the soule but the breath And he fitly compareth workes to breath for as the body of a liuing creature if it breathe not is dead so faith if it bring foorth no workes is dead for breathing is an effect of a liue bodie and likewise working is the proper effect of a liuing faith whereby it appeareth saith he in what sense the Apostle said aboue that faith without workes was dead not because hee thought that works were the forme of faith but because he thought that works accompany faith as the breath accompanieth the life of the bodie You see both his iudgement and his reason which is confirmed by that the Apostle said before Faith if it haue not workes is dead So that the meaning is faith without workes that is faith that hath not workes is dead speaker D. B. P. Which S. Paul confirmeth at large in the vvhole Chapter prouing charitie to be a more excellent gift then faith or any other concluding vvith these vvords Novv there remaineth faith hope and charity these three but the greater of these is charitie Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auaileable for faith saith he may be vvithout charity but it cannot be auailable vvithout it So that first you see that charitie is the mouer and commaunder and faith as her instrument and handmaid speaker A. W. The Apostle speaketh not of that faith by which wee beleeue in God to iustification but of that by which miracles are wrought Besides it doth not follow that loue vseth faith as an instrument to iustifie vs because in some respect it is superiour namely in the present vse for the good of our brethren to which the Apostles exhortation tends as it ◅y appeare by his discourse both in that chapter and in the 12. going before and the 14. that followeth Austin bringing the Apostles words speaketh of the same faith that hee meant which may be indeed without charitie and cannot rise to the height of a iustifying faith but must needs be accompanied by charitie without which it is dead speaker D. B. P. Now that in the worke of iustification it hath the chiefe place may be thus proued I demaund whether that worke of iustification by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no If not as it is void of charity so it is a wicked and sinfull act no iustification but infection our owne interest being the principall end of it now if it comprehend and conclude Gods glory and seruice in it that is if they apply Christs righteousnes to them to glorifie God thereby then hath charity the principall part therin for the directing of all to the honor and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity speaker A. W. There is neither reason in your question nor strength in your argument the worke of iustification by faith is Gods action iustifying a sinner that beleeueth in Iesus Christ. What sense then is there in this question I demaund whether that work of iustificatiō by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no. That which followeth in respect of God is blasphemous at least absurd That the worke of iustification is a wicked act To your reason It is no wicked act to beleeue in God for iustification by Christ though in the particular act of beleeuing we thinke not vpon the glorifying of God but onely respect our owne saluation For to beleeue in Christ is no act enioyned by the law of nature or of Moses whereby we should iustifie our selues but an extraordinarie matter appointed by God who respects nothing in it on our parts but that wee beleeue Not as if we might therefore neglect the glorie of God but that we may afterward giue so much the more glorie to him the lesse cause there was he should pardon vs there being such a defect against our generall dutie in that act of beleeuing Further if it were true that we desired to glorifie God by beleeuing in Christ and that that desire proceeded from loue yet had not loue either the principall or any part in procuring our iustification Because God doth not iustifie vs for seeking to glorifie him by beleefe which is simply a worke of the law but onely accepteth our beleeuing for working and as the Apostle speaketh counts faith to vs for righteousnes speaker A. W. All this reason that charity both concurreth to iustification and that as principall S. Augustine confirmeth in these words The house of God that is a righteous and godly soule hath for his foundation faith hope is the vvalles of it but charitie is the roofe and perfection of it Austin speaketh not of iustification onely but of the whole building of Gods house in the soule of man which saith he is built with singing founded with beleeuing set vp with hoping perfected with louing The end of our election iustification and sanctification is holinesse without which a man is no true Christian but iustification is not the building of the soule speaker W. P. Reason III. Faith is neuer alone therfore it doth not iustifie alone Answ. The reason is naught and they might as well dispute thus The eie is neuer alone from the heade and therfore it seeth not alone which is absurd And though in regard of substance the eye be neuer alone yet in regard of seeing it is alone and so though faith subsist not without loue and hope and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all speaker A. W. The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it dothnot iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes doe not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes The argument is framed vpon our opinion who maintaine that a iustifying faith is neuer without hope and charitie Hence it may seeme to follow that it doth not iustifie alone but because you disclaime this reason I will let it passe speaker D. B. P. We then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature and propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sence teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it doe not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that vvas not the whole cause of that
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
being in it selfe neither actiue nor passiue This latter contradiction is indeede like the former that is no contradiction at all For hee doth rightly expound that place of a pronenes to that which is as ill and to nothing that is fully good not simply excluding that which is ciuilly good but that onely which is properly referred to God himselfe the soueraigne good and the other in regard of it perfect goodnes II. The difference or dissent speaker W. P. The point of difference standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans wil in spiritual matters which concerne the kingdome of God The Papists say mans will concurreth and worketh with Gods grace in the first conuersion of a sinner by it selfe and by it owne naturall power and is onely helped by the holy Chost We say that mans will worketh with grace in the first conuersion yet not of it selfe but by grace Or thus They say will hath a naturall cooperation we denie it and say it hath cooperation onely by grace beeing in it selfe not actiue but pasâ—… willing well onely as it is mooued by grace whereby it must first be acted and mooued before it can act or will And that wee may the better conceiue the difference I will vse this comparison The Church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condition of a prisoner and so doe wee marke then the difference It supposeth the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foote with chaines and fetters and withall to bee sicke and weake yet not wholy dead but liuing in part it supposeth also that beeing in this case he stirreth not himselfe for any helpe and yet hath ability and power to stirre Hereupon if the keeper come and take away his bolts and fetters and hold him by the hand and helpe him vp hee can and will of himselfe stand and walke and goe out of prison euen so say they is a sinner bound hand and foote with the chaine of his sinnes and yet he is not dead but sick like to the wounded man in the way betweene Iericho and Ierusalem And therefore doth he not wil and affect that which is good but if the holy Ghost come and doe but vntie his bands and reach him his hand of grace then can he stand of himselfe and will his owne saluation or any thing else that is good We in like manner graunt that a prisoner fitly resembleth a naturall man but yet such a prisoner must he be as is not only sicke weake but euen starke dead which cannot stirre though the keeper vntie his bolts and chaines nor heare though he sound a trumpet in his eare and if the said keeper would haue him to moue and stirre he must giue him not onely his hand to helpe him but euen soule and life also and such a one is euery man by nature not onely chained and fettered in his sinnes but starke dead therein as one that lieth rotting in the graue not hauing any ability or power to moue or stirre and therefore he cannot so much as desire or doe any thing that is truelie good of himselfe but God must first come and put a new soule into him euen the spirit of grace to quicken and reuiue him and then being thus reuiued the will beginneth to will good things at the very same time wheÌ„ God by his spirit first infuseth grace And this is the true difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome in this point of free will speaker D. B. P. See how vncertaine the steppes be of men that walke in darkenes or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknes For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church For he putting downe the point of difference saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs only in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in graunting this liberty of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne words For saith he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that Mans vvill worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully For we say that Mans will then only concurreth with Gods grace vvhen it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that Mans vvill by his ovvne naturall action doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of Man But we farther say that this action proceedeth principally of grace whereby the will was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring forth such spirituall fruit And thâ—… I take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can acte or will He mistookâ—… thinking that we required some outward helpe only to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but a it were vntie the chaynes of sin wherein our will was â—…eted anâ— tâ—en will could of it selfe turne to God Noâ— vnderstanding how Catholikes take that parable of the man wounded in the way betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists only say but as the holy Ghost â—aith leâ—te halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all Mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all Supernaturall riches spoiled of all his originall Iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all natural truth or to performe all morall duty Novv touching supernaturall vvorkes because he lost all povver to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sense may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that vvay of grace and so in holy Scripture the Father said of his prodigall Son he was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though vvounded also in them as not being able to acte many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of free vvill capable of grace and also able being first both outvvardly moued and fortified invvardly by the vertue of grace to affect and do any vvorke appertaining to saluation vvhich is asmuch as M. Perkins affirmeth speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake the matter he speakes not of will
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
necessarie or respected by God in the iustification of that theefe he would neuer haue said that he was iustified without workes that did so many good workes in so short a time speaker D. B. P. Novv that that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualites out of the companies of faith is apparant by that vvhich he hath vvritten on the next Chapter vvhere he saith That faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they doe withall put off the old man and a little before more plainely saying I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation hope is proceeding in the building but the toppe and perfection of the whole worke is charitie speaker A. W. Neither doe we meane to exclude such qualities For they come together but are not of like vse nor to the same purpose Both the sentences you alleage out of him wee approoue that faith which is without sanctification cannot instifie that faith is not all that is required to saluation but all graces of regeneration are to be laboured for and obtained before wee can come to heauen And by this wee may see that as the Fathers so Origen also makes a difference betwixt iustification where faith onely is respected and saluation to which all vertues are required III. Difference speaker W. P. The third difference about iustification is concerning this point namely how far forth good workes are required thereto The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there be two kinds of iustification the first and second as I haue said The first is when one of an euill man is made a good man and in this workes are wholy excluded it being wholy of grace The second is when a man of a iust man is made more iust And this they will haue to proceede from workes of grace for say they as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man though he could not at the first make himselfe a man euen so a sinner hauing his first iustification may afterward by grace make himselfe more iust Therefore they hold these two things I. That good works are meritorious causes of the second iustification which they tearme Actuall II. that good workes are meanes to increase first iustification which they call Habituall Now let vs see how far forth we must ioyne with them in this point Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God and are approoued of him and therefore haue a reward II. Good workes are necessarie to saluation two waies first not as causes thereof either conseruant adiuvant or procreant but onely as consequents of faith in that they are inseparable companions and fruits of that faith which is indeede necessarie to saluation Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way and as the way it selfe directing vs vnto eternall life III. Wee hold and beleeue that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by works for so the holie Ghost speaketh plainely and truely Iam. 2. 21. That Abraham was iustified by workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins first graunteth that good vvorkes doe please God and haue a temporall revvard 2. That they are necessary to saluation not as the cause thereof but either as markes in a vvay to direct vs tovvards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnesse to declare one to be iust before men all vvhich he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteeme much of good vvorkes vvhich they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes speaker A. W. This is no good dealing to foyst in temporall as if you would haue men suspect that we allow good workes no reward in heauen It had been enough for you to leaue out his words as you doe and thrust in your owne without adding at your pleasure But these are popish shifts Whereof you presently affoord vs another example by putting in these words Before men to make the world beleeue that we giue no place to good works in the sight of God whereas Master Perkins professeth that Abraham was iustified by works euen before God not onely before men as you write speaker A. W. To this you adde in the third place a shamelesse slander against your owne knowledge that we hold good workes to be no better than deadly sinnes whereas wee teach that those that are indeed good workes are able to iustifie a man perfectly in the presence of God and to deserue euerlasting life Yea we maintaine that the imperfect workes of the regenerate are brought foorth by the grace of Gods spirit and for all their imperfection are accepted and shall be rewarded by God our Father in heauen speaker W. P. Thus farre we ioyne with them and the very difference is this They say we are iustified by works as by causes thereof wee say that wee are iustified by works as by signes and fruites of our iustification before God and no otherwise and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstood that Abraham was iustified that is declared and made manifest to bee iust indeede by his obedience and that euen before God Now that our doctrine is the truth it will appeare by reasons on both parts speaker D. B. P. The maine difference then betvveene vs consisteth in this vvhether good vvorkes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes vvhich vve call the second iustification or vvhether they be onelie fruits signes or markes of it speaker A. W. The maine difference as Master Perkins propounds it is whether we be iustified by works as by causes meritorious of our iustification not whether they bee the true cause of our second iustification which he denies wholy as a deuice of yours And indeede they that haue more neerely sifted this branne haue found that there is but one iustification because faith and workes make one righteousnes begun by â—aith and increased and perfected by workes Iustification saith Andradius the great champion of the Councill of Trent consists of two parts forgiuenes of sinnes and obedience to the law Stapleton speakes more plaine The Catholikes say that a man is iustified by faith and workes as by the formall cause So that according to your popish diuinitie workes are not onely the meritorious efficient cause of our iustification but the formall cause also as Stapleton directly affirmes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which he made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set dovvne our owne speaker A. W. This pretence is none of his who would neuer denie that our inherent righteousnes is increased
thing of their Soueraigne Consider saith he that they which rule amongst vs doe not thanke any of their subiects if they doe any of those things that are enioyned them but oftentimes by their bountie stirring their subiects affections they breed in them a greater desire to serue so God requires seruice of vs by right Now because he is mercifull and good he promiseth honours to them that labour and the greatnes of his bountie ouerpasseth the paines of his subiects Your glosse saith that we are seruants because we are bought with a price vnprofitable because God hath no neede of our good workes or because our present sufferings are not worthie of the glorie that shall be reueiled in vs. Which reasons of our vnprofitablenes Thomas also brings out of Bede so doe your ordinarie glosse and Lyra expound it making vs seruants euen after regeneration as Austin truly saith that Christ did not make vs free men of seruants but of euill seruants good seruants speaker D. B. P. And thus we fall vpon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious worke Which is That it be done to the profit of another and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit by our workes yet doth he in the administration of his holy common weale the Church wherein good mens seruices do much pleasure him And in this sense is it said of Saint Paul That by cleansing our selues from vvicked vvorkes vve shall become vessels sanctified and profitable vnto our Lord. Againe God is glorified by our good vvorkes That seeing your good vvorkes they may glorifie your Father vvhich is in heauen Finally God doth reioyce at the recouery of his lost children speaker A. W. Not onely good but also bad mens seruices may be said to profit God if euery thing that benefits his Church must be held to be of profit to him But we neither can profit nor pleasure him nor glorifie him truly and properly but onely in his acceptation And so whatsoeuer reward shall be giuen for these seruices it proceedes from Gods gratious bountie not from our desert speaker D. B. P. If then good men trauailing painfully in Gods Vine-yard do yeeld him outwardly both honor ioy and commoditie that may suffice to make their worke meritorious speaker A. W. To the conclusion you inferre hereupon which is the proposition of a syllogisme to proue the maine point that our works are meritorious I answere by denying the consequence thereof and say that it doth not follow that our workes merit euerlasting life because our trauaile doth yeeld him outwardly honour ioy and glorie The reason of my deniall is this that a slaue may by his paines and seruice procure all these things to his master and that out of his loue to him and yet deserue nothing at his hands The assumption that should be added I denied and refuted in the former part of my answere speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins fourth property is That the vvorke and revvard be equall in proportion speaker A. W. If you pleaded for nothing but reward the sute were ended For we as I haue said before grant that God will reward the least good worke of any of his children But the question is whether he doe this of his bountie onely or of necessitie being bound to it by the law of iustice This we denie you affirme viz. that the good workes of a man iustified doe truly or of right deserue increase of grace euerlasting life and the fruition of it if he depart in grace and also increase of glorie and further you accurse all them to hell that say otherwise speaker D. B. P. If he vnderstand Arithmeticall proportion that is that they be equal in quantitie to wit the one to be as great or of as long continuance as the other then we deny this kind of equality to be requisite to merit there is another sort of proportion called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometricall and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vnto the other as when a good office is giuen to a Citizen of desert it may be that the honour and commoditie of the office is farre greater then was the merit of the man yet he being as well able to discharge it as another and hauing better deserued it is holden in true iustice worthie of it speaker A. W. It is no true merit such as you auow it to be in the true and whole nature of merit vnlesse it be fully answerable in value to the reward Therefore to speake properly and truly the citizen you name doth not simply deserue the office but as your selfe confesse in comparison of other his fellow subiects So that though there were more in him than in other why the Prince should bestow that place vpon him yet it is rather a gift than a debt else should the King offend against iustice if he did not giue it him speaker D. B. P. In like manner in a game where masteries are tried the prize is giuen vnto him that doth best not because the value of the reward is iust as much worth as that act of the man who winneth it but for that such actiuity is esteemed worthy of such a recompence Now the crowne of heauenly â—lorie is likened by S. Paul vnto a Garland in a game where he â—aâ—th That vve all runne but one carrieth avvay the prize And He that striueth for the masterie is not crovvned vnlesse he striue lavvfully It is also resembled vnto places of honour I vvill place thee ouer much And I goe to prouide you places speaker A. W. Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede For the seede of God tarrieth in him But a little â—eede cast into good ground and well manured bringeth forth abundance of corne Briefely then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subiect and the office betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betweene the seed and the corne is between the reward of heauen and the meâ—â—t of a true seruant of God And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument more indeed to explâ—cate the nature and condition of merit then that his reason nakedly proposed did require it What shall I need to answer to your similitude of games since your selfe denie that it is truly and properly desert But to make the matter more plaine let vs a little consider it in this sort where there is an agreement as in these games though there be not properly any merit yet there may be somewhat that shal come neere to the nature of merit That there is no merit you yeeld in granting that the reward is more in value than the act of him that winneth Notwithstanding if the prize be it what it will be propounded to them that shall not onely passe other men in the race but also runne home to the goale in such a space of time
conscience as dutifull children God giueth them eternall life And hereupon it is termed a reward speaker D. B. P. Wherefore M. Perkins skippes to a second shift that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance but not a reward Reply We know well that it is an inheritance because it is only due vnto the adopted Sonnes of God but that hindereth not it to be a reward for that it is our heauenly fathers pleasure that all his Sons comming to the yeares of discretion shall by their good carriage either deserue it or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited speaker A. W. An inheritance is not due to the sonne onely because none except hee bee a sonne can haue it but is his proper right because he is a sonne And therfore it is vnreasonable both in Diuinitie and Law that the sonne should be bound to purchase that by his labour to which by a naturall right he hath full interest This is our case for though we are not sonnes by nature but by adoption yet being sonnes and heires yea ioynt heires with Christ the naturall sonne of whose bodie we are members the very nature of our sonneship or being sonnes conueies vnto vs a sufficient and certaine title to the inheritance It is indeed the pleasure of God our Father that we should labour to expresse our thankfulnes by all holy obedience to him that hath adopted vs for his children and that we after this labour should receiue the inheritance not deserue that by our labour to which wee haue alreadie a farre better claime by being sonnes speaker W. P. Thirdly if I should graunt that life euerlasting is a deserued reward it is not for our workes but for Christs merit imputed to vs causing vs thereby to merit and thus the relation stands directly between the Reward and Christs Merit applied vnto vs. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answeres flies to a third and graunteth that eternal life is a reward yet not of our workes but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs This is that Castle wherin he holds himselfe safe from all Canon shotte but he is fouly abused for this answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture examine any one of the places and a babe may discouer the incongruity of it Namely Christ saith that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake Assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake and not to his owne merits imputed and if you desire a formall sentence fitting this purpose take this Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his ovvne proper labour And not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him So a doer of the vvorke shall be blessed in his deed And not in the imputation of anothers deed speaker A. W. Master Perkins did not nor needed mistrust either of his former answers but because he knew that diuers men were moued with diuers reasons he added this third to see if by Gods blessing this might giue satisfaction where the other were not fully vnderstood It is not Master Perkins meaning to say that in these our works there is desert by Christs merit imputed but that if the children of God must needes be thought to receiue euerlasting life as of merit the merit is properly Christs imputed to them speaker W. P. Obiect II. Christ by his death merited that our workes should merit life euerlasting Answ. That is false all we find in Scripture is that Christ by his merit procured pardon of sinne imputation of righteousnesse and life euerlasting and it is no where said in the word of God that Christ did merit that our workes should merit it is a dotage of their owne deuising He died not for our good workes to make them able to satisfie Gods anger but for our sinnes that they might be pardoned Thus much saith the Scripture and no more And in that Christ did sufficiently merit life eternall for vs by his owne death it is a sufficient proofe that hee neuer intended to giue vs power of meriting the same vnlesse wee suppose that at some time hee giues more then is needefull Againe Christ in the office of mediation as he is a King Priest and Prophet admitteth no deputie or fellow For he is a most perfect Mediatour doing all thinges by himselfe without the helpe of any And the Ministers that dispence the word are not his deputies but reasonable and voluntarie instruments which he vseth But if men by workes can merit increase of grace and happinesse for themselues then hath Christ partners in the worke of redemption men doing that by him which hee doth of himselfe in procuring their saluation Nay if this might stand that Christ did merit that our workes should merit then Christ should merit that our stained righteousnesse beeing for this cause not capable of merit should neuerthelesse merit I call it stained because we are partly flesh and partly spirit and therfore in our selues deseruing the curse of the law though wee bee regenerate Againe for one good worke wee doe wee haue many euill the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes and makes them too light in the ballance of the law speaker D. B. P. Insteed of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins I vvill confirme the first with such texts of holy writ as specifie plainly your good workes to be the cause of eternall life speaker A. W. The second reason is so cleerely set downe that me thinkes you dare not looke vpon it for feare of hauing your eyes dazled by the brightnes of it A sillie shift to auoid an argument which you cannot answere speaker D. B. P. Come vnto me yee blessed of my Father possesse a Kingdome prepared for you And why so For vvhen I vvas hungry yee gaue me meate And so foorth the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants who imployed well their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue been faithfull in fevv things I vvill place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly saide to be the very cause why God rewardeth them with the kingdome of heauen Thorefore he must needs be holden for a very vvrangler that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches and vvould make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth only signifie an order of things speaker A. W. The places you bring to prooue that good workes are the cause of eternall life proue not that the things that were done did truly and wholy deserue such a reward which is the question No more doth Austins exposition Wee are iudged according to our workes so that if any man should wonder why these are receiued into heauen those cast
where expresse couenant is made for working and workes as you haue heard And as it was said in the old law Doe these things and thou shalt liue so is it said in the new If thou vvill enter into life keepe the Commaundements and life eternall is the hire and wages for labouring in Gods vineyard and not of the imputed iustice or merits of Christ Vpon what doth S. Paul inferre that not vpon that parable and much lesse vpon the expositions of it which then were not hatcht but vpon the promises of God made to them which through faith and patience attaine to the inheritance of those promises And this is that iustice the Apostle speaks of hauing no ground but Gods gratious promise to accept and reward our workes though their worth deserue no such recompence Which Chrysostom signifieth in his Commentarie vpon the other place where he saith The reward shall be greater than the worke not onely in continuance whereof also he speaketh but in the measure too He ioynes them saith Chrysostome in respect of their crownes with those who haue done farre greater things than they So that euerlasting life is not truly and properly deserued by works but is giuen by promise to them that doe worke If you will vrge the point of iustice I answere the Apostle speaketh according to the common speech of men who count it a matter of iniustice not to doe well to them that doe well and ill to them that doe ill And in this generall respect God indeede deales iustly punishing them that haue behaued themselues lewdly and wickedly and rewarding them that haue liued righteously and vertuously So that herein stands his iustice in giuing euery man according to his own works without the following of which course there cannot be ordinarily any iustice And therefore Ierome truly saith that God doth both punish euill workes and receiue or accept of good workes but not as if there were an equalitie of merit in either sort of workes to the punishment or reward he giues onely as he saith there because he would haue none that are fallen despaire of Gods mercie he thus amplifies his regard of them as though it were an vniust thing for God as Chrysostome speakes to contemne and forget them that haue exercised themselues in workes of charitie You haue brought no place of any expresse couenant but that which being allegoricall and as I said before not expounded in the Scripture can hardly affoord any certain proofe and none at all of the matter for which you bring it Whereas if the point were so cleere as you would make it being of so great importance doubtlesse it would haue more direct confirmation in Scripture than by allegories and exhortations But it seemes you doe not rightly vnderstand Master Perkins distinction who denies not that a reward is promised for working and workes euen in the new couenant but makes this difference that by the couenant of the law the wages is due to him that workes vpon the value of his worke but by the couenant of the Gospell the reward is giuen not for the worth of the deede but because the worke is accepted for the workmans sake who by faith is the sonne of God Neither of those speeches are any part of the new couenant though they be recorded in the new Testament And the latter was our Sauiours own speech to beate down the pride of him that would be iustified by the law but of this before The parable is often vrged but nothing prooued out of it He that will haue euerlasting life as hire of his trauaile proclaimeth himselfe to be a hireling not a sonne speaker W. P. And therefore Christ saith further I come quickly and will giue to euery man according to his workes marke hee saith not to the worke or for the worke but to the worker according to his workes And thus the bond of all other promises of the Gospell in which God willingly binds himselfe to reward our workes doe not directly concerne vs but haue respect to the person and obedience of Christ for whose sake alone God binds himselfe as debter vnto vs and giues the recompence or rewarde according to the measure of our faith testified by our workes And therefore it cannot be truely gathered that workes do merit by any promise or couenant passed on Gods part to man speaker D. B. P. But looke about you and behold the goodly marke which M. Perkins sets vp Marke saith he that it is said God will render vnto euery man according to his workes not to the worke or for the worke O sharpe and ouer fine witte doth he render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes if the rate of the workes be the measure of the revvard that for fevver or lesser vvorkes there is a lesser revvard and for many and vvorthier a greater surely in my simple vnderstanding he that giueth according vnto the vvorks giueth for the vvorks speaker A. W. We denie not that the reward is to and for the worke but that the value of the worke deserues it which worth being wanting the reward is bestowed vpon the partie according to his worke not for the desert of it In another sense it is all one to say according to the worke or for the worke As in generall he rewards them that doe well because they doe well and he punisheth them that doe ill because they doe ill and so giues to both according or for their workes speaker W. P. Some may say if workes merit not why are they mentioned in the promises I answere not because they merit but because they are tokens that the doer of the worke is in Christ for whose merit the promise shall be accomplished speaker D. B. P. That other addle inuention that vvorkes are there mentioned not because they are revvarded but because they are tokens that the doer is in Christ for vvhose obedience God promiseth the crovvne of life is not vvorth the confuting it is so flat contrarie to the text vvhich ascribeth distinctly that revvard vnto the vvorkman for his vvorkes and not for Christs obedience imputed vnto him speaker A. W. What text meane you Sure neither of both those to which Master Perkins answers hath any such direct ascribing of the reward to the workman for his works But it is the latter I thinke you speake of which you haue laboured to confute what is there in that but that Christ wil giue to euery man according to his worke That is as the verse next before shewes to punish the vniust and filthie and to reward the righteous and holie speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Good works are perfect and without fault for they are the workes of the holy Ghost who cannot sinne therefore they merit Ans. If workes did proceede onely and immediately from the holy Ghost there could not be any fault in them but our works come from the holy Ghost in and by
to them whereas if your doctrine of satisfaction should be receiued for all our comming to Christ by faith and true repentance we might and ought stand in feare of grieuous punishment for many yeares in Purgatory Neither doth it follow that if by seruing God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes then such seruice doth satisfie for by true repentance we may be put out of feare of eternall damnation and yet no man will say that therefore true repentance doth satisfie for eternall paine speaker W. P. Hierome saith in Psalm 31. The sinne that is couered is not seene the sinne that is not seene is not imputed that which is not imputed is not punished speaker D. B. P. To vvit vvith hellfire vvhich is the due punishment of such mortall sinne vvhereof he speaketh or sinne may bee said to bee couered when not only the fault is pardoned but all punishment also due vnto it is fully paide speaker A. W. If it be not imputed how can it be punished for punishment is laid vpon a man in respect of sinne which he is charged with neither can any thing be iustly punished with any kind of paine eternall or temporall but only sinne Your second answere is wholie for vs for if sinne be then said to be couered when the fault and the punishment are forgiuen doubtles he that is iustified is freed from both witnes Paul and Dauid who auouch that iustification couers sinne and suffers it not to be imputed speaker D. B. P. So doth S. Ambrose take that vvord couered saying The Prophet calleth both them blessed as well him vvhose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme as him vvhose sinnes are couered vvith good vvorkes For he that doth penance must not only vvash avvay his sinnes vvith teares but also with better vvorkes couer his former sinnes that they be not imputed vnto him speaker A. W. If S. Ambrose take the word couered in that sense as indeed he and all men else do that speake of couering sin iustification takes away the fault and punishment of all sin so that he which is iustified needs make no farther satisfaction speaker W. P. Chrysostome on Matth. hom 44. Among all men some indure punishment in this life and the life to come others in this life alone others alone in the life to come others neither in this life nor in the life to come There alone as Diues who was not Lord so much as of one drop of water Here alone the incestuous man among the Corinthians Neither here nor there as the Apostles and Prophets as also Iob and therest of this kinde for they indured no sufferings for punishment but that they might bee known to be conquerours in the fight speaker D. B. P. Novv vve must backe againe vnto Chrysostome belike he had forgotten this vvhen he cited the other or else this vvas reserued to strike it deed Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures vvere not for their sinnes for they committed but ordinary light offences for vvhich their ordinary deuotions satisfied abundantly the great persecutions vvhich they endured vvere first to manifest the vertue and povver of God that made such fraile creatures so inuincible then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth and vvithall to animate and encourage his follovvers Finally that they like conquerours triumphing ouer all the torments of this life might enter into possession of a greater revvard in the kingdome of heauen All this is good doctrine but nothing against satisfaction that their surpassing suffering vvere not for their ovvne sins and thus much in ansvvere vnto M. Perkins Arguments against satisfaction speaker A. W. You that are so desirous to find faults would not haue let Master Perkins scape without reproofe if you had lookt this place in Chrysostome and found it to haue bin misquoted though it was most like to haue bin the Printers fault In stead of answering to this testimonie you fall a discoursing of the end of the persecutions of holie men whereas many of them were not persecuted at all and Chrysostome speaks generally of sufferings not of persecutions But this must be obserued in your discourse that howsoeuer you mince the matter of their ordinatie light offences yet they themselues had another opinion of their sinnes If thou Lord saith one of them strictly marke what is done amisse who shall stand In another place one cryes to God not to enter into iudgement with his seruant because in his sight no man liuing shall be iustified Yea Daniel that beloued man confesseth his owne and his peoples sinnes to God as matters that deserue no small punishment yea there is almost no mans story set downe any thing at large in the scripture that hath not some speciall sinne obserued and recorded which notwithstanding if their sufferings were not punishments to satisfie how do you teach that all sinnes must be satisfied for by vs in part Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. Leuit. 4. Moses according to Gods commaundement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons and they were meanes of satisfaction for the temporall punishments of their daily sinnes Answ. Those sacrifices were onely signes and types of Christs satisfaction to be offered to his father in his alone sacrifice vpon the crosse and whosoeuer offered any sacrifice in the olde testament did thus and no otherwise esteeme of it but as a type and figure of better things Secondly the said sacrifices were satisfactions to the Church whereby men did testifie their repentance for their offences and likewise their desire to bee reconciled to God and men And such kinde of satisfactions wee acknowledge speaker D. B. P. Novv to the reasons vvhich he produceth for it And albeit he like an euil master of the campe range our Arguments out of order placing that in the sore-front of our side vvhich Caluin presseth out against vs yet vvill I admit of it rather then breake his order speaker A. W. How good a master of a camp soeuer he were he were of no great discretion that hauing the marshalling of his enemies battaile in his hands would not order it most for his owne aduantage But to Master Perkins it was all one which was first which last if you thinke him beholden to you for your kindnes he hath fully paid you in bearing with your reciting of this and diuers other his reasons speaker D. B. P. 1. Moses according to Gods commandement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for the sins of seuerall persons and ordeined that they should be of greater and lesser prices according vnto the diuersitie of the sinnes Whence we argue thus These mens faults vpon their true repentance ioyned vvith faith and hope in Christ to come vvere pardoned Therfore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull vvorkes done to appease Gods iustice vvere vvorkes
from the purpose for if as you confesse they did not lay hold on the Messiahs satisfaction how could they by this repentance of theirs applie this satisfaction of his to the purchasing of Gods fauour which as you taught vs before is the vse of your satisfaction Secondly if they had not true saith in the Messiah their eternall punishment was vnsatisfied for and we speake of that satisfaction which is made for the temporall after the eternall is discharged From this and such like examples wee may conclude that God sometimes for beares to lay outward iudgements vpon sinners when and because they humble themselues but that these men made satisfaction to God either by applying Christs satisfaction to themselues or by redeeming the temporall punishment remaining after the pardon of the eternall or by making God amends for their former sinnes neither can it be prooued nor I thinke you vpon better aduice will affirme speaker W. P. Obiect V. Dan. 4. 24. Daniel giueth this counsell to Nabuchadnezar redeeme thy sinnes by iustice and thine iniquities by almes deedes Behold say they almes deedes are made meanes to satisfie for mans iniquities speaker D. B. P. If by such good deeds our sinnes may be redeemed as Holy writ doth testifie then it followeth that such workes yeeld a sufficient satisfaction for them for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended as well as satisfaction speaker A. W. This example of Nebuchadnezzar is no more to purpose than that of the Niniuites For the satisfaction we dispute of cannot be performed by any but him that hath his sinnes forgiuen in respect of the eternall punishment by the satisfaction of Christ such as this King at the least at this time of the Prophets counsell was not speaker W. P. Answ. The word which they translate to redeeme as the most learned in the Chaldie tongue with one consent auouch doth properly signifie to breake off as if the Prophet should say O King thou art a mightie Monarch and to inlarge thy kingdome thou hast vsed much iniustice and crueltie therefore now repent of thine iniquitie and breake off these thy sinnes testifie thy repentance by doing iustice and giue almes to the poore whom thou hast oppressed Therefore here is nothing spoken of satisfaction for sinne but onely of testification of repentance by the fruites thereof speaker D. B. P. To Authours in the aire without any pressing of the propriety of the word no answere can be giuen speaker A. W. Either your knowledge and reading is lesse than you would haue it thought to be or you knew this answere to be true and did but shift it off that you might not seeme to be ouercome The word indeed is hebrew signifying to rub and so to breake off by rubbing It is properly spoken of cattell which being yoked rub against a tree or wall or some other hard thing till they haue fretted their yoke in sunder and so freed themselues Hence is that speech of Isaac to Esau Thou shalt rub his yoke off thy necke And from hence it is that the word signifies to redeeme or deliuer yet not by making satisfaction but by breaking the bonds in sunder Seruants haue ruled ouer vs saith the Prophet and there is no man that rids vs out of their hands So Aaron bids the people to take or breake off their eare-rings viz. by opening the ring by which they were fastned Agreeably hereunto the Prophet in this place aduiseth the King to breake off his sinnes which held him captiue and so to free himself from them And this is the first sense of the word as it appeares also in the Hebrew Concordance and Dictionaries Beside the onely way for him to escape the iudgement threatned which was temporall was to giue ouer those sins for which it was denounced in which sense hee might bee said to redeeme his sinnes in respect of the punishment to come that is to auoide and free himselfe from the euill which else would fall vpon him speaker D. B. P. But let vs admit that it be broken off his sinne not being coâ—etousnes but pride and lacke of acknowledging al Kingdomes to depend vpon God as the text it selfe doth specifie To breake off this sin by almes and compassion of the poore is nothing else but by such workes of charitie in some sort to satisfie Gods iustice thereby to moue him to take compassion of him speaker A. W. The chiefe sinne was pride of his owne estate the next to it and issuing from it oppression of many people of that the Prophet spake in expounding the vision here hee deales with him about the other willing him to practise the contrarie vertues that hee might so escape the destruction that was threatned for the Prophet knew that it was possible euen for wicked men to auoide punishment denounced vpon the forsaking of their outward sinnes whereby they had prouoked the Lord to vse those threatnings And that by almesdeeds we are cleansed from our sinnes our Sauiour himselfe doth teach saying Giue almes and behold all things are cleane vnto you speaker A. W. That almes should be of force to clense men from their sinnes and sinnes of a different nature from the contrarie to almes giuing is a matter that hath no likelihood of truth in it And much lesse can it be proued by that place of S. Luke where our Sauiour reproouing the hypocrisie of the Pharisies in washing so carefully before meats as if they thought themselues otherwise cleane when they respected not what wrong they did and what extortion they vsed exhorts them rather to purge their hearts of their couetousnes and to giue to the poore and then all these outward things meate drinke and such like should bee cleane and â—it for them without such superstitious washing speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Matth. 3. 2. Doe penance and bring forth fruits worthy of penance which say they are workes of satisfaction inioyned by the Priest speaker A. W. Our sixt Bring forth the vvorthy fruits of penance That is doe such workes as become them who are penitent Iohn seeing the Pharisies come to his baptisme exhorts them not onely to make shew of repentance but to bring foorth fruites be seeming or worthie of them that repent The same is otherwise thus exprest To repent and turne to God and to doe workes worthie repentance to walke worthie of their calling But for the interpretation we agree in sense speaker D. B. P. Which as S. Chrysostome expoundeth are He that hath stolen avvay another mans goods let him now giue of his owne he that hath committed fornication let him abstaine from the lavvfull company of his ovvne vvife and so forth Recompensing the works of sinne with the contrary works of vertue The same exposition giueth Saint Gregorie and to omit all others venerable Bede interpreteth them thus Mortifie your sinnes by doing the worthie fruits of penance
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