thereby Here is a very prety peece of cousinage What doth the Apostle say that he was not iustified by his cleere conscience nothing lesse but that albâ—it he saw nothing in himselfe to hinder his iustification yet God who hath sharper eye-sight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no oâ—her fault in me in Gods 〈◊〉 then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am 〈◊〉 of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our iustification as I haue before shewed speaker A. W. If the Apostle were not iustified by the law who can be That he was not himselfe saith Master Perkins confesseth euen then when he was not pâ—â—uie to himselfe of any grosse breach thereof This is Master Perkins reason to which you answere nothing but frame another argument to your selfe out of the Apostles speech speaker W. P. And this will appeare if wee doe consider how wee must come one day before Gods iudgement seat there to be iudged in the rigour of iustice for then we must bring some thing that may counteruaile the iustice of God not hauing onely acceptation in mercie but also approbation in iustice God being not onely mercifull but also a iust iudge speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins addeth that we must remember that we shall come to iudgement where rigour of iustice shall be shewed We know it well but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from originall sin as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about originall sinne what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had ranne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice laid vp for him by that iust Iudge and not only to him but all them that loue â—Crists comming speaker A. W. Indeede he that is iustified needes not feare condemnation but the question is whether he can be iustified in Gods iust iudgement who brings imperfect righteousnes to iustifie himselfe withall which S. Paul doth not but being iustified by faith in Christ lookes for a reward of his holie labours according to the promise of God speaker D. B. P. And concerning both inherent iustice and the ability of it to fulfill the law And what Iaw heare this one sentence of S. Augustine He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the lavv albeit the lavv be good but he shall fulfill the lavv not by iustice vvhich he hath of himselfe but vvhich is giuen of God for charity is the fulfilling of the lavv and from him is this charity povvred into our barts not certainlie by our selues but by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. speaker A. W. There needes no mans authoritie to prooue that hee which is iustified hath inherent righteousnes For the Apostle saith Christ is made sanctification to vs and that by him we are sanctified neither doe we denie that this inherent righteousnes is such as might enable vs to keepe the law and shall when it is perfect but to keepe the law is not onely to haue charitie or righteousnes but to vse it as the law commands Righteousnes saith Austin is nothing els but not to sinne not to sinne is to keepe the commandements of the law that is as himselfe presently expounds it to do none of those things that are forbidden and to doe all those things that are commanded But the chiefe point is what law he meanes out of doubt the law of Moses which is alwaies meant when it is put alone without any addition or explication as it is here What law vnderstands he when he saith that iustice which is of the law Of the same he saith he shall fulfill the law it selfe besides what law doth charitie fulfill questionlesse the law of Moses the summe whereof is the loue of God and man speaker W. P. Reason II. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God which is in him Whence I reason thus As Christ was made sin for vs so are we made the righteousnesse of God in him but Christ was made sin or a sinner by imputation of our sinnes he being in himselfe most holy therefore a sinner is made righteous before God in that Christs righteousnesse is imputed and applied vnto him Now if any shall say that maÌ„ is iustified by righteousnes infused then by like reason I say Christ was made sinne for vs by infusion of sinne which to say is blasphemie speaker D. B. P. I denie both propositions the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our iustification with the sinne which Christ was made for vs for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne as we are made iust That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse without any liklyhood in the text The other proposition is also false for Christ was not made sinne by imputation for sin in that place is taken figuratiuely and signifieth according to the exposition of auncient Fathers An host or sacrifice for sinne Which Christ was truely made his body being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne and not by imputation speaker A. W. That there is some comparison of likenes implied by the Apostle it appeares by Austin He therefore was made sinne that we might be made righteousnes not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he made shew of sinne not of his owne but of ours not resting in him but in vs. speaker W. P. That interpretation indeed is generally best liked of because of the Hebraisme but yet the place may also be expounded otherwise as your owne writers shew He made him to be counted a sinner saith Thomas and Catharin more fully He laid vpon him the sinnes of vs all and especially that originall sinne out of which as out of a roote the other spring And the exposition of this place by S. Hierome is not to be despised Christ saith he beeing offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that we might bee made the righteousnesse of God in him Not ours nor in vs. If this righteousnesse of God be neither ours nor in vs then it can bee no inherent righteousnesse but must needes be righteousnes imputed And Chrysost on this place saith It is called Gods righteousnes because it is not of workes and because it must be without all staine or want and that cannot bee inherent righteousnes Anselme saith He is made sinne as wee are made iustice not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he is made sinne not his owne but ours not in
to your owne merits proceeding from your will which grace as you say hath wholy freed But of this also I spake before and must say more hereafter speaker W. P. Now let vs see by what reasons wee iustifie our doctrine and secondly answere the contrarie obiections Our reasons Reason I. That very thing which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of the law which saith Doe these things and thou shalt line Now there is nothing can satisfie the iustice of the law but the righteousnes or obedience of Christ for vs. If any alleage ciuil iustice it is nothing for Christ saith Except your righteousnesse exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen speaker D. B. P. This reason is not worth a rush for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law I demaund what law he meaneth If Moses law of which those words Doe this and thou shalt liue are spoken Then I answere with the Apostle That you are euacuated or abolished from Christ that are iustified in the lavv That is he is a Iew and no Chri stian that wuld haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified must be able to fulfill Christs law I then graunt that they so be by the helpe of Gods grace which will neuer faile them before they faile of their duties speaker A. W. He is neither Christian nor Iew but worse than either that abolisheth the moral law by the Gospel The Apostle speakes of ioyning the law with Christ to iustification not of making Christian iustice answerable to Moses law But is there any likelihood that hee which came to bring perfect righteousnes would destroy the law of righteousnes Are you they that finde fault with vs because wee say it is impossible for vs to keepe the Commandements so fully as God requireth Doth Moses law containe any other or greater righteousnes than the perfect loue of God and of our neighbour Is it not your common doctrine that faith makes vs able to keepe the law Nay doe you not teach that our Sauiour hath propounded greater perfection to his followers than was required by the law of Moses Beside is not the law the very law of nature And can any man bee righteous that keepes not the law of nature You must prooue that God by Christ hath either abrogated the morall law or dispensed with Christians for the breaches of it not by pardoning of them as the Apostle teacheth but by freeing them from obedience to it If this be false then whosoeuer will be iustified by any law must fulfill Moses law to which onely the promise is made Doe this and thou shalt liue speaker W. P. What shall we say that workes doe make vs iust that cannot be for all mens workes are defectiue in respect of the iustice of the law Shall we say our sanctification whereby we are renewed to the image of God in righteousnes and true holinesse that also is imperfect and cannot satisfie Gods iustice required in the law as Isai hath said of himselfe and the people All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous cloath speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins That iustice of man is vnperfect and cannot satisfie the iustice vvhich God requires in his lavv and proues it out of Esay who saith All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath I answere that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous That he speaketh of the wicked of that nation and of that time appeareth plainly by the text it selfe For he saith before But loe thou hast been angry for vve haue offended and haue been euer in sinne and after There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold by thee And although the words be generall and seeme to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also yet that is but the manner of preachers and specially of such as become Intercessors for others who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lyed when he said There is none that call vpon thy name when as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercy all which the best learned among them marking confesse that this sentence cannot be alleadged against the vertue of good works Hence gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture That which the Prophet spake of some euil men of one place and at one time that he applieth vnto all good men for all times and all places speaker A. W. It is no proofe that the Prophet speakes not of himselfe as well as of the people because Preachers sometimes doe not in the like speeches For sometimes also they doe Neither had the Prophet lied as you grosly speake if hee had meant himselfe For it is not his purpose to denie that God had been called vpon but so called vpon as hee ought to haue been The Prophet speakes of their actions which had some shew of goodnes els he would not say our righteousnes besides he speakes not of that which he presently was to doe as a Prophet but of that which ordinarily he and other did with the infirmitie of men Luther and Caluin are of opinion that the place doth not properly belong to the proofe of this doctrine but they denie not that the Prophet speakes of the faithfull and their works Yea Caluin plainly affirmes that he doth speake of them The faithfull saith he goe forward in their complaint And The faithfull must confesse their guiltines So doth Caietan vnderstand the place alluding to it Christ merit is called our righteousnes because it is true righteousnes before Gods iudgement seate to make a difference betwixt it and our righteousnes which at Gods iudgement seate is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman Our humble righteousnes if it be any is true perhaps saith Bernard but not pure vnlesse perchance we thinke our selues better than our fathers who no lesse truly than humbly said All our righteousnes is as the cloutes c. Therefore Bernard and Caietan expound this place of the righteousnes of iustified men as Master Perkins doth speaker W. P. To haue a cleare conscience before God is a principall part of inward righteousnesse and of it Paul in his owne person saith thus I am priuie to nothing by my selfe yet am I not iustified thereby 2. Cor. 4. 4. Therefore nothing can procure vnto vs an absolution and acceptance to life euerlasting but Christs imputed righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But he will amend it in the next where he proues out of S. Paul that a cleare conscience which is a great part of inherent iustice can nothing helpe to our iustification I am priuie to nothing by my selfe and yet J am not iustified
himselfe but in vs. speaker D. B. P. How these words of the Apostle Iustice of God are to be vnderstood see Saint Augustine One place I will cite for all The iustice of God saith he through the saith of Christ Jesus that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ for as that faith is called Christs not by vvhich Christ beleeues so that Iustice is called Gods not whereby God is iust both of them faith and iustice be ours but therefore they are tearmed Gods and Christs because through their liberality they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome which M. Perkins citeth saying It is called Gods Iustice because it is not of works but of his free gift So that it is not that which is in God himselfe but such as he bestoweth vpon vs. And that iustice of it selfe is pure and wanteth no vertue to work that for which it is giuen to wit to make a man righteous S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered when the place is quoted speaker A. W. The iustice of God is expounded by the Apostle to be the forgiuenes of sinnes especially vpon your interpretation For what is it that Christ procures by his sacrifice but pardon the wrath of God being appeased It is indeed called the righteousnes of God because it is giuen vs by God and chiefly because it is appointed and approoued of God They that make it inherent in vs as it cannot be prooued by this place that S. Austin doth stretch it further than the Apostle vseth to doe and make it comprehend sanctification also It is but a shift to put off Aâ—sâ—lme whom you cannot answere it had been casie for you to conceiue that he meanes his Commentarie vpon that place But how chance Hierome is past ouer too we must haue some other excuse for the place is quoted speaker W. P. Reason III. Rom. 5. 19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous marke here is a comparison betweene the first and second Adam And hence I reason thus As by the disobedience of the first Adam men were made sinners so by the obedience of the second Adam are we made righteous Now we are not onely made sinners by propagation of naturall corruption but by imputation For Adams first sinne was the eating of the forbidden fruite which verie acte is no personall offence but is imputed to all his posteritie in whom we haue all sinned The Fathers call this very sinne Adams hand-writing making vs debters vnto God And therefore in like manner the obedience of Christ is made the righteousnesse of euery beleeuer not by infusion but by imputation speaker D. B. P. The comparison I allovv because it is the Apostles and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault And say that euery one descended of Adam by natural propagation hath his ovvn peâ—â—onal iniquity stieking in them which is commonly called Oâ—â—ginal sin and an high point of Pelagiamsme is it to deny it For albeit vve did not 〈◊〉 of the forbidden fruit in proper person yet receiue vve the nature of man polluted vvith that infection really and not by imputation And so the comparison serues not at all M. Perkins turne but beareth very strongly against him it being thus framed As by Adams disobedience many vvere made sinners euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified This is his Maior Novv to the Minor But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners by drawing from him euery one his owne proper inherent iniquitie in like manner vve are iustified by Christ not by imputation of his iustice but by our inherent iustice vvhich is povvred into our soules vvhen 〈◊〉 are in Baptisme borne a new in him See what penury of poore arguments they haue that to make some shew of store are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them speaker A. W. Your bare deniall is no sufficient answere especially since greater Clerkes directly affirme the contrarie viz. that that sin of Adams makes vs debters to God whereof we are all guiltie as hauing committed it in his loynes All men saith Austin are vnderstood to haue sinned in the first man because all men were in him when he sinned yea more then that he saith All men committed that sin in him because all were that one man As Leui saith Domingo a soto many yeeres before he was borne paid tithes in Abraham in like sort we sinned in the loynes of Adam We denie not that we receiue from Adam inherent vnrighteousnes by propagation but affirme that Adams sinne is imputed to vs to our iust condemnation speaker W. P. Reason IV. A satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires at our hands is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe But Christ obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires as the Papists themselues auouch Therefore this satisfaction is our iustice And me thinks the Papists vpon this consideration haue little cause to dissent from vs. For if they make Christs obedience their satisfaction why should they not fullie close hands with vs and make it their iustice also speaker D. B. P. For the Maior he citeth Bellarmine I haue read the Chapter and find no such words further I say there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes and iustification for satisfaction cannot be done by vs for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite Maiesty and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it wherfore the infinit valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment due to sinners leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall paine of it as shal be in his due place declared more at large speaker A. W. Againe a man must needs haue his sinnes pardoned and grace giuen him before he can make any kind of due satisfaction for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie wherefore he must needs flie to the benefit of Christs satisfaction There is nothing like in iustification for first to make a man iust in Gods sight requires no infinite perfection but such as a meere man is very well capable of as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocency and of all the blessed soules in heauen who be iust in Gods sight Neither is it necessary to be infinit for to be worthy of the ioyes of heauen which be not infinit as they are enioyed of Men or Angels either who haue all things there in number weight and measure Master Perkins argument is wholy omitted by you and a consectarie which he drawes from it propounded in stead of it The argument is this A
and more wash vs from our sinnes and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs thus are all Christs riches ours so long as we keepe our selues members of his mysticall body but this is nothing to the point which the argument touâ—…d how one man may formally be made iust by the iustice of another rather then wise by the wisdome of another speaker A. W. The reason why our Sauiour Christs other gifts are not imputed to vs is because we stand not in neede of them for the fulfilling of the law to iustification They also belong to vs as members of his mysticall bodie wee doe not offer them to God but intreate him for his Sonnes sake who was so and so qualified and did such and such things and aboue all who is so beloued to be mercifull vnto vs and to accept vs for his children As for any formall wisedome or iustice which should make any reall change in vs we looke not for it in iustification but in sanctification and that is not Christs but ours personally speaker W. P. Obiect II. If a sinner bee iustified by Christ his righteousnesse then euery beleeuer shall be as righteous as Christ and that can not be Ans. The proposition is false for Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to vs according as it is in Christ neither according to the same measure nor the same manner For his obedience in fulfilling the lawe is aboue Adams righteousnesse yea aboue the righteousnesse of all Angels For they were all but creatures and their obedience the obedience of creatures but Christ his obedience is the obedience or righteousnesse of God so tearmed Rom. 1. 17. 18. 2. Cor. 5. 21. not onely because God accepted of it but because it was in that person which is very God When Christ obeyed God obeyed and when he suffered God suffered not because the God-head suffered or performed anie obedience but because the person which according to one nature is God performed obedience and suffered And by this means his righteousnesse is of infinite value price merit efficacy Hence also it commeth to passe that this obedience of Christ serueth not only for the iustifying of some one person as Adams did but of all and euery one of the elect yea it is sufficient to iustifie many thousand worlds Now to come to the point this righteousnesse ousnesse that is in Christ in this largenes and measure is pertaining to vs in a more narrow skantling because it is onely receiued by faith so farforth as it serueth to iustifie any particular beleeuer But they vrge the reason further saying If Christ his righteousnes be the righteousnesse of euery beleeuer then euery man should be a Sauiour which is absurd Answ. I answer as before and yet more plainely thus Christ his righteousnesse is imputed to the person of this or that man not as it is the price of redemption for all mankind but as it is the price of redemption for one particular man as for example Christ his righteousnes is imputed to Peter not as it is the price of redemption for all but as it is the price of redemption for Peter And therefore Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to any one sinner in that largenesse and measure in which it is in the person of Christ but onely so sarreforth as it serueth to satisfie the lawe for the saide sinner and to make his person accepted of God as righteous and no further speaker D. B. P. That which is applied of Christs iustice to this or that man is either infinite and then the man is as iust as Christ for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kinde Or it is not infinite but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs inâ—nâ—t iustice for all the parts of an infinit thing are infinit according vnto true Philosophy It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of in stice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice and powred into this oâ— that man as in his owne example The light of euery starre is receiued from the Sunne beames Yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sun for one accident cannot be in two subiects so far distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skyes as it is euident but is a far dâ—mmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sun from whence it came Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus certaine beames of particular iustice are conueied into this or that mans soule whereby it is both lightned by faith and inflamed by charity but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne and the light of a starre which S. Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying How much difference there is betvveene the light that doth lighten and that vvhich is sightened that is the sun and the starre light so much difference is there betvveene the iustice that doth iustifie and that iustice vvhich is made by that iustification to wit betvveene the iustice of Christ and that vvhich is in eueâ—… good Christian. speaker A. W. The iustice of Christs humane nature for of that now we speake is not properly infinite but onely in regard of his person Therfore though it were all communicated to some man yet should it not in him be infinite You wholy mistake the matter For Master Perkins doth not meane that there is any part of Christs righteousnes inherently made ours as the light of the starre receiued from the Sunne remaines in it but brings that similitude only to shew that the whole is applied to euery one that is iustified in his seuerall proportion As for inherent righteousnes that is rather an effect than an application of Christs righteousnes It may be also Master Perkins was of opinion that the starres as the Moone haue no light in themselues but only reflect the light of the Sunne shining on them and then it is true that the light which comes from them is the very light of the Sunne varied according to the nature and position of each seuerall starre Austin speakes of iustification and iustice as they are largely taken for sanctification also neither doth hee compare Christs righteousnes as hee is man with ours but shewes how infinitly Gods wisedome and iustice exceede mans as hee doth elsewhere by the same similitude speaker W. P. Obiect III. If we be made righteous by Christ his righteousnesse truly then Christ is a sinner truly by our sinnes but Christ is not indeede a sinner by our sinnes Answ. We may with reuerence to his maiestie in good manner say that Christ was a sinner and that truely not by any infusion of sinne into his most holy person but because our sinnes were laid vpon him speaker D. B. P. The third reason for the Catholike party If men be made truely and really iust by
part of our soule but that the renewing of Gods image in vs is the renewing of that part Now this is done by sanctification not by iustification properly taken I can finde no such thing in that booke of Cyrill but if euer he spake so what is that against vs who easily grant that we are inherently righteous as soone as the sanctifying spirit of God hath kindled the fire of loue in our hearts II. Difference about the manner of Iustification speaker W. P. All both Papists and Protestants agree that a sinner is iustified by faith This agreement is onely in worde and the difference betweene vs is great in deede And it may be reduced to these three heads First the Papist saying that a man is iustified by faith vnderstandeth a general or a Catholike faith whereby a man beleeueth the articles of religion to bee true But we hold that the faith which iustifieth is a particular faith whereby we applie to our selues the promises of righteousnesse and life euerlasting by Christ. And that our opinion is the truth I haue proued before but I will adde a reason or twaine Reason I. The faith whereby we liue is that faith whereby we are iustified but the faith whereby we liue spiritually is a particular faith wherby we apply Christ vnto our selues as Paul saith Gal. 2. 20. I liue that is spiritually by the faith of the sonne of God which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ in the very wordes following who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me particularly and in this manner of beleeuing Paul was and is an example to all that are to be saued 1. Tim. 1. 16. and Phil. 3. 15. speaker D. B. P. Ans. The â—aior I admit and deny the Minor and say that the proofe is not to purpose For in the Minor he speaketh of faith vvhereby vve apply Christs merits vnto ourselues making them ours in the proofe S. Paul saith only that Christ died for him in particular He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice and making of it his owne which are very distinct things All Catholikes beleeue with Saint Paul that Christ dyed as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular yea and that his loue vvas so exceeding great tovvards mankind that he vvould vvillingly haue bestovved his life for the redemption of one only man But hereupon it doth not follovv that euery man may lay hands vpon Christs righteousnes and apply it to himselfe or else Tuâ—…s Iovves Heretikes and euill Catholikes might make verie bold with him but must first doe those things vvhich he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent them hartely of their sins to beleeue and hope in him to be baptized and to haue a full purpose to obserue all his commandements Which M. 〈◊〉 also confesseth that allmen haue not only promised but also â—ovâ—ed in Baptisme Novv because vve are not assured that vve shall performe all 〈◊〉 therefore vve may not so presumptuously apply vnto ourselâ—es Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting although vve beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular speaker A. W. That vvhich follovveth in M. Perkins hath no colour of probability that S. Paul in this manner of beleefe that is in applying to himselfe Christs merits vvas an example to all that are saued See the places good Reader and learne to bevvare the bold vnskilfulnes of sectaries For there is not a vvord sounding that vvay but only hovv he hauing receiued mercy vvas made an example of patience Master Perkins prooues his minor thus The faith by which Paul liued was a particular faith whereby he applied Christ to himselfe But the faith by which we liue is the faith by which Paul liued Therefore the faith by which we liue is a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues The proposition Master Perkins prooues by the Apostles testimonie where he doth particularly apply Christ to himselfe as hauing loued him and died for him You answere that S. Paul makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice no more doth Master Perkins in his proposition But the Apostle mentions such a particular faith as Master Perkins speakes of viz. a perswasion that Christs benefits belong to him in particular and that Christ hath particularly loued him which is to apprehend Christ. And this is another manner of matter than to hold that Christ died for euery particular man which the diuels no doubt doe acknowledge The assumption is euident of it selfe for there is no question but that all which are iustified haue and liue by the same faith But Master Perkins sets out the matter by two places of scripture in the former whereof the Apostle propounds himselfe to all men as an example of Gods mercie that they may assure them selues that if they will beleeue in Christ as hee did they should haue forgiuenes of their sinnes as he had In the latter hauing shewed that he cast off all confidence in his owne righteousnes and accounted it as dung resting onely vpon God for his righteousnes by faith in Iesus Christ he exhorts all men to follow his example both in faith and holinesse speaker W. P. Reason 11. That which we are to aske of God in prayer wee must beleeue it shall be giuen vs as wee aske it but in prayer wee are to aske the pardon of our owne sinnes and the merit of Christs righteousnesse for our selues therefore wee must beleeue the same particularly The proposition is a rule of Gods word requiring that in euery petition wee bring a particular faith whereby wee beleeue that the thing lawfully asked shall bee giuen accordingly Mark 11. 24. speaker D. B. P. Of the Maior much hath been said before here I admit it all due circumstances of prayer being obserued and deny that vve must pray that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular for that vvere greatly to abase them but good Christians pray that through the infinite value of those his merits our sinnes may be forgiuen and a iustice proportionable vnto our capacity may be powred into our souls vvhereby vve may leade a vertuous life and make a blessed end speaker A. W. It is no abasing of our Sauiours merits that is of his obedience to the morall law and his suffrings that they should be communicated to euery member of his mysticall body for their iustification as long as the worke of redemption remaines proper to him speaker W. P. The minor is also euident neither can it be denied for we are taught by Christ himselfe to pray on this manner Forgiue vs our debts and to it we say Amen that is that our petitions shall without all doubt bee graunted vnto vs. August serm de temp 182. speaker D. B. P. But it is goodly to behold hovv Master Perkins proueth that vve must pray that Christs righteousnes
righteousnes of Christ neither doth he for that purpose bring this testimonie but to shew what that faith is by which wee are iustified Secondly you accuse Master Perkins for cutting off certaine conditions added on our part by Bernard but where are these conditions added The words you alleage are aboue thirtie lines after those that he cites and depend not vpon them but are spoken concerning the certaintie of saluation So therefore saith Bernard doth this glorie viz. the inward glorie and witnes of our conscience as in the words immediatly before dwell here in our earth if mercie and truth meete together and righteousnes and peace kisse each other For it is necessarie that the truth of our conuersion meete with mercie preuenting it And that afterward we follow holinesse and peace without which no man shall see God This and such like sentences declare that it is in vaine for a man to promise himselfe iustification without sanctification But they answere not the former testimonie which shewes that iustifying faith is a particular applying of Christ by beleeuing the forgiuenes of our sinnes speaker W. P. Cyprian God promiseth thee immortalitie when thou goest out of this world and doest thou doubt This is indeede not to know God and this is for a member of the Church in the house of faith not to haue faith If we beleeue in Christ let vs beleeue his words and promises and wee shall neuer die and shall come to Christ with ioyfull securitie with him to raigne for euer speaker D. B. P. S. Cyprian encourageth good Christians dying to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ and so doe all Catholikes and bidde them be secure too on that side that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise but say that the cause of feare lies in our owne infiâ—mities and yet bids them not to doubt as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued but animats them and puts them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reasons speaker A. W. Cyprian affirmes confidently that God hath promised euery true Christian immortalitie when he goes out of the world so that if hee beleeue this promise and rest vpon God for the performance of it by Christ he shall certainly be made partaker of it Your comfort is so cold that a man were as good be without it when his hope shall depend especially vpon the good vse of his owne free will in beleeuing and keeping the law of Christ. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne party why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alleadge in fauor of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then beliâ—e because he knew not how to answere them I will out of their fromâ— take that one principall of the testimony of holy Scripture And by that alone â—…ly proue that the faith required to iustification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be ours speaker A. W. It should seeme the reason was that hauing as he said before prooued our opinion to be true he doth but adde aâ— argument or two to his former proofe For that it was easie for him to answere those you bring I hope it shall be manifest to all men at the least it had not been hard for him to chuse out some that he could haue answered speaker D. B. P. How can this be better knowne then if we see weigh and consider well what kinde of faith that was which all they had who are saide in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith speaker A. W. Your reason is thus to be framed If the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all that which was reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs then iustifying faith is so But the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all which by God is reueiled c. Therefore a iustifying faith is a beleefe of all that which is reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs First we must remember that wee speake of that faith by which they were iustified for else the consequence of the proposition may be doubted of This being vnderstood I denie the assumption and to the proofe of it I answere first in generall that your examples are either effects of iustifying faith or the way and meanes to it but not the faith it selfe speaker D. B. P. S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice which is by faith What faith had he That by Christs righteousnes he was assured of saluation No such matter but beleeue that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him speaker A. W. Secondly I say for the particulars that this was not the faith by which Noe was iustified For it is apparant that he was iustified before he beleeued that God would drown the world Adde hereunto that this faith of his was also a resting vpon God for safetie according to his promise The Apostle in this and the like propounds not the meanes of iustification but some notable effect of faith Neither doth he declare what this righteousnes of faith was but saith that the righteousnes of faith remained as Lyra expounds it in him onely and his children in which respect he is called the heire of it Chrysostome saith By this he appeared to be iust because he beleeued God speaker D. B. P. Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of iustice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans What 〈◊〉 he was iustified by Let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith hath these words He contrary to hope beleeued in hope that he might be made the Father of manie Nations according to that which vvas said vnto him So shall thy seed be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the sea and he vvas not vveakened in faith neither did he consider his ovvne body novv quite dead vvhereas he vvas almost an hundred yeares old not the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but vvas strengthned in saith giuing glorie to God most fully knovving that vvhaâ—soeâ—eâ— he promised he vvas able also to doe therfore vvas it reputed to him to iustice Loe because he glorified God in beleeuing that old and barren persons might haue children if God said the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe he was iustified speaker A. W. Od Abraham I answere as
speech maketh a distinction affirming of grace that it is giuen vs viz. on Gods behalfe of mercie and compassion and is receiued on our part by faith alone and not by workes Bernard Whoseeuer is pricked for his sinnes and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifieth a sinner and beeing iustified by Faith alone hee shall haue peace with God speaker D. B. P. 4. Bernard hath VVhosoeuer thirsteth after righteousnes let him beleeue in thee that being iustified by faith alone he may haue peace with God Ans. By faith alone he excludeth all other meanes that either levv or gentile required but not charity Which his very words include for how can we abhorre sin and thirst after iustice vvithout charitie and in the same worke he declareth plainely that he comprehendeth alwaies charitie vvhen he speakes of a iustifying faith saying A right faith doth not make a man righteous if it vvorke not by Charitie And againe Neither workes vvithout faith nor faith without vvorkes is sufficient to make the soule righteous speaker A. W. The chiefe thing the Iewes stood vpon was charitie which they knew the law especially required and therefore to leaue that in was to aduance the righteousnes of the Iewes at the least in their opinion We may abhorre sinne for feare of punishment and thirst for righteoosnes for desire of glorie without any respect of loue but to our selues In those places you bring he sheweth what faith hee meaneth euen as we doe who say that no faith can iustifie but that which workes by loue not in the very act of iustifying but in the course of our conuersation Therfore in the former place when he hath said that being iustified by faith alone we shall haue peace with God he doth afterward distinguish iustification from sanctification They therefore that being iustified by faith desire and resolue to follow after holines c. And in the latter he saith that faith without workes is dead to seuer loue from faith is to kill it But none of these things prooue that Bernard gaue the habit or the act of loue any place of a cause in our iustification or any respect with God to our iustification For then how could hee haue said by faith onely speaker W. P. Chrysost. on Gal. 3. They said he which resteth on faith alone is cursed but Paul sheweth that hee is blessed which resteth on faith alone speaker D. B. P. He speakes of the Iewes who held Christians accursed because resting on the faith in Christ would not obserue withall â—oses law the Apostle contrariwise denounceth them accursed who would ioyne the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvith Christian religion and so faith alone there excludeth only the old lavv not the vvorkes of charity speaker A. W. That Chrysostome speaketh of the Morall law any man may see that markes how he vrgeth the Apostles reason to prooue them accursed who will ioyne the law with faith to iustification namely that they are accursed because they cannot fulfill euery part of the morall law for of it is that sentence vttered speaker W. P. Basil. de Humil. Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. So he mangleth pittifully a sentence of S. Basils saying Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified only by faith in Christ If a man knovv himselfe iustified by faith in Christ hovv can he acknovvledge that he vvants true iustice His vvords truly repeated are these Let man acknovvledge that he is vnvvorthy of true iustice and that his iustification comes not of his desert but of the meere mercy of God through Christ. So that by saith alone S. Basill treating of humilitie excludes all merit of our ovvne but no necessary good disposition as you may see in his Sermon de fide vvhere he proues by many texts of holy Scripture that charity is as necessary as faith speaker A. W. That is saith Basil perfect and full reioycing in Gods sight when a man is not lifted vp no not for his owne righteousness but acknowledgeth himselfe indeed to be destitute of true righteousnes and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ. Basil in that place speaketh of faith as it is an assent to those things that are taught by the grace of God requiring workes not to iustification but in our cariage here to saluation speaker W. P. Origen on cap. 3. Rom. Wee thinke that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and he saith that iustification by faith alone sufficeth so as a man onely beleeuing may be iustified And Therefore it lieth vpon vs to search who was iustified by faith without workes And for an example I thinke vpon the theefe who being crucified with Christ cried vnto him Lord remember me when thou commest into thy kingdome and there is no other good worke of his mentioned in the Gospell but for this alone faith Iesus saith vnto him This night thou shalt be with me in paradise speaker D. B. P. Origen excludeth no good disposition in vs to iustification but saith that a man may besaued vvithout doing ourvvardly any good vvorkes If he vvant time and place as the Theefe did vvho presently vpon his conuersion vvas put to death vvhich is good Catholike Doctrine but that you may perceiue hovv necessary the good dispositions before mentioned be to iustification you shall find if you consider wel al circumstances not one of them to haue bin wanting in that good Theefes conuersion First that he stood in feare of Gods iust iudgment appeares by these his vvords to his fellovv Doest thou not feare God c. He had hope to be saued by Christ out of vvhich he said O Lord remember me vvhen thou commest into thy Kingdome By both vvhich speeches is shevved also his faith both in God that he is the gouernour and iust iudge of the vvorld and in Christ that he vvas the Redeemer of mankind His repentance and confession of his fault is laid dovvne in this And vve trulie suffer vvorthilie His charity tovvards God and his neighbour in reprehending his fellovves blasphemie in defending Christs innocency and in the middest of his greatest disgraces and raging enemies to confesse him to be King of the vvorld to come out of all vvhich vve may gather also that he had a full purpose to amend his life and to haue taken such order for his recouery as it should please Christ his Sauiour to appoint So that he lacked not any one of those dispositions vvhich the Catholike Church requires to iustification speaker A. W. Your discourse of the theeues vertues and good workes doth not refute the truth of Master Perkins allegation but if it doe any thing condemnes Origens iudgement of him As for the dispositions you often mention doubtlesse if Origen had thought that any such had been
such a weightie matter will permitte Yet I hope with that perspicuitie as the meaner learned may vnderstand it and with such substance of proofe both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers as the more iudicious to vvhose profit it is principallie dedicated may not contemne it speaker A. W. I will labour as much as I can both for plainnes and shortnes in all the seuerall points not doubting but by the grace of God to maintaine Master Perkins reasons and answers against all your cauils speaker W. P. The first point wherewith I meane to begin shall be the point of Freewill though it be not the principall I. Our consent speaker W. P. Freewill both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill hee doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same speaker D. B. P. That I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath said agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off only superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning free-will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free vvill both by them and vs c. speaker W. P. Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will only whereby we choose or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more populer Your correcting of Master Perkins definition passeth my vnderstanding for if it be a a facultie both of the minde and will out of doubt it is a mixt facultie But it is more strange that you adde only of the minde onely or of the will onely are speeches that haue some reason in them but of the minde and will onely is a phrase implying a contradiction vnlesse there be some third part of the soule vnknown to ordinarie Philosophers whereof free will may be suspected to be a facultie I. Conclus Man must bee considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renewed as he shall be glorified In the first estate we ascribe to mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or nill either good or euill in the third liberty of grace in the last liberty of glory speaker D. B. P. Annot. Carry this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue free will All the doubt is of the second estate and yet therein also we agree as the conclusions following will declare II. Conclus The matters whereabout freewill is occupied are principally the actions of men which bee of three sorts naturall humane spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men with beasts as to eate drinke sleepe heare see smell taste and to mooue from place to place in all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will and euen since the fall of Adam by a naturall power of the minde doth freely performe any of these actions or the like III. Conclus Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake and vse reason the practise of all mechanicall and liberall arts and the outward performance of ciuill and Ecclesiasticall duties as to come to the Church to speake and preach the word to reach out the hand to receiue the Sacrament and to lend the eare to listen outwardly to that which is taught And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice temperance gentlenesse liberalitie And in these also wee ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution Paul saith Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles that haue not the lawe doe the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength and hee saith of himselfe that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable Phil. 3. 6. And for this externall obedience natural men receiue reward in temporall things Matth. 6. 5. Ezech. 29. 19. And yet here some caueats must be remembred I. That in humane actions he should haue said morall saith D. B. P. mans will is weake and feeble and his vnderstanding dimme and darke and thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquine saith D. B. P. And in all such actions with Augustine you might haue quoted the place â—aith D. B. P. I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead speaker A. W. Humane is more generall and more fit because morall cannot comprehend the first ranke of actions in the beginning of the section Besides it may be Master Perkins thought it not fit to giue that title to any actions of naturall men because none of them are performed according to the Philosophers definition of morall vertue by a habit with due obseruation of the circumstances required by him howsoeuer they are magnified by you Papists The caueat is not taken out of those places wherein Thomas shewes no more but that a man cannot by his naturall strength either fulfill the law or auoide sinne The place is quoted in the margin Hypognostic lib. 3. which you shal finde in tome 7. of Austins works though indeed the book be thought to be none of Austins speaker W. P. II. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it as Ieremie saith chap. 10. vers 23. O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himselfe neither is in man to walke or direct his steps Who knowes not this saith D. B. P. speaker A. W. If there be no man that knowes it not perhaps euery man remembers it not and it is a caueat necessarie for this question The Prophet in the place brought by Master Perkins so speakes of it to God as if it were not knowne to all men O Lord I know that the way of man c. And to say the truth how can any man bee said to know it that fetches the knowledge which God hath of things depending on mans will from the sight of the things from all eternitie present to him For the thing must needs be in the order of nature at least before it can be knowne to be But of this point when iust occasion shall be offered about Predestination speaker W. P. IV. Conclus The third kinde of actions are spirituall more neerely concerning the heart and conscience and these be twofold they either concerne the kingdome of darknes or else the kingdome of God Those that concerne the kingdome of darknesse are sinnes properly and in these we likewise
man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly speaker D. B. P. But originall sinne doth all these Ergo. Novv to Master Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That vvhich vvas once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo speaker A. W. The Maâ—or vvhich as the learned knovv should consist of three vvords containes foure seuerall points and vvhich is vvorst of all not one of them true If you meane three words as Grammar speaks of words that you say is false for any proposition may containe three hundred such words and yet not offend against Logike If you vnderstand three words as a Logician there may be fourtie seuerall points in a proposition and yet but three words viz. The antecedent part or subiect secondly the consequent part predicate or attribute and thirdly the bond by which they are coupled together So that herein you haue shewed either little skill or little honestie to blame him for foure seuerall points in stead of three words as if his syllogisme had as Logicians speake foure termes and so were false in the forme of it The foure seueral points are these 1. That which was once sinne properly 2. makes him to sinne 3. intangles him in the punishment of sinne 4. makes him miserable all which make the first word or antecedent of the proposition the consequent is sinne properly the 3. bond that ties these two together the verbe is Now let both learned and vnlearned iudge whether the fault be in Master Perkins or in your ignorance or cauilling speaker D. B. P. To the first that vvhich remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence vvas neuer a sinne properly but only the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lavv of God the vvhich is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that vvhich vvas principall in Originall sinne doâ—h not remaine in the regenerate speaker A. W. It hath alreadie been prooued that it is sinne properly euen after Baptisme if you meane that concupiscence the Apostle speakes of against the commandement If you do not what haue we to doe with it in this question Concupiscence or the facultie of desiring is no otherwise affected to sinne than reason is but the blindnes of the vnderstanding and the vitiousnes of the will which the Apostle cals concupiscence are part of originall sinne The naturall faculties are not the parts but rather the seate of it or the subiect which in some respect may be said to be the matter Sure the forme is as of all sinnes in general the aberration from or the contrarines of it to the law of God The depriuation you should say the absence of originall iustice is comprised in the aberration I spake of and so is that voluntarie auersion from God and goodnes besides which there is also an euill qualitie I know not how else to call it whereby we incline to that which is against the law of God This we call originall sinne or naturall corruption because we haue it from Adam the originall of all mankinde and that from our first being together with our nature and in our nature though by creation it was not in our nature This is helped by the power of Gods spirit through the grace of sanctification both in the principall point and in the accessories yet is not the concupiscence wholy taken away but being deadly wounded dies by little and little in the children of God as they are assured it shall by the outward and inward baptisme through the power of Christs death and resurrection Notwithstanding as long as wee liue in this world it remaines the same thing it was before baptisme euen sinne properly but the hurt it hath is vnrecouerable and the strength abated speaker D. B. P. Neither doth that vvhich remaineth make the person to sin vvhich vvas the second point vnlesse he vvillingly consent vnto it as hath bin proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sin but hath not povver to constraine him to it as Master Perkins also himselfe before confessed speaker A. W. I deny your consequence it makes him to sinne though it doe not constraine him as the spirit of God makes vs beleeue though he inforce vs not to it speaker D. B. P. Novv to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne hovv doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin if all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Original sinne is not taken avvay from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne speaker A. W. This doubt is alreadie answered that it intangles him because it makes him doe that by which he is guiltie of sin and deserues punishment howsoeuer the Lord pardons his sinne in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinen make a man miserable a man may be called vvretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace vvith God and so subiect to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sense is sin but S. Paul taketh not the vvord so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this vvorld from vvhich vve should haue been exempted had it not been for Originall sinne after vvhich sort he vseth the same vvord If in this life only we vvere hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fevvest vvorldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument speaker A. W. It is strange you should so confidently set downe an vntruth in writing whereof you may so easily and certainely be conuinced The Apostle doth not vse the same word but another that signifies to be pitied We were of all men most to be pitied But that the Apostle complaines of miserie in respect of sinne by that word the vse of it otherwhere may prooue The holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea that she was miserable and wretched the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there either the miserie of sinne or pitie for that miserie and beggerly and blinde and naked Houle yee rich men saith S. Iames for the miseries that shall come vpon you The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries as you expound him but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne which he
satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires at our hands is accepted of God as iustice it selfe But Christs obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires Therefore Christs obedience is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe Vpon this he concludes yet further If the Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction why should they not make it their iustice The reason of the proposition is because God accepts such satisfaction for iustice But they make Christs obedience their satisfaction Therefore why should they not make it their iustice Your answere must be applied to the consequence of the proposition the proofe whereof as I haue shewed is fetcht from the former syllogisme to which you answer nothing at all But let vs take it as it is and it is thus much in effect that you haue neede of Christs satisfaction but no neede of his iustice So then belike you will not accept of his righteousnes as yours because you are loth to be any more beholding to him than needs you must That you need it not you prooue because a meere man is capable of sufficient lighteousnes to iustification But that will not serue the turne vnlesse also he haue as much as he is capable of to which estate no man attaines in this life by your confession who admit an increase of iustice euery day speaker D. B. P. Briefly it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of an other but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on an other and not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquity no more then a simple man will take a Black moore for white although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell speaker A. W. Secondly you take it not as yours because Christ cannot bestow it on you What not so much as to haue it imputed to you why not as well as Adams sinne is mads ours by imputation But God you say whose iudgement is according to truth will not repute a man iust who is full of iniquitie Indeede God cannot be deceiued to hold a man not to be wicked that is wicked but God can iustifie that is forgiue and acquite him though he know him to be wicked and can take him for righteous in Christ of whom he is a member though in himselfe he be not righteous So may the man that will not take a blacke Moore for white accept of him as if he were white without any error speaker W. P. Reason V. The consent of the auncient Church Bernard saith epist. 190. The iustice of an other is assigned vnto man who wanted his owne man was indepted and man made paiment The satisfaction of one is imputed to all And why may not iustice be from an other as well as guiltinesse is from another And in Cant. serm 25. It sufficeth me for all righteousnesse to haue him alone mercifull to me against whom I haue sinned And Not to sinne is Gods iustice mans iustice is the mercifullnesse of God And serm 61. Shall I sing mine owne righteousnesse Lord I will remember thy righteousnesse alone for it is mine also in that euen thou art made vnto me righteousnesse of God What shall I feare least that one bee not sufficient for vs both it is a short cloke that cannot couer two it will couer both thee and me largely beeing both a large and eternall iustice speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins last reason is taken from the consent of the auncient Church And yet citeth sauing one two lines nothing out of any auncient writer not out of any other but out of only S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ so that he signifieth that there is little releefe to be had in Antiquity speaker A. W. What reliefe there is for vs touching this point in the Fathers shall appeare more fully hereafter if it please God in another treatise In the meane while take a taste by these who acknowledge their righteousnes imperfect and vnable to abide Gods iudgement This saith Basil is perfect and sound reioycing in God when a man doth not bragge no not of his righteousnes but knowes himselfe vnworthie of true righteousnes and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. And in another place Euerlasting rest remaines for them which in this life haue striuen lawfully not for the desert of their workes but by the fauour of the most bountifull God in whom they haue hoped Charitie saith Austin in some is greater in some lesse in other none at all but so great charitie as cannot be increased is in no man so long as he liues here Now so long as it may be increased surely that which is lesse than it should be is faultie By reason of which fault there is not a righteous man vpon earth that doth good and sinnes not by reason of which fault no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God because of this fault if we say we haue no sinne the truth is not in vs and for this also how much soeuer we haue done it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts were forgiuen in baptisme I will not boast saith Ambrose because I am righteous but because I am redeemed I will boast not because I am voide of sinnes but because my sinnes are forgiuen me speaker D. B. P. Which Caluin declareth more plainely for he commonly setting light by all other in this question reiecteth also S. Augustine saying Yea not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter vvho attributeth our samctification to grace wherewith we are regenerate in newnes of life by the spirit And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Councell of â—rent saith VVe contend not how the Fathers take iustification and a little after I am not ignorant that they spake othervvise then we doe of it Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himselfe with some few broken sentences of later vvriters speaker A. W. Caluin doth not commonly reiect the Fathers in this point but both he and Chemnitius alleage diuers things out of them in this question of iustification For Chemnitius looke in the place you haue named in his disputation of iustification Caluins words will cleere him sufficiently if they be truly reported Yea not the sentence of Austin himselfe or at the least not his manner of speech is in all sorts to be receiued For although he notably spoyle man of all commendation of righteousnes and passe ouer all to Gods grace yet he referres grace to sanctification whereby we are regenerate into newnes of life through the spirit Indeed it is vsuall with Austin and the Latin Fathers to speake of iustification as the word seemed to leade
as you haue heard out of the Councell of Trent in the beginning of this question that many actes of faith feare hope and charity do goe before our iustification preparing our soule to receiue into it from God through Christ that great grace speaker A. W. If the matter be not great it was but a small fault to be short in it yea the contrarie had been a fault indeed It is not handled by the way but propounded in plaine tearmes as a second difference betwixt vs and you speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins Doctor like resolueth otherwise That faith is an instrument created by God in the hart of man at his conuersion vvhereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes for his iustification This ioyly description is set downe without any other probation then his owne authoritie that deliuered it and so let it passe as already sufficiently confuted And if there needed any other disprofe of it I might gather one more out of his owne explication of it where he saith that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs by the word of God and by the Sacraments For if faith created in our harts be the only sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend that couenant of grace then there needs no Sacraments for that purpose and consequentlie I would faine know by the way how little infants that cannot for want of iudgement and discretion haue any such act of faith as to lay hold on Christ his iustice are iustified Must we without any warrant in Gods word contrary to all experience beleeue that they haue this act of faith before they come to any vnderstanding speaker A. W. If it would haue serued your turne to cauil at you would haue found Master Perkins reason and not haue iested at his authoritie I will plainly propound it for all men to iudge of your dealing That whereby Christ is to be receiued is an instrument to applie Christ. But faith is that whereby Christ is to be receiued Therefore faith is an instrument to applie Christ. To this you answere nothing but frame an argument against the question as you would haue it thought out of Master Perkins his owne explication of it Your argument is If faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there need no Sacraments You should adde as supernaturall instruments to that purpose But there is need of the Sacraments Therefore faith is not the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace First there is more in your conclusion than in the question The question is whether faith be a supernaturall instrument created to that purpose or no your conclusion is that faith is not that onely supernaturall instrument Secondly I denie the consequence of your proposition you may as well say for that Master Perkins sets downe too that if faith be the onely instrument then the word is needlesse The Word and Sacraments applie Christ outwardlie as meanes on Gods part faith receiues it in on our part the holie Ghost inlightening and inclining our hearts thereunto Little infants in my poore opinion haue no act of faith but are iustified without any thing done by them God for Christs sake according to his euerlasting election forgiuing their sinnes and adopting them for sonnes and heires of glorie speaker W. P. In this their doctrine is a twofold error I. that they make faith which iustifieth to go before iustification it selfe both for order of nature and also for time whereas by the word of God at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then iustified and sanctified For he that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life Ioh. 6. 54. speaker D. B. P. But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M Perkins finds two faults with it one that we teach faith to goe before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Marry this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answere that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthely obtaineth therby life euerlasting as Christ saith expressely in that place And so this proofe is vaine speaker A. W. If you had meant plainly you should haue reported Master Perkins reproofe of your opinion truly as he hath deliuered it that you make faith goe before iustification not onely in order of nature onely which we grant but in time also which we denie If I should onely say the contrarie that our Sauiour doth not speake there of the Sacraments I might conclude by as good reason as you doe and so this answere is vaine But I oppose to your authoritie not mine owne which is nothing worth but your owne writers yea the Councill of Trent which leaues it free to al men to expound that chapter either of the spirituall eating of Christ by faith only or of eating him really in the Sacrament And this libertie is grounded vpon the diuersitie of opinions among the Fathers concerning the sense of that chapter This is sufficient to make Master Perkins reason good against your deniall speaker D. B. P. Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification first by that of S. Paul VVhosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in vvhom they doe not beleeue hovv shall they beleeue vvithout a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterwards to call vpon God for mercy and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification speaker A. W. Prayer commeth betweene in nature but not in time for hee that rests vpon God for saluation in Christ doth withall call vpon God for pardon of his sinnes whereupon iustification followes immediatly though not alwaies in a mans owne feeling speaker A. W. This S. Augustine obserued when he said Faith is giuen first by which vve obtaine the rest And againe By the lavv is knovvledge of sâ—nne by faith vve obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured The rest that Austin speakes of are graces of sanctification or as he calles them there good workes in which we liue and these are supplied euery day by God or at least the increase and vse of these vertues whereby wee liue godly in the world such is the cure of the soule by grace to the louing of righteousnes and doing the works of the law speaker D. B. P. If we list to see the practise of
necessarie or respected by God in the iustification of that theefe he would neuer haue said that he was iustified without workes that did so many good workes in so short a time speaker D. B. P. Novv that that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualites out of the companies of faith is apparant by that vvhich he hath vvritten on the next Chapter vvhere he saith That faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they doe withall put off the old man and a little before more plainely saying I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation hope is proceeding in the building but the toppe and perfection of the whole worke is charitie speaker A. W. Neither doe we meane to exclude such qualities For they come together but are not of like vse nor to the same purpose Both the sentences you alleage out of him wee approoue that faith which is without sanctification cannot instifie that faith is not all that is required to saluation but all graces of regeneration are to be laboured for and obtained before wee can come to heauen And by this wee may see that as the Fathers so Origen also makes a difference betwixt iustification where faith onely is respected and saluation to which all vertues are required III. Difference speaker W. P. The third difference about iustification is concerning this point namely how far forth good workes are required thereto The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there be two kinds of iustification the first and second as I haue said The first is when one of an euill man is made a good man and in this workes are wholy excluded it being wholy of grace The second is when a man of a iust man is made more iust And this they will haue to proceede from workes of grace for say they as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man though he could not at the first make himselfe a man euen so a sinner hauing his first iustification may afterward by grace make himselfe more iust Therefore they hold these two things I. That good works are meritorious causes of the second iustification which they tearme Actuall II. that good workes are meanes to increase first iustification which they call Habituall Now let vs see how far forth we must ioyne with them in this point Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God and are approoued of him and therefore haue a reward II. Good workes are necessarie to saluation two waies first not as causes thereof either conseruant adiuvant or procreant but onely as consequents of faith in that they are inseparable companions and fruits of that faith which is indeede necessarie to saluation Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way and as the way it selfe directing vs vnto eternall life III. Wee hold and beleeue that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by works for so the holie Ghost speaketh plainely and truely Iam. 2. 21. That Abraham was iustified by workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins first graunteth that good vvorkes doe please God and haue a temporall revvard 2. That they are necessary to saluation not as the cause thereof but either as markes in a vvay to direct vs tovvards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnesse to declare one to be iust before men all vvhich he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteeme much of good vvorkes vvhich they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes speaker A. W. This is no good dealing to foyst in temporall as if you would haue men suspect that we allow good workes no reward in heauen It had been enough for you to leaue out his words as you doe and thrust in your owne without adding at your pleasure But these are popish shifts Whereof you presently affoord vs another example by putting in these words Before men to make the world beleeue that we giue no place to good works in the sight of God whereas Master Perkins professeth that Abraham was iustified by works euen before God not onely before men as you write speaker A. W. To this you adde in the third place a shamelesse slander against your owne knowledge that we hold good workes to be no better than deadly sinnes whereas wee teach that those that are indeed good workes are able to iustifie a man perfectly in the presence of God and to deserue euerlasting life Yea we maintaine that the imperfect workes of the regenerate are brought foorth by the grace of Gods spirit and for all their imperfection are accepted and shall be rewarded by God our Father in heauen speaker W. P. Thus farre we ioyne with them and the very difference is this They say we are iustified by works as by causes thereof wee say that wee are iustified by works as by signes and fruites of our iustification before God and no otherwise and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstood that Abraham was iustified that is declared and made manifest to bee iust indeede by his obedience and that euen before God Now that our doctrine is the truth it will appeare by reasons on both parts speaker D. B. P. The maine difference then betvveene vs consisteth in this vvhether good vvorkes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes vvhich vve call the second iustification or vvhether they be onelie fruits signes or markes of it speaker A. W. The maine difference as Master Perkins propounds it is whether we be iustified by works as by causes meritorious of our iustification not whether they bee the true cause of our second iustification which he denies wholy as a deuice of yours And indeede they that haue more neerely sifted this branne haue found that there is but one iustification because faith and workes make one righteousnes begun by â—aith and increased and perfected by workes Iustification saith Andradius the great champion of the Councill of Trent consists of two parts forgiuenes of sinnes and obedience to the law Stapleton speakes more plaine The Catholikes say that a man is iustified by faith and workes as by the formall cause So that according to your popish diuinitie workes are not onely the meritorious efficient cause of our iustification but the formall cause also as Stapleton directly affirmes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which he made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set dovvne our owne speaker A. W. This pretence is none of his who would neuer denie that our inherent righteousnes is increased
though not meritoriously by our holy actions which make vs euery day more and more fit to serue and please God But Master Perkins vnderstanding your opinion better than your selfe will be knowne to doe frames his reason against this position That workes are part of that righteousnes which we must pleade before God for the deseruing of euerlasting life or that our iustification before God is partly of workes and partly of faith which is the doctrine of your Church howsoeuer by you it be blanched Our reasons speaker W. P. I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Some answer that ceremoniall workes bee excluded here some that morall workes some works going before faith But let them deuise what they can for themselues the truth is that Paul excludeth all workes whatsoeuer as by the text will appeare For vers 24. hee saith We are iustified freely by his grace that is by the meere gift of God giuing vs to vnderstand that a sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue that is doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. Ans. The Apostle there speakes of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glory of God Wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either workes of the law as not necessarie vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary of else against the Gentiles any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for vve acknovvledge veâ—â—e willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only and without any merit of the sinner himselfe speaker A. W. Your answere of the second instification is idle because the distinction as I haue shewed is vaine Master Perkins prooueth that iustification is wholy of faith because the Apostle excludeth workes from it whereas you teach that faith and workes together make vp that iustice or righteousnes whereby a man is iustified before God speaker D. B. P. And yet is not a sinner being of yeares of discretion meerely passiue in that his iustification as M Perkins very abâ—urdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repeet speaker A. W. Master Perkins makes not a sinner meerely passiue in his iustification but in receiuing the gift of faith and in being stirred vp to beleeue And yet is he not in these neither passiue as fondly you imagine we say for he heares and sometimes meditates feares hopes c. but in this respect he is said to bee passiue because his yeelding to beleeue proceedes not from any strength of his free will vpon the good motion inspired but from the spirit of God inclining him ineuitably to beleeue freely speaker W. P. And vers 27. he saith iustification by faith excludeth all boasting and therefore all kind of workes are thereby excluded and speciallie such as are most of all the matter of boasting that is good works For if a sinner after that hee is iustified by the merit of Christ were iustified more by his owne workes then might hee haue some matter of boasting in himselfe speaker D. B. P. And this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our selues as well as theirs For as they must giant that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessaâ—ily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truely bpast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberality of the â—ather of lights and For the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto â—aith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it speaker A. W. From this ariseth the true difference betwixt you and vs concerning boasting that we haue nothing left vs to brag of because not onely the abilitie but the very act of beleeuing is brought to passe by Gods spirit inâ—uitably but your many actions of fearing hoping repenting louing beleeuing are caused by your owne free will without any certaintie of euent on Gods part as a cause thereof speaker D. B. P. Yet obserue by the way that S. Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting For he â—orieth in the hope of glorie of the Sonne of God and in his tribulations Againe He defiueth that vveâ— may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power And that he vvas constrained to glory in his visions and reuolations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure and due season Acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull speaker A. W. The Apostle excludes no boasting but in a mans selfe and all that he must needs shut out if he will reserue Gods glorie entire to him For he that may truly say that he is beholding to his own free will for his iustification as he may who by the good vse of it at his choise without being certainly inclined thereto by the spirit procured his own iustification hath cause to boast of his owne goodnes not caused by God in respect of the act of beleeuing Now he that boasts of the inheritance of heauen which God onely hath prouided for him and fitted him to boasteth not of himselfe though in the middest of tribulations he breake out into this boasting But how proouâ—â— this that therefore all boasting is not forbidden in the matter of iustification To which the next place alleaged no way belongs being spoken by the Apostle of himselfe in respect of those gifts that God had bestowed vpon him for the worke of his ministerie The last being of the same nature is so farre from prouing the lawfulnes of boasting that the Apostle is saine to excuse himselfe for it as a thing inexpedient But howsoeuer it can by no meanes prooue that the Apostle shuts not all boasting out of iustification speaker W. P. And that wee may not doubt of Pauls meaning consider and read Eph 2. 8. 9. By grace saith he you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of
to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh speaker A. W. I shewed the true meaning of the place before that God by his Sonne hath iustified vs which the law could not doe because we were vnable to keepe it Now the end of this iustification is that wee should walke after the spirit whereby we fulfill the law though not perfectly yet performing the same duties the law requires but not in the same measure speaker D. B. P. Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commandements to be impossible may appeare by that Epistle And his commandements be not heauy Which is takē out of our Sauiours own words My yoke is sweet and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailtie they be very heauy Yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our harts by the holy Ghost then loe doe we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charitie is the fulnes of the lavv And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the vvhole lavv and Prophets depend vpon these tvvo commandements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charitie we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it So that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law speaker A. W. You haue giuen the true meaning of S. Iohn for therefore are Gods Commandements said not to be heauie because our loue to God who hath giuen vs the assurance of his loue to vs in Iesus Christ maketh vs goe willingly and cheerefully about them for all those incumbrances wee finde by the world the flesh and the diuell And in that respect we are said to fulfill the law by charitie because the obedience we performe weake and slender though it be proceedeth from the loue of God and of our neighbour which is the very summe of the law vpon which both the law and the Prophets depend And all this prooueth not perfect but onely true obedience which all that are iustified performe howsoeuer they faile much in the particulars of that measure the law exacteth speaker D. B. P. Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimony of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly to say that the commandements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That vve must beleeue firmely that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant no true law-maker to commaund his subiects to doe that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe For those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to binde them vp to most assured perdition speaker A. W. The sayings of the Fathers are to be vnderstood according to the Scriptures of possibilitie to performe true obedience which without grace no man can doe not of perfect keeping the law which yet by our creation wee were sufficiently enabled to performe So that God not onely may not but reasonably cannot be suspected of iniustice if hee require that at our hands which he made vs able to doe as with Austin we confesse he did Basil speaketh not of our abilitie to keepe the Commandements but onely sheweth that the charge of looking to our selues belongeth to the contemplation of the minde not to the eyes of the bodie because if it did it were giuen in vaine no man being able to see the hinder parts of his bodie nor his face nor his inwards Therefore the holie Ghost who doth not command things vtterly impossible will haue this precept of looking to our selues to be vnderstood of the searching of our heart not of the viewing of our bodie speaker A. W. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approued Councell of Arausican as an article of faith in these words This also vve beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued vvith the helpe and cooperation of Christ both can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things vvhich belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commandements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements He may doe them without doubt as I haue often said truly and acceptably to God yet not so fully as he ought because our corruption will not suffer vs to labour faithfully without intermission or infirmitie which the Councill requireth and you aduisedly leaue out That speech of our Sauiour is not the voyce of the Gospell though that also requires obedience and allowes a reward for it but of the law fit to be vttered to him that came to our Sauiour full fraught with the conceit of his owne righteousnes not so much with a desire to learne of him saith Hierome as to trie his skill And this our Sauiour spake of the iustification which is of the law without faith As it appeareth by Beda Lyra the ordinarie glosse and Remigius THAT GOOD WORKS BE NOT stained with sinne speaker D. B. P. NOw that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I proue first by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob. Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the Diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single harted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocency If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy vvhen you shall fall into diuers temptations knovving that the probation of your faith vvorketh patience And let patience haue a perfect vvorke that you may be perfect and entire fayling in nothing speaker A. W. This as the last point is a matter belike that this man thinkes himselfe well prepared for and therefore he runnes a course of his own in them hauing no such occasion giuen him by Master Perkins yet let vs follow him step by step By Iobs innocencie continued nothing else is meant but that he had not as Satan had affirmed he would vttered any blasphemie against God But by this it cannot be prooued that there was no taint of sinne in his patience As for his sinceritie and vprightnes they are vertues that alwaies accompanie true Christians and without which all is hypocrisie That perfection or perfect worke is the proouing that his faith is perfect because it ouercommeth as your
glosse expounds it and he is counted a perfect man but not simply without any spot in this patience speaker D. B. P. 2 King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there vvas no iniquity found in me It must needs then be granted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinnes and iniquitie And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you vvill beleeue it read then vvhere it is of record That Dauid did that vvhich vvas right in the sight of our Lord and not only in the sight of men and turned from nothing that he commaunded him all the daies of his life except only the matter of Vrias the Hethite speaker A. W. Dauid in that place doth not cleare himselfe of all sinne but only protesteth his innocency in respect of any hurt intended by him against Saul and the rest of his persecutors Dauid meaneth not saith Lyra to say that he is free from all sin but that he had committed no euill against Saul for which he should persecute him It was one thing for Dauids workes to be righteous in Gods sight an other thing for them to be perfect The former we graunt the later you can no way proue That commendation the holy Ghost giues to his works must needs be spoken in comparison as Lyra affirmeth because it is certaine he wronged Mephthosheth and numbred the people but these sins were not comparable to that against Vrâ—ah especially for the dishonouring of God by it in the account of the heathen This deed saith Nathan hath caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme speaker D. B. P. 3 The Apostle affirmeth That some men doe build vpon the only foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choyce members of Christs Catholike Church doe many perfect good vvorks such as being trâ—â—d in the fornace of Gods iudgement vvill suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherfore they must needs be pure and free from all drosse of sinne othervvise hauing been so proued in fire it vvould haue been found out speaker A. W. The Apostle doth not say so but this onely that if any man build on this foundation gold siluer precious stones timber hay or stubble euery mans worke shall be made manifest But put case he had said so he speaketh of doctrine built vpon the true foundation as the whole allegory proues especially vers 10. As a skilfull master builder I haue laid the foundation and an other builds vpon it now in good works one man layeth not the foundation and another buildeth vpon it but euery man begins and ends his owne worke himselfe Farther vers 9. The Ministers are said to be Gods labourers the people not euery mans worke Gods husbandrie and Gods building because he builds them vp by their labour This place is applied by you Papists to proue Purgatory euen by Bellarmine himself but with what successe let any man iudge that either reads our answeres to him or considers the text speaker D. B. P. 4 Many vvorkes of righteous men please God Make your bodies a quicke sacrifice holy and acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God And S. Paul calleth almes bestovved on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of svveet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected vvith sinne all vvhich he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his fight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sinne or as the Protestants speake not impure it to the person but to say that a sinful vvorke is of svveet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him vvere blasphemie vvherefore vve must needs confesse that such vvorks vvich so vvell pleased him vvere not defiled vvith any kind of sinne speaker A. W. Your Reason is thus framed No workes infected with sinne please God Many workes of righteous men please God Therefore many workes of righteous men are not infected with sinne I graunt your assumption though the proofe of it by the first testimony is insufficient for it doth not follow that we can do this or that because we are exhorted to the doing of it Your proposition I deny no sin can please God nor any action as it is sinfull but God both can and doth pardon the faultines of his childrens workes and accept the worke it selfe in Christ yea and reward it too with increase of glorie speaker D. B. P. Finally many vvorkes in holy vvrite be called good as That they may see your good works to be rich in good vvorks VVe are created in Christ Iesus to good vvorkes but they could not truly be called good vvorkes if they vvere infected vvith sin For according to the iudgement of all learned Diuines it can be no good vvorke that fayleth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it For Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore vve must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good vvhich vvere blasphemy or else acknovvledge that there be many good vvorkes free from all infection of sinne speaker A. W. No workes infected with sinne can be truly called good Many workes are called good in Scripture Therefore many workes are not infected with sinne Here is the same fault againe Your assumption is true but your proofe naught For the places you alleage proue no more but that the works which we should do are good not that they are good as we doe them Your proposition is false as the other was For the works enioyned by God are very good but they haue some allay and abasement by our doing of them which argueth not that they are not truely but that they are not perfectly good speaker D. B. P. In lieu of the manifold testimonies of Antiquitie which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellency of them I will set downe one passage of S. Augustine wherein this verie controuersie is distinctly declared and determined thus he beginneth The iustice through vvhich the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the vvhich although it be vvorthilie called in some men perfect according to the capacity of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater vvhich man made equall to Angels shall receiue VVhich heauenly iustice he that had not as yet saide himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that vvas in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that vvhich he vvanted But certainely this lesser iustice or righteousnes breedeth and bringeth forth merits and that greater is the revvard thereof VVherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
out of the sinceritie of his heart whether our doctrine or yours be more to Gods glory speaker D. B. P. The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christs mediation I vvill therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God vvhich he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordaining meanes hovv all mankind might attaine to eternall life in the tvvo first points vve do for the most part agree to vvit that oursinnes are freely pardoned through Christs passion and that vve are as freely iustified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although vve require other preparation then they doe yet vve as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either as they doe Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen vve differ altogether for they say that God requires no iustice in vs nor merit at all on our parts but only the disposition of faith to lay hold on Christs righteousnes and merittes but vvesay that Christs righteousnes and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merits God doth povvre into euery true Christian a particular iustice vvhereby he is sanctified and made able to doe good vvorks and to merit eternall life Which ability vve receiuing of Gods free gift through Christ merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christs merits for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glorie of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits vvhich hee hath appointed to bee the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeed vnder colour of magnifying Christs merits to vndermine and blovv out all the vertue of them speaker A. W. Though you denie all merit in the first iustification yet you make euery mans free will the cause that hee particularly is iustified and so make him more beholding to himselfe then to God because he hath from God that he may be saued if he wil from himself that he wils and so is saued It is a greater gift to vouchsafe vs euerlasting life without our desert then to make vs able to deserue it and more for Gods glory that we should haue it of his free gift then of our deseruing by his gift since the abilitie only to vse the gift well is from him but the vsing of it from our owne free will as before speaker D. B. P. But saies M. Perkins vvhat should vve talke of our merittes vvho for one good vvorke vve doe commit many bad vvhich deface our merits if vve had any speaker A. W. True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit but by repentance both are recouered againe but must we not speake of any good because we may happe to doe euill that is a faire perswasion and well vvorthy a wise man Of this iest whereby merit is made to rise and fall I spake a little before and shewed how vniust impossible it was You may speake of and do what good you will but not pleade desert because you haue so many sinnes to condemne you speaker W. P. Obiect III. Our workes merit by bargaine or couenant because God hath promised to rewarde them Ans. The worde of God sets downe two couenants on Legall the other Euangelicall In the legall couenant life euerlasting is promised to works for that is the condition of the law Do these things and thou shalt liue But on this manner can no man merit life euerlasting because none is able to doe all that the law requires whether we respect the manner or the measure of obedience In the Euangelicall couenant the promises that are made are not made to any worke of vertue in man but to the worker not for any merit of his owne person or worke but for the person and merit of Christ. For example it is a promise of the Gospell Be faithfull vnto death and I will giue thee the crowne of life Reuelat. 2. 10. Here the promise is not made to the vertue of fidelitie but to the faithfull person whose fidelitie is but a token that he is in Christ for the merit of whose obedience God promiseth the crowne of life speaker D. B. P. Let vs come to our third Argument God hath by couenant and promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting Therefore good workes do in iustice deserue it for faithfull promise maketh due debt The couenant is plainly set downe where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen for a peny a day that is to giue them life euerlasting for trauailing in his seruice during their life time as all auncient interpretours expound it speaker A. W. The antecedent being granted that God hath promist to reward our works your prouing that might haue bin spared especiallie being such as it is fetched from a parable not expounded any where in the scripture Yea the Fathers themselues haue obserued something in the parable as that of their murmuring who had wrought all day which will not be handsomely expounded of the reward giuen in heauen as any man may perceiue by the diuers expositions that are vsed to help the matter by Chrysostome Gregory Ierome Hillary and the author of your ordinarie glosse Therefore Lyra doubts not to say plainely that the literall sense is that in the beginning of the Church the Iewes that were conuerted murmured because the Gentiles obtained like fauour to them which he prooues out of the Acts. And indeed that seemes to haue bin the end of the parable to shew the reiection of the Iewes who were the first and the receiuing of the Gentiles who were the last To which purpose Ierome saith that the Iewes which were the head shall be turned to the taile and the Gentiles who were the taile shall be changed to the head And for the penny he seemes to expound that of grace rather then glory A penny saith he hath the figure of the king thou hast therefore receiued the reward I promised that is my image and likenes which was also Cyprians opinion as it appeares in his epistle to Magnus speaker D. B. P. Whereupon S. Paul inferreth that God should be vniust if he should forget their workes who suffered persecution for him And saith If it be iust with God to render tribulation to them that persecute you and to such as are persecuted rest with vs Vpon the same ground S. Hierome saith Great truly were the iniustice of God if he did only punish â—â—â—ll works and vvould not as well receiue good workes To all thâ—se and much more such like M. Perkins answereth that couenant for workes was in the old Testament but in the new the couenant is made with the workman not with the worke speaker A. W. Reply All that I cited in this Argument is out of the new Testament
where expresse couenant is made for working and workes as you haue heard And as it was said in the old law Doe these things and thou shalt liue so is it said in the new If thou vvill enter into life keepe the Commaundements and life eternall is the hire and wages for labouring in Gods vineyard and not of the imputed iustice or merits of Christ Vpon what doth S. Paul inferre that not vpon that parable and much lesse vpon the expositions of it which then were not hatcht but vpon the promises of God made to them which through faith and patience attaine to the inheritance of those promises And this is that iustice the Apostle speaks of hauing no ground but Gods gratious promise to accept and reward our workes though their worth deserue no such recompence Which Chrysostom signifieth in his Commentarie vpon the other place where he saith The reward shall be greater than the worke not onely in continuance whereof also he speaketh but in the measure too He ioynes them saith Chrysostome in respect of their crownes with those who haue done farre greater things than they So that euerlasting life is not truly and properly deserued by works but is giuen by promise to them that doe worke If you will vrge the point of iustice I answere the Apostle speaketh according to the common speech of men who count it a matter of iniustice not to doe well to them that doe well and ill to them that doe ill And in this generall respect God indeede deales iustly punishing them that haue behaued themselues lewdly and wickedly and rewarding them that haue liued righteously and vertuously So that herein stands his iustice in giuing euery man according to his own works without the following of which course there cannot be ordinarily any iustice And therefore Ierome truly saith that God doth both punish euill workes and receiue or accept of good workes but not as if there were an equalitie of merit in either sort of workes to the punishment or reward he giues onely as he saith there because he would haue none that are fallen despaire of Gods mercie he thus amplifies his regard of them as though it were an vniust thing for God as Chrysostome speakes to contemne and forget them that haue exercised themselues in workes of charitie You haue brought no place of any expresse couenant but that which being allegoricall and as I said before not expounded in the Scripture can hardly affoord any certain proofe and none at all of the matter for which you bring it Whereas if the point were so cleere as you would make it being of so great importance doubtlesse it would haue more direct confirmation in Scripture than by allegories and exhortations But it seemes you doe not rightly vnderstand Master Perkins distinction who denies not that a reward is promised for working and workes euen in the new couenant but makes this difference that by the couenant of the law the wages is due to him that workes vpon the value of his worke but by the couenant of the Gospell the reward is giuen not for the worth of the deede but because the worke is accepted for the workmans sake who by faith is the sonne of God Neither of those speeches are any part of the new couenant though they be recorded in the new Testament And the latter was our Sauiours own speech to beate down the pride of him that would be iustified by the law but of this before The parable is often vrged but nothing prooued out of it He that will haue euerlasting life as hire of his trauaile proclaimeth himselfe to be a hireling not a sonne speaker W. P. And therefore Christ saith further I come quickly and will giue to euery man according to his workes marke hee saith not to the worke or for the worke but to the worker according to his workes And thus the bond of all other promises of the Gospell in which God willingly binds himselfe to reward our workes doe not directly concerne vs but haue respect to the person and obedience of Christ for whose sake alone God binds himselfe as debter vnto vs and giues the recompence or rewarde according to the measure of our faith testified by our workes And therefore it cannot be truely gathered that workes do merit by any promise or couenant passed on Gods part to man speaker D. B. P. But looke about you and behold the goodly marke which M. Perkins sets vp Marke saith he that it is said God will render vnto euery man according to his workes not to the worke or for the worke O sharpe and ouer fine witte doth he render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes if the rate of the workes be the measure of the revvard that for fevver or lesser vvorkes there is a lesser revvard and for many and vvorthier a greater surely in my simple vnderstanding he that giueth according vnto the vvorks giueth for the vvorks speaker A. W. We denie not that the reward is to and for the worke but that the value of the worke deserues it which worth being wanting the reward is bestowed vpon the partie according to his worke not for the desert of it In another sense it is all one to say according to the worke or for the worke As in generall he rewards them that doe well because they doe well and he punisheth them that doe ill because they doe ill and so giues to both according or for their workes speaker W. P. Some may say if workes merit not why are they mentioned in the promises I answere not because they merit but because they are tokens that the doer of the worke is in Christ for whose merit the promise shall be accomplished speaker D. B. P. That other addle inuention that vvorkes are there mentioned not because they are revvarded but because they are tokens that the doer is in Christ for vvhose obedience God promiseth the crovvne of life is not vvorth the confuting it is so flat contrarie to the text vvhich ascribeth distinctly that revvard vnto the vvorkman for his vvorkes and not for Christs obedience imputed vnto him speaker A. W. What text meane you Sure neither of both those to which Master Perkins answers hath any such direct ascribing of the reward to the workman for his works But it is the latter I thinke you speake of which you haue laboured to confute what is there in that but that Christ wil giue to euery man according to his worke That is as the verse next before shewes to punish the vniust and filthie and to reward the righteous and holie speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Good works are perfect and without fault for they are the workes of the holy Ghost who cannot sinne therefore they merit Ans. If workes did proceede onely and immediately from the holy Ghost there could not be any fault in them but our works come from the holy Ghost in and by
you adde will be discust in your answers speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is called a crowne by resemblance because it is giuen in the end of the life as the croâ—ne is giuen in the end of the race speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the Enthymem viz. that therefore euerlasting life must be deserued because it is called a crowne He addes the reason of his deniall That it is called a crowne not because it is deserued but because it is giuen as a reward after we are come to the end of our race as the Apostle shewes plainly I haue fought a good fight and haue finished my course I haue kept the faith hencefoorth is laid vp for me a crowne of righteousnes he saith not therefore I haue deserued the crowne speaker A. W. If that were all the cause and that there were no respect to be had so former deserts it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance because that also is giuen in the end of life and in their opinion more properly because all their workes are defiled like a menstruous cloath and a halter is the end of such wicked workes But as a halter is due to a theefe so is a crowne of glory the iust reward of the righteous man That I may omit your lewd dallying in saying that euerlasting life might in that respect as well be called a halter consider whether your answer be not absurd For that which is giuen vpon continuance of walking in good workes as Master Perkins saith the crowne is cannot in any reason be as well termed a halter as a crowne though there be not in the workes the true and whole nature of merit to deserue the crowne Euerlasting life saith your glosse is as it were the reward of faith and God seemes to pay it as it were debt speaker W. P. And it is called a crowne of righteousnes not because it belongs to any man by due and desert but because God hath bound himselfe by a promise to giue it in performing whereof he is tearmed iust and by vertue of this promise it is obtained and no otherwise These are the principall obiections by which we may iudge what the rest are And thus we see what is the truth namely that merit is necessarie to saluation yet neither merit of mans worke or person but the merit of Christ imputed to vs whereby we being in him doe procure and deserue the fauour of God and life eternall speaker D. B. P. Secondly he answereth that it is called a crowne of iustice because God hath bound himselfe by his promise to giue it here then at length we haue by his owne confession that by Gods promise eternall life is due debt vnto the righteous but as hauing ouer-shot himselfe he addes not for any desert of theirs but only for the promise sake But as you haue heard before out of S. Matthew that promise was made for vvorking the time of our life in his vine yard and so there was some desert on their part and the seruants were rewarded because they imployed their talents well speaker A. W. Needes it any defence to say it is due debt by promise but not vpon desert Who knowes not that for the most part these two are if not contrary at the least diuers Therefore rather you shoote beyond true reason than Master Perkins ouershot himselfe That which you repeate out of Saint Matthew was answered before speaker D. B. P. And in this very place S. Paul reckoneth vp his good seruices for which the iust iudge would render him a crowne of iustice and therfore the iustice is not only in respect of Gods promise speaker A. W. S. Paul reckons vp his good seruices and good reason for the reward is not due to any by promise but to them that doe good workes For else what should be rewarded But why should it be called a crowne of iustice Because it is giuen to the iust saith Thomas according to their iust works And in that respect God is called a iust Iudge in giuing this crowne because he giues good for good Yea that very iustice whereby good is giuen for good is not without mercie saith the glosse and Lombard speaker D. B. P. And if you will not beleeue me prouing that I say out of the very text rather then M Perkins on his bare word let S. Augustine be arbitrator betweene vs who most deepely considereth of euery word in this sentence Let vs heare saith he the Apostle speaking vvhen he approached neere vnto his passion J haue quoth he fought a good fight J haue accomplished my course J haue kept the faith concerning the rest â—there is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice vvhich our Lord will render vnto me in that day a iust iudge And not only to me but to them also that loue his comming He saith that our Lord a iust iudge will render vnto him a Crovvne he therefore doth owe it and as a iust iudge will pay it For the vvorke being regarded the revvard cannot be denied I haue fought a good fight is a vvorke I haue accomplished my course is a vvorke J haue kept the faith is a worke There is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice this is the reward So that you see most clearely by this most learned Fathers iudgement that the reward is due for the worke sake and not only for the promise of God speaker A. W. This place of Austin is brought as a proofe that a man hath nothing of himselfe which hee hath not receiued Whereas if your doctrine of merit and free will were true a man hauing grace from God whereby hee is enabled to worke might of his owne free will so vse this grace that euerlasting life should be due to him as wages for his work But if these good workes proceed from grace not onely in respect of our abilitie to doe them but of the particular actions what true merit can there bee in them Immediatly after the words you alleage it followes in Austin In the reward thou doest nothing in the work nothing alone The crowne is from him the worke from thy selfe yet not without his helpe Which helpe we must vnderstand to be more than an abilitie to worke or else as I said our free will shall haue the chiefe commendation in all our good workes But to the testimonie we graunt that the reward is due to the worke which is your conclusion out of Austin but wee denie that it is due vpon desert of the worke For neither doth the worke if it were perfectly done truly and properly deserue the reward because it is a matter of duty and but one work whereas many thousands are due to make vp true merit by workes and being imperfect as all our best workes are it is so farre from deseruing euerlasting life that it rather might increase our
to them whereas if your doctrine of satisfaction should be receiued for all our comming to Christ by faith and true repentance we might and ought stand in feare of grieuous punishment for many yeares in Purgatory Neither doth it follow that if by seruing God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes then such seruice doth satisfie for by true repentance we may be put out of feare of eternall damnation and yet no man will say that therefore true repentance doth satisfie for eternall paine speaker W. P. Hierome saith in Psalm 31. The sinne that is couered is not seene the sinne that is not seene is not imputed that which is not imputed is not punished speaker D. B. P. To vvit vvith hellfire vvhich is the due punishment of such mortall sinne vvhereof he speaketh or sinne may bee said to bee couered when not only the fault is pardoned but all punishment also due vnto it is fully paide speaker A. W. If it be not imputed how can it be punished for punishment is laid vpon a man in respect of sinne which he is charged with neither can any thing be iustly punished with any kind of paine eternall or temporall but only sinne Your second answere is wholie for vs for if sinne be then said to be couered when the fault and the punishment are forgiuen doubtles he that is iustified is freed from both witnes Paul and Dauid who auouch that iustification couers sinne and suffers it not to be imputed speaker D. B. P. So doth S. Ambrose take that vvord couered saying The Prophet calleth both them blessed as well him vvhose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme as him vvhose sinnes are couered vvith good vvorkes For he that doth penance must not only vvash avvay his sinnes vvith teares but also with better vvorkes couer his former sinnes that they be not imputed vnto him speaker A. W. If S. Ambrose take the word couered in that sense as indeed he and all men else do that speake of couering sin iustification takes away the fault and punishment of all sin so that he which is iustified needs make no farther satisfaction speaker W. P. Chrysostome on Matth. hom 44. Among all men some indure punishment in this life and the life to come others in this life alone others alone in the life to come others neither in this life nor in the life to come There alone as Diues who was not Lord so much as of one drop of water Here alone the incestuous man among the Corinthians Neither here nor there as the Apostles and Prophets as also Iob and therest of this kinde for they indured no sufferings for punishment but that they might bee known to be conquerours in the fight speaker D. B. P. Novv vve must backe againe vnto Chrysostome belike he had forgotten this vvhen he cited the other or else this vvas reserued to strike it deed Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures vvere not for their sinnes for they committed but ordinary light offences for vvhich their ordinary deuotions satisfied abundantly the great persecutions vvhich they endured vvere first to manifest the vertue and povver of God that made such fraile creatures so inuincible then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth and vvithall to animate and encourage his follovvers Finally that they like conquerours triumphing ouer all the torments of this life might enter into possession of a greater revvard in the kingdome of heauen All this is good doctrine but nothing against satisfaction that their surpassing suffering vvere not for their ovvne sins and thus much in ansvvere vnto M. Perkins Arguments against satisfaction speaker A. W. You that are so desirous to find faults would not haue let Master Perkins scape without reproofe if you had lookt this place in Chrysostome and found it to haue bin misquoted though it was most like to haue bin the Printers fault In stead of answering to this testimonie you fall a discoursing of the end of the persecutions of holie men whereas many of them were not persecuted at all and Chrysostome speaks generally of sufferings not of persecutions But this must be obserued in your discourse that howsoeuer you mince the matter of their ordinatie light offences yet they themselues had another opinion of their sinnes If thou Lord saith one of them strictly marke what is done amisse who shall stand In another place one cryes to God not to enter into iudgement with his seruant because in his sight no man liuing shall be iustified Yea Daniel that beloued man confesseth his owne and his peoples sinnes to God as matters that deserue no small punishment yea there is almost no mans story set downe any thing at large in the scripture that hath not some speciall sinne obserued and recorded which notwithstanding if their sufferings were not punishments to satisfie how do you teach that all sinnes must be satisfied for by vs in part Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. Leuit. 4. Moses according to Gods commaundement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons and they were meanes of satisfaction for the temporall punishments of their daily sinnes Answ. Those sacrifices were onely signes and types of Christs satisfaction to be offered to his father in his alone sacrifice vpon the crosse and whosoeuer offered any sacrifice in the olde testament did thus and no otherwise esteeme of it but as a type and figure of better things Secondly the said sacrifices were satisfactions to the Church whereby men did testifie their repentance for their offences and likewise their desire to bee reconciled to God and men And such kinde of satisfactions wee acknowledge speaker D. B. P. Novv to the reasons vvhich he produceth for it And albeit he like an euil master of the campe range our Arguments out of order placing that in the sore-front of our side vvhich Caluin presseth out against vs yet vvill I admit of it rather then breake his order speaker A. W. How good a master of a camp soeuer he were he were of no great discretion that hauing the marshalling of his enemies battaile in his hands would not order it most for his owne aduantage But to Master Perkins it was all one which was first which last if you thinke him beholden to you for your kindnes he hath fully paid you in bearing with your reciting of this and diuers other his reasons speaker D. B. P. 1. Moses according to Gods commandement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for the sins of seuerall persons and ordeined that they should be of greater and lesser prices according vnto the diuersitie of the sinnes Whence we argue thus These mens faults vpon their true repentance ioyned vvith faith and hope in Christ to come vvere pardoned Therfore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull vvorkes done to appease Gods iustice vvere vvorkes
to wit by afflicting your selues so much for euery offence as vvorthy penance doth require which vvill be a sacrifice of iustice that is a most iust sacrifice speaker A. W. So do we acknowledge the exposition which the auncients giue of it though we thinke the exhortation to be somewhat larger then they seeme in the words alleaged to make it for it comprehends all kind of holie conuersation not only the change of the grosse outward sinnes which we doubt not was their meaning also as it is manifest by Chrysostome in that place you bring who describes the repentance that he speakes of to be not only a leauing of our former sinnes but a fulfilling of good works which he proues by that place of the Psalme Eschue euill and do good and expounding those words bring forth fruits c. It is not enough saith Iohn to flie from naughtines vnlesse we betake our selues to the practice of well doing You see what he saith quoth Theophylact that we must not only auoid euill but also bring forth the fruit of vertue To which he addes for proofe that place of the Psalme Yea we refuse not that of Bede for it is indeed a sacrifice fit for vs in iustice to offer that our repentance be answerable in proportion to our sinnes But what is all this to prooue that there remaines tempo all paine to be endured whereby Gods wrath may be satisfied especially when as Chrysostome saith plainely that Iohn perswading the people to repentance did it not that they might be punished but that being made humble by repenting and condemning themselues because of their sinnes they might come to the gift of pardon speaker W. P. Answ. This text is absurd for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth thus much change your mindes from sinne to God and testifie it by good workes that is by doing the duties of the morall lawe which must bee done not because they are meanes to satisfie Gods iustice for mans fine but because they are fruites of that faith and repentance which lies in the heart speaker D. B. P. Reply His answere is most absurd for we argue out of these words VVorthy fruits of penance And he answereth to the word going before repent which we vse not against them and for his glose or testifying our repentance is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alleaged speaker A. W. Surely a reasonable man might well thinke that you that hold a necessitie of satisfaction and bring that text did ground your argument vpon Iohns charge to do penance The authors alleaged do not confute that interpretation by bringing another which is not 〈◊〉 â—…ty to it at the least we denie your consequence vpon their words And S. Iohn expresly maketh them the meanes to escaâ—… wrath of God saying that the 〈◊〉 was set to the â—…ose of the â—rie and vn lesse by worthy fruits of penanâ—… they 〈◊〉 God they 〈◊〉 â—e 〈◊〉 vp and cast into hell fire and 〈◊〉 hâ—… confute the â—aying â—…d on Christs satisfaction by faith saying 〈◊〉 wâ—â—l not helpe you to say thâ—â— yee are the Sonnes of Abraham wâ—o was â—…her of all true beleeueis as much as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off yee generation of vipers For notwithstanding yee be the Sonnes of the faithfull vnlesse yee amend your liues and for the euill works which ye haue denoâ—… tofore make recompence and satisfie the iustice of God with good yâ—â— shall be cast into hell fire speaker A. W. Neither doth Iohn speake of any satisfaction for the temporall punishment after the pardon of the eternall but threatens them with euerlasting damnation except they bring forth the fruits of repentance as well as make a profession of it by being baptised so that if satisfaction be required in those words dâ—â—btles it is that satisfaction which may free them from hell fire but that you confesse is not to be performed by euery man for himselfe but by Christ for all that trust in him To whom seemes he to confute the very matter of all his preaching not to Bede who in the place alleaged by you tels vs that Iohn exhorts the Pharises to humilitie who were so proude because they were Abrahams children that they would not confesse themselues to be sinners nor to Lyra who writes thus Because the Pharises Lawyers refused Abrahams faith of Christ therefore they lost the name of Abrahams sonnes And certainely it had bin against reason for Iohn to haue disswaded the Saduces and Pharises from trusting in Christ as well because it was his especiall commission to perswade men by all meanes to beleeue in Christ as also for that there was not the least cause of suspition that they would be too forward to trust in him who had so strong a perswasion of their owne righteousnes that they could find no want of his help speaker W. P. Obiect VII 2. Cor. 7. 10. Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof the last is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues thereby to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes Answ. A repentant sinner must take reuenge of himselfe and that is onely to vse all meanes which serue to subdue the corruption of his nature to bridle carnall affections and to mortifie sinne and these kind of actions are restrainments properly and not punishments and are directed against the sinne and not against the person speaker D. B. P. The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth dovvne sundry fruits of repentance vvhereof one is reuenge vvhereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sins M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainements properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments only from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must doe Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We grant that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his body and mind too as S. Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians speaker A. W. If he vnderstood not his owne words he is like to haue small help of you who either cannot or will not conceiue his meaning aright The reuenge that a sinner must take of himselfe is saith Master Perkins to vse all good meanes which serue to subdue his corruption but this is not properly a punishment of
the person against whom it is not directed but against the sinne wherein now lyes the contradiction for sooth because reuenge is a requitall of euill past therefore the sinner in his reuenge punisheth himselfe for his sinne But Master Perkins hath alreadie answered that the reuenge the Apostle speakes of is of an other kind being directed to the reformation of the partie not to the punishing of him It is called reuenge because the Corinthians vsed the same meanes for the reforming of themselues that men commonly do when they reuenge If this word reuenge would not beare this interpretation which you haue not proued nor can prooue yet were not Master Perkins guiltic of contradiction or not vnderstanding his owne words but only of mistaking the sense of the word speaker D. B. P. But this sorrow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chasusement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished For where there is no feare of paines and much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester fort And an emulation and desire to she as farie from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs from that sorrow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of Saint Paul speaker A. W. Let vs put the case to your liking that this reuenge was a requit all of euill past will it follow thereupon that therefore they did it to satisfie God for the temporall punishment which otherwise they were to haue indured I trow not your glosse reserres it to their care to punish sinne not to satisfie by punishing that they might shew they mislikt and hated sinne because saith the Glosse you punish euen your selues when you sinne since you punish saith another Glosse your owne sinnes and especially since you punish other mens But if it were for satisfaction a man would punish his owne especiallie that he might auoid a greater iudgement Your ordinary Glosse applies that reuenge to the sinne of the incestuous person You haue shewed saith the Glosse by punishing him that committed the incest that you were vndefiled so doth Caietan also expound it This saith he was the last effect against the incestuous person for they vsed reuenging iustice in excommunicating him so Chrysostome You punished them that had sinned against the lawes of God so Theophylact so Ierome speaker W. P. Lastly they make three works of satisfaction praier fasting and almes deedes For the first it is meere foolishnesse to thinke that man by praier can satisfie for his sinnes speaker D. B. P. That praier doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon God himselfe is witnes saying Call vpon me in the day of tribulation and J will deliuer thee Prayer cannot be made without saith in Gods power and hope in his goodnes and therfore must needs be pleasing in Gods sight by prayer we humble our selues before God and acknowledge his omnipotencie and our infirmity By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude folly and wickednes and bewaile the grieuousnes of our sinnes such prayer made King Dauid as his Psalmes do testify water his couch with teares making them his food day and night and by them he satisfied for his former offences So did a farre greater sinner then he King Manasses who falling into tribulation prayed vnto the Lord his God and did great penance before the God of his Fathers and prayed and entreated earnestly and God heard his prayer and brought him backe againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome speaker A. W. God pardons sinners that call vpon him for mercie and deliuerance therefore their prayers appease his iustice There is no shew of truth in this consequence What though true prayer please God doth it therefore satisfie his iustice Whom doth it not please that hee which hath offended should craue pardon yet is not this a satisfaction to iustice Dauid and Manasses lamented their sinnes and called vpon God for mercie but what scripture saith they satisfied for their sinnes by so doing It were an easy matter to satisfie iustice if intreating pardon would make satisfaction speaker W. P. It is all one as if they had said that a begger by asking of almes should deserue his almes or that a debter by requesting his creditour to pardon his debt should thereby pay his debt speaker D. B. P. A begger doth not deserue his almes because he makes not this former kind of prayer but the short fleight one of the Protestants from the lippes outward The like we say of a debter whose creditor being a needie man will not be paid without mony but God who needs none of our goodnes highly esteemeth of a humble and contriâ—e hart grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God and humbly suing vnto him for pardon To such a one he said Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt because thou besough est me speaker A. W. Belike then if a begger do intreat an almes from his heart by a set speach as long as one of your Auemaryes he deserues that he asks If he deserue it it is small charitie to giue it and iniustice not to gide it What if the creditor be not a needy man and would be content to be paid his debt by a dayes labour which vpon the mans intreatie he releaseth also doth the detter satisfie by intreating God forgiues vpon intreatie therefore intreating makes satisfaction These loose consequences fall asunder of themselues without touching speaker W. P. Secondly fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking and of it selfe conferreth nothing to the obtainement of the kingdome of heauen no more then eating and drinking doth speaker D. B. P. What an Epicurian and fleshly Doctrine is this Why then did the Niniuits fast put on sack cloath and lie on the ground all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting rather then eate and drinke and presume of Gods mercie if the one had bin as acceptable to God as the other Why is S. Iohn Baptist commended for his rough garments and thinne diet if cherishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it Christ saith expressely That if vve fast in secret his heauenly Father vvill repay vs openly Will he reward eating and drinking so liberally but of falling we shall haue a whole Chapter hereafter Therefore Briefely I here conclude that this Doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the Kingdome of Atheists and Epicures whose sweet speech is Let vs eate and let vs drinke for after death there is
no pleasure True for such Belly-gods and thâ—â— followers speaker A. W. What a bad practise and foolish question are these of yours Master Perkins saith that fasting of it selfe conferres no more to the obtaining of heauen then eating doth You leaue out the principall point in reporting his opinion and then you aske why the Niniuits fasted if eating be as acceptable to God you must adde of it selfe as fasting because though of it selfe it pleased not God yet as part of repentance it doth when it shewes humiliation and sorrow But they might haue fasted long inough without being humbled and haue bin neuer awhit the neerer for it But let it be granted that fasting did please God of it selfe as prayer doth will you thereupon conclude that therefore it satisfies Gods iustice Proue the consequence Iohn Baptist is described to haue liued vpon such meate as the place where he abode did ordinarily afford but it is not said that he vsed a thin diet much lesse is he commended for it as if the thing of it selfe had pleased God It was fit for him by the extraordinarie direction of Gods spirit to follow such an austere course of life not to satisfie for any punishment but to make the Israelites the more carefully attend so extraordinary a mans preaching The reward that God will giue to them that in priuate repent of their sinnes with fasting is not because fasting of it selfe pleaseth him but for that such fasting is part of their repentance speaker W. P. Thirdly and lastly almes deedes cannot be works of satisfaction for sinnes For when wee giue them as we ought wee doe but our dutie whereunto wee are bound And we may as well say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another as to say that by doing his dutie he may satisfie Gods iustice for the punishment of his sinnes These we confesse be fruits of faith but yet are they no workes of satisfaction but the onely and all-sufficient satisfaction made to Gods iustice for our sins is to bee found in the person of Christ being procured by the merit of his death and his obedience And thus our doctrine touching satisfaction is cleared and it is to be learned carefully of our common people because the opinion of humane satisfaction is naturall and sticks fast in the heart of naturall men Hereupon when any haue sinned and feele touch of conscience any way their manner is then to performe some outward humiliation and repentance thinking thereby to stop the mouth of conscience and by doing some ceremoniall duties to appease the wrath of God for their sinnes Yea many thinke to satisfie Gods iustice by repeating the Creede the Lords prayer and the tenne Commandements so foolish are they in this kinde speaker A. W. A man might suppose that this man were pretely well seene in Carolo Bussone that thus ruffleth in graue matters with his simple Similes If the similies were as simple as your answers to them a man should lose both his time and his labour to reade either of them shew their vnfitnes for the purpose if you can speaker D. B. P. That Almesdeeds redeeme our sinnes purge vs from them and make all things clean vnto vs hath bin already proued out of holy scriptures I will ioyne thereunto this one testimonie of that worthy Maityr Saint Cyprian Our frailtie could not tell vvhat to doe vulesse the goodnes of God by teaching vs the vvorkes of iustice and mercy had shevved vs a certaine vvay of preseruing our saluation which is that vvith Almesdeeds we might vvash cleane avvay the filth of sins vvhich vve had contracted after Baptisme The holie Ghost speaketh in the Scripture and saith Sinnes are purged by almesdeeds and saith speaker A. W. Cyprian intending to exhort all men to almes deeds is somewhat too farre caried with his earnestnes to perswade especiallie since he ascribes to it the purging of sin whereas it can reach no farther at the vttermost by your doctrine then to satisfie for the temporall punishment His proofe out of scripture is not there to be found for though your vulgar translation haue it yet it is not in the originall nor in your interlinear Bible nor in Montanus nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase nor in Vatablus The Greek seemes to haue had it added out of the Apocryphall speaker D. B. P. Now to M. Perkins Simile We deny that a man is bound to giue all the almes that he can We are bound to giue that which we may well spare when there is great want But almes which is a part of satisfaction is not giuen out of our superfluity but spared from our necessarie vses And is many times bestowed when there is no such great need vpon building Schooles Colledges Hospitals and Chappels And this may serue to answere M. Perkins Similes against these three workes of satisfaction If any man desire to know why wee make speciall reckoning of these three workes it is principally for two causes First we being to satisfie must performe it with such things as be our owne which be of three sorts either they belong to our soule or to our body or to our externall goods the goods of our mind we offer to God by prayer by fasting and other bodily discipline we exhibite vnto him A liuing hoast holy and pleasing God By Almesdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods Secondly all sinne as S. Iohn teacheth may be reduced to three principall heads The concupiscence of the flesh that is heacherie which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the bodie Concupiscence of the eyes Couetousnes which is purged and chased away by almesdeeds And pride of life which is suppressed by humble prayer and often meditation of our owne miseries speaker A. W. When we giue almes as we ought saith Master Perkins we doe but our dutie You answer that we are not bound to giue all the almes we can Is this to gainsay him We are bound to spare euen from our necessarie vse when the necessitie of our brethren requires it He that hath no more meate than to fill his owne belly is bound to giue his brother part of it if he see him readie to starue As for other giuing when we cannot spare that wee giue and there is no necessitie it is so farre from being a satisfaction for old sins that it is a committing of new But whence comes this distinction It is not either in Cyprian or in Toby or that place thrust into the book of Toby And out of question it was not Daniels meaning that King Nebuchadnezzar should giue to the poore so that he should come into want himselfe by giuing Neither I thinke can you prooue it was our Sauiours meaning when he exhorted the Pharisies to almes deedes But doe you not perceiue that you marre all by this doctrine Who will giue any thing at his death to your Monasteries if he may not by
opinion We must haue 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 vpon 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 haue been done what should haue become of the truth before the writings of men were extant in any number For it were ridiculous to imagine that euery 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 euery 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 vpon 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 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 euery 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 haue most shamelesly spoken of it to draw people from the reading and louing of it What blasphemies almost haue not your writers vttered against the holy word of God Pighius calls them dumbe iudges and in another place commends the truth and pleasantnes of his speech that compared the scriptures to a nose of waxe Did not Hosius say of Dauids Psalmes we write poems euery 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 euery 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 vvhich he did vnderstand And shall euery simple 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 euery 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 haue 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 vnto 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 euery hard place of scripture If you can S. Austin by that meanes was likelier to haue it then any of you as he was neerer the Apostles from whom those traditions are said to haue come If you rest vpon 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 haue 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 haue recourse to that maine help of Tradition He