conscience of men to sanctifie them by their worke whome Christ by his onelie oblation hath made perfect for euer They that holde these points denie Christ to be a perfect Prophet King and Priest But these be deepe mysteries of puritanisme saith the answerer Christ is a Prophet alone a King alone a Priest alone the ouerthrow of all gouernment No sir no to acknowledge Christe to be our onelie Prophet king and priest ouerthroweth not but establisheth all power that is ordeined vnder him to teach gouerne and sanctifie The scripture in deede Eph. 4. Acts. 5. doth allowe Prophets and teachers in the Church but not authors of new doctrine no makers of new articles of faith no traditions beside the Gospell of Christ which is written that we might beleeue and beleeuing haue eternall life in his name The scripture alloweth Kinges and rulers 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2. but the scripture giueth no authoritie to any king or ruler to dispense against the lawes of God nor to any Prophet or priest to discharge subiects of their oth made to their lawfull Prince to binde the conscience of man with new constitutions as necessarie to saluation c. But whereas you aske whether Priests may not sanctifie by the word of god 2. Tim. 4. you are neare driuen for proofes For to omitte that the Chapter you quote hath neuer a word either of priests or sanctifying and to take your meaning to be of 1. Tim. 4. verse 5. the Apostle speaketh not of the Priest or ecclesiasticall ministers power of sanctifying but of euerie Christian man and woman to whome euerie creature of God in the right vse thereof is sanctified by the word of God and praier and against them that forbid thinges consecrated and allowed by God as matrimonie and meates sanctifyed by his worde that hath giuen them to be receiued with thankesgiuing and by the praier of the thankefull receiuer as a mean to obtaine sanctification from God whoe onelie is holie and therefore hath onelie power properlie to sanctifie and to inioyne as more holie by their owne making and not by Gods sanctification virginitie then matrimonie fish then flesh yca take vpon them to sanctifie Gods creatures in an other vse then God hath appointed them as water fire garments boughs flowers bread and such like for religion and sanctifying of Christian men Againe he asketh what doe the traditions of Christ and his Apostles for of those onelie they talke when they compare them with scripture impeach the teaching of Christ and his Apostles I answere there are no traditions of Christ and his Apostles pertaining to a Christian mans dutie to obtaine erernall life but those that be comprehended in the holie scriptures as the spirite of God in the scripture which cannot lie doth testifie And therefore they are the traditions of men and not of Christ and his Apostles that areso called vnder which title all heresies fansies may be brought in without testimonie of the written worde of God Wherefore such traditions doe greatlie impeach the office of Christes teaching reproouing his Apostles and Euangelists of imperfection if they haue not comprehended the summe of all that Christ taught and did for our saluation which Saint Luke in the beginning of his Gospell doth professe that he hath done and that verie exactlie And further it is false that our answerer saith they talke of the traditions of Christ and his Apostles onelie when they compare them with scripture For they compare the decrees of their Pope and of their generall councells allowed by him to be of equall authoritie with the holie scriptures as well as traditions Secondlie he asketh what doth the spiritual authorttie of the Pope vnder Christ diminish the Kinglie power and authoritie of Christ I answere the Pope hath no spirituall authoritie vnder Christ by anie graunt of Christ but he vsurpeth authoritie aboue Christ when he will controll the lawes and institutions of Christ as denying the cuppe of blessing vnto the laie people and in taking vpon him to make newe lawes and to inioyne men to obserue them in paine of damnation as be his lawes of abstinence from mariage and meates for religions sake which Christ hath left free for all men euen for Bishops Priests and Deacons of the Church and in an hundred matters beside Last of all he asketh How doth the priesthood of men as from Christ or the sacrifice of the altar instituted by Christ disgrace Christs priesthood or his sufficient sacrifice once for all offered on the crosse I answere the priesthood of reconciling by sacrifice doth not passe from Christ to anie man because he hath by one sacrifice made perfect for euer all that are sanctifyed and liueth for euer to make intercession for vs therefore hath as the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a priesthood that passeth not to any other in succession as Arons priesthood did whereby he is able to saue for euer those that come vnto God by hym Againe I denie that Christ did institute that sacrifice of the altar whereof there is no worde in all the scripture and therefore a new priesthood and a new sacrifice must needes be blaspemous against the eternal priesthood of Christ and that one sufficient sacrifice which he offered and therebie found eternall redemption The texts alledged by Master Charke Heb. 7. 9. he saith doe not impeach this dailie sacrifice of theirs because they graunt that sacrifice once offered c. in that manner as it was then done meaning bloodelie whereas they offer it vnbloodelie c. But the wholl discourse of the Aposile throughout the wholl epistle almoste excludeth all repetition of that sacrifice in any manner For therepetition of the same sacrifice should argue imperfection in it as it did in the Iewish sacrifices and without shedding of blood there is noremission of sinnes Is Christ shoulde be often offered he should often suffer All which being impossible it remaineth that as Christ offered himselfe but once and not often so no man hath authoritie or power to offer him anie more neither is there anie neede he should be more then once offered seing by that one oblation he hath made perfect for euer all that are sanctified and hath found eternall redemption for all that beleeue in him But for proofe that there must be such a daylie sacrifice in the Church vntill the end of the world he alledgeiu the prophecie of Daniell 12. Malachie 1. whereas Daniell speaketh of the dailie sacrifice of the Lawe which should cease in the persecution of Antiochus and be vtterly abolished by the death of Christ. And Malachic of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgeuing which by all nations is offered as a pure sacrifice and acceptable to him through Christ. The former exposition is allowed by S. Ierome to be verified of Antiochus in a type of Antichrist whoe shall forbid culium Dei the worship of God which doth not require any such
haue beene hither to frustrate and the strength of the Turke is increased by our warres The second is that vnder pretext of making warre against the Turke the Popehath vsed to rake mony to gether for their pardons And he concludeth that without repentance and the ouerthrow of the Popes tyrannie there is no hope to preuaile in warre against the Turkes because God is not on our side butiustlie incensed against vs. Quantòrectius saith he faceremus c. How much better should we do if first with our praiers yea rather by changeing the wholl course of our life we reconcile God vnto vs And then that the Emperours the princes would restraine that Idole of Roome from tyrannie deceit and destroying of souies For that I also maie once prophecie although I know I shall not be heard Except the Pope of Rome be brought vnder all Christendome is vndonne Let him flie as Christ hath taught into the mountaines he that can or with confidence let him offer his life to death vnto the Romish murtherers The Popedome can worke nothing but sinne and destruction what will you more But who shall subdue the Pope Christ by the brightnes of his comming and none other Lord who hath beleeued our preaching he that hath eares to heare let him heare and let him absteine from the Turgish warre while the name of the Pope preuaileth vnder heauen I haue said By this you maie see that Luther fauored not the empire of infidelitie but sheweth by what meanes it maie be resisted Againe he forbiddeth not defense against the Turke but inuasion of the Turke when we maie be at peace with him For that it is lawfull to fight against the Turke in our owne defense he sheweth his opinion in consut Rat. Latomianae where he derideth the follie of Latomus and the diuines of Louane which racked the decree of Pope Leo to this sense that it was needles to answer the aduersaties of religion which is as great wisedome of the schoole of Louane in proceeding against Luther as if when the Turke doth set vpon vs which is no waies lawfull for him and yet he will not be staid we should send the diuines of Louane embassadors vnto him which should saie vnto him It is not lawfull for thee to fight and if thou do we will condemne thee and so suffer him to raunge at his pleasure and yet boast that we haue gotten the victorie Nay saith he let vs laie aside praiers and all spirituall armour and cease to resist the deuill denouncing vnto him and saying It is not lauful for thee to trouble the Church of God So that Luther by these wordes declareth his iudgement that it is as lawfull for vs and as necessarie with bodelie armour to defend our selues against the Turke assailing vs as it is to fight against the deuill with spirituall armour and to confute enemies of the trueth by the word of God For a fourth example of impietie you adde when he reprehended the Pope for defining beside scripture that the soule is immortall and calleth it a monster of the dunghill of Rome what ground of impietie doth he not laie In deed if Luther should denie the immortalitie of the soule as Pope Iohn the 23. did and was therefore conuicted and condemned in the Counsell of Constance wee would accurse Luthers memorie as much as the Popes But if Luther reprehended the Pope for deliuering that vpon the creditte of his owne definition and authoritie which is manifestlie grounded vpon the authoritie of holie scriptures what a slaunderous penne haue you He was charged by the Collectors art 37. to haue saide thus Certum est in manu Ecclesiae c. It is certaine that it is not in the hand of the Church or of the Pope at all to decree articles of the faith nay nor yet lawes of manners and good workes To this article Luther answereth thus Probo hunc sic c. This article I prooue thus 1. Cor. 3. No man can lay any other foundation beside that which is alreadie laide which is Iesus Christ. Here thou hast the foundation laid by the Apostles but euerie article of faith is part of this foundation therefore none other article can be laid then is alreadie laid There may be builded vpon as the same Apostle saith And therefore the Pope ought to be laide and builded vpon the same foundation but not to lay any foundation for all things to be beleeued are fully set forth in the scriptures Yet I permit that the Pope may make articles of faith to them that beleeue in him such as these are That the bread and wine are transsubstantiated in the sacrament That the essence of god doth neither beget nor is begotton That the soul is the substantiall forme of the bodie That he him seife is the Emperour of the world King of heauen and an earthly God That the soull is immortall And all those infinite monsters in the Romish dunghill of decrees that such as his faith is such may be his Gospell such his beeleeuers such his Church and that like lippes may haue like lettice and the cup a couer meete for it But we which are Christians and not Papanes doe know that there is nothing pertaining either to faith or good manners which is not abundantlie set forth in the holie scriptures that there is neither authoritie nor place for men to decree any other thing These wordes declare that what doctrine is true and needefull to be knowne must be receiued from God by the holie scriptures not from the Popes decrees or from any mortall mans authoritie It is maruaile you doe not charge Luther with holding the pluralitie of Gods because here prehendeth the Pope for defining that the essence of god can neither beget nor be begotton as wel as with denying the immortality of the soul. both which articles are to be taken out of the holie scriptures not from the authoritie of the Popes definition For though the Pope define any thing which is true yet it must not be receiued vpon his creditte but vpon the authoritie of Gods worde And seeing the Popes decrees doe containe such a number of vntruethes the articles of faith from the Popes decrees may receiue discredit rather then authoritie But all thinges must be examined according to the worde of God writen which is the truth yea euen the scripture comming from the mouth of the deuill Againe I wish the reader to consider how truelie you saie that Luther calleth that opinion of the immortalitie of the soule a monster of the dunghill of Rome when he speaketh of the infinite monsters of falsehoode that are found in the dunghill of the Popes decrees where of he maketh no expresse mention in answere to this article The last example of impiety is when Luther affirmeth and mantaineth that neither man nor Angell on earth can laie any one lawe vpon any one Christian further then he will him-selfe What foundation say you
Secondlie he speaketh of the fourth daies or Wednesdaies fast to be appointed by the tradition of the Apostles which yet neuerthelesse the Romish Church doth not obserue Thirdlie that the Pente cosse or fiftie daies by the tradition of Apostles are exempted from the Fridaie fast which tradition is not kept in the Popes Church except you will saie that Pentecost is taken for whitson weeke and then the custome of the PopishChurch is directlie contrarie to the tradition of the Apostles for Wednesdaie and Fridaie that weeke are 〈◊〉 daies And as for the Wednesdaie fast as well as the Fridaie Epiphanius is so earnest that he addeth further Deinde verò st non de eodem argumento quartarum Prosabbatorum ijdem Apostoli in constitutione dixissent etiamaliter vndique demonstrare possemus Attamen de hoc exactè scribunt Assumpsit autem ecclesta in toto mundo assensus factus est c. And moreouer if the same Apostles in their constitutions had not spoken of the same argument of wednesdaies Fridaies we could otherwise throughly make proofe of it But they write exactly ofit and the Church hath taken it vp assent hath bin geuen in al the world You see he alledgeth not onely a decree of the Apostles but also the consent of all the world for the wednesdaie fast as well as the Fridaie fast So that if the Apostles tradition beside the scripture be necessarie for lent whie is it not also for wednesdaies fast And if wednesdaies faste is not necessarie no more is lent fast Further you affirme that Dionystus and Tertullian saie that praiers and oblations for the dead are traditions of the Apostles De Eccles. hier c. 7. de corona milit but Dionystus al beit we do not acknowledge him for a man of such antiquitie as the papists would obtrude him yet hath not any mention of traditions of the Apostles in that Chap ter touching praier for the dead but either of tradition in scripture orels at large endeuoring to prooue that he saith by scripture Tertullian in the place quoted speaketh onelie of oblations for the dead in that yearelie day which maie signifie thanksgiuing as pro nataliliis for their birth doth in in the verie same clause Not denying yet but Tertullian when he forsooke the Church and became a Montanist yealed to praier for the dead as a thing reuealed by the spirit aud new prophecie of Montanus Last of all you saie Saint Basill teacheth that the consecration of the fant before baptisme the exorcisme vpon those that are to be baptized their anointing with holie chrisme and diuerse like thinges are deliuered to vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles lib. de spi. 5. cap. 27. Of consecration or blessing of the water to the holie vse of baptisme of those that are to be baptized there neede no tradition to be alledged the scripture is sufficient in the institution of baptisme whereby both the water and the perfon are dedicated to God aud his holie worke of regeneration The anointing with chrisme seemeth at the first to haue beene the signe of the giftes of the holie Ghost which were wont to be graunted with baptisme which though it had beene vfed by the Apostles in baptisme yet that particular grace being ceased which to signifie it was vsed it hath no longer anie profitable vse in the Church As for exorcisme vpon those that are to be baptized Is is your owne addition for Saint Basill hath it not But where you saie he hath diuers like thinges as deliuered by traditian it is verie true and among them this sor example that it is necessarie for the children of the Church to praie standing on the Lords daie But this necessitie euen in the popish Church is notacknowledged therefore whatsoeuer he saieth is a tradition of the Apostles is necessarieto be kept of all Christians although all the Church in his time beleeued it as that which Epiphanius reporteth of the wednesdaies fast before spoken of You demaund vpon what ground you shall discredit or reiect these traditions deliuered by such fathers cheife Doctors and pillers of the Church Euen by the same ground that you giue ouer other traditions deliuered by the same persones either because they are not true traditions or els because they are not necessarie for the Church albelt they were deliuered as no doubt some ceremoniall matters were euen by the Apostles them selues Your other reasons are friuolous That they were neerer the Apostles then we For the neerest and moste immediat successours to the Apostles Policarpus and Anicetus could not agree vpon the tradition of the Apostles one of them building vpon Iohn the other vpon Peter as is testified by Eusebius out of Irenaeus in the place before cited An other reason is that they were honest men and would not deceiue vs willinglie And so much we acknowledge yet might they be deceiued in ascribing the common practise of their time to Apostolike tradition and so deceiue vs vnwittinglie nor be controlled because the custome generall acceptation of that ceremonie restreined men Which things considered it is a great iniquitie as Master Charke saieth to adde traditions to the written word of God as if of it selfe it were not sufficient to instruct the Church in all thinges necessarie to saluation That which followeth of Doctor Fulkes handling the olde Fathers about traditions is answered by himselfe in his confutation of popish quarrells from pag. 55. to pag 61. After this you cite foure seuer all Doctors in defence of traditions vnwritten whereunto as some of auncient writers were too much inclined so haue you not so sure ground out of them for your popish traditions as you purpose And to beginne with Basill who by Apostolike traditiō defendeth the custome of the Church which was to sing Glorie be to the Father and to the sonne with the holie Ghost whereas the heretikes would haue it in the holie Ghost and cauilled that the other forme was not in the scriptures Saint Basil mainteineth it as agreeable to the scriptures by authoritie of auncient tradition although it were not expressed in so manie wordes in the scriptures as manie other thinges are which haue like force vnto pietie with those that are dilinered in expresse wordes as for example he alledgeth the confession of the faith in the 〈◊〉 which no man doubteth to be sufficientlie tanght in the scriptures although the verie wordes of our creed are not expressed in such for me As we rehearse our creede I omit 〈◊〉 things saieth he the verie confession of faith in which we beleeue in the father the sonne the holie Ghost in what scripture haue we it Againe And if they doe reiect the manner of glorifying of god as not written let them bring forth demonstration in writing of the confession of faith of other things that we rehearse By which it is manifest that the traditions he speaketh of are of two sortes the one
from the paine and from the fault some plenarie of al their sinnes some partial of part of their sins some for a number of daies some for many thousands of yeares which euery one that paieth mony for them shall haue the benefit of them or which he giueth to such an hospitall gylde or brotherhoode or to him which saith such a praier or goeth on such a pilgri mage such like wherunto may be added his dispensations absolutiós exemptions lycenses these are the popes pardons of which the controuersy is between vs of which he cānot prooue that there was either vse or approbation no not in the Church of Rome for a wholl 1000. yeares after Christ. And these when he hath saied as much as he hath learned to saie for them out of the decretalls Clementines and Extrauagants you shall finde to be by his their owne determination nothing ells but as they are called in Latine Bullae Bubles great in appeerance but altogether emptie and voide of profit The attention of the gentle reader I do likewise require beccause he may see what good occasion Luther had to seperate himselfe from the Popish Church as from the whore of Babylon which so obstinately defended such abhominable blasphemies which all wise and reasonable men haue either abhorred or as he confesseth beene offended at them And yet let the reader marke how boldlie he calleth this article of the popes pardons an article of Christian faith whereof the Church of god neuer heard for a thousand yeares more since Christs assension before the loosing of Satā out of the bottomles pit when Antichrist was bolde to set abroad al his impieties and to sit not in a mysterie of iniquitie but openlie in the sight of al men in the temple of God and to exalt him-selfe aboue all that is called God or worshiped ALLEN And to be plaine in the matter where sinceritie is moste required two causes mooued me to beleeue like and allow of the power of pardons and indulgencies long before I either knew the commodities of them or had sought out the ground and meaning of them The first was the Churches authoritie which I credited in all other articles before I knew any of them or could by reason or scripture mainteine them Whose iudgement to follow by my Christian profession in all other pointes and to forsake in this one of Popes pardons had beene meere follie and a signe of phantasticall choise of things indifferent which is the proper passion of heresie Neither did I then know that the Church of Christ had allowed such thinges because I had read the determination of any generall Councells or decrees of some chiefe gouernours of the saide Church touching such pardons or because I had by histories and note of diuerse ages seene the practize of the faithfull people herein by which waies her meaning of doubtfull things is most assuredlie knowne but onelie I deemed that the Church allowed them and misliked the contrarie because such as bare the name of Christian folke and Catholike did approoue them and sometimes lamented the lacke of them And surelie for an vnlearned man I count it the briefest rule in the worlde to keepe him selfe both in faith and conuersation euer with that companie which by the generall and common calling of the people be named Catholikes For that name kept Saint Augustine himselfe in the trueth and true Church much more it may doe the simple sorte who is not hable to stande with an heretike that will challenge the Church to himselfe by Sophisticall reasons from the Christians that for lacke of learning can not answere him Well this companie of Catholikes brought me to know the Church and my creede caused me to beleeue the Church no lesse concerning the Popes Pardons then any other article of our Christian profession which though it were not of like weight yet it was to me of like trueth and all in like vnknowne at that time FVLKE Your pretence of plainnes sinceritie is but craft and sub tiltie to deceiue the simple and ignorant that they might please themselues in their blindenes and by your example thinke themselues at ease in their ignorance For what reasonable man will be perswaded that you could beleeue like and allow that thing whereof you know no vse nor whence it came or what it meaned But here you shew what faith is accounted among the Papists a fond perswasion of any thing that is tolde them by their teachers although they neither knowe what commoditie it bringeth nor what ground of trueth it hath nor finallie what it meaneth But howsoeuer it was two causes mooued you whereof you professe that hearing of the worde of God was neither The first was the Churches authoritie which you credited in all other articles before you knew any of them or could by reason or scripture mainteine them So by your owne confession you did as many papists doe beleeue you knew not what which faith would neuer bring you to eternall life which consisteth in knowledge of God and Iesus Christ according to that which is writen that wee might beleeue and be saued But seeing you could neither by reason nor by scripture mainteine those articles to be true which you beleeued how could you be perswaded that this companie was the Church of Christ the piller of trueth rather then the Church of Antichrist the mother of heresies and errors For all swarmes of heretikes challenge vnto themselues the name of the Church and require credit to be giuen vnto them and the more heretikes the lesse care they haue to make any triall of their doctrine to be trueth what had you more to perswade your conscience that you were in the right waie then a lew or a Turke hath which crediteth the companie amongst whome he is bred and borne without examining by reason or the scripture whether those thinges which they teach them be the trueth or no But it had beene a signe of phantasticall choyce of thinges indifferent you saie which is the proper passion of heresie to follow the Churches iudgement in all other points and to forsake it in this one of Popes Pardons Where you saie the phantasticall choice of things indifferent is the proper passion of heresie I know not what you meane except you thinke that heretikes are deceiued onelie in the choise of thinges indifferent or that whosoeuer maketh some phantastical choise of thinges indifferent is an heretike neither of which opinions I trowe you are able to mainteine For though some heretikes make a phantasticall choise of thinges indifferent I suppose it is not proper onelie to heretikes for some schismatikes that be not heretikes make such a phantasticall choise and the phantastical choise of heretikes is most occupied about principall groundes and articles of faith not about thinges indifferent onelie Moreouer I would know whether you account the Popes pardons to be things indifferent or necessarie for the Church for if
you both to wil and to be hable to do for his owne good pleasure whereupon we conclude that though a man is willed to worke his owne saluation by walking in that waie which god hath appointed for them that shal be saued yet he can doe nothing by his owne strength but all that he doth is of the grace of god for by grace you are saued through faith that not of your selues it is the gift of God To be short we make not the grace of God an helper onelie but a wholl doer and bringer to passe in vs of our saluation and of all thinges tending thereto For we are not apt of our selues as of our selues to thinke anie thing belonging thereto but our aptnes is of God Nor I saith Saint Paul but the grace of God which is with me Againe we haue infinit places of scripture to prooue that a man ought not to dout of his saluatiō in respect of the truth of Gods promises although we ought to feare trem ble at Gods iudgements and although we cannot be alwaies voide of feare in respect of our own weakenes Furthermore they haue expresselie doe ye the worthie fruites of penance Luc. 3. we haue no where that faith onelie is sufficient without all satisfaction and all other workes of penance on our partes The fruites worthie of repentance we acknowledge to be necessaire to declare vnfained repentance but not for satisfaction of Gods iustice which is blasphemous against the satisfaction of Christes death But that a faith which is fruitles or voide of the workes of repentance should be sufficient to saluation or Iustification we doe vtterlie deny as a thing contrary to the scriptures Yet againe they haue expresselie that euerie man shal be saued according to his workes Apo. 20. we haue no where that men shal be iudged onelie according to their faith We confesse as the text is that euerie man shal be iudged according to his workes and so perhaps he would haue saide if the corrector had done his part neither doe we affirme that men shal be iudged onelie according to their faith for triall of their faith shal be made by their workes Once againe they haue expresselie that there remaineth aretribution stipend and paie to euery good worke in heauen Marc. 9. 1. Cor. 3. Apoc. 22. Ps. 118. we haue as he saith no where that good workes done in Christ do merite nothing In the 3. text quoted out of the new testament is all one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a rewarde whether it be freelie giuen or deserued by laboure To him that worketh saith Saint Paule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rewarde is not accompted according to grace but according to debt But God is debter to no man Neither is there anie merit of good workes once named in the scriptures but against the merit of good workes Christ saith epxresselie when you haue done all thinges that are commaunded vnto you saie we are vnprofitable seruants and the paie wages stipend merite or desert of an vnprofitable seruant is shewed Matt. 25. 30. Cast out the vnprofitable seruant into vtter darkenesse there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth It is therfore the grace mercie and trueth of Gods promise whereby we claime rewarde and not the merites desert or debt of our good workes To that he saieth they haue expresselie praier and sacrifice for the dead in the second of the Maccaebees We answer that booke of Macabes to be no holie Scripture out of which he might haue expresselie a man commended for killing himselfe Whether Angels present good workes and almesdeedes before God and whether Saintes departed do praie for them that are aliue which he gathereth out of the Apocriphal bookes of Tobie and the Maccabes we make no question as of matters not reuealed in the canonicall scriptures But if they were graunted to be so yet it followeth not that men aliue must or may praie to Angels or Saintes departed Last of all out of the canonicall scripture he saieth they haue expresselie that the affliction which Daniell vsed vpon his bodie was acceptable in the sight of God Dan. 10. and we haue no where that such voluntarie corporall afflictions are in vaine But which of vs saith that such voluntarie corporall affliction as Daniell vsed and to such end as he did vse them are in vaine No man verilie You see therefore that while he boasteth of expresse words of scripture against vs he is driuen either to glose vpon the text or to faine some opinion vnto vs which we holde not at all and that all his bragges are but winde and wordes without matter as of one that-fcareth no shame because his heade is hidden The third waie of triall is necessarie collections made and inferred vpon the scriptures which we are willing to acknowledge and admitte to be of as great authoritie as the expresse words of the scripture But to discerne what is necessarie collection and what is not necessarie collection when there is no expresse wordes of scripture there is no certaine waie but the iudgement of Logicke for that onelie is necessarie collection which out of expresse words of scripture or articles of faith or other groundes confessed to be necessarilie gathered out of the holie scripture may be rightly concluded in a true and lawfull syllogisme whatsoeuer cannot be so concluded is no necessarie collection But our answerer saith we must referre our selues to the auncient primitiue Church for this meaning and his reason is For it is like they knew it best for that they liued nearer to the writers thereof then we doe who could well declare vnto them what was the meaning of the same we doe willinglie yeald to consult with the auncient primitiue Church to be holpen with their collections but to admit all their collections without examining them were to admit many errors that euen the Papists doe condemne for errors and which are reprooued by the scriptures them-selues Let one example serue in stead of manie S. Ierome collecteth out of this scripture It is good not to touch a woman that therefore it is euill to touch a woman Euerie man doth see that this is an vnnecessary collection and so are many other in the auncient fathers writings Wherefore we must vse the gift of knowledge of right gathering and concluding which God hath giuen not to be vnprofitable vnto his Church but to be both beneficiall and necessarie Againe marke the feeble reason vpon which our answerer groundeth his saying It is like they knew it best he cannot say it is necessarie that they knew it best then how prooueth he that it is like because they liued neerer to the writers then we doe who could well declare the meaning vnto them In deede if we had the writings of them that liued so neere vnto the Apostles that they might heare their meaning of their owne mouthes it were some likeliehood and yet no necessarie proofe
third question you haue what difference is betweene these speaches namelie of proceeding and begotten which question you saie with the rest though Master Charke seeme ignorant in them all and not to vnderstand so much as the verie 〈◊〉 themselues yet Catholike diuines know what the Church hath determined herein But concerning this question Saint Augustine shall answere for our ignorance Cont. Maximin lib. 3. cap. 14. Quid autem inter nasci procedere incersit de illa excellentissima natura loquens explicare quis potest Non omne quod procedit nascitur quamuis omne procedar quod nascitur 〈◊〉 omne quod bipes est homo est quam nis bipes sit omnis qui homo est haec scio Distinguere autem inter illam generationem hanc processionem nescio non valeo non sufficio Ac per hoc quia illa ista est ineffabilis stcut Propheta de filio loquens alt Generationem eius quis enarrabit ita de spiritu sancto verissimè dicitur processionem eius quis enarrabit c. What difference is betweene begotten proceeding speaking of that moste excellent nature whoe is able to expresse Not all that proceedeth is begotten although al proceedeth that is begotten As not euerie two legged thing is a man although euerie one is two legged that is a man Those thinges I know But to distinguish betweene that generation and this procession I know not I am not able I am not sufficient And for this reason because both that and this is vnspeakeable as the Prophet speaking of the sonne saith whoe shall declare his generation so of the holie ghost it is saide moste trulie whoe shall declare his procession This is Saint Augustines iudgement of this question Yea this is the Master of the sentences iudgement also as well of this question as of the proceeding of the sonne from the father against you Yet you saie of these as wel of as the other they are no lesse to be beleeued then other mysteries of the trinitie wherewith your conclusion is that you would not haue troubled Master Charke if you had supposed him so grosse therein as by examination you finde him Alacke poore Sir William A lacke for pitie what high points of learning you haue shewed which in the Master of the sentences whome soeuer he wil of an hundred schoolemen that wrote vpon him euerie sophister may finde mooued debated and defined in lesse then one daies studie no meruaill then if Master Charke be so grosse in them as you by examination finde him But while you in your owne imagination are so subtile in them that you thinke your crest perceth the clowdes you haue bewraied more shamefull proude ignorance then any of vs would haue suspected that it might be found in such a great Champion of the Papistes such a Lorde he censuter such a doughtie defender When in some of the questions propounded by your selfe you neither know the doctrine of the scripture the iudgement of the auncient fathers the determination of your Church nor the conclusion of your owne schoole doctors in whole mysteries neuertheles you would seeme to be an other Mercurie For the rest of the handes that you draw against Doctor Fulke you are answered in this consutation of popish quarrelles from pag. 48. vntill pag. 55. And where you saie that euerie litle gesse at our pleasure is sufficient to prooue what we will whereas no testimonies of your part will serue except they be so plaine and euident as by no waits they maie be auoyded and thereupon charge vs to be Lordes of the scriptures it is as manie other of yours a detestable slaunder For as I haue shewed before in matters necessarie to saluation we admit no gesses but either manifest wordes of scripture or els that which is necessarilie concluded out of manifest wordes and principles confessed and such if you haue anie bring them forth and we will hearken vnto them Ouer against the article of punishing heretiks by death which you saie was a long time denied by our selues to be allowable by scripture you note in the margent Luther against Latomus de incendiariis of burners For what purpose I maruell seeing in that booke he complaineth of the Louanistes not for burning heretikes but for burning of his bookes For the mention which Saint Paull is thought of some to make of an Epistle written to the Laodicenses you are not a litle netled that Master Chark condemneth both you and Saint Ieromes translation of ignorance You saie he should not obiect ignorance so peremptorilie to you you ought not so rigorously to haue beene reprehended and you name a great manie auncient writers which may be sufficient to wipe awaie Master Charkes bitter reproch against you But let vs see howrigorously and bitterly he hath delt with you yea how peremtorilie he obiecteth ignorance to you by his own wordes The Episile to the Laodiceans although manie make mention of it Paull maketh none so that either you ignorantlie passed ouer the greeke or willfullie addicted your selfe to the olde translation being in this place plainlie corrupted For by the originall Paull speaketh of an Epistle from Laodicea and not writen to the Laodicenses as you vntrulie assirme Here is all that he saieth you are a daintie Parnell that count your selfe so rigorouflie reprehended and so bitterlie reproched in those wordes where ignorance is not peremptorilie obiected as you saie but either that or willful addiction to the olde translation which I know not vpon what ground you doe so peremtorilie call S. Ieromes translation Master Charke hath more cause to complaine of you for that you affirme that he saith the greeke text hath of an Epistle written by S. Paull from Laodicea For he saith not an Epistle written by Saint Paull but from Laodicea by whome soeuer it was written Where you cite manie that thought mention to be made of one written by Saint Paull to the Laodiceans he confesseth as much But it is more against Master Charke that you haue two Greeke editions the one of Pagnine the other of Plantine which make for you as you affirme But what if you be deceiued in them as great a clarke as you would seeme to be that maie not be touched with the least suspicion of ignorance The most of the copies both printed and written haue 〈◊〉 the Epistle from Laodicea Your two editions leaue out the preposition and then it must be translated that Epistle of Laodicea which it seemeth your vulgar interpreter followed in sense though not in wordes which saith eam quae Laodicensiumest that which is of the Laodiceans Where is there now in anie of these that which maketh for you that Saint Paull speaketh of an Epstle written by him to the Laodicenses For the Epistle of Laodicea which your two greeke editions haue and the Epistle of the Laodicenses which your vulgar translation hath cannot signifie an Epistle written to the Laodicenses but from
necessarie to saluation not expressed in so manie wordes and syllables yet in full sense contained and to be plainlie concluded out of the holie scriptures and these we receiue to be of as great credit as anie thing that is expresselie contained in the scriptures The other kinde of traditions was rites and cerimonies which are not necessary to saluation but are in the Churches power to alter as it maie stand best with edification Among which S. Basill rehearseth some that long since are abolished as the rite of standing in praier one the Lords daie and betweene Easter and Whitsontid which of it selfe is a thing indifferent as also that manner of glorifying in which they said with the holy ghost whereas al the Church long since hath said neither in the holie Ghost nor with the holie Ghost but to the holie Ghost To beleeue that the holie Ghost is to be glorified equallie with the Father and the sonne it is necessarie to saluation but in what forme of wordes that shal be song in the Church it is indifferent and the later Church hath vsed her libertie herein to alter that forme which Saint Basill saith was deliuered by the Apostles themselues without writing By this I hope it is manifest what kinde of traditions are of equall force or authoritie with the scripture euen they which haue their ground in the scriptures and none other For as the same Basill affirmeth Euerie word or deede ought to be confirmed by testimonie of the holie Scriptures Againe For if all that is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith is of hearing and hearing by the word of God whatsoeuer is beside the holie Scripture being not of faith is sinne Thus Basill whatsoeuer he speaketh of vnwritten traditions he meaneth not against the insufficiencie of the holie scriptures except you will saie he is contrarie to him-selfe in manie places beside these that I haue noted Tr. de vera piafide Epist. 80. in Reg. Breu. Inter. 1. 65. 68. de ornatu Monachi Your next testimonie is out of Eusebius lib. 1. Eu. Demonst. cap. 8. whole wordes you mangle after your manner leauing out at your pleasure more then you rehearse Eusebius hauing shewed the excellencie of Christ aboue Moses declareth also that there are two manners ofliuing in Christianitie the one of them that are strong and perfect the other of them that are subiect to manie infirmites and that whereas Moses did write in tables without life Christ hath written the perfect preceptes of the new Testament in liuing mindes his disciples following their Masters minde considering what Doctrine is meete for both sortes haue committed the one to writing as that which is necessarie to be kept of all the other they deliuered without writing to those that were able to receiue it wich haue excelled the common manner of men in knowledge in strength in abstinence c. And this is the meaning of Eusebius in that place not of anie traditions necessarie to saluation of euerie man which are not taught in the holy scriptures but of certaine precepts tending to perfection not enioyned to all but written in the heartes of some The third man is Epiphanius who you saie is more earnest then Eusebius writing against certaine heretikes called Apostolici which denied traditions as our Protestantes do Which is but a tale for they were more like to Popish monkes and friers then Protestantes For they professed to abstaine from marryage to poslesse nothing and such other superstitions they obserued But what saith Epiphanius for traditions He saith that we must vse tradition For all thinges can not be taken out of the scripture wherefore the holie Apostles deliuered somethings in the scriptures and something in tradition Mine answer to Epiphanius is the same that it was to Basilius Namelie that such things as were not expressed in plaine wordes in the scripture were approoued by tradition being neuertheles such thinges as were to be concluded necessarilie out of the scripture As in the question for which he alledgeth tradition it is manifest Tradiderunt c. the holie Apostles of God saith he haue deliuered vnto vs that it is sinne after virginitie decreed to be turned vnto marriage This the Papistes doubt not but that they are hable to prooue out of the scripture except where the Pope dispenseth And we acknowledge that where the vow was made a duisedly to a Godlie purpose and abilitie in the partie to performe it that it is sinne to breake it neither can the Pope dispense with it In the other place where he rehearseth manie examples of traditions he speaketh of rites and ceremonies as is before declared wherof manie are not obserued in the Popish Church neither is there anie of them necessarie to saluation But Epiphanius you saie prooueth it out of scripture 1. Cor. 11. 14. 15. vhere Saint Paulsaith as I deliuered vnto you And againe so I teach and so I haue deliuered vnto the Churches and If you holde fast except you haue beleeued in vaine To the first I answer that it prooueth no traditions necessarie to saluation which are not contained in the scriptures as is more manifest by the second and third text for where Saint Paul saith so I teach in all the Churches of God 1. Cor. 14. 33. he saith immediatelie before that God is not the God of sedition but of peace 1. Cor. 15. 1. 2. 3. the Apostle speaketh manifestlie of the doctrine of the resurrection wherof he him-selfe in that place writeth plentifullie and in manie other places of scripture the same article is taught moste expresselie You see therefore how substantiallie Epiphanius prooueth tradition vnwritten out of the scripture to be necessarie to saluation which is our question But with Epiphanius saie you ioyneth fullie and earnestlie Saint Chrysostome writing vpon these wordes of Saint Paul to the purpose Stand fast and holde traditions out of which cleere wordes Saint Chrysostome maketh this illation Hinc patet c. Hereof it is euident that the Apostles deliuered not all by epistle but manie thinges also without writing and those are as worthie credit as these Therefore we think the tradition of the Church to be worthie of credit it is a tradition seeke no more The sense of these wordes is that the Apostles in their preaching did expresse manie things more perticularly then in their epistles not that they preached anie thing necessarie to saluation but that the same was contained either in their epistles or in other bookes of the holie scripture And so I saie of the tradition of the Church which is a doctrine contained in the scriptures though not expressed in the same or in so manie wordes as the three persons and one God in trinitie and trinitie in vnitie to be worshipped c. is of equall credit with that which is expressed in the scriptures because the ground of our faith standeth not vppon the sound of wordes but vppon
of Colene in a moste apt similitude called the scripture a nose of waxe and Pighius the leaden rule of the Lesbian building But now concerning the matter it selfe You would shift it of by saying The Iesuites doe compare the hereticall wresting and detorting of scripture vnso the bowing of a nose of waxe vpon certaine circumstances which are these First not in respect of the scripture it selfe but in respect of heretikes and other that abuse it and that before the rude people that cannot iudge thirdlie to the ende to flatter Princes or the people in their vices Thus much was said before in the Censure But it was replied that Andradius confesseth the fathers of Colene doe saie that the holie scripture is as a nose of wax So doth Pighius and it is a thing more commonlie knowen then that it can be denied Therefore the wresting of the scripture is not compared by them to the bowing of a waxen nose but the scripture it selfe to a nose of wax as that which is as easie to be drawne into any sense as a nose of wax may be turned euerie waie The wordes of Pighius are plaine Sunt enim scripturae velut caereus quidam nasus qui sicut hor sum illor sumque facilè se trahi permittit quo traxeris haud inuitus sequitur ita illae se flecti duci atque etiam in diuer sam sententiam trahi accomodarique ad quid-uis patiuntur nist quis veram illam inflexibilemque earundem amussim nempe Ecclesiasticae traditionis authoritatem communemque sententiam ilsdem adhibeat For the holie scriptures are as it were a certaine nose of wax which as it easelie suffereth it selfe to be drawne this waie and that waie and whether soeuer you draw it is followeth not vnwillinglie so also they doe suffer them selues to be bowed to be led and also to be drawen into a contrarie meaning and to be applied vnto what you will except a man lay vnto them that true inflexible rule of them namelie the authoritie and common vnderstanding of the Churches tradition These wordes declare if the sense of all Papists be the same that the Iesuites do not onelie compare the scripture it selfe but also that they make this comparison in respect of the scripture it selfe which suffereth it selfe as easelie to be wrested and abused as a nose of wax abideth to be bowed nor before the rude and ignorant onelie nor to flatter Princes and people in their vices alone but before any persons or to any purpose whatsoeuer and that there is not in them a certaine and infallible sense to iudge of the Churches doctrine or to finde out the true Church from all false congregations by the trueth taught in the scriptures but that the authoritie and common vnderstanding of the Popish Churches tradition is the onelie true sense inflexible rule of the holy scriptures wherebie also it is manifest though you denie it neuer so stoutlie that you doe impute the wresting of the scriptures vnto the imperfection of Gods worde set forth in them and not onelie to the malice of the wrester For if the will of God be but as well expressed in them as the will of princes is in their written lawes and proclamations the one maie as well be found out by reading and weighing of the holie scriptures as the other may be out of prophane writings especially where the spirit of God graunted vnto the praiers of the elect openeth their vnderstanding not onelie to conceiue as the naturall man maie by studie and ordinarie helpes the true scope and purpose of God vttered in them but also to beleeue and embrace whatsoeuer the Lord their God hath propounded in them Therefore though the scripture may be wrested to the destruction of the vngodlie as Saint Peter sheweth yet Master Charke telleth you that it cannot so be wrested but that still it remaineth the light vnto our feet and the lanterne vnto our steppes and euerie parte thereof is like the arme of a great Oke which cannot be so wreste but that with great force it will returne into the right position to the shame and perill of the wrester which answere of his you doe so dissemble as though you had neuer seene it And you doe wiselie seeing otherwise then by silence you could not auoid it But howsoeuer Master Charke storme you will defend your blasphemie of the nose of waxe not onelie in a kingdome where the Ghospell is preached but also in the kingdome of vs ministers where the letter of the scripture is worsse wrested by vs to all errors and licentiousnes then euerie waxen nose was yet bended to diuerse fashions O ye senseles papists had you neuer a man of moderat iudgement to set forth against vs but this loosetongued Gentelman which so he maie raile with full mouth against vs hath no care how his slaunders maie be coloured Doe we peruert the scriptures to all errors then surelie we holde no trueth there neuer was anie heresie neither can there be anie heresie but that with manie errors it maintaineth and holdeth manie truethes Yea the Deuill him-selfe the father oflies beleeueth some truethes and for shame dare not professe the maintenance of all errors We thinke verie hardlie of Antichrist and his brood the papists yet we maie not saie that they wrest the scriptures to all errors and licentiousnes for if they so did they should not deceaue so manie by shew of trueth in errors except they did professe some articles of trueth in deede As for the wresting of the Scripture to all licentiousnes let God and all the world of reasonable and indifferent men iudge how iustlie we maie be charged therewith If we be licentious in our liues God will finde it out and let man where he findeth it punish vs. But if we wilfully peruert the scriptures to the maintenance of all licentiousnes the Lord reward vs according to our deedes and be not mercifull to them that sinne of malicious wickednes But it is no fault in the scriptures saie you that they may be abused For Christ him-selfe was called the rocke of offence and the stone of scandall not for anie faulte or imperfection in him but through the wickednes of such as abuse that benefit So if the Iesuites had said no more but that the scripture maie be abused no man could haue found fault with them And Christ is called a stone of offence or stumbling not altogether in respect of the wicked that abuse him for he is called a stone moste precious and necessarie to build vpon of stumbling to those that refuse to build vpon him which meeting with him must either stumble and fall or els if it fall vpon them they must be ground to pouder But the the scripture is compared to a nose os wax because it is in their imagination that vse the comparison as pliant to follow euerie waie and to yeald as probable a sence one waie as an other as