fastidia detergeret Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur The holie ghost hath magnifically and wholsomlie so tempered the holy scriptures that with euident places he might satisfie hunger and with more darke places might wipe awaie disdainfulnes For nothing almoste is found out of those obscurities which is not found els where most plainlie vttered It were no hard matter to heape vp manie testimonies of the auncient fathers to this purpose but that the va nitie of this answerer appeereth sufficientlie in all our bookes written against the papists in which not onely by the manifest places of the scriptures but also by most euident testimonies of the doctors of the church we confute them in the most and greatest matters of controuersie that ate betweene vs. But what saith our gallant answerer that the councels fathers and anciters of theChurch haue from time to timedeclared the true sense of the scriptures vnto vs hath none of these at any time erred in expounding the scriptures may we safely beleeue them whatsoeuer they say He wil I warrant you deny it except the Pope of Rome do alow their interpretations And therfore this flying from the only scriptures to the interpretation of Coun cels fathers ancetors of the Church is nothing els but an impudent shift to reserue vnto the Pope liberty authority to make what meaning of scripture they please thereby to giue colour to euery fansie they list to father it vpon the authority of the holie scriptures The third cause he affirmeth to be that by chalenging of onely scripture they maie deliuer themselues from all ordinan ces or doctrines left vnto vs by the first pillers of Christs Church though not expressely set down in the scripture c. In deede to deliuer our selues from the burthen of mens traditions the ordinances or doctrines of men we affirme the holie scriptures to be hable and sufficient to make vs wise vnto saluation by faith in Iesus Christ as the Apostles and principall pillers of the Church haue taught vs who haue left no such ordinances or doctrines but they be either expressely set down in the holy scriptures or by plaine and necessarie collection to be gathered out of the same For how will our aduersaries prooue that anie thing is receaued from the Apostles which hath not testimonie out of the writings of the Apostles who can be a sufficient witnes of such de liuerie seeing manie things were of olde referred to the Apostles tradition which euen our aduersaries do not admit to be Apostolical seeing the most auncient and immediate successors of the Apostles as Polyearpus Anicetus can not agree about a ceremony receaued from the Apostles namelie the celebration of Easter what certentie can there be of anie other ordinances or doctines fathered vpon the Apostles without witnes of their writings yea and some times directlie contrarie and repugnant to their writings But hereof saith our aduersarie they assume authoritie of allowing or not allowing whatsoeuer liketh or serueth their turnes for the time and hereof he bringeth example First of the number of sacraments whereof some protestants haue written diuerslie because the name of sacrament is diuerslie taken sometimes largelie for euerie holie signe sometimes strictlie for such holie signes onely as being instituted of God are seales of the dispensation of his generall grace in the new teftament perteining to euerie member of the Church somtimes for al holy mysteries or secrets c. But what doth it serue anie protestants turne whether there be more or fewer signes in number that maie be called sacraments seeing all protestants agree about the things themselues that are set forth in the scriptures to be visible signes of grace inuisible and the name it selfe Sacrament in that sense we speake of when we saie there are 2. 3. 4. or 7. sacraments is not once vsed This diuersitie therefore is but of a terme and that not vsed in scripture therefore it ariseth not of anie interpretation or peruerse vnderstanding of the scripture as our answerer would haue it seeme to be But let vs heare his example Martin Luther saith he after he had denied all testimonie of man besides himselfe he beginneth thus about the number of sacraments Principiò neganda mihisunt septem sacramenta tantúm tria pro tempore ponenda First of all I must denie seauen sacraments and appoint three for the time Marie this time lasted not long for in the same place he saith that if he would speake according to the vse of onely scripture he hath but one sacrament for vs that is baptisme In this sentence how manie lies and slaunders be packed together First he saith Martin Luther denieth all testimonie of man which is false for he alloweth all testimonie of man that agreeth with the testimonie of God expressed in the scriptures and often citeth the testimonies of the auncient fathers for confirmation of the trueth which he taught indeede he alloweth man no authoritie to institute sacraments or to make articles of faith or lawes to binde the conscience of man and he would haue all mans testimonies to be examined and iudged according to the word of God but this is not to denie all testimonie of man but to distinguish true testimonies of man from false An other slaunder is where he saith that Luther in denying all mans testimonie excepteth him selfe which is altogether vntrue For he requireth none other credit to be giuen to his owne testimonie then he alloweth to the testimonie of other Neither doth he arrogate any authoritie to him selfe which he derogateth from other men And namelie in this booke of the captiuitie of Babilon he taketh not vpon him absolutelie to teach euerie point but so farr forth as he did for the present vnderstand of them promising after greater study more diligent inquirie to intreat of diuers of them more certenly euen in this verie place of the number of the sacraments he saith he will admit three onclie for the present time intending to be further a duised whether there be fewer or more to be entituled with that name Wherein our answerer offereth him the third iniurie in translating tria pro tempore ponenda I must appoint three for the time as though Luther had taken vpon him to appoint how manie sacraments the Church should haue or would challenge power to appoint more or Jesse at his pleasure where as his wordes if the answerer did not wilfullie corrupt them by false translation do import no such thing but onelie as farr as he did presentlie see there were no more but three of those that were commonlie called sacraments of the new testament which were rightlie to be called by that name The fourth slaunder is that Luther hath but one sacrament for vs which is Baptisme if he would speake according to the vse of onelie scripture yea this is a double slaunder for neither doth
necessarie to saluation not expressed in so manie wordes and syllables yet in full sense contained and to be plainlie concluded out of the holie scriptures and these we receiue to be of as great credit as anie thing that is expresselie contained in the scriptures The other kinde of traditions was rites and cerimonies which are not necessary to saluation but are in the Churches power to alter as it maie stand best with edification Among which S. Basill rehearseth some that long since are abolished as the rite of standing in praier one the Lords daie and betweene Easter and Whitsontid which of it selfe is a thing indifferent as also that manner of glorifying in which they said with the holy ghost whereas al the Church long since hath said neither in the holie Ghost nor with the holie Ghost but to the holie Ghost To beleeue that the holie Ghost is to be glorified equallie with the Father and the sonne it is necessarie to saluation but in what forme of wordes that shal be song in the Church it is indifferent and the later Church hath vsed her libertie herein to alter that forme which Saint Basill saith was deliuered by the Apostles themselues without writing By this I hope it is manifest what kinde of traditions are of equall force or authoritie with the scripture euen they which haue their ground in the scriptures and none other For as the same Basill affirmeth Euerie word or deede ought to be confirmed by testimonie of the holie Scriptures Againe For if all that is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith is of hearing and hearing by the word of God whatsoeuer is beside the holie Scripture being not of faith is sinne Thus Basill whatsoeuer he speaketh of vnwritten traditions he meaneth not against the insufficiencie of the holie scriptures except you will saie he is contrarie to him-selfe in manie places beside these that I haue noted Tr. de vera piafide Epist. 80. in Reg. Breu. Inter. 1. 65. 68. de ornatu Monachi Your next testimonie is out of Eusebius lib. 1. Eu. Demonst. cap. 8. whole wordes you mangle after your manner leauing out at your pleasure more then you rehearse Eusebius hauing shewed the excellencie of Christ aboue Moses declareth also that there are two manners ofliuing in Christianitie the one of them that are strong and perfect the other of them that are subiect to manie infirmites and that whereas Moses did write in tables without life Christ hath written the perfect preceptes of the new Testament in liuing mindes his disciples following their Masters minde considering what Doctrine is meete for both sortes haue committed the one to writing as that which is necessarie to be kept of all the other they deliuered without writing to those that were able to receiue it wich haue excelled the common manner of men in knowledge in strength in abstinence c. And this is the meaning of Eusebius in that place not of anie traditions necessarie to saluation of euerie man which are not taught in the holy scriptures but of certaine precepts tending to perfection not enioyned to all but written in the heartes of some The third man is Epiphanius who you saie is more earnest then Eusebius writing against certaine heretikes called Apostolici which denied traditions as our Protestantes do Which is but a tale for they were more like to Popish monkes and friers then Protestantes For they professed to abstaine from marryage to poslesse nothing and such other superstitions they obserued But what saith Epiphanius for traditions He saith that we must vse tradition For all thinges can not be taken out of the scripture wherefore the holie Apostles deliuered somethings in the scriptures and something in tradition Mine answer to Epiphanius is the same that it was to Basilius Namelie that such things as were not expressed in plaine wordes in the scripture were approoued by tradition being neuertheles such thinges as were to be concluded necessarilie out of the scripture As in the question for which he alledgeth tradition it is manifest Tradiderunt c. the holie Apostles of God saith he haue deliuered vnto vs that it is sinne after virginitie decreed to be turned vnto marriage This the Papistes doubt not but that they are hable to prooue out of the scripture except where the Pope dispenseth And we acknowledge that where the vow was made a duisedly to a Godlie purpose and abilitie in the partie to performe it that it is sinne to breake it neither can the Pope dispense with it In the other place where he rehearseth manie examples of traditions he speaketh of rites and ceremonies as is before declared wherof manie are not obserued in the Popish Church neither is there anie of them necessarie to saluation But Epiphanius you saie prooueth it out of scripture 1. Cor. 11. 14. 15. vhere Saint Paulsaith as I deliuered vnto you And againe so I teach and so I haue deliuered vnto the Churches and If you holde fast except you haue beleeued in vaine To the first I answer that it prooueth no traditions necessarie to saluation which are not contained in the scriptures as is more manifest by the second and third text for where Saint Paul saith so I teach in all the Churches of God 1. Cor. 14. 33. he saith immediatelie before that God is not the God of sedition but of peace 1. Cor. 15. 1. 2. 3. the Apostle speaketh manifestlie of the doctrine of the resurrection wherof he him-selfe in that place writeth plentifullie and in manie other places of scripture the same article is taught moste expresselie You see therefore how substantiallie Epiphanius prooueth tradition vnwritten out of the scripture to be necessarie to saluation which is our question But with Epiphanius saie you ioyneth fullie and earnestlie Saint Chrysostome writing vpon these wordes of Saint Paul to the purpose Stand fast and holde traditions out of which cleere wordes Saint Chrysostome maketh this illation Hinc patet c. Hereof it is euident that the Apostles deliuered not all by epistle but manie thinges also without writing and those are as worthie credit as these Therefore we think the tradition of the Church to be worthie of credit it is a tradition seeke no more The sense of these wordes is that the Apostles in their preaching did expresse manie things more perticularly then in their epistles not that they preached anie thing necessarie to saluation but that the same was contained either in their epistles or in other bookes of the holie scripture And so I saie of the tradition of the Church which is a doctrine contained in the scriptures though not expressed in the same or in so manie wordes as the three persons and one God in trinitie and trinitie in vnitie to be worshipped c. is of equall credit with that which is expressed in the scriptures because the ground of our faith standeth not vppon the sound of wordes but vppon
the sense and true meaning of thinges them-selues And this is Chrisostomes meaning not of traditions altogether without the compasse of the scriptures and yet held necessarie to saluation For of the sufficiencie of the scri ptures he speaketh in diuers places and namelie vppon that cleere text 2. Tim. 3. Hom 9. of the scripiure he saith Siquid vel diseere velignorare opus sit illic addiscemus If anie thing be needefisli to know or not to know in the scriptures we shall learne But because you saie those wordes of Saint Paulare cleere 2. Thess. 2. for vnwritten tradititions I praie you what argument can you conclude out of them Saint Paul deliuered to the Thessalonians something by preaching and something by writing ergo he deliuered something that is not contained in the holie scriptures written either by himselfe or anie other of the holie men of God appointed for that purpose Who is so childish thinke you to graunt you this consequence therefore for anie thing you haue brought or can bring or anie thing that the fathers haue said or can saie the word of God writ ten is perfect and hable to make a man wise to saluation by faith in Iesus Christ which is to be had sufficientlie in the holie scriptures as Christ him-selfe doth witnes Iohn 5. 39. And so the former conclusion doth still stand It is great iniquitie to receiue traditions altogether beside the holie scripture as necessarie to saluation which must needes argue the holie scriptures of imperfection and vnsufficiencie Neither doth the consent of Antiquitie refute this assertion of Master Charke seeing the auncients as it is said spake either of doctrine not expressed in word but contained in deede in the scriptures or els of rites and ceremonies the perpetuall obseruation where of is not necessatie to eternall life as is prooued by the discussing of manie of them which the elder fathers do father vpon the tradition of the Apostles as much as anie other that they name And if you saie they were deceiued in such as are abolished how shall we know that 〈◊〉 not in such as are retained For in their 〈◊〉 they were all generallie receiued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well such as are discontinued as those 〈◊〉 remaine 〈◊〉 if any man will aske you what be these Apostolicall 〈◊〉 in particuler you could alleadge him testimonies 〈◊〉 auncient fathers for a great number But you referr 〈◊〉 Saint Cyprian Serm. de ablut pedum Tertullian 〈◊〉 milit and Saint Hieron dialog contra Luciferianos 〈◊〉 say he shall finde store Belike your note booke 〈◊〉 you thither although you listed not to take so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your selfe but turne it ouer to your 〈◊〉 Howbert he that is disposed to read the sermon 〈◊〉 Cyprian shall finde no store at all but of the necessitie of washing offcete which ceremonie was taken by the example of Christ yet is not thought necessarie in the Popish Church at this daie Tertullian in deede hath some prety store yet not to mantaine popish traditions so much as to ouerthrow them For he 〈◊〉 some things that are taken out of the scripture as to renounce the deuill in Baptisme c. some that are growne out of vse manie hundred yeares agoe as that the baptized should taste of milke and honie that they should abstaine from washing seauen daies after That men should signe their forheade at euerie steppe and proceeding going forth and comming home at putting on of apparell and at pulling on of shooes at washings at table at lighting of candells at beddes at stooles at all times and places Saint Hierome also in the person of the heretike rehearseth traditiones and among them such as Papistes do not obserue namelie the mixture of milke and honie geuen to them that are newlie baptized On the Lords daie and during the wholl time of Pentecoste neither to kneele in praiers nor to fast These are parte of those Apostolical traditions in particular which if they had beene necessary to saluation must haue beene perpetuallie continued If they were vntruelie ascribed to the Apostles what wartant can we haue of any other seeing the most auncient writers commend these as much as anie other for Apostolicall traditions Yet a few other examples you wil adde out of Saint Augustine whoe prooueth baptisme you sare by tradition of the Church lib. 10. de gen ad lit cap. 23. to this answere hath beene made sufficientlie in the 11. section that Saint Augustine doth not defend baptisme of infants onelie by the custome of the Church but also by the scriptures Likewise you saie he prooueth by the same tradions that we must not rebaptize those which are baptized of heretikes lib. 2. de bapt capt 7. lib. 1. cap. 23. lib. 4. cap. 6 It is true that he perwsadeth him selfe that this custome of not rebaptizing came from the Apostles tradition yet doth he by many arguments out of scripture prooue that such are not to be baptized againe which haue beene once baptized although by heretikes and therefore he saith of the same matter Hoc planè verum est quia ratio veritas consuetudini praeponenda est Sed cùm consuetudini veritas suffragatur nihil oportet firmius retineri This is plainlie true that reason and truth is to be preferred before custome but when truth consenteth with custome nothing ought more steadefastlie to be 〈◊〉 You see therefore that he buildeth not onelie vppon custome or tradition which is the matter in question but vppon trueth and reason which is founded by the holie scriptuers Your middle quotation de bap lib. 1. cap. 23. you may correct against your nextreplie for there are but 19. Chapters in that booke Againe you saie He prooueth by tradition the celebration of the Pentecost commonlie called Whitsontide ep 11 c. 1. If it were as you saie it is but a matter of ceremony not necessarie to saluation but in the power of the Church to alter as many like which are abrogated But in trueth he prooueth it not as you say by tradition For these are his wordes Illa autem quae non scripta c. But those thinges which are kept beeing not written but deliuered which are obserued thoroughout all the worlde it is giuen to be vnderstoode that they are retained as commended and decreed either by the Apostles them-selues or by generall Councells the authoritie of which is moste whollesome in the Church as that the passion of our Lord and his resurrection ascension into heauen and the comming of the holie ghoste from heauen are celebrated with yearelie solemnitie You see by his owne wordes that he is not certaine whether he should laie this ceremoniall celebration vpon deliuery of the Apostles or vpon decrees of general coun cells And whencesoeuer they came the matter is not great in such thinges as of their owne nature are indifferent and therefore alterable by discretion of the Church in all times Whether the Apostles were baptized which is
of Colene in a moste apt similitude called the scripture a nose of waxe and Pighius the leaden rule of the Lesbian building But now concerning the matter it selfe You would shift it of by saying The Iesuites doe compare the hereticall wresting and detorting of scripture vnso the bowing of a nose of waxe vpon certaine circumstances which are these First not in respect of the scripture it selfe but in respect of heretikes and other that abuse it and that before the rude people that cannot iudge thirdlie to the ende to flatter Princes or the people in their vices Thus much was said before in the Censure But it was replied that Andradius confesseth the fathers of Colene doe saie that the holie scripture is as a nose of wax So doth Pighius and it is a thing more commonlie knowen then that it can be denied Therefore the wresting of the scripture is not compared by them to the bowing of a waxen nose but the scripture it selfe to a nose of wax as that which is as easie to be drawne into any sense as a nose of wax may be turned euerie waie The wordes of Pighius are plaine Sunt enim scripturae velut caereus quidam nasus qui sicut hor sum illor sumque facilè se trahi permittit quo traxeris haud inuitus sequitur ita illae se flecti duci atque etiam in diuer sam sententiam trahi accomodarique ad quid-uis patiuntur nist quis veram illam inflexibilemque earundem amussim nempe Ecclesiasticae traditionis authoritatem communemque sententiam ilsdem adhibeat For the holie scriptures are as it were a certaine nose of wax which as it easelie suffereth it selfe to be drawne this waie and that waie and whether soeuer you draw it is followeth not vnwillinglie so also they doe suffer them selues to be bowed to be led and also to be drawen into a contrarie meaning and to be applied vnto what you will except a man lay vnto them that true inflexible rule of them namelie the authoritie and common vnderstanding of the Churches tradition These wordes declare if the sense of all Papists be the same that the Iesuites do not onelie compare the scripture it selfe but also that they make this comparison in respect of the scripture it selfe which suffereth it selfe as easelie to be wrested and abused as a nose of wax abideth to be bowed nor before the rude and ignorant onelie nor to flatter Princes and people in their vices alone but before any persons or to any purpose whatsoeuer and that there is not in them a certaine and infallible sense to iudge of the Churches doctrine or to finde out the true Church from all false congregations by the trueth taught in the scriptures but that the authoritie and common vnderstanding of the Popish Churches tradition is the onelie true sense inflexible rule of the holy scriptures wherebie also it is manifest though you denie it neuer so stoutlie that you doe impute the wresting of the scriptures vnto the imperfection of Gods worde set forth in them and not onelie to the malice of the wrester For if the will of God be but as well expressed in them as the will of princes is in their written lawes and proclamations the one maie as well be found out by reading and weighing of the holie scriptures as the other may be out of prophane writings especially where the spirit of God graunted vnto the praiers of the elect openeth their vnderstanding not onelie to conceiue as the naturall man maie by studie and ordinarie helpes the true scope and purpose of God vttered in them but also to beleeue and embrace whatsoeuer the Lord their God hath propounded in them Therefore though the scripture may be wrested to the destruction of the vngodlie as Saint Peter sheweth yet Master Charke telleth you that it cannot so be wrested but that still it remaineth the light vnto our feet and the lanterne vnto our steppes and euerie parte thereof is like the arme of a great Oke which cannot be so wreste but that with great force it will returne into the right position to the shame and perill of the wrester which answere of his you doe so dissemble as though you had neuer seene it And you doe wiselie seeing otherwise then by silence you could not auoid it But howsoeuer Master Charke storme you will defend your blasphemie of the nose of waxe not onelie in a kingdome where the Ghospell is preached but also in the kingdome of vs ministers where the letter of the scripture is worsse wrested by vs to all errors and licentiousnes then euerie waxen nose was yet bended to diuerse fashions O ye senseles papists had you neuer a man of moderat iudgement to set forth against vs but this loosetongued Gentelman which so he maie raile with full mouth against vs hath no care how his slaunders maie be coloured Doe we peruert the scriptures to all errors then surelie we holde no trueth there neuer was anie heresie neither can there be anie heresie but that with manie errors it maintaineth and holdeth manie truethes Yea the Deuill him-selfe the father oflies beleeueth some truethes and for shame dare not professe the maintenance of all errors We thinke verie hardlie of Antichrist and his brood the papists yet we maie not saie that they wrest the scriptures to all errors and licentiousnes for if they so did they should not deceaue so manie by shew of trueth in errors except they did professe some articles of trueth in deede As for the wresting of the Scripture to all licentiousnes let God and all the world of reasonable and indifferent men iudge how iustlie we maie be charged therewith If we be licentious in our liues God will finde it out and let man where he findeth it punish vs. But if we wilfully peruert the scriptures to the maintenance of all licentiousnes the Lord reward vs according to our deedes and be not mercifull to them that sinne of malicious wickednes But it is no fault in the scriptures saie you that they may be abused For Christ him-selfe was called the rocke of offence and the stone of scandall not for anie faulte or imperfection in him but through the wickednes of such as abuse that benefit So if the Iesuites had said no more but that the scripture maie be abused no man could haue found fault with them And Christ is called a stone of offence or stumbling not altogether in respect of the wicked that abuse him for he is called a stone moste precious and necessarie to build vpon of stumbling to those that refuse to build vpon him which meeting with him must either stumble and fall or els if it fall vpon them they must be ground to pouder But the the scripture is compared to a nose os wax because it is in their imagination that vse the comparison as pliant to follow euerie waie and to yeald as probable a sence one waie as an other as
warrant of Christ his power receiued by the holy ghost maie as ministers seruants remit or retaine sins we do most willinglie consent and confesse But then they practise this power as seruants when they beinterpreters and declarers of the Lordes will and pleasure and require not that God should followe their sentence or attend how they be affected to forgiue or retaine and so to subscribe vnto their doing for that is an Antichristian vsurpation farre from the meaning of that power which Christ did graunt to his A postles ALLEN Some holie writers vpon this text of S. Iohn in which the order of Christes authorizing his Apostles for the remission of sinnes is described doe dispute of the difference of giuing the holie Ghost then to his Disciples and afterward on Whitsondaie some note the eternall ceremonie that our Master vsed when he gaue them the holie spirit which was by breathing on them that such outward actions might both be an euidence to them of that excellent gift which they inwardlie then receiued and should further be an euerlasting instruction to the Church that Gods grace and giftes be often ioyned to externall elements for the solace of our nature that delighteth to haue our outward man schooled as wel as the inward man nourished These and manie things moe be of profitable remembrance and consideration but not so much to our purpose Therefore let vs see whether the iudgement of the holie Fathers doe not wholie helpe our present cause prouing the Priests ministerie through the holie Ghostes authoritie that our declaration standing on the plaine wordes of scripture with their vndoubted sense maie obtaine inuincible force against the aduersaries worthie credit of the true beleeuers FVLKE If you had expressed what the writers are that thus dispute or discourse vpon this text we might better haue considred how pertinent or impertinent their opinions are to our matter in controuersie S. Chrysost. seemeth to allowe the opinion of some and Euthymius plainely affirmeth the same that the Apostles at this time did not presentlie receiue the holie ghost but onelie were prepared or made capable thereof which if it were true is contrarie to the title of your Chapter I like better of Cyrillus iudgement which thinketh they presentlie receiued the holie Ghost in some measure but not so plentifullie nor with such diuersitie of giftes as on the daie of Pentecost That the grace of God is testified assured and sealed vp vnto vs for the help of our infirmitie by outward signes and externall elementes ioined thereto we know confesse but as for the solace of our nature or delight to haue our outward man schooled I knowe not what they meane It is great mercie of God to beare with our weakenes but it agreeth not with the discipline of the Gospell that we should delight in outward thinges but rather to exercise our faith in spirituall and heauenlie meditations ALLEN We will make our entrance first with Saint Cyrill whoe debating with himselfe vppon the incomparable authoritie and power giuen to the Apostles for remission of sinnes standeth first as in contention with him selfe and with Christs words how it maie be that they being but men should forgiue the sinnes of our soules being sure of this that it is the propertie onelie of the true liuing god to assoile vs of our sinnes against whom onlie all sins be properlie committed And therfore being not of stomake as men be now a daies to denie that which Christes words so plainelie do import he made answere that the Apostles were in deed deified and made as you would saie partakers of Gods nature to worke Gods owne office in the world Qua igitur ratione saieth he diuinae naturae dignitatem ac potestatem discipulis suis saluator largitus est Quia certè absurdum non est peccata remitti posse ab illis qui Spiritum sanctum in seipsis habeant Nam cùm ipsi remmittunt aut detinent spiritus qui habitat in eis remittit detines By what meanes did our Sauiour giue vnto the Apostles the preheminence and power of Gods owne nature Surelie because it agreeth verie well that they should rimit mans sins that haue in themselues the holie Ghost For when they assoile or retaine sins it is the holie spirit that dwelleth in them which by their ministery doth remit or retaine sins Thus he I maruell not now whie this same father termeth the Apostles sometimes protectores curatores animarum corporum the protectors curers both of bodies soules it is not strange whie S. Ambrose should call the order of priestood Ordinem 〈◊〉 Neither that he should terme Officium Sacerdotis munus S. S. The Priests office to be the function of the holie Ghost No I doe not wonder at some of our forefathers that in the admiration of Gods Maiestic which they same to be so present in the execution of so high in office they did simplie and plainely terme the principall Pastours of the Church halfe Gods and not meere men not hauing respect to their persons which be compassed with infirmities as other the sinfull sort of people in the world be but casting eie vpward to the holie and excellent function which they practised by the spirit of God which dwelleth in them and deifieth their persons to make them of habilitie to exercise the workes of God FVLKE Saint Cyrill is farre from that blasphemie to saie that the Apostles were in deede deified and made partakers of Gods nature to worke Gods owne office in the world For ascribing to God that which is proper to him incommunicable to anie meere creature he maketh this obiection how our sauiour did graunt to his disciples the dignitie power of his diuine nature answereth that they were only made ministers instruments of the holy ghost to expresse his power in remitting sinnes by baptisme and repentance whereof S. Chrysostome also saieth vpon the same text that the Priest giueth onelie his tongue and his hand but the Father the sonne and the holie Ghost doth all things in this case I will rehearse the whole saying of Cyrillus that his iudgement maie more fullie appeare vpon this text Et certè solius veri Dei est c. And suerlie it pertaineth to the onelie true God that he is able to loose men from their sinnes For to what other person is it lawfull to deliuer the transgressors of the law from sinne but to the author of the law him-selfe for so in mennes affaires we see it to be done For no man without punishment doth reprooue the lawes of Kings but the Kinges them-selues in whome the crime of transgression hath no place For it is wiselie said that he is implous which shall saie to a King thou doest vniustlie By what meanes then did our Sauiour graunt to his disciples the dignitie and power of the diuine nature because trulie it is not absurde that sinnes may be remitted
sttetch forth the Doctors meaning when you will be so impudent with their wordes The Apostles said In hoc credimus quia a Deo exîsti Quae rogo haec verbi huius admiratio est quod se exisse à Deo professus sit Tanta tam deo propria vos O Sancti beati viri ob fidei vestrae meritum claues regni caelorum sortitt ligandi atque soluendi in caelo in terraius adepti gestacsse per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Dei filium 〈◊〉 ad id quod à Deo exisse dixit nunc primùm vos veri intelligentiam assecutos protestamini In this we beleeue that thou art come out from God What admiration I praie you is this of this word that he professeth that he came out from God so great thinges and so proper to God O ye holie and blessed men which had obteined the keies of the kingdome of heauen for the worthinesse of your faith and haue obtained right of binding and loosing in heauen and earth had you seene done by our Lord Iesus Christ the sonne of God And doe you now first protest that you haue obtained the vnderstanding of the trueth as concerning that he said he came forth from God In these wordes it is apparant that all the Apostles haue the keies as well as Peter and right or authoritie of binding and loosing but that the whole right thereof is in them as though God had resigned his right to them or giuen them equall right with him-selfe S. Hilarie neuer said nor thought The latter sentence toucheth not the cōtrouersy between vs. For we graunt the power of binding and loosing forgiuing and retaining to be ratified in heauen but that the wordes of Christ be of an absolute power properlie to doe that which is the office of God alone we cannot learne by this or anie other saying of Saint Hilarie ALLEN But I will adde S. Chrysostomes testimonie thereunto the rather because our aduersaries doe abuse his wordes sometimes against confession which necessarilie hangeth on the authority of Priesthood in remission and retaining sinnes as anon I shal declare That I be not ouer tediuose I will report his saying in English onelie Those saith he that dwelleth in earth and are conuersant amongst men haue receiued power and commission to dispose and dispense such thinges as be in heauen yea these men haue receieud power such as neither God either gaue to Angelles for it was neuer said to them whatsoeuer you bind in earth it shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you loose in earth it shall be loosed in heauen Earthlie Princes in deed haue power to binde but that pertaineth to the bodies of their subiectes onelie but that which I now talke of that is proper to the Priests touching the verie soule it selfe and is so ample that it reacheth to the heauens aboue yea that so largelie that whatsoeuer the Priestes doe beneath the verie selfe same God wil allow and ratifie in heauen aboue and so the Lord will confirme the iudgement and sentence of the seruants Thus farre speaketh Chrysostome His words be so plaine that to stand long on them for farther proofe of my matter then the verrie face of the sentence doth importe it were vaine For man maie here rather maruell to see such strange power vpon Christes wordes giuen to the holie order and yet that to be so litle esteemed of wicked men and so litle regarded euen of the honester sort of simple folkes that few either seeke after their iudgement in cause of their soules or duelie honour that power in them which passeth all other prelacie that euer either man or Angell receiued in this great contempt I saie of most holie things wickednes is rather to be wondered at and lamented then by long reasoning to be confuted The sequele of true thinges is so plaine in it selfe the diuerse places of scripture so answere iustlie ech to other the fathers so consonantlie confirme the knowne meaning of the same and the verie tearmes of so many scriptures writen at diuerse times by sundrie of the Euangelists so fall vpon one vndoubted sense that we may rightly conclude the power to be in all cases giuen to the Apostles of remission of sinne FVLKE The wordes of Chrysostome are large enough of themselues although you had not augmented them with your additions and explications beside that you haue altered the number in the text of Mat 16. where in lieth a mysteric For Chrysostome by these wordes spoken in the singular number to Peter prooueth the authoritie that is common to all Priests What soeuer thou shalt binde whatsoeuer thou shalt loose The summe is that the power and dignitie of Priests is exceeding great which maketh a mortall man to come neere to the blessed and incorrupted nature of God as he saieth before But if an absolute and proper power of remitting sins were graūted to them they come not one ly neere but are translated in deede into the diuine na ture which is intollerable blasphemy That the Lord ratifieth in heauen confirmeth the sentence of his seruants giuen vpon earth it is to be vnderstoode that God approoueth the sentence which he before hath appointed them to pronounce As if the Queene in England should protest that shee is content to ratifie and confirme whatsoeuer her embassadour doth in France acding to his commission and the instructions receiued from her thee neither resigneth her authoritie to her embassadour neither giueth him equall power with her selfe but onelie maketh him the interpreter and declarer of her will and pleasure which shee is content to ratifie and not otherwise ALLEN And vpon such knowne termes I make this argument against the aduersaries They truelie and properlie doe remit sinnes vpon whose sentence in earth the pardon of God immediatelie ensueth in heauen but Gods pardon vndoubtedlie followeth the priests pardon in remission in earth Claue non errante Ergo they assuredlie remit sins The Maior is manifest the Minor hangeth vpon plaine scripture thrise tolde which first appointed man to loose in earth and then that God shall in the same instant forgiue in heauen God shall confirme the sentence of his seruants saith S. Chrysostome Mans iudgement saith Hilarie shall be as a sentence preiudiciall to God in heauen And thus farre for the wordes of Christ at this present and farther strength shal more and more be gathered vnto them by diuerse partes of all the processe following FVLKE You make such argumentes for your friendes and not against your aduersaries For what aduersarie would you choose vnto your selfe so simple that could not espie these grosse faults of your syllogisme For first your Maior is false which you saie is manifest But you haue not yet prooued that they doe properlie remit sinnes vpon whose sentence in earth the pardon of God immediately ensueth in heauen that is whose sentence on earth is ratified confirmed in heauen That they doe
sacrifice neither is the worde sacrifice in the Hebrew text of Daniell And therefore it is an vnlikelie place to prooue a sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie of Christ in the Masse The prophecie of Malachie by general consent almost of all auncient fathers is expounded as I haue saide of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing which is offered at al times by the faith full and especiallie in the celebration of the Lords supper But most cleerelie Instinus Martyr in his Dialogue against the Iewes speaking of the verie same text of Malachie and the sacrifices that are offered in al places by the gentiles that is the bread of thankesgiuing and the cuppe of thankesgiuing hath these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For I my selfe doe affirme that praiers and thanksgiuing made by worthie persons are the onelie perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God For these are the onelie sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in minde by theire drie and moist nourishment of the passion which God the sonne of God is recorded to haue suffered for them If praiers and thankesgiuing be the onely sacrifices which Christians haue receiued to offer and are the onelie perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god as Iustinus in plaine wordes affirmeth where is the vnbloodie sacrifice of the naturall bodie and blood of Christ yea of Christ him-selfe vnto god his father If praiers and thankesgiuing be the onelie pure sacrifice prophecied by Malachie then is not the naturall bodie of Christ offered in the Masse neither hath the Church anie such sacrifice And although the auncient fathers often times doe call the celebration of the Lordes supper a sacrifice yet you see by the iudgement of Iustinus how they are to be vnderstood of a spirituall sacrifice of praier and thankesgiuing for the death of Christ on the crosse and our perfecte redemption therebie which also they called an vnbloodie sacrifice sometimes as Cyrill and Nazianzen in the place by the answerer quoted but either in the same places or some other of their workes they doe euidentlie declare that they meant no sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie of Christ but of praise and thankesgiuing for tbe onelie insacrificable sacrifice of Christes passion as Gregorie Nazianzen doth call it Saint Augustine also in the place by the answerer quoted sheweth plainlie that this sacrifice of praise is celebrated by the sacrament of rememberaunce of the slesh and blood of Christ which in truth it selfe was offered in the passion of Christ. Sed quid agam c. But what shall I do and when shall I make demonstration to so great blindenes of these heretikes what force that hath which is song in the Psalmes The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie me and there is the waie where I will shew my sauing health The flesh blood of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by oblations of similitudes in the passion of Christ by the trueth it selfe it was yealded after the ascension of Christ by the sacrament of rememberance it is celebtated Whoe seeth not here a manifest opposition betweene yealding by the truth it selfe and celebrating by a sacrament of rememberance But that the sacrifice of the Masse is the same that was offered on the crosse differing but in the vnbloodie manner of oblation Saint Chrisostome saith out answerer doth prooue at large vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes Hom. 17. whome if Master Charke and his fellowes would not disdaine to reade and beleeue they would be ashamed to cauill and blaspheme gods mysteries as they do The place of Chrisostome hath bene often alledged on both partes by the Papists for a shew and a colour of the matter by the other side for a manifest demonstration that Chrisostome as he doth interpret him-selfe maketh nothing for the Popish sacrifice of the Masse but altogether against it His wordes are these after he hath shewed the imperfection of the legall sacrifices by the often repeating of them Then what do we euerie daie do we not offer yes we offer but we make the remembrance of his death and this is one sacrifice and not manie How is it one and not manie Seeing it was once offered it was caried into the holie of holies This thing is a figure or type of that sacrifice this sacrifice of that For we offer the same alwaies not now an other but alwaies the same Therefore it is one sacrifice by this reason otherwise because it is offered in manie places are there manie Christes Not so but one Chrisi euery where both here full and perfect there full and perfect one bodie Therfore as being offered in manie places it is one bodie and not manie bodies so is it one sacrifice He is our high priest which offered that sacrifice which maketh vs cleane the same do we offer now also which then was offered which can not be consumed This is now done in the remembrance of that which was then done For do ye this saith he in remembrance of me we do not offer an other sacrifice as the high Priest but the same alwaies but rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice These words of Chrisostome declare that the name of sacrifice is vn properly giuen to the celebration of the Lords supper which is rather a remembrance of a sacrifice then a sacrifice indeede Secondlie that reteining the name of a sacrifice there is great difference betweene it and the sacrifice of Christ for the thing here offered is a type of that which was offered there and this sacrifice is a figure of that sacrifice Thirdlie Christ offered the onelie sacrifice propitiatorie that purgeth awaie sinnes this oblation is but a remembrance of that to stur vs vp to thankfullnes for that and to confirme our faith in our spirituall nourishment by that bodie and blood which was once offered for all neuer to be repeated So that Master Charke and his fellowes haue not Chrisostome their aduersarie in this place but receaue great light by this exposition of the name sacrifice which is not properlie so to be called but rather a remembrance of a sacrifice And it is not to be doubted but that other auncient fathers vsed the name of sacrifice in the same sense that Chrisostome did The answerer referreth his reader further to Theodoret and Saint Augustine who handleth this question whie Christians do now vse to sacrifice seeing the old law with all sacrifices were abolished by the one sacrifice of Christ. You maie see by this that our answerer hath more care to point his margent with quotation of the Doctors which the ignorant can not reade then he hath iudgement to consider what the Doctors write For this place of Theodoret is cleane contrarie to the sacrifice propitiatorie of the Masse The wordes are these of the translation of Gentianus Heruetus a man not to be suspected of Papists Siergo Sacerdotium quod est ex lege finem 〈◊〉
scriptum est post concupiscentias tuas non eas sed non perficit quia non implet quod scriptum est Non concupisces He doth much good which doth that which is written goe not after thy lustes but he maketh not his good perfect because he fulfilleth not that which is written Thou shalt not lust These wordes and the wholl Chapter prooueth that Saint Augustine vnderstandeth the tenth commaundement of concupiscence whereunto no consent is added Againe lib. de spir lit cap. vltimo he saith that this commaundement Thou shalt not lust perteineth to the life to come because no man can fulfill it in this life but the other Goe not after thy lustes perteineth to this life because men may restreine by Gods grace consent and delectation in lust Your third quotation is lib. 19. Cont. Faustum cap. 7 where Saint Augustine saith no more for you then in the rest sauing that he saith That for as much as it is hard for vs to fullfill in euerie respect that which is written in the law thou shalt not lust Christ beeing made a prieste by the sacrifice of his flesh obteineth pardon for vs euen so fulfilling the law that by his perfection might be recouered that which by our infirmitie we could not In which saying except you will cauill vpon the terme of difficultie which in other places he maketh a flat impossibilitie there is no shadow for your assertion In your fourth quotation Cont. 2. ep Petil. lib. 3. cap. 7. or in steede of Petil. as I gesse you would saie Pelagianorum is nothing sounding to the matter but rather the contrarie that perfection cannot be in this life because there cannot be perfect iustice or fulfilling of the law Where fore I can but wonder at your impudencie in these quotations And yet as though you had found a great 〈◊〉 you saie it is most worthie of laughter which Master Charke for filling vp of a page discourseth of S. Pauls estate when he saith Paul compareth his estate before his knowledge of the tenth commaundement with his state afterward c. Verelie the Greeke prouerbe hath place in you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. A foole lauheth when there is nothing worthie of laughter You aske how he could be ignorant of that commaundement considering his education yet be able to 〈◊〉 other sinnes by the light of naturall reason But Master Charke saith he knew other sinnes by the law and light of nature He knew also by his bringing vp that it was written in the law thou shalt not lust but he vnderstood it not otherwise then the Pharises did which thought they were able to keepe the law But after he learned what originall sinne and the lust thereof proceeding was he sound himselfe condéned by the tenth commaundement which he could not doe by the other nine from which it is perfectlie distinct nor by the light of reason for the philosophers could neuer atteine to vnderstand that sinne But concupiscence with consent and delectation they could perceiue to be vitious and sinfull So that your sardonicall laughter may be staide and turned to weeping if 〈◊〉 had grace to know that commaundement as Saint Paul had whereof it appeareth you are as ignorant as euerhe was Concerning the similitude of the latine tongue whereof the tongue is onelie an instrumentall cause as it answereth not the effect of originall sinne so being a contention of termes I will not stand vpon it Againe I confesse it is not necessarie that euerie effect of originall sinne should be sinne in the regenerate as hunger sicknes c. but originall sinne is not so the efficient of these as of actuall sinnes for the iustice of God is the good proper and principall next efficient of those punishments sinne is the cause moouing the iustice of God to punish but original sin is the immediat euil material cause of actual sin That the guilt of original sin is taken-away from theregenerate in and by baptisme we do not denie yet remaineth the sin after baptisme though it be not impured as sinne vnto condemnation in the children of God That Christ is called sinne because i. e is a sacrifice to take awaie sinne maie prooue as you saie that something is figuratiuelie called sinne which properlie is no sinne But that concupiscence should as vnproperlie be called sinne you can not prooue because it is a matter and increaser of sinne Your false quotation Rom. 8. where Christ is called sinne you would iustifie by the 3. verse where there is no such matter but that God sent Christ in the similitude of sinfull flesh and of sinne condemned sinne in the flesh But if the text will not serue you send vs to the commentaries which can not alter the text howsoeuer some do compare this place with that of 2. Cor. 5. 21. and other some do take it otherwise Touching the auncient Fathers 〈◊〉 in the Censure to testifie that concupiscence is not sin in the regenerat if consent be not yealed c. you saie he hath passed ouer Cyprian and Pacacius without anie word vnto him The cause is for that they saie nothing to him in the matter controuersed beteweene him and you For Cyprian in both the places sheweth that baptisme by the spirit of God purgeth a man and washeth him cleane from all spots of sinne Which Master Charke confesseth as concerning the guilt because concupiscence though it remaine is not imputed for sinne in the regenerated But the question is what concupiscence of it selfe deserueth 〈◊〉 in the regenerated if it were imputed by Gods iustice as it is forgiuen by his grace Albeit he be not bound to take all that Cyprian writeth for Gospel especiallie in that Sermon de ablutione pedum if it be Cypriant As for Pacianus he saith not all so much If you haue anie wordes in the Fathers that maie enforce your meaning set them downe plainlie and mocke vs no longer with dumme questiones Ambrose and Clemens Alexandrinus as Master Charke telleth you haue not your wordes nor sense for whatsoeuer they saie of the purenes of them that are regenerated we acknowledge with them in respecte of the remission of their sinnes not that the regenerated are voide of al sinne or naturall corruption more then they be voide of infirmitie and mortalitie Where Clemens saith that concupiseence alone is adultrie you labour in vaine to adde consent for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone doth exclude what soeuer you can adde vnto it Where you cauill that he exhorteth the Gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence and would prooue thereby that they are not the first motions which are vnauoidable it is a tale for he exhorteth the Gentiles to Christianitie where they should finde remission of all sinnes and all honnstie oflife Gregorie Nazianzen hath an oration or homilie intituled of holie baptisme but not de S. Iana as your Censure had in the first edition and in that oration he prooueth not your
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are able to make thee wise you harpe onelie vpon the word of instructing which the vulgar interpreter vseth not sufficient to answere the greeke verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet if it be rightlie vnderstood as perhappes he meant it signifieth to furnish and not to teach properlie so the sense might be that the scripture is able to furnish thee with knowledge to saluation and that 〈◊〉 a sufficiencie Now to your pelting cauilles You aske if the Scriptures which can shew Timothie the waie to saluation and bring him also to it if he will follow them be sufficient for the wholl Church so that all Doctrine by tradition is superfluous I answere yea For there is but one waie to saluation for all the Church But you obiect that euerie Epistle of Saint Paull enstructeth a man to saluation yet it not sufficient for the wholl Church I answere that euerie Epistle of Saint Paull is not sufficient to instruct a man to saluation or to make him wise vnto saluation But that which Saint Paull spaketh is of the wholl scripture not of euery epistle For you might as well obiect that euery chapter and verse instructeth a man toward saluation rather then to saluation but not sufficientlie yet the wholl is able to make a man wise vnto saluation Your second obiection is that the Apostle speaketh principallie of the olde Testament and will Master Charke saie that the olde Testament is sufficient to Christian men for their saluation without anie other writt Yea I warrant you for there is no Doctrine in the new but it was taught in the olde Saint Paull affirmeth that he said nothing but that which the Prophetes and Moses had spoken of thinges to be performed The new Testament hath no other Doctrine then the olde onelie it testifieth the performance of those thinges in Christ which the olde Testament foreshewed to be performed Againe because you grate so much vpon the exclusion of other writt Saint Paull addeth by faith in Iesus Christ which containeth all that is written in the new Testament concerning the storie of performancet and seales of this faith And if the olde were sufficient how much more is the olde the new together a rich aboundant Doctrine The 〈◊〉 that you make against his translation of the wholl Scripture which you would referre to euerie Scripture is answered before the translation must be according to the circumstance of the place Euerie Scripture which is euerie seuerall booke or euerie seuerall Chapter or euerie seuerall verse is not able to make the man of God perfect and perfectlie prepared to euerie good worke but the wholl is therefore the translation must be the whole scriptures and not euerie scripture But now to your tow reasons In the first you saie that Saint Paull could not meane to Timothie of all the scriptures together which we now vse for that all was not then written To this you confesse that he answereth there was inough written then for the susficient saluation of men of that time and therest is not superfluous But this you saie is from the purpose Yea is how so I praie you you answere it was sufficient with the supplie by worde of 〈◊〉 vnwritten but that is contrarie to the purpose for Master Charke telleth you that from the time that any 〈◊〉 was written that scripture contanied sufficient 〈◊〉 to saluation without anie supply of anie other Doctrine that was not in that Scripture comprehended although preaching and other meanes were necessarie to reach men which is beside the purpose Before the scripture was written the same doctrine in substance was deliuered by reuelation that afterwarde was written The continuance thereof was not onelie by bare tradition but also in euerie age renewed by reuelation Againe the age of men was lo long that there remained alwaies faithfull and ceratine witnesses of the doctrine aliue so that it could not be corrúpted but it was easie by those witnesses to be refuted But when the age of man was drawne into the streights of 70. yeares or litle more as Moses sheweth the Doctrine of the Church was committed to writing euen as much at the first as was sufficient for the instruction of the people vnto saluation without anie supplie of traditions The 〈◊〉 of the Prophetes and Apostles writinges is a more full and plentifull declaration of thesame Doctrine of saluation not anie addition of anie new Doctrine or waie to saluation Your second reason is that 〈◊〉 partes of scripture be wanting now which were in Saint Pauls time But that you are not able to prooue For although there is mention in the olde testament of diuerse bookes written by Prophets which are not now extant yet it followeth not that those were extant in Saint Pauls time And if any were yet were they but explications and interpretations of the bookes of Moses which are extant euerie syllable and pricke and shall be to the ende of the world But Epiphanius affirmeth that all thinges cannot be taken from the scripture wherefore the Aposties 〈◊〉 somethings in writing and somethings in tradition To this I answere first that Saint Paul is greater then Epiphanius Secondlie that Epiphanius saith not that anie thing necessarie to saluation cannot be taken out of the scripture For he speaketh onelie of this opinion that it is sinne to marrie after virginitie decreed which neuertheles maie be taken out of the scripture if the vow were aduisedlie taken and no necessitie of incontinencie requiring mariage But of tradition we shall haue further to consider in the next section The thirteenth section intituled Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. GOtuisus reporteth the Iesuits to saic that the want of holie scriptures muste be supplied by peecing it out by traditions Cens. f. 220. Here you repeat your olde friuolous quarrel that the Iesuites haue no such vnreuerent words Master Chark chargeth you out of Hosius with a farre worseisaying that if traditions be reiected the verie Gospell it selfe seemeth to be reiected For what els are traditions then a certaine liuing Gospell But thereto you answere not one worde and the meaning of those words reported by Gotuisus you mainteine egerlie thorouhout this section as you did in parte in the 12. section that the scriptures are not sufficient and that there must be traditions receiued beside the scripture To what ende but to supplie the want and insufficiencie of the holie scriptures Nay saie you Though both parts of Gods worde that is both written and vnwritten be necessarie vnto Gods Church yet both of them do stand in their full perfection assigned them by God neither is the one a maime or impeachment to the other You meane they are as perfect as God made them not that the written word is sufficient to teach all trueth vnto the perfection of the man of God And so for all your vaine compasse of wordes the sense is all one The scripture is but a part or a
peece of Gods worde and traditions are an other peece and this peece must be added to that or els it is not a perfect or sufficient instruction of itselfe for Gods Church The comparison you make of ioyning S. Lukes Gospell to that of Saint Matthew or Saint Paules epistles to them both to resemble your patching of traditions to the written word of God is both odious and vnlike and without begging the wholl matter in question gaineth nothing For the adding of the writings of one Euangelist to another or of an Apostle to the Euangelistes is but the heaping of heauenlie treasure to the further inriching of the Church in all light of spirituall knowledge so the accession of the bookes of the new testament is as it were the vnfolding or laying open of the same diuine riches that was perfectlie contayned in the olde testament for the saluation of all Gods elect that liued vnder that discipline But your traditions as you maintaine them argue an insufficiencie of the holie scriptures which allso you confesse your selfe and are not a more plaine or plentifull application of the mysteries comprehended in them Therefore though you can for manners sake otherwhile forbeare odious speeches aginst the dignitie of holie scriptures yet euen that odious conclusion gathered by Gotuisus must needes follow of your doctrine concerning the insufficiencie of scriptures and the necessitie of traditions That your traditions are Gods word and of equall authoritie with the scriptures you promise to shew more largelie in the twelft article together with certaine meanes how to know and discerne the same Sed haec in dicm minitave Parmeno You haue taken a pretie pause of three yeares long since you were interrupted as you 〈◊〉 in the end by a writte de remouendo But the daie will come that shall paie for all Whether anie cause or matter hath beene ministred by you of odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scriptures Mastet Charke declareth by one example out of Hosius which with all the rest that he saith you omit to answer as trifling speech to litle purpose So whatsoeuer by anie colour of reason you can not auoid by your censorious authoritie you maie contemne and passe ouer But his conclusion seemeth worthie the answer which he maketh in these wordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnwritten verities to the written word of God whereunto no man maie adde because nothing is wanting from which no man maie take because nothing is superfluous But to him that addeth shall the curses written in the booke be added for euer Against this conclusiō you note in the margent great iniquitie to adde one veritie to another or to beleeue two verities together A fine ieste but a grosse begging of the wholl cause For who shal graunt that your vnwritten vereties be truth and not falsehood falselie by you termed verities vnwritten There is no veritie of matters necessarie to be knowne vnto saluation which is not written in the holie scriptures that are hable to make vs wise vnto saluation But good Lord what a sturre you keepe because M. Chatk noteth in the margent Apoc. 22. ask how this place is alledged against you c. As though that which is true of one booke yea of euery booke of the scripture maie not iustlie be verefied of the wholl bodie and boke of the the Bible Because adding to the word of god argueth imperfection in the word of god Your stale obiection of Saint Iohns Gospell written after the Reuelation is alreadie answered For al bookes of scripture that haue beene written since the fiue bookes of Moses are no addition to the word of God but a more cleere explication of the 〈◊〉 first com mitted to writing by inspiration of God Neither do they teach an other waie of saluation then Moses did but set forth the same more plainlie by demonstration by examples of Gods iustice and his mercie by threatenings by exhortations by explication of his promises by shewing the accomplishment and the manner of perfourmance of them in Christ and his Church And this they do moste absolutelie sufficiently and plentifully to the saluation of Gods people These things saith S. Iohn are written that you should beleeue that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God and that beleeuing you maie haue euerlasting life in his name Here you maie as well cauill that not onelie the Gospell of Saint Iohn or the miracles written in the same is necessarie to be beleeued vnto saluation but all the rest of the scripture also foolishlie opposing thinges that are no waie repugnant but the one including the other For the beleeuing of Saint Iohns Gospell doth not exclude but include all other bookes and partes of holie scripture which teach the same meane of saluation or any thing thereto pertaining But how holdeth this argument saie you no man maie adde to the booke of Apocalips ergo no man maie beleeue a tradition of Christ or his Apostles Maie we not as well saie ergo we maie not beleeue the actes of the Apostles No sir for we make our argument in this man ner No man maie adde to the booke of the Apocalips much lesse may anie man adde to the wholl Bible of the olde and new testament And consequentlie there are no traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be credited as needefull to saluation which are not contained in the holy scriptures Thus we alledge scriptures and thus we argue vppon them not as it pleaseth you to deseant vpon our allegations and to dissigure our arguments But it is lamentable you saie to see the 〈◊〉 dealings of these men in matters of such importance It is verie true vnderstanding you and your complices to be the men that vse such fleightes in 〈◊〉 waightie causes As for our doctrine is plaine without any seame that the scriptures are sufficient to saluation therfore al tradition besides them are 〈◊〉 to that purpose But let vs see who 〈◊〉 sleightes by your iudgement First you aske Master Charke what he 〈◊〉 by adding Who doth adde Or in what sense as though his meaning and sense of adding were not manifest as also his accusation that the I suites the Papistes do adde to the word of God their traditions a necessarie to saluation yet not expressed or contained in the word of God But if God saie you left anie doctrine by tradition vnto the Church and our ancetours haue deliuered the same vuto vs especiallie those of the 〈◊〉 Church what shall we do in this case Shall we refuse it It seemeth dangerous and I see no reason The question is not whether we should refuse anie thing that God hath left but whether God hath left anie such tradition to be beleeued vnto salua tion which is not contained in the holie scriptures But if our ancetours of the primitiue Church haue deliuered anie such tradition vnwritten as left by Christ what shall we doe you
Secondlie he speaketh of the fourth daies or Wednesdaies fast to be appointed by the tradition of the Apostles which yet neuerthelesse the Romish Church doth not obserue Thirdlie that the Pente cosse or fiftie daies by the tradition of Apostles are exempted from the Fridaie fast which tradition is not kept in the Popes Church except you will saie that Pentecost is taken for whitson weeke and then the custome of the PopishChurch is directlie contrarie to the tradition of the Apostles for Wednesdaie and Fridaie that weeke are 〈◊〉 daies And as for the Wednesdaie fast as well as the Fridaie Epiphanius is so earnest that he addeth further Deinde verò st non de eodem argumento quartarum Prosabbatorum ijdem Apostoli in constitutione dixissent etiamaliter vndique demonstrare possemus Attamen de hoc exactè scribunt Assumpsit autem ecclesta in toto mundo assensus factus est c. And moreouer if the same Apostles in their constitutions had not spoken of the same argument of wednesdaies Fridaies we could otherwise throughly make proofe of it But they write exactly ofit and the Church hath taken it vp assent hath bin geuen in al the world You see he alledgeth not onely a decree of the Apostles but also the consent of all the world for the wednesdaie fast as well as the Fridaie fast So that if the Apostles tradition beside the scripture be necessarie for lent whie is it not also for wednesdaies fast And if wednesdaies faste is not necessarie no more is lent fast Further you affirme that Dionystus and Tertullian saie that praiers and oblations for the dead are traditions of the Apostles De Eccles. hier c. 7. de corona milit but Dionystus al beit we do not acknowledge him for a man of such antiquitie as the papists would obtrude him yet hath not any mention of traditions of the Apostles in that Chap ter touching praier for the dead but either of tradition in scripture orels at large endeuoring to prooue that he saith by scripture Tertullian in the place quoted speaketh onelie of oblations for the dead in that yearelie day which maie signifie thanksgiuing as pro nataliliis for their birth doth in in the verie same clause Not denying yet but Tertullian when he forsooke the Church and became a Montanist yealed to praier for the dead as a thing reuealed by the spirit aud new prophecie of Montanus Last of all you saie Saint Basill teacheth that the consecration of the fant before baptisme the exorcisme vpon those that are to be baptized their anointing with holie chrisme and diuerse like thinges are deliuered to vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles lib. de spi. 5. cap. 27. Of consecration or blessing of the water to the holie vse of baptisme of those that are to be baptized there neede no tradition to be alledged the scripture is sufficient in the institution of baptisme whereby both the water and the perfon are dedicated to God aud his holie worke of regeneration The anointing with chrisme seemeth at the first to haue beene the signe of the giftes of the holie Ghost which were wont to be graunted with baptisme which though it had beene vfed by the Apostles in baptisme yet that particular grace being ceased which to signifie it was vsed it hath no longer anie profitable vse in the Church As for exorcisme vpon those that are to be baptized Is is your owne addition for Saint Basill hath it not But where you saie he hath diuers like thinges as deliuered by traditian it is verie true and among them this sor example that it is necessarie for the children of the Church to praie standing on the Lords daie But this necessitie euen in the popish Church is notacknowledged therefore whatsoeuer he saieth is a tradition of the Apostles is necessarieto be kept of all Christians although all the Church in his time beleeued it as that which Epiphanius reporteth of the wednesdaies fast before spoken of You demaund vpon what ground you shall discredit or reiect these traditions deliuered by such fathers cheife Doctors and pillers of the Church Euen by the same ground that you giue ouer other traditions deliuered by the same persones either because they are not true traditions or els because they are not necessarie for the Church albelt they were deliuered as no doubt some ceremoniall matters were euen by the Apostles them selues Your other reasons are friuolous That they were neerer the Apostles then we For the neerest and moste immediat successours to the Apostles Policarpus and Anicetus could not agree vpon the tradition of the Apostles one of them building vpon Iohn the other vpon Peter as is testified by Eusebius out of Irenaeus in the place before cited An other reason is that they were honest men and would not deceiue vs willinglie And so much we acknowledge yet might they be deceiued in ascribing the common practise of their time to Apostolike tradition and so deceiue vs vnwittinglie nor be controlled because the custome generall acceptation of that ceremonie restreined men Which things considered it is a great iniquitie as Master Charke saieth to adde traditions to the written word of God as if of it selfe it were not sufficient to instruct the Church in all thinges necessarie to saluation That which followeth of Doctor Fulkes handling the olde Fathers about traditions is answered by himselfe in his confutation of popish quarrells from pag. 55. to pag 61. After this you cite foure seuer all Doctors in defence of traditions vnwritten whereunto as some of auncient writers were too much inclined so haue you not so sure ground out of them for your popish traditions as you purpose And to beginne with Basill who by Apostolike traditiō defendeth the custome of the Church which was to sing Glorie be to the Father and to the sonne with the holie Ghost whereas the heretikes would haue it in the holie Ghost and cauilled that the other forme was not in the scriptures Saint Basil mainteineth it as agreeable to the scriptures by authoritie of auncient tradition although it were not expressed in so manie wordes in the scriptures as manie other thinges are which haue like force vnto pietie with those that are dilinered in expresse wordes as for example he alledgeth the confession of the faith in the 〈◊〉 which no man doubteth to be sufficientlie tanght in the scriptures although the verie wordes of our creed are not expressed in such for me As we rehearse our creede I omit 〈◊〉 things saieth he the verie confession of faith in which we beleeue in the father the sonne the holie Ghost in what scripture haue we it Againe And if they doe reiect the manner of glorifying of god as not written let them bring forth demonstration in writing of the confession of faith of other things that we rehearse By which it is manifest that the traditions he speaketh of are of two sortes the one