Defense of Perkins Book Called a Reformed Catholic, Point 7 · Section 1 – Section 2
Our consent.
Conclus. I. Wee hold that the very worde of God, hath beene deliuered by tradition. For first God reuealed his will to Adam by word of mouth: and renewed the same vntounto the Patriarkes, not by writing, but by speech, by dreames, and other inspirations: and thus the worde of God went from man to man for the space of two thousand and foure hundred yeeres, vntounto the time of Moses who was the first penman of holy scripture, For as touching the prophesie of Enoch, we commonly holde it was not penned by Enoch, but by some Iew vnderunder his name. And for the space of this time, men worshipped God and helde the articles of their faith by tradition, not from men but immediately from God himselfe. And the historie of the new testament (as some say) for eightie yeeres, as some others thinke, for the space of twenty yeeres and more, went from hand to hand by tradition, till penned by the Apostles, or being penned by others was approoued by them.
speaker D. B. P. Hitherto we agree (but not in this which he interlaceth) that in the state of nature, eueryevery man was instructed of God immediately in both matters of faith and religion: For that God then as euer since vsed the ministerie aswell of good fathers, as godly masters; as Enoch, Noe, Abraham, and such like, to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God, and true faith in him; otherwise, how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses, as M. Perkins affirmeth: If no child learned any such thing of his Father, but was taught immediately from God, but M. Perkins seemeth to regard l…tle such petty contradictions.
speaker A. W. If you were not more desirous to pick quarrels, then to acknowledge truth, you would neuer faine such contradictions. Master Perkins sayes no such thing, as you charge him with, but speakes only of the Patriarks, by whose ministerie the rest were taught, as he shewes rIdolatrie of the later times.otherwhere, making it an argument to perswade housholders to the like dutie.
speaker W. P. Conclus. II. We hold that the Prophets, our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles, spake and did many things good and true, which were not written in the Scriptures: but either came to vsus, or to our ancetours onelyonly by tradition. As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is said, that Iannes and Iambres were the Magitians that withstood Moses: now in the books of the olde testament wee shall not finde them once named, and therefore it is like, that the Apostle had their names by tradition, or by some writings then extant among the Iewes. So Hebr. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle recordeth of Moses, that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai, he said, I tremble and am afraide: which words are not to be found in all the bookes of the old testament. In the Epistle of Iude mention is made, that the Diuell stroue with Michael the Archangell about the bodie of Moses: which point (as also the former) considering it is not to be found in holy writ, it seemes the Apostle had it by tradition from the Iewes. That the Prophet Esai was killed with a fullers clubbe, is receiued for truth, but yet not recorded in Scripture: and so likewise that the Virgin Mary liued and died a virgin. And in Ecclesiasticall writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded, and receiued of vsus for truth, which neuerthelesse are not set downe in the bookes of the olde or new Testament. And many things wee holde for truth not written in the worde, if they bee not against the word.
speaker D. B. P. His 2. Conclus. We hold that the Prophets, our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake, and did many things good and true, which were not written in the Scriptures, but came to vsus by Tradition: but these were not necessary to be beleeued: For one example he puts; that the blessed Virgin Marie liued and died a Virgin: but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this, for Heluidius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike, for denying it.*De haeres. ad Quod. lib. 14.
speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith nothing of the necessitie of beleeuing. That point of the virgin Maries perpetuall virginitie, we hold to be true, but we dare not lay a burthen vponupon any mans conscience where the scripture is silent. S. Austins iudgement though he were a singular light of the Church, is not of waight inough to determine, without all warrant of scripture, what is heresie, and what is not; especially since sIn praefat. de haeres: b.himselfe confesseth that it cannot at all, or very hardly be declared tRegulari definitione.by a lawfull definition what makes a man an heretike. Besides, Austin thus deliuers the matter concerning the Heluidians heresie. The Heluidians (saith he) so gaine said the virginitie of Mary, that they confidentlie affirme, she had other children after Christ by her husband Ioseph. So that it may well be Austin counted them heretikes especially for auouching that peremptorily which they could no way make good by scripture.
speaker W. P. Conclus. III. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances, rules, or traditions, touching time, and place of Gods worship, and touching order and comelines to bee vsed in the same: and in this regard, Paul 1. Cor. 11. 2. commendeth the Church of Corinth for keeping his traditions, and Act. 15. the Counceil at lerusalem decreed that the Churches of the Gentiles should abstaine from blood, and from things strangled. This decree is tearmed a tradition, and it was in force among them so long as the offence of the Iewes remained. And this kinde of traditions whether made by generall Councels or particular Synods, we hauehave care to maintaine and obserue: these caueats being remembred: first that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done.
speaker D. B. P. See what a …erent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God, gouerned by his holy spirit, that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd. But I must pardon him, because he speaketh of his owne Synagogue, which is no part of the true Church
speaker A. W. Hee that obserues what your Romish synagogue hath brought into Gods seruice, and remembers that the Church (that is, men which beare sway in it) may fondly erre, will acknowledge this caueat most needfull. No stage-play is so full of fooleries as your Masse-game.
speaker W. P. Secondly that they bee not imposed as any parts of Gods worship.
speaker D. B. P. This is contrary to the conclusion, for order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship, which the Church can prescribe, is some part of the worship.
speaker A. W. Order and comelinesse are no parts of Gods worship, but adiuncts, seruing to the better performance thereof, as the obseruation of due and fit circumstances giuegive a grace and furtherance to any action whatsoeuer.
speaker W. P. Thirdly, that they be seuered from superstition or opinion of merit.
speaker D. B. P. This is needlesse; for if it be not absurd, which was the first prouiso, it is already seneted from superstition.
speaker A. W. That is absurd which is contrarie to common reason or sense, but all things superstitious are not so, yea many points of superstition hauehave so much shew of reason for them, that without Gods commandement to the contrarie, a wise man might thinke them very fit meanes of Gods worship, and meritorious. Such uCol. 2.was ye Gentiles worshipping of Angels, supposing they had worshipped none but God: such is your worshipping of Angels, and he saincts and she saincts now adayes; such is your feare of displeasing God, if you eate flesh on saincts eauens, or in Lent, and such like.
speaker W. P. Lastly that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of them. And thus much wee hold touching Traditions.
speaker D. B. P. The fourth, touching multitude may passe; these be but meere trifles And yet afterward you bring this very decree to proue that the Apostle Paul alleaged Tradition, end rested not on … Scripture.That is of more importance, that he tearmeth the decree registred, in the 15. of the Actes of the Apostles, a Tradition: whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered, besides the written word. Now the Actes of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word, as all the world knovves: That then vvhichwhich is of record there, cannot be tearmed a Tradition.
Though the Acts of the Apostles be a part of the written word: yet was not the booke written when that decree was first obserued; neither doth Master Perkins giuegive it the name of himselfe, but saith, it is tearmed a tradition.
The difference.
speaker W. P. Papists teach, that beside the written worde, there be certaine vnwritten traditions, which must bee beleeued as profitable and necessarie to saluation. And these they say are twofold: Apostolicall, namely such as were deliuered by the Apostles and not written; and Ecclesiasticall, which the Church decreeth as occasion is offered. Wee hold that the Scriptures are most perfect, containing in them all doctrines needfull to saluation, whether they concerne faith or manners: and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written worde, which shall bee necessarie to saluation: so as hee which beleeueth them not, cannot be saued.
speaker D. B. P. Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions; obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts: The first we rearme Diuine, because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour, who is God: Thesecond, Apostolicall, as deliuered by the holy Apostles: The third, Ecclesiasticall, instituted and deliuered by the Gouernors of the Curch, after the Apostles daies. And of these three kinds of Traditions, we make the same account, as of the writings of the same Authors: to wit, we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours Traditions, than of thefoure Gospels, or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost. Likewise as O eloquence! So doe we to all knovvne to be the Apostles.much honor and credit doe we giuegive vntounto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten, as written. For incke and paper brought no new holines, nor gaue any force and vertue vntounto either Gods or the Apostles words; but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth, as if they had been written. Here the question is principally of diuine Traditions, …ou confesse afterward that the Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith.which we hold to be necessary to saluation, to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty. For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith, (which the simple are bound to beleeue vnderunder paine of damnation) may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures: as for example, that God is the Creator of the world, Christ the Redeemer of the world, the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier: and other such like Articles of the Creed.
speaker A. W. Diuine traditions are such as were deliuered by our Sauiour (say you) and are diuers from those that the Apostles left. So that the controuersie is (principally) of those matters that Christ only spake; and neither the Euangelists nor Apostles hauehave set downe in writing. But (that we may vnderstand what wee doe) it is further to be knowne, that the question is not, whether, if there be any such traditions, wee are bound to beleeue them (for that is out of all doubt) but whether there be any such or no; or whether the Scriptures doe not containe sufficient direction, for the determining of al matters of importance to saluation, and for the substance of religion. You, that you may discredit the Scriptures, to aduance traditions, doe not so much as acknowledge that the maine grounds of doctrine are there plainly taught, but mince the matter, with your some such principall points, and may be gathered out of the holy Scripture: whereas not onelyonly those two you name; but, if not all, yet many more are manifestly therein declared.