person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remayning in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltines of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltines belonging to it Who can denie this vnlesse he knowe not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be pardoned the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe Againe what Philosophy or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendour being pardoned for his offence the offence in it selfe remayneth guilty as though the offence seperated from the person were a substance subject to lawe and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in it selfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What sencelesse imaginations be these Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remayne in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed can there be two contraries in one part of the subject at once can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the will at the same instant can the soule be both truely conuerted to God and as truely auerted from him at one time is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost content to inhabite a body subject to sinne all which must be graunted contrary to both Scripture and natural sence if we admitte the fault and deformity of sinne to remayne in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subjects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other odde corner Remember also gentle Reader that here Master PERKINS affirmeth the power vvhereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrarie vnto the first proposition of his first reason following as shall bee there proued OVR DISSENT LET vs nowe come vnto the difference which is betweene vs. The Catholikes teach that Originall sinne is so farreforth taken away by Baptisme that it ceaseth to bee a sinne properly the effectes of it remayning are an inperfection and weakenesse both in our vnderstanding and will and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferiour appetite vnto reason as was and would haue beene in Originall iustice which make the soule apt and ready to fall into sinne like vnto tinder which although it bee not fire of it selfe yet is fit to take fire yet say they that these reliques of Originall sinne be not sinnes properly vnlesse a man doe yeelde his consent vnto those euill motions Master PERKINS teacheth otherwise That albeit Originall sinne bee taken away in the regenerate in sundry respectes yet doth it remayne in them after Baptisme not onely as a want and weakenesse but as a sinne and that properly as may be proued by these reasons Saint Paul saith directly 1. Rom. 7. It is no more I that doe this but sinne that dwelleth in me that is Originall sinne The Papists answere That it is called there sinne improperly because it commeth of sinne and is an occasion of sinne I approue this interpretation of Saint Paul as taken out of that auncient and famous Papist Saint Augustine Li. 1. cont duas Epist Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de nuptiis Concup cap. 23. who saith expresly Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet is it not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne as writing is called the hand because it is made by the hand And in an other place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as cold is called sloathfull because it makes a man sloathfull so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. PERKINS and shall be as well coursed for it by the playne circumstances of the place For saith he that Saint Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the wordes following That this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated Howe proues this that sinne there must be taken properly it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not bee sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will But Saint Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby was so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deede in resisting and ouercomming that euill As witnesseth Saint Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully Lib. 2 de Gen. cont Manich. cap. 14. and ruleth raging concupiscence which being done wee sinne not but for that conflict are to bee crowned This first circumstance then alleaged by M. PERKINS doth rather make against him then for him Now to the second O wreatched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne howe this may be drawne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can finde to proue Saint Paul to take sinne there properly Nowe I will proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence It is not I that doe it All sinnes is done and committed properly by the person in whome it is but this was not done by Saint Paul ergo Second out of those wordes I knowe there is not in me that is in my flesh anie good And after I see an other lawe in my members resisting the lawe of my minde Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was no sinne properly The third and last is taken out of the first wordes of the next Chapter There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in CHRIST IESVS that walke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dwelling in them if thy walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sinne properly For the wages of sinne is death this is eternall damnation Rom. 6. Nowe to M. PERKINS Argument in forme as he proposeth it That which was once sinne properly and still remayning in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo The Maior which as the learned knowe should consist of three wordes contaynes foure seuerall pointes and which is worst of all not one of them true To the first that which remayneth in man after
Therefore saith he it is put ambiguous and left vncertayne that while men are doubtfull of their saluation they may doe penance more manfully and so may moue God to take compassion on them An other reason of this vncertayntie De cor gra cap 13. yeeldeth Saint Augustine in these wordes In this place of temptation such is our infirmity that assurednes might engender pride To this agreeth S. Gregory saying Lib. 9. moral cap. 17. If we knowe our selues to haue grace we are proude So that to strike downe the pride of our harts and to humble vs and to make vs trauaile more carefully in the workes of mortification God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their owne saluation but to cheere vp their hartes on the other side doth put them in great hope of it like to a discreet and good Lord who will not at the first entrance into his seruice infeafe his seruant in the fee simple of those lands which after vpon his good deserts he meaneth to bestowe on him This is an other kinde of Doctrine then that which M. PER. in his last supply deliuereth to witte That if we regard our owne indisposition we must despaire because we be not worthy of his mercie Not so good Sir Because we knowe that he bestoweth mercy vpon the vnworthie at the first justification of a sinner but will not admitte into the Kingdome of heauen any vnworthy but giues men grace while they liue to worke that they are made worthy of his heauenly Kingdome according to that They shall walke with me in whites Apoc. 3.4 because they are worthie but of this more fully in the chapter of merits The fift reason for our opinion is taken out of M. PER. second exception to witte howsoeuer a man may be assured for his present state yet no man is certaine of his perseuerance to the end And therefore although we might be assured of our Iustification yet can we not be certaine of our Saluation For he only that perseuereth to the end shall be saued M. PERK answere is that prayer doth assure vs to perseuer to the end for God biddes vs pray that we fall not into temptation and promiseth an issue forth 1. Cor. 10. So then the assurance dependes vpon prayer and not vpon our former faith What then if we doe not pray so as we should may not the enemy then not only wound but kill vs to it cannot be denyed and therein as in diuers other workes of pietie many haue bin too too slacke as the pitifull fall of thousands haue taught vs. Oh saith M. PERKINS it cannot be that he which was once a member of Christ can euer after be wholy cut off O shamelesse assertion and contrary to many playne textes and examples of holy Scriptures Doth not our Sauiour say in expresse words That euery branch in me not bearing fruit Ioh. 15. he will take it away And againe If any abide not in me he shall be cast forth as the branch and shall wither and be cast into the fire which doth demonstrate that some which were members of Christ be wholy cut off and that for euer Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our aduersaries owne confession and doth not our blessed Sauiour say Luke 8. expounding the parable of the sower That the seede which fell vpon the rocke doth signifie them who with ioy receiue the word and these saith he haue no roote but for a time they beleeue and in time of temptation reuolt 1. Tim. 1.19 1. Tim. 4. 2. Tim. 6. Doth not Saint Paul in expresse tearmes say That some hauing faith and good conscience expelling good conscience haue made shipwracke of their faith of whome were by name Hymenaeus and Alexander The like That in the the last dayes some shoulde reuolt from the faith Againe That some for couetuousnesse sake had erred from the faith And for example amongst other take Saul the first King of Israell who was at his election as the holy Ghost witnesseth so good a man 1. Reg. 19. that there was no better then he in Israell and yet became reprobate as is in the Scripture signified The like is probable of Salomon 2. Reg. 15. 16. and in the newe Testament of Iudas the traytor and Simon Magus whome S. Luke saith that he also himselfe beleeued and after became an Arch-heretike Act. 8. and so died the like almost may be verefied of all Arch-heretikes who before they fell were of the faithfull But what neede we further proofe of this matter seeing that this is cosen german if not the very same with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles Heres 82. Li. 2. cont Iouin condemned and registred by S. Hierome and S. Augustine who held that just men after Baptisme could not sinne and if they did sinne they were indeede washed with water but neuer receiued the spirit of grace his ground was that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace could not sinne after which is just M. PERKINS proposition so that to vpholde an errour he falleth into an olde condemned heresie And which is yet more absurd in the next confirmation he letteth slippe at once a brace of other heresies these be his wordes And if by sinne one were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptised the second time Where you haue first rebaptizing which is the principall error of the Anabaptists and withall the heresie of the Nouatians who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme there was no remedie left in Gods Church for their recouerie but must be left to God so saith M. PERKINS for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo so that the common saying is verified in him one absurdity being graunted a thowsand followe after But doth he knowe no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ hath he forgotten that corrupted sentēce of the Prophet wherewith they beginne their common prayer What houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne c. With them repentance and with vs the Sacrament of Penance serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ But we must answere vnto that of S. Iohn They went out from vs 1. Ioan. 2. but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would haue continued with vs. I answere If they went out from vs they were before with vs which confirmeth our assertion that men may departe from their faith and Christes profession but such men were not indeede of the number of the elect of which S. Iohn was for then either they would haue continued with them in the Christian faith or else by hartie repentance would haue returned vnto it backe againe which is S. Augustines owne exposition De bono perse c. 8. And these be the Arguments for the
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
day of tribulation Psal 49. and I will deliuer thee Prayer cannot be made without faith in Gods power hope in his goodnes and therefore must needes be pleasing in Gods sight by prayer we humble our selues before God and acknowledge his omnipotency and our infirmity By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude folly and wickednes and bewayle the grieuousnes of our sinnes such prayer made King Dauid as his Psalmes doe testefie water his couch with teares making them his foode day and night and by them he satisfied for his former offences So did a farre greater sinner then he King Manasses who falling into tribulition 2. Paral. 33. prayed vnto the Lord his God and did great penance before the God of his fathers and prayed and entreated earnestly and God heard his prayers and brought him backe againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome Now to M. PERKINS Similes A begger doth not deserue his almes because he makes not this former kinde of prayer but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lippes outward The like we say of a debter whose creditor being a needie man will not be paid without mony but God who needes none of our goodes highly esteemeth of an humble and contrite hart grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God and humbly suing vnto him for pardon To such a one he said Math. 18. Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt because thou besoughtest me Secondly saith M. PERKINS Fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking no more conferring to the Kingdome of heauen then eating and drinking doth What an Epicurian and fleshlie Doctrine is this Why then did the Niniuites fast put on sack-cloath and lie on the ground all which bodely afflictions are reduced to fasting rather then eate and drinke and presume of Gods mercy if the one had beene as acceptable to God as the other Why is S. Iohn Baptist commended for his rough garments and thinne diet if chearishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it Math. 6. Christ saith expressely That if we fast in secret his heauenly Father will repay vs openly Will he reward eating and drinking so liberally but of fasting we shall haue a whole Chapter hereafter Therefore briefly I here conclude that this Doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the Kingdome of Atheists and Epicures whose sweete speech is Let vs eate and let vs drinke for after death there is no pleasure True for such Belly-gods and their followers Lastly he saith that Almesdeedes cannot be workes of satisfaction for sinnes For when we giue them as we ought we doe but our dutie and we may aswell say that a man by paying one debt may discharge an other as to say by doeing his dutie he may satisfie Gods justice for the punishment or his sinnes A man might suppose that this man were pretely well seene in Carolo Buffone that thus ruffleth in graue matters with his simple Similes That Almesdeedes redeeme our sinnes purge vs from them and make all thinges cleane vnto vs hath beene already proued out of holy Scriptures I will joyne thereunto this one testimonie of that worthy Martir S. Cyprian Serm. de opere cleemos Our frailty could not tell what to doe vnlesse the goodnes of God by teaching vs the workes of iustice and mercy had shewed vs a certayne way of preseruing our saluation which is that with Almesdeedes we might wash cleane away the filth of sinnes which we had contracted after Baptisme The holy Ghost speaketh in the Scripture and saith Sinnes are purged by almesdeedes and faith Now to M. PERKINS Simile We deny that a man is bound to giue all the almes that he can We are bound to giue that which we may well spare when there is great want But almes which is a part of satisfaction is not giuen out of our superfluity but spared from our necessary vses And is many times bestowed when there is no such great neede vpon building Schooles Colledges Hospitals and Chappels And this may serue to answere M. PERKINS Similes against these three workes of satisfaction If any man desire to knowe why we make speciall rekoning of these three workes it is principally for two causes First we being to satisfie must performe it with such thinges as be our owne which be of three sortes either they belong to our soule or to our body or to our externall goodes the goodes of our minde we offer to God by prayer by fasting and other reasonable bodely discipline we exhibite vnto him A liuing hoaste holy and pleasing God Rom. 12.1 By Almesdeedes we make him an agreeable present of our goodes Secondly all sinne as S. Iohn teacheth 1. Epis 2. may be reduced to three principall heades The concupiscence of the flesh that is Leachery which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the body Concupiscence of the eyes Couetousnes which is purged and chased away by almesdeedes And pride of life which is suppressed by humble prayer and often meditation of our owne miseries But now to knitte vp this question Let vs heare briefly what the best learned and purest antiquity hath taught of this satisfaction done by man and because M. PERKINS beganne with Tertullian omitting his auncients Let vs first heare what he saith of it in his booke of penance How foolish is it saith he not to fulfill our penance and yet to expect pardon of our sinnes this is not to tender the price and yet to put out a hand for the reward for God hath decreede to set the pardon at this price he proposeth impunity to be redeemed with this recompence of penance His equall in standing and better in learning Origen thus discourseth See our good Lord tempering mercy with seuerity Hom. 3. in lib. iudic and weighing the measure of the punishment in a iust and mercifull balance he deliuereth not vp a sinner for euer But looke how long time thou knowest thy selfe to haue offended so long doe thou humble thy selfe to God and satisfie him in the confession of penance That glorious Martir and most learned Arch-Bishop S. Cyprian is wonderfull vehement against them that would not haue seuere penance done by such as fell in persecution saying That such indiscreet men labour tooth and nayle that satisfaction be not done to God highly offended against them And saith further That he who withdraweth our brethren from these workes of satisfaction doth miserably deceiue them causing them that might doe true penance and satisfie God their mercifull Father with their prayer and workes to perish daylie Lib. 1. Ep. Li 3. Ep. 14 Orat. in illa verba attende tibi And to be more and more seduced to their further damnation S. Basil saith Looke to thy selfe that according to the proportion of thy fault thou maist hence also borrow some helpe of recouering thy health Is it a great and grieuous offence it
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
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
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