not the Virgin Mary in your seruice called the promise of the Prephets the Queene of the Patriarkes the schoolmistris of the Euangelists the teacher of the Apostles the comforter of the quick and the dead Who thâ—… saios deuoutly this short prayer daily saith the Rubrick shall not depart out of this world without penance and ministration of the holy Sacrament In another prayer in the same booke shee is called the most true schoolmistris of the Euangelists the most wise teacher of the Apostles The booke was printed at Paris by Francis Regnault 1526. What profound piercing into such naturall affection can exccuse these speeches what French phrase can warrant it But what should we striue about the forciblenes of her prayers when it is not nor can be prooued that she prayes at all speaker W. P. Therefore we haue good cause to blesse the name of God that hath freed vs from the yoke of this Roman bondage and hath brought vs to the true light and libertie of the Gospell And it should be a great height of vnthankfulnesse in vs not to stand ouer against the present Church of Rome but to yeelde ourselues to plots of reconciliation To this effect and purpose I haue penned this little Treatise which I present to your worship desiring it might be some token of a thankfull minde for vndeserued loue And I craue withall not onely your Worshipfull which is more common but also your learned protection being well assured that by skill and arte you are able to iustifie whatsoeuer I haue truelie taught Thus wishing to you and yours the continuance and the increase of faith and good conscience I take my leaue Cambridge Iune 28. 1597. Your W. in the Lord VVilliam Perkins Wherefore to conclude this Epistle if there be no waightier cause then this by you here produced vvhy you and your adherent doe not reconcile your selues vnto the Church of Rome you may shortly by Gods grace become nevv men for vve are so farre off from making our Sauiour Christ a Pseudochâ—â—st or from dravving one iote of excellencie from his soueraâ—gne povver merits or dignitie that vve in the very points by you put downe doe much more magnifie him then you doe For in maintaining the authority by him imparted vnto his deputies our spirituall Magistrates and of their merits and satisfaction We first say that these his seruants prerâ—… be his hee gifts of 〈…〉 grace bestovved on vvhom he pleaseth vvhich is no finall praise of his great liberality And vvithall affirme that there is an infinite difference betvveene his ovâ—ne povver merits and satisfaction and ours Wherein his soueraigne honour is preserued entire to himselfe vvithout any comparison Novv you make Christs authoritie so base his merits and satisfaction so meane that if he â—…part any degree of them vnto his seruants he looseth the honour of all from himselfe Whereupon it follow eth inuinciblie if you vnfeignedly seeke Christ Iesus his true honour and vvill esteeme of his diuine giftes vvorthelie you must hold out no longer but vnâ—te your selfe in these necessarie heades of Religion vnto the Catholike Church of Rome which so highly exalted him both in his owne excellencie and in his singular giftes to his subiects speaker A. W. The least of these is cause sufficient to withhold vs from ioyning with the Church of Rome at least in that point The Kings authoritie is not abased because he cannot communicate any of his royalties to his subiects That Christ must needes lose by it I shewed before for it argues an insufficiencie in his satisfaction speaker W. P. THE AVTHOR TO THE CHRISTIAN READER BY a Reformed Catholike I vnderstand any one that holds the same necessarie heades of religion with the Roman Church yet so as he pares off and reiects all errours in doctrine whereby the said religion is corrupted How this may be done I haue begun to make some little declaration in this small Treatise the intent whereof is to shew how neere we may come to the present church of Rome in sundrie points of religion and wherein we must for euer dissent My purpose in penning this small discourse is threefold The first is to confute all such Politikes as hold and maintaine that our religion that of the Roman Church differ not in substance and consequently that they may be reconciled yet my meaning is not here to condemne any Pacification that tends to perswade the Roman Church to our religion The second is that the Papists which thinke so basely of our religion may be won to a better liking of it when they shall see how neere we come vnto them in sundrie points The third that the common Protestant might in some part see conceiue the point of difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome and know in what manner and how farre forth we condemne the opinions of the said Church I craue pardon for the order which I vse in handling the seuer all points For I haue set them downe one by one as they came to minde not respecting the lawes of Method If any Papist shall say that I haue not alleadged their opinions aright I answere that their bookes be at hand and I can iustifie what I haue said Thus crauing thine acceptation for this my paines and wishing vnto thee the increase of knowledge and loue of pure and sound religion I take my leaue and make an ende speaker D. B. P. AN ANSWERE TO THE Preface VPON your preface to the Reader I will not stand because it toucheth no point of controuersie let it be declared in your next what you meane when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heades of Religion with the Romane Church for if the Romane Church doth erre in the matter of faith and iustification in the number and vertue of the Sacraments in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist and an Idoll to omitte twenty other eâ—rors in substantial points of faith as in this your small discourse you would perswade there will remaine verie few necessarie heades of Religion for them to agree in And be you well assured that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke to a better liking of your Religion that you haue taken the high way to lead them to a farre greater dislike of it by teaching that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs For all Catholikes hold for most assured that which the most auncient learned and holie Doctor Athanasius in his creede deliuereth in the 2. vers VVhich Catholike faith vnlesse euery man obserue wholy and inuiolably not omitting or shrinking from any one article of it vvithout doubt he shall perish euerlastingly If S. Basil that reuerent and blessed Father of the Church doth hold it the dutie of euerie good Christian rather to loose his life then to condescend to the alteration
substance or that they may be reunited BEfore I am to deliuer my opinion concerning this point I had neede to be enformed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion For there being great diuersities of pretended Religions currant in the world all contrary to the Church of Rome how can I certainlie know whether of them hâ— professeth Wherefore good Sir may it please you to declare what Religion you vnderstand when you say our Religion Is it that which Martin Luther a licentious Fryer first preached in Germany or rather that which the martiall Minister Zwinglius contended with sword and shield to set vp in Switzerland or perhaps that which John Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneua expelling the lawfull Magistrate thence and by the ayde of Beza a dissolute turnecoate spread into many corners of France Or if by your Religion you meane only to comprehend the Religion now practised in England yet are you farther to shewe whether you vnderstand that established by the State or the other more refined as it is thought by many and embraced by them who are called Puritanes for of their leauen sauoureth that position of yours That the article of Christs descent into bell crept into the Creede by negligence and some other such like in this booke These principall diuisions of the new Gospell to omit sundrie sub-diuisions being famous and receiued of diuers in England according to each mans phantasie it is meete you expresse whether of them you speake of that it may be dulie considered how the Romane Religion and it agree and what vnion may be made betweene them speaker A. W. Is this no superfluitie of words What reasonable man can doubt that Master Perkins by our religion meanes as you say afterward the religion now professed in England For your word practised is too skant for doctrine some points whereof fall not into practise If it be contrarie to the Church of Rome it is easily answered without any such inquirie that contraries cannot be vnited If difference in some points make a diuers religion how many kindes are there amongst you Papists let the Franciscans and Dominicans goe with all the rest of former times what say you to these maine points Iustification in Pighius Predestination in Bellarmine Free will in Bartholomew Camerarius three pillers of your Church The difference betwixt Protestants and Puritanes as you call them is not in any essentiall point of faith but in matters of outward gouernment and ceremonies speaker W. P. And this shall appeare if we doe but a little consider how they of the Romane Church haue rased the foundation For though in words they honour Christ yet in deede they turne him to a Pseudo-Christ and an Idoll of their owne braine speaker D. B. P. Now if you meane the hotchpotâ—h and confusion of all these new Religions together as by the opposition here vnto the Church of Rome and by the artiâ—les following may be gathered then I am cleere for you in this that there can be no more concord betweene these two Religions then there is betweene light and darknes faith and insidelâ—tie Christ and Beliall Notwithstanding I thinke that the reason by you produced to proue the impossibilitie of this vnion is of no value to â—it that they of the Romane Church â—aue razed the foundation for though in vvords they honour Christ yet indeede they turne him into a Pseudochrist and an â—doll of their 〈◊〉 braine A very sufficient cause no doubt of eternall breach and diuision if it could be verisied But how proue you that we Romane Catholikes who beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and the onely Redeemer of Mankinde make him a false Christ and an Idoll or before you goe about to proue it tell me I pray you how this can well stand with your owne definition of a reformed Catholike in your Preface There you affirme him to be a Catholike reformed to your liking that holdeth the same necessarie heads of Religion vvith the Romane Church Now can there be any more necessarie head of Religion than to haue a right faith in Christ can any other foundation be laid besides Iesus Christ If then your reformed Catholike must agree with the Romane Church in neâ—essarie heads of Religion as you hold he must either the Romane Church â—…th not the foundation and maketh not Christ a Pseudochrist as you say here or else you teach your disâ—iples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with it speaker A. W. It is no confusion to take from seuerall men seuerall opinions agreeing with the word of God Luther hauing been a long time kept in the darknes of Pâ—…pcrie could not by and by discerne the truth in all points Was not your superstition both for doctrine and ceremonics patcht vp peece by peece as it could procure allowance from time to time Yea was not the truth of Religion made manifest by little and little in the Church as God gaue learned men occasion of studie and a blessing in their studie against the poyson of Heretikes Such hath been and such alwaies will be the course of the Gospell that truth will be more and more knowne as there is more opposition against it and as men bestow more paines in reading praying and studying To denie the reason or argument is to denie the consequence not the antecedent but you grant the consequence viz. That razing the foundation and turning Christ into a Pseudochrist is a sufficient cause of eternall breach onely you denie the antecedent that the Church of Rome doth so At the least as well as you prooue that the Church of England holding the same opinions of Christ haue no faith no religion no Church no Christ c. But let vs see how you disprooue the antecedent If your reformed Catholike say you must agree with the Romane Church in many heads of religion either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or else you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it But he must agree with it in many heads of religion Therfore either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it I denie the consequence of your proposition because by paring of the errors which Master Perkins requires he shall keepe himselfe from razing the foundation though he hold the same necessary heads for example he must holde with you that a true ChristiaÌ„ must haue a right faith in Christ but he must reiect the faith you professe as not right Again he must hold that no other foundation can be laid but Iesus Christ not that you lay him aright for the foundation speaker W. P. They call him our Lord but with this condition that the Seruant of Seruants of this Lord may change and adde to his commaundements hauing so great a power that he
a sentence of his in commendation of Pope Eugenius which is so full of flatterie that I say not impietie that it can carrie no credit with any modest Christian. It should seeme you saw so much your selfe and therefore craftily left out these absurd and vile speeches viz. Thou art Abel in primacie Noah in gouernment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in authoritie of iudging Samuel in vnction that is either in annoynting or in being annoynted Christ. If this be not a blinde sentence on Bernards part and a broken sentence on yours there is nothing but may abide the light be it neuer so false and be accounted whole be it neuer so mangled It is rather grosse ignorance in you to finde fault with that you vnderstand not Master Perkins neither saith nor meanes that there were many Bishops of Rome at once and yet there haue been three Popes together but according to the Canon cals the Cardinals Bishops of Rome referring this word of Rome not to Bishops simply but to Cardinall Bishops Now all Cardinals were Cardinals of Rome or of the Romish Church The Canon indeede puts not in those words of Rome but the sense is nothing altered by the adding of them For the cleere vnderstanding of the matter we are to know that all Cardinals are either Cardinall Bishops whom the Canon appoints first to consult about electing of the Pope or Cardinall Clerkes that is of some inferiour order of the Clergie the general name wherof is Clerke whether it be Priesthood Deaconship c and these must in the second place be called to the election Now let men iudge whether Master Perkins or you are in fault This Canon is brought to prooue the former proposition that he is no lawfull Pope who is chosen only by the Cardinals and not also by the consent of the rest of the Clergie and people If you had been as carefull to auoide slandering as that reuerend and learned writer was to take heede of vntruths you would neuer haue raised such a suspition of him in this point For the cleering of him let his owne desence against Master Hardings reproches speake For the present Roger Houeden who liued in that time records the historie and sets downe Ioachims words to King Richard That Antichrist was alreadie borne in the citie of Rome and that he should be exalted into the Apostolike seate But you except against Ioachim as an heretike so doth not Bellarmine but onely denies that he writ any such thing It is true that the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocent the third condemned a certaine booke that Abbat Ioachim writ against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris commonly called the Master of the Sentences concerning the vnitie or essence of the Trinitie but it did not reiect him as an heretike yea the Councell specially addes that they will not by their sentence any way derogate from the Abbey of Florence whereof he was the orderer as well because the orders in it were good as also for that he had submitted all his writings to the Apostolike see Therefore Iodocus Coccius makes him one of his Latin Doctors out of whom he confirmes your Popish doctrine And Trithemius saith that he was a man studious and exercised in the Scriptures and that he writ many things against the Iewes and other aduersaries of the Catholike faith Petrark one of the lights of his age for learning wrote about 250. yeeres since that Rome was become Babylon and not onely Babylon but false and wicked Babylon Further in the same place he calles her The fountaine of griefe the lodge of wrath the schoole of error the temple of heresie a shamelesse strumpet which hauing been founded in chastitie humilitie and pouertie hath lifted vp her hornes against her founders the Emperours In another place he calles her couetous Babylon that hath filled vp the measure of Gods wrath with impious and wicked vices so that it runnes ouer In a third he termes her impious Babylon from whom all shame is fled the lodge of griefe and mother of errors in whom there is no goodnes I set not down all he speakes against her somewhat I haue touched that I might see how easily you will answere his words but I thinke he that hath read Bellarmine of this point may gesse before hand what you can say in the matter Irenaeus as you truly say determines not what shall be Antichrists name and leanes more to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet neither doth he allow of that because a man as hee saith may with likelihood gather by many things that his name perhaps shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirmes that it is very likely and giues his reason of it because the most true kingdome had that name Master Perkins expounded it not as a proper name but as an appellatiue because neither the Euangelist nor Irenaeus doe intend to shew Antichrists proper name but to make knowne the name of the Beast which Antichrist should make all take Now the Beast being the Romane or Latin state the name also must be sutable thereunto as wee see it is our Papists calling themselues Romane that is Latin Catholikes I will not fall into exhortation hereupon only I desire all men that haue care of their saluation to consider without preiudice whether it be not euident that the state of Rome whereof the Pope is head is the whore of Babylon prophecied of by S. Iohn Reuelat 17. speaker W. P. Againe this commandement must not so much be vnderstood of a bodily departure in respect of cohabitation and presence as of a spirituall separation in respect of faith and religion And the meaning of the holy Ghost is that men must depart from the Romish Church in regard of Iudgement and doctrine in regard of their faith and the worship of God Thus then we see that the words containe a commaundement from God inioyning his Church and people to make a separation from Babylon Whence I obserue That all those who will bee saued must depart and separate themselues from the faith and religion of this present church of Rome And whereas they are charged with schisme that separate on this manner the truth is they are not schismatiks that doe so because they haue the commandement of God for their warrant and that partie is the schismatike in whom the cause of this separation lieth and that is in the Church of Rome namely the cup of abomination in the whores hand which is their heretical and schismaticall religion speaker D. B. P. And because I purpose God willing not only to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholike doctrine but some what also in euerie Chapter to fortifie and confirme it I will here deliuer what some of the most auncient most learned
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
For if we say we haue no sin wee deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1. 7. And he that sinnes against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law And what can he merit that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law speaker D. B. P. I deny the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit as by all the properties of merit may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merit set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good Father Doe on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bin proued at large in a seuerall question To that of S. Iames although it belong not to this matter I answere that he who offendeth in one is made guilty of all that is he shall be as surely condomned as if he had broken all See S. Augustine speaker A. W. You denie the proposition but if you did remember that the question is of meriting euerlasting life which requires the keeping of the whole law you would neuer stick at it for no man can be guiltie of the whole law as euery one is that failes in any one commandement and yet deserue euerlasting life The reason of your deniall is not sufficient for no one worke done with neuer so due circumstances can bring forth any merit of euerlasting life whereof Master Perkins speakes in his definition Indeede this reason is nothing but a bare deniall of Master Perkins proofe That you add of a mans losing and recouering his merit is liker a dreame then a point of diuinitie as it may well appeare by the poore proofe you bring of it viz. a speech out of an allegory and that also falsly translated his former garment for that best or principall garment Your vulgar latine calls it the first garment Pagnin that principall your interlinear glosse expounds it to signifie the garment of the holie ghost and the ordinarie glosse giues a reason why it is called the first because it is the garment of innocency in which the first man was created which interpretation is taken out of Austin But to the matter What reason is there that merit should not be recompenced according to iustice If a man haue once deserued euerlasting life why should he not haue it Or if that merit be once lost how can it be restored againe but only by Gods acceptation and then how can it be truly and properly merit You must not only say but shew too that the place of S. Iames belongs not to this matter els it is an easie matter to answere any authority of scripture Let vs grant your owne interpretation that he which breakes one commandement shall be certainely condemned how then can he deserue euerlasting life without keeping all the commandements And what a strange and vnsauorie doctrine is it that he which hath merited euerlasting life may be damned But the meaning of the Apostle is that the seuerall commandements are as it were seuerall conditions of a couenant betwixt God and man whereof if any one be broken the whole bond is forfeited how exactly soeuer all the rest haue bin performed what merit then can there be of life where the partie is liable to damnation speaker W. P. Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our daily bread Wherein we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be euery way the gift of God It must needs therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine that hee can by his workes merit eternall life who cannot merit bread speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomely that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerely the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our peny or trauaile we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Paules rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not cate Yet because our trauailes are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God daily to giue vs our nuriture either by sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stir ring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes speaker A. W. You take greater paines to disgrace Master Perkins Arguments then to disproue or vnderstand them his reason lyes thus He that cannot merit bread cannot merit euerlasting life But no man can merit bread Therefore no man can merit euerlasting life The proposition stands vpon the comparison of inequality from the lesse to the greater for it is a lesse matter to deserue bread then to merit euerlasting life The assumption is proued by that clause of the Lords prayer wherein we beg our dayly bread which we might claime of due debt if we could deserue it In stead of answering some part of the syllogisme you tell vs that we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle without our owne trauell or cost which is as much to purpose as if you should say we must eate our bread when we haue it if we will be fed It is but a mockery to pray to God for it if we know we haue deserued it vnlesse perhaps we thinke him so vniust that it is well if we can get our owne of him by any meanes whatsoeuer We deny not that we are to vse the meanes both for the one and the other but that we can deserue either by vsing the meanes speaker W. P. Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church Bernard Those which we call our merits are the way to the kingdome and not the cause of raigning speaker D. B. P. But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the auncient Church and then beginneth
with S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ He in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things vvhich vve call merits are the vvay to the Kingdome but not the cause of raigning speaker A. W. You that twight vs so much with ignorance and brag so much of your owne knowledge especially in the old writers should haue all these places at your fingers ends but this answere if it were true must needs be more by gesse then by cunning Bernard sayes merits are the way not the cause if he had meant as you would haue him he should and would haue said that they were not the whole cause but the party or ioint cause but he denyes them altogether the nature of causes by giuing them another place to be the way to heauen speaker A. W. I answere that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Which is Bernards owne doctrine What is Bernards owne doctrine your whole answer or only the later part of it let the reader iudge These are Bernards words As it is inough to merit not to presume of merit so to want merits is inough to condemnation If he speake of merits properly taken what presumption is it for a man to demand his right But because our good works which he as other auncient writers calls merits are imperfit therefore our greatest merit is to know we merit not for the later part of his sentence we graunt that it is inough to damnation for a man to be without good works It followes in Bernard No infants regenerate want merits but haue Christs whereof notwithstanding they make themselues vnworthie if they had opportunitie to add their owne and neglected it which is the danger of riper yeares Infants sayes Bernard haue Christs merits but if they come to yeares they must also haue some of their owne What merits to deserue heauen then were Christs insufficient but they must haue good works without which they make themselues vnworthie of any benefit by Christ. Is not this whollie our doctrine let vs heare his conclusion Haue a care sayes Bernard to haue merits hauing them know they were giuen thee hope for the fruite of them by the mercy of God and thou hast auoided all danger of pouertie vnthankefulnes and presumption We must haue good workes else wee are poore we must know they are not of our selues else we are vnthankfull we must looke for reward of mercie not of debt else we are presumptuous So that Bernard requires good workes not as the cause but as the way betwixt Gods promise and performance of giuing euerlasting life to them that are iustified and sanctified speaker W. P. August Manual cap. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit my merit is the passion of the Lord. I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting speaker D. B. P. Secondly he citeth Saint Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sense that is by the vertue of his death and passion my sinnes are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to doe good workes and so to merit speaker A. W. You leaue out the better halfe of that which was alleaged out of Austin which indeede ouerthrowes your answere That Christ hath procured pardon and grace for you to merit by but Austin saith that the death and passion of the Lord are his merit that is by your interpretation his merit of grace not of glorie For that he must merit by well vsing the grace which Christ hath deserued for him to cut off this Austin addes I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting Haue those works the true and whole nature of merit which receiue their worth from Gods mercie If you will answere that by Gods mercie he meanes not his accepting of the worke but his supplying vs with grace to worke I replie that he may for all that mercie want merits because it depends vpon his own free will when God hath done his vttermost whether hee will worke or no. But that which followes in Austin shewes that all is in Gods mercie If saith he the mercies of the Lord be many I am much in merit the mightier he is to saue the more am I secure So that Austin takes all from himselfe and giues it to God speaker W. P. Basil. on Psal. 114. Eternall rest is reserued for them which haue striuen lawfully in this life not for the merits of their doings but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God in which they trusted speaker D. B. P. These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combate and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the works but in a fuller measure according vnto the bounty of so liberall a Lord Where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits speaker A. W. Wherein lies the error of the translation You take too much vpon you as if all the world were bound to allow your word without any further proofe But let vs examine the translation Eternall rest saith Basil is reserued for them who in this life haue striuen lawfully not as a debt paid them for their worke but giuen them vpon the most bountifull grace of God in whom they haue hoped He is desirous to picke quarrels that findes fault with such translations What one word hath Master Perkins left out or misinterpreted that might be any thing to your aduantage But the testimonie was too plaine to admit any cauill else the translation had been good enough But your proofe is at least as bad as your accusation To prooue the words are vntruly translated you tell vs that Basil makes eternall life the prize of the combat what is this to the purpose where is the fault of the translation But let vs take your interpretation of his meaning If the reward be not giuen according to debt but in a fuller measure and yet no greater thing giuen than euerlasting life doubtlesse our workes deserue not truly and wholy the reward of euerlasting life that God bestowes on them of bountie speaker W. P. August on Psal. 120. He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine was to wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his penne What congruity is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his ovvne gifts not thy merits It had been better said He crowneth thee not c. speaker A. W. It may be apparant to all men who consider this mans course in answering the testimonies of the Fathers that