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
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
Churches is of great authoritie speaker A. W. Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants Origen calles the tradition of the Apostles their practise of baptizing infants which hath sufficient ground of scripture though not in expresse words as your Church also holds and as Origen himselfe acknowledgeth by shewing the reason that moued the Apostles to baptise them as hee conceiues though indeede there is also other better warrant for it speaker A. W. Athanasius saith VVe haue proued this sentence to haue been deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but yee O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas vvhat Auncestors can yee shevv of your opinion speaker A. W. Where reason failed the Arians on their side and could not moue them in behalfe of the Church Athanasius addes this as a further proofe for their confutation that the doctrine of Christ being one with his Father had been held from time to time in the Church whereas they had no consent of antiquitie for their opinion Yet had he himselfe prooued the point by many certaine reasons out of the Scripture and brought this argument from the authoritie of men for confutation of their false assertion that the former Diuines were not of that iudgement This Athanasius refuteth by the testimonies of Theognostus Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria whom he calles eloquent and one other Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Origen whom he termes painfull S. Basil hath these words VVe haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly vvritten and part vve haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both vvhich be of the same force to godlines and no man opposeth against these vvho hath at the least but meane experience of the Lavves of the Church See Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 1. in Iulian If you will giue me leaue I will defend Basils speech by that which may be gathered out of him viz. that hee holds them things to be by tradition which are not exprest in the Scriptures My ground for this exposition are these words of his Out of what Scripture haue we saith Basil the very speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine some thousand two hundred yeares agoe recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now-a-daies in the person of Maximinus an Arrian in his first booke against him in the beginning Jf thou shalt saith this Heretike bring any thing out of the Scriptures vvhich is common to all vve must needs heare thee but these vvords vvhich are vvithout the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they vvorship me teaching commaundements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten Traditions hath been afore declared The like doth S. Bernard asfirme of certaine Heretikes of his time called Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholikes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth aswell as that which is written Euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned Heretikes to reiect all traditions and to she vnto the only Scriptures speaker A. W. The Heretike Maximinus asked nothing but reason of Austin if he stood vpon the matter and not vpon the termes neither doth Austin find fault with this condition nor could he in reason because as I answered before himselfe appeales to that kind of triall in that very disputation Neither must I saith Austin to Maximinus alleage the Councell of Nice in preiudice of the matter nor you the Councell of Ariminum neither am I tyed with the authoritie of this Councell nor you with the authoritie of that let matter striue with matter 〈◊〉 with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the scriptures which are not proper to you or me but common to vs both But will you heare him speake more like Maximinus Reade me this saith Austin out of a Prophet reade it out of a Psalme recite it out of the Lawe recite it out of the Gospell recite it out of an Apostle Thence recite I the Church disperst ouer the whole world and our Lord saying my sheepe heare my voyce And a little after away with mens papers let the voyce of God sound And in another place away with our papers let Gods bookes come forth heare Christ heare the truth speaking If these speeches be hereticall we confesse our selues to be Heretikes but so that we haue Austin on our side for an Arch-Heretike Bernard speakes of the Hereticks called Apostolicks not in his 62. but in his 66. sermon vpon the Canticles where he saith neuer a word of their reiecting Traditions No more hath Austin nor Epiphanius where they write of them And if they did reiect traditions it was because they would establish their owne hereticall bookes viz. the Acts of Thomas and Andrew and the gospell of the Egyptians which to say the truth are to be counted traditions because they haue no warrant of the scripture nor are any part of the Canon It were easie for me to turne your owne sentence against you and as all men may see with good reason but it shall suffice me that I haue refuted your slaunders and shewes with sound proofe of arguments and authoritie I consider loosers must haue leaue to speake The eighth point Of Vowes Our consent speaker W. P. Touching vowes this must bee knowne that wee do not condemne them altogether but onely labour to restore the purity of doctrine touching this point which by the Church of Rome from time to time hath beene corrupted and defaced We hold therefore that a vow is a promise made to God touching some duties to be performed vnto him and it is twofold generall or speciall The generall vow is that which concernes all beleeuers and it is made in the couenant both of the law and of the Gospell I will here onely speake of the vow which is made in the couenant of the Gospell in which there be two actions one of God the other of man God in mercy on his part promiseth to men the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting and man againe for his part promiseth to beleeue in Christ and to obey God in all his commaundements All men euer made this vow vnto God as the Iewes in circumcision which also they renewed so often as they receiued the Passeouer and in the newe Testament all that are baptized doe the like And in baptisme this vow is called the stipulation of a good conscience whereby wee purpose to renounce our selues to beleeue in Christ and to bring forth the fruites of true repentance and it ought to be renued so oft as wee are partakers of the supper of the Lord.
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
substance or that they may be reunited BEfore I am to deliuer my opinion concerning this point I had neede to be enformed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion For there being great diuersities of pretended Religions currant in the world all contrary to the Church of Rome how can I certainlie know whether of them hâ— professeth Wherefore good Sir may it please you to declare what Religion you vnderstand when you say our Religion Is it that which Martin Luther a licentious Fryer first preached in Germany or rather that which the martiall Minister Zwinglius contended with sword and shield to set vp in Switzerland or perhaps that which John Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneua expelling the lawfull Magistrate thence and by the ayde of Beza a dissolute turnecoate spread into many corners of France Or if by your Religion you meane only to comprehend the Religion now practised in England yet are you farther to shewe whether you vnderstand that established by the State or the other more refined as it is thought by many and embraced by them who are called Puritanes for of their leauen sauoureth that position of yours That the article of Christs descent into bell crept into the Creede by negligence and some other such like in this booke These principall diuisions of the new Gospell to omit sundrie sub-diuisions being famous and receiued of diuers in England according to each mans phantasie it is meete you expresse whether of them you speake of that it may be dulie considered how the Romane Religion and it agree and what vnion may be made betweene them speaker A. W. Is this no superfluitie of words What reasonable man can doubt that Master Perkins by our religion meanes as you say afterward the religion now professed in England For your word practised is too skant for doctrine some points whereof fall not into practise If it be contrarie to the Church of Rome it is easily answered without any such inquirie that contraries cannot be vnited If difference in some points make a diuers religion how many kindes are there amongst you Papists let the Franciscans and Dominicans goe with all the rest of former times what say you to these maine points Iustification in Pighius Predestination in Bellarmine Free will in Bartholomew Camerarius three pillers of your Church The difference betwixt Protestants and Puritanes as you call them is not in any essentiall point of faith but in matters of outward gouernment and ceremonies speaker W. P. And this shall appeare if we doe but a little consider how they of the Romane Church haue rased the foundation For though in words they honour Christ yet in deede they turne him to a Pseudo-Christ and an Idoll of their owne braine speaker D. B. P. Now if you meane the hotchpotâ—h and confusion of all these new Religions together as by the opposition here vnto the Church of Rome and by the artiâ—les following may be gathered then I am cleere for you in this that there can be no more concord betweene these two Religions then there is betweene light and darknes faith and insidelâ—tie Christ and Beliall Notwithstanding I thinke that the reason by you produced to proue the impossibilitie of this vnion is of no value to â—it that they of the Romane Church â—aue razed the foundation for though in vvords they honour Christ yet indeede they turne him into a Pseudochrist and an â—doll of their 〈◊〉 braine A very sufficient cause no doubt of eternall breach and diuision if it could be verisied But how proue you that we Romane Catholikes who beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and the onely Redeemer of Mankinde make him a false Christ and an Idoll or before you goe about to proue it tell me I pray you how this can well stand with your owne definition of a reformed Catholike in your Preface There you affirme him to be a Catholike reformed to your liking that holdeth the same necessarie heads of Religion vvith the Romane Church Now can there be any more necessarie head of Religion than to haue a right faith in Christ can any other foundation be laid besides Iesus Christ If then your reformed Catholike must agree with the Romane Church in neâ—essarie heads of Religion as you hold he must either the Romane Church â—…th not the foundation and maketh not Christ a Pseudochrist as you say here or else you teach your disâ—iples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with it speaker A. W. It is no confusion to take from seuerall men seuerall opinions agreeing with the word of God Luther hauing been a long time kept in the darknes of Pâ—…pcrie could not by and by discerne the truth in all points Was not your superstition both for doctrine and ceremonics patcht vp peece by peece as it could procure allowance from time to time Yea was not the truth of Religion made manifest by little and little in the Church as God gaue learned men occasion of studie and a blessing in their studie against the poyson of Heretikes Such hath been and such alwaies will be the course of the Gospell that truth will be more and more knowne as there is more opposition against it and as men bestow more paines in reading praying and studying To denie the reason or argument is to denie the consequence not the antecedent but you grant the consequence viz. That razing the foundation and turning Christ into a Pseudochrist is a sufficient cause of eternall breach onely you denie the antecedent that the Church of Rome doth so At the least as well as you prooue that the Church of England holding the same opinions of Christ haue no faith no religion no Church no Christ c. But let vs see how you disprooue the antecedent If your reformed Catholike say you must agree with the Romane Church in many heads of religion either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or else you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it But he must agree with it in many heads of religion Therfore either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it I denie the consequence of your proposition because by paring of the errors which Master Perkins requires he shall keepe himselfe from razing the foundation though he hold the same necessary heads for example he must holde with you that a true ChristiaÌ„ must haue a right faith in Christ but he must reiect the faith you professe as not right Again he must hold that no other foundation can be laid but Iesus Christ not that you lay him aright for the foundation speaker W. P. They call him our Lord but with this condition that the Seruant of Seruants of this Lord may change and adde to his commaundements hauing so great a power that he
necessarie or respected by God in the iustification of that theefe he would neuer haue said that he was iustified without workes that did so many good workes in so short a time speaker D. B. P. Novv that that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualites out of the companies of faith is apparant by that vvhich he hath vvritten on the next Chapter vvhere he saith That faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they doe withall put off the old man and a little before more plainely saying I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation hope is proceeding in the building but the toppe and perfection of the whole worke is charitie speaker A. W. Neither doe we meane to exclude such qualities For they come together but are not of like vse nor to the same purpose Both the sentences you alleage out of him wee approoue that faith which is without sanctification cannot instifie that faith is not all that is required to saluation but all graces of regeneration are to be laboured for and obtained before wee can come to heauen And by this wee may see that as the Fathers so Origen also makes a difference betwixt iustification where faith onely is respected and saluation to which all vertues are required III. Difference speaker W. P. The third difference about iustification is concerning this point namely how far forth good workes are required thereto The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there be two kinds of iustification the first and second as I haue said The first is when one of an euill man is made a good man and in this workes are wholy excluded it being wholy of grace The second is when a man of a iust man is made more iust And this they will haue to proceede from workes of grace for say they as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man though he could not at the first make himselfe a man euen so a sinner hauing his first iustification may afterward by grace make himselfe more iust Therefore they hold these two things I. That good works are meritorious causes of the second iustification which they tearme Actuall II. that good workes are meanes to increase first iustification which they call Habituall Now let vs see how far forth we must ioyne with them in this point Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God and are approoued of him and therefore haue a reward II. Good workes are necessarie to saluation two waies first not as causes thereof either conseruant adiuvant or procreant but onely as consequents of faith in that they are inseparable companions and fruits of that faith which is indeede necessarie to saluation Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way and as the way it selfe directing vs vnto eternall life III. Wee hold and beleeue that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by works for so the holie Ghost speaketh plainely and truely Iam. 2. 21. That Abraham was iustified by workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins first graunteth that good vvorkes doe please God and haue a temporall revvard 2. That they are necessary to saluation not as the cause thereof but either as markes in a vvay to direct vs tovvards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnesse to declare one to be iust before men all vvhich he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteeme much of good vvorkes vvhich they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes speaker A. W. This is no good dealing to foyst in temporall as if you would haue men suspect that we allow good workes no reward in heauen It had been enough for you to leaue out his words as you doe and thrust in your owne without adding at your pleasure But these are popish shifts Whereof you presently affoord vs another example by putting in these words Before men to make the world beleeue that we giue no place to good works in the sight of God whereas Master Perkins professeth that Abraham was iustified by works euen before God not onely before men as you write speaker A. W. To this you adde in the third place a shamelesse slander against your owne knowledge that we hold good workes to be no better than deadly sinnes whereas wee teach that those that are indeed good workes are able to iustifie a man perfectly in the presence of God and to deserue euerlasting life Yea we maintaine that the imperfect workes of the regenerate are brought foorth by the grace of Gods spirit and for all their imperfection are accepted and shall be rewarded by God our Father in heauen speaker W. P. Thus farre we ioyne with them and the very difference is this They say we are iustified by works as by causes thereof wee say that wee are iustified by works as by signes and fruites of our iustification before God and no otherwise and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstood that Abraham was iustified that is declared and made manifest to bee iust indeede by his obedience and that euen before God Now that our doctrine is the truth it will appeare by reasons on both parts speaker D. B. P. The maine difference then betvveene vs consisteth in this vvhether good vvorkes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes vvhich vve call the second iustification or vvhether they be onelie fruits signes or markes of it speaker A. W. The maine difference as Master Perkins propounds it is whether we be iustified by works as by causes meritorious of our iustification not whether they bee the true cause of our second iustification which he denies wholy as a deuice of yours And indeede they that haue more neerely sifted this branne haue found that there is but one iustification because faith and workes make one righteousnes begun by â—aith and increased and perfected by workes Iustification saith Andradius the great champion of the Councill of Trent consists of two parts forgiuenes of sinnes and obedience to the law Stapleton speakes more plaine The Catholikes say that a man is iustified by faith and workes as by the formall cause So that according to your popish diuinitie workes are not onely the meritorious efficient cause of our iustification but the formall cause also as Stapleton directly affirmes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which he made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set dovvne our owne speaker A. W. This pretence is none of his who would neuer denie that our inherent righteousnes is increased
as you take them and as himselfe before had defined them but onely as good workes which the ancient writers oftentimes call merits not because they truly and wholy haue the nature of merits as Andradius speaks of them but for that they are not performed without labour on our part and shall haue reward on Gods part in heauen speaker D. B. P. But soone after like vnto a shrewd cowe ouerthrowes with his heele the good milke he had giuen before Renouncing all merittes in euery man sauing only in the person of Christ whose prerogatiue saith he it is to be the person alone in whom God is well pleased speaker A. W. This dealing of yours is more common with you than commendable He that meant plainly would take things as they lie as farre as reasonably he may and not draw matters out of diuers heads to confound the readers vnderstanding and hide the force of his aduersaries disputation But I must be faine to follow you though you follow not Master Perkins speaker D. B. P. Then he addeth that they good Protestants by Christs merits really imputed to them do merit life euerlasting Euen as by his righteousnes imputed vnto them they are iustified and made righteous To which I answere that we most willingly confesse our blessed Sauiours merits to be infinite and of such diuine efficacy that he hath not only merited at his Fathers hands both pardon for all faults and grace to doe all good workes but also that his true seruants works should be meritorious of life euerlasting speaker A. W. That our workes should bee accepted and rewarded of God our Sauiour hath merited but that being imperfect they should haue the true and whole nature of merit no infinitnes nor diuine efficacie can deserue or procure For it is a manifest contradiction that this or that work should haue need of pardon and yet fully satisfie the law of God and by that satisfaction deserue euerlasting life as wages at Gods hands speaker D. B. P. As for the reall imputation of his merit to vs we esteeme as a fained imagination composed of contrarieties For if it be really in vs why do they call it imputed and if it be ours only by Gods imputation then is it not in vs really speaker A. W. You make your selfe more worke than you need Master Perkins doth not say it is really in vs but really imputed to vs not as you trifle by a supposed imputation but in deed and truth wee being the members of Christ our head by faith in him speaker D. B. P. Further to say that he only is the person in whom God is vvell pleased is to giue the lie vnto many plaine texts of holy Scriptures Abraham vvas called the friend of God therefore God vvas vvell pleased in him Moses vvas his beloued Dauid vvas a man according vnto his ovvne hart God loued Christs Disciples because they loued him Briefly all the Christians at Rome vvere truly called of S. Paul the beloued of God And therefore although God be best pleased in our Sauiour and for his sake is pleased in all others yet is he not only pleased in him but in all his faithfull seruants speaker A. W. It is Christs priuiledge to be the person in whom God is fully pleased as in one who by his excellencie of nature being God euerlasting and man absolutely pure deserues his loue which all other men attaine to in their measure not by the merit but acceptation of their persons speaker D. B. P. Novv to that vvhich he saith that they haue no other meritte then Christs imputed to them as they haue no other righteousnesse but by imputation I take it to be true and therefore they do very ingenuously and iustly renounce all kind of merittes in their stayned and defiled vvorkes But let them tremble at that vvhich thereupon necessarily follovveth It is that as they haue no righteousnes nor merit of heauen but only by a supposed imputation so they must looke for no heauen but by imputation for God as a most vpright iudge vvill in the end repay euery man according to his vvorth vvherfore not finding any â—eall vvorthines in Protestants but only in conceipt his revvard shall be giuen them ansvverablie in conceipt only vvhich is euidently gathered out of S. Augustine vvhere he saith That the revvard caâ—… goe before the merit not be giuen to a man before be be vvorthie of it for saith he vâ—â—at vvere more iniust then that and what is more iust then God Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardly as once to demaund much Iesse so impudent as to assure ourselues of that crovvne before vve haue deserued it Seeing then that the Protestants by this their proctour renounce all such merit and desert they must needs also renounce their part of heauen and not presume so much as once to demaund it according vnto S. Augustines sentence vntill they haue first renounced their erronious opinions speaker A. W. We are really members of Christs mysticall bodie and so haue an interest in the reall imputation of his merits Beside wee haue also true though not perfect righteousnes inherent in vs good works in some poore measure sutable thereunto according to which we certainly looke for our reward of God not for the worthines of those workes but for his gratious acceptance of them and vs in Iesus Christ. So that we demaund not our reward before our worke which Austin after the phrase of the ancient calles merits but denie our worke to bee of such a value as mans pride would make it Now to requite your kindnes I beseech you by the mercies of God and the loue of Iesus Christ that you doe not lay claime to euerlasting life as the wages of seruants least it be denied you as an inheritance belonging to sonnes speaker W. P. That our doctrine is truth and theirs falshoode I will make manifest by sundrie reasons and then answere their arguments to the contrarie Our reasons The first shall be taken from the properties and conditions that must be in a worke meritorious and they are foure I. A man must doe it of himselfe and by himselfe for if it bee done by an other the merit doth not properly belong to the doer II. A man must doe it of his owne free-will and pleasure not of due debt for when wee doe that which wee are bound to doe wee doe no more but our dutie III. The worke must be done to the profit of an other who thereupon must bee bound to repay the like IV. The reward and the worke must be in proportion equall for if the reward bee more then the worke it is not a reward of desert but a gift of good will Hence followes a notable conclusion That Christs manhood considered apart from his Godhead cannot merit at Gods hand though it be more excellent euery way then all men and Angels For being thus considered it doth
nothing of it selfe but by grace receiued from the godhead though it also bee without measure Secondly Christs manhood is a creature and in that regarde bounde to doe whatsoeuer it doth Thirdly Christ as man cannot giue any thing to God but that which hee receiued from God therefore cannot the manhood properly by it selfe merit but onely as it is personally vnited vnto the godhead of the Sonne And if this be so then much lesse can any meere man or any angell merit yea it is a madnes to thinke that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby wee might attaine to life eternall speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins vvill neuerthelesse proue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth it selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one vvhole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious vvorke Which must be saith he foure First That the worke be done of our selues without the helpe of another Secondly That it be not othervvise due debte Thirdly That it be done to the benefit of another Fourthly That the worke and revvard be equall in proportion These proprieties he sets dovvne pithagorically vvithout any proofe But inferreth thereon as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs man-hood seperated from the God-head cannot merit because vvhatsoeuer he doth he doth it by grace receiued and should be othervvise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither for he receiued his Godhead from his Father and vvhatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debte And so the good man if he vvere let alone vvould disappoint vs vvholy of all merits as vvell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by vertue of his grace speaker A. W. The syllogisme that troubles you so with the length of it is this Euery worke that merits euerlasting life must be done of and by the worker himselfe not of debt to the profit of God with proportion to the reward No worke of man can be so done Therefore no worke of man can merit euerlasting life Is not this a perilous long syllogisme trow you to take vp more than a whole page If this great scholler that so often blames Master Perkins ignorance would for I wil not doubt but he could haue distinguished the syllogisme from the explication of the proposition he would not haue been so much offended with it Sure there was small cause hee should be if he say truly afterward that Master Perkins reason was nakedly proposed or trie whether himselfe can make it any shorter or compare it with his owne tedious answer containing three whole pages in quarto in a smaller letter But what if there be another syllogisme also implied in this reason as there is this If the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit then can no man merit But the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit Therefore no man can The consequence of the proposition is prooued because the manhood of Christ is more excellent euery way than all both men and Angels The assumption is made manifest because euery worke of Christs manhood considered apart from the Godhead would be defectiue in three points concerning merit To the two former you answer that whereas Master Perkins saith Christs manhood could not merit because he did nothing of himselfe but by grace receiued and that that he did was due that he might as truly say that his manhood could not merit vnited to the Godhead Your reason is for that he receiued his Godhead from his Father and whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt But your reason is false for Christ had his Sonship as I may speake of his Father for the propertie of the Godhead is to be of it selfe yet there is not any thing due from the Sonne to the Father more than from the Father to the Sonne if they be of equall nature and dignitie So that this latter point disproues the former because it inferres a superioritie of the Father ouer the Sonne and so an inequalitie which at no hand may be granted speaker D. B. P. Wherefore vve must a little â—ist his foure forged proprieties of merit and touching the first I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it For example the Father bestovves a farme vpon his Son freely Who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same deserue his further fauour Yea he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale as vvell as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift Which is so common a case and so sensible that euery man of meane vvitte may casily reach vnto it euen so by good manuring the gifts vvhich God freely bestovveth vpon vs vve may both merit the increase of them and according to his ovvne order and promise purchase thereby the Kingdome of heauen vvhich is plainly proued in that parable Of the talents giuen by a King to his seruants the vvhich they imploying vvell and multiplying vvere therefore esteemed vvorthie of far greater and vvithall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes M. Perkins then vvas not a little ouerseene to put for the first proprietie of merit that it must be done by a man and of a man himselfe speaker A. W. The first of the foure properties is that a man must doe it of himselfe and by himselfe You answere that one may merit by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift But not if the vse of it also be of him of whom he should merit The Sonne that receiues the farme receiues not withall continually from his Father the power to vse the farme in that sort and much lesse the will and the vse it selfe But a man that hath receiued grace from God hath continually from him both to will and to doe and therefore cannot properly merit of him The parable hath not one word of any merit onely it is said that the King commended his seruants for imploying their talents well and gaue them authoritie ouer much because they had been faithfull in a little and further receiued them into his ioy But that he dealt thus with them vpon due debt or that they did truly merit is your glosse besides the text speaker D. B. P. The second That a man must doe it of his ovvne free will and pleasure and not of due debt carrieth in shevv an opposition But indeed there is no contradiction in it for a man may and euery honest man doth of his ovvne free vvill and pleasure pay his due debt but let vs pardon the disorder of vvords his meaning being nothing else but that the payment of that vvhich
Now as for M. Perkins gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of paper some profane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word only without either any reason or authoritie speaker A. W. Sauing the better iudgement of Chrysostome and other learned men I cannot perswade my selfe that any part of the Canonicall scripture is lost when you haue brought your proofe out of any place of the scripture I will either answere or yeeld to it But it makes nothing to your argument whether any be lost or no for as you see I deny your assumption and the proofe of it which ouerthrowes your whole reason The Iewes and the skilfullest Christians in the Rabbines and antiquities of the Iewes that I know are of a diuers iudgement from Chrysostome concerning this point speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Moses in mount Sina beside the written law receiued from God a more secret doctrine which he neuer writ but deliuered by tradition or word of mouth to the Prophets after him and this the Iewes haue now set downe in their Cabala Answ. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage For if Moses had knowne any secret doctrine beside the written law he could neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this Moses who was the pen man of the old Law committed not all to vvriting but deliuered certaine points needfull to saluation by Tradition nor any Lavv-maker that euer was in any Country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likely that our Christian Lavv should be all vvritten speaker A. W. Your argument is in effect all one with his but let vs take yours Moses committed all to writing that was necessarie to saluation so doe all wise lawmakers and if any thing be left vnprouided for that is of moment it is because the lawgiuer perceiued it not or knew not how to helpe it which in Gods lawes and Moses the holie Ghosts Scribes writing could be no hinderances For what is there that God seeth not by his wisedome or cannot order as he list by his power speaker D. B. P. That Moses did not pen all thus vve proue It vvas as necessarie for vvomen to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedy for men could not possibly be applied to vvomen as euery one vvhoknovveth vvhat circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the vvritten lavv to deliuer vvomen from that sin Therefore some other remedie for them vvas deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. Circumcision was not prouided for remedie of originall sinne any more than for actuall neither did it remedie the one or the other nay it was not of Moses appointing but was long before him The remedie for all sinne is the sacrifice of the Messiah the meanes to applie it faith which Moses taught in diuers places of those fiue bookes If women without circumcision cannot be freed from originall sinne how were Adam and Eue freed and all that died before God enioyned it to Abraham speaker D. B. P. Item if the Child vvere likly to die before the eight day there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no vvhere vvritten in the Lavv Also many Gentiles during that state of the old Testament vvere saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Lavv or any other part of the old Testament it is not vvritten vvhat they had to beleeue or how they should liue vvherefore many things needfull to saluation vvere then deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. The remedie for infants aswell before the eight day as vpon it and after it was the mercie of God vpon his couenant As for the meanes you would imagine which were you cannot tell what and deuised by you cannot tel whom remember what you answered about the Chaldee word in Daniel To meanes and authors in the ayre no thing need be nor can be answered speaker D. B. P. To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I ansvvere that God permiteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue vvhat was then lost Although God in his prouidence permits much euill it followes not nor is at al likely that he would suffer his own holie word indited by his spirit to perish Neither can it helpe the matter that tradition might preserue the truth vnlesse God should miraculously hold in men from mingling their inuentions with his traditions Experience makes the matter cleere few things or none yet remaining that are indeede of antiquitie both for the substance and vse of them But what answere you to Master Perkins other reason out of S. Paul That was too heauie for your shoulders speaker W. P. Obiect V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods word is of two sortes milk and strong meate By milke we must vnderstand the worde of God written wherein God speakes plainely to the capacitie of the rudest but strong meate is vnwritten traditions a doctrine not to bee deliuered vnto all but to those that grow to perfection Answ. We must know that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it For being deliuered generally and plainely to the capacitie of the simplest it is milke but beeing handled particularly and largely and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding it is strong meate As for example the doctrine of the creation of mans fall and redemption by Christ when it is taught ouerly and plainly it is milke but when the depth of the same is throughly opened it is strong meate And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine to imagine that some vn written word is meant by strong meate speaker A. W. Novv insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I vvill set dovvne some authorities out of the vvritten Word in proofe of Traditions I make no question but Master Perkins had al the reasons he propounds for you in any matter in some of your owne writers as perhaps hereafter vpon better search at more leisure I shall finde and prooue to all the world To the testimonies I answere in generall that no argument can be drawne from any or all of them to proue that any doctrine necessarie to saluation is to be learned by tradition and is not written in the Scripture Let any
opinion We must haue recourse to traditions for the expounding of doubtfull places Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation I denie the consequence This rather prooues the sufficiencie of the Scripture as being sufficient in it selfe if it be rightly vnderstood Secondly I say there is no such danger as you imagine For though some may abuse it to confirme error yet may their false interpretations be confuted by diligent examination of the text without resting vpon the authoritie of mans interpretation as it appeares manifestly by the courses that the ancient writers tooke for the confuting of all heresies And if without this it could not haue been done what should haue become of the truth before the writings of men were extant in any number For it were ridiculous to imagine that euery particular text was expounded by the Apostles and so left by tradition to the Church Thirdly who shall determine when the time to count ancientnes by ended especially since euery mans writings were new when they were written and cannot grow in truth as they doe in age by continuance we acknowledge them for helpes of interpretation not for warrants speaker D. B. P. Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsely tearmed matter of strife because it is not so of his owne nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not Saint Peter saith Yes No saith M. Perkins because that commeth not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly tearmed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly That which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so tearmed although it be not the cause of contention in it self but written to take away all contention speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the scripture to be matter of strife and that it may so bee slandered to the disgrace of it as some Papists haue most shamelesly spoken of it to draw people from the reading and louing of it What blasphemies almost haue not your writers vttered against the holy word of God Pighius calls them dumbe iudges and in another place commends the truth and pleasantnes of his speech that compared the scriptures to a nose of waxe Did not Hosius say of Dauids Psalmes we write poems euery body learned and vnlearned speaker D. B. P. But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of S. Augustine be good directions wherby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructors and learnëd Commentaries But to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnes and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe well conuersant in these rules indued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more then thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best Cōmentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisit yet be ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his studie he vnderstood not then vvhich he did vnderstand And shall euery simple man furnished only with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficulty in them whatsoeuer Why doe the Lutherans to omit all former Heretikes vnderstand them in one sort the Caluinists after another The Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne Country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants finde one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrarie Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the sense and meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the aide of those triuiall notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie vvithout there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauiour to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randome and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of Temporall iustice it should be permitted to euerie contentious smatterer in the Law to expound conster the grounds of the Law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisdome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquity should not be Law or when should there be any end of any hard matter one Lawyer defending one part an other the other One counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one partie to haue the right another as certainely auerring not that but the contrary to be Law both alledging for their warrant sometexts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloody debate and perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne speaker A. W. No man saith so but that by these a man may iudge which is the truest that is the likeliest interpretation of a doubtfull place But I pray you tell me can you or any Papist by the help of tradition added to the other three rules certainely determine what is the sense of euery hard place of scripture If you can S. Austin by that meanes was likelier to haue it then any of you as he was neerer the Apostles from whom those traditions are said to haue come If you rest vpon the Commentaries of the Auntient what meanes had they to further them in vnderstanding the Scripture that we now want is it not apparant that we haue all they had and their paines and iudgement beside You aske then how chance diuers men vnderstand them diuersly not because they want the tradition you talke of For who knowes not that the Fathers differ exceedingly one from another in their expositions And do all the popish interpretations agree who it should seeme by you haue recourse to that maine help of Tradition He
God though of themselues they be no worship speaker D. B. P. Buâ— let vs heere M. Perkins his second reason against such Vovves Gods kingdome standeth not in outvvard things and therfore his vvorship standeth not in outvvard things Ans. Gods kingdome in itselfe standeth not in outvvard things and as it is in vs also it doth consist chiefly in inward worship by faith hope charity and religion in vvhose kingdome Vovvs hold a honorable ranke but a great part of this vvorship among vs depends of outvvard things for be not the tvvo only parts of Gods vvorship among Protestants as M. Perknis saith in this question Baptisme and our Lords Supper both vvhich partly consist in outvvardly both speaking and doing And is not faith vvhich is the roote of all Christian Religion gotten by outvvard preaching and hearing But it vvould vvearie a vvilling man to trayle after all M. Perkins his impertinent errors speaker A. W. The kingdome of God stands not in such outward actions as eating drinking c. Master Perkins denyes not that we are to performe outward worship to God which consists among vs in prayer prayse thanksgeuing and such like duties not onely as you would haue your followers falsely imagine of vs in administring and receiuing the sacraments You that would seeme so vnwilling to traile after Master Perkins errors are glad to make some of your owne and father them vpon him least ofttimes you should haue nothing to say I haue shewed diuers particulars of this kind in the course of my answere to your cauils against him speaker W. P. III. Point of difference They maintaine such vowes to be made as are not agreeable to the rules before named and herein also wee are to dissent from them The first and principall is the vowe of continencie whereby a man promiseth to God to keepe chastitie alwaies in single life that is out of the estate of wedlocke This kind of vowe is flat against the word of God and therefore vnlawfull For Paul saith 1. Cor. 7. 9. If they cannot conteine let them marric 1. Tim. 4. 1. It is a doctrine of deuills to forbid to marrie Heb. 13. 4. Marriage is honorable among all and the bed vndefiled speaker D. B. P. This kind of Vovv is flat against the vvord of God as hesaith vvhich he proueth first out of S. Paul If they cannot containe then let 〈◊〉 Marrie True if they haue not Vovved Chastitie before as the common Christians of Corinth to vvhom S. Paul there speaketh had not For such â—f they cannotliue othervvise chastly it is better they marry then be burned that is defiled vvith incontinencie But to them vvho had Vovved chastitie before S. Paul vvriteth in another stile That if they but desire to marrie they incurre domnation because they haue made frustrate and broken their former faith and promise made vnto God of their chastiue So that this first text is a Furlong vvide at the least from the marke speaker A. W. The text is generall and implies no such exception holds it to be a better course for them that haue vowed to marry then to continue in sinne against God And Austin saith that the marriages of such men are not to be condemned as if they were no marriages at all which opinion that they are no marriages he there refutes And indeede who can thinke in any reason that it is more displeasing to God for a man to breake the promise he hath made then by making a shew of keeping it to liue in vncleannes It is but one fault to breake a vow though it be neuer so lawfull but it is a double fault both to do against the vow by continuing subiect to such lusts and to refuse the remedie that is afforded In which respect Epiphanius saith it is better to haue one sinne then many sinnes Therefore Cyrill giueth councell to marry euen after the vow of single life and to confesse our sinne in so doing if we cannot liue chastly Yea the Common law bids a man not to do that which he hath vowed vnaduisedly It is no doubt a fault not to keepe our vow but to make such a vow as a man is not sure he shall be able to keepe is a greater fault If the case fall out to be so Ierome and q Austen hold it the lesse euill to marry It cannot be prooued out of the text that the Apostle speaketh there of any votaries but only of such widowes as hauing for a time employed themselues in the seruice of the Church at the last left both the Church and Christ and followed Sathan by marrying with Infidels But take it as you will we haue already seene the iudgement of the Auntients who for all their high conceipt of virginitie allow marriage euen after vowes speaker D. B. P. The second is much like It is a doctrine of diuels to forbid to marie truth if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did But we haue a more reuerend opinion of marriage than the Protestants themselues For we with the Apostle hold it to be a great Sacramâ—… they that it is a morail contract only Notwithstanding we maintaine that such persons who being of ripe yeeres haue aduisedly Vowed chastitie may not marry not because marriage is not honorable but for that they haue solemnly promised to God the contrarie which we also hold to be better thaÌ„ if he had maried And so to vse S. Augustines words H. forbiddeth to marry vvho sayeth it to be euill but not be vvho before this good thing preferreth a better And a little after you see saith he that there is great difference betweene persvvasion to Virginity by preserring the greater good before the lesse and forbidding to marrie by accusing lying togither for issue The first is the doctrine of the Apostles which we teach the latter only of diuels speaker A. W. The Apostle speaketh of all forbidding marriage at the least as an vncleane thing but so it is forbidden by you because it defiles your priests that they cannot be fit to offer vp ther maker yea that they cannot pray as Harding saith You take marriage for such a Sacrament that it is too base for your holy priesthood We acknowledge it to be the ordinance of God of another manner of bond then a morall contract only We deny not that single life is in some respects to be preferred before marraige but that marriage is to be forbidden any sort of men as if of it selfe it made them lesse holy speaker D. B. P. The strength of this place lyeth in a double corruption of the text For this verbe is is not in the text nor cannot by the courle of the Apostles speech requiring a verbe of the Imperatiue Mood as both the sent nces before and after do conuince speaker A. W. The sentences before and
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