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
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
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
together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthelie is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition Shee loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnes and therfore accounted her precious oyntments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charitie which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his ovvne vvord is most manifest for he said That many sinnes vvere forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue vvas no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before vvhich is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame vvould blush once to affirme it speaker A. W. In stead of answering your long discourse grounded vpon meere coniectures for the most part which for the womans sake I will not examine let me put you in minde that if all this you report of her were true she was iustified before these actions which could not proceede but from a great measure of grace especially such an inward burning charitie as is not easily to be found in many a one that hath been iustified a long time speaker A. W. First Christ saith expresly that it vvas the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins hath answered you that our Sauiour saith not so and hath prooued his answere by the like place of S. Iohn where the same word is vsed and no cause propounded but a signe onely Would you not haue taken away this answer if you had could But the text it self cleeres the matter first by the parable propounded with Simons answer and our Sauiours approbation then by the application of it lastly by the general doctrine gathered out of it to whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little To this purpose Basil saith That he that owes much hath much forgiuen him that he may loue much more Secondly that her loue vvent before is as plainelie declered both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the â—â—â—dence of her fact of vvashing wiping and anoynting his feete for â—hâ— vvhich saith our Sauiour then already performed Many siâ—… are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearely deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one vvill bee so blindly ledde by our nevv Masters that he vvill beleeue no vvords of Christ be they neuer so plaine othervvise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said vvere of no moment speaker A. W. The mention of the time past is too weake a reason to ouerthrow so certaine proofe out of the whole course of the text especially since that notable conclusion is deliuered immediatly vpon the former words in the present time to whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little Neither doth our Sauiour tie the pardon of her sinnes to that present time but then giueth her knowledge of that which was done before saying first to Simon Many sinnes are forgiuen her and then to her selfe Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker W. P. Reason II. Gal. 5. 6. Neither circumcision nor vncircumcision auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by loue Hence they gather that faith doth iustifie together with loue Ans. The propertie of true faith is to apprehend and receiue something vnto it selfe and loue that goes alwaies with faith as a fruite and an vnseparable companion thereof is of an other nature For it doth not receiue in but as it were giue out it selfe in all the duties of the first and second table towards God and man and this thing faith by it selfe cannot doe and therefore Paul saith that faith worketh by loue The hand hath a property to reach out it selfe to lay hold of any thing and to receiue a gift but the hand hath no propertie to cut a peece of wood of it selfe without saw or knife or some like instrument and yet by helpe of them it can either deuide or cut Euen so it is the nature of faith to goe out of it selfe and to receiue Christ into the heart as for the duties of the first and second table faith cannot of it selfe bring them forth no more then the hand can deuide or cut yet ioyne loue to faith and then can it practise duties commanded concerning God and man And this I take to be the meaning of this text which speaketh not of iustification by faith but onely of the practise of common duties which faith putteth in execution by the helpe of loue speaker D. B. P. Reply That charity hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and hand maâ—id of charity My proofe shall be out of the very text alleadged vvhere life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke vvord Euergoumene being passiue doth plainely shevv that faith is moued led and guided by charity speaker A. W. The Greek word is not of the passiue but of the middle voyce as it is in many other places of Scriptures The affections of the flesh did worke in our members operabantur in your own translation Death workes in vs but life in you operatur According to the power that worketh in vs operatur According to his working which he worketh in me quam operatur in me And in this very place operatur which cannot be taken passiuely as euery Grammar scholler knoweth In the Interlinear faith which is effectuall Pagnin working by loue Faith saith Theophylact on that place workes by loue that is saith he ought alwaies to be shewed to be aliue and effectuall by loue to Christ. And a little after Learne therefore that faith worketh by charitie that is saith he is shewed to be aliue The best of your owne writers expound it as we doe speaker A. W. Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifest saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith vvithout charity Making charitie to be the life and as it vvere the soule of faith Novv no man is ignorant but it is the soule that vseth the body as an instrument euen so then it is charity that vseth saith as her instrument and inferiour and not contrarivvise First the word in that place doth not signifie the soule but breath as Caietan saith Secondly the Apostle saith not without charitie as you doe but without workes which cannot be taken for the life of faith but are onely effects of it Thirdly for the meaning of the place let vs here your owne Cardinall Caietan speake By the name of spirit saith Caietan he vnderstands not
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
vereris feare not barbarously against true Grammar Latin But the sense also not onely the words is misconceiued For the meaning is that we should not put off honestie or good conuersation to our last end Put not off till death to prooue thy selfe a righteous man saith Vatablus a Papist very skilfull in the tongues and sometimes Hebrue Reader in Paris where you haue the very word which Bellarmine condemnes in Caluin ne differas Which also Pagnin vseth a notable Linguist and a Papist Put not off thy honestie Arias Montanus hath the sense though not the word waight not Stapleton applieth it to the first iustification Bellarmine to the second whose reasons I will answere otherwhere It is enough for the present that a second iustification cannot be prooued out of these two places speaker A. W. Which is confirmed vvhere it is said that the path of a iust man proceedeth as the light doth vntill it be perfect day Which is by degrees more and more And S. Paul teacheth the same vvhere he saith to men that giue almes plentifully That God vvill maltiplie their seede and augment the increases of the fruits of their iustice This place proueth not that there is a second iustification but either that the light of the righteous continueth or at the most that it increaseth to the end which we denynot And this much lesse where the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians to cheerefulnesse in liberalitie to the poore assuring them that God will make them more able to bring forth such fruites of righteousnesse by multiplying their seede and their store Ye shall giue them bread to eate saith Caietan and seede wherewith to sowe againe and iust or honest gaine whereas the gaine that the wicked make is vniust speaker D. B. P. Further S. Iames doth most effectually proue this increase of righteousnes and the second iustification in these vvords Abraham our Father was he not iustified by vvorkes offering Isaac his sonne vpon the Altar That he speaketh of the second iustification is euident for Abraham was iustified before Isaac was borne as it is most manifest by the Scripture it selfe and by that heroicall act of not sparing his onely and entirely beloued Sonne his iustice vvas much augmented And the Apostle himselfe seemeth to haue foreseene all our aduersaries cauillation and to haue so long before preuented them First that common shift of theirs that this worke vvas a signe or the fiuit only of his faith and no companion of it in the matter of iustification is formally confuted for the holy Ghost speaking distinctly of both his faith and work and ioyning them both in this act of iustification attributeth the better part of it vnto his vvorke thus Seest thou that faith did worke vvith his vvorkes and by the vvorkes the saith vvas consummate and made perfect Which he doth after fitly declare by a similitude comparing faith to the body and good vvorkes to the soule vvhich giue life and lustre to faith othervvise faith is of little value and estimation vvith God speaker A. W. Though there is enough said before for the cleering of this place yet perhaps it shal not be amisse to follow him in these seueral poynts That he speaketh not of the same iustification which Paul doth it is plaine but not that he meaneth your second iustification whereby the former is made perfit to deserue euerlasting life When we say works are no companions of faith in iustification we do not say they are not present but that they do not iustifie neither speak we of testifying our iustification by workes as the Apostle here doth but of that which you call the first iustification to which questionlesse this fact of Abraham in your own iudgment did not appertaine But he ioyneth faith and workes together How should they be seuered when there is no holy action performed in any part of our life but proceedeth from faith which of it owne nature worketh by loue now faith is not said to be perfited by workes as if it did iustifie a man by them for then had it not iustified Abraham till this great worke was wrought but because the act is the proose of the perfection of the vertue Wherupon it followeth in the text That by this worke the Scripture was fulfilled which had testified that Abraham was iustified by faith For now it manifestly appeared that the testimony was true Abraham making it cleare to all the world that he had true faith indeed that is saith Caieton such a faith as would not refuse but was reâ—die to bring forth good workes And in his opinion this is that which Iames saith that we are not iustified by a barren faith but by a faith fruitfull in good workes speaker D. B. P. Which S. Paul also teacheth atlarge among other speeches including this That if he should haue all faith and vvanted charitie he vvere nothing And comparing faith and charity together defineth expresly that charitie is the greater vertue Which charity is the fountaine of all good vvorkes And so by this preferring these vvorks of charity before faith he doth stop the other starting hole of the Protestants that Abraham forsooth vvas iustified before God by only faith but vvas declared iust before men by his vvorkes For if God esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified before God by charity then by faith speaker A. W. God esteemeth more of Charity for the vse of our conuersation amongst men but of faith for our iustification And indeed it is a greater honor to God for a man wholy to renounce himselfe and rest vpon him for iustification then to loue God in hope of such a fauour to be receiued vpon our being so prepared speaker D. B. P. Againe in the very place where this noble fact is recorded to shevv how acceptable it was to God himselfe it is said in the person of God Now I know that thou louest me and to conuince all obstinate cauilling is it not said that his faith did in this very fact cooperate with his works and that the worke made his faith perfect which coniunction of both of them together doth demonstrate that he speaketh oâ— his iustification before God adding also That he vvas therefore called the friend of God Which could not haue been if thereby he had been only declared iust before men and thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles S. Paul and S. Iames which seeme contrary S. Paul saying that a man is iustified by faith vvithout vvorkes and S. Iames that a man is iustified by vvorks and not by faith only That S. Paul speaketh of works vvhich goe before saith such as vve of our owne forces vvithout the helpe of grace are able to doe and such he saith not to deserue our first iustification But S. Iames dispâ—teth of workes vvhich sollovv faith and
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
condemned by the Councell of Frankfort I will omitte sundrie other heades of the Protestants Religion by all approued antiquitie reproued aad condemned that I passe not the boundes of an Epistle and seeme ouer tedious vnto your Maiestie Especially considering that these are sufficient to conuince that those points wherein the Protestants affirme the present Church of Rome to haue so farre degenerate from the auncient are the very essentiall parts of saith then maintayned by the Romans And the contrary opinions nothing else but wicked heresies of old inuented and obstinately helde against the same Roman See euen as they are now our time and of old also condemned by the same Church in her most flourishing and best estate Wherefore your most excellent Maiestie being resolute in that singular good opinion that no Church ought farther to depart from the Church of Rome then shee is departed from her selfe in her flourishing estate must needes recall the Church of England from such extrauagant opinions to ioyne with the Roman Church in the aforesaid articles which shee in her best time helde for parts of pure faith And in all others also which they cannot directly proue in a lawfull disputation before your Maiestie to haue beene altred by her particularly naming the point of Doctrine the author oâ— the chaunge the time and place where and when ht liued who followed him who resisted him and such other like circumstances which all bee easily shewed in euery such reuolte or innouation because thâ— vigilant care of the Pastors of Christs flocke haue bin alwaies so great as no such things could be vnknowne let slippe or vnrecorded Thus much for my first reason collected from the vntruth of the Protestants religion speaker A. W. What are nine points to nine skore that I may speake the least and yet it is not prooued that any of these were held by the Romanes whose faith S. Paul commends nor indeed euer can be It is enough for vs if we can shew by record of Scripture that the doctrine the Church of Rome now holds is not that she maintained in her best estate which we often haue done and alwaies will be ready to doe Is it not a good plea in law to prooue by ancient euidences and deedes that the land was mine vnlesse I can shew when and how the possession of euery house Medow Close c. was lost yet it stands you vpon to proue how you came by it and by what right you hold it Which you must doe when all comes to all by the Scripture or else your title will neuer be good speaker D. B. P. The second shall be grounded vpon the vngodlines of it where I wil let passe that high point of impiety that they make God who is goodnes it selfe the author of all wicked actions done in the world And will besides say nothing of that their blasphemie against our Sauiour Iesus Christ that he ouercome with the paines of his passion vpon the Crosse did doubt if not dispaire of his owne saluation being vnwilling to touch any other poynts then such as are afterwards discussed in this booke speaker A. W. You may well let both these passe for they are your slanders not our opinions as hath been shewed sufficiently elsewhere The triumphant Citizens of heauen who enioy the presence of God and happiest life that can be imagined are by Protestants disdainfullie termed Dead men and esteemed neither to haue credit with God to obtaine any thing nor any care or compassion on men among whom they once liued and conuersed so kindly The Saints departed we loue and honour but are forced to call them dead men as Austin doth by reason of your Idolatrie with the same disdaine in our weake measure with which the Apostle disgraced Circumcision Of their credit with God we doubt not their care of men we denie not but wee know no calling they haue to become our mediatours with dishonour to God and Christ. And as for the poore soules departed who in Purgatorie fire pay deare for their former delightes and pleasures they depriue them of all humane succour by teaching the world to beleeue that there is no such matter speaker D. B. P. We depriue them of nothing that God in the Scripture allowes them Prooue your Purgatorie thence and we will confesse our error Concerning vs Christians yet liuing on earth there is no lesse impietie in their opinions For they teach that the best Christian is no better in effect then a whited Sepulchre being inwardly full of all wickednes and mischiefe and onlie by an outwarde imputation of Christs righteousnes vnto them are accepted of God for iust To thinke that there is inherent in the soule of Man any such grace of God as doth cleanse it from sinne and make the man iust in his sight is with them to raze the foundation of Religion and to make Christ a Pseudochrist wherein I know not whether they be more enuious against the good of Man then they are iniurious either to the inestimable value of Christs blood as though it could not deserue any better estate for his fauourites or vnto the vertue and efficacie of the holy Ghost as not being able by likeliehood to purge mens soules from sinne and endue them with such Heauenly qualities I omitte the disgrace thereby don to the Blessed God-head it selfe making the Holie of Holies father willing to couer and cleake our iniquitie then to cure it And contrarie to his infinite goodnes to loue them whom hè seeth defiled with all manner of abhominations speaker A. W. We acknowledge euery true Christian to be righteous in the sight of God after iustification by inherent though imperfect righteousnes and account none whited sepulchers but those that bragge or make shee of holines being but hypocrites We ascribe our iustification wholy and onely to the mercie of God in forgiuing our sinnes for Christs obedience by accounting faith to vs for rightcousnes We enuie not the good of man but preferre Gods truth before mans pride Our Sauiour Christs sacrifice we megnifie as infinitly perfect but wee know the whole eâ—…t thereof is not perfected at once in vs though the holie Ghost be of infinit power which in respect of vs is limited by the gratious and wise prouidence of God We teach that God doth not onely couer our sinnes by forgiuing them but cure our corruption by abolishing it wholy yet by little and little His loue depends not vpon our righteousnes for he loued vs when wee were most vnrighteous but vpon the estate of being his sonnes members of his beloued sonne Iesus Christ and elected to adoption and saluation by him before the foundation of the world was laid speaker D. B. P. Vnto these paradoxes impious against God and slaunderous to man If it will please your Maiestie to adde the prophane carnallity of some other poynts of the Protestant Doctrine you
ioyne with the Papists and teach that in sinnes or euill actions man hath freedome of will Some paraduenture will say that wee sinne necessarily because hee that sinneth cannot but sinne and that free will and necessitie cannot stand together Indeed the necessitie of compulsion or coaction and freewill cannot agree but there is another kinde of necessitie which may stand with freedome of will for some things may be done necessarily and also freely A man that is in close prison must needs there abide and cannot possibly get forth and walke where he will yet can he mooue himselfe freely and walke within the prison so likewise though mans will be chained naturally by the bonds of sinne and therefore cannot but sinne and thereupon sinneth necessarily yet doth it also sinne feely speaker D. B. P. Annot. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose for it puts necessitie in one thing and liberty in an other The solution is that necessarily must be taken for certainly not that a man is at any time compelled to sinne but his weakenes and the crafte of the Diuell are such that he is very often ouer reached by the Diuell and induced to sinne but with free consent of his owne will speaker A. W. The example is to the purpose as he that is in prison if he will walke must of necessitie walke in the prison and yet walkes freely there because he may chuse whether he will walke or no so he that is chained by sinne may chuse whether hee will doe such an action or no but if hee doe it he shall necessarily sinne in doing of it and thus necessitie and libertie are alike in both parts of the similitude There is nothing in your solution that was not in Master Perkins distinction saue that you haue put it in other words you say certainly he infallibly you say man sinnes with free consent and is not compelled he saies he sinnes freely and not of compulsion speaker W. P. V. Conclus The second kind of spirituall actions or things concerne the kingdome of God as repentance saith the conuersion of a sinner new obedience and such like in which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans free will concurs with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some fort For in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required the word Gods spirit and mans will for mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule When any man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willi gly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he wills his conuersion To this end said Augustine He which made thee without thee will not saue thee without thee Againe that is certaine that our will is required in this that we may doe any good thing well but we haue it not from our owne power but God works to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giueth a will to desâ—â—e and will the same grace as for example when God works faith at the same time he works also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in men goe together yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church touching Free will neither may we proceede further with them speaker D. B. P. Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of will in ciuill and morall workes in the state of corruption and all good workes in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renued or as we speake iustified there is liberty of grace that is grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spiritual works as God requireth at his hands Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing he doth in shew of words contradict both these points in another place For in setting downe the disference of our opinions hee saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a litle before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainelie man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to doe or not to do the acts of wisedome Iusâ—ce Temperance c and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentiles so did Yet in his first reason he assirmeth as peremptorily out of the 8. of Genisis that the whole frame of mans heart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall duty speaker A. W. It is neither the principall point in controuersie nor any controuersie at all according to Master Perkins whether man haue freedome of will in morall workes before grace and in all good workes after grace For of the former Master Perkins makes no question but onely giues a caueat of the feeblenes of the will and dimnes of the vnderstanding in such matters with the latter he deales not at all professedly restraining the question to our dissent about the second estate Libertie in the state of grace to will spirituall good wee thankfully acknowledge but neither is it of so large extent as your exposition makes it and without the speciall worke of Gods spirit by it selfe it brings no good thing to passe He doth not say simply that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue Of which his other speech is not a contradiction but rather a confirmation That mans will concurres with Gods grace as a co-worker in some sort and a little after mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion of the soule Now what action it hath and in what respect it is actiue and passiue he shewes presently after the words are falsely alleadged by you viz. that it wils well onely as it moued by grace
being in it selfe neither actiue nor passiue This latter contradiction is indeede like the former that is no contradiction at all For hee doth rightly expound that place of a pronenes to that which is as ill and to nothing that is fully good not simply excluding that which is ciuilly good but that onely which is properly referred to God himselfe the soueraigne good and the other in regard of it perfect goodnes II. The difference or dissent speaker W. P. The point of difference standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans wil in spiritual matters which concerne the kingdome of God The Papists say mans will concurreth and worketh with Gods grace in the first conuersion of a sinner by it selfe and by it owne naturall power and is onely helped by the holy Chost We say that mans will worketh with grace in the first conuersion yet not of it selfe but by grace Or thus They say will hath a naturall cooperation we denie it and say it hath cooperation onely by grace beeing in it selfe not actiue but pasâ—… willing well onely as it is mooued by grace whereby it must first be acted and mooued before it can act or will And that wee may the better conceiue the difference I will vse this comparison The Church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condition of a prisoner and so doe wee marke then the difference It supposeth the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foote with chaines and fetters and withall to bee sicke and weake yet not wholy dead but liuing in part it supposeth also that beeing in this case he stirreth not himselfe for any helpe and yet hath ability and power to stirre Hereupon if the keeper come and take away his bolts and fetters and hold him by the hand and helpe him vp hee can and will of himselfe stand and walke and goe out of prison euen so say they is a sinner bound hand and foote with the chaine of his sinnes and yet he is not dead but sick like to the wounded man in the way betweene Iericho and Ierusalem And therefore doth he not wil and affect that which is good but if the holy Ghost come and doe but vntie his bands and reach him his hand of grace then can he stand of himselfe and will his owne saluation or any thing else that is good We in like manner graunt that a prisoner fitly resembleth a naturall man but yet such a prisoner must he be as is not only sicke weake but euen starke dead which cannot stirre though the keeper vntie his bolts and chaines nor heare though he sound a trumpet in his eare and if the said keeper would haue him to moue and stirre he must giue him not onely his hand to helpe him but euen soule and life also and such a one is euery man by nature not onely chained and fettered in his sinnes but starke dead therein as one that lieth rotting in the graue not hauing any ability or power to moue or stirre and therefore he cannot so much as desire or doe any thing that is truelie good of himselfe but God must first come and put a new soule into him euen the spirit of grace to quicken and reuiue him and then being thus reuiued the will beginneth to will good things at the very same time wheÌ„ God by his spirit first infuseth grace And this is the true difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome in this point of free will speaker D. B. P. See how vncertaine the steppes be of men that walke in darkenes or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknes For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church For he putting downe the point of difference saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs only in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in graunting this liberty of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne words For saith he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that Mans vvill worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully For we say that Mans will then only concurreth with Gods grace vvhen it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that Mans vvill by his ovvne naturall action doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of Man But we farther say that this action proceedeth principally of grace whereby the will was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring forth such spirituall fruit And thâ—… I take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can acte or will He mistookâ—… thinking that we required some outward helpe only to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but a it were vntie the chaynes of sin wherein our will was â—…eted anâ— tâ—en will could of it selfe turne to God Noâ— vnderstanding how Catholikes take that parable of the man wounded in the way betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists only say but as the holy Ghost â—aith leâ—te halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all Mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all Supernaturall riches spoiled of all his originall Iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all natural truth or to performe all morall duty Novv touching supernaturall vvorkes because he lost all povver to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sense may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that vvay of grace and so in holy Scripture the Father said of his prodigall Son he was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though vvounded also in them as not being able to acte many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of free vvill capable of grace and also able being first both outvvardly moued and fortified invvardly by the vertue of grace to affect and do any vvorke appertaining to saluation vvhich is asmuch as M. Perkins affirmeth speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake the matter he speakes not of will
example a crab-tree â—…ocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring forth apples and therefore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruit Yet let a sianâ—e of apples be gaâ—ted into it and it wil be are apples euen so albeit our sower corrupt naure of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing reâ—iued into it the heauenlie graft of Gods grace it is inabled to produce he sweete fruit of good workes to which alludeth Saint Iames. Receâ—e the ingrafted vvord vvhich can saue our soules againe what more dâ—d then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring forth aâ—… beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by â—ur Sauiour himselfe vnto seede and our harts vnto the earth that receiâ—ed it what meruaile then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuelyeed do yeeld plentie of pleasing fruit speaker A. W. The question is not whether God can maâ—e a man able to doe good workes or no for of that no mandoubts but what a man can doe by nature to his owne coâ—…ersion Master Perkins saith he is spiritually dead and thereâ—…re can do nothing You answere that he can doe something when God hath quickened him But what can hee doâ— to the quickening of himselfe giue his free consent you say Then it must needes follow that he hath power by naâ—…e to will his owne conuersion for as yet hee hath receiued no grace but onely hath had a good motion made to him or inspired into him by God of which by his owne free wilâ— he takes a liking and so attaines to iustifying grace speaker D. B. P. Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such obiections as may be gathered out of Master Perkins against it before I come to his solution of our arguments I will set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers in defence of our Doctrine because he proposeth but few for vs and misapplieth them too God hath appointed to bring them to chuse and like of saluation 〈…〉 Christ. speaker D. B. P. Vnto these 〈…〉 of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the â—…er vnder Moyses law let vs couple two more out of the new Testament The first may be those kind words of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Jerusalem Jerusalem c. how often vvould I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickâ—â—s vnder her vvings and thou vvouldest not Which doth plainely demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing and withstanding Gods grace as these words of Christ doe plainely witnes and thou vvouldest not The last testimony is in the Reuelat where it is said in the person of God I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voice and open the gates I vvill enter in to him and vvill suppe vvith him and he vvith me Marke well the words God by his grace knocks at the dore of our harts he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace speaker A. W. We acknowledge that the fault is wholy in euery man that is not saued but wee denie that therefore he hath power by nature to chuse life when it is offered he failes indeede in doing of that which hee might doe and ought to doe for his owne furtherance to this choise as the Iewes did in refusing to heare to meditate to yeeld to the miracles wrought by our Sauiour Christ and to beleeue the doctrine which they could in no reasonable sort gainsay It was voluntas signi not beneplaciti God offered them the outward meanes of his word not the inward meanes of his spirit for their conuersion which Lydia had To breake open the doore were to vse compulsion to knock is to vse the outward meanes of conuerting a man or if you will to inspire a good purpose vpon which if any man open out of doubt Christ will enter But this doth no prooue that a man vpon this motion can yeeld by the strength of his owne free will which is the point in question speaker D. B. P. To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs ioyne the testimony of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The fiâ—â—â— shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Aatonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by free vvill could she from soule dishonest deeds and follovv those that be faire and good he vvere vvithout fault as not being cause of such things as vvere done But vve Christians teach that mankind by free choise and free vvill doth both doe vvell and sinne To him we will ioyne that hâ—ly Bishop and valiant Martyr Jreneus who of free will writeth thus not only in vvorkes but in faith also our Lord reserued liberty and freedome of vvill vnto man saying be it done vnto thee according to thy faith speaker A. W. I will adde to that worthie company Saint Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauiour vvill you also depart discourseth thus Our Lord did not bitterly inâ—â—igh against them vvhich forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles vvill you also goe your vvay and vvhy so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by vvhich man left vnto his liberty and put vnto his free choise might deserue vnto himselfe either damnation or saluation These three most auncient and most skilfull in Christian Religion and so zealous of Christian truth that they spent their blood in confirmation of it may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church concerning this article of free wl specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse all Anâ—â—quitie excepting only S. Augustine to haue beleeued and taught free will Heare the words of one for all Mathias Illyricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching free will the testimonies of Iustine Ireneus and others saith mannerâ—lement â—lement Patriarch of Alexandria doth euery vvhere teach free vvill that it may appeare say these Lutherans not only the Doctors of that age to haue been in such darknes but also that it did much encrease in the ages follovving See the wilfull blindnes of heresie Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church to haue taught free will yet had rather beleeue them to haue bin blindly led by the Apostles and then best Schollers who were their Masters then to
false or not to the purpose Your proposition hath two faults the one that in stead of saying All that is sinne properly is done c. You say All that is sinne is done properly applying properly to the committing of sinne and not to the nature of it The other fault is that the matter of your proposition is vntrue For there is some sinne namely originall which is not done by him in whom it is but is bred with him If in your assumption you meane that the Apostle doth not properly doe the euill which he hates you are deceiued For whether it be an inward action of the minde or an outward of the bodie it must needes be performed by some nature that hath a true being but there is no third nature in man besides the soule and bodie and what is done by either of these is done by the man of whom they are parts If you say it is done by a vicious qualitie in man that qualitie hauing subsistence in man as in the subiect of it is not properly the doer of the action but the facultie by which a man is fitted for the doing of it To your proofe I answere that the Apostle consefleth he did it I allow not that which I doe What I hate that doe I. I doe that which I would not The euill which I would not that doe I. And at last he concludes I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne Where he teacheth vs to expound his doing or not doing I doe not the euill which I hate that is in my minde or in respect of my regeneration I doe that is in regard of my corruption In my minde I my selfe serue the law of God in my flesh I my selfe serue the law of sinne I doe both my selfe but the one in my minde regenerate the other in my flesh vnregenerate If you will conclude for that you leaue at large in this reason it should seeme of purpose because in the other two you set downe your conclusion expressely Therefore it is not properly sinne your conclusion is false because it containes more than is in the antecedent If your meaning be either that originall corruption is not sinne or that the euill which S. Paul hates is not sinne as one of these two you must needes meane your conclusion is from the purpose For the question is not whether originall sinne be sinne which both parts grant but whether it be properly sinne or no neither doe you vndertake to prooue that the euill which the Apostle did with hatred of it is not sinne So that this first proofe of yours is neither for you nor against vs. speaker A. W. Secondly out of those vvords I know there is not in me that is in my flesh any good And after I see an other law in my members resisting the lavv of my mind Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that vvas seated in the flesh ergo it vvas no sinne properly Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule But that was not seated in the soule but in the flesh Therefore it was no sinne properly As the image of God after which wee were created was though principally yet not onely in the soule so the corruption of nature wherby that image is defaced hath place both in soule and bodie and therefore your proposition is not simply true But your assumption is simply false For by saying it was seated in the flesh you must needs denie that it was seated in the soule or else your syllogisme will be nothing worth Now by flesh the Apostle meanes nature vnregenerate both soule and bodie The wisedome of the flesh is â—nmitie against God signifying the very best part of a mans soule Hence it is that he calles a naturall man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animalem and wils vs to be renewed in the spirit of our mind affirming that some are puft vp with their fleshly minde and I pray you consider whence these workes of the flesh arise Idolatrie witchcraft hatred debate heresies c. The Apostle saith Austin ascribes those sinnes to the flesh which beare principallsway in the diuell who it is certaine hath no flesh for he saith enmitie contention emulation enuie are workes of the flesh the head and fountaine whereof is pride which raigneth in the diuell though he haue no flesh Yea Bellarmine himselfe grants though with much ado that concupiscence though it be as he saith principally in the sensuall part yet hath place also in the minde speaker D. B. P. The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter There is novv therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that vvalke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dvvelling in them if they vvalke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sin properly For the vvages of sin is death that is eternall damnation speaker A. W. If say you there be no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it then it is not properly sinne But there is no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it Therefore it is not sin properly If by these words there is no condemnation you meane they shall not be condemned I denie the consequence of your proposition For it may be properly sinne though they in whom it is haue it not imputed to them to condemnation I denie your assumption whether you meane they are not condemned de facto or they deserue not condemnation de iure In the former sense you teach that all infants which die vnbaptized are shut out of heauen and yet none of them walke according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne In the latter sense we and you are wholy of opinion that originall sinne is a iust cause of condemnation euen to infants who actually sinne not The place alleaged by you serues not to prooue either of your propositions as you haue set them downe for the Apostle saith not that there is no condemnation to them which walke not according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne but to them which are in Christ Iesus I grant that all but they which are in Christ doe walke according to such desires yet it is not all one to say the one and the other For you seeme to bring that as a reason why there is no condemnation to them whereas the Apostle addes these words to shew that they which are in Christ do not walk after the flesh but after the spirit therein concluding his former disputation of iustification and sanctification speaker W. P. Thence I reason thus That which once was sinne properly and still remaining in
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
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
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
this recorded in holy writ read the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were stroken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must doe who willed them to doe penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then loe they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification speaker A. W. Those men S. Luke there speaks of were not yet come to a iustifying faith when they askt the Apostle what they should doe no nor to the knowledge of the Gospell but onely to a sight of their owne sinnes in consenting to the murthering of Christ. speaker A. W. In like manner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that Iesus Christ was the Sonne of God no talke in those daies of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnes yet was he not iustified before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three daies passed betweene S. Paules conuersion and his iustification as doth euidently appeare by the history of his conuersion speaker D. B. P. The Eunuch had heard the Gospell expounded out of Esay and namely that men were to be iustified by the acknowledging of Christ his desire of baptisme was a proofe of his faith according to that he had learned and baptisme the seale of his pardon or iustification vpon that his beleefe of forgiuenes by Christs sufferings It appeares by the storie that there were three daies betwixt the vision and the baptisme of the Apostle but it is not any way shewed that hee had iustifying faith the first day and yet was not iustified till the third day it is but your conceit that tie iustification to baptisme speaker W. P. The second is that faith being nothing else with them but an illumination of the minde stirreth vp the will which being mooued and helped causeth in the heart many spirituall motions and thereby disposeth man to his future iustification But this indeede is as much as if wee should say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their future resurrection For we are all by nature dead in sinne and therefore must not onely bee inlightened in minde but also renewed in will before wee can so much as will or desire that which is good Now we as I haue said teach otherwise that faith iustifieth as it is an instrument to apprehend and applie Christ with his obedience which is the matter of our iustification This is the truth I prooue it thus In the Couenant of grace two things must be considered the substance thereof and the condition The substance of the couenant is that righteousnesse and life euerlasting is giuen to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is that wee for our parts are by faith to receiue the foresaid benefits and this condition is by grace as well as the substance Now then that wee may attaine to saluation by Christ hee must bee giuen vnto vs really as hee is propounded in the tenour of the foresaid Couenant And for the giuing of Christ God hath appointed speciall ordinances as the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments The word preached is the power of God to saluation to euery one that beleeues and the end of the Sacraments is to communicate Christ with all his benefits to them that come to bee partakers thereof as is most plainely to bee seene in the supper of the Lord in which the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and blood with all his merits vnto them And this giuing on Gods part cannot bee effectuall without receiuing on our parts and therfore faith must needs bee an instrument or hand to receiue that which God giueth that wee may finde comfort by this giuing speaker D. B. P. The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this sayes M Perkins is as much to say that dead men only helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath been once before spoken at large in the question of free will speaker A. W. Is not the latter your doctrine also that a man vpon those good motions inspired disposeth himselfe to iustification by the good vse of his free will let the Councill of Trent be iudge as your selfe alleaged it before speaker W. P. The III. difference concerning faith is this the Papist saith that a man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as hope loue the feare of God c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Reason I. Luke 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much Whence they gather that the woman here spoken of was iustified and had the pardon of sinnes by loue Ans. In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to mooue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew and manifest that God had alreadie pardoned them Like to this is the place of Iohn who saith 1. Ioh. 3. 14. Wee are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren where loue is no cause of the change but a signe and consequent thereof speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundrie places of holy write iustification is ascribed vnto many seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is only spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beleefe in Christs power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercie that hee would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assemblie did so humblie prostrate her selfe at Christs feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to lead a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues meete
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
issue out of our soules now garnished vvith grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directhe that we are iustified and that this iusuce doth increase whiles it doth proceed and profit speaker A. W. This labour might haue bin saued For we grant that Abraham by this glorious fact was iustified euen before God that is was knowne to be iustified or to haue true faith as he was known to feare God by it not that God was ignorant before either of his faith or feare but because it pleased him by this deed to take as it were speciall notice of them both as men doe That righteousnes is increased by holie actions I shewed before and that therefore we are iustified by them that is more sanctified speaker D. B. P. Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion for they holding faith to be the only instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O yee of little faith And then a little after I haue not found so great faith in Israell And O Lord increase our saith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith but all one Againe M. Perkins deliuereth plainly That men at the first are not so vvell assured of their saluation as they are aftervvard If then in the certainety of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe speaker A. W. Degrees of faith we deny not but increase of iustification thereupon except it be in our feeling In which respect it receiueth continuall growth but in it selfe it cannot because God doth account faith to vs for righteousnes and forgiue our sinnes not by halues but fully vpon the least measure of true beleeuing Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid bee iudged according to his righteousnesse then may hee be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnesse and therefore he was iustified thereby Answ. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnesse of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this Psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnesse of the action or innocencie of his cause in that hee was falslie charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psalm 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnesse not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glorie Obiect II. The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commaundements Yet is he not blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whom he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof Obiect III. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by prayer and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Answ. Indeed men that truly humble themselues by prayer and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merites of Christ in whom the Father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. Obiect IV. Sundrie persons in Scriptures are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all bee perfect and where there is any perfection of works there also workes may iustifie Answ. There bee two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in parts is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in all and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degree is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the very rigor therof in the highest degree Now then whereas we are commaunded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commaundements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in partes and not of perfection in degrees which cannot bee attained vnto in this life though we for our parts must dailie striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can Obiect V. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our momentarie afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Answ. Afflictions work saluation not as causes procuring it but as a meanes directing vs thereto And thus alwaies must we esteeme of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certaine way or a marke therein directing vs to glorie not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are via regni non causa regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there Obiect VI. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Answ. The proposition is false for iudgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is alreadie iust and iustification is an other act of God whereby hee maketh him to bee iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life Obiect VII Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Answ. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good worke of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie Obiect VIII To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by all the workes of
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
giuing make some satisfaction And what satisfaction can then be made when a man giues all of superfluitie as hauing need of nothing There must be some helpe thought on for this matter or all will be naught That which followes presumes there must be satisfaction made and shewes why you thinke those the fittest meanes for to satisfie by But where the foundation is ouerthrowne what shall wee neede to thrust at the building Onely I will adde here in the end of this discourse a few of many meanes for the procuring of pardon by satisfaction Pope Iohn the 22. granted seuen hundred yeeres of pardon to euery one that should kisse three times the measure of our Ladies foote as you call her and should say deuoutly three Auemaries to her blessed honour and worship The measure is to be had in Spayne printed together with the graunt of pardon I haue caused it to be printed and inserted in this place Monstra te esse Matrem sumat per te preces Qui 〈◊〉 nobis Nâ—… tus tulit 〈◊〉 se tuus Shew thy selfe to be a Mother let him by thy mediation receiue our prayers Who fâ—… our sakâ—… vouchsâ—… to be thâ—… Sonne El Papa Iuan 22. Concedio a quien besare esta medida tres vezos y rezare tres Aue Marias deuotamente a su bendito honor y reuerencia gana setecientos anÌ„os de perdon Y es libre de muchos peligros Teniendo la Bula de la santa Cruzada Impressa con licencia Dirigida a la deuocion del Cauallero de Gracia Pope Iohn the 22. granted to euery one that shal kisse this measure three times and shall say three Aue-Maries deuoutelie to her honour and worship to haue seuen hundred yeeres of pardon and to be free from many dangers alwaies prouided that he haue the Bull of the holy Cruzada Printed by authoritie directed to the deuotion of the Knight of Grace Sixtus the 4. granted to all them that deuoutly say a short prayer beginning Aue Maria mater Dei before the image of our Ladie the summe of eleuen hundred yeeres of pardon He that shall deuoutly say that prayer Obsecro te Domina c. before our Ladie of Pitie she will shew him her blessed visage and warne him the day and houre of his death and in his last end the Angels of God shall yeeld his soule to heauen and he shall obtaine fiue hundred yeeres and so many Lents of pardon granted by fiue Popes Enough for failing Sixtus the Pope to euery one being in the state of grace which must be obserued that shall say in the morning after three tellings of the Aue-bell three times the whole salutation of our Ladie granted for euery time so doing of the spirituall treasure of holy Church three hundred daies of pardon Toties quoties These be fistâ—â—ene Oos which S. Briget was wont to say c. who so say these a whele yeere shall deliuer fifteene soules out of Purgâ—… of his next kinred and conuert other fifteene sinners to goodlife and other fifteene righteous men of his kinde shall perseuere in good life To all them that before this Image of Pitie deuoutly say fiue Pater nosters and fiue Aues and a Credo pitiously beholding these armes of Christs passion are granted thirtie two thousand seuen hundred fiftie fiue yeeres of pardon Sixtus the 4. made the fourth and fifth prayers and hath done bulled his foresaid pardon Iohn the 22. hath granted to all that deuoutly say this prayer after the eleuation of our Lord Iesus Christ three thousand daies of pardon for deadly sinnes Boniface the 6. granted tenne thousand yeeres of pardon vpon the saying of another prayer betweene the eleuation and the three Agnus Deis Sixtus the 4. hath granted to all them that be in the state of grace saying this prayer following immediatly after the eleuation of the bodie of our Lord cleane remission of all their sinnes perpetually enduring And Iohn the 3. hath granted to all them that deuoutly say the same prayer before the Image of our Lord crucified as many daies of pardon as there were wounds in the bodie of our Lord in of the time of his bitter passion the which were 5465. Who that deuoutly say these prayers shall obtaine tenne hundred thousand yeeres of pardon for deadly sinnes granted by Iohn the 22. Who that deuoutly with a contrite heart daily say this Orison if he be that day in the state of eternall damnation then this eternall paine shall be changed him into temporall paine of Purgatorie then if he haue deserued the paine of Purgatorie it shall be forgotten and forgiuen thorough the infinite mercie of God But that I may not tire the reader and make him cast his gorge at such abominations which are Popish satisfactions for sinnes I will giue you a view of the number of yeeres for which pardon is graunted in this one booke viz. 1076832. speaker D. B. P. But now to knit vp this question Let vs heare briefly what the best learned and purest antiquity hath taught of this satisfaction done by man and because M. Perkins began with Tertullian omitting his auncients Let vs first heare what he saith of it in his booke of penance Hovv foolish is it saith he not to fulfill our penance and yet to expect pardon of our sinnes this is not to tender the price and yet to put out a hand for the revvard for God hath decreed to set the pardon at this price he proposeth impunity to be redeemed vvith this recompence of penance speaker A. W. This is but a tricke to make a shew as if Master Perkins had omitted some ancienter than Tertullian which else you could haue alleaged But who is so little acquainted with your courses that he knowes not we haue here the best you can bring Tertullian as the ancient writers generally speakes of repentance without which it is vnreasonable and vaine to looke for pardon Now whereas they mention and vrge oftentimes the outward workes it was because without them neither the Church could be satisfied and men would easily deceiue themselues with an opinion of repentance or at the most with some slight thinking vpon and grieuing for their sinnes This appeares in that very place immediatly after Therefore if they that sell first trie the coyne which they are to receiue that it be not clipt nor washt nor countenfeit we may well thinke that God will first make triall of the repentance especially since he is to grant vs so great a reward of eternall life But let vs deferre the truth of repentance a while By which words it is plaine that Tertullian speakes of testifying our repentance to be true by those outward signes of it which doe ordinarily accompanie it where it is true speaker D. B. P. His equall in standing and better in learning Origen thus discourseth See our good Lord tempering mercy vvith seuerity and vveighing the measure of the
worshipping God is our dependance vpon him as the Heathen acknowledge and experience shewes in that ciuill worship we giue to Princes Magistrates And howsoeuer Epicurus denying the prouidence of God and his gouerning of the world thought to auoide some blame in allowing worship to the Gods as you do in regard of their excellent and blessed nature yet neither was that accounted sufficient by the statesmen or learned and in truth it procures generally rather a reuerend opinion than any true worship Lastly I pray you remember that the worship which afterward you diuide into ciuill and religious is here in the generall nature made ciuill yea euen that to Angels That which the creatures lacke in waight it seemes you will make vp by number They may not haue say you the soueraigne worship due to God But to make thē amends you allow them two kinds of worship ciuill in regard of their naturall resemblance of God and religious in respect of their supernaturall likenesse to him Whereas God hauing nothing in him supernaturall must haue but one of the two only and that as it may seeme by proportioning the worship to creatures not Ciuil but Religious For why should God haue religious honor for those properties aboue all degrees and creatures for the same haue but ciuill in their degrees since in your iudgment they are capable of that honor also which is religious Besides is this difference of honor in respect of the gifts or of the manner of giuing if the latter it is God who must then haue this diuers worship according to his diuers manner of working and not man in whom he workes So shall ciuill honor belong to God for the natural gifts he bestoweth vpon men If you regard the excellencie of the gifts why shuld they not be accounted of proportionably in the Image which is man as they are in the substāce and patterne which is God But in him those properties the resemblance wherof you call naturall in man are of as great excellencie as the other which in man you tearme supernaturall yea which is more though in God his nature and his properties be all one yet in man the naturall qualities are the more principall the other as it were but adiuncts therunto The natural parts of the soule that I may so speak are the vnderstanding and the wil all gifts and graces whatsoeuer are but qualities belonging to these two which are the verie substance of the soule Further there is no reason why any religious worship should be performed to man by reason of these qualities because none was due to him before his fall when he had these else should Adam haue bin worshipped by Eue with religious worship and she by him For each of them had the Image of God according to the nature of such creatures entire and perfect and if we beleeue your Popish doctrine they had those qualities by an especiall grace of God aboue nature Moreouer what reason can you giue why Angels shuld not performe religious worship to the Saints departed and both they and the same Saints to those men liuing here on the earth who haue receiued those supernatural qualities from God for which religious worship is due to them on whom they are bestowed Therfore this distinction of religious and ciuill worship is a meere deuise without any ground of true reason and all religious worship is due to God ciuill worshippe only belongs to men That respectiue worship is no other but ciuill as it may easily appeare because it may be and must be giuen euen to profane and reprobat men if any such be imployed by God in gouernment ouer vs. For howsoeuer the outward manner of the honor we giue to Princes and Magistrates depends vpon the Lawes and Customes of the Countries wherin we liue yet the duty of honoring them lies vpon vs in conscience to be performed because they are Gods Lieutenants and Stewards This worship if you accounted it ciuill you might giue to whom you thought good and should not be condemned of vs for Idolatry but for follie though you gaue it to Images Yet such follie as the Gentiles are not guiltie of who neuer vsed such reuerence to the statues of any famous men but where first they had an opinion of some diuine nature I maruell how you could perswade your selfe to write so vntruly that the honor you giue to Images is meaner then the former and that you would craftilie deceiue the ignorant as if taking off your hat and bowing your knee were al the honor you giue them Why did you not then refute Thomas whom M. Perkins brings in speaking thus Seeing the Crosse doth represent Christ who died vpon the Crosse and is to be worshipped with diuine honor it followeth that the Crosse is to be worshipped so too Did you neuer read that of Bellarmine let this saith he be one preposition that the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be worshipped not only by accident and vnproperly this is your dependent and respectiue worshippe which you say is all you allow vnto Images but also properly so that the worship rest in the Image not only as it is insteed of the party whose Image it is Will you heare a third speake yet more plainly It is the constant opinion of Diuines saith Azorius that the Image is to be worshipped with the same worship and honor with which he is worshipped whose Image it is Belike you are no diuine or else you would acknowledge another manner of worship due to Images Let vs heare another Iesuite The old Schoole-men saith Vasquez absolutly affirme that the Images of Christ are to be worshipped with diuine worship Now for the particular worship the Councell of Trent as craftie and warie as it was saith more then you do that you fall downe before Images and kisse them But who knoweth not that you performe all outward worship to them you perfume them with incense though they cannot smell you set vp lights before them though they cannot see and yet it is hard to say whether you or they be the blinder You kisse them you kneele downe to them you lye prostrate on the ground before them you pray sing and say your speciall seruices before them How could you do more outward worship to our Sauiour Iesus Christ then you doe to these babies and puppets Was it not more then need thinke you that the Lord of heauen and earth should in the very heate of his iealousie make a law against such abhominations we may well see it was not for nothing that hee threatens so long a continuance of his heauie wrath vpon the breakers of the second Commaundement speaker W. P. Againe the brasen serpent was a type or image of Christ crucified Ioh. 3. 14. appointed by God himselfe yet when the people burned incense to it 2. King 18. 4. Hezekias brake it in pieces and is therefore commended And when