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
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
worke speaker A. W. I denie the consequence of your proposition For though saith alone be the whole cause of iustification yet not euery faith but such an one as is accompanied with hope and charitie To your proofe I answere that such a faith is neither the whole nor any cause of iustification and so though that be as you say in act yet no such effect will follow speaker D. B. P. Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot applie to themselues Christs righteousnes vvithout the preseace of hope and charitie For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honor which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing els but the plaine vice of presumption as hath been before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie when it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophie that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sence and reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the prefence of the whole cause and not only of thâ— instrumentall cause speaker A. W. To the assumption I answere Faith considered without any act of hope or charitie to iustification doth iustifie but faith that is without these doth not iustifie To your proofe I say further that to our iustification God accounteth for righteousnes neither our hope of heauen nor our loue towards himselfe nor our estimation of his honour but onely our beleeuing in Iesus Christ. The similitude is true and fit True because the eye doth see though as an instrument fitted to that office by God and thus Philosophers Poets Orators and all kinde of people doe speake He that would be more curious than wise might finde fault with you also and say that the act of seeing also is mans and the soule the instrustrument whereby he doth see as the hand is the instrument with which he reacheth The fitnes of the similitude appeareth thus It is man that beleeueth as it is man that seeth The generall instrument as I may speake for both these actions is the soule though by diuers faculties the particular for sight is the eye for beleeuing faith outwardly there is none The eye seuered from the head seeth not and yet it is the eye that seeth and not the head so saith that is without hope and charitie iustifieth not and yet hope and charitie doth not iustifie You answere that it is not to purpose because wee require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall But you deceiue your selfe for the question is not of the whole cause or principall efficient which is God for it is he onely that iustifieth but of the instrument if wee may so call it To speake plainly the matter is as I haue often said what it is that God respects in vs to our iustification We say it is onely our beleeuing in Christ you say it is our beleeuing louing and hoping because we teach that together with faith by which on our part we are iustified we receiue hope charitie and other graces of sanctification which are all present in the heart when it beleeueth to iustification but are no way any causes of it speaker D. B. P. And to returne your similitude vpon yourselfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight speaker A. W. I denie your similitude as faultie in the reddition or latter part of it For faith receiueth no influence from any other vertue whereby it hath life to worke acceptably in Gods sight but the acceptablenes of faith proceedes from the meere acceptation of God counting it for righteousnes And whereas wee say that such a faith onely iustifieth as hath hope and loue for companions it is not our meaning that these make saith acceptable but that hee which beleeueth and hath not these vertues idly presumes of faith when he hath it not because the spirit of God together with true faith powreth these graces also into our soules But of this whole point of iustification I shall one day if it please God write more distinctly and fully speaker W. P. Reason IV. If faith alone doe iustifie then wee are saued by faith alone but we are not saued by faith alone and therfore not iustified by faith alone Answ. The proposition is false for more things are requisit to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes speaker D. B. P. The fourth reason if faith alone doe iustifie then faith alone vvill saue but it will not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition and saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an Innocent babe dye shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuolous speaker A. W. It had been the part of a scholler to haue refuted his reason as well as to condemne his answere But indeede the reason is sound that iustification being but the subordinate meanes to the maine end saluation more is required to this than to that not that any man can faile of saluation which hath attained to iustification but because God hath appointed to make supplie of other graces that we may come by degrees to glorification Your reason is nothing worth For the comparison of equalitie and likenes is insufficient For though infants need no more to saluation yet men of discretion doe I appeale to your owne doctrine Doe not you teach that good workes are necessarie to saluation and yet you grant that infants may be saued without them yea and men of yeres too if they haue no time to doe them after their first iustification Therefore more may bee required to saluation than to iustification though infants want nothing after they are once iustified yea infants are iustified without faith as many as are iustified speaker W. P. And the assumption is false for we are saued by faith alone if wee speake of faith as it is an instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation speaker D. B. P. Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith
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
and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being asvvell our vvorke and a vvorke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe speaker A. W. There is no vertuous disposition required of the one or the other in respect whereof he shall be iustified Onely the acknowledgment of sinne and such like are vsed as meanes by God to bring a sinner to beleeue in Iesus Christ to iustification yet so as that neither these dispositions proceed from the free will of man but from the spirit of God inclining them that God will iustifie to these actions nor any of these but onely beleeuing is respected of God on mans part to his iustification speaker D. B. P. Now that out of S. Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bidde beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtâ—aine a miracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question on y is speaker A. W. That place of Luke sheweth thus much as also the ordinarie course of the old Testament doth that the thing God regardeth and requireth of man to the obtaining of any fauour is resting vpon him for that he stands in neede of Fasting praying and such like exercises are meanes to make a man discerne truly of his owne vnworthines and so the rather to trust to Gods mercie and power but the thing respected by God is resting on him and referring himselfe wholy to his will and pleasure Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the iudgment of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers iudgment S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that vvhich the Apostle saith VVe esteeme a man to be iustified vvithout the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke speaker A. W. They that so vnderstand the Apostle as the Gnostickes did vtterly mistake him We are altogether of S. Austins opinion that faith cannot iustifie him that liues euilly and hath no good workes For as he truly saith Though they goe not before iustification yet they accompanie it euery iustified man being also sanctified Neither is the faith he speaketh of such a faith as we vnderstand because it workes not by loue but such as the diuell hath who saith Austin in the same place hath not the faith by which the iust man liues which workes by loue that God may giue him life euerlasting according to his workes speaker D. B. P. And againe Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained speaker A. W. In this place Austin takes iustification for the whole fitting of a Christian to a holy conuersation to which iustification indeede is but a foundation the building being finished by sanctification speaker D. B. P. By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceed from the helpe of Gods grace He must of necessitie according to his course of disputing exclude good workes from that iustification hee there speakes of but not from the life of a Christian man speaker D. B. P. Reason III. Very reason may teach thus much Mans reason is but a blind mystris in matters of faith and he â—hat hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little speaker A. W. Mans reason is not of it selfe sufficient to determine of truth and falsehood in Diuinitie but being inlightened by the spirit of God with the knowledge of faith it may easily see the diuers vse of that from other graces and vertues speaker W. P. For no gift in man is apt and fitte as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner but faith speaker D. B. P. But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kind of probabilitie I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrarie For in common sense no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to applie and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what need we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to applie to vs Christs righteousnes speaker A. W. Reason perceiuing that the Scripture ordinarily ascribeth iustification to beleeuing and maketh beleeuing in Christ the receiuing of Christ which is not granted to any other of those vertues may well conclude that faith onely is the spirituall hand to take hold of Christ and his righteousnes by and not feare loue hope or repentance speaker W. P. Indeede loue hope the feare of God and repentance haue their seuerall vses in men but none serue for this ende to apprehend Christ and his merits none of them all haue this receiuing propertie and therefore there is nothing in man that iustifieth as a cause but faith alone speaker D. B. P. Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more applie vnto Christians all Christs merits and make them ours then faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular
would haue it gloriouslie appeare both abroade in his business and at home in his Pallace and in the middest of the Citie of â—oâ—e with this Posie In this signe of saluation I haue deliuered the Cittie Wâ—… it also he blessed his visage With fasting and other corporall affliction he chastized his body that he might please God He with incredible admiration honored prosessed Virgins and made lawes in their fauour He builded many Churches in honour of the Apostles and Martyrs And as S. Chrysostome recordeth He that was reuested in purple went to embrace the Sepulchres of S. Peter and S Paul and all Princely state laide aside stood humbly praying vnto the Saints that they would bee intercessors for him vnto God He farther tooke order for the burying of his owne body in the middest of the Tombes of the twelue Apostles that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers which should be there offered in the honour of the Apostles Neither was he frustrated of his holy desire for as it followeth in the 71. Chapter of the same booke at his funerals the people ioyning with the Priests with many â—cares and great sighs powred out prayers for the good Emperours soule Againe at a 〈◊〉 feast which he held at the dedication of the Church built by 〈◊〉 Ierusalem some of 〈◊〉 cleargie preached and expounded the holy Scriptures and o the 〈◊〉 me with vnbloudie Sacrifice and â—…st all consâ—crâ—lions appeased the Godhead and prayed for the hâ—â—lth of he Prince Moreover this â—…alous Eâ—peroâ—r reprehended Acasius a Nouatian hâ—…ke 〈◊〉 saying that it was not in the power of Priests but of God only to forgiuesinnes Finally toward true Bishops the law full Pastors of Christs Church he caried such a reuerend 〈◊〉 that being in the Councell of Nice he would not â—iue dowâ—e â—efore they 〈◊〉 backâ—ed vnto him so to doe And was so farre 〈…〉 vpon hâ—â— to 〈◊〉 pâ—came iudge in causes Ecclesiasticall that hee 〈◊〉 thâ—re prof â—ied that it did not belong to him to iudge of Bishops 〈◊〉 to be iudâ—… by them It was not the 〈◊〉 but the thing signified viz. Christ crucified to which Constantine shewed his affection and by whom he obtained all his victories by this God not by this signe The chastising of his bodie was not to please God by the worke wrought but to fit himselfe to prayer whereby hee might obtaine mercie saith Eusebius appeasing God by supplication To make virginitie a more diuine life than the maried estate as Eusibius in that place calles it is to say Adam liued a more diuine life before God created Euaâ— than he could doe afterward and so to make her not an helpe but an hinderance to him Eusebius speakes not of the Apostles but of the Martyrs to whom the Churches were dedicated but to God onely and were called the Lords houses Dominicae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kyrch Churches They were also named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because they were built in honour of the Martyrs but because as I shewed before the Christians vsed anciently to assemble in the places where the Martyrs had been buried or because of Christ who was accounted the prince of Martyrs in respect of whom the Martyrs refused the name as belonging properly to him Therefore Eusebius calles the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the translator terme it Martyrum domum in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This testimonie out of Chrysostome may well be suspected being in the same words in a Sermon falsely attributed to Austin de Sancto Paulo and alleaged out of a later writer one Theodorus Daphnopathus by Garret a Chanon at the least we may well remember that caueat of Sixtus Seneâ—sis and take the speech to be hyperbolicall It was the Apostles glorie that people in such multitudes came to the places of their buriall to pray though they prayed not to them nor thought their prayers euer a whit the better because they were made there And where there is mention in Eusebius of the peoples praying for the Emperour with more zeale than knowledge there is no mention of honouring the Apostles by prayer He should haue said with vnbloodie sacrifices which were not Mastes but prayers and perhaps some offerings for reliefe of the poore and maintaining of the Temple Your author saies that Acasius affirmed this onely of the sinne that is to death Hereupon the Emperour replied Set vp a ladder for thy selfe Acasius and goe alone into heauen which saith he I thinke the Emperour said to Acasius not that he might commend him but that men might thinke that they are not free from the staine of sinne Sozomen that writes the historie thinkes the Emperour did not intend to praise Acasius but to instruct other you affirme peremptorily that the Emperour reprehended him speaker D. B. P. It pleased the gracious Emperour so much to honour those worthie and reuerend Fathers but it becomes not your Bishops or Popes therefore to exact such behauiour of their Soueraignes and much lesse to make them daunce attendance barefooted or hold their stirrups as for that profession of the good Emperour it shewes â—is zeale but prooues not that Princes may not iudge Bishops being their subiects especially since the reason is strong for Soueraignes principally for Bishops but as their deputies You saith the Emperour are appointed gods to vs and it is not conuenient that man should iudge gods but he only of whom the Psalmist saith God sits in the assemblie of gods If then this right Puissant Emperor and most sincere Christian reuerenced the Sacrifice of the Masse and beleeued that there was power in Priests to remitte sinnes that Saints were to be prayed vnto and that prayer was to be made for the dead and such like as appeareth by the euident testimonie oâ— most approued Author that liued with him hath your Maiestie any cause to doubt but that in matters of faith he agreed with the present Romane Church Wherefore my hope and trust in Almighty God is that you in your high wisedome vpon mature and due consideration how many old condemned errors the Protestants holde and with aâ—lwell weighing that the whole frame of their Doctrine tendeth to the disgracing of God and his Saintes to the discouragement of men from well doing and doth as it were loosen the reines vnto all fleshly liberty will in time make a most Godly resolution to imitate that famous Emperour Constantine He contrary to his former education embraced with aâ—h spower that same Romane Religion which we now professe And which is worthy to be obserued he feared nothing the contrarie disposition of the multitude or greater part of his subiects that were wholy led another way But following the blessed example of his most vertuous Mother S. Helâ—â—a reposed himselfe in the powerfull assistance of the Almightie and chasâ—â— all other Religions into
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
away the disease and ease the diseased so doth God lab our by his grace in vs to consume sinne and deliuer man And that it is not onely sinne as it comes from sinne and causeth sinne but also properly as a disobedience Austin shewes euidently by this similitude As blindnes of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne whereby the proud heart is worthily punished and a cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of the heart so that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit lusteth is both sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the minde and a punishment of sinne because it is laid by desert vpon the disobedient and the cause of sinne by the fault of consent or the contagion of birth Yea Austin doubts not to say as we doe that the guilt of concupiscence yet remaining is pardoned that it may not be imputed for sinne In them which are regenerate saith Austin when they receiue forgiuenes of all sinnes whatsoeuer it must needes be that the guilt also of this concupiscence yet remaining is forgiuen that as I said it may not be imputed for sinne Further it is plaine that Austin acknowledged it to be sinne because he receiues and allowes of Ambrose his opinion who calles it iniquitie because it is vniust that the flesh should lust against the spirit This sinne Chrysostome and Theophylact vnderstand to be our â—lothfull and corrupt will and a violent inclination to euill And Peter Lombard saith that we are not altogether redeemed by Christ from the guilt or fault but so that it reignes not in vs. speaker W. P. But by the circumstances of the text it is sinne properly for in the words following S. Paul saith that this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated And. verse 24. he crieth out O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death For saith he that S. Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the words following That this sinne dvvelling in him made him to doe the euill vvhich he haâ—â—a How proues this that sinne there must be taken properlie it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not be sin properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the vvill But S. Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby vvas so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercomming that euill As vvitnesseth S. Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully and ruleth raging concupiscence vvhich being done we sinne not but for that conflict are to be crowned This first circumstance then alleadged by M. Perkins doth rather make against him than for him speaker A. W. The reason lies thus Originall sinne dwelling in the Apostle made him doe that euill he hates therefore it is sin properly You answere it rather prooues the contrarie because yâ— which the Apostle doth with hatred of it is not sin for sinne is not committed but with liking and consent of the will I answere that whatsoeuer a man doth against the law of God it is sinne whether he like or mislike it Secondly that the consent of the will makes it not sinne but our sinne Thirdly the Apostle denies not that he doth this euil with his will for else he would not doe it but affirmes that he doth it against his iudgement as euen naturall men doe that are ouercome of their affections Witnes Medea in Ouid I see what is good and like it and doe that is euill Otherwise such actions of theirs should not be sinne I denie not that the regenerate haue a greater hatred of the sinnes they fall into and vpon a better ground but yet the naturall men also oftentimes doe that which they mislike in general though they do it willingly That this was the Apostles meaning he that will reade the chapter may easily perceiue I allow not saith he that I doe that is I know it to bee euill and I would faine leaue it vndone but the strength of my corruption is such that I am carried away to the doing of it and so because I am but in part regenerate in part I serue God and in part sinne As for that you adde out of S. Austin it makes not any whit against vs who acknowledge that reason especially being regenerate oftentimes ouercomes concupiscence shall haue reward for it Yet are not Austins words as you report them but thus Reason sometimes manfullie bridles and restraines concupiscence euen when it is stirred when it so happens we fall not into sin but with some little wrastling are crowned But sometimes againe as the Apostle plainly confesseth it is vanquished by sinne or naturall corruption and drawne to the committing of some actuall sinne inward or outward which being euident Master Perkins reason is not answered as the sight of it may prooue That which dwelling in S. Paul made him doe that he hates is sinne properly Indeede why should he hate it if it be not sinne But originall sinne dwelling in him made him doe that he hates Therefore originall sinne is properly sinne speaker D. B. P. Novv to the second O wretched man that J am who shall deliuer mee from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne hovv this may be dravvne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument vvhere he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text vvhich he can find to proue S. Paul to take sinne there properly speaker A. W. That originall sinne called sinne by the Apostle is sinne properly our Diuines proue by the description the Apostle makes of it in that chapter It is not good It hinders vs from doing good It drawes vs to the doing of euill It makes the Apostle crie out Oh wretched man that I am To which they adde out of other places It is an euill that doth compasse vs about It fights against the Commandement Thou shalt not lust It is an euill to be crucified and mortified Vpon al these descriptions of it we conclude that it is truly and properly sinne speaker A. W. Novv I vvill proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence Jt is not I that doe it â—lâ— sinne is done and committed properly by the person in vvhom it is but this vvas not done by S. Paul Ergo. Let vs now see your proofes to the contrarie the first whereof you frame thus All sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is But this was not done by S. Paul Ergo. First your proposition is false secondly your conclusion is either
the soule but the breath And he fitly compareth workes to breath for as the body of a liuing creature if it breathe not is dead so faith if it bring foorth no workes is dead for breathing is an effect of a liue bodie and likewise working is the proper effect of a liuing faith whereby it appeareth saith he in what sense the Apostle said aboue that faith without workes was dead not because hee thought that works were the forme of faith but because he thought that works accompany faith as the breath accompanieth the life of the bodie You see both his iudgement and his reason which is confirmed by that the Apostle said before Faith if it haue not workes is dead So that the meaning is faith without workes that is faith that hath not workes is dead speaker D. B. P. Which S. Paul confirmeth at large in the vvhole Chapter prouing charitie to be a more excellent gift then faith or any other concluding vvith these vvords Novv there remaineth faith hope and charity these three but the greater of these is charitie Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auaileable for faith saith he may be vvithout charity but it cannot be auailable vvithout it So that first you see that charitie is the mouer and commaunder and faith as her instrument and handmaid speaker A. W. The Apostle speaketh not of that faith by which wee beleeue in God to iustification but of that by which miracles are wrought Besides it doth not follow that loue vseth faith as an instrument to iustifie vs because in some respect it is superiour namely in the present vse for the good of our brethren to which the Apostles exhortation tends as it ◅y appeare by his discourse both in that chapter and in the 12. going before and the 14. that followeth Austin bringing the Apostles words speaketh of the same faith that hee meant which may be indeed without charitie and cannot rise to the height of a iustifying faith but must needs be accompanied by charitie without which it is dead speaker D. B. P. Now that in the worke of iustification it hath the chiefe place may be thus proued I demaund whether that worke of iustification by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no If not as it is void of charity so it is a wicked and sinfull act no iustification but infection our owne interest being the principall end of it now if it comprehend and conclude Gods glory and seruice in it that is if they apply Christs righteousnes to them to glorifie God thereby then hath charity the principall part therin for the directing of all to the honor and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity speaker A. W. There is neither reason in your question nor strength in your argument the worke of iustification by faith is Gods action iustifying a sinner that beleeueth in Iesus Christ. What sense then is there in this question I demaund whether that work of iustificatiō by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no. That which followeth in respect of God is blasphemous at least absurd That the worke of iustification is a wicked act To your reason It is no wicked act to beleeue in God for iustification by Christ though in the particular act of beleeuing we thinke not vpon the glorifying of God but onely respect our owne saluation For to beleeue in Christ is no act enioyned by the law of nature or of Moses whereby we should iustifie our selues but an extraordinarie matter appointed by God who respects nothing in it on our parts but that wee beleeue Not as if we might therefore neglect the glorie of God but that we may afterward giue so much the more glorie to him the lesse cause there was he should pardon vs there being such a defect against our generall dutie in that act of beleeuing Further if it were true that we desired to glorifie God by beleeuing in Christ and that that desire proceeded from loue yet had not loue either the principall or any part in procuring our iustification Because God doth not iustifie vs for seeking to glorifie him by beleefe which is simply a worke of the law but onely accepteth our beleeuing for working and as the Apostle speaketh counts faith to vs for righteousnes speaker A. W. All this reason that charity both concurreth to iustification and that as principall S. Augustine confirmeth in these words The house of God that is a righteous and godly soule hath for his foundation faith hope is the vvalles of it but charitie is the roofe and perfection of it Austin speaketh not of iustification onely but of the whole building of Gods house in the soule of man which saith he is built with singing founded with beleeuing set vp with hoping perfected with louing The end of our election iustification and sanctification is holinesse without which a man is no true Christian but iustification is not the building of the soule speaker W. P. Reason III. Faith is neuer alone therfore it doth not iustifie alone Answ. The reason is naught and they might as well dispute thus The eie is neuer alone from the heade and therfore it seeth not alone which is absurd And though in regard of substance the eye be neuer alone yet in regard of seeing it is alone and so though faith subsist not without loue and hope and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all speaker A. W. The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it dothnot iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes doe not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes The argument is framed vpon our opinion who maintaine that a iustifying faith is neuer without hope and charitie Hence it may seeme to follow that it doth not iustifie alone but because you disclaime this reason I will let it passe speaker D. B. P. We then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature and propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sence teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it doe not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that vvas not the whole cause of that
alone we shall also be saued and that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time vvill render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits speaker A. W. His second answere is that the assumption is false vpon this distinction that by sauing wee vnderstand being brought into the state of saluation For that is performed on our part by beleeuing onely Now in this case wee are said to bee saued because whosoeuer is once iustified by saith shall certainly haue other things ministred vnto him by which God hath appointed to bring him to saluation It is your slander not Master Perkins error that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement speaker W. P. Reason V. We are saued by hope therefore not by faith alone Answ. We are saued by hope not because it is any cause of our saluation Pauls meaning is onely this that wee haue not saluation as yet in possession but waite patiently for it in time to come to be possessed of vs expecting the time of our ful deliuerance that is all that can iustly be gathered hence speaker D. B. P. There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first offeare it is said He that is vvithout feare cannot be iustified VVe are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe psnance you shall all in like sort perish VVe are translated from death to life that is iustified because vve loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of vvater and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our evil liues For vve are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen againe from the dead c. Sâ— vve may also vvalke in nevvnes of life speaker A. W. Master Perkins answered as much as hee propounded that which you haue brought I will examine and I trust satisfie He that is without feare cannot be iustified It is a strange course of prouing to bring that against vs for scripture which you know wee denie to be scripture and that with the consent of the ancient writers and your owne of late Arias Montanus and they that ioyned with him haue left all the Apocryphall out of the Interlinear Bible The Greeke which is the originall is farre otherwise An angrie man and so it is translated in the great Bible set out by Arias Montanus and before that by Pagnin who also interpreteth it shall not be iustified cannot be thought iust referring it to mans iudgement rather than to Gods Vatablus also so translateth it and addes in the margin that some copies reade vniust anger and for your being iustified he translateth as Pagnin doth cannot be counted iust Besides I denie the consequence he that is without feare cannot be iustified therefore iustification is ascribed in Gods word to some other vertue and not to faith onely For though a man that is without feare cannot be iustified yet he is not iustified in respect of his feare To omit the absurditie of the translation doe penance for repent who makes any doubt that they shall perish that repent not What will you conclude thence Therefore repentance iustifieth and not faith onely I denie your consequence see the reason in the former section The Apostle makes not the loue of our brethren the cause but the proofe of our iustification as it is apparant by his words We know we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren he that loueth not his brother abideth in death We are not translated by reason of our louing for indeed we must be translated before we can loue them but we know by louing them that we are translated And that is the scope of the Apostle In this are the children of God knowne and the children of the diuell whosoeuer doth not righteousnes is not of God neither he that loueth not his brother Let vs not loue in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth For thereby wee know that we are of the truth and shall before him assure our hearts First you take that as granted which is full of doubt that our Sauiour Christ speaketh in that place of baptisme Secondly admitting that I denie absolute necessitie of baptisme as well as of the other Sacrament for which in your iudgement those words are as strong Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Thirdly I say we are iustified by baptisme as Abraham was by Circumcision Fourthly I denie the consequence here also None can enter into heauen except they be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Therefore not onely faith but also some other vertues are respected by God in our iustification The end of baptisme is our sanctification by dying to sinne and liuing to righteousnes therefore iustification and saluation are ascribed to other vertues beside faith I denie the consequence For though we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our liues yet God doth not iustifie vs in regard that we haue such a purpose but only in respect of our beleeuing neither to speake truly doth this purpose goe before iustification but follow it speaker D. B. P. To all these and many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answere in that one You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must waire patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternal saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to think as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it speaker A. W. S. Paul doth not affirme that it is any cause of saluation but onely saith as Master Perkins hath truly answered that we must come to the possession of saluation by continuing our hope of it with patience To which purpose the Apostle saith that we had need of patience that after wee haue done the will of God we may receiue the promise Neither is the question of saluation but of iustification so that here the consequence may iustly be denied we are saued by
though not meritoriously by our holy actions which make vs euery day more and more fit to serue and please God But Master Perkins vnderstanding your opinion better than your selfe will be knowne to doe frames his reason against this position That workes are part of that righteousnes which we must pleade before God for the deseruing of euerlasting life or that our iustification before God is partly of workes and partly of faith which is the doctrine of your Church howsoeuer by you it be blanched Our reasons speaker W. P. I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Some answer that ceremoniall workes bee excluded here some that morall workes some works going before faith But let them deuise what they can for themselues the truth is that Paul excludeth all workes whatsoeuer as by the text will appeare For vers 24. hee saith We are iustified freely by his grace that is by the meere gift of God giuing vs to vnderstand that a sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue that is doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. Ans. The Apostle there speakes of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glory of God Wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either workes of the law as not necessarie vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary of else against the Gentiles any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for vve acknovvledge veâ—â—e willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only and without any merit of the sinner himselfe speaker A. W. Your answere of the second instification is idle because the distinction as I haue shewed is vaine Master Perkins prooueth that iustification is wholy of faith because the Apostle excludeth workes from it whereas you teach that faith and workes together make vp that iustice or righteousnes whereby a man is iustified before God speaker D. B. P. And yet is not a sinner being of yeares of discretion meerely passiue in that his iustification as M Perkins very abâ—urdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repeet speaker A. W. Master Perkins makes not a sinner meerely passiue in his iustification but in receiuing the gift of faith and in being stirred vp to beleeue And yet is he not in these neither passiue as fondly you imagine we say for he heares and sometimes meditates feares hopes c. but in this respect he is said to bee passiue because his yeelding to beleeue proceedes not from any strength of his free will vpon the good motion inspired but from the spirit of God inclining him ineuitably to beleeue freely speaker W. P. And vers 27. he saith iustification by faith excludeth all boasting and therefore all kind of workes are thereby excluded and speciallie such as are most of all the matter of boasting that is good works For if a sinner after that hee is iustified by the merit of Christ were iustified more by his owne workes then might hee haue some matter of boasting in himselfe speaker D. B. P. And this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our selues as well as theirs For as they must giant that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessaâ—ily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truely bpast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberality of the â—ather of lights and For the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto â—aith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it speaker A. W. From this ariseth the true difference betwixt you and vs concerning boasting that we haue nothing left vs to brag of because not onely the abilitie but the very act of beleeuing is brought to passe by Gods spirit inâ—uitably but your many actions of fearing hoping repenting louing beleeuing are caused by your owne free will without any certaintie of euent on Gods part as a cause thereof speaker D. B. P. Yet obserue by the way that S. Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting For he â—orieth in the hope of glorie of the Sonne of God and in his tribulations Againe He defiueth that vveâ— may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power And that he vvas constrained to glory in his visions and reuolations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure and due season Acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull speaker A. W. The Apostle excludes no boasting but in a mans selfe and all that he must needs shut out if he will reserue Gods glorie entire to him For he that may truly say that he is beholding to his own free will for his iustification as he may who by the good vse of it at his choise without being certainly inclined thereto by the spirit procured his own iustification hath cause to boast of his owne goodnes not caused by God in respect of the act of beleeuing Now he that boasts of the inheritance of heauen which God onely hath prouided for him and fitted him to boasteth not of himselfe though in the middest of tribulations he breake out into this boasting But how proouâ—â— this that therefore all boasting is not forbidden in the matter of iustification To which the next place alleaged no way belongs being spoken by the Apostle of himselfe in respect of those gifts that God had bestowed vpon him for the worke of his ministerie The last being of the same nature is so farre from prouing the lawfulnes of boasting that the Apostle is saine to excuse himselfe for it as a thing inexpedient But howsoeuer it can by no meanes prooue that the Apostle shuts not all boasting out of iustification speaker W. P. And that wee may not doubt of Pauls meaning consider and read Eph 2. 8. 9. By grace saith he you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
conscience as dutifull children God giueth them eternall life And hereupon it is termed a reward speaker D. B. P. Wherefore M. Perkins skippes to a second shift that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance but not a reward Reply We know well that it is an inheritance because it is only due vnto the adopted Sonnes of God but that hindereth not it to be a reward for that it is our heauenly fathers pleasure that all his Sons comming to the yeares of discretion shall by their good carriage either deserue it or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited speaker A. W. An inheritance is not due to the sonne onely because none except hee bee a sonne can haue it but is his proper right because he is a sonne And therfore it is vnreasonable both in Diuinitie and Law that the sonne should be bound to purchase that by his labour to which by a naturall right he hath full interest This is our case for though we are not sonnes by nature but by adoption yet being sonnes and heires yea ioynt heires with Christ the naturall sonne of whose bodie we are members the very nature of our sonneship or being sonnes conueies vnto vs a sufficient and certaine title to the inheritance It is indeed the pleasure of God our Father that we should labour to expresse our thankfulnes by all holy obedience to him that hath adopted vs for his children and that we after this labour should receiue the inheritance not deserue that by our labour to which wee haue alreadie a farre better claime by being sonnes speaker W. P. Thirdly if I should graunt that life euerlasting is a deserued reward it is not for our workes but for Christs merit imputed to vs causing vs thereby to merit and thus the relation stands directly between the Reward and Christs Merit applied vnto vs. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answeres flies to a third and graunteth that eternal life is a reward yet not of our workes but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs This is that Castle wherin he holds himselfe safe from all Canon shotte but he is fouly abused for this answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture examine any one of the places and a babe may discouer the incongruity of it Namely Christ saith that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake Assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake and not to his owne merits imputed and if you desire a formall sentence fitting this purpose take this Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his ovvne proper labour And not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him So a doer of the vvorke shall be blessed in his deed And not in the imputation of anothers deed speaker A. W. Master Perkins did not nor needed mistrust either of his former answers but because he knew that diuers men were moued with diuers reasons he added this third to see if by Gods blessing this might giue satisfaction where the other were not fully vnderstood It is not Master Perkins meaning to say that in these our works there is desert by Christs merit imputed but that if the children of God must needes be thought to receiue euerlasting life as of merit the merit is properly Christs imputed to them speaker W. P. Obiect II. Christ by his death merited that our workes should merit life euerlasting Answ. That is false all we find in Scripture is that Christ by his merit procured pardon of sinne imputation of righteousnesse and life euerlasting and it is no where said in the word of God that Christ did merit that our workes should merit it is a dotage of their owne deuising He died not for our good workes to make them able to satisfie Gods anger but for our sinnes that they might be pardoned Thus much saith the Scripture and no more And in that Christ did sufficiently merit life eternall for vs by his owne death it is a sufficient proofe that hee neuer intended to giue vs power of meriting the same vnlesse wee suppose that at some time hee giues more then is needefull Againe Christ in the office of mediation as he is a King Priest and Prophet admitteth no deputie or fellow For he is a most perfect Mediatour doing all thinges by himselfe without the helpe of any And the Ministers that dispence the word are not his deputies but reasonable and voluntarie instruments which he vseth But if men by workes can merit increase of grace and happinesse for themselues then hath Christ partners in the worke of redemption men doing that by him which hee doth of himselfe in procuring their saluation Nay if this might stand that Christ did merit that our workes should merit then Christ should merit that our stained righteousnesse beeing for this cause not capable of merit should neuerthelesse merit I call it stained because we are partly flesh and partly spirit and therfore in our selues deseruing the curse of the law though wee bee regenerate Againe for one good worke wee doe wee haue many euill the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes and makes them too light in the ballance of the law speaker D. B. P. Insteed of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins I vvill confirme the first with such texts of holy writ as specifie plainly your good workes to be the cause of eternall life speaker A. W. The second reason is so cleerely set downe that me thinkes you dare not looke vpon it for feare of hauing your eyes dazled by the brightnes of it A sillie shift to auoid an argument which you cannot answere speaker D. B. P. Come vnto me yee blessed of my Father possesse a Kingdome prepared for you And why so For vvhen I vvas hungry yee gaue me meate And so foorth the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants who imployed well their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue been faithfull in fevv things I vvill place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly saide to be the very cause why God rewardeth them with the kingdome of heauen Thorefore he must needs be holden for a very vvrangler that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches and vvould make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth only signifie an order of things speaker A. W. The places you bring to prooue that good workes are the cause of eternall life proue not that the things that were done did truly and wholy deserue such a reward which is the question No more doth Austins exposition Wee are iudged according to our workes so that if any man should wonder why these are receiued into heauen those cast
to wit by afflicting your selues so much for euery offence as vvorthy penance doth require which vvill be a sacrifice of iustice that is a most iust sacrifice speaker A. W. So do we acknowledge the exposition which the auncients giue of it though we thinke the exhortation to be somewhat larger then they seeme in the words alleaged to make it for it comprehends all kind of holie conuersation not only the change of the grosse outward sinnes which we doubt not was their meaning also as it is manifest by Chrysostome in that place you bring who describes the repentance that he speakes of to be not only a leauing of our former sinnes but a fulfilling of good works which he proues by that place of the Psalme Eschue euill and do good and expounding those words bring forth fruits c. It is not enough saith Iohn to flie from naughtines vnlesse we betake our selues to the practice of well doing You see what he saith quoth Theophylact that we must not only auoid euill but also bring forth the fruit of vertue To which he addes for proofe that place of the Psalme Yea we refuse not that of Bede for it is indeed a sacrifice fit for vs in iustice to offer that our repentance be answerable in proportion to our sinnes But what is all this to prooue that there remaines tempo all paine to be endured whereby Gods wrath may be satisfied especially when as Chrysostome saith plainely that Iohn perswading the people to repentance did it not that they might be punished but that being made humble by repenting and condemning themselues because of their sinnes they might come to the gift of pardon speaker W. P. Answ. This text is absurd for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth thus much change your mindes from sinne to God and testifie it by good workes that is by doing the duties of the morall lawe which must bee done not because they are meanes to satisfie Gods iustice for mans fine but because they are fruites of that faith and repentance which lies in the heart speaker D. B. P. Reply His answere is most absurd for we argue out of these words VVorthy fruits of penance And he answereth to the word going before repent which we vse not against them and for his glose or testifying our repentance is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alleaged speaker A. W. Surely a reasonable man might well thinke that you that hold a necessitie of satisfaction and bring that text did ground your argument vpon Iohns charge to do penance The authors alleaged do not confute that interpretation by bringing another which is not 〈◊〉 â—…ty to it at the least we denie your consequence vpon their words And S. Iohn expresly maketh them the meanes to escaâ—… wrath of God saying that the 〈◊〉 was set to the â—…ose of the â—rie and vn lesse by worthy fruits of penanâ—… they 〈◊〉 God they 〈◊〉 â—e 〈◊〉 vp and cast into hell fire and 〈◊〉 hâ—… confute the â—aying â—…d on Christs satisfaction by faith saying 〈◊〉 wâ—â—l not helpe you to say thâ—â— yee are the Sonnes of Abraham wâ—o was â—…her of all true beleeueis as much as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off yee generation of vipers For notwithstanding yee be the Sonnes of the faithfull vnlesse yee amend your liues and for the euill works which ye haue denoâ—… tofore make recompence and satisfie the iustice of God with good yâ—â— shall be cast into hell fire speaker A. W. Neither doth Iohn speake of any satisfaction for the temporall punishment after the pardon of the eternall but threatens them with euerlasting damnation except they bring forth the fruits of repentance as well as make a profession of it by being baptised so that if satisfaction be required in those words dâ—â—btles it is that satisfaction which may free them from hell fire but that you confesse is not to be performed by euery man for himselfe but by Christ for all that trust in him To whom seemes he to confute the very matter of all his preaching not to Bede who in the place alleaged by you tels vs that Iohn exhorts the Pharises to humilitie who were so proude because they were Abrahams children that they would not confesse themselues to be sinners nor to Lyra who writes thus Because the Pharises Lawyers refused Abrahams faith of Christ therefore they lost the name of Abrahams sonnes And certainely it had bin against reason for Iohn to haue disswaded the Saduces and Pharises from trusting in Christ as well because it was his especiall commission to perswade men by all meanes to beleeue in Christ as also for that there was not the least cause of suspition that they would be too forward to trust in him who had so strong a perswasion of their owne righteousnes that they could find no want of his help speaker W. P. Obiect VII 2. Cor. 7. 10. Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof the last is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues thereby to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes Answ. A repentant sinner must take reuenge of himselfe and that is onely to vse all meanes which serue to subdue the corruption of his nature to bridle carnall affections and to mortifie sinne and these kind of actions are restrainments properly and not punishments and are directed against the sinne and not against the person speaker D. B. P. The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth dovvne sundry fruits of repentance vvhereof one is reuenge vvhereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sins M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainements properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments only from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must doe Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We grant that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his body and mind too as S. Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians speaker A. W. If he vnderstood not his owne words he is like to haue small help of you who either cannot or will not conceiue his meaning aright The reuenge that a sinner must take of himselfe is saith Master Perkins to vse all good meanes which serue to subdue his corruption but this is not properly a punishment of
memories which may often faile them especially in carrying away speeches of discourse and disputation speaker W. P. II. If the beleeuing of vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must beleeue the writings of the auncient Fathers as well as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes And wee may not beleeue their sayings as the worde of God because they often crie beeing subiect to errour and for this cause their authoritie when they speake of traditions may be suspected and we may not alwaies beleeue them vpon their word speaker D. B. P. His otherreason is that if we beleeue vnwritten Traditions were necessary to saluatiō then we must aswel beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall Traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their books but that vvere absurd for they might erre Ans. That doth not follovv for three causes First Apostolicall Traditions are aswell kept in the mind of the learned as in the auncient Fathers vvritings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers vvritings speaker A. W. It may be they were kept in the mind of the learned till they were written but that afterward and to this day they are in mens minds otherwise then as they haue learned them by reading it is not very likely Beside how can traditions be kept without adding and altering if they haue no better guide then the memories of men speaker D. B. P. Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimonie than any one of their writings speaker A. W. What is that to Master Perkins reason vnlesse you will say that we are as well to beleeue the writings of the fathers where more then one writ the same thing as we are one of the Apostles or Euangelists alone which I perswade my selfe you will not affirme speaker D. B. P. Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall Tradition related but of one auncient Father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his ovvne inuention because that vvas registred by him as a thing of more estimation And gaine some of the rest of those blessed and Godly personages vvould haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not binsuch indeed as it vvas tearmed Which vvhen they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the follovving for Apostolicall Tradition it so because they were taught by our Lord yet Pauls case is proper to himselfe and altogether extraordinarie The third particular is somewhat more to purpose because S. Paul hauing prooued by many reasons that women might not come into the congregations bareheaded addes in the conclusion that it was enough to stop any contentions mans mouth that the Apostles and the Churches of God allowed of no such custome But first this hatescripture Papist must be put in minde that whereas he calles these wranglers scripturists as if they had alleaged scripture for their defence there is no such thing in the text nor any one obiection so much as signified by the Apostle Secondly this custome of the Church is not alleaged because as he seemes to presume by his conclusion afterward he wanted other reason to prooue the point For as Chrysostome and others haue obserued he hath in the former part of the chapter proued it to be against nature and against scripture too Thirdly he reasons not about any matter of doctrine but about the outward carriage of men and women in the assemblie of Gods seruice Lastly it doth no way follow that because the custome of the Church must ouer-way priuate mens fancies in things indifferent therefore the Scripture containes not all things necessarie to saluation but must be supplied therein by traditions Neither doth the Apostles example warrant his conclusion The Apostle hauing proued that he exhorts to by reason and Scripture last of all alleages custome against contentious men in a thing which they tooke to be indifferent therefore wee must alleage Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they are not plaine tradition euen in matters of saluation Who sees not that this followes not vpon that Obiections for Traditions speaker W. P. First they alleadge 2. Thess. 2. 15. where the Apostle bids that Church keepe the ordinances which he taught either them by word or letter Hence they gather that beside the written word there be vnwritten traditions that are indeede necessarie to be kept and obeyed Answ. It is very likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul writ to any Church though in order it haue not the first place and therefore at the time when this Epistle was penned it might well fall out that some thinges needefull to saluation were deliuered by word of mouth not beeing as yet written by any Apostle Yet the same things were afterward set downe in writing either in the second Epistle or in the Epistles of Paul speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that insteed of Traditions according to the Greek and Latin vvord they translate Ordinances euer flying the vvord Tradition vvhere any thing is spoken in commendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the vvord Tradition although the Greeke vvord beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouery of false translation penned by M. Gregorie Martin a man most singulerly conuersant in the Greeke and Hebrevv tongues speaker A. W. Gregory Martinus cauils were answered long since by Doctor Fulke and the answer neuer yet replied to that euer I heard of by any Papist Your old translation hath in steed of traditions precepts and in the Gospell euery where traditions and yet the former place is to the commendation of traditions and all in the Gospell to their dispraise Vatablus also vseth his libertie in translating this word sometimes Instituta sometimes Constitutio sometimes Institutio the difference in our translation as farre as I can perceiue is this that we call mens precepts traditions the Apostles doctrines ordinances speaker D. B. P. Secondly is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer he wrote Surely if none of his otherwere written before it yet his first to the same Church must needs haue been written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame sometimes speaker A. W. It is easie to see that Master Perkins compares not this epistle with the other to the same Church but with other that were written to other Churches and generally with the bookes of the new Testament among which if wee may beleeue Irenaeus it was the ancientest except the former and perhaps the Gospell of S. Matthew for it was written
opinion We must haue recourse to traditions for the expounding of doubtfull places Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation I denie the consequence This rather prooues the sufficiencie of the Scripture as being sufficient in it selfe if it be rightly vnderstood Secondly I say there is no such danger as you imagine For though some may abuse it to confirme error yet may their false interpretations be confuted by diligent examination of the text without resting vpon the authoritie of mans interpretation as it appeares manifestly by the courses that the ancient writers tooke for the confuting of all heresies And if without this it could not haue been done what should haue become of the truth before the writings of men were extant in any number For it were ridiculous to imagine that euery particular text was expounded by the Apostles and so left by tradition to the Church Thirdly who shall determine when the time to count ancientnes by ended especially since euery mans writings were new when they were written and cannot grow in truth as they doe in age by continuance we acknowledge them for helpes of interpretation not for warrants speaker D. B. P. Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsely tearmed matter of strife because it is not so of his owne nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not Saint Peter saith Yes No saith M. Perkins because that commeth not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly tearmed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly That which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate Heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so tearmed although it be not the cause of contention in it self but written to take away all contention speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the scripture to be matter of strife and that it may so bee slandered to the disgrace of it as some Papists haue most shamelesly spoken of it to draw people from the reading and louing of it What blasphemies almost haue not your writers vttered against the holy word of God Pighius calls them dumbe iudges and in another place commends the truth and pleasantnes of his speech that compared the scriptures to a nose of waxe Did not Hosius say of Dauids Psalmes we write poems euery body learned and vnlearned speaker D. B. P. But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of S. Augustine be good directions wherby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructors and learnëd Commentaries But to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be inabled to iudge which is the true sense of any doubtfull or hard text is extreame rashnes and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe well conuersant in these rules indued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more then thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best Cōmentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisit yet be ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his studie he vnderstood not then vvhich he did vnderstand And shall euery simple man furnished only with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficulty in them whatsoeuer Why doe the Lutherans to omit all former Heretikes vnderstand them in one sort the Caluinists after another The Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne Country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants finde one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrarie Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the sense and meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the aide of those triuiall notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie vvithout there be admitted some certaine Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauiour to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randome and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of Temporall iustice it should be permitted to euerie contentious smatterer in the Law to expound conster the grounds of the Law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisdome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquity should not be Law or when should there be any end of any hard matter one Lawyer defending one part an other the other One counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one partie to haue the right another as certainely auerring not that but the contrary to be Law both alledging for their warrant sometexts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloody debate and perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne speaker A. W. No man saith so but that by these a man may iudge which is the truest that is the likeliest interpretation of a doubtfull place But I pray you tell me can you or any Papist by the help of tradition added to the other three rules certainely determine what is the sense of euery hard place of scripture If you can S. Austin by that meanes was likelier to haue it then any of you as he was neerer the Apostles from whom those traditions are said to haue come If you rest vpon the Commentaries of the Auntient what meanes had they to further them in vnderstanding the Scripture that we now want is it not apparant that we haue all they had and their paines and iudgement beside You aske then how chance diuers men vnderstand them diuersly not because they want the tradition you talke of For who knowes not that the Fathers differ exceedingly one from another in their expositions And do all the popish interpretations agree who it should seeme by you haue recourse to that maine help of Tradition He
after prooue no such thing rather the opposition in the later part of the verse shewes that it should be is marriage is honorable but whoremongers and adulterers God will iudge whereas if it had bin so intended as you would haue it the other part must haue bin for God will iudge by way of a reason as your vulgar translation reades it without ground If we corrupt the text by adding the verb is what do Theodoret Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenins and Heutenius the Papist that translated him Hesychius Fulgentius Damasâ—en who so expound it Primasius giues the reason why the Apostle speaketh so because some at that time condemned mariage as vncleane speaker A. W. Againe if you will haue the Apostle say that Marriage is honorable among all men we must also needs take him to say that the bedde is also vndefiled among all which was not true Also that their conuersation was without couetousnes c. For there is no reason why this word is should be ioyned with the one more than with the other And nothing but passion doth cause them to make the middle sentence an affirmatiue when they turne both the other into exhortations speaker D. B. P. There is great reason why it should be ioyned with the one as hath been shewed With the other as you ioyne it it is absurd but it must thus be ioyned that is honorable be repeated and the bed vndefiled is honorable In the sentence following it cannot be vnderstood with any reason and therefore the vulgar Latin puts in sint and the Rhemists English let be which in the former verse neither of them doth You so interpret it The second corruption is in these words among all when they should translate in all and the adiectiue being put without a substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it and not men wherfore the text being sincerely put into English it would carrie no colour of their error For the Apostles saying is Let marriage be honorable in all things and the bed vndefiled Here is no willing of any man to marrie but only a commandement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage to keepe as he else where saith their vessels in sanctification and not in dishonor and then shall their marriage be honorable in all things that is in all points appertaining to Matrimonie So that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the Vow of chastitie speaker A. W. The Adiectiue may be as well the Masculine as the Newter and that which followeth in the other part of the verse of whoremongers and adulterers directs vs to expound it of the persons So doth Theophyl vnderstand it In all saith Theophylact is not onely in men of riper age and not in young men also but in all men or in all meanes and times not in affliction onely and in rest otherwise not honourable and pretious in this part in that part otherwise but the whole throughout is honourable So that both your cauils at the translation are vaine and the sense is wholy for vs. speaker D. B. P. The Scripture being so barren for him he shall be like recompence it with the abundant testimony of antiquitie in fauour of his cause but oh vnhappy chance he hath cleane forgotten in this question the record of the auncient Church What was there not one Father who vvith some one broken fragment of a sentence or other would releeue you in this your combate against the Vow of Chastitie I will help you to one but I feare me you will scarse thanke me for my paines It is such a one as is neither holy nor father but the auncient Christian Epicure Jouinian who as S. Augustine hath recorded and Saint Ierom did hold that Virginity of professed persons men and women was no better then the continencie of the married So that many professed Virgins beleeuing him did marrie yet himselfe did not marrie as Fryer Luther did not be cause he thought chastitie should be rewarded in the life to come with a greater crowne of glory but because it was fit for the present necessity to auoid the troubles of marriage see iust the very opinion of M. Perkins and our Protestants But this heresie saith S. Augustine in the same place was quicklie suppressed and extinguished it was not able to deceiue any one of the Priests And in another place thus he speaketh of Iouinian Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster So that no maruaile if that M. Perkins could find smal reliefe in antiquitie for this his assertion which the best of them esteemed no better than a monstrous sacrilegious heresie speaker A. W. But the Fathers are not for vs. What then is nothing true that cannot be confirmed by their testimonie Then are there very many vntruths in Poperie Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the ancient writers that they were too highly conceited of single life The vse whereof a kinde of necessitie bred at first by reason of persecution experience of constant profession confirmed and opinion of holinesse thereupon at the last perfected so that it is not to be lookt for that antiquitie should affoord vs any testimonie against the practise and iudgement of those daies And yet it is apparant in those places I alleaged before and diuers other that neither the Clergie as you call it was bound to make any such vow and that after it was made it was held a lesse sinne to breake it than to continue it in vncleannes which tained then to vow but first to vow and then to looke for strength from God to fit vs for the keeping of our vow is against all Diuinitie and reason And therefore the perswasion to vow vpon presumption of abilitie to performe that which is vowed shewes at the least zeale without knowledge and can be no matter of commendation to the ancient Church if they simply allowed it Howsoeuer they were farre better than you because they enioyned breach of vow rather than encrease of sinne speaker D. B. P. But to the further confirmation of this point let vs heare what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibilitie of this Vow speaker A. W. You labour to disprooue Master Perkins Antecedent by the testimonie of the ancient writers To which I answere in generall that as wee freely acknowledge their authoritie where there is nothing but meÌ„s authoritie to be waighed so we account it lighter than nothing in all cases contrarie to Scripture such as we can prooue this to be speaker D. B. P. Tertullian neere the end expounding these words He that can take let him take Chuse saith hâ— that vvhich is good if thou say thou canst not it is because thou vvilt not for that thou mightest if thou vvouldest he doth declare vvho hath left both to thy choise speaker A. W.