soules when wee are stung to death by sinne there is nothing required within vs for our recouerie but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eie of our faith on Christ and his righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these vvords As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desert so must the Sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by only faith Mary M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stung by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and applie that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be streatched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernesse stung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sinne haue no other remedie then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability speaker A. W. If wee precisely vrge the similitude the latter part of the reddition is no part of the comparison for there is nothing in the proposition to which it answereth But our Sauiour addes the end of lifting vp himselfe to stirre vs vp as it may seeme to a more thorough consideration of the agreement betwixt health by the Serpent and saluation by him And surely it is not without reason to make a likenes in the deliuerance as well as in other points that all men might vnderstand by our Sauiours speech how they should become partakers of that benefit speaker W. P. Reason II. The exclusiue formes of speech vsed in scripture prooue thus much We are iustified freely not of the law not by the law without the law without workes not of workes not according to works not of vs not by the workes of the law but by faith Gal. 2. 16. All boasting excluded onely beleeue Luk. 8. 50. These distinctions whereby workes and the lawe are excluded in the worke of iustification doe include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie speaker D. B. P. It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it self Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other speaker A. W. If they doe not more exclude feare hope and charitie than faith it must be shewed that they are directly or by necessarie consequence required in opposition to the workes of the law For that is very manifest of faith in diuers places By faith without the works of the law Not by the works of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ. By the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law Through faith not of workes But this can neuer be shewed of them By reason of the opposition I speake of faith cannot bee taken for a worke of the law neither is it any worke required by the law to beleeue in Christ for iustification because the law saith Doe this and thou shalt be saued namely as an hired seruant But the Gospell saith i Beleeue and thou shalt haue thy sinnes forgiuen thee by iustification Now the law commands no sute for pardon but calles for either obedience or damnation Hope indeede as I shewed before differs little from faith but depends vpon it feare and loue are proper duties of the law and so alwaies performed speaker D. B. P. But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truely saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desert of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fastes nor any such like worke of the law which the lews reputed so necessary Again that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which works not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them speaker A. W. S. Paul speaketh not of deseruing to be made Christians but of attaining to saluation as it is apparant by his disputation in the Epistle to the Romanes By the workes of the law no man liuing shall be iustified What is iustified shall be made a Christian after your interpretation So afterward a man is iustified that is made a Christian by faith and not by the workes of the law So haue we a new interpretation of iustification by faith Besides it would be remembred that you distinguish betwixt workes of nature and workes of grace denying iustification to them and granting it to these how will this stand with your answere Neither doth the Apostle dispute how they were to attaine to the grace of Christ but how they were to receiue pardon and acceptation to euerlasting life which he truly ascribeth on our part to beleefe in Christ by which wee obtaine both these priuiledges As for meriting of iustification there is not a letter of it in any place of the new or old Testament And though there be no meritorious cause of it in workes before grace yet boasting by your doctrine is not excluded For may I not iustly boast that my selfe being inlightened by Gods spirit and hauing a good motion inspired into me by the power of mine owne free will accepted of the grace of God offered me and so am iustified where my cause of boasting is the greater because many other men who might haue been iustified as well as I haue not imploied their free will so well as I haue done and therfore are damned speaker D. B. P. Yet all this notwithstanding a certainevertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile wherby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue
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
A DEFENCE OF M. PERKINS BOOKE CALLED A REFORMED CATHOLIKE Against the cauils of a Popish writer one D. B. P. or W. B. in his deformed Reformation By Antony Wotton AT LONDON Imprinted by FELIX KYNGSTON for Cuthbert Burby and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Swan 1606. THE PRINCIPAL POINS HANDLED IN THIS BOOKE 1. Of Antichrist pag. 41. 2. Of Freewill pag. 64. 3. Of Originall sinne pag. 95. 4. Of the certaintie of saluation pag. 124. 5. Of Iustification pag. 163. 6. Of inherent iustice pag. 184. 7. Of iustifying faith what it is pag. 195. 8. How faith iustifieth pag. 206. 9. That faith alone iustifieth pag. 212. 10. Of good workes how farre forth they are required to iustification pag. 239. 11. Whether it be possible for a man that is iustified to fulfill the law of God pag. 258. 12. Whether good workes be stained with sinne pag. 265. 13. Whether faith may be without charitie pag. 277. 14. Whether faith may be without good workes pag. 285. 15. Of merits pag. 287. 16. Of satisfaction pag. 344. 17. Of Traditions pag. 399. 18. Of vowes pag. 469. 19. Of the vow of single life pag. 487. 20. Of wilfull pouerty pag. 508. 21. Of regular obedience pag. 522. 22. Of Images pag. 524. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE ROBERT EARLE OF SALISBVRIE VICOVNT Cranborne Baron of Essingdon Principall Secretarie to his Maiestie Master of the Court of Wards and Liueries one of his Highnesse most Honourable Priuie Councell and Chancellor of the Vniuersitie of Cambridge RIght Honourable it hath pleased God to vouchsafe your Lordship no small honour in the profession of Christianity that you haue not onely beleeued the truth of the Gospell but also are made partaker of that glorie of his children to suffer for it To you it is giuen saith the Apostle to the Philippians for Christ that not onely you should beleeue in him but also suffer for his sake Giuen as if it were a speciall fauour which no man attaines to but they only to whom it is granted by priuiledge from God To you it is giuen saith our Sauiour to know the secrets of the kingdome of heauen And in another place No man can come vnto me except it bee giuen him of my Father This gift the Lord hath bestowed vpon your Honour that they which are enemies to him should be persecutors of you euen to the death if it lay in their power for his quarrell But the gratious prouidence of God hath manifestly shewed it selfe in this whole action on your Lordships behalfe in that not only you are still preserued in despight of them but also that you hold on that noble and Christian resolution to prouide for the sasctie of Religion his Maiesties person and estate with the hazard of your owne life regarding more what your Lordship ought to doe in dutie to God and your Soueraigne then what you may suffer by men for so doing Now on their part who can say whether their malice or their follie is the greater when I consider the height of their hatred that reacheth euen to the taking away of life which is in Gods hands me thinkes I am not able to looke beyond it But when I remember their desperate resoluing to commit such a murther so openly and their extreame indiscretion in acquainting your Lordship with their intendment it seemes to me that the lightnes of their follie exceeds the waight of their malice So that they giue all men iust occasion to suspect that God hath giuen them ouer into a reprobate sense as to destroy their soules by intending such a bloody sinne so to cast away their liues also by attempting it with so great follie But leauing them to the mercie and iustice of God for repentance or confusion giue me leaue Right Honourable to put your Lordship in minde of that which I make no doubt but you know and thinke on viz. That the Lord God hauing taken your person estate and honour into his protection against these and such like conspiracies looketh for continuance and increase of zeale and care in your Lordship for the securing as much as may be in your power of his holy religion and his worthie Lieutenant our gratious Soueraignes person and dignitie Now the knowledge of danger being a good helpe to the auoyding of it The Lord himselfe seemes to haue taken halfe the care alreadie in discouering those that haue bin are and will be the continuall practisers of his Maiesties ruine I were more than conceited and foolish if I could but thinke my selfe either able or fit to aduise your Lordship in matters of this nature Yet let me humbly entreate your Honour to vouchsafe the reading of that which in my poore thoughts I haue apprehended That the safetie of Princes dependeth vpon the good pleasure of God it is out of all question especially in their account who aduisedly and thankfully remember the late wonderfull and gratious deliuerance neuer to be forgotten Neither can it be doubted but it is Gods good pleasure to preserue them as long as they haue care to walke in obedience to him especially in prouiding for his glorie by maintaining and aduancing the true religion of Iesus Christ. So then the safetie of religion is the securitie of the Prince and the decay of Gods true seruice the forerunner of the Kings destruction As this is true in generall concerning all Kings and Gouernours so hath it an especiall euidence of truth in his Maiesties particular For it is apparant to euery man that the Papists quarrell to his Maiestie is not for hatred of his person but of his religion And therefore so farre foorth will they plot against the former as they can see likelihood of aâ—chieuing the latter His danger groweth by their hope and their despaire of bringing in Popish idolatrie must needs be the securitie of his life and state Are wee then desirous to rid his Maiestie of this danger and the whole state of this feare we see the meanes of accomplishing that desire to bee no other than to prouide that true religion may grow and flourish and Popish idolatrie fade and wither For neither may wee looke for any blessing from God on the Common-wealth if he be continually dishonoured amongst vs by the encrease of Popish heresie nor reasonably promise our selues any end of treacherous and bloodie enterprises as long as Papists conceiue hope of preuailing for Antichrist by such attempts If their number daily encrease how should their hope lessen And how is it possible to keepe it from growing if thousands in this kingdome remaining in their ignorance be left as pray to seducing Priests and Iesuits The conclusion is that if there be not some religious and wise care taken as to instruct the people in the knowledge of Gods truth which is the principall so to ferrit out those lurking Serpents that breathe Idolatrie and treason into the hearts of his Maiesties people and
will but to will indeede I say of this as of the former that it is not contrarie to our doctrine for we acknowledge that in our iustification and saluation after election we worke with God but not as I haue often answered by any naturall power of our free will nor by any choyse of our owne to which we are not inclined and brought by Gods spirit We say with S. Austin both in words and meaning that true religion neither denies free will either to a good or bad life nor giues so much to it that it should be of any force without grace and we adde that therefore your religion is false because it affirmes that the will of man can by nature assent to a good motion inspired So to commend free will is indeede to deny grace but to holde them both as I haue proued Austin did out of these very places which you alleage for your opinion and as we doe going not an haires breadth from him in this question is to glorifie Gods mercie and confesse our owne weaknes which is the end of his loue to vs in the whole worke of our saluation III. Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. First they alleadge that man by nature may doe that which is good and therefore will that which is good for none can doe that which hee neither willeth nor thinketh to doe but first wee must will and then doe Now say they men can doe good by nature as giue almes speake the trueth doe iustice and practise other duties of ciuill vertue and therefore will that which is good I answer that a naturall man may doe good workes for the substance of the outwarde worke but not in regarde of the goodnesse of the manner these are two diuers things A man without supernaturall grace may giue almes doe iustice speake the truth c. which bee good things considered in themselues as God hath commaunded them but he cannot doe them well To thinke good things and to doe good things are naturall workes but to thinke good things in a good manner and to doe them well so as God may accept the action done are workes of grace And therefore the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne in respect of the doer because it failes both for his right beginning which is a pure heart good conscience and faith vnfained as also for his end which is the glory of God speaker D. B. P. Novv in fevv vvords I vvill passe ouer the obiections vvhich he frameth in our names But misapplieth them First Obiection That man can doe good by nature as giue almes do Iustice speake the truth c. And therefore vvill them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue liberty of wil in ciuil and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it An â—his answere here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the worke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure hart and a faith vnfeined and also in the end wâ—ich is not the glory of God Ansvvere It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the hart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to relieue the poore mans necessity God his Creator Master is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed tovvards him vvhen the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto speaker A. W. Master Perkins as any man may see grants a freedome of will in morall actions but denies those actions to be good in regard of the goodnes of the manner and afterward A man may giue almes c. which are good things considered as they are commanded of God but hee cannot doe them wel that is so as God may accept of the action done If you will replie vpon M. Perkins you must proue that such workes of a naturall man will be accepted of God but that you cannot do For the person must be accepted before the worke and without faith he cannot be accepted nor haue faith being a naturall man The summe of the answere is if it be not done as the law requires it is not a good worke if it be it is meritorious and so must be accepted of God speaker W. P. Obiect II. God hath commaunded all men to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof beeing helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue and repent Ans. This reason is not good for by such commaundements God shewes not what men are able to doe but what they should doe and what they cannot doe Againe the reason is not well framed it ought rather to bee thus because God giues men commaundement to repent and beleeue therefore they haue power to repent and beleeue either by nature or by grace and then we hold with them For when God in the Gospel commandeth men to repent and to beleeue at the same time by his grace he inableth them both to will or desire to beleeue and repent as also actually to repent and beleeue speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect God hath commaunded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that God being a good Lord will not commaund any man to doe that which he is no way able to doe Ans. M. Perkins ansvvereth in effect for his vvords be obscure that God commaundeth that vvhich we be not able to performe but that which we should doe Then I hope he vvill admitte that he vvill enable vs by his grace to doe it or else hovv should vve doe it God surely doth not bind vs by commandement to any impossible thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweet and his burthen easie And S. John vvitnesseth that his commaundements are not heauy He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tye any man by lavv to doe that which he was altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the enthymem viz. That therefore men haue free will to beleeue and repent because God commands them to beleeue and repent you to helpe the matter giue a reason of the consequence God being a good Lord will not command any man to do that which he is no way able to do therefore since God commands men to beleeue and repent they haue free will to beleeue and repent Here the
them of that neither much lesse that they should so continue vnto their liues end I omit his vnsauoury discourse of eating and beleeuing Christ and applying vnto vs his benefits which he might be ashamed to make vnto vs that admit no part of it to be true I confesse that therein faith hath his part if it be ioyned with charity and frequentation of the Sacraments speaker A. W. Master Perkins proues that faith is a particular assurance because it is a particular applying of Christ by euery man to himselfe That it is so he shewes in that it is a receiuing of Christ and all his benefits The place of Iohn is brought to proue that to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ is all one to which your answere is altogether impertinent So also is your exposition false for the holy Ghost speakes not of a power to be the sonnes of God but of a priuiledge whereby all true beleeuers are the sonnes of God Ye are all saith the Apostle the sonnes of God by faith in Christ Iesus That discourse so vnsauourie to your corrupt taste serues to manifest this point that to receiue or beleeue in Christ is to applie him particularly as meate and drinke are applied by eating and drinking If you could as easily haue disproued as disliked that discourse we should haue seene the one as we haue the other speaker D. B. P. This is it which S. Paul teacheth That not by the vvorkes of Moses law but by faith in Christ Iesus vve receiue the promises of the spirit and shall haue hereafter the performance if we obserue those things which Christ hath commaunded vs. But what is this to certeintie of Saluation S. Paul speakes of receiuing the spirit by faith and no where vouchsafes any such priuiledge to workes which indeed haue not to doe in that matter Receiued ye the spirit by the workes of the law or by the hearing of faith speaker D. B. P. To those of Augustine and such like authorities I answere that we find Christ we hold Christ we see Christ by faith beleeuing him to be the Sonne of God and redeemer of the world and Iudge of the quicke and the dead and we vnderstand and disgest all the mysteries of this holy word But where is it once said in any of these sentences that we are assured of our saluation we beleeue all these points and many more but we shall be neuer the neare our saluation vnlesse we obserue Gods commandements The seruant vvhich knovves his Masters will and doth it not shall be beaten vvith many stripes Then you are my friends saith our Sauiour when you shall doe the things which I commaund you which we being vncerteine to performe assure not our selues of his friendship but when to our knowledge we goe as neare it as we can and demaund pardon of our wants we liue in good hope of it speaker A. W. You seeme to grant as much concerning these places of Austin as Master Perkins desires but that you restraine this beleeuing against Austins words to a beleefe of the truth whereas the vse of eating and drinking Christ is not onely to establish our iudgement but also and that principally to confirme the assurance of our saluation by his death and sacrifice It is a strange kinde of answering to require the maine conclusion in euery pro syllogisme and not to vnderstand to what purpose euery seuerall reason is alleaged The beleeuing of neuer so many points brings neither assurance nor saluation but the resting vpon Christ for saluation giues vs assurance that wee are the children of God and shall continue so receiuing at the last the inheritance of sonnes because of our adoption not the wages of seruants for our imperfect labour in which we vse our best endeuour to doe the will of our father not the taske of our master speaker D. B. P. I answere first out of the place it selfe that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed which M. Perkins thought wisdome to conceale For. S. Paul saith that the Spirit witnesseth with our spirits that we are the sonnes of God and coheires with Christ with this condition If yet vve suffer vvith him that vve may be glorified vvith him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if vve faile in performance of the condition God stands free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receiued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of saluation speaker A. W. S. Paul sets downe no condition at all in the place alleaged by Master Perkins the next verse propounds the course that God hath appointed to bring his children to glorie which depends not vpon vs but vpon God himselfe who makes all his sonnes conformable to their eldest brother Christ according to his predestination and chastice all his children by one kinde of suffering or another speaker D. B. P. This is the direct answere to that place although the other be very good that the testimony of the spirit is but an inward comfort and ioy which breedeth great hope of saluation but bringeth not assurance there of This M. Perkins would refute by the authority of Saint Bernard in the place before cited see the place and my answere there speaker A. W. The witnes of the spirit the Apostle speakes of is that we are the children of God the comfort and ioy you mention is an effect arising from that testimonie of his and our feeling not the foundation of our assurance We reioyce because the spirit beares witnes that wee are the sonnes of God not contrariwise because we reioyce therefore wee haue hope that we are Gods children though this also be a secondarie proofe of our assurance speaker D. B. P. This Argument is so proper for their purpose that we returne it vpon their owne heads We must pray for saluation therefore we are not yet assured of it For who in his wits prayeth God to giue him that whereof he is assured alreadie And a godly act of faith it is in that prayer to beleeue that God wil giue that which he is assured of before hand such foolish petitions cannot please God and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied that any faithfulman may pray for his saluation but rather thanke the Lord for it But to answere directly he who prayeth must beleeue he shall obtaine that which he prayeth for if he obserue all the due circumstances of praier which be many but to this purpose two are required necessarily the one that he who prayeth be the true seruant of God which first excludeth all those that erre in faith touched in these words VVhat you of the faithfull shall desire vvhen you pray shall be giuen you The other is when we request matters of such moment that we perseuere in prayer and continue our suit
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
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
and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being asvvell our vvorke and a vvorke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe speaker A. W. There is no vertuous disposition required of the one or the other in respect whereof he shall be iustified Onely the acknowledgment of sinne and such like are vsed as meanes by God to bring a sinner to beleeue in Iesus Christ to iustification yet so as that neither these dispositions proceed from the free will of man but from the spirit of God inclining them that God will iustifie to these actions nor any of these but onely beleeuing is respected of God on mans part to his iustification speaker D. B. P. Now that out of S. Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bidde beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtâ—aine a miracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question on y is speaker A. W. That place of Luke sheweth thus much as also the ordinarie course of the old Testament doth that the thing God regardeth and requireth of man to the obtaining of any fauour is resting vpon him for that he stands in neede of Fasting praying and such like exercises are meanes to make a man discerne truly of his owne vnworthines and so the rather to trust to Gods mercie and power but the thing respected by God is resting on him and referring himselfe wholy to his will and pleasure Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the iudgment of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers iudgment S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that vvhich the Apostle saith VVe esteeme a man to be iustified vvithout the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke speaker A. W. They that so vnderstand the Apostle as the Gnostickes did vtterly mistake him We are altogether of S. Austins opinion that faith cannot iustifie him that liues euilly and hath no good workes For as he truly saith Though they goe not before iustification yet they accompanie it euery iustified man being also sanctified Neither is the faith he speaketh of such a faith as we vnderstand because it workes not by loue but such as the diuell hath who saith Austin in the same place hath not the faith by which the iust man liues which workes by loue that God may giue him life euerlasting according to his workes speaker D. B. P. And againe Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained speaker A. W. In this place Austin takes iustification for the whole fitting of a Christian to a holy conuersation to which iustification indeede is but a foundation the building being finished by sanctification speaker D. B. P. By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceed from the helpe of Gods grace He must of necessitie according to his course of disputing exclude good workes from that iustification hee there speakes of but not from the life of a Christian man speaker D. B. P. Reason III. Very reason may teach thus much Mans reason is but a blind mystris in matters of faith and he â—hat hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little speaker A. W. Mans reason is not of it selfe sufficient to determine of truth and falsehood in Diuinitie but being inlightened by the spirit of God with the knowledge of faith it may easily see the diuers vse of that from other graces and vertues speaker W. P. For no gift in man is apt and fitte as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner but faith speaker D. B. P. But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kind of probabilitie I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrarie For in common sense no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to applie and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what need we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to applie to vs Christs righteousnes speaker A. W. Reason perceiuing that the Scripture ordinarily ascribeth iustification to beleeuing and maketh beleeuing in Christ the receiuing of Christ which is not granted to any other of those vertues may well conclude that faith onely is the spirituall hand to take hold of Christ and his righteousnes by and not feare loue hope or repentance speaker W. P. Indeede loue hope the feare of God and repentance haue their seuerall vses in men but none serue for this ende to apprehend Christ and his merits none of them all haue this receiuing propertie and therefore there is nothing in man that iustifieth as a cause but faith alone speaker D. B. P. Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more applie vnto Christians all Christs merits and make them ours then faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular
by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him speaker A. W. None of these hath that aptnes that is in faith For the other haue more shew of desert in man but God purposeth to set out his loue to the soule he saueth Which can be done by no meanes so well as when the party to be iustified doth nothing but rest vpon God to receiue iustification at his mercifull hands Of the difference betwixt faith and hope I haue spoken otherwhere now I say only thus much that to hope without faith is vaine If I beleeue I may not hope alone but be sure I am iustified if I doe not beleeue I may be sure of the contrarie speaker D. B. P. But charitie doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship Amicorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertue we take such hold on Christs merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity speaker D. B. P. This were the way indeed to make God debtor to man and man a more speciall cause of his owne iustification than God yea to make man in equitie at the least deserue his iustification at Gods hands But what Prince would bee so dealt withall by a traytor especially if he meant to manifest the riches of his mercie in affoording fauour Would he trow you haue his traiterous subiect plead an interest to his loue kindnes and bountie by imploying his life and labours to do him seruice and so to receiue all benefits from him as a friend from a friend by the law of mutuall good will who seeth not how directly this runnes against the whole course of the new Testament speaker A. W. Which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying That Charity beginning was Justice beginning Charity encreased vvas Iustice encreased great Charity vvas great iustice and perfect Charity was perfect iustice Austin speakes not of iustification but of walking cheerefully in obedience to Gods commandements after we are iustified which we cannot doe vnlesse the loue wee beare to God make all difficulties that we shall meet with light and easie to vs. In this respect charitie beginning is iustice beginning because he that hath begun to loue hath also begun to walke in the way of righteousnes making light of all hindrances by reason of his loue and as his loue groweth so doth his righteousnes in his whole conuersation speaker W. P. Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke done iniquities are remitted and sinne couered no workes or repentance required of them but onely that they beleeue And cap. 3. Neither working any thing nor requiting the like are they iustified but by faith alone through the gift of God And 1. Cor. 1. this is appointed of God that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without any worke by faith alone freely receiuing remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. To these and such like words I answere First that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses speaker A. W. You that could so confidently thrust vpon vs those Commentaries on the Reuelation for Ambroses which were neuer heard of till within these last 80. yeres should not haue made a doubt of these on the Romanes that haue been receiued for his so many hundreds of yeeres But I will not striue about the matter Once this is out of doubt that they are very ancient and generally held to be orthodoxall speaker D. B. P. Secondly that that Author excludeth not repentance but only the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessary as circumcision and such like see the place and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke vpon the fourth to the Hebrews where he hath these vvords Faith is a great thing and vvithout it it is not possible to be saued but faith alone doth not suffice but it is necessary that faith worke by charitie and conuerse worthie of God speaker A W. Not repentance he names it expresly No workes or repentance required of them But he meanes not workes of the Ceremoniall law onely He meanes both Ceremoniall and Morall That law which the Gentiles had by nature which if a man keepe he shall liue Abraham had not whereof to boast because he was circumcised or because he abstained from sinne but because he beleeued To him that worketh that is to him that is subiect to the law of Moses or of nature To him that worketh not that is to him that is guiltie of sinne because he doth not that which the law commaunds In that place vpon the Hebrues he speaketh not of iustification as in the other but of our entring into rest or heauen to which no man shall come that doth not liue holily beautifying as he there speaketh his faith with workes speaker W. P. August There is one propitiation for all sinnes to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc on Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. Grace which is of mercie is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins next authoritie is gathered out of S. Augustine There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ True but where is it that we need nothing else but to beleeue 3. Hesychius saith Grace vvhich is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of vvorkes that is vve doe not merit by our vvorks done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification speaker A. W. This testimonie of Austin and the next of Hesychius are answered by roate and not by iudgement For they are both misquoted which he must needes haue obserued and then would haue reprooued if he had lookt for them in the places cited The former I cannot finde and therefore let it passe without any answere If this interpretation may goe for currant I know not what may be refused as counterfeit Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes that is say you wee doe not merit by our workes done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification Hesychius saith that grace is apprehended by faith alone you make him say that we receiue both faith and iustification of Gods mercy he speaketh of attaining to grace by faith you expound him of receiuing faith by Gods mercie But indeed Hesychius in his owne
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
God not of works least any man should boast himselfe Here Paul excludes al and euery worke and directly workes of grace themselues as appeares by the reason following For wee are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them Now let the Papists tell me what bee the workes which God hath prepared for men to walke in and to which they are regenerate vnlesse they bee the most excellent workes and let them marke how Paul excludes them wholy from the worke of iustification and saluation speaker D. B. P. Ephes. 2. is nothing against our Doctrine of iustification but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it and note also vvith S. Austin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our workes which vvent before and might seeme to the simple to haue been some cause vvhy God bestovved his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace speaker A. W. What ignorance or malice there is in alleaging this text against your doctrine of iustification it shal appeare by and by in the meane time I answere concerning Austin first that in the place you name there is neuer a word of the sentence in question Secondly that his scope in that treatise is no more but to shew that they falsely vnderstood such places of the Apostle as speake against iustification by workes who thinke that when once they haue beleeued in Christ they shall be saued by faith though they liue neuer so wickedly Thirdly to refuâ—e that lewd conceit Austâ—… addes that the Apostle rather therefore saith that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law because he would haue no man imagine that he hath obtained iustification by faith vpon the merit of his former workes This we grant to be true but not all that the Apostle intendeth For it cannot be doubted but that he confuteth the opinion of the Iewes and Heathen concerning iustification as it is plaine by the three first chapters Now they did not make account to deserue the grace of iustification at Gods hands by their holy and vertuous liuing but to inherit heauen by it Neither could they that did beleeue so much flatter themselues as to dreame that their good deeds in particular had procured that fauour when it was easie for them to see that many thousands both Iewes and Gentiles as good or better than diuers of themselues for vertuous behauiour notwithstanding attained not to this iustification Besides if we mark the reasons by which the Apostle beates down their pride they are such as generally concerne all both Iewes and Gentiles Adde hereunto that Austin speakes no further for the vse of good works but to shew that they are necessarie for a Christian man as without which his faith is voide and idle and that no man may dreame that if hee beleeue it pertaines not to him to worke well which are the words that immediatly goe before these you bring speaker D. B. P. And therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paul speaketh of vvorkes of grace because in the text follovving he mentioned good vvorkes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betvveene those tvvo kinde of vvorks signifying the first To be of ourselues The second â—o proceede from vs as Gods vvorkmanshâ—o created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth VVorkes simplie the second Good vvorkes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then vvas it to take these tvvo so distinct manner of vvorkes for the same and to ground himself so boldly vpon it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith that the Apostle barres all workes before and after grace He prooues it by the very text it self The reason may be thus more plainly propounded We are not saued by works saith the Apostle that no man may boast His proofe followeth For good workes are appointed by God for vs to walke in for which purpose he hath made vs anew in Iesus Christ. That this tenth verse is a proofe of the former the coniunction for declares But how it can serue to that purpose if the two verses speake of diuers kindes of works some iustifying some not iustifying neither I see nor I thinke you can shew me What though he call the former workes simply the latter good workes are not the former those workes which the law morall and naturall require and are not they in their nature good workes But who knoweth not that by workes without any addition workes of grace after iustification are signified let the Apostle Iames speake who intreating of such workes and naming them almost in euery verse doth not once call them good workes but workes simply speaker W. P. II. Gal. 5. 3. If ye be circumcised ye are bound to the whole law and ye are abolished from Christ. Here Paul disputeth against such men as would be saued partly by Christ and partly by the workes of the law hence I reason thus If a man will be iustified by works he is bound to fulfil the whole law according to the rigour thereof that is Pauls ground I now assume no man can fulfill the law according to the rigour thereof for the liues and works of most righteous men are imperfect and stained with sinne and therefore they are taught euery day to say on this manner forgiue vs our debts Again our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable And lastly the regenerate man is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh and in part onely spirituall Thus then for any man to be bound to the rigour of the whole law is as much as if hee were bound to his owne damnation speaker D. B. P. If he can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Appollo S. Paul onely saith in these vvords That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the vvhole lavv of Moses M. Perkins That if a man vvill be iustified by vvorkes he must fulfill the rigour of the lavv Which are as iust as Germaines lippes as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is S. Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it vvere a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that vvould be circumcided did make himselfe subiect vnto the vvhole lavv of the Ievves Of the possibilities of fulfilling the lavv because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this speaker A. W. Master Perkins vnderstood his owne minde in this and other arguments better than I can doe and so could haue affoorded better answers for his defence Yet thus much I may say that the text of
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
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
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
your Maiesties recorded in the aforesaid Conference speaker A. W. I doubt not but if those learned treatises you bragge of be come to his Maiesties hands either they haue had or shal ere long receiue sufficient answere In the meane while let vs consider these your reasons speaker D. B. P. And because that argument is as most sensible so best assured which proceedeth from a principle that is either euident in it selfe or else granted and confessed for true My first proofe shall be grounded vpon that your Maiesties owne resolute and constant opinion as it appeareth in the said Conference to wit That no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the Church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremonie then she hath departed from her selfe vvhen she vvas in her flourishing and best estate From whence I deduce this reason The principall Pillers of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in all poynts of Religion the same Doctrine that she now holdeth and teacheth and in expresse tearmes condemneth for error and heresie most of those Articles which the Protestants esteeme to be the principall parts of their reformed Gospell Therefore if your Maiestie will resolutely imbrace and constantly defend that doctrine which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate you must forsake the Protestant and take the Catholike into your Princely protection speaker A. W. The most flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome is that out of question of the sinceritie whereof wee haue witnes in the Scripture from which no Church ought or may depart not because they may not dissent from the Church of Rome but because they must hold the true faith for which the Apostle commends the Church of Rome that then was The antecedent of your reason is false The Church of Rome in the Apostles time did not teach many of those points that the Popish Romish Church now holds witnes the Epistle to the Romanes wherein diuers maine matters of her faith are recorded speaker D. B. P. To demonstrate vnto your Maiestie that we now hold in all poynts the very same Doctrine which the most approoued auncient Doctors and holy Fathers held and deliuered Because it is too long for an Epistle I reserue it to the booke it selfe for the poynts it handleth and will here briefly note out of it some such old reprooued errors that the Protestants doe reuiue receiue and auowe as the very sinnewes of their Gospell speaker A. W. The most approued ancient Doctors holy fathers were the Apostles with whom how you shew your agreement in the points this booke handles wee shall see in the particulars All other writers haue those properties in a farre inferiour degree from among whom if I would deale strictly with you I might pick the Fathers of the Greeke Churches and all those of the Latin that were not members of the Romane as it was a distinct Church from all other For so is the Romane Church conceiued and spoken of by his Maiestie But I will not presse you so hard though I may chance to put you in minde of it now and then All points that haue been reprooued by some of the ancient writers are not errors and many times the same words haue not the same meaning speaker D. B. P. Martin Luther the ring-leader of the new pretended reformation layeth for the ground-worke of his Religion That man is iustified by only saith and in this he is applauded and followed of all Protestants and yet as testifieth the most sound witnes of antiquitie S. Austin that only faith is sufficient to Saluation was an error sprung vp in the Apostles dayes against which the Catholike Epistles of S. Peter and S. Iames and S. Iohn were principally directed And the author of that error was that infamous Sorcerer Simon Magus as the blessed Martyr Ireneus hath recorded in his first booke against heresies speaker A. W. For the doctrine of iustification by faith onely I referre the reader to the article of iustification That we are vnlike the heretikes of whom S. Augustine speakes it may thus apâ—… The faith they so magnified was a dead faith The Apostle 〈◊〉 Austin in refutation of them speaks not of euery kind â—… by which we beleeue in God but of that wholesome and truly â—…angelicall faith the workes whereof proceede from loue And againe How long therefore will they be deceiued that promise themselues euerlasting life by a dead faith Besides they despised good workes as needles either before or after iustification They thought saith Augustine that Paul wild vs to doe euill that good might come of it But it was not the Apostles meaning saith he that by the professing and inioyning of faith good workes of righteousnes should be despised But that euery man might know that he may be iustified though he haue not done the workes of the Law before For they follow him that is iustified not goe before him that is to be iustified Yea Simon the Sorcerer doubted not blasphemously to affirme that the commandements of holy life were giuen by the Angels that made the world who thereby brought men into slaâ—â—rie Of whom Theodâ—ret saith that because men are saued by grace and faith therefore he gaue by all meanes 〈◊〉 to commit wickednes speaker A. W. An other principall piller of Fryer Luthers Religion conâ—… niall of free will wherein he iumpeth with the olde rotten 〈…〉 Manes of whom the Maniâ—d cans were named Manes so denied free will that he tooke away all assent of the will in mens daily sinnes making the necessitie of sinning naturall from the creation as proceeding from the euill god or beginning which he blasphemously and absurdly deuised He saith Augustine made two diuers beginnings each contrary to other and both eternall And from these two natures and substances of good and euill so that he ascribed the beginning of sinne not to the freedome of will but to the substance of the aduerse faction Yea so faire proceeded the Manichees that they affirmed saith the same Augustine that euery liuing creature had two soules one from light another from darknes Manes brought in fatall necessitie saith Socrates and tooke away free will We contrariwise acknowledge that there is but one God or author of all things created that he made vs in our kinde perfectly good That sinne came in first by freedome of will both in men and Angels and that by free will without any necessitie of constraint it is daily committed It appeares further to our comfort in that place of S. Hierome that the Catholikes or true Christians in his time were in like sort charged by the Pelagians with the Manichees error in denying free will because they would not confesse that a man may be without sinne if he will which is one point of difference betwixt vs and the Papists speaker D. B. P. One Proâ—lus an erronius
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
hart and strength thus we vnderstand it more fully then he Yet finde not out that thirteenth article Thou must beleeue thine ovvne particular saluation For albeit I beleeue and trust in God yet not beâ—ng sure of my loue towards him I am not assured of saluation for as S. Iohnâ—estifieth â—estifieth He thâ—…â—…th not aâ—ideth in death A man may be bound to beleeue his owne saluation though it bee not among those twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed which your selues denie to be the limit of beleefe Master Perkins knew as well as you that by one part of Gods worship the whole was signified and for the point in question denies your assertion viz. that he cannot be sure of his loue towards God For he that can be sure he hath faith may be as sure he hath loue because no man is iustified but he that is also sanctified speaker W. P. And the articles concerning Remission of sinnes and Life euerlasting do include and we in them acknowledge our speciall faith concerning our owne saluation For to beleeue this or that is to beleeue there is such a thing and that the same thing belongs to me as when Dauid said I should haue fainted except I had beleeued to see the goodnesse of the Lord in the land of the liuing Psal. 27. 13. speaker D. B. P. So I answere to the second article named by M. Perkins that is I beleeue that God of his infinite mercy through the merits of Christs Passion doth pardon all those who being hartely sorry for their sinnes doe humblie confesse them and fully purpose to lead a new life that I my selfe am such a one I doe verily hope because I haue as farreforth as I could to my knowledge performed those things which God requires osme but because I am but a fraile creature and may perhaps not haue done all that so well as I ought or am not so well assured of that which by Gods helpe I haue done I cannot beleeue it for in matter of faith as you shall heare shortly there can be no feare or doubt speaker A. W. He that will ground his hope vpon his performance of that which God requires of him as farre foorth as he can hath no reason in the world to hope for any pardon For who is so bewitched with selfe-loue that hee discernes not how marueilously he hath failed in doing that he might do both in nature and grace But a true Christian beleeues that whosoeuer rests vpon God for saluation by Iesus Christ is by that faith truly iustified and so much he knowes of himselfe though he be priuie to many imperfections in his own cariage about the meanes and measure of beleeuing speaker W. P. It is answered that in those articles we onely professe our selues to beleeue remission of sinnes and life euerlasting to be vouchsafed to the people and Church of God Ans. This indeede is the exposition of many but it stands not with common reason For if that be all the faith that is there confessed the diuell hath as good a faith as we He knoweth and beleeueth that there is a God and that this God imparteth remission of sinnes and life euerlasting to his Church And to the ende that we being Gods children may in faith go beyond all the diuels in hel we must further beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting belongs vnto vs and vnlesse we doe particularly applie the said articles vnto our selues we shall little or nothing differ from the diuell in making confession of faith speaker D. B. P. The like answere is giuen to the article of life euerlasting I beleeue that I shal haue life euerlasting if I fulfill that which our Sauiour taught the young man demaunding what he must doe to haue life euerlasting to wit if I keepe all Gods commaundements but because I am not assured that I shall so doe yea the Protestants though falsely assure vs that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can so doe I remaine in feare But saith M. Perkins the Diuell may so beleeue the articles of the creede vnlesse we doe applie those articles to our selues First I say the Diuels know to be true all that we doe beleeue and therefore are said by Saint Iames to bâ—leeue but they want a necessarie condition of faith that is a godly and deuouâ— submission of their vnderstanding vnto the obedience of faith and so haue no â—aith to speake properly Againe they trust not in God for saluation noâ— indeuour not any manner of way to obtaine saluation as Christians do and so there is great difference betweene their belâ—… in the articles of the creede and ours speaker A. W. The voice of the Gospell is that whosoeuer beleeues shall be sâ—auâ—d That speech of our Sauiour is not a direction how to come to life euerlasting by the Gospell For it containes not sorgiuenes of sins nor faith in Christ the chiefe matter of it but a leâ—â—on for that proud Pharisie that hee might be conuinced by his owne confidence Which appeares by that second answere of our Sauiour wherein he shewes that the law requires per fit obedience which he had not attained to Indeede you Papists and some I grant before Poperie brake out dreame of a perfection beyond the law but we account the law so perfect that if the mans answere had been true he might well haue gone away assured of heauen though he had giuen neuer a penny more to the poore but died the richest man in all the world Our claime to euerlasting life is not by the law Doe this but by the Gospell Beleeue and thou shalt be saued That which you bring of the diuels beleeuing doth not any way ouerthrow Master Perkins answere You propound two differences that you haue conceiued betwixt the faith of Christians and Diuels as if you would thereby refute Master Perkins who saith not that their faith and ours is all one but that if no more be required but to beleeue remission of sinnes and life euerlasting to be vouchsafed to the people and Church of God their faith is as good as ours You replie that there are two differences but this doth not weaken Master Perkins consequence if there be no more required their faith is as good as ours You denie the assumption viz. That the diuels faith is as good as ours and so dispute for him against the obiection speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins in his first exception graunts That commonly men doe not beleeue their saluation as infallibly as they do the articles of the faith yet saith he some speciall men doe speaker A. W. Whereof I inferre by his owne confession that our particular saluation is not to be beleeued by faith for whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith is as infallible as the word of God which assureth vs of it TheÌ„ if the common sort of the faithfull doe not beleeue their saluation to be as
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
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
of Noe that he was iustisied long before God made him that promise yea before hee came out of the land of Canaan For by faith he obeyed God when he was called to goe out into a place which he should afterwards receiue for inheritance And this faith of his was not a bare beleeuing that which God spake but a resting vpon him accordingly and so was that the Apostle speakes of whereby God was especially glorified for this reposing himselfe vpon God argued the account he made of the fauour of God to him Now the beleefe in that promise was not only for the maltiplying of his naturall seede but for saluation by Christ to his spirituall children that P should beleeue as he had done and therefore it is called the Gospel that he beleeued This faith was counted to him for righteousnes as euery act is whereby a man beleeuing in Christ rests vpon the promise of God But the particular thing that is accepted to his iustification is his beleeuing in God for iustification by Iesus Christ. I will vse no other proofe but the phrase it selfe To beleeue in God which necessarily implies a relying vpon God for that wee desire being promised speaker D. B. P. The Centurions faith was very pleasing vnto our Sauiour who said in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israell What faith vvas that Mary that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Say the vvord only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed speaker A. W. The Centurions faith was not a iustifying faith but a meanes to it begotten in him by the consideration of our Sauiours power in working miracles though I doubt not but from this beleefe he was raised by God to a true faith for iustification by the Messias But this in it selfe was no more than the diuels haue acknowledging Christs power speaker D. B. P. S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers and highlie rewarded by our Sauiour was it any other Then that our Sauiour was Christ the Sonne of the liuing God speaker A. W. S. Peters confession in that place was no more in words but of Christs office Thou art Christ and his nature The son of the liuing God But if he had not also by faith rested on him to iustification this confession would haue done him but little pleasure for Satan himselfe beleeues as much and is damned speaker D. B. P. And briefly let S. Iohn that great secretary of the Holy Ghost tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell These things saith he are vvriten that you may beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name speaker A. W. Doth the preaching of the Gospell aime at nothing else Then what shall become of holinesse of life and good workes made by you the matter of your second iustification This is not the last end of the Gospell but the first and by this the other is wrought we must beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God so that by beleeuing this we come to him that is beleeue in him or rest vpon him for saluation and thereby attaine to euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well saying This is the vvord of faith vvhich vve preach for if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and shalt beleeue in thy hart that God raysed him from death thou shall be saued And in another place I make knowne vnto you the Gospell vvhich I haue preached and by vvhich you shall be saued vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vaine What was that Gospell J haue deliuered vnto you that vvhich I haue receiued that Christ died for our 〈◊〉 according to the Scriptures vvas buried and rose againe the third day c. So by the verdite of S. Paul the beleefe of the articles of the creâ—d is that iustifying faith by which you must be saued speaker A. W. Such is the testimonie of Paul For it is more than apparant that a man may beleeue in his heart that God raised Christ from the death and yet denie many necessarie heads of religion and be wholy cast away But the Apostle in this implies the rest and namely that which followes beleeuing in God that is if I may so often repeate the same thing resting vpon him for iustification by our Sauiour Iesus Christ. The same answere I make to the other place the point of the resurrection is of necessitie to be beleeued of as many as looke to be saued but that is not all that is required For if it be neither your preparations to iustification nor your merits after iustification are to any purpose speaker D. B. P. And neither in S. Paul nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught that a particular faith whereby we apply Christs righteousnes to our selues and assure our selues of our saluation is either a iustifying or any Christian mans faith but the very naturall act of that ougly Monster presumption Which being laid as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion what morall and modest conuersation what humility and deuotion can they build vpon it speaker A. W. All those places that require of vs faith in Christ teach vs also that a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues by trusting to him for iustification is the only proper iustifying faith because to it nothing can be added for the matter of beleeuing A man may acknowledge that there is a God and giue credit as to a certaine truth to all that God reueales and yet not beleeue in God to iustification But he that performes this latter must needs also acknowledge the former This then being the height of faith is in the Scripture counted a iustifying faith speaker W. P. The II. difference touching faith in the act of iustification is this The Papist saith we are iustified by faith because it disposeth a sinner to his iustification after this manner By faith saith he the mind of man is inlightened in the knowledge of the law and Gospell knowledge stirres vp a feare of hell with a consideration of the promise of happinesse as also the loue and feare of God and hope of life eternall Now when the heart is thus prepared God infuseth the habite of charitie and other vertues whereby a sinner is iustified before God We say otherwise that faith iustifieth because it is a supernaturall Instrument created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion whereby hee apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse for his iustification speaker D. B. P. The second difference in the manner of iustification is about the formall act of faith which M. Perkins handleth as it were by the way cuttedly I will be as short as he the matter not being great The Catholiks reach
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
1 the Apostle may be applied to the proposition because they that would be circumcised would be iustified by the workes of the law Whereupon it followeth that he that will be iustified by workes is bound to keepe the whole law For so the Apostle saith of them that will be iustified by circumcision speaker W. P. III. Election to saluation is of grace without workes therefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes For it is a certaine rule that the cause of a cause is the cause of a thing caused Now grace without works is the cause of election which election is the cause of our iustification and therefore grace without workes is the cause of our iustification speaker D. B. P. Ans. That election is of grace vvithout vvorkes done of our ovvne simple forces or vvithout the vvorks of Moses lavv but not vvithout prouision of good vvorkes issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits speaker A. W. This answere is not only against the Apostle Paul and Austins exposition of him but also contrarie to Lombard Thomas Bellarmine and generally the learnedst Papists as it shall appeare if this writer giue occasion speaker W. P. IV. A man must first be fully iustified before he can doe a good worke for the person must first please God before his works can please him But the person of a sinner cannot please God till he bee perfectly iustified and therefore till he bee iustified hee cannot doe so much as one good worke And thus good works cannot be any meritorious causes of iustification after which they are both for time and order of nature In a word whereas they make two distinct iustifications wee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification yet so as iustification is onely one standing in remission of sinnes and Gods acceptation of vs to life euerlasting by Christ and this iustification hath no degrees but is perfect at the very first OF THE SECOND IVSTIFICATION speaker D. B. P. THe fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can doe a good vvorke and therefore good vvorkes cannot goe before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification And hauing before discussed the first and the second novv remaining and expecting you vvhy did you not say one vvord of it the matter being ample and vvell vvorthy the handling speaker A. W. He that denieth a second iustification and hath disprooued it neede not stand vpon a deuice of yours how worthy the handling soeuer you thinke it speaker D. B. P. Albeit you vvill not vvillingly confesse any second iustification as you say Yet had it been your partat least to haue disproued such arguments as vve bring to proue a second iustification Ye acknovvledge that there be degrees of sanctification But these degrees must be made dovvnevvard of euill vvorser and vvorst for if all our sanctification and best vvorkes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold else vvhere let any vvise man iudge vvhat degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it speaker A. W. But that you knew none of your side doe vse to reade our bookes nor dare without your licence neither you nor other of your Popish complices would for shame write in this sort You haue been often answered that wee acknowledge inherent righteousnesse and labour for and by the grace of God attaine to the increase of it in some measure from day to day speaker A. W. Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnes which can neuer after be either lost or increased Why then doe you with your brother Jounuan maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you wel coursed read S. Hierome S. Amorose S. Augustine S. Gregorie speaker D. B. P. We maintaine that all men are equally righteous in regard of iustification but vnequally in respect of sanctification Iouinian is rather one of your brood who hold that a man being iustified is wholy without sin euen in Gods iudgement At least you must needs vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against vvhich I vvill put dovvne these reasons follovving speaker A. W. First that of the reuelations Let him that is iust be yet iustified or as your text hath it He that is righteous let him be more righteous speaker D. B. P. He that is iustified is as righteous at the first as at the last in respect of iustification but not inherent righteousnes or sanctification of which the places you alleage are meant and therefore need no further answere But that you may the rather see our desire to satisfie you I will speake a little of them Iustified in that place signifieth to proceede in doing iustly as Ribera the Iesuite proueth by the opposition in the other part of the sentence Let him that hurteth hurt still that is goe forward in your hurting saith he and so let him that hurteth no bodie but giueth euery man his due goe forward in so doing Let him that doth good saith your glosse yet doe good more abundantly Let him that is righteous saith Cyprian in two places doe yet more righteous things and him that is holy more holy The Greeke Scholiast reade it thus Let him that is righteous yet worke righteousnes And so doe the Greeke Testaments printed by Plantin and the Interlinear Bible too so that there is not so much as the word iustified in some of your owne Greeke copies And that feare not to be iustified euen vntill death do conuince that there are more iustifications then one and that a man may increase in iustification and righteousnes vntill death speaker A. W. That of Ecclesiasticus would haue been spared till you haue proued that booke to be canonicall which you know we deny and that as we are sure with the consent of the auncient Church at least you should not haue alleadged it with so grosie an error in the translation The Greek is differ not The old Latin was in all likelyhood Be not forbidden or hindered as it may appeare by Vatablus edition of it by Robert Stephens that of Antwerpe and that with the glosse where Lyra expounds it ne prohibearis Andradius deliuers it thus Let there be nothing that may hinder thee from praying alwaies or may let thee from being iustified euen vntill death Some ignorant writer that copied out the booke finding ne veteris be not let and mistaking t for r writ ne
issue out of our soules now garnished vvith grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directhe that we are iustified and that this iusuce doth increase whiles it doth proceed and profit speaker A. W. This labour might haue bin saued For we grant that Abraham by this glorious fact was iustified euen before God that is was knowne to be iustified or to haue true faith as he was known to feare God by it not that God was ignorant before either of his faith or feare but because it pleased him by this deed to take as it were speciall notice of them both as men doe That righteousnes is increased by holie actions I shewed before and that therefore we are iustified by them that is more sanctified speaker D. B. P. Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion for they holding faith to be the only instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O yee of little faith And then a little after I haue not found so great faith in Israell And O Lord increase our saith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith but all one Againe M. Perkins deliuereth plainly That men at the first are not so vvell assured of their saluation as they are aftervvard If then in the certainety of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe speaker A. W. Degrees of faith we deny not but increase of iustification thereupon except it be in our feeling In which respect it receiueth continuall growth but in it selfe it cannot because God doth account faith to vs for righteousnes and forgiue our sinnes not by halues but fully vpon the least measure of true beleeuing Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid bee iudged according to his righteousnesse then may hee be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnesse and therefore he was iustified thereby Answ. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnesse of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this Psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnesse of the action or innocencie of his cause in that hee was falslie charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psalm 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnesse not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glorie Obiect II. The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commaundements Yet is he not blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whom he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof Obiect III. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by prayer and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Answ. Indeed men that truly humble themselues by prayer and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merites of Christ in whom the Father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. Obiect IV. Sundrie persons in Scriptures are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all bee perfect and where there is any perfection of works there also workes may iustifie Answ. There bee two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in parts is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in all and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degree is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the very rigor therof in the highest degree Now then whereas we are commaunded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commaundements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in partes and not of perfection in degrees which cannot bee attained vnto in this life though we for our parts must dailie striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can Obiect V. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our momentarie afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Answ. Afflictions work saluation not as causes procuring it but as a meanes directing vs thereto And thus alwaies must we esteeme of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certaine way or a marke therein directing vs to glorie not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are via regni non causa regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there Obiect VI. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Answ. The proposition is false for iudgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is alreadie iust and iustification is an other act of God whereby hee maketh him to bee iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life Obiect VII Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Answ. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good worke of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie Obiect VIII To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by all the workes of
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
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
worke though he had not promised it And indeed this is the verie maine point of your doctrine of merits howsoeuer you blaunch it with the name of grace I proue it first by the Councell it selfe then by Andradius the expounder of the Councels meaning Seeing that Christ Iesus sayes the Councell doth continually infuse vertues into them that are iustified as the head into the members which vertue alwaies goes before accompanieth and followeth their good workes and without which they could in no sort be acceptable to God and meritorious we must beleeue that there is nothing else wanting to them that are iustified why they should not be thought fullâ—e to haue satisfied the law of God as farre as the estate of this life requires by those workes that are done in God and to haue truly deserued at their time euerlasting life prouided that they depart in the estate of grace Andradius who was present at the Councill and one that debated matters with other Doctors though he had no voyce in determining because he was not a Bishop yet he could not chuse but perfectly vnderstand the poynts that were agreed vpon otherwise we may be sure he should neuer haue been suffered to vndertake the defence of the Councill as hee hath been if not chosen to it He then thus opens the matter That euerlasting felicitie is no lesse due to the workes of the righteous than euerlasting torments are to their sinnes that obey not the Gospell nor know God that heauenly felicitie which the Scripture calles the rewards and wages of the righteous is not so much freely and liberally bestowed vpon them by God as it is due to their workes Which he proues thus When Paul saith Andradius would shew that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by workes he doth it especially by this reason To him that worketh the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt therefore if Abrahams righteousnes were the wages of his workes it ought to be called debt rather than grace For the nature of wages is directly contrary to the name of grace Vpon this reason he concludes That euerlasting felicitie must not be counted according to grace but according to debt And a little after Therefore if any wages be due to the worthie actions of the righteous there is in them the true and whole nature of merit This then is the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning merits That the good workes of them that haue the first iustification do truly and wholy deserue euerlasting felicitie of God as wages due to them by debt not by grace Let no man be deceiued because to colour the matter they make mention of vertue comming continually from Christ as from the vine into the branches for this is nothing else but the increase of grace whereby Christians are enabled to doe good workes and added no more worthines to the action than should be in it if this grace were receiued from Christ all at one instant as for the substance of it it is at the time of our iustification speaker D. B. P. In infants baptized there is a kind of merit or rather dignity of adopted Sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme whereby they are made heires of the Kingdome of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either meritlife or for want of such fruit of it fall into the miserable state of death speaker A. W. Infants baptized if they belong to Gods election haue indeed the prerogatiue to be Gods children and thereby an interest to the kingdome of heauen as their inheritance All that come to yeeres of discretion must bring foorth fruites of faith and shall haue reward for them in heauen not vpon merit because their best workes are defectiue but only vpon Gods gratious promise and mercifull acceptance in Iesus Christ. Our consent speaker W. P. Touching merits we consent in two conclusions with them The first conclusion that merits are so farre forth necessarie that without them there can be no saluation The second that Christ our Mediatour and Redeemer is the roote and fountaine of all merit The dissent and difference The Popish Church placeth merits within man making two sorts thereof the merit of the person and the merit of the worke The merit of the person is a dignity in the person whereby it is worthy of life euerlasting And this as they say is to be found in Infants dying after baptisme who though they want good workes yet are they not voide of this kinde of merite for which they receiue the kingdome of heauen The merit of the worke is a dignitie or excellencie in the worke whereby it is made fitte and inabled to deserue life euerlasting for the doer And workes as they teach are meritorious two waies first by couenant because God hath made a promise of reward vnto them secondly by their owne dignitie for Christ hath merited that our workes might merit And this is the substance of their doctrine From it we dissent in these points I. Wee renounce all personall merits that is all merits within the person of any meere man II. And we renounce all merit of workes that is all merit of any worke done by any meere man whatsoeuer And the true merit whereby wee looke to attaine the fauour of God and life euerlasting is to bee found in the person of Christ alone who is the storehouse of all our merits whose prerogatiue it is to bee the person alone in whom God is well pleased Gods fauour is of infinite dignitie and no creature is able to do a worke which may counteruaile the fauour of God saue Christ alone who by reason of the dignitie of his person being not a meere man but God-man or Man-God hee can doe such workes as are of endlesse dignitie euery way answerable to the fauour of God and therefore sufficient to merit the same for vs. And though a merit or meritorious worke agree onely to the person of Christ yet is it made ours by imputation For as his righteousnesse is made ours so are his merits depending thereon but his righteousnesse is made ours by imputation as I haue shewed Hence ariseth an other point namely that as Christs righteousnesse is made ours really by imputation to make vs righteous so we by the merit of his righteousnesse imputed to vs doe merit and deserue life euerlasting And this is our doctrine In a word the Papists maintaine the merits of their owne workes but we renounce them all and rest onelie on the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. With the former Catholike Doctrine M. Perkins would be thought to agree in two points First That merits are necessary to saluation 2. That Christ is the roote and fountaine of all merit speaker A. W. Master Perkins in the poynt of our consent with you meant not merits
thing of their Soueraigne Consider saith he that they which rule amongst vs doe not thanke any of their subiects if they doe any of those things that are enioyned them but oftentimes by their bountie stirring their subiects affections they breed in them a greater desire to serue so God requires seruice of vs by right Now because he is mercifull and good he promiseth honours to them that labour and the greatnes of his bountie ouerpasseth the paines of his subiects Your glosse saith that we are seruants because we are bought with a price vnprofitable because God hath no neede of our good workes or because our present sufferings are not worthie of the glorie that shall be reueiled in vs. Which reasons of our vnprofitablenes Thomas also brings out of Bede so doe your ordinarie glosse and Lyra expound it making vs seruants euen after regeneration as Austin truly saith that Christ did not make vs free men of seruants but of euill seruants good seruants speaker D. B. P. And thus we fall vpon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious worke Which is That it be done to the profit of another and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit by our workes yet doth he in the administration of his holy common weale the Church wherein good mens seruices do much pleasure him And in this sense is it said of Saint Paul That by cleansing our selues from vvicked vvorkes vve shall become vessels sanctified and profitable vnto our Lord. Againe God is glorified by our good vvorkes That seeing your good vvorkes they may glorifie your Father vvhich is in heauen Finally God doth reioyce at the recouery of his lost children speaker A. W. Not onely good but also bad mens seruices may be said to profit God if euery thing that benefits his Church must be held to be of profit to him But we neither can profit nor pleasure him nor glorifie him truly and properly but onely in his acceptation And so whatsoeuer reward shall be giuen for these seruices it proceedes from Gods gratious bountie not from our desert speaker D. B. P. If then good men trauailing painfully in Gods Vine-yard do yeeld him outwardly both honor ioy and commoditie that may suffice to make their worke meritorious speaker A. W. To the conclusion you inferre hereupon which is the proposition of a syllogisme to proue the maine point that our works are meritorious I answere by denying the consequence thereof and say that it doth not follow that our workes merit euerlasting life because our trauaile doth yeeld him outwardly honour ioy and glorie The reason of my deniall is this that a slaue may by his paines and seruice procure all these things to his master and that out of his loue to him and yet deserue nothing at his hands The assumption that should be added I denied and refuted in the former part of my answere speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins fourth property is That the vvorke and revvard be equall in proportion speaker A. W. If you pleaded for nothing but reward the sute were ended For we as I haue said before grant that God will reward the least good worke of any of his children But the question is whether he doe this of his bountie onely or of necessitie being bound to it by the law of iustice This we denie you affirme viz. that the good workes of a man iustified doe truly or of right deserue increase of grace euerlasting life and the fruition of it if he depart in grace and also increase of glorie and further you accurse all them to hell that say otherwise speaker D. B. P. If he vnderstand Arithmeticall proportion that is that they be equal in quantitie to wit the one to be as great or of as long continuance as the other then we deny this kind of equality to be requisite to merit there is another sort of proportion called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometricall and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vnto the other as when a good office is giuen to a Citizen of desert it may be that the honour and commoditie of the office is farre greater then was the merit of the man yet he being as well able to discharge it as another and hauing better deserued it is holden in true iustice worthie of it speaker A. W. It is no true merit such as you auow it to be in the true and whole nature of merit vnlesse it be fully answerable in value to the reward Therefore to speake properly and truly the citizen you name doth not simply deserue the office but as your selfe confesse in comparison of other his fellow subiects So that though there were more in him than in other why the Prince should bestow that place vpon him yet it is rather a gift than a debt else should the King offend against iustice if he did not giue it him speaker D. B. P. In like manner in a game where masteries are tried the prize is giuen vnto him that doth best not because the value of the reward is iust as much worth as that act of the man who winneth it but for that such actiuity is esteemed worthy of such a recompence Now the crowne of heauenly â—lorie is likened by S. Paul vnto a Garland in a game where he â—aâ—th That vve all runne but one carrieth avvay the prize And He that striueth for the masterie is not crovvned vnlesse he striue lavvfully It is also resembled vnto places of honour I vvill place thee ouer much And I goe to prouide you places speaker A. W. Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede For the seede of God tarrieth in him But a little â—eede cast into good ground and well manured bringeth forth abundance of corne Briefely then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subiect and the office betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betweene the seed and the corne is between the reward of heauen and the meâ—â—t of a true seruant of God And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument more indeed to explâ—cate the nature and condition of merit then that his reason nakedly proposed did require it What shall I need to answer to your similitude of games since your selfe denie that it is truly and properly desert But to make the matter more plaine let vs a little consider it in this sort where there is an agreement as in these games though there be not properly any merit yet there may be somewhat that shal come neere to the nature of merit That there is no merit you yeeld in granting that the reward is more in value than the act of him that winneth Notwithstanding if the prize be it what it will be propounded to them that shall not onely passe other men in the race but also runne home to the goale in such a space of time
For if we say we haue no sin wee deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1. 7. And he that sinnes against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law And what can he merit that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law speaker D. B. P. I deny the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit as by all the properties of merit may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merit set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good Father Doe on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bin proued at large in a seuerall question To that of S. Iames although it belong not to this matter I answere that he who offendeth in one is made guilty of all that is he shall be as surely condomned as if he had broken all See S. Augustine speaker A. W. You denie the proposition but if you did remember that the question is of meriting euerlasting life which requires the keeping of the whole law you would neuer stick at it for no man can be guiltie of the whole law as euery one is that failes in any one commandement and yet deserue euerlasting life The reason of your deniall is not sufficient for no one worke done with neuer so due circumstances can bring forth any merit of euerlasting life whereof Master Perkins speakes in his definition Indeede this reason is nothing but a bare deniall of Master Perkins proofe That you add of a mans losing and recouering his merit is liker a dreame then a point of diuinitie as it may well appeare by the poore proofe you bring of it viz. a speech out of an allegory and that also falsly translated his former garment for that best or principall garment Your vulgar latine calls it the first garment Pagnin that principall your interlinear glosse expounds it to signifie the garment of the holie ghost and the ordinarie glosse giues a reason why it is called the first because it is the garment of innocency in which the first man was created which interpretation is taken out of Austin But to the matter What reason is there that merit should not be recompenced according to iustice If a man haue once deserued euerlasting life why should he not haue it Or if that merit be once lost how can it be restored againe but only by Gods acceptation and then how can it be truly and properly merit You must not only say but shew too that the place of S. Iames belongs not to this matter els it is an easie matter to answere any authority of scripture Let vs grant your owne interpretation that he which breakes one commandement shall be certainely condemned how then can he deserue euerlasting life without keeping all the commandements And what a strange and vnsauorie doctrine is it that he which hath merited euerlasting life may be damned But the meaning of the Apostle is that the seuerall commandements are as it were seuerall conditions of a couenant betwixt God and man whereof if any one be broken the whole bond is forfeited how exactly soeuer all the rest haue bin performed what merit then can there be of life where the partie is liable to damnation speaker W. P. Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our daily bread Wherein we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be euery way the gift of God It must needs therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine that hee can by his workes merit eternall life who cannot merit bread speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomely that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerely the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our peny or trauaile we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Paules rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not cate Yet because our trauailes are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God daily to giue vs our nuriture either by sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stir ring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes speaker A. W. You take greater paines to disgrace Master Perkins Arguments then to disproue or vnderstand them his reason lyes thus He that cannot merit bread cannot merit euerlasting life But no man can merit bread Therefore no man can merit euerlasting life The proposition stands vpon the comparison of inequality from the lesse to the greater for it is a lesse matter to deserue bread then to merit euerlasting life The assumption is proued by that clause of the Lords prayer wherein we beg our dayly bread which we might claime of due debt if we could deserue it In stead of answering some part of the syllogisme you tell vs that we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle without our owne trauell or cost which is as much to purpose as if you should say we must eate our bread when we haue it if we will be fed It is but a mockery to pray to God for it if we know we haue deserued it vnlesse perhaps we thinke him so vniust that it is well if we can get our owne of him by any meanes whatsoeuer We deny not that we are to vse the meanes both for the one and the other but that we can deserue either by vsing the meanes speaker W. P. Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church Bernard Those which we call our merits are the way to the kingdome and not the cause of raigning speaker D. B. P. But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the auncient Church and then beginneth
conscience as dutifull children God giueth them eternall life And hereupon it is termed a reward speaker D. B. P. Wherefore M. Perkins skippes to a second shift that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance but not a reward Reply We know well that it is an inheritance because it is only due vnto the adopted Sonnes of God but that hindereth not it to be a reward for that it is our heauenly fathers pleasure that all his Sons comming to the yeares of discretion shall by their good carriage either deserue it or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited speaker A. W. An inheritance is not due to the sonne onely because none except hee bee a sonne can haue it but is his proper right because he is a sonne And therfore it is vnreasonable both in Diuinitie and Law that the sonne should be bound to purchase that by his labour to which by a naturall right he hath full interest This is our case for though we are not sonnes by nature but by adoption yet being sonnes and heires yea ioynt heires with Christ the naturall sonne of whose bodie we are members the very nature of our sonneship or being sonnes conueies vnto vs a sufficient and certaine title to the inheritance It is indeed the pleasure of God our Father that we should labour to expresse our thankfulnes by all holy obedience to him that hath adopted vs for his children and that we after this labour should receiue the inheritance not deserue that by our labour to which wee haue alreadie a farre better claime by being sonnes speaker W. P. Thirdly if I should graunt that life euerlasting is a deserued reward it is not for our workes but for Christs merit imputed to vs causing vs thereby to merit and thus the relation stands directly between the Reward and Christs Merit applied vnto vs. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answeres flies to a third and graunteth that eternal life is a reward yet not of our workes but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs This is that Castle wherin he holds himselfe safe from all Canon shotte but he is fouly abused for this answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture examine any one of the places and a babe may discouer the incongruity of it Namely Christ saith that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake Assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake and not to his owne merits imputed and if you desire a formall sentence fitting this purpose take this Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his ovvne proper labour And not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him So a doer of the vvorke shall be blessed in his deed And not in the imputation of anothers deed speaker A. W. Master Perkins did not nor needed mistrust either of his former answers but because he knew that diuers men were moued with diuers reasons he added this third to see if by Gods blessing this might giue satisfaction where the other were not fully vnderstood It is not Master Perkins meaning to say that in these our works there is desert by Christs merit imputed but that if the children of God must needes be thought to receiue euerlasting life as of merit the merit is properly Christs imputed to them speaker W. P. Obiect II. Christ by his death merited that our workes should merit life euerlasting Answ. That is false all we find in Scripture is that Christ by his merit procured pardon of sinne imputation of righteousnesse and life euerlasting and it is no where said in the word of God that Christ did merit that our workes should merit it is a dotage of their owne deuising He died not for our good workes to make them able to satisfie Gods anger but for our sinnes that they might be pardoned Thus much saith the Scripture and no more And in that Christ did sufficiently merit life eternall for vs by his owne death it is a sufficient proofe that hee neuer intended to giue vs power of meriting the same vnlesse wee suppose that at some time hee giues more then is needefull Againe Christ in the office of mediation as he is a King Priest and Prophet admitteth no deputie or fellow For he is a most perfect Mediatour doing all thinges by himselfe without the helpe of any And the Ministers that dispence the word are not his deputies but reasonable and voluntarie instruments which he vseth But if men by workes can merit increase of grace and happinesse for themselues then hath Christ partners in the worke of redemption men doing that by him which hee doth of himselfe in procuring their saluation Nay if this might stand that Christ did merit that our workes should merit then Christ should merit that our stained righteousnesse beeing for this cause not capable of merit should neuerthelesse merit I call it stained because we are partly flesh and partly spirit and therfore in our selues deseruing the curse of the law though wee bee regenerate Againe for one good worke wee doe wee haue many euill the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes and makes them too light in the ballance of the law speaker D. B. P. Insteed of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins I vvill confirme the first with such texts of holy writ as specifie plainly your good workes to be the cause of eternall life speaker A. W. The second reason is so cleerely set downe that me thinkes you dare not looke vpon it for feare of hauing your eyes dazled by the brightnes of it A sillie shift to auoid an argument which you cannot answere speaker D. B. P. Come vnto me yee blessed of my Father possesse a Kingdome prepared for you And why so For vvhen I vvas hungry yee gaue me meate And so foorth the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants who imployed well their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue been faithfull in fevv things I vvill place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly saide to be the very cause why God rewardeth them with the kingdome of heauen Thorefore he must needs be holden for a very vvrangler that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches and vvould make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth only signifie an order of things speaker A. W. The places you bring to prooue that good workes are the cause of eternall life proue not that the things that were done did truly and wholy deserue such a reward which is the question No more doth Austins exposition Wee are iudged according to our workes so that if any man should wonder why these are receiued into heauen those cast
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
the will and vnderstanding of man and by this meanes they are tainted with sinne as water in the fountaine is both cleare and sweete yet the streames thereof passing through the filthie channell are defiled thereby Againe they reason thus That which we are bound to doe hath no fault in it but we are bound to doe good workes therefore they are perfect Answ. The proposition must be expounded that which we are bound to doe in it selfe according to the intention of the commander hath no fault or that which we are bound to doe according as we are bound to doe it hath no fault yet in regard of the intention of the doer or in regard of our manner of doing it may bee faultie speaker A. W. M. Perkins fourth obiection for vs is proposed vnskilfully yet could he not ansvvere it but by relying vpon that vvhich is most vntrue that forsooth no one action of the best man is vvithout fault vvhith hath bin alreadie confuted and might be by instances of Abrahams oblation of his Sonne S. Iohn Baptists preaching and reprehending of Herode Stephens martyrdome vvith infinite such like in vvhich M. Perkins nor any else vvill be able to shevv in particular vvhat fault there vvas Will this shifting neuer be left What want of skill finde you in propounding the obiection If you could haue told we should haue been sure to heare of it Well let reasonable men iudge There lackes only the proposition which any man may supplie and the assumption wherein the doubt lies is prooued by a further reason speaker D. B. P. What meanes this yet as if he had propounded it vnskilfully that he might answere it the easier Is not his answere plaine and direct to the proofe of the assumption in which the strength of the argument consists But you say his answere hath been alreadie confuted I replie that the confutation hath been alreadie answered And to the instances you now bring I adde further that howsoeuer wee cannot alleage any particular faults in the worthie actions of some extraordinarie men yet we intreat you to remember that they were men hauing the flesh in them lusting against the spirit naturall corruption not wholy abolished to taint their workes and that God can see an error or want where men thinke the thing cannot be bettered Againe our Sauiour saith That if the eye be simple the vvhole body is lightsome not hauing any part of darknes in it and very reason teacheth vs that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances may be perfect speaker A. W. I would faine heare what you would conclude vpon that place of the eyes simplenes If by the eye you vnderstand the heart and thinke to proue that mens actions are good because the heart is good either your consequence of the proposition is naught if by heart you meane intent for a good intent makes not by and by a good worke or else your assumption will be false imagining such a measure of purenes in the heart as is not in this life to be found Your Glosse vpon the place referres it to the intention but argues not from thence any perfection If thou do good works with as pure intention as thou are able they are the works of light though it seeme not so to the world And another Glosse saith that by the intent works are discerned whether they be works of light or of darkenes not as you say whether they be perfit or vnperfit A third Glosse restraines it more saying it is a metaphoricall speach as if he should haue said as thy bodily eye directs thy bodily actions so the eye of the mind by a right intention directs humane actions as farre as concernes the nature of morall goodnes If the intent of the mind be right the whole heape of thy actions shall be good and belie so that the worke be lawfull for the kind of it I will adde no more let all men iudge what truth there is like to be in that doctrine that can find no better warrant of scripture speaker A. W. It vvas then a very seely shift to say that neuer any man did any one action vvith all his due circumstances Whose shift is this sure not Master Perkins in this answere But why is it a shift because you say that reason teacheth vs that a mans actions for substance and all due circumstances may be perfit I dare not take it for true vpon your word in morall actions according to the light of nature and if it were true in them I should not be resolued that therefore it were also true in them according to the law of God speaker D. B. P. But insteed of that fourth Argument I vvill put this If a greater revvard be due vnto them that do better workes then a reward is due vn-them that do good workes vvhici is euident in reason But a greatot revvard is prouided for them that doe better speaker A. W. He that considers this reason of yours would thinke there was small cause why you should condemne Master Perkins for want of skill in propounding the last argument for you to mend the matter first bring vs out a false syllogisme and then conclude that which we denie not your syllogisme is false because the assumption is not taken out of the proposition as it should be but is a new matter as it were a fourth terme brought in for your assumption should be But a greater reward is due in steed whereof you say a greater is prouided Now to be prouided and to be due is not all one because many things are prouided for meere gifts whch are no way due your conclusion must be Therefore a reward is due to them which do good works who saith otherwise but this due is of promise not of desert speaker D. B. P. As S. Augustine grounded vpon Gods vvord proueth in sundry places namâ—ly vpon that For starre dissereth from starre in glory so shall be the resurrection from the dead specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort chastity in vvedlocke after another and holy vviddovvhood yet after another all saith he shall be there but they shine diuersly And of the same vvorke affirmeth That martyrdome shall be higher revvarded then any other vvorke The like doth he vpon those vvords One ground shall yeeld thirty fold another threescore folde another an hundred folde Comparing chastity in vvedlocke to the thirtie in vviddovves to the sixtie and in virgins to the hundred But most directly in his sixtie seauen treatise vpon S. Iohns Gospell vpon this verse Jn my Fathers house are many mansions vvhere he saith that albeit some be holier iuster and more valiant then others yet there shall be fit roomes for them all vvhere euery one is to receiue his place according vnto his merit That peny spoken of by vvhich saith he is signified eternall life shall be giuen to euery man equally because
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
not to be recorded yet it is strange that Moses should not once make mention of them in generall Thomas expounds it of adding to the words of the Scripture And if it be lawful for all these prohibitions to adde other doctrines why doth Chrysostome reprooue the Iewish Priests for hauing added many things to the law though Moses with threatning charged them they should not For it is certaine they neuer added to nor any way corrupted the text But Chrysostome accuseth them of adding because they deliuered doctrines that were not written in the Scripture as our Sauiour also saith of them Cardinall Caietan wils vs to gather from this place that the law of God is perfect speaker D. B. P. Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses Lavv that therefore nothing must be added vnto the same Law is extreame dotage speaker A. W. What is it to refute that which your aduersarie saith not Master Perkins proues that Moses spake of the written law because he sets it as a preface before his Commentarie vpon the same law You answere nothing to that but crie out vpon extreame dotage for inferrring that because it is a preface to Moses law therefore nothing must be added to it Who inferres any such matter but your selfe You need not make worke you haue your hands full speaker D. B. P. Why then were the bookes of the old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these vvords or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them vvell did vvilfully transgresse against them one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alleadging of this text for the all sufficiencie of the written vvord We neither need nor will defend either of them But we denie your consequence if no man might adde any thing to the law of God deliuered by Moses then the Prophets offended in writing so many volumes The reason is that the Prophets writ not as men but as the instruments of Gods spirit inditing and penning by them God did not tie his owne hands by that commandement that he might not from time to time instruct his people as it should seeme good to his infinite wisedome To speake yet more plainly the Prophets and Apostles writings are nothing els but expositions of that the summe whereof is deliuered in the fiue bookes of Moses wherein the whole doctrine of the Law and the Gospell is contained speaker W. P. Testimonie II. Isai. 8. 20. To the law and to the testimonie If they speake not according to this worde it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth what must be done in cases of difficultie Men must not runne to the wizard or southsaier but to the law and testimonie and here he commends the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts and scruples in conscience whatsoeuer speaker D. B. P. Here the Prophet teacheth saith M. Perkins vvhat is to be done in cases of difficulty Men must not runne to the Wizards and Soothsayers but to the Lavve and to the Testament commending the vvritten vvord as sufficient to resolue all doubts By the Lavv and testimony in that place the fiue books of Moses are to be vnderstood If that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts vvhatsoeuer What need vve then the Prophets vvhat need vve the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles What Wizard vvould haue reasoned in such sort speaker A. W. The Scripture is not to resolue all doubts but all doubts and scruples of conscience whatsoeuer which you craftily leaue out in propounding our reason Your consequence is false If the fiue bookes of Moses be sufficient for the resoluing of al doubts what need any writings of the Prophets Euangelists or Apostles Is not the Ciuill and Canon law in your iudgement sufficient to resolue all doubts in cases concerning them is there therefore no need of any exposition thereof The rest of the Scripture is a Commentarie vpon those fiue bookes Besides is nothing required in the scripture but resoluing of doubts The historie of the Church is worth the knowing for our instruction comfort exhortation imitation and such like speaker D. B. P. The Prophet vvilleth there that the Israelites vvho vvanted vvit to discerne vvhether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell than vnto Wizards and Sooth-sayers to see vvhat is vvritten in the Lavv of Moses concerning that point of consulting Wizards vvhich is there plainely forbidden in diuers places Novv out of one particular case vvhereof there is expresse mention in the vvritten vvord to conclude that all doubts and scruples vvhatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great vvant of light in him as vvas in those blind Israelites speaker A. W. The Prophet doth not send them to the Law and to the testimonie to see whether it be lawfull to enquire of Soothsayers or no but tels them that they must looke into the booke of God to see whether such iudgements as the Prophets threatned should not befall them if they continued their sinning against God So that hee wils them not to hearken what the Southsayers say of their escaping the iudgements that the Prophets denounced but to trie whether their promises of safetie or the others threatning of destruction were agreeable to the word of God Though the case be particular which you put amisse yet if the triall of the Prophets doctrine be to be made by the scripture as it is wherein may we looke to vnwritten traditions speaker W. P. Testimonie III. Iohn 20. 31. These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue euerlasting life Here is set downe the full end of the Gospell and of the whole written word which is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation and therefore the whole scripture alone is sufficient to this ende without traditions speaker D. B. P. 3. Testimony These things vvere vvritten that yee might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set dovvne the full end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to vvhich the vvhole Scripture alone is sufficient vvithout Traditions Ans Here are more faults than lines First the text is craftily mangled Things being put in steed of Miracleâ— For S. Iohn saith Many other Miracles Christ did c but these vvere vvritten c. speaker A. W. Mangling is cutting off some part not putting one word for another especially such a word as containes the other Things-comprehends both doings and sayings and to both doth one of your Glosses referre this narration euen on the former verse where the word miracle is set
of Christ concerning building the temple againe This saith the Gospell the disciples then vnderstood not but after his resurrection they came to the true vnderstanding of it We say not that our Sauiour deliuered to them euery point of doctrine distinctly but that he furnished them with so much knowledge as that they might easily by that light gather and write whatsoeuer was needfull to be beleeued to the penning whereof they had the speciall direction of the spirit both for matter and maner Iansenius Bishop of Gaunt is wholie of the same opinion affirming that those many things were not diuers from those which he had taught them before but a more plaine exposition of them and to that purpose he alleages very fitly that place of the Apostle I could not speake to you as vnto spirituall men but as it were vnto carnall men to little ones in Christ. Didymus about the yeare 580. expounded the place thus This he saith that his auditors had not yet conceiued all things which he had told them that afterward they were to suffer for his name sake And afterward as yet also saith Didymus being vnder the type of the law and shadowes they could not discerne of the truth the shadow whereof the law caryed speaker D. B. P. This place of S. Iohn M. Perkins patcheth vp vvith another of S. Paul If vve or any Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing besides that vvhich we haue preached let him be accursed And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that vvhich he had taught Ans. Now we must looke vnto the Gentlemans fingers There were three corruptions in the text of S. Iohn here is one but it is a foule one Insteed of preaching vnto them another Gospell he puts preach vnto them any other thing when there is great difference betweene another Gospell and any other thing The Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith and the whole worke of Gods building in vs which S. Paul like a wise Architect had laide in the Galathians others his fellow workemen might build vpon it gold siluer and pretious stones with great merit to themselues and thanks from S. Paul Marry if any should digge vp that blessed and only foundation would lay a new one him S. Paul holdeth for accursed So that that falsification of the text is intolerable and yet when all is done nothing can be wringed out of it to proue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needfull to saluation for S. Paul speaketh there only of his Gospell that is of his preaching vnto the Galathians and not one word of any written Gospell No more doth he in that place to Timothy And so it is nothing to purpose speaker A. W. The Greeke is word forword if we or an angell from heauen shall preach vnto you beside that which we haue preached let him be accursed Your vulgar Latine all one with it in a maner praeterquam quod for praeter id quod as it is in the next verse where the greeke is all one your interlinear praeter quod in both verses You will haue the Apostle meane another gospell and so will Master Perkins for by another thing he vnderstands such another thing as shall be necessarie to saluation and yet diuers from that which the Apostle had deliuered And what is that else but another Gospell You tell vs the gospell comprehends the principall points of faith whereas before in this point you giue no more to the whole scripture but that some principall points may be gathered out of it this would haue made a contradiction in Master Perkins But is there any thing necessarie to saluation that is not a principall point of faith Is not that a principall point without which a man cannot be saued But if as you adde the gospell comprehend also the whole worke of Gods building in vs either I conceiue not what you meane by those words or else he that teacheth any other course of Gods building in vs then the gospell prescribes preacheth another gospell which doctrine will go neere to ouerthrow the greatest part of your will worship You proceed and say that the Apostle speakes of such a doctrine as digs vp the foundation What is the foundation If it be not digged vp as long as Christ is held to be the Messiah and that without him there is no saluation as you commonly expound the gospell of faith in Christ questionles the Apostle speakes not of ouerthrowing the foundation because the Galathians against whom he writes did not think that any saluation could be had without Christ but that the law morall and ceremoniall was to be ioyned with Christ to iustification If the foundation may be razed though those points be not denyed and if to ioyne the law with Christ be to lay another foundation and to preach another gospell how can your popish synagogue be a true member of Christs Church in which the foundation is shaken in coupling the law with Christ and another Gospell preached by teaching such points of doctrine for matter necessarie to saluation as the Apostles neuer deliuered Master Perkins therefore vnderstanding by any thing only things that make another Gospell as the question in hand and the other place alleaged shew A diuers doctrine may neither be charged with nor suspected of false dealing Bellarmine a Cardinall and a man of as great iudgement as you affirmes that the Apostle in that place speakes both of the written and vnwritten word not as you would haue it only of the gospel preached And Austin applies the text to the scripture of the law and of the gospell other then that which you haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures that is in the old and new Testament Basill also saith the like of the same matter that the hearers must examin those things that are deliuered by their teachers and receiue those that are agreeable to the Scripture and reiect those that are diuers which he prooues by that place to the Galathians And whereas Bellarmine would haue their testimonies vnderstood of things contrary only the very words refute him But it is apparant that all that Paul preached is in the scriptures for out of them doth he still confirme his doctrine They of Berea found that which hee taught them to agree with the scriptures and himselfe auoucheth before Festus that he preached nothing but that which Moses and the Prophets had taught And so both these places are to purpose speaker W. P. Testimonie IV. 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God is profitable to teach to improoue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute beeing made perfect vnto euerie good worke In these wordes be contained two arguments to prooue the sufficiencie of the Scripture
of an Idoll And afterward For this cause namely to roote out the matter of Idolatrie the law of God proclaimes Make no Idoll and adding nor likenes of any thing in heauen in earth or in the Sea forbids the seruants of God all ouer the world to vse that Craft In another place Iohn saith Babes keepe your selues from Idols he saith not now from Idolatrie as from the seruice of them but from Idols that is from the shape of them For it is an vnworthie thing that the image of an Idoll and dead thing should bee made the image of the liuing God That I will not let passe saith Lilius Giraldus that we Christians as sometimes also the Romanes had no Images in the Primitiue Church Optatus an ancient Bishop of Africa counted it a defiling of the Altar to haue an Image set vpon it and saith that when it was reported that Paul and Macarius would come and place an Image on the Altar they that heard it were astonied at it and accounted it as execrable to partake with it Images saith Austin are of more force to corrupt the miserable soule because they haue a mouth eyes eares nosthrils hands and feete than to instruct it because they speake not heare not smell not handle not walke not out of which place of Austin Cassander concludes that there was no vse of Images in Churches in Austins time The reason is alike wheresoeuer they be vsed to religion Arguments of the Papists speaker W. P. The reasons which they vse to defend their opinions are these I. In Salomons temple were erected Cherubines which were images of angels on the Mercieseat where God was worshipped and thereby was resembled the Maiestie of God therefore it is lawful to make images to resemble God Answ. They were erected by special commandement from God who prescribed the verie forme of them and the place where they must be set and thereby Moses had a warrant to make them otherwise hee had sinned let them shew the like warrant for their images if they can Secondly the Cherubins were placed in the holie of holies in the most inwarde place of the Temple and consequently were remoued from the sight of the people who onely hearde of them and none but the high Priest saw them and that but once a yeere And the Cherubins without the vaile though they were to be seen yet were they not to be worshipped Exod. 20. 4. Therefore they serue nothing at all to iustifie the images of the Church of Rome Obiect II. God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham Gen. 18. 1. 13. and to Daniel who sawe the ancient of daies sitting on a throne Dan. 9. Now as God appeared so may he be resembled therefore say they it is lawfull to resemble God in the forme of a man or any like image in which he shewed himselfe to men Answ. In this reason the proposition is false for God may appeare in whatsoeuer forme it pleaseth his maiestie yet doth it not follow that man should therefore resemble God in those formes man hauing no libertie to resemble him in any forme at all vnlesse he bee commaunded so to doe Againe when God appeared in the forme of a man that forme was a signe of Gods presence onely for the time when God appeared and no longer as the bread and wine in the sacrament are signes of Christs bodie and blood not for euer but for the time of administration for afterward they become againe as common bread and wine And when the holy Ghost appeared in the likenesse of a doue that likenesse was a signe of his presence no longer then the holy Ghost so appeared And therefore hee that would in these formes represent the Trinitie doth greately dishonour God and doe that for which hee hath no warrant speaker D. B. P. Hauing confuted the Protestants arguments against the making of Images to represent some property or action of God I now come vnto the Catholike proofe of them The first reason set dovvne by M. Perkins I reserue to the next point the second is God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham and to Daniel VVho savv the auncient of daies sitting on a throne Now as God hath appeared so may he bee purtraied and dravvne M. Perkins his ansvvere is not so vnlesse it be expresselâ—â— commanded by God Reply This first is flat against his ovvne second conclusion where he holdeth it lawfull to present to the eye in Pictures any histories of the Bible in priuate plaâ—es both the foresaid apparitions be in the Old Testament and therefore may be painted in priuate places which cannot be truly done without you do represent God in the same liknes as there he appeared And what reason leadeth in words to represent those actions of God the same serueth to expresse them in liuely colours Not so saith M. Perkins because when God appeared in the forme of man it was a signe of Gods presence for that time only and for no longer be it so it might notwithstanding be recorded in writing that the memory of such maiestie ioyned with louing kindnesse might endure longer And if it pleased God that this short presence of his should be written to be perpetually remembred euen so the same might be ingrauen in brasle to recommend it to vs so much the more effectually For as the famous Poet doth by the light of nature sing Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures Quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus speaker A. W. It is your aduantage that Master Perkins is not aliue to answere you who was better able to expresse his own meaning than any otherman can be But in my opinion it was his purpose in that second conclusion to graunt the pourtraying of those histories onely which had nothing to bee painted that was forbidden as he alwaies tooke the resembling of God to be That was generall as rules of Grammar are exceptions are not contradictions but rather parts of those rules If you speake of that reason which moued God to inspire Moses for the writing of that storie we grant that hee might to the same end haue also enioyned the painting or engrauing of it But since it pleased him not so to doe wee answere that your argument prooues nothing There is the same reason say you for painting that and such stories therefore they may as well be painted as written The consequence is false For the one was inspired as I said and the other not Vpon the writing because it is Gods word wee may looke for a blessing from him Not so vpon our owne deuices accompanied with danger of Idolatrie For my part sauing other mens better iudgement I perswade my selfe that God who commanded the Israelites to write the words of the law about their houses and in other places for instruction and remembrance would haue enioyned the painting of his especiall miracles and workes in their fauour