neuer be graunted But a word with you by the way Your righteous man must ouer-skippe that petition of the Pater noster forgiue vs our debts for he is well assured that his debts be already pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applyed to him and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherefore he can not without infidelity distrust of his former justification or pray for remission of his debts but following the famous example of that formall Pharise in liew of demaunding pardon may wel say Luc. 18. O God I giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vniust aduouterers as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sinnes or the certayntie of my saluation but am well assured thereof and of Christs owne righteousnes too and so forth But to goe on with M. PERKINS discourse Here we must note that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principall dutie of faith for in faith saith M. PERKINS are two thinges first knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation Secondly an applying of thinges knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance the first they acknowledge So then by M. PERKINS owne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the meanes of saluation then he and his fellowes erre miserable The second which is the substance and principall they denie Answere Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtayning saluation through the mercy of God and merits of Christs Passion So they performe their dutie towardes God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assure himselfe by faith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those thinges he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable See S. Tho 22. q. 21. â—rt 1. neither in this life nor in the world to come M. PERKINS third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shewe he often speaketh but can seldome finde any one sentence in them that fits his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith De verbis Domini â—erm 7. I demaund nowe doest thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saiest I beleeue what beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hast that which thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for M. PERKINS But S. Bernard saith playnlie That we must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ Againe he addeth conditions on our party which M. PERK craftely concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sins to be forgiuen if the truth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these wordes So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truly bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holines of life and peace All which M. PERKINS did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vayne glosse of the former wordes His last authority is out of S. Cyprian who exhorteth men passing out of this life not to doubt of God promises but to beleeue that we shall come to Christ with joyfull security Answere S. Cyprian encouradgeth good Christians dying to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ and so doe all Catholikes and bidde them be secure too on that side that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise but say that the cause of feare lyes on our owne infirmities And yet biddes them not to doubt as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued but animates them and puts them in the good way of hope by twenty kindes of reason M. PERKINS hauing thus confirmed his owne partie why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alleadge in fauour of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then belike because he knew not how to answere them I will out of their stoare take that one principall one of the testimony of holy Scripture And by that alone sufficiently proue that the faith required to justification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be ours How can this be better knowne then if we see weigh and consider well what kinde of faith that was which all they had who are said in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice which is by faith Heb. 11.7 What faith had he That by Christs righteousnes he was assured of saluation No such matter but beleeued that God according to his word and justice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of justice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans Rom. ca. 4. What faith he was iustified by Let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith hath these wordes He contrary to hope beleeued in hope that he might be made the Father of manie Nations according to that which was said vnto him So shall thy seede be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the Sea and he was not weakned in faith neither did he consider his owne body now quite dead whereas hee was almost an hundred yeares old nor the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but was strengthned in faith giuing glorie to God most fully knowing that whatsoeuer he promised he was able also to doe therefore was it reputed to him to iustice Loe because he glorified God in beleeuing that old and barren persons might haue children if God said the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe he was justified The Centurions faith was very pleasing vnto our Sauiour who said in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israell What faith was that Marry that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Math. 8. Say the word onely quoth he my seruant shall be healed S.
Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers and highlie rewarded by our Sauiour was it any other Then that our Sauiour was Christ Math. 16 the Sonne of the liuing God And briefly let S. Iohn that great secretarie of the Holy Ghost tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell Ioh 20. These thinges saith he are written that you may beleeue that IESVS is CHRIST the Sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well saying Rom. 10. This is the word of faith which we preach for if thou cōfesse with thy mouth our Lord IESVS CHRIST and shalt beleeue in thy hart that God raised him from death thou shalt be saued And in an other place ◠Cor. 15. I make knowne vnto you the Gospell which I haue preached and by which you shall be saued vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vayne What was that Gospell I haue deliuered vnto you that which I haue receiued that Christ died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures was buried and rose againe the third day c. So by the verdite of S. Paul the beleefe of the articles of the creede is that justifying faith by which you must be saued And neither in S. Paul nor any other place of Holy Scriptures is it once taught that a particular faith whereby we applie Christs righteousnes to our selues assure our selues of our saluation is either a justifying or any Christian mans faith but the very naturall act of that ougly Monster presumption Which being layd as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion what morall and modest conuersation what humility and deuotion can they build vpon it The second difference in the manner of justification is about the formall act of faith which M. PERKINS handleth as it were by the way cuttedly I will be as shorte as he the matter not being great The Catholikes teach as you haue heard out of the Councell of Trent in the beginning of this question that many actes of faith feare hope and charity doe goe before our justification preparing our soule to receiue into it from God through Christ that great grace M. PERKINS Doctor like resolueth otherwise That faith is an instrument created by God in the hart of man at his conuersion whereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes for his iustification This joylie description is set downe without any other probation then his owne authority that deliuered it and so let it passe as already sufficiently confuted And if there needed any other disproofe of it I might gather one more out of this owne explication of it where he saith that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs by the word of God and by the Sacraments For if faith created in our hartes be the only sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend that couenant of grace then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose and consequently I would fayne know by the way how litle infants that can not for want of judgement and discretion haue any such act of faith as to lay hold on Christ his justice are justified Must we without any warrant in Gods word contrary to all experience beleeue that they haue this act of faith before the come to any vnderstanding But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M. PER. findes two faults with it one that we teach faith to goe before justification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both justified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Marry this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the body and bloud of Christ and is already passed from death to life Io. 6.54 I answere that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his body in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthely obtayneth thereby life euerlasting as Christ saith expressely in that place And so this proofe is vayne Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before justification first by that of S. Paul Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord Rom. 10. shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whome they doe not beleeue how shall they beleeue without a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto justification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterwardes to call vpon God for mercy and finally mercy is graunted giuen in justification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and justification This S. Augustine obserued when he said Faith is giuen first De prede◠sanct ca. 7 De spirit lit cap. 30 by which we obteyne the rest And againe By the lawe is knowledge of sinne by faith we obtayne grace and by grace our soule is cured If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy write read the second of the actes and there you shall finde how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were stroken to the hartes and beleeued yet were they not straight way justified but asked of the Apostles what they must doe who willed them to doe penance and to be baptized in the name of IESVS in remission of their sinnes then loe they were justified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their justification In like manner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philippe announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnes yet was he not justified before descending out of his chariot he was baptized Act. 8. And three dayes passed betweene S. Paules conuersion and his justification as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion Act. 9. The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the minde stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the hart many good spirituall motions But this sayes M. PERKINS is as much to say that dead men only helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath beene once before spoken at large in the question of free will Pag. 84. THE THIRD DIFFERENCE CONCERNING FAITH IS this The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintayne their opinion are of no moment well let vs heare some of them that the indifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. M. PERKINS first Reason
be set to worke and if it doe not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith can not apply to themselues Christs righteousnes without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be justified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towardes God and estimation of his honour which are thinges most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants justification which is nothing else but the playne vice of presumption as hath beene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. PE. graunteth that both hope and charity must needes be present at the justification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie whē it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see whereas in truth it is but the instrument of seing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sence and reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause not only of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it cā see so cannot faith justifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can doe any thing acceptable in Gods sight The fourth reason if faith alone doe justifie then faith alone will saue but it will not saue ergo M. PERKINS first denyeth the proposition and saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an Innocent babe dye shortly after his baptisme wherein he was justified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is justified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuoulous Which M. PERKINS perceiuing flies to a second that for faith alone we shall also be saued that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement Then must those wordes of the holy Ghost so often repeted in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time will render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which justification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare Ecclesias 1. Rom. 8. Luc. 13. 1. Ioan. 3. cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is justified because we loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. So we may also walke in newes of life To all these and many such like places of Holy Scripture it pleased M. PERKINS to make answere in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wayte patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he sayeth neither yea nor nay leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him so neither to exclude hope or charity or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of justification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs joyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. PER. citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martir S. Ignatius of our justification writeth thus Epist ad Philip. 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 Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Libr. 2. strom but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these wordes Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued Hom. 70. in Mat. he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well Lib. 3. hypognost S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes which that they may be donne are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue beene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified De side oper c. 14. And Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill security they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtayne it 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 a lone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply 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 justification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be justified If it be an instrumentall cause Conditio sine qua non let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose whether he had leifer to haue charity or the soule of man without any helpe of grace But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these wordes As Moyses lift vp the serpent in the desart Ioh. 3. so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth
him but what is this to justification by only faith Marry M. PERKINS drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were strong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eye of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similttudes be not in all poynts alike neither must be streatched beyond the very poynt wherein the similitude lyeth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernes stoung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easely rejected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures Gal 2.16 As we are iustified freely not of the lawe not by the lawe not of workes not of our selues not of the workes of the lawe but by faith all boasting excluded Luke 8.50 only beleeue These distinctions whereby works the law are excluded in the worke of justification include thus much that faith alone doth justifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the lawe aswell as any other vertue being as much required by the lawe as any other But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iewe or Gentile did or could bragge of as donne of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtayne this grace through Christ it was not needefull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses lawe as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feastes or fastes nor any such like worke of the lawe which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall workes of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of justification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first justification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iewe and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of justification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of workes and boasting exclude not faith no more doe they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the lawe as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtayne a myracle but not to obtayne justification of which the question only is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the judgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers judgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the lawe De gra lib. aâ—b c 7. thought him to say that faith sufficed a man althoug he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De predest sanct c 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because saith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue justlie are by petition obtayned By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the lawe and the workes donne by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace THAT FAITH ONLY DOTH NOT IVSTIFIE MASTER PERKINS third Argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this ende of apprehending but faith only Amswere Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little But what if that also faile you in this poynt then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man shoulde beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fitte instrument to apply and drawe these thinges to himselfe as all the worlde sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to bee mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. PERKINS doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours Then will I be bolde to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applyed vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shal please him to appoynt is alike apt and so M. PERKINS had small reason to say that faith was the only apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charity doe much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them doe then faith For what faith assureth me of in
containe in them all doctrine needfull to saluation whether it concerne faith or maners and acknowledge no Traditions for such as hee who beleeueth them not cannot be saued Before wee come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts The first we tearmed Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God The second Apostolicall as deliuered by the holy Apostles The third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernours of the Church after the Apostles daies And of these three kindes of Traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours Traditions than of the soure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise asmuch honor credit do we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten as writtē For incke paper brought no new holines nor gaue any force and vertue vnto either Gods on the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had bene written Here the question is principally of diuine Traditions which we hold to be necessarie to saluation to resolue determine many matters of greater difficultie For we deny not but that some such principall poynts of our Faith which the simple are bounde to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may bee gathered out of the holie Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creede M. P. goeth about to prooue by these reasons following that the Scriptures containes all matter of beleefe necessary to saluation Testimonie * Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not adde to the words that I command thee nor take any thing there from Therefore the written worde is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to saluation If it be saide that this is spoken as well of the vn-written as written worde for there is no mention in the texte of the written worde then M. P. addeth that it must bee vnderstood of the written worde onely because these wordes are as a certaine preface set before a long Comentarie made vpon the written Law ANSWERE Let the words be set where you will they must not bee wrested beyond their proper signifycation The words cited signifie no more then that wee must not either by addition or subtraction change or peruert Gods commandements whether they be written or vnwritten Now to infer that because they areas a preface vnto MOSES Law that therfore nothing must be added vnto the same Law is extreame dotage Why then were the bookes of the Old Testament written afterward if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomy Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had not read these words or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them well did wilfullie transgresse against them one of these the Protestants must needes defend or else for very shame surcease the alleadging of this text for the all-sufficiencie of the written word M. P. His testimonie * Esa 8.2 ◠To the Law and testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth saith M. P. What is to be done in cases of difficultly men must not runne to the Wizardes and Soothsayers but to the Lawe and to the Testimonie commending the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts whatsoeuer ANSWERE By the Lawe and testimonie in that place the fiue bookes of MOSES are to bee vnderstood if that written Worde bee sufficient to resolue all doubts what-so-euer What neede wee then the Prophets what neede wee the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles What Wizarde would haue reasoned in such sorte The Prophet willeth there that the Israelites who wanted wit to discerne whether it be better to flie vnto God for councell than vnto Wizardes and Sooth-sayers to see what is written in the Lawe of MOSES concerning that poynt of consulting-Wizards which is there plainely forbidden in diuerse places Now out of one particular case whereof there is expresse mention in the written worde to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull parte arguing as great want of light in him as was in those blinde Israelites 3. Testimonie * Iohn 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleue that IESVS is the CHRIST and in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set down the full end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions ANSWERE Here are more faults than lines First the text is craftily mangled Things being put insteede of Miracles For S. IOHN sayeth Many other Miracles CHRIST did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. IOHN sayth not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we should haue saluation in his name which hee clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. IOHN ascribes the meanes of our saluation not to that whereby we applie vnto our selues Christs righteousnes but by which we beleeue IESVS to be CHRIST the MESSIAS of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. P. also concealed Now to the present matter S. IOHN saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that wee might beleeue IESVS to bee the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessarie to saluation ANSWERE S. IOHN speakes not a word of doctrine but of myracles and therefore to conclude sufficiencie of doctrine out of him is not to care what one sayeth But M. P. sore-seeing this sayeth it cannot be vnderstood of miracles onely for miracles without the doctrine of CHRIST can bring no man to life euerlasting True and therefore that texte speaking onely of myracles prooueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Worde CHRISTS miracles were sufficient to prooue him to bee the Sonne of GOD and their MESSIAS But that prooueth not Saincte IOHNS Gospel to containe al Doctrine needful to saluation For many other poynts of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what neede we the other three Gospelles the Actes of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. IOHNS Reuelations Finallie admit that S. IOHNS Gospell were all-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ sayeth in it in plaine tearmes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to saye vnto his Apostles but they as then being not able to be are it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward of which high mysteries S. IOHN recordeth not much in his Gospell after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needes be deliuered by
this wee must beleeue that there is nothing else which wee may beleeue ANSWERE By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onelie the written worde of the foure Euangelists else wee should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If anie man desire to see TERTVLLIANS judgement of Traditions let him read his booke 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 And in his booke De Corona militis he formallie proposeth this question Whether Traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no and answereth by manie instances that they must be receiued concluding thus For these and the like poynts if thou require law out of the Scriptures thou shalt finde none but Tradition is alleadged to be the Author of them Custome the confirmer and Faith the obseruer So that nothing is more certaine than that TERTVLLIAN thought vnwritten Traditions necessarie to be beleeued Come we now vnto his second testimonie out of S. IEROM * In cap. 23 Mat. who writing as he saith of an opinion that S. IOHN Baptist was killed because he foretold the comming of Christ the good-man would saye ZACHARIE S. IOHNS Father for the Scripture sheweth plainely why S. IOHN lost his head * Mat. 14 But S. IEROM there sayeth this Because it hath not authoritie from Scriptures may as easelie be contemned as approoued But of which particular M. P. shewing himselfe a doughtie Logician would inforce an vniuersall that sorsooth all may be contemned that is not proued by Scripture As if you would prooue no Protestant to bee skilfull in the art of true reasoning because M. P. behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. IEROM in the same place declareth why that might be as easely reprooued as allowed not hauing anie ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which hee saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law M. P. His third Author is S. AVGVSTINE * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those poynts which containe faith and maners of liuing well ANSWERE All things necessarie to be beleeued of euerie simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contayned in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned must expressely beleeue if they will be saued which distinction S. AVGVSTINE else-where doth signifie * De peccatorū meritis cap. vlt. And is gathered out of manie other places of his workes as in that matter of rebaptizing them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by Heretikes He saith * Lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. The Apostles truely haue commanded nothing hereof in their writings but that custome which was layed against S. CYPRIAN is to bee beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall Church holdeth and therefore are to be beleeued The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing infants * De genes ad litra lib. 10. cap. 23. And in his Epist 174. of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saieth he we neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet wee hold that he is so to be called * Lib. 3. cap 3. cont max Arianum And S. AVGVSTINE holdes that the holie Ghost is to be adored though it be not written in the word The like of the perpetuall Virginitie of our B. Ladie * Haeresi 4. out of which and many more such like we gather most manifestlie that S. AVGVSTINE thought many matters of faith not to be contayned in the written worde but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions M. P. His last testimonie is taken out of Vincentius Lirinensis who sayth as he reporteth that the Canon of the Scripture is perfecte and fullie sufficient for all things ANSWERE I thinke that there is no such sentence to be found in him he saies by way of objection What neede we make recourse vnto the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect Hee affirmeth not that they be fullie sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but throughout all his booke he prooues the cleane contrarie that no heresie can be certainelie confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church Thus M. P. hauing ended with the Law Testimonie addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons vnto his former The first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwaies to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition ANSWERE Fist for our Sauiour CHRIST IESVS he out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I saye vnto you And verie seldome confirmeth it with any testimonie out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how CHRIST fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they doe sometimes but to saye they neuer wrote any thinge out of Tradition proceedes of most grosse ignorance Where had Saint MATHEVV the adoring of the Sages S. IOHN Baptists preaching briefelie that was done before his owne conuersion but by Tradition S. MARK wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from S. PETER as witnesseth EVSEBIVS * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. LVLE testifyeth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten Traditions were necessarie to saluation then we must aswell beleeue the writings of the auncient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall Traditions are not else-where to be sound but in their bookes but that were absurde for they might erre ANSWERE That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolicall Traditions are aswel kept in
of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnes which is in Christ as the righteousnes of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christs righteousnes we are to vnderstand two thinges first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the lawe both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his bloud to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely be considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which he shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the lawe for vs. 3. Rule That iustification is from Gods mercies and grace procured onely by the merite of Christ 4. Rule That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the hart by the Holy Ghost whereby a sinner laieth holde of Christs righteousnes and applies the same to him selfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can doe this but faith alone now of the Doctrine of the Roman Church Because M. PERKINS settes not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and justification it selfe and that taken out of the Councel of Trent Where the very wordes concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towardes God beleeuing those thinges to be true which God doth reueale and promise â—â—â—â—ely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in CHRIST IESVS And when knowledging them selues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgementes they turne them selues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God will be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountayne of all iustice are there by moued with hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to beginne a new life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glorie of God the glory of Christ and mans owne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious CHRIST IESVS Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onlie formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other giftes of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is justified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the wordes of justice and justification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formall cause of iustification is our iustice and that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight and accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercie through the merits of CHRIST IESVS our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. PERKINS comes to short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs suffringes to obedience whereas obedience if it had beene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods handes And whereas M. PERKINS doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface we make Christ a Pseudochrist we auerre that herein we doe much more magnifie Christ then they doe for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men worthie of the joyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but only that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarywise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestimable merits that we hold them wel able to purchase at Gods handes a farre inferiour justice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man just before God and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued Againe they doe great iniury to Gods goodnes wisedome and justice in their justification for they teach that inward justice or sanctification is not necessary to justification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man Like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers whited on the out side with an imputed justice but within full of iniquity and disorder Then the wisdome of GOD must either not discouer this masse of iniquity or his goodnesse abide it or his justice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnesse to thinke it And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whome he for his sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such justice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be donne as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam in state of innocencie And M. PERKINS seemes to graunt Pag. 77. That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse If then we had no other reason for vs but that our justification doth more exalt the power and goodnes of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and bringeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleage one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our justification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnesse Now to their reasons M. PERKINS first reason is this That which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of
hath then neede of much confession bitter teares a sharpe combat of watching Idem Am. ad virg lap cap. 8. Orat. in sanct lum and vncessant and continued fasting if the offence were light and more tollerahle yet let the penance be equall vnto it S. Gregory Nazianzen saith It is as great an euill to pardon without some punishment as to punish without all pittie For as that doth loose the bridle to all licentiousnes so this doth straine it too much Idem de paup amor By compassion on the poore and faith sinnes are purged therefore let vs be cleansed by this compassion let vs scoure out the spottes and filth of our soules with this egregious herbe that makes it white some as woole others as snowe according to the proportion of euery mans compassion and almes De helia â—â—eiun S. Ambrose saith We haue many helpes whereby we may redeeme our sinnes hast thou mony Redeeme thy sinne not that our Lord is to be bought and solde but thou thyselfe art solde by thy sinnes redeeme thy selfe with thy workes redeeme thee with thy mony Epist 82. And How could we be saued vnlesse we washed away our sinnes by fasting S. Hierome maketh Paula a blessed Matron say My face is to be disfigured which against the commandement of God I painted my body is to be afflicted that hath taken so great pleasure my often laughter is to be recompenced with continuall weeping Ad Eusioch de obitu Paule my silkes and soft cloathing is to be chaunged into rough haire Reade another Epistle of his to the same Eustochium about the preseruing of her virginity and see what penance himselfe did being a most vertuous young man Epist 54. S. Augustine saith He that is trulie penitent lookes to nothing else then that he leaues not vnpunished the sinne which he committed For by that meanes not sparing our selues he whose high and iust iudgement no contemptuous person can escape doth spare vs. Li 50. hom Hom. 50. cap. 11. Cap. 15. And he sheweth how that a penitent sinner doth come to the Priest and receiue of him the measure of his satisfaction And saith directly against our Protestants position That it is not sufficient to amend our manners and to depart from the euill which we haue committed vnlesse we doe also satisfie God for those thinges which we had donne Lib. 6. in 1. Reg. S. Gregory saith That sinnes are not only to be confessed but to be blotted out with the austerity of penance I will close vp these testimonies with this sentence of our learned countriman venerable Bede In Psal 1. Delight saith he or desire to sinne when we doe satisfaction is lightly purged by almesdeedes and such like but consent is not rubbed out without great penance now custome of sinning is not taken away but by a iust and heauie satisfaction And if you please in fewe wordes to heare the Protestants workes of penance and satisfaction In steede of our fasting and other corporall correction they fall to eating and that of the best flesh they can get and take in the Lord all such bodely pleasure as the company of a woman will afforde In lieu of giuing almes vnto the poore they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents and by vsury and crafty bargaines are not ashamed to cousen their nearest kinne Finally in place of prayer and washing away their owne sinnes by many bitter teares they sing meerely a Geneua Psalme and raile or heare a rayling at our imagined sinnes or pretended errours And so leaue and lay all payne and sorrowe vpon Christs shoulders thinking themselues belike to be borne to pleasure and pastime and to make merry in this worlde FIRST OF TRADITIONS M. PARK pag. 134. Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by worde of mouth or writing besides the written word of God OVR CONSENT WE Hold that the very word of God was deliuered by Tradition from ADAM to MOSES who was the first Pen-man of holy Scripture Item that the Historie of the New Testament as some for eight not eightie or as other thinke for twentie yeares went from hand to hand by Tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approoued by them Hitherto we agree but not in this which he interlaceth that in the state of Nature euery man was instructed of God immediatly in both matters of faith and religion For that God then as euer since vsed the ministerie aswel of good fathers as godly masters as ENOCH NOE ABRAHAM and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition froÌ„ ADAM to MOSES as M. P. affirmeth If no childe learned anie such thing of his Father but was taught immediatly from God but M. P. seemeth to regard little such pettie contradictions His 2. concl We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ his Apostles spake did many things good true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one example he puts that the B. Virgin MARY liued dyed a Virgin but it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue this for HELVIDIVS is esteemed by S. AVGVSTINE an Heretike for denying it * De haeres ad Quod. li. 84. His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe Ordinances Traditions touching time place of Gods worship And touching order comelinesse to be vsed in the same mary with these foure caueats First that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd See what a reuerent opinion this man carryeth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish absurde But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Synagogue which is no part of the true Church Secondly that it be not imposed as anie part of Gods worship This is contrarie to the conclusion for order and comelinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship Thirdly that it be seuered from superstition c. This is needelesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is alreadie seuered from superstition The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he tearmeth the decree registred in the xv of the Actes of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he desined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written worde Now the Actes of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knowes That then which is of record there cannot be tearmed a Tradition THE DIFFERENCE CAtholikes teach that besides the written Worde there be certaine vnwritten Traditions which must be beleeued practised as both profitable and necessarie to saluation We hold that the Scriptures
Tradition vnwritten This place of S. IOHN M. P. patcheth vp with an other of S. PAVL * Gal. 1. ◠If we or an Angell from heauen preache vnto you any thing besides that which wee haue preached let him be accursed And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught * 1. Tim. 1.3 ANSWERE Now wee must looke vnto this Gentle-mans singers There were three corruptions in the text of S. IOHN here is one but it is a soule one In steed of Preaching vnto them an other Gospell he puts preach vnto them any other thing when there is great difference betweene an other Gospell any other thing The Gospel comprehendeth the principal poynts of faith the whole worke of Gods building in vs which S. PAVL like a wise Architect * 1. Cor. 3 12. had layd in the Galathians others his fellow-work-men might build vpon it gold siluer and pretious stones with great merit to themselues and thankes from S. PAVL Mary if any should digge vp that blessed and onely foundation and would laye a new one him S. PAVL holdeth for accursed So that that falcification of the text is intollerable and yet when all is done nothing can be wringed out of it to prooue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needefull to saluation for S. PAVL speaketh there onely of his Gospell that is of his preaching vnto the Galathians and not one worde of any written Gospel No more doth he in that place to TIMOTHY And so it is nothing to purpose The fourth Testimonie * 2. Tim. 3.16 The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improoue to correct and to instruct to righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto euery good worke In these words are contayned saith M. P. two arguments to prooue the sufficiencie of Scripture The first that which is profitable to these foure vses to teach al necessarie truth is not in the text to confute errors to correct faults in maners to instruct all men in all dutie is M. P. his addition to the text that is sufficient to saluation But the Scriptures serue for all these vses c. ANSWERE This text of holy Scripture is so farre from yeelding our aduersaries two Arguments that it affoordeth not so much as any probable colour of halfe one good argument In searching out the true sence of holy Scriptures wee must obserue diligently the nature proper signifycation of the words as M. P. also noteth out of S. AVGVSTINE in his sixt objection of this question which if the Protestants did here performe they would make no such account of this text for S. PAVL saith only that all Scripture is profitable not sufficient to teach to reproue c. How are they then carried away with their owne partiall affections that cannot discerne betweene profitable and sufficient Good Timber is profitable to the buylding of an house but it is not sufficient without stones morter a Carpenter Seede serues well yea is also necessarie to bring forth corne but will it suffice of it selfe without manuring of the ground and seasonable weather And to fit our purpose more properlie good lawes are verie profitable yea most expedient for the good gouernment of the common-wealth But are they sufficient without good customes good gouernours and judges to see the same Laws customs rightly vnderstood and duely executed Euen so the holy Scripturs S. PAVL affirmeth are very profitable as contayning very good necessary matter both to teach reproue correct but he saith not they are sufficient or that they do containe all doctrine needfull for these foure ends And therefore to argue out of S. PAVL that they are sufficient for all those purposes when he saieth onely that they are profitable to them is plainely not to know or not to care what a man saith And to presse such an impertinent cauil so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do is nothing els but to bewray vnto the indifferent reader either their extreame ignorance or most audacious impudencie that thinke they can face out any matter be it neuer so impertinent The same answere I make vnto M. P. his second argument out of the same place that the holy Scriptures bee profitable to make the man of God absolute but not sufficient I say more-ouer that M. P. doth falsely English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures when it signifyeth all Scripture that is euerie booke of Scripture and is there put to verifie that the Old Testament only serues to instruct to saluation For in the words next before S. PAVL sheweth how that TIMOTHY from his infancie had bene trayned vp in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures which saith he can instruct thee to saluation And annexeth as the confirmation thereof the Text cited All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. Now in TIMOTHYS infancie no parte of the New Testament was written and therefore all Scripture which is here put to prooue that Scripture which TIMOTHY in his Infancie knew cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more than all the bookes of the Olde Testament So that there are three soule faultes in this the Protestants Achilles The first in falsification of the text that it might seeme to bee spoken of the whole which is spoken of euerie part The second in applying that which is spoken of the Olde Testament vnto both the Olde and New The third in making that to be all-sufficient which S. PAVL affirmeth onely to be profitable And this is all they can saye out of the Scripture to prooue that the written worde containes all doctrine needefull to saluation Where-upon I make this invincible argument against them out of this their owne position Nothing is necessarie to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written worde containes all doctrine needefull to saluation as hath bene prooued Therefore it is not necessarie to saluation to beleeue the written worde to containe all doctrine needefull to saluation And by the same principle I might reject all testimonie of Antiquitie as needelesse if the Scriptures be so al-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs here what testimonie M. P. brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause TERTVLLIAN * De resur carnis saith Take from Heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens that they may desende their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand ANSWERE Here Scripture alone is opposed as euerie one may see vnto the writings of Heathen Authors and not to the Traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saieth M. P. out of the same Author We neede no curiositie after IESVS CHRIST nor inquisition after the Gospel when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for
the minde of the learned as in the auncient Fathers writings and therefore haue more credit than the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more than one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimonie than any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolical Tradition related but of one auncient Father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reprooued it as they did all other false-hoods if it had not bene such indeed as it was tearmed Which when they did not they gaue a secrete approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall Tradition But M. P. prooues the contrarie by S. PAVL who sayeth * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this daye witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and MOSES did say should come Why make you here a full poynt let S. PAVL make an ende of his speech and tell vs for what poynts of doctrine hee alleageth MOSES and the Prophets Marrie to prooue that CHRIST should suffer death and rise againe and that hee should giue light to the Gentils For these and such like which were euidently fore-tolde in holy writ hee needed not to alleage any other proofe but when hee was to perswade them to abandon MOSES Lawe he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when hee instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 12 I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. PAVL wee learne to alleadge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church Hitherto I haue confuted what M. P. brought against Traditions Nowe to that which he saith for them in our behalfe First saith he the Catholikes alleage * 2 Thes 2.15 Where the Apostle bids the Church to keepe the Ordinances which he taught them either by word of mouth or by Epistle Hence they gather that besides the written worde there bee vnwritten Traditions that are necessarie to be kept and obeyed M. Perkens ANSWERE It is likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer PAVL wrote to anie Church and then some-things needefull to saluation might de deliuered by word of mouth but that was afterwardes written in some others of his Epistles REPLIE OBserue first that insteede of Traditions according to the Greeke and Latine word they translate * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinances euer flying the word Tradition where any thing is spoken in commendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the word Tradition although the Greeke word beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouerie of false translations penned by Maister GREGORIE MARTIN a man most singulerly conuersant in the Greeke and Hebrue tongues Secondlie is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this seconde Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer hee wrote Surely if none of his other were written before it yet his firste to the same Church muste needes haue bene written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame some-times To the poynt of the answere that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bene deliuered by word of mouth How prooueth M. P. that the man hath such confidence in his owne worde that hee goeth not once about to prooue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needefull to be beleeued which is not written in the word Shew vs then where it is written in the word that Saint PAVL wrote in his later Epistles that which he taught by word of mouth before or else by your owne rule it is not needefull to beleeue it But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent reader I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle that we may see whether they thought that S. PAVL committed all to writing and left nothing by Tradition S. CHRYSOSTOME in his most learned and eloquent Comentaries vpon this text concludeth thus Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnwritten and those things are aswell to be beleeued as the written OECVMENIVS and THEOPHILACTVS vpon that place teache the same S. BASIL * De spu cap. 27. speaketh thus I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not written for the Apostle sayeth I commend you that ye are mindfull of my precepts and do hold the Traditions euen as I deliuered them vnto you and then alleageth this text Hold the Traditions which you haue receiued of mee either by Word or Epistle S. IOHN DAMASCEN accordeth with the former saying * Lib. 4. De fide cap. 17 That the Apostles deliuered many things without writing S. PAVL doth testifie when he writeth Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which haue bene taught you either by word of mouth or by Epistle These holy and judicious expositors of S. PAVL free from all partialitie gather out of this text of his that many things necessarie to be beleeued euen vntil their daies remained vnwritten and were religiouslie obserued by Tradition which throweth flat to the ground M. P. his false supposition fenced with neither reason nor authotie that S. PAVL put in writing afterward all that he had first taught by word of mouth Moreouer S. PAVL immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles commandeth his deare disciple TIMOTHY * 2. Tim. 2. To commend vnto the faithfull that which he heard of him by many witnesses not that only which he should finde written in some of his Epistles or in the written Gospell The second Argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be is very necessarie to saluation now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued onely by Tradition wherefore it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue some Tradition M. P. answereth that the bookes of the Old and New Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this maner Let the man who
bookes of holy Scripture put together do contayne all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue bene lost therefore some poynts of necessarie doctrine contayned in them are not extant in the written worde and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. P. answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes supersluous Doth the Holie Ghost set men to pen needelesse discourses which this answere supposeth Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrary vnto the plaine Scriptures * 1. Paral. vlt. 2. Paral 9. as S. IOHN CHRYSOSTOM prooueth * Hom. 9. in Mat. E◠Hom. 7. in priorem ad Corinth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be prooued out of the historie of Paralipomeneon which they translate Cronicles Now as for M. P. gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of Paper some profane and of Philosophie I holde them not worth the discussing beeing not much pertinent and avowed one in word onely without either any reason or authoritie M. P. His fourth objection of the Jewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this MOSES who was the Pen-man of the Olde Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certaine poynts needefull to saluation by Tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any Countrey comprehended al in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likelie that our Christian law should be all written That MOSES did not pen all thus we prooue It was as necessarie for women to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applyed to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the written law to deliuer women from that sinne Therefore some other remedie for them was deliuered by Tradition Item if the Childe were likely to die before the eight daie there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no where written in the Law Also many Gentils during that state of the Old Testament were saued as IOB and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the Old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needefull to saluation were then deliuered by Tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any parte of the Scripture I answere that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue what was then lost Now insteede of M. P. his fift reason for vs of milke and stronge meate wishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of Traditions Our Sauiour said being at the point of his passiō * Ioh. 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Act. 10. Our Sauiour after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11 I commende you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1 Tim. 6. O TIMOTHY keepe the dispositum that is true which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1 Hold fast by the holy ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. CHRISOSTOM and THEOPHILACT expounde the true doctrine of CHRIST the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacramentes and gouernment of the Church To which alludeth that auncient holy Martir S. IRENEVS * Lib. 3. c. 4 saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholike Church as in a rich treasurie all things that belong to the trueth S. IOHN who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epi. 3.13 that hee had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to inke and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three poynts of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his father Where is it written that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne aswell as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons reallie distincte in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour CHRIST IESVS no person of man but the substance of God man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euerie of these principall articles of the Christian faith and most necessarie to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse tearmes written in any parte of the holie Bible Wherefore wee must either admit Traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euerie wrangler as shal be more declared in the argument following The sixt and last reason for Traditions Sundrie places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken liberally or figuratiuely If then it be put to euery Christian to take his owne exposition euery seueral sect will coyne interpretations in fauour of their own opinions so shal the word of God ordayned only to teach vs the trueth be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors To auoide 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 confute and reject all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those auncient and holy Comentaries So that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture Traditions are most necessarie M. P. His answere is that there is no such neede of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it selfe is the best glosse If there 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 signifycation of the wordes 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 REPLIE 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 truely called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not S. PETER sayeth Yes * 1. Pet. 2. No sayeth M. P. because that commeth not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truely 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 truely That which truely is may bee so called truely But the Scripture truely is matter of great contention euery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truely be so tearmed although it bee not the cause of contention in it selfe but written to take away all contention But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of Saint AVGVSTINE be good directions whereby sober and sound wits may much profite in studie of diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinarie helpes of good instructiors and learned Comentaries But to affirme that euerie Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnesse and meere folly S. AVGVSTINE himselfe well conuersant in these rules indued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the Holie Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best Comentaries he could get and counsell of the most excusit yet he ingeniouslie confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his studie he vnderstood not then which he did vnderstand * Ep. 119. cap. 21. And shall euery simple man furnished only with M. P. his three rules of not twise three lynes be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer Why doe the Lutherans to omit all former Heretiks vnderstand them in one sort the Caluenists after an other The Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne Countrey 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 trueth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtful controuersie without there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonour 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 Temporal justice it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Lawe to expound and conster the groundes of the Lawe and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome and not be bounde to stande to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquitie should not be Lawe or when should there be any ende 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 an other as certainely auerring not that but the contrarie to be Law both alleadging for their warrant some texts 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 justly and according to the true meaning of the Lawe none at all but bloudy debate and perpetuall conflict each persuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne To auoyde then such garboyles and intestiue contention there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appoynted some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely lawe and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker who in wisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens do the earth hath left his golden lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euerie one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit no no It cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne of God In the Olde Testament which was but a state of bondage and as it were an introduction to the Newe yet was there one appoynted vnto whome they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Lawe yea and bound were they vnder paine of death to stande to his determination and shall wee bee so simple as to suffer our selues to bee perswaded that in the glorious state of the Gospell plotted and framed by the wisdome of God himselfe worse order should bee taken for this high poynte of the true vnderstanding of the Holy Gospel it self being the life and soule of all the rest Giue mee leaue gentle Reader to stay some-what longer in this matter because there is nothing of more importance and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke Considder then with your selfe that our Coelestiall Law-maker gaue his Lawe not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his moste faithfull subjectes endowīng them with the blessed spirite of trueth * Ierem. 31 2 Cor 3. and with a moste diligent care of instructing others * Ioh. 16. that all their posteritie might learne of them all the poynts of Christian doctrine and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten worde and more for the true meaning of the worde than for the word it selfe These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God then must wee consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion and submit our selues wholy to their decree S. PAVL that vessell of election may serue vs for a singuler modell and patterne of the whole who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospel frō God yet went vp to Ierusalem with BARNABY to conferre with the chiefe Apostles the Gospel which he preached least perhaps he might runne in vaine and had runne as in expresse wordes he witnesseth himselfe * Gal. 2 Vpon which fact and words of S. PAVL the auncient Fathers do gather that the faithful would not haue