Defense of Perkins Book Called a Reformed Catholic, Point 7 · Section 3
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 onelyonly: 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 xDeut. 4. 2.this place of vnwritten traditions, is to yMarc. 7. 5. 13.strengthen the Iewes error, and to voide our Sauiours reproofe. And if there were any such, though the particulars were not to be recorded; yet it is strange, that Moses should not once make mention of them in generall. zThomas 3. q. 60. art. 8. ad primum.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 aChrysost. ad Mat. hom. 52.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 bMath. 15. 9.our Sauiour also saith of them. Cardinall cCaietan. ad Deut. 4. 2.Caietan wils vsus 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 vntounto Moses Lavv, that therefore nothing must be added vntounto 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 vponupon the same law. You answere nothing to that, but crie out vponupon 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 hauehave 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 A. Wto 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 d2. Pet.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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 vntounto God for counsell, than vntounto Wizards and Sooth-sayers, to see vvhat is vvritten in the Lavv of Moses concerning that point of consulting. Wizards, vvhichwhich 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 hauehave 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, *Ioh. 20. 31.These things vvere vvritten, that yee might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ: and in beleeuing, might hauehave life euerlasting. Here is set dovvne the full end of the Gospell, that is, to bring men to faith, and consequently to saluation: to vvhichwhich, 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 Miracle…. 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 downe; He shewes (saith eI yea ad Ioa 20. 34.Lyra) the insufficiencie of the Scripture, in respect of Christs excellencie fIn opere & doctrina.in worke and doctrine.
speaker D. B. P. Secondly, S. Iohn saith not that for faith vve shall be saued, but beleeuing vve should hauehave saluation in his name, vvhichwhich he clipped off.
speaker A. W. What saith Master Perkins more, than gGlossa Ordin. ibi.your glosse doth acknowledge? That faith may be anowed, by which life may be had. And hLyra. ibi.another glosse expounds that beleeuing, of faith formed by charitie; which you grant iustifies. It helpes vsus nothing at all to leaue out those words in his name, and therefore there was no clipping in it.
speaker D. B. P. Thirdly, remember to vvhat faith S. John ascribes the meanes of our saluation, not to that vvhereby vve applie vntounto our selues Christs righteousnes, but by vvhichwhich vve beleeue Jesus to be Christ the Messias of the Ievves, and the Sonne of God, vvhichwhich M. Perkins also concealed.
speaker A. W. The faith, spoken of in this text, is not properly iustifying faith, but that is signified in the latter part of the verse, where it is said, that we hauehave life in his name, that is, by resting vponupon his power to saue vsus. The concealing of those words doth more hurt, than helpe vsus.
speaker W. P. If it bee said, that this place must bee vnderstood of Christs miracles onelyonly: I answere, that miracles without the doctrine of Christ and knowledge of his sufferings, can bring no man to life euerlasting, and therefore the place must bee vnderstood of the doctrine of Christ and not of his miracles alone, as Paul teacheth, Gal. 8. 1. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vntounto you any thing beside that which wee hauehave preached, let him bee accursed, And to this effect hee blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught, 1. Tim. 1. 3.
speaker D. B. P. Novv to the present matter, S. Iohn saith, that these miracles recorded in his Gospell, vvere vvritten, that vve might beleeue Iesus to be the Son of God; and beleeuing, hauehave saluation in his name, &c. Therefore the vvritten vvord containes all doctrine necessary to saluation.
Ans. S. Iohn speaks not a word of doctrine, but of miracles: and therfore to conclude sufficiencie of Doctrine out of him, is not to care vvhat one saith. But M. Perkins foreseeing this, saith, it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only; for miracles vvithout the doctrine of Christ, can bring no man to life euerlasting: True, and therefore that text speaking only of miracles, proueth nothing for the sufficiency of the vvritten Word. Christs miracles vvere sufficient, to proue him to be the Sonne of God, and their Messias: But that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell, to containe all Doctrine needfull to saluation: For many other points of faith must be beleeued also.
speaker A. W. Master Perkins prooues, that the Euangelist speakes not only of miracles, because he speakes of such a faith as will bring a man to euerlasting life; which the faith that comes by miracles only will not doe. You offer not to answere his reason, which stands still in force against you, but denie the conclusion, that he speakes not onelyonly of miracles. This reason wee hauehave confirmed, as also the interpretation by that place of Austin; Iohn the Euangelist (saith iTractat. 49. in Ioan.…ustin) witnesseth, that our Lord Christ both said and did many things that are not written. But those things were chosen out to be written, which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the beleeuers. And whereas you would restraine the text only to the proofe of Christs being the Messiah, kLyra ibi.Lyra may teach you, that in this lEpilogo.conclusion the profit also of the doctrine is declared. And mHugo ibi.Hugo Cardinalis saith, that in these words specially the intent of the booke, but generally the end of all the Scripture is declared. Now the end of the Scripture is our saluation.
To the same purpose writes nCyrill. in Ioa. lib. 12. cap. 68.Cyrill: All things that our Lord did, are not written, but those that the writers thought to be sufficient for manners and doctrine, that we glistering with true faith, good workes and vertue, might come to the kingdome of heauen.
speaker D. B. P. And if it alone be sufficient; vvhat neede vve the other three Gospels, the Actes of the Apostles, or any of their Epistles, or the same S. Johns Reuelations.
speaker A. W. There are some that thinke (and the opinion is not vnlikely) that the Euangelist speakes of all the bookes of the new Testament, which hee saw before his writing of this Gospell; vnlesse perhaps the reuelation were penned by him afterward. But the obiection shewes it selfe to be vaine, by my former answer to the like, about the fiue bookes of Moses.
speaker D. B. P. Finally, admit that S. Johns Gospell vvere all-sufficient, yet should not Traditions be excluded; for Christ saith in it in plaine tearmes, *Ioh. 16.that he had much more to say vntounto his Apostles, but they as then being not able to beare it; he reserueth that to be deliuered vntounto them aftervvard; of vvhichwhich high mysteries S. John recordeth not much in his Gospell after Christs resurrection; and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnvvritten.
speaker A. W. First if it be granted that oIoh. 16. 12.our Sauiour had (at that time) some new matter to deliuer, which they had not heard of, what get you by it? It will not follow thereupon, either that all things necessarie to saluation are not contained in the scriptures, or that your traditions are the things that our Sauiour meant, for (as pTract. 96. i… Ioan.Austin truly affirmeth) since Christ hath not signified any where in scripture what they were, it is rashnes for any man to presume to say, they were such, or such things. No man (saith your qGlossa Interlin. ibi.Glosse) may determine what they were. Secondly, there is no shew of consequence in your reasoning, Christ had many things to say not long before his death: Therefore though the Gospell be all sufficient, yet there are many things not written which were needfull to be beleeued. Because they were afterward to be spoken, therefore were they not written at all by the Apostles and Euangelists? sure Christ forbad not the writing of them in those words. Thirdly, this is the place which heretikes abuse to the countenancing of their traditions, as you do of yours. All foolish heretikes (saith rAug. Tract. 97. in Ioan.Austin) that will hauehave themselues counted Christians, indeuour to colour their bold fantasticall inuentions with that sentence of the Gospell, I hauehave yet many things to say to you. Lastly I answere, that those many things of which Christ speakes, were the same that before he had taught them, which they partly vnderstood not, and partly remembred not. I prooue it thus: Our Sauiour said before, that he sIohn. 15. 15.had taught them all things which he had heard of his father, and promised to send them the holie ghost, tIohn. 14. 26.that should teach them, and cause them to remember whatsoeuer he had said to them, whereof we hauehave a worthie example in uIoan. 2. 22.that speech 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 eueryevery 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. xIansen. ad Ioan. 16.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 y1. Cor. 3. 1.Apostle, I could not speake to you, as vntounto spirituall men, but as it were vntounto carnall men, to little ones in Christ. zDidymus apud Tho. in caten. ad Ioa. 16.Didymus about the yeare 580. expounded the place thus, This he saith, that his auditors aOmnia verborum consecuti.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 vnderunder 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 vntounto you any thing besides that *Gal. 1. 8.vvhichwhich we hauehave preached, let him be accursed: And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine, to that vvhichwhich he had taught,*1. Tim. 1. 3.
Ans. Now we must looke vntounto 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 vntounto them another Gospell, he puts (preach vntounto them any other thing:) when there is great difference betweene another You giuegive more to the Gospell in this place, then before to all the Scripture.Gospell, and any other thing. The Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith, and the whole worke of Gods building in vsus: which S. Paul like a wise Architect *1. Cor. 3. 12.had laide in the Galathians; others his fellow workemen, might build vponupon 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 vntounto 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 vntounto you, bforeign.beside that which we hauehave preached, let him be accursed. Your vulgar, Latine all one with it in a maner, cPraeterquam quod.praeterquam quod, for dforeign.praeter id quod, as it is in the next verse, where the greeke is all one: your eInterlin. Bib. praeter quod.interlinear praeter quod, in both verses. You will hauehave 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 vsus the gospell comprehends the principall points of faith, whereas before in this point you giuegive no more to the whole scripture but that some principall points may be gathered out of it: this would hauehave 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 vsus, either I conceiue not what you meane by those words, or else he that teacheth any other course of Gods building in vsus 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 fGal. 5. 1. 2. 3.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 g1. Tim. 1. 3.the other place alleaged shew A diuers doctrine, may neither be charged with, nor suspected of false dealing. hBellarm. de verbo Dei non script. lib. 4. cap. 10.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 hauehave it, only of the gospel preached. And iAug. contr. lit. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 6.Austin applies the text to the scripture of the law and of the gospell; other then that which you hauehave receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures, that is, in the old and new Testament. kBasil. Moral. sum. 72. cap. 1.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 lforeign.agreeable to the Scripture, and reiect those mforeign. Praeterquam quod.that are diuers, which he prooues by that place to the Galathians. And whereas Bellarmine would hauehave 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 nAct. 17. 10. 11Berea found that, which hee taught them, to agree with the scriptures, and oAct. 26. 12.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 vntounto euerie good worke. In these wordes be contained two arguments, to prooue the sufficiencie of the Scripture 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 Neither doth M. Perkins put it in. An interpretation is not addition to the text.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 sufficient…, 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 …h: And to presse such an impertinent cauil, so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do, is nothing else but to bevvray, (vntounto 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 pLyra ad 2. Tim. 3.Lyra, when he addes, to qVeritatem.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 rGlossa Interlin. ibi.make him righteous with legall righteousnes (saith Lyra) which is all sOmnis virtus.or eueryevery 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 tDe dupl. martyr. cap. 43Cyprian) for which the Scripture of God affoords not a present remedie. He proues it by the place of Timothy. uHieron. ad 2. Tim. 3.Ierome saith, The Scripture was giuen to teach vsus, that doing all things by the aduice thereof, we might doe iust things iustly. xChrysost. ibi.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 vponupon 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 hauehave it. The Scripture (saith yTheophylact. ibi.Theophylact) is profitable to vsus, teaching vsus, 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 vponupon these words, Perfect to eueryevery good worke. Not simply (saith Theophylact) zParticeps bonorum operum.partly fitted to good workes, but perfect: not so that he shall be fitted to this and not to that, but to eueryevery good worke. That he may be perfect to eueryevery good worke, saith aLombard. ad 2. Tim. 3.Peter Lombard, expounding the word instructus, which is in your vulgar translation. bThomas ibi.Thomas goes further, to eueryevery good worke: Not onelyonly 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. cNon enim qualitercun que bonum facit, sed perficit.For it doth not make a man good in part, but perfectly. It is proper to the holy Scripture (saith dCaietan. ibi.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 wh…ly to God; to such a perfection I say, that he may be perfect to the practis… of e…ery good worke. I hauehave been som… what the larger in this, because this Papist chargeth vsus so hard, not to know, or not to …e what wee say. And yet what say we, that hath not been said before by the ancient writers, and many Papi…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 e2. Tim. 4. 6.saith afterwards, shortly to be offered vp, commends the Scriptures to Timothy for instructers in his steed, to which he may hauehave 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 f2. Tim. 3. 15.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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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 foreign into the whole Scriptures: when it signifieth all Scripture, that is, eueryevery 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 foreign is often taken for foreign, these places manifestly prooue: gforeign.Col. 2. 9. In him dwels the whole fulnes of the Godhead: hforeign.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 iDionys. Carthus. ad 2. Tim. 3.Dionysius the Carthusian witnesseth; All, that is kTota Scriptura.the whole Canonicall scripture. The Scriptures (saith lGlossa Ordin. ibi.your ordinarie Glosse.) And in that sense did the Interpreters expound it. If we take it, as you doe, eueryevery Psalme, eueryevery verse, yea eueryevery word, as being from God by inspiration, must hauehave all these properties. For whereas you would restraine it to eueryevery booke of scripture, the words will not beare it,
If the old Testament onelyonly 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 eueryevery part. The second, in applying that which is spoken of the olde Testament, vntounto 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 onelyonly of the old Testament. The third is sufficiently cleere, that the profit the Scripture brings, is the perfecting of the man of God to eueryevery good worke.
speaker D. B. P. Whereupon, I make this inuincible argument against them out of Let vsus see your Achilles.this their ov…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 mBellarm. de verbo Dei scripto. lib. 4. cap. ….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 vsus 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. *De resurrect. carnis.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 eueryevery one may see) vntounto 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 nTertull. de relurrect. carnis, cap. 3.here appealed to, as the onelyonly competent Iudge in matters of controuersie about religion. For otherwise if 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 onelyonly 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 oTertull. de praeser. aduers. haeret. cap. 8.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 vnderunder 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 giuegive 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 pTertull. de praeser. aduers. haeret.Tertullians aduersaries then were, and you Papists in part now are, must of necessitie hauehave 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, page missing
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 eueryevery simple Christian, vnderunder As if there were not one and the same beleefe for the sauing of learned, and vnlearned.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, vvhichwhich the more learned must expresly beleeue, if they vvill be saued, vvhichwhich distinction S. Augustine else-vvhere doth signifie.*De peccatorum meritis cap. vlt.
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 hauehave 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 aAug. de doctri. Christ. cap. 9.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, *Lib. 5. contr. Donat. cap. 23.The Apostles truly hauehave commaunded nothing hereof (in their vvritings) but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian, is to be beleeued to hauehave 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 bAug. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 36.Austin, when we dispute of darke matters, where cScripturarum certis claris. documentis.the certain and cleere instructions of the holy Scriptures do not help vsus, a mans presumption must restraine it selfe, and not incline to either side. This is Austens iudgement, he leades vsus 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 vsus 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 dAug. contr. Donatist. lib. 5. cap. 23.Austin, and therefore are to be beleeued to hauehave 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. *De genes. ad lit. lib. 10. c. 23.And in his Epist. 174. of the vvord foreign, 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 eAug. de Genes. ad lit. lib. 10. cap. 23.Austin doth in those places. The matter which is signified by those words, that fAug. contra Maximin. lib. 3 cap. 3.Christ is of the same substance with his father, 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 hauehave 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, *Haeresi 4.out of vvhichwhich 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 gAug. de haeres. haeres. 6. non. 46. 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 vntounto the authority of the VVhy did you not looke?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. hVincentius cap. 2.Vincentius saith, that the Canon of the Scripture is iSatis, super que sufficit.sufficient, and more then sufficient for all things: and in another place, the Canon of the scripture sufficeth it selfe for all things. The kVincentius Lyrin. cap. 41.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 vntounto 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 hauehave recourse to the written worde, as beeing sufficient to instruct vsus 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 vntounto 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, *Lib. 2. hist. cap. 14.S. Luke testifieth of himself, that he wrote his whole Gospel, *Cap. 1.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 vponupon 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 Math. 4. 8.he repeld Sathan; by that Math. 12. 3.he confuted the Pharises, and defended his disciples eating the eares of corne on the Sabbath; by that he Math. 13. 14. 35.taxeth the Iewes blindnes, and maintaines his owne speaking in parables. By the same Math. 15. 4.he ouerthrowes the Iewes traditions, and rebukes their hypocrisie, he Math. 19.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 qMath. 2. 1. 2.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 rEuseb. hist. lib. 2. cap. 14.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 hauehave it, the holy ghost built vponupon tradition, which is but an vncertaine kinde of knowledge depending vponupon mens 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 hauehave learned them by reading, it is not very likely. Beside, how can traditions be kept without adding and altering, if they hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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. page missing
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 s1. Cor. 11. 16.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 hauehave 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 vsus, and when they are not plaine, tradition, euen in matters of saluation. Who sees not that this followes not vponupon that?