we haue care to maintaine and obserue these caueats being remembred first that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done speaker D. B. P. See what a â—…erent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Synagogue which is no part of the true Church speaker A. W. Hee that obserues what your Romish synagogue hath brought into Gods seruice and remembers that the Church that is men which beare sway in it may fondly erre will acknowledge this caueat most needfull No stage-play is so full of fooleries as your Masse-game speaker W. P. Secondly that they bee not imposed as any parts of Gods worship speaker D. B. P. This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship speaker A. W. Order and comelinesse are no parts of Gods worship but adiuncts seruing to the better performance thereof as the obseruation of due and fit circumstances giue a grace and furtherance to any action whatsoeuer speaker W. P. Thirdly that they be seuered from superstition or opinion of merit speaker D. B. P. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seneted from superstition speaker A. W. That is absurd which is contrarie to common reason or sense but all things superstitious are not so yea many points of superstition haue so much shew of reason for them that without Gods commandement to the contrarie a wise man might thinke them very fit meanes of Gods worship and meritorious Such was the Gentiles worshipping of Angels supposing they had worshipped none but God such is your worshipping of Angels and he saincts and she saincts now adayes such is your feare of displeasing God if you eate flesh on saincts eauens or in Lent and such like speaker W. P. Lastly that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of them And thus much wee hold touching Traditions speaker D. B. P. The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he tearmeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Actes of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Actes of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knovves That then vvhich is of record there cannot be tearmed a Tradition Though the Acts of the Apostles be a part of the written word yet was not the booke written when that decree was first obserued neither doth Master Perkins giue it the name of himselfe but saith it is tearmed a tradition The difference speaker W. P. Papists teach that beside the written worde there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must bee beleeued as profitable and necessarie to saluation And these they say are twofold Apostolicall namely such as were deliuered by the Apostles and not written and Ecclesiasticall which the Church decreeth as occasion is offered Wee hold that the Scriptures are most perfect containing in them all doctrines needfull to saluation whether they concerne faith or manners and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written worde which shall bee necessarie to saluation so as hee which beleeueth them not cannot be saued speaker D. B. P. Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts The first we rearme Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God Thesecond Apostolicall as deliuered by the holy Apostles The third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernors of the Curch after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of Traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours Traditions than of thefoure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honor and credit doe we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten as written For incke and paper brought no new holines nor gaue any force and vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had been written Here the question is principally of diuine Traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed speaker A. W. Diuine traditions are such as were deliuered by our Sauiour say you and are diuers from those that the Apostles left So that the controuersie is principally of those matters that Christ only spake and neither the Euangelists nor Apostles haue set downe in writing But that we may vnderstand what wee doe it is further to be knowne that the question is not whether if there be any such traditions wee are bound to beleeue them for that is out of all doubt but whether there be any such or no or whether the Scriptures doe not containe sufficient direction for the determining of al matters of importance to saluation and for the substance of religion You that you may discredit the Scriptures to aduance traditions doe not so much as acknowledge that the maine grounds of doctrine are there plainly taught but mince the matter with your some such principall points and may be gathered out of the holy Scripture whereas not onely those two you name but if not all yet many more are manifestly therein declared Our reasons speaker W. P. Testimonie I. Deutr. 4. 2. Thou shalt not adde to the words that I commande thee nor take anything therefrom therefore the written worde is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to saluation If it bee said that this commandement is spoken as well of the vnwritten as of the written word I answere that Moses speaketh of the written word onely for these very words are a certaine preface which hee set before a long commentarie made of the written lawe for this ende to make the people more attentiue and obedient speaker D. B. P. Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtraction chaunge or peruert Gods commaundements whether they be written or vnwritten speaker A. W. To interpret this place of vnwritten traditions is to strengthen the Iewes error and to voide our Sauiours reproofe And if there were any such though the particulars were
Heretikes would flie to reuelations and thereby defend their errors they might be said not to do against this rule of Tertullian Yea if traditions were of force to prooue they might easily answere Tertullian in this case that it skilled not though they could not maintaine their opinions by Scripture as long as traditions perhaps might make for them But Tertullian condemnes their errors because they cannot be auowed by the Scripture making that the onely triall speaker W. P. Againe We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquisition after the Gospell When we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing beside for this we first beleeue that there is nothing more which we may beleeue speaker D. B. P. By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not only the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we only beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giuesuch credit as their writings do deserue speaker A. W. By the Gospell the doctrine of saluation by Christ is vnderstood which is no lesse plainly and fully deliuered in the other writings of the new Testament than in those foure bookes which we call by that particular name But that traditions should be commended vnder the title of the Gospell it is neither true nor likely You must shew some place of this author or of some other about his time to giue credit to your interpretation But it is apparant you answered at aduenture not knowing where it is to be found in Tertullian speaker D. B. P. If any man desire to see Tertullians iudgement of Traditions let him read his book of prescriptions against Heretikes where he auerreth that Traditions serue better than the Scriptures themselues to confute all Heresies Heretikes alwaies either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures speaker A. W. He that hath to doe with such Heretikes as Tertullians aduersaries then were and you Papists in part now are must of necessitie haue recourse to the iudgement of the Church For what other meanes can be vsed against them that denie the sufficiencie of the Scripture Therefore Tertullian and Irenaeus too who had to deale with the same kinde of men labours to beate them with their owne weapons and yet bring not in any new doctrine beside the Scripture but maintaine the doctrine of the Scripture against them that condemne the Scripture by the testimonies of learned men custome of the Church but he saith nothing of giuing like authoritie to the traditions and written word Beside here is no speech of doctrine but only of obseruing certaine outward ceremonies not necessarie to saluation speaker W. P. Augustine booke 2. cap. 9. de doct Christ. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well speaker D. B. P. All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties vvhich the more learned must expresly beleeue if they vvill be saued vvhich distinction S. Augustine else-vvhere doth signifie speaker A. W. The question is only of such points as are necessarie to saluation which are all one to the learned and vnlearned vnlesse there be diuers meanes of saluation for them True it is that a Minister ought to haue more knowledge then an ordinarie Christian and that the neglect of laboring for it is damnable to him as all sinne is damnable but that which is necessarie to saluation is equallie necessarie for all men neither doth Austen allow any such distinction but refutes it rather in that verie place for he saith that all that feare God do seeke the will of God in the Canonicall scripture but the words alleaged are most plaine All those points that containe faith and manners of liuing well that is hope and charitie Now what is necessarie for any man to saluation that is not comprized in one of these speaker D. B. P. And is gathered out of many other places of his vvorkes as in that matter of rebaptizing them vvho became Catholikes after they had bin baptized by Heretikes He saith The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their vvritings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall Tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall church holdeth and therfore are to be beleeued speaker A. W. In that place Austen makes no mention of any such difference betwixt the learned and vnlearned to saluation but teacheth directlie contrary to your doctrine in both points For the hard matters you speake of thus saith Austin when we dispute of darke matters where the certain and cleere instructions of the holy Scriptures do not help vs a mans presumption must restraine it selfe and not incline to either side This is Austens iudgement he leades vs not in these cases to traditions as you do Now for the other point he addes presently after that if the knowledge of hard questions could not be wanted without losse of saluation there would be some cleere authoritie of Scripture to instruct vs in them so far was Austen from seeking to any traditions as necessarie to saluation This testimonie is falsely alleaged by you in the later part of it which is thus in Austin and therefore are to be beleeued to haue bin enioyned by the Apostles You put the matter indefinitly are to be beleeued that so they may be thought necessarie to saluation of which there is not a word in this place of Austen speaker D. B. P. The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing Infants And in his Epist. 174. of the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he vve neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * And S. Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not vvritten in the vvord speaker A. W. Of the custome of baptising infants Austin saith that it is not to be despised nor by any meanes to be thought superfluous and that it were not at all to be beleeued vnlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition where he speakes not of any doctrine necessary to saluation but of the Churches practise and that indeede in a case grounded on the Scripture We speake of doctrine not of words as Austin doth in those places The matter which is signified by those words that Christ is of the same substance with his father
memories which may often faile them especially in carrying away speeches of discourse and disputation speaker W. P. II. If the beleeuing of vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must beleeue the writings of the auncient Fathers as well as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes And wee may not beleeue their sayings as the worde of God because they often crie beeing subiect to errour and for this cause their authoritie when they speake of traditions may be suspected and we may not alwaies beleeue them vpon their word speaker D. B. P. His otherreason is that if we beleeue vnwritten Traditions were necessary to saluatiō then we must aswel beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall Traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their books but that vvere absurd for they might erre Ans. That doth not follovv for three causes First Apostolicall Traditions are aswell kept in the mind of the learned as in the auncient Fathers vvritings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers vvritings speaker A. W. It may be they were kept in the mind of the learned till they were written but that afterward and to this day they are in mens minds otherwise then as they haue learned them by reading it is not very likely Beside how can traditions be kept without adding and altering if they haue no better guide then the memories of men speaker D. B. P. Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimonie than any one of their writings speaker A. W. What is that to Master Perkins reason vnlesse you will say that we are as well to beleeue the writings of the fathers where more then one writ the same thing as we are one of the Apostles or Euangelists alone which I perswade my selfe you will not affirme speaker D. B. P. Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall Tradition related but of one auncient Father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his ovvne inuention because that vvas registred by him as a thing of more estimation And gaine some of the rest of those blessed and Godly personages vvould haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not binsuch indeed as it vvas tearmed Which vvhen they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the follovving for Apostolicall Tradition it so because they were taught by our Lord yet Pauls case is proper to himselfe and altogether extraordinarie The third particular is somewhat more to purpose because S. Paul hauing prooued by many reasons that women might not come into the congregations bareheaded addes in the conclusion that it was enough to stop any contentions mans mouth that the Apostles and the Churches of God allowed of no such custome But first this hatescripture Papist must be put in minde that whereas he calles these wranglers scripturists as if they had alleaged scripture for their defence there is no such thing in the text nor any one obiection so much as signified by the Apostle Secondly this custome of the Church is not alleaged because as he seemes to presume by his conclusion afterward he wanted other reason to prooue the point For as Chrysostome and others haue obserued he hath in the former part of the chapter proued it to be against nature and against scripture too Thirdly he reasons not about any matter of doctrine but about the outward carriage of men and women in the assemblie of Gods seruice Lastly it doth no way follow that because the custome of the Church must ouer-way priuate mens fancies in things indifferent therefore the Scripture containes not all things necessarie to saluation but must be supplied therein by traditions Neither doth the Apostles example warrant his conclusion The Apostle hauing proued that he exhorts to by reason and Scripture last of all alleages custome against contentious men in a thing which they tooke to be indifferent therefore wee must alleage Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they are not plaine tradition euen in matters of saluation Who sees not that this followes not vpon that Obiections for Traditions speaker W. P. First they alleadge 2. Thess. 2. 15. where the Apostle bids that Church keepe the ordinances which he taught either them by word or letter Hence they gather that beside the written word there be vnwritten traditions that are indeede necessarie to be kept and obeyed Answ. It is very likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul writ to any Church though in order it haue not the first place and therefore at the time when this Epistle was penned it might well fall out that some thinges needefull to saluation were deliuered by word of mouth not beeing as yet written by any Apostle Yet the same things were afterward set downe in writing either in the second Epistle or in the Epistles of Paul speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that insteed of Traditions according to the Greek and Latin vvord they translate Ordinances euer flying the vvord Tradition vvhere any thing is spoken in commendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the vvord Tradition although the Greeke vvord beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouery of false translation penned by M. Gregorie Martin a man most singulerly conuersant in the Greeke and Hebrevv tongues speaker A. W. Gregory Martinus cauils were answered long since by Doctor Fulke and the answer neuer yet replied to that euer I heard of by any Papist Your old translation hath in steed of traditions precepts and in the Gospell euery where traditions and yet the former place is to the commendation of traditions and all in the Gospell to their dispraise Vatablus also vseth his libertie in translating this word sometimes Instituta sometimes Constitutio sometimes Institutio the difference in our translation as farre as I can perceiue is this that we call mens precepts traditions the Apostles doctrines ordinances speaker D. B. P. Secondly is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer he wrote Surely if none of his otherwere written before it yet his first to the same Church must needs haue been written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame sometimes speaker A. W. It is easie to see that Master Perkins compares not this epistle with the other to the same Church but with other that were written to other Churches and generally with the bookes of the new Testament among which if wee may beleeue Irenaeus it was the ancientest except the former and perhaps the Gospell of S. Matthew for it was written
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.
they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings And so this maketh more against you then for you approouing the lavvfull officers of Rome to be Christs Ministers The second plaâ—e is alleadged out of him yet more impertinently your selfe confessing presently that those vvords vvere not spoken of the Pope but of his enemy The reason yet there set dovvne pleaseth you exceedingly vvhich you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you for you inferre that the Pope and all others since that time be vsurpers out of this reason of S. Bâ—â—nard Because forsooth that the Antipope called Innocentius vvas chosen by the King of Almaine France England c and their vvhole Clergie and people For if fnnocentius vvere an Antichrist and vsurper because he vvas elected by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope This your vvords declare but your meaning as I take it is quite contrary But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter if need require It sufficieth for this present that you finde no reliefe at all in S. Bernard touching the maine point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might meruaile if out of so sweet a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope any such poison might be sucked specially weighing wel what he hath written vnto one of them to whom he speaketh thus Goe to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time VVho art thou A great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignitie Aaron in authoritie Moses in povver Peter thou art he to vvhom the Keyes were deliuered to vvhom the sheepe vvere committed There are indeede also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flockes allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleere opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certaine blind places and broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but very Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicolas as he citeth it that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some 30. or 40. Bishops at once but of the matter of election else where M. Perkins hauing lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholike Authour flieth to a late hereâ—â—ke called Ioachim and quoteth Iewell for relator of it A worshipfull testimony of one heretike and that vpon the report of an other and he the most lying Authour of these daies As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easilie be answered but because he quoteth no place I will not stand to answere it But to close vp this first combat a sentence is set downe out of the famous Martyr Ireneus that Antichrist should be Lateinos a Roman Here be as many faults as words That learned auncient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name out of these words of the Reuel the number of the beast is 666. And obseruing the letters of the Greeke Alphabet by which they doe number as wee doe by ciphers saith that among others the word Lateinos doth containe those letters which amount iust to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might be Lateinos but more likely it is to be Teitan as he saith there lastly that it is most vncertaine what his name shall be See the place gentle reader and learne to beware of such deceitefull merchants as make no conscience to corrupt the best Authours and being often warned of it will neuer learne to amend Jreneus leaueth it most doubtfull what shall be Antichrists name And among diuers words esteemeth Lateinos to be the vnlikeliest And yet M. Perkins reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall be Lateinos and then to make vp the matter turneth Lateinos a proper name with S. Ireneus into Romane an appellatiue which noteth onely his country Fie vpon that cause which cannot be vpholden and maintained but by a number of such paltrie shirtes Thus come we at length to the end of M. Perkins proofes and reproofes in his prologue where we finding litle fidelitie in his allegations of the Fathers badde construction and foule ouersight in the text of holy Scripture briefely great malice but slender force against the Church of Rome we are to returne the words of his theame to all good Christians Goe out of her my people Forsake the enemies of the Romane Church And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours who drew out her most pure blood so let vs file in matters of faith and Religion from all heretakes that of late also spared not to shedde abundance of the same most innocent blood vnlesse to your greater condemnation you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes and receiue of her plagues speaker A. W. They were the Ministers of Christ by their profession as the Pope calls himselfe the seruant of seruants though both he is in truth Antichrist and they his ministers M. Perkins reason out of Bernard lyeth thus He that gets into Peters chaire without the consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Christendome is the beast spoken of in the Apocalypse But all the Popes from that schisme hitherto haue so gotten into Peters chaire viz. with consent of the Cardinals onely Therefore all the Popes since that schisme are the beast in the Apocalypse The proposition is Bernards in effect though notin words for he pronounces the Pope to be the Beast in the Reuelation because he was not chosen by consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Almaine France England c. And this Master Perkins sets downe very plaine at these words And thus Bernard c. How wide then are you from his meaning who make the quite contrarie collection in his name For if Innocentius say you were Antichrist and an vsurper because he was chosen by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chisen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope He concludes out of Bernard that he was Antichrist because he was not chosen by the Kings Clergie and people but onely by the Cardinals you that he was true Pope because he was not chosen by the Kings and but onely by the Cardinals The reason out of Bernard you answere not but shift off the matter with alleaging
not to be recorded yet it is strange that Moses should not once make mention of them in generall Thomas expounds it of adding to the words of the Scripture And if it be lawful for all these prohibitions to adde other doctrines why doth Chrysostome reprooue the Iewish Priests for hauing added many things to the law though Moses with threatning charged them they should not For it is certaine they neuer added to nor any way corrupted the text But Chrysostome accuseth them of adding because they deliuered doctrines that were not written in the Scripture as our Sauiour also saith of them Cardinall Caietan wils vs to gather from this place that the law of God is perfect speaker D. B. P. Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses Lavv that therefore nothing must be added vnto the same Law is extreame dotage speaker A. W. What is it to refute that which your aduersarie saith not Master Perkins proues that Moses spake of the written law because he sets it as a preface before his Commentarie vpon the same law You answere nothing to that but crie out vpon extreame dotage for inferrring that because it is a preface to Moses law therefore nothing must be added to it Who inferres any such matter but your selfe You need not make worke you haue your hands full speaker D. B. P. Why then were the bookes of the old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these vvords or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them vvell did vvilfully transgresse against them one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alleadging of this text for the all sufficiencie of the written vvord We neither need nor will defend either of them But we denie your consequence if no man might adde any thing to the law of God deliuered by Moses then the Prophets offended in writing so many volumes The reason is that the Prophets writ not as men but as the instruments of Gods spirit inditing and penning by them God did not tie his owne hands by that commandement that he might not from time to time instruct his people as it should seeme good to his infinite wisedome To speake yet more plainly the Prophets and Apostles writings are nothing els but expositions of that the summe whereof is deliuered in the fiue bookes of Moses wherein the whole doctrine of the Law and the Gospell is contained speaker W. P. Testimonie II. Isai. 8. 20. To the law and to the testimonie If they speake not according to this worde it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth what must be done in cases of difficultie Men must not runne to the wizard or southsaier but to the law and testimonie and here he commends the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts and scruples in conscience whatsoeuer speaker D. B. P. Here the Prophet teacheth saith M. Perkins vvhat is to be done in cases of difficulty Men must not runne to the Wizards and Soothsayers but to the Lavve and to the Testament commending the vvritten vvord as sufficient to resolue all doubts By the Lavv and testimony in that place the fiue books of Moses are to be vnderstood If that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts vvhatsoeuer What need vve then the Prophets vvhat need vve the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles What Wizard vvould haue reasoned in such sort speaker A. W. The Scripture is not to resolue all doubts but all doubts and scruples of conscience whatsoeuer which you craftily leaue out in propounding our reason Your consequence is false If the fiue bookes of Moses be sufficient for the resoluing of al doubts what need any writings of the Prophets Euangelists or Apostles Is not the Ciuill and Canon law in your iudgement sufficient to resolue all doubts in cases concerning them is there therefore no need of any exposition thereof The rest of the Scripture is a Commentarie vpon those fiue bookes Besides is nothing required in the scripture but resoluing of doubts The historie of the Church is worth the knowing for our instruction comfort exhortation imitation and such like speaker D. B. P. The Prophet vvilleth there that the Israelites vvho vvanted vvit to discerne vvhether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell than vnto Wizards and Sooth-sayers to see vvhat is vvritten in the Lavv of Moses concerning that point of consulting Wizards vvhich is there plainely forbidden in diuers places Novv out of one particular case vvhereof there is expresse mention in the vvritten vvord to conclude that all doubts and scruples vvhatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great vvant of light in him as vvas in those blind Israelites speaker A. W. The Prophet doth not send them to the Law and to the testimonie to see whether it be lawfull to enquire of Soothsayers or no but tels them that they must looke into the booke of God to see whether such iudgements as the Prophets threatned should not befall them if they continued their sinning against God So that hee wils them not to hearken what the Southsayers say of their escaping the iudgements that the Prophets denounced but to trie whether their promises of safetie or the others threatning of destruction were agreeable to the word of God Though the case be particular which you put amisse yet if the triall of the Prophets doctrine be to be made by the scripture as it is wherein may we looke to vnwritten traditions speaker W. P. Testimonie III. Iohn 20. 31. These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue euerlasting life Here is set downe the full end of the Gospell and of the whole written word which is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation and therefore the whole scripture alone is sufficient to this ende without traditions speaker D. B. P. 3. Testimony These things vvere vvritten that yee might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set dovvne the full end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to vvhich the vvhole Scripture alone is sufficient vvithout Traditions Ans Here are more faults than lines First the text is craftily mangled Things being put in steed of Miracleâ— For S. Iohn saith Many other Miracles Christ did c but these vvere vvritten c. speaker A. W. Mangling is cutting off some part not putting one word for another especially such a word as containes the other Things-comprehends both doings and sayings and to both doth one of your Glosses referre this narration euen on the former verse where the word miracle is set
that the father was not begotten may be proued by the Scripture and must needs be held the words are neither in the Scripture nor bring any danger of saluation though they be denyed if the points of doctrine signified by them be beleeued yet were it a great presumption and follie for any man to refuse such words as haue bin fitlie applied by the former Churches The other point of adoring the holy ghost hath a strong foundation on those places of Scripture which prooue him to be God as many do But what is all this to the purpose for the stablishing of any doctrine necessarie to saluation by tradition speaker D. B. P. The like of the perpetuall Virginity of our B. Lady out of vvhich and many more such like vve gather most manifestly that S. Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the vvritten vvord but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions speaker A. W. The fourth heresie in Austin is the Basilidians who held no such opinion of the virgin Mary Indeed there were other heretikes the 6. in number who denyed her virginitie after our Sauiours birth falsely as we verily perswade our selues but this is no matter necessarie to saluation though it be an heresie to hold that as a matter of faith which hath no warrant from the Scripture but rather the contrarie speaker W. P. Vincentius Lyrinen saith the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient to it selfe for all things speaker D. B. P. I thinke that there is no such sentence to be found in him hesaies by way of obiection VVhat need we make recourse vnto the authority of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but throughout all his booke he proues the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church speaker A. W. Vincentius saith that the Canon of the Scripture is sufficient and more then sufficient for all things and in another place the Canon of the scripture sufficeth it selfe for all things The former place is those very words which you alleage falsely where Vincentius thus speakes Here perhaps some man will demaund what the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding of the Scripture needs seeing the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and more then sufficient to it selfe for all things His answere is that the interpretation of the Church is requisite because diuers men expound the Scripture diuersly but what is this against the sufficiencie of the Scripture or for the authoritie of traditions concerning matters not contained in the Scriptures Beside these testimonies other reasons there bee that serue to prooue this point I. The practise of Christ and his Apostles who for the confirmation of the doctrine which they taught vsed alwaies the testimonie of Scripture neither can it be prooued that they euer confirmed any doctrine by tradition Act. 26. 22. I continue vnto this day witnessing both to small and great saying none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come And by this wee are giuen to vnderstand that wee must alwaies haue recourse to the written worde as beeing sufficient to instruct vs in matters of saluation speaker D. B. P. First for our Sauiour Christ Iesus he out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you And very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do oftē note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by test monies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S. Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by Tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospel out of Tradition receiued from S. Peter as witnesseth Eusebius S. Luke testifieth of himself that he wrote his whole Gospel as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who vvere eye-vvitnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not only parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions speaker A. W. Our Sauiour doth ordinarily confirme his doctrine especially if there be any question of it out of the bookes of the old testament by that he repeld Sathan by that he confuted the Pharises and defended his disciples eating the eares of corne on the Sabbath by that he taxeth the Iewes blindnes and maintaines his owne speaking in parables By the same he ouerthrowes the Iewes traditions and rebukes their hypocrisie he refutes their errors about diuorces but what should I run ouer the particulars the Gospels are full of such examples Master Perkins hath neuer a word of the Euangelist who did but write the history of our Sauiours doings and sayings and yet euen they as your selfe confesse prooue that he is the Messiah by the Scriptures of the old Testament applying them to the things he did and suffered You deuise matters to confute Master Perkins speaketh of confirming doctrine by traditions and you answere that they wrote something out of tradition that is they set downe somewhat in writing which themselues had heard of other and not read in the old Testament And then you aske where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages euen there where Moses had the creation of the world and the whole story of Genesis From a better ground then tradition viz. from the Spirit of God the author and enditer of the Scripture from whom also the other Euangelists had the matter and penning of their Gospell though two of them Marke and Luke first came to the knowledge of those things by the preaching of the Apostles which had all one authoritie with the word written This is apparant of Marke by Eusebius himselfe who saith that the Romans intreated him to set downe in writing those things which the Apostle Peter had taught them by word of mouth and which he also had heard him deliuer The like is to be said of S. Luke who was a companion of the Apostle Paul and wrote as the other did that which he heard of him and other of the Apostles But howsoeuer the things deliuered by them came first to their knowledge it wants not much of blasphemy to make traditions the foundation of the Gospels written by them For either the holy Ghost did not inspire them with the matter and manner of their penning or else if it be as you would haue it the holy ghost built vpon tradition which is but an vncertaine kinde of knowledge depending vpon mens
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
shall we doe where they say nothing where their expositions are contraried by those you name and other about their time But this can be no rule of vnderstanding any more of the Scripture than that which they haue expounded which is very little and Origen one of the ancientest and greatest expositors is generally condemned for an Heretike by Epiphanius Ierome Austin and the best writers in Diuinitie Yea Bellarmine sheweth that Origen was seene in hell with Arius and Nestorius and affirmeth that the fift Synod cursed him amongst other Heretikes This rule if it be a rule will serue in very few places of the Scripture speaker D. B. P. The other example shall be the principal pillar of the Laten Church S. Augustine who not only exhorteth and aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscurity of doubtfull questions but plainly affirmeth That he vvould not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him vnto it Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluine would haue them that S. Augustine had not bin at first a Christian if by the authority of the Church he had not bin thereunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and iudicious Doctor and did write against Heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these bookes of the Gospel to haue bin penned by diuine inspiration and no others and this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquity generality and consent did tell him which and what they were So farre was he oft from trusting to his owne skill and iudgment in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one obiection I wil not dwel any longer in it but here fold vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. Perkins and else-where as occasion serued cited already many sentences I will here be briefe speaker A. W. Austin wils vs to consult with that Church which the holy Scripture shewes vs to be the Church without any ambiguitie the ancient Church hee names not but by the Church so commended hee vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church as he calles it that is he appeales in the question about Baptisme among the Donatists to the generall practise of the Church in the seuerall congregations which no doubt is of great force to perswade any reasonable man in any matter that cannot be decided by the scripture For in matters of indifferencie the Churches iudgement is a kinde of law so that he which in such things would not be deceiued cannot doe better than to follow it There is no word in that place of Austin to allow your interpretation of that sentence but rather the whole course of the speech makes for Caluin I will propound the matter let any indifferent man iudge Manes or Manicheus in his epistle of the foundation as he termed it called himselfe the Apostle of Christ Austin answeres that he did not beleeue him to be so and then demaunds of the Manichean what course hee would take to prooue it to him Perhaps saith Austin you will reade the Gospell to me and assay to prooue Manicheus person to me out of it But what if you should light vpon one that doth not yet beleeue the Gospell I truly had not beleeued the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church had not moued me why should I not obey them saith Austin when they will me not to beleeue Manicheus whom I obeyed when they willed me to beleeue the Gospell These are Austins words to which I will adde those that follow afterward that First wee beleeue that which as yet we cannot discerne that being made stronger in faith we may attaine to the vnderstanding of that we doe beleeue not men now but God himselfe confirming and enlightening our minde within speaker A. W. S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing I shewed before what little credit many of the writings wee haue of Ignatius deserue Eusebius authoritie is more worth but hee is neither quoted nor alleaged truly The former I take to be the Printers fault the latter must needes be yours Ignatius saith Eusebius as he past through Asia vnder guard in euery Citie where he came by preaching and exhortation strengthened the parishes that they should especially take heed of heresies then first newly sprung vp and should cleaue fast to the Tradition of the Apostles which also for more suretie he thought it necessarie for him to write Now the heresies which at that time troubled the Church were those of the Simonians Menadcians Ebionites Nicolaitans Cerinthians Saturninians Basilidians for the refuting whereof the scripture is alsufficient to a reasonable man speaker D. B. P. Polycarpus by the authority of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the 〈…〉 truth and ouerthrew the Heretikes speaker A. W. Polycarpus might well refute them by authoritie of the Apostles words which himselfe had heard if without the Scripture they would beleeue him that hee heard them of the Apostles But Eusebius reports of him in Irenaus words that he recited all things in that refutation agreeable to the holy Scriptures It was much for the perswading of the people to whom as Irenaeus saith he spake those things that he could truly say he had heard those things of the Apostles by word of mouth which they might finde written in the Scriptures speaker D. B. P. S. Ireneus who imprinted in his hart Apostolicall Traditions receiued from Policarp saith If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought vve not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the vvhich the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleere and perspicuous to define the present question For vvhat if the Apostles had not vvritten any thing at all must vve not haue follovved the order of Traditions vvhich they deliuered to them to vvhom they deliuered the Churches speaker A. W. Irenaeus in his epistle to Florinus aboue mentioned saith that he imprinted in his heart the whole carriage and discourse of Polycarpus refuting the Heretikes but of Apostolicall traditions hee speakes neuer a word more than that Polycarpus had heard those things of the Apostles which he then deliuered agreeable to the Scriptures In any such meane question as is not resolued of in Scripture it was fit to haue recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles had liued yea if they had written nothing we must haue repaired to the books of the old Testament the knowne word of God for all matters of substance in things indifferent the iudgment of such
to expresse the diuine nature If it be extended vnto all sorts of Images I answere that they were then forbidden to be drawen vpon the Church vvalles but not to be set in Tables vpon the Altar or in any other place The reason is because that Councell vvas holden in time of persecution as appeareth by the twenty fiue Canon of it and then if the persecutor had found out the place of their assembly as they often did those Pictures must needs either haue been defaced by themselues or left vnto the derision and despight of the Heathens And Pictures also painted vpon such poore walles as they had then to their Churches vvould either by the moysture of the vvalles or other incommoditie haue bin quickly disfigured wherefore to the greater honor of such sacred things those graue Fathers thought it not meete to haue them dravven vpon the Church vvalles there being many more meete places for them in the Churches speaker A. W. You come backe now to those two allegations which should and might haue been answered as fitly in their due place Your first answere hath no shew of reason in it For it is absurd to imagine that any Christians to whom onely the Councill speakes would thinke the diuine nature which is spirituall and infinite could be exprest by any picture But if it be possible for the people to be so blind yet the Bishops and Ministers who had the charge of such places must needs know it to bee vnlawfull and vnpossible Besides if they meant to forbid such Images onely why doe they not call them Idols after your distinction why doe not they expresse their meaning more plainly but speake so dangerously to make all Images thought vnlawfull As the word Adored was in your opinion a warrant for Master Perkins to applie that Canon to the Images of God so by the same reason is the other word worshipped which the Councill hath a sufficient authoritie to stretch the decree to all Images that may bee worshipped Your coniectures are meere shifts refuted by the very words of the Councill It is decreed saith the Councill that there may be no Images in the Church what will become then of your Images vpon Altars vnlesse you will remoue your Altars out of the Church That which followeth doth not respect the walles more than any other part of the Church but names them specially vpon which Images most commonly were painted But what a toy is it that you talke of persecutors finding out the place of their assemblie when they could hold a Councill and had Churches to repaire to Could their Churches be vnknowne Further if their care had bin to prouide that the moysture of the walles might not disfigure the Images they would haue said plainly We will haue no Images on Church walles least that which is adored and worshipped come to some disgrace and this would also haue included the other reason of the persecutors despight But it is manifest that the meaning of the decree is this that they will not suffer any Images in Churches because that which is worshipped and adored may not bee resembled by pictures The decree indeede speakes onely of the Images of God to whom only religious adoration and worship is due and may lawfully be performed speaker D. B. P. The second obiection is out of a post-script of Epiphanius letter vnto Iohn Patriarke of Ierusalem in which is written as M. Perkins falsely reporteth that it is against the authority of Scripture to see the Pictures of Christ or of any Saint to hang in the Church Ans. It is there only to see the Picture of a man Novv that he should meane of Christ or of some Saint is only gathered yet M. Perkins makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text euen so do we thinke that some old enemy of Images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter Our reasons are because it hath no coherence with the former letter or stâ—e Againe in the seauenth Councell when all that could be found out of antiquity vvas cited against Images no tidings there of this place which if it had bin true might haue bin one of the principall Thirdlie in the same Councell other tvvo places brought as it were out of Epiphanius vvorkes vvere found to be none of his And for Images vvas alleadged that Epiphanius ovvne disciples erected an Image to their Master and set it in the Church vvhich they would neuer haue done if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to doe speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not vndertake to report Epiphanius words but his matter which hee performes truly I found saith Epiphanius speaking of a Church at Anablatha in his trauell to Bethel in the Church doore a vaile hanging stained and painted and hauing the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I remember not well whose image it was When I saw this that against the authoritie of the Scripture the image of a man hung in the Church of Christ I rent it These are Epiphanius words whereout I obserue first that it is against the authoritie of the Scripture and therfore against Gods Commandement that the image of a man should hang in Christs Church But the Images of al your Saints are such those of the Trinitie too except that Doue for the holie Ghost Secondly I adde that it is rightly gathered by necessarie consequence which is as good euery whit as plaine words that it is against Scripture to haue the picture of Christ or any Saint in the Church For he saith expresly that the Image he saw was the image of Christ or some Saint and that it was vnlawfull to haue any Image of a man there There is no reason to call it a post-script vnlesse euerie last point of any letter not depending vpon the former be a post-script Hierome that translated the Epistle out of Greeke into Latin found no such diuersitie of stile in it neither indeed is it to be found and this latter part is brought in according to the course of writing in the former Epiphanius cleeres himselfe to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem for hauing ordered a Deacon in his Diocesse he begins his excuse thus I haue heard c. In the latter part he defends himselfe concerning the renting of the vaile and begins that also in the like sort I haue heard This was written and translated three hundred yeeres before that Idolatrous Councill though perhaps they thought it no wisedome to take knowledge of it The other places brought in that Councill were for Images and so allowed of by that Councill and haue since been discerned to be counterfeit as that is of his Disciples no thankes to that counterfeit Synod which dealeth in the same sort also with Basil you afterward alleage the place for Images with Cyrill Ambrose Athanasius Chrysostome Gregorie and the Apostles themselues as I shewed before speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins obserues a special reason
present as it is plaine because the Angell was lehouah And lehouah saw that he turned to see And lehouah said Yea the whole discourse sheweth that God himselfe was the Angell namely the second person in Trinitie who is called the Angell of the Conenant because he was sent for the saluation of Gods elect So Stephen though he call him an Angell calleth him asse the Lord. And indeed who but God could say I am that I am as the Angell there doth Secondly you say the Answere rather confirmes than solues the Argument Because as that astion strucke Moses with a reuerence of the Angell so holy Pictures duly reuerenced strike men with a religious regard of the Saint represented What is this but to beg the question you take it as graunted that there may be Images and that religious reuerence may be giuen to them but these are the verie doubts we dispute of Inded if it were true that there may be such Images and that religious honour is to be yeelded to creatures there were somewhat in your Similitude to the purpose and yet similitudes doe not proue but illustrate The sorce of your reason is that Moses was commanded by god to put off his shoes that he might be striken thereby with reuerence of God Therefore we must worship Images that we may be striken with reuerence of Angels and Saints The consequence is naught Gods particular charge to Moses at that time warranteth not men to enioyne worship to Images that Angels may be worshipped by them speaker D. B. P. To this let vs annexe that dayes be truely called holy and vvorshipped as the first and last daies be truely called holy and vvorshipfull as the first and last daies of the feast of Easter be And the vestments of Priests because they are dedicated and employed to holy vses euen so Images vvhich are made in honour of God and his Saints and erected to mooue and teach vs to embrace heauenly courses speaker A. W. Adde it if you will that dayes appointed by God are called holy for of worshipfull dayes I thinke no man euer heard though your Latine translation say The seauenth day shall be venerable with the same festiuitie that is shall be kept with like solemnitie to the first The words in the Hebrew are all one in the former and later part of the verse and therefore so should the translation be Now in the former your translation is the first day shall be holy and solemne The Hebrew as Montanus translateth it on the first day shall be a conuocation of holines and on the seauenth day shall be a conuocation of holines that is as Vatablus truly expounds the Hebrew phrase An holy Conuocation So doth Pagnine also translate it But this holines which you rightly expound to be a dedication or employment to Gods seruice neither doth require nor will admit any worshipping of the dayes or garments but Images are not holy for they are neither commaunded of God nor allowed speaker W. P. Obiect III. It is lawfull to kneele downe to a chaire of estate in the absence of the king or Queene therefore much more to the images of God and of Saintes in heauen glorified being absent from vs. Answ. To kneele to the chaire of estate is no more but a ciuill testimonie or signe of ciuill reuerence by which all good subiects when occasion is offered shew their loyaltie and subiection to their lawfull Prince And this kneeling being on this manner and to no other ende hath sufficient warrant in the word of God But kneeling to the image of any Saint departed is religious and consequently more then ciuill worship as the Papists themselues confesse The argument then prooueth nothing vnlesse they will keepe themselues to one and the same kind of worship speaker D. B. P. He proposeth our argument to the halfes or else this answere had been preuented For thus runneth our reason As the chaire of estate is to bee worshipped with ciuill reuerence in respect of the temporall Prince whom it representeth euen so the Images of holy personages that raigne now in heauen are to bee worshipped with a holy and religious kinde of curtesie for as Temporall honour is due vnto a Temporal Prince so religious and spirituall honour is due vnto spirituall and most holy personages And as a good subiect testifyeth his loyaltie and good affection towardes his Prince by honouring his regall throne So doth a good Christian giue testimonie of his dutiful both estimation deuotion toward those heauenly creatures by giuing honour vnto their Images At leastwise why do not the Protestants exhibit ciuill reuerence aswell vnto the representations of Gods Saintes as to the shaddowes of the secular maiestie vnlesse it be because they are fallen out with the Saintes of God and are become adorers of sinfull men speaker A. W. Master Perkins drew your argument from a comparison of quantitie as the Logicians call it from the greater to the lesse you fetch it from a comparison of qualitie by way of Similitude which as I answered before serues to make a thing more plaine not to prooue it true as the other comparison doth if it be rightly made You report his answere by halues for he denies the consequence of the argument which he propounded adding this reason of his deniall that the ciuill worship hath warrant sufficient in the word of God but your religious worship hath not so that either you must make your worshipping of Images ciuill or else your comparison holds not His answere is sufficient to ouerthrow your reason as you propound it for it denies that the things are alike adding farther against your proofe that no religious honour is due to any but God only if you can shew warrant for it in the word he yeelds But alas you cannot your chiefe Champion Thomas of Aquine hauing made an obiection against worshipping of the image of Christ with diuine worship because there is no tradition to be found in Scripture for the adoring of Images is faine for answere to flee to vnwritten traditions We must answere saith Thomas that the Apostles by the familiar instinct of the holy ghost deliuered certaine things to the Churches to be obserued which they haue not left in writing but only in the obseruation of the Church by the succession of the faithfull And surely he that will take paines to consider the allegations of the seauenth Council the sâ—…d at Nice which was called of purpose to establish the worshipping of Images shall finde very pittifull proofe out of Scripture Therefore hauing warrant and charge to performe all ciuill honor to princes we do accordingly hauing neither for any deuotion or religious reuerence to Angels or men departed though Saincts in heauen we dare not worship their images which also we know to be particularly forbidden in Scripture And that is the reason why we giue no reuerence to any idolatrous representations
your Maiesties recorded in the aforesaid Conference speaker A. W. I doubt not but if those learned treatises you bragge of be come to his Maiesties hands either they haue had or shal ere long receiue sufficient answere In the meane while let vs consider these your reasons speaker D. B. P. And because that argument is as most sensible so best assured which proceedeth from a principle that is either euident in it selfe or else granted and confessed for true My first proofe shall be grounded vpon that your Maiesties owne resolute and constant opinion as it appeareth in the said Conference to wit That no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the Church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremonie then she hath departed from her selfe vvhen she vvas in her flourishing and best estate From whence I deduce this reason The principall Pillers of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in all poynts of Religion the same Doctrine that she now holdeth and teacheth and in expresse tearmes condemneth for error and heresie most of those Articles which the Protestants esteeme to be the principall parts of their reformed Gospell Therefore if your Maiestie will resolutely imbrace and constantly defend that doctrine which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate you must forsake the Protestant and take the Catholike into your Princely protection speaker A. W. The most flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome is that out of question of the sinceritie whereof wee haue witnes in the Scripture from which no Church ought or may depart not because they may not dissent from the Church of Rome but because they must hold the true faith for which the Apostle commends the Church of Rome that then was The antecedent of your reason is false The Church of Rome in the Apostles time did not teach many of those points that the Popish Romish Church now holds witnes the Epistle to the Romanes wherein diuers maine matters of her faith are recorded speaker D. B. P. To demonstrate vnto your Maiestie that we now hold in all poynts the very same Doctrine which the most approoued auncient Doctors and holy Fathers held and deliuered Because it is too long for an Epistle I reserue it to the booke it selfe for the poynts it handleth and will here briefly note out of it some such old reprooued errors that the Protestants doe reuiue receiue and auowe as the very sinnewes of their Gospell speaker A. W. The most approued ancient Doctors holy fathers were the Apostles with whom how you shew your agreement in the points this booke handles wee shall see in the particulars All other writers haue those properties in a farre inferiour degree from among whom if I would deale strictly with you I might pick the Fathers of the Greeke Churches and all those of the Latin that were not members of the Romane as it was a distinct Church from all other For so is the Romane Church conceiued and spoken of by his Maiestie But I will not presse you so hard though I may chance to put you in minde of it now and then All points that haue been reprooued by some of the ancient writers are not errors and many times the same words haue not the same meaning speaker D. B. P. Martin Luther the ring-leader of the new pretended reformation layeth for the ground-worke of his Religion That man is iustified by only saith and in this he is applauded and followed of all Protestants and yet as testifieth the most sound witnes of antiquitie S. Austin that only faith is sufficient to Saluation was an error sprung vp in the Apostles dayes against which the Catholike Epistles of S. Peter and S. Iames and S. Iohn were principally directed And the author of that error was that infamous Sorcerer Simon Magus as the blessed Martyr Ireneus hath recorded in his first booke against heresies speaker A. W. For the doctrine of iustification by faith onely I referre the reader to the article of iustification That we are vnlike the heretikes of whom S. Augustine speakes it may thus apâ—… The faith they so magnified was a dead faith The Apostle 〈◊〉 Austin in refutation of them speaks not of euery kind â—… by which we beleeue in God but of that wholesome and truly â—…angelicall faith the workes whereof proceede from loue And againe How long therefore will they be deceiued that promise themselues euerlasting life by a dead faith Besides they despised good workes as needles either before or after iustification They thought saith Augustine that Paul wild vs to doe euill that good might come of it But it was not the Apostles meaning saith he that by the professing and inioyning of faith good workes of righteousnes should be despised But that euery man might know that he may be iustified though he haue not done the workes of the Law before For they follow him that is iustified not goe before him that is to be iustified Yea Simon the Sorcerer doubted not blasphemously to affirme that the commandements of holy life were giuen by the Angels that made the world who thereby brought men into slaâ—â—rie Of whom Theodâ—ret saith that because men are saued by grace and faith therefore he gaue by all meanes 〈◊〉 to commit wickednes speaker A. W. An other principall piller of Fryer Luthers Religion conâ—… niall of free will wherein he iumpeth with the olde rotten 〈…〉 Manes of whom the Maniâ—d cans were named Manes so denied free will that he tooke away all assent of the will in mens daily sinnes making the necessitie of sinning naturall from the creation as proceeding from the euill god or beginning which he blasphemously and absurdly deuised He saith Augustine made two diuers beginnings each contrary to other and both eternall And from these two natures and substances of good and euill so that he ascribed the beginning of sinne not to the freedome of will but to the substance of the aduerse faction Yea so faire proceeded the Manichees that they affirmed saith the same Augustine that euery liuing creature had two soules one from light another from darknes Manes brought in fatall necessitie saith Socrates and tooke away free will We contrariwise acknowledge that there is but one God or author of all things created that he made vs in our kinde perfectly good That sinne came in first by freedome of will both in men and Angels and that by free will without any necessitie of constraint it is daily committed It appeares further to our comfort in that place of S. Hierome that the Catholikes or true Christians in his time were in like sort charged by the Pelagians with the Manichees error in denying free will because they would not confesse that a man may be without sinne if he will which is one point of difference betwixt vs and the Papists speaker D. B. P. One Proâ—lus an erronius
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
would haue it gloriouslie appeare both abroade in his business and at home in his Pallace and in the middest of the Citie of â—oâ—e with this Posie In this signe of saluation I haue deliuered the Cittie Wâ—… it also he blessed his visage With fasting and other corporall affliction he chastized his body that he might please God He with incredible admiration honored prosessed Virgins and made lawes in their fauour He builded many Churches in honour of the Apostles and Martyrs And as S. Chrysostome recordeth He that was reuested in purple went to embrace the Sepulchres of S. Peter and S Paul and all Princely state laide aside stood humbly praying vnto the Saints that they would bee intercessors for him vnto God He farther tooke order for the burying of his owne body in the middest of the Tombes of the twelue Apostles that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers which should be there offered in the honour of the Apostles Neither was he frustrated of his holy desire for as it followeth in the 71. Chapter of the same booke at his funerals the people ioyning with the Priests with many â—cares and great sighs powred out prayers for the good Emperours soule Againe at a 〈◊〉 feast which he held at the dedication of the Church built by 〈◊〉 Ierusalem some of 〈◊〉 cleargie preached and expounded the holy Scriptures and o the 〈◊〉 me with vnbloudie Sacrifice and â—…st all consâ—crâ—lions appeased the Godhead and prayed for the hâ—â—lth of he Prince Moreover this â—…alous Eâ—peroâ—r reprehended Acasius a Nouatian hâ—…ke 〈◊〉 saying that it was not in the power of Priests but of God only to forgiuesinnes Finally toward true Bishops the law full Pastors of Christs Church he caried such a reuerend 〈◊〉 that being in the Councell of Nice he would not â—iue dowâ—e â—efore they 〈◊〉 backâ—ed vnto him so to doe And was so farre 〈…〉 vpon hâ—â— to 〈◊〉 pâ—came iudge in causes Ecclesiasticall that hee 〈◊〉 thâ—re prof â—ied that it did not belong to him to iudge of Bishops 〈◊〉 to be iudâ—… by them It was not the 〈◊〉 but the thing signified viz. Christ crucified to which Constantine shewed his affection and by whom he obtained all his victories by this God not by this signe The chastising of his bodie was not to please God by the worke wrought but to fit himselfe to prayer whereby hee might obtaine mercie saith Eusebius appeasing God by supplication To make virginitie a more diuine life than the maried estate as Eusibius in that place calles it is to say Adam liued a more diuine life before God created Euaâ— than he could doe afterward and so to make her not an helpe but an hinderance to him Eusebius speakes not of the Apostles but of the Martyrs to whom the Churches were dedicated but to God onely and were called the Lords houses Dominicae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kyrch Churches They were also named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because they were built in honour of the Martyrs but because as I shewed before the Christians vsed anciently to assemble in the places where the Martyrs had been buried or because of Christ who was accounted the prince of Martyrs in respect of whom the Martyrs refused the name as belonging properly to him Therefore Eusebius calles the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the translator terme it Martyrum domum in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This testimonie out of Chrysostome may well be suspected being in the same words in a Sermon falsely attributed to Austin de Sancto Paulo and alleaged out of a later writer one Theodorus Daphnopathus by Garret a Chanon at the least we may well remember that caueat of Sixtus Seneâ—sis and take the speech to be hyperbolicall It was the Apostles glorie that people in such multitudes came to the places of their buriall to pray though they prayed not to them nor thought their prayers euer a whit the better because they were made there And where there is mention in Eusebius of the peoples praying for the Emperour with more zeale than knowledge there is no mention of honouring the Apostles by prayer He should haue said with vnbloodie sacrifices which were not Mastes but prayers and perhaps some offerings for reliefe of the poore and maintaining of the Temple Your author saies that Acasius affirmed this onely of the sinne that is to death Hereupon the Emperour replied Set vp a ladder for thy selfe Acasius and goe alone into heauen which saith he I thinke the Emperour said to Acasius not that he might commend him but that men might thinke that they are not free from the staine of sinne Sozomen that writes the historie thinkes the Emperour did not intend to praise Acasius but to instruct other you affirme peremptorily that the Emperour reprehended him speaker D. B. P. It pleased the gracious Emperour so much to honour those worthie and reuerend Fathers but it becomes not your Bishops or Popes therefore to exact such behauiour of their Soueraignes and much lesse to make them daunce attendance barefooted or hold their stirrups as for that profession of the good Emperour it shewes â—is zeale but prooues not that Princes may not iudge Bishops being their subiects especially since the reason is strong for Soueraignes principally for Bishops but as their deputies You saith the Emperour are appointed gods to vs and it is not conuenient that man should iudge gods but he only of whom the Psalmist saith God sits in the assemblie of gods If then this right Puissant Emperor and most sincere Christian reuerenced the Sacrifice of the Masse and beleeued that there was power in Priests to remitte sinnes that Saints were to be prayed vnto and that prayer was to be made for the dead and such like as appeareth by the euident testimonie oâ— most approued Author that liued with him hath your Maiestie any cause to doubt but that in matters of faith he agreed with the present Romane Church Wherefore my hope and trust in Almighty God is that you in your high wisedome vpon mature and due consideration how many old condemned errors the Protestants holde and with aâ—lwell weighing that the whole frame of their Doctrine tendeth to the disgracing of God and his Saintes to the discouragement of men from well doing and doth as it were loosen the reines vnto all fleshly liberty will in time make a most Godly resolution to imitate that famous Emperour Constantine He contrary to his former education embraced with aâ—h spower that same Romane Religion which we now professe And which is worthy to be obserued he feared nothing the contrarie disposition of the multitude or greater part of his subiects that were wholy led another way But following the blessed example of his most vertuous Mother S. Helâ—â—a reposed himselfe in the powerfull assistance of the Almightie and chasâ—â— all other Religions into
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
for vs but with this caueat that the Fault being pardoned we must satisfie for the temporall punishment either in this world or in Purgatorie speaker D. B. P. In like manner I answere vnto your third instance that for Christ to haue taken away by his blessed Passion the eternall paine due vnto our sinnes and to haue left a temporall to be satisfied by vs is not to make himselfe a false Christ but a most louing kind and withall a most prudent Redeemer Wiping away that by himselfe which passed our forces and reseruing that to vs which by the helpe of his grace we well may and ought to doe not only because it were vnseemely that the parts of the body should be disproportionable to the head but also because it is reasonable as the Apostle holdeth that we suffer here vvith Christ before vve raigne vvith him in his Kingdome speaker A. W. To leaue halfe of our punishment for vs to beare is to be but halfe a Sauiour and so a false Christ there is neither kindnes nor wisedome in it to leaue either our saluation doubtfull or punishment for vs perhaps of 1000. yeeres or more in Purgatorie That as Christ hath been afflicted so should we taste of affliction it is proportionable and reasonable That wee should bee like him in making satisfaction for our sinnes by punishment is to make vs redeemers with him though not in the highest degree speaker W. P. In a word they make him our Mediatour of Intercession vnto God but withall his Mother must be the Queene of Heauen and by the right of a Mother commaund him there Thus in word they crie Osanna but indeede they crucifie Christ. speaker D. B. P. In your last instance you say that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to God thinking out of your simplicity that therein we much magnifie him sing Osanna vnto him Whereas we hold it for no small disparagement vnto his diuine dignitie to make him our Intercessor that is to pray him to pray for vs who is of himselfe right able to helpe vs in all we can demaund being aswell God as Man And albeit one in thought singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuine nature and person might make it an intercessor for vs Yet that being but a Metaphysical conceipt to separate the nature from the person since the Arrian heresie which held Christ to be inferior to his Father it hath not been practised by Catholikes who alwaies pray our Sauiour Christ to haue mercy vpon vs neuer to pray for vs. And consequentlie make him no mediator of intercession but of redemption And to come to your grieuous complaint that vvithall his Mother must be Queene of heauen and by right of a mother commaund him there Who can sufficiently meruaile at their vnnaturall grosse pares who take it for a disgrace to the Sonne to aduaunce his owne good Mother or else who well in his wits considering Christs bountie to strangers and his enemies will not be perswaded that on his best beloued mother he did bestow his most speciall fauours For hauing taken flesh of her hauing suckt her breasts receiued his nutriture and education of her in his tender yeares and being aswell followed of her as of any other is it possible that he should not be as good to her as to others vnto whom he was not at all beholding Againe the very place of a mother requiring preheminence before all seruants and subiects of what dignitie soeuer doth not the right rule of reason lead vs to thinke that Christ the fountaine of all wisedome repleâ—â—shed the B. Virgin Mary his deare Mother with such grace as should make her fit for that place it lying in his hands and free choise to doe it And therefore is she truely tearmed of holy and learned Antiquity our Lady and Queene exalted aboue all quyers of Angels That which you impute vnto vs farther that she must in the right of a mother commaund her Sonne is no doctrine of the Romane Church nor said in all her seruice We say Shevv thy selfe to be a mother but it is not added by commaunding thy Sonne that is your glosse which is accursed because it corrupteth the text for it followeth in that place Sumat per te preces c. Present our prayers to him that vouchsafed to be borne of thee for vs. If any priuate person by meditation pearcing more profoundly into the mutuall loue and affection of such a Sonne towards so worthie a Mother doe deeme her prayers as forcible in kindnes as if they were commaundements and in that sense call them commaundements according to the French phrase Vos priers me sont des commandements that may be done without derogation to Christs supreame dignity and with high commendation of his tender affection vnto his reuerent and best beloued mother speaker A. W. We do not pray to Christ to pray for vs but we account his loue to vs and his graciousnes with God his Father to be such that whatsoeuer wee aske of God in his name by our owne prayers shall certainly be obtained as well as if all the Saints in heauen should intreate him for vs. And this is to make him our Mediatour of intercession not simply as he is maÌ„ but as he is the Aduocate betwixt God and man in which respect the Scripture saith that he makes request to God for vs whatsoeuer was true and lawfull before the Arian heresie is so still There was as much reason why he should make her head of the Church here on earth as that she should be Queene of the Church in heauen or Queene of heauen But whatsoeuer she may be once a Mediatrix she may not be for that is Christs office now in heauen Those hyperbolicall speeches of the ancients shew their zeale but maintaine not your error If those words Roga patrem iube natum iure matris impera Command in the right of a mother be not in any part of your Romish seruice yet these speeches are in one that is no meane man Incline the countenance of God toward vs compell him to haue mercie vpon sinners And why may she not compell if as you terme her she be Empresse and Ladie of the world If she be the finder out of grace if she constrained the vncreated word to take flesh of her because she was a most humble Ladis But will you haue the very word of commanding O our Empresse and Ladie most bountifull by the right of a mother commaund thy most beloued sonne that he vouchsafe to lift vp our mindes to heauenly desires from the loue of earthly things What doctrine is this and for what Churches seruice was not Bonauenture the author of all these speeches a Cardinall of your Romish Church your Seraphicall Doctor and which is most of all is he not a Saint canonized by your Pope that cannot erre Is
not the Virgin Mary in your seruice called the promise of the Prephets the Queene of the Patriarkes the schoolmistris of the Euangelists the teacher of the Apostles the comforter of the quick and the dead Who thâ—… saios deuoutly this short prayer daily saith the Rubrick shall not depart out of this world without penance and ministration of the holy Sacrament In another prayer in the same booke shee is called the most true schoolmistris of the Euangelists the most wise teacher of the Apostles The booke was printed at Paris by Francis Regnault 1526. What profound piercing into such naturall affection can exccuse these speeches what French phrase can warrant it But what should we striue about the forciblenes of her prayers when it is not nor can be prooued that she prayes at all speaker W. P. Therefore we haue good cause to blesse the name of God that hath freed vs from the yoke of this Roman bondage and hath brought vs to the true light and libertie of the Gospell And it should be a great height of vnthankfulnesse in vs not to stand ouer against the present Church of Rome but to yeelde ourselues to plots of reconciliation To this effect and purpose I haue penned this little Treatise which I present to your worship desiring it might be some token of a thankfull minde for vndeserued loue And I craue withall not onely your Worshipfull which is more common but also your learned protection being well assured that by skill and arte you are able to iustifie whatsoeuer I haue truelie taught Thus wishing to you and yours the continuance and the increase of faith and good conscience I take my leaue Cambridge Iune 28. 1597. Your W. in the Lord VVilliam Perkins Wherefore to conclude this Epistle if there be no waightier cause then this by you here produced vvhy you and your adherent doe not reconcile your selues vnto the Church of Rome you may shortly by Gods grace become nevv men for vve are so farre off from making our Sauiour Christ a Pseudochâ—â—st or from dravving one iote of excellencie from his soueraâ—gne povver merits or dignitie that vve in the very points by you put downe doe much more magnifie him then you doe For in maintaining the authority by him imparted vnto his deputies our spirituall Magistrates and of their merits and satisfaction We first say that these his seruants prerâ—… be his hee gifts of 〈…〉 grace bestovved on vvhom he pleaseth vvhich is no finall praise of his great liberality And vvithall affirme that there is an infinite difference betvveene his ovâ—ne povver merits and satisfaction and ours Wherein his soueraigne honour is preserued entire to himselfe vvithout any comparison Novv you make Christs authoritie so base his merits and satisfaction so meane that if he â—…part any degree of them vnto his seruants he looseth the honour of all from himselfe Whereupon it follow eth inuinciblie if you vnfeignedly seeke Christ Iesus his true honour and vvill esteeme of his diuine giftes vvorthelie you must hold out no longer but vnâ—te your selfe in these necessarie heades of Religion vnto the Catholike Church of Rome which so highly exalted him both in his owne excellencie and in his singular giftes to his subiects speaker A. W. The least of these is cause sufficient to withhold vs from ioyning with the Church of Rome at least in that point The Kings authoritie is not abased because he cannot communicate any of his royalties to his subiects That Christ must needes lose by it I shewed before for it argues an insufficiencie in his satisfaction speaker W. P. THE AVTHOR TO THE CHRISTIAN READER BY a Reformed Catholike I vnderstand any one that holds the same necessarie heades of religion with the Roman Church yet so as he pares off and reiects all errours in doctrine whereby the said religion is corrupted How this may be done I haue begun to make some little declaration in this small Treatise the intent whereof is to shew how neere we may come to the present church of Rome in sundrie points of religion and wherein we must for euer dissent My purpose in penning this small discourse is threefold The first is to confute all such Politikes as hold and maintaine that our religion that of the Roman Church differ not in substance and consequently that they may be reconciled yet my meaning is not here to condemne any Pacification that tends to perswade the Roman Church to our religion The second is that the Papists which thinke so basely of our religion may be won to a better liking of it when they shall see how neere we come vnto them in sundrie points The third that the common Protestant might in some part see conceiue the point of difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome and know in what manner and how farre forth we condemne the opinions of the said Church I craue pardon for the order which I vse in handling the seuer all points For I haue set them downe one by one as they came to minde not respecting the lawes of Method If any Papist shall say that I haue not alleadged their opinions aright I answere that their bookes be at hand and I can iustifie what I haue said Thus crauing thine acceptation for this my paines and wishing vnto thee the increase of knowledge and loue of pure and sound religion I take my leaue and make an ende speaker D. B. P. AN ANSWERE TO THE Preface VPON your preface to the Reader I will not stand because it toucheth no point of controuersie let it be declared in your next what you meane when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heades of Religion with the Romane Church for if the Romane Church doth erre in the matter of faith and iustification in the number and vertue of the Sacraments in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist and an Idoll to omitte twenty other eâ—rors in substantial points of faith as in this your small discourse you would perswade there will remaine verie few necessarie heades of Religion for them to agree in And be you well assured that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke to a better liking of your Religion that you haue taken the high way to lead them to a farre greater dislike of it by teaching that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs For all Catholikes hold for most assured that which the most auncient learned and holie Doctor Athanasius in his creede deliuereth in the 2. vers VVhich Catholike faith vnlesse euery man obserue wholy and inuiolably not omitting or shrinking from any one article of it vvithout doubt he shall perish euerlastingly If S. Basil that reuerent and blessed Father of the Church doth hold it the dutie of euerie good Christian rather to loose his life then to condescend to the alteration
then admitting the purpel harlot to signifie the Roman state wee doe say that the state of Rome must bee taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it that is Pagan Idolatrous and a hot persecutor of Christians Such it had beene a little before vnder that bloodie Tyrant Nero and then was vnder Domitian which we confirme by the authoritie of them who expound this passage of the Roman state The commentary on the Apocalyps vnder Saint Ambrose name sayth the great where sometime doth signifie Rome specially vvhich at that time vvhen the Apostle vvrote this did persecute the Church of God but othervvise doth signifie the whole Citie of the Diuell And Saint Ierome who applieth the place to Rome affirmeth that she had before his dayes blotted out that blasphemie vvritten in her forhead because then the state was Christian which before had beene Heathen so that vnto the partie Pagan and not vnto the Church of God he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot which also the very text it selfe doth conuince for it hath That she vvas drunke vvith the blood of the Martâ—rs of Iesus Now the Church of Rome hath not then by the confession of all men drawne any blood of Christs Saints but in testimonie of his trueth had powred out abundance of her best blood Wherefore it is most manifest that the harlot could not signifie the Church of Rome so pure and free from slaughter but the Romane Empire vvhich vvas then full gorged vvith that most innocent and holy blood Againe that vvhoore is expounded To be a Citie vvhich had kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth But the Church of Rome had then no kingdome ouer the earth or any temporall dominion at all but the Romane Emperours had such soueraigne commaundement ouer many Kings vvherefore it must be vnderstood of them and not of the Church Novv to take Kingdome not properly for temporall soueraignty but for spirituall Iâ—…isdiction as some shifters doe is to she vvithout any vvarrant from the natiue signification of the vvord vnto phantasticall and voluntarie imagination And vvhereas M. Perkins saith that Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and cruelty against the Saints is all one vvith the heathâ—…sh Empire he both seeketh to deceiue and is greatly deceiued he vvould deceiue in that he doth applie vvords spoken of Rome aboue 1500. yeares agoe vnto Rome as it is at this day and yet if that were granted him he erreth foâ—â—e in euery one of his particulars For first touching princâ—â—e dominion the Romane Empire held then all Italy all Fraunce all Spayne all England a great part of Germanie of Asia and also of Afrike hauing their Proconsulles and other principall Officers in all those Countries drawing an hundred thousand millions in mony and many other commodities out of them Wherefore in princely dominion and magnificall state it surmounted Ecclesiasticall Rome which hath not temporall dominion ouer the one halfe of that one kingdome of Italy more then an hundred degrees And as for persecution the Empire slew and caused to be slaine more Saints of God in one yeare then the Church of Rome hath done of reprobates and obstinate heretikes in 1600. yeares Hauing thus proued that the whoore of Babilon signifieth the heathen state of Rome and not the Ecclesiasticall let vs now heare what you say against it Marry that the distinction of the Empire of Rome and Church of Rome is foolish and coyned of late to serue our turne which to be farre otherwise I proue out of those verie Authors who doe interpret that harlot to signifie Rome who are neither foolish nor of late daies you haue heard it before out of S. Ambrose commentaries And farther we gather it out of S. Hierome in the Epistle which you cite for he hauing resembled Rome vnto Babilon for the multitude of the wicked which yet remained in it pointeth out a more pure part saying There is in deede the holy Church there are the triumphant monuments of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the faith praised by the Apostle c. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome Againe Tertullian who liued in the second hundred yeare vnder those persecuting Emperours saith in one place that Babilon is a figure of Rome in respect of her proud Empire and persecution of the Saints And in an other that Rome was most happie for her holy Church vnto vvhich the Apostles vvith their blood had poured forth their vvhole doctrine see a plaine distinction betweene the Heathen Empire and the holie Church of Rome Which finallie may be gathered out of the expresse word of God VVhere the Church in Babilon coelect is distinguished from the rest of that citie which was Pagan You say but without any authour that Babilon there doth not signifie Rome but either a citie in Aegypt or Assyria But Eusebins lib. 2. hist. c. 14. and S. Jerom. de Eccles. script vers Marcus with other Authors more worthie of credit doe expound it of Rome And you your selues take Babilon so Rome where you thinke that any hold may be taken against it as in the 17. of the Reuel but in S. Peters Epistle they will none of it because it would proue too plainely that S. Peter had been at Rome speaker A. W. Master Perkins hauing prooued that by Babylon Rome is signified proceedes to answere two obiections First that the citie of Rome stands not now vpon seuen hils But it did in S. Iohns daies as his reason lies and at this day popish Churches or Monasteries are situated vpon them vnder the Popes authoritie Secondly that by the whore the companie of the wicked vnder their head the diuell is vnderstood But this the text will not beare the whore being opposed to the Kings of the earth and ruling ouer them vpon this foundation Master Perkins thus builds his reason Either Rome Heathenish or Rome Christian is the whore of Babylon But Rome Heathenish is not Therefore Rome Christian is This is plainly his reason and not that which you gather The proposition is euident because the state of Rome was neuer but either Heathenish or Christian. The assumption Master Perkins proues But I must be faine to leaue his course and to follow this reformers steps The state of Rome must be taken as it is the seate of Antichrist but it was not the seate of Antichrist in S. Iohns daies for Antichrist according to your doctrine is not yet come Againe it was no mysterie for heathenish Rome to be an Idolatrous and bloody persecutor of the Christians Thirdly the state that S. Iohn calles the harlot continues till the finall destruction spoken of by him and S. Paul but the estate of heathenish Rome was decayed long since Your proofe is insufficient for you alleage but two of many that make Rome Babylon who as they deserue
a sentence of his in commendation of Pope Eugenius which is so full of flatterie that I say not impietie that it can carrie no credit with any modest Christian. It should seeme you saw so much your selfe and therefore craftily left out these absurd and vile speeches viz. Thou art Abel in primacie Noah in gouernment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in authoritie of iudging Samuel in vnction that is either in annoynting or in being annoynted Christ. If this be not a blinde sentence on Bernards part and a broken sentence on yours there is nothing but may abide the light be it neuer so false and be accounted whole be it neuer so mangled It is rather grosse ignorance in you to finde fault with that you vnderstand not Master Perkins neither saith nor meanes that there were many Bishops of Rome at once and yet there haue been three Popes together but according to the Canon cals the Cardinals Bishops of Rome referring this word of Rome not to Bishops simply but to Cardinall Bishops Now all Cardinals were Cardinals of Rome or of the Romish Church The Canon indeede puts not in those words of Rome but the sense is nothing altered by the adding of them For the cleere vnderstanding of the matter we are to know that all Cardinals are either Cardinall Bishops whom the Canon appoints first to consult about electing of the Pope or Cardinall Clerkes that is of some inferiour order of the Clergie the general name wherof is Clerke whether it be Priesthood Deaconship c and these must in the second place be called to the election Now let men iudge whether Master Perkins or you are in fault This Canon is brought to prooue the former proposition that he is no lawfull Pope who is chosen only by the Cardinals and not also by the consent of the rest of the Clergie and people If you had been as carefull to auoide slandering as that reuerend and learned writer was to take heede of vntruths you would neuer haue raised such a suspition of him in this point For the cleering of him let his owne desence against Master Hardings reproches speake For the present Roger Houeden who liued in that time records the historie and sets downe Ioachims words to King Richard That Antichrist was alreadie borne in the citie of Rome and that he should be exalted into the Apostolike seate But you except against Ioachim as an heretike so doth not Bellarmine but onely denies that he writ any such thing It is true that the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocent the third condemned a certaine booke that Abbat Ioachim writ against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris commonly called the Master of the Sentences concerning the vnitie or essence of the Trinitie but it did not reiect him as an heretike yea the Councell specially addes that they will not by their sentence any way derogate from the Abbey of Florence whereof he was the orderer as well because the orders in it were good as also for that he had submitted all his writings to the Apostolike see Therefore Iodocus Coccius makes him one of his Latin Doctors out of whom he confirmes your Popish doctrine And Trithemius saith that he was a man studious and exercised in the Scriptures and that he writ many things against the Iewes and other aduersaries of the Catholike faith Petrark one of the lights of his age for learning wrote about 250. yeeres since that Rome was become Babylon and not onely Babylon but false and wicked Babylon Further in the same place he calles her The fountaine of griefe the lodge of wrath the schoole of error the temple of heresie a shamelesse strumpet which hauing been founded in chastitie humilitie and pouertie hath lifted vp her hornes against her founders the Emperours In another place he calles her couetous Babylon that hath filled vp the measure of Gods wrath with impious and wicked vices so that it runnes ouer In a third he termes her impious Babylon from whom all shame is fled the lodge of griefe and mother of errors in whom there is no goodnes I set not down all he speakes against her somewhat I haue touched that I might see how easily you will answere his words but I thinke he that hath read Bellarmine of this point may gesse before hand what you can say in the matter Irenaeus as you truly say determines not what shall be Antichrists name and leanes more to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet neither doth he allow of that because a man as hee saith may with likelihood gather by many things that his name perhaps shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirmes that it is very likely and giues his reason of it because the most true kingdome had that name Master Perkins expounded it not as a proper name but as an appellatiue because neither the Euangelist nor Irenaeus doe intend to shew Antichrists proper name but to make knowne the name of the Beast which Antichrist should make all take Now the Beast being the Romane or Latin state the name also must be sutable thereunto as wee see it is our Papists calling themselues Romane that is Latin Catholikes I will not fall into exhortation hereupon only I desire all men that haue care of their saluation to consider without preiudice whether it be not euident that the state of Rome whereof the Pope is head is the whore of Babylon prophecied of by S. Iohn Reuelat 17. speaker W. P. Againe this commandement must not so much be vnderstood of a bodily departure in respect of cohabitation and presence as of a spirituall separation in respect of faith and religion And the meaning of the holy Ghost is that men must depart from the Romish Church in regard of Iudgement and doctrine in regard of their faith and the worship of God Thus then we see that the words containe a commaundement from God inioyning his Church and people to make a separation from Babylon Whence I obserue That all those who will bee saued must depart and separate themselues from the faith and religion of this present church of Rome And whereas they are charged with schisme that separate on this manner the truth is they are not schismatiks that doe so because they haue the commandement of God for their warrant and that partie is the schismatike in whom the cause of this separation lieth and that is in the Church of Rome namely the cup of abomination in the whores hand which is their heretical and schismaticall religion speaker D. B. P. And because I purpose God willing not only to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholike doctrine but some what also in euerie Chapter to fortifie and confirme it I will here deliuer what some of the most auncient most learned
and most holy Fathers doe teach concerning ioyning with the Church and Pope of Rome from whose societie Protestants labour tooth and nayle to withdraw vs. And because of this we must treate more amply in the question of supremacie I will vse here their authoritie only whom M. Perkins citeth against vs. S. Bernard is cited already S. Ireneus Scholler of S. Polycarpe and he of S. Iohn the Euangelist of the Church of Rome writeth thus To this Church by reason of her more mightie principalitie it is necessary that euery Church that is the saithfull on all sides to condescend and agree in and by which alwaies the tradition of the Aposiles hath been preserued of them that be round about her Saint Jerome writing to Damasus Pope of Rome saith I following none as chiefest but Christ doe in participation ioyne with thy blessednesse that is with the chayre of Peter I know the Church to be builded vpon that Rocke VVhosoeuer doth eate the Paschall Lambe out of this house is a prophane fellovv he that is not found vvithin the Arke of Noe shall when the floudes arise perish And a litle after knovv not Vitalis I refuse Meletius I take no notice of Paulinus he that gathereth not vvith thee scattereth that is he that is not vvith Christ is vvith Antichrist Marke and embrace this most learned Doctors iudgement of ioyning vvith the See of Rome in all doubtfull questions he vvould not trust to his ovvne vvit and skill vvhich vvere singular nor thought it safe to relie vpon his learned and vvise neighbours he durst not set vp his rest vvith his ovvne Bishop Paulinus vvho vvas a man of no meane marke but the Patriarke of Antioch but made his assured stay vpon the See of Rome as vpon an vnmoueable Rocke vvith vvhich saith he if vve doe not communicate in faith and Sacraments vve are but profane men voide of all Religion In a vvord vve belong not to Christ but be of Antichrists traine See hovv flat contrarie this most holy ancient Father is to M. Perkins M. Perkins vvould make vs of Antichrists band because vve cleaue vnto the Bishop of Rome Whereas Saint Hierome holdeth all to appertaine to Antichrist who be not fast lincked in matters of Religion with the Pope and See of Rome And so to conclude with this point euerie true Catholike must say with Saint Ambrose I desire in all things to follovv the Church of Rome And thus much of his Prologue speaker A. W. It is a weake fortifying of Popish doctrine to alleage a few sentences written one thousand or more yeeres since in approbation of the Church of Rome as it was then Irenaeus Hierome Ambrose would haue all men ioyne with the Church of Rome which florished in their daies therefore no man may separate from it in these our daies Who sees not the feeblenes of this consequence And yet this is all the force that can be in the reason till they haue prooued that the Church of Rome either was then or is not now the Church of Antichrist If that principalitie Irenaeus speaks of were in the Church of Rome by any right of authoritie from God how should the same Irenaeus be excused who reprooues Victor B. of Rome for taking vpon him to excommunicate some of the Easterne Churches about obseruing of Easter If it be in respect of the truth which then florished at Rome no doubt all men must cleaue vnto it as farre as it cleaues to the truth of God Hierome a Romane and at that time a yong man liuing in Syria being pressed by an Arian Bishop to allow by subscription that which might tend to the countenancing of Arianisme writes to Damasus his owne Bishop for his aduice in the matter But that he did not in respect of his place as if hee could not erre because he was Bishop of Rome for Liberius the very next Bishop before Damasus by Hieroms owne confession had subscribed to Arianisme but in regard of his iudgement which was sound against that heresie so that whosoeuer in that question gathered not with him scattered and held with Antichrist against Christ. Those all things that Ambrose speaks of are according to the place alleaged by you to be restrained to the Liturgie and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome Wherein though Ambrose professe himselfe desirous to follow the Church note by the way that the Church of Rome is taken as a particular Diocesan Church such as the Church of Millan also was at that time and not as the vniuersall Catholike Church yet he did not so follow it because reason led him another way his words are these In all things I desire to follow the Romane Church but yet we also being men haue vnderstanding therefore that which is otherwhere better obserued we also rightly keepe We follow the Apostle Peter himselfe we sticke vnto his deuotion c. Out of which speech of Ambrose these points are to be obserued First that the vnderstanding of Christian men is to direct them wherein they are to follow the Church of Rome wherein to leaue it Secondly that some other Churches might and did better obserue diuers things than the Church of Rome did Thirdly that the Church of Rome did not obserue that which the Apostle Peter at least in Ambrose his iudgement had deuoutly performed Thus we see what helpe there is in the ancient writers to free the Pope and Church of Rome that now are from being the very Antichrist foretold of in the Reuelation speaker W. P. Now touching the dutie of separation I meane to speake at large not standing so much to prooue the same because it is euident by the text as to shew the manner and measure of making this separation and therein I will handle two things First how far forth we may ioyne with them in the matter of religion secondly how far forth and wherein we must dissent and depart from them And for this cause I meane to make choice of certaine points of religion and to speake of them in as good order as I can shewing in each of them our consent and difference and the rather because some harpe much vpon this string that a Vnion may be made of our two religions and that we differ not in substance but in points of circumstance speaker D. B. P. Afterward he taketh vpon him to prescribe and shew vs how far forth we may ioyne with the Church of Rome by proposing many points in controuersie betweene vs and them and in each shewing in what points we consent togither and in what we differ I meane by Gods grace to follow him step by step although he hath made many a disorderly one aswell to discouer his deceits and to disproue their errors as also to establish the Catholike Doctrine the which I will endeuour to performe by the helpe of God with all simplicitie of language and with as much breuity as
such a weightie matter will permitte Yet I hope with that perspicuitie as the meaner learned may vnderstand it and with such substance of proofe both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers as the more iudicious to vvhose profit it is principallie dedicated may not contemne it speaker A. W. I will labour as much as I can both for plainnes and shortnes in all the seuerall points not doubting but by the grace of God to maintaine Master Perkins reasons and answers against all your cauils speaker W. P. The first point wherewith I meane to begin shall be the point of Freewill though it be not the principall I. Our consent speaker W. P. Freewill both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill hee doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same speaker D. B. P. That I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath said agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off only superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning free-will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free vvill both by them and vs c. speaker W. P. Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will only whereby we choose or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more populer Your correcting of Master Perkins definition passeth my vnderstanding for if it be a a facultie both of the minde and will out of doubt it is a mixt facultie But it is more strange that you adde only of the minde onely or of the will onely are speeches that haue some reason in them but of the minde and will onely is a phrase implying a contradiction vnlesse there be some third part of the soule vnknown to ordinarie Philosophers whereof free will may be suspected to be a facultie I. Conclus Man must bee considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renewed as he shall be glorified In the first estate we ascribe to mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or nill either good or euill in the third liberty of grace in the last liberty of glory speaker D. B. P. Annot. Carry this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue free will All the doubt is of the second estate and yet therein also we agree as the conclusions following will declare II. Conclus The matters whereabout freewill is occupied are principally the actions of men which bee of three sorts naturall humane spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men with beasts as to eate drinke sleepe heare see smell taste and to mooue from place to place in all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will and euen since the fall of Adam by a naturall power of the minde doth freely performe any of these actions or the like III. Conclus Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake and vse reason the practise of all mechanicall and liberall arts and the outward performance of ciuill and Ecclesiasticall duties as to come to the Church to speake and preach the word to reach out the hand to receiue the Sacrament and to lend the eare to listen outwardly to that which is taught And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice temperance gentlenesse liberalitie And in these also wee ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution Paul saith Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles that haue not the lawe doe the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength and hee saith of himselfe that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable Phil. 3. 6. And for this externall obedience natural men receiue reward in temporall things Matth. 6. 5. Ezech. 29. 19. And yet here some caueats must be remembred I. That in humane actions he should haue said morall saith D. B. P. mans will is weake and feeble and his vnderstanding dimme and darke and thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquine saith D. B. P. And in all such actions with Augustine you might haue quoted the place â—aith D. B. P. I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead speaker A. W. Humane is more generall and more fit because morall cannot comprehend the first ranke of actions in the beginning of the section Besides it may be Master Perkins thought it not fit to giue that title to any actions of naturall men because none of them are performed according to the Philosophers definition of morall vertue by a habit with due obseruation of the circumstances required by him howsoeuer they are magnified by you Papists The caueat is not taken out of those places wherein Thomas shewes no more but that a man cannot by his naturall strength either fulfill the law or auoide sinne The place is quoted in the margin Hypognostic lib. 3. which you shal finde in tome 7. of Austins works though indeed the book be thought to be none of Austins speaker W. P. II. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it as Ieremie saith chap. 10. vers 23. O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himselfe neither is in man to walke or direct his steps Who knowes not this saith D. B. P. speaker A. W. If there be no man that knowes it not perhaps euery man remembers it not and it is a caueat necessarie for this question The Prophet in the place brought by Master Perkins so speakes of it to God as if it were not knowne to all men O Lord I know that the way of man c. And to say the truth how can any man bee said to know it that fetches the knowledge which God hath of things depending on mans will from the sight of the things from all eternitie present to him For the thing must needs be in the order of nature at least before it can be knowne to be But of this point when iust occasion shall be offered about Predestination speaker W. P. IV. Conclus The third kinde of actions are spirituall more neerely concerning the heart and conscience and these be twofold they either concerne the kingdome of darknes or else the kingdome of God Those that concerne the kingdome of darknesse are sinnes properly and in these we likewise
ioyne with the Papists and teach that in sinnes or euill actions man hath freedome of will Some paraduenture will say that wee sinne necessarily because hee that sinneth cannot but sinne and that free will and necessitie cannot stand together Indeed the necessitie of compulsion or coaction and freewill cannot agree but there is another kinde of necessitie which may stand with freedome of will for some things may be done necessarily and also freely A man that is in close prison must needs there abide and cannot possibly get forth and walke where he will yet can he mooue himselfe freely and walke within the prison so likewise though mans will be chained naturally by the bonds of sinne and therefore cannot but sinne and thereupon sinneth necessarily yet doth it also sinne feely speaker D. B. P. Annot. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose for it puts necessitie in one thing and liberty in an other The solution is that necessarily must be taken for certainly not that a man is at any time compelled to sinne but his weakenes and the crafte of the Diuell are such that he is very often ouer reached by the Diuell and induced to sinne but with free consent of his owne will speaker A. W. The example is to the purpose as he that is in prison if he will walke must of necessitie walke in the prison and yet walkes freely there because he may chuse whether he will walke or no so he that is chained by sinne may chuse whether hee will doe such an action or no but if hee doe it he shall necessarily sinne in doing of it and thus necessitie and libertie are alike in both parts of the similitude There is nothing in your solution that was not in Master Perkins distinction saue that you haue put it in other words you say certainly he infallibly you say man sinnes with free consent and is not compelled he saies he sinnes freely and not of compulsion speaker W. P. V. Conclus The second kind of spirituall actions or things concerne the kingdome of God as repentance saith the conuersion of a sinner new obedience and such like in which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans free will concurs with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some fort For in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required the word Gods spirit and mans will for mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule When any man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willi gly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he wills his conuersion To this end said Augustine He which made thee without thee will not saue thee without thee Againe that is certaine that our will is required in this that we may doe any good thing well but we haue it not from our owne power but God works to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giueth a will to desâ—â—e and will the same grace as for example when God works faith at the same time he works also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in men goe together yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church touching Free will neither may we proceede further with them speaker D. B. P. Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of will in ciuill and morall workes in the state of corruption and all good workes in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renued or as we speake iustified there is liberty of grace that is grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spiritual works as God requireth at his hands Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing he doth in shew of words contradict both these points in another place For in setting downe the disference of our opinions hee saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a litle before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainelie man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to doe or not to do the acts of wisedome Iusâ—ce Temperance c and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentiles so did Yet in his first reason he assirmeth as peremptorily out of the 8. of Genisis that the whole frame of mans heart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall duty speaker A. W. It is neither the principall point in controuersie nor any controuersie at all according to Master Perkins whether man haue freedome of will in morall workes before grace and in all good workes after grace For of the former Master Perkins makes no question but onely giues a caueat of the feeblenes of the will and dimnes of the vnderstanding in such matters with the latter he deales not at all professedly restraining the question to our dissent about the second estate Libertie in the state of grace to will spirituall good wee thankfully acknowledge but neither is it of so large extent as your exposition makes it and without the speciall worke of Gods spirit by it selfe it brings no good thing to passe He doth not say simply that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue Of which his other speech is not a contradiction but rather a confirmation That mans will concurres with Gods grace as a co-worker in some sort and a little after mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion of the soule Now what action it hath and in what respect it is actiue and passiue he shewes presently after the words are falsely alleadged by you viz. that it wils well onely as it moued by grace
in the state of grace but in the state of nature namely in the first conuersion of a sinner as his plaine words are in this place The difference stands in the cause of freedome for it is impossible that a man should beleeue without freedom of will beleeuing being an action of the will But the question is whether the will work with Gods grace by it selfe by it owne naturall power or haue this operation from grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue And this is the very opinion of Luther Caluin and generally all Protestant Diuines who in this point thus dissent from you that they ascribe the very act of the will in repenting beleeuing c. to the especiall worke of Gods spirit in their hearts that repent and beleeue whereas you contrariwise hauing furnisht man with freedome of will by nature or I know not what grace make his assent for I must speake of faith as you doe to proceede not from the spirit of God inclining him certainly to beleeue but from the good vse of his free will yeelding of it selfe to the good motion of Gods spirit yet so as that it might for all the motion and operation of Gods spirit forbeare to assent if it were not led to it by the goodnes of free will In a word you ascribe no more to God but the power that the will hath to will that which is good wee acknowledge that the very act of willing well both before and after grace is caused by the spirit of God to and in euery good desire that wee bring well to passe It is more than Master Perkins affirmes that the will being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified with the vertue of grace is able to effect and doe any worke appertaining to saluation For this vertue is not of such strength but that it needes the particular assistance of Gods spirit to incline and frame it to euery good worke of that nature speaker D. B. P. And this to be the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent vvhere in the sixt Session are first these vvords in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Ievves by the letter of Moses lavv could arise out of that sinfull state After it shevveth hovv our deliuerance is vvrought and hovv freedome of vâ—ill is recouered in special and vvherin it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Jesus Christ that is from his vocation vvhereby vvithout any desert of ours vve are called that vve vvho vvere by our sinnes turned avvay from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our ovvne Justification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and vvorking vvith it So as God touching the hart of man by the light of the Holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration vvho might also refuse it neither yet can he vvithout the grace of God by his free vvill moue himselfe to that vvhich is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that vvhich vvas taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme See vvhat Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath vvritten of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these vvords of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father dravv him He concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God moouing him inwarâ—ly therevnto speaker A. W. The Councill of Trent as closely as it carries matters could not but bewray it selfe in this point wherein it leaues to the will of man inlightened by the holie Ghost the act of refusing and receiuing grace Which must needs be naturall because there was no former worke of God whereby this power to receiue grace was bestowed vpon it And this doth Thomas by you alleaged make more plain denying that there is any grace in the will of man as from God for the preparing of himselfe to receiue habituall grace because then we should need another grace for the former and another for that before the former and so without end What then doth God in this case He moues the heart inwardly saith Thomas or he breathes into vs a good purpose A man would thinke that Thomas hereby acknowledged the receite of some speciall grace but it is not so he meanes no more but this that God puts a good motion into vs for the receiuing of habituall grace which it is in the power of our will by nature either to receiue or refuse So that still in the matter of iustification the reason that this man is iustified that is not shall be from man and not from God Are they not in the middest of darknes that write such things III. Our reasons speaker W. P. Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold namely that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of himselfe by nature either in whole or in part but by grace wholy and alone these reasons may be vsed The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption which may be distinguished into two parts The first is the want of that originall righteousnes which was in man by creation the second is a pronenes and inclination to that which is euill and to nothing that is truly good This appeareth The frame of mans heart saith the Lord is euill euen from his childhood that is the disposition of the vnderstanding will affections with all that the heart of man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholly euill And Paul saith The wisdome of the flesh is enmity against God Which words are very significant for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated wisdome signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires affections and indeauours that be in any naturall man euen those that come most neare to true holines are not only contrary to God but enmitie it selfe And hence I gather that the very hart it selfe that is the will and mind from whence these desires and thoughts doe come are also enmity vnto God For such as the action is such is the facultie whence it proceedeth such as the fruit is such is the tree such as the braunches are such are the rootes By both these places it is euident that in man there is not only a want absence or depriuation of originall righteousnes but a pronenes also by nature vnto that which is euill which pronenes includes in it an inclination not to some few but to all and
example a crab-tree â—…ocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring forth apples and therefore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruit Yet let a sianâ—e of apples be gaâ—ted into it and it wil be are apples euen so albeit our sower corrupt naure of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing reâ—iued into it the heauenlie graft of Gods grace it is inabled to produce he sweete fruit of good workes to which alludeth Saint Iames. Receâ—e the ingrafted vvord vvhich can saue our soules againe what more dâ—d then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring forth aâ—… beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by â—ur Sauiour himselfe vnto seede and our harts vnto the earth that receiâ—ed it what meruaile then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuelyeed do yeeld plentie of pleasing fruit speaker A. W. The question is not whether God can maâ—e a man able to doe good workes or no for of that no mandoubts but what a man can doe by nature to his owne coâ—…ersion Master Perkins saith he is spiritually dead and thereâ—…re can do nothing You answere that he can doe something when God hath quickened him But what can hee doâ— to the quickening of himselfe giue his free consent you say Then it must needes follow that he hath power by naâ—…e to will his owne conuersion for as yet hee hath receiued no grace but onely hath had a good motion made to him or inspired into him by God of which by his owne free wilâ— he takes a liking and so attaines to iustifying grace speaker D. B. P. Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such obiections as may be gathered out of Master Perkins against it before I come to his solution of our arguments I will set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers in defence of our Doctrine because he proposeth but few for vs and misapplieth them too God hath appointed to bring them to chuse and like of saluation 〈…〉 Christ. speaker D. B. P. Vnto these 〈…〉 of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the â—…er vnder Moyses law let vs couple two more out of the new Testament The first may be those kind words of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Jerusalem Jerusalem c. how often vvould I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickâ—â—s vnder her vvings and thou vvouldest not Which doth plainely demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing and withstanding Gods grace as these words of Christ doe plainely witnes and thou vvouldest not The last testimony is in the Reuelat where it is said in the person of God I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voice and open the gates I vvill enter in to him and vvill suppe vvith him and he vvith me Marke well the words God by his grace knocks at the dore of our harts he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace speaker A. W. We acknowledge that the fault is wholy in euery man that is not saued but wee denie that therefore he hath power by nature to chuse life when it is offered he failes indeede in doing of that which hee might doe and ought to doe for his owne furtherance to this choise as the Iewes did in refusing to heare to meditate to yeeld to the miracles wrought by our Sauiour Christ and to beleeue the doctrine which they could in no reasonable sort gainsay It was voluntas signi not beneplaciti God offered them the outward meanes of his word not the inward meanes of his spirit for their conuersion which Lydia had To breake open the doore were to vse compulsion to knock is to vse the outward meanes of conuerting a man or if you will to inspire a good purpose vpon which if any man open out of doubt Christ will enter But this doth no prooue that a man vpon this motion can yeeld by the strength of his owne free will which is the point in question speaker D. B. P. To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs ioyne the testimony of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The fiâ—â—â— shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Aatonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by free vvill could she from soule dishonest deeds and follovv those that be faire and good he vvere vvithout fault as not being cause of such things as vvere done But vve Christians teach that mankind by free choise and free vvill doth both doe vvell and sinne To him we will ioyne that hâ—ly Bishop and valiant Martyr Jreneus who of free will writeth thus not only in vvorkes but in faith also our Lord reserued liberty and freedome of vvill vnto man saying be it done vnto thee according to thy faith speaker A. W. I will adde to that worthie company Saint Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauiour vvill you also depart discourseth thus Our Lord did not bitterly inâ—â—igh against them vvhich forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles vvill you also goe your vvay and vvhy so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by vvhich man left vnto his liberty and put vnto his free choise might deserue vnto himselfe either damnation or saluation These three most auncient and most skilfull in Christian Religion and so zealous of Christian truth that they spent their blood in confirmation of it may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church concerning this article of free wl specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse all Anâ—â—quitie excepting only S. Augustine to haue beleeued and taught free will Heare the words of one for all Mathias Illyricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching free will the testimonies of Iustine Ireneus and others saith mannerâ—lement â—lement Patriarch of Alexandria doth euery vvhere teach free vvill that it may appeare say these Lutherans not only the Doctors of that age to haue been in such darknes but also that it did much encrease in the ages follovving See the wilfull blindnes of heresie Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church to haue taught free will yet had rather beleeue them to haue bin blindly led by the Apostles and then best Schollers who were their Masters then to
man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly speaker D. B. P. But originall sinne doth all these Ergo. Novv to Master Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That vvhich vvas once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo speaker A. W. The Maâ—or vvhich as the learned knovv should consist of three vvords containes foure seuerall points and vvhich is vvorst of all not one of them true If you meane three words as Grammar speaks of words that you say is false for any proposition may containe three hundred such words and yet not offend against Logike If you vnderstand three words as a Logician there may be fourtie seuerall points in a proposition and yet but three words viz. The antecedent part or subiect secondly the consequent part predicate or attribute and thirdly the bond by which they are coupled together So that herein you haue shewed either little skill or little honestie to blame him for foure seuerall points in stead of three words as if his syllogisme had as Logicians speake foure termes and so were false in the forme of it The foure seueral points are these 1. That which was once sinne properly 2. makes him to sinne 3. intangles him in the punishment of sinne 4. makes him miserable all which make the first word or antecedent of the proposition the consequent is sinne properly the 3. bond that ties these two together the verbe is Now let both learned and vnlearned iudge whether the fault be in Master Perkins or in your ignorance or cauilling speaker D. B. P. To the first that vvhich remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence vvas neuer a sinne properly but only the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lavv of God the vvhich is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that vvhich vvas principall in Originall sinne doâ—h not remaine in the regenerate speaker A. W. It hath alreadie been prooued that it is sinne properly euen after Baptisme if you meane that concupiscence the Apostle speakes of against the commandement If you do not what haue we to doe with it in this question Concupiscence or the facultie of desiring is no otherwise affected to sinne than reason is but the blindnes of the vnderstanding and the vitiousnes of the will which the Apostle cals concupiscence are part of originall sinne The naturall faculties are not the parts but rather the seate of it or the subiect which in some respect may be said to be the matter Sure the forme is as of all sinnes in general the aberration from or the contrarines of it to the law of God The depriuation you should say the absence of originall iustice is comprised in the aberration I spake of and so is that voluntarie auersion from God and goodnes besides which there is also an euill qualitie I know not how else to call it whereby we incline to that which is against the law of God This we call originall sinne or naturall corruption because we haue it from Adam the originall of all mankinde and that from our first being together with our nature and in our nature though by creation it was not in our nature This is helped by the power of Gods spirit through the grace of sanctification both in the principall point and in the accessories yet is not the concupiscence wholy taken away but being deadly wounded dies by little and little in the children of God as they are assured it shall by the outward and inward baptisme through the power of Christs death and resurrection Notwithstanding as long as wee liue in this world it remaines the same thing it was before baptisme euen sinne properly but the hurt it hath is vnrecouerable and the strength abated speaker D. B. P. Neither doth that vvhich remaineth make the person to sin vvhich vvas the second point vnlesse he vvillingly consent vnto it as hath bin proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sin but hath not povver to constraine him to it as Master Perkins also himselfe before confessed speaker A. W. I deny your consequence it makes him to sinne though it doe not constraine him as the spirit of God makes vs beleeue though he inforce vs not to it speaker D. B. P. Novv to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne hovv doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin if all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Original sinne is not taken avvay from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne speaker A. W. This doubt is alreadie answered that it intangles him because it makes him doe that by which he is guiltie of sin and deserues punishment howsoeuer the Lord pardons his sinne in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinen make a man miserable a man may be called vvretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace vvith God and so subiect to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sense is sin but S. Paul taketh not the vvord so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this vvorld from vvhich vve should haue been exempted had it not been for Originall sinne after vvhich sort he vseth the same vvord If in this life only we vvere hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fevvest vvorldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument speaker A. W. It is strange you should so confidently set downe an vntruth in writing whereof you may so easily and certainely be conuinced The Apostle doth not vse the same word but another that signifies to be pitied We were of all men most to be pitied But that the Apostle complaines of miserie in respect of sinne by that word the vse of it otherwhere may prooue The holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea that she was miserable and wretched the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there either the miserie of sinne or pitie for that miserie and beggerly and blinde and naked Houle yee rich men saith S. Iames for the miseries that shall come vpon you The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries as you expound him but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne which he
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
righteousnes of Christ neither doth he for that purpose bring this testimonie but to shew what that faith is by which wee are iustified Secondly you accuse Master Perkins for cutting off certaine conditions added on our part by Bernard but where are these conditions added The words you alleage are aboue thirtie lines after those that he cites and depend not vpon them but are spoken concerning the certaintie of saluation So therefore saith Bernard doth this glorie viz. the inward glorie and witnes of our conscience as in the words immediatly before dwell here in our earth if mercie and truth meete together and righteousnes and peace kisse each other For it is necessarie that the truth of our conuersion meete with mercie preuenting it And that afterward we follow holinesse and peace without which no man shall see God This and such like sentences declare that it is in vaine for a man to promise himselfe iustification without sanctification But they answere not the former testimonie which shewes that iustifying faith is a particular applying of Christ by beleeuing the forgiuenes of our sinnes speaker W. P. Cyprian God promiseth thee immortalitie when thou goest out of this world and doest thou doubt This is indeede not to know God and this is for a member of the Church in the house of faith not to haue faith If we beleeue in Christ let vs beleeue his words and promises and wee shall neuer die and shall come to Christ with ioyfull securitie with him to raigne for euer speaker D. B. P. S. Cyprian encourageth 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 lies in our owne infiâ—mities and yet bids them not to doubt as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued but animats them and puts them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reasons speaker A. W. Cyprian affirmes confidently that God hath promised euery true Christian immortalitie when he goes out of the world so that if hee beleeue this promise and rest vpon God for the performance of it by Christ he shall certainly be made partaker of it Your comfort is so cold that a man were as good be without it when his hope shall depend especially vpon the good vse of his owne free will in beleeuing and keeping the law of Christ. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne party why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alleadge in fauor of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then beliâ—e because he knew not how to answere them I will out of their fromâ— take that one principall of the testimony of holy Scripture And by that alone â—…ly proue that the faith required to iustification 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 speaker A. W. It should seeme the reason was that hauing as he said before prooued our opinion to be true he doth but adde aâ— argument or two to his former proofe For that it was easie for him to answere those you bring I hope it shall be manifest to all men at the least it had not been hard for him to chuse out some that he could haue answered speaker D. B. P. 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 saide in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith speaker A. W. Your reason is thus to be framed If the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all that which was reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs then iustifying faith is so But the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all which by God is reueiled c. Therefore a iustifying faith is a beleefe of all that which is reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs First we must remember that wee speake of that faith by which they were iustified for else the consequence of the proposition may be doubted of This being vnderstood I denie the assumption and to the proofe of it I answere first in generall that your examples are either effects of iustifying faith or the way and meanes to it but not the faith it selfe speaker D. B. P. S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice which is by faith What faith had he That by Christs righteousnes he was assured of saluation No such matter but beleeue that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him speaker A. W. Secondly I say for the particulars that this was not the faith by which Noe was iustified For it is apparant that he was iustified before he beleeued that God would drown the world Adde hereunto that this faith of his was also a resting vpon God for safetie according to his promise The Apostle in this and the like propounds not the meanes of iustification but some notable effect of faith Neither doth he declare what this righteousnes of faith was but saith that the righteousnes of faith remained as Lyra expounds it in him onely and his children in which respect he is called the heire of it Chrysostome saith By this he appeared to be iust because he beleeued God speaker D. B. P. Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of iustice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans What 〈◊〉 he was iustified by Let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith hath these words He contrary to hope beleeued in hope that he might be made the Father of manie Nations according to that which vvas said vnto him So shall thy seed be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the sea and he vvas not vveakened in faith neither did he consider his ovvne body novv quite dead vvhereas he vvas almost an hundred yeares old not the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but vvas strengthned in saith giuing glorie to God most fully knovving that vvhaâ—soeâ—eâ— he promised he vvas able also to doe therfore vvas 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 iustified speaker A. W. Od Abraham I answere as
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
of Christ concerning building the temple againe This saith the Gospell the disciples then vnderstood not but after his resurrection they came to the true vnderstanding of it We say not that our Sauiour deliuered to them euery point of doctrine distinctly but that he furnished them with so much knowledge as that they might easily by that light gather and write whatsoeuer was needfull to be beleeued to the penning whereof they had the speciall direction of the spirit both for matter and maner Iansenius Bishop of Gaunt is wholie of the same opinion affirming that those many things were not diuers from those which he had taught them before but a more plaine exposition of them and to that purpose he alleages very fitly that place of the Apostle I could not speake to you as vnto spirituall men but as it were vnto carnall men to little ones in Christ. Didymus about the yeare 580. expounded the place thus This he saith that his auditors had not yet conceiued all things which he had told them that afterward they were to suffer for his name sake And afterward as yet also saith Didymus being vnder the type of the law and shadowes they could not discerne of the truth the shadow whereof the law caryed speaker D. B. P. This place of S. Iohn M. Perkins patcheth vp vvith another of S. Paul If vve or any Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing besides that vvhich we haue preached let him be accursed And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that vvhich he had taught Ans. Now we must looke vnto the Gentlemans fingers There were three corruptions in the text of S. Iohn here is one but it is a foule one Insteed of preaching vnto them another Gospell he puts preach vnto them any other thing when there is great difference betweene another Gospell and any other thing The Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith and the whole worke of Gods building in vs which S. Paul like a wise Architect had laide in the Galathians others his fellow workemen might build vpon it gold siluer and pretious stones with great merit to themselues and thanks from S. Paul Marry if any should digge vp that blessed and only foundation would lay a new one him S. Paul holdeth for accursed So that that falsification of the text is intolerable and yet when all is done nothing can be wringed out of it to proue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needfull to saluation for S. Paul speaketh there only of his Gospell that is of his preaching vnto the Galathians and not one word of any written Gospell No more doth he in that place to Timothy And so it is nothing to purpose speaker A. W. The Greeke is word forword if we or an angell from heauen shall preach vnto you beside that which we haue preached let him be accursed Your vulgar Latine all one with it in a maner praeterquam quod for praeter id quod as it is in the next verse where the greeke is all one your interlinear praeter quod in both verses You will haue the Apostle meane another gospell and so will Master Perkins for by another thing he vnderstands such another thing as shall be necessarie to saluation and yet diuers from that which the Apostle had deliuered And what is that else but another Gospell You tell vs the gospell comprehends the principall points of faith whereas before in this point you giue no more to the whole scripture but that some principall points may be gathered out of it this would haue made a contradiction in Master Perkins But is there any thing necessarie to saluation that is not a principall point of faith Is not that a principall point without which a man cannot be saued But if as you adde the gospell comprehend also the whole worke of Gods building in vs either I conceiue not what you meane by those words or else he that teacheth any other course of Gods building in vs then the gospell prescribes preacheth another gospell which doctrine will go neere to ouerthrow the greatest part of your will worship You proceed and say that the Apostle speakes of such a doctrine as digs vp the foundation What is the foundation If it be not digged vp as long as Christ is held to be the Messiah and that without him there is no saluation as you commonly expound the gospell of faith in Christ questionles the Apostle speakes not of ouerthrowing the foundation because the Galathians against whom he writes did not think that any saluation could be had without Christ but that the law morall and ceremoniall was to be ioyned with Christ to iustification If the foundation may be razed though those points be not denyed and if to ioyne the law with Christ be to lay another foundation and to preach another gospell how can your popish synagogue be a true member of Christs Church in which the foundation is shaken in coupling the law with Christ and another Gospell preached by teaching such points of doctrine for matter necessarie to saluation as the Apostles neuer deliuered Master Perkins therefore vnderstanding by any thing only things that make another Gospell as the question in hand and the other place alleaged shew A diuers doctrine may neither be charged with nor suspected of false dealing Bellarmine a Cardinall and a man of as great iudgement as you affirmes that the Apostle in that place speakes both of the written and vnwritten word not as you would haue it only of the gospel preached And Austin applies the text to the scripture of the law and of the gospell other then that which you haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures that is in the old and new Testament Basill also saith the like of the same matter that the hearers must examin those things that are deliuered by their teachers and receiue those that are agreeable to the Scripture and reiect those that are diuers which he prooues by that place to the Galathians And whereas Bellarmine would haue their testimonies vnderstood of things contrary only the very words refute him But it is apparant that all that Paul preached is in the scriptures for out of them doth he still confirme his doctrine They of Berea found that which hee taught them to agree with the scriptures and himselfe auoucheth before Festus that he preached nothing but that which Moses and the Prophets had taught And so both these places are to purpose speaker W. P. Testimonie IV. 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God is profitable to teach to improoue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute beeing made perfect vnto euerie good worke In these wordes be contained two arguments to prooue the sufficiencie of the Scripture
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
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
that lookes into your Commentaries and bookes of controuersies shall finde very diuers and sometimes contrarie expositions Our Sauiour Christ hath prouided sufficientlie for his Church by deliuering in scripture the grounds of religion so plainely some here some there that any reasonable man may with small labour vnderstand them from which they that haue knowledge of the tongues and arts especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick may come to vnderstand the harder places though perhaps not euery one yet at the least so many and such as shall serue to instruct the people of God in the knowledge of his will for the obtaining of euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. To auoid then such garboyles and intestine contention there vvas neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all boubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Lavv-maker who in vvisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens doe the earth hath left his golden Lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit no no It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Son of God speaker A. W. For the auoiding of outward garboiles by force or preaching false doctrine our Sauiour hath appointed principallie the ciuill magistrate secondarily the gouernors of the Churches For the keeping of his children from perishing by error he hath ordeined beside the outward helps of Pastors and Doctors the most certaine direction of his vicegerent the holy spirit who preserues all that are Christs from falling away from the substance and foundation of truth to damnation Not that euery man may take vpon him to interpret scripture vpon pretence of I know not what spirit but that he may assure himselfe of being kept from all error that may ouerthrow his saluation by the direction of Gods spirit vpon whom he calls by prayer and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before sure and who therefore were appointed to be heard without exception This befals not any men nowadayes and therefore none can iustly claime any such credit The auncients that so wrot in this point of S. Pauls going to see Peter haue wholie mistaken the Apostle who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him For he saith First that he was not an Apostle of men nor by man Secondly that he went vp to Ierusalem not to haue confirmation of his doctrine from them who were no way superior to him but that the Gentiles might know he taught the same things that the other Apostles did If he had done it for his owne assurance he had not beleeued the vision and discredited our Sauiours extraordinarie teaching of him and had taught for a time such things as he was not sure to be the truth of God But if this should be his case he had sinned grieuously in his former preaching and he had wholie ouerthrowne the authoritie of his ministrie which in these two Chapters he labors especially to vphold auouching that he neither learned any doctrine nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames Cephas and Iohn which were esteemed to be pillers yea he did openly reprooue Peter if not of error in doctrine yet of misbehauiour in his conuersation As for the controuersie of abrogating Moses law it was a case determined by scripture and no man might refuse to obey any one of the Apostles charge coÌ„cerning that point But that the Brethren might haue the better satisfaction it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by ioynt consent of themselues and the brethren there assembled which any one of them might of himselfe haue ended But because diuers parts of the Church were conuerted by diuers Apostles and each Church made most account of their owne Apostle the readiest and safest way was to conclude of the matter by common consultation so afterward in all lawfull Councels the written word was held sufficient for the consutation of the heresies that arose from time to time but for the better stopping of the heretikes mouths and satisfying of all men sometimes the consent of former Diuines Churches and Councels was added in good discretion for mens sake not for the matter which might be and was abundantlie prooued or discouered as occasion serued by the scriptures speaker D. B. P. See Cardinall Bellarmine I vvill only record tvvo noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquity for the true sense of Gods vvord The first out of the Ecclesiastical History whereof Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and Saint Basil tvvo principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And aftervvard for thirteene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes imployed their studie vvholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning vvhereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as vvere knovvne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the very words speaker A. W. The examples you bring are nothing against vs in this question Nazianzen and Basil sought the true sense of the Scripture not out of their owne iudgement but out of their predecessors writings and authoritie What then Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation This consequence hath often been disprooued Neither is the Antecedent true if it be generally taken For their owne writings shew euery where that they vsed the help of learning and discourse to finde out the sense of scripture in many places and set downe that in their Commentaries which by study they came to vnderstand If any thing were doubtfull we presume they did as we are sure the Protestants now doe where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie rest vpon the authoritie of their predecessors rather than vpon their owne This reuerence wee giue to the Fathers writings and reade them with as great diligâ—… as they that make more bragges of thâ—ir knowledge in â—heâ— And if that rule which the storie 〈◊〉 and or you name not but it is Austin speakes of 〈◊〉 one of them which we follw in searching out thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the Scripture â—…treate â—ou to make 〈◊〉 to vs and you shall finde that we will take it 〈◊〉 and vse it diligently if we cannot shew you certaine reasons to the contrarie If the rule be to take for truth whatsoeuer the ancients haue deliuered how many things yea contrarie expositions shal we hold for true If you say the rule is to beleeue the ancientest what
This vowe is necessarie and must bee kept as a part of the true worship of God because it is a promise wherein wee vowe to performe all duties commaunded of God either in the law or in the Gospell It may be demaunded considering wee are bound to obedience how wee binde our selues in baptisme thereto Answ. Though we be alreadie bound partly by nature and partly by the written word yet may wee renew the same bond in a vowe and he that is bound may further binde himselfe so it be for this end to helpe his dulnes for want of zeale and to make himselfe more forward in duties of loue to men and the worship of God to this end Dauid sware to keepe the law of God Psal. 119. 116. though he were bound vnto it by nature and by the written law it selfe The speciall vowe is that which doth not reach to the person of al beleeuers but onely concernes some speciall men vpon some speciall occasions And this kind of vow is twofold The first is the vow of a ceremonial duty in the way of seruice to God and it was in practise in the Church of the Iewes vnder the old Testament examples hereof are two especially the first was the vowe of the Nazarites whereto no kind of men were bound by Gods commaundement but they bound thēselues God only prescribing the maner and order of keeping the same with rites pertaining thereto as abstinence from wine the not cutting of their haire and such like The second example is of the Iewes when of their owne accords they vowed to giue God house or land sheepe or oxen or any like things for the maintenance of the legall worship and of this also God prescribeth certaine rules Leuit. 27. Now these vowes were part of the Iewish pedagogie or ceremoniall law wherein God trained vp the Iewes in the old testament and beeing obserued of them they were parts of Gods worship but now vnder the Gospell they are not beeing all abolished with the ceremoniall law to which Christ put an ende at his death vpon the crosse It is true Paul made a vowe and since kept the same in in the time of the new Testament Act. 18. yet not as a part of Gods worship but as a thing indifferent for the time wherein he only condescended to the weakenes of the Iewes that by this meanes he might bring them the better vnto Christ. And whereas Christ is called a Nazarite Matth. 2. 23. we may not thinke he was of that very order because he did not abstaine from wine but he was so tearmed because hee was the veritie and accomplishment of this order For by it was signified that Gods Church was a peculiar people seuered or chosen out of the world and that Christ in respect of holines was also separated from all sinners And the words in Saint Matthew he shall be called a Nazarite are borrowed from the booke of Iudges cap. 13. where they are properly spoken of Sampson and in type or figure of Christ. For as Sampson saued Israel by his death so did Christ saue his Church And as Sampson killed his enemies more by death then by life so did Christ. It is plaine therefore that this kind of vowe bindeth not vs for there are no more ceremonies to bee kept vnder the Gospell for partes of Gods worship but the outwarde rites of Baptisme and the Lords Supper Vovves concerning meates and drinkes attire touching tasting times place daies were proper to the Iewes The second kinde of speciall vowe is that whereby a man promiseth freely to performe some outward and bodily exercise for some good ende and this vow also if it be made accordingly is lawfull and belongs both to the Church of the olde and new Testament In the olde wee haue the example of the Rekabites Ier. 35. who by the appointment of Ionadab their father abstained from strong drinke and wine from planting vineyardes and orchardes whereby Ionadab intended onely to breake them before hand and to acquaint them with their future condition and state that they should be strangers in a forraine land that so they might prepare themselues to indure hardnes in the time to come And now in the new testament wee haue warrant in like manner to vowe as if a man by drinking of wine or strong drinke finde himselfe prone to drunkennes he may vowe with himselfe to drinke no more wine nor strong drinke for so long time as hee feeles the drinking thereof will stirre vp his infirmitie and minister occasion of sinning Of this kind also are the vowes in which we purpose and promise to God to keepe set times of fasting to taske our selues in prayer and reading of holy Scriptures and to giue set almes for special causes knowne to our selues and to doe sundrie like duties And that wee be not deceiued in making such vowes certaine rules must be remembred I. that the vowe be agreeable to Gods will and word for if it be otherwise the making as also the keeping thereof is sinne Vowes must not bee the bondes of iniquitie II. It must so be made that it may stand with Christian libertie For wee may not make such things necessary in conscience which God hath made free Now Christian liberty allowes vnto vs the free vse of all thinges indifferent so it be out of the case of offence Hence it followes that vowes must be made and keept or not keept so farreforth as in conscience they may stand or not stande with our libertie purchased by Christ. III. The vowe must be made with consent of superiors if we be vnder gouernment Thus among the Iewes the vowe of a daughter might not stand vnlesse the consent of Parents came thereunto IV. It must bee in the power and abilitie of the maker thereof to do or not to doe A vowe made of a thing impossible is no vowe V. It must be agreeable to the calling of him that maketh it that is both to his generall calling as he is a Christian and to that particular calling wherein he liueth If it bee against either one or both it is vnlawfull VI. It must be made with deliberation no better things performed then God by his lawe hath bound vs to else man could deuise better obedience or more acceptable seruice to God then he himselfe hath appointed If by better good you meane be a greater measure of obedience then is commonly performed I doubt whether any man can do more then the law of God hath required of him which is the rule of perfect obedience If you vnderstand the meanes of stirring vp our selues to the doing of our dutie to God Master Perkins acknowledgeth that and compriseth it in the later part though he do not expresse it Secondly you say that it must proceede from our owne free choise and libertie The promise doubtlesse must haue our owne will for the ground of it and so much the word imports but the good must be a dutie commanded or at
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
among the best Christians in the Primitiue Church speaker D. B. P. Tertullian hath these words At euery going forward and returne wheÌ„ we dresse vs and pull on our shoes when we wash and sit downe at the lighting of Candels and entring into our Chambers finally when we set ourselues to any thing we make the signe of the Crosse on our foreheads speaker A. W. The signe of the crosse as it is here spoken of by you doth not indeed belong to this question which is of such images as are set vp to be outwardly worshipped such as this signe of the crosse neuer was among the auncient Christians But because as you say it is the forme that you worship which is made though it continue not and for that your Diuines mainteine the worshipping of it euen outwardly as I will shew let it passe in the rancke where you haue set it Now that the signe of the crosse is so to be worshipped first Bellarmine shews where he saith The signe of the crosse which is made vpon the forehead or in the ayer is holy and to be worshipped Costerus his fellow Iesuit speaketh more plaine Christians saith he euer since Christes time haue alwaies worshipped with great reuerence both the wood of our Lords crosse it self and the signe of the crosse with which they daily fence themselues Suarez another Iesuit is more plaine then he The signe of the crosse saith he is worthie of reuerence and adoration for it hath the vse and signification of a Sacrament And it skils not that it is made in a matter or by an action that passeth away because the only difference of the matter when the fashion is all one hinders not the adoration Iacobus de Graphijs giueth also the reason of this We worship it saith he with diuine honor for that it puts vs in mind of our Lords passion which is performed by the signe of the crosse on the forehead as well as by a crosse painted on the wall Lastly Gabriell Vasquez saith that the crosse of Christ by what meanes soeuer exprest is worthie of veneration as well as the crosse it selfe on which he suffered That the crosse was in common vse among the auncient Christians it was neuer denied yet haue we no record of it in any auncient authenticall writer before Ireneus as Doctor Fulke hath truly auouched against Martiall As for the counterfeit writings of Ignatius Martialis of Burdeaul and Dionysius Areopagita both the stile and the matter refute the titles and bewray partly ignorance euen in the language and partly authors of later times Xystus Betuleius would haue vs beleeue his word that the ceremony of crossing was vsed euen when the Apostles laid on their hands but neither doth the scripture affirme any such thing neither brings he any authoritie or reason to prooue it But let the author of it be vnknowne as he is yet if the occasion and vse of it were certaine and warrantable there were more reason to finde fault with the leauing of it But who can resolue vs of this doubt Austin seemes to be very vncertaine fetching this custome of crossing from a desire to make profession of Christianitie in the sight of the pagans He seemes otherwhere to attribute it to an imitation of the Iewish Ceremony in marking the dore posts with the blood of the paschall lambe What should I speake of the doubt concerning the forme it selfe which is the thing that you professedly worship What is that forme the sauâ—â—oir or S. Andrews crosse resembling as some thinke not the crosse of our Sauiour but the first letter of his name in Greeke which also was set on the top of Constantines standerd Or is it nothing else but two crosse lines cutting each other in a right angle as it is commonly made which some will haue to be resembled by that standerd of Constantines the staffe and the baner making such a crosse like to the mast and the sayle yard It is all one what the forme was if the vse were good and lawfull But how shall that be auowed when it is not certaine what it was All which notwithstanding we are desirous so to interpret the auncients concerning this point as that we may free them from superstition if it be possible We would gladly therfore expound their speaches of the efficacie and vertue of the crosse not of the wood nor of the forme but of the passion and sufferings of our Sauiour Christ in which sense the scripture speakes of it most truly and gloriously I could to this purpose alleage diuers places out of the Fathers but I must needs confesse that I can bring many other out of their writings which will not beare that exposition What if I should say that they vsed it only as an outward gesture when they prayed to God for any blessing and therefore continually signed themselues as Tertullian and Austin shew I could cite some places by which this coniecture might be made somewhat likely yea I could adde hereunto the iudgement of your late Iesuits who acknowledge that vse of the crosse amongst them and denie that it puts any vertue into the thing that is signed But neither would this content you and many speeches of the auncients are such as can admit no such interpretation Wherefore all that I will answere is this that howsoeuer the vse of crossing as it was amongst the Fathers within 200. yeares after our Sauiours ascension and for a long time afterward cannot be sufficientlie warranted by any ground of scripture yet the Crosse was neuer made an Idoll by any outward worship amongst them as it is altogether with you Papists Whereupon it followes that the testimonies which you alleage out of the Fathers are falsely applied by you to countenance such Idolatry as they neuer dreamed of speaker D. B. P. S. Ambrose exhort vs to begin all our vvorkes vvith the signe of the Crosse. speaker A. W. To that of Ambrose I answere more particularly first that your quotation of his 84. Sermon is false for there is not a word of any such matter in all that Sermon Secondly that in the place you meane he saith not we must begin all our works with the signe of the crosse but rather speaketh of prayer according as before I expounded him We must saith Ambrose when we rise giue thanks to God and do euery worke we take in hand all the day in the signe of our Sauiour that is with prayer to Christ. speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine What is that ensigne of Christ which all men knovv but the Crosse of Christ the vvhich signe vnlesse it be made on the foreheads of the faithfull yea on the vvater by vvhich they are regenerate and on the Oyle and Chrisme vvherewith they are annoynted and on the sacrifice vvherevvith they are nourished not one of them are orderly
note that in your cōsequent or conclusion you call Images holy as if by I know not what holynes they had some right to be placed in Churches as also you speake afterward where should holy pictures of holy men be more properly bestowed then in holy places Nothing is to be counted holy but that which either hath a qualitie of holines in it as all that are sanctified haue or else is belonging to the seruice of God And whatsoeuer is of this later kind is rather hallowed then holy and hath no holines in it but by being consecrated to such a vse Neither is this consecration as that of the Ceremoniall lawe was whereby a thing was made indeed holy ceremonially as nothing with vs can be the ceremonies being abrogated So that such things are no longer nor farther holy then they are employed in that seruice and therefore the water with which we baptise and the bread and wine with which we celebrate the Supper of the Lord after those actions are past are no more holy then any other matter bread or wine Images therefore can no way be holy more then any other worke in Churches therfore setting apart this bare title of holines I denie the consequence of your Enthymem Salomon adorned the inner parts of the Temple where the people came not with pictures of Cherubins Therefore it is lawfull to set vp images in Churches where the people ordinarily come Who seeth not great difference betweene the Antecedent and the Consequent To omit that which I answered before on Master Perkins behalfe concerning Salomons warrant for his so doing his father and himselfe being Prophets speaker D. B. P. Which is fortified by the testimony of Tertullian in the place cited before where he saith that our Sauiour was Pictured vpon holy Chalices which were vsed at the Altars and of Sozomenus vvho vvitnesseth that our Sauiours Picture vvas taken into the Church speaker A. W. The authoritie of other mens doings is of lesse waight Tertullian saith Christ was pictured like a Shepheard vpon the chalices Nazianzen trimmed vp Images Basil allowed of the Martyr Barlaams picture in the Churches Damasus saith Constantine set vp a siluer image of our Sauiour Chrysostome and Austin say that the Crosse was on the holy tables Therefore it is lawfull to set vp Images in Churches Of the Antecedent by and by in the meane while I deny the consequence They allow of Images therefore they are lawfull If your Church thinke it possible for these men to erre as I am sure it doth then may it not be takē for lawfull because they approue it But to the Antecedent what doth Tertullian but tell vs what the Chalice-maker had done in likelyhood for the setting forth of his worke both this and that of Sozomens report is answered before it is not proued there euer was any such Image of our Sauiour speaker A. W. S. Gregorie Nazianzen maketh mention of Images in the Church of Neocaesarea trimmed vp by himselfe Saint Basil pointeth to that holy mans Picture standing in the Church Nazianzen and Basil speake not of images to any vse of Religion whereof only our question is but either for ornament as the former saith All our labour and care in the beautifying of it or for honor to the martyr which was ciuill not religious and yet scarce iustifiable Damasus shevveth hovv Constantine in the Church of S. Iohn Lateran erected a siluer Image vnto our Sauiour speaker A. W. S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 demonst quod Christ. sit Deus And S. Augustine do teach that the Crosse was on the holy Tables and vsed at all holy functions This report of Constantines erecting a siluer image seemeth to depend vpon the tale of his being baptised at Rome by Syluester whereas it is apparant by Eusebius and Theodoret that he was not baptised till the very end of his life and in Asia many hundred miles from that Church of Saint Iohn Lateran in Rome in Nicomedia now called by the Turke who possesseth it Nichor a towne of Bythinia Chrysostome speaketh of the generall vse of the crosse in all places not for any holines of the signe but as a marke of profession The crosse saith he is in the purple robes in the Crownes the crosse is at our prayers the crosse is in our armor the crosse is vpon the holy table the crosse is ouer all the world yea the crosse glisters aboue the sunne If this crosse were an Image Optatus as we heard before counts the presence of it a defiling of the Altar That place of Austin intreates of the crosse both for the signe and image of it most superstitiously ascribing strange effects to it which no moderate or reasonable man can defend except he will expound it as I shewed before of an outward ceremonie vsed in prayer to which purpose wee may applie that speech of his in the end of that discourse Looke what the presence of Christs body did vpon the earth that doth the famous memory of the victorious crosse with a faithfull calling vpon the name of Christ. Otherwise it is wonderfull strange that Austin should so highly esteeme of the crosse whereas Optatus a worthie Bishop of the same countrey in the beginning of Austins time accounts so meanely of it speaker D. B. P. And the reason why Images should principally be set in Churches is very pregnant For where should holy Pictures of holy men be more properly bestovved than in holy places And the Church being a resemblance of heauen as S. Paul teacheth is most conueniently decked vp vvith Images the representations of heauenly creatures that men entring into that holy place may by the vievv and consideration of such a heauenly shew retire their minds from worldly busines and lift them vp vnto the soueraigne Monarch of both heauen and earth speaker A. W. The Apostle saith no such thing of any Church now but affirmes that the Tabernacle of the Iewes was ceremonially a shadow of heauenly things And yet it would be remembred that the Tabernacle and Temple had no Images but in the holie places where the people came not We hold it very conuenient to haue our Churches modestly adorned rather than sumptuously and with such kinde of ornaments as may not carrie away the minde by the outward sense either to a vaine imagination or to some superstitious conceit speaker D. B. P. Now let vs come to those tvvo obiectione of M. Perkins vvhich see me to be against the erection of Images in Churches The first is out of the Councell of Eliberis cap. 36. which commandeth that nothing should be painted on the walles of the Church that was adored of the people Ans. That if the Councell speake of the Image of God in vvhich sense M. Perkins citeth it and the word adored doth insinuate then it may be said that the Councill inhibiteth that sort of Gods Images vvhich are made
in Epiphanius other counterfeit testimony That Images must not be suffered in the common house because vve must carry God in our minds To vvhich vve ansvvere that Images must be suffred in all places that vve may the better carry-God in our harts being by the sight of them both often put in mind of him and much moued to honor and loue him speaker A. W. In steed of answering the other testimonie out of Epiphanius you go about vnder hand to strike at him thorough Master Perkins sides but there is no great force in your blow For as I said erewhile there is more daunger of Idolatrie in the suffering of Images especially in any place where God is to bee worshipped than hope of instruction or deuotion by the sight of them And as Epiphanius saith in this place It is not meete that a Christian should be exercised by the eyes but by the meditation of the minde For such sight as Clement taught vs before abaseth the Maiestie of God and begets in vs erroneous opinions speaker W. P. Obiect III. Man is the image of God but it is lawfull to paint a man and therefore to make the image of God Ans. A very cauill for first a man cannot be painted as he is the image of God which stands in the spiritual gifts of righteousnesse and true holinesse Againe the image of a man may be painted for ciuill or historicall vse but to paint any man for this ende to represent God or in the way of religion that wee may the better remember and worship God it is vnlawfull Other reasons which they vse are of small moment and therefore I omit them Differ II. They teach and maintaine that images of God and of Saints my be worshipped with religious worship specially the crucifixe For Thomas of Watering saith Seeing the crosse doth represent Christ who died vpon a crosse and is to bee worshipped with diuine honour it followeth that the crosse is to be worshipped so too We on the contrary hold they may not Our principall ground is the second commaundement which containeth two partes the first forbiddeth the making of Images to resemble the true God the second forbids the worshipping of them or God in them in these wordes Thou shalt not bow downe to them Now there can be no worship done to any thing lesse then the bending of the knee speaker D. B. P. Novv I come vnto a third point which M. Perkins maketh the second of our difference That Images may be not only made and set in Churches but also vvorshipped M. Perkins holds the contrarie and his principall ground is the second commandement vvhich containes saith he tvvo parts The first forbids the making of Images to resemble God the second the vvorshipping of them or God in them in these vvords Thou shalt not bovv dovvne to them Ans. If it be only forbidden to make the Image of God and to adore it then the making and worshipping of the Image of Christ or of any other creature is not there prohibited And so this second commandement more than thrise alleadged vvill not serue the turne against any other Image but God only And in plaine reason according also to Master Perkins his ovvne confession the Commandements of the first Table touch only our duty tovvards God that vve giue him all his due honor and do not giue any part therof vnto any thing else whatsoeuer Wherfore diuine and godly worship is only there spoken of and not such worship as we giue vnto any creature or to the picture of it and consequently there is nothing there against the vvorshipping of our holy Images speaker A. W. It is not onely forbidden to make the Image of God and to worship it but as Master Perkins said before to make an Image of any thing in the way of Religion to worship God much more to worship the creature thereby Therefore the Assumption that should be added to that proposition of yours if it be only forbidden c. namely but it is only forbidden to make the image of God and to adore it is false and so the second Commandement is against all Images for Gods seruice The Commandements of the first table touch onely our dutie to God True and it is an especial part of our dutie to him that we giue no religious honour to any thing whatsoeuer but to him onely For as Religion is a dutie of the creature to the Creator and not any bond betwixt creature and creature so is religious honour due onely to him to whom religion is appropriated Therefore the Heathen were neuer so sottish as to worship any man or thing with religious worship whereto they did not first ascribe some kinde of diuinitie according to which they proportioned their worship thereto speaker D. B. P. Obserue that there is a soueraigne vvorshippe due to God as to the Creator and gouernour of all the vvorld and to giue this to any creature is Idolatrie Another honor by infinit degrees inferiour yet absolute in itself is ascribed vnto Angels and men as creatures endued with reason and made after the likenesse of God and to exhibitth is to whom it is due is ciuilitie and not Idolatrie This honor may be diuided into two parts because these creatures are like to God asvvell in their naturall povvers and qualities as in their supernaturall And that honour vvhich is giuen to man or Angell in respect of any naturall quality may be called morall or ciuil But that vvhich is attributed vnto them in regard of their supernaturall gifts may vvell be called religious and spirituall because it is due vnto them only for their spirituall and religious qualities There is a third kind of worship yet meaner then the other which is a kind of dependant and respectiue worship as vvhen a seruant is honoured or cherished not for his ovvne but for his masters sake And this is that worship which vve allovv vnto Images vvhich for the Saints sake whom it doth represent vve do either reuerently regard or take off our hat or bovv our knee vnto it This third kind of worship being all we allow vnto Pictures were he not that vnderstands it more than half franticke that should thinke it a great disparagement vnto the incomprehensible vvorship of God that to one of his seruants Pictures I should yeeld some such pettie reuerence or that God should forbid this in the fore-front of his ten Commaundements nothing lesse speaker A. W. This discourse to colour your Idolattie by a distinction of worship hath more craft than truth For first if you meane plainly why doe you not tell vs what that soueraigne worship is which you acknowledge due to the Creator onely that we may consider whether you giue it to any creature or no Secondly what is the meaning of those words that the honor ascribed to men and Angels is absolute in it selfe and to what purpose is it here alleaged Thirdly the chiefe reason of
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
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