may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
of Noe that he was iustisied long before God made him that promise yea before hee came out of the land of Canaan For by faith he obeyed God when he was called to goe out into a place which he should afterwards receiue for inheritance And this faith of his was not a bare beleeuing that which God spake but a resting vpon him accordingly and so was that the Apostle speakes of whereby God was especially glorified for this reposing himselfe vpon God argued the account he made of the fauour of God to him Now the beleefe in that promise was not only for the maltiplying of his naturall seede but for saluation by Christ to his spirituall children that P should beleeue as he had done and therefore it is called the Gospel that he beleeued This faith was counted to him for righteousnes as euery act is whereby a man beleeuing in Christ rests vpon the promise of God But the particular thing that is accepted to his iustification is his beleeuing in God for iustification by Iesus Christ. I will vse no other proofe but the phrase it selfe To beleeue in God which necessarily implies a relying vpon God for that wee desire being promised speaker D. B. P. The Centurions faith was very pleasing vnto our Sauiour who said in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israell What faith vvas that Mary that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Say the vvord only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed speaker A. W. The Centurions faith was not a iustifying faith but a meanes to it begotten in him by the consideration of our Sauiours power in working miracles though I doubt not but from this beleefe he was raised by God to a true faith for iustification by the Messias But this in it selfe was no more than the diuels haue acknowledging Christs power speaker D. B. P. S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers and highlie rewarded by our Sauiour was it any other Then that our Sauiour was Christ the Sonne of the liuing God speaker A. W. S. Peters confession in that place was no more in words but of Christs office Thou art Christ and his nature The son of the liuing God But if he had not also by faith rested on him to iustification this confession would haue done him but little pleasure for Satan himselfe beleeues as much and is damned speaker D. B. P. And briefly let S. Iohn that great secretary of the Holy Ghost tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell These things saith he are vvriten that you may beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name speaker A. W. Doth the preaching of the Gospell aime at nothing else Then what shall become of holinesse of life and good workes made by you the matter of your second iustification This is not the last end of the Gospell but the first and by this the other is wrought we must beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God so that by beleeuing this we come to him that is beleeue in him or rest vpon him for saluation and thereby attaine to euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well saying This is the vvord of faith vvhich vve preach for if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and shalt beleeue in thy hart that God raysed him from death thou shall be saued And in another place I make knowne vnto you the Gospell vvhich I haue preached and by vvhich you shall be saued vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vaine What was that Gospell J haue deliuered vnto you that vvhich I haue receiued that Christ died for our 〈◊〉 according to the Scriptures vvas buried and rose againe the third day c. So by the verdite of S. Paul the beleefe of the articles of the creâ—d is that iustifying faith by which you must be saued speaker A. W. Such is the testimonie of Paul For it is more than apparant that a man may beleeue in his heart that God raised Christ from the death and yet denie many necessarie heads of religion and be wholy cast away But the Apostle in this implies the rest and namely that which followes beleeuing in God that is if I may so often repeate the same thing resting vpon him for iustification by our Sauiour Iesus Christ. The same answere I make to the other place the point of the resurrection is of necessitie to be beleeued of as many as looke to be saued but that is not all that is required For if it be neither your preparations to iustification nor your merits after iustification are to any purpose speaker D. B. P. And neither in S. Paul nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught that a particular faith whereby we apply Christs righteousnes to our selues and assure our selues of our saluation is either a iustifying or any Christian mans faith but the very naturall act of that ougly Monster presumption Which being laid as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion what morall and modest conuersation what humility and deuotion can they build vpon it speaker A. W. All those places that require of vs faith in Christ teach vs also that a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues by trusting to him for iustification is the only proper iustifying faith because to it nothing can be added for the matter of beleeuing A man may acknowledge that there is a God and giue credit as to a certaine truth to all that God reueales and yet not beleeue in God to iustification But he that performes this latter must needs also acknowledge the former This then being the height of faith is in the Scripture counted a iustifying faith speaker W. P. The II. difference touching faith in the act of iustification is this The Papist saith we are iustified by faith because it disposeth a sinner to his iustification after this manner By faith saith he the mind of man is inlightened in the knowledge of the law and Gospell knowledge stirres vp a feare of hell with a consideration of the promise of happinesse as also the loue and feare of God and hope of life eternall Now when the heart is thus prepared God infuseth the habite of charitie and other vertues whereby a sinner is iustified before God We say otherwise that faith iustifieth because it is a supernaturall Instrument created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion whereby hee apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse for his iustification speaker D. B. P. The second difference in the manner of iustification is about the formall act of faith which M. Perkins handleth as it were by the way cuttedly I will be as short as he the matter not being great The Catholiks reach
worke speaker A. W. I denie the consequence of your proposition For though saith alone be the whole cause of iustification yet not euery faith but such an one as is accompanied with hope and charitie To your proofe I answere that such a faith is neither the whole nor any cause of iustification and so though that be as you say in act yet no such effect will follow speaker D. B. P. Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot applie to themselues Christs righteousnes vvithout the preseace of hope and charitie For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honor which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing els but the plaine vice of presumption as hath been before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie when it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophie that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sence and reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the prefence of the whole cause and not only of thâ— instrumentall cause speaker A. W. To the assumption I answere Faith considered without any act of hope or charitie to iustification doth iustifie but faith that is without these doth not iustifie To your proofe I say further that to our iustification God accounteth for righteousnes neither our hope of heauen nor our loue towards himselfe nor our estimation of his honour but onely our beleeuing in Iesus Christ. The similitude is true and fit True because the eye doth see though as an instrument fitted to that office by God and thus Philosophers Poets Orators and all kinde of people doe speake He that would be more curious than wise might finde fault with you also and say that the act of seeing also is mans and the soule the instrustrument whereby he doth see as the hand is the instrument with which he reacheth The fitnes of the similitude appeareth thus It is man that beleeueth as it is man that seeth The generall instrument as I may speake for both these actions is the soule though by diuers faculties the particular for sight is the eye for beleeuing faith outwardly there is none The eye seuered from the head seeth not and yet it is the eye that seeth and not the head so saith that is without hope and charitie iustifieth not and yet hope and charitie doth not iustifie You answere that it is not to purpose because wee require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall But you deceiue your selfe for the question is not of the whole cause or principall efficient which is God for it is he onely that iustifieth but of the instrument if wee may so call it To speake plainly the matter is as I haue often said what it is that God respects in vs to our iustification We say it is onely our beleeuing in Christ you say it is our beleeuing louing and hoping because we teach that together with faith by which on our part we are iustified we receiue hope charitie and other graces of sanctification which are all present in the heart when it beleeueth to iustification but are no way any causes of it speaker D. B. P. And to returne your similitude vpon yourselfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight speaker A. W. I denie your similitude as faultie in the reddition or latter part of it For faith receiueth no influence from any other vertue whereby it hath life to worke acceptably in Gods sight but the acceptablenes of faith proceedes from the meere acceptation of God counting it for righteousnes And whereas wee say that such a faith onely iustifieth as hath hope and loue for companions it is not our meaning that these make saith acceptable but that hee which beleeueth and hath not these vertues idly presumes of faith when he hath it not because the spirit of God together with true faith powreth these graces also into our soules But of this whole point of iustification I shall one day if it please God write more distinctly and fully speaker W. P. Reason IV. If faith alone doe iustifie then wee are saued by faith alone but we are not saued by faith alone and therfore not iustified by faith alone Answ. The proposition is false for more things are requisit to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes speaker D. B. P. The fourth reason if faith alone doe iustifie then faith alone vvill saue but it will not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition and saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an Innocent babe dye shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuolous speaker A. W. It had been the part of a scholler to haue refuted his reason as well as to condemne his answere But indeede the reason is sound that iustification being but the subordinate meanes to the maine end saluation more is required to this than to that not that any man can faile of saluation which hath attained to iustification but because God hath appointed to make supplie of other graces that we may come by degrees to glorification Your reason is nothing worth For the comparison of equalitie and likenes is insufficient For though infants need no more to saluation yet men of discretion doe I appeale to your owne doctrine Doe not you teach that good workes are necessarie to saluation and yet you grant that infants may be saued without them yea and men of yeres too if they haue no time to doe them after their first iustification Therefore more may bee required to saluation than to iustification though infants want nothing after they are once iustified yea infants are iustified without faith as many as are iustified speaker W. P. And the assumption is false for we are saued by faith alone if wee speake of faith as it is an instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation speaker D. B. P. Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith
in the state of grace but in the state of nature namely in the first conuersion of a sinner as his plaine words are in this place The difference stands in the cause of freedome for it is impossible that a man should beleeue without freedom of will beleeuing being an action of the will But the question is whether the will work with Gods grace by it selfe by it owne naturall power or haue this operation from grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue And this is the very opinion of Luther Caluin and generally all Protestant Diuines who in this point thus dissent from you that they ascribe the very act of the will in repenting beleeuing c. to the especiall worke of Gods spirit in their hearts that repent and beleeue whereas you contrariwise hauing furnisht man with freedome of will by nature or I know not what grace make his assent for I must speake of faith as you doe to proceede not from the spirit of God inclining him certainly to beleeue but from the good vse of his free will yeelding of it selfe to the good motion of Gods spirit yet so as that it might for all the motion and operation of Gods spirit forbeare to assent if it were not led to it by the goodnes of free will In a word you ascribe no more to God but the power that the will hath to will that which is good wee acknowledge that the very act of willing well both before and after grace is caused by the spirit of God to and in euery good desire that wee bring well to passe It is more than Master Perkins affirmes that the will being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified with the vertue of grace is able to effect and doe any worke appertaining to saluation For this vertue is not of such strength but that it needes the particular assistance of Gods spirit to incline and frame it to euery good worke of that nature speaker D. B. P. And this to be the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent vvhere in the sixt Session are first these vvords in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Ievves by the letter of Moses lavv could arise out of that sinfull state After it shevveth hovv our deliuerance is vvrought and hovv freedome of vâ—ill is recouered in special and vvherin it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Jesus Christ that is from his vocation vvhereby vvithout any desert of ours vve are called that vve vvho vvere by our sinnes turned avvay from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our ovvne Justification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and vvorking vvith it So as God touching the hart of man by the light of the Holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration vvho might also refuse it neither yet can he vvithout the grace of God by his free vvill moue himselfe to that vvhich is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that vvhich vvas taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme See vvhat Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath vvritten of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these vvords of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father dravv him He concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God moouing him inwarâ—ly therevnto speaker A. W. The Councill of Trent as closely as it carries matters could not but bewray it selfe in this point wherein it leaues to the will of man inlightened by the holie Ghost the act of refusing and receiuing grace Which must needs be naturall because there was no former worke of God whereby this power to receiue grace was bestowed vpon it And this doth Thomas by you alleaged make more plain denying that there is any grace in the will of man as from God for the preparing of himselfe to receiue habituall grace because then we should need another grace for the former and another for that before the former and so without end What then doth God in this case He moues the heart inwardly saith Thomas or he breathes into vs a good purpose A man would thinke that Thomas hereby acknowledged the receite of some speciall grace but it is not so he meanes no more but this that God puts a good motion into vs for the receiuing of habituall grace which it is in the power of our will by nature either to receiue or refuse So that still in the matter of iustification the reason that this man is iustified that is not shall be from man and not from God Are they not in the middest of darknes that write such things III. Our reasons speaker W. P. Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold namely that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of himselfe by nature either in whole or in part but by grace wholy and alone these reasons may be vsed The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption which may be distinguished into two parts The first is the want of that originall righteousnes which was in man by creation the second is a pronenes and inclination to that which is euill and to nothing that is truly good This appeareth The frame of mans heart saith the Lord is euill euen from his childhood that is the disposition of the vnderstanding will affections with all that the heart of man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholly euill And Paul saith The wisdome of the flesh is enmity against God Which words are very significant for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated wisdome signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires affections and indeauours that be in any naturall man euen those that come most neare to true holines are not only contrary to God but enmitie it selfe And hence I gather that the very hart it selfe that is the will and mind from whence these desires and thoughts doe come are also enmity vnto God For such as the action is such is the facultie whence it proceedeth such as the fruit is such is the tree such as the braunches are such are the rootes By both these places it is euident that in man there is not only a want absence or depriuation of originall righteousnes but a pronenes also by nature vnto that which is euill which pronenes includes in it an inclination not to some few but to all and
away the disease and ease the diseased so doth God lab our by his grace in vs to consume sinne and deliuer man And that it is not onely sinne as it comes from sinne and causeth sinne but also properly as a disobedience Austin shewes euidently by this similitude As blindnes of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne whereby the proud heart is worthily punished and a cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of the heart so that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit lusteth is both sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the minde and a punishment of sinne because it is laid by desert vpon the disobedient and the cause of sinne by the fault of consent or the contagion of birth Yea Austin doubts not to say as we doe that the guilt of concupiscence yet remaining is pardoned that it may not be imputed for sinne In them which are regenerate saith Austin when they receiue forgiuenes of all sinnes whatsoeuer it must needes be that the guilt also of this concupiscence yet remaining is forgiuen that as I said it may not be imputed for sinne Further it is plaine that Austin acknowledged it to be sinne because he receiues and allowes of Ambrose his opinion who calles it iniquitie because it is vniust that the flesh should lust against the spirit This sinne Chrysostome and Theophylact vnderstand to be our â—lothfull and corrupt will and a violent inclination to euill And Peter Lombard saith that we are not altogether redeemed by Christ from the guilt or fault but so that it reignes not in vs. speaker W. P. But by the circumstances of the text it is sinne properly for in the words following S. Paul saith that this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated And. verse 24. he crieth out O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death For saith he that S. Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the words following That this sinne dvvelling in him made him to doe the euill vvhich he haâ—â—a How proues this that sinne there must be taken properlie it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not be sin properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the vvill But S. Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby vvas so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercomming that euill As vvitnesseth S. Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully and ruleth raging concupiscence vvhich being done we sinne not but for that conflict are to be crowned This first circumstance then alleadged by M. Perkins doth rather make against him than for him speaker A. W. The reason lies thus Originall sinne dwelling in the Apostle made him doe that euill he hates therefore it is sin properly You answere it rather prooues the contrarie because yâ— which the Apostle doth with hatred of it is not sin for sinne is not committed but with liking and consent of the will I answere that whatsoeuer a man doth against the law of God it is sinne whether he like or mislike it Secondly that the consent of the will makes it not sinne but our sinne Thirdly the Apostle denies not that he doth this euil with his will for else he would not doe it but affirmes that he doth it against his iudgement as euen naturall men doe that are ouercome of their affections Witnes Medea in Ouid I see what is good and like it and doe that is euill Otherwise such actions of theirs should not be sinne I denie not that the regenerate haue a greater hatred of the sinnes they fall into and vpon a better ground but yet the naturall men also oftentimes doe that which they mislike in general though they do it willingly That this was the Apostles meaning he that will reade the chapter may easily perceiue I allow not saith he that I doe that is I know it to bee euill and I would faine leaue it vndone but the strength of my corruption is such that I am carried away to the doing of it and so because I am but in part regenerate in part I serue God and in part sinne As for that you adde out of S. Austin it makes not any whit against vs who acknowledge that reason especially being regenerate oftentimes ouercomes concupiscence shall haue reward for it Yet are not Austins words as you report them but thus Reason sometimes manfullie bridles and restraines concupiscence euen when it is stirred when it so happens we fall not into sin but with some little wrastling are crowned But sometimes againe as the Apostle plainly confesseth it is vanquished by sinne or naturall corruption and drawne to the committing of some actuall sinne inward or outward which being euident Master Perkins reason is not answered as the sight of it may prooue That which dwelling in S. Paul made him doe that he hates is sinne properly Indeede why should he hate it if it be not sinne But originall sinne dwelling in him made him doe that he hates Therefore originall sinne is properly sinne speaker D. B. P. Novv to the second O wretched man that J am who shall deliuer mee from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne hovv this may be dravvne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument vvhere he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text vvhich he can find to proue S. Paul to take sinne there properly speaker A. W. That originall sinne called sinne by the Apostle is sinne properly our Diuines proue by the description the Apostle makes of it in that chapter It is not good It hinders vs from doing good It drawes vs to the doing of euill It makes the Apostle crie out Oh wretched man that I am To which they adde out of other places It is an euill that doth compasse vs about It fights against the Commandement Thou shalt not lust It is an euill to be crucified and mortified Vpon al these descriptions of it we conclude that it is truly and properly sinne speaker A. W. Novv I vvill proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence Jt is not I that doe it â—lâ— sinne is done and committed properly by the person in vvhom it is but this vvas not done by S. Paul Ergo. Let vs now see your proofes to the contrarie the first whereof you frame thus All sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is But this was not done by S. Paul Ergo. First your proposition is false secondly your conclusion is either
can recouer though it liue and bring forth fruites of sinne for the time of our continuance in this mortall carcasse The third poynt Certeintie of saluation I. Our consent speaker W. P. I. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man in this life may be certeine of saluation and the same thing doth the Church of Rome teach and hold II. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man is to put a certeine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same thing by common consent holdeth the foresaid Church this point maketh not the difference betweene vs. III. Conclus We hold that with assurance of saluation in our harts is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs and we with them speaker A. W. To this conclusion the Papist ansvvers Not so Sir But he shevves not vvhat it is he mislikes in it IV. Conclus They goe further and say that a man may be certeine of the saluation of men or of the Church by Catholike faith and so say we V. Concl. Yea they hold that a maÌ„ by faith may be assured of his own saluation through extraordinary reuelation as Abraham others were and so do we speaker A. W. Here he ads that In this sense only the first conclusion is true viz that there is no assurance but by reuelation We ansvvere that this reuelation is common to all true beleeuers in their seuerall proportions VI. Conclus They teach that we are to be certeine of our saluation by speciall faith in regard of God that promiseth though in regard of our selues and our indisposition wee cannot and in the former point they consent with vs. II. The dissent or difference The very maine point of difference lies in the manner of assurance I. Conclus We hold that a man may be certeine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinary and speciall faith They hold that a man is certeine of his saluation onely by hope both of vs hold a certeinty we by faith they by hope II. Conclus Further we hold and auouch that our certeinty by true faith is vnfallible they say their certeinty is only probable III. Conclus And further though both of vs say that we haue confidence in Gods mercy in Christ for our saluation yet we doe it with some difference For our confidence commeth from certeine and ordinary faith theirs from hope ministring as they say but a coniecturall certeinty Thus much of the difference now let vs see the reasons to and fro III. Obiections of Papists Obiect I. Where there is no word there is no faith for these two are relatiues but there is no word of God saying Cornelius beleeue thou Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued And therefore there is no such ordinary faith to beleeue a mans owne particular saluation Ans. The proposition is false vnlesse it be supplied with a clause on this manner Where there is no word of promise nor any thing that doth counteruaile a particular promise there is no faith But say they there is no such particular word It is true God doth not speake to men particularly Beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued But yet doth he that which is answerable hereunto in that he giueth a generall promise with a commandement to apply the same and hath ordained the holy ministerie of the word to applie the same to the persons of the hearers in his owne name and that is as much as if the Lord himselfe should speake to men particularly To speake more plainely in the Scripture the promises of saluation be indefinitely propounded it saith not any where if Iâ—hn will beleeue he shall be saued or if Peter will beleeue he shall be saued but whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued Now then comes the minister of the word who standing in the roome of God and in the stead of Christ himselfe takes the indefinite promises of the Gospel and laies them to the harts of euery particular man and this in effect is as much as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued speaker D. B. P. Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome giueth the first place to our reasons which he calleth obiections and endeuoureth to supplant them and afterward planteth his owne About the order I will not contend seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none but sets downe things as they came into his head Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation But following his method let vs come to the matter Reply Good Sir seeing euery man is a lyar and may both deceiue and be deceiued and the Minister telling may erre how doth either the Minister know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not when he assureth him of his saluation To affirme as you doe that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie Equalling a blinde and lying creature vnto the wisedome and truth of God If you could shew out of Gods word that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ then had you answered the argument directly which required but one warrant of Gods vvord but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers vvord counteruailes Gods vvord I cannot see vvhat it vvanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate On the otherside to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate as it must be graunted he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter thou art one of the elect iâ— to make him of Gods priuie Councell without any warrant for it in Gods word Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrary in these words The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale our Lord knoweth vvho be his And none else except he reueile it vnto them speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake Master Perkins who doth not say that the Minister is to assure any man of his saluation but to applie the generall promises of Scripture to euery man particularly vpon condition of beleeuing The generall is Whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued the Ministers particular application Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued This is so plainly set downe by Master Perkins that I wonder how you could mistake him and so certainly grounded vpon the generall that there can no question be made of it Neither doth this equall the Minister to Christ but as Master Perkins truly saith is as much in effect as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued For if it be true that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued it is as true that Cornelius shall be saued if he
from the purpose for if as you confesse they did not lay hold on the Messiahs satisfaction how could they by this repentance of theirs applie this satisfaction of his to the purchasing of Gods fauour which as you taught vs before is the vse of your satisfaction Secondly if they had not true saith in the Messiah their eternall punishment was vnsatisfied for and we speake of that satisfaction which is made for the temporall after the eternall is discharged From this and such like examples wee may conclude that God sometimes for beares to lay outward iudgements vpon sinners when and because they humble themselues but that these men made satisfaction to God either by applying Christs satisfaction to themselues or by redeeming the temporall punishment remaining after the pardon of the eternall or by making God amends for their former sinnes neither can it be prooued nor I thinke you vpon better aduice will affirme speaker W. P. Obiect V. Dan. 4. 24. Daniel giueth this counsell to Nabuchadnezar redeeme thy sinnes by iustice and thine iniquities by almes deedes Behold say they almes deedes are made meanes to satisfie for mans iniquities speaker D. B. P. If by such good deeds our sinnes may be redeemed as Holy writ doth testifie then it followeth that such workes yeeld a sufficient satisfaction for them for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended as well as satisfaction speaker A. W. This example of Nebuchadnezzar is no more to purpose than that of the Niniuites For the satisfaction we dispute of cannot be performed by any but him that hath his sinnes forgiuen in respect of the eternall punishment by the satisfaction of Christ such as this King at the least at this time of the Prophets counsell was not speaker W. P. Answ. The word which they translate to redeeme as the most learned in the Chaldie tongue with one consent auouch doth properly signifie to breake off as if the Prophet should say O King thou art a mightie Monarch and to inlarge thy kingdome thou hast vsed much iniustice and crueltie therefore now repent of thine iniquitie and breake off these thy sinnes testifie thy repentance by doing iustice and giue almes to the poore whom thou hast oppressed Therefore here is nothing spoken of satisfaction for sinne but onely of testification of repentance by the fruites thereof speaker D. B. P. To Authours in the aire without any pressing of the propriety of the word no answere can be giuen speaker A. W. Either your knowledge and reading is lesse than you would haue it thought to be or you knew this answere to be true and did but shift it off that you might not seeme to be ouercome The word indeed is hebrew signifying to rub and so to breake off by rubbing It is properly spoken of cattell which being yoked rub against a tree or wall or some other hard thing till they haue fretted their yoke in sunder and so freed themselues Hence is that speech of Isaac to Esau Thou shalt rub his yoke off thy necke And from hence it is that the word signifies to redeeme or deliuer yet not by making satisfaction but by breaking the bonds in sunder Seruants haue ruled ouer vs saith the Prophet and there is no man that rids vs out of their hands So Aaron bids the people to take or breake off their eare-rings viz. by opening the ring by which they were fastned Agreeably hereunto the Prophet in this place aduiseth the King to breake off his sinnes which held him captiue and so to free himself from them And this is the first sense of the word as it appeares also in the Hebrew Concordance and Dictionaries Beside the onely way for him to escape the iudgement threatned which was temporall was to giue ouer those sins for which it was denounced in which sense hee might bee said to redeeme his sinnes in respect of the punishment to come that is to auoide and free himselfe from the euill which else would fall vpon him speaker D. B. P. But let vs admit that it be broken off his sinne not being coâ—etousnes but pride and lacke of acknowledging al Kingdomes to depend vpon God as the text it selfe doth specifie To breake off this sin by almes and compassion of the poore is nothing else but by such workes of charitie in some sort to satisfie Gods iustice thereby to moue him to take compassion of him speaker A. W. The chiefe sinne was pride of his owne estate the next to it and issuing from it oppression of many people of that the Prophet spake in expounding the vision here hee deales with him about the other willing him to practise the contrarie vertues that hee might so escape the destruction that was threatned for the Prophet knew that it was possible euen for wicked men to auoide punishment denounced vpon the forsaking of their outward sinnes whereby they had prouoked the Lord to vse those threatnings And that by almesdeeds we are cleansed from our sinnes our Sauiour himselfe doth teach saying Giue almes and behold all things are cleane vnto you speaker A. W. That almes should be of force to clense men from their sinnes and sinnes of a different nature from the contrarie to almes giuing is a matter that hath no likelihood of truth in it And much lesse can it be proued by that place of S. Luke where our Sauiour reproouing the hypocrisie of the Pharisies in washing so carefully before meats as if they thought themselues otherwise cleane when they respected not what wrong they did and what extortion they vsed exhorts them rather to purge their hearts of their couetousnes and to giue to the poore and then all these outward things meate drinke and such like should bee cleane and â—it for them without such superstitious washing speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Matth. 3. 2. Doe penance and bring forth fruits worthy of penance which say they are workes of satisfaction inioyned by the Priest speaker A. W. Our sixt Bring forth the vvorthy fruits of penance That is doe such workes as become them who are penitent Iohn seeing the Pharisies come to his baptisme exhorts them not onely to make shew of repentance but to bring foorth fruites be seeming or worthie of them that repent The same is otherwise thus exprest To repent and turne to God and to doe workes worthie repentance to walke worthie of their calling But for the interpretation we agree in sense speaker D. B. P. Which as S. Chrysostome expoundeth are He that hath stolen avvay another mans goods let him now giue of his owne he that hath committed fornication let him abstaine from the lavvfull company of his ovvne vvife and so forth Recompensing the works of sinne with the contrary works of vertue The same exposition giueth Saint Gregorie and to omit all others venerable Bede interpreteth them thus Mortifie your sinnes by doing the worthie fruits of penance
to the most reuerend letters of Adrian most holy Pope of old Rome I confesse and hold Images to be holy and worthy of worship neuer laying them away but adoring them perfectly them that confesse otherwise I accursse The othet most holy Bishops and venerable Monkes cried out And we all together receiue and embrace and adore Images with very great honour Stauratius Bishop of Chalcedon said I receiue embrace and honour Images as being the pledges of my saluation Peter Bishop of Nichor said I receiue venerable Images and adore them and will alwaies teach the doctrine that I may one day giue account to God our Iudge in the world to come Iohn the most religious Priest Lieue-tenant of the Apostolike thrones said Therefore an Image is greater then prayer And this is come to passe by the prouidence of God for ignorant mens sakes The same man counteth the denying of worship to Images the worst of all heresies as that which ouerthrowes the gouernment of our Sauiours house I forbeare to set downe their reasons which are taken from Tradition miracles and some places of Scripture so ridiculously applied that it is little better then blasphemie to make the holy Ghost president of so Idolatrous and sottish a Councell Constantine hauing subscribed to this Councell by his mothers perswasion and example in his none-age after he came to yeeres of discretion and his owne gouernment by the aduise of diuers learned men repealed the decrees of it concerning Images and ere long after tooke the whole sway of the Empire from his mother who had vsurped it as protectrix into his owne hands which dealing of his did incense the ambitious and idolatrous woman that shee caused certaine traitours first to plucke out his eyes and afterward to murder him yea so great was her malice and feare that shee ceased not till shee had made his sonnes her grand-childrens or neuewes eyes to be pulled out also such an author and patrones had that Idolatrous and wicked Councell the chiefe foundation of Popish Images Such as it was notwithstanding the decrees of it were sent by Pope Adrian the first to the Emperour Charlemaine that he might allow of them But he held another Councell at Franckfort wherin it was concluded that the second Councell of Nice whereof we haue spoken should not be held either for generall or for the seauenth or for a thing of any worth The decrees of that Councell condemning Images were by this repealed and a book written by expresse commandement of the Councell of Franckfort and published in the name of Charlemaine in which as the Councell of Constantinople is reproued for taking away all vse of Images euen for history and memory so that second Councell of Nice is particularly confuted and condemned The like entertainment found the decrees of that Councell amongst our countri-men here in England as you shall see by the testimony of a Monke that writ 300. yeeres agoe The same yeere saith Mathew of Westminster Charles King of the French-men sent into Britaine a booke of decrees wherin many things were found contrary to the true faith and that especially that it was determined by the ioynt consent of almost all the Doctors of the East That Images are to be adored which the Catholike Church vtterly detests Against this Albinus writ an Epistle wonderfully endited according to the authority of the holy Scriptures â—â—d carried together with that booke of decrees to the King of Frâ—…ce in the name of the Bishops and Nobles Yet was not this Councell of Franckfort nor the Epistle written by Albinus nor the booke set out in Charlemaines name of sufficient strength to stop the course of Idolatry so violent it is where it finds any way made for it whereupon Claudius Bishop of Turin hauing bin brought vp and preferred by Charlemaine opposed himselfe by writing afresh against it and as Ionas Bishop of Orleans saith who writ against him proceeded farther to cast them out of all the Churches of his dioces This opinion and fact of his Ionas writ against yet so as that he wholy agreed with him about the vnlawfulnes of adoring Images against the second Councell of Nice But in the East the quarrels about Images were more hot and dangerous which mooued the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus to send their Embassadors into France to the Emperour Lewis the curteous sonne of Charlemaine about the yeare 823 to signifie to him that the superstitious abuse of Images in their dominions had made them assemble a Councell about the matter in which it was decreed that they should not be worshipped with incense lights kneeling prayers songs and seruice before them all which notwithstanding that some of their clergy refusing to yeeld obedience had withdrawne themselues to the Pope of old Rome complaining to him and slandering the East Church that they therefore had sent their Ambassadors both to him and to the Pope for the clearing of themselues of all such false imputations and that they might vnderstand what the iudgement of their Churches was in those points Hereupon Lewis the Emperour called a nationall Councel at Paris the yere following 824. wherein the conclusion was as in the Councell of Franckfort against both pulling downe and worshipping of Images as appeareth by an Epistle sent from the said Synode to Lewis and Lotharius by two Bishops Italitgarius and Flamarius and according thereunto answere was returned to the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus Thus much I thought good to set downe as briefely as I could hee that would reade of these matters more at large may finde enough to content him in that excellent treatise of the Lord Plessy against the Masse in the second booke the second third and fourth Chapters The iudgement of all these matters I leaue to all men whatsoeuer that will vouchsafe to waigh things by the Ballance of the Sanctuary with the hand of true reason Others that had rather beleeue what is told them then try that they beleeue I commit and commend to the mercy of God Whom I beseech according to his good pleasure to enlighten our hearts and incline our affections euery day more and more that we may discerne and acknowledge his most holy truth to his glory the good of his Church and our owne euerlasting saluation through his Sonne Iesus Christ. To whom with the Father and holy Spirit one God immortall inuisible and only wise be all glorie power obedience and thanksgiuing for euer and euer Amen FINIS Errata Pag. 11. lin 1. read in our time p. ead l. 29. r. yes p. 17. l. 11. r. were not dedicated p. 36. l. 22. r. out p. 44. l. 10. in the margin r. Popes breast p. 45 l. 21. r. and that p. 57. l. 17. r. c. p. ead l. 35. r. them Cardinall p. 68. lin 18. r. is moued p. cad l. 22. dele as p. 87. l. 4. in the margin r.