might haue a true iustifying faith and loue too and yet be led away in this point by vaine glorie or feare as Nicodemus was who came to Christ by night and Peter who denied his Sauiour by swearing and cursing and yet lost not either his faith or charitie by it though he sinned grieuously against both faith and charitie in that fearefull deniall speaker A. W. 5. This place of S. Iames. What shall it profit my brethren if any man say that he hath faith but hath not vvorkes what shall his faith be able to saue Supposeth very playnelie that a man may haue faith without good workes that is without charitie but that it shall auaile him nothing You suppose that which will neuer be prooued that the Apostle takes works for charitie Doe you thinke that they against whom the Apostle writes would grant that they were without the loue of God The Gnosticks were neuer so absurd But the question was whether a man that profest Iesus Christ to bee the Sauiour of the world were not by this saued how lewdly soeuer he demeaned himselfe speaker D. B. P. Caluin saith that the Apostle speakes of a shadow of faith which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our creed but not of a iustifying faith Without doubt hee was little acquainted with that kinde of faith by which Protestants be iustified but he directly speakes of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by saying That that faith did worke vvith his vvorkes and vvas made perfect by the vvorkes Was this but a shadow of faith speaker A. W. Caluin saith truly that the Apostle speaks of a dead faith which we say can iustifie no man and of faith in profession not in truth The former is plaine Faith if it haue no workes is dead in it selfe Faith without workes is dead The latter appeares thus Though a man saâ— he haue faith Shew me thy faith by thy workes You answere he was little acquainted with our kinde of faith When you can prooue he tolde you so I will beleeue you But you adde further That he speakes directly of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by True for of such a faith these men did make profession Therefore the Apostle shewes that this faith of Abraham was a liuing faith that wrought by charitie and was acknowledged by God himselfe to be such in regard of the workes issuing from it such as theirs is not if it haue no workes which are the euidences of a true faith as breathing is a certaine proofe of life speaker D. B. P. But they reply that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell therefore cannot be a iustifying faith that followeth not for an excellent good thing may be like vnto a badde in some things as diuels in nature are not onely like but the very same as Angels bee euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a diuels faith when it is naked and voyd of good works in tvvo points First in both there is a perfect knovvledge of all things reuealed Secondly this knovvledge shall not stead them anie vvhit but onely serue vnto their greater condemnation because that knovving the vvill of their master they did it not And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together Now there are many pointes vvherein these faiths doe differ but this one is principall That Christians out of a goodly and deuoute affection doe vvillinglie submitte their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith beleeuing things aboue humane reason yea such as seeme sometimes contrarie to it But the diuell against his vvill beleeues all that God hath reuealed Because by his naturall capacitie he knovves that God can teach nor testifie any vntruth speaker A. W. We do not say that it is likened to the Diuels faith but that the Apostle shevves them how insufficiently they reason from the beleeuing the truth of God to iustification For the Diuels saith he beleeue also yea more then beleeue say I haue one of your preparatory works euen feare of damnation speaker D. B. P. Againe that faith may bee vvithout charitie is proued out of these vvords of the same second Chapter Euer as the body vvithout the spirit is dead so also faith without vvorkes is dead Hence thus I argue albeit the body be dead vvithout the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe euen so faith is perfect in the kind of faith although vvithout charitie it auayle not to life euerlasting speaker A. W. I answered you before out of Cardinall Caietan that the Apostle speakes not of the soule but of breath so that the comparison stands thus As the bodie that breathes not is dead so faith that brings not forth good works is dead speaker A. W. Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be vvithout charity for they haue seuerall seates in the soule one being in the vvill and the other in the vnderstanding they haue distinct obiectes faith respecting the truth of God and charitie the goodnes of God Your reason is without truth They haue diuers seats in the soule and distinct obiects therefore the one may be without the other First I deny the Antecedent in respect of the former part thereof For faith that iustifies is not in the vnderstanding but in the will secondly I deny your consequence altogether because it proues no more but only that there is no naturall necessity of their being together in regard of each other Our doctrine is that they are alwaies ioyned because the spirit that giues a man faith to iustification doth also giue him true inherent righteousnes together with that faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charitie as charitie doth faith for vve cannot loue him of vvhom vvee neuer heard Neither yet doth charitie naturally flovv out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnes of God and of his benefits loue towards vs into which good and deuoute considerations fevv men doe enter in comparison of them vvho are led into the broade vvay of iniquity through their inordinate passions This according to the truth and yet more different in the Protestants opinion for faith laies hold on Christs righteousnes and receiues that in But charitie can receiue nothing in as M. Perkins witnesseth But giues it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table speaker A. W. The like answer I make to the other two points that follow Faith doth not say you necessarily suppose charity as charitie doth faith neither doth charity naturally flow out of faith What then therefore is not euery man sanctified that is iustified I deny the consequence he that beleeues in Christ hath the spirit of Christ and where he is there is sanctification That with you adde of the impossiblity of our saluation if I rightly vnderstand it which I can hardly do it is so confused is not to
to the poore they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents and by vsury and crafty bargaines are not ashamed to cousen their nearest kinne Finally in place of prayer and washing away their owne sins by many bitter teares they sing meerely a Geneua Psalme and raile or heare a railing at our imagined sinnes or pretended errors And so leaue and lay all paine and sorrow vpon Christs shoulders thinking themselues belike to be borne to pleasure and pastime and to make merry in this world speaker A. W. This spitefull and slanderous inuectiue of yours sauouring neither of conscience nor ciuilitie whereby you charge your soueraigne his counsailers nobles gentrie and all that any where in sinceritie professe the Gospell of Iesus Christ with flat Epicurisme I wittingly omit holding it more Christian like to be railed vpon without cause then to raile vpon desert We vse our libertie with moderation how you priests and Iesuits obserue that which feare of damnation hope of reward the lawes of your superiors and your owne vowes bind you to I had rather euery man should iudge according to his knowledge then suspect by my reporting of that which would not seeme very vnlikely The seuenth point Of Traditions speaker W. P. Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by word of mouth or by writing beside the written word of God Our consent Conclus I. Wee hold that the very worde of God hath beene deliuered by tradition For first God reuealed his will to Adam by word of mouth and renewed the same vnto the Patriarkes not by writing but by speech by dreames and other inspirations and thus the worde of God went from man to man for the space of two thousand and foure hundred yeeres vnto the time of Moses who was the first pen-man of holy scripture For as touching the prophesie of Enoch we commonly holde it was not penned by Enoch but by some Iew vnder his name And for the space of this time men worshipped God and helde the articles of their faith by tradition not from men but immediately from God himselfe And the historie of the new testament as some say for eightie yeeres as some others thinke for the space of twenty yeeres and more went from hand to hand by tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approoued by them speaker D. B. P. Hitherto we agree but not in this which he interlaceth that in the state of nature euery man was instructed of God immediately in both matters of faith and religion For that God then as euer since vsed the ministerie aswell of good fathers as godly masters as Enoch Noe Abraham and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God and true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses as M. Perkins affirmeth If no child learned any such thing of his Father but was taught immediately from God but M. Perkins seemeth to regard lâ—â—tle such petty contradictions speaker A. W. If you were not more desirous to pick quarrels then to acknowledge truth you would neuer faine such contradictions Master Perkins sayes no such thing as you charge him with but speakes only of the Patriarks by whose ministerie the rest were taught as he shewes otherwhere making it an argument to perswade housholders to the like dutie speaker W. P. Conclus II. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but either came to vs or to our ancetours onely by tradition As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is said that Iannes and Iambres were the Magitians that withstood Moses now in the books of the olde testament wee shall not finde them once named and therefore it is like that the Apostle had their names by tradition or by some writings then extant among the Iewes So Hebr. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle recordeth of Moses that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai he said I tremble and am afraide which words are not to be found in all the bookes of the old testament In the Epistle of Iude mention is made that the Diuell stroue with Michael the Archangell about the bodie of Moses which point as also the former considering it is not to be found in holy writ it seemes the Apostle had it by tradition from the Iewes That the Prophet Esai was killed with a fullers clubbe is receiued for truth but yet not recorded in Scripture and so likewise that the Virgin Mary liued and died a virgin And in Ecclesiasticall writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded and receiued of vs for truth which neuerthelesse are not set downe in the bookes of the olde or new Testament And many things wee holde for truth not written in the worde if they bee not against the word speaker D. B. P. His 2. Conclus We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one example he puts that the blessed Virgin Marie liued and died a Virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Heluidius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith nothing of the necessitie of beleeuing That point of the virgin Maries perpetuall virginitie we hold to be true but we dare not lay a burthen vpon any mans conscience where the scripture is silent S. Austins iudgement though he were a singular light of the Church is not of waight inough to determine without all warrant of scripture what is heresie and what is not especially since himselfe confesseth that it cannot at all or very hardly be declared by a lawfull definition what makes a man an heretike Besides Austin thus deliuers the matter concerning the Heluidians heresie The Heluidians saith he so gaine said the virginitie of Mary that they confidentlie affirme she had other children after Christ by her husband Ioseph So that it may well be Austin counted them heretikes especially for auouching that peremptorily which they could no way make good by scripture speaker W. P. Conclus III. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances rules or traditions touching time and place of Gods worship and touching order and comelines to bee vsed in the same and in this regard Paul 1. Cor. 11. 2. commendeth the Church of Corinth for keeping his traditions and Act. 15. the Counceil at lerusalem decreed that the Churches of the Gentiles should abstaine from blood and from things strangled This decree is tearmed a tradition and it was in force among them so long as the offence of the Iewes remained And this kinde of traditions whether made by generall Councels or particular Synods
you shew any such tradition nor he is to proue the contrarie But you are to make good your proposition that the Apostles left some doctrines necessarie to be beleeued to saluation by word of mouth onely without any ground in Scripture for the particulars either expresly or by good and necessary consequence Proue this and the controuersie is at an end Moreouer S. Paul immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles commandeth his deare Disciple Timothie To commend vnto the faithfull that vvhich he heard of him by many vvitnesses and not that only vvhich he should find vvritten in some of his Epistles or in the vvritten Gospell I deny your consequence Paul wils Timothy to commend to the faithfull those things which he had heard of him therefore he deliuered some things which are not written in any part of the Scripture I might adde and those necessary to saluation but the other hath worke enough for you speaker W. P. Obiect II. That Scripture is Scripture is a point to be beleeued but that is a tradition vnwritten and therefore one tradition there is not written that we are to beleeue Answ. That the bookes of the olde and new Testament are Scripture it is to bee gathered and beleeued not vpon bare tradition but from the very bookes themselues on this manner Let a mā that is indued with the spirit of discerning reade the seuerall bookes withall let him consider the professed authour thereof which is God himselfe and the matter therein contained which is a most diuine and absolute truth full of pietie the manner and forme of speech which is full of maiestie in the simplicity of words The end whereat they wholy aime which is the honor and glory of God alone c. and he shal be resolued that scripture is scripture euen by the Scripture it selfe Yea and by this meanes hee may discerne any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoeuer Thus then Scripture prooues it selfe to be Scripture and yet wee despise not the vniuersal consent or tradition of the Church in this case which though it doe not perswade the conscience yet is it a notable inducement to mooue vs to reuerence and regard the writings of the Prophets and Apostles It will be said where is it written that Scripture is Scripture I answere not in any one particular place or booke of scripture but in euerie line and page of the whole Bible to him that can read with the spirit of discerning and can discerne the voice of the true Pastour as the sheepe of Christ can doe speaker D. B. P. The second Argument for Traditions is this to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture and no more and that those be they vvhich are commonly taken so to be is very necessary to saluation novv this is not to be found vvritten in any place of holy Scripture but is receiued only by Tradition vvherefore it is necessary to saluation to beleeue some Tradition speaker A. W. You propound not Master Perkins reason but frame one of your owne To which I answer that is called in this question necessarie to saluation without the beleefe where of a man cannot be saued but the knowledge of the number of the bookes of Scripture and what they be is not so necessarie but that without it a man may attaine to saluation Yea who doubts that he may be saued which knowes not that there are any bookes of scripture at all so that by the preaching of the word he beleeues truly in Iesus Christ And if those two points be absolutely necessarie what shall we thinke of them that haue doubted of some parts of Scripture as the Epistles to the Hebrews and that of Iames Damascen added one to the number your Papists many speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins ansvvereth that the bookes of the Old and Nevv Testament be Scripture is not beleeued on bare Tradition but by the bookes themselues on this manner Let the man vvho is indued vvith the spirit of discerning reade the bookes and consider first the Author of them vvho is God then the matter contained vvhich is diuine the manner of speech vvhich is full of maiestie in simple vvords Lastly the end aymed at vvhich is Gods honor and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the vvritings of men vvhatsoeuer speaker A. W. Reply A vvise and deepe obseruation I vvarrant you and vvell vvorthie a graue Author Let vs examine it briefly first he vvill haue his man endued vvith the spirit of discerning Who shall endue him vvith the spirit M. Perkins seemeth to say that euery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit But S. Paul teacheth plainly the contrary that some certaine only haue the iudgement to discerne And touching this matter of discerning vvhich books are Canonical vvhich are not Not the learnedst in the Primitiue Church vvould take vpon him to discerne vvhich they were three hundred yeares after Christ was left vndefined by the best learned whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn and his Apocalyps were Canonicall or no as is confessed on all parts hath then euery Christian this spirit of discerning when the best Christians wanted it Who more profound more skilfull to discerne than that subtile and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall For he in diuers places of his workes holdeth the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonicall Scriptures and expresly proueth the booke of Wisdome so to be * And yet our Protestants will not admit them See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is Come to the second Master Perkins denies the assumption of the contract syllogisme propounded by himselfe affirming that the scripture is to be beleeued to be scripture vpon bare tradition If you will refute him you must prooue that assumption till that be done his answere must stand for sufficient howsoeuer that he addes for the confirmation of it be true or false But let vs examin that he brings First he saith a man must haue the spirit of discerning to which you knowing not what to answere tell vs that Master Perkins seemes to say that euery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit If he did say so plainely he saith no more then our Sauiour himselfe doth and his Apostle Paul But he doth not once glaunce at that point in any part of his answere yet you refute that but slenderly for the Apostle speakes of an extraordinarie gift bestowed vpon some men not denying this generall abilitie which all true Christians haue in some measure neither doth the Apostle speake of discerning doctrine but spirits that is saith your glosse and Lombard Thomas and Caietan that he may discerne that he heares with what spirit it is spoken with a good spirit or with a bad By
shall we doe where they say nothing where their expositions are contraried by those you name and other about their time But this can be no rule of vnderstanding any more of the Scripture than that which they haue expounded which is very little and Origen one of the ancientest and greatest expositors is generally condemned for an Heretike by Epiphanius Ierome Austin and the best writers in Diuinitie Yea Bellarmine sheweth that Origen was seene in hell with Arius and Nestorius and affirmeth that the fift Synod cursed him amongst other Heretikes This rule if it be a rule will serue in very few places of the Scripture speaker D. B. P. The other example shall be the principal pillar of the Laten Church S. Augustine who not only exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscurity of doubtfull questions but plainly affirmeth That he vvould not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluine would haue them that S. Augustine had not bin at first a Christian if by the authority of the Church he had not bin thereunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against Heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these bookes of the Gospel to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others and this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquity generality and consent did tell him which and what they were So farre was he oft from trusting to his owne skill and iudgment in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I wil not dwel any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe speaker A. W. Austin wils vs to consult with that Church which the holy Scripture shewes vs to be the Church without any ambiguitie the ancient Church hee names not but by the Church so commended hee vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church as he calles it that is he appeales in the question about Baptisme among the Donatists to the generall practise of the Church in the seuerall congregations which no doubt is of great force to perswade any reasonable man in any matter that cannot be decided by the scripture For in matters of indifferencie the Churches iudgement is a kinde of law so that he which in such things would not be deceiued cannot doe better than to follow it There is no word in that place of Austin to allow your interpretation of that sentence but rather the whole course of the speech makes for Caluin I will propound the matter let any indifferent man iudge Manes or Manicheus in his epistle of the foundation as he termed it called himselfe the Apostle of Christ Austin answeres that he did not beleeue him to be so and then demaunds of the Manichean what course hee would take to prooue it to him Perhaps saith Austin you will reade the Gospell to me and assay to prooue Manicheus person to me out of it But what if you should light vpon one that doth not yet beleeue the Gospell I truly had not beleeued the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church had not moued me why should I not obey them saith Austin when they will me not to beleeue Manicheus whom I obeyed when they willed me to beleeue the Gospell These are Austins words to which I will adde those that follow afterward that First wee beleeue that which as yet we cannot discerne that being made stronger in faith we may attaine to the vnderstanding of that we doe beleeue not men now but God himselfe confirming and enlightening our minde within speaker A. W. S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing I shewed before what little credit many of the writings wee haue of Ignatius deserue Eusebius authoritie is more worth but hee is neither quoted nor alleaged truly The former I take to be the Printers fault the latter must needes be yours Ignatius saith Eusebius as he past through Asia vnder guard in euery Citie where he came by preaching and exhortation strengthened the parishes that they should especially take heed of heresies then first newly sprung vp and should cleaue fast to the Tradition of the Apostles which also for more suretie he thought it necessarie for him to write Now the heresies which at that time troubled the Church were those of the Simonians Menadcians Ebionites Nicolaitans Cerinthians Saturninians Basilidians for the refuting whereof the scripture is alsufficient to a reasonable man speaker D. B. P. Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the 〈…〉 truth and ouerthrew the Heretikes speaker A. W. Polycarpus might well refute them by authoritie of the Apostles words which himselfe had heard if without the Scripture they would beleeue him that hee heard them of the Apostles But Eusebius reports of him in Irenaus words that he recited all things in that refutation agreeable to the holy Scriptures It was much for the perswading of the people to whom as Irenaeus saith he spake those things that he could truly say he had heard those things of the Apostles by word of mouth which they might finde written in the Scriptures speaker D. B. P. S. Ireneus who imprinted in his hart Apostolicall Traditions receiued from Policarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought vve not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the vvhich the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleere and perspicuous to define the present question For vvhat if the Apostles had not vvritten any thing at all must vve not haue follovved the order of Traditions vvhich they deliuered to them to vvhom they deliuered the Churches speaker A. W. Irenaeus in his epistle to Florinus aboue mentioned saith that he imprinted in his heart the whole carriage and discourse of Polycarpus refuting the Heretikes but of Apostolicall traditions hee speakes neuer a word more than that Polycarpus had heard those things of the Apostles which he then deliuered agreeable to the Scriptures In any such meane question as is not resolued of in Scripture it was fit to haue recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles had liued yea if they had written nothing we must haue repaired to the books of the old Testament the knowne word of God for all matters of substance in things indifferent the iudgment of such
without vnwritten verities The first that which is profitable to these foure vses namely to teach all necessarie trueth to confute all errours to correct faults in manners and to instruct in righteousnesse that is to informe all men in all good duties that is sufficient to saluation But scripture serueth for all these vses and therefore it is sufficient and vnwritten traditions are superfluous speaker D. B. P. In these words are contained saith M. Perkins two arguments to proue the sufficiencie of Scripture The first that which is profitable to these foure vses to teach all necessary truth is not in the text to confute errors to correct faults in manners to instruct all men in all dutie is M. Perkins his addition to the text that is sufficient to saluation But the Scriptures serue for all these vses c. Ans. 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 sense of holy Scriptures we must obserue diligently the nature and proper signification of the words as M. Perkins also noteth out of S. Augustine in his sixt obiection of this question which if the Protestants did here performe they would make no such account of this text for S. Paul saith only that all Scripture is profitable not sufficientâ— to teach to proue 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 building of an house but it is not sufficient without stones morter and a Carpenter Seed serues well yea is also necessary to bring forth corne but will it suffice of itself without manuring of the ground and seasonable weather And to fit our purpose more properly good lawes are very profitable yea most expedient for the good gouernment of the common-vvealth But are they sufficient vvithout good customes good gouernours and iudges to see the same law and customes rightly vnderstood and duly executed Euen so the holy Scriptures S. Paul affirmeth are very profitable as contayning very good and necessarie matter both to teach reproue and 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. Paul that they are sufficient for all those purposes vvhen he saith only that they are profitable to them is plainly not to knovv or not to care vvhat a man â—…h And to presse such an impertinent cauil so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do is nothing else but to bevvray vnto the indifferent reader either their extreame ignorance or most audacious impudency that thinke they can face out any matter be it neuer so impertinent speaker A. W. The text was set downe before without any addition now Master Perkins shewes how he gathers his argument out of the text without adding to it at all but interpreting it Now whereas hee saith all necessarie truth how much lesse affirmes Lyra when he addes to teach the truth for if by that word he should meane no more but some truth it were but a bare exposition but that he vnderstands by it all truth I gather out of his other exposition that followes for which also you blame Master Perkins to instruct all men in all dutie The word is in all righteousnes that is to make him righteous with legall righteousnes saith Lyra which is all or euery vertue That the profitablenes of the Scripture to those purposes argues a sufficiencie it is the iudgement of the best Interpreters There is no sicknes of the soule saith Cyprian for which the Scripture of God affoords not a present remedie He proues it by the place of Timothy Ierome saith The Scripture was giuen to teach vs that doing all things by the aduice thereof we might doe iust things iustly Chrysostome is yet more plaine If we be to learne or to be ignorant of any thing there we shall learne it if to conuince falsehood thence we shall fetch it if we be to correct or chastice for exhortation if any comfort be wanting which must be had out of the Scripture we shall learne it And vpon those words That the man of God may be perfit Therefore without the Scripture hee cannot bee made perfect In steed of me saith Paul thou hast the Scriptures if thou desire to learne any thing thence thou shalt or there thou maist haue it The Scripture saith Theophylact is profitable to vs teaching vs if any thing be to be learned For there is nothing that cannot be answered by the holy Scripture If vaine and false things be to be reprooued thence also it may be done if any thing be to be corrected if any man be to be instructed that is to be taught to righteousnes that is that he he may do that which is righteous this also is ready for thee in the Scripture And afterward he makes the Apostle speake thus to Timothy If thou wilt be perfect and holy c. let the Scriptures be thy Counsellors in steed of me And vpon these words Perfect to euery good worke Not simply saith Theophylact partly fitted to good workes but perfect not so that he shall be fitted to this and not to that but to euery good worke That he may be perfect to euery good worke saith Peter Lombard expounding the word instructus which is in your vulgar translation Thomas goes further to euery good worke Not onely to those workes which are for necessitie of saluation but to those also that are of supererogation And a little before If the effect of holy Scripture be fourefold to teach the truth to conuince falsehood for speculation to draw from euill and bring to good for practise the last effect of it is that it brings men to perfection For it doth not make a man good in part but perfectly It is proper to the holy Scripture saith Caietan to teach the igrant and that he may be perfect in all things that belong to the perfecting of a man of God And afterward See whether the profit of the holy Scripture teads to the perfection of the man of God that is of him who giues himselfe whâ—ly to God to such a perfection I say that he may be perfect to the practisâ— of eâ—ery good worke I haue been somâ— what the larger in this because this Papist chargeth vs so hard not to know or not to â—…e what wee say And yet what say we that hath not been said before by the ancient writers and many Papiâ—…s themselues Now for the further confirmation of this exposition though against a Papist there needes no further wee may obserue out of Chrysostome and Theophylact that the Apostle Paul being as he saith afterwards shortly to be offered vp commends the Scriptures to Timothy for instructers
when Paul taught at Athens some seuenteene or eighteene yeeres after our Lords Ascension whereas the Gospell of S. Matthew as Irenaeus saith was penned when Paul and Peter preached and founded the Church at Rome twentie yeeres or more after the Ascension Neither doth Master Perkins auow this for a truth but sets it down as very likely speaker D. B. P. To the point of the answere that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bin deliuered by word of mouth How proueth M. Perkins that the man hath such confidence in his owne word that he goeth not once about to proue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needfull to be beleeued which is not written in the word shew vs then where it is written in the word that Saint Paul wrote in his later Epistles that which he taught by word of mouth before or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it speaker A. W. It is not the answerers dutie as I haue been faine to put you in minde before to prooue his deniall but the repliers to disprooue what he answers But for your satisfaction let me tell you that if these things the Apostle speakes of were matters necessarie to saluation it is prooued that they were written afterward or before in some part of the Scripture because the a Scripture is sufficient to make a man wise to saluation speaker D. B. P. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent reader I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing and left nothing by Tradition speaker A. W. All this labour might haue been saued vnlesse it were to more purpose For wee say not that the Apostle wrote all things he spake but that all things necessarie to saluation are expresly or by consequence contained in the Scriptures It is out of doubt in my poore opinion that the Apostle preached many things which were not written by him in these two Epistles and those also matters of moment which he wils them to obserue but the question is whether it can be prooued by this text or any other that those matters are not any where recorded in the holy Scriptures and yet are points necessarie to saluation speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Comentaries vpon this text concludeth thus Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles but many things also vnvvritten and those things are aswell to be beleeued as the vvritten Oecumenius and Theophylactus vpon that place teach the same speaker A. W. To the testimonie out of Chrysostomes interpretation answere first that Chrysostome saith not they were matters necessarie to saluation Secondly that otherwhere he ties vs to the Scriptures if we will be beleeued in that we deliuer Thirdly that many things may be and are in other parts of the Scripture which are not to bee found in the Epistles Fourthly that it doth not follow the Apostle Paul spake something to the Thessalonians which he wrote not to them therefore the Apostles spake some things which they neuer writ For this place speakes only of S. Pauls doings not of other Apostles Yet I make no questioÌ„ but they also did in like sort but it cannot be certainly concluded from this place Fiftly I grant that all that the Apostles deliuered was to be receiued as true and fit for the Church in those times to which they were deliuered The doctrine of the Gospell is perpetuall matters of circumstance appointed by them for the vse of the Churches perpetually are as well to be obserued as the doctrine if there be any such yea traditions of this nature are equall to things written But here lies the matter we say there are no such traditions And indeed who can thinke that the Apostles would write matters of small importance which were also not to continue perpetually and leaue great and waightie points of faith vnwritten The like answer I make to Oecumenius and Theophylact whereof the one professedly sets downe Chrysostoms opinion the other according to his custome writes him out in this place word for word speaker D. B. P. S. Basil * speaketh thus I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not vvritten for the Apostle â—â—ith I commend you that yee are mindfull of my precepts and do hold the Traditions euen as I deliuered them vnto you and then alleageth this text Hold the Traditions vvhich you haue receiued of me either by VVord or Epistle speaker A. W. Basil saith not that these traditions were matters necessarie to saluation 2. He defines not what these traditions were 3. The consequence is naught The Apostle wils the Thessalonians to keepe things deliuered by mouth therefore the Church is alwaies to keepe some things not written There was a necessitie to lay that charge vpon them for else they had needed to care for no more than was set down in those Epistles 4. The Papists themselues obserue not all the traditions there mentioned as Apostolical by Basil. 5. His iudgement in this case is not much to be accounted of who pronounceth that without those traditions the Gospellis not auaileable and that they are of equall force with the Gospell to pietie speaker D. B. P. S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying That the Apostles deliuered many things vvithout vvriting S. Paul doth testifie vvhen he writeth Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions vvhich haue been taught you either by vvord of mouth or by Epistle These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul free from all partiality gather out of this text of his that many things necessary to be beleeued euen vntill their daies remained vnvvritten and were religiously obserued by Tradition which throweth fiat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition fenced with neither reason nor authority that S Paul put in vvriting aftervvard all that he had first taught by vvord of mouth speaker A. W. Damascen is neither greatly to be respected nor saith any thing but that which I haue answered alreadie and granted in part as nothing to the purpose He might well erre in matter of Tradition that accounts the Apostles Canons set out by Clement Bishop of Rome to be Canonicall scripture which opinion the Papists themselues reiect Master Perkins would gladly haue acknowledged any tradition that could haue been prooued to be Apostolicall namely so farre as it was intended by the Apostles Whatsoeuer they taught that hee would hold to bee the truth of God if they ordained any thing for those times he would confesse it to haue been most fit Did they appoint any custome to bee perpetuall M. Perkins would haue embraced it with both his armes and if occasion had been offered haue maintained it with his life But neither can
opinion We must haue recourse to traditions for the expounding of doubtfull places Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation I denie the consequence This rather prooues the sufficiencie of the Scripture as being sufficient in it selfe if it be rightly vnderstood Secondly I say there is no such danger as you imagine For though some may abuse it to confirme error yet may their false interpretations be confuted by diligent examination of the text without resting vpon the authoritie of mans interpretation as it appeares manifestly by the courses that the ancient writers tooke for the confuting of all heresies And if without this it could not haue been done what should haue become of the truth before the writings of men were extant in any number For it were ridiculous to imagine that euery particular text was expounded by the Apostles and so left by tradition to the Church Thirdly who shall determine when the time to count ancientnes by ended especially since euery mans writings were new when they were written and cannot grow in truth as they doe in age by continuance we acknowledge them for helpes of interpretation not for warrants speaker D. B. P. Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsely tearmed matter of strife because it is not so of his owne nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not Saint Peter saith Yes No saith M. Perkins because that commeth not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly tearmed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly That which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so tearmed although it be not the cause of contention in it self but written to take away all contention speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the scripture to be matter of strife and that it may so bee slandered to the disgrace of it as some Papists haue most shamelesly spoken of it to draw people from the reading and louing of it What blasphemies almost haue not your writers vttered against the holy word of God Pighius calls them dumbe iudges and in another place commends the truth and pleasantnes of his speech that compared the scriptures to a nose of waxe Did not Hosius say of Dauids Psalmes we write poems euery body learned and vnlearned speaker D. B. P. But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of S. Augustine be good directions wherby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructors and learnëd Commentaries But to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnes and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe well conuersant in these rules indued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more then thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best Cōmentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisit yet be ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his studie he vnderstood not then vvhich he did vnderstand And shall euery simple man furnished only with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficulty in them whatsoeuer Why doe the Lutherans to omit all former Heretikes vnderstand them in one sort the Caluinists after another The Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne Country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants finde one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrarie Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the sense and meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the aide of those triuiall notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie vvithout there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauiour to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randome and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of Temporall iustice it should be permitted to euerie contentious smatterer in the Law to expound conster the grounds of the Law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisdome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquity should not be Law or when should there be any end of any hard matter one Lawyer defending one part an other the other One counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one partie to haue the right another as certainely auerring not that but the contrary to be Law both alledging for their warrant sometexts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloody debate and perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne speaker A. W. No man saith so but that by these a man may iudge which is the truest that is the likeliest interpretation of a doubtfull place But I pray you tell me can you or any Papist by the help of tradition added to the other three rules certainely determine what is the sense of euery hard place of scripture If you can S. Austin by that meanes was likelier to haue it then any of you as he was neerer the Apostles from whom those traditions are said to haue come If you rest vpon the Commentaries of the Auntient what meanes had they to further them in vnderstanding the Scripture that we now want is it not apparant that we haue all they had and their paines and iudgement beside You aske then how chance diuers men vnderstand them diuersly not because they want the tradition you talke of For who knowes not that the Fathers differ exceedingly one from another in their expositions And do all the popish interpretations agree who it should seeme by you haue recourse to that maine help of Tradition He
that lookes into your Commentaries and bookes of controuersies shall finde very diuers and sometimes contrarie expositions Our Sauiour Christ hath prouided sufficientlie for his Church by deliuering in scripture the grounds of religion so plainely some here some there that any reasonable man may with small labour vnderstand them from which they that haue knowledge of the tongues and arts especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick may come to vnderstand the harder places though perhaps not euery one yet at the least so many and such as shall serue to instruct the people of God in the knowledge of his will for the obtaining of euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. To auoid then such garboyles and intestine contention there vvas neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all boubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Lavv-maker who in vvisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens doe the earth hath left his golden Lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit no no It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Son of God speaker A. W. For the auoiding of outward garboiles by force or preaching false doctrine our Sauiour hath appointed principallie the ciuill magistrate secondarily the gouernors of the Churches For the keeping of his children from perishing by error he hath ordeined beside the outward helps of Pastors and Doctors the most certaine direction of his vicegerent the holy spirit who preserues all that are Christs from falling away from the substance and foundation of truth to damnation Not that euery man may take vpon him to interpret scripture vpon pretence of I know not what spirit but that he may assure himselfe of being kept from all error that may ouerthrow his saluation by the direction of Gods spirit vpon whom he calls by prayer and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before sure and who therefore were appointed to be heard without exception This befals not any men nowadayes and therefore none can iustly claime any such credit The auncients that so wrot in this point of S. Pauls going to see Peter haue wholie mistaken the Apostle who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him For he saith First that he was not an Apostle of men nor by man Secondly that he went vp to Ierusalem not to haue confirmation of his doctrine from them who were no way superior to him but that the Gentiles might know he taught the same things that the other Apostles did If he had done it for his owne assurance he had not beleeued the vision and discredited our Sauiours extraordinarie teaching of him and had taught for a time such things as he was not sure to be the truth of God But if this should be his case he had sinned grieuously in his former preaching and he had wholie ouerthrowne the authoritie of his ministrie which in these two Chapters he labors especially to vphold auouching that he neither learned any doctrine nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames Cephas and Iohn which were esteemed to be pillers yea he did openly reprooue Peter if not of error in doctrine yet of misbehauiour in his conuersation As for the controuersie of abrogating Moses law it was a case determined by scripture and no man might refuse to obey any one of the Apostles charge coÌ„cerning that point But that the Brethren might haue the better satisfaction it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by ioynt consent of themselues and the brethren there assembled which any one of them might of himselfe haue ended But because diuers parts of the Church were conuerted by diuers Apostles and each Church made most account of their owne Apostle the readiest and safest way was to conclude of the matter by common consultation so afterward in all lawfull Councels the written word was held sufficient for the consutation of the heresies that arose from time to time but for the better stopping of the heretikes mouths and satisfying of all men sometimes the consent of former Diuines Churches and Councels was added in good discretion for mens sake not for the matter which might be and was abundantlie prooued or discouered as occasion serued by the scriptures speaker D. B. P. See Cardinall Bellarmine I vvill only record tvvo noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquity for the true sense of Gods vvord The first out of the Ecclesiastical History whereof Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and Saint Basil tvvo principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And aftervvard for thirteene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes imployed their studie vvholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning vvhereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as vvere knovvne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the very words speaker A. W. The examples you bring are nothing against vs in this question Nazianzen and Basil sought the true sense of the Scripture not out of their owne iudgement but out of their predecessors writings and authoritie What then Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation This consequence hath often been disprooued Neither is the Antecedent true if it be generally taken For their owne writings shew euery where that they vsed the help of learning and discourse to finde out the sense of scripture in many places and set downe that in their Commentaries which by study they came to vnderstand If any thing were doubtfull we presume they did as we are sure the Protestants now doe where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie rest vpon the authoritie of their predecessors rather than vpon their owne This reuerence wee giue to the Fathers writings and reade them with as great diligâ—… as they that make more bragges of thâ—ir knowledge in â—heâ— And if that rule which the storie 〈◊〉 and or you name not but it is Austin speakes of 〈◊〉 one of them which we follw in searching out thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the Scripture â—…treate â—ou to make 〈◊〉 to vs and you shall finde that we will take it 〈◊〉 and vse it diligently if we cannot shew you certaine reasons to the contrarie If the rule be to take for truth whatsoeuer the ancients haue deliuered how many things yea contrarie expositions shal we hold for true If you say the rule is to beleeue the ancientest what
Tertullians testimonie is not worth the answering Not only because as I shewed before out of Hilary his heresie discredited all his writings but because this is the booke wherein he chiefly maintaines that his heresie and blasphemie too accompting Montanus the holy Ghost and Comforter whom our Sauiour promised to send Vpon his authoritie doth Tertullian forbid second marriages as vncleane and brings this place you alleage to that purpose Such conscience make you of citing authorities against the truth But I answere Tertullian that our Sauiour hath left it to no mans choise but to his that hath receiued the gift speaker D. B. P. Origen vpon the same place He that vvill take this vvord that is set dovvne of chastitie let him pray for it beleeuing â—…m that said aske and it shall be giuen you and he shall receiue it which doth plainely confute M. Perkins Who saith that although we aske neuer so much we cannot obtaine this gift speaker D. B. P. To Tertullian Origen may well be ioyned a man condemned of heresie or rather of many heresies by Ierome Austin Epiphanius Theophilus and a whole Councill Further it is strange that he should be reported to haue offered such violence to his owne bodie if he thought the gift of continencie so easie to be obtained More especially I say that Origen mistakes the matter For our Sauiour Christ bids not euery man pray for it that will haue iâ— but him to take it that can implying that euery one cannot The promise is of things needfull such is not continencie nor conuenient for all speaker D. B. P. With Origen agreeth S. Ierome vpon the same place who saith It is giuen vnto them vvho haue requested it vvho haue desired it and trauayled that they might receiue it speaker A. W. Ieromes authoritie is in it selfe more worth in this case not much because hee goes directly against our Sauiours words who makes it a gift particular to some and not once mentions any meanes of comming by it but bids them take it that can His reason is the same with Origens and answered before yet euen there he wils all men to consider their strength whether they be able to goe thorough with it or no. speaker D. B. P. The same Song chanteth Gregory Nazianzen which is of three kinds of Eunouchs Nazianzen goeth somwhat further making it no more but a matter of a mans owne inclination When thou hearest saith he to whom it is giuen adde it is giuen to them that are able and to them who are so carried by the inclination of their minde As if our Sauiour had said Take it who will not who can as if nothing wanted but resolution speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome saith it is possible to all them who make choyse of it and further addeth that our Sauiour Christ himselfe doth proue it there after this sort Thinke vvith thy selfe if thou haddest bin by nature an Eunuch or by the malice of men made one vvhat vvouldest thou then haue done vvhen thou shouldest both haue been depriued of that pleasure and yet not haue had any recompence for thy paine Therefore thanke God because thou shalt haue a great revvard and a glittering Crovvne if thou liue so as they must doe vvithout any revvard yet saith he thou maiest do it more easilie safely and pleasantly both because thou art fortifiâ—d vvith hope of recompence and also comforted vvith a vertuous conscience speaker A. W. Chrysostoms Rhetorike is better in this place than his Logicke Our Sauiour exhorts them that can to take it he saith not euery man that will may Those are they which haue made themselues chast who hauing the gift of continencie from God vse it accordingly and forbe are marriage that they may with more cheerefulnes and lesse incumbrance serue God yet is there no shadow of any proofe in this place that euery one may vow continencie speaker D. B. P. We will wrappe vp this point with S. Augustine who directly confuteth M. Perkins by many reasons and examplâ—… Lib. 2. De adaâ—…erinis coning cap. 12. Et de bono vidâ—â—â— â—ap â—0 speaker A. W. And vpon the Psalme an hundreth thirtie seauen he yeeldeth another reason why God will more really aâ—… them saying He that exhorteth thee to Voâ— will helpe thee to fulfill it All which heauenly Doctrine because it is spiritually iudged as the Apostle speaketh the Carnall man cannot vnderstand And therefore M. Perkins being perswaded that few can liue chastly except they marrie auoucheth that this Vovv doth bring forth innumerable abhominations in the World Not the hundreth part so many as the fleshly Heretikes imagine and out of flying and lying tales report and bruâ—te abroad Nay I dare affirme that let the authenticall Records of our Realme be well perused and you shall find more lewde filthie Lecherie to haue been practised by Ministers and their Wiues this last age than was in a thousand yeere before by all the Catholike Priests and Religious persons of the Land There is not a word of this place either in that twelfth Chapter or in any part of that booke how then doth Saint Austin directly confute Master Perkins by many reasons and examples The question propounded by Pollentius and there handled by Austin is whether the Apostle 1. Cor. 7. forbid her to marrie who is departed from her husband though not because of fornication In the other place Austin shewes no more but this that it is possible to refraine from fornication and adulterie which it neuer came into our minde to denie But this is not enough to chastitie and continencie If the ancient Fathers hereto fore and you now count al them chast that defile not their bodies with outward vncleannes of that kinde monstrous filthinesse may bee chastitie But admit which wee grant may be and like enough hath been in many carnall men yea is perhaps at this day in some Turkes and other Heathen that the outward act should be vtterly for borne yet may they that so forbeare burne in continuall lust and liue in the breach of Gods Commandements What doth this discourse of Austins then concerne that which Master Perkins affirmes when he is readie to grant as much as Austin saith and yet holds his former conclusion that chastitie and continencie are vertues of Gods speciall gift and not matters to be attained to by euery one that wil vow to continue vnmarried in hope to prooue able to keepe his vow This third place is like the first alleaged by you without any ground at all For there is no such speech in that Commentarie nor any occasion of it in the Psalme The likeliest place for it in his exposition of the Psalmes is vpon the 75. Psalme where hee discourses of the vow of continencie at large But there it is not so that it is not to be taken for Austins till you bring better proofe that it is his If I
his Maiesties gouernment with persecution and that of mens studies with persecuting heauily the sincere professors of the onely true Catholike faith with molesting grieuously great numbers of most ciuill biects with mingling his gouernment with bitter stormes of persecution to threaten him with feare of rebellion or treason Indeede I must needes say you vnfold your selfe perhaps more than you would For whereas your desire is to lie hid vnder the cloake of commending his Maiestie for exceeding mildnes clemencie affabilitie c. before you are aware the truth of your opinion breakes out and bewraies it selfe to all the world speaker D. B. P. Finally for a proofe of my sinceritie affection and dutifull loue towards your Maiestie this may I iustly say that in time of vncertaine fortune when assured friends are most certainely tried I both suffered disgrace and hinderance for it being stiled in Print A Scotist in faction therein farther employing my pen in Atvvo-solde discourse which I hope hath been presented to the view of your Maiestie the one containing a defence of your Highnes honour the other of your title and interest of the Crowne of England And if then my zeale and loue of truth and obligation to your Maiestie drew me out of the compasse of mine owne profession to treate of law courses I trust your benigne Grace will now licence me out of the same fountaine of â—â—ruencie and like zeale vnto Gods tâ—uth no lesse respecting your Maiesties eternall honour and heauenly inheritance something to say in matters of diuinitie hauing been the best part of my studie for more then thrise seuer yeares speaker A. W. The late quarrels betwixt the professed and secret traitors the Iesuites and Priests haue made all men of any iudgement able to discerne what disgraces and hinderances either part hath by other when both parts can so easily and suddenly agree with the good liking of your lay-Papists The best seruice you doe his Maiestie in this book is that you confesse so plainly that both his honour and his title to the Crowne of England were not onely called into question but iniured and denied by your Popish saction And yet this intelligence you giue him is no newes for it was discouered before out of a letter of Parsons in the Iesuites defence against the Secular Priests speaker D. B. P. Whereinto I may conueniently enter with that golden sentence with which your Maiestie began the Conference holden in Iaâ—…y last betweene certaine of your â—…cts about some controueâ—sie 〈◊〉 Râ—ligion A Ioue principium conformable to that in holy writ I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ—d Omega that is The begianing and the end saith our Lord And â—…ying it vnto Princes I may be bolde to say that nothing is more expedient and necessarie for Kings nothing more honourable and of beâ—… assurance for their estate then that in the very beginning of their â—aâ—gne they take especiall oâ—der that the supreaâ—ne and most puâ—ssaâ—t Mâ—narch of heauen and earth be purely and vprightly serued aswell in their owne exemplar liues as throughout their Dominions For of Almighty God his meere bouncde and great grace they receiue and holde their Dâ—adems and â—…cely Seepâ—ers and cannot possesse and enioy them their mighty Forces and most prudent Counsailes notwithstanding one day longer then during his dâ—…e will and pleasure Which that wise King witnesseth speaking in the person of Gods wisedome Per me Reges regnant By me Kings doe raigne And Nabuchodonozer sometime King of Babilon was turned out to grase with beasts for seuen yeeres and made to know and confesse that the highest doth commaâ—…d ouer the kingdomes of men and disposeth of them as pleaseth his dâ—uine wisedome But I neede not stand vpon this poynt being to well knowne and duely confessed by your Maâ—esâ—â—e speaker A. W. His Maiestie wisely and fitly applied the saying of the Poet to signifie that whatsoeuer we vndertake must be begun in the name of God with desire and trust of his blessing But what conformitie hath that of Christ either with the Poets sentence or his Maiesties purpose or your owne application Our Sauiour truly professes of himselfe that he is Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending which is which was and which is to come the first and the last that is eternall Neither the Poet nor the King our of the Pâ—â—t intend to speake any thing of Gods eternitie Neither can you reasonably apply that speech of our Sauiour to secure Princes in their estate if they begin their gouernment with Prouiding for obedience to God by true religion But how little agreement there is betwixt Christs speech and the Poets it may easily appeare by this that if his Maiestie in stead of Abs loue Principiuâ— should haue said I am Alpha and Omega or Christ is Alpha and Omega no man could haue vnderstood his meaning by his words speaker D. B. P. But â—â—thence there be in this our most miserable age great diuersities of Religions and but one onely wherewith God is truely serued and pleased as saith the Apostle One body one Spirit as you are called into one hope of your vocation one Lord one Faith one Baptisme My most humble suite and supplication to your high Maiestie is that you to your eternall good will imbraâ—e maintaine and set forth that onely true Catholike and Apostolike faith wherein all your most royall progenitors liued and died or if you cannot be wonne so soone to alter that Religion in which it hath been your misfortune to haue been bred and brought vp That then in the meane season you will not so heauily persecute the sincere professors of the other speaker A. W. It is an easie matter to perswade his Maiestie to maintaine and set foorth the onely true Catholike and Apostolike faith that is to doe that he doth alreadie But the Romane religion hath neuer an one of these properties as it will appeare in the suruay of your reformation Diuers of his Maiesties progenitors liued and died in the profession of true religion many yeeres before a number of your Popish heresies were hatcht Neither doth hee now maintainc it because by Gods speciall prouidence he hath been brought vp in it but for that as it appeares in the â— Confession of Scotland after long and due examination his Maiestie is thoroughly resolued in the truth by the word and spirit of God Who would thinke that hee which a little before iustlie commended his Maiestie for exceeding clemencie mildnes louingnes and affablenes should now challenge him for persecuting heauily the sincere professors of the onely true Catholike and Apostolike faith speaker D. B. P. Very many vrgent and forâ—ible reasons might be produced in fauour and deâ—eâ—ce of the Catholike Romane Religion whereof diuers haue bin in most learned treatises tendered to your Maiestie already Wherefore I will onely touch three two of them chosen out of the subiect of this booke The third selected from a sentence of
Origenist taught that sinne was not taken away in Baptisme but only couered as is recorded by that holy man and auncient Father Eâ—…anius M. Perâ—ins in the name of the Church of England affirmeth in like manner that originall sinne remaineth still and raigneth in the regenerate albeit it is not imputed vnto them speaker A. W. Neither Methodius out of whom Epiphanius recites Proclus opinions in many leaues together word for word nor Epiphanius himselfe refute that of the remainders of sin after Baptisme rather they both confesse that the sproutes and branches of concupiscence abide in vs yea that sinne dwels in vs by which the diuell preuailes The Apostle saith Methodius Rom. 7. seemes to make a three-fold law The first the law of the minde according to that good that is ingrafted in vs. The second by the assault of the diuell vrging and distracting the minde by imaginations full of passion The third which triumphs in the flesh by sinne which the Apostle calles the law of sinne dwelling in our members That Hierom is of our opinion in this point it appeares in his booke against the Pelagians speaker D. B. P. Iouinian was accounted a Monster by S. Augustine for defending honest Marriage to be of equall vertue and merite with chaste Virginitie and saith further that this heresie was so sottish and fleshly that it could not deceiue any one learned Priest but onely some few simple and carnall women Yet this our English champion blusheth not to affirme that marriage is not only equall but better also in diuers respects than Virginitie speaker A. W. S. Austin was neither so ancient nor so holie as S. Paul hauing him on our side we neede not feare the other But the report you make of him is vntrue For these are his words in English This heresie preuailed so much in the citie of Rome that it is said to haue throwne into the estate of mariage euen some vowed virgins of whose chastitie there had been no suspition before So farre is Augustine from calling them simple and carnall Beside he addes though you will not be knowne of it that he weakned and ouerthrew the holy single life of holie men by rehearsing and commending the Fathers Abraham Isaack Iacob who were married men And whereas he saith it could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests for learned and any one is your glosse besides the text he seemes to attribute it to the short continuance thereof It was saith he quickly opprest and extinguished and could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests speaker D. B. P. The same olde reprobate heretike barked also against approoued feasts and fasting dayes so doe most of our Ministers at this time speaker A. W. Our Ministers doe all generally approoue both of feasts and fasting daies keeping the former more religiously than you doe ordinarily the Sabbath The latter we obserue with reuerence and humilitie whensoeuer they are appointed Fish daies superstitiously abused by you are ciuilly retained by vs with lesse riot than your selues doe vse speaker D. B. P. Vigilantius was sharpely reprooued by S. Hierome in a booke written against him and hath been euer since vnto this day esteemed a wicked heretike for denying prayer to Saints and honour to be done vnto their Reliâ—es And yet what poynt of Doctrine is more currant among the Protestants than this speaker A. W. Erasmus not without cause findes want of modestie in that treatise of Hieroms he might haue found want of truth too if Vigilantius held no worse opinion than those you recite But of the former namely praying to Saints neither the one nor the other speakes a word And indeede it was not the manner in those daies to pray to the Martyrs but to pray at their Tombes which custome it should seeme remained till that time according to the former practise of the Christians who assembled ordinarily where the Martyrs were buried before they were suffered to haue any Churches speaker A. W. In like sorte one Aërius to the Arrian heresie added this of his owne That we must not pray for the soules of our friends departed as S. Augustine hath registred And doe not all Protestants imbrace and earnestly defend the same This doctrine of prayer for the dead the deniall whereof is counted an errour in Aërius hath no foundation in the Scripture but was built vpon the tradition of the Fathers as he from whom Austin takes the accusation confesseth speaker A. W. A common custome it was of the Arrians and of other more auncient heretikes to reiect all Traditions and to rely onely vpon the written word as testifieth S. Ireneus and S. Augustine Doe not ours the same reiecting all Traditions as Mans Inuention A perilous error no doubt to rest wholy vpon the written word that is to beleeue none but God in matters of his owne worship and religion Ireneus in the places alleaged hath no word of reiecting traditions rather hee speakes the contrarie of Simon Maguâ— who reiected the Scripture to establish his owne deuices S. Austin findes no fault with Maximinus for resting vpon the Scriptures nor indeede reasonably could for it is his own doctrine in that conference with the Heretike and other where speaker D. B. P. Xeaâ—…s a Barbaâ—ous Persian indeed yet in shew a counterfeited Christian is noted for one of the first among Christians that inueyed against the Images of Saints and the worship done by true Christians vnto them as both Nicephorus and Cedâ—… comppenâ—… doe recorde The reprobate Iewes indeede before him and after euen vntill this day the misâ—râ—anâ— Turkes enemies of all Christianitie doe dwell still in the same erâ—…r And yet is not this most vehemently auerâ—ed by our Protestants and all â—aluiâ—â—sts although they cannot denie but that aboue 900. yeares agoe in the second generall Councell holden at Nice they are by the conâ—â—nt of the best and most learned of the world for euer accursed that doe denie reuerence and worshippe to be giuen vnto the Images of Saints speaker A. W. Nicephorus you should haue added Callistus that the reader might haue knowne whom you meant and haue quoted lib. 16. not 10. who liued not 400. yeeres since and Cedrenus who liued as it is thought about the yeere 1058. are neither of antiquitie nor credit to auow a historie not recorded by any of their ancients But how could Xenaias about the yeere 478. be one of the first if the Commentarie vpon Damascen say true That the worshipping of Images was condemned as superstitious by some about the beginning of the Gospell preached Cedrenus saith be was one of the first Callistus after him more then 200. yeeres saith he was the first speaker D. B. P. The second Councel of Nice was a conuenticle of Idolaters neither of the best nor of the most learned and was presently after
take it most kindly if for God and their sakes you take into your Princely protection their followers in the Romane faith and de fend them from oppression Thus most humbly crauing pardon of your Highnes if I haue in any thing exceeded the limits of my bounden dutie I beseech your blessed Sauiour to endue you both with the true knowledge of his diuine veritie and with the spirit of Fortitude to embrace and defend it constantly or at the least gratiously to tolerate and permit it Your most excellent Maiesties most obedient and loyall subiect and seruant W. B. speaker A. W. What course will best please God in this difference of profession not humane policie but diuine truth must determine In which if we sincerely obey God we shall not need to depend vpon the liking or misliking either of forraine countries or Kings and Queenes departed who either are no Saints of God if they loue popish Idolatrie or if they be Saints loue it not speaker D. B. P. THE PREFACE TO THE READER GEntle Reader I meane not here to entertayne thee with many wordes the principall cause that moued me to write was the honour and glorie of God in defence of his sacred verity then the imploying of his talent bestowed vpon me as well to sortifie the weaker sort of Catholikes in their faith as to call backe and leade other who wander vp and downe like to lost sheepe after their owne fancies into the right way The like reasons haue drawne me to this suruey of your reformation with a resolute purpose to acknowledge any truth that you shall shew me though it be against the iudgment of all the Churches in Christendome I tooke in hand particularly the confutation of this booke not onely for that I vvas thereunto requested by a friend of good intelligence and iudgement who thought it very expedient but also because perusing of it I found it penned more Schollerlike then the Protestants vse to doe ordinariely For first the pointes in controuersie are set downe distâ—â—ctly and for the most part truely Afterward in confirmation of their opinion the chiefe arguments are produced from both Scriptures Fathers and reason Which are not vulgar but called out of their Rabbins Luther Peter Maâ—tir Caluin Kemnitius and such like though he name them not Lastly he placeth some obiections made in fauour of the Catholike doctrine and answereth to them as well as he could And which J speake to his commendation doth performe all this very briefely and clearely So that to speake my oâ—iâ—â—on freely I haue not seene any booke of like quantitie published by a Protestant to containe either more matter or deliuered in better method And consequently more apt to deceiue the simple especially considering that he withal counterfeiteth to come as neere vnto the Romane Church as his tender conscience will permitte him whereas indeede he walketh as wide from it as any other noueller of this age speaker A. W. If the writings of Protestants haue bin lesse scholerlike than in the handling of controuersies it were fit they should haue bin whose fault is it but the Papists whom they haue bin forced to answere in their owne kinde It is not vnknowne to any of our English Rhemists or Romanists that Doctor Fulke long since desired to haue the matter brought to an issue and tried by syllogismes the very iudgement seate of true reason If you had knowne Master Perkins life as well as you see his learning you would neuer haue accused him of counterfeiting whereof also me thinkes he may easily be acquited by that cleerenes which you discerne and acknowledge in him speaker D. B. P. Wherefore I esteemed my spare time best imployed about the discouering of it being as it vvere an abridgement of the principall controuersies of these times and doe endeuour after the same Scholasticall manner vvithout all superfluity of vvordes no lesse to maintaine and defend the Catholike party then to confute all such reasons as are by M. Perkins alleadged for the contrarie Reade this short treatise good Christian diligently for thou shalt finde in it the marrovv and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrovv revvme And read it ouer as it becommeth a good Christian with a desire to finde out and to follovv the truth because it concerneth thy eternall saluation and then iudge vvithout partiality vvhether Religion hath better groundes in Gods vvord more euident testimonie from the purest antiquitie and is more conformable vnto all Godlines good life and vpright dealing the infallible markes of the best Religion and speedely imbrace that Before I end this short preface I must intreate thy patience to beare vvith the â—aultes in Printing vvhich are too too many but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered that it vvas Printed farre from the Authour vvith a Dutch composer and ouerseene by an vnskilfull Corrector the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the booke speaker A. W. I will endeuour the like or greater shortnes and plainnes if I can desiring nothing more of the Christian reader than to remember that hee is to seeke the truth without partialitie The place to seeke it in is the Scripture the meanes to find it the right vse of true reason He that hunts for it in mens writings either findes it not at all or at the least hath no certaine knowledge that he hath found it He that will trust other mens words rather than his owne eyes deserues in reason to be deceiued speaker D. B. P. Before the Printing of this part was finished I heard that M. Perkins was dead I am sorrie that it commeth forth to late to doe him anie good Yet his worke liuing to poison others a preseruatiue against it is neuerthelesse necessarie speaker A. W. It would haue done Master Perkins good to see by experience how vaine it is for men to striue against God for the Pope but it would haue been little to your aduantage to haue had such an aduersarie speaker W. P. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL SIR WILLIAM BOWES Knight c. Grace and peace RIght Worshipfull it is a notable policy of the diuell which he hath put into the heads of sundry men in this age to thinke that our religion and the religion of the present Church of Rome are all one for substance and that they may be reunited as in their opinion they were before Writings to this effect are spread abroad in the French tongue and respected of English Protestants more then is meete or ought to be For let men in shew of moderation pretend the peace and good estate of the Catholike Church as long as they will this Vnion of the two religions can neuer be made more then the vnion of light and darkenes speaker D. B. P. MAISTER PERKINS IN THE Epistle Dedicatorie It is a policie of the diuell to thinke that our Religion and the Religion of the present Church of Rome are all one in
such a weightie matter will permitte Yet I hope with that perspicuitie as the meaner learned may vnderstand it and with such substance of proofe both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers as the more iudicious to vvhose profit it is principallie dedicated may not contemne it speaker A. W. I will labour as much as I can both for plainnes and shortnes in all the seuerall points not doubting but by the grace of God to maintaine Master Perkins reasons and answers against all your cauils speaker W. P. The first point wherewith I meane to begin shall be the point of Freewill though it be not the principall I. Our consent speaker W. P. Freewill both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill hee doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same speaker D. B. P. That I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath said agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off only superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning free-will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free vvill both by them and vs c. speaker W. P. Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will only whereby we choose or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more populer Your correcting of Master Perkins definition passeth my vnderstanding for if it be a a facultie both of the minde and will out of doubt it is a mixt facultie But it is more strange that you adde only of the minde onely or of the will onely are speeches that haue some reason in them but of the minde and will onely is a phrase implying a contradiction vnlesse there be some third part of the soule vnknown to ordinarie Philosophers whereof free will may be suspected to be a facultie I. Conclus Man must bee considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renewed as he shall be glorified In the first estate we ascribe to mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or nill either good or euill in the third liberty of grace in the last liberty of glory speaker D. B. P. Annot. Carry this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue free will All the doubt is of the second estate and yet therein also we agree as the conclusions following will declare II. Conclus The matters whereabout freewill is occupied are principally the actions of men which bee of three sorts naturall humane spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men with beasts as to eate drinke sleepe heare see smell taste and to mooue from place to place in all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will and euen since the fall of Adam by a naturall power of the minde doth freely performe any of these actions or the like III. Conclus Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake and vse reason the practise of all mechanicall and liberall arts and the outward performance of ciuill and Ecclesiasticall duties as to come to the Church to speake and preach the word to reach out the hand to receiue the Sacrament and to lend the eare to listen outwardly to that which is taught And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice temperance gentlenesse liberalitie And in these also wee ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution Paul saith Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles that haue not the lawe doe the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength and hee saith of himselfe that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable Phil. 3. 6. And for this externall obedience natural men receiue reward in temporall things Matth. 6. 5. Ezech. 29. 19. And yet here some caueats must be remembred I. That in humane actions he should haue said morall saith D. B. P. mans will is weake and feeble and his vnderstanding dimme and darke and thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquine saith D. B. P. And in all such actions with Augustine you might haue quoted the place â—aith D. B. P. I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead speaker A. W. Humane is more generall and more fit because morall cannot comprehend the first ranke of actions in the beginning of the section Besides it may be Master Perkins thought it not fit to giue that title to any actions of naturall men because none of them are performed according to the Philosophers definition of morall vertue by a habit with due obseruation of the circumstances required by him howsoeuer they are magnified by you Papists The caueat is not taken out of those places wherein Thomas shewes no more but that a man cannot by his naturall strength either fulfill the law or auoide sinne The place is quoted in the margin Hypognostic lib. 3. which you shal finde in tome 7. of Austins works though indeed the book be thought to be none of Austins speaker W. P. II. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it as Ieremie saith chap. 10. vers 23. O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himselfe neither is in man to walke or direct his steps Who knowes not this saith D. B. P. speaker A. W. If there be no man that knowes it not perhaps euery man remembers it not and it is a caueat necessarie for this question The Prophet in the place brought by Master Perkins so speakes of it to God as if it were not knowne to all men O Lord I know that the way of man c. And to say the truth how can any man bee said to know it that fetches the knowledge which God hath of things depending on mans will from the sight of the things from all eternitie present to him For the thing must needs be in the order of nature at least before it can be knowne to be But of this point when iust occasion shall be offered about Predestination speaker W. P. IV. Conclus The third kinde of actions are spirituall more neerely concerning the heart and conscience and these be twofold they either concerne the kingdome of darknes or else the kingdome of God Those that concerne the kingdome of darknesse are sinnes properly and in these we likewise
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
can recouer though it liue and bring forth fruites of sinne for the time of our continuance in this mortall carcasse The third poynt Certeintie of saluation I. Our consent speaker W. P. I. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man in this life may be certeine of saluation and the same thing doth the Church of Rome teach and hold II. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man is to put a certeine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same thing by common consent holdeth the foresaid Church this point maketh not the difference betweene vs. III. Conclus We hold that with assurance of saluation in our harts is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs and we with them speaker A. W. To this conclusion the Papist ansvvers Not so Sir But he shevves not vvhat it is he mislikes in it IV. Conclus They goe further and say that a man may be certeine of the saluation of men or of the Church by Catholike faith and so say we V. Concl. Yea they hold that a maÌ„ by faith may be assured of his own saluation through extraordinary reuelation as Abraham others were and so do we speaker A. W. Here he ads that In this sense only the first conclusion is true viz that there is no assurance but by reuelation We ansvvere that this reuelation is common to all true beleeuers in their seuerall proportions VI. Conclus They teach that we are to be certeine of our saluation by speciall faith in regard of God that promiseth though in regard of our selues and our indisposition wee cannot and in the former point they consent with vs. II. The dissent or difference The very maine point of difference lies in the manner of assurance I. Conclus We hold that a man may be certeine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinary and speciall faith They hold that a man is certeine of his saluation onely by hope both of vs hold a certeinty we by faith they by hope II. Conclus Further we hold and auouch that our certeinty by true faith is vnfallible they say their certeinty is only probable III. Conclus And further though both of vs say that we haue confidence in Gods mercy in Christ for our saluation yet we doe it with some difference For our confidence commeth from certeine and ordinary faith theirs from hope ministring as they say but a coniecturall certeinty Thus much of the difference now let vs see the reasons to and fro III. Obiections of Papists Obiect I. Where there is no word there is no faith for these two are relatiues but there is no word of God saying Cornelius beleeue thou Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued And therefore there is no such ordinary faith to beleeue a mans owne particular saluation Ans. The proposition is false vnlesse it be supplied with a clause on this manner Where there is no word of promise nor any thing that doth counteruaile a particular promise there is no faith But say they there is no such particular word It is true God doth not speake to men particularly Beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued But yet doth he that which is answerable hereunto in that he giueth a generall promise with a commandement to apply the same and hath ordained the holy ministerie of the word to applie the same to the persons of the hearers in his owne name and that is as much as if the Lord himselfe should speake to men particularly To speake more plainely in the Scripture the promises of saluation be indefinitely propounded it saith not any where if Iâ—hn will beleeue he shall be saued or if Peter will beleeue he shall be saued but whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued Now then comes the minister of the word who standing in the roome of God and in the stead of Christ himselfe takes the indefinite promises of the Gospel and laies them to the harts of euery particular man and this in effect is as much as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued speaker D. B. P. Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome giueth the first place to our reasons which he calleth obiections and endeuoureth to supplant them and afterward planteth his owne About the order I will not contend seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none but sets downe things as they came into his head Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation But following his method let vs come to the matter Reply Good Sir seeing euery man is a lyar and may both deceiue and be deceiued and the Minister telling may erre how doth either the Minister know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not when he assureth him of his saluation To affirme as you doe that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie Equalling a blinde and lying creature vnto the wisedome and truth of God If you could shew out of Gods word that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ then had you answered the argument directly which required but one warrant of Gods vvord but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers vvord counteruailes Gods vvord I cannot see vvhat it vvanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate On the otherside to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate as it must be graunted he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter thou art one of the elect iâ— to make him of Gods priuie Councell without any warrant for it in Gods word Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrary in these words The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale our Lord knoweth vvho be his And none else except he reueile it vnto them speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake Master Perkins who doth not say that the Minister is to assure any man of his saluation but to applie the generall promises of Scripture to euery man particularly vpon condition of beleeuing The generall is Whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued the Ministers particular application Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued This is so plainly set downe by Master Perkins that I wonder how you could mistake him and so certainly grounded vpon the generall that there can no question be made of it Neither doth this equall the Minister to Christ but as Master Perkins truly saith is as much in effect as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued For if it be true that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued it is as true that Cornelius shall be saued if he
satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires at our hands is accepted of God as iustice it selfe But Christs obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires Therefore Christs obedience is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe Vpon this he concludes yet further If the Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction why should they not make it their iustice The reason of the proposition is because God accepts such satisfaction for iustice But they make Christs obedience their satisfaction Therefore why should they not make it their iustice Your answere must be applied to the consequence of the proposition the proofe whereof as I haue shewed is fetcht from the former syllogisme to which you answer nothing at all But let vs take it as it is and it is thus much in effect that you haue neede of Christs satisfaction but no neede of his iustice So then belike you will not accept of his righteousnes as yours because you are loth to be any more beholding to him than needs you must That you need it not you prooue because a meere man is capable of sufficient lighteousnes to iustification But that will not serue the turne vnlesse also he haue as much as he is capable of to which estate no man attaines in this life by your confession who admit an increase of iustice euery day speaker D. B. P. Briefly it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of an other but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on an other and not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquity no more then a simple man will take a Black moore for white although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell speaker A. W. Secondly you take it not as yours because Christ cannot bestow it on you What not so much as to haue it imputed to you why not as well as Adams sinne is mads ours by imputation But God you say whose iudgement is according to truth will not repute a man iust who is full of iniquitie Indeede God cannot be deceiued to hold a man not to be wicked that is wicked but God can iustifie that is forgiue and acquite him though he know him to be wicked and can take him for righteous in Christ of whom he is a member though in himselfe he be not righteous So may the man that will not take a blacke Moore for white accept of him as if he were white without any error speaker W. P. Reason V. The consent of the auncient Church Bernard saith epist. 190. The iustice of an other is assigned vnto man who wanted his owne man was indepted and man made paiment The satisfaction of one is imputed to all And why may not iustice be from an other as well as guiltinesse is from another And in Cant. serm 25. It sufficeth me for all righteousnesse to haue him alone mercifull to me against whom I haue sinned And Not to sinne is Gods iustice mans iustice is the mercifullnesse of God And serm 61. Shall I sing mine owne righteousnesse Lord I will remember thy righteousnesse alone for it is mine also in that euen thou art made vnto me righteousnesse of God What shall I feare least that one bee not sufficient for vs both it is a short cloke that cannot couer two it will couer both thee and me largely beeing both a large and eternall iustice speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins last reason is taken from the consent of the auncient Church And yet citeth sauing one two lines nothing out of any auncient writer not out of any other but out of only S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ so that he signifieth that there is little releefe to be had in Antiquity speaker A. W. What reliefe there is for vs touching this point in the Fathers shall appeare more fully hereafter if it please God in another treatise In the meane while take a taste by these who acknowledge their righteousnes imperfect and vnable to abide Gods iudgement This saith Basil is perfect and sound reioycing in God when a man doth not bragge no not of his righteousnes but knowes himselfe vnworthie of true righteousnes and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. And in another place Euerlasting rest remaines for them which in this life haue striuen lawfully not for the desert of their workes but by the fauour of the most bountifull God in whom they haue hoped Charitie saith Austin in some is greater in some lesse in other none at all but so great charitie as cannot be increased is in no man so long as he liues here Now so long as it may be increased surely that which is lesse than it should be is faultie By reason of which fault there is not a righteous man vpon earth that doth good and sinnes not by reason of which fault no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God because of this fault if we say we haue no sinne the truth is not in vs and for this also how much soeuer we haue done it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts were forgiuen in baptisme I will not boast saith Ambrose because I am righteous but because I am redeemed I will boast not because I am voide of sinnes but because my sinnes are forgiuen me speaker D. B. P. Which Caluin declareth more plainely for he commonly setting light by all other in this question reiecteth also S. Augustine saying Yea not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter vvho attributeth our samctification to grace wherewith we are regenerate in newnes of life by the spirit And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Councell of â—rent saith VVe contend not how the Fathers take iustification and a little after I am not ignorant that they spake othervvise then we doe of it Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himselfe with some few broken sentences of later vvriters speaker A. W. Caluin doth not commonly reiect the Fathers in this point but both he and Chemnitius alleage diuers things out of them in this question of iustification For Chemnitius looke in the place you haue named in his disputation of iustification Caluins words will cleere him sufficiently if they be truly reported Yea not the sentence of Austin himselfe or at the least not his manner of speech is in all sorts to be receiued For although he notably spoyle man of all commendation of righteousnes and passe ouer all to Gods grace yet he referres grace to sanctification whereby we are regenerate into newnes of life through the spirit Indeed it is vsuall with Austin and the Latin Fathers to speake of iustification as the word seemed to leade
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
alone we shall also be saued and that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time vvill render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits speaker A. W. His second answere is that the assumption is false vpon this distinction that by sauing wee vnderstand being brought into the state of saluation For that is performed on our part by beleeuing onely Now in this case wee are said to bee saued because whosoeuer is once iustified by saith shall certainly haue other things ministred vnto him by which God hath appointed to bring him to saluation It is your slander not Master Perkins error that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement speaker W. P. Reason V. We are saued by hope therefore not by faith alone Answ. We are saued by hope not because it is any cause of our saluation Pauls meaning is onely this that wee haue not saluation as yet in possession but waite patiently for it in time to come to be possessed of vs expecting the time of our ful deliuerance that is all that can iustly be gathered hence speaker D. B. P. There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first offeare it is said He that is vvithout feare cannot be iustified VVe are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe psnance you shall all in like sort perish VVe are translated from death to life that is iustified because vve loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of vvater and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our evil liues For vve are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen againe from the dead c. Sâ— vve may also vvalke in nevvnes of life speaker A. W. Master Perkins answered as much as hee propounded that which you haue brought I will examine and I trust satisfie He that is without feare cannot be iustified It is a strange course of prouing to bring that against vs for scripture which you know wee denie to be scripture and that with the consent of the ancient writers and your owne of late Arias Montanus and they that ioyned with him haue left all the Apocryphall out of the Interlinear Bible The Greeke which is the originall is farre otherwise An angrie man and so it is translated in the great Bible set out by Arias Montanus and before that by Pagnin who also interpreteth it shall not be iustified cannot be thought iust referring it to mans iudgement rather than to Gods Vatablus also so translateth it and addes in the margin that some copies reade vniust anger and for your being iustified he translateth as Pagnin doth cannot be counted iust Besides I denie the consequence he that is without feare cannot be iustified therefore iustification is ascribed in Gods word to some other vertue and not to faith onely For though a man that is without feare cannot be iustified yet he is not iustified in respect of his feare To omit the absurditie of the translation doe penance for repent who makes any doubt that they shall perish that repent not What will you conclude thence Therefore repentance iustifieth and not faith onely I denie your consequence see the reason in the former section The Apostle makes not the loue of our brethren the cause but the proofe of our iustification as it is apparant by his words We know we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren he that loueth not his brother abideth in death We are not translated by reason of our louing for indeed we must be translated before we can loue them but we know by louing them that we are translated And that is the scope of the Apostle In this are the children of God knowne and the children of the diuell whosoeuer doth not righteousnes is not of God neither he that loueth not his brother Let vs not loue in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth For thereby wee know that we are of the truth and shall before him assure our hearts First you take that as granted which is full of doubt that our Sauiour Christ speaketh in that place of baptisme Secondly admitting that I denie absolute necessitie of baptisme as well as of the other Sacrament for which in your iudgement those words are as strong Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Thirdly I say we are iustified by baptisme as Abraham was by Circumcision Fourthly I denie the consequence here also None can enter into heauen except they be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Therefore not onely faith but also some other vertues are respected by God in our iustification The end of baptisme is our sanctification by dying to sinne and liuing to righteousnes therefore iustification and saluation are ascribed to other vertues beside faith I denie the consequence For though we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our liues yet God doth not iustifie vs in regard that we haue such a purpose but only in respect of our beleeuing neither to speake truly doth this purpose goe before iustification but follow it speaker D. B. P. To all these and many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answere in that one You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must waire 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 eternal saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to think as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it speaker A. W. S. Paul doth not affirme that it is any cause of saluation but onely saith as Master Perkins hath truly answered that we must come to the possession of saluation by continuing our hope of it with patience To which purpose the Apostle saith that we had need of patience that after wee haue done the will of God we may receiue the promise Neither is the question of saluation but of iustification so that here the consequence may iustly be denied we are saued by
third of more certainty speaker D. B. P. The former is S. Augustines S. Hieromes S. Gregories in his Commentaries vpon that place who say that no creature ordinarily liueth without many veniall sinnes for the which in iustice they may be punished sharpely either in this life or else afterward in Purgatory Wherfore the best men do very prouidently pray vnto God not to deale with them according vnto their deserts for if he should so doe they cannot be iustified and cleared from many veniall faults And therefore they must all craue pardon for these faults or else endure Gods iudgements for them before they can attaine vnto the reward of their good deeds speaker A. W. Austin hath not a word in that place of any veniall sinne but deliuereth the latter exposition of comparison with Gods righteousnes Iudge me not saith Austin according to thee who art without sinne and that which shall be in the world to come That which he saith shall not be iustified he referres to that perfection of righteousnes which is not in this life Neither saith Ierome any such thing but speaketh absolutely of all sinne as the other places alledged by him to the same purpose manifestly shew God hath shut vp all vnder sinne All haue sinned If they sin against thee for there is no man that sinneth not c. Neither doth Gregory make that interpretation vnlesse we shall say that there are no sinnes in the heart but veniall Many saith he though they sinne not in deed yet slip now and then by vaine and peruerse thoughts After he concludes thus Therefore he shall not be iustified in Gods sight that sinnes in heart vpon which God looketh Where he vseth not the word l slipping but sinning as before of the deed Therfore this first exposition hath not so much as any one authoritie truly alleaged to countenance it selfe withall speaker D. B. P. The second exposition is more ordinarie with all the best writers vpon the Psalmes as S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Arnobius S 〈◊〉 and others Which is also S. Augustine S. Gregorie All these say that mans iustice in comparison of the iustice of God will seeme to be no iustiâ—e at all and so take these words No creature neither man nor Angell shall be iustified in thy sight that is if his iustice appeare before thine and be compared to it for as the starres be bright in themselues and sâ—…ne also goodly in a cleare â—ight yet in the presence of the glittâ—… sunne beames they appeare not at all euen so mans iustice although considered by it selfe it be great and perfect in his kind yet set in the sight and presence of Gods iustice it vanisheth away and is not to be seene This exposition is taken out of Job where he saith I knoâ—… 〈◊〉 it is euen so that no man compared to God shall be iustified Take the words of the Psalme in whether sense you list that either we haue many veâ—â—all faults for which we cannot be iustified in Gods sight or else that in the sight of Gods most bright iustice ours will not appeare at all and it cannot be thereof iustly concluded that euery worke of the righteous man is stained with sin And consequently the place is not to purpose speaker A. W. Let vs see the other exposition and first what Hilarie saith for it who indeede applieth it to a comparison with Gods iustice but not onely in degree of righteousnes For he reciteth there diuers passions of anger griefe lust ignorance c. which are the cause why we cannot be iustified Erasmus hath brought good reasons to prooue that Commentarie on the Psalmes to be none of Hieromes I will adde one which I thinke may put the matter out of question that Hierome refuteth that interpretation which this Papist would confirme by that place They saith Hierome delude this testimonie none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight vnder a shew of godlinesse by a new kinde of reasoning For they say that none is perfect in comparison of God as if the scripture had said thus Here is your exposition denied to be the meaning of this scripture What is then the meaning When he saith in thy sight he will haue this vnderstood saith Hierome that euen those which to men seeme holy in Gods knowledge and approbation are not holy for man looks vpon the face but God lookes into the heart Now if no man be righteous when he lookes into and considers the heart whom the secrets of the heart doe not deceiue it is manifestly shewed that the heretikes doe not extoll men on high but derogate from the power of God Hierome then is so farre from bringing that interpretation for his owne that he reiects and refutes it and that which is worth the obseruing euen in that place which this Papist alleaged for his former exposition It is no marueile if these men can prooue any thing by the Fathers Arnobius indeed doth so interpret it But if wee rest vpon authoritie his bare exposition is not to ouerweigh Hieroms reason Besides he is farre from thinking a man righteous in such perfection as you dreame of as it is plaine by his former words Who dares say to God saith Arnobius heare me in thy truth and in thy righteousnes for it is true and iust that he which hath sinned should be most sharply punished Vpon the beginning of the second verse he hath these words It is thy righteousnes that being Lord thou shouldest think skorne to enter into iudgement with thy seruant Euthymius denieth that a man can be iustified if he be examined according to Gods perfect iustice But he addes further Or if we consider the benefits of God or his commandements So that the righteous breake euen the Commandements of God and are vnrighteous It is a needlesse matter to heape vp authorities for the proofe of that whereof there is no question Who doubts that both men and Angels in comparison of Gods infinite perfection are imperfectly righteous And this is all Austin saith But how can this prooue that the Psalme is to be vnderstood of mans righteousnes compared with Gods This is to deceiue your reader with bare names of men not to perswade him by the consent of the ancient Neither doe you remember that Austin where purposely he expounds that Psalme giues no such interpretation of it but makes in his sight to be as it is indeed in his iudgement Euery liuing man saith Austin may perhaps iustifie himselfe before himselfe but not before thee And afterward How vpright soeuer I seeme to my selfe thou bringest a rule out of thy treasurie thou laiest me to it and I am found euill So that Austin vnderstands this place wholy as we doe Gregory is as truly alleaged as Austin and as himselfe was before For he doth not
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
he doth it by rote and not by skill not caring what their meaning was but gessing what in his conceit it might be If he had lookt for the place here alleaged he would certainly haue answered that Austin hath no such speech vpon that Psalme and then perhaps he might with more reason haue denied that he hath it at all The truth is the Printer misplaced the cypher and of Psalme 102. made 120. But Master Perkins truly alleaged Austins words and sentence which this bold censurer calles foolish and confidently affirmes that Austin would not let any such foolish sentence passe his penne Let himselfe iudge whether Austin say so or no. We saith Austin that are ouercome in our selues haue ouercome in him therefore he crownes thee because he crownes his owne gifts not thy merits The sense is that if God should looke to our actions of striuing against sinne as they are weakly performed by vs hee would neuer crowne them but considering that wee striue by his grace he vouchsafes them a reward though on our part altogether vndeserued speaker D. B. P. But he mistooke belike this sentence of Saint Augustine VVhen God crovvneth thee he crovvneth his gifts not thy merits Which is true being taken in that sense which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crovvne his ovvne gifts not thy merits If thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working vvith vs then may vve as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and revvard of merits speaker A. W. Austin hath the same sentence for the substance of it in many other places and namely in that you alleage though not altogether as you alleage it For after those words If thy merits be of thy selfe it followes in Austin for these if they be such are naught those that are naught God crownes not but if they be good they be the gifts of God The rest and the greater halfe of the sentence is none of Austins but yours yet closely conueied by you as if it were his no lesse than the former speaker W. P. And Psal. 142. Lord thou wilt quicken me in thy iustice not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou hast compassion speaker D. B. P. His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainely now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie speaker A. W. It will not serue the turne to say It is not to this purpose but speakes of the first iustification of a sinner For Dauid who is held to be the penner of it was truly iustified before the writing of that Psalme yea the whole course of the Psalme it selfe manifestly prooues that it was the prayer of one greatly in Gods fauour and strongly perswaded of his succour But what neede I seeke any proofes Haue you forgotten that a few lines before you confest as much when as you would haue shifted off that place in the second verse of this Psalme by answering that the Prophet prayed onely for veniall and light sinnes How then is the case so suddenly altred Forsooth because he saith Thou shalt quicken me For so indeed he saith and not Quicken me as you write But this quickning is not giuing him grace to iustification but comforting and relieuing him in the troubles hee speakes of and as Lyra truly expounds it deliuering him from the daunger of death which hung ouer his head by reason of his sonne Absoloms vnnaturall rebellion Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. In sundrie places of Scripture promise of reward is made to them that beleeue and do good workes therefore our workes doe merit for a reward and merit be relatiues Answ. Reward is twofold of debt and of mercie Life euerlasting is not a reward of debt but of mercie giuen of the good will of God without anything done of man speaker D. B. P. Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alleaged against merittes Let vs see what can be said for them following as neere as I can M. Perkins order First in sundry places of Scripture promise of reward is made vnto good workes If thou doe vvell shalt thou not receiue To him that doth vvell there is a faithfull revvard Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the revvard of God remaineth for euer and. VVhen you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen And a hundred such like therefore such workes doe merit heauen for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it M. Perkins answereth first that the reward is of meere mercie without any thing done by men But this is most apparantly false for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward Againe a reward in English supposeth a former pleasure which is rewarded otherwise it were to be called a gift and not a reward and much more the Latin and Greek word Misthos Merces which rather signifie a mans hire and wages then a gift or reward speaker A. W. M. Perkins saith not that reward is promised to workes but to them that beleeue and doe good workes where if there be any desert it is wholy in the person if not onely Yea all the places you needlesly alleage mention reward to the doer not to the deed To the former part of the place out of Ecclesiasticus I answered before I adde now concerning the latter which belongs to this argument viz. Because the reward of God remaines for euer that it is not in the Greeke copie nor in Caraffas Latin nor in Pagnines Vatablus hath it indeede but within two hookes as a sentence suspected The edition of Complutum and Aâ—â—as Montanus wholy omit it There is nothing done by man that can deserue such a reward though there be something done for which the doer is rewarded A reward supposeth some action which is rewarded but not alwaies vpon desert It may well be called a reward because it is giuen in respect of the worke howsoeuer not for the worth of it The Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin merces signifie a reward for somewhat done either vpon couenant or otherwise but prooue not any merit in the worke speaker W. P. Secondly the kingdome of heauen is properly an inheritance giuen of a father to a child and therefore it is called a reward not properly but by a figure or by resemblance For as a workeman hauing ended his labour receiueth his wages so after men haue lead their liues and finished their course in keeping faith and good
giuing make some satisfaction And what satisfaction can then be made when a man giues all of superfluitie as hauing need of nothing There must be some helpe thought on for this matter or all will be naught That which followes presumes there must be satisfaction made and shewes why you thinke those the fittest meanes for to satisfie by But where the foundation is ouerthrowne what shall wee neede to thrust at the building Onely I will adde here in the end of this discourse a few of many meanes for the procuring of pardon by satisfaction Pope Iohn the 22. granted seuen hundred yeeres of pardon to euery one that should kisse three times the measure of our Ladies foote as you call her and should say deuoutly three Auemaries to her blessed honour and worship The measure is to be had in Spayne printed together with the graunt of pardon I haue caused it to be printed and inserted in this place Monstra te esse Matrem sumat per te preces Qui 〈◊〉 nobis Nâ—… tus tulit 〈◊〉 se tuus Shew thy selfe to be a Mother let him by thy mediation receiue our prayers Who fâ—… our sakâ—… vouchsâ—… to be thâ—… Sonne El Papa Iuan 22. Concedio a quien besare esta medida tres vezos y rezare tres Aue Marias deuotamente a su bendito honor y reuerencia gana setecientos anÌ„os de perdon Y es libre de muchos peligros Teniendo la Bula de la santa Cruzada Impressa con licencia Dirigida a la deuocion del Cauallero de Gracia Pope Iohn the 22. granted to euery one that shal kisse this measure three times and shall say three Aue-Maries deuoutelie to her honour and worship to haue seuen hundred yeeres of pardon and to be free from many dangers alwaies prouided that he haue the Bull of the holy Cruzada Printed by authoritie directed to the deuotion of the Knight of Grace Sixtus the 4. granted to all them that deuoutly say a short prayer beginning Aue Maria mater Dei before the image of our Ladie the summe of eleuen hundred yeeres of pardon He that shall deuoutly say that prayer Obsecro te Domina c. before our Ladie of Pitie she will shew him her blessed visage and warne him the day and houre of his death and in his last end the Angels of God shall yeeld his soule to heauen and he shall obtaine fiue hundred yeeres and so many Lents of pardon granted by fiue Popes Enough for failing Sixtus the Pope to euery one being in the state of grace which must be obserued that shall say in the morning after three tellings of the Aue-bell three times the whole salutation of our Ladie granted for euery time so doing of the spirituall treasure of holy Church three hundred daies of pardon Toties quoties These be fistâ—â—ene Oos which S. Briget was wont to say c. who so say these a whele yeere shall deliuer fifteene soules out of Purgâ—… of his next kinred and conuert other fifteene sinners to goodlife and other fifteene righteous men of his kinde shall perseuere in good life To all them that before this Image of Pitie deuoutly say fiue Pater nosters and fiue Aues and a Credo pitiously beholding these armes of Christs passion are granted thirtie two thousand seuen hundred fiftie fiue yeeres of pardon Sixtus the 4. made the fourth and fifth prayers and hath done bulled his foresaid pardon Iohn the 22. hath granted to all that deuoutly say this prayer after the eleuation of our Lord Iesus Christ three thousand daies of pardon for deadly sinnes Boniface the 6. granted tenne thousand yeeres of pardon vpon the saying of another prayer betweene the eleuation and the three Agnus Deis Sixtus the 4. hath granted to all them that be in the state of grace saying this prayer following immediatly after the eleuation of the bodie of our Lord cleane remission of all their sinnes perpetually enduring And Iohn the 3. hath granted to all them that deuoutly say the same prayer before the Image of our Lord crucified as many daies of pardon as there were wounds in the bodie of our Lord in of the time of his bitter passion the which were 5465. Who that deuoutly say these prayers shall obtaine tenne hundred thousand yeeres of pardon for deadly sinnes granted by Iohn the 22. Who that deuoutly with a contrite heart daily say this Orison if he be that day in the state of eternall damnation then this eternall paine shall be changed him into temporall paine of Purgatorie then if he haue deserued the paine of Purgatorie it shall be forgotten and forgiuen thorough the infinite mercie of God But that I may not tire the reader and make him cast his gorge at such abominations which are Popish satisfactions for sinnes I will giue you a view of the number of yeeres for which pardon is graunted in this one booke viz. 1076832. speaker D. B. P. But now to knit 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 began with Tertullian omitting his auncients Let vs first heare what he saith of it in his booke of penance Hovv 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 revvard for God hath decreed to set the pardon at this price he proposeth impunity to be redeemed vvith this recompence of penance speaker A. W. This is but a tricke to make a shew as if Master Perkins had omitted some ancienter than Tertullian which else you could haue alleaged But who is so little acquainted with your courses that he knowes not we haue here the best you can bring Tertullian as the ancient writers generally speakes of repentance without which it is vnreasonable and vaine to looke for pardon Now whereas they mention and vrge oftentimes the outward workes it was because without them neither the Church could be satisfied and men would easily deceiue themselues with an opinion of repentance or at the most with some slight thinking vpon and grieuing for their sinnes This appeares in that very place immediatly after Therefore if they that sell first trie the coyne which they are to receiue that it be not clipt nor washt nor countenfeit we may well thinke that God will first make triall of the repentance especially since he is to grant vs so great a reward of eternall life But let vs deferre the truth of repentance a while By which words it is plaine that Tertullian speakes of testifying our repentance to be true by those outward signes of it which doe ordinarily accompanie it where it is true speaker D. B. P. His equall in standing and better in learning Origen thus discourseth See our good Lord tempering mercy vvith seuerity and vveighing the measure of the
in his steed to which he may haue recourse as often as any truth is to be taught any error to be confuted any fault to be reprooued or any good dutie to be enioyned Further we vnderstand by the Apostle himself that the Scriptures are able to make him wise to saluation And thence we conclude that they containe all things necessarie to saluation And if any thing els were requisite it is strange that the Apostle should not commend the especiall meditation thereof vnto him since without it he could not be perfect speaker W. P. The second that which can make the man of God that is Prophets and Apostles and the Ministers of the word perfect in all the duties of their callings that same worde is sufficient to make all other men perfect in all good works But Gods word is able to make the man of God perfect Therefore it is sufficient to prescribe the true and perfect way to eternall life without the helpe of vnwritten traditions speaker D. B. P. The same ansvvere I make vnto M. Perkins his second argument out of the same place that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute but not sufficient speaker W. P. The same replie make I against this answer that both the Apostle and the interpreters alleaged proue that they are so profitable that they make the man of God sufficient Besides any man may obserue that you answer to neither part of Master Perkins syllogisme but roue at the imagined exposition of the place speaker D. B. P. I say moreouer that Master Perkins doth falsely English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures when it signifieth all Scripture that is euery 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. Paul sheweth how that Timothy from his infancie had been trained 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 Timothies infancie no part of the new Testament was written and therefore all Scripture which is here put to proue that Scripture which Timothie in his Infancie knew cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more than all the bookes of the old Testament speaker A. W. The words are rightly translated that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these places manifestly prooue Col. 2. 9. In him dwels the whole fulnes of the Godhead Act. 20. 27. The whole counsaile of God Luk. 21. 32. All the people Ephes. 4. 16. The whole bodie Rom. 4. 16. The whole seede 2. Thess. 1. 11. All the good pleasure Matth. 3. 5. All Iudea and all the region thereabout That it must be so taken in this place Dionysius the Carthusian witnesseth All that is the whole Canonicall scripture The Scriptures saith your ordinarie Glosse And in that sense did the Interpreters expound it If we take it as you doe euery Psalme euery verse yea euery word as being from God by inspiration must haue all these properties For whereas you would restraine it to euery booke of scripture the words will not beare it If the old Testament onely without the new had this sufficiencie can it be insufficient now the new is added which indeed is rather an explication than an addition to the former It is more than can be prooued that no part of the new Testament was written in Timothies childhood he being at this time but a young man and this being one of the last Epistles if not the very last that euer the Apostle wrote a little before his martyrdome speaker D. B. P. So that there are three foule faults in this the Protestants Achilles The first in falsification of the text that it might seeme to be spoken of the whole which is spoken of euery 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 bee all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onley to bee profitable And this is all they can say out of the Scripture to proue that the vvritten Word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation speaker A. W. Your first and second faults are none at all The translation is true and the reason good though you expound the place onely of the old Testament The third is sufficiently cleere that the profit the Scripture brings is the perfecting of the man of God to euery good worke speaker D. B. P. Whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them out of this their ovâ—ne position Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation as hath been proued Therfore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation speaker A. W. Your inuincible reason is like your great Masters inuincible Armada so strong in your conceit not in truth I denie the assumption of your syllogisme as it lies that place of Timothie if there were no more prooues the matter sufficiently But if by written in the Scripture you meane set downe in plaine words I denie also the proposition For many things are contained in the Scripture that are not expresly deliuered and that your great champion Bellarmine knew well enough when he propounded your opinion so craftily by that word expresse expresly speaker D. B. P. And by the same principle I might reiect all testimony of Antiquitie as needlesse if the Scriptures be so al-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs here what testimony M. Perkins brings out of antiquity in fauour of his cause speaker A. W. Not only you may but you must also reiect all testimonie of antiquitie that would bring in any doctrine necessarie to saluation which cannot be prooued by scripture Indeed the writings of the ancients are as you call them testimonies that is witnesses of the truth deliuered in the scripture not autenticall records of any other truth To this purpose they are highly to be esteemed when they agree with the truth and to beheld as agreeing when there is not some good reason to be brought to the contrarie speaker W. P. V. the iudgement of the Church Turtul saith Take from hereticks opinions which they maintaine with the heathen that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand speaker D. B. P. Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of Heathen Authors and not to the Traditions of the Apostles and therefore make nothing against them speaker A. W. The Scripture is here appealed to as the onely competent Iudge in matters of controuersie about religion For otherwise if
man conclude the point out of them and we will yeeld if wee shew not a reasonable cause to the contrarie Secondly I adde fuâ—thâ—r that if it were granted that there were some such traditiâ—…s â—â—et as Austin saith of the first place who can say these or those be they For the most part of the traditions that are now thrust vpon the Church by you Papists are in comparison but new and very trifles or meere superstitious speaker D. B. P. Our Sauiour said being at the point of his passion That he had manie things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Our Sauiour after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking vvith them of the kingdome of God of vvhich little is vvritten in any of the Euangelists I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you speaker A. W. Now for the particulars the first is answered alreadie the second makes a bad consequence Christ spake often with his Disciples of the kingdome of God of which little is written in the Euangelists therfore there are some points necessarie to saluation not recorded in Scripture His talke with them might be for exhortation and consolation especially Who can say whatsoeuer it were that it is not written in the Epistles By traditions Ambrose vnderstands in the 2. Thessal nothing but the Gospell in that place to the Corinthians the Apostle seemes in all likelihood to speake of ceremonies or circumstances in their carriage about Gods seruice which neither is matter of saluation nor to be alwaies alike in all places and at al times So doth Ambrose vnderstand him speaker D. B. P. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that vvhich I deliuered thee to keepe Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to 〈◊〉 vvhich vvas as S. Chrysostom and Thesphilact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sense of holy Scriptures the right admini words be not set downe in Scripture yet the matter is if not expresly which is not needfull yet by necessarie consequence as it may euidently appeare by the Councill and Fathers wherein and by whom the contrarie to those opinions is condemned and confuted The first point is implied necessarily in all those places by which our Sauiour is prooued to be true God that is the same God with his Father which you shall finde in Athanasius writings and the first Councill of Nice The second of the holy Ghosts proceedings from the Sonne as well as from the Father is prooued by Thomas out of the Scripture and by other against the Greeke Church The third beside that place of Iohn is necessarily concluded since there can be but one God out of the texts that prooue euery one of them seuerally to be God and by that of Matthew The fourth is prooued out of Scripture by the first Councill of Ephesus against Nestorius so that for these points we neede no traditions speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Sundrie places of Scripture be doubtfull and euery religion hath his seuerall exposition of them as the Papists haue theirs and the Protestants theirs Now then seeing there can be but one truth when question is of the interpretation of Scripture recourse must be had to the tradition of the Church that the true sense may be determined and the question ended Ans. It is not so but in doubtfull places Scripture it selfe is sufficient to declare his owne meaning first by the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places of Scripture secondly by the circumstances of the place and the nature and signification of the wordes thirdly by conference of place with place By these and like helps contained in Scripture wee may iudge which is the truest meaning of any place Scripture it selfe is the text and the best glosse And the Scripture is falsly tearmed the matter of strife it beeing not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man And thus much for our consent concerning Traditions wherein we must not be wauering but steadfast because notwithstanding our renouncing of Poperie yet Popish inclinations and dispositions bee rife among vs. Our common people maruelouslie affect humane traditions yea mans nature is inclined more to bee pleased with them then with the word of God The feast of the natiuitie of our Sauiour Christ is onely a custome and tradition of the Church and yet men are commonly more carefull to keepe it then the Lords day the keeping whereof stands by the morall law Positiue lawes are not sufficient to restraine vs from buying and selling on the Sabbath yet within the twelue daies no man keepes market Againe see the truth of this in our affection to the ministerie of the word let the Preacher alleage Peter and Paul the people count it but common stuffe such as any man can bring but let men come and alleadge Ambrose Austin and the rest of the fathers oh he is the man hee is alone for them Againe let any man bee in danger any way and straight hee sendeth to the wise man or wizzard Gods worde is not sufficient to comfort and direct him All this argues that Poperie denied with the mouth abides still in the heart and therefore wee must learne to reuerence the written word by ascribing vnto it all manner of perfection speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Traditions Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely If then it be put to euery Christian to take his owne exposition euery seuerall sect will coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shall the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors To auoid which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the Traditions and auncient Records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true Exposition and sense of it and thereby consute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy Commentaries So that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture Traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answere is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it selfe is the best glosse If these be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the cleerest places Secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words Thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsely tearmed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man speaker A. W. First this reason can conclude nothing against our
your estimation of the vow in Baptisme and these other 3. vowes deuised by your selues And though with you the couenant in baptisme be no vow yet with S. Austin it is What must we vow saith he vpon that place which you alleage to prooue the lawfulnes of vowing He answers to beleeue in him to hope for euerlasting life of him to liue well according to a common manner of liuing well The vow in our creation Master Perkins calls the bond by which we are tyed to obedience in respect that we hold all we haue of God by creation As the benefits sealed to vs in Baptisme are renewed in the Lords supper euery time we receiue it so by vs in like sort the promise or vow made in baptisme is also to be renewed which is implied in that name of the sacrament which signifieth thanksgiuing The ninth point Of Jmages Our consent speaker W. P. Conclus I. We acknowledge the ciuill vse of images as freely and truely as the church of Rome doth By ciuill vse I vnderstand that vse which is made of them in the common societies of men out of the appointed places of the solemne worship of God And this to be lawfull it appeareth because the artes of painting and grauing are the ordinance of God and to be skilfull in them is the gift of God as the example of Bozaleel and Aholiab declare Exod. 35. 30. This vse of Images may bee in sundrie thinges I. In the adorning and setting forth of buildings thus Salomon beautified his throne with the image of lions And the Lord commaunded his temple to bee adorned with the images of palme trees of pomegranates of bulles cherubes and such like II. It serues for the distinction of coynes according to the practise of Emperours and princes of all nations When Christ was asked Matth. 22. whether it was lawful to giue tribute to Cesar or no he called for a penny and said whose Image or superscription is this they said Cesars he then said giue to Cesar the things that are Cesars not condemning but approuing the stampe or image vpon his coyne And though the Iewes were forbidden to make images in way of representation or worship of the true God yet the Sycle of the sanctuarie which they vsed specially after the time of Moses was stamped with the image of the Almon tree and the potte of Manna III. Images serue to keepe in memorie friendes deceased whom we reuerence And it is like that hence came one occasion of the images that are now in vse in the Roman church For in the daies after the Apostles men vsed priuately to keepe the pictures of their friendes departed and this practise after crept into the open congregation and at last superstition getting heade images began to be worshipped Conclus II. We hold the historicall vse of images to be good and lawfull and that is to represent to the eye the actes of histories whether they bee humane or diuine and thus we thinke the histories of the Bible may be painted in priuate places Conclus III. In one case it is lawfull to make an image to testifie the presence or the effects of the Maiestie of God namely when God himselfe giues any speciall commaundement so to doe In this case Moses made and erected a brasen serpent to bee a type signe or image to represent Christ crucified Ioh. 3. 14. And the Cherubs ouer the mercie seat serued to represent the Maiestie of God to whom the Angels are subiect And in the second commandement it is not simply said Thou shalt not make a grauen image but with limitation Thou shalt not make to thy selfe that is on thine owne head vpon thine owne will and pleasure speaker D. B. P. Christians saith M. Perkins in his first conclusion vsed priuately to keepe the Pictures of their friends departed which afterward saith he by abuse came to be set in Churches and vvorshipped This by the vvay is a very vvilâ—ull peruerting of those vvords to thy selfe which cannot signifie but to thine ovvne vse that is to adore them as is plainely deelared in the text follovving speaker A. W. It is no small aduantage that you take by reporting Master Perkins words as please you Here as also otherwhere you set them downe by halues as if he certainely affirmed that which he doth but gather by likelyhood It is like saith he that hence came one occasion of the images that are now in vse in the Romane Church speaker W. P. The most that any indifferent man can make of it is but a mistaking of the true sense vnlesse he be able to prooue that Master Perkins knew the meaning to be otherwise which is not to be thought of any man vpon a bare presumption It may be also he did rather so expound it because in diuers places of scripture where the Iewes idolatry is reprooued they are charged to haue followed their owne inuentions as your Latine translates IV. The right images of the new Testament which we hold and acknowledge are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospell and all things that by the word of God pertaines thereto Gal. 3. Who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth to whom Iesus Christ was before described in your sight and among you crucified Hence it followes that the preaching of the word is as a most excellent picture in which Christ with his benefits are liuely represented vnto vs. And we dissent not from Origen contra Ceâ—s lib. 8. who saith We haue no images framed by any base worke but by such as are brought forth and framed by the word of God namely patterns of vertue and frames resembling Christians He meanes that Christians themselues are the images of Christians speaker D. B. P. These be metaphoricall Pictures not belonging to this purpose for it is one thing to describe in vvords another to expresse in liuely colours and lineaments speaker A. W. These are the onely pictures that we need Preaching of the Word administring of the Sacraments and considering the liues of the true Saints as they are recorded in the Scripture and offer themselues to our knowledge by good histories and daily sight speaker D. B. P. These conclusions containe as M. Perkins affirmeth the doctrine of the Church of England vvhich I vvould beleeue if I did not see the Magistrats publikely to take avvay Pictures from Catholiks to teare and burne theÌ„ which were kept but in priuate places yea their more seruent disciples cannot abide a Crosse standing by the high way side or in any neuer so profane a place but either they beaâ—e and hale them dovvn or most despitefully deface them bevvraying indeed vnto all moderate men their cankered stomaks against him that died on the Crosse vvho vvill one day vvâ—on he pleaseth confound them But to couer this their malice they cast ouer it the mantle of zeale saying that the Papists make them their Gods and that therefore they are
in Epiphanius other counterfeit testimony That Images must not be suffered in the common house because vve must carry God in our minds To vvhich vve ansvvere that Images must be suffred in all places that vve may the better carry-God in our harts being by the sight of them both often put in mind of him and much moued to honor and loue him speaker A. W. In steed of answering the other testimonie out of Epiphanius you go about vnder hand to strike at him thorough Master Perkins sides but there is no great force in your blow For as I said erewhile there is more daunger of Idolatrie in the suffering of Images especially in any place where God is to bee worshipped than hope of instruction or deuotion by the sight of them And as Epiphanius saith in this place It is not meete that a Christian should be exercised by the eyes but by the meditation of the minde For such sight as Clement taught vs before abaseth the Maiestie of God and begets in vs erroneous opinions speaker W. P. Obiect III. Man is the image of God but it is lawfull to paint a man and therefore to make the image of God Ans. A very cauill for first a man cannot be painted as he is the image of God which stands in the spiritual gifts of righteousnesse and true holinesse Againe the image of a man may be painted for ciuill or historicall vse but to paint any man for this ende to represent God or in the way of religion that wee may the better remember and worship God it is vnlawfull Other reasons which they vse are of small moment and therefore I omit them Differ II. They teach and maintaine that images of God and of Saints my be worshipped with religious worship specially the crucifixe For Thomas of Watering saith Seeing the crosse doth represent Christ who died vpon a crosse and is to bee worshipped with diuine honour it followeth that the crosse is to be worshipped so too We on the contrary hold they may not Our principall ground is the second commaundement which containeth two partes the first forbiddeth the making of Images to resemble the true God the second forbids the worshipping of them or God in them in these wordes Thou shalt not bow downe to them Now there can be no worship done to any thing lesse then the bending of the knee speaker D. B. P. Novv I come vnto a third point which M. Perkins maketh the second of our difference That Images may be not only made and set in Churches but also vvorshipped M. Perkins holds the contrarie and his principall ground is the second commandement vvhich containes saith he tvvo parts The first forbids the making of Images to resemble God the second the vvorshipping of them or God in them in these vvords Thou shalt not bovv dovvne to them Ans. If it be only forbidden to make the Image of God and to adore it then the making and worshipping of the Image of Christ or of any other creature is not there prohibited And so this second commandement more than thrise alleadged vvill not serue the turne against any other Image but God only And in plaine reason according also to Master Perkins his ovvne confession the Commandements of the first Table touch only our duty tovvards God that vve giue him all his due honor and do not giue any part therof vnto any thing else whatsoeuer Wherfore diuine and godly worship is only there spoken of and not such worship as we giue vnto any creature or to the picture of it and consequently there is nothing there against the vvorshipping of our holy Images speaker A. W. It is not onely forbidden to make the Image of God and to worship it but as Master Perkins said before to make an Image of any thing in the way of Religion to worship God much more to worship the creature thereby Therefore the Assumption that should be added to that proposition of yours if it be only forbidden c. namely but it is only forbidden to make the image of God and to adore it is false and so the second Commandement is against all Images for Gods seruice The Commandements of the first table touch onely our dutie to God True and it is an especial part of our dutie to him that we giue no religious honour to any thing whatsoeuer but to him onely For as Religion is a dutie of the creature to the Creator and not any bond betwixt creature and creature so is religious honour due onely to him to whom religion is appropriated Therefore the Heathen were neuer so sottish as to worship any man or thing with religious worship whereto they did not first ascribe some kinde of diuinitie according to which they proportioned their worship thereto speaker D. B. P. Obserue that there is a soueraigne vvorshippe due to God as to the Creator and gouernour of all the vvorld and to giue this to any creature is Idolatrie Another honor by infinit degrees inferiour yet absolute in itself is ascribed vnto Angels and men as creatures endued with reason and made after the likenesse of God and to exhibitth is to whom it is due is ciuilitie and not Idolatrie This honor may be diuided into two parts because these creatures are like to God asvvell in their naturall povvers and qualities as in their supernaturall And that honour vvhich is giuen to man or Angell in respect of any naturall quality may be called morall or ciuil But that vvhich is attributed vnto them in regard of their supernaturall gifts may vvell be called religious and spirituall because it is due vnto them only for their spirituall and religious qualities There is a third kind of worship yet meaner then the other which is a kind of dependant and respectiue worship as vvhen a seruant is honoured or cherished not for his ovvne but for his masters sake And this is that worship which vve allovv vnto Images vvhich for the Saints sake whom it doth represent vve do either reuerently regard or take off our hat or bovv our knee vnto it This third kind of worship being all we allow vnto Pictures were he not that vnderstands it more than half franticke that should thinke it a great disparagement vnto the incomprehensible vvorship of God that to one of his seruants Pictures I should yeeld some such pettie reuerence or that God should forbid this in the fore-front of his ten Commaundements nothing lesse speaker A. W. This discourse to colour your Idolattie by a distinction of worship hath more craft than truth For first if you meane plainly why doe you not tell vs what that soueraigne worship is which you acknowledge due to the Creator onely that we may consider whether you giue it to any creature or no Secondly what is the meaning of those words that the honor ascribed to men and Angels is absolute in it selfe and to what purpose is it here alleaged Thirdly the chiefe reason of
The wordes are thus to bee read Bowe at his footestoole that is at the Arke and Mercie-seat for there hee hath made a promise of his presence the words therefore say not bow to the Arke but to God at the Arke The first reason by him proposed is this Psalme 98. Cast dovvne your selues before his sootesâ—oole vvhich vvas the Arke novv if the Arke vvere to be vvorshipped because it represented Gods foot-stoole much more may the Image be vvorshipped M. Perkins ansvvereth that the vvords must be englished thus Boâ— at or before the Arke notto the Arke but to God before the Arke Reply If it were so yet must they admit that wee must kneele at or before Images so we kneele to honour or pray to God against which some of their Preachers do crielike mad-men but the Hebreâ— phrase carryeth that wee must kneele to the arke as they who be skâ—lfull in the language do know and that the arke was worshipped of the Israelites is otherwise very euident for first none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was and it was carried before the campewith great solemnitie to search out a reasting place for the whole host And when they were to sight against the Philistins * they had great confidence in the presence of the arke and cap. 6,50000 of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the arke and Oza vvas by God smitten to death for touching the arke Doth not all this conuince in vvhat reuerence the arke vvas had euen by Gods owne testimonie speaker A. W. Your first reason to prooue the worshipping of Images is this If the Arke were to be worshipped because it represented Gods footstoole much more may the Image be worshipped But the Arke was therefore to be worshipped Therefore much more may the Image be worshipped I denie your whole Antecedent first the consequence of your proposition For it doth not follow that we may worship Images deuised by men to represent God because we may worship the Arke where God himselfe promised his presence and which he did appoint as an assurance of his presence If you can shew vs the like promise to your Images you say somewhat else nothing Your Assumption also is false The Arke was not to be worshipped To your proofe Master Perkins answers truly that the Psalme doth not commaund worshipping of the Arke but worship before the Arke You replie first that therefore it is lawfull to kneele before Images I answere your consequence is false because your Images are your owne wicked deuices and haue no promise of Gods presence therefore it is senselesnes to kneele before them not madnes to crie out against such follie Your second replie is that the Hebrew phrase carrieth it that we must kneele to the Arke as the skilfull in that language know First remember that these are Authors in the ayre as you answered about that place of Daniel Secondly know that they that are skilfull say otherwise What say you to the Chaldee Paraphrast who expounds it Worship in the house of his Sanctuarie and yet he keepes the proposition that is in the Hebrew So doth the Latin translation in the same Psalme where the same proposition is vsed worship in his holy mountaine the Chaldee hath in the mountaine of the house of his Sanctuarie the Greeke not much vnlike In or toward his holy hill The same seemes to haue been Theodorets iudgement of the place in question His footstoole was sometimes thought to be the Temple at Ierusalem but now the Churches which are ouer all the earth and Sea wherein wee worship the most holy God Of the same opinion is Vatablus Cast downe your selues before his footstoole that is as hee expounds himselfe in his note there In the Temple or before the Arke in which God exhibited his presence So doth Lyra interpret it who was a Iew borne and a Christian by profession worship his footstole that is before his footstoole The ordinarie and Interlinear glosses expound it out of the Fathers of Christs manhood to be worshipped by reason of the hypostatical vnion of it with the Godhead what is that to the worshipping of Images For the further auowing of that translation we haue also R. Dauid Kimchis authoritie Lastly you bring diuers proofes that the Arke was had in great reuerence all needlesse for who denies it Was there not great reason to esteeme highly of that whereby God was extraordinarily present with the Iewes as with no people nor in any place of the world beside What then was it therefore worshipped by the Priest when he went in once a yeere where it was Did the people worship it when it was carried before them As for that confidence the Iewes put in it they got little by it because they superstitiously abused it against Gods commandement putting trust in the presence of it abroad when it should haue been in the Tabernacle where God had promised his presence with it Was this worship to the Arke which the Lord deliuered into the hands of the Philistins Neither were those 50070. Bethsamites slaine for not worshipping it but for presuming to looke into it and Vzzah for touching it not because he did not worship it speaker D. B. P. To this may be added the authoritie of S. Ierom vvho doth teach that it vvas the more vvorshipped for the Cherubines and pictures of angels that vvere erected at the endes of it vvhereby he declareth that he thought Images vvorthie of religious vvorship speaker A. W. Of Ieroms 17. Epistle alleaged by Master Perkins to proue that Rome is Babylon you answere thus Good sir if S. Ierome had meant that that Epistle should haue had his authoritie he would haue set it out in his owne name which seeing he thought it not expedient set the authoritie of it aside and vrge his reasons if you thinke it worth your labour and you shall be answered These your owne words shall serne in steed of answere But for the satisfying of all men I will set downe Ieromes words that they may see with what care and truth you cite the testimonies of the ancient writers The Iewes saith Ierome in former times worshipped the Holy of Holies because there were the Cherubins and the Propitiatorie and the Arke of the Testament Manna Aarons Rod and the golden Altar Doth Ierome teach in these words that the Arke was the more worshipped for the Cherubins and pictures of Angels that were erected at the end of it First he makes no mention of any pictures of Angels but onely of the Cherubins Secondly he speakes not of worshipping the Arke but the Holy of Holies because of the things that were in it Thirdly he makes the Propitiatorie Manna Aarons Rod and the golden Altar causes of that worship as well as the Cherubins Lastly in the words following he counts the Sepulchre of our Lord more worthie of worship