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
serued and surely if in it selfe it be not sinne why should the Apostle so much complaine of it since by the trouble it put him to it did but occasion him to shew his valour and as you Papists say was a means to make him deserue a crowne of glorie speaker W. P. Reason II. Infants baptized and regenerate die the bodily death before they come to the yeeres of discretion therfore original sin in them is sin properly or els they should not die hauing no cause of death in them for death is is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sinne As for actuall sinne they haue none if they die presently after they are borne before they come to any vse either of reason or affection speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God vvho freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bin both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therfore is it said most truely oâ— S Paul Death entred into the vvorld by sin But the other place the vvages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but Actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidelity the wages whereof if they had noâ— repented them had bâ—n hel fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Originall sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne is either to shâ—w great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sin was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it speaker A. W. Master Perkins reason is thus to be framed That which is the cause of bodilie death to infants Baptised and regenerate is sinne properly But Originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants Baptised and regenerate Therefore it is sinne properly The proposition he proues by two places of Scripture the assumption by shewing that they haue no actuall sinne and therefore since death is not but where sinne is originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants that dye before they come to any vse of reason or affection First you deny the assumption viz. that originall sinne is the cause of bodily death to infants But the reason of your deniall is insufficient For it doth not follow that originall sinne is not the cause of death to them because the meanes of their death is distemperature or externall violence For then the death of many reprobate men were no iudgement of God against sinne and though God of his absolute power may take away any mans life because he gaue it him yet it pleased his Maiestie to binde himselfe to a course in the creation that death should be the consequent of sinne The day thou eatest thou shalt dye so that wheresoeuer we see death we may conclude there is sinne either really as in all Adams posteritie or by imputation as in Christ. Then you come to the proofe of the proposition where you graunt the one place to be rightly alleaged because death indeede had not found any place of entrie had it not been for sinne The other text you say is foâ—lly abused first because the Apostle vnderstands by it eternall damnation he doth so principally but why may not death be taken as largely here as it is there from whence all these phrases of Scripture come But there it signifies both kinds of death Here S. Paul chiefely puts them in minde of the greater hauing shewed before that bodily death came into the world by the meanes of sinne and although the Apostle be occasioned to deliuer that speech by reason of the Romans actuall transgressions it doth not abate but sharpen the edge of his exhortation to expound the place of all sinne whatsoeuer for if there be no sinne no not originall but shall haue death for wages certainely these actuall transgressions shall be punisht with it Master Perkins in the place alleaged speakes of that punishment which is condemnation as the very words following declare in which he prooues that the punishment is taken away by that of the Apostle There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus It is true that bodily death also is chaunged from being a punishment yet the reason of that death is the dwelling of sinne in the regenerate which by the dissoluing of the bodie through death must be abolisht If it had pleased God to haue giuen Master Perkins life that he might haue seene this your exception being better acquainted with your sleights and his owne meaning he would haue answered you more fully as in other poynts so in this also speaker W. P. Reason III. That which lusteth against the spirit and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate lusteth against the spirit Gal. 5. 17. and tempteth as I haue said Iam. 1. 14. God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is inticed then when lust conceiueth it bringeth forth sinne And therefore it is sinne properly such as the fruite is such is the tree speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had been by nature sinne and euery thing in this world one vvay or an other tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. John All that is in the vvorld is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing vvhich allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as vvide is it from all morall vvisdome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sinnes For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sodaine passions of the mind and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text vvhich M. Perkins bringeth to persvvade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite
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
vnto the person and in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Annotations vpon our Consent speaker D. B. P. First we say not that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it this is but a peccadillo speaker A. W. Neither doe we say that the punishment of originall sin is in it or any part of it but that in handling that point it is to be considered much lesse doe we charge you with saying so What it is you call a peccadillo or small sinne I vnderstand not certainly If you meane that originall sinne is small and deserues no punishment but a due correction either the death of all men in Adam is no punishment or God punisheth without desert speaker D. B. P. But there lurketh a Serpent in that caueat that the guiltines of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remaining in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here hee quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltines of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltines belonging to it Who can deny this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be perdoned the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe Againe what Philosophy or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendour being pardoned for his offence the offence in it self remaineth guilty as though the offence separated from the person were a substance subiect to law and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in itselfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What senselesse imaginations be these speaker A. W. The sinne is pardoned so that the partie shall not be punisht for it but it is not so pardoned that in it self it hath not iust cause of punishment and this both philosophie and reason allow all our actuall sinnes are pardoned as soone as we beleeue in Christ and yet they are truly sinnes whensoeuer afterward they are committed by vs. speaker D. B. P. Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed can there be two contrarios in one part of the subiect at once can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the wil at the same instant can the soule be both truly conuerted to God and as truly auerted from him at one time is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost oontent to inhabit a body subiect to sinne all which must be granted contrary to both Scripture and naturall sense if we admit the â—ault and deformitie of sinne to remaine in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subiects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other oddâ— corner speaker A. W. Remember also gentle Reader that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power whereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrary to the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued Not being imputed hinders not the being of the thing there but rather proues it for if it were not there what fauour were it not to impute it Who knowes not that contraries may bee in one part of the same subiect at once though not in the same respect Do we not while we are here know in part and so remaine ignorant in part Is not our wil imperfectly reformed The holy Ghost is not content that the bodie he doth inhabit should be subiect to sinne and therefore hee labours continually to free it from that subiection but he is content to inhabit the man whom he hath begun to reforme that hee may purge him thoroughly II. The dissent or difference speaker W. P. Thus far wee consent with the Church of Rome now the difference betweene vs stands not in the abolishment but in the manner and the measure of the abolishment of this sinne Papists teach that Originall sinne is so farre sorth taken away after baptisme that it ceaseth to bee a sin properly and is nothing else but a want defect and weakenes making the heart fitte and readie to conceiue sinne much like tinder which though it be not fire of it selfe yet is it very apt and fit to conceiue fire And they of the Church of Rome denie it to be sinne properly that they might vphold some grosse opinions of theirs namely That a man in this life may fulfill the law of God and doe good workes void of sinne that hee may stand righteous at the barre of Gods iudgement by them But wee teach otherwise that though original sinne be taken away in the regenerate and that in sundrie respects yet doth it remaine in them after baptisme not only as a want and weakenes but as a sinne and that properly as may by these reasons be prooued Reason I. Rom. 7. 17. Paul saith directly It is no more I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in me that is originall sinne The Papists answere againe that it is so called improperly because it commeth of sinne and also is an occasion of sinne to be done speaker A. W. I approue this interpretation of S. Paul as taken out of that auncient and famous Papist Saint Augustine who saith expresly Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet is it not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne aâ— vvriting is called the hand because it is made by the hand And in an other place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as cold is called sloathfull because it maâ—es a man sloathfull so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. Perkins shall be well coursed by the plaine circumstances of the place If S. Austin were a Papist in this point because of this sentence questionlesse hee was in the same point a Protestant because of some other which I will recite Doest thou not marke saith Austin doest thou not perceiue that he who doth so vehemently persecute his bodie if he doth persecute nothing that displeaseth God doth God great wrong by persecuting his temple without cause Now what I pray you displeaseth God but sinne But this corruption wee speake of is also hated of God and therefore day by day consumed As the Physitian saith Austin hates the disease of the sicke man and labours by curing it to driue
the Centurion Lord I am not worthie that thou shouldest come vnder my roofe Matth. 8. Secondly God in making promise of saluation respects not mens worthines For he chose vs to life euerlasting when we were not hee redeemed vs from death being enemies and intitles vs to the promise of saluation if we acknowledge our selues to be sinners Matth. 9. If wee labour and trauaile vnder the burden of them Matth. 11. If we hunger and thirst after grace Ioh. 7. 37. And these things we may certenly and sensibly perceiue in our selues and when we finde them in vs though our vnworthinesse be exceeding great it should not hinder our assurance For God makes manifest his power in our weakenesse 2. Cor. 12. and he will not breake the bruised reede nor quench the smoking flaxe Isai 42. Thirdly if a man loue God for his mercies sake and haue a true hope of saluation by Christ he is in Christ and hath fellowship with him and he that is in Christ hath all his vnworthines and wants laid on Christ and they are couered and pardoned in his death and in respect of our selues thus considered as we are in Christ wee haue no cause to wauer but to be certaine of our saluation and that in regard of our selues speaker D. B. P. The Catholikes say we are indeed to beleeue our saluation on Gods part who is desirous of all mens saluation very rich in mercy and able to saue vs but our feare riseth in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sinnes depend vpon our true repentance Vnlesse you doe Penance yee shall all perish And the promises of saluation are made vpon condition of keeping Gods commaundements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements Againe No man shall be crovvned except he combat lavvfullie Novv vve not knovving vvhether vve shall vvell performe these things required by God at our hands haue iust cause to feare least God doe not on his part performe that which he promiseth vpon such conditions M Perkins answereth That for faith and true repentance euery man that hath them knoweth well that he hath them To which I replie that for faith being rightly taken it may be knowne of the party that hath it because it is a light of the vnderstanding and so being like a lampe may be easily seene but true repentance requires besides faith both hope and charity which are seated in the darke corners of the will and cannot by faith be seene in themselues but are knowne by their effects which being also vncertaine do make but coniectures and a probable opinion speaker A. W. Your replie is nothing but a bare deniall of that which Master Perkins answered whereas you should haue disproued it There is no lesse doubt of faith than of repentance by your owne reason for that also hath it seate in the will being a resting or relying vpon God for saluation by Christ. The effects both of the one and of the other are as certainly discerned by a Christian as ordinarie trust in men and worldly sorrow by a naturall man speaker D. B. P. So that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith Proue your selues vvhether you be in saith or no. Because we accord that it may be tried by vs whether we haue faith or no although I know well that S. Pauls words carry a farre different sense But let that passe as impertinent speaker A. W. It is not amisse for you to haue it omitted because it makes so plainly against you the Apostle speaking there of such a faith as necessarily hath hope and charitie ioyned with it When you shew another sense you shall haue another answere speaker D. B. P. To the other That vve haue receiued the spirit vvhich is of God that vve might knovv the things vvhich are giuen of God What things these are which the spirit reuealeth to vs S. Paul teacheth in the same place That vvhich the eye hath not seene nor eare hath heard c. God hath prepared for them that loue him but to vs God hath reuealed by his Spirit All this is true but who they be that shall attaine to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared God onely knoweth and by his spirit reuealeth it to very few And will you learne out of S. Ierome that auncient Doctor the cause why Therefore saith he it is put ambiguous and left vncertaine that vvhile men are doubtfull of their saluation they may doe Penance more manfully and so may moue God to take compassion on them An other reason of this vncertaintie yeeldeth S. Augustine in these words In this place of temptation such is our infirmity that assurednes might engender pride To this agreeth S. Gregorie saying If vve knovv our selues to haue grace vve are proud So that to strike downe the pride of our harts and to humble vs and to make vs trauaile more carefully in the workes of mortification God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their owne saluation but to cheere vp their harts on the otherside doth put them in great hope of it like to a discreet and good Lord who will not at the first entrance into his seruice infeafe his seruant in the fee simpleof those lands which after vpon his good deserts he meaneth to bestow on him speaker A. W. The things there spoken of are by the spirit of God made knowne to true Christians not only that they are prepared for some but that they themselues haue their part in them Neither doth S. Hierome say any thing to the contrarie but only shewes that God doth not giue men knowledge how hee will deale with them concerning outward punishment because he would haue them the more earnest to repent and crie for mercie It is saftie he speakes of such as the Niniuites obtained by prayer and fasting not euerlasting saluation But let it be vnderstood of euerlasting life none of these ancient writers say that either we ought not or cannot be assured by faith of our saluation but onely thus much may be concluded out of them that the measure of our assurance is not perfect to the end we may be more carefull to pray for pardon and in lesse danger of being puft vp speaker D. B. P. This is another kind of Doctrine then that which M. Perkins in his last supplie deliuereth to witte That if vve regard our ovvne indiseosition vve must dispaire because vve be not vvorthy of his mercy Not so good Sir Because we know that he bestoweth mercy vpon the vnvvorthie at the first iustification of a sinner but will not admit into the Kingdome of heauen any vnworthy but giues men grace while they liue to worke that they are made worthy of his heauenly Kingdome according to that They shall vvalke vvith me in vvhites because they are vvorthy but of this more fully in the chapter of merits speaker A. W. Master Perkins speakes not of vnworthines
former question is on this manner The thing saith hee that maketh vs righteous before God and causeth vs to bee accepted to life euerlasting is remission of sinnes and the habite of inward righteousnes or charitie with the fruites thereof We condesend and graunt that the habite of righteousnesse which wee call sanctification is an excellent gift of God and hath his reward of God and is the matter of our iustification before men because it serueth to declare vs to be reconciled to God and to bee iustified yet wee denie it to bee the thing which maketh vs of sinners to become righteous or iust before God speaker D. B. P. The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes vvhich is in our selues The Cathòlikes affirme that those vertues povvred into our soules speaking of the formall cause of iustification is our iustice and that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight and accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before vve hold that God of his mecre mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freetie beâ—lovved that iustice on vs. speaker A. W. The word iustification wee vse continually the cauill about our not vsing iustice but righteousnes for our aduantage is sufficiently answered by Doctor Fulke against Gregory Martin and the Rhemists The true reason why our translators chose rather to say righteous and righteousnes than iust and iustice was because the former words are more generall the latter for the most part restrained in common vse to one particular vertue betwixt man and man We denie not that Christians being iustified are truly righteous by inherent righteousnes but that wee are to pleade our owne imperfect righteousnes before God to our iustification speaker D. B. P. Note that M. Perkins comes to short in his second rule vvhen he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience vvhereas obedience if it had been vvithout charity vvould haue merited nothing at Gods hands speaker A. W. Master Perkins comes as neere the marke as you acknowledging the loue of Christ in his obedience distinctly both to God and vs. And indeed it were ridiculous to imagine obedience without loue though the Apostle mentions the one without the other speaker W. P. And this is the first point of our disagreement in the matter of iustification which must be marked because if there were no more points of difference betweene vs this one alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting of our religions for hereby the Church of Rome doth race the very foundation speaker D. B. P. And vvhereas M. Perkins doth say that therein vve raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface vve make Christ a Pseudochrist vve auerre that herein vve doe much more magnifie Christ then they do for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they do but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men vvorthie of the ioyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but onely that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarivvise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestâ—mable merits that vve hold them vvell able to purchase at Gods hands a farre inferiour iustice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man iust before God and vvorthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued speaker A. W. This slander was answered before We acknowledge the power of Christs death as to iustification for the forgiuenes of sinnes so to sanctification for inherent righteousnes and that such righteousnes as is sufficient to make vs pure and holie in the sight of God though we attaine not to the perfection of it as long as we liue in this mortall bodie speaker D. B. P. Againe they do great iniurie to Gods goodnes wisdome and iustice in their iustification for they teach that inward iustice or sanctification is not necessary to iustification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man Like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers vvhited on the out side with an imputed iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder Then the wisdome of God must either not discouer this masse of iniquitie or his goodnes abide it or his iustice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it vvith the mantle of Christs righteousnes Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnes to thinke it speaker A. W. We doe God no wrong in maintaining his truth that sanctification followes iustification in nature though in time they come together Luther saith as the truth is that he which beleeues shal be saued and that faith is not destroyed by any sinne but infidelitie A man iustified as I haue said often is righteous by inherent righteousnes and therefore not like a whited sepulchre Our corruptions and sins God seeth and mislikes but hauing punisht them in Christ he laies them not to our charge speaker D. B. P. And why doth he not for Christs sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whom he for his sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infnite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such iustice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be done as we confesse that such vertue was in our first Father Adam in state of innocency And M. Perkins seemes to graunt That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnes If then we had no other reason for vs but that our iustification doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and brigeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleadge one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnes vnto vs to be our iustification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnes speaker A. W. It is enough for vs to know what God doth without inquiring curiously into the reason of it Yet in this case wee may answere that God doth not make vs perfectly righteous at once that wee may continually depend vpon him and not thinke too highly of our selues as you by reason of that conceit doe ascribing the best part of your second iustification
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
necessarie or respected by God in the iustification of that theefe he would neuer haue said that he was iustified without workes that did so many good workes in so short a time speaker D. B. P. Novv that that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualites out of the companies of faith is apparant by that vvhich he hath vvritten on the next Chapter vvhere he saith That faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they doe withall put off the old man and a little before more plainely saying I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation hope is proceeding in the building but the toppe and perfection of the whole worke is charitie speaker A. W. Neither doe we meane to exclude such qualities For they come together but are not of like vse nor to the same purpose Both the sentences you alleage out of him wee approoue that faith which is without sanctification cannot instifie that faith is not all that is required to saluation but all graces of regeneration are to be laboured for and obtained before wee can come to heauen And by this wee may see that as the Fathers so Origen also makes a difference betwixt iustification where faith onely is respected and saluation to which all vertues are required III. Difference speaker W. P. The third difference about iustification is concerning this point namely how far forth good workes are required thereto The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there be two kinds of iustification the first and second as I haue said The first is when one of an euill man is made a good man and in this workes are wholy excluded it being wholy of grace The second is when a man of a iust man is made more iust And this they will haue to proceede from workes of grace for say they as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man though he could not at the first make himselfe a man euen so a sinner hauing his first iustification may afterward by grace make himselfe more iust Therefore they hold these two things I. That good works are meritorious causes of the second iustification which they tearme Actuall II. that good workes are meanes to increase first iustification which they call Habituall Now let vs see how far forth we must ioyne with them in this point Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God and are approoued of him and therefore haue a reward II. Good workes are necessarie to saluation two waies first not as causes thereof either conseruant adiuvant or procreant but onely as consequents of faith in that they are inseparable companions and fruits of that faith which is indeede necessarie to saluation Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way and as the way it selfe directing vs vnto eternall life III. Wee hold and beleeue that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by works for so the holie Ghost speaketh plainely and truely Iam. 2. 21. That Abraham was iustified by workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins first graunteth that good vvorkes doe please God and haue a temporall revvard 2. That they are necessary to saluation not as the cause thereof but either as markes in a vvay to direct vs tovvards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnesse to declare one to be iust before men all vvhich he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteeme much of good vvorkes vvhich they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes speaker A. W. This is no good dealing to foyst in temporall as if you would haue men suspect that we allow good workes no reward in heauen It had been enough for you to leaue out his words as you doe and thrust in your owne without adding at your pleasure But these are popish shifts Whereof you presently affoord vs another example by putting in these words Before men to make the world beleeue that we giue no place to good works in the sight of God whereas Master Perkins professeth that Abraham was iustified by works euen before God not onely before men as you write speaker A. W. To this you adde in the third place a shamelesse slander against your owne knowledge that we hold good workes to be no better than deadly sinnes whereas wee teach that those that are indeed good workes are able to iustifie a man perfectly in the presence of God and to deserue euerlasting life Yea we maintaine that the imperfect workes of the regenerate are brought foorth by the grace of Gods spirit and for all their imperfection are accepted and shall be rewarded by God our Father in heauen speaker W. P. Thus farre we ioyne with them and the very difference is this They say we are iustified by works as by causes thereof wee say that wee are iustified by works as by signes and fruites of our iustification before God and no otherwise and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstood that Abraham was iustified that is declared and made manifest to bee iust indeede by his obedience and that euen before God Now that our doctrine is the truth it will appeare by reasons on both parts speaker D. B. P. The maine difference then betvveene vs consisteth in this vvhether good vvorkes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes vvhich vve call the second iustification or vvhether they be onelie fruits signes or markes of it speaker A. W. The maine difference as Master Perkins propounds it is whether we be iustified by works as by causes meritorious of our iustification not whether they bee the true cause of our second iustification which he denies wholy as a deuice of yours And indeede they that haue more neerely sifted this branne haue found that there is but one iustification because faith and workes make one righteousnes begun by â—aith and increased and perfected by workes Iustification saith Andradius the great champion of the Councill of Trent consists of two parts forgiuenes of sinnes and obedience to the law Stapleton speakes more plaine The Catholikes say that a man is iustified by faith and workes as by the formall cause So that according to your popish diuinitie workes are not onely the meritorious efficient cause of our iustification but the formall cause also as Stapleton directly affirmes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which he made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set dovvne our owne speaker A. W. This pretence is none of his who would neuer denie that our inherent righteousnes is increased
1 the Apostle may be applied to the proposition because they that would be circumcised would be iustified by the workes of the law Whereupon it followeth that he that will be iustified by workes is bound to keepe the whole law For so the Apostle saith of them that will be iustified by circumcision speaker W. P. III. Election to saluation is of grace without workes therefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes For it is a certaine rule that the cause of a cause is the cause of a thing caused Now grace without works is the cause of election which election is the cause of our iustification and therefore grace without workes is the cause of our iustification speaker D. B. P. Ans. That election is of grace vvithout vvorkes done of our ovvne simple forces or vvithout the vvorks of Moses lavv but not vvithout prouision of good vvorkes issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits speaker A. W. This answere is not only against the Apostle Paul and Austins exposition of him but also contrarie to Lombard Thomas Bellarmine and generally the learnedst Papists as it shall appeare if this writer giue occasion speaker W. P. IV. A man must first be fully iustified before he can doe a good worke for the person must first please God before his works can please him But the person of a sinner cannot please God till he bee perfectly iustified and therefore till he bee iustified hee cannot doe so much as one good worke And thus good works cannot be any meritorious causes of iustification after which they are both for time and order of nature In a word whereas they make two distinct iustifications wee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification yet so as iustification is onely one standing in remission of sinnes and Gods acceptation of vs to life euerlasting by Christ and this iustification hath no degrees but is perfect at the very first OF THE SECOND IVSTIFICATION speaker D. B. P. THe fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can doe a good vvorke and therefore good vvorkes cannot goe before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification And hauing before discussed the first and the second novv remaining and expecting you vvhy did you not say one vvord of it the matter being ample and vvell vvorthy the handling speaker A. W. He that denieth a second iustification and hath disprooued it neede not stand vpon a deuice of yours how worthy the handling soeuer you thinke it speaker D. B. P. Albeit you vvill not vvillingly confesse any second iustification as you say Yet had it been your partat least to haue disproued such arguments as vve bring to proue a second iustification Ye acknovvledge that there be degrees of sanctification But these degrees must be made dovvnevvard of euill vvorser and vvorst for if all our sanctification and best vvorkes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold else vvhere let any vvise man iudge vvhat degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it speaker A. W. But that you knew none of your side doe vse to reade our bookes nor dare without your licence neither you nor other of your Popish complices would for shame write in this sort You haue been often answered that wee acknowledge inherent righteousnesse and labour for and by the grace of God attaine to the increase of it in some measure from day to day speaker A. W. Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnes which can neuer after be either lost or increased Why then doe you with your brother Jounuan maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you wel coursed read S. Hierome S. Amorose S. Augustine S. Gregorie speaker D. B. P. We maintaine that all men are equally righteous in regard of iustification but vnequally in respect of sanctification Iouinian is rather one of your brood who hold that a man being iustified is wholy without sin euen in Gods iudgement At least you must needs vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against vvhich I vvill put dovvne these reasons follovving speaker A. W. First that of the reuelations Let him that is iust be yet iustified or as your text hath it He that is righteous let him be more righteous speaker D. B. P. He that is iustified is as righteous at the first as at the last in respect of iustification but not inherent righteousnes or sanctification of which the places you alleage are meant and therefore need no further answere But that you may the rather see our desire to satisfie you I will speake a little of them Iustified in that place signifieth to proceede in doing iustly as Ribera the Iesuite proueth by the opposition in the other part of the sentence Let him that hurteth hurt still that is goe forward in your hurting saith he and so let him that hurteth no bodie but giueth euery man his due goe forward in so doing Let him that doth good saith your glosse yet doe good more abundantly Let him that is righteous saith Cyprian in two places doe yet more righteous things and him that is holy more holy The Greeke Scholiast reade it thus Let him that is righteous yet worke righteousnes And so doe the Greeke Testaments printed by Plantin and the Interlinear Bible too so that there is not so much as the word iustified in some of your owne Greeke copies And that feare not to be iustified euen vntill death do conuince that there are more iustifications then one and that a man may increase in iustification and righteousnes vntill death speaker A. W. That of Ecclesiasticus would haue been spared till you haue proued that booke to be canonicall which you know we deny and that as we are sure with the consent of the auncient Church at least you should not haue alleadged it with so grosie an error in the translation The Greek is differ not The old Latin was in all likelyhood Be not forbidden or hindered as it may appeare by Vatablus edition of it by Robert Stephens that of Antwerpe and that with the glosse where Lyra expounds it ne prohibearis Andradius deliuers it thus Let there be nothing that may hinder thee from praying alwaies or may let thee from being iustified euen vntill death Some ignorant writer that copied out the booke finding ne veteris be not let and mistaking t for r writ ne
issue out of our soules now garnished vvith grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directhe that we are iustified and that this iusuce doth increase whiles it doth proceed and profit speaker A. W. This labour might haue bin saued For we grant that Abraham by this glorious fact was iustified euen before God that is was knowne to be iustified or to haue true faith as he was known to feare God by it not that God was ignorant before either of his faith or feare but because it pleased him by this deed to take as it were speciall notice of them both as men doe That righteousnes is increased by holie actions I shewed before and that therefore we are iustified by them that is more sanctified speaker D. B. P. Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion for they holding faith to be the only instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O yee of little faith And then a little after I haue not found so great faith in Israell And O Lord increase our saith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith but all one Againe M. Perkins deliuereth plainly That men at the first are not so vvell assured of their saluation as they are aftervvard If then in the certainety of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe speaker A. W. Degrees of faith we deny not but increase of iustification thereupon except it be in our feeling In which respect it receiueth continuall growth but in it selfe it cannot because God doth account faith to vs for righteousnes and forgiue our sinnes not by halues but fully vpon the least measure of true beleeuing Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid bee iudged according to his righteousnesse then may hee be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnesse and therefore he was iustified thereby Answ. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnesse of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this Psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnesse of the action or innocencie of his cause in that hee was falslie charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psalm 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnesse not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glorie Obiect II. The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commaundements Yet is he not blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whom he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof Obiect III. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by prayer and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Answ. Indeed men that truly humble themselues by prayer and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merites of Christ in whom the Father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. Obiect IV. Sundrie persons in Scriptures are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all bee perfect and where there is any perfection of works there also workes may iustifie Answ. There bee two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in parts is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in all and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degree is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the very rigor therof in the highest degree Now then whereas we are commaunded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commaundements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in partes and not of perfection in degrees which cannot bee attained vnto in this life though we for our parts must dailie striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can Obiect V. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our momentarie afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Answ. Afflictions work saluation not as causes procuring it but as a meanes directing vs thereto And thus alwaies must we esteeme of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certaine way or a marke therein directing vs to glorie not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are via regni non causa regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there Obiect VI. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Answ. The proposition is false for iudgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is alreadie iust and iustification is an other act of God whereby hee maketh him to bee iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life Obiect VII Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Answ. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good worke of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie Obiect VIII To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by all the workes of
so much as allude to the Psalm but onely say according to that text of Iob which he there expounds that man compared to God cannot be counted righteous That place of Iob hath the doctrine which you would wring out of the Psalme but where is the proofe that because it is there therfore also it is here But let me also shew that this which you rest vpon cannot bee the meaning of the Psalme Which I take to be plaine because if we vnderstand it so it is no reason to moue God not to enter into iudgement For what though no man bee so righteous as God If he be so rigeteous as God requires such a creature should be it can neuer hurt him though God enter into iudgement with him a thousand times So the sentence should be vaine there being no occasion of it Now the conclusion wee make out of these and such like places is that no man should fancie to himselfe a possibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements when the holiest men that euer were dare not stand before Gods iudgement seate to giue account of those things they haue done since they were iustified and as the Papists say receiued this grace speaker D. B. P. One other ordinary hackney of theirs is that out of the Prophet All our righteousnes is as a menstruous or defiled cloath The which I haue already ridde to death in the beginning of the question of iustification whereit was alleadged The answere is briefly that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people speaketh in the person of the sinfull Such as the common sort of them were who had more sins then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stained cloath Now this disproueth not but that their good workes although but few yet were free for all sportes of iniquity it only proueth that with their few good they had a great number of euill which defiled their righteousnes and made it like a stained cloath speaker A. W. I will let passe your lewd allegorie and your coleworts twice sod referring the reader to my former answere Only this I will adde that the Prophet may well bee thought to refuse your exposition because he speakes in the plurall speaker D. B. P. All our righteousnesses or rather to make English of it all our good deedes 3 There is not a man who doth not sinne And blessed is the man whose sinnes be not imputed to him And such like I answere that the best men sinne venially and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned but all this is cleane besides this question where it is only enquired vvhether the good workes that the iust doe be free from sinne and not whether they at other times doe sin at the least venially This is all vvhich M. Perkins here and there obiecteth against this matter speaker A. W. Neither the former nor the latter can reasonably be applied to veniall sinne that being Salomons in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple praying for the people in regard of such sinnes as should prouoke God to deliuer them into their enemies hands The other Dauids after those great sinnes of murther and adulterie Of that idle distinction of veniall sinne it is needlesse to say any thing till it be better prooued speaker D. B. P. But because some others doe alleadge also some darke places out of the Fathers I thinke it not amisse to solue them here together S. Cyprian saith That the beâ—eiged mind of man can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie for when couetousnes is ouerthrowen vp starts lechery and so forth Ans. All this is true that the life of man is a perpetuall warfare yet man assisted with the grace of God may performe it most valiantly and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies although through his â—vvne â—…tie he may be sometimes foyled S. H. 〈◊〉 affirmeth That then vve are iust vvhen vve confesse our selues to be sinners Ans. That all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially but neither of these places come neare the point in question that not one good deede of the iust man is without some spot or staine of sinne S. Augustine hath these wordes Most perfect charitie which cannot be increased is to be sound in no man in this life and as long as it may bee increased that â—hich is lesse then it ought to be is faultie of which fault it proceedeth that there is no man vvho doth good and doth not sinne All this we graunt to be true that no man hath so perfect charitie in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to doe and consequently doth notso well but that now and then he sinneth at the least veniallâ— and that therefore the said holy Doctor had iust cause to say Vâ—oe be to the laudable life of a man if it be examined without mercie All which notwithstanding iust men may out of that charity which they haue in this life doe many good workes which are pure from all sinne as hath beene prooued They alleadge yet another plase out of S. Augustine That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iust man to know in truth his imperfection and in humility to confesse it True that is as he teacheth else where First that the perfection of this life is imperfection being compared with the perfection of the life to come Againe that the most perfect in this life hath many imperfections both of wit and will and thereby many light faultes Novv come vve vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle out of vvhose svveete vvords ill vnderstood they seeme to haue sucked this their poison He saith The holy man Iob because hee did see all the merit of our vertue to bee vice if it bee straightly examined of the invvard iudge doth rightly adde if I vvill contend vvith him J cannot ansvvere him one for a thousand I ansvvere that by our vertue in that place is to be vnderstood that vertue vvhich vve haue of our ovvn strength vvithout the aide of Gods grace vvhich vve acknovvledge to bee commonly infected vvith some vice that S. Gregorie so tooke it appeares by the vvordes both going before and follovving before he vvriteth thus A man not compared to God receiued iustice but compared vnto him he leeseth it For vvhosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the author of all good leeseth that good vvhich he had receiued for be that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe doth fight against God vvith his evvne gifts And after thus â—o contend vvith God is not to giue to God the glorie of his vertue but to take it to himselfe And so all the merit of this our vertue vvhich commeth not of God but is attâ—â—buted vnto our selfe as proceeding onely from our selues is the very vice of pride and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good vvorks all vvhich vve acknovvledâ—e to proceede principally from the grace of God dvvelling in vs. He saith
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
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
into hell rather than those into heauen these into hell our Sauiour tels them that hee doth not erre in the difference hee makes which must be according to workes These haue done well and therefore are they that must be saued Those euill and therefore are the men that must be condemned So that his iudgement is right because it is according to works though workes bee not the meritorious cause of life trulie and wholie speaker D. B. P. But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it Let him read S. Augustine Where he thus briefly handleth this text Come yee blessed of my Father receiue VVhat shall vve receiue A Kingdome For vvhat cause Because I vvas hungrie and you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there vvas no tydings in those daies And that iudicious Doctor found that good vvorkes vvas the cause of receiuing the kingdome of heauen speaker A. W. In this and such like sentences of the Fathers we must remember that obseruation of Sixtus Senensis a learned Papist and not presse their words to the vttermost It followes in Austin immediatly what is so little worth what so earthly as to breake bread to the hungry That is the price of the kingdome of heauen Now will any man be so absurd as to imagin that Austin thought that the giuing of a peece of bread to a poore body was in deede the price of heauen by which it might be truly and wholie bought If it be of no greater value it was scarse worth the purchasing with the blood of the Sonne of God The reuerend Father rhetorically amplifies the point to inforce his exhortatiō to works of charity which is also our Sauiours reason in that parable Now that the reward we receiue is not truly and wholie deserued by the works there mentioned it may appeare because Chrysostome and Theophylact stand so precisely vpon the manner of speach He saith not Take it say they but possesse it as an inheritance whereas you say it is both an inheritance and a reward Besides another saith That God did not make the kingdome of heauen of no greater value then mans righteousnes could deserue and after not according to the narrownes of mans righteousnes And lastly God saith he appointed not the reward of the saincts according to the reward of men but according to his owne bountie speaker D. B. P. Here by the vvay M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that vve take avvay a part of Christs mediation For saith he if Christs merits vvere sufficient vvhat need ours It hath been often told them but they vvil neuer learne to vnderstand it I vvil yet once againe repeate it We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings vvhich hath or shall be bestovved vpon all men from the beginning of the vvorld vnto the end of it yet his diuine vvill and order is that all men of diseretion hauing freely receiued grace from him doe merit that crovvne of glorie vvhich is prepared for them not to supply the vvant of his merits which are inestimable but being members of his mystical body he vvould haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good vvorkes he best knevv that there could be no better spurre to pricke our dull nature forvvard then to ordaine and propose such heauenly revvards vnto all them that vvould diligently endeuour to deserue them speaker A. W. Master Perkins truly chargeth you to make your selues partners with Christ in the worke of your saluation for he that is by his owne works a deseruer of euerlasting life is in some part at least a sauiour of himselfe so that howsoeuer you magnifie in words the infinitnes of Christs satisfaction and merits yet in truth you make it either not sufficient or not effectuall to the sauing of them who must by their works truly and wholie merit euerlasting life and receiue it not as ioint heirs with Christ by the right of sonnes but as hirelings for wages due to their works If you would graunt vs an assured interest to heauen by vertue of our being sonnes and claime no more of God but increase of glorie vpon his promise according to our works without pleading desert you and we should agree in this point neither should we be driuen either to ouer valew our owne righteousnes by thinking it deserues heauen or to despaire altogether of saluation because we cannot do such works as do truly and fully merit heauen That God would haue vs like vnto his Sonne in true obedience and patient suffering we finde in the scriptures and beleeue that we should also be like him in meriting when you prooue by the same authoritie we will beleeue In the meane while giue vs leaue rather to rest vpon Christ only and his merits the sufficiencie whereof we certainely know then to trust to our owne deserts which when they are at the best seeme to vs worthie of damnation rather then reward which notwithstanding we assuredly looke for vpon Gods promise and acceptation not vpon our desert or perfection which comes alwayes short of that which is inioyned vs. But it is Gods purpose to traine vs vp in good works it is so out of question for we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them And is there no sufficient meanes thinke you to prick vs forward to do good works vnlesse we may perswade ourselues we shal merit heauen by them See the difference betwixt children and seruants And yet forsooth you would beare the world in hand that you do all of pure loue to God whereas indeed you would do nothing at all but that your pride is satisfied for the present by the perswasion of the good vse of your free will and your hope fed with opinion of euerlasting life to be paid you hereafter as the deserued hire of your worthie works we on the other side being led with the affection of children pricked on with the feeling of Gods incomprehensible mercie incouraged by his gratious promises of accepting our poore indeuours to do him seruice rauisht with the expectatiō of such a reward as is assured vs though without desert ashamed in our selues euery day of our vnkindnes and vnthankfulnes in doing no more yea condemned in our owne hearts for doing our best works so vnperfitly yet by the blessing of God and assistance of his spirit presse forwards to the reward that is prepared for vs through the way of good works which our father hath set vs in I haue bin caryed on in this course farther then I purposed Let euery man that hath a true desire to glorifie God more than himselfe iudge betwixt vs and you
out of the sinceritie of his heart whether our doctrine or yours be more to Gods glory speaker D. B. P. The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christs mediation I vvill therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God vvhich he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordaining meanes hovv all mankind might attaine to eternall life in the tvvo first points vve do for the most part agree to vvit that oursinnes are freely pardoned through Christs passion and that vve are as freely iustified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although vve require other preparation then they doe yet vve as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either as they doe Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen vve differ altogether for they say that God requires no iustice in vs nor merit at all on our parts but only the disposition of faith to lay hold on Christs righteousnes and merittes but vvesay that Christs righteousnes and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merits God doth povvre into euery true Christian a particular iustice vvhereby he is sanctified and made able to doe good vvorks and to merit eternall life Which ability vve receiuing of Gods free gift through Christ merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christs merits for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glorie of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits vvhich hee hath appointed to bee the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeed vnder colour of magnifying Christs merits to vndermine and blovv out all the vertue of them speaker A. W. Though you denie all merit in the first iustification yet you make euery mans free will the cause that hee particularly is iustified and so make him more beholding to himselfe then to God because he hath from God that he may be saued if he wil from himself that he wils and so is saued It is a greater gift to vouchsafe vs euerlasting life without our desert then to make vs able to deserue it and more for Gods glory that we should haue it of his free gift then of our deseruing by his gift since the abilitie only to vse the gift well is from him but the vsing of it from our owne free will as before speaker D. B. P. But saies M. Perkins vvhat should vve talke of our merittes vvho for one good vvorke vve doe commit many bad vvhich deface our merits if vve had any speaker A. W. True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit but by repentance both are recouered againe but must we not speake of any good because we may happe to doe euill that is a faire perswasion and well vvorthy a wise man Of this iest whereby merit is made to rise and fall I spake a little before and shewed how vniust impossible it was You may speake of and do what good you will but not pleade desert because you haue so many sinnes to condemne you speaker W. P. Obiect III. Our workes merit by bargaine or couenant because God hath promised to rewarde them Ans. The worde of God sets downe two couenants on Legall the other Euangelicall In the legall couenant life euerlasting is promised to works for that is the condition of the law Do these things and thou shalt liue But on this manner can no man merit life euerlasting because none is able to doe all that the law requires whether we respect the manner or the measure of obedience In the Euangelicall couenant the promises that are made are not made to any worke of vertue in man but to the worker not for any merit of his owne person or worke but for the person and merit of Christ. For example it is a promise of the Gospell Be faithfull vnto death and I will giue thee the crowne of life Reuelat. 2. 10. Here the promise is not made to the vertue of fidelitie but to the faithfull person whose fidelitie is but a token that he is in Christ for the merit of whose obedience God promiseth the crowne of life speaker D. B. P. Let vs come to our third Argument God hath by couenant and promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting Therefore good workes do in iustice deserue it for faithfull promise maketh due debt The couenant is plainly set downe where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen for a peny a day that is to giue them life euerlasting for trauailing in his seruice during their life time as all auncient interpretours expound it speaker A. W. The antecedent being granted that God hath promist to reward our works your prouing that might haue bin spared especiallie being such as it is fetched from a parable not expounded any where in the scripture Yea the Fathers themselues haue obserued something in the parable as that of their murmuring who had wrought all day which will not be handsomely expounded of the reward giuen in heauen as any man may perceiue by the diuers expositions that are vsed to help the matter by Chrysostome Gregory Ierome Hillary and the author of your ordinarie glosse Therefore Lyra doubts not to say plainely that the literall sense is that in the beginning of the Church the Iewes that were conuerted murmured because the Gentiles obtained like fauour to them which he prooues out of the Acts. And indeed that seemes to haue bin the end of the parable to shew the reiection of the Iewes who were the first and the receiuing of the Gentiles who were the last To which purpose Ierome saith that the Iewes which were the head shall be turned to the taile and the Gentiles who were the taile shall be changed to the head And for the penny he seemes to expound that of grace rather then glory A penny saith he hath the figure of the king thou hast therefore receiued the reward I promised that is my image and likenes which was also Cyprians opinion as it appeares in his epistle to Magnus speaker D. B. P. Whereupon S. Paul inferreth that God should be vniust if he should forget their workes who suffered persecution for him And saith If it be iust with God to render tribulation to them that persecute you and to such as are persecuted rest with vs Vpon the same ground S. Hierome saith Great truly were the iniustice of God if he did only punish â—â—â—ll works and vvould not as well receiue good workes To all thâ—se and much more such like M. Perkins answereth that couenant for workes was in the old Testament but in the new the couenant is made with the workman not with the worke speaker A. W. Reply All that I cited in this Argument is out of the new Testament
you adde will be discust in your answers speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is called a crowne by resemblance because it is giuen in the end of the life as the croâ—ne is giuen in the end of the race speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the Enthymem viz. that therefore euerlasting life must be deserued because it is called a crowne He addes the reason of his deniall That it is called a crowne not because it is deserued but because it is giuen as a reward after we are come to the end of our race as the Apostle shewes plainly I haue fought a good fight and haue finished my course I haue kept the faith hencefoorth is laid vp for me a crowne of righteousnes he saith not therefore I haue deserued the crowne speaker A. W. If that were all the cause and that there were no respect to be had so former deserts it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance because that also is giuen in the end of life and in their opinion more properly because all their workes are defiled like a menstruous cloath and a halter is the end of such wicked workes But as a halter is due to a theefe so is a crowne of glory the iust reward of the righteous man That I may omit your lewd dallying in saying that euerlasting life might in that respect as well be called a halter consider whether your answer be not absurd For that which is giuen vpon continuance of walking in good workes as Master Perkins saith the crowne is cannot in any reason be as well termed a halter as a crowne though there be not in the workes the true and whole nature of merit to deserue the crowne Euerlasting life saith your glosse is as it were the reward of faith and God seemes to pay it as it were debt speaker W. P. And it is called a crowne of righteousnes not because it belongs to any man by due and desert but because God hath bound himselfe by a promise to giue it in performing whereof he is tearmed iust and by vertue of this promise it is obtained and no otherwise These are the principall obiections by which we may iudge what the rest are And thus we see what is the truth namely that merit is necessarie to saluation yet neither merit of mans worke or person but the merit of Christ imputed to vs whereby we being in him doe procure and deserue the fauour of God and life eternall speaker D. B. P. Secondly he answereth that it is called a crowne of iustice because God hath bound himselfe by his promise to giue it here then at length we haue by his owne confession that by Gods promise eternall life is due debt vnto the righteous but as hauing ouer-shot himselfe he addes not for any desert of theirs but only for the promise sake But as you haue heard before out of S. Matthew that promise was made for vvorking the time of our life in his vine yard and so there was some desert on their part and the seruants were rewarded because they imployed their talents well speaker A. W. Needes it any defence to say it is due debt by promise but not vpon desert Who knowes not that for the most part these two are if not contrary at the least diuers Therefore rather you shoote beyond true reason than Master Perkins ouershot himselfe That which you repeate out of Saint Matthew was answered before speaker D. B. P. And in this very place S. Paul reckoneth vp his good seruices for which the iust iudge would render him a crowne of iustice and therfore the iustice is not only in respect of Gods promise speaker A. W. S. Paul reckons vp his good seruices and good reason for the reward is not due to any by promise but to them that doe good workes For else what should be rewarded But why should it be called a crowne of iustice Because it is giuen to the iust saith Thomas according to their iust works And in that respect God is called a iust Iudge in giuing this crowne because he giues good for good Yea that very iustice whereby good is giuen for good is not without mercie saith the glosse and Lombard speaker D. B. P. And if you will not beleeue me prouing that I say out of the very text rather then M Perkins on his bare word let S. Augustine be arbitrator betweene vs who most deepely considereth of euery word in this sentence Let vs heare saith he the Apostle speaking vvhen he approached neere vnto his passion J haue quoth he fought a good fight J haue accomplished my course J haue kept the faith concerning the rest â—there is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice vvhich our Lord will render vnto me in that day a iust iudge And not only to me but to them also that loue his comming He saith that our Lord a iust iudge will render vnto him a Crovvne he therefore doth owe it and as a iust iudge will pay it For the vvorke being regarded the revvard cannot be denied I haue fought a good fight is a vvorke I haue accomplished my course is a vvorke J haue kept the faith is a worke There is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice this is the reward So that you see most clearely by this most learned Fathers iudgement that the reward is due for the worke sake and not only for the promise of God speaker A. W. This place of Austin is brought as a proofe that a man hath nothing of himselfe which hee hath not receiued Whereas if your doctrine of merit and free will were true a man hauing grace from God whereby hee is enabled to worke might of his owne free will so vse this grace that euerlasting life should be due to him as wages for his work But if these good workes proceed from grace not onely in respect of our abilitie to doe them but of the particular actions what true merit can there bee in them Immediatly after the words you alleage it followes in Austin In the reward thou doest nothing in the work nothing alone The crowne is from him the worke from thy selfe yet not without his helpe Which helpe we must vnderstand to be more than an abilitie to worke or else as I said our free will shall haue the chiefe commendation in all our good workes But to the testimonie we graunt that the reward is due to the worke which is your conclusion out of Austin but wee denie that it is due vpon desert of the worke For neither doth the worke if it were perfectly done truly and properly deserue the reward because it is a matter of duty and but one work whereas many thousands are due to make vp true merit by workes and being imperfect as all our best workes are it is so farre from deseruing euerlasting life that it rather might increase our
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.
the fasting and praying of the holiest Couent Abbey or Nunnerie in the countrie As for their satisfactions they are like a broken reede which will not onely faile him that trusts to it but hurt him also I haue shewed that we neede no other satisfaction being deliuered by our Sauiour Christs sufferings and there are few or none except perhaps the begging Friers that had not more neede to satisfie for their owne idlenesse and gluttonie than ordinarily any other kinde of men whatsoeuer if wee may beleeue either the reports of trauellers or the records of your owne histories Can they be said to be obedient to their Superiours that in the very making of their vow oftentimes wilfully disobey their fathers and mothers Or may they be thought to hurt none who liue idle vpon the sweate of other mens browes and are onely a charge to the state whereof they are vnprofitable members But not to hurt is a kindnes perhaps to be commended in theeues what due praise it can haue in a state of perfection for my part I cannot see Which I speake vpon supposition that they are not so hurtfull to men and women as it is commonly thought speaker W. P. And though we mislike this vow also yet we doe it holding these conclusions First that a man may forsake all his goodes vpon speciall calling as the Apostles did when they were sent to preach the Gospell through the whole world Secondly goodes may bee forsaken yea wife children parents brethren and all in the case of confession that is when a man for the religion of Christ is persecuted and constrained to forsake all he hath For then the second table giues place to the duties of the first Mark 10. 29. II. That for the time of persecution men may withdraw themselues iust occasion offered and goe apart to wildernesses or like places Hebr. 11. 37. yet for the time of peace I see no cause of solitarie life If it bee alleadged that men goe apart for contemplation and spirituall exercises I say againe that Gods grace may as wel be exercised in the familie as in the cloister The familie is indeede as it were a schoole of God in which they that haue but a sparke of grace may learne and exercise many vertues the acknowledgement of God inuocation the feare of God loue bountifulnes patience meekenesse faithfulnes c. Nay here bee more occasions of doing or taking good then be or can be in a cloister III. That wee condemne not the old and ancient Monks though we like not euery thing in them For they liued not like idle bellies but in the sweate of their owne browes as they ought to doe and many of them were married and in their meat drinke apparrell rule vow and whole course of life differed from the Monks of this time euen as heauen from earth speaker D. B. P. After all this wast-wind M. Perkins confesseth that a man may vpon a speciall calling sâ—ll all his goods as the Apostles did What then good Sir shal become of your former arguments May one then Vow a curse of the Law and leaue off prayer for neither pouertie nor riches and say that it is not a blesseder thing to giue then to receiue All these arguments which were whilom of great force must now be nothing worth because it pleaseth M. Perkins the wind now sits in an other corner such weather-cockes surely are to be much respected speaker A. W. Master Perkins speakes not a word of selling all a man hath but of forsaking it when hee hath some calling from God which requireth such a course for the following of it as will not affoord a man leisure to looke to his worldly affaires But this is no wilfull casting away the care of our estate but preferring the duties especially laid on vs by God before our owne businesse Neither is it any vowing of pouertie with a fond conceit of perfection but a faithfull labouring in our necessarie calling with neglect of the world in comparison of our dutie In such a case a man must relie on Gods prouidence and vse the best meanes he can to prouide for himselfe that he may not be chargeable to other but helpfull rather not renouncing all propriety in worldly things but carefully sauing and thriftily spending that which it pleaseth God to send by any good meanes whatsoeuer This ouerthrowes no peece of any argument Master Perkins brought before speaker D. B. P. He faith further in time of persecution a man may also leaue all he should rather haue said he must leaue all or else loose all for the persecutor will not spare him Lastly he doth not condemne old auncient Monks who liued by the sweat of their browes and were married many of them as he saith but his authors cited saith not so neither shall he be able to cite one auncient allowed and approued writer who saith that the auncient Monkes liued with their wiues if perhaps they had been married before But no maruaile if fleshly Ministers thinke it no life without their fleshly mates As for labouring at vacant times it was alwaies and is to this day in practise among many religions If other do in good studies writing or teaching imploy that time of labour no doubt but they do farre better speaker A. W. He may and must leaue all if need be It was sufficient for Master Perkins purpose to shew that our goods in some cases might bee forsaken though pouertie might not bee drawne vpon vs by any proud vow of supposed perfection He doth not condemne those Monkes though he thinks many things they vsed not warrantable The report was as Zozomen saith that Ammon the Monk of Egypt by the importunitie of his friends married a wife though hee neuer companied with her Which how he might with good conscience refuse being married let them iudge that reade what the Apostle writes of this matter yet as they say he liued with her eighteene yeeres in that course before she was brought into the liking of a Monkish life But belike it was lawfull then for them to marrie and no man can excuse this Ammon of great sinne that would aduenture to marrie one of whose continencie and willingnes to conteine hee could haue no knowledge before marriage Other Monkes that were married ere they became Monkes could not vow without consent of their wiues If labouring at vacant times be in practise among many religions as indeed there is a multitude of religions among you Papists it is but a worke of supererogation aboue their calling for their profession is idlenesse But that this will not serue the turne Austin sheweth directly enioyning it as a matter of necessitie speaker D. B. P. In defence of the Catholike party M. Perkins hath not a word wherfore I will briefly supplie his want and proue it to be very gratefull to God to sell all and giue it to the poore I omit the example of our blessed Sauiour who would