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
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
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
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
infallible as the articles of our creede yea as Gods owne word they are not by faith assured of it Now that some speciall good men either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of a vertuous life haue a great certainty of their saluation we willingly confesse but that certainty doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinary faith Your answere vpon Master Perkins grant is insufficient Commonly saith Master Perkins men do not beleeue their saluation as they doe the Articles of faith Therefore say you by his owne confession our particular saluation is not to be beleeued by faith I denie the consequence your conclusion is not rightly inferred men doe not commonly therefore they are not bound to doe or therefore it is not possible they should Either of both the meanes you name is sufficient to breed assurance of faith For the former who euer durst imagine that reuelation from God breedes not certaintie of faith The latter also passeth hope for a life truly vertuous argues true sanctification and that iustification which is not attained to but by true faith and whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued As for falling away from faith it is impossible as if neede be shall be prooued when occasion is offered speaker W. P. Object III. We are taught to pray for the pardon of our sinnes day by day Matth. 6. 12. and all this were needelesse if wee could be assured of pardon in this life Ans. The fourth petition must be vnderstood not so much of our old debts or sins as of our present and new sinnes for as we goe on from day to day so we adde sinne to sinne and for the pardon of them we must humble our selues and pray I answere againe that wee pray for the pardon of our sinnes not because wee haue no assurance thereof but because our assurance is weake and smal wee grow on from grace to grace in Christ as children doe to mans estate by little and little The heart of euery beleeuer is like a vessell with a narrow necke which being cast into the sea is not filled at the first but by reason of the straight passage receiueth water droppe by droppe God giueth vnto vs in Christ euen a sea of mercie but the same on our parts is apprehended and receiued onely by little and little as faith groweth from age to age and this is the cause why men hauing assurance pray for more speaker D. B. P. Good Sir doe you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe If your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and as strong as the truth of God We giue God thankes for those giftes which we haue receiued at his bountifull hands and desire him to encrease or continue them if they may be lost But to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by faith is as fond and friuolous as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen of which they are in full and assured possession And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for vs are very substantiall and sufficient to assure euery good Christian that he may well hope for saluation doing his duty but may not without great presumption assure him by faith of it speaker A. W. It is necessarie for vs daily to craue pardon although before we were assured of it in some measure first because we haue a commandement which must be simply obeyed secondly because we must renew our repentance as we renew our sinnes Our assurance though it be weake is the assurance of faith failing not in truth for the nature of it but in quantitie for the measure it should be without doubt but it is not speaker A. W. To these I will adde two or three others which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions as he tearmes them â—o his first exception I haue answered before The second I will put last for orders sake and answere to the third Master Perkins hauing answered the popish obiections propounded by him proceeds to confirme our doctrine by sixe reasons whereof the fiue first are drawne from the Scriptures Against which the Papists except three waies To those exceptions Master Perkins answeres in their order and place That order this Papist alters and to serue his own turne answers the exceptions before he propound the reasons to which they are taken Afterward he shifts off the reasons as well as he can The plainest course for me is to set downe Master Perkins words and by A. B. C. to referre the reader to the Papists answers and replies as they belong to Master Perkins disputation Our reasons to the contrarie speaker W. P. Reason I. The first reason may bee taken from the nature of faith on this manner True faith is both an vnfallible assurance and a particular assurance of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainely and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainly and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting That this reason may bee of force two things must bee prooued first that true faith is a certaine assurance of Gods mercie to that partie in whom it is Secondly that faith is a particular assurance thereof For the first that faith is a certaine assurance Christ saith to Peter Matthew 14. 31. O thou of little faith wherefore diddest thou doubt Where he makes an opposition betweene faith and doubting whereby giuing vs directly to vnderstand that To be certaine and to giue assurance is of the nature of faith Rom. 4. 20. 22. Paul saith of Abraham that he did not doubt of the promise of God through vnbeleefe but was strengthened in faith and gaue glorie to God beeing fully assured that hee which had promised was able to doe it where I obserue first that doubting is made a fruit of vnbeleefe and therfore vnfallible certainty and assurance being contrary to doubting must needes proceede from true faith considering that contrary effects come of contrary causes and contrary causes produce contrarie effects Secondly I note that the strength of Abrahams faith did stand in fulnes of assurance for the text saith hee was strengthened in the faith beeing fully assured and againe Heb. 11. 1. true sauing faith is said to bee the ground and subsistence of things hoped for and the euidence or demonstration of things that are not seene but faith can be no ground or euidence of things vnles it bee for nature certaintie it selfe and thus the first point is manifest The second that sauing faith is a particular assurance is proued by this that the property of faith is to apprehend and applie the promise and the thing promised Christ with his benefits Ioh. 1. 12. As
many saith Saint Iohn as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name In these words to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ are put for one and the same thing Now to receiue Christ is to apprehend and applie him with all his benefits vnto our selues as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell For in the sixt chapter following first of all he sets forth himselfe not only as a Redeemer generallie but also as the bread of life and the water of life secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his bodie and drinkers of his blood and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood and to beleeue in him are all one Now then if Christ be as foode and if to eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ be to beleeue in him then must there be a proportion betweene eating and beleeuing Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall receiuing and apprehending of him And as the bodie hath his hand mouth and stomacke whereby it taketh receiueth and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part so likewise in the soule there is a faith which is both hand mouth and stomacke to apprehend receiue and applie Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule And Paul saith yet more plainely That through â—aith we receiue the promise of the spirit Gal. 3. 14. Now as the propertie of apprehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith so it agreeth not to hope loue confidence or any other gift or grace of God But first by â—aith wee must apprehend Christ and applie him to our selues before we can haue any hope or confidence in him And this applying seemes not to be done by any affection of the will but by a supernaturall act of the mind which is to acknowledge set downe and beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting by the merit of Christ belong to vs particularly To this which I haue saide agreeth Augustine Why preparest thou teeth and bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten And tract 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send vp thy faith and thou laâ—est holde on him And Bernard saith Homil. in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now yet goe to follow him and seeke him beleeue and thou hast found him for to beleeue is to find Chrysost. on Mark homil 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luk. lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched by faith Christ is seene Tertul. de resurrect carnis He must be chewed by vnderstanding and be digested by faith Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that we may yea that we must certainely by faith beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules and therefore wee may and must particularly and certainely by faith beleeue the same The first part of this reason is true and cannot be denied of any The second part is prooued thus Saint Paul saith Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare but the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba father adding further that the same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption the spirit of God and our spirits that is the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost The Papists to elude this reason alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnesse of our adoption by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour being such as are weake and oftentimes deceitfull But by their leaues the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties to put all out of question Bernard saith That the testimonie of the spirite is a most sure testimonie Epist. 107. Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement that we must beleeue but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes and for life euerlasting of this there is no question therfore he is bound to beleeue the same The proposition is most of all doubtfull but it is proued thus In euery petition there must be two things a desire of the things we aske and a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith Whatsoeuer ye desire when you pray beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be giuen vnto you And S. Iohn further noteth out this particular faith calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will And hence it is that in euery petition there must be two grounds a commaundement to warrant vs in making a petition and a promise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof And vpon both these followes necessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God commandeth in the Gospell that a man must and can performe but God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes and life euerlasting and therefore we must beleeue thus much and may be assured thereof This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements of the law and of the Gospell The commandements of the law shew vs what we must doe but minister no power to performe the thing to be done but the doctrine and commaundements of the Gospell doe otherwise and therefore they are called spirit and life God with the commaundement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Now this is a commandement of the Gospell to beleeue remission of sinnes for it was the substance of Christs ministery repent and beleeue the Gospell And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for so the diuels beleeue with trembling but it is particularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour and that the promises of saluation in Christ belong in speciall to me as Saint Iohn saith This is his commaundement that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him which none can doe vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour And therefore in as much as we are enioyned to put our confidence in Christ we are also enioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him which stands in the remission of our sins and our acceptation to life euerlasting
Reason V. Whereas the Papists teach that a man may be assured of his saluation by hope euen hence it followes that he may be vnfalliblie assured therof For the property of true and liuely hope is neuer to make a man ashamed Rom. 5. 5. And true hope followeth faith and euer presupposeth certeintie of faith neither can any man truly hope for his saluation vnlesse by faith he be certeinly assured thereof in some measure Exception I. The Popish Doctors take exception to these reasons on this manner First they say it cannot be proued yâ— a man is as certaine of saluation by faith as he is of the articles of the creed I answere First they proue thus much that we ought to be as certâ—ine of the one as of the other For looke what commandement we haue to beleeue the articles of our faith the like we haue inioâ—ning vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sins as I haue proued Secondly these arguments proue it to be the nature or essential property of faith as certeinly to assure man of his saluation as it doth assure him of the articles which he beleeueth And howsoeuer commonly men do not beleeue their saluation as vnfallible as they do their articles of faith yet some speciall men doe hauing Gods word applied by the spirit as a sure ground of their faith whereby they beleeue their owne saluation as they haue it for a ground of the articles of their faith Thus certeinly was AbrahaÌ„ assured of his owne saluation as also the Prophets and Apostles and the Martyrs of God in all ages whereupon without doubting they haue bin content to lay downe their liues for the name of Christ in whom they were assured to receiue eternall happines And there is no question but there be many now that by long and often experience of Gods mercy and by the inward certificate of the holy Ghost haue attained to full assurance of their saluation II. Exception Howsoeuer a man may be assured of his present estate yet no man is certeine of his perseuerance vnto the end Ans. It is otherwise for in the sixt petition lead vs not into temptation we pray that God would not suffer vs to be wholy ouercome of the diuell in any temptation and to this petition we haue a promise answerable 1. Cor. 10. That God with temptation will giue an issue and therefore howsoeuer the diuell may buffit molest and wound the seruants of God yet shall he neuer be able to ouercome them Againe hee that is once a member of Christ can neuer be wholy cut off And if any by sinne were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time for baptisme is the sacrament of initiation or ingrafting into Christ. By this reason we should as often be baptized as we fall into any sinne which is absurd Againe Saint Iohn saith 1. Iohn 2. 19. They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had been of vs they would haue continued with vs. Where he taketh it for graunted that such as be once in Christ shall neuer whâ—ly bee seuered or fall from him Though our communion with Christ may be lessened yet the vnion and the bond of coniunction can neuer be dissolued III. Exception They say we are indeede to beleeue our saluation on Gods part but wee must needes doubt in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sinnes are giuen vpon condition of mans faith and repentance Now we cannot say they be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that indeed which we suppose our selues to haue Answ. I say againe he that doth truly repent and beleeue doth by Gods grace know that he doth repent and beleeue for else Paul would neuer haue said Prooue your selues whether you be in the faith or not and the same Apostle saith 2. Cor. 12. We haue not receiued the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God which things are not onely life euerlasting but iustification sanctification and such like And as for secret sinnes they cannot make our repentance void for he that truly repenteth of his knowne sinnes repenteth also of such as be vnknowne and receiueth the pardon of them all God requireth not an expresse or speciall repentance of vnknowne sinnes but accepts it as sufficient if we repent of them generally as Dauid saith Psal. â—9 Who knowes the errors of this life forgiue me my secret sinnes And whereas they adde that faith and repentance must be sufficient I answere that the sufficiencie of our faith and repentance stands in the trueth and not in the measure or perfection thereof and the trueth of both where they are is certainely discerned Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church August Of an euill seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith to acknowledge what thou hast receiued is not pride but deuotion And Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne heart if he finde charitie there he hath securitie for his passage from life to death Hilar. in Matth. 5. The kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his will is that it must be hoped for without any doubtfulnesse of vncertaintie will at all Otherwise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull Bernard in his epist. 107. Who is the iust man but he that being loued of God loues him againe which comes not to passe but by the spirit reuealing by Faith the eternall purpose of God of his Saluation to come Which reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by which when the deedes of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen Together receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and also loue againe To conclude the Papists haue no great cause to dissent from vs in this poynt For they teach and professe that they doe by a speciall faith beleeue their owne saluation certainely and vnfallibly in respect of God that promiseth Now the thing which hindreth them is their owne indisposition and vnworthinesse as they say which keepes them from being certaine otherwise then in a likely hope But this hinderance is easily remoued if men will iudge indifferently For first of all in regard of our selues and our disposition we cannot be certaine at all but must despaire of saluation euen to the very death We cannot bee sufficiently disposed so long as wee liue in this world but must alwaies say with Iacob I am lesse then all thy mercies Gen. 32. and with Dauid Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for none liuing shall bee iustified in thy sight and with
seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ. Jt is not arrogancy but faith to acknovvledge vvhat thou hast receiued it is not pride but dâ—uâ—tion What vvord is here of certeinty of saluation but that it belongeth to a faithfullman to confesse himselfe much bound to God for calling of him to be his Which euery Christian must doe hoping himselfe so to be and being most certeine that if he be not in state of grace it is long of himselfe and no vvant on Gods part The second place hath not so much as any shevv of vvords for him thus he speaketh Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne hart and if he find Charity there he hath security for his passage from life to death What need vvas there to seeke charity in his hart fer security of his saluation if his faith assured him thereof therefore this text maketh flat against him speaker A. W. There is this for certaintie of saluation that it is no presumption or a man to know he hath receiued the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith not pride but deuotion whereas you say it is presumption arrogancie and pride Can any thing be more contrarie Not so much as a shew of words yet is there substance of matter for if charitie be a securitie for passage from life to death and if a man may know whether it be in his heart or no doubtlesse there is assurance of saluation to be had But you will say not by faith else what neede he seeke for charitie as if it were amisse to haue more proofes than one He that hath tried the diuels temptations knowes that all is little enough But this assurance by charitie is assurance by faith because it prooues wee haue such a faith as shall certainly bring vs to euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. The next Author he citeth is S. Hilarie in these words The Kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his vvill is that it be hoped for vvithout any doubtfulnes of vncertaine vvill at all is an addition othervvise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull First he saith but as we say that the Kingdome of heauen is to be hoped for without any doubtfulnes for we professe certainty of hope and deny only certainty of faith as M. Perkins confesseth before And as for faith we say with him also it is not doubtfull but very certaine What maketh this to the purpose that a man must beleeue his owne saluation when S. Hilary speaketh there of faith of the resurrection of the dead Hilary requires such a hope as is grounded vpon faith and hath the same nature with faith but that it particularly respects the time to come whereas faith rests absolutely vpon God for the present also Neither speakes hee of the resurrection from the dead in particular but of euery mans trust concerning his own enioying of all heauenlie felicitie speaker D. B. P. His last Author is S. Bernard VVho is the iust man but he that beâ—â—g loued of God loues him againe vvhich comes not to passâ— but by the sâ—…t reuealing by faith the eternall promise of God of his saluation to come vvhich reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by vvhich the deeds of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the Kingdome of heauen togither receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and loues againe Note that he saith the reuelation of the spirit to be nothing else but the infasion of spirituall graces and comfort whereby a man hath some feeling of Gods goodnesse towards him by which as he saith he may presume but not beleeue certainely that he is loued of God But let S. Bernard in the same place interpret himself there he speaketh thus as I cited once before It is giuen to men to tast before hand somewhat of the blisse to come c. Of the which knowledge of our selues novv in part perceiued a man doth in the meane season glorie in hope but not yet in security His opinion then is expressely that for all the reuelations of the spirit made by faith vnto vs we are not assured for certainty of our saluation but feele great ioy through the hope we haue hereafter to receiue it speaker A. W. Would Bernard haue a man presume that God loues him without warrant or would he haue him not beleeue the testimonie of the spirit which assures him of that loue by such a pledge Austin taught vs before that it is no arrogancie but faith to know what we haue receiued and Bernard teacheth vs now that the end of receiuing is that we may presume we are beloued of God that is that wee may know it by faith He addes further afterward that this is the holy and secret counsell of God which the Sonne hath receiued from the Father by the holy Ghost and communicates to those that be his so that they begin to know as they are knowne it being granted to them to feele before hand somwhat of their blessednes to come as it hath been hidden from all eternitie in him that did predestinate and shall appeare more fully in him when he shall make vs blessed We beleeue with Bernard that we haue here but a taste of the ioy to come and that our securitie is not ordinarily without doubting So that the certaintie he speakes of and that we say Christians haue is all one speaker D. B. P. This passage of testimonies being dispatched let vs now come vnto the fiue other reasons which M. Perkins produceth in defence of their opinion The first reason is this That in faith there are two things the one is an insallible assurance of those things which vve beleeue This we grant and there hence proue as you heard before that there can be no faith of our particular saluation because we be not so fully assured of that but that we must stand in feare of losing of it according to that Hold that which thou hast least perhaps another receiue thy crovvne speaker A. W. Faith in it selfe is a full assurance but hath not this full worke in euery one that truly beleeues and therefore your proofe is insufficient speaker D. B. P. But the second point of faith puts all out of question For saith M. Perkins it doth assure vs of remissission of our sinnes and of life euerlasting in particular Proue that Sir and we need no more It is proued out of S. Iohn As many as receiued him he gaue them poeer to be made the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name This text commeth much too short he gaue them power to be the sonnes that is gaue them such grace that they were able and might if they would be sonnes of God but did not assure
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
of Noe that he was iustisied long before God made him that promise yea before hee came out of the land of Canaan For by faith he obeyed God when he was called to goe out into a place which he should afterwards receiue for inheritance And this faith of his was not a bare beleeuing that which God spake but a resting vpon him accordingly and so was that the Apostle speakes of whereby God was especially glorified for this reposing himselfe vpon God argued the account he made of the fauour of God to him Now the beleefe in that promise was not only for the maltiplying of his naturall seede but for saluation by Christ to his spirituall children that P should beleeue as he had done and therefore it is called the Gospel that he beleeued This faith was counted to him for righteousnes as euery act is whereby a man beleeuing in Christ rests vpon the promise of God But the particular thing that is accepted to his iustification is his beleeuing in God for iustification by Iesus Christ. I will vse no other proofe but the phrase it selfe To beleeue in God which necessarily implies a relying vpon God for that wee desire being promised speaker D. B. P. The Centurions faith was very pleasing vnto our Sauiour who said in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israell What faith vvas that Mary that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Say the vvord only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed speaker A. W. The Centurions faith was not a iustifying faith but a meanes to it begotten in him by the consideration of our Sauiours power in working miracles though I doubt not but from this beleefe he was raised by God to a true faith for iustification by the Messias But this in it selfe was no more than the diuels haue acknowledging Christs power speaker D. B. P. S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers and highlie rewarded by our Sauiour was it any other Then that our Sauiour was Christ the Sonne of the liuing God speaker A. W. S. Peters confession in that place was no more in words but of Christs office Thou art Christ and his nature The son of the liuing God But if he had not also by faith rested on him to iustification this confession would haue done him but little pleasure for Satan himselfe beleeues as much and is damned speaker D. B. P. And briefly let S. Iohn that great secretary of the Holy Ghost tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell These things saith he are vvriten that you may beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name speaker A. W. Doth the preaching of the Gospell aime at nothing else Then what shall become of holinesse of life and good workes made by you the matter of your second iustification This is not the last end of the Gospell but the first and by this the other is wrought we must beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God so that by beleeuing this we come to him that is beleeue in him or rest vpon him for saluation and thereby attaine to euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well saying This is the vvord of faith vvhich vve preach for if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and shalt beleeue in thy hart that God raysed him from death thou shall be saued And in another place I make knowne vnto you the Gospell vvhich I haue preached and by vvhich you shall be saued vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vaine What was that Gospell J haue deliuered vnto you that vvhich I haue receiued that Christ died for our 〈◊〉 according to the Scriptures vvas buried and rose againe the third day c. So by the verdite of S. Paul the beleefe of the articles of the creâ—d is that iustifying faith by which you must be saued speaker A. W. Such is the testimonie of Paul For it is more than apparant that a man may beleeue in his heart that God raised Christ from the death and yet denie many necessarie heads of religion and be wholy cast away But the Apostle in this implies the rest and namely that which followes beleeuing in God that is if I may so often repeate the same thing resting vpon him for iustification by our Sauiour Iesus Christ. The same answere I make to the other place the point of the resurrection is of necessitie to be beleeued of as many as looke to be saued but that is not all that is required For if it be neither your preparations to iustification nor your merits after iustification are to any purpose speaker D. B. P. And neither in S. Paul nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught that a particular faith whereby we apply Christs righteousnes to our selues and assure our selues of our saluation is either a iustifying or any Christian mans faith but the very naturall act of that ougly Monster presumption Which being laid as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion what morall and modest conuersation what humility and deuotion can they build vpon it speaker A. W. All those places that require of vs faith in Christ teach vs also that a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues by trusting to him for iustification is the only proper iustifying faith because to it nothing can be added for the matter of beleeuing A man may acknowledge that there is a God and giue credit as to a certaine truth to all that God reueales and yet not beleeue in God to iustification But he that performes this latter must needs also acknowledge the former This then being the height of faith is in the Scripture counted a iustifying faith speaker W. P. The II. difference touching faith in the act of iustification is this The Papist saith we are iustified by faith because it disposeth a sinner to his iustification after this manner By faith saith he the mind of man is inlightened in the knowledge of the law and Gospell knowledge stirres vp a feare of hell with a consideration of the promise of happinesse as also the loue and feare of God and hope of life eternall Now when the heart is thus prepared God infuseth the habite of charitie and other vertues whereby a sinner is iustified before God We say otherwise that faith iustifieth because it is a supernaturall Instrument created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion whereby hee apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse for his iustification speaker D. B. P. The second difference in the manner of iustification is about the formall act of faith which M. Perkins handleth as it were by the way cuttedly I will be as short as he the matter not being great The Catholiks reach
worke speaker A. W. I denie the consequence of your proposition For though saith alone be the whole cause of iustification yet not euery faith but such an one as is accompanied with hope and charitie To your proofe I answere that such a faith is neither the whole nor any cause of iustification and so though that be as you say in act yet no such effect will follow speaker D. B. P. Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot applie to themselues Christs righteousnes vvithout the preseace of hope and charitie For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honor which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing els but the plaine vice of presumption as hath been before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie when it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophie that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sence and reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the prefence of the whole cause and not only of thâ— instrumentall cause speaker A. W. To the assumption I answere Faith considered without any act of hope or charitie to iustification doth iustifie but faith that is without these doth not iustifie To your proofe I say further that to our iustification God accounteth for righteousnes neither our hope of heauen nor our loue towards himselfe nor our estimation of his honour but onely our beleeuing in Iesus Christ. The similitude is true and fit True because the eye doth see though as an instrument fitted to that office by God and thus Philosophers Poets Orators and all kinde of people doe speake He that would be more curious than wise might finde fault with you also and say that the act of seeing also is mans and the soule the instrustrument whereby he doth see as the hand is the instrument with which he reacheth The fitnes of the similitude appeareth thus It is man that beleeueth as it is man that seeth The generall instrument as I may speake for both these actions is the soule though by diuers faculties the particular for sight is the eye for beleeuing faith outwardly there is none The eye seuered from the head seeth not and yet it is the eye that seeth and not the head so saith that is without hope and charitie iustifieth not and yet hope and charitie doth not iustifie You answere that it is not to purpose because wee require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall But you deceiue your selfe for the question is not of the whole cause or principall efficient which is God for it is he onely that iustifieth but of the instrument if wee may so call it To speake plainly the matter is as I haue often said what it is that God respects in vs to our iustification We say it is onely our beleeuing in Christ you say it is our beleeuing louing and hoping because we teach that together with faith by which on our part we are iustified we receiue hope charitie and other graces of sanctification which are all present in the heart when it beleeueth to iustification but are no way any causes of it speaker D. B. P. And to returne your similitude vpon yourselfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight speaker A. W. I denie your similitude as faultie in the reddition or latter part of it For faith receiueth no influence from any other vertue whereby it hath life to worke acceptably in Gods sight but the acceptablenes of faith proceedes from the meere acceptation of God counting it for righteousnes And whereas wee say that such a faith onely iustifieth as hath hope and loue for companions it is not our meaning that these make saith acceptable but that hee which beleeueth and hath not these vertues idly presumes of faith when he hath it not because the spirit of God together with true faith powreth these graces also into our soules But of this whole point of iustification I shall one day if it please God write more distinctly and fully speaker W. P. Reason IV. If faith alone doe iustifie then wee are saued by faith alone but we are not saued by faith alone and therfore not iustified by faith alone Answ. The proposition is false for more things are requisit to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes speaker D. B. P. The fourth reason if faith alone doe iustifie then faith alone vvill saue but it will not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition and saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an Innocent babe dye shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuolous speaker A. W. It had been the part of a scholler to haue refuted his reason as well as to condemne his answere But indeede the reason is sound that iustification being but the subordinate meanes to the maine end saluation more is required to this than to that not that any man can faile of saluation which hath attained to iustification but because God hath appointed to make supplie of other graces that we may come by degrees to glorification Your reason is nothing worth For the comparison of equalitie and likenes is insufficient For though infants need no more to saluation yet men of discretion doe I appeale to your owne doctrine Doe not you teach that good workes are necessarie to saluation and yet you grant that infants may be saued without them yea and men of yeres too if they haue no time to doe them after their first iustification Therefore more may bee required to saluation than to iustification though infants want nothing after they are once iustified yea infants are iustified without faith as many as are iustified speaker W. P. And the assumption is false for we are saued by faith alone if wee speake of faith as it is an instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation speaker D. B. P. Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith
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
might haue a true iustifying faith and loue too and yet be led away in this point by vaine glorie or feare as Nicodemus was who came to Christ by night and Peter who denied his Sauiour by swearing and cursing and yet lost not either his faith or charitie by it though he sinned grieuously against both faith and charitie in that fearefull deniall speaker A. W. 5. This place of S. Iames. What shall it profit my brethren if any man say that he hath faith but hath not vvorkes what shall his faith be able to saue Supposeth very playnelie that a man may haue faith without good workes that is without charitie but that it shall auaile him nothing You suppose that which will neuer be prooued that the Apostle takes works for charitie Doe you thinke that they against whom the Apostle writes would grant that they were without the loue of God The Gnosticks were neuer so absurd But the question was whether a man that profest Iesus Christ to bee the Sauiour of the world were not by this saued how lewdly soeuer he demeaned himselfe speaker D. B. P. Caluin saith that the Apostle speakes of a shadow of faith which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our creed but not of a iustifying faith Without doubt hee was little acquainted with that kinde of faith by which Protestants be iustified but he directly speakes of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by saying That that faith did worke vvith his vvorkes and vvas made perfect by the vvorkes Was this but a shadow of faith speaker A. W. Caluin saith truly that the Apostle speaks of a dead faith which we say can iustifie no man and of faith in profession not in truth The former is plaine Faith if it haue no workes is dead in it selfe Faith without workes is dead The latter appeares thus Though a man saâ— he haue faith Shew me thy faith by thy workes You answere he was little acquainted with our kinde of faith When you can prooue he tolde you so I will beleeue you But you adde further That he speakes directly of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by True for of such a faith these men did make profession Therefore the Apostle shewes that this faith of Abraham was a liuing faith that wrought by charitie and was acknowledged by God himselfe to be such in regard of the workes issuing from it such as theirs is not if it haue no workes which are the euidences of a true faith as breathing is a certaine proofe of life speaker D. B. P. But they reply that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell therefore cannot be a iustifying faith that followeth not for an excellent good thing may be like vnto a badde in some things as diuels in nature are not onely like but the very same as Angels bee euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a diuels faith when it is naked and voyd of good works in tvvo points First in both there is a perfect knovvledge of all things reuealed Secondly this knovvledge shall not stead them anie vvhit but onely serue vnto their greater condemnation because that knovving the vvill of their master they did it not And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together Now there are many pointes vvherein these faiths doe differ but this one is principall That Christians out of a goodly and deuoute affection doe vvillinglie submitte their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith beleeuing things aboue humane reason yea such as seeme sometimes contrarie to it But the diuell against his vvill beleeues all that God hath reuealed Because by his naturall capacitie he knovves that God can teach nor testifie any vntruth speaker A. W. We do not say that it is likened to the Diuels faith but that the Apostle shevves them how insufficiently they reason from the beleeuing the truth of God to iustification For the Diuels saith he beleeue also yea more then beleeue say I haue one of your preparatory works euen feare of damnation speaker D. B. P. Againe that faith may bee vvithout charitie is proued out of these vvords of the same second Chapter Euer as the body vvithout the spirit is dead so also faith without vvorkes is dead Hence thus I argue albeit the body be dead vvithout the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe euen so faith is perfect in the kind of faith although vvithout charitie it auayle not to life euerlasting speaker A. W. I answered you before out of Cardinall Caietan that the Apostle speakes not of the soule but of breath so that the comparison stands thus As the bodie that breathes not is dead so faith that brings not forth good works is dead speaker A. W. Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be vvithout charity for they haue seuerall seates in the soule one being in the vvill and the other in the vnderstanding they haue distinct obiectes faith respecting the truth of God and charitie the goodnes of God Your reason is without truth They haue diuers seats in the soule and distinct obiects therefore the one may be without the other First I deny the Antecedent in respect of the former part thereof For faith that iustifies is not in the vnderstanding but in the will secondly I deny your consequence altogether because it proues no more but only that there is no naturall necessity of their being together in regard of each other Our doctrine is that they are alwaies ioyned because the spirit that giues a man faith to iustification doth also giue him true inherent righteousnes together with that faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charitie as charitie doth faith for vve cannot loue him of vvhom vvee neuer heard Neither yet doth charitie naturally flovv out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnes of God and of his benefits loue towards vs into which good and deuoute considerations fevv men doe enter in comparison of them vvho are led into the broade vvay of iniquity through their inordinate passions This according to the truth and yet more different in the Protestants opinion for faith laies hold on Christs righteousnes and receiues that in But charitie can receiue nothing in as M. Perkins witnesseth But giues it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table speaker A. W. The like answer I make to the other two points that follow Faith doth not say you necessarily suppose charity as charitie doth faith neither doth charity naturally flow out of faith What then therefore is not euery man sanctified that is iustified I deny the consequence he that beleeues in Christ hath the spirit of Christ and where he is there is sanctification That with you adde of the impossiblity of our saluation if I rightly vnderstand it which I can hardly do it is so confused is not to
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
downe He shewes saith Lyra the insufficiencie of the Scripture in respect of Christs excellencie in worke and doctrine speaker D. B. P. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith vve shall be saued but beleeuing vve should haue saluation in his name vvhich he clipped off speaker A. W. What saith Master Perkins more than your glosse doth acknowledge That faith may be anowed by which life may be had And another glosse expounds that beleeuing of faith formed by charitie which you grant iustifies It helpes vs nothing at all to leaue out those words in his name and therefore there was no clipping in it speaker D. B. P. Thirdly remember to vvhat faith S. John ascribes the meanes of our saluation not to that vvhereby vve applie vnto our selues Christs righteousnes but by vvhich vve beleeue Jesus to be Christ the Messias of the Ievves and the Sonne of God vvhich M. Perkins also concealed speaker A. W. The faith spoken of in this text is not properly iustifying faith but that is signified in the latter part of the verse where it is said that we haue life in his name that is by resting vpon his power to saue vs. The concealing of those words doth more hurt than helpe vs. speaker W. P. If it bee said that this place must bee vnderstood of Christs miracles onely I answere that miracles without the doctrine of Christ and knowledge of his sufferings can bring no man to life euerlasting and therefore the place must bee vnderstood of the doctrine of Christ and not of his miracles alone as Paul teacheth Gal. 8. 1. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing beside that which wee haue preached let him bee accursed And to this effect hee blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught 1. Tim. 1. 3. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell vvere vvritten that vve might beleeue Iesus to be the Son of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the vvritten vvord containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Ans. S. Iohn speaks not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiencie of Doctrine out of him is not to care vvhat one saith But M. Perkins foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles vvithout the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting True and therefore that text speaking only of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiency of the vvritten Word Christs miracles vvere sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias But that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all Doctrine needfull to saluation For many other points of faith must be beleeued also speaker A. W. Master Perkins prooues that the Euangelist speakes not only of miracles because he speakes of such a faith as will bring a man to euerlasting life which the faith that comes by miracles only will not doe You offer not to answere his reason which stands still in force against you but denie the conclusion that he speakes not onely of miracles This reason wee haue confirmed as also the interpretation by that place of Austin Iohn the Euangelist saith â—ustin witnesseth that our Lord Christ both said and did many things that are not written But those things were chosen out to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the beleeuers And whereas you would restraine the text only to the proofe of Christs being the Messiah Lyra may teach you that in this conclusion the profit also of the doctrine is declared And Hugo Cardinalis saith that in these words specially the intent of the booke but generally the end of all the Scripture is declared Now the end of the Scripture is our saluation To the same purpose writes Cyrill All things that our Lord did are not written but those that the writers thought to be sufficient for manners and doctrine that we glistering with true faith good workes and vertue might come to the kingdome of heauen speaker D. B. P. And if it alone be sufficient vvhat neede vve the other three Gospels the Actes of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Johns Reuelations speaker A. W. There are some that thinke and the opinion is not vnlikely that the Euangelist speakes of all the bookes of the new Testament which hee saw before his writing of this Gospell vnlesse perhaps the reuelation were penned by him afterward But the obiection shewes it selfe to be vaine by my former answer to the like about the fiue bookes of Moses speaker D. B. P. Finally admit that S. Johns Gospell vvere all-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine tearmes that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but they as then being not able to beare it he reserueth that to be deliuered vnto them aftervvard of vvhich high mysteries S. John recordeth not much in his Gospell after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnvvritten speaker A. W. First if it be granted that our Sauiour had at that time some new matter to deliuer which they had not heard of what get you by it It will not follow thereupon either that all things necessarie to saluation are not contained in the scriptures or that your traditions are the things that our Sauiour meant for as Austin truly affirmeth since Christ hath not signified any where in scripture what they were it is rashnes for any man to presume to say they were such or such things No man saith your Glosse may determine what they were Secondly there is no shew of consequence in your reasoning Christ had many things to say not long before his death Therefore though the Gospell be all sufficient yet there are many things not written which were needfull to be beleeued Because they were afterward to be spoken therefore were they not written at all by the Apostles and Euangelists sure Christ forbad not the writing of them in those words Thirdly this is the place which heretikes abuse to the countenancing of their traditions as you do of yours All foolish heretikes saith Austin that will haue themselues counted Christians indeuour to colour their bold fantasticall inuentions with that sentence of the Gospell I haue yet many things to say to you Lastly I answere that those many things of which Christ speakes were the same that before he had taught them which they partly vnderstood not and partly remembred not I prooue it thus Our Sauiour said before that he had taught them all things which he had heard of his father and promised to send them the holie ghost that should teach them and cause them to remember whatsoeuer he had said to them whereof we haue a worthie example in that speech
vnto the person and in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Annotations vpon our Consent speaker D. B. P. First we say not that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it this is but a peccadillo speaker A. W. Neither doe we say that the punishment of originall sin is in it or any part of it but that in handling that point it is to be considered much lesse doe we charge you with saying so What it is you call a peccadillo or small sinne I vnderstand not certainly If you meane that originall sinne is small and deserues no punishment but a due correction either the death of all men in Adam is no punishment or God punisheth without desert speaker D. B. P. But there lurketh a Serpent in that caueat that the guiltines of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remaining in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here hee quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltines of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltines belonging to it Who can deny this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be perdoned the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe Againe what Philosophy or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendour being pardoned for his offence the offence in it self remaineth guilty as though the offence separated from the person were a substance subiect to law and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in itselfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What senselesse imaginations be these speaker A. W. The sinne is pardoned so that the partie shall not be punisht for it but it is not so pardoned that in it self it hath not iust cause of punishment and this both philosophie and reason allow all our actuall sinnes are pardoned as soone as we beleeue in Christ and yet they are truly sinnes whensoeuer afterward they are committed by vs. speaker D. B. P. Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed can there be two contrarios in one part of the subiect at once can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the wil at the same instant can the soule be both truly conuerted to God and as truly auerted from him at one time is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost oontent to inhabit a body subiect to sinne all which must be granted contrary to both Scripture and naturall sense if we admit the â—ault and deformitie of sinne to remaine in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subiects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other oddâ— corner speaker A. W. Remember also gentle Reader that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power whereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrary to the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued Not being imputed hinders not the being of the thing there but rather proues it for if it were not there what fauour were it not to impute it Who knowes not that contraries may bee in one part of the same subiect at once though not in the same respect Do we not while we are here know in part and so remaine ignorant in part Is not our wil imperfectly reformed The holy Ghost is not content that the bodie he doth inhabit should be subiect to sinne and therefore hee labours continually to free it from that subiection but he is content to inhabit the man whom he hath begun to reforme that hee may purge him thoroughly II. The dissent or difference speaker W. P. Thus far wee consent with the Church of Rome now the difference betweene vs stands not in the abolishment but in the manner and the measure of the abolishment of this sinne Papists teach that Originall sinne is so farre sorth taken away after baptisme that it ceaseth to bee a sin properly and is nothing else but a want defect and weakenes making the heart fitte and readie to conceiue sinne much like tinder which though it be not fire of it selfe yet is it very apt and fit to conceiue fire And they of the Church of Rome denie it to be sinne properly that they might vphold some grosse opinions of theirs namely That a man in this life may fulfill the law of God and doe good workes void of sinne that hee may stand righteous at the barre of Gods iudgement by them But wee teach otherwise that though original sinne be taken away in the regenerate and that in sundrie respects yet doth it remaine in them after baptisme not only as a want and weakenes but as a sinne and that properly as may by these reasons be prooued Reason I. Rom. 7. 17. Paul saith directly It is no more I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in me that is originall sinne The Papists answere againe that it is so called improperly because it commeth of sinne and also is an occasion of sinne to be done speaker A. W. I approue this interpretation of S. Paul as taken out of that auncient and famous Papist Saint Augustine who saith expresly Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet is it not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne aâ— vvriting is called the hand because it is made by the hand And in an other place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as cold is called sloathfull because it maâ—es a man sloathfull so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. Perkins shall be well coursed by the plaine circumstances of the place If S. Austin were a Papist in this point because of this sentence questionlesse hee was in the same point a Protestant because of some other which I will recite Doest thou not marke saith Austin doest thou not perceiue that he who doth so vehemently persecute his bodie if he doth persecute nothing that displeaseth God doth God great wrong by persecuting his temple without cause Now what I pray you displeaseth God but sinne But this corruption wee speake of is also hated of God and therefore day by day consumed As the Physitian saith Austin hates the disease of the sicke man and labours by curing it to driue
can recouer though it liue and bring forth fruites of sinne for the time of our continuance in this mortall carcasse The third poynt Certeintie of saluation I. Our consent speaker W. P. I. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man in this life may be certeine of saluation and the same thing doth the Church of Rome teach and hold II. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man is to put a certeine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same thing by common consent holdeth the foresaid Church this point maketh not the difference betweene vs. III. Conclus We hold that with assurance of saluation in our harts is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs and we with them speaker A. W. To this conclusion the Papist ansvvers Not so Sir But he shevves not vvhat it is he mislikes in it IV. Conclus They goe further and say that a man may be certeine of the saluation of men or of the Church by Catholike faith and so say we V. Concl. Yea they hold that a maÌ„ by faith may be assured of his own saluation through extraordinary reuelation as Abraham others were and so do we speaker A. W. Here he ads that In this sense only the first conclusion is true viz that there is no assurance but by reuelation We ansvvere that this reuelation is common to all true beleeuers in their seuerall proportions VI. Conclus They teach that we are to be certeine of our saluation by speciall faith in regard of God that promiseth though in regard of our selues and our indisposition wee cannot and in the former point they consent with vs. II. The dissent or difference The very maine point of difference lies in the manner of assurance I. Conclus We hold that a man may be certeine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinary and speciall faith They hold that a man is certeine of his saluation onely by hope both of vs hold a certeinty we by faith they by hope II. Conclus Further we hold and auouch that our certeinty by true faith is vnfallible they say their certeinty is only probable III. Conclus And further though both of vs say that we haue confidence in Gods mercy in Christ for our saluation yet we doe it with some difference For our confidence commeth from certeine and ordinary faith theirs from hope ministring as they say but a coniecturall certeinty Thus much of the difference now let vs see the reasons to and fro III. Obiections of Papists Obiect I. Where there is no word there is no faith for these two are relatiues but there is no word of God saying Cornelius beleeue thou Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued And therefore there is no such ordinary faith to beleeue a mans owne particular saluation Ans. The proposition is false vnlesse it be supplied with a clause on this manner Where there is no word of promise nor any thing that doth counteruaile a particular promise there is no faith But say they there is no such particular word It is true God doth not speake to men particularly Beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued But yet doth he that which is answerable hereunto in that he giueth a generall promise with a commandement to apply the same and hath ordained the holy ministerie of the word to applie the same to the persons of the hearers in his owne name and that is as much as if the Lord himselfe should speake to men particularly To speake more plainely in the Scripture the promises of saluation be indefinitely propounded it saith not any where if Iâ—hn will beleeue he shall be saued or if Peter will beleeue he shall be saued but whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued Now then comes the minister of the word who standing in the roome of God and in the stead of Christ himselfe takes the indefinite promises of the Gospel and laies them to the harts of euery particular man and this in effect is as much as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued speaker D. B. P. Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome giueth the first place to our reasons which he calleth obiections and endeuoureth to supplant them and afterward planteth his owne About the order I will not contend seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none but sets downe things as they came into his head Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation But following his method let vs come to the matter Reply Good Sir seeing euery man is a lyar and may both deceiue and be deceiued and the Minister telling may erre how doth either the Minister know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not when he assureth him of his saluation To affirme as you doe that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie Equalling a blinde and lying creature vnto the wisedome and truth of God If you could shew out of Gods word that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ then had you answered the argument directly which required but one warrant of Gods vvord but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers vvord counteruailes Gods vvord I cannot see vvhat it vvanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate On the otherside to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate as it must be graunted he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter thou art one of the elect iâ— to make him of Gods priuie Councell without any warrant for it in Gods word Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrary in these words The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale our Lord knoweth vvho be his And none else except he reueile it vnto them speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake Master Perkins who doth not say that the Minister is to assure any man of his saluation but to applie the generall promises of Scripture to euery man particularly vpon condition of beleeuing The generall is Whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued the Ministers particular application Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued This is so plainly set downe by Master Perkins that I wonder how you could mistake him and so certainly grounded vpon the generall that there can no question be made of it Neither doth this equall the Minister to Christ but as Master Perkins truly saith is as much in effect as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued For if it be true that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued it is as true that Cornelius shall be saued if he
onely but of indisposition also which is a reason to make euery one despaire in regard of himselfe though in respect of Gods mercie he may conceiue some hope For if no man should find fauour but he that is disposed or fitted for it perfectly sure wee must needes despaire of attaining to that fitnes how can we in respect of that looke for saluation the worthines which is in them that shall come to heauen is both in Christ by whom they are worthie as members of his mysticall bodie and also in themselues who departing out of this world are made perfectly righteous by inherent righteousnes which before was begun in them speaker D. B. P. If God bidde vs pray that we fall not into temptation and promiseth an issue forth then the assurance depends vpon prayer and not vpon our former faith What then if wee doe not pray so as we should may not the enemy then not only wound but kill vs to it cannot be denied and therein as in diuers other workes of pietie many haue been too too slacke as the pitifull fall of thousands haue taught vs. speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not say that prayer doth assure vs of perseuerance but that wee resting vpon God by faith and calling on him are vpheld from falling away not because our prayer is for the manner and measure such as it ought to be for all should be perfect but because God-hath promised to keepe his children and that he may fulfill his promise stirres them vp to pray according to his will though with many imperfections speaker D. B. P. Oh saith M. Perkins it cannot be that he vvhich vvas once a member of Christ can euer after be vvholy cut off O shamelesse assertion and contrary to many plaine texts and examples of holy Scriptures Doth not our Sauiour say in expresse words That euery braunch in me not bearing fâ—… he vvill take it avvay And againe If any abide not in me he shall be cast forth as the branch and shall vvither and be cast into the fire which doth demonstrate that some which were members of Christ be wholie cut off and that for euer Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our aduersaries owne confession and doth not our blessed Sauiour say expounding the Parable of the sower That the seed vvhich fell vpon the rocke doth signifie them vvho vvith ioy receiue the vvord and these saith he haue no roote but for a time they beleeue and in time of temptation reuolt Doth not S. Paul in expresse tearmes say That some hauing faith and good conscience expelling good conscience haue made shipvvrack of their faith of whom were by name Hymenaeus and Alexander The like That in the last daies some should reuolt from the faith Againe That some for couetousnes sake had erred from the saith speaker A. W. Doe you call that a shamelesse assertion which is so oft auowed by our Sauiour himselfe He that drinkes of that water that I shall giue him shall neuer thirst but it shall be in him a well of water springing vp to euerlasting life Againe My sheepe heare my voyce and I know them and they follow me and I giue them eternall life and they shall neuer perish neither shall any plucke them out of my hand And in another place I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall not hunger and he that beleeues in me shall neuer thirst This is the will of him that sent me that euery one that sees the Sonne and beleeues in him should haue euerlasting life and I will raise him vp at the last day Now the places you alleage prooue no more but that if any man fall away from Christ he shall perish and that some may forsake the truth of doctrine or hauing had some shew of a iustifying faith for a time may afterward manifest themselues not to haue beleeued in Christ to iustification Of the former kinde are those two places of Iohn of the latter all the rest speaker D. B. P. And for example amongst other take Saul the first King of Israell who was at his election as the holy Ghost witnesseth so good a man that there vvas no better then he in Jsraell and yet became reprobate as is in the Scripture signified The like is probable of Salomon and in the new Testament of Judas the traytour and Simon Magus whom S. Luke saith that he also himselfe beleeued and after became an Arch heretike and so died the like almost may be verified of all Arch-heretikes who before they fell were of the faithfull speaker A. W. That you say of Saul is vtterly false for the Scripture neither in that text nor any where else speakes so of him And indeed how could it Samuel being then aliue so holie and good a man But the place you meane is in the ninth chapter where Samuel saith to him whose shall all the best things of Israel be as your translation reades it That is saith your glosse the dignitie of the King who may take the best things of the people subiect to him The goodly things saith the 70. All that is to be desired Pagnin What soeuer is to be desired in Israel saith Vatablus and in his marginall note All the desire of Israel as if he should say Thou shalt be King of Israel And this agrees both with the word and with the context Care not for the asses saith Samuel for they are found and besides whose shall all the wealth of Israel be Thus haue you graced Saul and belied the holy Ghost so haue you disgraced Salomon whom the holy Ghost honored with speaking by his mouth and writing by his penne the great mysteries of God Euery Papist hath not power like the Pope to make whom he will a Saint and whom he list a reprobate Iudas Simon Hymeneus Alexander and the rest beleeued the truth of the Gospell at least in part for a time but neuer any one of these had at any time true iustifying faith to rest vpon Christ for saluation speaker D. B. P. But what neede we further proofe of this matter seeing that this is cosen-german if not the very same with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles condemned and registred by S. Hierome and S. Augustine who held that iust men after Baptisme could not sin and if they did sinne they were indeed washed with water but neuer receiued the spirit of grace his ground was that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace could not sinne after which is iust M. Perkins proposition so that to vphold an errour he falleth into an old condemned heresie speaker A. W. We denie not that a man may sinne yea we confesse that the very best men doe sinne but wee say the Lord by his spirit keepes them that are iustified from falling away from Christ either finally or totally He that is
euerlasting for the righteousnesse and merit of Christ. Rule II. That iustification stands in two things first in the remission of sinnes by the merit of Christ his death secondly in the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse which is another action of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnesse which is in Christ as the righteousnesse of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christ his righteousnesse we are to vnderstand two things first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the law both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his blood to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely bee considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which hee shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the law for vs. This point if some had well thought on they would not haue placed all iustification in remission of sins as they doe Rule III. That iustification is from Gods meere mercie and grace procured onely by the merit of Christ. Rule IV. That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the heart by the holy Ghost whereby a sinner lâ—ieth hold of Christ his righteousnesse and applieth the same vnto himselfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can do this but faith alone The doctrine of the Romane Church touching the iustification of a sinner is on this manner I. They holde that before iustification there goes a preparation thereunto which is an action wrought partly by the holy Ghost and partly by the power of naturall free will whereby a man disposeth himselfe to his owne future iustification In the preparation they consider the ground of iustification and things proceeding from it The ground is saith which they define to bee a generall knowledge whereby wee vnderstand and beleeue that the doctrine of the word of God is true Things proceeding from this faith are these a sight of our sinnes a feare of hell hope of saluation loue of God repentance and such like all which when men haue attained they are then fully disposed as they say to their iustification This preparation being made then comes iustification itselfe which is an action of God whereby he maketh a man righteous It hath two parts the first and the second The first is when a sinner of an euill man is made a good man And to effect this two things are required first the pardon of sinne which is one part of the first iustification secondlie the infusion of inward righteousnesse whereby the heart is purged and sanctified and this habit of righteoutnes stands specially in hope and charitie After the first iustification followeth the second which is when a man of a good or iust man is made better and more iust and this say they may proceed from works of grace because he which is righteous by the first iustification can bring forth good works by the merit whereof hee is able to make himselfe more iust and righteous and yet they graunt that the first iustification commeth only of Gods mercie by the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. Because M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I wil helpe him out both with the preparation and iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice vvhen being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued to vvard God beleeuing those things to be true vvhich God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus And vvhen knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgments they turne themselues to consider the mercy of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God vvill be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued vvith hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a nevv life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter vvhich briefly are these The finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and maas ovvne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Jesus Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the only formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charitie vvith the other gifts of the Holy Ghost povvred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes vvhen a man is iustified be pardoned him speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly deliuered the summe of that which you set down out of the Councill of Trent and that more plainly for euery mans vnderstanding than it is in the Councill I. Our consent and difference speaker W. P. Now let vs come to the points of difference betweene vs and them touching iustification The first maine difference is in the matter thereof which shall bee seene by the answere both of Protestant and Papist to this one question What is the very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God and to be accepted to life euerlasting wee answer Nothing but the righteousnesse of Christ which consisteth partly in his sufferings and partly in his actiue obedience in fulfilling the rigour of the law And here let vs consider how neere the Papists come to this answere and wherein they dissent Consent I. They graunt that in iustification sinne is pardoned by the merits of Christ and that none can be iustified without remission of sinnes and that is well II. They graunt that the righteousnes whereby a man is made righteous before God commeth from Christ and from Christ alone III. The most learned among them say that Christ his satisfaction and the merit of his death is imputed to euery sinner that doth heleeue for his satisfaction before God and hitherto we agree The very point of difference is this wee hold that the satisfaction made by Christ in his death and obedience to the law is imputed to vs and becomes our righteousnesse They say it is our satisfaction and not our righteousnes whereby we stand righteous before God because it is inherent in the person of Christ as in a subiect Now the answer of the Papist to the
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
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
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
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
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
glosse expounds it and he is counted a perfect man but not simply without any spot in this patience speaker D. B. P. 2 King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there vvas no iniquity found in me It must needs then be granted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinnes and iniquitie And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you vvill beleeue it read then vvhere it is of record That Dauid did that vvhich vvas right in the sight of our Lord and not only in the sight of men and turned from nothing that he commaunded him all the daies of his life except only the matter of Vrias the Hethite speaker A. W. Dauid in that place doth not cleare himselfe of all sinne but only protesteth his innocency in respect of any hurt intended by him against Saul and the rest of his persecutors Dauid meaneth not saith Lyra to say that he is free from all sin but that he had committed no euill against Saul for which he should persecute him It was one thing for Dauids workes to be righteous in Gods sight an other thing for them to be perfect The former we graunt the later you can no way proue That commendation the holy Ghost giues to his works must needs be spoken in comparison as Lyra affirmeth because it is certaine he wronged Mephthosheth and numbred the people but these sins were not comparable to that against Vrâ—ah especially for the dishonouring of God by it in the account of the heathen This deed saith Nathan hath caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme speaker D. B. P. 3 The Apostle affirmeth That some men doe build vpon the only foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choyce members of Christs Catholike Church doe many perfect good vvorks such as being trâ—â—d in the fornace of Gods iudgement vvill suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherfore they must needs be pure and free from all drosse of sinne othervvise hauing been so proued in fire it vvould haue been found out speaker A. W. The Apostle doth not say so but this onely that if any man build on this foundation gold siluer precious stones timber hay or stubble euery mans worke shall be made manifest But put case he had said so he speaketh of doctrine built vpon the true foundation as the whole allegory proues especially vers 10. As a skilfull master builder I haue laid the foundation and an other builds vpon it now in good works one man layeth not the foundation and another buildeth vpon it but euery man begins and ends his owne worke himselfe Farther vers 9. The Ministers are said to be Gods labourers the people not euery mans worke Gods husbandrie and Gods building because he builds them vp by their labour This place is applied by you Papists to proue Purgatory euen by Bellarmine himself but with what successe let any man iudge that either reads our answeres to him or considers the text speaker D. B. P. 4 Many vvorkes of righteous men please God Make your bodies a quicke sacrifice holy and acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God And S. Paul calleth almes bestovved on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of svveet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected vvith sinne all vvhich he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his fight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sinne or as the Protestants speake not impure it to the person but to say that a sinful vvorke is of svveet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him vvere blasphemie vvherefore vve must needs confesse that such vvorks vvich so vvell pleased him vvere not defiled vvith any kind of sinne speaker A. W. Your Reason is thus framed No workes infected with sinne please God Many workes of righteous men please God Therefore many workes of righteous men are not infected with sinne I graunt your assumption though the proofe of it by the first testimony is insufficient for it doth not follow that we can do this or that because we are exhorted to the doing of it Your proposition I deny no sin can please God nor any action as it is sinfull but God both can and doth pardon the faultines of his childrens workes and accept the worke it selfe in Christ yea and reward it too with increase of glorie speaker D. B. P. Finally many vvorkes in holy vvrite be called good as That they may see your good works to be rich in good vvorks VVe are created in Christ Iesus to good vvorkes but they could not truly be called good vvorkes if they vvere infected vvith sin For according to the iudgement of all learned Diuines it can be no good vvorke that fayleth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it For Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore vve must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good vvhich vvere blasphemy or else acknovvledge that there be many good vvorkes free from all infection of sinne speaker A. W. No workes infected with sinne can be truly called good Many workes are called good in Scripture Therefore many workes are not infected with sinne Here is the same fault againe Your assumption is true but your proofe naught For the places you alleage proue no more but that the works which we should do are good not that they are good as we doe them Your proposition is false as the other was For the works enioyned by God are very good but they haue some allay and abasement by our doing of them which argueth not that they are not truely but that they are not perfectly good speaker D. B. P. In lieu of the manifold testimonies of Antiquitie which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellency of them I will set downe one passage of S. Augustine wherein this verie controuersie is distinctly declared and determined thus he beginneth The iustice through vvhich the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the vvhich although it be vvorthilie called in some men perfect according to the capacity of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater vvhich man made equall to Angels shall receiue VVhich heauenly iustice he that had not as yet saide himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that vvas in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that vvhich he vvanted But certainely this lesser iustice or righteousnes breedeth and bringeth forth merits and that greater is the revvard thereof VVherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
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
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
he doth it by rote and not by skill not caring what their meaning was but gessing what in his conceit it might be If he had lookt for the place here alleaged he would certainly haue answered that Austin hath no such speech vpon that Psalme and then perhaps he might with more reason haue denied that he hath it at all The truth is the Printer misplaced the cypher and of Psalme 102. made 120. But Master Perkins truly alleaged Austins words and sentence which this bold censurer calles foolish and confidently affirmes that Austin would not let any such foolish sentence passe his penne Let himselfe iudge whether Austin say so or no. We saith Austin that are ouercome in our selues haue ouercome in him therefore he crownes thee because he crownes his owne gifts not thy merits The sense is that if God should looke to our actions of striuing against sinne as they are weakly performed by vs hee would neuer crowne them but considering that wee striue by his grace he vouchsafes them a reward though on our part altogether vndeserued speaker D. B. P. But he mistooke belike this sentence of Saint Augustine VVhen God crovvneth thee he crovvneth his gifts not thy merits Which is true being taken in that sense which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crovvne his ovvne gifts not thy merits If thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working vvith vs then may vve as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and revvard of merits speaker A. W. Austin hath the same sentence for the substance of it in many other places and namely in that you alleage though not altogether as you alleage it For after those words If thy merits be of thy selfe it followes in Austin for these if they be such are naught those that are naught God crownes not but if they be good they be the gifts of God The rest and the greater halfe of the sentence is none of Austins but yours yet closely conueied by you as if it were his no lesse than the former speaker W. P. And Psal. 142. Lord thou wilt quicken me in thy iustice not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou hast compassion speaker D. B. P. His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainely now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie speaker A. W. It will not serue the turne to say It is not to this purpose but speakes of the first iustification of a sinner For Dauid who is held to be the penner of it was truly iustified before the writing of that Psalme yea the whole course of the Psalme it selfe manifestly prooues that it was the prayer of one greatly in Gods fauour and strongly perswaded of his succour But what neede I seeke any proofes Haue you forgotten that a few lines before you confest as much when as you would haue shifted off that place in the second verse of this Psalme by answering that the Prophet prayed onely for veniall and light sinnes How then is the case so suddenly altred Forsooth because he saith Thou shalt quicken me For so indeed he saith and not Quicken me as you write But this quickning is not giuing him grace to iustification but comforting and relieuing him in the troubles hee speakes of and as Lyra truly expounds it deliuering him from the daunger of death which hung ouer his head by reason of his sonne Absoloms vnnaturall rebellion Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. In sundrie places of Scripture promise of reward is made to them that beleeue and do good workes therefore our workes doe merit for a reward and merit be relatiues Answ. Reward is twofold of debt and of mercie Life euerlasting is not a reward of debt but of mercie giuen of the good will of God without anything done of man speaker D. B. P. Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alleaged against merittes Let vs see what can be said for them following as neere as I can M. Perkins order First in sundry places of Scripture promise of reward is made vnto good workes If thou doe vvell shalt thou not receiue To him that doth vvell there is a faithfull revvard Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the revvard of God remaineth for euer and. VVhen you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen And a hundred such like therefore such workes doe merit heauen for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it M. Perkins answereth first that the reward is of meere mercie without any thing done by men But this is most apparantly false for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward Againe a reward in English supposeth a former pleasure which is rewarded otherwise it were to be called a gift and not a reward and much more the Latin and Greek word Misthos Merces which rather signifie a mans hire and wages then a gift or reward speaker A. W. M. Perkins saith not that reward is promised to workes but to them that beleeue and doe good workes where if there be any desert it is wholy in the person if not onely Yea all the places you needlesly alleage mention reward to the doer not to the deed To the former part of the place out of Ecclesiasticus I answered before I adde now concerning the latter which belongs to this argument viz. Because the reward of God remaines for euer that it is not in the Greeke copie nor in Caraffas Latin nor in Pagnines Vatablus hath it indeede but within two hookes as a sentence suspected The edition of Complutum and Aâ—â—as Montanus wholy omit it There is nothing done by man that can deserue such a reward though there be something done for which the doer is rewarded A reward supposeth some action which is rewarded but not alwaies vpon desert It may well be called a reward because it is giuen in respect of the worke howsoeuer not for the worth of it The Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin merces signifie a reward for somewhat done either vpon couenant or otherwise but prooue not any merit in the worke speaker W. P. Secondly the kingdome of heauen is properly an inheritance giuen of a father to a child and therefore it is called a reward not properly but by a figure or by resemblance For as a workeman hauing ended his labour receiueth his wages so after men haue lead their liues and finished their course in keeping faith and good
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
Hilary expounding that exhortation of our Sauiour seeke ye first the kingdome of God and his righteousnes counsailes men to seeke it with the labour of their life and this saith he is the reward for there is but one word merces of them that liue well and perfitly he saith not that any mans worke is perfit inough truly and wholie to deserue it speaker A. W. Saint Ambrose Is it not euident that there remaineth after this life either revvard for merits or punishment Ambrose speakes not of the valew of good works but labours to take away that offence that commonly troubles men when they see that euill men fare better then good in this world he answers that in the world to come the case shall be altered the one shall be rewarded and the other punished for their works which he calls merits speaker D. B. P. Saint Hierome Novv after Baptisme it appertaineth to our trauailes according vnto the diuersity of vertue to prepare for vs different rewards speaker A. W. You might as well haue left out Ieromes testimonie as you do the quoting of it for it makes nothing for you nor against vs that wee are to prepare different rewards for our selues according to the diuersitie of vertue what if he had said merit do we not graunt it But where is deseruing euerlasting life in Ieromes words speaker A. W. Saint Bernard Prouide that thou haue merits for the vvant of them is a pernitions pouertie Penury of works saith Bernard is dangerous pouerty who denyes it it followes but presumption of spirit is deceitfull riches who presumes if he do not that thinks himselfe absolutely worthie of heauen as wages speaker D. B. P. Briefly that this was the vniuersall Doctrine of all good Christians aboue a thousand yeares past is declared in the Councell of Arausicane Revvard is debt vnto good vvorkes if they be done but grace vvhich vvas not debte goeth before that they may be done These testimonies of the most auncient and best learned Christians may suffice to batter the brasen forehead of them that affirme the Doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church The Councell of Orenge saith nothing that was not said before in the testimonies of the Fathers neither needs any other answer The doubt is not whether reward be due to good works but by what right it is due whereof the Councell saith nothing expresly The doctrine of merits as it was held and taught by the auncient Christians before the discouerie of your Romish Antichrist we acknowledge and embrace howsoeuer perhaps some particular men may haue gon a little too farre in their amplifications But the doctrine that is maintained by your Church and Councell of Trent we disclaime and detest as the principall meanes next to direct Pelagianisme to puffe vp the pride of mans heart and to take away true thankfulnes and trust in God that is to ouerthrow the Gospell the end whereof is beleeuing in Christ to iustification and saluation For if as by your doctrine it must needs be man do at the first by the good vse of his freewill receiue grace and by the same freewill though in both cases inlightened and inspired merit his saluation truly and wholie as the day labouring man doth his wages what glory can God haue or what thanks doth Christ deserue for any particular mans saluation he prouided the meanes you will say that Peter for example might be saued if he would So did he that Iudas might be He offered the meanes to Peter to Iudas too How chance Peter receiued this grace and Iudas did not you answer because Peter would and Iudas would not But how came it to passe that Peter would and Iudas would not Here is the first difference was it because God of his loue to Peter wrought in his heart by his spirit so that it could not come to passe but he should beleeue and left Iudas to himselfe who so left would neuer beleeue so we teach according to the truth of the Gospell But you perswade your people that it was Peter that made the difference betwixt himselfe and Iudas not God who left the matter to the free will of both alike that either or neither of them might be saued as pleased them But what is Peter by this beleeuing in Christ an heire of heauen no only he is now in such an estate as that he may if he will earne euerlasting life as the hire and wages of his works I appeale now to any Christian soule that hath but the least desire to aduance Gods glory aboue his owne to giue sentence of this matter out of the truth of his heart what doth God by the doctrine of popery but only prouide that men may come to heauen if they will And how forsooth vpon our Sauiour Christs deserts he is content to giue men grace whereby they may be able to merit their owne saluation But he will giue this grace to no man who shall not first vpon good motions inspired prepare himselfe of his owne free will by faith feare hope loue repentance to the receiuing of it hauing receiued it he must now by good works to which he is enabled deserue euerlasting life so fully as that God should be vniust if he should not giue it him for the worthines of the worke he hath done For whereas he made a promise of a reward it was no more then he was bound to do in true iustice our works without his promise deseruing the reward truly and wholie This is the doctrine of your Church touching faith and works which Master Perkins iustly calls a satanicall inuention because it ouerthrowes the glory of Gods mercy to establish the pride of mans free will Now whereas we teach that our works do not by their worth deserue euerlasting life what hurt is it if it were false but only that it were false to make men thinke themselues wholie bound to God for their iustification and glorification for we vrge necessitie of works and assurance of reward as well as you though not to merit euerlasting glory by them If any man be so thankeles or so proude that he will not worke vnlesse he may merit by working he neuer felt himselfe to be a sonne and shall receiue the wages of seruants the iust hire of his sinnes damnation The sixth poynt Of Satisfaction Our consent speaker W. P. Conclus I. First we acknowledge and hold Ciuill or Politike satisfaction that is a recompence for iniuries and damages offered any way to our neighbours This Zacheus practised when at his conuersion he restored foure-fold things gotten by forged cauillation Againe by ciuill satisfaction I vnderstand the imposition of fines mulcts and penalties vpon offenders and the inflicting of death vpon malefactors For all these are satisfactions to the lawe and societies
that lookes into your Commentaries and bookes of controuersies shall finde very diuers and sometimes contrarie expositions Our Sauiour Christ hath prouided sufficientlie for his Church by deliuering in scripture the grounds of religion so plainely some here some there that any reasonable man may with small labour vnderstand them from which they that haue knowledge of the tongues and arts especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick may come to vnderstand the harder places though perhaps not euery one yet at the least so many and such as shall serue to instruct the people of God in the knowledge of his will for the obtaining of euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. To auoid then such garboyles and intestine contention there vvas neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all boubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Lavv-maker who in vvisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens doe the earth hath left his golden Lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit no no It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Son of God speaker A. W. For the auoiding of outward garboiles by force or preaching false doctrine our Sauiour hath appointed principallie the ciuill magistrate secondarily the gouernors of the Churches For the keeping of his children from perishing by error he hath ordeined beside the outward helps of Pastors and Doctors the most certaine direction of his vicegerent the holy spirit who preserues all that are Christs from falling away from the substance and foundation of truth to damnation Not that euery man may take vpon him to interpret scripture vpon pretence of I know not what spirit but that he may assure himselfe of being kept from all error that may ouerthrow his saluation by the direction of Gods spirit vpon whom he calls by prayer and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before sure and who therefore were appointed to be heard without exception This befals not any men nowadayes and therefore none can iustly claime any such credit The auncients that so wrot in this point of S. Pauls going to see Peter haue wholie mistaken the Apostle who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him For he saith First that he was not an Apostle of men nor by man Secondly that he went vp to Ierusalem not to haue confirmation of his doctrine from them who were no way superior to him but that the Gentiles might know he taught the same things that the other Apostles did If he had done it for his owne assurance he had not beleeued the vision and discredited our Sauiours extraordinarie teaching of him and had taught for a time such things as he was not sure to be the truth of God But if this should be his case he had sinned grieuously in his former preaching and he had wholie ouerthrowne the authoritie of his ministrie which in these two Chapters he labors especially to vphold auouching that he neither learned any doctrine nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames Cephas and Iohn which were esteemed to be pillers yea he did openly reprooue Peter if not of error in doctrine yet of misbehauiour in his conuersation As for the controuersie of abrogating Moses law it was a case determined by scripture and no man might refuse to obey any one of the Apostles charge coÌ„cerning that point But that the Brethren might haue the better satisfaction it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by ioynt consent of themselues and the brethren there assembled which any one of them might of himselfe haue ended But because diuers parts of the Church were conuerted by diuers Apostles and each Church made most account of their owne Apostle the readiest and safest way was to conclude of the matter by common consultation so afterward in all lawfull Councels the written word was held sufficient for the consutation of the heresies that arose from time to time but for the better stopping of the heretikes mouths and satisfying of all men sometimes the consent of former Diuines Churches and Councels was added in good discretion for mens sake not for the matter which might be and was abundantlie prooued or discouered as occasion serued by the scriptures speaker D. B. P. See Cardinall Bellarmine I vvill only record tvvo noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquity for the true sense of Gods vvord The first out of the Ecclesiastical History whereof Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and Saint Basil tvvo principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And aftervvard for thirteene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes imployed their studie vvholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning vvhereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as vvere knovvne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the very words speaker A. W. The examples you bring are nothing against vs in this question Nazianzen and Basil sought the true sense of the Scripture not out of their owne iudgement but out of their predecessors writings and authoritie What then Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation This consequence hath often been disprooued Neither is the Antecedent true if it be generally taken For their owne writings shew euery where that they vsed the help of learning and discourse to finde out the sense of scripture in many places and set downe that in their Commentaries which by study they came to vnderstand If any thing were doubtfull we presume they did as we are sure the Protestants now doe where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie rest vpon the authoritie of their predecessors rather than vpon their owne This reuerence wee giue to the Fathers writings and reade them with as great diligâ—… as they that make more bragges of thâ—ir knowledge in â—heâ— And if that rule which the storie 〈◊〉 and or you name not but it is Austin speakes of 〈◊〉 one of them which we follw in searching out thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the Scripture â—…treate â—ou to make 〈◊〉 to vs and you shall finde that we will take it 〈◊〉 and vse it diligently if we cannot shew you certaine reasons to the contrarie If the rule be to take for truth whatsoeuer the ancients haue deliuered how many things yea contrarie expositions shal we hold for true If you say the rule is to beleeue the ancientest what
God though of themselues they be no worship speaker D. B. P. Buâ— let vs heere M. Perkins his second reason against such Vovves Gods kingdome standeth not in outvvard things and therfore his vvorship standeth not in outvvard things Ans. Gods kingdome in itselfe standeth not in outvvard things and as it is in vs also it doth consist chiefly in inward worship by faith hope charity and religion in vvhose kingdome Vovvs hold a honorable ranke but a great part of this vvorship among vs depends of outvvard things for be not the tvvo only parts of Gods vvorship among Protestants as M. Perknis saith in this question Baptisme and our Lords Supper both vvhich partly consist in outvvardly both speaking and doing And is not faith vvhich is the roote of all Christian Religion gotten by outvvard preaching and hearing But it vvould vvearie a vvilling man to trayle after all M. Perkins his impertinent errors speaker A. W. The kingdome of God stands not in such outward actions as eating drinking c. Master Perkins denyes not that we are to performe outward worship to God which consists among vs in prayer prayse thanksgeuing and such like duties not onely as you would haue your followers falsely imagine of vs in administring and receiuing the sacraments You that would seeme so vnwilling to traile after Master Perkins errors are glad to make some of your owne and father them vpon him least ofttimes you should haue nothing to say I haue shewed diuers particulars of this kind in the course of my answere to your cauils against him speaker W. P. III. Point of difference They maintaine such vowes to be made as are not agreeable to the rules before named and herein also wee are to dissent from them The first and principall is the vowe of continencie whereby a man promiseth to God to keepe chastitie alwaies in single life that is out of the estate of wedlocke This kind of vowe is flat against the word of God and therefore vnlawfull For Paul saith 1. Cor. 7. 9. If they cannot conteine let them marric 1. Tim. 4. 1. It is a doctrine of deuills to forbid to marrie Heb. 13. 4. Marriage is honorable among all and the bed vndefiled speaker D. B. P. This kind of Vovv is flat against the vvord of God as hesaith vvhich he proueth first out of S. Paul If they cannot containe then let 〈◊〉 Marrie True if they haue not Vovved Chastitie before as the common Christians of Corinth to vvhom S. Paul there speaketh had not For such â—f they cannotliue othervvise chastly it is better they marry then be burned that is defiled vvith incontinencie But to them vvho had Vovved chastitie before S. Paul vvriteth in another stile That if they but desire to marrie they incurre domnation because they haue made frustrate and broken their former faith and promise made vnto God of their chastiue So that this first text is a Furlong vvide at the least from the marke speaker A. W. The text is generall and implies no such exception holds it to be a better course for them that haue vowed to marry then to continue in sinne against God And Austin saith that the marriages of such men are not to be condemned as if they were no marriages at all which opinion that they are no marriages he there refutes And indeede who can thinke in any reason that it is more displeasing to God for a man to breake the promise he hath made then by making a shew of keeping it to liue in vncleannes It is but one fault to breake a vow though it be neuer so lawfull but it is a double fault both to do against the vow by continuing subiect to such lusts and to refuse the remedie that is afforded In which respect Epiphanius saith it is better to haue one sinne then many sinnes Therefore Cyrill giueth councell to marry euen after the vow of single life and to confesse our sinne in so doing if we cannot liue chastly Yea the Common law bids a man not to do that which he hath vowed vnaduisedly It is no doubt a fault not to keepe our vow but to make such a vow as a man is not sure he shall be able to keepe is a greater fault If the case fall out to be so Ierome and q Austen hold it the lesse euill to marry It cannot be prooued out of the text that the Apostle speaketh there of any votaries but only of such widowes as hauing for a time employed themselues in the seruice of the Church at the last left both the Church and Christ and followed Sathan by marrying with Infidels But take it as you will we haue already seene the iudgement of the Auntients who for all their high conceipt of virginitie allow marriage euen after vowes speaker D. B. P. The second is much like It is a doctrine of diuels to forbid to marie truth if one should hold mariage in it selfe to be wicked and therefore condemne it in all sorts of persons as Montanus and the Manichees did But we haue a more reuerend opinion of marriage than the Protestants themselues For we with the Apostle hold it to be a great Sacramâ—… they that it is a morail contract only Notwithstanding we maintaine that such persons who being of ripe yeeres haue aduisedly Vowed chastitie may not marry not because marriage is not honorable but for that they haue solemnly promised to God the contrarie which we also hold to be better thaÌ„ if he had maried And so to vse S. Augustines words H. forbiddeth to marry vvho sayeth it to be euill but not be vvho before this good thing preferreth a better And a little after you see saith he that there is great difference betweene persvvasion to Virginity by preserring the greater good before the lesse and forbidding to marrie by accusing lying togither for issue The first is the doctrine of the Apostles which we teach the latter only of diuels speaker A. W. The Apostle speaketh of all forbidding marriage at the least as an vncleane thing but so it is forbidden by you because it defiles your priests that they cannot be fit to offer vp ther maker yea that they cannot pray as Harding saith You take marriage for such a Sacrament that it is too base for your holy priesthood We acknowledge it to be the ordinance of God of another manner of bond then a morall contract only We deny not that single life is in some respects to be preferred before marraige but that marriage is to be forbidden any sort of men as if of it selfe it made them lesse holy speaker D. B. P. The strength of this place lyeth in a double corruption of the text For this verbe is is not in the text nor cannot by the courle of the Apostles speech requiring a verbe of the Imperatiue Mood as both the sent nces before and after do conuince speaker A. W. The sentences before and
after prooue no such thing rather the opposition in the later part of the verse shewes that it should be is marriage is honorable but whoremongers and adulterers God will iudge whereas if it had bin so intended as you would haue it the other part must haue bin for God will iudge by way of a reason as your vulgar translation reades it without ground If we corrupt the text by adding the verb is what do Theodoret Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenins and Heutenius the Papist that translated him Hesychius Fulgentius Damasâ—en who so expound it Primasius giues the reason why the Apostle speaketh so because some at that time condemned mariage as vncleane speaker A. W. Againe if you will haue the Apostle say that Marriage is honorable among all men we must also needs take him to say that the bedde is also vndefiled among all which was not true Also that their conuersation was without couetousnes c. For there is no reason why this word is should be ioyned with the one more than with the other And nothing but passion doth cause them to make the middle sentence an affirmatiue when they turne both the other into exhortations speaker D. B. P. There is great reason why it should be ioyned with the one as hath been shewed With the other as you ioyne it it is absurd but it must thus be ioyned that is honorable be repeated and the bed vndefiled is honorable In the sentence following it cannot be vnderstood with any reason and therefore the vulgar Latin puts in sint and the Rhemists English let be which in the former verse neither of them doth You so interpret it The second corruption is in these words among all when they should translate in all and the adiectiue being put without a substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it and not men wherfore the text being sincerely put into English it would carrie no colour of their error For the Apostles saying is Let marriage be honorable in all things and the bed vndefiled Here is no willing of any man to marrie but only a commandement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage to keepe as he else where saith their vessels in sanctification and not in dishonor and then shall their marriage be honorable in all things that is in all points appertaining to Matrimonie So that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the Vow of chastitie speaker A. W. The Adiectiue may be as well the Masculine as the Newter and that which followeth in the other part of the verse of whoremongers and adulterers directs vs to expound it of the persons So doth Theophyl vnderstand it In all saith Theophylact is not onely in men of riper age and not in young men also but in all men or in all meanes and times not in affliction onely and in rest otherwise not honourable and pretious in this part in that part otherwise but the whole throughout is honourable So that both your cauils at the translation are vaine and the sense is wholy for vs. speaker D. B. P. The Scripture being so barren for him he shall be like recompence it with the abundant testimony of antiquitie in fauour of his cause but oh vnhappy chance he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church What was there not one Father who vvith some one broken fragment of a sentence or other would releeue you in this your combate against the Vow of Chastitie I will help you to one but I feare me you will scarse thanke me for my paines It is such a one as is neither holy nor father but the auncient Christian Epicure Jouinian who as S. Augustine hath recorded and Saint Ierom did hold that Virginity of professed persons men and women was no better then the continencie of the married So that many professed Virgins beleeuing him did marrie yet himselfe did not marrie as Fryer Luther did not be cause he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come with a greater crowne of glory but because it was fit for the present necessity to auoid the troubles of marriage see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants But this heresie saith S. Augustine in the same place was quicklie suppressed and extinguished it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests And in another place thus he speaketh of Iouinian Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster So that no maruaile if that M. Perkins could find smal reliefe in antiquitie for this his assertion which the best of them esteemed no better than a monstrous sacrilegious heresie speaker A. W. But the Fathers are not for vs. What then is nothing true that cannot be confirmed by their testimonie Then are there very many vntruths in Poperie Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the ancient writers that they were too highly conceited of single life The vse whereof a kinde of necessitie bred at first by reason of persecution experience of constant profession confirmed and opinion of holinesse thereupon at the last perfected so that it is not to be lookt for that antiquitie should affoord vs any testimonie against the practise and iudgement of those daies And yet it is apparant in those places I alleaged before and diuers other that neither the Clergie as you call it was bound to make any such vow and that after it was made it was held a lesse sinne to breake it than to continue it in vncleannes which tained then to vow but first to vow and then to looke for strength from God to fit vs for the keeping of our vow is against all Diuinitie and reason And therefore the perswasion to vow vpon presumption of abilitie to performe that which is vowed shewes at the least zeale without knowledge and can be no matter of commendation to the ancient Church if they simply allowed it Howsoeuer they were farre better than you because they enioyned breach of vow rather than encrease of sinne speaker D. B. P. But to the further confirmation of this point let vs heare what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibilitie of this Vow speaker A. W. You labour to disprooue Master Perkins Antecedent by the testimonie of the ancient writers To which I answere in generall that as wee freely acknowledge their authoritie where there is nothing but meÌ„s authoritie to be waighed so we account it lighter than nothing in all cases contrarie to Scripture such as we can prooue this to be speaker D. B. P. Tertullian neere the end expounding these words He that can take let him take Chuse saith hâ— that vvhich is good if thou say thou canst not it is because thou vvilt not for that thou mightest if thou vvouldest he doth declare vvho hath left both to thy choise speaker A. W.
would answere at aduenture I could say that God exhorts none to this vow but them on whom he hath bestowed the gift and they haue his helpe to fulfill that they haue vowed We enuie not this your speciall iudgement nor respect your slanderous challenge onely this I answere that if all the Ministers and their wiues had been as lewd as your malice can imagine they could not haue come neere the thousand part of that filthines which your Bishops Priests Friers and Nunnes committed in this land by record of popish histories Yea let iust triall be made and we will aduenture our liues that time for time there haue been since the renewing of the Gospell more and more beastly vncleane persons among your Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes Friers and Nunnes in that one Citie of Rome than among al the Ministers and their wiues in this whole realme of England speaker W. P. Yet here marke in what manner we doe it First of all though wee mislike the vowe yet wee like and commend single life Marriage indeed is better in two respects first because God hath ordained it to bee a remedie of continencie to all such persons as cannot containe secondly because it is the seminarie both of Church and Common-wealth and it bringeth forth a seede of God for the inlarging of his kingdome Yet single life in them that haue the gift of continencie is in some respects to bee preferred First because it brings libertie in persequution Thus Paul saith 1. Cor. 7. 26. I suppose it to be good for the present necessitie for a man so to bee Secondly because it frees men from the common cares molestations and distractions that bee in the familie vers 2. 28. Such shall haue trouble in the flesh but I spare you Thirdly because single parties doe commonly with more bodilie ease and libertie worship God it beeing still presupposed that they haue the gift of continencie vers 34. The vnmarried woman careth for the things of of the Lord that shee may be holy both in bodie and spirit Againe though wee mislike the vowe yet wee hold and teach that men or women being assured that they haue the gift of continencie may constantly resolue and purpose with themselues to liue and lead a single life 1. Cor. 7. 38. Hee that standeth firme in his owne heart that hee hath no neede but hath power of his owne will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keepe his virginitie he doth well And wee imbrace the saying of Theodoret on 1. Tim. cap. 4. for he doth not saith he blame single life or continencie but he accuseth them that by law enacted compel men to follow these And men made themselues chast for the kingdome of heauen Matth. 19. 12. not by vowe but by a purpose of heart which is farre lesse then a vow and may be changed vpon occasion where as a vow cannot vnlesse it doe euidently appeare to bee vnlawfull Thirdly for such persons as are able to containe to liue single for the endes before named indeede we hold it to bee no counsell of perfection yet doe wee not denie it to bee a counsell of expedience oâ— outward ease according to that which Paul saith vers 25. I giue mine aduise and 35. I speake this for your commoditie not to intangle you in a snare Lastly we thinke that if any hauing the gift of continencie doe make a vow to liue single and yet afterward marrie the said gift remaining they haue sinned Yet not because they are married but because their vowe is broken And thus said Augustine of widowes that married after their vow lib. de bono viduit c. 9. speaker D. B. P. This may serue for a reproofe of all that M. Perkins obiecteth against the Vovv of chastitie aftervvard the man vvould somewhat reason the matter by shevving hovv he condemneth not chastitie yet saith that Marriage is better than it in two respects If Iouinian was reputed by the learnedst and holiest Fathers a Christian Epicure and a Monster because he durst make marriage equall vvith Virginitie What shall this man be who saith it is better His reasons are so childish that by the like you may proue durt to be better then gold vvherefore I vvill not stand vpon them He neuerthelesse aftervvard concludeth that one may purpose constantly vvith himselfe to lead a single life but so as he may change vpon occasion and this to be a counsell of expedience but not of perfection Lastly that if any hauing the gift of continencie do Vovv and atfervvard marâ—ie the gift remaining they haue sinned vvhich is flat against his ovvne second rule vvhich prohibits vs to leese our libertie and to make any thing vnlavvfull in conscience vvhich Christian Religion leaueth at libertie Novv to supplie M. Perkins his default vvho vvas accustomed to rehearse although many times vntowardly yet lightlie alvvaies some reasons for the Catholike partie vvhich in this question he hath vvholie omitted speaker A. W. He that will but reade what Master Perkins writes and what you answere shall see a true image of popish dealing whereby you slubber ouer the matter to which you know not what to say Is it a wrong to single life or virginitie to hold that marriage in some respect is better then it I will go further then Master Perkins hath done and not doubt to affirme that it is simply better then virginitie my reason is that it belongs to the perfection of humaine nature that there should be continuance and multiplying of the kind by propagation beside God appointed it as an especiall blessing for Adam when he was in Gods especiall fauour But if that estate be worse then the single life in which he liued before God did not blesse but punish him rather by that change therefore marriage simply is better But that virginitie might haue his due Master Perkins sets downe presently after three respects wherein it is to be preserred before marriage all which you do not once name Those Christian Fathers dealt vnchristianly with Iouinian who ascribed as much to virginitie as our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles gaue to it in any place of Scripture according to that conclusion of Theodoret who ends his discourse of virginitie with these words Such things we haue receiued being appointed and decreed by men endued with the knowledge of heauenly things which are such as do not accuse marriage but exhort vs to a life void of cares This Iouinian acknowledged and worthily denied all difference of merit betwixt a married and single life which no enemy of Iouinian can disproue no more can you Master Perkins reasons though you disgrace them all you can speaker D. B. P. I vvill briefelie proue by an argument or tvvo that it is both lavvfull and verie commendable for men and vvomen of ripe yeeres and consideration hauing vvell tried their ovvne aptnesse to Vovv virginitie if by good inspirations they be thereunto invvardly called My
their owne bread Now when as men liue apart from others giuing themselues onely to prayer and fasting they liue in no calling And it is against the generall vowe made in Baptisme because it freeth men from sundrie duties of the morall law and changeth the proper ende of mans life For euery man must haue two callings The first is a general calling of a Christiā by vertue of which he performeth worship vnto God and duties of loue to men The second is a particular calling wherein according to his gift he must doe seruice to men in some function pertaining either to the Church or Common-wealth whereof he is a member And the first of these twaine must be performed in the second and the second in and with the first The end of mans life is not onely to serue God by the duties of the first table but by seruing of man in the duties of the second table to serue God And therefore the loue of our neighbour is called the fulfilling of the whole law Rom. 13. 10. because the law of God is practised not apart but in and with the loue of our neighbour This beeing so it is manifest that vowed pouertie in Monkish life makes many vnprofitable members both of Church and Common-wealth speaker D. B. P. Concerning the Vovv of pouertie and monasticall life in vvhich as M. Perkins acknovvledgeth men bestovv all they haue vpon the poore and giue themselues to Prayer and Fasting yet he is not ashamed to auouch that this Vow is against the vvill of God and assaieth to proue it Act. cap. 20. vers 35. It is a more blessed thing to giue than to receiue Ans. As the verie proposition that it is displeasing to God to cut off all cares of the vvorld and to betake our selues vvholy to his holy seruice and contemplation of heauenly matters is in it selfe profane and vngodly so the proofe thereof is deuoid of naturall wit and sense Marke the Argument It is against Gods vvill to giue avvay all because it is more blessed to giue than to receiue Why if it be a more blessed thing to giue then they please God better that giue So that this his proofe improues flatly his ovvne assertion But the dreamer meanes perhaps that if you giue all at once you shall not be able to giue aftervvard but rather stand in need to receiue Reply But no such humane prudence can be dravven out of that sentence vvhich encourageth rather to giue for the present then to prouide for hereafter speaker A. W. The true meaning of the place is to exhort Christians to labour and trauaile at vacanttimes to get their ovvne liuing and to prouide some thing also to bestovv vpon them vvho stand in need rathēr then to be idle and to stand in need of almes as S. Paul himselfe did vvhich they did best performe vvho had sold all they had and distributed it to the poore as the example of Paul himselfe and the first Christians doth sufficiently declare vvho sold all and laid the price at the Apostles feete The proposition is true that it is displeasing to God for a man to seuer himselfe from all cares of the world to serue him in contemplation without respect of any dutie to his brethren For the cares of the world are part of euery mans lot in this life and the good of our brethren is to be preferred for a time before our owne happinesse in heauen neither is any seruice of praying and fasting continually so much to Gods glorie as a Christian carriage in some lawfull calling The argument is good For he that giues away that vpon which he should liue as your Votaries doe brings himselfe into a lesse blessed estate to liue on other mens almes than spirit The like is to be said of hungring and thirsting being full and satisfied which followeth in the same place speaker D. B. P. Thus M. Perkins his texts of Scripture against pouerty failing him he fetcheth about another vvay saying that it is a rule of the holy Ghost He that vvill not labour namely in some speciall and vvarrantable calling must not eate Ans. I allow both the text and the glosse and finde nothing there against religious persons whose calling is speciall perfect and therefore best warrantable not so saith he because they giue themselues to prayer and fasting What a profane stupiditie is this Is not a life giuen to praier and fasting agreeable to the wil of God and Laws of his Church albeit many religious men doe ouer and besides very great seruices to Gods Church in preaching teaching writing of most learned books But suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray did they not verie well deserue their sustenance yes much better than they which trauaile all the yeere about the prouiding of it For in vaine do men labour if God blesse not their worke with seasonable weather which he doth rather at the prayer and instance of such good innocent soules that are to be fed with it than for the Plough-mans owne labours sake And if by their Fasting Watching and such like afflictions of their bodies they do partly satisfie for our superfluous pampering of the flesh and teach vs by their good example to bridle and correct it doe they not deserue at our hands bodily sustenance And who better performes all duties of the second Table than they being most obedient to all their Superiours and not hurting their neighbour in life persons or any manner of their goods And so in their seuerall callings offend no honest men and doe much good both vnto the Church and common-wealth speaker A. W. It is no lawfull calling nor agreeable to the will of God that any man should liue in the Church without any charge or meanes to profit the Church by Fasting and praying are both lawfull and acceptable but they are generall duties of all Christians and may not therefore be made proper callings of certaine men For callings differ as other things by their speciall forme but their praying and fasting is diuers from the same exercise practised by other Christians onely in quantitie more or lesse The seruices these men doe beside are meerely voluntarie and not lying vpon them by any dutie of their calling which is onely I know not what stinted deuotion after the lawes of each seuerall order of Monkes Friers Nunnes and such like They no way deserue their sustenance since they haue vowed to take no course whereby they may prouide for it Their prayers do no good no not so much as to themselues being made with a proud opinion to merit by a conceited perfection A poore husbandman that labours all the week for his liuing and vseth the best meanes he can to grow in knowledge and obedience to God may looke for a greater blessing from God vpon his bodily and spirituall labours by his owne poore prayers and the supplications of the Congregation in which he liueth than by all
your estimation of the vow in Baptisme and these other 3. vowes deuised by your selues And though with you the couenant in baptisme be no vow yet with S. Austin it is What must we vow saith he vpon that place which you alleage to prooue the lawfulnes of vowing He answers to beleeue in him to hope for euerlasting life of him to liue well according to a common manner of liuing well The vow in our creation Master Perkins calls the bond by which we are tyed to obedience in respect that we hold all we haue of God by creation As the benefits sealed to vs in Baptisme are renewed in the Lords supper euery time we receiue it so by vs in like sort the promise or vow made in baptisme is also to be renewed which is implied in that name of the sacrament which signifieth thanksgiuing The ninth point Of Jmages Our consent speaker W. P. Conclus I. We acknowledge the ciuill vse of images as freely and truely as the church of Rome doth By ciuill vse I vnderstand that vse which is made of them in the common societies of men out of the appointed places of the solemne worship of God And this to be lawfull it appeareth because the artes of painting and grauing are the ordinance of God and to be skilfull in them is the gift of God as the example of Bozaleel and Aholiab declare Exod. 35. 30. This vse of Images may bee in sundrie thinges I. In the adorning and setting forth of buildings thus Salomon beautified his throne with the image of lions And the Lord commaunded his temple to bee adorned with the images of palme trees of pomegranates of bulles cherubes and such like II. It serues for the distinction of coynes according to the practise of Emperours and princes of all nations When Christ was asked Matth. 22. whether it was lawful to giue tribute to Cesar or no he called for a penny and said whose Image or superscription is this they said Cesars he then said giue to Cesar the things that are Cesars not condemning but approuing the stampe or image vpon his coyne And though the Iewes were forbidden to make images in way of representation or worship of the true God yet the Sycle of the sanctuarie which they vsed specially after the time of Moses was stamped with the image of the Almon tree and the potte of Manna III. Images serue to keepe in memorie friendes deceased whom we reuerence And it is like that hence came one occasion of the images that are now in vse in the Roman church For in the daies after the Apostles men vsed priuately to keepe the pictures of their friendes departed and this practise after crept into the open congregation and at last superstition getting heade images began to be worshipped Conclus II. We hold the historicall vse of images to be good and lawfull and that is to represent to the eye the actes of histories whether they bee humane or diuine and thus we thinke the histories of the Bible may be painted in priuate places Conclus III. In one case it is lawfull to make an image to testifie the presence or the effects of the Maiestie of God namely when God himselfe giues any speciall commaundement so to doe In this case Moses made and erected a brasen serpent to bee a type signe or image to represent Christ crucified Ioh. 3. 14. And the Cherubs ouer the mercie seat serued to represent the Maiestie of God to whom the Angels are subiect And in the second commandement it is not simply said Thou shalt not make a grauen image but with limitation Thou shalt not make to thy selfe that is on thine owne head vpon thine owne will and pleasure speaker D. B. P. Christians saith M. Perkins in his first conclusion vsed priuately to keepe the Pictures of their friends departed which afterward saith he by abuse came to be set in Churches and vvorshipped This by the vvay is a very vvilâ—ull peruerting of those vvords to thy selfe which cannot signifie but to thine ovvne vse that is to adore them as is plainely deelared in the text follovving speaker A. W. It is no small aduantage that you take by reporting Master Perkins words as please you Here as also otherwhere you set them downe by halues as if he certainely affirmed that which he doth but gather by likelyhood It is like saith he that hence came one occasion of the images that are now in vse in the Romane Church speaker W. P. The most that any indifferent man can make of it is but a mistaking of the true sense vnlesse he be able to prooue that Master Perkins knew the meaning to be otherwise which is not to be thought of any man vpon a bare presumption It may be also he did rather so expound it because in diuers places of scripture where the Iewes idolatry is reprooued they are charged to haue followed their owne inuentions as your Latine translates IV. The right images of the new Testament which we hold and acknowledge are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospell and all things that by the word of God pertaines thereto Gal. 3. Who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth to whom Iesus Christ was before described in your sight and among you crucified Hence it followes that the preaching of the word is as a most excellent picture in which Christ with his benefits are liuely represented vnto vs. And we dissent not from Origen contra Ceâ—s lib. 8. who saith We haue no images framed by any base worke but by such as are brought forth and framed by the word of God namely patterns of vertue and frames resembling Christians He meanes that Christians themselues are the images of Christians speaker D. B. P. These be metaphoricall Pictures not belonging to this purpose for it is one thing to describe in vvords another to expresse in liuely colours and lineaments speaker A. W. These are the onely pictures that we need Preaching of the Word administring of the Sacraments and considering the liues of the true Saints as they are recorded in the Scripture and offer themselues to our knowledge by good histories and daily sight speaker D. B. P. These conclusions containe as M. Perkins affirmeth the doctrine of the Church of England vvhich I vvould beleeue if I did not see the Magistrats publikely to take avvay Pictures from Catholiks to teare and burne theÌ„ which were kept but in priuate places yea their more seruent disciples cannot abide a Crosse standing by the high way side or in any neuer so profane a place but either they beaâ—e and hale them dovvn or most despitefully deface them bevvraying indeed vnto all moderate men their cankered stomaks against him that died on the Crosse vvho vvill one day vvâ—on he pleaseth confound them But to couer this their malice they cast ouer it the mantle of zeale saying that the Papists make them their Gods and that therefore they are