Tradition vnwritten This place of S. IOHN M. P. patcheth vp with an other of S. PAVL * Gal. 1. ◠If we or an Angell from heauen preache vnto you any thing besides that which wee haue preached let him be accursed And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught * 1. Tim. 1.3 ANSWERE Now wee must looke vnto this Gentle-mans singers There were three corruptions in the text of S. IOHN here is one but it is a soule one In steed of Preaching vnto them an other Gospell he puts preach vnto them any other thing when there is great difference betweene an other Gospell any other thing The Gospel comprehendeth the principal poynts of faith the whole worke of Gods building in vs which S. PAVL like a wise Architect * 1. Cor. 3 12. had layd in the Galathians others his fellow-work-men might build vpon it gold siluer and pretious stones with great merit to themselues and thankes from S. PAVL Mary if any should digge vp that blessed and onely foundation and would laye a new one him S. PAVL holdeth for accursed So that that falcification of the text is intollerable and yet when all is done nothing can be wringed out of it to prooue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needefull to saluation for S. PAVL speaketh there onely of his Gospell that is of his preaching vnto the Galathians and not one worde of any written Gospel No more doth he in that place to TIMOTHY And so it is nothing to purpose The fourth Testimonie * 2. Tim. 3.16 The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improoue to correct and to instruct to righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto euery good worke In these words are contayned saith M. P. two arguments to prooue the sufficiencie of Scripture The first that which is profitable to these foure vses to teach al necessarie truth is not in the text to confute errors to correct faults in maners to instruct all men in all dutie is M. P. his addition to the text that is sufficient to saluation But the Scriptures serue for all these vses c. ANSWERE This text of holy Scripture is so farre from yeelding our aduersaries two Arguments that it affoordeth not so much as any probable colour of halfe one good argument In searching out the true sence of holy Scriptures wee must obserue diligently the nature proper signifycation of the words as M. P. also noteth out of S. AVGVSTINE in his sixt objection of this question which if the Protestants did here performe they would make no such account of this text for S. PAVL saith only that all Scripture is profitable not sufficient to teach to reproue c. How are they then carried away with their owne partiall affections that cannot discerne betweene profitable and sufficient Good Timber is profitable to the buylding of an house but it is not sufficient without stones morter a Carpenter Seede serues well yea is also necessarie to bring forth corne but will it suffice of it selfe without manuring of the ground and seasonable weather And to fit our purpose more properlie good lawes are verie profitable yea most expedient for the good gouernment of the common-wealth But are they sufficient without good customes good gouernours and judges to see the same Laws customs rightly vnderstood and duely executed Euen so the holy Scripturs S. PAVL affirmeth are very profitable as contayning very good necessary matter both to teach reproue correct but he saith not they are sufficient or that they do containe all doctrine needfull for these foure ends And therefore to argue out of S. PAVL that they are sufficient for all those purposes when he saieth onely that they are profitable to them is plainely not to know or not to care what a man saith And to presse such an impertinent cauil so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do is nothing els but to bewray vnto the indifferent reader either their extreame ignorance or most audacious impudencie that thinke they can face out any matter be it neuer so impertinent The same answere I make vnto M. P. his second argument out of the same place that the holy Scriptures bee profitable to make the man of God absolute but not sufficient I say more-ouer that M. P. doth falsely English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures when it signifyeth all Scripture that is euerie booke of Scripture and is there put to verifie that the Old Testament only serues to instruct to saluation For in the words next before S. PAVL sheweth how that TIMOTHY from his infancie had bene trayned vp in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures which saith he can instruct thee to saluation And annexeth as the confirmation thereof the Text cited All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. Now in TIMOTHYS infancie no parte of the New Testament was written and therefore all Scripture which is here put to prooue that Scripture which TIMOTHY in his Infancie knew cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more than all the bookes of the Olde Testament So that there are three soule faultes in this the Protestants Achilles The first in falsification of the text that it might seeme to bee spoken of the whole which is spoken of euerie part The second in applying that which is spoken of the Olde Testament vnto both the Olde and New The third in making that to be all-sufficient which S. PAVL affirmeth onely to be profitable And this is all they can saye out of the Scripture to prooue that the written worde containes all doctrine needefull to saluation Where-upon I make this invincible argument against them out of this their owne position Nothing is necessarie to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written worde containes all doctrine needefull to saluation as hath bene prooued Therefore it is not necessarie to saluation to beleeue the written worde to containe all doctrine needefull to saluation And by the same principle I might reject all testimonie of Antiquitie as needelesse if the Scriptures be so al-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs here what testimonie M. P. brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause TERTVLLIAN * De resur carnis saith Take from Heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens that they may desende their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand ANSWERE Here Scripture alone is opposed as euerie one may see vnto the writings of Heathen Authors and not to the Traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saieth M. P. out of the same Author We neede no curiositie after IESVS CHRIST nor inquisition after the Gospel when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for
that he when he commendeth grace denyeth free will Lib. 4. con Iul. c. 8. Much lesse would I say that which thou lyingly dost affirme me to say free will to be denied if grace be commended or grace to be denied if free will be commended Nowe in fewe wordes I will passe ouer the objections which he frameth in our names But misapplieth them First Obiection That man can doe good by nature as giue almes doe Iustice speake the truth c. And therefore will them without the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue libertie of will in ciuill and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. PERKINS in his third cōclusion doth graunt it And his answere here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the worke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceedes not from a pure hart and a faith vnfeigned and also in the end which is not the glory of God Answere It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountayne to make a worke morally good faith and grace to purge the hart are necessary only for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to relieue the poore mans necessity GOD his Creator and Master is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of GOD in particuler yet GOD being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towardes him when the man putteth no other contrary end thereunto 2. Obiection God hath commaunded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that GOD being a good Lord will not commaund any man to doe that which he is no way able to doe Ans M. PERKINS answereth in effect for his wordes be obscure that GOD commaundeth that which we be not able to performe but that which we should doe Then I hope he will admitte that he will enable vs by his grace to doe it or else how should we doe it God surely doth not bind vs by commaundement to any impossible thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweete and his burthen easie Mat. 11. And S. Iohn witnesseth that his commaundements are not heauy Ioh. 5. He was farre off from thinking that GOD would tie any man by lawe to doe that which he was altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. PERKINS himselfe approueth 3. Ob. If man haue no free wil to sin or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessitie not to be auoyded He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answere supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne cannot choose but sinne For by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion 1. Pet. 3. and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sinne or no and consequently hath free wil to sin or not to sin And that example of a bankerupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditours who content not themselues with his repentance without repay of their money as God doth Nowe concerning the force of this argument heare Saint Augustines opinion De duab animab contr Manich. in these wordes Neither are wee here to search obscure books to learne that no man is worthy of disprayse or punishment which doeth not that which he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheardes vpon the downes sing these thinges doe not poetes vpon the stages acte them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them Doe not maisters in the scholes Prelats in the pulpits finally al mankind throughout the whole world confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not choose but doe Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest companie of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankinde How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sence doth teach it vnto sheepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the newe Gospell CHAPTER 2. OF ORIGINALL SINNE OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION Pag. 28. THEY say naturall corruption after Baptisme is abolissed and so say we but let vs see how farre forth it is abolissed In originall sinne are three thinges First the punishment which is the first and second death second guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment third the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the hart which is a naturall inclination and pronesse to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For first we say that after Baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away Rom. 8.1 For there is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that are in CHRIST IESVS For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that it is also taken away in them that are borne anewe For considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to binde them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person But of this more hereafter Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the hart I auouch two thinges First that the very power and strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate Secondly that this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euerie actuall sinne past So farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whome it is In deede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed to the person And in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Hitherto M. PER. Annotations vpon our Consent First we say not that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it this is but a peccadilio but there lurketh a Serpent in that caueat that the guiltines of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the
for Christs wisedome power and other gifts are not imputed vnto vs as it is euident Why thē is his justice more then the rest we confesse that in a good sence all Christs gifts are ours that is they were all employed to purchase our redemption we doe dayly offer them to God that he wil for his Sonnes sake more and more wash vs from our sinnes and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs thus are all Christs riches ours so long as we keepe our selues members of his misticall body but this is nothing to the point which the argument touched how one man may formally be made just by the justice of an other rather then wise by the wisdome of an other 2. Object If we be righteous or iust by the righteousnes of Christ imputed vnto vs then is euery iust man as righteous as Christ himselfe hauing the same iustice his which is Christs but that is too too absurd ergo M. PERK answere Christs righteousnes is not applied vnto vs in the same measure as it is in Christ in him it is infinit but of it so much is applied to this or that man as will serue for his iustification And to helpe this answere foreward I will adde his marginall note euen as any starre partakes the whole light of the Sunne with the rest so farreforth as the light makes it to shine Reply That which is applied of Christs justice to this or that man is either infinite then the man is as just as Christ for there can be no greater then infinit in the same kinde Or it is not infinit but in a certayne measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs infinit justice for all the partes of an infinit thing are infinit according vnto true Philosophy It remayneth then that a certayne limited portion of justice is deriued out of Christs infinit justice and powred into this or that man as in his owne example The light of euery starre is receiued from the Sunne beames Yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sun for one accident cannot be in two subjects so far distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skyes as it is euident but is a farre dimmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sunne from whence it came Euen so in our justification from the Sonne of justice CHRIST IESVS certayne beames of particular justice are conueyed into this or that mans soule whereby it is both lighned by faith and inflamed by charitie but there is exceeding difference betweene their two justices more then there is betweene the light of the sunne the light of a starre which S. August in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying How much differēce there is betweene the light that doth lighten Li. 12. conf cap. 15. that which is lightened that is the sun the starre light so much difference is there between the iustice that doth iustifie that iustice which is made by that iustification to wit betweene the justice of Christ and that which is in euery good Christian The third reason for the Catholike partie If men be made trulie and really just by Christs justice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vnjust by the iniquity and sinnes of men imputed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrary but one may aswell be made vnjust by imputation as just especially considering that euill is made more easelie and more wayes then good M. PERKINS answere is that we may say Christ was a sinner trulie not because he had sinne in him but because our sinnes were laide on his shoulders That reason is naught for he is not trulie a sinner that paies the debt of sinne which an innocent and most just person may performe but he that either hath sinne trulie in him or is so by imputation stroken that the sins are made his owne really and he in all cases to be delt with all as if he sinned himselfe as they holde that one justified by imputation of Christs justice is really in Gods sight just and is both loued in this life and shall be rewarded in the next as if he were trulie just indeede But to auouch our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner is to say that he was auerted from God the slaue of the Diuell and sonne of perdition which is playne blasphemy That sentence out of the Prophet Isay 53. He was counted with sinners is expounded by the Euangelists that he was so taken indeede but by a wicked Iudge and a reprobate people And therefore if you allowe of their sentence range your selfe with them as one of their number S. Chrysostome by him produced confirmeth the same saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner not that he was one trulie Christ I knowe is called sinne by S. Paul but by a figure signifying that he was a sacrifice for sinne as hath beene before declared The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly Heb. 4 affirmeth in playne tearmes that Christ was tempted like vnto vs in all thinges excepting sinne 4 Obiect If a man be righteous only by imputation he may together be full of iniquity whereupon it must needes followe that God doth take for iust and good him that is both vniust and wicked but that is absurd when Gods iudgment is according to truth Here M. PERKINS yeeldeth That when God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man he doth together sanctifie the partie giuing original sinne a deadly wounde Of orig sin pag. 31. And yet else where he said That originall sinne which remayned after iustification in the partie did beare such sway that it infected all the workes of the said partie and made him miserable c. But it is good hearing of amendment if he will abide in it Let vs goe on 5 Obiect or fift reason is inuented by M. PERKINS but may bee rightly framed thus Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall but by him we lost inhehent iustice ergo By him we are restored to inherent iustice The Maior is gathered out of S. Paul Rom. 5. who affirmeth that we receiue more by Christ Lib. 3. c. 20. li. 6. de gen 24. 26. 26. then we lost by Adam And is S. Ireneus and S. Augustines most expresse doctrine who say How are we said to be renewed if we receiue not againe which the first man lost c. Immortality of body we receiue not but we receiue iustice from the which he fell through sinne The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall dureth after this life and is crowned in heauen but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life ergo M. PERKINS answereth First that imputed righteousnes continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we shall haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life inward
neuer be graunted But a word with you by the way Your righteous man must ouer-skippe that petition of the Pater noster forgiue vs our debts for he is well assured that his debts be already pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applyed to him and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherefore he can not without infidelity distrust of his former justification or pray for remission of his debts but following the famous example of that formall Pharise in liew of demaunding pardon may wel say Luc. 18. O God I giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vniust aduouterers as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sinnes or the certayntie of my saluation but am well assured thereof and of Christs owne righteousnes too and so forth But to goe on with M. PERKINS discourse Here we must note that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principall dutie of faith for in faith saith M. PERKINS are two thinges first knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation Secondly an applying of thinges knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance the first they acknowledge So then by M. PERKINS owne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the meanes of saluation then he and his fellowes erre miserable The second which is the substance and principall they denie Answere Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtayning saluation through the mercy of God and merits of Christs Passion So they performe their dutie towardes God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assure himselfe by faith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those thinges he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable See S. Tho 22. q. 21. â—rt 1. neither in this life nor in the world to come M. PERKINS third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shewe he often speaketh but can seldome finde any one sentence in them that fits his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith De verbis Domini â—erm 7. I demaund nowe doest thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saiest I beleeue what beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hast that which thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for M. PERKINS But S. Bernard saith playnlie That we must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ Againe he addeth conditions on our party which M. PERK craftely concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sins to be forgiuen if the truth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these wordes So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truly bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holines of life and peace All which M. PERKINS did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vayne glosse of the former wordes His last authority is out of S. Cyprian who exhorteth men passing out of this life not to doubt of God promises but to beleeue that we shall come to Christ with joyfull security Answere S. Cyprian encouradgeth good Christians dying to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ and so doe all Catholikes and bidde them be secure too on that side that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise but say that the cause of feare lyes on our owne infirmities And yet biddes them not to doubt as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued but animates them and puts them in the good way of hope by twenty kindes of reason M. PERKINS hauing thus confirmed his owne partie why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alleadge in fauour of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then belike because he knew not how to answere them I will out of their stoare take that one principall one of the testimony of holy Scripture And by that alone sufficiently proue that the faith required to justification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be ours How can this be better knowne then if we see weigh and consider well what kinde of faith that was which all they had who are said in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice which is by faith Heb. 11.7 What faith had he That by Christs righteousnes he was assured of saluation No such matter but beleeued that God according to his word and justice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of justice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans Rom. ca. 4. What faith he was iustified by Let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith hath these wordes He contrary to hope beleeued in hope that he might be made the Father of manie Nations according to that which was said vnto him So shall thy seede be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the Sea and he was not weakned in faith neither did he consider his owne body now quite dead whereas hee was almost an hundred yeares old nor the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but was strengthned in faith giuing glorie to God most fully knowing that whatsoeuer he promised he was able also to doe therefore was it reputed to him to iustice Loe because he glorified God in beleeuing that old and barren persons might haue children if God said the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe he was justified The Centurions faith was very pleasing vnto our Sauiour who said in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israell What faith was that Marry that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Math. 8. Say the word onely quoth he my seruant shall be healed S.
bookes of holy Scripture put together do contayne all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue bene lost therefore some poynts of necessarie doctrine contayned in them are not extant in the written worde and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. P. answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes supersluous Doth the Holie Ghost set men to pen needelesse discourses which this answere supposeth Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrary vnto the plaine Scriptures * 1. Paral. vlt. 2. Paral 9. as S. IOHN CHRYSOSTOM prooueth * Hom. 9. in Mat. E◠Hom. 7. in priorem ad Corinth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be prooued out of the historie of Paralipomeneon which they translate Cronicles Now as for M. P. gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of Paper some profane and of Philosophie I holde them not worth the discussing beeing not much pertinent and avowed one in word onely without either any reason or authoritie M. P. His fourth objection of the Jewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this MOSES who was the Pen-man of the Olde Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certaine poynts needefull to saluation by Tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any Countrey comprehended al in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likelie that our Christian law should be all written That MOSES did not pen all thus we prooue It was as necessarie for women to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applyed to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the written law to deliuer women from that sinne Therefore some other remedie for them was deliuered by Tradition Item if the Childe were likely to die before the eight daie there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no where written in the Law Also many Gentils during that state of the Old Testament were saued as IOB and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the Old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needefull to saluation were then deliuered by Tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any parte of the Scripture I answere that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue what was then lost Now insteede of M. P. his fift reason for vs of milke and stronge meate wishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of Traditions Our Sauiour said being at the point of his passiō * Ioh. 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Act. 10. Our Sauiour after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11 I commende you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1 Tim. 6. O TIMOTHY keepe the dispositum that is true which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1 Hold fast by the holy ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. CHRISOSTOM and THEOPHILACT expounde the true doctrine of CHRIST the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacramentes and gouernment of the Church To which alludeth that auncient holy Martir S. IRENEVS * Lib. 3. c. 4 saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholike Church as in a rich treasurie all things that belong to the trueth S. IOHN who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epi. 3.13 that hee had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to inke and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three poynts of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his father Where is it written that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne aswell as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons reallie distincte in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour CHRIST IESVS no person of man but the substance of God man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euerie of these principall articles of the Christian faith and most necessarie to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse tearmes written in any parte of the holie Bible Wherefore wee must either admit Traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euerie wrangler as shal be more declared in the argument following The sixt and last reason for Traditions Sundrie places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken liberally or figuratiuely If then it be put to euery Christian to take his owne exposition euery seueral sect will coyne interpretations in fauour of their own opinions so shal the word of God ordayned only to teach vs the trueth be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors To auoide which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the Traditions and auncient Records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true Exposition and sense of it and thereby confute and reject all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those auncient and holy Comentaries So that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture Traditions are most necessarie M. P. His answere is that there is no such neede of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it selfe is the best glosse If there be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the cleerest places Secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signifycation of the wordes Thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsely tearmed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the
abuse of man REPLIE To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsely tearmed matter of strife because it is not so of his owne nature why then is CHRIST truely called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not S. PETER sayeth Yes * 1. Pet. 2. No sayeth M. P. because that commeth not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truely tearmed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truely That which truely is may bee so called truely But the Scripture truely is matter of great contention euery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truely be so tearmed although it bee not the cause of contention in it selfe but written to take away all contention But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of Saint AVGVSTINE be good directions whereby sober and sound wits may much profite in studie of diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinarie helpes of good instructiors and learned Comentaries But to affirme that euerie Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnesse and meere folly S. AVGVSTINE himselfe well conuersant in these rules indued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the Holie Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best Comentaries he could get and counsell of the most excusit yet he ingeniouslie confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his studie he vnderstood not then which he did vnderstand * Ep. 119. cap. 21. And shall euery simple man furnished only with M. P. his three rules of not twise three lynes be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer Why doe the Lutherans to omit all former Heretiks vnderstand them in one sort the Caluenists after an other The Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne Countrey how commeth it to passe that the Protestants finde one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrarie Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the sense and meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the aide of those triuiall notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine trueth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtful controuersie without there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonour of our blessed Sauiour to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randome and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of Temporal justice it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Lawe to expound and conster the groundes of the Lawe and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome and not be bounde to stande to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquitie should not be Lawe or when should there be any ende of any hard matter one Lawyer defending one part an other the other One counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one partie to haue the right an other as certainely auerring not that but the contrarie to be Law both alleadging for their warrant some texts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued justly and according to the true meaning of the Lawe none at all but bloudy debate and perpetuall conflict each persuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne To auoyde then such garboyles and intestiue contention there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appoynted some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely lawe and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker who in wisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens do the earth hath left his golden lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euerie one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit no no It cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne of God In the Olde Testament which was but a state of bondage and as it were an introduction to the Newe yet was there one appoynted vnto whome they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Lawe yea and bound were they vnder paine of death to stande to his determination and shall wee bee so simple as to suffer our selues to bee perswaded that in the glorious state of the Gospell plotted and framed by the wisdome of God himselfe worse order should bee taken for this high poynte of the true vnderstanding of the Holy Gospel it self being the life and soule of all the rest Giue mee leaue gentle Reader to stay some-what longer in this matter because there is nothing of more importance and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke Considder then with your selfe that our Coelestiall Law-maker gaue his Lawe not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his moste faithfull subjectes endowīng them with the blessed spirite of trueth * Ierem. 31 2 Cor 3. and with a moste diligent care of instructing others * Ioh. 16. that all their posteritie might learne of them all the poynts of Christian doctrine and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten worde and more for the true meaning of the worde than for the word it selfe These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God then must wee consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion and submit our selues wholy to their decree S. PAVL that vessell of election may serue vs for a singuler modell and patterne of the whole who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospel frō God yet went vp to Ierusalem with BARNABY to conferre with the chiefe Apostles the Gospel which he preached least perhaps he might runne in vaine and had runne as in expresse wordes he witnesseth himselfe * Gal. 2 Vpon which fact and words of S. PAVL the auncient Fathers do gather that the faithful would not haue
giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine vnlesse by S. PETER and the other Apostles it had bene first examined and approoued * Tertal li. 4. in M rc Hierom. ep 89. que est 11. inter ep Augustinâ— August lib 28. cont faâ—st c. 4 Againe when there arose a most dangerous question of Abrogating MOSES Lawe Was it left to euerie Christian to decide by the written Worde Or would many of the faithful beleeue S. PAVL that worthie Apostle in the matter Not so but vp they went to Ierusalem to heare what the Pillers of the Church would saye Where by the decree of the Apostles in counsell the controuersie was ended Which S. PAVL afterward deliuered in his Preaching commanding all to obserue and keepe the decree and ordinance of the Apostles * Act. 16. And if it would not be tedious I could in like maner shew how in like sort euery hundreth yeere after errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written Word they were confuted and rejected not by the written Worde onely but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles Schollers and successors See Cardinall BELLARMINE * Tom. 1 lib 3. cap 6 I will onely recorde two noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquitie for the true sense of Gods word The first out of the Ecclesiasticall Historie * Lib. 11. cap. 9 whereof Saint GREGORY NAZIANZEN and Saint BASIL two principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And afterwarde for thirteene yeeres space laying aside all profaine bookes imployed their studie wholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning whereof they sought not out of their owne Iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both doe and teach others to doe but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namelie of such as were knowen to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the verie wordes The other example shall be the principall pillar of the Latine Church S. AVGVSTINE who not only exhorteth aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscuritie of doubtful questions * Lib. cont Crescon cap. 33. but plainely affirmeth That he would not beleeue the Gospel if the authoritie of the Church did not mooue him vnto it * Cont. ep fund c. 5. Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluin would haue them that S. AVGVSTINE had not bene at first a Christian if by the authoritie of the Church hee had not bene 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 Gospell to haue bene penned by diuine inspiration and no others and this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquitie generallity and consent did tell him which and what they were So farre was he off from trusting to his owne skill and judgement 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 objection I will not dwell 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. P. and else-where as occasion serued cited alreadie many sentences I will here be briefe S. IGNATIVS the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians * Euseb lib 30.36 To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing POLICARPVS by the authoritie of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faith full in trueth and ouerthrew the Heretikes * Ibid. lib 5 cap. 20. S. IRENEVS who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall Traditions receiued from POLICARP sayeth * If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought wee not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the which the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleere and perspicuous to define the present question For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all must we not haue followed the order of Traditions which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches ORIGEN teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants * Rom. 6 ATHANASIVS sayeth e Lib. de decret Nâ—caeni conâ— We haue prooued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what Auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. BASIL hath these words * De Spâ— Sanct. c. 2 We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See GREGORY NAZIANZ Orat. 1. in Iulian. Because I haue cited alreadie some of the Latine Auncient Doctors Insteede of the rest I will recorde out of them in a worde or two how olde rotten Heretikes vsed alwaies to reject vnwritten Traditions and flie wholy vnto the written worde See the whole booke of TERTVLLIANS prescriptions against Heretikes which principally handleth this verie poynt The same doth IRENEVS witnesse of the Valentinians and Marcionis * Lib. 3. c. 2 The Arrians common song vnto the Catholikes was I will not admit to be read any words that are not written in the Scriptures as witnesseth S. HILARY in his booke against CONSTANTIVS the Emperour against whom he alleadgeth the preaching of the Apostles and the authoritie of the auncient Bishops expressed in his liuely colours S. AVGVSTINE some thousand two hundreth yeeres 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 If thou shalt saith this Heretike bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all wee must needes heere thee but these wordes which are without the Scriptures are in no sorte to bee receiued of vs when as the Lorde himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine doe they worship me teaching commandements and precepts of men How S. AVGVSTINE opposed against them vnwritten Traditions hath ben afore declared The like doth S. BERNARD affirme of certaine Heretikes of his time called * Hom. 62 Cantica Apostolici So that most truely 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 worde of mouth aswell as that which is written Euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their