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
shall we doe where they say nothing where their expositions are contraried by those you name and other about their time But this can be no rule of vnderstanding any more of the Scripture than that which they haue expounded which is very little and Origen one of the ancientest and greatest expositors is generally condemned for an Heretike by Epiphanius Ierome Austin and the best writers in Diuinitie Yea Bellarmine sheweth that Origen was seene in hell with Arius and Nestorius and affirmeth that the fift Synod cursed him amongst other Heretikes This rule if it be a rule will serue in very few places of the Scripture speaker D. B. P. The other example shall be the principal pillar of the Laten Church S. Augustine who not only exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscurity of doubtfull questions but plainly affirmeth That he vvould not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluine would haue them that S. Augustine had not bin at first a Christian if by the authority of the Church he had not bin thereunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against Heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these bookes of the Gospel to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others and this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquity generality and consent did tell him which and what they were So farre was he oft from trusting to his owne skill and iudgment in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I wil not dwel any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe speaker A. W. Austin wils vs to consult with that Church which the holy Scripture shewes vs to be the Church without any ambiguitie the ancient Church hee names not but by the Church so commended hee vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church as he calles it that is he appeales in the question about Baptisme among the Donatists to the generall practise of the Church in the seuerall congregations which no doubt is of great force to perswade any reasonable man in any matter that cannot be decided by the scripture For in matters of indifferencie the Churches iudgement is a kinde of law so that he which in such things would not be deceiued cannot doe better than to follow it There is no word in that place of Austin to allow your interpretation of that sentence but rather the whole course of the speech makes for Caluin I will propound the matter let any indifferent man iudge Manes or Manicheus in his epistle of the foundation as he termed it called himselfe the Apostle of Christ Austin answeres that he did not beleeue him to be so and then demaunds of the Manichean what course hee would take to prooue it to him Perhaps saith Austin you will reade the Gospell to me and assay to prooue Manicheus person to me out of it But what if you should light vpon one that doth not yet beleeue the Gospell I truly had not beleeued the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church had not moued me why should I not obey them saith Austin when they will me not to beleeue Manicheus whom I obeyed when they willed me to beleeue the Gospell These are Austins words to which I will adde those that follow afterward that First wee beleeue that which as yet we cannot discerne that being made stronger in faith we may attaine to the vnderstanding of that we doe beleeue not men now but God himselfe confirming and enlightening our minde within speaker A. W. S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing I shewed before what little credit many of the writings wee haue of Ignatius deserue Eusebius authoritie is more worth but hee is neither quoted nor alleaged truly The former I take to be the Printers fault the latter must needes be yours Ignatius saith Eusebius as he past through Asia vnder guard in euery Citie where he came by preaching and exhortation strengthened the parishes that they should especially take heed of heresies then first newly sprung vp and should cleaue fast to the Tradition of the Apostles which also for more suretie he thought it necessarie for him to write Now the heresies which at that time troubled the Church were those of the Simonians Menadcians Ebionites Nicolaitans Cerinthians Saturninians Basilidians for the refuting whereof the scripture is alsufficient to a reasonable man speaker D. B. P. Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the 〈…〉 truth and ouerthrew the Heretikes speaker A. W. Polycarpus might well refute them by authoritie of the Apostles words which himselfe had heard if without the Scripture they would beleeue him that hee heard them of the Apostles But Eusebius reports of him in Irenaus words that he recited all things in that refutation agreeable to the holy Scriptures It was much for the perswading of the people to whom as Irenaeus saith he spake those things that he could truly say he had heard those things of the Apostles by word of mouth which they might finde written in the Scriptures speaker D. B. P. S. Ireneus who imprinted in his hart Apostolicall Traditions receiued from Policarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought vve not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the vvhich the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleere and perspicuous to define the present question For vvhat if the Apostles had not vvritten any thing at all must vve not haue follovved the order of Traditions vvhich they deliuered to them to vvhom they deliuered the Churches speaker A. W. Irenaeus in his epistle to Florinus aboue mentioned saith that he imprinted in his heart the whole carriage and discourse of Polycarpus refuting the Heretikes but of Apostolicall traditions hee speakes neuer a word more than that Polycarpus had heard those things of the Apostles which he then deliuered agreeable to the Scriptures In any such meane question as is not resolued of in Scripture it was fit to haue recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles had liued yea if they had written nothing we must haue repaired to the books of the old Testament the knowne word of God for all matters of substance in things indifferent the iudgment of such
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
man conclude the point out of them and we will yeeld if wee shew not a reasonable cause to the contrarie Secondly I adde fuâ—thâ—r that if it were granted that there were some such traditiâ—…s â—â—et as Austin saith of the first place who can say these or those be they For the most part of the traditions that are now thrust vpon the Church by you Papists are in comparison but new and very trifles or meere superstitious speaker D. B. P. Our Sauiour said being at the point of his passion That he had manie things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Our Sauiour after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking vvith them of the kingdome of God of vvhich little is vvritten in any of the Euangelists I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you speaker A. W. Now for the particulars the first is answered alreadie the second makes a bad consequence Christ spake often with his Disciples of the kingdome of God of which little is written in the Euangelists therfore there are some points necessarie to saluation not recorded in Scripture His talke with them might be for exhortation and consolation especially Who can say whatsoeuer it were that it is not written in the Epistles By traditions Ambrose vnderstands in the 2. Thessal nothing but the Gospell in that place to the Corinthians the Apostle seemes in all likelihood to speake of ceremonies or circumstances in their carriage about Gods seruice which neither is matter of saluation nor to be alwaies alike in all places and at al times So doth Ambrose vnderstand him speaker D. B. P. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that vvhich I deliuered thee to keepe Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to 〈◊〉 vvhich vvas as S. Chrysostom and Thesphilact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sense of holy Scriptures the right admini words be not set downe in Scripture yet the matter is if not expresly which is not needfull yet by necessarie consequence as it may euidently appeare by the Councill and Fathers wherein and by whom the contrarie to those opinions is condemned and confuted The first point is implied necessarily in all those places by which our Sauiour is prooued to be true God that is the same God with his Father which you shall finde in Athanasius writings and the first Councill of Nice The second of the holy Ghosts proceedings from the Sonne as well as from the Father is prooued by Thomas out of the Scripture and by other against the Greeke Church The third beside that place of Iohn is necessarily concluded since there can be but one God out of the texts that prooue euery one of them seuerally to be God and by that of Matthew The fourth is prooued out of Scripture by the first Councill of Ephesus against Nestorius so that for these points we neede no traditions speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Sundrie places of Scripture be doubtfull and euery religion hath his seuerall exposition of them as the Papists haue theirs and the Protestants theirs Now then seeing there can be but one truth when question is of the interpretation of Scripture recourse must be had to the tradition of the Church that the true sense may be determined and the question ended Ans. It is not so but in doubtfull places Scripture it selfe is sufficient to declare his owne meaning first by the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places of Scripture secondly by the circumstances of the place and the nature and signification of the wordes thirdly by conference of place with place By these and like helps contained in Scripture wee may iudge which is the truest meaning of any place Scripture it selfe is the text and the best glosse And the Scripture is falsly tearmed the matter of strife it beeing not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man And thus much for our consent concerning Traditions wherein we must not be wauering but steadfast because notwithstanding our renouncing of Poperie yet Popish inclinations and dispositions bee rife among vs. Our common people maruelouslie affect humane traditions yea mans nature is inclined more to bee pleased with them then with the word of God The feast of the natiuitie of our Sauiour Christ is onely a custome and tradition of the Church and yet men are commonly more carefull to keepe it then the Lords day the keeping whereof stands by the morall law Positiue lawes are not sufficient to restraine vs from buying and selling on the Sabbath yet within the twelue daies no man keepes market Againe see the truth of this in our affection to the ministerie of the word let the Preacher alleage Peter and Paul the people count it but common stuffe such as any man can bring but let men come and alleadge Ambrose Austin and the rest of the fathers oh he is the man hee is alone for them Againe let any man bee in danger any way and straight hee sendeth to the wise man or wizzard Gods worde is not sufficient to comfort and direct him All this argues that Poperie denied with the mouth abides still in the heart and therefore wee must learne to reuerence the written word by ascribing vnto it all manner of perfection speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Traditions Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely If then it be put to euery Christian to take his owne exposition euery seuerall sect will coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shall the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors To auoid which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the Traditions and auncient Records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true Exposition and sense of it and thereby consute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy Commentaries So that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture Traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answere is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it selfe is the best glosse If these be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the cleerest places Secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words Thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsely tearmed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man speaker A. W. First this reason can conclude nothing against our
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.
to expresse the diuine nature If it be extended vnto all sorts of Images I answere that they were then forbidden to be drawen vpon the Church vvalles but not to be set in Tables vpon the Altar or in any other place The reason is because that Councell vvas holden in time of persecution as appeareth by the twenty fiue Canon of it and then if the persecutor had found out the place of their assembly as they often did those Pictures must needs either haue been defaced by themselues or left vnto the derision and despight of the Heathens And Pictures also painted vpon such poore walles as they had then to their Churches vvould either by the moysture of the vvalles or other incommoditie haue bin quickly disfigured wherefore to the greater honor of such sacred things those graue Fathers thought it not meete to haue them dravven vpon the Church vvalles there being many more meete places for them in the Churches speaker A. W. You come backe now to those two allegations which should and might haue been answered as fitly in their due place Your first answere hath no shew of reason in it For it is absurd to imagine that any Christians to whom onely the Councill speakes would thinke the diuine nature which is spirituall and infinite could be exprest by any picture But if it be possible for the people to be so blind yet the Bishops and Ministers who had the charge of such places must needs know it to bee vnlawfull and vnpossible Besides if they meant to forbid such Images onely why doe they not call them Idols after your distinction why doe not they expresse their meaning more plainly but speake so dangerously to make all Images thought vnlawfull As the word Adored was in your opinion a warrant for Master Perkins to applie that Canon to the Images of God so by the same reason is the other word worshipped which the Councill hath a sufficient authoritie to stretch the decree to all Images that may bee worshipped Your coniectures are meere shifts refuted by the very words of the Councill It is decreed saith the Councill that there may be no Images in the Church what will become then of your Images vpon Altars vnlesse you will remoue your Altars out of the Church That which followeth doth not respect the walles more than any other part of the Church but names them specially vpon which Images most commonly were painted But what a toy is it that you talke of persecutors finding out the place of their assemblie when they could hold a Councill and had Churches to repaire to Could their Churches be vnknowne Further if their care had bin to prouide that the moysture of the walles might not disfigure the Images they would haue said plainly We will haue no Images on Church walles least that which is adored and worshipped come to some disgrace and this would also haue included the other reason of the persecutors despight But it is manifest that the meaning of the decree is this that they will not suffer any Images in Churches because that which is worshipped and adored may not bee resembled by pictures The decree indeede speakes onely of the Images of God to whom only religious adoration and worship is due and may lawfully be performed speaker D. B. P. The second obiection is out of a post-script of Epiphanius letter vnto Iohn Patriarke of Ierusalem in which is written as M. Perkins falsely reporteth that it is against the authority of Scripture to see the Pictures of Christ or of any Saint to hang in the Church Ans. It is there only to see the Picture of a man Novv that he should meane of Christ or of some Saint is only gathered yet M. Perkins makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text euen so do we thinke that some old enemy of Images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter Our reasons are because it hath no coherence with the former letter or stâ—e Againe in the seauenth Councell when all that could be found out of antiquity vvas cited against Images no tidings there of this place which if it had bin true might haue bin one of the principall Thirdlie in the same Councell other tvvo places brought as it were out of Epiphanius vvorkes vvere found to be none of his And for Images vvas alleadged that Epiphanius ovvne disciples erected an Image to their Master and set it in the Church vvhich they would neuer haue done if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to doe speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not vndertake to report Epiphanius words but his matter which hee performes truly I found saith Epiphanius speaking of a Church at Anablatha in his trauell to Bethel in the Church doore a vaile hanging stained and painted and hauing the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I remember not well whose image it was When I saw this that against the authoritie of the Scripture the image of a man hung in the Church of Christ I rent it These are Epiphanius words whereout I obserue first that it is against the authoritie of the Scripture and therfore against Gods Commandement that the image of a man should hang in Christs Church But the Images of al your Saints are such those of the Trinitie too except that Doue for the holie Ghost Secondly I adde that it is rightly gathered by necessarie consequence which is as good euery whit as plaine words that it is against Scripture to haue the picture of Christ or any Saint in the Church For he saith expresly that the Image he saw was the image of Christ or some Saint and that it was vnlawfull to haue any Image of a man there There is no reason to call it a post-script vnlesse euerie last point of any letter not depending vpon the former be a post-script Hierome that translated the Epistle out of Greeke into Latin found no such diuersitie of stile in it neither indeed is it to be found and this latter part is brought in according to the course of writing in the former Epiphanius cleeres himselfe to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem for hauing ordered a Deacon in his Diocesse he begins his excuse thus I haue heard c. In the latter part he defends himselfe concerning the renting of the vaile and begins that also in the like sort I haue heard This was written and translated three hundred yeeres before that Idolatrous Councill though perhaps they thought it no wisedome to take knowledge of it The other places brought in that Councill were for Images and so allowed of by that Councill and haue since been discerned to be counterfeit as that is of his Disciples no thankes to that counterfeit Synod which dealeth in the same sort also with Basil you afterward alleage the place for Images with Cyrill Ambrose Athanasius Chrysostome Gregorie and the Apostles themselues as I shewed before speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins obserues a special reason
to the most reuerend letters of Adrian most holy Pope of old Rome I confesse and hold Images to be holy and worthy of worship neuer laying them away but adoring them perfectly them that confesse otherwise I accursse The othet most holy Bishops and venerable Monkes cried out And we all together receiue and embrace and adore Images with very great honour Stauratius Bishop of Chalcedon said I receiue embrace and honour Images as being the pledges of my saluation Peter Bishop of Nichor said I receiue venerable Images and adore them and will alwaies teach the doctrine that I may one day giue account to God our Iudge in the world to come Iohn the most religious Priest Lieue-tenant of the Apostolike thrones said Therefore an Image is greater then prayer And this is come to passe by the prouidence of God for ignorant mens sakes The same man counteth the denying of worship to Images the worst of all heresies as that which ouerthrowes the gouernment of our Sauiours house I forbeare to set downe their reasons which are taken from Tradition miracles and some places of Scripture so ridiculously applied that it is little better then blasphemie to make the holy Ghost president of so Idolatrous and sottish a Councell Constantine hauing subscribed to this Councell by his mothers perswasion and example in his none-age after he came to yeeres of discretion and his owne gouernment by the aduise of diuers learned men repealed the decrees of it concerning Images and ere long after tooke the whole sway of the Empire from his mother who had vsurped it as protectrix into his owne hands which dealing of his did incense the ambitious and idolatrous woman that shee caused certaine traitours first to plucke out his eyes and afterward to murder him yea so great was her malice and feare that shee ceased not till shee had made his sonnes her grand-childrens or neuewes eyes to be pulled out also such an author and patrones had that Idolatrous and wicked Councell the chiefe foundation of Popish Images Such as it was notwithstanding the decrees of it were sent by Pope Adrian the first to the Emperour Charlemaine that he might allow of them But he held another Councell at Franckfort wherin it was concluded that the second Councell of Nice whereof we haue spoken should not be held either for generall or for the seauenth or for a thing of any worth The decrees of that Councell condemning Images were by this repealed and a book written by expresse commandement of the Councell of Franckfort and published in the name of Charlemaine in which as the Councell of Constantinople is reproued for taking away all vse of Images euen for history and memory so that second Councell of Nice is particularly confuted and condemned The like entertainment found the decrees of that Councell amongst our countri-men here in England as you shall see by the testimony of a Monke that writ 300. yeeres agoe The same yeere saith Mathew of Westminster Charles King of the French-men sent into Britaine a booke of decrees wherin many things were found contrary to the true faith and that especially that it was determined by the ioynt consent of almost all the Doctors of the East That Images are to be adored which the Catholike Church vtterly detests Against this Albinus writ an Epistle wonderfully endited according to the authority of the holy Scriptures â—â—d carried together with that booke of decrees to the King of Frâ—…ce in the name of the Bishops and Nobles Yet was not this Councell of Franckfort nor the Epistle written by Albinus nor the booke set out in Charlemaines name of sufficient strength to stop the course of Idolatry so violent it is where it finds any way made for it whereupon Claudius Bishop of Turin hauing bin brought vp and preferred by Charlemaine opposed himselfe by writing afresh against it and as Ionas Bishop of Orleans saith who writ against him proceeded farther to cast them out of all the Churches of his dioces This opinion and fact of his Ionas writ against yet so as that he wholy agreed with him about the vnlawfulnes of adoring Images against the second Councell of Nice But in the East the quarrels about Images were more hot and dangerous which mooued the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus to send their Embassadors into France to the Emperour Lewis the curteous sonne of Charlemaine about the yeare 823 to signifie to him that the superstitious abuse of Images in their dominions had made them assemble a Councell about the matter in which it was decreed that they should not be worshipped with incense lights kneeling prayers songs and seruice before them all which notwithstanding that some of their clergy refusing to yeeld obedience had withdrawne themselues to the Pope of old Rome complaining to him and slandering the East Church that they therefore had sent their Ambassadors both to him and to the Pope for the clearing of themselues of all such false imputations and that they might vnderstand what the iudgement of their Churches was in those points Hereupon Lewis the Emperour called a nationall Councel at Paris the yere following 824. wherein the conclusion was as in the Councell of Franckfort against both pulling downe and worshipping of Images as appeareth by an Epistle sent from the said Synode to Lewis and Lotharius by two Bishops Italitgarius and Flamarius and according thereunto answere was returned to the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus Thus much I thought good to set downe as briefely as I could hee that would reade of these matters more at large may finde enough to content him in that excellent treatise of the Lord Plessy against the Masse in the second booke the second third and fourth Chapters The iudgement of all these matters I leaue to all men whatsoeuer that will vouchsafe to waigh things by the Ballance of the Sanctuary with the hand of true reason Others that had rather beleeue what is told them then try that they beleeue I commit and commend to the mercy of God Whom I beseech according to his good pleasure to enlighten our hearts and incline our affections euery day more and more that we may discerne and acknowledge his most holy truth to his glory the good of his Church and our owne euerlasting saluation through his Sonne Iesus Christ. To whom with the Father and holy Spirit one God immortall inuisible and only wise be all glorie power obedience and thanksgiuing for euer and euer Amen FINIS Errata Pag. 11. lin 1. read in our time p. ead l. 29. r. yes p. 17. l. 11. r. were not dedicated p. 36. l. 22. r. out p. 44. l. 10. in the margin r. Popes breast p. 45 l. 21. r. and that p. 57. l. 17. r. c. p. ead l. 35. r. them Cardinall p. 68. lin 18. r. is moued p. cad l. 22. dele as p. 87. l. 4. in the margin r.
sanctification be perfect in the world to come yet shall it not iustifie for wee must conceiue it no otherwise after this life but as a fruit springing from the imputed righteousnes of Christ without which it could not be And a good childe will not cast away the first garment because his father giues a second And what if inward righteousnesse be perfect in the ende of this life shal we therefore make it the matter of our iustification God forbid For the righteousnesse whereby sinners are iustified must be had in the time of this life before the panges of death speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall â—uieth after this life and is â—…ned in beaâ—en but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life eigo M. Perkins answereth First that imputed righteousnes continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we all haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life in ward righteousnes shall be perfect and then without perhaps it shal be most perfect in heauen So that one part of this answere ouerthroweth the other Wherfore I need not stand vpon it but will proâ—eed to fortifie our partie with some authorities taken both forth of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers speaker A. W. There are many pitifull shifts in this answere First Master Perkins denies the assumption which you leaue so ouerthrowne and runne to fortifie your owne partie Secondly he giueth the reason of his deniall That acceptation of vs as righteous and forgiuenes of sinnes shall be continued in heauen Thirdly he saith not that wee shall haue no other righteousnes in heauen but the quite contrarie viz. sanctification which is inherent righteousnes here imperfect Fourthly he puts it not to perhaps but resolutly affirmes that sanctification shall be perfect in the end of this life Fiftly there is not in his speech so much as a shew of any contradiction which ariseth wholy from that clause foysted in by you we shall haue no other Lastly as any man may discerne you change Master Perkins conclusion and so his whole reason speaker D. B. P. The first place I take out of these words of S. Paul And these things certes vvere you Dronkers Couetous Fornicators c. But you are VVashed you are Sanctified you are Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the spirit of our Lord Here iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sins and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name and the sake of Christ Iesus speaker A. W. First I answere as before that the Fathers often take iustification for sanctification also Secondly I say Bellarmine out of whom you take this hath deceiued you Chrysostome doth not make iustification consist in those actions of washing c. his words are these God hath washed vs and not that onely but hath sanctified vs neither that onely but hath iustified vs. Now if washing and sanctifying be iustifying in Chrysostoms iudgement how doth he rise from one to another as diuers things Theophylact makes them diuers at least in nature God hath clensed you from them saith Theophylact yea and sanctified you How By iustifying you faith he for he hath washed you then afterward iustifying he hath sanctified you Theodoret expounds the place of forgiuenes of sins in baptisme Your ordinarie glosse applies washing to baptisme sanctifying to the holy Ghost giuen vs that wee may worke well and iustifying to our working well Ambrose saith that in baptisme he that beleeues is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and is adopted a sonne to God by the spirit of our God But neuer a one of these saith that iustification consists in these actions of washing and infusion of Gods gifts speaker D. B. P. The like description of our iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost vvhom he hath povvred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace vve may be heires in hope and not in certainety of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the â—enewing of oursoules by the infusion of his heauenly giftes vvhich God of his mercy did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Chrsts sake This is but your glosse For the grace of God in that place signifies the fauour of God as otherwhere the same phrase doth or the loue of Christ who as Lyra there saith makes vs the adopted sons of God Caietan makes an opposition betwixt Gods grace and our workes as the Apostle doth If it be of grace it is no more of workes So doth Chrysostom and Theophylact vnderstand it of fauour not of debt For if he saued vs by fauour When we were desperate and cast away much more saith Theophylact shall he giue vs those good things to come now we are iustified as the Apostle saith If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall be saued by his life speaker A. W. Many other places I omit for breuity sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before First S. Augustine saith That this iustice of ours which they call righteousnes is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost And is a beautie of our invvard man It is the renuing of the reasonable part of our soule And twenty other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers And S. Cyrill for the Greekes who of our iustification writeth thus The spirit is a heate vvho as soone as he hath povvred charity into vs and hath vvith the fire of it inflamed our minds vve haue euen then obtained iustice In the first place alleaged by you there is no such matter onely Austin proues against the Pelagians that we are not sinners from Adam by imitation alone because then we should also be righteous from Christ by nothing but imitation In the Epistle to Consentius he speakes not of that righteousnes whereby wee are iustified but of that which is inherent What other thing saith he is iustice in vs or any other vertue by which we liue orderly and wisely than the beautie of the inward man This is true of those graces we receiue by sanctification He doth not say that the grace by which we are iustified is the renewing of the reasonable
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
Heretikes would flie to reuelations and thereby defend their errors they might be said not to do against this rule of Tertullian Yea if traditions were of force to prooue they might easily answere Tertullian in this case that it skilled not though they could not maintaine their opinions by Scripture as long as traditions perhaps might make for them But Tertullian condemnes their errors because they cannot be auowed by the Scripture making that the onely triall speaker W. P. Againe We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquisition after the Gospell When we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing beside for this we first beleeue that there is nothing more which we may beleeue speaker D. B. P. By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not only the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we only beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giuesuch credit as their writings do deserue speaker A. W. By the Gospell the doctrine of saluation by Christ is vnderstood which is no lesse plainly and fully deliuered in the other writings of the new Testament than in those foure bookes which we call by that particular name But that traditions should be commended vnder the title of the Gospell it is neither true nor likely You must shew some place of this author or of some other about his time to giue credit to your interpretation But it is apparant you answered at aduenture not knowing where it is to be found in Tertullian speaker D. B. P. If any man desire to see Tertullians iudgement of Traditions let him read his book of prescriptions against Heretikes where he auerreth that Traditions serue better than the Scriptures themselues to confute all Heresies Heretikes alwaies either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures speaker A. W. He that hath to doe with such Heretikes as Tertullians aduersaries then were and you Papists in part now are must of necessitie haue recourse to the iudgement of the Church For what other meanes can be vsed against them that denie the sufficiencie of the Scripture Therefore Tertullian and Irenaeus too who had to deale with the same kinde of men labours to beate them with their owne weapons and yet bring not in any new doctrine beside the Scripture but maintaine the doctrine of the Scripture against them that condemne the Scripture by the testimonies of learned men custome of the Church but he saith nothing of giuing like authoritie to the traditions and written word Beside here is no speech of doctrine but only of obseruing certaine outward ceremonies not necessarie to saluation speaker W. P. Augustine booke 2. cap. 9. de doct Christ. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well speaker D. B. P. All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties vvhich the more learned must expresly beleeue if they vvill be saued vvhich distinction S. Augustine else-vvhere doth signifie speaker A. W. The question is only of such points as are necessarie to saluation which are all one to the learned and vnlearned vnlesse there be diuers meanes of saluation for them True it is that a Minister ought to haue more knowledge then an ordinarie Christian and that the neglect of laboring for it is damnable to him as all sinne is damnable but that which is necessarie to saluation is equallie necessarie for all men neither doth Austen allow any such distinction but refutes it rather in that verie place for he saith that all that feare God do seeke the will of God in the Canonicall scripture but the words alleaged are most plaine All those points that containe faith and manners of liuing well that is hope and charitie Now what is necessarie for any man to saluation that is not comprized in one of these speaker D. B. P. And is gathered out of many other places of his vvorkes as in that matter of rebaptizing them vvho became Catholikes after they had bin baptized by Heretikes He saith The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their vvritings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall Tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall church holdeth and therfore are to be beleeued speaker A. W. In that place Austen makes no mention of any such difference betwixt the learned and vnlearned to saluation but teacheth directlie contrary to your doctrine in both points For the hard matters you speake of thus saith Austin when we dispute of darke matters where the certain and cleere instructions of the holy Scriptures do not help vs a mans presumption must restraine it selfe and not incline to either side This is Austens iudgement he leades vs not in these cases to traditions as you do Now for the other point he addes presently after that if the knowledge of hard questions could not be wanted without losse of saluation there would be some cleere authoritie of Scripture to instruct vs in them so far was Austen from seeking to any traditions as necessarie to saluation This testimonie is falsely alleaged by you in the later part of it which is thus in Austin and therefore are to be beleeued to haue bin enioyned by the Apostles You put the matter indefinitly are to be beleeued that so they may be thought necessarie to saluation of which there is not a word in this place of Austen speaker D. B. P. The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing Infants And in his Epist. 174. of the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he vve neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * And S. Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not vvritten in the vvord speaker A. W. Of the custome of baptising infants Austin saith that it is not to be despised nor by any meanes to be thought superfluous and that it were not at all to be beleeued vnlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition where he speakes not of any doctrine necessary to saluation but of the Churches practise and that indeede in a case grounded on the Scripture We speake of doctrine not of words as Austin doth in those places The matter which is signified by those words that Christ is of the same substance with his father
Now as for M. Perkins gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of paper some profane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word only without either any reason or authoritie speaker A. W. Sauing the better iudgement of Chrysostome and other learned men I cannot perswade my selfe that any part of the Canonicall scripture is lost when you haue brought your proofe out of any place of the scripture I will either answere or yeeld to it But it makes nothing to your argument whether any be lost or no for as you see I deny your assumption and the proofe of it which ouerthrowes your whole reason The Iewes and the skilfullest Christians in the Rabbines and antiquities of the Iewes that I know are of a diuers iudgement from Chrysostome concerning this point speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Moses in mount Sina beside the written law receiued from God a more secret doctrine which he neuer writ but deliuered by tradition or word of mouth to the Prophets after him and this the Iewes haue now set downe in their Cabala Answ. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage For if Moses had knowne any secret doctrine beside the written law he could neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this Moses who was the pen man of the old Law committed not all to vvriting but deliuered certaine points needfull to saluation by Tradition nor any Lavv-maker that euer was in any Country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likely that our Christian Lavv should be all vvritten speaker A. W. Your argument is in effect all one with his but let vs take yours Moses committed all to writing that was necessarie to saluation so doe all wise lawmakers and if any thing be left vnprouided for that is of moment it is because the lawgiuer perceiued it not or knew not how to helpe it which in Gods lawes and Moses the holie Ghosts Scribes writing could be no hinderances For what is there that God seeth not by his wisedome or cannot order as he list by his power speaker D. B. P. That Moses did not pen all thus vve proue It vvas as necessarie for vvomen to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedy for men could not possibly be applied to vvomen as euery one vvhoknovveth vvhat circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the vvritten lavv to deliuer vvomen from that sin Therefore some other remedie for them vvas deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. Circumcision was not prouided for remedie of originall sinne any more than for actuall neither did it remedie the one or the other nay it was not of Moses appointing but was long before him The remedie for all sinne is the sacrifice of the Messiah the meanes to applie it faith which Moses taught in diuers places of those fiue bookes If women without circumcision cannot be freed from originall sinne how were Adam and Eue freed and all that died before God enioyned it to Abraham speaker D. B. P. Item if the Child vvere likly to die before the eight day there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no vvhere vvritten in the Lavv Also many Gentiles during that state of the old Testament vvere saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Lavv or any other part of the old Testament it is not vvritten vvhat they had to beleeue or how they should liue vvherefore many things needfull to saluation vvere then deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. The remedie for infants aswell before the eight day as vpon it and after it was the mercie of God vpon his couenant As for the meanes you would imagine which were you cannot tell what and deuised by you cannot tel whom remember what you answered about the Chaldee word in Daniel To meanes and authors in the ayre no thing need be nor can be answered speaker D. B. P. To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I ansvvere that God permiteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue vvhat was then lost Although God in his prouidence permits much euill it followes not nor is at al likely that he would suffer his own holie word indited by his spirit to perish Neither can it helpe the matter that tradition might preserue the truth vnlesse God should miraculously hold in men from mingling their inuentions with his traditions Experience makes the matter cleere few things or none yet remaining that are indeede of antiquitie both for the substance and vse of them But what answere you to Master Perkins other reason out of S. Paul That was too heauie for your shoulders speaker W. P. Obiect V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods word is of two sortes milk and strong meate By milke we must vnderstand the worde of God written wherein God speakes plainely to the capacitie of the rudest but strong meate is vnwritten traditions a doctrine not to bee deliuered vnto all but to those that grow to perfection Answ. We must know that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it For being deliuered generally and plainely to the capacitie of the simplest it is milke but beeing handled particularly and largely and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding it is strong meate As for example the doctrine of the creation of mans fall and redemption by Christ when it is taught ouerly and plainly it is milke but when the depth of the same is throughly opened it is strong meate And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine to imagine that some vn written word is meant by strong meate speaker A. W. Novv insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I vvill set dovvne some authorities out of the vvritten Word in proofe of Traditions I make no question but Master Perkins had al the reasons he propounds for you in any matter in some of your owne writers as perhaps hereafter vpon better search at more leisure I shall finde and prooue to all the world To the testimonies I answere in generall that no argument can be drawne from any or all of them to proue that any doctrine necessarie to saluation is to be learned by tradition and is not written in the Scripture Let any
opinion We must haue recourse to traditions for the expounding of doubtfull places Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation I denie the consequence This rather prooues the sufficiencie of the Scripture as being sufficient in it selfe if it be rightly vnderstood Secondly I say there is no such danger as you imagine For though some may abuse it to confirme error yet may their false interpretations be confuted by diligent examination of the text without resting vpon the authoritie of mans interpretation as it appeares manifestly by the courses that the ancient writers tooke for the confuting of all heresies And if without this it could not haue been done what should haue become of the truth before the writings of men were extant in any number For it were ridiculous to imagine that euery particular text was expounded by the Apostles and so left by tradition to the Church Thirdly who shall determine when the time to count ancientnes by ended especially since euery mans writings were new when they were written and cannot grow in truth as they doe in age by continuance we acknowledge them for helpes of interpretation not for warrants speaker D. B. P. Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsely tearmed matter of strife because it is not so of his owne nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not Saint Peter saith Yes No saith M. Perkins because that commeth not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly tearmed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly That which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so tearmed although it be not the cause of contention in it self but written to take away all contention speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the scripture to be matter of strife and that it may so bee slandered to the disgrace of it as some Papists haue most shamelesly spoken of it to draw people from the reading and louing of it What blasphemies almost haue not your writers vttered against the holy word of God Pighius calls them dumbe iudges and in another place commends the truth and pleasantnes of his speech that compared the scriptures to a nose of waxe Did not Hosius say of Dauids Psalmes we write poems euery body learned and vnlearned speaker D. B. P. But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of S. Augustine be good directions wherby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructors and learnëd Commentaries But to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnes and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe well conuersant in these rules indued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more then thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best Cōmentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisit yet be ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his studie he vnderstood not then vvhich he did vnderstand And shall euery simple man furnished only with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficulty in them whatsoeuer Why doe the Lutherans to omit all former Heretikes vnderstand them in one sort the Caluinists after another The Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne Country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants finde one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrarie Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the sense and meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the aide of those triuiall notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie vvithout there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauiour to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randome and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of Temporall iustice it should be permitted to euerie contentious smatterer in the Law to expound conster the grounds of the Law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisdome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquity should not be Law or when should there be any end of any hard matter one Lawyer defending one part an other the other One counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one partie to haue the right another as certainely auerring not that but the contrary to be Law both alledging for their warrant sometexts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloody debate and perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne speaker A. W. No man saith so but that by these a man may iudge which is the truest that is the likeliest interpretation of a doubtfull place But I pray you tell me can you or any Papist by the help of tradition added to the other three rules certainely determine what is the sense of euery hard place of scripture If you can S. Austin by that meanes was likelier to haue it then any of you as he was neerer the Apostles from whom those traditions are said to haue come If you rest vpon the Commentaries of the Auntient what meanes had they to further them in vnderstanding the Scripture that we now want is it not apparant that we haue all they had and their paines and iudgement beside You aske then how chance diuers men vnderstand them diuersly not because they want the tradition you talke of For who knowes not that the Fathers differ exceedingly one from another in their expositions And do all the popish interpretations agree who it should seeme by you haue recourse to that maine help of Tradition He
that lookes into your Commentaries and bookes of controuersies shall finde very diuers and sometimes contrarie expositions Our Sauiour Christ hath prouided sufficientlie for his Church by deliuering in scripture the grounds of religion so plainely some here some there that any reasonable man may with small labour vnderstand them from which they that haue knowledge of the tongues and arts especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick may come to vnderstand the harder places though perhaps not euery one yet at the least so many and such as shall serue to instruct the people of God in the knowledge of his will for the obtaining of euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. To auoid then such garboyles and intestine contention there vvas neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all boubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Lavv-maker who in vvisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens doe the earth hath left his golden Lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit no no It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Son of God speaker A. W. For the auoiding of outward garboiles by force or preaching false doctrine our Sauiour hath appointed principallie the ciuill magistrate secondarily the gouernors of the Churches For the keeping of his children from perishing by error he hath ordeined beside the outward helps of Pastors and Doctors the most certaine direction of his vicegerent the holy spirit who preserues all that are Christs from falling away from the substance and foundation of truth to damnation Not that euery man may take vpon him to interpret scripture vpon pretence of I know not what spirit but that he may assure himselfe of being kept from all error that may ouerthrow his saluation by the direction of Gods spirit vpon whom he calls by prayer and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before sure and who therefore were appointed to be heard without exception This befals not any men nowadayes and therefore none can iustly claime any such credit The auncients that so wrot in this point of S. Pauls going to see Peter haue wholie mistaken the Apostle who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him For he saith First that he was not an Apostle of men nor by man Secondly that he went vp to Ierusalem not to haue confirmation of his doctrine from them who were no way superior to him but that the Gentiles might know he taught the same things that the other Apostles did If he had done it for his owne assurance he had not beleeued the vision and discredited our Sauiours extraordinarie teaching of him and had taught for a time such things as he was not sure to be the truth of God But if this should be his case he had sinned grieuously in his former preaching and he had wholie ouerthrowne the authoritie of his ministrie which in these two Chapters he labors especially to vphold auouching that he neither learned any doctrine nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames Cephas and Iohn which were esteemed to be pillers yea he did openly reprooue Peter if not of error in doctrine yet of misbehauiour in his conuersation As for the controuersie of abrogating Moses law it was a case determined by scripture and no man might refuse to obey any one of the Apostles charge coÌ„cerning that point But that the Brethren might haue the better satisfaction it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by ioynt consent of themselues and the brethren there assembled which any one of them might of himselfe haue ended But because diuers parts of the Church were conuerted by diuers Apostles and each Church made most account of their owne Apostle the readiest and safest way was to conclude of the matter by common consultation so afterward in all lawfull Councels the written word was held sufficient for the consutation of the heresies that arose from time to time but for the better stopping of the heretikes mouths and satisfying of all men sometimes the consent of former Diuines Churches and Councels was added in good discretion for mens sake not for the matter which might be and was abundantlie prooued or discouered as occasion serued by the scriptures speaker D. B. P. See Cardinall Bellarmine I vvill only record tvvo noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquity for the true sense of Gods vvord The first out of the Ecclesiastical History whereof Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and Saint Basil tvvo principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And aftervvard for thirteene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes imployed their studie vvholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning vvhereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as vvere knovvne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the very words speaker A. W. The examples you bring are nothing against vs in this question Nazianzen and Basil sought the true sense of the Scripture not out of their owne iudgement but out of their predecessors writings and authoritie What then Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation This consequence hath often been disprooued Neither is the Antecedent true if it be generally taken For their owne writings shew euery where that they vsed the help of learning and discourse to finde out the sense of scripture in many places and set downe that in their Commentaries which by study they came to vnderstand If any thing were doubtfull we presume they did as we are sure the Protestants now doe where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie rest vpon the authoritie of their predecessors rather than vpon their owne This reuerence wee giue to the Fathers writings and reade them with as great diligâ—… as they that make more bragges of thâ—ir knowledge in â—heâ— And if that rule which the storie 〈◊〉 and or you name not but it is Austin speakes of 〈◊〉 one of them which we follw in searching out thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the Scripture â—…treate â—ou to make 〈◊〉 to vs and you shall finde that we will take it 〈◊〉 and vse it diligently if we cannot shew you certaine reasons to the contrarie If the rule be to take for truth whatsoeuer the ancients haue deliuered how many things yea contrarie expositions shal we hold for true If you say the rule is to beleeue the ancientest what
after prooue no such thing rather the opposition in the later part of the verse shewes that it should be is marriage is honorable but whoremongers and adulterers God will iudge whereas if it had bin so intended as you would haue it the other part must haue bin for God will iudge by way of a reason as your vulgar translation reades it without ground If we corrupt the text by adding the verb is what do Theodoret Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenins and Heutenius the Papist that translated him Hesychius Fulgentius Damasâ—en who so expound it Primasius giues the reason why the Apostle speaketh so because some at that time condemned mariage as vncleane speaker A. W. Againe if you will haue the Apostle say that Marriage is honorable among all men we must also needs take him to say that the bedde is also vndefiled among all which was not true Also that their conuersation was without couetousnes c. For there is no reason why this word is should be ioyned with the one more than with the other And nothing but passion doth cause them to make the middle sentence an affirmatiue when they turne both the other into exhortations speaker D. B. P. There is great reason why it should be ioyned with the one as hath been shewed With the other as you ioyne it it is absurd but it must thus be ioyned that is honorable be repeated and the bed vndefiled is honorable In the sentence following it cannot be vnderstood with any reason and therefore the vulgar Latin puts in sint and the Rhemists English let be which in the former verse neither of them doth You so interpret it The second corruption is in these words among all when they should translate in all and the adiectiue being put without a substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it and not men wherfore the text being sincerely put into English it would carrie no colour of their error For the Apostles saying is Let marriage be honorable in all things and the bed vndefiled Here is no willing of any man to marrie but only a commandement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage to keepe as he else where saith their vessels in sanctification and not in dishonor and then shall their marriage be honorable in all things that is in all points appertaining to Matrimonie So that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the Vow of chastitie speaker A. W. The Adiectiue may be as well the Masculine as the Newter and that which followeth in the other part of the verse of whoremongers and adulterers directs vs to expound it of the persons So doth Theophyl vnderstand it In all saith Theophylact is not onely in men of riper age and not in young men also but in all men or in all meanes and times not in affliction onely and in rest otherwise not honourable and pretious in this part in that part otherwise but the whole throughout is honourable So that both your cauils at the translation are vaine and the sense is wholy for vs. speaker D. B. P. The Scripture being so barren for him he shall be like recompence it with the abundant testimony of antiquitie in fauour of his cause but oh vnhappy chance he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church What was there not one Father who vvith some one broken fragment of a sentence or other would releeue you in this your combate against the Vow of Chastitie I will help you to one but I feare me you will scarse thanke me for my paines It is such a one as is neither holy nor father but the auncient Christian Epicure Jouinian who as S. Augustine hath recorded and Saint Ierom did hold that Virginity of professed persons men and women was no better then the continencie of the married So that many professed Virgins beleeuing him did marrie yet himselfe did not marrie as Fryer Luther did not be cause he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come with a greater crowne of glory but because it was fit for the present necessity to auoid the troubles of marriage see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants But this heresie saith S. Augustine in the same place was quicklie suppressed and extinguished it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests And in another place thus he speaketh of Iouinian Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster So that no maruaile if that M. Perkins could find smal reliefe in antiquitie for this his assertion which the best of them esteemed no better than a monstrous sacrilegious heresie speaker A. W. But the Fathers are not for vs. What then is nothing true that cannot be confirmed by their testimonie Then are there very many vntruths in Poperie Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the ancient writers that they were too highly conceited of single life The vse whereof a kinde of necessitie bred at first by reason of persecution experience of constant profession confirmed and opinion of holinesse thereupon at the last perfected so that it is not to be lookt for that antiquitie should affoord vs any testimonie against the practise and iudgement of those daies And yet it is apparant in those places I alleaged before and diuers other that neither the Clergie as you call it was bound to make any such vow and that after it was made it was held a lesse sinne to breake it than to continue it in vncleannes which tained then to vow but first to vow and then to looke for strength from God to fit vs for the keeping of our vow is against all Diuinitie and reason And therefore the perswasion to vow vpon presumption of abilitie to performe that which is vowed shewes at the least zeale without knowledge and can be no matter of commendation to the ancient Church if they simply allowed it Howsoeuer they were farre better than you because they enioyned breach of vow rather than encrease of sinne speaker D. B. P. But to the further confirmation of this point let vs heare what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibilitie of this Vow speaker A. W. You labour to disprooue Master Perkins Antecedent by the testimonie of the ancient writers To which I answere in generall that as wee freely acknowledge their authoritie where there is nothing but meÌ„s authoritie to be waighed so we account it lighter than nothing in all cases contrarie to Scripture such as we can prooue this to be speaker D. B. P. Tertullian neere the end expounding these words He that can take let him take Chuse saith hâ— that vvhich is good if thou say thou canst not it is because thou vvilt not for that thou mightest if thou vvouldest he doth declare vvho hath left both to thy choise speaker A. W.