doctrine of the Roman Church nor said in all her seruice We say Shew thyselfe to be a mother but it is not added by commaunding thy Sonne that is your glosse which is accursed because it corrupteth the text for it followeth in that place Sumat per te preces c. Present our prayers to him that vouchsafed to be borne of thee for vs. If any priuat person by meditation pearcing more profoundly into the mutuall loue and affection of such a Sonne towardes so worthie a Mother doe deeme her prayers as forcible in kindnes as if they were commaundements and in that sence call them commaundements according to the French phrase Vos priers me sont des commandements that may be donne without derogation to Christs supreame dignity and with high commendation of his tender affection vnto his reuerent best beloued mother Wherefore to conclude this Epistle if there be no waightier cause then this by you here produced why you your adherents doe not reconcile your selues vnto the Church of Rome you may shortly by Gods grace become new men For we are so farre off from making our Sauiour Christ a Pseudochrist or from drawing one jote of excellency from his soueraigne power merits or dignity that we in the very points by you put downe doe much more magnifie him then you do For in maintayning the authority by him imparted vnto his deputies our spirituall Magistrates and of their merits and satisfaction We first say that these his seruants prerogatiues be his free gifts of more grace bestowed on whome he pleaseth which is no small prayse of his great liberality And withall affirme that there is an infinite difference betweene his owne power merits and satisfaction and ours Wherein his soueraigne honour is preserued entire to himselfe without any comparison Now you make Christs authority so base his merits and satisfaction so meane that if he impart any degree of them vnto his seruants he looseth the honour of all from himselfe Whereupon it followeth inuincibly if you vnfeignedly seeke CHRIST IESVS his true honour and will esteeme of his diuine giftes worthelie you must hold out no longer but vnite your selfe in these necessary heades of Religion vnto the Catholike Church of Rome which so highly exalteth him both in his owne excellency and in his singuler giftes to his subjects AN ANSWERE TO THE PREFACE VPON your preface to the reader I will not stand because it toucheth no point of controuersie let it be declared in your next what you meane when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heades of Religion with the Roman Church for if the Roman Church doth erre in the matter of faith and iustification in the number and vertue of the Sacraments in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist and an Idoll to omitte twenty other errors in substantiall points of faith as in this your small discourse you would perswade there will remayne verie fewe necessarie heades of Religion for them to agree in And be you wel assured that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke to a better liking of your Religion that you haue taken the high way to lead them to a farre greater dislike of it by teaching that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs For al Catholikes hold for most assured that which the most auncient learned holy Doctor Athanasius in his creede deliuereth in the 2. verse Which Catholike faith vnlesse euerie man obserue wholy and inuiolably not omitting or shrinking from any one article of it without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly If S. Basil that reuerent blessed Father of the Church doth hold it the duty of euery good Christian rather to loose his life then to condescend to the alteration of any one sillable in matter of faith Theod. 4. his cap. 17. you may be sure that we Catholikes cannot but carry a very base cōceipt of your doctrine who goe about vnder the ouerworne threedbare cloake of reformation to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion specially when they shall perceiue the most points of your pretended reformation to be nothing else but old rotten condemned heresies newe scoured vp and furbushed so in shew made more saleable vnto the vnskilfull as in this treatise shall be proued in euery Chapter THE THEAME OF M. PERKINS PROLOGVE And I heard an other voice from heauen say goe out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes and receiue not of her plagues Reuelat. 18.3 ANSWERE TO THE PROLOGVE Exordium Commune THE learned knowe it to be a fault to make that the entry vnto our discourse which may as properly fit him that pleadeth against vs but to vse that for our proeme which in true sence hath nothing for vs nay rather beareth stronglie for our aduersarie must needes argue great want of iudgement Such is the sentence aboue cited out of S. Iohn by M. PERKINS for it being trulie vnderstood is so farre off from terrifying anie one from the Catholike Roman Church as it doth vehemently exhort all to flie vnto it by forsaking their wicked company that are banded against it For by the purple Harlot in that place is signified as shall be proued presently the Roman Empire as then it was the slaue of Idols and with most bloudy slaughter persecuting Christs Saints Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest vnto it so most subject to that sacrilegious butcherie Wherefore that voice which S. Iohn heard say Goe out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes c. can haue none other meaning then that all they who desire to be Gods people must separate themselues in faith and manners from them who hate persecute the Roman Church as did then the Heathen Emperours now doe all Heretikes Vnlesse they will be partakers of their sinnes consequently of their plagues This shall yet appeare more plainly in the examination of this Chapter Where I will deale friendly with my aduersary aduantage him all that I can that all being giuē him which is any way probable it may appeare more euidently how litle he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalipse whereof all Protestants vaunt and bragge so much both in their bookes pulpits Well then I will admitte that in the 17. 18. Chapters of the reuel by the whoore of Babilon is vnderstood the Roman state and regiment which in lawfull disputations they are not able to proue the most juditious Doctor S. Augustine and diuerse others of the auncient Fathers with the learned troupe of later Interpreters expounding it of the whole corps and society of the wicked And as for the 7. hilles on the which they lay their foundation they are not to be taken literally The Angell of God in the very text it selfe interpreting
with this the exposition of Saint Gregory the great Lib. 9. Ep. 39. our Apostle He cannot saith he be called wholie cleane in whome anie part or parcell of sinnes remayneth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him whom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme Epist ad Oceanum Psal 50. saying How are we iustified and sanctified if anie sin be left remayning in vs Againe if holy king Dauid say Thou shalt wash me and I shall be whiter then snowe how can the blackenes of hell still remayne in his soule briefly it cannot be but a notorious wronge vnto the pretious bloud of our Sauiour to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace Rom. 5. then we lost through Adams fault in these wordes But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one manie died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sin left in the newlie baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie albeit other defectes and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument stands insoluble Now to the second 2. Object Euery sinne is voluntary and not committed without the consent of man but this concupiscence whereof we talke hath no consent of man but riseth against his will therefore is no sinne M. PERKINS answereth That such actions as are vsed of one man towardes an other must be voluntary but sinne towards God may be committed without our consent For euery want of conformity vnto the lawe euen in our body although against our will be sinnes in the Court of conscience Reply full litle knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience there secret faultes in deede be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that faculty which is done without a mans free consent all of them holding with S. Augustine Lib. 3. de lib. arb cap 17. That sinne is so voluntarie an euill that it cannot be sinne which is not voluntary And to say with M. PERKINS that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might that were true be damned from a dreame how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe if he chaunce to dreame of vncleannes whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh This paradoxe of sinning without a mans consent is so contrary vnto both naturall and supernaturall reason that S. Augustine auerreth Li. de vera Relig. c. 14. Neither any of the smale number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned to hold that a man can sinne without his consent What vnlearned learned men then are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to denie this and greater matters too The third reason for the Catholikes is this Where the forme of anie thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of originall sinne is taken away ergo M. PERKINS shifteth in assigning a wronge forme affirming vs to say that the forme of originall sinne is the guiltines of it which we hold to be neither the forme nor matter of it but as it were the proper passiō following it See S. Thomas 1. 2. q. art 3. who deliuereth for the forme of originall sinne the priuation of originall justice which justice made the will subject to God The deordination then of the will Mistres commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall justice is the forme of originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate being by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towardes the lawe of God the forme of originall sinne which consisted in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince 4. Object Lastlie saieth M. PERKINS for our disgrace they alleadge that we in our Doctrine teach that originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the heare of a mans head whose rootes remayne in the flesh growing and encreasing after they be cut as before His answere is that they teach in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne to receiue his deadly wound in the roote neuer after to be recouered Conferre this last answere with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the winter Here sinne is deadly wounded in the roote there it remayneth still with all the guiltines of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this he comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the rootes In deede they doe him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this originall sinne of his is alwayes in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt al his workes and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter CHAPTER 3. OF THE CERTAYNTIE OF SALVATION OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION Pag. 37. WE hold and beleeue that a man in this life may be certayne of saluation and the same doth the Church of Rome teach M. P. 2. Conclu We hold that a man is to put certayne affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same holdeth the aforesaid Romane Church M. P. 3. Conclu We hold that with assurance of saluation in our hartes is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs. Not so Sir M. P. 4. Conclu They goe further and say that a man may be certayne of the saluation of men and of the Church by Catholike faith
of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnes which is in Christ as the righteousnes of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christs righteousnes we are to vnderstand two thinges first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the lawe both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his bloud to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely be considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which he shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the lawe for vs. 3. Rule That iustification is from Gods mercies and grace procured onely by the merite of Christ 4. Rule That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the hart by the Holy Ghost whereby a sinner laieth holde of Christs righteousnes and applies the same to him selfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can doe this but faith alone now of the Doctrine of the Roman Church Because M. PERKINS settes not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and justification it selfe and that taken out of the Councel of Trent Where the very wordes concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towardes God beleeuing those thinges to be true which God doth reueale and promise â—â—â—â—ely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in CHRIST IESVS And when knowledging them selues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgementes they turne them selues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God will be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountayne of all iustice are there by moued with hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to beginne a new life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glorie of God the glory of Christ and mans owne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious CHRIST IESVS Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onlie formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other giftes of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is justified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the wordes of justice and justification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred 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 we hold that God of his meere mercie through the merits of CHRIST IESVS our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. PERKINS comes to short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs suffringes to obedience whereas obedience if it had beene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods handes And whereas M. PERKINS doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface we make Christ a Pseudochrist we auerre that herein we doe much more magnifie Christ then they doe for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men worthie of the joyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but only that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarywise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestimable merits that we hold them wel able to purchase at Gods handes a farre inferiour justice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man just before God and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued Againe they doe great iniury to Gods goodnes wisedome and justice in their justification for they teach that inward justice or sanctification is not necessary to justification 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 whited on the out side with an imputed justice but within full of iniquity and disorder Then the wisdome of GOD must either not discouer this masse of iniquity or his goodnesse abide it or his justice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnesse to thinke it And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whome 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 infinite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such justice 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 donne as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam in state of innocencie And M. PERKINS seemes to graunt Pag. 77. That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse If then we had no other reason for vs but that our justification doth more exalt the power and goodnes of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and bringeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleage one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our justification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnesse Now to their reasons M. PERKINS first reason is this That which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of
for the mastery 2. Tim. 2. is not crowned vnlesse he striue lawfully It is also resembled vnto places of honour Math. 25. Ioh. 14. Mat. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. I will place thee ouer much And I goe to prouide you places Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede For the seede of God tarrieth in him But a little seede cast into good ground and well manured bringeth forth abundance of corne Briefly then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subject and the office betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betweene the seede and the corne is betweene the reward of heauen and the merit of a true seruant of God And thus much of M. PERKINS first Argument more indeede to explicate the nature and condition of merit then that his reason nakedly proposed did require it Exod 20. His second testimony is God will shewe mercy vpon thousandes in them that loue him and keepe his commaundements Hence he reasoneth thus Where reward is giuen vpon mercy there is no merit but reward is giuen vpon mercy as the text proueth ergo Answere That in that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shewe mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall thinges or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestowe the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the party himselfe be first made worthy of it That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods gifts might day by day encrease them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue bin otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better In Inchir cap. 25. And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue bin from Paradise translated aliue into the Kingdome of heauen this by the way Nowe to the thirde Argument Rom. 6. Scripture condemneth merite of workes The wages of sinne is death True But we speake of good workes and not of badde which the Apostle calleth sinne where were the mans wittes but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father S. Augustine in diuers places of his most learned workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt De gra li. arb c. 8. which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repaide for vvorkes and so pursuing the pointes of difficulty at large in the end resolueth that eternall life is most trulie rendred vnto good workes as the due rewarde of them but because those good workes could not haue beene donne vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answere doth he giue where he hath these wordes Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merittes but for that those merittes to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. PERKINS proportion most directly affirming that S. Paul might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good vvorkes but to holde vs in humility partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation choose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and only cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the only fountayne of merit and all good workes Now to those textes cited before about justification Ad Eph. 2. We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue donne Ad Tit. 3. I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes donne by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes donne in and by grace Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillers in this controuersie It is The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory to come Rom. 8. The strength of this objection lyeth in a false translation of these words Axia pros tein doxan equal to that glory or in the misconstruction of them For we graunt as it hath beene already declared that our afflictions and sufferinges be not of equall in length or greatnes with the glory of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding wee teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of GOD doth meritte the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles playne wordes for saith he 2. Cor. 4. That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting weight of glory in vs. The reason is that just mens workes issue out of the fountayne of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his workes are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost 2. Pet. 1. and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh Which addes a worth of heauen to his workes Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attayneth vnto of infinite dignity as M. PERKINS fableth but hath his certayne boundes measure according vnto each mans merittes otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glory for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men doe confesse M. PERKINS 4. reason Whosoeuer will meritte must fulfill the whole law for if we offend in one commandement we are guiltie of the whole lawe but no man can fulfill the whole lawe ergo Answere I denie the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite as by all the properties of meritte may be proued at large and by his owne definition of meritte set downe in tne beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former meritte but recouering grace he riseth to his former meritte as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the
answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sence 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 merittes imputed and if you desire a formall sentence fitting this purpose take this 1. Cor. 3 Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his owne proper labour And not according to Christs merittes imputed vnto him So a doer of the worke shall be blessed in his deede And not in the imputation of an others deede Iacob 1. In stead of our second reason blindly proposed by M. PERKINS I will confirme the first with such textes of Holy write as specifie playnelie our good workes to be the cause of eternall life Math. 25 Come vnto me yee blessed of my father possesse a Kingdome prepared for you And why so For when I was hungry yee gaue me meate And so forth the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants who imployed well their talentes for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue beene faithfull in fewe thinges I will place you ouer many And many such like where good workes donne by the parties themselues are expresly said to be the very cause why God rewardeth them with the Kingdome of heauen Therefore he must needes be holden for a very wrangler that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches and would make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth onely signifie an order of thinges But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see howe the auncient Fathers take it Let him reade Saint Augustine Where he thus briefly handleth this text Come yee blessed of my Father In psal 49 receiue What shall we receiue A Kingdome For what cause Because I was hungry and you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merittes there vvas no tydinges in those dayes And that iuditious Doctor found that good workes was the cause of receiuing the Kingdome of heauen Here by the way Master PERKINS redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that we take away a part of Christs mediation For saith he if Christs merittes were sufficient what neede ours It hath beene often told them but they will neuer learne to vnderstand it I will 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 blessinges which hath or shall be bestowed vpon all men from the beginning of the world vnto the end of it yet his diuine will and order is that all men of discretion hauing freely receiued grace from him doe meritte that crowne of glory which is prepared for them not to supply the want of his merittes which are inestimable but being members of his misticall body he would haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to trayne vs vp in all good works he best knewe that there could be no better spur to pricke our dull nature forward then to ordayne and propose such heauenly rewardes vnto all them that would diligently endeuour to deserue them The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation I will therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God which he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordayning meanes how all mankinde might attayne to eternall life in the two first poynts we doe for the most part agree to witte that our sinnes are freely pardoned through Christes passion and that we are as freely justified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although we require other preparation then they doe yet we as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either as they doe Marry about the meanes of attayning to heauen we differ altogether for they say that God requires no justice in vs nor merit at all on our partes but only the disposition of faith to lay holde on Christes righteousnes and merittes but we say that Christes righteousnes and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merittes God doth powre into euery true Christian a particular justice whereby he is sanctified and made able to doe good workes and to merit eternall life Which ability we receiuing of Gods free gift through Christes merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christes merittes for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits whith he hath appoynted to be very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeede vnder colour of magnifying Christs merittes to vndermine and blowe out all the vertue of them But saies M. PERKINS what should we talke of our merittes who for one good worke we doe committe many bad which deface our merits if we had any True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former justice 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 worthy a wise man Let vs to our third Argument God hath by couenant and promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting Therefore good workes doe in justice deserue it for faithfull promise maketh due debt Math. 20. The couenant is plainely set downe where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen for a penny a day that is to giue them life euerlasting for trauayling in his seruice during their life time as all auncient interpretours expound it Whereupon Saint Paul inferreth Heb. 6. that God should be vnjust if he should forgette their workes who suffered persecution for him 2. Thes 1. And saith If it be just 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 Li. 2. cont Iouin c. 2. Great truly were the iniustice of God if he did only punish euill workes and would not as well receiue good workes To all these and much more such like M. PERKINS answereth that couenant for workes was in the olde Testament but in the newe the couenant is made with the workman not with the worke Reply All that I cited in this Argument is out of the newe Testament where expresse couenant is made for working and workes as you haue heard And as it was said in the olde lawe Math 19. Doe these thinges and thou shalt liue so is it said in the newe If thou wilt enter into life keepe the
3 de Sacra c. 1. I desire in all thinges to follow the Church of Rome And thus much of his prologue Afterward he taketh vpon him to prescribe shewe vs how farre foorth we may joyne with the Church of Rome by proposing many points in controuersie betweene vs and them in each shewing in what points we consent togither in what we differ I meane by Gods grace to followe him steppe by steppe although he hath made manie a disorderly one aswell to discouer his deceipts to disproue their errors as also to establish the Catholike Doctrine the which I will endeuour to performe by the helpe of God with all simplicity of language and with as much breuity as such a weighty matter will permitte Yet I hope with that perspicuity as the meaner learned may vnderstand it and with such substance of proofe both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers as the more iuditious to whose profite it is principally dedicated may not contemne it CHAPTER I. OF FREE WILL. OVR CONSENTS THAT I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. PERKINS hath said agreable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferēt passe paring of only superfluous wordes with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest only vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning free will wherewith he beginneth thus he sayeth Free will both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the minde and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same ANNOT. If we would speak formally it is not a mixt power in the minde and will but is a free facultie of the minde and will only whereby we choose or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more populer M. PERKINS 1. Conclusion Man must be cōsidered in a fourefould estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renued as he shal be glorified in the first state we ascribe vnto mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or nill either good or euill note that this libertie proceeded not from his owne nature but of original Iustice in which he was created In the third libertie of grace in the last libertie of glorie ANNOT. Carry this in minde that here he graunteth man in the state of grace to haue free will M.P. 2. Conclusion The matters whereabout free will is occupied are principally the actions of men which be of three sortes Naturall Humane Spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men and beasts as to eate sleepe c. In all which we joyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will euen since the fall of Adam M.P. 3. Conclusion Humane actions are such as are cōmon to al men good bad as to speake to practize any kinde of arte to performe any kinde of ciuill duty to preach to administer Sacraments c. And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice Temperance Gentlenes and Liberality and in these also we joyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution S. Paul saith The gentils that haue not the lawe doe the thinges of the lawe by nature Rom. 2.14 that is by naturall strength And he saith of himselfe that before his conuersion touching the righteousnes of the lawe he was vnblameable Phil. 3.6 Mat. 6.5 Ezech. 29.19 And for this externall obedience naturall men receiue reward in temporall thinges And yet here some caueats must be remembred First that in humane actions he should say morall mans will is weake and his vnderstanding dimme thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines Summe 1. 2. q. 109. art 4. 8. And in all such actions with S. Augustine you might haue quoted the place I vnderstand the will of man to be only wounded or half dead 2. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it Who knowes not this M.P. 4. Conclusion The third kinde of actions are spirituall more nearely these be two fold good or bad In sinnes we joyne with the Papist and teach that in sinnes man hath freedome of wil. Some perhaps will say that we sinne necessarily because he that sinneth cannot but sinne and that free will and necessity can not stand together In deede the necessity of compulsion and free will can not stand together but there is an other kinde of necessity or rather infallibility which may stand with free will for some thinges may be donne necessarylie and also freely ANNOT. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose for it puts necessitie in one thing and libertie in an other The solution is that necessary lie must be is taken for certaynlie not that a man is at any time compelled to sinne but his weaknes and the crafte of the Diuell are such that he is very often ouer reached by the Diuell and induced to sinne but with free consent of his owne will M.P. 5. Conclusion The second kinde of Spirituall actions be good as repentance Faith Obedience c. In vvhich we likewise in parte joyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans free wil cōcurreth with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sorte for in the conuersion of a sinner three thinges are required the word Gods spirit and Mans will for Mans will is not passiue in all euerie respect but hath an action in the first conuersion chaunge of the soule when any man is conuerted this worke of God is not donne by compulsion but he is conuerted willinglie at the verie time when he is conuerted by Gods grace Serm. 15. de verb. Apost he willeth his conuersion to this end saith S. Augustine He which made thee without thee will not saue thee without thee Againe that it is certaine that our will is required in this that we may doe any thing well it is not only then required in our first conuersion if it be required to all good thinges which we doe but we haue it not from our owne power but God workes to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giues a will to desire and wil the same As for example when God workes faith at the same time he workes also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time
the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in man goe togither Yet in regarde of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Roman Church touching free will neither may we proceede farther with them Hitherto M. PERKINS Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of wil in ciuill and morall workes in the state of corruption and all good works in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renued or as we speake justified there is libertie of grace that is grace enableth mans will to doe if it please such spirituall workes as God requireth at his handes Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing Pag. 16. he doth in shewe of wordes contradict both these points in an other place For in setting downe the difference of our opinions he saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a litle before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth playnlie man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to doe or not to doe the acts of wisedome Iustice Temperance c. Pag. 19. and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentils so did Yet in his first reason he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the 8. of Genesis that the whole frame of mans hart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no naturall strength to performe any part of morall dutie See how vncertayne the steps be of men that walke in darknes or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknes For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church For he putting downe the point of difference Page 1 saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs only in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in graunting this liberty of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne wordes For saieth he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that Mans will worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully For we say that Mans will then only concurreth with Gods grace when it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that Mans wil by his owne naturall actions doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of Man But we farther say that this action proceedeth principally of grace whereby the will was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring forth such spirituall fruite And this I take to be that which M. PERKINS doth meane by those his wordes that the will must bee first moued and acted by grace before it can acte or will Hee mistooke vs thinking that we required some outward helpe only to the will to joyne with it or rather that grace did but as it were vntie the chaynes of sinne wherein our will was fettered And then will could of it selfe turne to God Luc. 10. Not vnderstanding how Catholikes take that parable of the man wounded in the way betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists only say but as the holy Ghost saieth lefte halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all Mankinde had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of al Supernaturall riches spoyled of all his originall Iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and will and therein lefte halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all naturall truth or to performe all morall dutie Now touching supernaturall workes because he lost all power to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sence may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one singer that way of grace Luc. 15. and so in holy Scripture the Father said of his prodigall Son he was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans wil after the fal of Adam continued some what free in actions conformable to the nature of man though wounded also in them as not being able to acte many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of free will capable of grace also able being first both outwardly moued and fortified inwardly by the vertue of grace to effect and doe any worke appertayning to saluation which is asmuch as M. PERKINS affirmeth And this to be the verie Doctrine of the Church of Rome Cap. 1. is most manifestlie to be seene in the Councell of Trent where in the Session are first these wordes in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euerie man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane sinnefull that neither the gentils by the force of nature nor the Iewes by the letter of Moyses lawe could arise out of that sinnefull state After it sheweth howe our deliuerance is wrought and howe freedome of will is recouered in speciall and wherein it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through IESVS CHRIST that is from his vocation whereby without any desert of ours we are called that we who were by our sinnes turned away from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our owne Iustification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and working with it So as God touching the hart of man by the light of the Holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration who might also refuse it neither yet can he without the grace of God by his free will moue himselfe to that which is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that which was taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme
1.2 q. 109. art 6. See what Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath written of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these wordes of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father drawe him He concludeth it to be manifest Ioan. 6. that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God mouing him inwardly thereunto And this is all which M. PERKINS in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons following the which I wil omitte as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him reade the most learned workes of that famous Cardinall and right Reuerend Archbishoppe Bellarmine Nowe the very point controuersed concerning free will M. PERKINS hath quite omitted which consisteth in these two points expressed in the Councell First whether we doe freely assent vnto the said grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it And secondly when we concurre and worke with it whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of which our Authour is silent only by the way in his fourth reason toucheth two textes out of Saint Paul which are commonly alleadged against free will The first I haue saith he laboured more abundantly then all they yet not I 1. Cor. 15 but the grace of God which is in me attributing the whole worke to grace To which I briefly answere that they doe corrupt the text to make it seeme more currant for them the greeke hath only He sun emoi which is with me not which is in me so that the word in true construction make much more for vs then against vs Saint Paul affirming the grace of God which was working with him to haue done these thinges And so Saint Augustine whome they pretend to follow most in this matter expoundeth it Yet not I but the grace of God with me that is not I alone Degra lib. arb ca 15. but the grace of God with me And by this neither the grace of God alone neither he alone but the grace of God with him thus Saint Augustine The like sentence is in the booke of wisdome Send that wisdome from thy Holy heauen that it may be with me Cap. 9. and labour with me The second text is It is God that worketh in vs both to will and to accomplish Phil. 2. v. 13. We graunt that it is God but not he alone without vs for in the next wordes before Saint Paul sayeth Worke your saluation with feare and trembling So that GOD worketh principally by stirring vs vp by his grace and also helping foreward our will to accomplish the worke but so sweetely and conformably to our nature that his working taketh not away but helpeth foreward our will to concurre with him Againe the whole may be attributed vnto God considering that the habits of grace infused be from him as sole efficient cause of them our actions indued also with grace being only dispositions and no efficient cause of those habits but this is an high point of schoole Diuinitie very true but not easely to be conceiued of the vnlearned One other objection may be collected out of Master PERKINS third reason against free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these wordes When we were dead in sinnes Ad Ephes 2.2 If a man by sinne become like a dead man he can not concurre with GOD in his rising from sinne Answere Sure it is that he can not before God by his grace hath quickned and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath beene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath free will in naturall and ciuill actions which will of his being by grace fortified as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre worke with grace to faith all good workes necessarie to life euerlasting As for example a crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring forth apples therefore may be tearmed dead in that kinde of good fruit Yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so albeit our sower corrupt nature of it self be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly grafte of Gods grace it is inabled to produce the sweete fruit of good workes Cap. 1. to which alludeth S. Iames. Receiue the ingrafted word which can saue our soules againe what more dead then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring forth and beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seede Math. 13. and our hartes vnto the earth that receiued it what meruaile then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely seede doe yeelde plenty of pleasing fruit Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such objections as may be gathered out of M. PERKINS against it before I come to his solution of our arguments I will set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers in defence of our Doctrine because he proposeth but fewe for vs misapplieth them too Genes 4. First then God sayeth to Cain If thou doe well shalt thou not receiue a reward But if thou doe euill thy sinne will presently be at the gates but the appetit of it shall be vnder thee thou shalt beare dominion ouer it Here is playne mention made of the power which that euill disposed man Cain had not to sinne if he had listed which was no doubt by the assistance of Gods grace and on the other side that grace did not infallibly drawe him to good but left it to his free choise whether he would follow it or no. And because they who seeke out all manner of starting holes wrest these wordes of ruling and bearing sway as spoken of his brother Abel and not of sinne first to see their iniquity marke the text where is no mention of Abel neither in that verse nor in the next before but expresse mention is made of sinne in the next wordes before therefore those pronounes that are to be referred to the wordes next before must needes in true construction be referred to sinne and not to his brother Besides this playne construction of the text Saint Augustine followeth Lib. 15. de ciuit c 7. saying as it were to Cain Hold thy selfe content for the conuersion of it shall be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it What saith he ouer his brother God forbidde that
so wicked a man should rule ouer so good Ouer what then but he shall rule ouer sinne See how manifestly that worthie Doctor hath preuented their cauill And if it were neede I might joyne with him that most skilfull Father in the Hebrue text S. Ierome In quest Hebraice who in the person of God expoundeth it thus Because thou hast free will I admonish and warne thee that thou suffer not sinne to ouercome thee but doe thou ouercome sinne The second is taken out of this text of Deut. Cap. 30.19 I call this day sayeth Moyses heauen and earth to witnes that I haue set before you life and death benediction malediction therefore choose life that thou maist liue and thy seede Which words were spoken in vayne if it had not beene in their power by the grace of God to haue made choise of life or if that grace would haue made them doe it infallibly without their consent Vnto these two places of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the other vnder Moyses law let vs couple two more out of the newe Testament The first may be those kinde wordes of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Math. 23. Ierusalem Ierusalem c. how often would I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickens vnder her winges thou wouldest not Which doe playnlie demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods help inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing and withstanding Gods grace as these wordes of Christ doe playnlie witnes and thou wouldest not The last testimony is in the Reuelat. where it is said in the person of God I stande at the dore and knocke Cap. 3. if any man shall heare my voyce and open the gates I will enter in to him and will suppe with him and he with me Marke well the wordes God by his grace knockes at the dore of our hartes he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly giftes will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs joyne the testimonie of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The first shall be that excellent learned Martir Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Antonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by free will could flie from foule dishonest deedes and follow those that be faire and good he were without fault as not being cause of such thinges as were done But we Christians teach that mainkinde by free choise and free will doth both doe well and sinne To him we will joyne that holy Bishoppe and valiant Martir Ireneus who of free will writeth thus not only in workes but in faith also Lib. 4. c. 72. our Lord reserued liberty and freedome of will vnto man saying be it done vnto thee according to thy faith I will adde to that worthy companie S. Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauiour will you also depart discourseth thus Ioan. 6. Lib. 1. Ep. 3 Our Lord did not bitterly inueigh against them which forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles will you also goe your way and why so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by which man left vnto his liberty and put vnto his free choise might deserue vnto himselfe either damnation or saluation These three most auncient and most skilfull in Christian Religion and so zealous of Christian truth that they spent their bloud in confirmation of it may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church concerning this article of free will specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse al Antiquity excepting only S. Augustine to haue beleeued taught free wil. Heare the wordes of one for all Mathias Illyricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching free will the testimonies of Iustine Ireneus and others Cent. 2. c. 4. col 59. saith In like manner Clement Patriarch of Alexandria doth euery where teach free will that it may appeare say these Lutherans not only the Doctors of that age to haue beene in such darknes but also that it did much encrease in the ages following See the wilfull blindnes of heresie Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church to haue taught free will yet had rather beleeue them to haue beene blindly ledde by the Apostles and their best Schollers who were their Masters then to espy amend his owne error These principall pillers of Christs Church were in darknes belike as Protestants must needes say that proude Persian most wicked heretike Manes of whome the Manichees are named who first denyed free will beganne to broach the true light of the newe Gospell Here I would make an end of citing Authorities were it not that Caluin sayeth 2. Iust. ca. 2. q. 4. that albeit al other auncient writers be against him yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth is clearly for him in this point but the poore man is fouly deceiued aswell in this as in most other matters I will briefly proue and that out of those workes which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote for in his others Caluin acknowledgeth him to haue taught free will Of our freedome in consenting to Gods grace he thus defineth De spirit lit 34. De gra Chri. 14. Ad simpli q. 2. Tract 72. in Ioan Ep 47. to consent to Gods calling or not to consent lyeth in a mans owne will Againe Who doth not see euery man to come or not to come by free will but this free will may be alone if he doe not come but it cannot be but holpen if he doe come In an other place that we will doe well God will haue it to be his and ours his in calling vs ours in following him Yea more To Christ working in him a man doth cooperate that is worketh with him both his owne iustification and life euerlasting will you here him speake yet more formally for vs. We haue dealt with your brethren and ours as much as we could that they would hold out and continue in the sound Catholike faith the which neither denieth free will to euill or good life nor doth attribute so much to it that it is worth any thing without grace So according to this most worthy Fathers iudgement the sound Catholike faith doth not deny free will as the old Manichees and our newe Gospellers doe nor esteeme it without grace able to doe any thing toward saluation as the Pelagians did And to conclude heare S. Augustines answere vnto them who say
that he when he commendeth grace denyeth free will Lib. 4. con Iul. c. 8. Much lesse would I say that which thou lyingly dost affirme me to say free will to be denied if grace be commended or grace to be denied if free will be commended Nowe in fewe wordes I will passe ouer the objections which he frameth in our names But misapplieth them First Obiection That man can doe good by nature as giue almes doe Iustice speake the truth c. And therefore will them without the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue libertie of will in ciuill and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. PERKINS in his third cōclusion doth graunt it And his answere here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the worke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceedes not from a pure hart and a faith vnfeigned and also in the end which is not the glory of God Answere It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountayne to make a worke morally good faith and grace to purge the hart are necessary only for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to relieue the poore mans necessity GOD his Creator and Master is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of GOD in particuler yet GOD being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towardes him when the man putteth no other contrary end thereunto 2. Obiection God hath commaunded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that GOD being a good Lord will not commaund any man to doe that which he is no way able to doe Ans M. PERKINS answereth in effect for his wordes be obscure that GOD commaundeth that which we be not able to performe but that which we should doe Then I hope he will admitte that he will enable vs by his grace to doe it or else how should we doe it God surely doth not bind vs by commaundement to any impossible thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweete and his burthen easie Mat. 11. And S. Iohn witnesseth that his commaundements are not heauy Ioh. 5. He was farre off from thinking that GOD would tie any man by lawe to doe that which he was altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. PERKINS himselfe approueth 3. Ob. If man haue no free wil to sin or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessitie not to be auoyded He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answere supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne cannot choose but sinne For by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion 1. Pet. 3. and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sinne or no and consequently hath free wil to sin or not to sin And that example of a bankerupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditours who content not themselues with his repentance without repay of their money as God doth Nowe concerning the force of this argument heare Saint Augustines opinion De duab animab contr Manich. in these wordes Neither are wee here to search obscure books to learne that no man is worthy of disprayse or punishment which doeth not that which he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheardes vpon the downes sing these thinges doe not poetes vpon the stages acte them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them Doe not maisters in the scholes Prelats in the pulpits finally al mankind throughout the whole world confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not choose but doe Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest companie of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankinde How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sence doth teach it vnto sheepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the newe Gospell CHAPTER 2. OF ORIGINALL SINNE OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION Pag. 28. THEY say naturall corruption after Baptisme is abolissed and so say we but let vs see how farre forth it is abolissed In originall sinne are three thinges First the punishment which is the first and second death second guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment third the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the hart which is a naturall inclination and pronesse to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For first we say that after Baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away Rom. 8.1 For there is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that are in CHRIST IESVS For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that it is also taken away in them that are borne anewe For considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to binde them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person But of this more hereafter Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the hart I auouch two thinges First that the very power and strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate Secondly that this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euerie actuall sinne past So farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whome it is In deede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed to the person And in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Hitherto M. PER. Annotations vpon our Consent 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 peccadilio 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
shall many be made righteous marke here a comparison betweene the first and second Adam hence I reason thus As by the disobedience of Adam men were made sinners so by the obedience of Christ are they made righteous but men are made sinners by imputation of Adams sinne vnto them and not only by propagation of naturall corruption ergo by imputation of Christs iustice we are made righteous Answere The comparison I allowe because it is the Apostles and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault And say that euery one descended of Adam by naturall propagation hath his owne personall iniquity sticking in them which is commonly called Originall sin and an high point of Pelagianisme is it to deny it For albeit we did not taste of the forbidden fruit in proper person yet receiue we the nature of man polluted with that infection really and not by imputation And so the comparison serues not at all M. PERKINS turne but beareth very strongly against him it being thus framed As by Adams disobedience many were made sinners euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified This is his Maior Now to the Minor But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners by drawing from him euery one his owne proper inherent iniquity in like manner we are iustified by Christ not by imputation of his iustice but by our inherent iustice which is powred into our soules when we are in Baptisme borne a new in him See what penurie of poore arguments they haue that to make some shew of store are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them His fourth reason The Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction but satisfaction is equall to iustice therefore they must make it aswell their iustice as satisfaction For the Maior he citeth Bellarmin I haue read the Chapter Lib. â— Iustiâ—â— finde no such wordes further I say there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes and justification for satisfaction can not be done by vs for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite Majestie and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it wherefore the infinite valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment due to sinnes leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall payne of it as shall be in his due place declared more at large Againe a man must needes haue his sinnes pardoned and grace giuen him before he can make any kinde of due satisfaction for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie wherfore he must needes flie to the benefit of Christs satisfaction There is nothing like in justification for first to make a man just in Gods sight requires no infinite perfection but such as a meere man is very well capable of as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocencie and of all the blessed Soules in heauen who be just in Gods sight Neither is it necessary to be infinite for to be worthy of the joyes of heauen which be not infinite as they are enjoyed of Men or Angels either who haue all thinges there in number weight and measure Briefly it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of an other but one man can not bestowe his wisedome or justice on an other and not credible that God whose judgement is according to truth will repute a man for just who is full of iniquity no more then a simple man will take a Black-moore for white although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell M. PERKINS last reason is taken from the consent of the auncient Church And yet citeth sauing one two liues nothing out of any auncient writer nor out of any other but out of only S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeare after Christ so that he signifieth that there is litle releefe to be had in Antiquity Which Caluin declareth more playnlie for he commonly setting light by all other in this question rejecteth also S. Augustine saying Yea not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter Li. 3. instit ca. 11. num 15. who attributeth our sanctification to grace wherewith we are regenerate in newnes of life by the spirit And Kennitius in the first parte of his examination of the Councell of Trent saith We contend not how the Fathers take iustification and a litle after I am not ignorant that they spake otherwise then we doe of it Therefore M. PERK had reason to content himselfe with some fewe broken sentences of later writers But was S. Bernard trowe you in this one point a Protestant Nothing lesse his wordes be these Epist 190. The iustice of another is assigned vnto man who wanted his owne man was indebted and man made payment c. But better let his owne reason there cited serue for exposition of his former wordes which is this For why may not iustice be from an other aswell as guiltines is from an other Now guiltines from Adam is not by imputation but euery one contractes his owne by taking flesh from him euen so justice is from Christ powred into euery man that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost In the second place he saith That mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God that is by Gods free grace and mercy it is bestowed vpon vs. With S. Bernard in the third place we acknowledge that we haue no justice of our owne that is from our selues but from the goodnes of God through the merits of our blessed Sauiours passion read his first sermon vpon these wordes of the Prophet Isaie Ser. 1. super Isaiam Vidi Dominum c. There you shall see him speake playnlie of inherent justice and how it is a distinct thing from the justice of Christ An other broken peece of a sentence there is cited out of S. Augustine Christ made his iustice our iustice In psal 22. Tract 27. in Ioan. That is by his justice he hath merited justice for vs as he expoundeth himselfe What is this the iustice of God and the iustice of man The justice of God is here called that not whereby God is just but that which God giueth to man that man may be just through God Now let vs come to the reasons of Catholikes which M. PERKINS calling the objections proposeth for them to proue that the justice which God bestoweth vpon vs is inherent and not imputed OF INHERENT IVSTICE FIrst object As one man can not be made wise valiant or continent by the wisedome valure or continencie of an other so one man can not be made iust by the iustice of an other M. PERKINS answereth That one mans iustice cannot be made an others no more then life or health but Christs iustice may who by couenant of grace is made euery mans owne with all his giftes Reply This answere solueth not the difficultie any whit at all
him but what is this to justification by only faith Marry M. PERKINS drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were strong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eye of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similttudes be not in all poynts alike neither must be streatched beyond the very poynt wherein the similitude lyeth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernes stoung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easely rejected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures Gal 2.16 As we are iustified freely not of the lawe not by the lawe not of workes not of our selues not of the workes of the lawe but by faith all boasting excluded Luke 8.50 only beleeue These distinctions whereby works the law are excluded in the worke of justification include thus much that faith alone doth justifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the lawe aswell as any other vertue being as much required by the lawe as any other But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iewe or Gentile did or could bragge of as donne of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtayne this grace through Christ it was not needefull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses lawe as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feastes or fastes nor any such like worke of the lawe which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall workes of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of justification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first justification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iewe and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of justification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of workes and boasting exclude not faith no more doe they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the lawe as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtayne a myracle but not to obtayne justification of which the question only is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the judgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers judgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the lawe De gra lib. aâ—b c 7. thought him to say that faith sufficed a man althoug he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De predest sanct c 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because saith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue justlie are by petition obtayned By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the lawe and the workes donne by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace THAT FAITH ONLY DOTH NOT IVSTIFIE MASTER PERKINS third Argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this ende of apprehending but faith only Amswere Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little But what if that also faile you in this poynt then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man shoulde beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fitte instrument to apply and drawe these thinges to himselfe as all the worlde sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to bee mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. PERKINS doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours Then will I be bolde to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applyed vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shal please him to appoynt is alike apt and so M. PERKINS had small reason to say that faith was the only apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charity doe much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them doe then faith For what faith assureth me of in
often is without the sacred society of charity CHAPTER 5. OF MERITTES MASTER PERKINS saith By meritte vnderstand any thing or worke whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured and that for the dignity and excellency of the worke or thing done or a good worke binding him that receiueth it to repay the like Obserue that three thinges are necessary to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted Sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the worke proceede from grace and be referred to the honour of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the worke And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice doe slaunder this our Doctrine in saying vntruely that we trust not in Christs merittes nor neede not Gods mercy for our saluation but will purchase it by our owne workes I will here set downe what the Councell of Trent doth teach concerning merittes Sess 6. cap. vlt. Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that worke well and hope well to the end both as grace of mercy promised to the Sonnes of God through CHRIST IESVS and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their workes and merittes So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace aswell in respect of Gods free promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in justice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignity of good workes Vnto the worker if he perseuer and hold on vnto the end of his life or by true repentance rise to the same estate againe In infantes baptised there is a kinde of meritte or rather dignity of the adopted Sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme whereby they are made heires of the Kingdome of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either meritte life or for want of such fruit of it fall into the miserable state of death OVR CONSENTS WITH this Catholike Doctrine M. PER. would be thought to agree in two points First That merits are necessary to saluation 2. That Christ is the roote fountayne of all meritte But soone after like vnto a shrewd cowe ouerthrowes with his heele the good milke he had giuen before Renouncing all merits in euery man sauing onely in the person of Christ whose prerogatiue saith he it is to be the person alone in whome God is well pleased Then he addeth that they good Protestants by Christs merittes really imputed to them doe merit life euerlasting Euen as by his righteousnes imputed vnto them they are justified and made righteous To which I answere that we most willingly confesse our blessed Sauiours merittes to be infinite of such diuine efficacy that he hath not onely merited at his Fathers handes Both pardon for all faultes and grace to doe all good workes but also that his true seruantes workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting as for the reall imputation of his meritte to vs wee esteeme as a fayned imagination composed of contrarieties For if it be really in vs why doe they call it imputed and if it be ours only by Gods imputation then is it not in vs really Further to say that he only is the person in whome God is well pleased is to giue the lye vnto many playne textes of holy Scriptures Abraham was called the friend of God therefore God was wel pleased in him Iac. 2. Moyses was his beloued Dauid was a man according vnto his owne hart Eccles 45. Act. 13. Ioh. 16. Rom. 1. God loued Christs Disciples because they loued him Briefly all the Christians at Rome were truly called of S. Paul the beloued of God And therefore although God be best pleased in our Sauiour and for his sake is pleased in all others yet is he not onely pleased in him but in all his faithfull seruantes Now to that which he saith that they haue no other meritte then Christs imputed to them as they haue no other righteousnes but by imputation I take it to be true and therefore they doe very ingenuously and justly renounce all kinde of merittes in their stayned and defiled workes But let them tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth It is that as they haue no righteousnes nor meritte of heauen but only by a supposed imputation so they must looke for no heauen but by imputation for God as a most vpright judge wil in the end repay euery man according to his worth wherfore not finding any reall worthines in Protestants but only in conceipte his reward shall be giuen them answerably in conceipte only which is euidently gathered out of S. Augustine where he saith Lib. 1. de morib Eccles cap. 25 That the reward cannot goe before the merite nor be giuen to a man before he be worthy of it for saith he what were more iniust then that and what is more iust then God Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardy as once to demaund much lesse so impudent as to assure our selues of that crowne before we haue deserued it Seing then that the Protestants by this their proctour renounce all such meritte and desart they must needes also renounce their part of heauen not presume so much as once to demaund according vnto S. Augustines sentence vntill they haue first renounced their erronious opinions But M. PERKINS will neuerthelesse proue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth it selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short sillogisme cōtayning more then one whole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious worke Which must be saith he four First That the worke be done of ourselues without the helpe of another Secondly That it be not otherwise due debt Thirdly That it be done to the benefit of an other Fourthly That the worke and reward be equall in proportion These proprieties he sets downe pithagorically without any proofe But inferreth thereon as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs manhood seperated from the Godhead cannot meritte because whatsoeuer he doth he doeth it by grace receiued should be otherwise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merite neither for he receiued his Godhead from his father whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt And so the good man if he were let alone would disapoint vs wholy of all merites aswell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by vertue of his grace Wherefore we must a little sift his foure forged proprieties of merit and touching the first I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift merit and deserue much euen at his handes that gaue it For example the