worshipping God is our dependance vpon him as the Heathen acknowledge and experience shewes in that ciuill worship we giue to Princes Magistrates And howsoeuer Epicurus denying the prouidence of God and his gouerning of the world thought to auoide some blame in allowing worship to the Gods as you do in regard of their excellent and blessed nature yet neither was that accounted sufficient by the statesmen or learned and in truth it procures generally rather a reuerend opinion than any true worship Lastly I pray you remember that the worship which afterward you diuide into ciuill and religious is here in the generall nature made ciuill yea euen that to Angels That which the creatures lacke in waight it seemes you will make vp by number They may not haue say you the soueraigne worship due to God But to make thē amends you allow them two kinds of worship ciuill in regard of their naturall resemblance of God and religious in respect of their supernaturall likenesse to him Whereas God hauing nothing in him supernaturall must haue but one of the two only and that as it may seeme by proportioning the worship to creatures not Ciuil but Religious For why should God haue religious honor for those properties aboue all degrees and creatures for the same haue but ciuill in their degrees since in your iudgment they are capable of that honor also which is religious Besides is this difference of honor in respect of the gifts or of the manner of giuing if the latter it is God who must then haue this diuers worship according to his diuers manner of working and not man in whom he workes So shall ciuill honor belong to God for the natural gifts he bestoweth vpon men If you regard the excellencie of the gifts why shuld they not be accounted of proportionably in the Image which is man as they are in the substāce and patterne which is God But in him those properties the resemblance wherof you call naturall in man are of as great excellencie as the other which in man you tearme supernaturall yea which is more though in God his nature and his properties be all one yet in man the naturall qualities are the more principall the other as it were but adiuncts therunto The natural parts of the soule that I may so speak are the vnderstanding and the wil all gifts and graces whatsoeuer are but qualities belonging to these two which are the verie substance of the soule Further there is no reason why any religious worship should be performed to man by reason of these qualities because none was due to him before his fall when he had these else should Adam haue bin worshipped by Eue with religious worship and she by him For each of them had the Image of God according to the nature of such creatures entire and perfect and if we beleeue your Popish doctrine they had those qualities by an especiall grace of God aboue nature Moreouer what reason can you giue why Angels shuld not performe religious worship to the Saints departed and both they and the same Saints to those men liuing here on the earth who haue receiued those supernatural qualities from God for which religious worship is due to them on whom they are bestowed Therfore this distinction of religious and ciuill worship is a meere deuise without any ground of true reason and all religious worship is due to God ciuill worshippe only belongs to men That respectiue worship is no other but ciuill as it may easily appeare because it may be and must be giuen euen to profane and reprobat men if any such be imployed by God in gouernment ouer vs. For howsoeuer the outward manner of the honor we giue to Princes and Magistrates depends vpon the Lawes and Customes of the Countries wherin we liue yet the duty of honoring them lies vpon vs in conscience to be performed because they are Gods Lieutenants and Stewards This worship if you accounted it ciuill you might giue to whom you thought good and should not be condemned of vs for Idolatry but for follie though you gaue it to Images Yet such follie as the Gentiles are not guiltie of who neuer vsed such reuerence to the statues of any famous men but where first they had an opinion of some diuine nature I maruell how you could perswade your selfe to write so vntruly that the honor you giue to Images is meaner then the former and that you would craftilie deceiue the ignorant as if taking off your hat and bowing your knee were al the honor you giue them Why did you not then refute Thomas whom M. Perkins brings in speaking thus Seeing the Crosse doth represent Christ who died vpon the Crosse and is to be worshipped with diuine honor it followeth that the Crosse is to be worshipped so too Did you neuer read that of Bellarmine let this saith he be one preposition that the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped not only by accident and vnproperly this is your dependent and respectiue worshippe which you say is all you allow vnto Images but also properly so that the worship rest in the Image not only as it is insteed of the party whose Image it is Will you heare a third speake yet more plainly It is the constant opinion of Diuines saith Azorius that the Image is to be worshipped with the same worship and honor with which he is worshipped whose Image it is Belike you are no diuine or else you would acknowledge another manner of worship due to Images Let vs heare another Iesuite The old Schoole-men saith Vasquez absolutly affirme that the Images of Christ are to be worshipped with diuine worship Now for the particular worship the Councell of Trent as craftie and warie as it was saith more then you do that you fall downe before Images and kisse them But who knoweth not that you performe all outward worship to them you perfume them with incense though they cannot smell you set vp lights before them though they cannot see and yet it is hard to say whether you or they be the blinder You kisse them you kneele downe to them you lye prostrate on the ground before them you pray sing and say your speciall seruices before them How could you do more outward worship to our Sauiour Iesus Christ then you doe to these babies and puppets Was it not more then need thinke you that the Lord of heauen and earth should in the very heate of his iealousie make a law against such abhominations we may well see it was not for nothing that hee threatens so long a continuance of his heauie wrath vpon the breakers of the second Commaundement speaker W. P. Againe the brasen serpent was a type or image of Christ crucified Ioh. 3. 14. appointed by God himselfe yet when the people burned incense to it 2. King 18. 4. Hezekias brake it in pieces and is therefore commended And when
take it most kindly if for God and their sakes you take into your Princely protection their followers in the Romane faith and de fend them from oppression Thus most humbly crauing pardon of your Highnes if I haue in any thing exceeded the limits of my bounden dutie I beseech your blessed Sauiour to endue you both with the true knowledge of his diuine veritie and with the spirit of Fortitude to embrace and defend it constantly or at the least gratiously to tolerate and permit it Your most excellent Maiesties most obedient and loyall subiect and seruant W. B. speaker A. W. What course will best please God in this difference of profession not humane policie but diuine truth must determine In which if we sincerely obey God we shall not need to depend vpon the liking or misliking either of forraine countries or Kings and Queenes departed who either are no Saints of God if they loue popish Idolatrie or if they be Saints loue it not speaker D. B. P. THE PREFACE TO THE READER GEntle Reader I meane not here to entertayne thee with many wordes the principall cause that moued me to write was the honour and glorie of God in defence of his sacred verity then the imploying of his talent bestowed vpon me as well to sortifie the weaker sort of Catholikes in their faith as to call backe and leade other who wander vp and downe like to lost sheepe after their owne fancies into the right way The like reasons haue drawne me to this suruey of your reformation with a resolute purpose to acknowledge any truth that you shall shew me though it be against the iudgment of all the Churches in Christendome I tooke in hand particularly the confutation of this booke not onely for that I vvas thereunto requested by a friend of good intelligence and iudgement who thought it very expedient but also because perusing of it I found it penned more Schollerlike then the Protestants vse to doe ordinariely For first the pointes in controuersie are set downe distâ—â—ctly and for the most part truely Afterward in confirmation of their opinion the chiefe arguments are produced from both Scriptures Fathers and reason Which are not vulgar but called out of their Rabbins Luther Peter Maâ—tir Caluin Kemnitius and such like though he name them not Lastly he placeth some obiections made in fauour of the Catholike doctrine and answereth to them as well as he could And which J speake to his commendation doth performe all this very briefely and clearely So that to speake my oâ—iâ—â—on freely I haue not seene any booke of like quantitie published by a Protestant to containe either more matter or deliuered in better method And consequently more apt to deceiue the simple especially considering that he withal counterfeiteth to come as neere vnto the Romane Church as his tender conscience will permitte him whereas indeede he walketh as wide from it as any other noueller of this age speaker A. W. If the writings of Protestants haue bin lesse scholerlike than in the handling of controuersies it were fit they should haue bin whose fault is it but the Papists whom they haue bin forced to answere in their owne kinde It is not vnknowne to any of our English Rhemists or Romanists that Doctor Fulke long since desired to haue the matter brought to an issue and tried by syllogismes the very iudgement seate of true reason If you had knowne Master Perkins life as well as you see his learning you would neuer haue accused him of counterfeiting whereof also me thinkes he may easily be acquited by that cleerenes which you discerne and acknowledge in him speaker D. B. P. Wherefore I esteemed my spare time best imployed about the discouering of it being as it vvere an abridgement of the principall controuersies of these times and doe endeuour after the same Scholasticall manner vvithout all superfluity of vvordes no lesse to maintaine and defend the Catholike party then to confute all such reasons as are by M. Perkins alleadged for the contrarie Reade this short treatise good Christian diligently for thou shalt finde in it the marrovv and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrovv revvme And read it ouer as it becommeth a good Christian with a desire to finde out and to follovv the truth because it concerneth thy eternall saluation and then iudge vvithout partiality vvhether Religion hath better groundes in Gods vvord more euident testimonie from the purest antiquitie and is more conformable vnto all Godlines good life and vpright dealing the infallible markes of the best Religion and speedely imbrace that Before I end this short preface I must intreate thy patience to beare vvith the â—aultes in Printing vvhich are too too many but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered that it vvas Printed farre from the Authour vvith a Dutch composer and ouerseene by an vnskilfull Corrector the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the booke speaker A. W. I will endeuour the like or greater shortnes and plainnes if I can desiring nothing more of the Christian reader than to remember that hee is to seeke the truth without partialitie The place to seeke it in is the Scripture the meanes to find it the right vse of true reason He that hunts for it in mens writings either findes it not at all or at the least hath no certaine knowledge that he hath found it He that will trust other mens words rather than his owne eyes deserues in reason to be deceiued speaker D. B. P. Before the Printing of this part was finished I heard that M. Perkins was dead I am sorrie that it commeth forth to late to doe him anie good Yet his worke liuing to poison others a preseruatiue against it is neuerthelesse necessarie speaker A. W. It would haue done Master Perkins good to see by experience how vaine it is for men to striue against God for the Pope but it would haue been little to your aduantage to haue had such an aduersarie speaker W. P. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL SIR WILLIAM BOWES Knight c. Grace and peace RIght Worshipfull it is a notable policy of the diuell which he hath put into the heads of sundry men in this age to thinke that our religion and the religion of the present Church of Rome are all one for substance and that they may be reunited as in their opinion they were before Writings to this effect are spread abroad in the French tongue and respected of English Protestants more then is meete or ought to be For let men in shew of moderation pretend the peace and good estate of the Catholike Church as long as they will this Vnion of the two religions can neuer be made more then the vnion of light and darkenes speaker D. B. P. MAISTER PERKINS IN THE Epistle Dedicatorie It is a policie of the diuell to thinke that our Religion and the Religion of the present Church of Rome are all one in
purple Harlot in that place is signified as shall be proued presentlie the Romane Empire as then it was the slaue of Idols and with most bloodie slaughter persecuting Christs Saints Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest vnto it so most subiect to that sacrilegious boucherie Wherefore that voice which S. Iohn heard say Goe out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes c. can haue none other meaning then that all they who desire to be Gods people must separate themselues in faith and manners from them who hate and persecute the Romane Church as did then the Heathen Emperours and now doe all Heretikes Vnlesse they will be partakers of their sinnes and consequentlie of their plagues This shall yet appeare more plainelie in the examination of this Chapter Where I will deale friendly with my aduersarie and aduantage him all thaâ— I can that all being giuen him which is any way probable it may appeare more euidentlie how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalypse whereof all Protestants vaunt and bragge so much both in their bookes and pulpits Well then I will admitte that in the 17. and 18. Chapters of the Reuel by the whoore of Babylon is vnderstood the Romane state and regiment which in lawfull disputations they are not able to proue the most iudicious Doctor S. Augustine and diuerse others of the auncient Fathers with the learned troupe of later Interpreters expounding it of the whole corps and societie of the wicked And as for the 7. hâ—llâ—s on the which they lay their foundation they are not to be taken literallie The Angell of God in the verie text it selfe interpreting the 7. heads of the beast to be aswell 7. Kings as 7. hilles But this notwithstanding to helpe you forvvaid I vvill graunt it you because some good vvriters haue so taken it And therefore omitte as imperrinent that vvhich you say in proofe of it What can you inferre hereupon Many that the Romane Church is that vvhoore of Babylon fayre and soft good Sir hovv proue you that thus The vvhoore of Babylon is a state of the Romane regment ergo the Romane Church is the vvhoore of Babylon What some of arguing call you me this By the like sophistication you may proue that Româ—…s and Râ—…s vvere the purple Harlot vvhich to affinne vvere ridiculous or vvhich is impious that the most Christian Empe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—â—codosius vvere the vvhâ—ore of Babilon because thes held also the state of the Romane Empire and regiment to make short the seeble force of this reason lyeth in this that they vvho hoâ—…eth the state and gouerne in the same Kingdome must needs be of like affection in Religion vvhich if it vvere necessarie then did Queene Mary of blessed memorie and her sister Eâ—zabeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 same nundes tovvards the true Catholike â—ath because they 〈◊〉 in the same chane of estate and ruled in the same Kingdome See I pray you vvhat a shamefull cauâ—… this is to rase such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A simple Logician vvould blush to argue in the parâ—…s so loose and yet they that take vpon them to controule the learnedst in the vvorld often fall into such open tallacies We desire no fauour of you but that you would acknowledge the truth when you cannot reasonably gainsay it What we can prooue you shall see by and by in the meane while your reason is naught For what though S. Austin and diuers other ancient writers with the learned troupe of your Popish interpreters doe so expound it doth it follow thereupon that in lawfull disputation the contrarie cannot be proued Could not they erre May not some other man see that which they perceiued not But what if wee shall match you in number and antiquitie of writers for our exposition First Hierome as you acknowledge afterward makes for vs and not for you so by your confession doth Tertullian but what name I seuerall men The Greeke Scholiast tels vs that diuers Interpreters by the harlot vnderstood old Rome and he that so thinks in his iudgement erres not though saith he it may be vnderstood of new Rome or the time of Antichrists comming Yea Austin himselfe grants that Rome in Greeke and Latin writers is as it were a second Babylon and he calles it Babylon of the West More then that your owne writers deny those Ho milies on the Apocalyps to be Auâ—tins and think them rather to be written by Ty conius the Donatist which Ribera the Iesuite saies he hath found by certaine arguments and euident reasons Besides Baptista Regnald affirmes that the Commentaâ—ies of diners of the ancients Bede Ambrose Ausâ—ert Anselme Prunasius and Austin are mysticall and allegoricall not historicall so that wee are not to rest vpon any of them for the true and proper meaning of the text It shewes more discretion than plaine dealing to omit that which you cannot answere Master Perkins reasons are euident and strong The citie that in S. Iohns daies raigned ouer the Kings of the earth is the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. 18. But Rome that is ciuitas the state of Rome and Rome onely is that citie that raigned ouer the Kings of the earth in S. Iohns daies Therefore Rome and Rome onely is the whore of Babylon 2 The citie that in S. Iohns daies was seated on seuen hilles is the seate of the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. 9. But Rome that is vrbs the towne of Rome is that only is the citie that in S. Iohns daies was seated on seuen hilles Therefore Rome and Rome onely is the seate of the whore of Babylon To the proposition of the latter reason you answere that the seuen hilles are not to be taken literally because the Angell makes the seuen heads aswell seuen Kings as seuen hilles But surely that rather makes against you for as the seuen Kings are literally to be vnderstood so are the seuen hilles both being signified by the seuen heads not that the seuen hils are seuen Kings For the woman or Citie doth not sit vpon the Kings but rather the Kings vpon her Besides it were a strange interpretation to expound heads by hilles and hils by Kings whereas heads doe more resemble Kings than hilles doe speaker W. P. And the Papists themselues perceiuing that this shift will not serue their turne make two Romes heathenish Rome and that whereof the Pope is head now say they the whore spoken of is heathenish Rome which was ruled by cruell tyrants as Nero Domitian and the rest and that Rome wherof now the Pope is head is not here meant Behold a vaine and foolish distinction for Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and cruelty in persecuting the Saints of God is all one with the heathenish Empire the See of the Bishop being turned into the Emperours court as all histories doe manifest speaker D. B. P. Well
consequence is worse than before for who sees not that there may be other meanes of beleeuing repenting namely inclining the wil by grace The antecedent also is false for God being a good Lord may inioyne his seruant that which he made him able to performe though by his owne fault he be now vnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he finneth by a necessitie not to bee auoided Answere The reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore he is to be punished as a bankrupt is not therefore freed from his debtes because he is not able to pay them but the bils against him stand in force because the debt comes through his owne default speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessity not to be auoided 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 and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sin or no and consequently hath free vvill 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 vvith his repentance vvithout repay of their money as God doth speaker A. W. Here againe Master Perkins denies the consequence that therefore a man is not to be punished for sinning because he hath no free will to sinne or not to sinne The reason of his denial is that which I answered in the second obiection he may iustly be punished though he haue not free will not to sinne because it is by his owne fault that he hath it not You replie that the answere supposeth that which is false The answere doth not suppose it but as I haue shewed plainly denies the consequence How your conceit that euery man hath helpe of God so that he may repent and beleeue when he will can stand with Austins iudgement before set downe let euery man that hath reason consider The example of the bankerupt is fully to the purpose for which Master Perkins brings it to shew that a man is not alwaies therfore to be borne with for not doing that which hee is inioyned because hee cannot doe it for when it is through his owne fault that hee cannot why should hee escape Now concerning the force of this argument heare S. Augustines opinion in these wordes Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment which doth not that vvhich he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheards vpon the dovvnes sing these things doe not Poets vpon the stages act them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknovvledge them Doe not maisters in the schooles and Prelats in the pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the vvhole vvorld 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 company of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind 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 sense doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the new Gospell speaker A. W. Saint Austin disputing in that booke against the Manichees who hold that there were two soules in euery creature of two diuers substances the one good the other bad by which they are forced to doe good or euill as either of them could ouercome other refutes them by this reason among other that if men doe well or ill by constraint they were neither to be praised nor dispraised for it That he is thus to be vnderstood not onely the course of his disputation shewes but also the definition that he brings of will Will saith Austin is a motion of the minde no man constraining it to the not losing or to the getting of something I shewed before that we admit no such necessitie of sinning but onely affirme that whatsoeuer a naturall man doth it is sinfull so that wee grant him libertie from constraint for the doing or not doing this or that action but denie that any action he doth is free from sinne and therefore he sins necessarily in all he doth The second poynt Of Originall sinne speaker W. P. The next point to be handled is concerning Originall sinne after baptisme that is how farforth it remaineth after baptisme A point to bee well considered because hereupon depend many points of Poperie I. Our consent Conclus I. They say naturall corruption after baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre it is abolished In originall sinne are three things I. the punishment which is the first and second death II. Guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment III. the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenes to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For the first wee say that after baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of originall sin is taken away There is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that be in Christ Iesus Rom. 8. 1. For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that is also taken away in them that are borne anew for considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate not from the sinne in the person but of this more afterward Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things I. That that very power or strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate II. That this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euery actual sinne past so farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whom it is Indeede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed
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
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.