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
might haue a true iustifying faith and loue too and yet be led away in this point by vaine glorie or feare as Nicodemus was who came to Christ by night and Peter who denied his Sauiour by swearing and cursing and yet lost not either his faith or charitie by it though he sinned grieuously against both faith and charitie in that fearefull deniall speaker A. W. 5. This place of S. Iames. What shall it profit my brethren if any man say that he hath faith but hath not vvorkes what shall his faith be able to saue Supposeth very playnelie that a man may haue faith without good workes that is without charitie but that it shall auaile him nothing You suppose that which will neuer be prooued that the Apostle takes works for charitie Doe you thinke that they against whom the Apostle writes would grant that they were without the loue of God The Gnosticks were neuer so absurd But the question was whether a man that profest Iesus Christ to bee the Sauiour of the world were not by this saued how lewdly soeuer he demeaned himselfe speaker D. B. P. Caluin saith that the Apostle speakes of a shadow of faith which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our creed but not of a iustifying faith Without doubt hee was little acquainted with that kinde of faith by which Protestants be iustified but he directly speakes of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by saying That that faith did worke vvith his vvorkes and vvas made perfect by the vvorkes Was this but a shadow of faith speaker A. W. Caluin saith truly that the Apostle speaks of a dead faith which we say can iustifie no man and of faith in profession not in truth The former is plaine Faith if it haue no workes is dead in it selfe Faith without workes is dead The latter appeares thus Though a man saâ— he haue faith Shew me thy faith by thy workes You answere he was little acquainted with our kinde of faith When you can prooue he tolde you so I will beleeue you But you adde further That he speakes directly of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by True for of such a faith these men did make profession Therefore the Apostle shewes that this faith of Abraham was a liuing faith that wrought by charitie and was acknowledged by God himselfe to be such in regard of the workes issuing from it such as theirs is not if it haue no workes which are the euidences of a true faith as breathing is a certaine proofe of life speaker D. B. P. But they reply that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell therefore cannot be a iustifying faith that followeth not for an excellent good thing may be like vnto a badde in some things as diuels in nature are not onely like but the very same as Angels bee euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a diuels faith when it is naked and voyd of good works in tvvo points First in both there is a perfect knovvledge of all things reuealed Secondly this knovvledge shall not stead them anie vvhit but onely serue vnto their greater condemnation because that knovving the vvill of their master they did it not And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together Now there are many pointes vvherein these faiths doe differ but this one is principall That Christians out of a goodly and deuoute affection doe vvillinglie submitte their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith beleeuing things aboue humane reason yea such as seeme sometimes contrarie to it But the diuell against his vvill beleeues all that God hath reuealed Because by his naturall capacitie he knovves that God can teach nor testifie any vntruth speaker A. W. We do not say that it is likened to the Diuels faith but that the Apostle shevves them how insufficiently they reason from the beleeuing the truth of God to iustification For the Diuels saith he beleeue also yea more then beleeue say I haue one of your preparatory works euen feare of damnation speaker D. B. P. Againe that faith may bee vvithout charitie is proued out of these vvords of the same second Chapter Euer as the body vvithout the spirit is dead so also faith without vvorkes is dead Hence thus I argue albeit the body be dead vvithout the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe euen so faith is perfect in the kind of faith although vvithout charitie it auayle not to life euerlasting speaker A. W. I answered you before out of Cardinall Caietan that the Apostle speakes not of the soule but of breath so that the comparison stands thus As the bodie that breathes not is dead so faith that brings not forth good works is dead speaker A. W. Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be vvithout charity for they haue seuerall seates in the soule one being in the vvill and the other in the vnderstanding they haue distinct obiectes faith respecting the truth of God and charitie the goodnes of God Your reason is without truth They haue diuers seats in the soule and distinct obiects therefore the one may be without the other First I deny the Antecedent in respect of the former part thereof For faith that iustifies is not in the vnderstanding but in the will secondly I deny your consequence altogether because it proues no more but only that there is no naturall necessity of their being together in regard of each other Our doctrine is that they are alwaies ioyned because the spirit that giues a man faith to iustification doth also giue him true inherent righteousnes together with that faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charitie as charitie doth faith for vve cannot loue him of vvhom vvee neuer heard Neither yet doth charitie naturally flovv out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnes of God and of his benefits loue towards vs into which good and deuoute considerations fevv men doe enter in comparison of them vvho are led into the broade vvay of iniquity through their inordinate passions This according to the truth and yet more different in the Protestants opinion for faith laies hold on Christs righteousnes and receiues that in But charitie can receiue nothing in as M. Perkins witnesseth But giues it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table speaker A. W. The like answer I make to the other two points that follow Faith doth not say you necessarily suppose charity as charitie doth faith neither doth charity naturally flow out of faith What then therefore is not euery man sanctified that is iustified I deny the consequence he that beleeues in Christ hath the spirit of Christ and where he is there is sanctification That with you adde of the impossiblity of our saluation if I rightly vnderstand it which I can hardly do it is so confused is not to
Reason V. Whereas the Papists teach that a man may be assured of his saluation by hope euen hence it followes that he may be vnfalliblie assured therof For the property of true and liuely hope is neuer to make a man ashamed Rom. 5. 5. And true hope followeth faith and euer presupposeth certeintie of faith neither can any man truly hope for his saluation vnlesse by faith he be certeinly assured thereof in some measure Exception I. The Popish Doctors take exception to these reasons on this manner First they say it cannot be proued yâ— a man is as certaine of saluation by faith as he is of the articles of the creed I answere First they proue thus much that we ought to be as certâ—ine of the one as of the other For looke what commandement we haue to beleeue the articles of our faith the like we haue inioâ—ning vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sins as I haue proued Secondly these arguments proue it to be the nature or essential property of faith as certeinly to assure man of his saluation as it doth assure him of the articles which he beleeueth And howsoeuer commonly men do not beleeue their saluation as vnfallible as they do their articles of faith yet some speciall men doe hauing Gods word applied by the spirit as a sure ground of their faith whereby they beleeue their owne saluation as they haue it for a ground of the articles of their faith Thus certeinly was AbrahaÌ„ assured of his owne saluation as also the Prophets and Apostles and the Martyrs of God in all ages whereupon without doubting they haue bin content to lay downe their liues for the name of Christ in whom they were assured to receiue eternall happines And there is no question but there be many now that by long and often experience of Gods mercy and by the inward certificate of the holy Ghost haue attained to full assurance of their saluation II. Exception Howsoeuer a man may be assured of his present estate yet no man is certeine of his perseuerance vnto the end Ans. It is otherwise for in the sixt petition lead vs not into temptation we pray that God would not suffer vs to be wholy ouercome of the diuell in any temptation and to this petition we haue a promise answerable 1. Cor. 10. That God with temptation will giue an issue and therefore howsoeuer the diuell may buffit molest and wound the seruants of God yet shall he neuer be able to ouercome them Againe hee that is once a member of Christ can neuer be wholy cut off And if any by sinne were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time for baptisme is the sacrament of initiation or ingrafting into Christ. By this reason we should as often be baptized as we fall into any sinne which is absurd Againe Saint Iohn saith 1. Iohn 2. 19. They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had been of vs they would haue continued with vs. Where he taketh it for graunted that such as be once in Christ shall neuer whâ—ly bee seuered or fall from him Though our communion with Christ may be lessened yet the vnion and the bond of coniunction can neuer be dissolued III. Exception They say we are indeede to beleeue our saluation on Gods part but wee must needes doubt in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sinnes are giuen vpon condition of mans faith and repentance Now we cannot say they be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that indeed which we suppose our selues to haue Answ. I say againe he that doth truly repent and beleeue doth by Gods grace know that he doth repent and beleeue for else Paul would neuer haue said Prooue your selues whether you be in the faith or not and the same Apostle saith 2. Cor. 12. We haue not receiued the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God which things are not onely life euerlasting but iustification sanctification and such like And as for secret sinnes they cannot make our repentance void for he that truly repenteth of his knowne sinnes repenteth also of such as be vnknowne and receiueth the pardon of them all God requireth not an expresse or speciall repentance of vnknowne sinnes but accepts it as sufficient if we repent of them generally as Dauid saith Psal. â—9 Who knowes the errors of this life forgiue me my secret sinnes And whereas they adde that faith and repentance must be sufficient I answere that the sufficiencie of our faith and repentance stands in the trueth and not in the measure or perfection thereof and the trueth of both where they are is certainely discerned Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church August Of an euill seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith to acknowledge what thou hast receiued is not pride but deuotion And Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne heart if he finde charitie there he hath securitie for his passage from life to death Hilar. in Matth. 5. The kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his will is that it must be hoped for without any doubtfulnesse of vncertaintie will at all Otherwise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull Bernard in his epist. 107. Who is the iust man but he that being loued of God loues him againe which comes not to passe but by the spirit reuealing by Faith the eternall purpose of God of his Saluation to come Which reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by which when the deedes of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen Together receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and also loue againe To conclude the Papists haue no great cause to dissent from vs in this poynt For they teach and professe that they doe by a speciall faith beleeue their owne saluation certainely and vnfallibly in respect of God that promiseth Now the thing which hindreth them is their owne indisposition and vnworthinesse as they say which keepes them from being certaine otherwise then in a likely hope But this hinderance is easily remoued if men will iudge indifferently For first of all in regard of our selues and our disposition we cannot be certaine at all but must despaire of saluation euen to the very death We cannot bee sufficiently disposed so long as wee liue in this world but must alwaies say with Iacob I am lesse then all thy mercies Gen. 32. and with Dauid Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for none liuing shall bee iustified in thy sight and with
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
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
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
A DEFENCE OF M. PERKINS BOOKE CALLED A REFORMED CATHOLIKE Against the cauils of a Popish writer one D. B. P. or W. B. in his deformed Reformation By Antony Wotton AT LONDON Imprinted by FELIX KYNGSTON for Cuthbert Burby and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Swan 1606. THE PRINCIPAL POINS HANDLED IN THIS BOOKE 1. Of Antichrist pag. 41. 2. Of Freewill pag. 64. 3. Of Originall sinne pag. 95. 4. Of the certaintie of saluation pag. 124. 5. Of Iustification pag. 163. 6. Of inherent iustice pag. 184. 7. Of iustifying faith what it is pag. 195. 8. How faith iustifieth pag. 206. 9. That faith alone iustifieth pag. 212. 10. Of good workes how farre forth they are required to iustification pag. 239. 11. Whether it be possible for a man that is iustified to fulfill the law of God pag. 258. 12. Whether good workes be stained with sinne pag. 265. 13. Whether faith may be without charitie pag. 277. 14. Whether faith may be without good workes pag. 285. 15. Of merits pag. 287. 16. Of satisfaction pag. 344. 17. Of Traditions pag. 399. 18. Of vowes pag. 469. 19. Of the vow of single life pag. 487. 20. Of wilfull pouerty pag. 508. 21. Of regular obedience pag. 522. 22. Of Images pag. 524. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE ROBERT EARLE OF SALISBVRIE VICOVNT Cranborne Baron of Essingdon Principall Secretarie to his Maiestie Master of the Court of Wards and Liueries one of his Highnesse most Honourable Priuie Councell and Chancellor of the Vniuersitie of Cambridge RIght Honourable it hath pleased God to vouchsafe your Lordship no small honour in the profession of Christianity that you haue not onely beleeued the truth of the Gospell but also are made partaker of that glorie of his children to suffer for it To you it is giuen saith the Apostle to the Philippians for Christ that not onely you should beleeue in him but also suffer for his sake Giuen as if it were a speciall fauour which no man attaines to but they only to whom it is granted by priuiledge from God To you it is giuen saith our Sauiour to know the secrets of the kingdome of heauen And in another place No man can come vnto me except it bee giuen him of my Father This gift the Lord hath bestowed vpon your Honour that they which are enemies to him should be persecutors of you euen to the death if it lay in their power for his quarrell But the gratious prouidence of God hath manifestly shewed it selfe in this whole action on your Lordships behalfe in that not only you are still preserued in despight of them but also that you hold on that noble and Christian resolution to prouide for the sasctie of Religion his Maiesties person and estate with the hazard of your owne life regarding more what your Lordship ought to doe in dutie to God and your Soueraigne then what you may suffer by men for so doing Now on their part who can say whether their malice or their follie is the greater when I consider the height of their hatred that reacheth euen to the taking away of life which is in Gods hands me thinkes I am not able to looke beyond it But when I remember their desperate resoluing to commit such a murther so openly and their extreame indiscretion in acquainting your Lordship with their intendment it seemes to me that the lightnes of their follie exceeds the waight of their malice So that they giue all men iust occasion to suspect that God hath giuen them ouer into a reprobate sense as to destroy their soules by intending such a bloody sinne so to cast away their liues also by attempting it with so great follie But leauing them to the mercie and iustice of God for repentance or confusion giue me leaue Right Honourable to put your Lordship in minde of that which I make no doubt but you know and thinke on viz. That the Lord God hauing taken your person estate and honour into his protection against these and such like conspiracies looketh for continuance and increase of zeale and care in your Lordship for the securing as much as may be in your power of his holy religion and his worthie Lieutenant our gratious Soueraignes person and dignitie Now the knowledge of danger being a good helpe to the auoyding of it The Lord himselfe seemes to haue taken halfe the care alreadie in discouering those that haue bin are and will be the continuall practisers of his Maiesties ruine I were more than conceited and foolish if I could but thinke my selfe either able or fit to aduise your Lordship in matters of this nature Yet let me humbly entreate your Honour to vouchsafe the reading of that which in my poore thoughts I haue apprehended That the safetie of Princes dependeth vpon the good pleasure of God it is out of all question especially in their account who aduisedly and thankfully remember the late wonderfull and gratious deliuerance neuer to be forgotten Neither can it be doubted but it is Gods good pleasure to preserue them as long as they haue care to walke in obedience to him especially in prouiding for his glorie by maintaining and aduancing the true religion of Iesus Christ. So then the safetie of religion is the securitie of the Prince and the decay of Gods true seruice the forerunner of the Kings destruction As this is true in generall concerning all Kings and Gouernours so hath it an especiall euidence of truth in his Maiesties particular For it is apparant to euery man that the Papists quarrell to his Maiestie is not for hatred of his person but of his religion And therefore so farre foorth will they plot against the former as they can see likelihood of aâ—chieuing the latter His danger groweth by their hope and their despaire of bringing in Popish idolatrie must needs be the securitie of his life and state Are wee then desirous to rid his Maiestie of this danger and the whole state of this feare we see the meanes of accomplishing that desire to bee no other than to prouide that true religion may grow and flourish and Popish idolatrie fade and wither For neither may wee looke for any blessing from God on the Common-wealth if he be continually dishonoured amongst vs by the encrease of Popish heresie nor reasonably promise our selues any end of treacherous and bloodie enterprises as long as Papists conceiue hope of preuailing for Antichrist by such attempts If their number daily encrease how should their hope lessen And how is it possible to keepe it from growing if thousands in this kingdome remaining in their ignorance be left as pray to seducing Priests and Iesuits The conclusion is that if there be not some religious and wise care taken as to instruct the people in the knowledge of Gods truth which is the principall so to ferrit out those lurking Serpents that breathe Idolatrie and treason into the hearts of his Maiesties people and
take it most kindly if for God and their sakes you take into your Princely protection their followers in the Romane faith and de fend them from oppression Thus most humbly crauing pardon of your Highnes if I haue in any thing exceeded the limits of my bounden dutie I beseech your blessed Sauiour to endue you both with the true knowledge of his diuine veritie and with the spirit of Fortitude to embrace and defend it constantly or at the least gratiously to tolerate and permit it Your most excellent Maiesties most obedient and loyall subiect and seruant W. B. speaker A. W. What course will best please God in this difference of profession not humane policie but diuine truth must determine In which if we sincerely obey God we shall not need to depend vpon the liking or misliking either of forraine countries or Kings and Queenes departed who either are no Saints of God if they loue popish Idolatrie or if they be Saints loue it not speaker D. B. P. THE PREFACE TO THE READER GEntle Reader I meane not here to entertayne thee with many wordes the principall cause that moued me to write was the honour and glorie of God in defence of his sacred verity then the imploying of his talent bestowed vpon me as well to sortifie the weaker sort of Catholikes in their faith as to call backe and leade other who wander vp and downe like to lost sheepe after their owne fancies into the right way The like reasons haue drawne me to this suruey of your reformation with a resolute purpose to acknowledge any truth that you shall shew me though it be against the iudgment of all the Churches in Christendome I tooke in hand particularly the confutation of this booke not onely for that I vvas thereunto requested by a friend of good intelligence and iudgement who thought it very expedient but also because perusing of it I found it penned more Schollerlike then the Protestants vse to doe ordinariely For first the pointes in controuersie are set downe distâ—â—ctly and for the most part truely Afterward in confirmation of their opinion the chiefe arguments are produced from both Scriptures Fathers and reason Which are not vulgar but called out of their Rabbins Luther Peter Maâ—tir Caluin Kemnitius and such like though he name them not Lastly he placeth some obiections made in fauour of the Catholike doctrine and answereth to them as well as he could And which J speake to his commendation doth performe all this very briefely and clearely So that to speake my oâ—iâ—â—on freely I haue not seene any booke of like quantitie published by a Protestant to containe either more matter or deliuered in better method And consequently more apt to deceiue the simple especially considering that he withal counterfeiteth to come as neere vnto the Romane Church as his tender conscience will permitte him whereas indeede he walketh as wide from it as any other noueller of this age speaker A. W. If the writings of Protestants haue bin lesse scholerlike than in the handling of controuersies it were fit they should haue bin whose fault is it but the Papists whom they haue bin forced to answere in their owne kinde It is not vnknowne to any of our English Rhemists or Romanists that Doctor Fulke long since desired to haue the matter brought to an issue and tried by syllogismes the very iudgement seate of true reason If you had knowne Master Perkins life as well as you see his learning you would neuer haue accused him of counterfeiting whereof also me thinkes he may easily be acquited by that cleerenes which you discerne and acknowledge in him speaker D. B. P. Wherefore I esteemed my spare time best imployed about the discouering of it being as it vvere an abridgement of the principall controuersies of these times and doe endeuour after the same Scholasticall manner vvithout all superfluity of vvordes no lesse to maintaine and defend the Catholike party then to confute all such reasons as are by M. Perkins alleadged for the contrarie Reade this short treatise good Christian diligently for thou shalt finde in it the marrovv and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrovv revvme And read it ouer as it becommeth a good Christian with a desire to finde out and to follovv the truth because it concerneth thy eternall saluation and then iudge vvithout partiality vvhether Religion hath better groundes in Gods vvord more euident testimonie from the purest antiquitie and is more conformable vnto all Godlines good life and vpright dealing the infallible markes of the best Religion and speedely imbrace that Before I end this short preface I must intreate thy patience to beare vvith the â—aultes in Printing vvhich are too too many but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered that it vvas Printed farre from the Authour vvith a Dutch composer and ouerseene by an vnskilfull Corrector the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the booke speaker A. W. I will endeuour the like or greater shortnes and plainnes if I can desiring nothing more of the Christian reader than to remember that hee is to seeke the truth without partialitie The place to seeke it in is the Scripture the meanes to find it the right vse of true reason He that hunts for it in mens writings either findes it not at all or at the least hath no certaine knowledge that he hath found it He that will trust other mens words rather than his owne eyes deserues in reason to be deceiued speaker D. B. P. Before the Printing of this part was finished I heard that M. Perkins was dead I am sorrie that it commeth forth to late to doe him anie good Yet his worke liuing to poison others a preseruatiue against it is neuerthelesse necessarie speaker A. W. It would haue done Master Perkins good to see by experience how vaine it is for men to striue against God for the Pope but it would haue been little to your aduantage to haue had such an aduersarie speaker W. P. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL SIR WILLIAM BOWES Knight c. Grace and peace RIght Worshipfull it is a notable policy of the diuell which he hath put into the heads of sundry men in this age to thinke that our religion and the religion of the present Church of Rome are all one for substance and that they may be reunited as in their opinion they were before Writings to this effect are spread abroad in the French tongue and respected of English Protestants more then is meete or ought to be For let men in shew of moderation pretend the peace and good estate of the Catholike Church as long as they will this Vnion of the two religions can neuer be made more then the vnion of light and darkenes speaker D. B. P. MAISTER PERKINS IN THE Epistle Dedicatorie It is a policie of the diuell to thinke that our Religion and the Religion of the present Church of Rome are all one in
substance or that they may be reunited BEfore I am to deliuer my opinion concerning this point I had neede to be enformed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion For there being great diuersities of pretended Religions currant in the world all contrary to the Church of Rome how can I certainlie know whether of them hâ— professeth Wherefore good Sir may it please you to declare what Religion you vnderstand when you say our Religion Is it that which Martin Luther a licentious Fryer first preached in Germany or rather that which the martiall Minister Zwinglius contended with sword and shield to set vp in Switzerland or perhaps that which John Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneua expelling the lawfull Magistrate thence and by the ayde of Beza a dissolute turnecoate spread into many corners of France Or if by your Religion you meane only to comprehend the Religion now practised in England yet are you farther to shewe whether you vnderstand that established by the State or the other more refined as it is thought by many and embraced by them who are called Puritanes for of their leauen sauoureth that position of yours That the article of Christs descent into bell crept into the Creede by negligence and some other such like in this booke These principall diuisions of the new Gospell to omit sundrie sub-diuisions being famous and receiued of diuers in England according to each mans phantasie it is meete you expresse whether of them you speake of that it may be dulie considered how the Romane Religion and it agree and what vnion may be made betweene them speaker A. W. Is this no superfluitie of words What reasonable man can doubt that Master Perkins by our religion meanes as you say afterward the religion now professed in England For your word practised is too skant for doctrine some points whereof fall not into practise If it be contrarie to the Church of Rome it is easily answered without any such inquirie that contraries cannot be vnited If difference in some points make a diuers religion how many kindes are there amongst you Papists let the Franciscans and Dominicans goe with all the rest of former times what say you to these maine points Iustification in Pighius Predestination in Bellarmine Free will in Bartholomew Camerarius three pillers of your Church The difference betwixt Protestants and Puritanes as you call them is not in any essentiall point of faith but in matters of outward gouernment and ceremonies speaker W. P. And this shall appeare if we doe but a little consider how they of the Romane Church haue rased the foundation For though in words they honour Christ yet in deede they turne him to a Pseudo-Christ and an Idoll of their owne braine speaker D. B. P. Now if you meane the hotchpotâ—h and confusion of all these new Religions together as by the opposition here vnto the Church of Rome and by the artiâ—les following may be gathered then I am cleere for you in this that there can be no more concord betweene these two Religions then there is betweene light and darknes faith and insidelâ—tie Christ and Beliall Notwithstanding I thinke that the reason by you produced to proue the impossibilitie of this vnion is of no value to â—it that they of the Romane Church â—aue razed the foundation for though in vvords they honour Christ yet indeede they turne him into a Pseudochrist and an â—doll of their 〈◊〉 braine A very sufficient cause no doubt of eternall breach and diuision if it could be verisied But how proue you that we Romane Catholikes who beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and the onely Redeemer of Mankinde make him a false Christ and an Idoll or before you goe about to proue it tell me I pray you how this can well stand with your owne definition of a reformed Catholike in your Preface There you affirme him to be a Catholike reformed to your liking that holdeth the same necessarie heads of Religion vvith the Romane Church Now can there be any more necessarie head of Religion than to haue a right faith in Christ can any other foundation be laid besides Iesus Christ If then your reformed Catholike must agree with the Romane Church in neâ—essarie heads of Religion as you hold he must either the Romane Church â—…th not the foundation and maketh not Christ a Pseudochrist as you say here or else you teach your disâ—iples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with it speaker A. W. It is no confusion to take from seuerall men seuerall opinions agreeing with the word of God Luther hauing been a long time kept in the darknes of Pâ—…pcrie could not by and by discerne the truth in all points Was not your superstition both for doctrine and ceremonics patcht vp peece by peece as it could procure allowance from time to time Yea was not the truth of Religion made manifest by little and little in the Church as God gaue learned men occasion of studie and a blessing in their studie against the poyson of Heretikes Such hath been and such alwaies will be the course of the Gospell that truth will be more and more knowne as there is more opposition against it and as men bestow more paines in reading praying and studying To denie the reason or argument is to denie the consequence not the antecedent but you grant the consequence viz. That razing the foundation and turning Christ into a Pseudochrist is a sufficient cause of eternall breach onely you denie the antecedent that the Church of Rome doth so At the least as well as you prooue that the Church of England holding the same opinions of Christ haue no faith no religion no Church no Christ c. But let vs see how you disprooue the antecedent If your reformed Catholike say you must agree with the Romane Church in many heads of religion either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or else you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it But he must agree with it in many heads of religion Therfore either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it I denie the consequence of your proposition because by paring of the errors which Master Perkins requires he shall keepe himselfe from razing the foundation though he hold the same necessary heads for example he must holde with you that a true ChristiaÌ„ must haue a right faith in Christ but he must reiect the faith you professe as not right Again he must hold that no other foundation can be laid but Iesus Christ not that you lay him aright for the foundation speaker W. P. They call him our Lord but with this condition that the Seruant of Seruants of this Lord may change and adde to his commaundements hauing so great a power that he
of any one syllable in matter of faith you may be sure that we Catholikes cannot but carrie a verie base conceipt of your doctrine who goe about vnder the ouerworne and thredbare cloake of reformation to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion especially when they shall perceiue the most points of your pretended reformation to be nothing else but olde rotten condemned heresies new scoured vp and furbushed and so in shew made more saleable vnto the vnskilfull as in this treatise shall be proued in euery Chapter speaker A. W. TO THE REFORMATION OF THE PREFACE THere are many necessarie heads of saluation wherein we and you agree 1. The Trinitie 2. Redemption by Christ against all Iewes and Heathen 3. The Godhead of Christ against Arius 4. The vnitie of his person against Nestorius 5. The truth of his Manhood though by consequence you ouerthrow it against Eutyches 6. The Godhead of the holy Ghost against Macedonius and many other Which I alleage not to make any Papist beleeue that the differences betwixt vs and you are few or small but to shew that Master Perkins speakes not against reason We are perswaded that no man may shrinke from the truth of that which is deliuered in Athanasius Creede though we dare not peremptorily condemne euery man that hath not a distinct knowledge and beleefe of euery one of the seuerall articles We are wholy of I asils iudgement that euery one ought rather to lose his life than to suffer any one syllable of Gods truth in the Scripture to be betrayed and therefore wee forbeare to ioyne with the Church of Antichrist which preferres a corrupt translation before the text it selfe speaker W. P. REVEL 18. 3. And I heard another voyce from heauen say Goe out of her my people that ye be not pertakers of her sinnes and receiue not of her plagues speaker D. B. P. ANSWERE TO THE Prologue THE learned know it to be a fault to make that the entrie vnto our discourse which may as properly fit him that pleadeth against vs but to vse that for our proeme which in true sence hath nothing for vs nay rather beareth stronglie for our aduersarie must needs argue great want of iudgement Such is the sentence aboue cited out of S. John by M. Perkins for it being trulie vnderstood is so farre off from terrifying any one from the Catholike Romane Church as it doth vehementlie exhort all to fire vnto it by forsaking their wicked companie that are banded against it speaker A. W. TO THE REFORMATION OF THE PROLOGVE IF it fall out as I make no question but it will doe that the place chosen by Master Perkins be prooued to belong to the Church of Rome where is the fault then speaker W. P. IN the former chapter S. Iohn sets downe a description of the whore of Babylon and that at large as he saw her in a vision described vnto him In the sixteenth verse of the same chapter he foretels her destruction and in the three first verses of this 18. chapter he goeth on to propound the sayd destruction yet more directly and plainely withall alleadging arguments to prooue the same in all the verses following Now in this fourth verse is set downe a caueat seruing to forewarne all the people of God that they may escape the iudgement shall befall the whore and the wordes containe two parts a commaundement and a reason The commaundement Come out of her my people that is from Babylon The reason taken from the euent least ye be partakers c. Touching the commaundement first I will search the right meaning of it and then set down the vse thereof and doctrine flowing thence In historie therefore are three Babylons mentioned one is Babylon of Assyria standing on the riuer Euphrates where was the confusion of Languages and where the Iewes were in captinitie which Babylon is in Scripture reproched for Idolatrie and other iniquities The second Babilon is in Egypt standing on the riuer Nilus and is now called Cayr of that mention is made 1. Pet. 5. v. 13. as some thinke though indeede it is as likely and more commonly thought that there is meant Babylon of Assyria The third Babylon is mystical whereof Babylon of Assyria was a tipe and figure and that is Rome which is without question here to be vnderstood And the whore of Babylon as by all circumstances may be gathered is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome and appertaine thereto This may be prooued by the interpretation of the holy Ghost for in the last verse of the 17. chapter the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be a citie which raigneth ouer the kings of the earth now in the daies when S. Iohn penned this booke of Reuelation there was no citie in the world that ruled ouer the kings of the earth but Rome it then being the seate where the Emperour put in execution his Imperiall authoritie Againe in the seuenth verse shee is said to sit on a beast hauing seuen heads and tenne hornes which seuen heads bee seuen hils vers 9. whereon the woman sitteth and also they bee seuen kings Therefore by the whore of Babylon is meant a citie standing on seuen hills Now it is wel known not onely to learned men in the Church of God but euen to the heathen themselues that Rome alone is the citie built on seuen distinct hills called Caelius Auentinus Exquilinus Tarpeius or Capitolinus Viminalis Palatinus Quirinalis Papists to helpe themselues doe alleadge that old Rome stood on seuen hills but now is remooued further to the plaine of Campus Martins I answer that howsoeuer the greatest part of the citie in regard of habitation bee not now on seuen hils yet in regard of regiment and practise of religion it is for euen to this day vpon these hilles are seated certaine Churches and Monasteries and other like places where the Papall Authoritie is put in execution and thus Rome being put for a state and regiment euen at this day it stands vpon 7. hils And though it be come to passe that the harlot in regard of her latter dayes euē changed her seate yet in respect of her younger times in which she was bred and borne she sate vpon the 7. hills Others because they feare the wounding of their own heads labour to frame these words to another meaning say that by the whore is meant the company of all wicked men in the world whersoeuer the diuell being the head thereof But this exposition is flat against the text for she is opposed to the kings of the earth with whom she is said to commit fornication and in the last verse she is called a citie standing on seuen hils and raigning ouer the Kings of the earth as I haue said and therefore must needs be a state of men in some particular place speaker D. B. P. For by the
purple Harlot in that place is signified as shall be proued presentlie the Romane Empire as then it was the slaue of Idols and with most bloodie slaughter persecuting Christs Saints Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest vnto it so most subiect to that sacrilegious boucherie Wherefore that voice which S. Iohn heard say Goe out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sinnes c. can haue none other meaning then that all they who desire to be Gods people must separate themselues in faith and manners from them who hate and persecute the Romane Church as did then the Heathen Emperours and now doe all Heretikes Vnlesse they will be partakers of their sinnes and consequentlie of their plagues This shall yet appeare more plainelie in the examination of this Chapter Where I will deale friendly with my aduersarie and aduantage him all thaâ— I can that all being giuen him which is any way probable it may appeare more euidentlie how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalypse whereof all Protestants vaunt and bragge so much both in their bookes and pulpits Well then I will admitte that in the 17. and 18. Chapters of the Reuel by the whoore of Babylon is vnderstood the Romane state and regiment which in lawfull disputations they are not able to proue the most iudicious Doctor S. Augustine and diuerse others of the auncient Fathers with the learned troupe of later Interpreters expounding it of the whole corps and societie of the wicked And as for the 7. hâ—llâ—s on the which they lay their foundation they are not to be taken literallie The Angell of God in the verie text it selfe interpreting the 7. heads of the beast to be aswell 7. Kings as 7. hilles But this notwithstanding to helpe you forvvaid I vvill graunt it you because some good vvriters haue so taken it And therefore omitte as imperrinent that vvhich you say in proofe of it What can you inferre hereupon Many that the Romane Church is that vvhoore of Babylon fayre and soft good Sir hovv proue you that thus The vvhoore of Babylon is a state of the Romane regment ergo the Romane Church is the vvhoore of Babylon What some of arguing call you me this By the like sophistication you may proue that Româ—…s and Râ—…s vvere the purple Harlot vvhich to affinne vvere ridiculous or vvhich is impious that the most Christian Empe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—â—codosius vvere the vvhâ—ore of Babilon because thes held also the state of the Romane Empire and regiment to make short the seeble force of this reason lyeth in this that they vvho hoâ—…eth the state and gouerne in the same Kingdome must needs be of like affection in Religion vvhich if it vvere necessarie then did Queene Mary of blessed memorie and her sister Eâ—zabeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 same nundes tovvards the true Catholike â—ath because they 〈◊〉 in the same chane of estate and ruled in the same Kingdome See I pray you vvhat a shamefull cauâ—… this is to rase such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A simple Logician vvould blush to argue in the parâ—…s so loose and yet they that take vpon them to controule the learnedst in the vvorld often fall into such open tallacies We desire no fauour of you but that you would acknowledge the truth when you cannot reasonably gainsay it What we can prooue you shall see by and by in the meane while your reason is naught For what though S. Austin and diuers other ancient writers with the learned troupe of your Popish interpreters doe so expound it doth it follow thereupon that in lawfull disputation the contrarie cannot be proued Could not they erre May not some other man see that which they perceiued not But what if wee shall match you in number and antiquitie of writers for our exposition First Hierome as you acknowledge afterward makes for vs and not for you so by your confession doth Tertullian but what name I seuerall men The Greeke Scholiast tels vs that diuers Interpreters by the harlot vnderstood old Rome and he that so thinks in his iudgement erres not though saith he it may be vnderstood of new Rome or the time of Antichrists comming Yea Austin himselfe grants that Rome in Greeke and Latin writers is as it were a second Babylon and he calles it Babylon of the West More then that your owne writers deny those Ho milies on the Apocalyps to be Auâ—tins and think them rather to be written by Ty conius the Donatist which Ribera the Iesuite saies he hath found by certaine arguments and euident reasons Besides Baptista Regnald affirmes that the Commentaâ—ies of diners of the ancients Bede Ambrose Ausâ—ert Anselme Prunasius and Austin are mysticall and allegoricall not historicall so that wee are not to rest vpon any of them for the true and proper meaning of the text It shewes more discretion than plaine dealing to omit that which you cannot answere Master Perkins reasons are euident and strong The citie that in S. Iohns daies raigned ouer the Kings of the earth is the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. 18. But Rome that is ciuitas the state of Rome and Rome onely is that citie that raigned ouer the Kings of the earth in S. Iohns daies Therefore Rome and Rome onely is the whore of Babylon 2 The citie that in S. Iohns daies was seated on seuen hilles is the seate of the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. 9. But Rome that is vrbs the towne of Rome is that only is the citie that in S. Iohns daies was seated on seuen hilles Therefore Rome and Rome onely is the seate of the whore of Babylon To the proposition of the latter reason you answere that the seuen hilles are not to be taken literally because the Angell makes the seuen heads aswell seuen Kings as seuen hilles But surely that rather makes against you for as the seuen Kings are literally to be vnderstood so are the seuen hilles both being signified by the seuen heads not that the seuen hils are seuen Kings For the woman or Citie doth not sit vpon the Kings but rather the Kings vpon her Besides it were a strange interpretation to expound heads by hilles and hils by Kings whereas heads doe more resemble Kings than hilles doe speaker W. P. And the Papists themselues perceiuing that this shift will not serue their turne make two Romes heathenish Rome and that whereof the Pope is head now say they the whore spoken of is heathenish Rome which was ruled by cruell tyrants as Nero Domitian and the rest and that Rome wherof now the Pope is head is not here meant Behold a vaine and foolish distinction for Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and cruelty in persecuting the Saints of God is all one with the heathenish Empire the See of the Bishop being turned into the Emperours court as all histories doe manifest speaker D. B. P. Well
commendation for discerning so much of the truth so may they bee excused if seeing Rome in their time a Christian famous Church they did not take it to be the seate of Antichrist But Hierome seemes rather to make against you because euen then he calles it Babylon in respect of Antichrist to come Your second and third reasons are of no more force For S. Iohn as I haue shewed spake not of Rome as it was then but as it was to be afterward and now hath been almost one thousand yeeres euen in temporall authoritie to which one of the Popes swords belongs Master Perkins rightly applies to Rome the words that fifteene hundred yeeres since were spoken of her as she is now the Popes Legates were nothing inferiour either for authoritie or exactions to the Romane Proconsuls But as it was foretold in a mysterie vnder a colour of spirituall gouernment ouerruling both in Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill matters he that remembers the bloodie massacre of so many thousands in a few daies not many yeeres agoe in France shall see that the Church of Rome shed blood enough at that one time to make her drunke as long as she shal continue yet what a small part was it of that which from time to time she hath bezeled in This section is nothing to purpose For who denies that there were as well Christians as Heathen in Rome in the Emperours daies The distinction Master Perkins denies is that S. Iohn speakes of Rome as it was vnder the Emperours and not of it as it hath been and is vnder the Popes which the authors you alleage meddle not with speaker W. P. S. Iohn writ a prophecie and therefore might well vse allegories besides he describes his Babylon so plaine that your selues are forced to confesse he meanes Rome by it S. Peter deales as an Apostle not as a Prophet and no where giues any inckling that by Babylon Rome should be meant Eusebius sets it not downe as his owne opinion but only recites it out of Papias from whom also it is apparant that Hâ—â—rome had it and in whom Eusebius saith there were many fabulous matters But let the distinction be as they suppose yet by their leaues hereby the whore must be vnderstood not onely heathenish Rome but euen the Papal or Ecclesiasticall Rome for the holy Ghost saith plainly that she hath made all nations drunke with the wine of the wrath of her fornication yea it is added that she hath committed fornication with the Kings of the earth wherby is signified that she hath indeauoured to intangle all the nations of the earth in her spirituall idolatrie and to bring the Kings of the earth to her religion Which thing cannot be vnderstood of the heathenish Rome for that left all the Kings of the earth to their owne religion and idolatrie neither did they labour to bring forraine Kings to worshippe their Gods Againe it is said that the ten hornes which be ten Kings shall hate the whâ—re and make her desâ—late and naked which must not be vnderstood of heathenish Rome but of Popish Rome for whereas in former times all the Kings of the earth did submitte themselues to the whore now they haue begun to withdraw themselues and make her desolate as the King of Bohemia Denmarke Germanie England Scotland and other parts therefore this distinction is also friuolous They further alledge that the whore of Babylon is drunke with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs shed not in Rome but in Ierusalem where the Lord was crucified and the two Prophets being slaine lie there in the streets But this place is not meant of Hierusalem as Hierome hath fully taught but it may well be vnderstood of Rome Christ was crucified there either because the authority whereby he was crucified was from the Romane Empire or else because Christ in his members was and is there daily crucified though locally in his owne person he was crucified at Ierusalem And thus notwithstanding all which hath bin said wee must here by the whore vnderstand the state of the Empire of Rome not so much vnder the heathen Emperors as vnder the head thereof the Pope speaker D. B. P. Well M. Perkins is content in fine to allowe of that distinction of Heathenish and Ecclesiasticall Rome which before he esteemed â—o foolish And then will prooue that not the Heathenish but Ecclesiâ—stâ—caâ—◠〈◊〉 is resembled to the purpell Harlot See what confidence this man hath in his owne shutle wit that now will prooue this and shortly after disproue it but let vs giue him the hearing The holy Ghost sayth plainely that she hath made all the vvorld drunke vâ—â—th the vvine of the vvâ—ath of her fornication and yet addeth that she hath committed fornication vvith the Kings of the earth But this cannot be vnderstood of heathenish Rome for that left all the Kingdomes of the earth vnto their owne Religion and Idolatry and did not labour to bring them to worship the Roman Gods Ergo it must be vnderstood of Papall Râ—me I answere The Roman Empire being the head and principall promoter of all kinde of Idolatrie and maintaining and aduancing them that most vehemently opposed themselues against the Christian Religion who with any shew of reason can denie but they chiefly coÌ„mitted spirituall fornication with the Kings of the earth if not by persvvading them to forsake their false Gods vvhich the Pagan Romans vvorship asvvell as they yet by encouraging and commanding them to perseuere in that filthie Idolatrie and to resist and oppresse the Christians vvheresoeuer Neither is that true that the Roman Emperours did not labour to bring other Nations to vvorship nevv Gods vvhen Nero and Domitian would be worshipped as Gods and for feare of Adrian one Antinous his seruant was worshipped as a God of all men as Iustinus Martyr testifieth These words of the text then agree very well with the Emperours who both were Idolaters and the chiefe Patrons of Idolatry but can in no sort be applied to the Romane Church which was thâ—n as the Protestants cannot deny a pure Virgin and most free from all spirituall fornication But that it is now become Idolatrous M. Perkins doth proue by his second reason gathered also I warrant you right learnedly out of the text it selfe where it is said that the ten Hornes which signifie ten Kings shall hate the whore and make her desolate and naked which as he saith must be vnderstood of Popish Rome For whereas in former times all the Kings of the earth did submitte themselues to the whore now they haue begunne to withdraw themselues and to make her desolate as the Kings of Bohemia Denmarke Germanie England Scotland and other parts In these his words is committed a most foule fault by grosse ouersight and ignorance in the very text What be England Scotland Denmarke as for Bohemia ruled by a Catholike Emperour it must be omitted as also many states of Germanie be these
they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings And so this maketh more against you then for you approouing the lavvfull officers of Rome to be Christs Ministers The second plaâ—e is alleadged out of him yet more impertinently your selfe confessing presently that those vvords vvere not spoken of the Pope but of his enemy The reason yet there set dovvne pleaseth you exceedingly vvhich you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you for you inferre that the Pope and all others since that time be vsurpers out of this reason of S. Bâ—â—nard Because forsooth that the Antipope called Innocentius vvas chosen by the King of Almaine France England c and their vvhole Clergie and people For if fnnocentius vvere an Antichrist and vsurper because he vvas elected by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope This your vvords declare but your meaning as I take it is quite contrary But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter if need require It sufficieth for this present that you finde no reliefe at all in S. Bernard touching the maine point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might meruaile if out of so sweet a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope any such poison might be sucked specially weighing wel what he hath written vnto one of them to whom he speaketh thus Goe to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time VVho art thou A great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignitie Aaron in authoritie Moses in povver Peter thou art he to vvhom the Keyes were deliuered to vvhom the sheepe vvere committed There are indeede also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flockes allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleere opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certaine blind places and broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but very Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicolas as he citeth it that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some 30. or 40. Bishops at once but of the matter of election else where M. Perkins hauing lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholike Authour flieth to a late hereâ—â—ke called Ioachim and quoteth Iewell for relator of it A worshipfull testimony of one heretike and that vpon the report of an other and he the most lying Authour of these daies As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easilie be answered but because he quoteth no place I will not stand to answere it But to close vp this first combat a sentence is set downe out of the famous Martyr Ireneus that Antichrist should be Lateinos a Roman Here be as many faults as words That learned auncient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name out of these words of the Reuel the number of the beast is 666. And obseruing the letters of the Greeke Alphabet by which they doe number as wee doe by ciphers saith that among others the word Lateinos doth containe those letters which amount iust to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might be Lateinos but more likely it is to be Teitan as he saith there lastly that it is most vncertaine what his name shall be See the place gentle reader and learne to beware of such deceitefull merchants as make no conscience to corrupt the best Authours and being often warned of it will neuer learne to amend Jreneus leaueth it most doubtfull what shall be Antichrists name And among diuers words esteemeth Lateinos to be the vnlikeliest And yet M. Perkins reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall be Lateinos and then to make vp the matter turneth Lateinos a proper name with S. Ireneus into Romane an appellatiue which noteth onely his country Fie vpon that cause which cannot be vpholden and maintained but by a number of such paltrie shirtes Thus come we at length to the end of M. Perkins proofes and reproofes in his prologue where we finding litle fidelitie in his allegations of the Fathers badde construction and foule ouersight in the text of holy Scripture briefely great malice but slender force against the Church of Rome we are to returne the words of his theame to all good Christians Goe out of her my people Forsake the enemies of the Romane Church And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours who drew out her most pure blood so let vs file in matters of faith and Religion from all heretakes that of late also spared not to shedde abundance of the same most innocent blood vnlesse to your greater condemnation you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes and receiue of her plagues speaker A. W. They were the Ministers of Christ by their profession as the Pope calls himselfe the seruant of seruants though both he is in truth Antichrist and they his ministers M. Perkins reason out of Bernard lyeth thus He that gets into Peters chaire without the consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Christendome is the beast spoken of in the Apocalypse But all the Popes from that schisme hitherto haue so gotten into Peters chaire viz. with consent of the Cardinals onely Therefore all the Popes since that schisme are the beast in the Apocalypse The proposition is Bernards in effect though notin words for he pronounces the Pope to be the Beast in the Reuelation because he was not chosen by consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Almaine France England c. And this Master Perkins sets downe very plaine at these words And thus Bernard c. How wide then are you from his meaning who make the quite contrarie collection in his name For if Innocentius say you were Antichrist and an vsurper because he was chosen by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chisen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope He concludes out of Bernard that he was Antichrist because he was not chosen by the Kings Clergie and people but onely by the Cardinals you that he was true Pope because he was not chosen by the Kings and but onely by the Cardinals The reason out of Bernard you answere not but shift off the matter with alleaging
consequence is worse than before for who sees not that there may be other meanes of beleeuing repenting namely inclining the wil by grace The antecedent also is false for God being a good Lord may inioyne his seruant that which he made him able to performe though by his owne fault he be now vnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he finneth by a necessitie not to bee auoided Answere The reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore he is to be punished as a bankrupt is not therefore freed from his debtes because he is not able to pay them but the bils against him stand in force because the debt comes through his owne default speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessity not to be auoided He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answere supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne cannot choose but sinne for by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sin or no and consequently hath free vvill to sin or not to sin And that example of a bankerupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditours who content not themselues vvith his repentance vvithout repay of their money as God doth speaker A. W. Here againe Master Perkins denies the consequence that therefore a man is not to be punished for sinning because he hath no free will to sinne or not to sinne The reason of his denial is that which I answered in the second obiection he may iustly be punished though he haue not free will not to sinne because it is by his owne fault that he hath it not You replie that the answere supposeth that which is false The answere doth not suppose it but as I haue shewed plainly denies the consequence How your conceit that euery man hath helpe of God so that he may repent and beleeue when he will can stand with Austins iudgement before set downe let euery man that hath reason consider The example of the bankerupt is fully to the purpose for which Master Perkins brings it to shew that a man is not alwaies therfore to be borne with for not doing that which hee is inioyned because hee cannot doe it for when it is through his owne fault that hee cannot why should hee escape Now concerning the force of this argument heare S. Augustines opinion in these wordes Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment which doth not that vvhich he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheards vpon the dovvnes sing these things doe not Poets vpon the stages act them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknovvledge them Doe not maisters in the schooles and Prelats in the pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the vvhole vvorld confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not choose but doe Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest company of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sense doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the new Gospell speaker A. W. Saint Austin disputing in that booke against the Manichees who hold that there were two soules in euery creature of two diuers substances the one good the other bad by which they are forced to doe good or euill as either of them could ouercome other refutes them by this reason among other that if men doe well or ill by constraint they were neither to be praised nor dispraised for it That he is thus to be vnderstood not onely the course of his disputation shewes but also the definition that he brings of will Will saith Austin is a motion of the minde no man constraining it to the not losing or to the getting of something I shewed before that we admit no such necessitie of sinning but onely affirme that whatsoeuer a naturall man doth it is sinfull so that wee grant him libertie from constraint for the doing or not doing this or that action but denie that any action he doth is free from sinne and therefore he sins necessarily in all he doth The second poynt Of Originall sinne speaker W. P. The next point to be handled is concerning Originall sinne after baptisme that is how farforth it remaineth after baptisme A point to bee well considered because hereupon depend many points of Poperie I. Our consent Conclus I. They say naturall corruption after baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre it is abolished In originall sinne are three things I. the punishment which is the first and second death II. Guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment III. the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenes to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For the first wee say that after baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of originall sin is taken away There is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that be in Christ Iesus Rom. 8. 1. For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that is also taken away in them that are borne anew for considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate not from the sinne in the person but of this more afterward Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things I. That that very power or strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate II. That this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euery actual sinne past so farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whom it is Indeede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
in baptisme speaker D. B. P. Ans. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme which is in question but only hat the best men for want of perfect Charity doe oâ—ten sin venially which we graunt speaker A. W. Indeede as you pare it leauing out all these words By which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sin there is no truth in vs there is not much to prooue the poynt but your c. hath cut off that which is most materiall viz. By reason of our defect or failing in charitie which comes from our naturall corruption no man can say he is without sinne and by reason of which we must call vpon God for pardon of our sinnes speaker W. P. Indeede Augustine in sundrie places seemes to denie concupiscence to bee sinne after baptisme but his meaning is that concupiscence in the regenerate is not the sinne of the person in whom it is For thus he expounds himselfe This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne And The law of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ended And Let not sinne raigne he saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne For as long as thou liuest of necessitie sinne will be in thy members at the least looke it raigne not in thee c. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose insteed of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundrie places denieth concupiscence to be sin but expounds him to meane that it is not sin in that person but in it selfe which is already confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person speaker A. W. Master Perkins as the places he brings out of Austin shew doth not deny it simply to be the sinne of the person in whom it is but to be his to condemnation of it selfe it deserues to be punisht with eternall death but in him it is not a sinne procuring this punishment This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne speaker D. B. P. But it the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of Saint Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the olde writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turne who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certainety of the iudgement of antiquity Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmity then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hâ—ld that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquitie Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is â—â—â—tly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we doe consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnes of such Masters who hauing so highly coÌ„mended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it Doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe Presuming that some vvould be so shalovv-vvitted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whoâ—e consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them speaker A. W. Caluin saith not as you translate him Betweene him and vs there is this difference but this may seeme to be the difference because he was loth to speake so plaine as we now are forced to doe though in Caluin his opinion his iudgement was all one with ours speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that J may for example sake touch one of them concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlavvfull riot of it S. Bernard vvhom M. Perkins often citeth against vs and therefore may sometimes be alleadged for vs hath these vvords Sinne is at the doore but if thou doe not open it it vvill not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou vvillingly yeeld vnto it it shall doe thee no hurt vvithâ—old thy consent and it preuaileth not speaker A. W. S. Augustine and S. Cyrill haue been cited already S. Hierome and S. Gregory shall be hereafter vvho vvith the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquitie is vvholy for vs. And if any desire to knovv the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius vvhere he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken avvay in Baptisme but are only couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Chrysostome speakes of the affections as they are naturall in which respect indeede they are not sinnes but only as they are disordered against the law of God in their creation The concupiscence he names is not originall sinne whereof we dispute but the naturall desire which Adam had by creation and which is not in it selfe euill but as by our corruption it inclines now to euill and hath euill mingled with it in the act of desiring Any man may see that Bernard intends not to proue that originall sinne is properly sinne but that it shall not preuaile to make vs commit grosse sinne outwardly vnlesse we consent to it and thereby incourageth Christian men to resist it affirming that it shal not hurt them to condemnation in which respect Austin denies it to be sinne Proclus howsoeuer deceiued by Origen he erred in the point of the resurrection yet in this matter taught nothing but that which he sufficiently confirmed by S. Pauls authoritie of whom he had learned the doctrine neither doe Epiphanius or Methodius bring any good proofe against his opinion or for
can recouer though it liue and bring forth fruites of sinne for the time of our continuance in this mortall carcasse The third poynt Certeintie of saluation I. Our consent speaker W. P. I. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man in this life may be certeine of saluation and the same thing doth the Church of Rome teach and hold II. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man is to put a certeine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same thing by common consent holdeth the foresaid Church this point maketh not the difference betweene vs. III. Conclus We hold that with assurance of saluation in our harts is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs and we with them speaker A. W. To this conclusion the Papist ansvvers Not so Sir But he shevves not vvhat it is he mislikes in it IV. Conclus They goe further and say that a man may be certeine of the saluation of men or of the Church by Catholike faith and so say we V. Concl. Yea they hold that a maÌ„ by faith may be assured of his own saluation through extraordinary reuelation as Abraham others were and so do we speaker A. W. Here he ads that In this sense only the first conclusion is true viz that there is no assurance but by reuelation We ansvvere that this reuelation is common to all true beleeuers in their seuerall proportions VI. Conclus They teach that we are to be certeine of our saluation by speciall faith in regard of God that promiseth though in regard of our selues and our indisposition wee cannot and in the former point they consent with vs. II. The dissent or difference The very maine point of difference lies in the manner of assurance I. Conclus We hold that a man may be certeine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinary and speciall faith They hold that a man is certeine of his saluation onely by hope both of vs hold a certeinty we by faith they by hope II. Conclus Further we hold and auouch that our certeinty by true faith is vnfallible they say their certeinty is only probable III. Conclus And further though both of vs say that we haue confidence in Gods mercy in Christ for our saluation yet we doe it with some difference For our confidence commeth from certeine and ordinary faith theirs from hope ministring as they say but a coniecturall certeinty Thus much of the difference now let vs see the reasons to and fro III. Obiections of Papists Obiect I. Where there is no word there is no faith for these two are relatiues but there is no word of God saying Cornelius beleeue thou Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued And therefore there is no such ordinary faith to beleeue a mans owne particular saluation Ans. The proposition is false vnlesse it be supplied with a clause on this manner Where there is no word of promise nor any thing that doth counteruaile a particular promise there is no faith But say they there is no such particular word It is true God doth not speake to men particularly Beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued But yet doth he that which is answerable hereunto in that he giueth a generall promise with a commandement to apply the same and hath ordained the holy ministerie of the word to applie the same to the persons of the hearers in his owne name and that is as much as if the Lord himselfe should speake to men particularly To speake more plainely in the Scripture the promises of saluation be indefinitely propounded it saith not any where if Iâ—hn will beleeue he shall be saued or if Peter will beleeue he shall be saued but whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued Now then comes the minister of the word who standing in the roome of God and in the stead of Christ himselfe takes the indefinite promises of the Gospel and laies them to the harts of euery particular man and this in effect is as much as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued speaker D. B. P. Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome giueth the first place to our reasons which he calleth obiections and endeuoureth to supplant them and afterward planteth his owne About the order I will not contend seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none but sets downe things as they came into his head Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation But following his method let vs come to the matter Reply Good Sir seeing euery man is a lyar and may both deceiue and be deceiued and the Minister telling may erre how doth either the Minister know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not when he assureth him of his saluation To affirme as you doe that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie Equalling a blinde and lying creature vnto the wisedome and truth of God If you could shew out of Gods word that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ then had you answered the argument directly which required but one warrant of Gods vvord but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers vvord counteruailes Gods vvord I cannot see vvhat it vvanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate On the otherside to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate as it must be graunted he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter thou art one of the elect iâ— to make him of Gods priuie Councell without any warrant for it in Gods word Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrary in these words The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale our Lord knoweth vvho be his And none else except he reueile it vnto them speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake Master Perkins who doth not say that the Minister is to assure any man of his saluation but to applie the generall promises of Scripture to euery man particularly vpon condition of beleeuing The generall is Whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued the Ministers particular application Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued This is so plainly set downe by Master Perkins that I wonder how you could mistake him and so certainly grounded vpon the generall that there can no question be made of it Neither doth this equall the Minister to Christ but as Master Perkins truly saith is as much in effect as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued For if it be true that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued it is as true that Cornelius shall be saued if he
beleeue So that your discourse of the Ministers knowledge and the mans election is nothing to Master Perkins answere speaker W. P. It is answered that this applying of the Gospell is vpon condition of mens faith and repentance and that men are deceiued touching their owne faith and repentance and therefore faile in applying the word vnto themselues Answ. Indeed this manner of applying is false in all hypocrites heretikes and vnrepentant persons for they applie vpon carnall presumption and not by faith Neuerthelesse it is true in all the elect hauing the spirit of grace and prayer for when God in the ministerie of the word being his owne ordinance saith Seeke ye my face the heart of Gods children truly answereth O Lord I will seeke thy face And when God shall say Thou art my people they shall say againe The Lord is my God speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins then flieth from the assurance of the Minister and leaues him to speake at â—andon as the blind man casts his clubbe and attributeth all this assurance vnto the partie himselfe who hearing in Gods word Seeke yee my face in his hart answereth Lord I vvill seeke thy face And then hearing God say Thou art my people saith againe The Lord is my God And then loe without all doubt he hath assurance of his saluation Would ye not thinke that this were rather some seely old Womans dreame then a discourse of a learned Man How know you honest man that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000. yeares past to the people of Israell are directed to you Mine owne hart good Sir tells me so How dare you build vpon the perswasion of your owne hart any such assurance When as in holy writ it is recorded VVicked is the hart of man and who shall know it Are you ignorant how Saul before he was S. Paul being an Israelite to whom those words appertained perswading himselfe to be very assured of his faith was notwithstanding fouly deceiued and why may not you farre more vnskilfull then he be in like manner abused Moreouer suppose that this motion commeth of the holy Ghost and that he truly saith The Lord is God how long knoweth he that he shall be able to say so truly When our Sauiour Christ Iesus assureth vs that many be called but few of them are chosen to life euerlasting How knoweth he then assuredly that he being once called is of the predestinate speaker A. W. Your question in skorne to the honest man is nothing to Master Perkins answere he doth not say that those places of the Prophet belong to euery man but that all the elect yeeld obedience to God in the ministerie of the word beleeuing as he commands them and so vpon the knowledge of their beleefe come to the assurance of their saluation As for the doubt that a man may be called and be none of the predestinate he that truly beleeues the Scripture casts it quite away hauing learned of God that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued which could not bee true if it were possible that a man should beleeue and not be predestinate And it is a truth of God that he which beleeueth knoweth that he beleeueth and he that truly repenteth knoweth that he repenteth vnlesse it be in the beginning of our conuersion and in the time of distresse and temptation Otherwise what thankfulnes can there be for grace receiued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins saith that he who beleeueth knoweth that he beleeueth Be it so if he beleeue aright and meddle no further then with those things which be comprehended within the bounds of faith But that the certainty of saluation is to be beleeued is not to be begged but proued being the maine question he saith further that he who truly repenteth knoweth that he repenteth he knoweth indeed by many probable coniectures but not by certainly of faith as witâ—â—lâ—â—h that holy person If God come to me as he dot◠〈◊〉 all repentant sinneâ—â— I shall not see him and if he depart away from me I shall not vnderstand it Which is sufficient to make him thankefull yea iâ— he receiued no grace at all yet were he much beholding vnto God who offered him his grace and would haue freely bestowed it vpon him if it had not been through his owne default And thus our first Argument stands in his full strength and vertue that no man can assure himselfe by faith of his saluation because there is no word of God that warranteth him so to doe speaker A. W. If he that beleeues aright know he beleeues and withall is sure that no man doth beleeue but he that is predestinate because that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued and none shall be saued but they that are predestinate it is out of doubt that assurance of saluation by faith may and must be had Now why or how should it be more impossible to know we repent truly then that wee beleeue truly especially since that and this necessarily and certainly goe together Euery man that hath true faith and no man but he that hath true faith doth repent truly That of Iob is not spoken of mans repentance but of his inabilitie to comprehend the workes of God as the whole discourse shewes neither are the words If ye come to me but as also Arias Montanus and Pagnine expound them Behold he passeth by Vatablus vnderstands the place of not knowing God by his workes Master Perkins asks what thankfulnes there can be for grace receiued if a man cannot know that he hath receiued any As for the coniecture you speake of it is likelier to breed feare than thankfulnes being so vncertaine or at the least thankfulnes by halues because wee can be but halfe perswaded that we haue receiued grace speaker W. P. Obiect II. It is no article of the Creede that a man must beleeue his owne saluation and therfore no man is bound thereto Ans. By this argument it appeares plainly that the very pillars of the Church of Rome doe not vnderstand the Creed for in that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed euery article implieth in it this particular faith And in the first article I beleeue in God are three things contained the first to beleeue that there is a God the second to beleeue the same God is my God the third to put my confidence in him for my saluation and so much containe the other articles which are concerning God When Thomas said Ioh. 20. 20. My God Christ answered Thou hast beleeued Thomas Where we see that to beleeue in God is to beleeue God to be our God And Psal. 78. 22. to beleeue in God and to put trust in him are al one They beleeued not in God and trusted not in his helpe speaker A. W. I aâ—mit all this and adde more that M. Perkins be no loÌ„ger ignorant 〈◊〉 Catholike knowledge of the creede that we must also loue him wiâ—â— a 〈◊〉
onely but of indisposition also which is a reason to make euery one despaire in regard of himselfe though in respect of Gods mercie he may conceiue some hope For if no man should find fauour but he that is disposed or fitted for it perfectly sure wee must needes despaire of attaining to that fitnes how can we in respect of that looke for saluation the worthines which is in them that shall come to heauen is both in Christ by whom they are worthie as members of his mysticall bodie and also in themselues who departing out of this world are made perfectly righteous by inherent righteousnes which before was begun in them speaker D. B. P. If God bidde vs pray that we fall not into temptation and promiseth an issue forth then the assurance depends vpon prayer and not vpon our former faith What then if wee doe not pray so as we should may not the enemy then not only wound but kill vs to it cannot be denied and therein as in diuers other workes of pietie many haue been too too slacke as the pitifull fall of thousands haue taught vs. speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not say that prayer doth assure vs of perseuerance but that wee resting vpon God by faith and calling on him are vpheld from falling away not because our prayer is for the manner and measure such as it ought to be for all should be perfect but because God-hath promised to keepe his children and that he may fulfill his promise stirres them vp to pray according to his will though with many imperfections speaker D. B. P. Oh saith M. Perkins it cannot be that he vvhich vvas once a member of Christ can euer after be vvholy cut off O shamelesse assertion and contrary to many plaine texts and examples of holy Scriptures Doth not our Sauiour say in expresse words That euery braunch in me not bearing fâ—… he vvill take it avvay And againe If any abide not in me he shall be cast forth as the branch and shall vvither and be cast into the fire which doth demonstrate that some which were members of Christ be wholie cut off and that for euer Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our aduersaries owne confession and doth not our blessed Sauiour say expounding the Parable of the sower That the seed vvhich fell vpon the rocke doth signifie them vvho vvith ioy receiue the vvord and these saith he haue no roote but for a time they beleeue and in time of temptation reuolt Doth not S. Paul in expresse tearmes say That some hauing faith and good conscience expelling good conscience haue made shipvvrack of their faith of whom were by name Hymenaeus and Alexander The like That in the last daies some should reuolt from the faith Againe That some for couetousnes sake had erred from the saith speaker A. W. Doe you call that a shamelesse assertion which is so oft auowed by our Sauiour himselfe He that drinkes of that water that I shall giue him shall neuer thirst but it shall be in him a well of water springing vp to euerlasting life Againe My sheepe heare my voyce and I know them and they follow me and I giue them eternall life and they shall neuer perish neither shall any plucke them out of my hand And in another place I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall not hunger and he that beleeues in me shall neuer thirst This is the will of him that sent me that euery one that sees the Sonne and beleeues in him should haue euerlasting life and I will raise him vp at the last day Now the places you alleage prooue no more but that if any man fall away from Christ he shall perish and that some may forsake the truth of doctrine or hauing had some shew of a iustifying faith for a time may afterward manifest themselues not to haue beleeued in Christ to iustification Of the former kinde are those two places of Iohn of the latter all the rest speaker D. B. P. And for example amongst other take Saul the first King of Israell who was at his election as the holy Ghost witnesseth so good a man that there vvas no better then he in Jsraell and yet became reprobate as is in the Scripture signified The like is probable of Salomon and in the new Testament of Judas the traytour and Simon Magus whom S. Luke saith that he also himselfe beleeued and after became an Arch heretike and so died the like almost may be verified of all Arch-heretikes who before they fell were of the faithfull speaker A. W. That you say of Saul is vtterly false for the Scripture neither in that text nor any where else speakes so of him And indeed how could it Samuel being then aliue so holie and good a man But the place you meane is in the ninth chapter where Samuel saith to him whose shall all the best things of Israel be as your translation reades it That is saith your glosse the dignitie of the King who may take the best things of the people subiect to him The goodly things saith the 70. All that is to be desired Pagnin What soeuer is to be desired in Israel saith Vatablus and in his marginall note All the desire of Israel as if he should say Thou shalt be King of Israel And this agrees both with the word and with the context Care not for the asses saith Samuel for they are found and besides whose shall all the wealth of Israel be Thus haue you graced Saul and belied the holy Ghost so haue you disgraced Salomon whom the holy Ghost honored with speaking by his mouth and writing by his penne the great mysteries of God Euery Papist hath not power like the Pope to make whom he will a Saint and whom he list a reprobate Iudas Simon Hymeneus Alexander and the rest beleeued the truth of the Gospell at least in part for a time but neuer any one of these had at any time true iustifying faith to rest vpon Christ for saluation speaker D. B. P. But what neede we further proofe of this matter seeing that this is cosen-german if not the very same with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles condemned and registred by S. Hierome and S. Augustine who held that iust men after Baptisme could not sin and if they did sinne they were indeed washed with water but neuer receiued the spirit of grace his ground was that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace could not sinne after which is iust M. Perkins proposition so that to vphold an errour he falleth into an old condemned heresie speaker A. W. We denie not that a man may sinne yea we confesse that the very best men doe sinne but wee say the Lord by his spirit keepes them that are iustified from falling away from Christ either finally or totally He that is
them of that neither much lesse that they should so continue vnto their liues end I omit his vnsauoury discourse of eating and beleeuing Christ and applying vnto vs his benefits which he might be ashamed to make vnto vs that admit no part of it to be true I confesse that therein faith hath his part if it be ioyned with charity and frequentation of the Sacraments speaker A. W. Master Perkins proues that faith is a particular assurance because it is a particular applying of Christ by euery man to himselfe That it is so he shewes in that it is a receiuing of Christ and all his benefits The place of Iohn is brought to proue that to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ is all one to which your answere is altogether impertinent So also is your exposition false for the holy Ghost speakes not of a power to be the sonnes of God but of a priuiledge whereby all true beleeuers are the sonnes of God Ye are all saith the Apostle the sonnes of God by faith in Christ Iesus That discourse so vnsauourie to your corrupt taste serues to manifest this point that to receiue or beleeue in Christ is to applie him particularly as meate and drinke are applied by eating and drinking If you could as easily haue disproued as disliked that discourse we should haue seene the one as we haue the other speaker D. B. P. This is it which S. Paul teacheth That not by the vvorkes of Moses law but by faith in Christ Iesus vve receiue the promises of the spirit and shall haue hereafter the performance if we obserue those things which Christ hath commaunded vs. But what is this to certeintie of Saluation S. Paul speakes of receiuing the spirit by faith and no where vouchsafes any such priuiledge to workes which indeed haue not to doe in that matter Receiued ye the spirit by the workes of the law or by the hearing of faith speaker D. B. P. To those of Augustine and such like authorities I answere that we find Christ we hold Christ we see Christ by faith beleeuing him to be the Sonne of God and redeemer of the world and Iudge of the quicke and the dead and we vnderstand and disgest all the mysteries of this holy word But where is it once said in any of these sentences that we are assured of our saluation we beleeue all these points and many more but we shall be neuer the neare our saluation vnlesse we obserue Gods commandements The seruant vvhich knovves his Masters will and doth it not shall be beaten vvith many stripes Then you are my friends saith our Sauiour when you shall doe the things which I commaund you which we being vncerteine to performe assure not our selues of his friendship but when to our knowledge we goe as neare it as we can and demaund pardon of our wants we liue in good hope of it speaker A. W. You seeme to grant as much concerning these places of Austin as Master Perkins desires but that you restraine this beleeuing against Austins words to a beleefe of the truth whereas the vse of eating and drinking Christ is not onely to establish our iudgement but also and that principally to confirme the assurance of our saluation by his death and sacrifice It is a strange kinde of answering to require the maine conclusion in euery pro syllogisme and not to vnderstand to what purpose euery seuerall reason is alleaged The beleeuing of neuer so many points brings neither assurance nor saluation but the resting vpon Christ for saluation giues vs assurance that wee are the children of God and shall continue so receiuing at the last the inheritance of sonnes because of our adoption not the wages of seruants for our imperfect labour in which we vse our best endeuour to doe the will of our father not the taske of our master speaker D. B. P. I answere first out of the place it selfe that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed which M. Perkins thought wisdome to conceale For. S. Paul saith that the Spirit witnesseth with our spirits that we are the sonnes of God and coheires with Christ with this condition If yet vve suffer vvith him that vve may be glorified vvith him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if vve faile in performance of the condition God stands free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receiued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of saluation speaker A. W. S. Paul sets downe no condition at all in the place alleaged by Master Perkins the next verse propounds the course that God hath appointed to bring his children to glorie which depends not vpon vs but vpon God himselfe who makes all his sonnes conformable to their eldest brother Christ according to his predestination and chastice all his children by one kinde of suffering or another speaker D. B. P. This is the direct answere to that place although the other be very good that the testimony of the spirit is but an inward comfort and ioy which breedeth great hope of saluation but bringeth not assurance there of This M. Perkins would refute by the authority of Saint Bernard in the place before cited see the place and my answere there speaker A. W. The witnes of the spirit the Apostle speakes of is that we are the children of God the comfort and ioy you mention is an effect arising from that testimonie of his and our feeling not the foundation of our assurance We reioyce because the spirit beares witnes that wee are the sonnes of God not contrariwise because we reioyce therefore wee haue hope that we are Gods children though this also be a secondarie proofe of our assurance speaker D. B. P. This Argument is so proper for their purpose that we returne it vpon their owne heads We must pray for saluation therefore we are not yet assured of it For who in his wits prayeth God to giue him that whereof he is assured alreadie And a godly act of faith it is in that prayer to beleeue that God wil giue that which he is assured of before hand such foolish petitions cannot please God and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied that any faithfulman may pray for his saluation but rather thanke the Lord for it But to answere directly he who prayeth must beleeue he shall obtaine that which he prayeth for if he obserue all the due circumstances of praier which be many but to this purpose two are required necessarily the one that he who prayeth be the true seruant of God which first excludeth all those that erre in faith touched in these words VVhat you of the faithfull shall desire vvhen you pray shall be giuen you The other is when we request matters of such moment that we perseuere in prayer and continue our suit
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
worke speaker A. W. I denie the consequence of your proposition For though saith alone be the whole cause of iustification yet not euery faith but such an one as is accompanied with hope and charitie To your proofe I answere that such a faith is neither the whole nor any cause of iustification and so though that be as you say in act yet no such effect will follow speaker D. B. P. Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot applie to themselues Christs righteousnes vvithout the preseace of hope and charitie For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honor which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing els but the plaine vice of presumption as hath been before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie when it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophie that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sence and reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the prefence of the whole cause and not only of thâ— instrumentall cause speaker A. W. To the assumption I answere Faith considered without any act of hope or charitie to iustification doth iustifie but faith that is without these doth not iustifie To your proofe I say further that to our iustification God accounteth for righteousnes neither our hope of heauen nor our loue towards himselfe nor our estimation of his honour but onely our beleeuing in Iesus Christ. The similitude is true and fit True because the eye doth see though as an instrument fitted to that office by God and thus Philosophers Poets Orators and all kinde of people doe speake He that would be more curious than wise might finde fault with you also and say that the act of seeing also is mans and the soule the instrustrument whereby he doth see as the hand is the instrument with which he reacheth The fitnes of the similitude appeareth thus It is man that beleeueth as it is man that seeth The generall instrument as I may speake for both these actions is the soule though by diuers faculties the particular for sight is the eye for beleeuing faith outwardly there is none The eye seuered from the head seeth not and yet it is the eye that seeth and not the head so saith that is without hope and charitie iustifieth not and yet hope and charitie doth not iustifie You answere that it is not to purpose because wee require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall But you deceiue your selfe for the question is not of the whole cause or principall efficient which is God for it is he onely that iustifieth but of the instrument if wee may so call it To speake plainly the matter is as I haue often said what it is that God respects in vs to our iustification We say it is onely our beleeuing in Christ you say it is our beleeuing louing and hoping because we teach that together with faith by which on our part we are iustified we receiue hope charitie and other graces of sanctification which are all present in the heart when it beleeueth to iustification but are no way any causes of it speaker D. B. P. And to returne your similitude vpon yourselfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight speaker A. W. I denie your similitude as faultie in the reddition or latter part of it For faith receiueth no influence from any other vertue whereby it hath life to worke acceptably in Gods sight but the acceptablenes of faith proceedes from the meere acceptation of God counting it for righteousnes And whereas wee say that such a faith onely iustifieth as hath hope and loue for companions it is not our meaning that these make saith acceptable but that hee which beleeueth and hath not these vertues idly presumes of faith when he hath it not because the spirit of God together with true faith powreth these graces also into our soules But of this whole point of iustification I shall one day if it please God write more distinctly and fully speaker W. P. Reason IV. If faith alone doe iustifie then wee are saued by faith alone but we are not saued by faith alone and therfore not iustified by faith alone Answ. The proposition is false for more things are requisit to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes speaker D. B. P. The fourth reason if faith alone doe iustifie then faith alone vvill saue but it will not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition and saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an Innocent babe dye shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuolous speaker A. W. It had been the part of a scholler to haue refuted his reason as well as to condemne his answere But indeede the reason is sound that iustification being but the subordinate meanes to the maine end saluation more is required to this than to that not that any man can faile of saluation which hath attained to iustification but because God hath appointed to make supplie of other graces that we may come by degrees to glorification Your reason is nothing worth For the comparison of equalitie and likenes is insufficient For though infants need no more to saluation yet men of discretion doe I appeale to your owne doctrine Doe not you teach that good workes are necessarie to saluation and yet you grant that infants may be saued without them yea and men of yeres too if they haue no time to doe them after their first iustification Therefore more may bee required to saluation than to iustification though infants want nothing after they are once iustified yea infants are iustified without faith as many as are iustified speaker W. P. And the assumption is false for we are saued by faith alone if wee speake of faith as it is an instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation speaker D. B. P. Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith
necessarie or respected by God in the iustification of that theefe he would neuer haue said that he was iustified without workes that did so many good workes in so short a time speaker D. B. P. Novv that that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualites out of the companies of faith is apparant by that vvhich he hath vvritten on the next Chapter vvhere he saith That faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they doe withall put off the old man and a little before more plainely saying I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation hope is proceeding in the building but the toppe and perfection of the whole worke is charitie speaker A. W. Neither doe we meane to exclude such qualities For they come together but are not of like vse nor to the same purpose Both the sentences you alleage out of him wee approoue that faith which is without sanctification cannot instifie that faith is not all that is required to saluation but all graces of regeneration are to be laboured for and obtained before wee can come to heauen And by this wee may see that as the Fathers so Origen also makes a difference betwixt iustification where faith onely is respected and saluation to which all vertues are required III. Difference speaker W. P. The third difference about iustification is concerning this point namely how far forth good workes are required thereto The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there be two kinds of iustification the first and second as I haue said The first is when one of an euill man is made a good man and in this workes are wholy excluded it being wholy of grace The second is when a man of a iust man is made more iust And this they will haue to proceede from workes of grace for say they as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man though he could not at the first make himselfe a man euen so a sinner hauing his first iustification may afterward by grace make himselfe more iust Therefore they hold these two things I. That good works are meritorious causes of the second iustification which they tearme Actuall II. that good workes are meanes to increase first iustification which they call Habituall Now let vs see how far forth we must ioyne with them in this point Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God and are approoued of him and therefore haue a reward II. Good workes are necessarie to saluation two waies first not as causes thereof either conseruant adiuvant or procreant but onely as consequents of faith in that they are inseparable companions and fruits of that faith which is indeede necessarie to saluation Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way and as the way it selfe directing vs vnto eternall life III. Wee hold and beleeue that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by works for so the holie Ghost speaketh plainely and truely Iam. 2. 21. That Abraham was iustified by workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins first graunteth that good vvorkes doe please God and haue a temporall revvard 2. That they are necessary to saluation not as the cause thereof but either as markes in a vvay to direct vs tovvards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnesse to declare one to be iust before men all vvhich he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteeme much of good vvorkes vvhich they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes speaker A. W. This is no good dealing to foyst in temporall as if you would haue men suspect that we allow good workes no reward in heauen It had been enough for you to leaue out his words as you doe and thrust in your owne without adding at your pleasure But these are popish shifts Whereof you presently affoord vs another example by putting in these words Before men to make the world beleeue that we giue no place to good works in the sight of God whereas Master Perkins professeth that Abraham was iustified by works euen before God not onely before men as you write speaker A. W. To this you adde in the third place a shamelesse slander against your owne knowledge that we hold good workes to be no better than deadly sinnes whereas wee teach that those that are indeed good workes are able to iustifie a man perfectly in the presence of God and to deserue euerlasting life Yea we maintaine that the imperfect workes of the regenerate are brought foorth by the grace of Gods spirit and for all their imperfection are accepted and shall be rewarded by God our Father in heauen speaker W. P. Thus farre we ioyne with them and the very difference is this They say we are iustified by works as by causes thereof wee say that wee are iustified by works as by signes and fruites of our iustification before God and no otherwise and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstood that Abraham was iustified that is declared and made manifest to bee iust indeede by his obedience and that euen before God Now that our doctrine is the truth it will appeare by reasons on both parts speaker D. B. P. The maine difference then betvveene vs consisteth in this vvhether good vvorkes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes vvhich vve call the second iustification or vvhether they be onelie fruits signes or markes of it speaker A. W. The maine difference as Master Perkins propounds it is whether we be iustified by works as by causes meritorious of our iustification not whether they bee the true cause of our second iustification which he denies wholy as a deuice of yours And indeede they that haue more neerely sifted this branne haue found that there is but one iustification because faith and workes make one righteousnes begun by â—aith and increased and perfected by workes Iustification saith Andradius the great champion of the Councill of Trent consists of two parts forgiuenes of sinnes and obedience to the law Stapleton speakes more plaine The Catholikes say that a man is iustified by faith and workes as by the formall cause So that according to your popish diuinitie workes are not onely the meritorious efficient cause of our iustification but the formall cause also as Stapleton directly affirmes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which he made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set dovvne our owne speaker A. W. This pretence is none of his who would neuer denie that our inherent righteousnes is increased
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
Hilary expounding that exhortation of our Sauiour seeke ye first the kingdome of God and his righteousnes counsailes men to seeke it with the labour of their life and this saith he is the reward for there is but one word merces of them that liue well and perfitly he saith not that any mans worke is perfit inough truly and wholie to deserue it speaker A. W. Saint Ambrose Is it not euident that there remaineth after this life either revvard for merits or punishment Ambrose speakes not of the valew of good works but labours to take away that offence that commonly troubles men when they see that euill men fare better then good in this world he answers that in the world to come the case shall be altered the one shall be rewarded and the other punished for their works which he calls merits speaker D. B. P. Saint Hierome Novv after Baptisme it appertaineth to our trauailes according vnto the diuersity of vertue to prepare for vs different rewards speaker A. W. You might as well haue left out Ieromes testimonie as you do the quoting of it for it makes nothing for you nor against vs that wee are to prepare different rewards for our selues according to the diuersitie of vertue what if he had said merit do we not graunt it But where is deseruing euerlasting life in Ieromes words speaker A. W. Saint Bernard Prouide that thou haue merits for the vvant of them is a pernitions pouertie Penury of works saith Bernard is dangerous pouerty who denyes it it followes but presumption of spirit is deceitfull riches who presumes if he do not that thinks himselfe absolutely worthie of heauen as wages speaker D. B. P. Briefly that this was the vniuersall Doctrine of all good Christians aboue a thousand yeares past is declared in the Councell of Arausicane Revvard is debt vnto good vvorkes if they be done but grace vvhich vvas not debte goeth before that they may be done These testimonies of the most auncient and best learned Christians may suffice to batter the brasen forehead of them that affirme the Doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church The Councell of Orenge saith nothing that was not said before in the testimonies of the Fathers neither needs any other answer The doubt is not whether reward be due to good works but by what right it is due whereof the Councell saith nothing expresly The doctrine of merits as it was held and taught by the auncient Christians before the discouerie of your Romish Antichrist we acknowledge and embrace howsoeuer perhaps some particular men may haue gon a little too farre in their amplifications But the doctrine that is maintained by your Church and Councell of Trent we disclaime and detest as the principall meanes next to direct Pelagianisme to puffe vp the pride of mans heart and to take away true thankfulnes and trust in God that is to ouerthrow the Gospell the end whereof is beleeuing in Christ to iustification and saluation For if as by your doctrine it must needs be man do at the first by the good vse of his freewill receiue grace and by the same freewill though in both cases inlightened and inspired merit his saluation truly and wholie as the day labouring man doth his wages what glory can God haue or what thanks doth Christ deserue for any particular mans saluation he prouided the meanes you will say that Peter for example might be saued if he would So did he that Iudas might be He offered the meanes to Peter to Iudas too How chance Peter receiued this grace and Iudas did not you answer because Peter would and Iudas would not But how came it to passe that Peter would and Iudas would not Here is the first difference was it because God of his loue to Peter wrought in his heart by his spirit so that it could not come to passe but he should beleeue and left Iudas to himselfe who so left would neuer beleeue so we teach according to the truth of the Gospell But you perswade your people that it was Peter that made the difference betwixt himselfe and Iudas not God who left the matter to the free will of both alike that either or neither of them might be saued as pleased them But what is Peter by this beleeuing in Christ an heire of heauen no only he is now in such an estate as that he may if he will earne euerlasting life as the hire and wages of his works I appeale now to any Christian soule that hath but the least desire to aduance Gods glory aboue his owne to giue sentence of this matter out of the truth of his heart what doth God by the doctrine of popery but only prouide that men may come to heauen if they will And how forsooth vpon our Sauiour Christs deserts he is content to giue men grace whereby they may be able to merit their owne saluation But he will giue this grace to no man who shall not first vpon good motions inspired prepare himselfe of his owne free will by faith feare hope loue repentance to the receiuing of it hauing receiued it he must now by good works to which he is enabled deserue euerlasting life so fully as that God should be vniust if he should not giue it him for the worthines of the worke he hath done For whereas he made a promise of a reward it was no more then he was bound to do in true iustice our works without his promise deseruing the reward truly and wholie This is the doctrine of your Church touching faith and works which Master Perkins iustly calls a satanicall inuention because it ouerthrowes the glory of Gods mercy to establish the pride of mans free will Now whereas we teach that our works do not by their worth deserue euerlasting life what hurt is it if it were false but only that it were false to make men thinke themselues wholie bound to God for their iustification and glorification for we vrge necessitie of works and assurance of reward as well as you though not to merit euerlasting glory by them If any man be so thankeles or so proude that he will not worke vnlesse he may merit by working he neuer felt himselfe to be a sonne and shall receiue the wages of seruants the iust hire of his sinnes damnation The sixth poynt Of Satisfaction Our consent speaker W. P. Conclus I. First we acknowledge and hold Ciuill or Politike satisfaction that is a recompence for iniuries and damages offered any way to our neighbours This Zacheus practised when at his conuersion he restored foure-fold things gotten by forged cauillation Againe by ciuill satisfaction I vnderstand the imposition of fines mulcts and penalties vpon offenders and the inflicting of death vpon malefactors For all these are satisfactions to the lawe and societies
Now as for M. Perkins gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of paper some profane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word only without either any reason or authoritie speaker A. W. Sauing the better iudgement of Chrysostome and other learned men I cannot perswade my selfe that any part of the Canonicall scripture is lost when you haue brought your proofe out of any place of the scripture I will either answere or yeeld to it But it makes nothing to your argument whether any be lost or no for as you see I deny your assumption and the proofe of it which ouerthrowes your whole reason The Iewes and the skilfullest Christians in the Rabbines and antiquities of the Iewes that I know are of a diuers iudgement from Chrysostome concerning this point speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Moses in mount Sina beside the written law receiued from God a more secret doctrine which he neuer writ but deliuered by tradition or word of mouth to the Prophets after him and this the Iewes haue now set downe in their Cabala Answ. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage For if Moses had knowne any secret doctrine beside the written law he could neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this Moses who was the pen man of the old Law committed not all to vvriting but deliuered certaine points needfull to saluation by Tradition nor any Lavv-maker that euer was in any Country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likely that our Christian Lavv should be all vvritten speaker A. W. Your argument is in effect all one with his but let vs take yours Moses committed all to writing that was necessarie to saluation so doe all wise lawmakers and if any thing be left vnprouided for that is of moment it is because the lawgiuer perceiued it not or knew not how to helpe it which in Gods lawes and Moses the holie Ghosts Scribes writing could be no hinderances For what is there that God seeth not by his wisedome or cannot order as he list by his power speaker D. B. P. That Moses did not pen all thus vve proue It vvas as necessarie for vvomen to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedy for men could not possibly be applied to vvomen as euery one vvhoknovveth vvhat circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the vvritten lavv to deliuer vvomen from that sin Therefore some other remedie for them vvas deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. Circumcision was not prouided for remedie of originall sinne any more than for actuall neither did it remedie the one or the other nay it was not of Moses appointing but was long before him The remedie for all sinne is the sacrifice of the Messiah the meanes to applie it faith which Moses taught in diuers places of those fiue bookes If women without circumcision cannot be freed from originall sinne how were Adam and Eue freed and all that died before God enioyned it to Abraham speaker D. B. P. Item if the Child vvere likly to die before the eight day there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no vvhere vvritten in the Lavv Also many Gentiles during that state of the old Testament vvere saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Lavv or any other part of the old Testament it is not vvritten vvhat they had to beleeue or how they should liue vvherefore many things needfull to saluation vvere then deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. The remedie for infants aswell before the eight day as vpon it and after it was the mercie of God vpon his couenant As for the meanes you would imagine which were you cannot tell what and deuised by you cannot tel whom remember what you answered about the Chaldee word in Daniel To meanes and authors in the ayre no thing need be nor can be answered speaker D. B. P. To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I ansvvere that God permiteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue vvhat was then lost Although God in his prouidence permits much euill it followes not nor is at al likely that he would suffer his own holie word indited by his spirit to perish Neither can it helpe the matter that tradition might preserue the truth vnlesse God should miraculously hold in men from mingling their inuentions with his traditions Experience makes the matter cleere few things or none yet remaining that are indeede of antiquitie both for the substance and vse of them But what answere you to Master Perkins other reason out of S. Paul That was too heauie for your shoulders speaker W. P. Obiect V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods word is of two sortes milk and strong meate By milke we must vnderstand the worde of God written wherein God speakes plainely to the capacitie of the rudest but strong meate is vnwritten traditions a doctrine not to bee deliuered vnto all but to those that grow to perfection Answ. We must know that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it For being deliuered generally and plainely to the capacitie of the simplest it is milke but beeing handled particularly and largely and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding it is strong meate As for example the doctrine of the creation of mans fall and redemption by Christ when it is taught ouerly and plainly it is milke but when the depth of the same is throughly opened it is strong meate And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine to imagine that some vn written word is meant by strong meate speaker A. W. Novv insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I vvill set dovvne some authorities out of the vvritten Word in proofe of Traditions I make no question but Master Perkins had al the reasons he propounds for you in any matter in some of your owne writers as perhaps hereafter vpon better search at more leisure I shall finde and prooue to all the world To the testimonies I answere in generall that no argument can be drawne from any or all of them to proue that any doctrine necessarie to saluation is to be learned by tradition and is not written in the Scripture Let any
that lookes into your Commentaries and bookes of controuersies shall finde very diuers and sometimes contrarie expositions Our Sauiour Christ hath prouided sufficientlie for his Church by deliuering in scripture the grounds of religion so plainely some here some there that any reasonable man may with small labour vnderstand them from which they that haue knowledge of the tongues and arts especiallie of Logick and Rhetorick may come to vnderstand the harder places though perhaps not euery one yet at the least so many and such as shall serue to instruct the people of God in the knowledge of his will for the obtaining of euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. To auoid then such garboyles and intestine contention there vvas neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes and determine all boubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Lavv-maker who in vvisdome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens doe the earth hath left his golden Lawes at randome to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knovvledge from we knovv not vvhat spirit no no It cannot be once imagined vvithout too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Son of God speaker A. W. For the auoiding of outward garboiles by force or preaching false doctrine our Sauiour hath appointed principallie the ciuill magistrate secondarily the gouernors of the Churches For the keeping of his children from perishing by error he hath ordeined beside the outward helps of Pastors and Doctors the most certaine direction of his vicegerent the holy spirit who preserues all that are Christs from falling away from the substance and foundation of truth to damnation Not that euery man may take vpon him to interpret scripture vpon pretence of I know not what spirit but that he may assure himselfe of being kept from all error that may ouerthrow his saluation by the direction of Gods spirit vpon whom he calls by prayer and rests by faith to this purpose as I said before sure and who therefore were appointed to be heard without exception This befals not any men nowadayes and therefore none can iustly claime any such credit The auncients that so wrot in this point of S. Pauls going to see Peter haue wholie mistaken the Apostle who denies that of himselfe which they affirme of him For he saith First that he was not an Apostle of men nor by man Secondly that he went vp to Ierusalem not to haue confirmation of his doctrine from them who were no way superior to him but that the Gentiles might know he taught the same things that the other Apostles did If he had done it for his owne assurance he had not beleeued the vision and discredited our Sauiours extraordinarie teaching of him and had taught for a time such things as he was not sure to be the truth of God But if this should be his case he had sinned grieuously in his former preaching and he had wholie ouerthrowne the authoritie of his ministrie which in these two Chapters he labors especially to vphold auouching that he neither learned any doctrine nor receiued any allowance of his authoritie from Iames Cephas and Iohn which were esteemed to be pillers yea he did openly reprooue Peter if not of error in doctrine yet of misbehauiour in his conuersation As for the controuersie of abrogating Moses law it was a case determined by scripture and no man might refuse to obey any one of the Apostles charge coÌ„cerning that point But that the Brethren might haue the better satisfaction it pleased the holy ghost that the Apostles should in a Councell decide the question by ioynt consent of themselues and the brethren there assembled which any one of them might of himselfe haue ended But because diuers parts of the Church were conuerted by diuers Apostles and each Church made most account of their owne Apostle the readiest and safest way was to conclude of the matter by common consultation so afterward in all lawfull Councels the written word was held sufficient for the consutation of the heresies that arose from time to time but for the better stopping of the heretikes mouths and satisfying of all men sometimes the consent of former Diuines Churches and Councels was added in good discretion for mens sake not for the matter which might be and was abundantlie prooued or discouered as occasion serued by the scriptures speaker D. B. P. See Cardinall Bellarmine I vvill only record tvvo noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquity for the true sense of Gods vvord The first out of the Ecclesiastical History whereof Saint Gregorie Nazianzen and Saint Basil tvvo principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And aftervvard for thirteene yeares space laying aside all profane bookes imployed their studie vvholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning vvhereof they sought not out of their owne iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both do and teach others to do but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namely of such as vvere knovvne to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the very words speaker A. W. The examples you bring are nothing against vs in this question Nazianzen and Basil sought the true sense of the Scripture not out of their owne iudgement but out of their predecessors writings and authoritie What then Therefore the Scripture containes not all doctrine necessarie to saluation This consequence hath often been disprooued Neither is the Antecedent true if it be generally taken For their owne writings shew euery where that they vsed the help of learning and discourse to finde out the sense of scripture in many places and set downe that in their Commentaries which by study they came to vnderstand If any thing were doubtfull we presume they did as we are sure the Protestants now doe where they had not apparant reason to the contrarie rest vpon the authoritie of their predecessors rather than vpon their owne This reuerence wee giue to the Fathers writings and reade them with as great diligâ—… as they that make more bragges of thâ—ir knowledge in â—heâ— And if that rule which the storie 〈◊〉 and or you name not but it is Austin speakes of 〈◊〉 one of them which we follw in searching out thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the Scripture â—…treate â—ou to make 〈◊〉 to vs and you shall finde that we will take it 〈◊〉 and vse it diligently if we cannot shew you certaine reasons to the contrarie If the rule be to take for truth whatsoeuer the ancients haue deliuered how many things yea contrarie expositions shal we hold for true If you say the rule is to beleeue the ancientest what
Churches is of great authoritie speaker A. W. Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants Origen calles the tradition of the Apostles their practise of baptizing infants which hath sufficient ground of scripture though not in expresse words as your Church also holds and as Origen himselfe acknowledgeth by shewing the reason that moued the Apostles to baptise them as hee conceiues though indeede there is also other better warrant for it speaker A. W. Athanasius saith VVe haue proued this sentence to haue been deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but yee O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas vvhat Auncestors can yee shevv of your opinion speaker A. W. Where reason failed the Arians on their side and could not moue them in behalfe of the Church Athanasius addes this as a further proofe for their confutation that the doctrine of Christ being one with his Father had been held from time to time in the Church whereas they had no consent of antiquitie for their opinion Yet had he himselfe prooued the point by many certaine reasons out of the Scripture and brought this argument from the authoritie of men for confutation of their false assertion that the former Diuines were not of that iudgement This Athanasius refuteth by the testimonies of Theognostus Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria whom he calles eloquent and one other Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Origen whom he termes painfull S. Basil hath these words VVe haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly vvritten and part vve haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both vvhich be of the same force to godlines and no man opposeth against these vvho hath at the least but meane experience of the Lavves of the Church See Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 1. in Iulian If you will giue me leaue I will defend Basils speech by that which may be gathered out of him viz. that hee holds them things to be by tradition which are not exprest in the Scriptures My ground for this exposition are these words of his Out of what Scripture haue we saith Basil the very speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine some thousand two hundred yeares agoe recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now-a-daies in the person of Maximinus an Arrian in his first booke against him in the beginning Jf thou shalt saith this Heretike bring any thing out of the Scriptures vvhich is common to all vve must needs heare thee but these vvords vvhich are vvithout the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they vvorship me teaching commaundements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten Traditions hath been afore declared The like doth S. Bernard asfirme of certaine Heretikes of his time called Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholikes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth aswell as that which is written Euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned Heretikes to reiect all traditions and to she vnto the only Scriptures speaker A. W. The Heretike Maximinus asked nothing but reason of Austin if he stood vpon the matter and not vpon the termes neither doth Austin find fault with this condition nor could he in reason because as I answered before himselfe appeales to that kind of triall in that very disputation Neither must I saith Austin to Maximinus alleage the Councell of Nice in preiudice of the matter nor you the Councell of Ariminum neither am I tyed with the authoritie of this Councell nor you with the authoritie of that let matter striue with matter 〈◊〉 with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the scriptures which are not proper to you or me but common to vs both But will you heare him speake more like Maximinus Reade me this saith Austin out of a Prophet reade it out of a Psalme recite it out of the Lawe recite it out of the Gospell recite it out of an Apostle Thence recite I the Church disperst ouer the whole world and our Lord saying my sheepe heare my voyce And a little after away with mens papers let the voyce of God sound And in another place away with our papers let Gods bookes come forth heare Christ heare the truth speaking If these speeches be hereticall we confesse our selues to be Heretikes but so that we haue Austin on our side for an Arch-Heretike Bernard speakes of the Hereticks called Apostolicks not in his 62. but in his 66. sermon vpon the Canticles where he saith neuer a word of their reiecting Traditions No more hath Austin nor Epiphanius where they write of them And if they did reiect traditions it was because they would establish their owne hereticall bookes viz. the Acts of Thomas and Andrew and the gospell of the Egyptians which to say the truth are to be counted traditions because they haue no warrant of the scripture nor are any part of the Canon It were easie for me to turne your owne sentence against you and as all men may see with good reason but it shall suffice me that I haue refuted your slaunders and shewes with sound proofe of arguments and authoritie I consider loosers must haue leaue to speake The eighth point Of Vowes Our consent speaker W. P. Touching vowes this must bee knowne that wee do not condemne them altogether but onely labour to restore the purity of doctrine touching this point which by the Church of Rome from time to time hath beene corrupted and defaced We hold therefore that a vow is a promise made to God touching some duties to be performed vnto him and it is twofold generall or speciall The generall vow is that which concernes all beleeuers and it is made in the couenant both of the law and of the Gospell I will here onely speake of the vow which is made in the couenant of the Gospell in which there be two actions one of God the other of man God in mercy on his part promiseth to men the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting and man againe for his part promiseth to beleeue in Christ and to obey God in all his commaundements All men euer made this vow vnto God as the Iewes in circumcision which also they renewed so often as they receiued the Passeouer and in the newe Testament all that are baptized doe the like And in baptisme this vow is called the stipulation of a good conscience whereby wee purpose to renounce our selues to beleeue in Christ and to bring forth the fruites of true repentance and it ought to be renued so oft as wee are partakers of the supper of the Lord.
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.