Defense of Perkins Book Called a Reformed Catholic, Point 7 · Section 4
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 hauehave 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 *foreign.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 tFulke against Martins Discou. cap. 2.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, u1. Cor. 11. 2.precepts, and in the Gospell, eueryevery where, traditions; and yet the former place is to the commendation of traditions, and all in the Gospell to their dispraise. xVatablus.Vatablus also vseth his libertie in translating this word, sometimes y1. Cor. 11. 2, Col. 2. 8. Marc. 7. 8. 2. Thes. 2. 15. & 3. 6.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 hauehave been written before it. But let vsus giuegive 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 zIren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Euseb. hist. lib. 5. c. 8.Irenaeus, it was the ancientest, except the former, and perhaps the Gospell of S. Matthew: for it was written when Paul taught at Athens, some seuenteene or eighteene yeeres after our Lords Ascension; whereas the Gospell of S. Matthew, as Irenaeus saith, was penned when Paul and Peter preached and founded the Church at Rome, twentie yeeres or more after the Ascension. Neither doth Master Perkins auow this for a truth, but sets it down as very likely.
speaker D. B. P. To the point of the answere, that all was written after in some other of his Epistles, which before had bin deliuered by word of mouth. How proueth M. Perkins that? the man hath such confidence in his owne word, that he goeth not once about to proue it. Good Sir, hold you not here; that nothing is needfull to be beleeued, which is not written in the word? shew vsus then where it is written in the word, that Saint Paul wrote in his later Epistles, that which he taught by word of mouth before? or else by your owne rule it is not needfull to beleeue it.
speaker A. W. It is not the answerers dutie, as I hauehave been faine to put you in minde before, to prooue his deniall, but the repliers to disprooue what he answers. But for your satisfaction, let me tell you, that if these things the Apostle speakes of were matters necessarie to saluation, it is prooued that they were written afterward, or before in some part of the Scripture; because the a 2. Tim. 3. 14.Scripture is sufficient to make a man wise to saluation.
speaker D. B. P. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent reader, I will set downe the opinions of some of the auncientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle, that we may see whether they thought that S. Paul committed all to writing, and left nothing by Tradition.
speaker A. W. All this labour might hauehave been saued, vnlesse it were to more purpose. For wee say not, that the Apostle wrote all things he spake; but that all things necessarie to saluation, are expresly or by consequence contained in the Scriptures. It is out of doubt, in my poore opinion, that the Apostle preached many things, which were not written by him in these two Epistles, and those also, matters of moment, which he wils them to obserue: but the question is, whether it can be prooued by this text, or any other, that those matters are not any where recorded in the holy Scriptures, and yet are points necessarie to saluation.
speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome in his most learned and eloquent Comentaries vponupon this text, concludeth thus. Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles deliuered not all in their Epistles, but many things also vnvvritten; and those things are aswell to be beleeued, as the vvritten. Oecumenius and Theophylactus vponupon that place teach the same.
speaker A. W. To the testimonie out of Chrysostomes interpretation Ianswere, first, that Chrysostome saith not they were matters necessarie to saluation. Secondly, that bChrysost. … Psal. 95.otherwhere he ties vsus to the Scriptures, if we will be beleeued in that we deliuer. Thirdly, that many things may be, and are in other parts of the Scripture, which are not to bee found in the Epistles. Fourthly, that it doth not follow, the Apostle Paul spake something to the Thessalonians, which he wrote not to them, therefore the Apostles spake some things which they neuer writ. For this place speakes only of S. Pauls doings, not of other Apostles. Yet I make no questiō, but they also did in like sort, but it cannot be certainly concluded from this place. Fiftly, I grant, that all that the Apostles deliuered, was to be receiued as true, and fit for the Church in those times to which they were deliuered. The doctrine of the Gospell is perpetuall, matters of circumstance, appointed by them for the vse of the Churches perpetually, are as well to be obserued, as the doctrine, if there be any such: yea traditions of this nature are equall to things written. But here lies the matter, we say there are no such traditions. And indeed who can thinke that the Apostles would write matters of small importance, which were also not to continue perpetually, and leaue great and waightie points of faith vnwritten? The like answer I make to cOecumen. & Theophylact. ad 2. Thess.Oecumenius, and Theophylact; whereof the one professedly sets downe Chrysostoms opinion; the other, according to his custome, writes him out in this place word for word.
speaker D. B. P. S. Basil *De sp… cap. 27 speaketh thus, I hold it Apostolicall to perseuer in Traditions not vvritten: for the Apostle …ith, I commend you that yee are mindfull of my precepts: and, do hold the Traditions, euen as I deliuered them vntounto you: and then alleageth this text: Hold the Traditions vvhichwhich you hauehave receiued of me either by VVord or Epistle.
speaker A. W. dBasil, de spirit. sanct. c. 27.Basil saith not, that these traditions were matters necessarie to saluation. 2. He defines not what these traditions were. 3. The consequence is naught. The Apostle wils the Thessalonians to keepe things deliuered by mouth: therefore the Church is alwaies to keepe some things not written. There was a necessitie to lay that charge vponupon them, for else they had needed to care for no more than was set down in those Epistles. 4. The Papists themselues obserue not all the traditions there mentioned as Apostolical by Basil. 5. His iudgement in this case is not much to be accounted of, who pronounceth, that without those traditions, the Gospellis not auaileable, and yt they are of equall force with the Gospell to pietie.
speaker D. B. P. S. Iohn Damascen accordeth with the former saying, *Lib. 4. De fide cap. 17.That the Apostles deliuered many things vvithout vvriting. S. Paul doth testifie, vvhen he writeth, Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions vvhichwhich hauehave been taught you either by vvord of mouth or by Epistle. These holy and iudicious expositors of S. Paul, free from all partiality, gather out of this text of his, that many things necessary to be beleeued, euen vntill their daies remained vnvvritten, and were religiously obserued by Tradition; which throweth fiat to the ground M. Perkins his false supposition (fenced with neither reason nor authority) that S Paul put in vvriting aftervvard all that he had first taught by vvord of mouth.
speaker A. W. Damascen is neither greatly to be respected, nor saith any thing, but that which I hauehave answered alreadie and granted in part as nothing to the purpose. He might well erre in matter of Tradition, that eDamascen. de Orthod. fide lib. 4. c. 18.accounts the Apostles Canons, set out by Clement Bishop of Rome, to be Canonicall scripture: which opinion the Papists themselues reiect.
Master Perkins would gladly hauehave acknowledged any tradition, that could hauehave been prooued to be Apostolicall; namely so farre as it was intended by the Apostles. Whatsoeuer they taught, that hee would hold to bee the truth of God; if they ordained any thing for those times, he would confesse it to hauehave been most fit. Did they appoint any custome to bee perpetuall? M. Perkins would hauehave embraced it with both his armes, and, if occasion had been offered, hauehave maintained it with his life. But neither can you shew any such tradition, nor he is to proue the contrarie. But you are to make good your proposition, that the Apostles left some doctrines, necessarie to be beleeued to saluation, by word of mouth onelyonly, without any ground in Scripture for the particulars either expresly, or by good and necessary consequence. Proue this, and the controuersie is at an end.
Moreouer S. Paul immediatly before his death in one of the last of his Epistles, commandeth his deare Disciple Timothie, *2. Tim. 2.To commend vntounto the faithfull, that vvhichwhich he heard of him by many vvitnesses; and not that only vvhichwhich he should find vvritten in some of his Epistles, or in the vvritten Gospell.
I deny your consequence: Paul wils Timothy to commend to the faithfull those things which he had heard of him, therefore he deliuered some things which are not written in any part of the Scripture. I might adde, and those necessary to saluation, but the other hath worke enough for you.
speaker W. P. Obiect. II. That Scripture is Scripture, is a point to be beleeued, but that is a tradition vnwritten; and therefore one tradition there is not written, that we are to beleeue. Answ. That the bookes of the olde and new Testament are Scripture, it is to bee gathered and beleeued not vponupon bare tradition, but from the very bookes themselues, on this manner. Let a mā that is indued with the spirit of discerning, reade the seuerall bookes, withall let him consider the professed authour thereof, which is God himselfe, and the matter therein contained, which is a most diuine and absolute truth full of pietie: the manner and forme of speech, which is full of maiestie in the simplicity of words. The end whereat they wholy aime, which is the honor and glory of God alone, &c. and he shal be resolued that scripture is scripture, euen by the Scripture it selfe. Yea, and by this meanes hee may discerne any part of Scripture, from the writings of men whatsoeuer. Thus then Scripture prooues it selfe to be Scripture: and yet wee despise not the vniuersal consent or tradition of the Church in this case: which though it doe not perswade the conscience, yet is it a notable inducement to mooue vsus to reuerence, and regard the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. It will be said, where is it written that Scripture is Scripture? I answere, not in any one particular place or booke of scripture, but in euerie line and page of the whole Bible to him that can read with the spirit of discerning, and can discerne the voice of the true Pastour, as the sheepe of Christ can doe.
speaker D. B. P. The second Argument for Traditions, is this, to beleeue that there be so many bookes of holy Scripture, and no more: and that those be they vvhichwhich are commonly taken so to be, is very necessary to saluation; novv this is not to be found vvritten in any place of holy Scripture, but is receiued only by Tradition, vvherefore it is necessary to saluation to beleeue some Tradition.
speaker A. W. You propound not Master Perkins reason, but frame one of your owne. To which I answer, that is called in this question necessarie to saluation, without the beleefe where of a man cannot be saued; but the knowledge of the number of the bookes of Scripture, and what they be, is not so necessarie, but that without it a man may attaine to saluation. Yea who doubts that he may be saued which knowes not that there are any bookes of scripture at all, so that by the preaching of the word he beleeues truly in Iesus Christ? And if those two points be absolutely necessarie, what shall we thinke of them that hauehave doubted of some parts of Scripture, as the Epistles to the Hebrews, and that of Iames? Damascen added one to the number, your Papists many.
speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins ansvvereth that the bookes of the Old and Nevv Testament, be Scripture, is not beleeued on bare Tradition, but by the bookes themselues on this manner. Let the man vvho is indued vvith the spirit of discerning, reade the bookes and consider first the Author of them, vvho is God; then the matter contained, vvhichwhich is diuine; the manner of speech, vvhichwhich is full of maiestie in simple vvords: Lastly, the end aymed at, vvhichwhich is Gods honor, and by this meanes he shall discerne any part of Scripture from the vvritings of men vvhatsoeuer.
speaker A. W. Reply. A vvise and deepe obseruation I vvarrant you, and vvell vvorthie A skornfull reproofe and vnvvorthy of a Doctors grauity 1. Cor. 12.a graue Author: Let vsus examine it briefly; first he vvill hauehave his man endued vvith the spirit of discerning: Who shall endue him vvith the spirit? M. Perkins seemeth to say, that eueryevery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit. But S. Paul *De doctrin. Christ. cap. 8. 18. de ciuit. Dei 36. lib. 2. cont. ep. Gaudent. 23.teacheth plainly the contrary; that some certaine only hauehave the iudgement to discerne. And touching this matter of discerning vvhichwhich books are Canonical, vvhichwhich are not: Not the learnedst in the Primitiue Church vvould take vponupon him to discerne vvhichwhich they were, three hundred yeares after Christ, was left vndefined by the best learned, whether the Catholike Epistles of S. Iames and Iude: the second of S. Peter. the second and third of S. Iohn, and his Apocalyps, were Canonicall or no, as is confessed on all parts: hath then eueryevery Christian this spirit of discerning, when the best Christians wanted it? Who more profound, more skilfull to discerne, than that subtile and sharpe Doctor S. Augustine, and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which bookes be Canonicall. For he, in diuers places of his workes, *De praedest. Sanct. 14.holdeth the bookes of the Machabees, to be Canonicall Scriptures,; and expresly proueth the booke of Wisdome so to be. * And yet our Protestants will not admit them. See therefore how foolish and vaine his first rule is: Come to the second.
Master Perkins denies the assumption of the contract syllogisme propounded by himselfe, affirming that the scripture is to be beleeued to be scripture vponupon bare tradition. If you will refute him, you must prooue that assumption, till that be done, his answere must stand for sufficient, howsoeuer that he addes for the confirmation of it, be true or false.
But let vsus examin that he brings. First he saith, a man must hauehave the spirit of discerning, to which you knowing not what to answere, tell vsus, that Master Perkins seemes to say, that eueryevery Sheepe of Christ hath his spirit. If he did say so plainely, he saith no more then our Sauiour himselfe doth, and his Apostle Paul. But he doth not once glaunce at that point, in any part of his answere, yet you refute that but slenderly, for the f1. Cor. 12. 2. 3.Apostle speakes of an extraordinarie gift bestowed vponupon some men, not denying this generall abilitie which all true Christians hauehave in some measure; neither doth the Apostle speake of discerning doctrine, but spirits, that is (saith your gGlossa Interlin. ad 1. Cor. 12.glosse, and hLombard. …b…. Thomas. Ca…an.Lombard, Thomas, and Caietan) that he may discerne that he heares, with what spirit it is spoken, with a good spirit, or with a bad. By this gift the children of God are enabled, or rather directed by the spirit of God to acknowledge those bookes to be scripture, though they can not determine of eueryevery particular among them.
Austins iudgement we reuerence in this, and other matters, though we cannot alwaies rest vponupon it. He calls the bookes Canonicall, not properly, but because they were vsed in the Church to be read as the Canonicall were, but he makes them not of equall authoritie with the other, because they were not then so generally receiued, in which respect he made some doubt of those which were indeede Canonicall. Thus we expound Austin, that he may not be thought to contradict other fathers in this point.
speaker D. B. P. His second is, that he who goeth about to discerne whether the booke be Canonicall or no, must consider the Author, who is God. If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the booke, what needs any further labour? It must needs be Canonicall that hath God for the Author. This mans wi…s were surely from home, when he discoursed thus; and therefore it should be but follie to stand vponupon his particularities.
speaker A. W. Is there no difference trow you betwixt saying God is the professed Author, and God is the Author? Let a man consider God who is professed, to be the author of these bookes, and seeing how the things in them agree to that which is befitting God, according as he hath learned by men, and bin perswaded by the holy ghost, he shall come to acknowledge them indeed to be from God, wherein his glory is principally aymed at, and in the penning whereof his diuine Maiestie cleerely shines.
speaker D. B. P. Let this one reason in generall serue to confute him; all this manner put together, serueth only to helpe particular men to discerne vvhichwhich bookes are Canonicall, who may, easily after their d…l…gent inquirie erre and be de…i…ed in this point, because eueryevery man is a lyar. *Rom. 3.And if there be … more certaine meanes to assure them of this which is the ground of all their Religion, then eueryevery particular mans discretion and iudgement, then out of doubt their whole Religion is most vnvvisely builded vponupon meane mens inuentions and discretion, who also for the most part doe neither vnderstand the language in which they were first penned, nor the vsuall phrases of Scriptures translated; that I say nothing of the figures, parables, prophecies and controue…sies which seeme to be; and many other difficulties, and yet these men need not doubt hauing learned some halfe-dozen-lines of Master Perkins, but that reading any booke, they shall be able presently to discerne whether … be Canonicall or no. A goodly mocketie.
speaker A. W. If this reason be good, since all men together are liers as well as eueryevery man in particular, and so may be deceiued, though not so easily, we are little the neerer, at the least not sure for any help you can affoord vsus. There is yet a better assurance by the iSee 1…. Art. par. 1. Art. …holy ghosts directing the elect in this triall, and teaching and assuring them so farre, as shall serue for their necessarie instruction and saluation.
Men were not so taught in the Primitiue Church, but the most skilfull and wisest in discerning Canonicall bookes, trusted not vntounto their ovvne iudgement, but leaned alvvaies vponupon Apostolicall Traditions. So did Serapion an auncient holy vvriter (as Euse…us reporteth) reiect certaine bookes set out in the Apostles names, because they had not receiued from their Predec…sso…s any such. The like doth element of Alexandria, Cap. 11. Cap. 19.and that famous Origen *Lib. 35. ca. 6.of the same booke, who obserue the E…clesiasticall Canon, as he had learned and receiued by Tradition. So doth he deliuer his opinion of the foure Euangelists, and other bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and not relying on his owne wit, which was excellent, or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters: That S. Augustine was of the same mind, may be gathered out of these words of his, * Contra Faustum. Of what booke can there be any assurance, if the letters, which the Church propagated by the Apostles, and by such excellencie declared throughout all Nations, doth teach and hold to be the Apostles, should be vncertaine, whether they be the Apostles or no? So that he maketh the declaratiō of the Church descended of the Apostles, to be a sure pillar to rest vponupon, for the certaine knowledge of Canonical Scripture and other spirits whatsoeuer, if they follow not that rule to be reiected; so far is he off from encourageing eueryevery sheepe of Christs fold, to take that weighty matter vponupon himselfe as M. Perkins doth. And what can be more against the most prudent prouidence of the diuine wisdome than to permit eueryevery one to be a iudge of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture. For if all those books, and no others should pas…e …u…rant for Ca…call, (which any Christian taking vponupon … lib. …. & …. …. …. …. Lib 1. cap. …. 2…. …. …. …. 6. Lib. 32. cap ….him the spirit of discerning, would c…nsure to be such) then alway with all the Old Testament, because diuers esteemed it to proceed of some euill spirits, as witnesse…h I…neus and Ep…s: Yea, not only all the Old must be abrogated, but all the New also, because it hath many falsehoods mixed with the truth; as some prefuming greatly of their spirit and skill in d…ning did teach: so testifieth …. Augustine, …. Fa…st. Some would hauehave had but one of the foure Gospels, some fiue, some sixe, some seauen; some reiected all S. Pauls Epistles: Many, and those of the faithfull did not admit for Canonicall some of the other Apostles Epistles not the Reuelations. If then the diuine fore-sight of our Sauiour had not preuented this most foule inconueniencie by instituting a more certaine meanes of …iscerning and declaring which books were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost, which not, then by leauing it vntounto eueryevery mans discretion he might be thought to hauehave had but slender care of our saluation, which eueryevery true Christian hart doth abhorre to thinke: and therfore we must needs admit of this most holy and prouident Tradition of them from hand to hand: as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prolegomenis, and also Kemnitius, handling the second kind of Traditions, in his examination of the Councell of Trent; albeit they reiect all other Traditions, besides this one.
speaker A. W. Neither doth Master Perkins, or any Minister, teach the people now to rely on their owne wit or iudgement, but to vse the meanes prescribed, and by prayer and faith to call and to rest vponupon the spirit of God for assurance in this case. The iudgement of the Church wee are so farre from discrediting, that we hold it for a very speciall ground in this matter: condemning them as void of shame and reason, that refuse those bookes vponupon their owne iudgement, which hauehave bin from time to time, euen from the Apostles dayes counted Canonicall. But it is vtterly from the question in hand to dispute this point, and beside diuers other kWhitak. de s…riptur.Doctor Whitacker hath handled this matter very sufficiently, though eueryevery man cannot reade his disputation, because it is latine; but for the matter in hand, concerning traditions, it falls not into this question to be disputed what is scripture, and what is not. For it is presupposed that the Scriptures are the word of God, and thereupon this doubt ariseth, whether the word of God conteine all things necessarie to saluation or no. If that be doubted of, it is idle and absurd to enquire, whether there be, besides that, another word of God diuers from it, though not contrarie, which is not written, but only as men hauehave now and then set downe some part of it in their writings: so then leauing this point, let vsus come to those which follow.
speaker W. P. Obiect. III. Some bookes of the canon of the Scripture are lost, as the booke of the warres of God. Num. 21. 14. The booke of the iust. Iosu. 10. 13. the bookes of Chronicles of the Kinges of Israel and Iuda. 1. King 14. 19. the bookes of certaine Prophets, Nathan, Gad, Iddo, Ahiah, and Semiah: and therfore the matter of these bookes must come to vsus by tradition. Answ. Though it be graunted that some bookes of Canonicall Scripture bee lost; yet the Scripture still remaines sufficient, because the matter of those bookes (so farforth as it was necessarie to saluation) is contained in these bookes of Scripture that are now extant.
speaker D. B. P. The two next arguments for Traditions, be not well propounded by You should hauehave s…d the faults.M. Perkins. The third is to be framed thus:
Either all the bookes of holy Scripture conteine all needfull doctrine to saluation, or some certaine of them without the rest; not some of them without the rest, for then the other should be superfluous, which no man holdeth: therfore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together, do containe all necessary instruction. Now then the argument followeth, but some of those bookes of holy Scripture hauehave been lo…t; therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them, are not extant in the written Word, and consequently to be learned by Tradition. M. Perkins answereth: First supposing some of the bookes to be lost, that all needfull doctrine, which was in them, is in some of the others preserued. But This Argument vvas not proposed to him.why did he not solue the Argument proposed? were then those bookes superfluous? Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses? which this answere supposeth.
speaker A. W. Because you thinke the reason makes for your aduantage, as you hauehave framed it your selfe, I will follow your steps, and leaue his argument as you do. That I may answere orderly, I deny your assumption: All things necessarie to saluation are conteined in some certaine bookes of the scripture, so that although the rest were wanting, we should hauehave sufficient to saluation for the matter. To your reason I say farther, that the consequence is naught, if some certaine are sufficient to saluation, the rest are superfluous: for first it cannot be superfluous to hauehave any booke of Gods word kept for the vse of the Church, though the matter of it be in some other. Secondly, if your consequence be good, it is also superfluous to hauehave the same psalme or story recorded in two places of the scripture, especially the later. But to say so were to condemne the holy ghost of hauing taken superfluous paines to no purpose, which were blasphemie. I prooue it by these particulars; for example lPsal. 18. 2. Sam. 22.Psal. 18. is in the booke of Psalmes, and in the second booke of Samuell. The history of Ezechiah m2 Reg 19. & 20. & Esai. 35. & 37. & 38.is 2. Reg. 29. and so forward, and Isai 36. 37. 38. The like I might bring out of the bookes of Kings and Chronicles. Thirdly, though the matter be all fully and perfectly in certaine bookes, yet eueryevery point is not so plaine in one booke as in another, and therefore it is not superfluous to hauehave all these bookes, though all matter necessarie to saluation be comprised in some few of them. Fourthly, the purpose of the holy ghost in penning the scriptures, was, not only to teach matters necessarie to saluation, but to set forth the glorie of God in his prouidence, iustice, merciemercy, wisdome, and such like, to afford vsus examples of diuers kinds of vertues, to exhort vsus to faith, and good works, and (in a word) to prouide for Gods glorie by vsus heere, as well as for our glorifying by him in heauen, to which there is no booke, nor sentence of scripture, but serues more or lesse, and therefore no booke of it can be thought supersluous, though the necessarie matters belonging to saluation be conteined in certaine of them very sufficiently.
speaker W. P. Againe, I take it to bee a truth (though some thinke otherwise) that no part of the Canon is lost: for Paul saith, Whatsoeuer things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, &c. Rom. 15. 4. where he takes it for granted, that the whole Canon of holie Scripture was then extant. For if he had thought, that some bookes of Scripture had beene lost, hee would hauehave said; whatsoeuer was written and is now extant, was written for our learning and comfort. For bookes that are lost serue neither for learning nor comfort. Againe, to hold that any bookes of Scripture should be lost, calls into question Gods prouidence, and the fidelitie of the Church, who hath the bookes of God in keeping, and is therfore called the pillar and ground of truth. And touching the bookes before mentioned, I answere thus: The booke of the warres of God, Num. 21. 14. might bee some short bill or narration of thinges done among the Israelites, which in the daies of Moses went from hand to hand. For sometime a booke in Scripture, signifieth a roule or Catalogue, as the first chapter of Matthew, which containeth the genealogie of our Sauiour Christ, is called the booke of the generation of Iesus Christ. Againe, the booke of the iust, and the books of Chronicles, which are said to be lost, were but as the Chronicles of England are with vsus: euen politicke records of the acts and euents of things, in the kingdome of Iuda and Israel: out of which the Prophets gathered things necessarie to be knowne, and placed them in holy Scripture. As for the bookes of Iddo, Ahiah, Semiah; Gad, and Nathan, they are contained in the bookes of the Kinges and Chronicles and in the bookes of Samuel, which were not written by him alone, but by sundrie Prophets, 1. Chro. 29. 29. as also was the booke of Iudges. As for the bookes of Salomon which are lost, they did not concerne religion and matters of saluation, but were concerning matters of Philosophie and such like things.
speaker D. B. P. Therefore he giues a second more shamefull, that none be perished, which is most contrarie vntounto the plaine Scriptures: *1. Paral. vit. 2. Pa…. 9.as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth: *Rom. 9. in Math & …. 7. in … … ….where he hath these expresse words: That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost, may be proued out of the historie of Paral…pomeneon (which they translate Chronicles.) 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 eueryevery 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 vponupon it, and after it, was the merciemercy of God vponupon 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 vntounto 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 vsus of milke and strong meate, vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it: I D. B. P. Your vvish is better, then your ansvvere would hauehave bin.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, vponupon 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 man conclude the point out of them, and we will yeeld, if wee shew not a reasonable cause to the contrarie. Secondly, I adde fu…th…r, that if it were granted that there were some such traditi…s …et (as nAu…n Ioa. tract. 41.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 vponupon 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 Ioh. 16. 12. Act. 10.things to say vntounto his Apostles, but they could not as then beare them. Our Sauiour after his resurrection, appeared often vntounto his Disciples, speaking vvith them of the kingdome of God, of vvhichwhich little is vvritten in any of the Euangelists.
I commend you brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keepe 1. Cor. 11.the Traditions, euen as I hauehave deliuered them to you.
speaker A. W. Now for the particulars, the oIoh 16. 12.first is answered alreadie; the pAct. 10.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 qAmbros. ad 2. Thess. ….Ambrose vnderstands in the 2. Thessal. nothing but the Gospell; in that place r1. Cor. 11. 1.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 sAmbros. ad 1. Cor. 11.Ambrose vnderstand him.
speaker D. B. P. O Timothy keepe the depositum, that is, that vvhichwhich I deliuered thee to keepe, Hold fast by the holy Ghost, the good things committed vntounto thee to 1 Tim. 6. 2. Tim. 1.…, vvhichwhich vvas as S. Chrysostom and Thesphilact expound, the true doctrine of Christ, the true sense of holy Scriptures, the right admini- page missing
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 pAthanas. contr. Ana. & Concil. Nicen. 1.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 qThom. cont. gentil. lib. 4. cap. 24Thomas out of the Scripture, and by other against the Greeke Church. The third, beside r1. Io…. 5. ….that place of Iohn, is necessarily concluded (since there can be but one God) out of the texts, that prooue eueryevery one of them seuerally to be God; and by sMa…h. …. 19.that of Matthew. The fourth is prooued out of Scripture, by tConcil. Ep 1.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 eueryevery religion hath his seuerall exposition of them, as the Papists hauehave 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, yt 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 vsus. 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 onelyonly 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 vsus 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 vntounto it all manner of perfection.
speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Traditions: Sundry places of holy Scriptures This … …all out but in some places: many other are very …in and easy.be hard to be vnderstood, others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely: If then it be put to eueryevery Christian to take his owne exposition, eueryevery seuerall sect, will coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions: and so shall the word of God, ordained only to teach vsus the truth, be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors. To auoid which inconuenience, considerate men hauehave recourse vntounto the Traditions and auncient Records of the Primitiue Church, *Still you begge the question.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 opinion: We must hauehave recourse to traditions, for the expounding of doubtfull places. Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation. I denie the consequence: This rather prooues the sufficiencie of the Scripture, as being sufficient in it selfe, if it be rightly vnderstood. Secondly, I say there is no such danger as you imagine: For though some may abuse it, to confirme error: yet may their false interpretations be confuted, by diligent examination of the text, without resting vponupon the authoritie of mans interpretation: as it appeares manifestly by the courses that the ancient writers tooke, for the confuting of all heresies. And if without this it could not hauehave been done, what should hauehave become of the truth, before the writings of men were extant in any number? For it were ridiculous to imagine, that eueryevery particular text was expounded by the Apostles, and so left by tradition to the Church. Thirdly, who shall determine when the time, to count ancientnes by, ended? especially since eueryevery mans writings were new when they were written, and cannot grow in truth, as they doe in age by continuance: we acknowledge them for helpes of interpretation, not for warrants.
speaker D. B. P. Reply. To begin with his latter words, because I must stand vponupon the former: Is the Scripture falsely tearmed matter of strife, because it is not so, of his owne nature? why then, is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no, to them that beleeue not? Saint Peter saith, Yes, No saith 1. Pet. 2.M. Perkins because that commeth not of Christ, but of themselues. But good Sir, Christ is truly tearmed a stone of offence, and the Scripture, matter of strife, albeit there be no cause in them of those faults, but because it so falleth out by the malice of men.
The question is not wherefore it is so called, but whether it be so called or no truly: That which truly is, may be so called truly: But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention, eueryevery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie, and therefore may truly be so tearmed, although it be not the cause of contention in it self, but written to take away all contention.
speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the scripture to be matter of strife, and that it may so bee slandered to the disgrace of it, as some Papists hauehave most shamelesly spoken of it, to draw people from the reading and louing of it. What blasphemies (almost) hauehave not your writers vttered against the holy word of God? uAlbert. Pigh. con… … d… feelesPighius calls them dumbe iudges, and in xPigh. Hierar. lib. 3. cap. 3.another place commends the truth and pleasantnes of his speech that compared the scriptures to a nose of waxe. Did not yHosius contt. Bren. lib. 2.Hosius say of Dauids Psalmes, we write poems eueryevery body learned and vnlearned?
speaker D. B. P. But to the capitall matter; these three rules gathered out of S. Augustine, be good directions, wherby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of diuinitie, if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructors, and learnëd Commentaries: But to affirme that eueryevery Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnes and meere folly. S. Augustine himselfe well conuersant in these rules, indued with a most happie wit, and yet much bettered with excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences; yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures, for more then thirtie yeares, with the helpe also of the best Cōmentaries he could get, and counsell of the most exquisit; yet be ingeniously confesseth, That there were more places of Scripture, that after all his studie, he vnderstood not, then vvhichwhich he did vnderstand, And shall eueryevery simple Epist. 119 cap. 21.man furnished only with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficulty in them whatsoeuer? Why doe the Lutherans (to omit all former Heretikes) vnderstand them in one sort, the Caluinists after another, The Anabaptists a third way, and so of other sects?
And in our owne Country, how commeth it to passe that the Protestants finde one thing in the holy Scriptures, the Puritans almost the cleane contrarie? Why I say is there so great, bitter, and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit, about the sense and meaning of Gods word: If eueryevery one might, by the aide of those triuiall notes, readily disclose all difficulties, and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them; It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement, that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie, vvithout there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it. And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauiour to say, that he hath left a matter of such importance at randome, and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it. If in matters of Temporall iustice it should be permitted to euerie contentious smatterer in the Law, to expound & conster the grounds of the Law and statutes, as it should seeme fittest in his wisdome, and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge, what iniquity should not be Law, or when should there be any end of any hard matter; one Lawyer defending one part, an other the other: One counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge, one partie to hauehave the right, another, as certainely auerring, not that, but the contrary to be Law, both alledging for their warrant sometexts of Law: What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised, vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vntounto the definitiue sentence of some, who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law? none at all, but bloody debate and perpetuall conflict, each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes, that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne.
speaker A. W. No man saith so, but that by these a man may iudge which is the truest, that is, the likeliest interpretation of a doubtfull place. But I pray you tell me, can you, or any Papist, by the help of tradition added to the other three rules certainely determine, what is the sense of eueryevery hard place of scripture? If you can, S. Austin by that meanes was likelier to hauehave it then any of you, as he was neerer the Apostles, from whom those traditions are said to hauehave come. If you rest vponupon the Commentaries of the Auntient, what meanes had they to further them, in vnderstanding the Scripture that we now want? is it not apparant, that we hauehave all they had, and their paines, and iudgement beside?
You aske then, how chance diuers men vnderstand them diuersly? not because they want the tradition you talke of. For who knowes not that the Fathers differ exceedingly one from another in their expositions? And do all the popish interpretations agree? who, it should seeme by you hauehave recourse to that maine help of Tradition. He 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 hauehave knowledge of the tongues, and arts, especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick, may come to vnderstand the harder places, though perhaps not eueryevery 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 vntounto eueryevery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit? no no, It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vntounto 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 eueryevery man may take vponupon him to interpret scripture vponupon 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, vponupon whom he calls by prayer, and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before. page missing
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, hauehave wholie mistaken the Apostle, who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him. For he saith, cGal. 1. 1.First, that he was not an Apostle of men, nor by man. Secondly, that he went vp to Ierusalem, not dGal. 2. 6. 7.to hauehave 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 eAct. 26. 19.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 fGal. 2. 6. 7. 8. 9.he neither learned any doctrine, nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames, Cephas, and Iohn, which were esteemed to be pillers; yea gGal. 2. 11.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 cōcerning that point. But that the Brethren might hauehave the better satisfaction, it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by hAct. 15. 6. 23.ioynt consent of themselues, and the brethren there assembled, which any one of them might (of himselfe) hauehave 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 Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. Lib. 11. cap. ….this recourse vntounto 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 are vntrue.both do, and teach others to do) but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie: namely, of such as vvere knovvne to hauehave 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 vsus 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 eueryevery 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, iSee 12. Art. par. 1. Art. 2. E, & Art. 5. per …t.as we are sure the Protestants now doe, where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie, rest vponupon the authoritie of their predecessors, rather than vponupon their owne. This reuerence wee giuegive to the Fathers writings, and reade them with as great dilig…, as they that make more bragges of th…ir knowledge in …he…. And if that rule (which the storie) … and or you name … R…. hist Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 9.not, but it is Austin, speakes of … one of them, which we follw in searching out th… … of the Scripture, …treate …ou to make … to vsus, 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 hauehave deliuered; how many things, yea contrarie expositions, shal we hold for true? If you say, the rule is to beleeue the ancientest; what 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 hauehave 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 lBellarm. de Purgat lib. 2. cap. 8. c Prato spirituali citat 27. Synod.Bellarmine sheweth, that Origen was seene in hell with Arius, and Nestorius; and affirmeth that mSynod. quinta. cap. 11.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 vsus 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 vntounto it. Lib. contra Crescon. c. 33. Cont. Epist. fund. cap. 5.Which words, are not to be vnderstood as Caluine would hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave in answering M. Perkins and else-where, as occasion serued, cited already many sentences; I will here be briefe.
speaker A. W. nAug. contra Crescon. lib. 1 cap. 33.Austin wils vsus to consult with that Church, which the holy Scripture shewes vsus 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 oAug. contra Epist. funda. cap. 5.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 vponupon one, that doth not yet beleeue the Gospell? I truly pNon crederem.had not beleeued the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church qCommo… ret.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 rCap. 14.afterward, that, First wee beleeue that, which as yet we cannot sIntueri.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 D. B. P. Euseb. lib. 30, 36.fast vntounto the Traditions of the Apostles, some of which he committed to writing.
I shewed before what little credit many of the writings wee hauehave of Ignatius deserue. Eusebius authoritie is more worth, but hee is tEuseb. hist. lib. 30. 36, for lib. 3. cap. 32.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, vnderunder guard, in eueryevery 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 uTraditioni.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 xEuseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 18.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 Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 20.question, ought vve not to runne vntounto the most auncient Churches, in the vvhichwhich 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 hauehave follovved the order of Traditions, vvhichwhich they deliuered to them to vvhom they deliuered the Churches?
speaker A. W. yIren. Epist. ad Floren. & lib. 3. cap. 4.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 hauehave recourse to those Churches, in which the Apostles had liued: yea, if they had written nothing, we must hauehave 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 Churches is of great authoritie.
speaker A. W. Origen teacheth, that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition, D. B. P. Rom. 6.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 zOrigen. in Leuit. hom. 91 & in …c. homil. 14.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 hauehave proued this sentence to hauehave been deliuered D. B. P. Lib. de decret. Niceni conc.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 aforeignbeing 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 bforeign.eloquent, and one other Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and Origen whom he termes cforeign. D. B. P. De Spu. Sanct. 27. Of Nazianzen in the treatise of Images.painfull.
S. Basil hath these words: VVe hauehave the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church; partly vvritten, and part vve hauehave receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie, both vvhichwhich 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 giuegive 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 hauehave we (saith dBasil. de spirit. sanct. c. 27.Basil) the very page missing
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 vvhichwhich is common to all, vve must needs heare thee, but these vvords vvhichwhich are vvithout the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vsus: when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vsus, and said: in vaine do they vvorship me, teaching commaundements and precepts of men. How S. Augustine And before ansvvered. Hom 62. Cantica.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 hauehave learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers, our noble progenitors, to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we hauehave receiued by word of mouth, aswell as that which is written: Euen so the Protestants hauehave receiued as it were from hand to hand, of their ignoble predecessors, old condemned Heretikes, to reiect all traditions, and to she vntounto the only Scriptures.
speaker A. W. The Heretike Maximinus asked nothing but reason of Austin if he stood vponupon the matter, and not vponupon the mforeign.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 nAug. contra. Maxim. lib. 3. cap. 14.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 vsus both. But will you heare him speake more like Maximinus? Reade me this (saith oAug. de pastor. cap. 14.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 pSonent voces diuinae.the voyce of God sound. And qAugust. in Psal. 57.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 hauehave Austin on our side for an Arch-Heretike.
rBernard ser. 66. not 62. in Cantica.Bernard speakes of the Hereticks called Apostolicks, not in his 62. but in his 66. sermon vponupon the Canticles, where he saith neuer a word of their reiecting Traditions. No more hath sAug. haeres. 40.Austin, nor tEpiphan. lib. 2. tom. 1. haeres. 61.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 hauehave 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 hauehave refuted your slaunders and shewes with sound proofe of arguments and authoritie. I consider, loosers must hauehave leaue to speake.