we haue care to maintaine and obserue these caueats being remembred first that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done speaker D. B. P. See what a â—…erent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Synagogue which is no part of the true Church speaker A. W. Hee that obserues what your Romish synagogue hath brought into Gods seruice and remembers that the Church that is men which beare sway in it may fondly erre will acknowledge this caueat most needfull No stage-play is so full of fooleries as your Masse-game speaker W. P. Secondly that they bee not imposed as any parts of Gods worship speaker D. B. P. This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship speaker A. W. Order and comelinesse are no parts of Gods worship but adiuncts seruing to the better performance thereof as the obseruation of due and fit circumstances giue a grace and furtherance to any action whatsoeuer speaker W. P. Thirdly that they be seuered from superstition or opinion of merit speaker D. B. P. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seneted from superstition speaker A. W. That is absurd which is contrarie to common reason or sense but all things superstitious are not so yea many points of superstition haue so much shew of reason for them that without Gods commandement to the contrarie a wise man might thinke them very fit meanes of Gods worship and meritorious Such was the Gentiles worshipping of Angels supposing they had worshipped none but God such is your worshipping of Angels and he saincts and she saincts now adayes such is your feare of displeasing God if you eate flesh on saincts eauens or in Lent and such like speaker W. P. Lastly that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of them And thus much wee hold touching Traditions speaker D. B. P. The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he tearmeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Actes of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Actes of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knovves That then vvhich is of record there cannot be tearmed a Tradition Though the Acts of the Apostles be a part of the written word yet was not the booke written when that decree was first obserued neither doth Master Perkins giue it the name of himselfe but saith it is tearmed a tradition The difference speaker W. P. Papists teach that beside the written worde there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must bee beleeued as profitable and necessarie to saluation And these they say are twofold Apostolicall namely such as were deliuered by the Apostles and not written and Ecclesiasticall which the Church decreeth as occasion is offered Wee hold that the Scriptures are most perfect containing in them all doctrines needfull to saluation whether they concerne faith or manners and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written worde which shall bee necessarie to saluation so as hee which beleeueth them not cannot be saued speaker D. B. P. Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts The first we rearme Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God Thesecond Apostolicall as deliuered by the holy Apostles The third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernors of the Curch after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of Traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours Traditions than of thefoure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honor and credit doe we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten as written For incke and paper brought no new holines nor gaue any force and vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had been written Here the question is principally of diuine Traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed speaker A. W. Diuine traditions are such as were deliuered by our Sauiour say you and are diuers from those that the Apostles left So that the controuersie is principally of those matters that Christ only spake and neither the Euangelists nor Apostles haue set downe in writing But that we may vnderstand what wee doe it is further to be knowne that the question is not whether if there be any such traditions wee are bound to beleeue them for that is out of all doubt but whether there be any such or no or whether the Scriptures doe not containe sufficient direction for the determining of al matters of importance to saluation and for the substance of religion You that you may discredit the Scriptures to aduance traditions doe not so much as acknowledge that the maine grounds of doctrine are there plainly taught but mince the matter with your some such principall points and may be gathered out of the holy Scripture whereas not onely those two you name but if not all yet many more are manifestly therein declared Our reasons speaker W. P. Testimonie I. Deutr. 4. 2. Thou shalt not adde to the words that I commande thee nor take anything therefrom therefore the written worde is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to saluation If it bee said that this commandement is spoken as well of the vnwritten as of the written word I answere that Moses speaketh of the written word onely for these very words are a certaine preface which hee set before a long commentarie made of the written lawe for this ende to make the people more attentiue and obedient speaker D. B. P. Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtraction chaunge or peruert Gods commaundements whether they be written or vnwritten speaker A. W. To interpret this place of vnwritten traditions is to strengthen the Iewes error and to voide our Sauiours reproofe And if there were any such though the particulars were
not to be recorded yet it is strange that Moses should not once make mention of them in generall Thomas expounds it of adding to the words of the Scripture And if it be lawful for all these prohibitions to adde other doctrines why doth Chrysostome reprooue the Iewish Priests for hauing added many things to the law though Moses with threatning charged them they should not For it is certaine they neuer added to nor any way corrupted the text But Chrysostome accuseth them of adding because they deliuered doctrines that were not written in the Scripture as our Sauiour also saith of them Cardinall Caietan wils vs to gather from this place that the law of God is perfect speaker D. B. P. Now to inferre that because they are as a preface vnto Moses Lavv that therefore nothing must be added vnto the same Law is extreame dotage speaker A. W. What is it to refute that which your aduersarie saith not Master Perkins proues that Moses spake of the written law because he sets it as a preface before his Commentarie vpon the same law You answere nothing to that but crie out vpon extreame dotage for inferrring that because it is a preface to Moses law therefore nothing must be added to it Who inferres any such matter but your selfe You need not make worke you haue your hands full speaker D. B. P. Why then were the bookes of the old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught besides that one booke of Deuteronomie Shall we thinke that none of the Prophets that liued and wrote many volumes after this had read these vvords or that they either vnderstood them not or that vnderstanding them vvell did vvilfully transgresse against them one of these the Protestants must needs defend or else for very shame surcease the alleadging of this text for the all sufficiencie of the written vvord We neither need nor will defend either of them But we denie your consequence if no man might adde any thing to the law of God deliuered by Moses then the Prophets offended in writing so many volumes The reason is that the Prophets writ not as men but as the instruments of Gods spirit inditing and penning by them God did not tie his owne hands by that commandement that he might not from time to time instruct his people as it should seeme good to his infinite wisedome To speake yet more plainly the Prophets and Apostles writings are nothing els but expositions of that the summe whereof is deliuered in the fiue bookes of Moses wherein the whole doctrine of the Law and the Gospell is contained speaker W. P. Testimonie II. Isai. 8. 20. To the law and to the testimonie If they speake not according to this worde it is because there is no light in them Here the Prophet teacheth what must be done in cases of difficultie Men must not runne to the wizard or southsaier but to the law and testimonie and here he commends the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubts and scruples in conscience whatsoeuer speaker D. B. P. Here the Prophet teacheth saith M. Perkins vvhat is to be done in cases of difficulty Men must not runne to the Wizards and Soothsayers but to the Lavve and to the Testament commending the vvritten vvord as sufficient to resolue all doubts By the Lavv and testimony in that place the fiue books of Moses are to be vnderstood If that written Word be sufficient to resolue all doubts vvhatsoeuer What need vve then the Prophets vvhat need vve the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles What Wizard vvould haue reasoned in such sort speaker A. W. The Scripture is not to resolue all doubts but all doubts and scruples of conscience whatsoeuer which you craftily leaue out in propounding our reason Your consequence is false If the fiue bookes of Moses be sufficient for the resoluing of al doubts what need any writings of the Prophets Euangelists or Apostles Is not the Ciuill and Canon law in your iudgement sufficient to resolue all doubts in cases concerning them is there therefore no need of any exposition thereof The rest of the Scripture is a Commentarie vpon those fiue bookes Besides is nothing required in the scripture but resoluing of doubts The historie of the Church is worth the knowing for our instruction comfort exhortation imitation and such like speaker D. B. P. The Prophet vvilleth there that the Israelites vvho vvanted vvit to discerne vvhether it be better to flie vnto God for counsell than vnto Wizards and Sooth-sayers to see vvhat is vvritten in the Lavv of Moses concerning that point of consulting Wizards vvhich is there plainely forbidden in diuers places Novv out of one particular case vvhereof there is expresse mention in the vvritten vvord to conclude that all doubts and scruples vvhatsoeuer are thereby to be decided is a most vnskilfull part arguing as great vvant of light in him as vvas in those blind Israelites speaker A. W. The Prophet doth not send them to the Law and to the testimonie to see whether it be lawfull to enquire of Soothsayers or no but tels them that they must looke into the booke of God to see whether such iudgements as the Prophets threatned should not befall them if they continued their sinning against God So that hee wils them not to hearken what the Southsayers say of their escaping the iudgements that the Prophets denounced but to trie whether their promises of safetie or the others threatning of destruction were agreeable to the word of God Though the case be particular which you put amisse yet if the triall of the Prophets doctrine be to be made by the scripture as it is wherein may we looke to vnwritten traditions speaker W. P. Testimonie III. Iohn 20. 31. These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue euerlasting life Here is set downe the full end of the Gospell and of the whole written word which is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation and therefore the whole scripture alone is sufficient to this ende without traditions speaker D. B. P. 3. Testimony These things vvere vvritten that yee might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ and in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set dovvne the full end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to vvhich the vvhole Scripture alone is sufficient vvithout Traditions Ans Here are more faults than lines First the text is craftily mangled Things being put in steed of Miracleâ— For S. Iohn saith Many other Miracles Christ did c but these vvere vvritten c. speaker A. W. Mangling is cutting off some part not putting one word for another especially such a word as containes the other Things-comprehends both doings and sayings and to both doth one of your Glosses referre this narration euen on the former verse where the word miracle is set
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
Origenist taught that sinne was not taken away in Baptisme but only couered as is recorded by that holy man and auncient Father Eâ—…anius M. Perâ—ins in the name of the Church of England affirmeth in like manner that originall sinne remaineth still and raigneth in the regenerate albeit it is not imputed vnto them speaker A. W. Neither Methodius out of whom Epiphanius recites Proclus opinions in many leaues together word for word nor Epiphanius himselfe refute that of the remainders of sin after Baptisme rather they both confesse that the sproutes and branches of concupiscence abide in vs yea that sinne dwels in vs by which the diuell preuailes The Apostle saith Methodius Rom. 7. seemes to make a three-fold law The first the law of the minde according to that good that is ingrafted in vs. The second by the assault of the diuell vrging and distracting the minde by imaginations full of passion The third which triumphs in the flesh by sinne which the Apostle calles the law of sinne dwelling in our members That Hierom is of our opinion in this point it appeares in his booke against the Pelagians speaker D. B. P. Iouinian was accounted a Monster by S. Augustine for defending honest Marriage to be of equall vertue and merite with chaste Virginitie and saith further that this heresie was so sottish and fleshly that it could not deceiue any one learned Priest but onely some few simple and carnall women Yet this our English champion blusheth not to affirme that marriage is not only equall but better also in diuers respects than Virginitie speaker A. W. S. Austin was neither so ancient nor so holie as S. Paul hauing him on our side we neede not feare the other But the report you make of him is vntrue For these are his words in English This heresie preuailed so much in the citie of Rome that it is said to haue throwne into the estate of mariage euen some vowed virgins of whose chastitie there had been no suspition before So farre is Augustine from calling them simple and carnall Beside he addes though you will not be knowne of it that he weakned and ouerthrew the holy single life of holie men by rehearsing and commending the Fathers Abraham Isaack Iacob who were married men And whereas he saith it could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests for learned and any one is your glosse besides the text he seemes to attribute it to the short continuance thereof It was saith he quickly opprest and extinguished and could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests speaker D. B. P. The same olde reprobate heretike barked also against approoued feasts and fasting dayes so doe most of our Ministers at this time speaker A. W. Our Ministers doe all generally approoue both of feasts and fasting daies keeping the former more religiously than you doe ordinarily the Sabbath The latter we obserue with reuerence and humilitie whensoeuer they are appointed Fish daies superstitiously abused by you are ciuilly retained by vs with lesse riot than your selues doe vse speaker D. B. P. Vigilantius was sharpely reprooued by S. Hierome in a booke written against him and hath been euer since vnto this day esteemed a wicked heretike for denying prayer to Saints and honour to be done vnto their Reliâ—es And yet what poynt of Doctrine is more currant among the Protestants than this speaker A. W. Erasmus not without cause findes want of modestie in that treatise of Hieroms he might haue found want of truth too if Vigilantius held no worse opinion than those you recite But of the former namely praying to Saints neither the one nor the other speakes a word And indeede it was not the manner in those daies to pray to the Martyrs but to pray at their Tombes which custome it should seeme remained till that time according to the former practise of the Christians who assembled ordinarily where the Martyrs were buried before they were suffered to haue any Churches speaker A. W. In like sorte one Aërius to the Arrian heresie added this of his owne That we must not pray for the soules of our friends departed as S. Augustine hath registred And doe not all Protestants imbrace and earnestly defend the same This doctrine of prayer for the dead the deniall whereof is counted an errour in Aërius hath no foundation in the Scripture but was built vpon the tradition of the Fathers as he from whom Austin takes the accusation confesseth speaker A. W. A common custome it was of the Arrians and of other more auncient heretikes to reiect all Traditions and to rely onely vpon the written word as testifieth S. Ireneus and S. Augustine Doe not ours the same reiecting all Traditions as Mans Inuention A perilous error no doubt to rest wholy vpon the written word that is to beleeue none but God in matters of his owne worship and religion Ireneus in the places alleaged hath no word of reiecting traditions rather hee speakes the contrarie of Simon Maguâ— who reiected the Scripture to establish his owne deuices S. Austin findes no fault with Maximinus for resting vpon the Scriptures nor indeede reasonably could for it is his own doctrine in that conference with the Heretike and other where speaker D. B. P. Xeaâ—…s a Barbaâ—ous Persian indeed yet in shew a counterfeited Christian is noted for one of the first among Christians that inueyed against the Images of Saints and the worship done by true Christians vnto them as both Nicephorus and Cedâ—… comppenâ—… doe recorde The reprobate Iewes indeede before him and after euen vntill this day the misâ—râ—anâ— Turkes enemies of all Christianitie doe dwell still in the same erâ—…r And yet is not this most vehemently auerâ—ed by our Protestants and all â—aluiâ—â—sts although they cannot denie but that aboue 900. yeares agoe in the second generall Councell holden at Nice they are by the conâ—â—nt of the best and most learned of the world for euer accursed that doe denie reuerence and worshippe to be giuen vnto the Images of Saints speaker A. W. Nicephorus you should haue added Callistus that the reader might haue knowne whom you meant and haue quoted lib. 16. not 10. who liued not 400. yeeres since and Cedrenus who liued as it is thought about the yeere 1058. are neither of antiquitie nor credit to auow a historie not recorded by any of their ancients But how could Xenaias about the yeere 478. be one of the first if the Commentarie vpon Damascen say true That the worshipping of Images was condemned as superstitious by some about the beginning of the Gospell preached Cedrenus saith be was one of the first Callistus after him more then 200. yeeres saith he was the first speaker D. B. P. The second Councel of Nice was a conuenticle of Idolaters neither of the best nor of the most learned and was presently after
together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthelie is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition Shee loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnes and therfore accounted her precious oyntments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charitie which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his ovvne vvord is most manifest for he said That many sinnes vvere forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue vvas no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before vvhich is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame vvould blush once to affirme it speaker A. W. In stead of answering your long discourse grounded vpon meere coniectures for the most part which for the womans sake I will not examine let me put you in minde that if all this you report of her were true she was iustified before these actions which could not proceede but from a great measure of grace especially such an inward burning charitie as is not easily to be found in many a one that hath been iustified a long time speaker A. W. First Christ saith expresly that it vvas the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins hath answered you that our Sauiour saith not so and hath prooued his answere by the like place of S. Iohn where the same word is vsed and no cause propounded but a signe onely Would you not haue taken away this answer if you had could But the text it self cleeres the matter first by the parable propounded with Simons answer and our Sauiours approbation then by the application of it lastly by the general doctrine gathered out of it to whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little To this purpose Basil saith That he that owes much hath much forgiuen him that he may loue much more Secondly that her loue vvent before is as plainelie declered both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the â—â—â—dence of her fact of vvashing wiping and anoynting his feete for â—hâ— vvhich saith our Sauiour then already performed Many siâ—… are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearely deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one vvill bee so blindly ledde by our nevv Masters that he vvill beleeue no vvords of Christ be they neuer so plaine othervvise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said vvere of no moment speaker A. W. The mention of the time past is too weake a reason to ouerthrow so certaine proofe out of the whole course of the text especially since that notable conclusion is deliuered immediatly vpon the former words in the present time to whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little Neither doth our Sauiour tie the pardon of her sinnes to that present time but then giueth her knowledge of that which was done before saying first to Simon Many sinnes are forgiuen her and then to her selfe Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker W. P. Reason II. Gal. 5. 6. Neither circumcision nor vncircumcision auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by loue Hence they gather that faith doth iustifie together with loue Ans. The propertie of true faith is to apprehend and receiue something vnto it selfe and loue that goes alwaies with faith as a fruite and an vnseparable companion thereof is of an other nature For it doth not receiue in but as it were giue out it selfe in all the duties of the first and second table towards God and man and this thing faith by it selfe cannot doe and therefore Paul saith that faith worketh by loue The hand hath a property to reach out it selfe to lay hold of any thing and to receiue a gift but the hand hath no propertie to cut a peece of wood of it selfe without saw or knife or some like instrument and yet by helpe of them it can either deuide or cut Euen so it is the nature of faith to goe out of it selfe and to receiue Christ into the heart as for the duties of the first and second table faith cannot of it selfe bring them forth no more then the hand can deuide or cut yet ioyne loue to faith and then can it practise duties commanded concerning God and man And this I take to be the meaning of this text which speaketh not of iustification by faith but onely of the practise of common duties which faith putteth in execution by the helpe of loue speaker D. B. P. Reply That charity hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and hand maâ—id of charity My proofe shall be out of the very text alleadged vvhere life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke vvord Euergoumene being passiue doth plainely shevv that faith is moued led and guided by charity speaker A. W. The Greek word is not of the passiue but of the middle voyce as it is in many other places of Scriptures The affections of the flesh did worke in our members operabantur in your own translation Death workes in vs but life in you operatur According to the power that worketh in vs operatur According to his working which he worketh in me quam operatur in me And in this very place operatur which cannot be taken passiuely as euery Grammar scholler knoweth In the Interlinear faith which is effectuall Pagnin working by loue Faith saith Theophylact on that place workes by loue that is saith he ought alwaies to be shewed to be aliue and effectuall by loue to Christ. And a little after Learne therefore that faith worketh by charitie that is saith he is shewed to be aliue The best of your owne writers expound it as we doe speaker A. W. Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifest saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith vvithout charity Making charitie to be the life and as it vvere the soule of faith Novv no man is ignorant but it is the soule that vseth the body as an instrument euen so then it is charity that vseth saith as her instrument and inferiour and not contrarivvise First the word in that place doth not signifie the soule but breath as Caietan saith Secondly the Apostle saith not without charitie as you doe but without workes which cannot be taken for the life of faith but are onely effects of it Thirdly for the meaning of the place let vs here your owne Cardinall Caietan speake By the name of spirit saith Caietan he vnderstands not
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
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
in his steed to which he may haue recourse as often as any truth is to be taught any error to be confuted any fault to be reprooued or any good dutie to be enioyned Further we vnderstand by the Apostle himself that the Scriptures are able to make him wise to saluation And thence we conclude that they containe all things necessarie to saluation And if any thing els were requisite it is strange that the Apostle should not commend the especiall meditation thereof vnto him since without it he could not be perfect speaker W. P. The second that which can make the man of God that is Prophets and Apostles and the Ministers of the word perfect in all the duties of their callings that same worde is sufficient to make all other men perfect in all good works But Gods word is able to make the man of God perfect Therefore it is sufficient to prescribe the true and perfect way to eternall life without the helpe of vnwritten traditions speaker D. B. P. The same ansvvere I make vnto M. Perkins his second argument out of the same place that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute but not sufficient speaker W. P. The same replie make I against this answer that both the Apostle and the interpreters alleaged proue that they are so profitable that they make the man of God sufficient Besides any man may obserue that you answer to neither part of Master Perkins syllogisme but roue at the imagined exposition of the place speaker D. B. P. I say moreouer that Master Perkins doth falsely English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures when it signifieth all Scripture that is euery booke of Scripture and is there put to verifie that the old Testament only serues to instruct to saluation For in the words next before S. Paul sheweth how that Timothy from his infancie had been trained vp in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures which saith he can instruct thee to saluation And annexeth as the confirmation thereof the Text cited All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. Now in Timothies infancie no part of the new Testament was written and therefore all Scripture which is here put to proue that Scripture which Timothie in his Infancie knew cannot but by vnreasonable wresting signifie more than all the bookes of the old Testament speaker A. W. The words are rightly translated that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these places manifestly prooue Col. 2. 9. In him dwels the whole fulnes of the Godhead Act. 20. 27. The whole counsaile of God Luk. 21. 32. All the people Ephes. 4. 16. The whole bodie Rom. 4. 16. The whole seede 2. Thess. 1. 11. All the good pleasure Matth. 3. 5. All Iudea and all the region thereabout That it must be so taken in this place Dionysius the Carthusian witnesseth All that is the whole Canonicall scripture The Scriptures saith your ordinarie Glosse And in that sense did the Interpreters expound it If we take it as you doe euery Psalme euery verse yea euery word as being from God by inspiration must haue all these properties For whereas you would restraine it to euery booke of scripture the words will not beare it If the old Testament onely without the new had this sufficiencie can it be insufficient now the new is added which indeed is rather an explication than an addition to the former It is more than can be prooued that no part of the new Testament was written in Timothies childhood he being at this time but a young man and this being one of the last Epistles if not the very last that euer the Apostle wrote a little before his martyrdome speaker D. B. P. So that there are three foule faults in this the Protestants Achilles The first in falsification of the text that it might seeme to be spoken of the whole which is spoken of euery part The second in applying that which is spoken of the olde Testament vnto both the olde and new The third in making that to bee all-sufficient which S. Paul affirmeth onley to bee profitable And this is all they can say out of the Scripture to proue that the vvritten Word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation speaker A. W. Your first and second faults are none at all The translation is true and the reason good though you expound the place onely of the old Testament The third is sufficiently cleere that the profit the Scripture brings is the perfecting of the man of God to euery good worke speaker D. B. P. Whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them out of this their ovâ—ne position Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation as hath been proued Therfore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation speaker A. W. Your inuincible reason is like your great Masters inuincible Armada so strong in your conceit not in truth I denie the assumption of your syllogisme as it lies that place of Timothie if there were no more prooues the matter sufficiently But if by written in the Scripture you meane set downe in plaine words I denie also the proposition For many things are contained in the Scripture that are not expresly deliuered and that your great champion Bellarmine knew well enough when he propounded your opinion so craftily by that word expresse expresly speaker D. B. P. And by the same principle I might reiect all testimony of Antiquitie as needlesse if the Scriptures be so al-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs here what testimony M. Perkins brings out of antiquity in fauour of his cause speaker A. W. Not only you may but you must also reiect all testimonie of antiquitie that would bring in any doctrine necessarie to saluation which cannot be prooued by scripture Indeed the writings of the ancients are as you call them testimonies that is witnesses of the truth deliuered in the scripture not autenticall records of any other truth To this purpose they are highly to be esteemed when they agree with the truth and to beheld as agreeing when there is not some good reason to be brought to the contrarie speaker W. P. V. the iudgement of the Church Turtul saith Take from hereticks opinions which they maintaine with the heathen that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand speaker D. B. P. Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of Heathen Authors and not to the Traditions of the Apostles and therefore make nothing against them speaker A. W. The Scripture is here appealed to as the onely competent Iudge in matters of controuersie about religion For otherwise if
man conclude the point out of them and we will yeeld if wee shew not a reasonable cause to the contrarie Secondly I adde fuâ—thâ—r that if it were granted that there were some such traditiâ—…s â—â—et as Austin saith of the first place who can say these or those be they For the most part of the traditions that are now thrust vpon the Church by you Papists are in comparison but new and very trifles or meere superstitious speaker D. B. P. Our Sauiour said being at the point of his passion That he had manie things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Our Sauiour after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking vvith them of the kingdome of God of vvhich little is vvritten in any of the Euangelists I commend you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you speaker A. W. Now for the particulars the first is answered alreadie the second makes a bad consequence Christ spake often with his Disciples of the kingdome of God of which little is written in the Euangelists therfore there are some points necessarie to saluation not recorded in Scripture His talke with them might be for exhortation and consolation especially Who can say whatsoeuer it were that it is not written in the Epistles By traditions Ambrose vnderstands in the 2. Thessal nothing but the Gospell in that place to the Corinthians the Apostle seemes in all likelihood to speake of ceremonies or circumstances in their carriage about Gods seruice which neither is matter of saluation nor to be alwaies alike in all places and at al times So doth Ambrose vnderstand him speaker D. B. P. O Timothy keepe the depositum that is that vvhich I deliuered thee to keepe Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things committed vnto thee to 〈◊〉 vvhich vvas as S. Chrysostom and Thesphilact expound the true doctrine of Christ the true sense of holy Scriptures the right admini words be not set downe in Scripture yet the matter is if not expresly which is not needfull yet by necessarie consequence as it may euidently appeare by the Councill and Fathers wherein and by whom the contrarie to those opinions is condemned and confuted The first point is implied necessarily in all those places by which our Sauiour is prooued to be true God that is the same God with his Father which you shall finde in Athanasius writings and the first Councill of Nice The second of the holy Ghosts proceedings from the Sonne as well as from the Father is prooued by Thomas out of the Scripture and by other against the Greeke Church The third beside that place of Iohn is necessarily concluded since there can be but one God out of the texts that prooue euery one of them seuerally to be God and by that of Matthew The fourth is prooued out of Scripture by the first Councill of Ephesus against Nestorius so that for these points we neede no traditions speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Sundrie places of Scripture be doubtfull and euery religion hath his seuerall exposition of them as the Papists haue theirs and the Protestants theirs Now then seeing there can be but one truth when question is of the interpretation of Scripture recourse must be had to the tradition of the Church that the true sense may be determined and the question ended Ans. It is not so but in doubtfull places Scripture it selfe is sufficient to declare his owne meaning first by the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places of Scripture secondly by the circumstances of the place and the nature and signification of the wordes thirdly by conference of place with place By these and like helps contained in Scripture wee may iudge which is the truest meaning of any place Scripture it selfe is the text and the best glosse And the Scripture is falsly tearmed the matter of strife it beeing not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man And thus much for our consent concerning Traditions wherein we must not be wauering but steadfast because notwithstanding our renouncing of Poperie yet Popish inclinations and dispositions bee rife among vs. Our common people maruelouslie affect humane traditions yea mans nature is inclined more to bee pleased with them then with the word of God The feast of the natiuitie of our Sauiour Christ is onely a custome and tradition of the Church and yet men are commonly more carefull to keepe it then the Lords day the keeping whereof stands by the morall law Positiue lawes are not sufficient to restraine vs from buying and selling on the Sabbath yet within the twelue daies no man keepes market Againe see the truth of this in our affection to the ministerie of the word let the Preacher alleage Peter and Paul the people count it but common stuffe such as any man can bring but let men come and alleadge Ambrose Austin and the rest of the fathers oh he is the man hee is alone for them Againe let any man bee in danger any way and straight hee sendeth to the wise man or wizzard Gods worde is not sufficient to comfort and direct him All this argues that Poperie denied with the mouth abides still in the heart and therefore wee must learne to reuerence the written word by ascribing vnto it all manner of perfection speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Traditions Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken literally or figuratiuely If then it be put to euery Christian to take his owne exposition euery seuerall sect will coyne interpretations in fauour of their owne opinions and so shall the word of God ordained only to teach vs the truth be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors To auoid which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the Traditions and auncient Records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true Exposition and sense of it and thereby consute and reiect all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those ancient and holy Commentaries So that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture Traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answere is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it selfe is the best glosse If these be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the cleerest places Secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words Thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsely tearmed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man speaker A. W. First this reason can conclude nothing against our
condemned by the Councell of Frankfort I will omitte sundrie other heades of the Protestants Religion by all approued antiquitie reproued aad condemned that I passe not the boundes of an Epistle and seeme ouer tedious vnto your Maiestie Especially considering that these are sufficient to conuince that those points wherein the Protestants affirme the present Church of Rome to haue so farre degenerate from the auncient are the very essentiall parts of saith then maintayned by the Romans And the contrary opinions nothing else but wicked heresies of old inuented and obstinately helde against the same Roman See euen as they are now our time and of old also condemned by the same Church in her most flourishing and best estate Wherefore your most excellent Maiestie being resolute in that singular good opinion that no Church ought farther to depart from the Church of Rome then shee is departed from her selfe in her flourishing estate must needes recall the Church of England from such extrauagant opinions to ioyne with the Roman Church in the aforesaid articles which shee in her best time helde for parts of pure faith And in all others also which they cannot directly proue in a lawfull disputation before your Maiestie to haue beene altred by her particularly naming the point of Doctrine the author oâ— the chaunge the time and place where and when ht liued who followed him who resisted him and such other like circumstances which all bee easily shewed in euery such reuolte or innouation because thâ— vigilant care of the Pastors of Christs flocke haue bin alwaies so great as no such things could be vnknowne let slippe or vnrecorded Thus much for my first reason collected from the vntruth of the Protestants religion speaker A. W. What are nine points to nine skore that I may speake the least and yet it is not prooued that any of these were held by the Romanes whose faith S. Paul commends nor indeed euer can be It is enough for vs if we can shew by record of Scripture that the doctrine the Church of Rome now holds is not that she maintained in her best estate which we often haue done and alwaies will be ready to doe Is it not a good plea in law to prooue by ancient euidences and deedes that the land was mine vnlesse I can shew when and how the possession of euery house Medow Close c. was lost yet it stands you vpon to proue how you came by it and by what right you hold it Which you must doe when all comes to all by the Scripture or else your title will neuer be good speaker D. B. P. The second shall be grounded vpon the vngodlines of it where I wil let passe that high point of impiety that they make God who is goodnes it selfe the author of all wicked actions done in the world And will besides say nothing of that their blasphemie against our Sauiour Iesus Christ that he ouercome with the paines of his passion vpon the Crosse did doubt if not dispaire of his owne saluation being vnwilling to touch any other poynts then such as are afterwards discussed in this booke speaker A. W. You may well let both these passe for they are your slanders not our opinions as hath been shewed sufficiently elsewhere The triumphant Citizens of heauen who enioy the presence of God and happiest life that can be imagined are by Protestants disdainfullie termed Dead men and esteemed neither to haue credit with God to obtaine any thing nor any care or compassion on men among whom they once liued and conuersed so kindly The Saints departed we loue and honour but are forced to call them dead men as Austin doth by reason of your Idolatrie with the same disdaine in our weake measure with which the Apostle disgraced Circumcision Of their credit with God we doubt not their care of men we denie not but wee know no calling they haue to become our mediatours with dishonour to God and Christ. And as for the poore soules departed who in Purgatorie fire pay deare for their former delightes and pleasures they depriue them of all humane succour by teaching the world to beleeue that there is no such matter speaker D. B. P. We depriue them of nothing that God in the Scripture allowes them Prooue your Purgatorie thence and we will confesse our error Concerning vs Christians yet liuing on earth there is no lesse impietie in their opinions For they teach that the best Christian is no better in effect then a whited Sepulchre being inwardly full of all wickednes and mischiefe and onlie by an outwarde imputation of Christs righteousnes vnto them are accepted of God for iust To thinke that there is inherent in the soule of Man any such grace of God as doth cleanse it from sinne and make the man iust in his sight is with them to raze the foundation of Religion and to make Christ a Pseudochrist wherein I know not whether they be more enuious against the good of Man then they are iniurious either to the inestimable value of Christs blood as though it could not deserue any better estate for his fauourites or vnto the vertue and efficacie of the holy Ghost as not being able by likeliehood to purge mens soules from sinne and endue them with such Heauenly qualities I omitte the disgrace thereby don to the Blessed God-head it selfe making the Holie of Holies father willing to couer and cleake our iniquitie then to cure it And contrarie to his infinite goodnes to loue them whom hè seeth defiled with all manner of abhominations speaker A. W. We acknowledge euery true Christian to be righteous in the sight of God after iustification by inherent though imperfect righteousnes and account none whited sepulchers but those that bragge or make shee of holines being but hypocrites We ascribe our iustification wholy and onely to the mercie of God in forgiuing our sinnes for Christs obedience by accounting faith to vs for rightcousnes We enuie not the good of man but preferre Gods truth before mans pride Our Sauiour Christs sacrifice we megnifie as infinitly perfect but wee know the whole eâ—…t thereof is not perfected at once in vs though the holie Ghost be of infinit power which in respect of vs is limited by the gratious and wise prouidence of God We teach that God doth not onely couer our sinnes by forgiuing them but cure our corruption by abolishing it wholy yet by little and little His loue depends not vpon our righteousnes for he loued vs when wee were most vnrighteous but vpon the estate of being his sonnes members of his beloued sonne Iesus Christ and elected to adoption and saluation by him before the foundation of the world was laid speaker D. B. P. Vnto these paradoxes impious against God and slaunderous to man If it will please your Maiestie to adde the prophane carnallity of some other poynts of the Protestant Doctrine you
may open and shut heauen to whom he will and bind the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ. speaker D. B. P. But to leaue to you the reconciliation of these places let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox That the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ which you goe about to proue by foure instances The first is because the seruant of his seruants may chaunge and adde to his commandements hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whom he will and biâ—de the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker oâ— the spirituall kâ—ngdome of Christ. Here are diuerse reasons huâ—â—â—d vp in one but all of 〈◊〉 moment for all these seuerall faculties which the Pope enioyeth being receiued by the free gift of Christ and to be employed in his seruice only and to his honour and glorie are so farre off from making Christ a Pseudochrist that they doe highly recommend his most singular bountie towardes his followers without any derogation to his owne diuine prerogatiues â—he particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter Now I say in a word that Christs Vicar cannot change any one of Gods commaundements nor adde any contrarie vnto them but may well enact and establish some other conformable vnto them which doe bind in conscience for that power is graunted of God to euery soueraigne gouernour as witnesseth S. Paul saying Let euery soule be subiect to higher povvers And that as it is in the fifth verse following of necessitie not only for vvrath but also for conscience sake So that to at tribute power vnto one that is vnder Christ to binde our consciences is not to make Christ a Pseudochrist but to glorifie him much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to giue vnto men In like manner what an absurde illation is that from the power to open and shut heauen gates which all both Catholikes and Protestants confesse to haue been giuen to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to inferre that Christ is made a Pseudochrist as who should say the Master spoiled himselfe of his supreame authoritie by appoynting a stevvard ouer his householde or a porter at his gates he must be both Master and Man too belike And thus much of the first instance speaker A. W. First you begge the question in taking it as granted that the Popes power is receiued of Christ. Secondly it doth not follow that Christ is not made a Pseudochrist if the power be receiued of Christ to be imployed in his seruice only For it may be imployed by the Pope to another end than it is giuen by Christ. As an armie committed to a Generall by his Soueraigne may bee turned against the Prince to his ouerthrow He that can dispense with Gods commandements so that either a man shall be freed from doing that which is inioyned or haue libertie to doe that which is forbidden can change Gods commandements But such dispensations haue been giuen by Popes and may as well be still In all things inioyned by the commandements of God the law of the Magistrate bindes men in conscience to obedience by vertue of the matter commanded In things indifferent the conscience is not alwaies charged with sinne where that which is appointed is not done but you Papists as it appeares by your Catechismes make the Commandements of the Church equall or superiour to Gods commandements The opening and shutting of heauen by the worke of the Ministerie which is the power that was giuen to the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospell is not to be executed at their pleasure but depends vpon the people as much as vpon them if not more For whosoeuer will repent and beleeue shall be saued though all the Popes Priests and Ministers that euer were are and shall be would shut him out of heauen Therefore the Pope hath no authoritie nor power to open the doore to one man more than to another much lesse to let in and shut out whom he list He must open it if he be a Minister of the Gospell as much as lies in him to al if they wil enter they may without any further leaue or power from him speaker W. P. Againe they call him a Sauiour but yet in Vs in that he giues this grace vnto vs that by our merits we may partake in the merits of the Saints speaker D. B. P. Come we now to the second it is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I meruaile in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merite and so become our owne Sauiours This is a phrase vnheard of among Catholiks that any man is his owne Sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we applie vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good works as the Protestants auouâ—h they doe by faith onely In which sence the Apostle S. Paul saith to his deare Disciple Timothie For this doing thou shalt saue both thyselfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiour infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith only good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be proued hereafter more at large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may steede them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God saith that for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shew mercy vnto thousands as is expressely said in the end of the first commandement speaker A. W. Christ is a sauiour of vs by redeeming vs not a sauiour in vs by making vs redeeme our selues Though the speech be not yours the matter is For if Christ be therefore a Sauiour because by his merits we are saued looke how much wee merit our saluation so much wee are sauiours of our selues yea how much merit there is in our workes so much there wanted in Christs satisfaction or else our saluation is in part twice merited The Minister saues not by meriting but by preaching the word of saluation works must needs diminish Christs glorie more than faith because this saues not by meriting they doe the matter cannot be deduced from such places The mercie God shewes in that respect is either for the blessings of this life or at the most for the outward meanes of saluation speaker W. P. And they acknowledge that he died and suffered
part of our soule but that the renewing of Gods image in vs is the renewing of that part Now this is done by sanctification not by iustification properly taken I can finde no such thing in that booke of Cyrill but if euer he spake so what is that against vs who easily grant that we are inherently righteous as soone as the sanctifying spirit of God hath kindled the fire of loue in our hearts II. Difference about the manner of Iustification speaker W. P. All both Papists and Protestants agree that a sinner is iustified by faith This agreement is onely in worde and the difference betweene vs is great in deede And it may be reduced to these three heads First the Papist saying that a man is iustified by faith vnderstandeth a general or a Catholike faith whereby a man beleeueth the articles of religion to bee true But we hold that the faith which iustifieth is a particular faith whereby we applie to our selues the promises of righteousnesse and life euerlasting by Christ. And that our opinion is the truth I haue proued before but I will adde a reason or twaine Reason I. The faith whereby we liue is that faith whereby we are iustified but the faith whereby we liue spiritually is a particular faith wherby we apply Christ vnto our selues as Paul saith Gal. 2. 20. I liue that is spiritually by the faith of the sonne of God which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ in the very wordes following who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me particularly and in this manner of beleeuing Paul was and is an example to all that are to be saued 1. Tim. 1. 16. and Phil. 3. 15. speaker D. B. P. Ans. The â—aior I admit and deny the Minor and say that the proofe is not to purpose For in the Minor he speaketh of faith vvhereby vve apply Christs merits vnto ourselues making them ours in the proofe S. Paul saith only that Christ died for him in particular He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice and making of it his owne which are very distinct things All Catholikes beleeue with Saint Paul that Christ dyed as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular yea and that his loue vvas so exceeding great tovvards mankind that he vvould vvillingly haue bestovved his life for the redemption of one only man But hereupon it doth not follovv that euery man may lay hands vpon Christs righteousnes and apply it to himselfe or else Tuâ—…s Iovves Heretikes and euill Catholikes might make verie bold with him but must first doe those things vvhich he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent them hartely of their sins to beleeue and hope in him to be baptized and to haue a full purpose to obserue all his commandements Which M. 〈◊〉 also confesseth that allmen haue not only promised but also â—ovâ—ed in Baptisme Novv because vve are not assured that vve shall performe all 〈◊〉 therefore vve may not so presumptuously apply vnto ourselâ—es Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting although vve beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular speaker A. W. That vvhich follovveth in M. Perkins hath no colour of probability that S. Paul in this manner of beleefe that is in applying to himselfe Christs merits vvas an example to all that are saued See the places good Reader and learne to bevvare the bold vnskilfulnes of sectaries For there is not a vvord sounding that vvay but only hovv he hauing receiued mercy vvas made an example of patience Master Perkins prooues his minor thus The faith by which Paul liued was a particular faith whereby he applied Christ to himselfe But the faith by which we liue is the faith by which Paul liued Therefore the faith by which we liue is a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues The proposition Master Perkins prooues by the Apostles testimonie where he doth particularly apply Christ to himselfe as hauing loued him and died for him You answere that S. Paul makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice no more doth Master Perkins in his proposition But the Apostle mentions such a particular faith as Master Perkins speakes of viz. a perswasion that Christs benefits belong to him in particular and that Christ hath particularly loued him which is to apprehend Christ. And this is another manner of matter than to hold that Christ died for euery particular man which the diuels no doubt doe acknowledge The assumption is euident of it selfe for there is no question but that all which are iustified haue and liue by the same faith But Master Perkins sets out the matter by two places of scripture in the former whereof the Apostle propounds himselfe to all men as an example of Gods mercie that they may assure them selues that if they will beleeue in Christ as hee did they should haue forgiuenes of their sinnes as he had In the latter hauing shewed that he cast off all confidence in his owne righteousnes and accounted it as dung resting onely vpon God for his righteousnes by faith in Iesus Christ he exhorts all men to follow his example both in faith and holinesse speaker W. P. Reason 11. That which we are to aske of God in prayer wee must beleeue it shall be giuen vs as wee aske it but in prayer wee are to aske the pardon of our owne sinnes and the merit of Christs righteousnesse for our selues therefore wee must beleeue the same particularly The proposition is a rule of Gods word requiring that in euery petition wee bring a particular faith whereby wee beleeue that the thing lawfully asked shall bee giuen accordingly Mark 11. 24. speaker D. B. P. Of the Maior much hath been said before here I admit it all due circumstances of prayer being obserued and deny that vve must pray that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular for that vvere greatly to abase them but good Christians pray that through the infinite value of those his merits our sinnes may be forgiuen and a iustice proportionable vnto our capacity may be powred into our souls vvhereby vve may leade a vertuous life and make a blessed end speaker A. W. It is no abasing of our Sauiours merits that is of his obedience to the morall law and his suffrings that they should be communicated to euery member of his mysticall body for their iustification as long as the worke of redemption remaines proper to him speaker W. P. The minor is also euident neither can it be denied for we are taught by Christ himselfe to pray on this manner Forgiue vs our debts and to it we say Amen that is that our petitions shall without all doubt bee graunted vnto vs. August serm de temp 182. speaker D. B. P. But it is goodly to behold hovv Master Perkins proueth that vve must pray that Christs righteousnes
righteousnes of Christ neither doth he for that purpose bring this testimonie but to shew what that faith is by which wee are iustified Secondly you accuse Master Perkins for cutting off certaine conditions added on our part by Bernard but where are these conditions added The words you alleage are aboue thirtie lines after those that he cites and depend not vpon them but are spoken concerning the certaintie of saluation So therefore saith Bernard doth this glorie viz. the inward glorie and witnes of our conscience as in the words immediatly before dwell here in our earth if mercie and truth meete together and righteousnes and peace kisse each other For it is necessarie that the truth of our conuersion meete with mercie preuenting it And that afterward we follow holinesse and peace without which no man shall see God This and such like sentences declare that it is in vaine for a man to promise himselfe iustification without sanctification But they answere not the former testimonie which shewes that iustifying faith is a particular applying of Christ by beleeuing the forgiuenes of our sinnes speaker W. P. Cyprian God promiseth thee immortalitie when thou goest out of this world and doest thou doubt This is indeede not to know God and this is for a member of the Church in the house of faith not to haue faith If we beleeue in Christ let vs beleeue his words and promises and wee shall neuer die and shall come to Christ with ioyfull securitie with him to raigne for euer speaker D. B. P. S. Cyprian encourageth good Christians dying to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ and so doe all Catholikes and bidde them be secure too on that side that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise but say that the cause of feare lies in our owne infiâ—mities and yet bids them not to doubt as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued but animats them and puts them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reasons speaker A. W. Cyprian affirmes confidently that God hath promised euery true Christian immortalitie when he goes out of the world so that if hee beleeue this promise and rest vpon God for the performance of it by Christ he shall certainly be made partaker of it Your comfort is so cold that a man were as good be without it when his hope shall depend especially vpon the good vse of his owne free will in beleeuing and keeping the law of Christ. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne party why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alleadge in fauor of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then beliâ—e because he knew not how to answere them I will out of their fromâ— take that one principall of the testimony of holy Scripture And by that alone â—…ly proue that the faith required to iustification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be ours speaker A. W. It should seeme the reason was that hauing as he said before prooued our opinion to be true he doth but adde aâ— argument or two to his former proofe For that it was easie for him to answere those you bring I hope it shall be manifest to all men at the least it had not been hard for him to chuse out some that he could haue answered speaker D. B. P. How can this be better knowne then if we see weigh and consider well what kinde of faith that was which all they had who are saide in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith speaker A. W. Your reason is thus to be framed If the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all that which was reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs then iustifying faith is so But the faith of all them who are said in Scripture to be iustified by faith was a beleefe of the truth of all which by God is reueiled c. Therefore a iustifying faith is a beleefe of all that which is reueiled by God and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be theirs First we must remember that wee speake of that faith by which they were iustified for else the consequence of the proposition may be doubted of This being vnderstood I denie the assumption and to the proofe of it I answere first in generall that your examples are either effects of iustifying faith or the way and meanes to it but not the faith it selfe speaker D. B. P. S. Paul saith of Noe That he was instituted heire of the iustice which is by faith What faith had he That by Christs righteousnes he was assured of saluation No such matter but beleeue that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commaunded him speaker A. W. Secondly I say for the particulars that this was not the faith by which Noe was iustified For it is apparant that he was iustified before he beleeued that God would drown the world Adde hereunto that this faith of his was also a resting vpon God for safetie according to his promise The Apostle in this and the like propounds not the meanes of iustification but some notable effect of faith Neither doth he declare what this righteousnes of faith was but saith that the righteousnes of faith remained as Lyra expounds it in him onely and his children in which respect he is called the heire of it Chrysostome saith By this he appeared to be iust because he beleeued God speaker D. B. P. Abraham the Father of beleeuers and the Paterne and example of iustice by faith as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans What 〈◊〉 he was iustified by Let S. Paul declare who of him and his faith hath these words He contrary to hope beleeued in hope that he might be made the Father of manie Nations according to that which vvas said vnto him So shall thy seed be as the starres of heauen and the sands of the sea and he vvas not vveakened in faith neither did he consider his ovvne body novv quite dead vvhereas he vvas almost an hundred yeares old not the dead Matrice of Sara in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust but vvas strengthned in saith giuing glorie to God most fully knovving that vvhaâ—soeâ—eâ— he promised he vvas able also to doe therfore vvas it reputed to him to iustice Loe because he glorified God in beleeuing that old and barren persons might haue children if God said the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe he was iustified speaker A. W. Od Abraham I answere as
of Noe that he was iustisied long before God made him that promise yea before hee came out of the land of Canaan For by faith he obeyed God when he was called to goe out into a place which he should afterwards receiue for inheritance And this faith of his was not a bare beleeuing that which God spake but a resting vpon him accordingly and so was that the Apostle speakes of whereby God was especially glorified for this reposing himselfe vpon God argued the account he made of the fauour of God to him Now the beleefe in that promise was not only for the maltiplying of his naturall seede but for saluation by Christ to his spirituall children that P should beleeue as he had done and therefore it is called the Gospel that he beleeued This faith was counted to him for righteousnes as euery act is whereby a man beleeuing in Christ rests vpon the promise of God But the particular thing that is accepted to his iustification is his beleeuing in God for iustification by Iesus Christ. I will vse no other proofe but the phrase it selfe To beleeue in God which necessarily implies a relying vpon God for that wee desire being promised speaker D. B. P. The Centurions faith was very pleasing vnto our Sauiour who said in commendation of it That he had not found so great faith in Israell What faith vvas that Mary that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Say the vvord only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed speaker A. W. The Centurions faith was not a iustifying faith but a meanes to it begotten in him by the consideration of our Sauiours power in working miracles though I doubt not but from this beleefe he was raised by God to a true faith for iustification by the Messias But this in it selfe was no more than the diuels haue acknowledging Christs power speaker D. B. P. S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers and highlie rewarded by our Sauiour was it any other Then that our Sauiour was Christ the Sonne of the liuing God speaker A. W. S. Peters confession in that place was no more in words but of Christs office Thou art Christ and his nature The son of the liuing God But if he had not also by faith rested on him to iustification this confession would haue done him but little pleasure for Satan himselfe beleeues as much and is damned speaker D. B. P. And briefly let S. Iohn that great secretary of the Holy Ghost tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell These things saith he are vvriten that you may beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name speaker A. W. Doth the preaching of the Gospell aime at nothing else Then what shall become of holinesse of life and good workes made by you the matter of your second iustification This is not the last end of the Gospell but the first and by this the other is wrought we must beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God so that by beleeuing this we come to him that is beleeue in him or rest vpon him for saluation and thereby attaine to euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. With the Euangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well saying This is the vvord of faith vvhich vve preach for if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and shalt beleeue in thy hart that God raysed him from death thou shall be saued And in another place I make knowne vnto you the Gospell vvhich I haue preached and by vvhich you shall be saued vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vaine What was that Gospell J haue deliuered vnto you that vvhich I haue receiued that Christ died for our 〈◊〉 according to the Scriptures vvas buried and rose againe the third day c. So by the verdite of S. Paul the beleefe of the articles of the creâ—d is that iustifying faith by which you must be saued speaker A. W. Such is the testimonie of Paul For it is more than apparant that a man may beleeue in his heart that God raised Christ from the death and yet denie many necessarie heads of religion and be wholy cast away But the Apostle in this implies the rest and namely that which followes beleeuing in God that is if I may so often repeate the same thing resting vpon him for iustification by our Sauiour Iesus Christ. The same answere I make to the other place the point of the resurrection is of necessitie to be beleeued of as many as looke to be saued but that is not all that is required For if it be neither your preparations to iustification nor your merits after iustification are to any purpose speaker D. B. P. And neither in S. Paul nor any other place of holy Scriptures is it once taught that a particular faith whereby we apply Christs righteousnes to our selues and assure our selues of our saluation is either a iustifying or any Christian mans faith but the very naturall act of that ougly Monster presumption Which being laid as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion what morall and modest conuersation what humility and deuotion can they build vpon it speaker A. W. All those places that require of vs faith in Christ teach vs also that a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues by trusting to him for iustification is the only proper iustifying faith because to it nothing can be added for the matter of beleeuing A man may acknowledge that there is a God and giue credit as to a certaine truth to all that God reueales and yet not beleeue in God to iustification But he that performes this latter must needs also acknowledge the former This then being the height of faith is in the Scripture counted a iustifying faith speaker W. P. The II. difference touching faith in the act of iustification is this The Papist saith we are iustified by faith because it disposeth a sinner to his iustification after this manner By faith saith he the mind of man is inlightened in the knowledge of the law and Gospell knowledge stirres vp a feare of hell with a consideration of the promise of happinesse as also the loue and feare of God and hope of life eternall Now when the heart is thus prepared God infuseth the habite of charitie and other vertues whereby a sinner is iustified before God We say otherwise that faith iustifieth because it is a supernaturall Instrument created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion whereby hee apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse for his iustification speaker D. B. P. The second difference in the manner of iustification is about the formall act of faith which M. Perkins handleth as it were by the way cuttedly I will be as short as he the matter not being great The Catholiks reach
alone we shall also be saued and that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time vvill render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits speaker A. W. His second answere is that the assumption is false vpon this distinction that by sauing wee vnderstand being brought into the state of saluation For that is performed on our part by beleeuing onely Now in this case wee are said to bee saued because whosoeuer is once iustified by saith shall certainly haue other things ministred vnto him by which God hath appointed to bring him to saluation It is your slander not Master Perkins error that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement speaker W. P. Reason V. We are saued by hope therefore not by faith alone Answ. We are saued by hope not because it is any cause of our saluation Pauls meaning is onely this that wee haue not saluation as yet in possession but waite patiently for it in time to come to be possessed of vs expecting the time of our ful deliuerance that is all that can iustly be gathered hence speaker D. B. P. There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first offeare it is said He that is vvithout feare cannot be iustified VVe are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe psnance you shall all in like sort perish VVe are translated from death to life that is iustified because vve loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of vvater and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our evil liues For vve are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen againe from the dead c. Sâ— vve may also vvalke in nevvnes of life speaker A. W. Master Perkins answered as much as hee propounded that which you haue brought I will examine and I trust satisfie He that is without feare cannot be iustified It is a strange course of prouing to bring that against vs for scripture which you know wee denie to be scripture and that with the consent of the ancient writers and your owne of late Arias Montanus and they that ioyned with him haue left all the Apocryphall out of the Interlinear Bible The Greeke which is the originall is farre otherwise An angrie man and so it is translated in the great Bible set out by Arias Montanus and before that by Pagnin who also interpreteth it shall not be iustified cannot be thought iust referring it to mans iudgement rather than to Gods Vatablus also so translateth it and addes in the margin that some copies reade vniust anger and for your being iustified he translateth as Pagnin doth cannot be counted iust Besides I denie the consequence he that is without feare cannot be iustified therefore iustification is ascribed in Gods word to some other vertue and not to faith onely For though a man that is without feare cannot be iustified yet he is not iustified in respect of his feare To omit the absurditie of the translation doe penance for repent who makes any doubt that they shall perish that repent not What will you conclude thence Therefore repentance iustifieth and not faith onely I denie your consequence see the reason in the former section The Apostle makes not the loue of our brethren the cause but the proofe of our iustification as it is apparant by his words We know we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren he that loueth not his brother abideth in death We are not translated by reason of our louing for indeed we must be translated before we can loue them but we know by louing them that we are translated And that is the scope of the Apostle In this are the children of God knowne and the children of the diuell whosoeuer doth not righteousnes is not of God neither he that loueth not his brother Let vs not loue in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth For thereby wee know that we are of the truth and shall before him assure our hearts First you take that as granted which is full of doubt that our Sauiour Christ speaketh in that place of baptisme Secondly admitting that I denie absolute necessitie of baptisme as well as of the other Sacrament for which in your iudgement those words are as strong Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Thirdly I say we are iustified by baptisme as Abraham was by Circumcision Fourthly I denie the consequence here also None can enter into heauen except they be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Therefore not onely faith but also some other vertues are respected by God in our iustification The end of baptisme is our sanctification by dying to sinne and liuing to righteousnes therefore iustification and saluation are ascribed to other vertues beside faith I denie the consequence For though we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our liues yet God doth not iustifie vs in regard that we haue such a purpose but only in respect of our beleeuing neither to speake truly doth this purpose goe before iustification but follow it speaker D. B. P. To all these and many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answere in that one You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must waire patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternal saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to think as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it speaker A. W. S. Paul doth not affirme that it is any cause of saluation but onely saith as Master Perkins hath truly answered that we must come to the possession of saluation by continuing our hope of it with patience To which purpose the Apostle saith that we had need of patience that after wee haue done the will of God we may receiue the promise Neither is the question of saluation but of iustification so that here the consequence may iustly be denied we are saued by
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being asvvell our vvorke and a vvorke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe speaker A. W. There is no vertuous disposition required of the one or the other in respect whereof he shall be iustified Onely the acknowledgment of sinne and such like are vsed as meanes by God to bring a sinner to beleeue in Iesus Christ to iustification yet so as that neither these dispositions proceed from the free will of man but from the spirit of God inclining them that God will iustifie to these actions nor any of these but onely beleeuing is respected of God on mans part to his iustification speaker D. B. P. Now that out of S. Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bidde beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtâ—aine a miracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question on y is speaker A. W. That place of Luke sheweth thus much as also the ordinarie course of the old Testament doth that the thing God regardeth and requireth of man to the obtaining of any fauour is resting vpon him for that he stands in neede of Fasting praying and such like exercises are meanes to make a man discerne truly of his owne vnworthines and so the rather to trust to Gods mercie and power but the thing respected by God is resting on him and referring himselfe wholy to his will and pleasure Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the iudgment of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers iudgment S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that vvhich the Apostle saith VVe esteeme a man to be iustified vvithout the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke speaker A. W. They that so vnderstand the Apostle as the Gnostickes did vtterly mistake him We are altogether of S. Austins opinion that faith cannot iustifie him that liues euilly and hath no good workes For as he truly saith Though they goe not before iustification yet they accompanie it euery iustified man being also sanctified Neither is the faith he speaketh of such a faith as we vnderstand because it workes not by loue but such as the diuell hath who saith Austin in the same place hath not the faith by which the iust man liues which workes by loue that God may giue him life euerlasting according to his workes speaker D. B. P. And againe Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained speaker A. W. In this place Austin takes iustification for the whole fitting of a Christian to a holy conuersation to which iustification indeede is but a foundation the building being finished by sanctification speaker D. B. P. By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceed from the helpe of Gods grace He must of necessitie according to his course of disputing exclude good workes from that iustification hee there speakes of but not from the life of a Christian man speaker D. B. P. Reason III. Very reason may teach thus much Mans reason is but a blind mystris in matters of faith and he â—hat hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little speaker A. W. Mans reason is not of it selfe sufficient to determine of truth and falsehood in Diuinitie but being inlightened by the spirit of God with the knowledge of faith it may easily see the diuers vse of that from other graces and vertues speaker W. P. For no gift in man is apt and fitte as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner but faith speaker D. B. P. But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kind of probabilitie I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrarie For in common sense no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to applie and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what need we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to applie to vs Christs righteousnes speaker A. W. Reason perceiuing that the Scripture ordinarily ascribeth iustification to beleeuing and maketh beleeuing in Christ the receiuing of Christ which is not granted to any other of those vertues may well conclude that faith onely is the spirituall hand to take hold of Christ and his righteousnes by and not feare loue hope or repentance speaker W. P. Indeede loue hope the feare of God and repentance haue their seuerall vses in men but none serue for this ende to apprehend Christ and his merits none of them all haue this receiuing propertie and therefore there is nothing in man that iustifieth as a cause but faith alone speaker D. B. P. Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more applie vnto Christians all Christs merits and make them ours then faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular
issue out of our soules now garnished vvith grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directhe that we are iustified and that this iusuce doth increase whiles it doth proceed and profit speaker A. W. This labour might haue bin saued For we grant that Abraham by this glorious fact was iustified euen before God that is was knowne to be iustified or to haue true faith as he was known to feare God by it not that God was ignorant before either of his faith or feare but because it pleased him by this deed to take as it were speciall notice of them both as men doe That righteousnes is increased by holie actions I shewed before and that therefore we are iustified by them that is more sanctified speaker D. B. P. Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion for they holding faith to be the only instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O yee of little faith And then a little after I haue not found so great faith in Israell And O Lord increase our saith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith but all one Againe M. Perkins deliuereth plainly That men at the first are not so vvell assured of their saluation as they are aftervvard If then in the certainety of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe speaker A. W. Degrees of faith we deny not but increase of iustification thereupon except it be in our feeling In which respect it receiueth continuall growth but in it selfe it cannot because God doth account faith to vs for righteousnes and forgiue our sinnes not by halues but fully vpon the least measure of true beleeuing Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid bee iudged according to his righteousnesse then may hee be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnesse and therefore he was iustified thereby Answ. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnesse of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this Psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnesse of the action or innocencie of his cause in that hee was falslie charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psalm 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnesse not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glorie Obiect II. The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commaundements Yet is he not blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whom he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof Obiect III. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by prayer and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Answ. Indeed men that truly humble themselues by prayer and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merites of Christ in whom the Father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. Obiect IV. Sundrie persons in Scriptures are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all bee perfect and where there is any perfection of works there also workes may iustifie Answ. There bee two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in parts is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in all and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degree is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the very rigor therof in the highest degree Now then whereas we are commaunded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commaundements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in partes and not of perfection in degrees which cannot bee attained vnto in this life though we for our parts must dailie striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can Obiect V. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our momentarie afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Answ. Afflictions work saluation not as causes procuring it but as a meanes directing vs thereto And thus alwaies must we esteeme of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certaine way or a marke therein directing vs to glorie not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are via regni non causa regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there Obiect VI. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Answ. The proposition is false for iudgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is alreadie iust and iustification is an other act of God whereby hee maketh him to bee iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life Obiect VII Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Answ. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good worke of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie Obiect VIII To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by all the workes of
〈◊〉 ther vvith S. Augustine that in this life vve cannot attaine vnto 〈◊〉 puritie such as shall be in heauen read the begâ—…ing of his first and second booke oâ— Morals and there you shall find him commending Iob to the skyes as a good and holy man by his temptations not soyled but much â—…anced in vertue speaker A. W. These places for ought I know are of your owne deuising to be thus applied and there fore I will neuer striue about them though when occasion shal serue it will appeare that your answers to Austins and Gregories testimonies are but shifts speaker D. B. P. Novv before I depart from this large question of iustification I vvill handle yet one other question vvhich commonly ariseth about it it is WHETHER FAITH MAY BE without Charitie I Prooâ—e that it may so be first out of these vvordes of our Sauiour Many shall say vnto me in that day Lord Lord haue vve not propâ—â—cied in thy name haue vve not cast out Diuels haue vve not done many miracles to vvhom J will confesse that I neuer knevve you depart from mee all yee that vvorke iniquitie That these men beleeued in Christ and persvvaded themselues assuredly to be of the elect appeareth by their confident calling of him Lord Lord and the rest that follovveth Yet Christ Declareth manifestly that they vvanted charity in saying that they vvere vvorkers of iniquitie speaker A. W. Your proofe that they had a iustifying faith is too slender They called him Lord. What if they had called him Sauiour must they needs therefore haue had saith The rich man in hell calles vpon Abraham by the name of father shall I conclude as you doe speaker D. B. P. 2. When the King went to see his guestes He found there a man not attired in his wedding garment and therefore commanded him to be cast into vtter darknes This man had faith or else he had not been admitted vnto that table which signifieth the Sacraments yet wanted charitie which to be the wedding garment beside the euidence of the text is also prooued where in expresse tearmes The garments of Christs Spouse is declared to be the righteousnesse and good vvorkes of the Saintes And that with great reason for as S. Paul teacheth Faith shall not remaine after this life With what instrument then trow you will the Protestants lay hold on Christs righteousnesse speaker A. W. That charitie is that wedding garment S. Hierome vpon the same place doth witnesse saying That it is the fulfilling of our Lords commandements And S. Gregorâ—e doth in expresse wordes define it VVhat saith he must vve vnderstand by the vvedding garment but charitie So doe S. Hilarie and Origen and S. Chrysostome vpon that place Parables are no further any proofes than the meaning of them is certainly knowne but all your expositions of this are at least vncertaine The table signifieth the Sacraments What Baptisme too and your other fiue or how many and what Sacraments Besides your consequence is very feeble Was no man euer admitted to the Sacraments that made shew of faith when indeed he had none Your ordinarie glosse expounds it of being in the Church Chrysostome of the Scriptures which sit at the table of the Scriptures Gregory of the Church He commeth into the mariage saith Gregorie but without a wedding garment that hath faith in the Church but not charitie I might in like sort examine the rest of the parable and finde great diuersities of opinions as in such cases there must needs be But to the poynt First I say many hypocrites are in the Church that haue not so much as a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture and so absolutely want their mariage garment Secondly I adde that this man and many other might haue a generall beleefe and yet not rest vpon God for iustification by Christ without which faith there is no place for any man in heauen Thirdly let it be granted that charitie is the mariage garment what get you by it vnlesse you can prooue that the faith this man had was a true iustifying faith which you can neuer possibly doe The generall meaning of the parable seemes to be no more but this that many men thrust into the Church who when the day of trial comes will be found to haue no interest to the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiours conclusion shewes Many are called but few are chosen I denie not that sentence shall be giuen according to workes but that they which want workes haue faith This is the poynt in question and this can neuer be prooued by this parable speaker D. B. P. 3. The like argument is made of the foolish Virgins Who were part of the Kingdome of God and therefore had faith which is the gate and enterance into the seruice of God Yea in the house of God they aspired vnto more then ordinary perfection Hauing professed Virginitie yet either carried away with vaine glorie as S. Gregorie takes it Or not giuing themselues to the workes of mercy spirituall and corporall as S. Chrysostome expoundes it briefely not continuing in their former charitie for faith once had cannot after the Protestants doctrine bee lost were shut out of the Kingdome of heauen albeit they presumed strongly on the assurance of their saluation as is apparant By their confident demaunding to bee let in for they said Lord Lord open vnto vs. speaker A. W. The very like indeede and as vncertaine as the former These Virgins were part of Gods kingdome in profession but not in election and therefore neuer had iustifying faith The perfectioÌ„ you fancie might well be attained to without true faith especially the profession of such perfection which is all that they had for ought that can be proued by the text If you vnderstood the Protestants doctrine as well as you would seeme to doe you would know that we hold it as vnpossible to lose Charitie as to lose Faith affirming that he which hath not both to the end neuer had either Their confident demaunding to be let in shewes rather their desire than their hope and yet how many hope without true faith in Christ Is it not generally the case of all you Papists speaker D. B. P. 4. Many of the princes beleeued in Christ but did not confesse him for they loued more the glory of men then the glory of God What can bee more euident then that these men had faith when the holy Ghost saith expresly that they beleeued in Christ which is the onely acte of faith And yet were destitute of charitie which preferreth the glory and seruice of God before all things in this world speaker A. W. They might rest vpon him as the Messiah and yet not to iustification for who knowes not that the Iewes and especially the princes or chiefe men amongst them lookâ— for the Messiah as a temporall deliuerer not as a spirituall Sauiour Beside they
as you take them and as himselfe before had defined them but onely as good workes which the ancient writers oftentimes call merits not because they truly and wholy haue the nature of merits as Andradius speaks of them but for that they are not performed without labour on our part and shall haue reward on Gods part in heauen speaker D. B. P. But soone after like vnto a shrewd cowe ouerthrowes with his heele the good milke he had giuen before Renouncing all merittes in euery man sauing only in the person of Christ whose prerogatiue saith he it is to be the person alone in whom God is well pleased speaker A. W. This dealing of yours is more common with you than commendable He that meant plainly would take things as they lie as farre as reasonably he may and not draw matters out of diuers heads to confound the readers vnderstanding and hide the force of his aduersaries disputation But I must be faine to follow you though you follow not Master Perkins speaker D. B. P. Then he addeth that they good Protestants by Christs merits really imputed to them do merit life euerlasting Euen as by his righteousnes imputed vnto them they are iustified and made righteous To which I answere that we most willingly confesse our blessed Sauiours merits to be infinite and of such diuine efficacy that he hath not only merited at his Fathers hands both pardon for all faults and grace to doe all good workes but also that his true seruants works should be meritorious of life euerlasting speaker A. W. That our workes should bee accepted and rewarded of God our Sauiour hath merited but that being imperfect they should haue the true and whole nature of merit no infinitnes nor diuine efficacie can deserue or procure For it is a manifest contradiction that this or that work should haue need of pardon and yet fully satisfie the law of God and by that satisfaction deserue euerlasting life as wages at Gods hands speaker D. B. P. As for the reall imputation of his merit to vs we esteeme as a fained imagination composed of contrarieties For if it be really in vs why do they call it imputed and if it be ours only by Gods imputation then is it not in vs really speaker A. W. You make your selfe more worke than you need Master Perkins doth not say it is really in vs but really imputed to vs not as you trifle by a supposed imputation but in deed and truth wee being the members of Christ our head by faith in him speaker D. B. P. Further to say that he only is the person in whom God is vvell pleased is to giue the lie vnto many plaine texts of holy Scriptures Abraham vvas called the friend of God therefore God vvas vvell pleased in him Moses vvas his beloued Dauid vvas a man according vnto his ovvne hart God loued Christs Disciples because they loued him Briefly all the Christians at Rome vvere truly called of S. Paul the beloued of God And therefore although God be best pleased in our Sauiour and for his sake is pleased in all others yet is he not only pleased in him but in all his faithfull seruants speaker A. W. It is Christs priuiledge to be the person in whom God is fully pleased as in one who by his excellencie of nature being God euerlasting and man absolutely pure deserues his loue which all other men attaine to in their measure not by the merit but acceptation of their persons speaker D. B. P. Novv to that vvhich he saith that they haue no other meritte then Christs imputed to them as they haue no other righteousnesse but by imputation I take it to be true and therefore they do very ingenuously and iustly renounce all kind of merittes in their stayned and defiled vvorkes But let them tremble at that vvhich thereupon necessarily follovveth It is that as they haue no righteousnes nor merit of heauen but only by a supposed imputation so they must looke for no heauen but by imputation for God as a most vpright iudge vvill in the end repay euery man according to his vvorth vvherfore not finding any â—eall vvorthines in Protestants but only in conceipt his revvard shall be giuen them ansvverablie in conceipt only vvhich is euidently gathered out of S. Augustine vvhere he saith That the revvard caâ—… goe before the merit not be giuen to a man before be be vvorthie of it for saith he vâ—â—at vvere more iniust then that and what is more iust then God Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardly as once to demaund much Iesse so impudent as to assure ourselues of that crovvne before vve haue deserued it Seeing then that the Protestants by this their proctour renounce all such merit and desert they must needs also renounce their part of heauen and not presume so much as once to demaund it according vnto S. Augustines sentence vntill they haue first renounced their erronious opinions speaker A. W. We are really members of Christs mysticall bodie and so haue an interest in the reall imputation of his merits Beside wee haue also true though not perfect righteousnes inherent in vs good works in some poore measure sutable thereunto according to which we certainly looke for our reward of God not for the worthines of those workes but for his gratious acceptance of them and vs in Iesus Christ. So that we demaund not our reward before our worke which Austin after the phrase of the ancient calles merits but denie our worke to bee of such a value as mans pride would make it Now to requite your kindnes I beseech you by the mercies of God and the loue of Iesus Christ that you doe not lay claime to euerlasting life as the wages of seruants least it be denied you as an inheritance belonging to sonnes speaker W. P. That our doctrine is truth and theirs falshoode I will make manifest by sundrie reasons and then answere their arguments to the contrarie Our reasons The first shall be taken from the properties and conditions that must be in a worke meritorious and they are foure I. A man must doe it of himselfe and by himselfe for if it bee done by an other the merit doth not properly belong to the doer II. A man must doe it of his owne free-will and pleasure not of due debt for when wee doe that which wee are bound to doe wee doe no more but our dutie III. The worke must be done to the profit of an other who thereupon must bee bound to repay the like IV. The reward and the worke must be in proportion equall for if the reward bee more then the worke it is not a reward of desert but a gift of good will Hence followes a notable conclusion That Christs manhood considered apart from his Godhead cannot merit at Gods hand though it be more excellent euery way then all men and Angels For being thus considered it doth
that forgiuen If it were then al the people had true faith in the Messiah which is a very bold assertion without all likelihood of truth But no doubt some of them were indeed true beleeuers They were and of them it remaines to be prooued that their shutting out of Canaan was to appease the remaines of Gods wrath against their murmuring There is no such thing in the text but that God did it to make all the earth see his glorie Adde hereunto that this punishment was not occasioned by this sinne onely but by former murmurings and those many perhaps not at all pardoned by any such speciall entreatie of Moses speaker D. B. P. The like iudgement vvas giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron for not glorifying Gad at the vvaters of contradiction both of them had their sinne pardoned yet vvere they both aftervvard for the same de barred from the entrance into the holy Land speaker A. W. The like answere I make to the example of Moses and Aaron that is I denie the antecedent Moses and Aaron were not punished that God might be satisfied for the temporall punishment belonging to their sinne but that they and the people might learne to put their trust in Gods promises made to them and to weight on him with patience The end of their punishment was not Gods satisfaction but their reformation and the peoples speaker D. B. P. To this M. Perkins ansvvereth first that man must be considered in a tvvofold estate as he is vnder the lavv and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions vvere curses of the lavv in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into trials corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into vvhat you vvill else sauing satisfaction Novv to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleeuing Israelits vvith Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it vvas a punishment or penaltie of the law laide vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it vvas an admonition vnto all ages follovving to take heed of like offences as Paul vvriteth All thâ—se things came vnto them for examples and vvere vvritten for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion needs not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moses intercession for them and the obtaining of their pardon and lastlie after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Againe Aaron shall not enter into the land because he hath been disobedient to my voyce and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the vvaters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their daies were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so deaâ—eth daily with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies not that this punishment was laid vpon them for those sinnes but that the Scripture affoords any proofe to shew that it was a penaltie of the law as a part of the Curse which appertaines to sinners by the law for which Christ hath fully satisfied The punishments in themselues were penalties of the law but they are notsuch to them who by true faith in Christ haue all their sinnes fully satisfied for by him speaker W. P. Obiect III. Dauid was punished after his repentance for his adulterie for the child died and he was plagued in his owne kind in the incest of Absolon and when hee had numbred the people hee was yet punished in the death of his people after his owne repentance Answ. I answere as before that the hand of God was vpon Dauid after his repentance but yet the iudgements which befell him were not curses vnto him properly but corrections for his sinnes and triall of his faith and meanes to preuent further sinne and to renew both his faith and repentance as also they serued to admonish others in like case for Dauid was a publike person and his sinnes were offensiue both within the Church of God and without speaker D. B. P. What dotage is this to graunt the very same thing which he would be thought to deny but yet in other tearmes that the simple whom only he can beguile may not perceiue it If the hand of God were vpon Dauid correcting him for his sinne and that after his repentance did not Dauid then suffer temporall punishment for his sinnes before forgiuen Which is most properly to satisfie for them speaker A. W. Dauid was punished but not to satisfie Gods wrath remaining after the eternall punishment was taken away by the sactifice of the Messiah made effectuall to Dauid by his faith The reason of his punishment as the Scripture expresly saith was the stopping of the Heathens mouthes who were likely to blaspheme God because of Dauids sin as if God either would not haue seene or had not cared what manner of man by his speciall prouidence he had preferred to the kingdome of Israel Master Perkins truly and constantly denies the same thing still viz. that Dauids punishment was for satisfaction to God by bearing part of the curse due to sinners by the law which onely is to satisfie The reason of this deniall that I may answere once againe for all is that Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law being made a curse for vs. speaker D. B. P. Yea ouer and beside this punishment inflicted by God he of his owne deuotion performed farre greater satisfaction by putting on sack-cloath lying on the bare ground by watering his couch with teares and making ashes his food and in this most pittifull plight he made most humble supplication vnto God to wash him more and more from his iniquitie he neuer dreamed that this his satisfaction should be any derogation vnto the satisfaction of his Lord and Sauiour but in the Psalme saith That such an humble and contrite hart is a sweete sacrifice vnto God speaker A. W. Dauid had not so little feeling either of his Sauiours loue or his owne sinne as to thinke that the one had satisfied by halues or the other by such outward cariage could be satisfied for His praying and humbling of himselfe was to another end partly to intreate for the childs life whom he loued most dearely and partly to obtaine the recouerie of that ioy and comfort which he had formerly taken in the sense of Gods loue to him to which
of Christ concerning building the temple againe This saith the Gospell the disciples then vnderstood not but after his resurrection they came to the true vnderstanding of it We say not that our Sauiour deliuered to them euery point of doctrine distinctly but that he furnished them with so much knowledge as that they might easily by that light gather and write whatsoeuer was needfull to be beleeued to the penning whereof they had the speciall direction of the spirit both for matter and maner Iansenius Bishop of Gaunt is wholie of the same opinion affirming that those many things were not diuers from those which he had taught them before but a more plaine exposition of them and to that purpose he alleages very fitly that place of the Apostle I could not speake to you as vnto spirituall men but as it were vnto carnall men to little ones in Christ. Didymus about the yeare 580. expounded the place thus This he saith that his auditors had not yet conceiued all things which he had told them that afterward they were to suffer for his name sake And afterward as yet also saith Didymus being vnder the type of the law and shadowes they could not discerne of the truth the shadow whereof the law caryed speaker D. B. P. This place of S. Iohn M. Perkins patcheth vp vvith another of S. Paul If vve or any Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing besides that vvhich we haue preached let him be accursed And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that vvhich he had taught Ans. Now we must looke vnto the Gentlemans fingers There were three corruptions in the text of S. Iohn here is one but it is a foule one Insteed of preaching vnto them another Gospell he puts preach vnto them any other thing when there is great difference betweene another Gospell and any other thing The Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith and the whole worke of Gods building in vs which S. Paul like a wise Architect had laide in the Galathians others his fellow workemen might build vpon it gold siluer and pretious stones with great merit to themselues and thanks from S. Paul Marry if any should digge vp that blessed and only foundation would lay a new one him S. Paul holdeth for accursed So that that falsification of the text is intolerable and yet when all is done nothing can be wringed out of it to proue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needfull to saluation for S. Paul speaketh there only of his Gospell that is of his preaching vnto the Galathians and not one word of any written Gospell No more doth he in that place to Timothy And so it is nothing to purpose speaker A. W. The Greeke is word forword if we or an angell from heauen shall preach vnto you beside that which we haue preached let him be accursed Your vulgar Latine all one with it in a maner praeterquam quod for praeter id quod as it is in the next verse where the greeke is all one your interlinear praeter quod in both verses You will haue the Apostle meane another gospell and so will Master Perkins for by another thing he vnderstands such another thing as shall be necessarie to saluation and yet diuers from that which the Apostle had deliuered And what is that else but another Gospell You tell vs the gospell comprehends the principall points of faith whereas before in this point you giue no more to the whole scripture but that some principall points may be gathered out of it this would haue made a contradiction in Master Perkins But is there any thing necessarie to saluation that is not a principall point of faith Is not that a principall point without which a man cannot be saued But if as you adde the gospell comprehend also the whole worke of Gods building in vs either I conceiue not what you meane by those words or else he that teacheth any other course of Gods building in vs then the gospell prescribes preacheth another gospell which doctrine will go neere to ouerthrow the greatest part of your will worship You proceed and say that the Apostle speakes of such a doctrine as digs vp the foundation What is the foundation If it be not digged vp as long as Christ is held to be the Messiah and that without him there is no saluation as you commonly expound the gospell of faith in Christ questionles the Apostle speakes not of ouerthrowing the foundation because the Galathians against whom he writes did not think that any saluation could be had without Christ but that the law morall and ceremoniall was to be ioyned with Christ to iustification If the foundation may be razed though those points be not denyed and if to ioyne the law with Christ be to lay another foundation and to preach another gospell how can your popish synagogue be a true member of Christs Church in which the foundation is shaken in coupling the law with Christ and another Gospell preached by teaching such points of doctrine for matter necessarie to saluation as the Apostles neuer deliuered Master Perkins therefore vnderstanding by any thing only things that make another Gospell as the question in hand and the other place alleaged shew A diuers doctrine may neither be charged with nor suspected of false dealing Bellarmine a Cardinall and a man of as great iudgement as you affirmes that the Apostle in that place speakes both of the written and vnwritten word not as you would haue it only of the gospel preached And Austin applies the text to the scripture of the law and of the gospell other then that which you haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures that is in the old and new Testament Basill also saith the like of the same matter that the hearers must examin those things that are deliuered by their teachers and receiue those that are agreeable to the Scripture and reiect those that are diuers which he prooues by that place to the Galathians And whereas Bellarmine would haue their testimonies vnderstood of things contrary only the very words refute him But it is apparant that all that Paul preached is in the scriptures for out of them doth he still confirme his doctrine They of Berea found that which hee taught them to agree with the scriptures and himselfe auoucheth before Festus that he preached nothing but that which Moses and the Prophets had taught And so both these places are to purpose speaker W. P. Testimonie IV. 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God is profitable to teach to improoue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute beeing made perfect vnto euerie good worke In these wordes be contained two arguments to prooue the sufficiencie of the Scripture
Heretikes would flie to reuelations and thereby defend their errors they might be said not to do against this rule of Tertullian Yea if traditions were of force to prooue they might easily answere Tertullian in this case that it skilled not though they could not maintaine their opinions by Scripture as long as traditions perhaps might make for them But Tertullian condemnes their errors because they cannot be auowed by the Scripture making that the onely triall speaker W. P. Againe We need no curiositie after Christ Iesus nor inquisition after the Gospell When we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing beside for this we first beleeue that there is nothing more which we may beleeue speaker D. B. P. By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not only the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we only beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giuesuch credit as their writings do deserue speaker A. W. By the Gospell the doctrine of saluation by Christ is vnderstood which is no lesse plainly and fully deliuered in the other writings of the new Testament than in those foure bookes which we call by that particular name But that traditions should be commended vnder the title of the Gospell it is neither true nor likely You must shew some place of this author or of some other about his time to giue credit to your interpretation But it is apparant you answered at aduenture not knowing where it is to be found in Tertullian speaker D. B. P. If any man desire to see Tertullians iudgement of Traditions let him read his book of prescriptions against Heretikes where he auerreth that Traditions serue better than the Scriptures themselues to confute all Heresies Heretikes alwaies either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures speaker A. W. He that hath to doe with such Heretikes as Tertullians aduersaries then were and you Papists in part now are must of necessitie haue recourse to the iudgement of the Church For what other meanes can be vsed against them that denie the sufficiencie of the Scripture Therefore Tertullian and Irenaeus too who had to deale with the same kinde of men labours to beate them with their owne weapons and yet bring not in any new doctrine beside the Scripture but maintaine the doctrine of the Scripture against them that condemne the Scripture by the testimonies of learned men custome of the Church but he saith nothing of giuing like authoritie to the traditions and written word Beside here is no speech of doctrine but only of obseruing certaine outward ceremonies not necessarie to saluation speaker W. P. Augustine booke 2. cap. 9. de doct Christ. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well speaker D. B. P. All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties vvhich the more learned must expresly beleeue if they vvill be saued vvhich distinction S. Augustine else-vvhere doth signifie speaker A. W. The question is only of such points as are necessarie to saluation which are all one to the learned and vnlearned vnlesse there be diuers meanes of saluation for them True it is that a Minister ought to haue more knowledge then an ordinarie Christian and that the neglect of laboring for it is damnable to him as all sinne is damnable but that which is necessarie to saluation is equallie necessarie for all men neither doth Austen allow any such distinction but refutes it rather in that verie place for he saith that all that feare God do seeke the will of God in the Canonicall scripture but the words alleaged are most plaine All those points that containe faith and manners of liuing well that is hope and charitie Now what is necessarie for any man to saluation that is not comprized in one of these speaker D. B. P. And is gathered out of many other places of his vvorkes as in that matter of rebaptizing them vvho became Catholikes after they had bin baptized by Heretikes He saith The Apostles truly haue commaunded nothing hereof in their vvritings but that custome which was laid against S. Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall Tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall church holdeth and therfore are to be beleeued speaker A. W. In that place Austen makes no mention of any such difference betwixt the learned and vnlearned to saluation but teacheth directlie contrary to your doctrine in both points For the hard matters you speake of thus saith Austin when we dispute of darke matters where the certain and cleere instructions of the holy Scriptures do not help vs a mans presumption must restraine it selfe and not incline to either side This is Austens iudgement he leades vs not in these cases to traditions as you do Now for the other point he addes presently after that if the knowledge of hard questions could not be wanted without losse of saluation there would be some cleere authoritie of Scripture to instruct vs in them so far was Austen from seeking to any traditions as necessarie to saluation This testimonie is falsely alleaged by you in the later part of it which is thus in Austin and therefore are to be beleeued to haue bin enioyned by the Apostles You put the matter indefinitly are to be beleeued that so they may be thought necessarie to saluation of which there is not a word in this place of Austen speaker D. B. P. The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing Infants And in his Epist. 174. of the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saith he vve neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet we hold that he is so to be called * And S. Augustine holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored though it be not vvritten in the vvord speaker A. W. Of the custome of baptising infants Austin saith that it is not to be despised nor by any meanes to be thought superfluous and that it were not at all to be beleeued vnlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition where he speakes not of any doctrine necessary to saluation but of the Churches practise and that indeede in a case grounded on the Scripture We speake of doctrine not of words as Austin doth in those places The matter which is signified by those words that Christ is of the same substance with his father
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
to the most reuerend letters of Adrian most holy Pope of old Rome I confesse and hold Images to be holy and worthy of worship neuer laying them away but adoring them perfectly them that confesse otherwise I accursse The othet most holy Bishops and venerable Monkes cried out And we all together receiue and embrace and adore Images with very great honour Stauratius Bishop of Chalcedon said I receiue embrace and honour Images as being the pledges of my saluation Peter Bishop of Nichor said I receiue venerable Images and adore them and will alwaies teach the doctrine that I may one day giue account to God our Iudge in the world to come Iohn the most religious Priest Lieue-tenant of the Apostolike thrones said Therefore an Image is greater then prayer And this is come to passe by the prouidence of God for ignorant mens sakes The same man counteth the denying of worship to Images the worst of all heresies as that which ouerthrowes the gouernment of our Sauiours house I forbeare to set downe their reasons which are taken from Tradition miracles and some places of Scripture so ridiculously applied that it is little better then blasphemie to make the holy Ghost president of so Idolatrous and sottish a Councell Constantine hauing subscribed to this Councell by his mothers perswasion and example in his none-age after he came to yeeres of discretion and his owne gouernment by the aduise of diuers learned men repealed the decrees of it concerning Images and ere long after tooke the whole sway of the Empire from his mother who had vsurped it as protectrix into his owne hands which dealing of his did incense the ambitious and idolatrous woman that shee caused certaine traitours first to plucke out his eyes and afterward to murder him yea so great was her malice and feare that shee ceased not till shee had made his sonnes her grand-childrens or neuewes eyes to be pulled out also such an author and patrones had that Idolatrous and wicked Councell the chiefe foundation of Popish Images Such as it was notwithstanding the decrees of it were sent by Pope Adrian the first to the Emperour Charlemaine that he might allow of them But he held another Councell at Franckfort wherin it was concluded that the second Councell of Nice whereof we haue spoken should not be held either for generall or for the seauenth or for a thing of any worth The decrees of that Councell condemning Images were by this repealed and a book written by expresse commandement of the Councell of Franckfort and published in the name of Charlemaine in which as the Councell of Constantinople is reproued for taking away all vse of Images euen for history and memory so that second Councell of Nice is particularly confuted and condemned The like entertainment found the decrees of that Councell amongst our countri-men here in England as you shall see by the testimony of a Monke that writ 300. yeeres agoe The same yeere saith Mathew of Westminster Charles King of the French-men sent into Britaine a booke of decrees wherin many things were found contrary to the true faith and that especially that it was determined by the ioynt consent of almost all the Doctors of the East That Images are to be adored which the Catholike Church vtterly detests Against this Albinus writ an Epistle wonderfully endited according to the authority of the holy Scriptures â—â—d carried together with that booke of decrees to the King of Frâ—…ce in the name of the Bishops and Nobles Yet was not this Councell of Franckfort nor the Epistle written by Albinus nor the booke set out in Charlemaines name of sufficient strength to stop the course of Idolatry so violent it is where it finds any way made for it whereupon Claudius Bishop of Turin hauing bin brought vp and preferred by Charlemaine opposed himselfe by writing afresh against it and as Ionas Bishop of Orleans saith who writ against him proceeded farther to cast them out of all the Churches of his dioces This opinion and fact of his Ionas writ against yet so as that he wholy agreed with him about the vnlawfulnes of adoring Images against the second Councell of Nice But in the East the quarrels about Images were more hot and dangerous which mooued the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus to send their Embassadors into France to the Emperour Lewis the curteous sonne of Charlemaine about the yeare 823 to signifie to him that the superstitious abuse of Images in their dominions had made them assemble a Councell about the matter in which it was decreed that they should not be worshipped with incense lights kneeling prayers songs and seruice before them all which notwithstanding that some of their clergy refusing to yeeld obedience had withdrawne themselues to the Pope of old Rome complaining to him and slandering the East Church that they therefore had sent their Ambassadors both to him and to the Pope for the clearing of themselues of all such false imputations and that they might vnderstand what the iudgement of their Churches was in those points Hereupon Lewis the Emperour called a nationall Councel at Paris the yere following 824. wherein the conclusion was as in the Councell of Franckfort against both pulling downe and worshipping of Images as appeareth by an Epistle sent from the said Synode to Lewis and Lotharius by two Bishops Italitgarius and Flamarius and according thereunto answere was returned to the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus Thus much I thought good to set downe as briefely as I could hee that would reade of these matters more at large may finde enough to content him in that excellent treatise of the Lord Plessy against the Masse in the second booke the second third and fourth Chapters The iudgement of all these matters I leaue to all men whatsoeuer that will vouchsafe to waigh things by the Ballance of the Sanctuary with the hand of true reason Others that had rather beleeue what is told them then try that they beleeue I commit and commend to the mercy of God Whom I beseech according to his good pleasure to enlighten our hearts and incline our affections euery day more and more that we may discerne and acknowledge his most holy truth to his glory the good of his Church and our owne euerlasting saluation through his Sonne Iesus Christ. To whom with the Father and holy Spirit one God immortall inuisible and only wise be all glorie power obedience and thanksgiuing for euer and euer Amen FINIS Errata Pag. 11. lin 1. read in our time p. ead l. 29. r. yes p. 17. l. 11. r. were not dedicated p. 36. l. 22. r. out p. 44. l. 10. in the margin r. Popes breast p. 45 l. 21. r. and that p. 57. l. 17. r. c. p. ead l. 35. r. them Cardinall p. 68. lin 18. r. is moued p. cad l. 22. dele as p. 87. l. 4. in the margin r.
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