that the father was not begotten may be proued by the Scripture and must needs be held the words are neither in the Scripture nor bring any danger of saluation though they be denyed if the points of doctrine signified by them be beleeued yet were it a great presumption and follie for any man to refuse such words as haue bin fitlie applied by the former Churches The other point of adoring the holy ghost hath a strong foundation on those places of Scripture which prooue him to be God as many do But what is all this to the purpose for the stablishing of any doctrine necessarie to saluation by tradition speaker D. B. P. The like of the perpetuall Virginity of our B. Lady out of vvhich and many more such like vve gather most manifestly that S. Augustine thought many matters of faith not to be contained in the vvritten vvord but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions speaker A. W. The fourth heresie in Austin is the Basilidians who held no such opinion of the virgin Mary Indeed there were other heretikes the 6. in number who denyed her virginitie after our Sauiours birth falsely as we verily perswade our selues but this is no matter necessarie to saluation though it be an heresie to hold that as a matter of faith which hath no warrant from the Scripture but rather the contrarie speaker W. P. Vincentius Lyrinen saith the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient to it selfe for all things speaker D. B. P. I thinke that there is no such sentence to be found in him hesaies by way of obiection VVhat need we make recourse vnto the authority of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but throughout all his booke he proues the cleane contrary that no heresie can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church speaker A. W. Vincentius saith that the Canon of the Scripture is sufficient and more then sufficient for all things and in another place the Canon of the scripture sufficeth it selfe for all things The former place is those very words which you alleage falsely where Vincentius thus speakes Here perhaps some man will demaund what the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding of the Scripture needs seeing the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and more then sufficient to it selfe for all things His answere is that the interpretation of the Church is requisite because diuers men expound the Scripture diuersly but what is this against the sufficiencie of the Scripture or for the authoritie of traditions concerning matters not contained in the Scriptures Beside these testimonies other reasons there bee that serue to prooue this point I. The practise of Christ and his Apostles who for the confirmation of the doctrine which they taught vsed alwaies the testimonie of Scripture neither can it be prooued that they euer confirmed any doctrine by tradition Act. 26. 22. I continue vnto this day witnessing both to small and great saying none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come And by this wee are giuen to vnderstand that wee must alwaies haue recourse to the written worde as beeing sufficient to instruct vs in matters of saluation speaker D. B. P. First for our Sauiour Christ Iesus he out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you And very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do oftē note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by test monies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S. Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by Tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospel out of Tradition receiued from S. Peter as witnesseth Eusebius S. Luke testifieth of himself that he wrote his whole Gospel as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who vvere eye-vvitnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not only parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions speaker A. W. Our Sauiour doth ordinarily confirme his doctrine especially if there be any question of it out of the bookes of the old testament by that he repeld Sathan by that he confuted the Pharises and defended his disciples eating the eares of corne on the Sabbath by that he taxeth the Iewes blindnes and maintaines his owne speaking in parables By the same he ouerthrowes the Iewes traditions and rebukes their hypocrisie he refutes their errors about diuorces but what should I run ouer the particulars the Gospels are full of such examples Master Perkins hath neuer a word of the Euangelist who did but write the history of our Sauiours doings and sayings and yet euen they as your selfe confesse prooue that he is the Messiah by the Scriptures of the old Testament applying them to the things he did and suffered You deuise matters to confute Master Perkins speaketh of confirming doctrine by traditions and you answere that they wrote something out of tradition that is they set downe somewhat in writing which themselues had heard of other and not read in the old Testament And then you aske where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages euen there where Moses had the creation of the world and the whole story of Genesis From a better ground then tradition viz. from the Spirit of God the author and enditer of the Scripture from whom also the other Euangelists had the matter and penning of their Gospell though two of them Marke and Luke first came to the knowledge of those things by the preaching of the Apostles which had all one authoritie with the word written This is apparant of Marke by Eusebius himselfe who saith that the Romans intreated him to set downe in writing those things which the Apostle Peter had taught them by word of mouth and which he also had heard him deliuer The like is to be said of S. Luke who was a companion of the Apostle Paul and wrote as the other did that which he heard of him and other of the Apostles But howsoeuer the things deliuered by them came first to their knowledge it wants not much of blasphemy to make traditions the foundation of the Gospels written by them For either the holy Ghost did not inspire them with the matter and manner of their penning or else if it be as you would haue it the holy ghost built vpon tradition which is but an vncertaine kinde of knowledge depending vpon mens
in the state of grace but in the state of nature namely in the first conuersion of a sinner as his plaine words are in this place The difference stands in the cause of freedome for it is impossible that a man should beleeue without freedom of will beleeuing being an action of the will But the question is whether the will work with Gods grace by it selfe by it owne naturall power or haue this operation from grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue And this is the very opinion of Luther Caluin and generally all Protestant Diuines who in this point thus dissent from you that they ascribe the very act of the will in repenting beleeuing c. to the especiall worke of Gods spirit in their hearts that repent and beleeue whereas you contrariwise hauing furnisht man with freedome of will by nature or I know not what grace make his assent for I must speake of faith as you doe to proceede not from the spirit of God inclining him certainly to beleeue but from the good vse of his free will yeelding of it selfe to the good motion of Gods spirit yet so as that it might for all the motion and operation of Gods spirit forbeare to assent if it were not led to it by the goodnes of free will In a word you ascribe no more to God but the power that the will hath to will that which is good wee acknowledge that the very act of willing well both before and after grace is caused by the spirit of God to and in euery good desire that wee bring well to passe It is more than Master Perkins affirmes that the will being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified with the vertue of grace is able to effect and doe any worke appertaining to saluation For this vertue is not of such strength but that it needes the particular assistance of Gods spirit to incline and frame it to euery good worke of that nature speaker D. B. P. And this to be the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent vvhere in the sixt Session are first these vvords in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Ievves by the letter of Moses lavv could arise out of that sinfull state After it shevveth hovv our deliuerance is vvrought and hovv freedome of vâ—ill is recouered in special and vvherin it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Jesus Christ that is from his vocation vvhereby vvithout any desert of ours vve are called that vve vvho vvere by our sinnes turned avvay from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our ovvne Justification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and vvorking vvith 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 vvho might also refuse it neither yet can he vvithout the grace of God by his free vvill moue himselfe to that vvhich is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that vvhich vvas taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme See vvhat Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath vvritten of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these vvords of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father dravv him He concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God moouing him inwarâ—ly therevnto speaker A. W. The Councill of Trent as closely as it carries matters could not but bewray it selfe in this point wherein it leaues to the will of man inlightened by the holie Ghost the act of refusing and receiuing grace Which must needs be naturall because there was no former worke of God whereby this power to receiue grace was bestowed vpon it And this doth Thomas by you alleaged make more plain denying that there is any grace in the will of man as from God for the preparing of himselfe to receiue habituall grace because then we should need another grace for the former and another for that before the former and so without end What then doth God in this case He moues the heart inwardly saith Thomas or he breathes into vs a good purpose A man would thinke that Thomas hereby acknowledged the receite of some speciall grace but it is not so he meanes no more but this that God puts a good motion into vs for the receiuing of habituall grace which it is in the power of our will by nature either to receiue or refuse So that still in the matter of iustification the reason that this man is iustified that is not shall be from man and not from God Are they not in the middest of darknes that write such things III. Our reasons speaker W. P. Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold namely that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of himselfe by nature either in whole or in part but by grace wholy and alone these reasons may be vsed The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption which may be distinguished into two parts The first is the want of that originall righteousnes which was in man by creation the second is a pronenes and inclination to that which is euill and to nothing that is truly good This appeareth The frame of mans heart saith the Lord is euill euen from his childhood that is the disposition of the vnderstanding will affections with all that the heart of man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholly euill And Paul saith The wisdome of the flesh is enmity against God Which words are very significant for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated wisdome signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires affections and indeauours that be in any naturall man euen those that come most neare to true holines are not only contrary to God but enmitie it selfe And hence I gather that the very hart it selfe that is the will and mind from whence these desires and thoughts doe come are also enmity vnto God For such as the action is such is the facultie whence it proceedeth such as the fruit is such is the tree such as the braunches are such are the rootes By both these places it is euident that in man there is not only a want absence or depriuation of originall righteousnes but a pronenes also by nature vnto that which is euill which pronenes includes in it an inclination not to some few but to all and
his departure And therefore in your learning Austin shewes either his ignorance or his craft in telling vs that we cannot satisfie hereafter which is not true but of satisfying in our owne persons speaker W. P. Chrysost prooem in Esa. Say not to me I haue sinned how shall I be freed from so many sinnes Thou canst not but thy God can Yea and he will so blot out thy sinnes that there shall remaine no print of them which thing befalls not the bodie for when it is healed there remaines a skarre but God as soone as hee exempts thee from punishment he giueth thee iustice speaker D. B. P. All this is most true and much against M. Perkins doctrine of the infection of originall sin but nothing touching satisfaction for we hold that the soule of a sinner when he commeth to be iustified is washed whiter then snow so that there is no staine or print left in it of the filth of sinne It is also freed from all eternall punishment but not from some temporall speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes not of originall sinne but of dayly actuall transgressions as his whole discourse shewes which God by pardoning of them so takes away as that neither guilt nor shame of them remaines in his sight yea he makes supply of the contrary vertues To Master Perkins purpose they are thus to be applied that Chrysostome requires nothing of him that is to be pardoned for his full release but repentance only which thing he repeates oftentimes in that proeme before Esay without any the least inkling of temporall satisfaction which is almost as needfull as the other if your doctrine be true for it is in our shallow estimation as fearefull almost to fry I know not how many thousand yeares in Purgatory as to be for euer in hell Euerlastingnes we cannot comprehend many thousand yeares are as much as we can reach to therefore since Chrysostome in that one preface so many times promiseth so full pardon and requires nothing but repentance it is more then likely he knew not your satisfaction speaker W. P. Ambrose saith I reade of Peters teares but I reade not of his satisfaction speaker D. B. P. Now gentle Reader prepare thy selfe to behold a proper peece of cousenage Ambrose saith I read of Peters teares but I read not of his satisfaction The colour of the craft lyeth in the ambiguity of this word Satisfaction which is not alwaies taken for the penance done to satisfie for the former fault But is sometime vsed for the defence and excuse of the fact So speaketh S. Paul Bono animo prome satisfaciam with good courage I will answere in defence of myselfe or giue you satisfaction in like manner Ready alwaies to satisfie euerie one that asketh you a reason of that hope vvhich is in you In this sense doth S. Ambrose vse the word as is most plainly to be seene to them that reade the place and conferre it with the very like of his I find not saith he vvhat Peter said but I finde that he vvept I read his teares but I read not his satisfaction but that which cannot be defended may be vvashed avvay So that nothing is more manifest then that satisfaction in this and the like places is taken for defence and excuse of his fault which Peter vsed not but sought by teares and bitter vveeping to satisfie in part for it for this bevvayling of our sinnes is one speciall kind of satisfaction as Saint Ambrose testifieth saying That hee vvho doth penance must vvith teares vvash avvay his sinnes speaker A. W. A man may easlyer behold malice in you that construe euery thing to the worst then cousenage in the allegation of Ambrose for if your interpretation of it be neuer so true it is such as might escape a diligeÌ„t reader and not be seene yea perhaps if it had not bin so prest by our meÌ„ you would haue read Ambrose ouer a good many times before you had dreampt of that sense Bellarmine from whom you had this as the rest of your answers for the most part layes no such matter to Peter Martyrs charge out of whom he brings this obiection you see not more then he did but write with more spleene If Master Perkins had read and at the writing of this sentence remembred Bellarmines answere either he would not haue alleaged it or else haue giuen some speciall reason for his allegation But this me thinks may be obserued out of this testimonie that Ambrose accounted confessing and crauing of pardon to be the satisfaction God lookes for which is alwayes performed by a sinner before he can haue any true hope that his sinnes are forgiuen This therefore going before the pardon of the eternall punishment what other satisfaction shall neede for the temporall Now that Ambrose in that place vnderstands by satisfaction both confessing his fault to Christ whom he had offended and intreating for pardon it appeareth by these speeches and such like Therefore Peter brake out into teares intreating nothing by voyce Teares wash sinnes which it is a shame to confesse Teares are as it were silent prayers I finde why Peter hold his peace least the crauing of pardon so soone might more offend Teares are part of repentance when they come from the true griefe of the heart but not any part of satisfaction for temporall paine which we should else indure as that very sentence of Ambrose prooues Hee saith Ambrose that repents must not only wash away his sinnes with teares but also couer and hide his former sinnes with better deeds that sinne be not laid to his charge Now where sinne is not imputed there can no punishment be due and where such repentance is not there sinne is imputed euen to eternall damnation So that the teares Ambrose speaketh of are parts of outward repentance for pardon of sinne not satisfaction for temporall iudgements remaining after pardon speaker W. P. Againe let vs adore Christ that hee may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes of this world nor the waues of bodily sufferings I haue remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. The other place cited out of S. Ambrose de bono mortis Let vs adore Christ that â—e may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes nor the vvaues of vvorldly sufferings I haue remission of â—â—nâ—es is rather for vs then against vs for if by adoring and seruing of God vve may be put out of feare of our sins and the punishment of them then doth it follow that praiers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them speaker A. W. This adoring of Christ is comming to him whereupon ensueth escaping of death as it followeth a few lines after Whosoeuer saith Ambrose in our Sauiour Christs person comes to me that is beleeues in me shall neuer see death By this adoring we are freed from all sinnes and all punishment due
very sufficiently though euery man cannot reade his disputation because it is latine but for the matter in hand concerning traditions it falls not into this question to be disputed what is scripture and what is not For it is presupposed that the Scriptures are the word of God and thereupon this doubt ariseth whether the word of God conteine all things necessarie to saluation or no. If that be doubted of it is idle and absurd to enquire whether there be besides that another word of God diuers from it though not contrarie which is not written but only as men haue now and then set downe some part of it in their writings so then leauing this point let vs come to those which follow speaker W. P. Obiect III. Some bookes of the canon of the Scripture are lost as the booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. The booke of the iust Iosu. 10. 13. the bookes of Chronicles of the Kinges of Israel and Iuda 1. King 14. 19. the bookes of certaine Prophets Nathan Gad Iddo Ahiah and Semiah and therfore the matter of these bookes must come to vs by tradition Answ. Though it be graunted that some bookes of Canonicall Scripture bee lost yet the Scripture still remaines sufficient because the matter of those bookes so farforth as it was necessarie to saluation is contained in these bookes of Scripture that are now extant speaker D. B. P. The two next arguments for Traditions be not well propounded by M. Perkins The third is to be framed thus Either all the bookes of holy Scripture conteine all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine of them without the rest not some of them without the rest for then the other should be superfluous which no man holdeth therfore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue been loâ—t therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written Word and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. Perkins answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answere supposeth speaker A. W. Because you thinke the reason makes for your aduantage as you haue framed it your selfe I will follow your steps and leaue his argument as you do That I may answere orderly I deny your assumption All things necessarie to saluation are conteined in some certaine bookes of the scripture so that although the rest were wanting we should haue sufficient to saluation for the matter To your reason I say farther that the consequence is naught if some certaine are sufficient to saluation the rest are superfluous for first it cannot be superfluous to haue any booke of Gods word kept for the vse of the Church though the matter of it be in some other Secondly if your consequence be good it is also superfluous to haue the same psalme or story recorded in two places of the scripture especially the later But to say so were to condemne the holy ghost of hauing taken superfluous paines to no purpose which were blasphemie I prooue it by these particulars for example Psal. 18. is in the booke of Psalmes and in the second booke of Samuell The history of Ezechiah is 2. Reg. 29. and so forward and Isai 36. 37. 38. The like I might bring out of the bookes of Kings and Chronicles Thirdly though the matter be all fully and perfectly in certaine bookes yet euery point is not so plaine in one booke as in another and therefore it is not superfluous to haue all these bookes though all matter necessarie to saluation be comprised in some few of them Fourthly the purpose of the holy ghost in penning the scriptures was not only to teach matters necessarie to saluation but to set forth the glorie of God in his prouidence iustice mercie wisdome and such like to afford vs examples of diuers kinds of vertues to exhort vs to faith and good works and in a word to prouide for Gods glorie by vs heere as well as for our glorifying by him in heauen to which there is no booke nor sentence of scripture but serues more or lesse and therefore no booke of it can be thought supersluous though the necessarie matters belonging to saluation be conteined in certaine of them very sufficiently speaker W. P. Againe I take it to bee a truth though some thinke otherwise that no part of the Canon is lost for Paul saith Whatsoeuer things were written aforetime were written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures c. Rom. 15. 4. where he takes it for granted that the whole Canon of holie Scripture was then extant For if he had thought that some bookes of Scripture had beene lost hee would haue said whatsoeuer was written and is now extant was written for our learning and comfort For bookes that are lost serue neither for learning nor comfort Againe to hold that any bookes of Scripture should be lost calls into question Gods prouidence and the fidelitie of the Church who hath the bookes of God in keeping and is therfore called the pillar and ground of truth And touching the bookes before mentioned I answere thus The booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. might bee some short bill or narration of thinges done among the Israelites which in the daies of Moses went from hand to hand For sometime a booke in Scripture signifieth a roule or Catalogue as the first chapter of Matthew which containeth the genealogie of our Sauiour Christ is called the booke of the generation of Iesus Christ. Againe the booke of the iust and the books of Chronicles which are said to be lost were but as the Chronicles of England are with vs euen politicke records of the acts and euents of things in the kingdome of Iuda and Israel out of which the Prophets gathered things necessarie to be knowne and placed them in holy Scripture As for the bookes of Iddo Ahiah Semiah Gad and Nathan they are contained in the bookes of the Kinges and Chronicles and in the bookes of Samuel which were not written by him alone but by sundrie Prophets 1. Chro. 29. 29. as also was the booke of Iudges As for the bookes of Salomon which are lost they did not concerne religion and matters of saluation but were concerning matters of Philosophie and such like things speaker D. B. P. Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrarie vnto the plaine Scriptures as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be proued out of the historie of Paralâ—pomeneon which they translate Chronicles
slender Image not so much for the quantitie as for that it representeth but darkely speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not say so of Tertullian that he affirmes them to be all one but that Tertullian saith Euery forme or representation is to be tearmed an Idoll 〈◊〉 saith Tertullian in Greeke signifies formam a forme or shape from thence by deriuation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is framed and hath in like sort with vs made the word Formulam therefore euery shape great or little must be called an Idoll Thence comes Idolatry which is any seruice about any Idoll Iudge your selfe now whether Master Perkins did not report Tertullians opinion truly and whether you do not wrong him by making him say that he neuer meant So do you Tertullian himselfe in giuing a false reason of the word not intended by him And howsoeuer the word may in deriuation be a diminutiue yet in vse it is not so but signifieth any shape great or little representing a thing perfectly or imperfectly as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth speaker W. P. And Isidore saith that the heathen vsed the names of image and idol indifferently in one and the same signification speaker D. B. P. Eustathius and excellent Greeke interpreter vpon the eleauenth book of Homers Odyssea describeth Idolum to signifie a vaine and vanishing Image as the shadow of a man a ghost or phantastical imagination And so it cannot be that al profane Authors vse these two words indiffereÌ„tly seeing both in proper signification and by the declaration of the learned there is great difference betweene them speaker A. W. Eustathius doth not vndertake to deliuer in that place the proper nature of the word but to shew what Homer there meanes by it namely that he vseth it to signifie the ghosts or shapes of men departed fashioned of ayre or imprinted in the ayre by a certaine shadow or slight resemblance where the very word comming from image is put to expresse the likenes The same word Idoll Homer vseth otherwhere to signifie the shape or likenes which Apollo made of Aeneas to saue him from Diomedes Both these kinds of Idols Virgil who vnderstood Homer well enough and knew the nature and vse of Greeke and Latine words calls Images For the former viz. the shapes of the deceased thus he speakes of Aeneas wife Creusa Infoelix simulachrum atque ipsius vmbra Creüsae visa mihi ante oculos nota maior image where hauing termed Creusas ghost first a likenes and then a shadow last of all he calls it an Image and presently after comparing it to the wind and to a sleepe or a dreame he giues it the name of Image againe Ter frustra comprensa manus effugit image par leuibus ventis volucrique simillima somno So he speakes of Anchises ghost vsing the very same verses and in the fourth booke Turbida tenet imago so againe of him Tua tristis Imago And of Adrastus Adrasti pallentis Imago yea the apparitions of the Centaures and Sea-Monsters which by Origens distinction are Idols Virgil calls Tenues sine corpore vitas and saith that they flye vp and down Caua sub imagine formae The other shapes made of aire or some such thin stuffe he describes by the same word Image as in that fiction of Aeneas shape made by Iuno to draw Turnus out of the battaile which he cais Tenuem sine viribus vmbram and compareth it to the ghosts of the deceased and to apparitions in dreames This he calls an Image At primas laeta ante acies exultat imago which Homer would haue termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom would you refute by this Isidore is the author Master Perkins the reporter only But you strike at aduenture not respecting where the blow light but where you meane to hit yet you should haue said no more then they do that the heathen vse the names indifferently not that all prophane authors do so and you should haue vnderstood them aright too as I shewed before not that both words are vsed in all significations in which either is but that they are vsed indifferently for any kind of shape whether it haue something or nothing answering to it in any true naturall being speaker W. P. And. S. Steuen in his apologie Act. 7. 41. calls the golden calfe an Idol speaker D. B. P. But S. Stephen cals the golden calfe an Idoll so it was indeed What is that to the purpose speaker A. W. Do you aske what it is to the purpose that S. Stephen cals the golden Calfe an Idoll it directly ouerthrowes the distinction against which Master Perkins disputes For a Calfe is a thing that hath a reall being in nature and is not an imagination of the braine as Sphinx and Triton and such like are according to the authors you alleage in this case speaker D. B. P. Hierome saith that idols are images of dead men speaker W. P. And S. Ierom saith That Idols are the Images of dead-men adde that are taken for Gods True many Idols be Images all such as truly represent any person that was once liuing here but no Images be Idols vnlesse it be taken for a God And so Idols requires besides the Image that it be made a God or the Image of a false God speaker A. W. If we adde your glosse we shall adde nothing in defence barbarous Nations Scythians Numidians Seres and Persians he answers that they agree indeed in the matter refusing to build or vse any Altars and Images but that the reasons of their opinions are diuers they following I know not what fansies the Christians refraining these things in obedience to Gods Commandements namely the first and second which hee there recites Therefore Origen holds it forbidden in those Commandements to make or vse any Image in the seruice of God To this doctrine of Origen the practise of the Primitiue Church is agreeable that I may please you with more testimonies We are slatly forbidden saith Clement of Alexandria to vse that deceitfull craft or art For the Prophet saith Thou shalt not make the likenes of any thing in heauen or earth below And againe We haue no materiall image but such an Image as is perceiued by the vnderstanding God who only is the true God is conceiued by vnderstanding not by sense In another place Moses many ages agoe made a direct law that wee should not make any grauen cast or painted image that we might not â—sed sensible things but might passe to the consideration of those things which are perceiued by the vnderstanding And further The daily fight or beholding of an Image causeth the maiestie of God to become vile and contemptible and to worship by a materiall thing that which is conceiued by the vnderstanding is to make it vile by sense God saith Tertullian forbids as well the making as the worshipping
your Maiesties recorded in the aforesaid Conference speaker A. W. I doubt not but if those learned treatises you bragge of be come to his Maiesties hands either they haue had or shal ere long receiue sufficient answere In the meane while let vs consider these your reasons speaker D. B. P. And because that argument is as most sensible so best assured which proceedeth from a principle that is either euident in it selfe or else granted and confessed for true My first proofe shall be grounded vpon that your Maiesties owne resolute and constant opinion as it appeareth in the said Conference to wit That no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the Church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremonie then she hath departed from her selfe vvhen she vvas in her flourishing and best estate From whence I deduce this reason The principall Pillers of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in all poynts of Religion the same Doctrine that she now holdeth and teacheth and in expresse tearmes condemneth for error and heresie most of those Articles which the Protestants esteeme to be the principall parts of their reformed Gospell Therefore if your Maiestie will resolutely imbrace and constantly defend that doctrine which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate you must forsake the Protestant and take the Catholike into your Princely protection speaker A. W. The most flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome is that out of question of the sinceritie whereof wee haue witnes in the Scripture from which no Church ought or may depart not because they may not dissent from the Church of Rome but because they must hold the true faith for which the Apostle commends the Church of Rome that then was The antecedent of your reason is false The Church of Rome in the Apostles time did not teach many of those points that the Popish Romish Church now holds witnes the Epistle to the Romanes wherein diuers maine matters of her faith are recorded speaker D. B. P. To demonstrate vnto your Maiestie that we now hold in all poynts the very same Doctrine which the most approoued auncient Doctors and holy Fathers held and deliuered Because it is too long for an Epistle I reserue it to the booke it selfe for the poynts it handleth and will here briefly note out of it some such old reprooued errors that the Protestants doe reuiue receiue and auowe as the very sinnewes of their Gospell speaker A. W. The most approued ancient Doctors holy fathers were the Apostles with whom how you shew your agreement in the points this booke handles wee shall see in the particulars All other writers haue those properties in a farre inferiour degree from among whom if I would deale strictly with you I might pick the Fathers of the Greeke Churches and all those of the Latin that were not members of the Romane as it was a distinct Church from all other For so is the Romane Church conceiued and spoken of by his Maiestie But I will not presse you so hard though I may chance to put you in minde of it now and then All points that haue been reprooued by some of the ancient writers are not errors and many times the same words haue not the same meaning speaker D. B. P. Martin Luther the ring-leader of the new pretended reformation layeth for the ground-worke of his Religion That man is iustified by only saith and in this he is applauded and followed of all Protestants and yet as testifieth the most sound witnes of antiquitie S. Austin that only faith is sufficient to Saluation was an error sprung vp in the Apostles dayes against which the Catholike Epistles of S. Peter and S. Iames and S. Iohn were principally directed And the author of that error was that infamous Sorcerer Simon Magus as the blessed Martyr Ireneus hath recorded in his first booke against heresies speaker A. W. For the doctrine of iustification by faith onely I referre the reader to the article of iustification That we are vnlike the heretikes of whom S. Augustine speakes it may thus apâ—… The faith they so magnified was a dead faith The Apostle 〈◊〉 Austin in refutation of them speaks not of euery kind â—… by which we beleeue in God but of that wholesome and truly â—…angelicall faith the workes whereof proceede from loue And againe How long therefore will they be deceiued that promise themselues euerlasting life by a dead faith Besides they despised good workes as needles either before or after iustification They thought saith Augustine that Paul wild vs to doe euill that good might come of it But it was not the Apostles meaning saith he that by the professing and inioyning of faith good workes of righteousnes should be despised But that euery man might know that he may be iustified though he haue not done the workes of the Law before For they follow him that is iustified not goe before him that is to be iustified Yea Simon the Sorcerer doubted not blasphemously to affirme that the commandements of holy life were giuen by the Angels that made the world who thereby brought men into slaâ—â—rie Of whom Theodâ—ret saith that because men are saued by grace and faith therefore he gaue by all meanes 〈◊〉 to commit wickednes speaker A. W. An other principall piller of Fryer Luthers Religion conâ—… niall of free will wherein he iumpeth with the olde rotten 〈…〉 Manes of whom the Maniâ—d cans were named Manes so denied free will that he tooke away all assent of the will in mens daily sinnes making the necessitie of sinning naturall from the creation as proceeding from the euill god or beginning which he blasphemously and absurdly deuised He saith Augustine made two diuers beginnings each contrary to other and both eternall And from these two natures and substances of good and euill so that he ascribed the beginning of sinne not to the freedome of will but to the substance of the aduerse faction Yea so faire proceeded the Manichees that they affirmed saith the same Augustine that euery liuing creature had two soules one from light another from darknes Manes brought in fatall necessitie saith Socrates and tooke away free will We contrariwise acknowledge that there is but one God or author of all things created that he made vs in our kinde perfectly good That sinne came in first by freedome of will both in men and Angels and that by free will without any necessitie of constraint it is daily committed It appeares further to our comfort in that place of S. Hierome that the Catholikes or true Christians in his time were in like sort charged by the Pelagians with the Manichees error in denying free will because they would not confesse that a man may be without sinne if he will which is one point of difference betwixt vs and the Papists speaker D. B. P. One Proâ—lus an erronius
espy and amend his owne eâ—ror These principall pillers of Christs Church were in darknes belike as Protestants must needes say and that proud Persian and most wicked heretike Manes of vvhom the Manichees are named vvho first denied free vvill began to broach the true light of the nevv Gospell Iustin speakes of naturall actions not of spirituall for these were vtterly vnknowne to the Emperour being a heathen He speakes also perhaps against the imputation of fatall necessitie wherewith the Christians were charged in those times Irenaeus giues a man that freedome which is contrarie to constraint God saith he made man free from the beginning c. not constrained by God Cyprian speakes of vsing or not vsing the outward meanes such as following Christ to heare the word of him whereof the Euangelist there entreates Now that this is in mans power and that it is a meanes to procure saluation or damnation who denies But Cyprian doth not say that it is in a mans power by nature to consent to Gods motion for his conuersion speaker D. B. P. It cannot reasonably be denied that in the point of free will some of the ancient writers before Austin spake liker Philosophers than Diuines and gaue both occasion to Pelagius of his error though they fauoured it not and also aduantage for the confirming of it as the place of the Centuries alleaged by you plainly prooues Other of them also spake not so plaine as it was to be wished they had done so that Austin hath much adoe to defend them against Pelagius and in the entrance to his defence is faine to lay this foundation that he holds himselfe free for yeelding to any writings of men whatsoeuer Here I vvould make an end of citing Authorities vvere it not that Caluin saith that albeit all other auncient vvriters be against him yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth is clearely for him in this point but the poore man is fouly deceiued asvvell in this as in most other matters I vvill briefly proue and that out of those works which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote for in his others Caluin acknowledgeth him to haue taught free vvill Of our freedome in consenting to Gods grace he thus defineth to consent to Gods calling or not to consent lyeth in a mans ovvne vvill Againe VVho doth not see euery man to come or not to come by free vvill but this free vvill may be alone if he doe not come but it cannot be but holpen if he doe come In another place that vve vvill doe vvell God vvill haue it to be his and ours his in calling vs ours in follovving him Yea more To Christ vvorking in him a man doth cooperate that is vvorketh vvith him both his ovvne iustification and life euerlasting will you heare him speake yet more formally for vs We haue dealt vvith your brethren and ours as much as vve could that they vvould hold out and continue in the sound Catholike faith the vvhich neither denieth free vvill to euill or good life nor doth attribute so much to it that it is vvorth any thing vvithout grace So according to this most worthy Fathers iudgement the sound Catholike faith doth not deny free will as the old Manichees and our new Gospellers do 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 vvho say that he when he commendeth grace denyeth free will Much lesse vvould I say that vvhich thou lyinglie dost affirme me to say free vvill to be denied if grace be commended or grace to be denied if free vvill be commended speaker A. W. Caluin doth not without cause affirme that Austin is for him not onely in his writings after the Pelagian heresie but in those before it also though in the former he speak not so warily as in the latter yet his iudgement was all one Austin saith no more but that assenting or dissenting when God calles is an action of mans will That the difference betwixt man and man why one beleeues and another doth not proceedes from the diuers worke of Gods spirit not from the choise of the parties he speakes most plainly in the same place God workes in a man the very willing to beleeue and yet more nay If any man will draw vs to the searching of that depth why this man is so perswaded that hee yeelds he is not there are onely two things which I thinke good to answere O the depth of the riches And is there iniquitie with God Let him whom this answere mislikes seeke for some that are more learned but let him take heede that he finde not some that are more presumptuous Imagine then what Austin thinkes of you Papists who confidently affirme that the reason of this difference proceedes from the good vse of free will in the beleeuer not that you are more learned but that you are more presumptuous If you had added the words that follow immediatly in Austin you should haue needed no further answere Free will if a man come to Christ cannot be but holpen and so holpen that not onely he must know what is to be done but doe that he knowes and therefore when God teaches not by the letter of the law but by the spirit of grace he teaches so that a man doth not onely see by knowledge that which he hath learned but also desire it by willing and performe it by doing And by this diuine manner of teaching euen the will and worke it selfe not onely the naturall possibilitie of willing and working is holpen For if onely our power were helpt by this grace the Lord would thus speake Euery one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned can come to me But he said not so but euery one which hath heard of my Father and learned doth come to me To haue power to come Pelagius ascribes to nature or as of late he hath begun to speake to grace what grace soeuer he meane by which as he saith our possibilitie is helped but to come is in will and worke It followes not that he which can come comes vnlesse he will and doe so but euery one that hath learned of the Father not onely can come but comes I haue set downe these words of Austin at large as well that it may appeare with what conscience this man cites the Fathers as that S. Austins iudgement of this point may be fully knowne to all men There is great reason that wee should expound such short sentences as this by such large discourses as the former but if we knew not that this place makes nothing against vs for we haue graunted already that to will is our worke but wee say further that Gods calling as his teaching in that other place of Austin works in vs not only to be able to
consequence is worse than before for who sees not that there may be other meanes of beleeuing repenting namely inclining the wil by grace The antecedent also is false for God being a good Lord may inioyne his seruant that which he made him able to performe though by his owne fault he be now vnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he finneth by a necessitie not to bee auoided Answere The reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore he is to be punished as a bankrupt is not therefore freed from his debtes because he is not able to pay them but the bils against him stand in force because the debt comes through his owne default speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessity not to be auoided 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 and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sin or no and consequently hath free vvill 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 vvith his repentance vvithout repay of their money as God doth speaker A. W. Here againe Master Perkins denies the consequence that therefore a man is not to be punished for sinning because he hath no free will to sinne or not to sinne The reason of his denial is that which I answered in the second obiection he may iustly be punished though he haue not free will not to sinne because it is by his owne fault that he hath it not You replie that the answere supposeth that which is false The answere doth not suppose it but as I haue shewed plainly denies the consequence How your conceit that euery man hath helpe of God so that he may repent and beleeue when he will can stand with Austins iudgement before set downe let euery man that hath reason consider The example of the bankerupt is fully to the purpose for which Master Perkins brings it to shew that a man is not alwaies therfore to be borne with for not doing that which hee is inioyned because hee cannot doe it for when it is through his owne fault that hee cannot why should hee escape Now concerning the force of this argument heare S. Augustines opinion in these wordes Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment which doth not that vvhich he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheards vpon the dovvnes sing these things doe not Poets vpon the stages act them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknovvledge them Doe not maisters in the schooles and Prelats in the pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the vvhole vvorld 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 company of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind 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 sense doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the new Gospell speaker A. W. Saint Austin disputing in that booke against the Manichees who hold that there were two soules in euery creature of two diuers substances the one good the other bad by which they are forced to doe good or euill as either of them could ouercome other refutes them by this reason among other that if men doe well or ill by constraint they were neither to be praised nor dispraised for it That he is thus to be vnderstood not onely the course of his disputation shewes but also the definition that he brings of will Will saith Austin is a motion of the minde no man constraining it to the not losing or to the getting of something I shewed before that we admit no such necessitie of sinning but onely affirme that whatsoeuer a naturall man doth it is sinfull so that wee grant him libertie from constraint for the doing or not doing this or that action but denie that any action he doth is free from sinne and therefore he sins necessarily in all he doth The second poynt Of Originall sinne speaker W. P. The next point to be handled is concerning Originall sinne after baptisme that is how farforth it remaineth after baptisme A point to bee well considered because hereupon depend many points of Poperie I. Our consent Conclus I. They say naturall corruption after baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre it is abolished In originall sinne are three things I. the punishment which is the first and second death II. Guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment III. the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenes to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For the first wee say that after baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of originall sin is taken away There is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that be in Christ Iesus Rom. 8. 1. For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that is also taken away in them that are borne anew for considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate not from the sinne in the person but of this more afterward Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things I. That that very power or strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate II. That this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euery actual sinne past so farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whom it is Indeede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
infallible as the articles of our creede yea as Gods owne word they are not by faith assured of it Now that some speciall good men either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of a vertuous life haue a great certainty of their saluation we willingly confesse but that certainty doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinary faith Your answere vpon Master Perkins grant is insufficient Commonly saith Master Perkins men do not beleeue their saluation as they doe the Articles of faith Therefore say you by his owne confession our particular saluation is not to be beleeued by faith I denie the consequence your conclusion is not rightly inferred men doe not commonly therefore they are not bound to doe or therefore it is not possible they should Either of both the meanes you name is sufficient to breed assurance of faith For the former who euer durst imagine that reuelation from God breedes not certaintie of faith The latter also passeth hope for a life truly vertuous argues true sanctification and that iustification which is not attained to but by true faith and whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued As for falling away from faith it is impossible as if neede be shall be prooued when occasion is offered speaker W. P. Object III. We are taught to pray for the pardon of our sinnes day by day Matth. 6. 12. and all this were needelesse if wee could be assured of pardon in this life Ans. The fourth petition must be vnderstood not so much of our old debts or sins as of our present and new sinnes for as we goe on from day to day so we adde sinne to sinne and for the pardon of them we must humble our selues and pray I answere againe that wee pray for the pardon of our sinnes not because wee haue no assurance thereof but because our assurance is weake and smal wee grow on from grace to grace in Christ as children doe to mans estate by little and little The heart of euery beleeuer is like a vessell with a narrow necke which being cast into the sea is not filled at the first but by reason of the straight passage receiueth water droppe by droppe God giueth vnto vs in Christ euen a sea of mercie but the same on our parts is apprehended and receiued onely by little and little as faith groweth from age to age and this is the cause why men hauing assurance pray for more speaker D. B. P. Good Sir doe you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe If your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and as strong as the truth of God We giue God thankes for those giftes which we haue receiued at his bountifull hands and desire him to encrease or continue them if they may be lost But to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by faith is as fond and friuolous as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen of which they are in full and assured possession And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for vs are very substantiall and sufficient to assure euery good Christian that he may well hope for saluation doing his duty but may not without great presumption assure him by faith of it speaker A. W. It is necessarie for vs daily to craue pardon although before we were assured of it in some measure first because we haue a commandement which must be simply obeyed secondly because we must renew our repentance as we renew our sinnes Our assurance though it be weake is the assurance of faith failing not in truth for the nature of it but in quantitie for the measure it should be without doubt but it is not speaker A. W. To these I will adde two or three others which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions as he tearmes them â—o his first exception I haue answered before The second I will put last for orders sake and answere to the third Master Perkins hauing answered the popish obiections propounded by him proceeds to confirme our doctrine by sixe reasons whereof the fiue first are drawne from the Scriptures Against which the Papists except three waies To those exceptions Master Perkins answeres in their order and place That order this Papist alters and to serue his own turne answers the exceptions before he propound the reasons to which they are taken Afterward he shifts off the reasons as well as he can The plainest course for me is to set downe Master Perkins words and by A. B. C. to referre the reader to the Papists answers and replies as they belong to Master Perkins disputation Our reasons to the contrarie speaker W. P. Reason I. The first reason may bee taken from the nature of faith on this manner True faith is both an vnfallible assurance and a particular assurance of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainely and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainly and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting That this reason may bee of force two things must bee prooued first that true faith is a certaine assurance of Gods mercie to that partie in whom it is Secondly that faith is a particular assurance thereof For the first that faith is a certaine assurance Christ saith to Peter Matthew 14. 31. O thou of little faith wherefore diddest thou doubt Where he makes an opposition betweene faith and doubting whereby giuing vs directly to vnderstand that To be certaine and to giue assurance is of the nature of faith Rom. 4. 20. 22. Paul saith of Abraham that he did not doubt of the promise of God through vnbeleefe but was strengthened in faith and gaue glorie to God beeing fully assured that hee which had promised was able to doe it where I obserue first that doubting is made a fruit of vnbeleefe and therfore vnfallible certainty and assurance being contrary to doubting must needes proceede from true faith considering that contrary effects come of contrary causes and contrary causes produce contrarie effects Secondly I note that the strength of Abrahams faith did stand in fulnes of assurance for the text saith hee was strengthened in the faith beeing fully assured and againe Heb. 11. 1. true sauing faith is said to bee the ground and subsistence of things hoped for and the euidence or demonstration of things that are not seene but faith can be no ground or euidence of things vnles it bee for nature certaintie it selfe and thus the first point is manifest The second that sauing faith is a particular assurance is proued by this that the property of faith is to apprehend and applie the promise and the thing promised Christ with his benefits Ioh. 1. 12. As
borne of God sinneth not for his seed remaineth in him neither can he sinne because he is borne of God speaker D. B. P. And which is yet more absurd in the next confirmation he letteth slippe at once a brace of other heresies these be his words And if by sin one vvere vvholâ— seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptised the second time Where you haue first rebaptizing which is the principall error of the Anabaptists and withall the heresie of the Nouatians who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme there was no remedy left in Gods Church for their recouery but must be left to God so saith M. Perkins for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo so that the common saying is verified in him one absurdity being graunted a thousand follovv after But doth he know no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet wherwith they begin their common prayer VVhat houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne c. With them repentance and with vs the Sacrament of Penance serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ. speaker A. W. Baptisme being the sacrament of imitating and ingrafting men into Christ must needes be equally necessarie for all that are out of Christ. As for repentance vpon which God forgiues a sinner it is common to the baptized with the vnbaptized now you hold it needfull at the first as doubtlesse it is so that the wilfull neglect of it is damnable though a man haue repented why should it be needlesse afterward when a man is wholy out of Christ as in the beginning he was Your superstitious and proud satisfactorie penance wee reiect as Antichristian neither allowing any second baptisme nor excluding them that fall neuer so grieuously either from heauen or the Church in this world if they repent speaker D. B. P. But we must answere vnto that of S. Iohn They vvent out from vs but they vvere not of vs for if they had bin of vs they vvould haue continued vvith vs. I answere If they went out from vs they were before with vs which confirmeth our assertion that men may depart from their faith and Christs profession but such men were not indeed of the number of the elect of which S. Iohn was for then either they would haue continued with them in the Christian faith or else by hartie repentance would haue returned vnto it backe againe which is S. Augustines owne exposition And these be the Arguments for the Catholikes vvhich M. Perkins through his confused order toucheth here and there speaker A. W. Who denies they were with the Church or who can prooue they were of it you grant as much as we desire that they were not of the elect who onely are in case to fall away from Christ because the rest were neuer in him Their returning by repentance is not into Christs mysticall body as if they had been out of it but either into the congregation of the faithfull or into Gods fauour in respect of their owne feeling speaker D. B. P. To which I vvill adde one taken out of the words of S. Paul But thou by faith dost stand be not too highly vvise but feare if God hath not spared the naturall boughes lest perhaps he vvill not spare thee neither And againe VVorke your saluation vvith feare and trembling There be aboue an hundred such texts in holy vvrite vvherein the holy Ghost exhorteth vs to stand in feare of our saluation out of vvhich I thus frame my argument No man must stand in feare of that of vvhich he is by faith assured But the faithfull must stand in feare of their saluation Ergo they bee not assured of it by saith The Minor or second proposition is plainly proued by these places cited before the Maior is manifest there is no feare in faith he that feareth vvhether the thing be assured or no cannot giue a certaine assent thereunto Dubius in side in fidelis est Put the case in another article to make it more euident He that feareth vvhether there be a God or no doe vve esteeme that he beleeueth in God So he that feareth vvhether Iesus Christ be God is he a Christian hath he a true faith You must needs anssvere no. So he that feareth vvhether he shall be saued or no can haue no faith of his saluation speaker A. W. I may grant your conclusion the faithfull are not ordinarily assured of their saluation by such a faith as hath no doubting annexed vnto it Yet is our assertion true that they are assured of it by such a faith as shall neuer deceiue them And againe yet they ought to be assured without doubting But I will answere to your syllogisme first by distinguishing on your proposition no man must nor indeed can stand in feare of that of which he is assured by such a measure of faith as admits no doubt but his faith being weake he may and must for this feare is an especiall meanes to keepe him from falling away In which respect the holy Ghost exhorts to it by reason our faith is not perfect Secondly for your assumption I say the faithfull are not simply willed to be afraid that they shall not be saued but onely are appointed to vse the meanes of securing of themselues by warines because else it will come to passe that they shall fall away in their owne sense and feeling Your example prooues nothing the measure of faith being so diuers and further hee may truly beleeue in God that in some temptation falles into doubting for a time whether there be a God or no as you must needes know if you haue any experience of the temptations which sometimes befall the deare children of God speaker D. B. P. To these inuincible reasons grounded vpon Gods word let vs ioyne some plaine testimonies taken aswell out of the holy Scripture as out of the auncient Fathers First what can be more manifest to warrant vs that the faithfull haue not assurance infallible of their saluation then these words of the Holy Ghost There be iust and therefore faithfull and vvise men and their vvorkes be in the hand of God and neuerthelesse a man doth not knovv vvhether he be worthy of hatred er loue but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come Where is then the Protestants certainety And because one heretike cauilleth against the Laten translation saying that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned heare how S. Ierome who was most cunning in the Hebrew text doth vnderstand it The sense is saith he J haue sound the vvorkes of iust men to be in the hand of God and yet themselues not to knovv vvhether they be loued of God or no. speaker A. W. Whether there be cause or no to finde fault with
sanctification be perfect in the world to come yet shall it not iustifie for wee must conceiue it no otherwise after this life but as a fruit springing from the imputed righteousnes of Christ without which it could not be And a good childe will not cast away the first garment because his father giues a second And what if inward righteousnesse be perfect in the ende of this life shal we therefore make it the matter of our iustification God forbid For the righteousnesse whereby sinners are iustified must be had in the time of this life before the panges of death speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall â—uieth after this life and is â—…ned in beaâ—en but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life eigo M. Perkins answereth First that imputed righteousnes continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we all haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life in ward righteousnes shall be perfect and then without perhaps it shal be most perfect in heauen So that one part of this answere ouerthroweth the other Wherfore I need not stand vpon it but will proâ—eed to fortifie our partie with some authorities taken both forth of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers speaker A. W. There are many pitifull shifts in this answere First Master Perkins denies the assumption which you leaue so ouerthrowne and runne to fortifie your owne partie Secondly he giueth the reason of his deniall That acceptation of vs as righteous and forgiuenes of sinnes shall be continued in heauen Thirdly he saith not that wee shall haue no other righteousnes in heauen but the quite contrarie viz. sanctification which is inherent righteousnes here imperfect Fourthly he puts it not to perhaps but resolutly affirmes that sanctification shall be perfect in the end of this life Fiftly there is not in his speech so much as a shew of any contradiction which ariseth wholy from that clause foysted in by you we shall haue no other Lastly as any man may discerne you change Master Perkins conclusion and so his whole reason speaker D. B. P. The first place I take out of these words of S. Paul And these things certes vvere you Dronkers Couetous Fornicators c. But you are VVashed you are Sanctified you are Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the spirit of our Lord Here iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sins and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name and the sake of Christ Iesus speaker A. W. First I answere as before that the Fathers often take iustification for sanctification also Secondly I say Bellarmine out of whom you take this hath deceiued you Chrysostome doth not make iustification consist in those actions of washing c. his words are these God hath washed vs and not that onely but hath sanctified vs neither that onely but hath iustified vs. Now if washing and sanctifying be iustifying in Chrysostoms iudgement how doth he rise from one to another as diuers things Theophylact makes them diuers at least in nature God hath clensed you from them saith Theophylact yea and sanctified you How By iustifying you faith he for he hath washed you then afterward iustifying he hath sanctified you Theodoret expounds the place of forgiuenes of sins in baptisme Your ordinarie glosse applies washing to baptisme sanctifying to the holy Ghost giuen vs that wee may worke well and iustifying to our working well Ambrose saith that in baptisme he that beleeues is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and is adopted a sonne to God by the spirit of our God But neuer a one of these saith that iustification consists in these actions of washing and infusion of Gods gifts speaker D. B. P. The like description of our iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost vvhom he hath povvred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace vve may be heires in hope and not in certainety of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the â—enewing of oursoules by the infusion of his heauenly giftes vvhich God of his mercy did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Chrsts sake This is but your glosse For the grace of God in that place signifies the fauour of God as otherwhere the same phrase doth or the loue of Christ who as Lyra there saith makes vs the adopted sons of God Caietan makes an opposition betwixt Gods grace and our workes as the Apostle doth If it be of grace it is no more of workes So doth Chrysostom and Theophylact vnderstand it of fauour not of debt For if he saued vs by fauour When we were desperate and cast away much more saith Theophylact shall he giue vs those good things to come now we are iustified as the Apostle saith If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall be saued by his life speaker A. W. Many other places I omit for breuity sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before First S. Augustine saith That this iustice of ours which they call righteousnes is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost And is a beautie of our invvard man It is the renuing of the reasonable part of our soule And twenty other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers And S. Cyrill for the Greekes who of our iustification writeth thus The spirit is a heate vvho as soone as he hath povvred charity into vs and hath vvith the fire of it inflamed our minds vve haue euen then obtained iustice In the first place alleaged by you there is no such matter onely Austin proues against the Pelagians that we are not sinners from Adam by imitation alone because then we should also be righteous from Christ by nothing but imitation In the Epistle to Consentius he speakes not of that righteousnes whereby wee are iustified but of that which is inherent What other thing saith he is iustice in vs or any other vertue by which we liue orderly and wisely than the beautie of the inward man This is true of those graces we receiue by sanctification He doth not say that the grace by which we are iustified is the renewing of the reasonable
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
soules when wee are stung to death by sinne there is nothing required within vs for our recouerie but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eie of our faith on Christ and his righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these vvords As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desert so must the Sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by only faith Mary M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stung by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and applie that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be streatched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernesse stung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sinne haue no other remedie then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability speaker A. W. If wee precisely vrge the similitude the latter part of the reddition is no part of the comparison for there is nothing in the proposition to which it answereth But our Sauiour addes the end of lifting vp himselfe to stirre vs vp as it may seeme to a more thorough consideration of the agreement betwixt health by the Serpent and saluation by him And surely it is not without reason to make a likenes in the deliuerance as well as in other points that all men might vnderstand by our Sauiours speech how they should become partakers of that benefit speaker W. P. Reason II. The exclusiue formes of speech vsed in scripture prooue thus much We are iustified freely not of the law not by the law without the law without workes not of workes not according to works not of vs not by the workes of the law but by faith Gal. 2. 16. All boasting excluded onely beleeue Luk. 8. 50. These distinctions whereby workes and the lawe are excluded in the worke of iustification doe include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie speaker D. B. P. It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it self Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other speaker A. W. If they doe not more exclude feare hope and charitie than faith it must be shewed that they are directly or by necessarie consequence required in opposition to the workes of the law For that is very manifest of faith in diuers places By faith without the works of the law Not by the works of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ. By the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law Through faith not of workes But this can neuer be shewed of them By reason of the opposition I speake of faith cannot bee taken for a worke of the law neither is it any worke required by the law to beleeue in Christ for iustification because the law saith Doe this and thou shalt be saued namely as an hired seruant But the Gospell saith i Beleeue and thou shalt haue thy sinnes forgiuen thee by iustification Now the law commands no sute for pardon but calles for either obedience or damnation Hope indeede as I shewed before differs little from faith but depends vpon it feare and loue are proper duties of the law and so alwaies performed speaker D. B. P. But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truely saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desert of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fastes nor any such like worke of the law which the lews reputed so necessary Again that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which works not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them speaker A. W. S. Paul speaketh not of deseruing to be made Christians but of attaining to saluation as it is apparant by his disputation in the Epistle to the Romanes By the workes of the law no man liuing shall be iustified What is iustified shall be made a Christian after your interpretation So afterward a man is iustified that is made a Christian by faith and not by the workes of the law So haue we a new interpretation of iustification by faith Besides it would be remembred that you distinguish betwixt workes of nature and workes of grace denying iustification to them and granting it to these how will this stand with your answere Neither doth the Apostle dispute how they were to attaine to the grace of Christ but how they were to receiue pardon and acceptation to euerlasting life which he truly ascribeth on our part to beleefe in Christ by which wee obtaine both these priuiledges As for meriting of iustification there is not a letter of it in any place of the new or old Testament And though there be no meritorious cause of it in workes before grace yet boasting by your doctrine is not excluded For may I not iustly boast that my selfe being inlightened by Gods spirit and hauing a good motion inspired into me by the power of mine owne free will accepted of the grace of God offered me and so am iustified where my cause of boasting is the greater because many other men who might haue been iustified as well as I haue not imploied their free will so well as I haue done and therfore are damned speaker D. B. P. Yet all this notwithstanding a certainevertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile wherby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
for it with losse both of victorie and life Zachary is conuicted of sinne and striken with dumnes for not beleeuing the Angell and yet in all probabilitie he was as holie as his wife Elizabeth both truly but not perfectly righteous To vvill is in mee but I finde not hovv to performe If Saint Paul could not performe that which he would how can others Ans. He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not Marry he could wel by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them speaker A. W. Those very motions were no other than sinnes arising from his naturall corruption and preuailing with him so farre that they ouercame him sometimes and led him captiue speaker D. B. P. The like answere we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbours goods his wife or seruants which as they say is impossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commaundement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue euill motions of couetousnes and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man euen when he is a sleepe And restifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it speaker A. W. If this be the meaning of it what is it but a needlesse repetition of that which was before forbidden For who knoweth not that consent to those sinnes was condemned in the 7. and 8. Commandements Besides the Apostle might know by nature that consent to lust was sinne but the true meaning of the commandement he knew not but by the law so that withholding consent from these motions is not enough to free vs from sinning by them and yet perhaps that would not seeme so easie if wee did not flatter our selues now and then The quotation out of Austin is false and being of no great moment I passe it ouer speaker D. B. P. VVe doe all offend in many things And if vve say vve haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Ans. I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily ledde by the craft of the Diuell into many offences which we might auoide if vve were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the lavv which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we committe some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing vvith it But of this matter more fully in some other place speaker A. W. It is an idle speculation to imagine a Christian as Tully doth an Orator and Castiglio a Courtier And what else is he whom in this answere you fancie Such an one since the fall of Adam neuer was not in this world euer shall be Doe you not see your selfe what pitifull shifts these be Veniall sinnes disagree with the law but they do not violate the purport and reason of it Are they not against the purenes of Gods image in which we were created are they not in a naturall man damnable Our obedience is to be squared according to the commandement of God neither haue we any warrant from him to excuse our selues by the conceited reason and I know not what purport of the law For my part though I acknowledge a great difference in degrees of sinnes yet I see little reason why it should not be as mortall a sinne to be led away by carelesnes to the committing of those things which we might easily auoide as after a long and tedious fight to be led captiue by the violence of some mightie temptation For this striuing argueth a desire to please and serue God but that needlesse sinning shewes either presumption or want of ordinarie regard speaker D. B. P. Lastly it may be obiected that the way to heauen is straite and the gate narrow which is so true that it seemeth impossible to be kept by flesh and blood but that which is impossible to men of themselues is made possible and easie too by the grace of God speaker A. W. Not euery thing for there are many impossible to man that are neuer made possible and easie by the grace of God So farre as it pleaseth God to make things possible so farre they are made possible But this possibilitie is not communicated to any the examples of the most righteous doe make it more than manifest Which made S. Paul to say I can doe all things in him that strengtheneth and comforteth me speaker A. W. He that confesseth he cannot doe that good he would sheweth plainly that God doth not enable him to all things which in this place are to be restrained according to the text I can doe all things that is saith your glosse I can vse all fortunes and estates well So doe Theodoret and Oecumenius take it So doe other of your Interpreters restraine it shewing that he meaneth not he can do all things but that he could not doe all those things that is be content with any estate were it not for the strength and comfort hee hath from Christ. speaker D. B. P. And the Prophet Dauid after thou O Lord hadest dilated my hart and with thy grace let it at liberty I did runne the waâ—es of thy commaundements that is I did readily and willingly performe them Of the louing of God with all our hart c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice speaker A. W. The Prophet Dauid ranne indeed and that an excellent race but not without stumbling staying and turning a little out of the way now and then as the last action in his health declareth speaker D. B. P. Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to proue the impossibility of keeping Gods commandements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plaine for it saying That which vvas impossible to the lavv in that it is weakned by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the lavv might be fulfilled in vs vvho vvalke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace
you aske where I will shew you God willing in another treatise For the answering of these arguments is nothing to Master Perkins reformed Catholike nor the reason of any moment but as it may well be suspected of your owne deuising that you might make babies to dallie with all speaker D. B. P. 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knovv vvho beleeued and vvho was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith conteined in it selfe fidelitie This Argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelitie and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it yet falling from faith may well draw after it hatred and treason yea ordinarily wickednes goeth before falling from faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whom our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with coueâ—ousnesse did not beleeue Christs Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament and by incredulity opened the Diuell a high way to his hart to negotiate treason in it speaker A. W. First I demaund in what the doctrine of the Sacraments could hinder Iudas from growing rich that the fault of his not beleeuing it should lye vpon his couetousnes Secondly I wonder how it can be proued that Iudas did not beleeue it If you ground your conceipt vpon that of Iohn as it is likly you do first proue that our Sauiour spake there of the Sacrament Thirdly it is not plaine by anie place of Scripture that Iudas vnbeleefe in that doctrine opened the way to the Diuell nay rather the text laies the blame vpon his couetousnes and malice stirred vp by our Sauiours defect of Mary against him when she had bestowed such costlie oyntments vpon him in Bethania speaker D. B. P. 3 They obiect that VVho saith bee knovves God and doth not keepe his commandements is a lyar Ans. He is then a lyar in graine who professing the only true knowledge of God yet blusheth not to say that it is impossible to keepe his commandements but to the obiection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I knovv ye not that is I loue you not Our Lord knowes the way of the iust that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God keepes his commandements as Christ himselfe testifieth Jf any loue me he vvill keepe my vvord And he that loueth me not vvill not keepe my vvords Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charity speaker A. W. Ans. That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity by all which conioyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinfull and vniust man without charitie who holding fast his former beleefe doth in transgressing Gods commaundements breake the bands of charitie And so it remaines most certaine that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charitie These obiections were not worth the making neither will I wast time and paper in examining your answeres to them The fifth poynt Of Merits speaker W. P. By merit vnderstand any thing or any worke whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured and that for the dignitie and excellencie of the worke or thing done or a good worke done binding him that receiueth it to repaie the like speaker D. B. P. Obserue that three things are necessarie 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 proceed from grace and be referred to the honor of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the worke And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our Doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but will purchase it by our owne workes speaker A. W. We charge you and that trulie without ignorance or slaunder and according to your doctrine of merits that you need neither Christs merits nor Gods mercie for so much of your purchase of euerlasting life as is made by good workes For if your workes be such as that in the rigour of iustice they deserue euerlasting life as wages what neede they either Christs blood or Gods mercie to make them meritorious The vse of Christs blood is to wash away sinne Where there is no sin what should Christs blood doe Now to him that workes the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt speaker D. B. P. I will here set downe what the Councell of Tâ—ent doth teach concerning merits Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that vvorke vvell and hope well to the end both as grace of mercy promised to the Sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their vvorkes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace aswell in respect of Gods gree 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 iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part of the dignity of good workes Vnto the worker if he perseuere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by truerepentance lise to the same estate againe speaker A. W. The Councell of Trent hath as much as well it could made a shew of some reformation but indeed retained for the most part the former errours of her Antichristian Church you also to mend the matter according to the policie of the craftie Councell picke out a sentence and propound it as the whole doctrine of the Councell concerning merits The same afterward you expound but so as that neithe text nor the glosse are sufficient to make your whole doctrine knowne to vs. For whereas you claime heauen of God as wages due to the deserts of your workes here is no mention but only of reward yet somwhat is slipt from you whereby the Councels dealing may well grow into suspition For whereas that sayes no more but that it is a reward by the promise of God to be faithfully rendred to their workes and merits you tel vs that it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good works Where I would faine know of you how you part this debt what part is due vpon promise what vpon desert For it may wel be though the reward be due vpon promise now God hath promised that it was simplie due for the dignitie of the worke whether God had promised it or no And then it was a small fauour of God to make vs a promise of that to which we had full interest by desert before this promise so that he could not in iustice but pay vs our wages for our
nothing of it selfe but by grace receiued from the godhead though it also bee without measure Secondly Christs manhood is a creature and in that regarde bounde to doe whatsoeuer it doth Thirdly Christ as man cannot giue any thing to God but that which hee receiued from God therefore cannot the manhood properly by it selfe merit but onely as it is personally vnited vnto the godhead of the Sonne And if this be so then much lesse can any meere man or any angell merit yea it is a madnes to thinke that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby wee might attaine to life eternall speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins vvill neuerthelesse proue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth it selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one vvhole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious vvorke Which must be saith he foure First That the worke be done of our selues without the helpe of another Secondly That it be not othervvise due debte Thirdly That it be done to the benefit of another Fourthly That the worke and revvard be equall in proportion These proprieties he sets dovvne pithagorically vvithout any proofe But inferreth thereon as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs man-hood seperated from the God-head cannot merit because vvhatsoeuer he doth he doth it by grace receiued and should be othervvise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither for he receiued his Godhead from his Father and vvhatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debte And so the good man if he vvere let alone vvould disappoint vs vvholy of all merits as vvell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by vertue of his grace speaker A. W. The syllogisme that troubles you so with the length of it is this Euery worke that merits euerlasting life must be done of and by the worker himselfe not of debt to the profit of God with proportion to the reward No worke of man can be so done Therefore no worke of man can merit euerlasting life Is not this a perilous long syllogisme trow you to take vp more than a whole page If this great scholler that so often blames Master Perkins ignorance would for I wil not doubt but he could haue distinguished the syllogisme from the explication of the proposition he would not haue been so much offended with it Sure there was small cause hee should be if he say truly afterward that Master Perkins reason was nakedly proposed or trie whether himselfe can make it any shorter or compare it with his owne tedious answer containing three whole pages in quarto in a smaller letter But what if there be another syllogisme also implied in this reason as there is this If the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit then can no man merit But the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit Therefore no man can The consequence of the proposition is prooued because the manhood of Christ is more excellent euery way than all both men and Angels The assumption is made manifest because euery worke of Christs manhood considered apart from the Godhead would be defectiue in three points concerning merit To the two former you answer that whereas Master Perkins saith Christs manhood could not merit because he did nothing of himselfe but by grace receiued and that that he did was due that he might as truly say that his manhood could not merit vnited to the Godhead Your reason is for that he receiued his Godhead from his Father and whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt But your reason is false for Christ had his Sonship as I may speake of his Father for the propertie of the Godhead is to be of it selfe yet there is not any thing due from the Sonne to the Father more than from the Father to the Sonne if they be of equall nature and dignitie So that this latter point disproues the former because it inferres a superioritie of the Father ouer the Sonne and so an inequalitie which at no hand may be granted speaker D. B. P. Wherefore vve must a little â—ist 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 hands that gaue it For example the Father bestovves a farme vpon his Son freely Who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same deserue his further fauour Yea he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale as vvell as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift Which is so common a case and so sensible that euery man of meane vvitte may casily reach vnto it euen so by good manuring the gifts vvhich God freely bestovveth vpon vs vve may both merit the increase of them and according to his ovvne order and promise purchase thereby the Kingdome of heauen vvhich is plainly proued in that parable Of the talents giuen by a King to his seruants the vvhich they imploying vvell and multiplying vvere therefore esteemed vvorthie of far greater and vvithall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes M. Perkins then vvas not a little ouerseene to put for the first proprietie of merit that it must be done by a man and of a man himselfe speaker A. W. The first of the foure properties is that a man must doe it of himselfe and by himselfe You answere that one may merit by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift But not if the vse of it also be of him of whom he should merit The Sonne that receiues the farme receiues not withall continually from his Father the power to vse the farme in that sort and much lesse the will and the vse it selfe But a man that hath receiued grace from God hath continually from him both to will and to doe and therefore cannot properly merit of him The parable hath not one word of any merit onely it is said that the King commended his seruants for imploying their talents well and gaue them authoritie ouer much because they had been faithfull in a little and further receiued them into his ioy But that he dealt thus with them vpon due debt or that they did truly merit is your glosse besides the text speaker D. B. P. The second That a man must doe it of his ovvne free will and pleasure and not of due debt carrieth in shevv an opposition But indeed there is no contradiction in it for a man may and euery honest man doth of his ovvne free vvill and pleasure pay his due debt but let vs pardon the disorder of vvords his meaning being nothing else but that the payment of that vvhich
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
the will and vnderstanding of man and by this meanes they are tainted with sinne as water in the fountaine is both cleare and sweete yet the streames thereof passing through the filthie channell are defiled thereby Againe they reason thus That which we are bound to doe hath no fault in it but we are bound to doe good workes therefore they are perfect Answ. The proposition must be expounded that which we are bound to doe in it selfe according to the intention of the commander hath no fault or that which we are bound to doe according as we are bound to doe it hath no fault yet in regard of the intention of the doer or in regard of our manner of doing it may bee faultie speaker A. W. M. Perkins fourth obiection for vs is proposed vnskilfully yet could he not ansvvere it but by relying vpon that vvhich is most vntrue that forsooth no one action of the best man is vvithout fault vvhith hath bin alreadie confuted and might be by instances of Abrahams oblation of his Sonne S. Iohn Baptists preaching and reprehending of Herode Stephens martyrdome vvith infinite such like in vvhich M. Perkins nor any else vvill be able to shevv in particular vvhat fault there vvas Will this shifting neuer be left What want of skill finde you in propounding the obiection If you could haue told we should haue been sure to heare of it Well let reasonable men iudge There lackes only the proposition which any man may supplie and the assumption wherein the doubt lies is prooued by a further reason speaker D. B. P. What meanes this yet as if he had propounded it vnskilfully that he might answere it the easier Is not his answere plaine and direct to the proofe of the assumption in which the strength of the argument consists But you say his answere hath been alreadie confuted I replie that the confutation hath been alreadie answered And to the instances you now bring I adde further that howsoeuer wee cannot alleage any particular faults in the worthie actions of some extraordinarie men yet we intreat you to remember that they were men hauing the flesh in them lusting against the spirit naturall corruption not wholy abolished to taint their workes and that God can see an error or want where men thinke the thing cannot be bettered Againe our Sauiour saith That if the eye be simple the vvhole body is lightsome not hauing any part of darknes in it and very reason teacheth vs that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances may be perfect speaker A. W. I would faine heare what you would conclude vpon that place of the eyes simplenes If by the eye you vnderstand the heart and thinke to proue that mens actions are good because the heart is good either your consequence of the proposition is naught if by heart you meane intent for a good intent makes not by and by a good worke or else your assumption will be false imagining such a measure of purenes in the heart as is not in this life to be found Your Glosse vpon the place referres it to the intention but argues not from thence any perfection If thou do good works with as pure intention as thou are able they are the works of light though it seeme not so to the world And another Glosse saith that by the intent works are discerned whether they be works of light or of darkenes not as you say whether they be perfit or vnperfit A third Glosse restraines it more saying it is a metaphoricall speach as if he should haue said as thy bodily eye directs thy bodily actions so the eye of the mind by a right intention directs humane actions as farre as concernes the nature of morall goodnes If the intent of the mind be right the whole heape of thy actions shall be good and belie so that the worke be lawfull for the kind of it I will adde no more let all men iudge what truth there is like to be in that doctrine that can find no better warrant of scripture speaker A. W. It vvas then a very seely shift to say that neuer any man did any one action vvith all his due circumstances Whose shift is this sure not Master Perkins in this answere But why is it a shift because you say that reason teacheth vs that a mans actions for substance and all due circumstances may be perfit I dare not take it for true vpon your word in morall actions according to the light of nature and if it were true in them I should not be resolued that therefore it were also true in them according to the law of God speaker D. B. P. But insteed of that fourth Argument I vvill put this If a greater revvard be due vnto them that do better workes then a reward is due vn-them that do good workes vvhici is euident in reason But a greatot revvard is prouided for them that doe better speaker A. W. He that considers this reason of yours would thinke there was small cause why you should condemne Master Perkins for want of skill in propounding the last argument for you to mend the matter first bring vs out a false syllogisme and then conclude that which we denie not your syllogisme is false because the assumption is not taken out of the proposition as it should be but is a new matter as it were a fourth terme brought in for your assumption should be But a greater reward is due in steed whereof you say a greater is prouided Now to be prouided and to be due is not all one because many things are prouided for meere gifts whch are no way due your conclusion must be Therefore a reward is due to them which do good works who saith otherwise but this due is of promise not of desert speaker D. B. P. As S. Augustine grounded vpon Gods vvord proueth in sundry places namâ—ly vpon that For starre dissereth from starre in glory so shall be the resurrection from the dead specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort chastity in vvedlocke after another and holy vviddovvhood yet after another all saith he shall be there but they shine diuersly And of the same vvorke affirmeth That martyrdome shall be higher revvarded then any other vvorke The like doth he vpon those vvords One ground shall yeeld thirty fold another threescore folde another an hundred folde Comparing chastity in vvedlocke to the thirtie in vviddovves to the sixtie and in virgins to the hundred But most directly in his sixtie seauen treatise vpon S. Iohns Gospell vpon this verse Jn my Fathers house are many mansions vvhere he saith that albeit some be holier iuster and more valiant then others yet there shall be fit roomes for them all vvhere euery one is to receiue his place according vnto his merit That peny spoken of by vvhich saith he is signified eternall life shall be giuen to euery man equally because
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
he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of them makes some satisfaction vvhich satisfaction is vnperfect and yet cannot be called no satisfaction at all as euery child may see speaker A. W. Satisfaction is a full discharge of the debt so that the bond thereupon is voide but hee that paies halfe or three quarters of his debt if he pay not all in such sort as the bond requireth hath the bond still against him in ful strength and vertue so that though hee hath paid part of his principall debt he hath made no satisfaction at all speaker W. P. Learned Papists make answere that Christs satisfaction and mans may stand well together For say they Christs satisfaction is sufficient in it selfe to answere the iustice of God for all sin and punishment but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applied and it must bee applied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporall punishment of our sinnes But I say againe that mans satisfaction can bee no meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ and I prooue it thus The meanes of applying Gods blessings and graces vnto man are twofold some respect God himselfe and some respect man Those which respect God are such whereby God on his part doth offer and conuey his mercies in Christ vnto man of this sort are the preaching of the worde baptisme and the Lords supper and these are as it were the hand of God whereby he reacheth downe and giueth vnto vs Christ with all his benefites The other meanes of applying on mans part are those whereby the saide benefits are receiued Of this sort there is onely one namely faith whereby we beleeue that Christ with all his benefits belong vnto vs. And this is the hand of man whereby he receiueth Christ as he is offered or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments As for other meanes beside these in Scripture we finde none Foolish therfore is the answere of the Papists that make mens satisfactions meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ vnto vs for by humane satisfactions Christ is neither offered on Gods part nor yet receiued on mans part let them prooue it if they can speaker A. W. His second is as vntrue but mans satisfaction is not to supplie the vvant of Christs satisfaction but to applie it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his vvill and ordinance First the speech is beyond any ordinarie mans vnderstanding to make satisfaction is to applie another mans satisfaction to vs. Secondly to make satisfaction is to deserue that because of our satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to our sinnes Christs satisfaction for the eternall may be auailable to vs. Thirdly if mans satisfaction be not to supplie the want of Christs satisfaction either there is no temporall punishment belonging to sinne or Christ hath made satisfaction for that as well as for the eternall and then God cannot require any satisfaction of vs because he is alreadie satisfied both for the eternall and temporall punishment Fourthly if wee doe nothing by our satisfaction but applie Christs satisfaction to vs which is onely for the eternall punishment the temporall remaines wholy without satisfaction made for it speaker D. B. P. God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sinnes and taketh fully avvay all paine due to sinne so that he vvho dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if vve doe aftervvard vngratefully forsake God and contrary to our promise transgresse against his commaundements then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauour But he vpon our repentance pardoning the sinne and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euerie man a temporall satisfaction ansvverable vnto the fault committed not to supplie Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall But that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoide sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Euery man do beare his ovvne burden speaker A. W. Here is a long discourse to little purpose neither answering any part of Master Perkins syllogisme nor defending any point of your owne answere but onely affirming that which before was said that God exacts a temporall satisfaction and affoording vs some reason to confute your opinion by in this sort If Christs satisfaction was sufficient more easily to take away the temporall punishment than the eternall how will you prooue it did not It stands you vpon to shew vs good euidence out of the record of Scripture that God agreed with Christ not to take the full desert of his sufferings and satisfaction but to leaue man still indebted to him though in truth the debt were paid If no such agreement can be shewed for my part I see not how God in iustice can aske the same debt twice being once fully satisfied That which you adde is wholy our doctrine viz. that God by smart and griefe would feare vs from sinning and make vs conformable to his Sonne our Sauiour But you teach that he punisheth vs and so takes satisfaction for sins past as if he were to be reuenged on vs at least by temporall punishment for our sinnes committed You repeate your conclusion but with no dependance vpon your former matter or proofe from that which followes where the Apostle tels the Galathians that they may not be alwaies finding fault with other men and so grow into a conceit of their owne goodnes but looke to themselues because euery man must giue an account to God for his owne sinnes and not for another mans If you will needs abuse the Apostle and applie his words to that he thought not on why doe you not by the same reason lay the eternall punishment vpon vs too for that was our burthen as well as the temporall speaker W. P. Others not content with this their former answer say that our satisfactions doe nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ because our workes haue their dignitie and merit from Christs satisfaction he meriting that our works should satisfie Gods iustice for temporal punishment But this is also absurd and false as the former was For if Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie then Christ doth make euery beleeuer to be a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer and a priest in the same order with his owne selfe But to make sinful man his own redeemer though it be but from temporall punishments is a doctrine of diuels For the holy Ghost teacheth that the
priesthood of Christ is incommunicable cannot passe from him to another Now to make satisfaction for sinne or any part of the punishment thereof is a dutie or a part of Christ his priesthood and therefore to make satisfaction is a worke that cannot passe from his person to the person of any man speaker D. B. P. Nay saith M. Perkins we must then be new Christs and redeemers and Priests of the same order with himselfe Nothing so but hauing grace from him we may in vertue therof satisfie not for the crime it self or euerlasting punishment which is lincked with it because that would require an infinite vertue But for the temporall paine of it one indued with grace may satisfie for the measure of stripes must not exceede the rate of the fault the punishment then resting vnsatisfied being limited a creature may pay it speaker A. W. It was not for nothing that you would not set downe Master Perkins words For you saw well enough that if you should doe so your poore blinded Papists would venture to reade them which now they dare not doe and so your weaknes in answering might be discouered Master Perkins hath refuted your answere of applying Christs satisfaction before it was hatcht you passe it by as not seene and propound his answere to another obiection by halues leauing the obiection out altogether I will make the matter as plaine as I can with shortnes You Papists say that Christs satisfaction merited that mans workes should satisfie for temporall punishment Master Perkins denies it vpon this reason If Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie he made euery beleeuer a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer a Priest in the same order with himselfe But he did not make men Christs and Iesuses Redeemers and Priests in the same order with himselfe Therefore he did not satisfie that man might satisfie The assumption he prooues because Christs Priesthood cannot be communicated to any other the consequence of the proposition depends vpon this that satisfaction is a part of Christs Priesthood you denie the consequence but neither shew any reason of your deniall nor answere his proofe onely you tell vs that a man is able to beare the temporall punishment though not the eternall as though wee denied temporall because a man cannot beare it speaker D. B. P. And that the Reader may better perceiue what we meane by the temporall paine Let him consider that in sinne there are two things the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which we offend as for glorie lust lucre or such like the sinner transgresseth Novv vvhen he is by the grace of God conuerted his turning avvay from God both the sin and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure vvhich he tooke in the sinne the man himselfe is to satisfie and so according vnto the greatnes of that his pleasure he is to doe penance speaker A. W. First your distinction belongs not to all sinnes and so prooues satisfaction needfull but for some sinnes onely To what doth a man turne when in the error of his iudgement he denies Christ to bee God without any respect of glorie lucre lust or such like Again may not a man sweare vnaduisedly and rashly without this turning and without any pleasure in that sinne Yea may not a man thinke the murthering of his Soueraigne lawfull and meritorious as many Popish traytors haue done without this turning to I cannot tell what Sinne is the transgression of Gods commendements as for this turning to and from it is an idle speculation of men that seeke a knot in a rush he that doth that which God forbids whatsoeuer the occasion or end of his doing be sinnes in so doing He that makes his money his god sinnes not because he loues his money or turnes to his money but because hee loues it otherwise than hee should and so turnes from God to it Secondly what a fond distinction is that betwixt the sin and the pleasure in the sinne Is not that pleasure in the sin a sinne too if it be voluntarie and if it be not voluntarie but onely be a consequent vpon the sinne hauing no ground in the will any way how is it punishable speaker W. P. Againe if Christ by his satisfaction giue power to man to satisfie then man doth satisfie by Christ and Christ beside his owne satisfaction vpon the crosse must daily satisfie in man to the ende of the world but this cannot be for Christ vpon the crosse when death was vpon him said It is finished that is I haue fully satisfied for all the sins of mankinde both in respect of the fault and punishment As for Christs buriall resurrection which followeth his death they serued not to satisfie but to confirme and ratifie the same speaker D. B. P. But Christ saith M. Perkins said On the Crosse it is finished VVherefore all satisfaction vvas at Christs death ended as vvell temporall as eternall Ans. That those vvords haue a farre different sense To vvitte that Christ had then ended his course and fulfilled all prophecies and endured all such torments as pleased God to impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind of satisfaction temporall there is no mention neither can any thing be dravvne thence against it speaker A. W. There is no mention of any satisfaction at all and yet you grant that eternall satisfaction is there signified You must then shew some good reason why the one was then finished and not the other which it is vnpossible for you to doe because you confesse that both were then performed for all sinnes before Baptisme Look by what reason you can draw that doctrine from that place by the same will we conclude the other If you will say al was done that belongs to mans redemption I aske whether Christ haue not also redeemed vs from temporall punishment You grant from all that was due to sinne before Baptisme I demaund further whether these punishments were not part of that penaltie which the breach of Gods law laies vpon vs if they were then either we are redeemed from them by Christ or he hath not made perfect redemption But questionlesse his redemption is perfect and these are punishments due to sinne Therfore he hath freed vs from these also speaker W. P. Againe Paul saith 2. Cor. 5. 21. Hee that knew no sin was made sinne for vs that is the punishment of sinne for vs but if the Church of Rome say true that Christ doth daily satisfie then Paul spake too short and should haue said further that Christ was made sinne for vs and in vs too and that God was not onâ—ly in Christ but also in vs reconciling the world to himselfe But Paul neuer knew this learning and therfore let them turne themselues which way they wil by putting a supplement to Christs satisfaction they doe indeede annihilate the
same speaker D. B. P. No more can be out of this other Christ vvas made sinne for vs That is the punishment of sinne as M. Perkins gloseth it but the learned say an hoast or sacrifice for sin But vve â—raunâ— that he suffered the punishment For our sinne and say consequently that all sin is pardoned freely for his sake and the paine of hell also vvhich is punishment of sinne but not other temporall paines such as it hath pleased the iustice and vvisdome of God to reserue vnto euery siâ—ner to beare in his ovvne person And after this sort and no other vvas God in Christ reconciling the vvorld to himselfe speaker A. W. If Christ were a sacrifice for sinne I say as before either he was an vnperfect sacrifice which to say were blasphemous or hee wrought our redemption from the whole wrath of God and so from all punishment ensuing thereupon vnlesse as I noted before you can shew any agreement to the contrarie betwixt God and Christ. speaker D. B. P. And that S. Paul vnderstood vvell that Christ suffâ—rings did not take avvay ours may be gathered by these his vvords I reioyce in suffering for you and doe accomplish those things that vvant of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body vvhich is the Church But of this point more vvhen vve come vnto the Arguments for the Caâ—holike part speaker A. W. Wee doe not say that Christs sufferings take away ours for we must still suffer for diuers reasons aboue recited but that his satisfaction leaues vs no place for ours we suffer but not to satisfie neither doth Saint Paul say any such thing speaker W. P. Reason II. In sundrie places of Scripture especially in the Epistles of Paul we are said to be redeemed iustified and saued Freely which word Freely doth import that we are iustified and saued without any thing done on our part or by our selues in the matter of our saluation and if this bee so then can wee doe nothing at all that may satisfie the iustice of God for the least punishment of our sinnes If wee satisfie in our owne persons we are not saued freely and if we be saued freely we make no satisfaction at all speaker D. B. P. Novv to M. Perkins second reason In sundrie places saith he of Scripture we are said to be redeemed iustified and saued freely but this vvord freely importeth that vve are saued vvithout doing any thing our selues in that matter of saluation speaker A. W. Ans. Not so good Sir for euen in your owne Doctrine it is necessary that ye beleeue and bring forth the fruits of repentance and that now and then yee make some short prayers and receiue the communion and doe many other odde things in that matter of saluation Wherfore the word freely doth not exclude all our working and suffering in that matter Master Perkins meanes not to exclude all doing on our part but all doing to merit or satisfaction As it appeares by the proposition of his syllogisme in the end If we satisfie in our person we are not saued freely If we be saued freely we make no satisfaction at all Now although all doing be not against free saluation yet all doing to merit and satisfie is directly against it speaker W. P. Reason III. We pray daily forgiue vs our sinnes now to pleade pardon and to satisfie for our sinnes bee contrarie and for all things for which wee can make satisfaction we neede not craue a pardon but we are taught in the foresaid petition wholy and only to vse the plea or pardon for our sinnes and therefore we acknowledge that we cannot make any satisfaction at all speaker D. B. P. If our sinnes be mortall we craue pardon both of the sinne and the eternall punishment annexed and do willingly withall satisfie for the temporall paine as the man who is conuicted of high treason and hauing both his life honor lands and goods pardoned and restored vnto him doth very ioyfully endure three monethes imprisonment and any reasonable fine set on his head speaker A. W. In this as in diuers other arguments namely the very next before you onely set downe the first lines and neuer propound the reason that you may answere to it directly I must doe it for you If we can satisfie for sinne we need not craue pardon for it But we need craue pardon for it Therefore we cannot satisfie for it Your answere cannot well be applied to any part of this syllogisme but in effect it seemes to be as much as if you should denie the assumption not simply but with this distinction that we need craue pardon for the eternall punishment but not for the temporall Then the meaning of that petitioÌ„ in the Lords Prayer is forgiue vs the eternall punishment due to our sins which is to aske forgiuenes by halues Lyra saith We pray that our sinnes may be wholy forgiuen both in respect of the fault and of the punishment And that hee meanes temporall punishment too it appeareth by his reason because so long as that remaines we cannot enter into blessednes Witnes the poore soules that â—â—ie so many yeeres in your Purgatorie speaker D. B. P. 〈◊〉 If our sinnes be veniall then that prayer is a speciall meane both to obtaine pardon of the fault and release of all the paine as witnesseth S. Augustine saying That for the daily short and light offences vvithout vvhich this life is not ledde the daily prayer of the faithfull doth satisfie speaker A. W. You seeme also to denie the consequence of the proposition in your answere about veniall sinnes For which you say we may satisfie by praying for pardon But this is a marueilous strange satisfaction that a man should be said to satisfie by desiring to be pardoned And then wee haue a further meaning in the Lords Prayer that God would accept it as a satisfaction for our veniall sinnes Can any reasonable man imagine that our Sauiour did not teach vs to pray for the full pardon of all punishment due to sinne and yet neuer gaue notice of any such distinction But of this more afterward Austin speakes of the different course that is to be held in repenting of our sinnes that according as they are greater or lesse so we should be the more or lesse carefull of obtaining pardon Which for ordinarie sinnes may be had by ordinarie praying not as if this made a sufficient amends to God which satisfaction imports but because he lookes not for so much sorrow and care for these sinnes as for those by which if we commit them we shall highly dishonour him and therefore neede to grieue more that wee may the more carefully auoide them If you will draw Austin to the worst wee may not follow him against the truth of the Scripture speaker D. B. P. And that is not true which M. Perkins addes that we are taught in that prayer wholy and only to vse the
among the best Christians in the Primitiue Church speaker D. B. P. Tertullian hath these words At euery going forward and returne wheÌ„ we dresse vs and pull on our shoes when we wash and sit downe at the lighting of Candels and entring into our Chambers finally when we set ourselues to any thing we make the signe of the Crosse on our foreheads speaker A. W. The signe of the crosse as it is here spoken of by you doth not indeed belong to this question which is of such images as are set vp to be outwardly worshipped such as this signe of the crosse neuer was among the auncient Christians But because as you say it is the forme that you worship which is made though it continue not and for that your Diuines mainteine the worshipping of it euen outwardly as I will shew let it passe in the rancke where you haue set it Now that the signe of the crosse is so to be worshipped first Bellarmine shews where he saith The signe of the crosse which is made vpon the forehead or in the ayer is holy and to be worshipped Costerus his fellow Iesuit speaketh more plaine Christians saith he euer since Christes time haue alwaies worshipped with great reuerence both the wood of our Lords crosse it self and the signe of the crosse with which they daily fence themselues Suarez another Iesuit is more plaine then he The signe of the crosse saith he is worthie of reuerence and adoration for it hath the vse and signification of a Sacrament And it skils not that it is made in a matter or by an action that passeth away because the only difference of the matter when the fashion is all one hinders not the adoration Iacobus de Graphijs giueth also the reason of this We worship it saith he with diuine honor for that it puts vs in mind of our Lords passion which is performed by the signe of the crosse on the forehead as well as by a crosse painted on the wall Lastly Gabriell Vasquez saith that the crosse of Christ by what meanes soeuer exprest is worthie of veneration as well as the crosse it selfe on which he suffered That the crosse was in common vse among the auncient Christians it was neuer denied yet haue we no record of it in any auncient authenticall writer before Ireneus as Doctor Fulke hath truly auouched against Martiall As for the counterfeit writings of Ignatius Martialis of Burdeaul and Dionysius Areopagita both the stile and the matter refute the titles and bewray partly ignorance euen in the language and partly authors of later times Xystus Betuleius would haue vs beleeue his word that the ceremony of crossing was vsed euen when the Apostles laid on their hands but neither doth the scripture affirme any such thing neither brings he any authoritie or reason to prooue it But let the author of it be vnknowne as he is yet if the occasion and vse of it were certaine and warrantable there were more reason to finde fault with the leauing of it But who can resolue vs of this doubt Austin seemes to be very vncertaine fetching this custome of crossing from a desire to make profession of Christianitie in the sight of the pagans He seemes otherwhere to attribute it to an imitation of the Iewish Ceremony in marking the dore posts with the blood of the paschall lambe What should I speake of the doubt concerning the forme it selfe which is the thing that you professedly worship What is that forme the sauâ—â—oir or S. Andrews crosse resembling as some thinke not the crosse of our Sauiour but the first letter of his name in Greeke which also was set on the top of Constantines standerd Or is it nothing else but two crosse lines cutting each other in a right angle as it is commonly made which some will haue to be resembled by that standerd of Constantines the staffe and the baner making such a crosse like to the mast and the sayle yard It is all one what the forme was if the vse were good and lawfull But how shall that be auowed when it is not certaine what it was All which notwithstanding we are desirous so to interpret the auncients concerning this point as that we may free them from superstition if it be possible We would gladly therfore expound their speaches of the efficacie and vertue of the crosse not of the wood nor of the forme but of the passion and sufferings of our Sauiour Christ in which sense the scripture speakes of it most truly and gloriously I could to this purpose alleage diuers places out of the Fathers but I must needs confesse that I can bring many other out of their writings which will not beare that exposition What if I should say that they vsed it only as an outward gesture when they prayed to God for any blessing and therefore continually signed themselues as Tertullian and Austin shew I could cite some places by which this coniecture might be made somewhat likely yea I could adde hereunto the iudgement of your late Iesuits who acknowledge that vse of the crosse amongst them and denie that it puts any vertue into the thing that is signed But neither would this content you and many speeches of the auncients are such as can admit no such interpretation Wherefore all that I will answere is this that howsoeuer the vse of crossing as it was amongst the Fathers within 200. yeares after our Sauiours ascension and for a long time afterward cannot be sufficientlie warranted by any ground of scripture yet the Crosse was neuer made an Idoll by any outward worship amongst them as it is altogether with you Papists Whereupon it followes that the testimonies which you alleage out of the Fathers are falsely applied by you to countenance such Idolatry as they neuer dreamed of speaker D. B. P. S. Ambrose exhort vs to begin all our vvorkes vvith the signe of the Crosse. speaker A. W. To that of Ambrose I answere more particularly first that your quotation of his 84. Sermon is false for there is not a word of any such matter in all that Sermon Secondly that in the place you meane he saith not we must begin all our works with the signe of the crosse but rather speaketh of prayer according as before I expounded him We must saith Ambrose when we rise giue thanks to God and do euery worke we take in hand all the day in the signe of our Sauiour that is with prayer to Christ. speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine What is that ensigne of Christ which all men knovv but the Crosse of Christ the vvhich signe vnlesse it be made on the foreheads of the faithfull yea on the vvater by vvhich they are regenerate and on the Oyle and Chrisme vvherewith they are annoynted and on the sacrifice vvherevvith they are nourished not one of them are orderly
of an Idoll And afterward For this cause namely to roote out the matter of Idolatrie the law of God proclaimes Make no Idoll and adding nor likenes of any thing in heauen in earth or in the Sea forbids the seruants of God all ouer the world to vse that Craft In another place Iohn saith Babes keepe your selues from Idols he saith not now from Idolatrie as from the seruice of them but from Idols that is from the shape of them For it is an vnworthie thing that the image of an Idoll and dead thing should bee made the image of the liuing God That I will not let passe saith Lilius Giraldus that we Christians as sometimes also the Romanes had no Images in the Primitiue Church Optatus an ancient Bishop of Africa counted it a defiling of the Altar to haue an Image set vpon it and saith that when it was reported that Paul and Macarius would come and place an Image on the Altar they that heard it were astonied at it and accounted it as execrable to partake with it Images saith Austin are of more force to corrupt the miserable soule because they haue a mouth eyes eares nosthrils hands and feete than to instruct it because they speake not heare not smell not handle not walke not out of which place of Austin Cassander concludes that there was no vse of Images in Churches in Austins time The reason is alike wheresoeuer they be vsed to religion Arguments of the Papists speaker W. P. The reasons which they vse to defend their opinions are these I. In Salomons temple were erected Cherubines which were images of angels on the Mercieseat where God was worshipped and thereby was resembled the Maiestie of God therefore it is lawful to make images to resemble God Answ. They were erected by special commandement from God who prescribed the verie forme of them and the place where they must be set and thereby Moses had a warrant to make them otherwise hee had sinned let them shew the like warrant for their images if they can Secondly the Cherubins were placed in the holie of holies in the most inwarde place of the Temple and consequently were remoued from the sight of the people who onely hearde of them and none but the high Priest saw them and that but once a yeere And the Cherubins without the vaile though they were to be seen yet were they not to be worshipped Exod. 20. 4. Therefore they serue nothing at all to iustifie the images of the Church of Rome Obiect II. God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham Gen. 18. 1. 13. and to Daniel who sawe the ancient of daies sitting on a throne Dan. 9. Now as God appeared so may he be resembled therefore say they it is lawfull to resemble God in the forme of a man or any like image in which he shewed himselfe to men Answ. In this reason the proposition is false for God may appeare in whatsoeuer forme it pleaseth his maiestie yet doth it not follow that man should therefore resemble God in those formes man hauing no libertie to resemble him in any forme at all vnlesse he bee commaunded so to doe Againe when God appeared in the forme of a man that forme was a signe of Gods presence onely for the time when God appeared and no longer as the bread and wine in the sacrament are signes of Christs bodie and blood not for euer but for the time of administration for afterward they become againe as common bread and wine And when the holy Ghost appeared in the likenesse of a doue that likenesse was a signe of his presence no longer then the holy Ghost so appeared And therefore hee that would in these formes represent the Trinitie doth greately dishonour God and doe that for which hee hath no warrant speaker D. B. P. Hauing confuted the Protestants arguments against the making of Images to represent some property or action of God I now come vnto the Catholike proofe of them The first reason set dovvne by M. Perkins I reserue to the next point the second is God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham and to Daniel VVho savv the auncient of daies sitting on a throne Now as God hath appeared so may he bee purtraied and dravvne M. Perkins his ansvvere is not so vnlesse it be expresselâ—â— commanded by God Reply This first is flat against his ovvne second conclusion where he holdeth it lawfull to present to the eye in Pictures any histories of the Bible in priuate plaâ—es both the foresaid apparitions be in the Old Testament and therefore may be painted in priuate places which cannot be truly done without you do represent God in the same liknes as there he appeared And what reason leadeth in words to represent those actions of God the same serueth to expresse them in liuely colours Not so saith M. Perkins because when God appeared in the forme of man it was a signe of Gods presence for that time only and for no longer be it so it might notwithstanding be recorded in writing that the memory of such maiestie ioyned with louing kindnesse might endure longer And if it pleased God that this short presence of his should be written to be perpetually remembred euen so the same might be ingrauen in brasle to recommend it to vs so much the more effectually For as the famous Poet doth by the light of nature sing Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures Quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus speaker A. W. It is your aduantage that Master Perkins is not aliue to answere you who was better able to expresse his own meaning than any otherman can be But in my opinion it was his purpose in that second conclusion to graunt the pourtraying of those histories onely which had nothing to bee painted that was forbidden as he alwaies tooke the resembling of God to be That was generall as rules of Grammar are exceptions are not contradictions but rather parts of those rules If you speake of that reason which moued God to inspire Moses for the writing of that storie we grant that hee might to the same end haue also enioyned the painting or engrauing of it But since it pleased him not so to doe wee answere that your argument prooues nothing There is the same reason say you for painting that and such stories therefore they may as well be painted as written The consequence is false For the one was inspired as I said and the other not Vpon the writing because it is Gods word wee may looke for a blessing from him Not so vpon our owne deuices accompanied with danger of Idolatrie For my part sauing other mens better iudgement I perswade my selfe that God who commanded the Israelites to write the words of the law about their houses and in other places for instruction and remembrance would haue enioyned the painting of his especiall miracles and workes in their fauour
to expresse the diuine nature If it be extended vnto all sorts of Images I answere that they were then forbidden to be drawen vpon the Church vvalles but not to be set in Tables vpon the Altar or in any other place The reason is because that Councell vvas holden in time of persecution as appeareth by the twenty fiue Canon of it and then if the persecutor had found out the place of their assembly as they often did those Pictures must needs either haue been defaced by themselues or left vnto the derision and despight of the Heathens And Pictures also painted vpon such poore walles as they had then to their Churches vvould either by the moysture of the vvalles or other incommoditie haue bin quickly disfigured wherefore to the greater honor of such sacred things those graue Fathers thought it not meete to haue them dravven vpon the Church vvalles there being many more meete places for them in the Churches speaker A. W. You come backe now to those two allegations which should and might haue been answered as fitly in their due place Your first answere hath no shew of reason in it For it is absurd to imagine that any Christians to whom onely the Councill speakes would thinke the diuine nature which is spirituall and infinite could be exprest by any picture But if it be possible for the people to be so blind yet the Bishops and Ministers who had the charge of such places must needs know it to bee vnlawfull and vnpossible Besides if they meant to forbid such Images onely why doe they not call them Idols after your distinction why doe not they expresse their meaning more plainly but speake so dangerously to make all Images thought vnlawfull As the word Adored was in your opinion a warrant for Master Perkins to applie that Canon to the Images of God so by the same reason is the other word worshipped which the Councill hath a sufficient authoritie to stretch the decree to all Images that may bee worshipped Your coniectures are meere shifts refuted by the very words of the Councill It is decreed saith the Councill that there may be no Images in the Church what will become then of your Images vpon Altars vnlesse you will remoue your Altars out of the Church That which followeth doth not respect the walles more than any other part of the Church but names them specially vpon which Images most commonly were painted But what a toy is it that you talke of persecutors finding out the place of their assemblie when they could hold a Councill and had Churches to repaire to Could their Churches be vnknowne Further if their care had bin to prouide that the moysture of the walles might not disfigure the Images they would haue said plainly We will haue no Images on Church walles least that which is adored and worshipped come to some disgrace and this would also haue included the other reason of the persecutors despight But it is manifest that the meaning of the decree is this that they will not suffer any Images in Churches because that which is worshipped and adored may not bee resembled by pictures The decree indeede speakes onely of the Images of God to whom only religious adoration and worship is due and may lawfully be performed speaker D. B. P. The second obiection is out of a post-script of Epiphanius letter vnto Iohn Patriarke of Ierusalem in which is written as M. Perkins falsely reporteth that it is against the authority of Scripture to see the Pictures of Christ or of any Saint to hang in the Church Ans. It is there only to see the Picture of a man Novv that he should meane of Christ or of some Saint is only gathered yet M. Perkins makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text euen so do we thinke that some old enemy of Images added that post-script vnto Epiphanius letter Our reasons are because it hath no coherence with the former letter or stâ—e Againe in the seauenth Councell when all that could be found out of antiquity vvas cited against Images no tidings there of this place which if it had bin true might haue bin one of the principall Thirdlie in the same Councell other tvvo places brought as it were out of Epiphanius vvorkes vvere found to be none of his And for Images vvas alleadged that Epiphanius ovvne disciples erected an Image to their Master and set it in the Church vvhich they would neuer haue done if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to doe speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not vndertake to report Epiphanius words but his matter which hee performes truly I found saith Epiphanius speaking of a Church at Anablatha in his trauell to Bethel in the Church doore a vaile hanging stained and painted and hauing the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I remember not well whose image it was When I saw this that against the authoritie of the Scripture the image of a man hung in the Church of Christ I rent it These are Epiphanius words whereout I obserue first that it is against the authoritie of the Scripture and therfore against Gods Commandement that the image of a man should hang in Christs Church But the Images of al your Saints are such those of the Trinitie too except that Doue for the holie Ghost Secondly I adde that it is rightly gathered by necessarie consequence which is as good euery whit as plaine words that it is against Scripture to haue the picture of Christ or any Saint in the Church For he saith expresly that the Image he saw was the image of Christ or some Saint and that it was vnlawfull to haue any Image of a man there There is no reason to call it a post-script vnlesse euerie last point of any letter not depending vpon the former be a post-script Hierome that translated the Epistle out of Greeke into Latin found no such diuersitie of stile in it neither indeed is it to be found and this latter part is brought in according to the course of writing in the former Epiphanius cleeres himselfe to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem for hauing ordered a Deacon in his Diocesse he begins his excuse thus I haue heard c. In the latter part he defends himselfe concerning the renting of the vaile and begins that also in the like sort I haue heard This was written and translated three hundred yeeres before that Idolatrous Councill though perhaps they thought it no wisedome to take knowledge of it The other places brought in that Councill were for Images and so allowed of by that Councill and haue since been discerned to be counterfeit as that is of his Disciples no thankes to that counterfeit Synod which dealeth in the same sort also with Basil you afterward alleage the place for Images with Cyrill Ambrose Athanasius Chrysostome Gregorie and the Apostles themselues as I shewed before speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins obserues a special reason
in Epiphanius other counterfeit testimony That Images must not be suffered in the common house because vve must carry God in our minds To vvhich vve ansvvere that Images must be suffred in all places that vve may the better carry-God in our harts being by the sight of them both often put in mind of him and much moued to honor and loue him speaker A. W. In steed of answering the other testimonie out of Epiphanius you go about vnder hand to strike at him thorough Master Perkins sides but there is no great force in your blow For as I said erewhile there is more daunger of Idolatrie in the suffering of Images especially in any place where God is to bee worshipped than hope of instruction or deuotion by the sight of them And as Epiphanius saith in this place It is not meete that a Christian should be exercised by the eyes but by the meditation of the minde For such sight as Clement taught vs before abaseth the Maiestie of God and begets in vs erroneous opinions speaker W. P. Obiect III. Man is the image of God but it is lawfull to paint a man and therefore to make the image of God Ans. A very cauill for first a man cannot be painted as he is the image of God which stands in the spiritual gifts of righteousnesse and true holinesse Againe the image of a man may be painted for ciuill or historicall vse but to paint any man for this ende to represent God or in the way of religion that wee may the better remember and worship God it is vnlawfull Other reasons which they vse are of small moment and therefore I omit them Differ II. They teach and maintaine that images of God and of Saints my be worshipped with religious worship specially the crucifixe For Thomas of Watering saith Seeing the crosse doth represent Christ who died vpon a crosse and is to bee worshipped with diuine honour it followeth that the crosse is to be worshipped so too We on the contrary hold they may not Our principall ground is the second commaundement which containeth two partes the first forbiddeth the making of Images to resemble the true God the second forbids the worshipping of them or God in them in these wordes Thou shalt not bow downe to them Now there can be no worship done to any thing lesse then the bending of the knee speaker D. B. P. Novv I come vnto a third point which M. Perkins maketh the second of our difference That Images may be not only made and set in Churches but also vvorshipped M. Perkins holds the contrarie and his principall ground is the second commandement vvhich containes saith he tvvo parts The first forbids the making of Images to resemble God the second the vvorshipping of them or God in them in these vvords Thou shalt not bovv dovvne to them Ans. If it be only forbidden to make the Image of God and to adore it then the making and worshipping of the Image of Christ or of any other creature is not there prohibited And so this second commandement more than thrise alleadged vvill not serue the turne against any other Image but God only And in plaine reason according also to Master Perkins his ovvne confession the Commandements of the first Table touch only our duty tovvards God that vve giue him all his due honor and do not giue any part therof vnto any thing else whatsoeuer Wherfore diuine and godly worship is only there spoken of and not such worship as we giue vnto any creature or to the picture of it and consequently there is nothing there against the vvorshipping of our holy Images speaker A. W. It is not onely forbidden to make the Image of God and to worship it but as Master Perkins said before to make an Image of any thing in the way of Religion to worship God much more to worship the creature thereby Therefore the Assumption that should be added to that proposition of yours if it be only forbidden c. namely but it is only forbidden to make the image of God and to adore it is false and so the second Commandement is against all Images for Gods seruice The Commandements of the first table touch onely our dutie to God True and it is an especial part of our dutie to him that we giue no religious honour to any thing whatsoeuer but to him onely For as Religion is a dutie of the creature to the Creator and not any bond betwixt creature and creature so is religious honour due onely to him to whom religion is appropriated Therefore the Heathen were neuer so sottish as to worship any man or thing with religious worship whereto they did not first ascribe some kinde of diuinitie according to which they proportioned their worship thereto speaker D. B. P. Obserue that there is a soueraigne vvorshippe due to God as to the Creator and gouernour of all the vvorld and to giue this to any creature is Idolatrie Another honor by infinit degrees inferiour yet absolute in itself is ascribed vnto Angels and men as creatures endued with reason and made after the likenesse of God and to exhibitth is to whom it is due is ciuilitie and not Idolatrie This honor may be diuided into two parts because these creatures are like to God asvvell in their naturall povvers and qualities as in their supernaturall And that honour vvhich is giuen to man or Angell in respect of any naturall quality may be called morall or ciuil But that vvhich is attributed vnto them in regard of their supernaturall gifts may vvell be called religious and spirituall because it is due vnto them only for their spirituall and religious qualities There is a third kind of worship yet meaner then the other which is a kind of dependant and respectiue worship as vvhen a seruant is honoured or cherished not for his ovvne but for his masters sake And this is that worship which vve allovv vnto Images vvhich for the Saints sake whom it doth represent vve do either reuerently regard or take off our hat or bovv our knee vnto it This third kind of worship being all we allow vnto Pictures were he not that vnderstands it more than half franticke that should thinke it a great disparagement vnto the incomprehensible vvorship of God that to one of his seruants Pictures I should yeeld some such pettie reuerence or that God should forbid this in the fore-front of his ten Commaundements nothing lesse speaker A. W. This discourse to colour your Idolattie by a distinction of worship hath more craft than truth For first if you meane plainly why doe you not tell vs what that soueraigne worship is which you acknowledge due to the Creator onely that we may consider whether you giue it to any creature or no Secondly what is the meaning of those words that the honor ascribed to men and Angels is absolute in it selfe and to what purpose is it here alleaged Thirdly the chiefe reason of
present as it is plaine because the Angell was lehouah And lehouah saw that he turned to see And lehouah said Yea the whole discourse sheweth that God himselfe was the Angell namely the second person in Trinitie who is called the Angell of the Conenant because he was sent for the saluation of Gods elect So Stephen though he call him an Angell calleth him asse the Lord. And indeed who but God could say I am that I am as the Angell there doth Secondly you say the Answere rather confirmes than solues the Argument Because as that astion strucke Moses with a reuerence of the Angell so holy Pictures duly reuerenced strike men with a religious regard of the Saint represented What is this but to beg the question you take it as graunted that there may be Images and that religious reuerence may be giuen to them but these are the verie doubts we dispute of Inded if it were true that there may be such Images and that religious honour is to be yeelded to creatures there were somewhat in your Similitude to the purpose and yet similitudes doe not proue but illustrate The sorce of your reason is that Moses was commanded by god to put off his shoes that he might be striken thereby with reuerence of God Therefore we must worship Images that we may be striken with reuerence of Angels and Saints The consequence is naught Gods particular charge to Moses at that time warranteth not men to enioyne worship to Images that Angels may be worshipped by them speaker D. B. P. To this let vs annexe that dayes be truely called holy and vvorshipped as the first and last daies be truely called holy and vvorshipfull as the first and last daies of the feast of Easter be And the vestments of Priests because they are dedicated and employed to holy vses euen so Images vvhich are made in honour of God and his Saints and erected to mooue and teach vs to embrace heauenly courses speaker A. W. Adde it if you will that dayes appointed by God are called holy for of worshipfull dayes I thinke no man euer heard though your Latine translation say The seauenth day shall be venerable with the same festiuitie that is shall be kept with like solemnitie to the first The words in the Hebrew are all one in the former and later part of the verse and therefore so should the translation be Now in the former your translation is the first day shall be holy and solemne The Hebrew as Montanus translateth it on the first day shall be a conuocation of holines and on the seauenth day shall be a conuocation of holines that is as Vatablus truly expounds the Hebrew phrase An holy Conuocation So doth Pagnine also translate it But this holines which you rightly expound to be a dedication or employment to Gods seruice neither doth require nor will admit any worshipping of the dayes or garments but Images are not holy for they are neither commaunded of God nor allowed speaker W. P. Obiect III. It is lawfull to kneele downe to a chaire of estate in the absence of the king or Queene therefore much more to the images of God and of Saintes in heauen glorified being absent from vs. Answ. To kneele to the chaire of estate is no more but a ciuill testimonie or signe of ciuill reuerence by which all good subiects when occasion is offered shew their loyaltie and subiection to their lawfull Prince And this kneeling being on this manner and to no other ende hath sufficient warrant in the word of God But kneeling to the image of any Saint departed is religious and consequently more then ciuill worship as the Papists themselues confesse The argument then prooueth nothing vnlesse they will keepe themselues to one and the same kind of worship speaker D. B. P. He proposeth our argument to the halfes or else this answere had been preuented For thus runneth our reason As the chaire of estate is to bee worshipped with ciuill reuerence in respect of the temporall Prince whom it representeth euen so the Images of holy personages that raigne now in heauen are to bee worshipped with a holy and religious kinde of curtesie for as Temporall honour is due vnto a Temporal Prince so religious and spirituall honour is due vnto spirituall and most holy personages And as a good subiect testifyeth his loyaltie and good affection towardes his Prince by honouring his regall throne So doth a good Christian giue testimonie of his dutiful both estimation deuotion toward those heauenly creatures by giuing honour vnto their Images At leastwise why do not the Protestants exhibit ciuill reuerence aswell vnto the representations of Gods Saintes as to the shaddowes of the secular maiestie vnlesse it be because they are fallen out with the Saintes of God and are become adorers of sinfull men speaker A. W. Master Perkins drew your argument from a comparison of quantitie as the Logicians call it from the greater to the lesse you fetch it from a comparison of qualitie by way of Similitude which as I answered before serues to make a thing more plaine not to prooue it true as the other comparison doth if it be rightly made You report his answere by halues for he denies the consequence of the argument which he propounded adding this reason of his deniall that the ciuill worship hath warrant sufficient in the word of God but your religious worship hath not so that either you must make your worshipping of Images ciuill or else your comparison holds not His answere is sufficient to ouerthrow your reason as you propound it for it denies that the things are alike adding farther against your proofe that no religious honour is due to any but God only if you can shew warrant for it in the word he yeelds But alas you cannot your chiefe Champion Thomas of Aquine hauing made an obiection against worshipping of the image of Christ with diuine worship because there is no tradition to be found in Scripture for the adoring of Images is faine for answere to flee to vnwritten traditions We must answere saith Thomas that the Apostles by the familiar instinct of the holy ghost deliuered certaine things to the Churches to be obserued which they haue not left in writing but only in the obseruation of the Church by the succession of the faithfull And surely he that will take paines to consider the allegations of the seauenth Council the sâ—…d at Nice which was called of purpose to establish the worshipping of Images shall finde very pittifull proofe out of Scripture Therefore hauing warrant and charge to performe all ciuill honor to princes we do accordingly hauing neither for any deuotion or religious reuerence to Angels or men departed though Saincts in heauen we dare not worship their images which also we know to be particularly forbidden in Scripture And that is the reason why we giue no reuerence to any idolatrous representations
at variance for euer with the Church of Rome For they erre in the foundation of religion making indeede an Idoll of the true God and worshipping an other Christ then we doe vnder new termes maintayning the idolatry of the heathen And therefore haue wee departed from them and so must wee still doe because they are idolaters as I haue proued speaker D. B. P. But this poynt of difference is made to bring in a common arâ—ument of theirs to wit that the worshipping of the golden Calfe is condemned as flat Idolatrie and yet the Israelits worshipped not the Calfe but God in the Calfe to which we say they did not worship the true God in the Calfe but the God of the Egyptians which was taken by them to haue the shape of a blacke Calfe with white spots See S. Augustine And therefore making the golden calfe to represent this false god and attâ—ibuting their deliuerance vnto that supposed god and not vnto the God of Israel committed idolatry which the text prooueth most manifest these be thy gods that brought thee out of Egypt M. Perkins answereth that the meaning is nothing else but that the golden Calfe was a signe of the presence of the true God such glosses without any authority of the auncient fathers is â—idiculous being against the plaine text but sayth he we must not thinkâ— them so â—adde as to take a Calfe made with their care-rings to be their God no but we may well thinke them so vngratefull vnto the true God their deliuerer that they did ascribe their deliuâ—rance not to him but vnto that God which the Aegyptians serued whose purtraiture was that Calfe speaker A. W. This point of difference is brought in not to auow any argument of ours but to answere a distinction of yours who being driâ—â—n to shifts thinke to help the matter by telling vs that the Iewes worshipped the golden Calfe and therefore were condemned To which we replie that the Iewes did worship Iehouah in or by the Calfe which we prooue by the text it selfe s These be thy Gods that brought thee out of the laÌ„d of Egypt But it was the true God that brought them out of Egypt euen t Iehouah You answere that they attributed their deliuerance to that false God of the Egyptians Then did they thinke the Egyptian God to be Iehouah for to Iehouah do they consecrate the day of dedicating the Calfe u Tomorrow shall be the holy day to Iehouah But how ridiculous a conceipt is this to faine that the Iewes should imagin that the Egyptians God was their deliuerer whereas they knew that the great wise men of Egypt the chiefe worshippers of that God had striuen against Moses and their deliuerance by all meanes possible till at last they and the power of their God were ouercome So that indeede it was impossible they should be so sottish as to dreame that the Egyptian God had deliuered them And if this had bin their fault being a thing so monstrous and sensles God would certainely haue charged it vpon them when he laid out their sinne to Moses But he rather accuseth them for breaking his commaundement by making a molten Calfe affirming to it and proclaiming These are thy Gods that brought thee out of Egypt This is farther confirmed by those two calues which in imitation of this Ieroboam set vp to worship the true God by and so continued euen by Iehu who destroyed the heathen Idols The text prooues nothing for you These be thy Gods that brought thee out of Egypt For the Egyptians had no such Calfe to their God though the Oxe or Calfe called Apis as Austinâ—aith â—aith in the place alleaged was consecrated to their chiefe God Serapis If we brought nothing for our exposition but authoritie you might stop our months with the contrary iudgement of the auncient writers but against reason authoritie is of small force and yet you bring none for your selfe nor answere Master Perkins shewing that Images are called by the names of the things they reâ—… 〈◊〉 and so that calfe made to be a token of Iehouahs presence that brought them out of Egypt is said to be the God that brought them out of the land of Egypt speaker D. B. P. But now before we end this question I must let you â—â—â—erstand what worthy men they were that fiâ—st began to wage batteâ—◠〈◊〉 â—…ages they were the â—evves in their â—almâ—â— Ord. 2. traâ—… 〈◊〉 aâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…od 〈◊〉 Act. 5. A baâ—baâ—ous Persian Xenias as 〈◊〉 Nâ—… 〈◊〉 16 cap. 27. Then Maâ—â—met the great god of the Turkes Alâ—… 〈◊〉 15. 17. vvith such like infidels â—oâ—â—â—ers and the skumme of the earth See Cardinall Bellaâ—mme de Jmag. lib. 2. cap. 6. speaker A. W. If these be the auncientest Authors you can bring that haue waged against Images I can goe beyond you many hundred yeeres What say you to Iacob who made all his houshold giue him their Images which he buried vnder an Oake that was by Shechim about the yeere of the world 2270 The commandement of God giuen on Mount Synah the preaching of the Prophets the zeale of many worthy Kings of Iuda were long before the Iewes Talmud which was begunne to be gathered and written more then 300. yeeres after Christ and was not finished till about the yeere 506. long before which time as I haue shewed Origen and Clement did not only speake against the Heathen Idols but defend the Christians for refusing to haue any Images and proue that the vse of them was vnlawfull and vnfit I shewed before about this matter of Xenaias who at soonest was aboue 400. yeeres after Christ that Images were withstood as vnlawfull euen in the beginning of preaching the Gospel This Nicephorus wrot not much more then 300. yeeres since As for Blasphemous Mahomet who patched vp his abhominable Alcoran with peeces of all kinds of professions though his intent was damnable and his writing most sottish yet hath he many things agreeable to the truth taken out of the bookes of Moses and in this point of Images his acknowledging of the truth shall make the more to your condemnation What should we do looking in Bellarmine if there were any thing for your aduantage more then that which you haue alleadged you might and would haue made bould with it as you do generally in all your answeres Bellarmine there tels vs a storie of the mislikers of Images but he neither begins where â—e should and dissents without any sufficient reason from Alphonsus a Castro and maketh that seauenth Councell his chiefest bulwarke speaker D. B. P. I vvill vvith one or tvvo testimonies of the auncientest Fatherâ— finish this controuersie I â—ctant Iâ— car de pass Christ. Kneâ—le downe and adore the venerable wâ—od of thâ— Crosse. Hâ—â—rome 〈◊〉 vita Paulae She adored prostrate before the Crosse as if shee had seâ—â—e Christ hanging on it Basil agaiâ—st Jâ—lian cited Act.