I deny your assumption All things necessarie to saluation are conteined in some certaine bookes of the scripture so that although the rest were wanting we should haue sufficient to saluation for the matter To your reason I say farther that the consequence is naught if some certaine are sufficient to saluation the rest are superfluous for first it cannot be superfluous to haue any booke of Gods word kept for the vse of the Church though the matter of it be in some other Secondly if your consequence be good it is also superfluous to haue the same psalme or story recorded in two places of the scripture especially the later But to say so were to condemne the holy ghost of hauing taken superfluous paines to no purpose which were blasphemie I prooue it by these particulars for example Psal. 18. is in the booke of Psalmes and in the second booke of Samuell The history of Ezechiah is 2. Reg. 29. and so forward and Isai 36. 37. 38. The like I might bring out of the bookes of Kings and Chronicles Thirdly though the matter be all fully and perfectly in certaine bookes yet euery point is not so plaine in one booke as in another and therefore it is not superfluous to haue all these bookes though all matter necessarie to saluation be comprised in some few of them Fourthly the purpose of the holy ghost in penning the scriptures was not only to teach matters necessarie to saluation but to set forth the glorie of God in his prouidence iustice mercie wisdome and such like to afford vs examples of diuers kinds of vertues to exhort vs to faith and good works and in a word to prouide for Gods glorie by vs heere as well as for our glorifying by him in heauen to which there is no booke nor sentence of scripture but serues more or lesse and therefore no booke of it can be thought supersluous though the necessarie matters belonging to saluation be conteined in certaine of them very sufficiently speaker W. P. Againe I take it to bee a truth though some thinke otherwise that no part of the Canon is lost for Paul saith Whatsoeuer things were written aforetime were written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures c. Rom. 15. 4. where he takes it for granted that the whole Canon of holie Scripture was then extant For if he had thought that some bookes of Scripture had beene lost hee would haue said whatsoeuer was written and is now extant was written for our learning and comfort For bookes that are lost serue neither for learning nor comfort Againe to hold that any bookes of Scripture should be lost calls into question Gods prouidence and the fidelitie of the Church who hath the bookes of God in keeping and is therfore called the pillar and ground of truth And touching the bookes before mentioned I answere thus The booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. might bee some short bill or narration of thinges done among the Israelites which in the daies of Moses went from hand to hand For sometime a booke in Scripture signifieth a roule or Catalogue as the first chapter of Matthew which containeth the genealogie of our Sauiour Christ is called the booke of the generation of Iesus Christ. Againe the booke of the iust and the books of Chronicles which are said to be lost were but as the Chronicles of England are with vs euen politicke records of the acts and euents of things in the kingdome of Iuda and Israel out of which the Prophets gathered things necessarie to be knowne and placed them in holy Scripture As for the bookes of Iddo Ahiah Semiah Gad and Nathan they are contained in the bookes of the Kinges and Chronicles and in the bookes of Samuel which were not written by him alone but by sundrie Prophets 1. Chro. 29. 29. as also was the booke of Iudges As for the bookes of Salomon which are lost they did not concerne religion and matters of saluation but were concerning matters of Philosophie and such like things speaker D. B. P. Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrarie vnto the plaine Scriptures as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be proued out of the historie of Paralâ—pomeneon which they translate Chronicles