may open and shut heauen to whom he will and bind the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ. speaker D. B. P. But to leaue to you the reconciliation of these places let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox That the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ which you goe about to proue by foure instances The first is because the seruant of his seruants may chaunge and adde to his commandements hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whom he will and biâ—de the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker oâ— the spirituall kâ—ngdome of Christ. Here are diuerse reasons huâ—â—â—d vp in one but all of 〈◊〉 moment for all these seuerall faculties which the Pope enioyeth being receiued by the free gift of Christ and to be employed in his seruice only and to his honour and glorie are so farre off from making Christ a Pseudochrist that they doe highly recommend his most singular bountie towardes his followers without any derogation to his owne diuine prerogatiues â—he particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter Now I say in a word that Christs Vicar cannot change any one of Gods commaundements nor adde any contrarie vnto them but may well enact and establish some other conformable vnto them which doe bind in conscience for that power is graunted of God to euery soueraigne gouernour as witnesseth S. Paul saying Let euery soule be subiect to higher povvers And that as it is in the fifth verse following of necessitie not only for vvrath but also for conscience sake So that to at tribute power vnto one that is vnder Christ to binde our consciences is not to make Christ a Pseudochrist but to glorifie him much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to giue vnto men In like manner what an absurde illation is that from the power to open and shut heauen gates which all both Catholikes and Protestants confesse to haue been giuen to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to inferre that Christ is made a Pseudochrist as who should say the Master spoiled himselfe of his supreame authoritie by appoynting a stevvard ouer his householde or a porter at his gates he must be both Master and Man too belike And thus much of the first instance speaker A. W. First you begge the question in taking it as granted that the Popes power is receiued of Christ. Secondly it doth not follow that Christ is not made a Pseudochrist if the power be receiued of Christ to be imployed in his seruice only For it may be imployed by the Pope to another end than it is giuen by Christ. As an armie committed to a Generall by his Soueraigne may bee turned against the Prince to his ouerthrow He that can dispense with Gods commandements so that either a man shall be freed from doing that which is inioyned or haue libertie to doe that which is forbidden can change Gods commandements But such dispensations haue been giuen by Popes and may as well be still In all things inioyned by the commandements of God the law of the Magistrate bindes men in conscience to obedience by vertue of the matter commanded In things indifferent the conscience is not alwaies charged with sinne where that which is appointed is not done but you Papists as it appeares by your Catechismes make the Commandements of the Church equall or superiour to Gods commandements The opening and shutting of heauen by the worke of the Ministerie which is the power that was giuen to the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospell is not to be executed at their pleasure but depends vpon the people as much as vpon them if not more For whosoeuer will repent and beleeue shall be saued though all the Popes Priests and Ministers that euer were are and shall be would shut him out of heauen Therefore the Pope hath no authoritie nor power to open the doore to one man more than to another much lesse to let in and shut out whom he list He must open it if he be a Minister of the Gospell as much as lies in him to al if they wil enter they may without any further leaue or power from him speaker W. P. Againe they call him a Sauiour but yet in Vs in that he giues this grace vnto vs that by our merits we may partake in the merits of the Saints speaker D. B. P. Come we now to the second it is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I meruaile in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merite and so become our owne Sauiours This is a phrase vnheard of among Catholiks that any man is his owne Sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we applie vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good works as the Protestants auouâ—h they doe by faith onely In which sence the Apostle S. Paul saith to his deare Disciple Timothie For this doing thou shalt saue both thyselfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiour infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith only good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be proued hereafter more at large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may steede them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God saith that for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shew mercy vnto thousands as is expressely said in the end of the first commandement speaker A. W. Christ is a sauiour of vs by redeeming vs not a sauiour in vs by making vs redeeme our selues Though the speech be not yours the matter is For if Christ be therefore a Sauiour because by his merits we are saued looke how much wee merit our saluation so much wee are sauiours of our selues yea how much merit there is in our workes so much there wanted in Christs satisfaction or else our saluation is in part twice merited The Minister saues not by meriting but by preaching the word of saluation works must needs diminish Christs glorie more than faith because this saues not by meriting they doe the matter cannot be deduced from such places The mercie God shewes in that respect is either for the blessings of this life or at the most for the outward meanes of saluation speaker W. P. And they acknowledge that he died and suffered
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
worke though he had not promised it And indeed this is the verie maine point of your doctrine of merits howsoeuer you blaunch it with the name of grace I proue it first by the Councell it selfe then by Andradius the expounder of the Councels meaning Seeing that Christ Iesus sayes the Councell doth continually infuse vertues into them that are iustified as the head into the members which vertue alwaies goes before accompanieth and followeth their good workes and without which they could in no sort be acceptable to God and meritorious we must beleeue that there is nothing else wanting to them that are iustified why they should not be thought fullâ—e to haue satisfied the law of God as farre as the estate of this life requires by those workes that are done in God and to haue truly deserued at their time euerlasting life prouided that they depart in the estate of grace Andradius who was present at the Councill and one that debated matters with other Doctors though he had no voyce in determining because he was not a Bishop yet he could not chuse but perfectly vnderstand the poynts that were agreed vpon otherwise we may be sure he should neuer haue been suffered to vndertake the defence of the Councill as hee hath been if not chosen to it He then thus opens the matter That euerlasting felicitie is no lesse due to the workes of the righteous than euerlasting torments are to their sinnes that obey not the Gospell nor know God that heauenly felicitie which the Scripture calles the rewards and wages of the righteous is not so much freely and liberally bestowed vpon them by God as it is due to their workes Which he proues thus When Paul saith Andradius would shew that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by workes he doth it especially by this reason To him that worketh the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt therefore if Abrahams righteousnes were the wages of his workes it ought to be called debt rather than grace For the nature of wages is directly contrary to the name of grace Vpon this reason he concludes That euerlasting felicitie must not be counted according to grace but according to debt And a little after Therefore if any wages be due to the worthie actions of the righteous there is in them the true and whole nature of merit This then is the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning merits That the good workes of them that haue the first iustification do truly and wholy deserue euerlasting felicitie of God as wages due to them by debt not by grace Let no man be deceiued because to colour the matter they make mention of vertue comming continually from Christ as from the vine into the branches for this is nothing else but the increase of grace whereby Christians are enabled to doe good workes and added no more worthines to the action than should be in it if this grace were receiued from Christ all at one instant as for the substance of it it is at the time of our iustification speaker D. B. P. In infants baptized there is a kind of merit or rather dignity of adopted Sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme whereby they are made heires of the Kingdome of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either meritlife or for want of such fruit of it fall into the miserable state of death speaker A. W. Infants baptized if they belong to Gods election haue indeed the prerogatiue to be Gods children and thereby an interest to the kingdome of heauen as their inheritance All that come to yeeres of discretion must bring foorth fruites of faith and shall haue reward for them in heauen not vpon merit because their best workes are defectiue but only vpon Gods gratious promise and mercifull acceptance in Iesus Christ. Our consent speaker W. P. Touching merits we consent in two conclusions with them The first conclusion that merits are so farre forth necessarie that without them there can be no saluation The second that Christ our Mediatour and Redeemer is the roote and fountaine of all merit The dissent and difference The Popish Church placeth merits within man making two sorts thereof the merit of the person and the merit of the worke The merit of the person is a dignity in the person whereby it is worthy of life euerlasting And this as they say is to be found in Infants dying after baptisme who though they want good workes yet are they not voide of this kinde of merite for which they receiue the kingdome of heauen The merit of the worke is a dignitie or excellencie in the worke whereby it is made fitte and inabled to deserue life euerlasting for the doer And workes as they teach are meritorious two waies first by couenant because God hath made a promise of reward vnto them secondly by their owne dignitie for Christ hath merited that our workes might merit And this is the substance of their doctrine From it we dissent in these points I. Wee renounce all personall merits that is all merits within the person of any meere man II. And we renounce all merit of workes that is all merit of any worke done by any meere man whatsoeuer And the true merit whereby wee looke to attaine the fauour of God and life euerlasting is to bee found in the person of Christ alone who is the storehouse of all our merits whose prerogatiue it is to bee the person alone in whom God is well pleased Gods fauour is of infinite dignitie and no creature is able to do a worke which may counteruaile the fauour of God saue Christ alone who by reason of the dignitie of his person being not a meere man but God-man or Man-God hee can doe such workes as are of endlesse dignitie euery way answerable to the fauour of God and therefore sufficient to merit the same for vs. And though a merit or meritorious worke agree onely to the person of Christ yet is it made ours by imputation For as his righteousnesse is made ours so are his merits depending thereon but his righteousnesse is made ours by imputation as I haue shewed Hence ariseth an other point namely that as Christs righteousnesse is made ours really by imputation to make vs righteous so we by the merit of his righteousnesse imputed to vs doe merit and deserue life euerlasting And this is our doctrine In a word the Papists maintaine the merits of their owne workes but we renounce them all and rest onelie on the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. With the former Catholike Doctrine M. Perkins would be thought to agree in two points First That merits are necessary to saluation 2. That Christ is the roote and fountaine of all merit speaker A. W. Master Perkins in the poynt of our consent with you meant not merits
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
nothing of it selfe but by grace receiued from the godhead though it also bee without measure Secondly Christs manhood is a creature and in that regarde bounde to doe whatsoeuer it doth Thirdly Christ as man cannot giue any thing to God but that which hee receiued from God therefore cannot the manhood properly by it selfe merit but onely as it is personally vnited vnto the godhead of the Sonne And if this be so then much lesse can any meere man or any angell merit yea it is a madnes to thinke that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby wee might attaine to life eternall speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins vvill neuerthelesse proue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth it selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one vvhole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious vvorke Which must be saith he foure First That the worke be done of our selues without the helpe of another Secondly That it be not othervvise due debte Thirdly That it be done to the benefit of another Fourthly That the worke and revvard be equall in proportion These proprieties he sets dovvne pithagorically vvithout any proofe But inferreth thereon as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs man-hood seperated from the God-head cannot merit because vvhatsoeuer he doth he doth it by grace receiued and should be othervvise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither for he receiued his Godhead from his Father and vvhatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debte And so the good man if he vvere let alone vvould disappoint vs vvholy of all merits as vvell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by vertue of his grace speaker A. W. The syllogisme that troubles you so with the length of it is this Euery worke that merits euerlasting life must be done of and by the worker himselfe not of debt to the profit of God with proportion to the reward No worke of man can be so done Therefore no worke of man can merit euerlasting life Is not this a perilous long syllogisme trow you to take vp more than a whole page If this great scholler that so often blames Master Perkins ignorance would for I wil not doubt but he could haue distinguished the syllogisme from the explication of the proposition he would not haue been so much offended with it Sure there was small cause hee should be if he say truly afterward that Master Perkins reason was nakedly proposed or trie whether himselfe can make it any shorter or compare it with his owne tedious answer containing three whole pages in quarto in a smaller letter But what if there be another syllogisme also implied in this reason as there is this If the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit then can no man merit But the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit Therefore no man can The consequence of the proposition is prooued because the manhood of Christ is more excellent euery way than all both men and Angels The assumption is made manifest because euery worke of Christs manhood considered apart from the Godhead would be defectiue in three points concerning merit To the two former you answer that whereas Master Perkins saith Christs manhood could not merit because he did nothing of himselfe but by grace receiued and that that he did was due that he might as truly say that his manhood could not merit vnited to the Godhead Your reason is for that he receiued his Godhead from his Father and whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt But your reason is false for Christ had his Sonship as I may speake of his Father for the propertie of the Godhead is to be of it selfe yet there is not any thing due from the Sonne to the Father more than from the Father to the Sonne if they be of equall nature and dignitie So that this latter point disproues the former because it inferres a superioritie of the Father ouer the Sonne and so an inequalitie which at no hand may be granted speaker D. B. P. Wherefore vve must a little â—ist his foure forged proprieties of merit and touching the first I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it For example the Father bestovves a farme vpon his Son freely Who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same deserue his further fauour Yea he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale as vvell as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift Which is so common a case and so sensible that euery man of meane vvitte may casily reach vnto it euen so by good manuring the gifts vvhich God freely bestovveth vpon vs vve may both merit the increase of them and according to his ovvne order and promise purchase thereby the Kingdome of heauen vvhich is plainly proued in that parable Of the talents giuen by a King to his seruants the vvhich they imploying vvell and multiplying vvere therefore esteemed vvorthie of far greater and vvithall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes M. Perkins then vvas not a little ouerseene to put for the first proprietie of merit that it must be done by a man and of a man himselfe speaker A. W. The first of the foure properties is that a man must doe it of himselfe and by himselfe You answere that one may merit by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift But not if the vse of it also be of him of whom he should merit The Sonne that receiues the farme receiues not withall continually from his Father the power to vse the farme in that sort and much lesse the will and the vse it selfe But a man that hath receiued grace from God hath continually from him both to will and to doe and therefore cannot properly merit of him The parable hath not one word of any merit onely it is said that the King commended his seruants for imploying their talents well and gaue them authoritie ouer much because they had been faithfull in a little and further receiued them into his ioy But that he dealt thus with them vpon due debt or that they did truly merit is your glosse besides the text speaker D. B. P. The second That a man must doe it of his ovvne free will and pleasure and not of due debt carrieth in shevv an opposition But indeed there is no contradiction in it for a man may and euery honest man doth of his ovvne free vvill and pleasure pay his due debt but let vs pardon the disorder of vvords his meaning being nothing else but that the payment of that vvhich
thing of their Soueraigne Consider saith he that they which rule amongst vs doe not thanke any of their subiects if they doe any of those things that are enioyned them but oftentimes by their bountie stirring their subiects affections they breed in them a greater desire to serue so God requires seruice of vs by right Now because he is mercifull and good he promiseth honours to them that labour and the greatnes of his bountie ouerpasseth the paines of his subiects Your glosse saith that we are seruants because we are bought with a price vnprofitable because God hath no neede of our good workes or because our present sufferings are not worthie of the glorie that shall be reueiled in vs. Which reasons of our vnprofitablenes Thomas also brings out of Bede so doe your ordinarie glosse and Lyra expound it making vs seruants euen after regeneration as Austin truly saith that Christ did not make vs free men of seruants but of euill seruants good seruants speaker D. B. P. And thus we fall vpon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious worke Which is That it be done to the profit of another and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit by our workes yet doth he in the administration of his holy common weale the Church wherein good mens seruices do much pleasure him And in this sense is it said of Saint Paul That by cleansing our selues from vvicked vvorkes vve shall become vessels sanctified and profitable vnto our Lord. Againe God is glorified by our good vvorkes That seeing your good vvorkes they may glorifie your Father vvhich is in heauen Finally God doth reioyce at the recouery of his lost children speaker A. W. Not onely good but also bad mens seruices may be said to profit God if euery thing that benefits his Church must be held to be of profit to him But we neither can profit nor pleasure him nor glorifie him truly and properly but onely in his acceptation And so whatsoeuer reward shall be giuen for these seruices it proceedes from Gods gratious bountie not from our desert speaker D. B. P. If then good men trauailing painfully in Gods Vine-yard do yeeld him outwardly both honor ioy and commoditie that may suffice to make their worke meritorious speaker A. W. To the conclusion you inferre hereupon which is the proposition of a syllogisme to proue the maine point that our works are meritorious I answere by denying the consequence thereof and say that it doth not follow that our workes merit euerlasting life because our trauaile doth yeeld him outwardly honour ioy and glorie The reason of my deniall is this that a slaue may by his paines and seruice procure all these things to his master and that out of his loue to him and yet deserue nothing at his hands The assumption that should be added I denied and refuted in the former part of my answere speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins fourth property is That the vvorke and revvard be equall in proportion speaker A. W. If you pleaded for nothing but reward the sute were ended For we as I haue said before grant that God will reward the least good worke of any of his children But the question is whether he doe this of his bountie onely or of necessitie being bound to it by the law of iustice This we denie you affirme viz. that the good workes of a man iustified doe truly or of right deserue increase of grace euerlasting life and the fruition of it if he depart in grace and also increase of glorie and further you accurse all them to hell that say otherwise speaker D. B. P. If he vnderstand Arithmeticall proportion that is that they be equal in quantitie to wit the one to be as great or of as long continuance as the other then we deny this kind of equality to be requisite to merit there is another sort of proportion called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometricall and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vnto the other as when a good office is giuen to a Citizen of desert it may be that the honour and commoditie of the office is farre greater then was the merit of the man yet he being as well able to discharge it as another and hauing better deserued it is holden in true iustice worthie of it speaker A. W. It is no true merit such as you auow it to be in the true and whole nature of merit vnlesse it be fully answerable in value to the reward Therefore to speake properly and truly the citizen you name doth not simply deserue the office but as your selfe confesse in comparison of other his fellow subiects So that though there were more in him than in other why the Prince should bestow that place vpon him yet it is rather a gift than a debt else should the King offend against iustice if he did not giue it him speaker D. B. P. In like manner in a game where masteries are tried the prize is giuen vnto him that doth best not because the value of the reward is iust as much worth as that act of the man who winneth it but for that such actiuity is esteemed worthy of such a recompence Now the crowne of heauenly â—lorie is likened by S. Paul vnto a Garland in a game where he â—aâ—th That vve all runne but one carrieth avvay the prize And He that striueth for the masterie is not crovvned vnlesse he striue lavvfully It is also resembled vnto places of honour I vvill place thee ouer much And I goe to prouide you places speaker A. W. Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede For the seede of God tarrieth in him But a little â—eede cast into good ground and well manured bringeth forth abundance of corne Briefely then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subiect and the office betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betweene the seed and the corne is between the reward of heauen and the meâ—â—t of a true seruant of God And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument more indeed to explâ—cate the nature and condition of merit then that his reason nakedly proposed did require it What shall I need to answer to your similitude of games since your selfe denie that it is truly and properly desert But to make the matter more plaine let vs a little consider it in this sort where there is an agreement as in these games though there be not properly any merit yet there may be somewhat that shal come neere to the nature of merit That there is no merit you yeeld in granting that the reward is more in value than the act of him that winneth Notwithstanding if the prize be it what it will be propounded to them that shall not onely passe other men in the race but also runne home to the goale in such a space of time
required it Chrysostome and Theophylact denie all recompence and reward of labours past and referre all to grace He doth not say that the wages of righteousnes is euerlasting life saith Caietan but the gift of God is euerlasting life that we may vnderstand that we attaine to euerlasting life for our end not by our merits but of his free gift wherefore also he addes In Christ Iesus our Lord Behold the merit behold the righteousnes the reward whereof is euerlasting life but to vs it is a gift by reason or in regard of Christ Iesus himselfe speaker D. B. P. In which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paul might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie paâ—tly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and only cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the only fountaine of merit and all good workes speaker A. W. The reasons you giue why the Apostle would not speak as was fittest for his purpose are too weake First you say he would keepe vs in humilitie but his principall end was more to be respected which was the stirring of vs vp to holinesse of conuersation Beside if it be as you teach Christians are acquainted with this doctrine of meriting euerlasting life and therefore the concealing of it here was to small purpose I would your Councill of Trent had thought vpon this reason and then perhaps they would not haue valued the good workes of men at so high a rate The difference you speake of was put before in handling the doctrine of iustification Neither could any Christian be so foolishly proud as to think he could of himself do good works how then could he looke for euerlasting life simply by his owne strength speaker W. P. Again Tit. 3. 5. We are saued not by works of righteousnesse which we haue done but according to his mercie he saued vs. And Ephes. 2. 8. 10. By grace you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes which God hath prepared that we should walke in them If any works be crowned it is certaine that the sufferings of Martyrs shal be rewarded now of them Paul saith Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of this life are not worthie of the glorie to come Where then is the value and dignitie of other workes To this purpose Ambrose saith The iust man though he be tormented in the brasen bull is still iust because hee iustifieth God and saith he suffereth lesse then his sinnes deserue speaker D. B. P. Now to those texts cited before about iustification VVe are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnes vvhich vve haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace Now to that text which he hudleth vp togither with the rest although is deserued a better place being one of their principall pillers in this controucrise It is The suffering of this life are not vvorthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lyeth in a false translation of these words Axia pros ten doxan equall to that glorie or in the misconstruction of them For we grant as it hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not of equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merit the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words for saith he That tribulation vvhich in this present life is but for a moment and light doth vvorke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting vvaight of glorie in vs. The reason is that iust mens workes islue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his vvorkes are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh Which addes a worth of heauen to his workes speaker A. W. For the translation we haue the warrant of the Syriak interpretation which is all one with ours as your own men expound it and Theophylact in his Commentarie saith not onely that they are not equall but also that they are not worthie Indeed the Apostles purpose is to compare the sufferings of this life with the glorie of the life to come and to shew how wonderfully that exceeds these But yet we may also from thence conclude that because of this inequalitie there can be no proper and true merit by these f As for that you alleage of their working an euerlasting waight of glorie in vs it is to be vnderstood that this is by Gods bountie not the worthinesse of the person or matter Which must needes be apparant to euery man that considers what infirmities accompanie the sufferings of the best of Gods children By being a member of Christ he doth not receiue abilitie to merit but priuiledge to be partaker of his head our Sauiour Christs glorie neither by being the temple of God are we made able to deserue nor by being partaker of the diuine nature which is nothing else but to haue the spirit of God dwelling in vs by the graces of righteousnesse and holinesse which is the image of God according to which wee were at the first created For these graces being not perfect in vs bring foorth vnperfect fruites which can neuer merit truly and properly speaker A. W. Neither is that glory in heauen vvhich any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignity as Master Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merittes othervvise it vvould make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesle You should haue shewed where Master Perkins saith that the glorie of any creature can be infinite as well as you reprooue him for saying so and that with such skorne as you doe Master Perkins knew as well as you can teach him that no finite nature is capable of any infinitnes but yet he truly denies full proportion betwixt our present sufferings and our glorie to come which your selfe confesse to bee true speaker W. P. Reason IV. Whosoeuer will merit must fulfill the wholelaw but none can keepe the whole lawe
For if we say we haue no sin wee deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1. 7. And he that sinnes against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law And what can he merit that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law speaker D. B. P. I deny the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit as by all the properties of merit may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merit set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good Father Doe on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bin proued at large in a seuerall question To that of S. Iames although it belong not to this matter I answere that he who offendeth in one is made guilty of all that is he shall be as surely condomned as if he had broken all See S. Augustine speaker A. W. You denie the proposition but if you did remember that the question is of meriting euerlasting life which requires the keeping of the whole law you would neuer stick at it for no man can be guiltie of the whole law as euery one is that failes in any one commandement and yet deserue euerlasting life The reason of your deniall is not sufficient for no one worke done with neuer so due circumstances can bring forth any merit of euerlasting life whereof Master Perkins speakes in his definition Indeede this reason is nothing but a bare deniall of Master Perkins proofe That you add of a mans losing and recouering his merit is liker a dreame then a point of diuinitie as it may well appeare by the poore proofe you bring of it viz. a speech out of an allegory and that also falsly translated his former garment for that best or principall garment Your vulgar latine calls it the first garment Pagnin that principall your interlinear glosse expounds it to signifie the garment of the holie ghost and the ordinarie glosse giues a reason why it is called the first because it is the garment of innocency in which the first man was created which interpretation is taken out of Austin But to the matter What reason is there that merit should not be recompenced according to iustice If a man haue once deserued euerlasting life why should he not haue it Or if that merit be once lost how can it be restored againe but only by Gods acceptation and then how can it be truly and properly merit You must not only say but shew too that the place of S. Iames belongs not to this matter els it is an easie matter to answere any authority of scripture Let vs grant your owne interpretation that he which breakes one commandement shall be certainely condemned how then can he deserue euerlasting life without keeping all the commandements And what a strange and vnsauorie doctrine is it that he which hath merited euerlasting life may be damned But the meaning of the Apostle is that the seuerall commandements are as it were seuerall conditions of a couenant betwixt God and man whereof if any one be broken the whole bond is forfeited how exactly soeuer all the rest haue bin performed what merit then can there be of life where the partie is liable to damnation speaker W. P. Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our daily bread Wherein we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be euery way the gift of God It must needs therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine that hee can by his workes merit eternall life who cannot merit bread speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomely that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerely the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our peny or trauaile we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Paules rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not cate Yet because our trauailes are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God daily to giue vs our nuriture either by sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stir ring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes speaker A. W. You take greater paines to disgrace Master Perkins Arguments then to disproue or vnderstand them his reason lyes thus He that cannot merit bread cannot merit euerlasting life But no man can merit bread Therefore no man can merit euerlasting life The proposition stands vpon the comparison of inequality from the lesse to the greater for it is a lesse matter to deserue bread then to merit euerlasting life The assumption is proued by that clause of the Lords prayer wherein we beg our dayly bread which we might claime of due debt if we could deserue it In stead of answering some part of the syllogisme you tell vs that we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle without our owne trauell or cost which is as much to purpose as if you should say we must eate our bread when we haue it if we will be fed It is but a mockery to pray to God for it if we know we haue deserued it vnlesse perhaps we thinke him so vniust that it is well if we can get our owne of him by any meanes whatsoeuer We deny not that we are to vse the meanes both for the one and the other but that we can deserue either by vsing the meanes speaker W. P. Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church Bernard Those which we call our merits are the way to the kingdome and not the cause of raigning speaker D. B. P. But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the auncient Church and then beginneth
with S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ He in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things vvhich vve call merits are the vvay to the Kingdome but not the cause of raigning speaker A. W. You that twight vs so much with ignorance and brag so much of your owne knowledge especially in the old writers should haue all these places at your fingers ends but this answere if it were true must needs be more by gesse then by cunning Bernard sayes merits are the way not the cause if he had meant as you would haue him he should and would haue said that they were not the whole cause but the party or ioint cause but he denyes them altogether the nature of causes by giuing them another place to be the way to heauen speaker A. W. I answere that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Which is Bernards owne doctrine What is Bernards owne doctrine your whole answer or only the later part of it let the reader iudge These are Bernards words As it is inough to merit not to presume of merit so to want merits is inough to condemnation If he speake of merits properly taken what presumption is it for a man to demand his right But because our good works which he as other auncient writers calls merits are imperfit therefore our greatest merit is to know we merit not for the later part of his sentence we graunt that it is inough to damnation for a man to be without good works It followes in Bernard No infants regenerate want merits but haue Christs whereof notwithstanding they make themselues vnworthie if they had opportunitie to add their owne and neglected it which is the danger of riper yeares Infants sayes Bernard haue Christs merits but if they come to yeares they must also haue some of their owne What merits to deserue heauen then were Christs insufficient but they must haue good works without which they make themselues vnworthie of any benefit by Christ. Is not this whollie our doctrine let vs heare his conclusion Haue a care sayes Bernard to haue merits hauing them know they were giuen thee hope for the fruite of them by the mercy of God and thou hast auoided all danger of pouertie vnthankefulnes and presumption We must haue good workes else wee are poore we must know they are not of our selues else we are vnthankfull we must looke for reward of mercie not of debt else we are presumptuous So that Bernard requires good workes not as the cause but as the way betwixt Gods promise and performance of giuing euerlasting life to them that are iustified and sanctified speaker W. P. August Manual cap. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit my merit is the passion of the Lord. I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting speaker D. B. P. Secondly he citeth Saint Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sense that is by the vertue of his death and passion my sinnes are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to doe good workes and so to merit speaker A. W. You leaue out the better halfe of that which was alleaged out of Austin which indeede ouerthrowes your answere That Christ hath procured pardon and grace for you to merit by but Austin saith that the death and passion of the Lord are his merit that is by your interpretation his merit of grace not of glorie For that he must merit by well vsing the grace which Christ hath deserued for him to cut off this Austin addes I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting Haue those works the true and whole nature of merit which receiue their worth from Gods mercie If you will answere that by Gods mercie he meanes not his accepting of the worke but his supplying vs with grace to worke I replie that he may for all that mercie want merits because it depends vpon his own free will when God hath done his vttermost whether hee will worke or no. But that which followes in Austin shewes that all is in Gods mercie If saith he the mercies of the Lord be many I am much in merit the mightier he is to saue the more am I secure So that Austin takes all from himselfe and giues it to God speaker W. P. Basil. on Psal. 114. Eternall rest is reserued for them which haue striuen lawfully in this life not for the merits of their doings but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God in which they trusted speaker D. B. P. These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combate and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the works but in a fuller measure according vnto the bounty of so liberall a Lord Where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits speaker A. W. Wherein lies the error of the translation You take too much vpon you as if all the world were bound to allow your word without any further proofe But let vs examine the translation Eternall rest saith Basil is reserued for them who in this life haue striuen lawfully not as a debt paid them for their worke but giuen them vpon the most bountifull grace of God in whom they haue hoped He is desirous to picke quarrels that findes fault with such translations What one word hath Master Perkins left out or misinterpreted that might be any thing to your aduantage But the testimonie was too plaine to admit any cauill else the translation had been good enough But your proofe is at least as bad as your accusation To prooue the words are vntruly translated you tell vs that Basil makes eternall life the prize of the combat what is this to the purpose where is the fault of the translation But let vs take your interpretation of his meaning If the reward be not giuen according to debt but in a fuller measure and yet no greater thing giuen than euerlasting life doubtlesse our workes deserue not truly and wholy the reward of euerlasting life that God bestowes on them of bountie speaker W. P. August on Psal. 120. He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine was to wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his penne What congruity is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his ovvne gifts not thy merits It had been better said He crowneth thee not c. speaker A. W. It may be apparant to all men who consider this mans course in answering the testimonies of the Fathers that
he doth it by rote and not by skill not caring what their meaning was but gessing what in his conceit it might be If he had lookt for the place here alleaged he would certainly haue answered that Austin hath no such speech vpon that Psalme and then perhaps he might with more reason haue denied that he hath it at all The truth is the Printer misplaced the cypher and of Psalme 102. made 120. But Master Perkins truly alleaged Austins words and sentence which this bold censurer calles foolish and confidently affirmes that Austin would not let any such foolish sentence passe his penne Let himselfe iudge whether Austin say so or no. We saith Austin that are ouercome in our selues haue ouercome in him therefore he crownes thee because he crownes his owne gifts not thy merits The sense is that if God should looke to our actions of striuing against sinne as they are weakly performed by vs hee would neuer crowne them but considering that wee striue by his grace he vouchsafes them a reward though on our part altogether vndeserued speaker D. B. P. But he mistooke belike this sentence of Saint Augustine VVhen God crovvneth thee he crovvneth his gifts not thy merits Which is true being taken in that sense which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crovvne his ovvne gifts not thy merits If thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working vvith vs then may vve as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and revvard of merits speaker A. W. Austin hath the same sentence for the substance of it in many other places and namely in that you alleage though not altogether as you alleage it For after those words If thy merits be of thy selfe it followes in Austin for these if they be such are naught those that are naught God crownes not but if they be good they be the gifts of God The rest and the greater halfe of the sentence is none of Austins but yours yet closely conueied by you as if it were his no lesse than the former speaker W. P. And Psal. 142. Lord thou wilt quicken me in thy iustice not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou hast compassion speaker D. B. P. His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainely now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie speaker A. W. It will not serue the turne to say It is not to this purpose but speakes of the first iustification of a sinner For Dauid who is held to be the penner of it was truly iustified before the writing of that Psalme yea the whole course of the Psalme it selfe manifestly prooues that it was the prayer of one greatly in Gods fauour and strongly perswaded of his succour But what neede I seeke any proofes Haue you forgotten that a few lines before you confest as much when as you would haue shifted off that place in the second verse of this Psalme by answering that the Prophet prayed onely for veniall and light sinnes How then is the case so suddenly altred Forsooth because he saith Thou shalt quicken me For so indeed he saith and not Quicken me as you write But this quickning is not giuing him grace to iustification but comforting and relieuing him in the troubles hee speakes of and as Lyra truly expounds it deliuering him from the daunger of death which hung ouer his head by reason of his sonne Absoloms vnnaturall rebellion Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. In sundrie places of Scripture promise of reward is made to them that beleeue and do good workes therefore our workes doe merit for a reward and merit be relatiues Answ. Reward is twofold of debt and of mercie Life euerlasting is not a reward of debt but of mercie giuen of the good will of God without anything done of man speaker D. B. P. Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alleaged against merittes Let vs see what can be said for them following as neere as I can M. Perkins order First in sundry places of Scripture promise of reward is made vnto good workes If thou doe vvell shalt thou not receiue To him that doth vvell there is a faithfull revvard Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the revvard of God remaineth for euer and. VVhen you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen And a hundred such like therefore such workes doe merit heauen for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it M. Perkins answereth first that the reward is of meere mercie without any thing done by men But this is most apparantly false for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward Againe a reward in English supposeth a former pleasure which is rewarded otherwise it were to be called a gift and not a reward and much more the Latin and Greek word Misthos Merces which rather signifie a mans hire and wages then a gift or reward speaker A. W. M. Perkins saith not that reward is promised to workes but to them that beleeue and doe good workes where if there be any desert it is wholy in the person if not onely Yea all the places you needlesly alleage mention reward to the doer not to the deed To the former part of the place out of Ecclesiasticus I answered before I adde now concerning the latter which belongs to this argument viz. Because the reward of God remaines for euer that it is not in the Greeke copie nor in Caraffas Latin nor in Pagnines Vatablus hath it indeede but within two hookes as a sentence suspected The edition of Complutum and Aâ—â—as Montanus wholy omit it There is nothing done by man that can deserue such a reward though there be something done for which the doer is rewarded A reward supposeth some action which is rewarded but not alwaies vpon desert It may well be called a reward because it is giuen in respect of the worke howsoeuer not for the worth of it The Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin merces signifie a reward for somewhat done either vpon couenant or otherwise but prooue not any merit in the worke speaker W. P. Secondly the kingdome of heauen is properly an inheritance giuen of a father to a child and therefore it is called a reward not properly but by a figure or by resemblance For as a workeman hauing ended his labour receiueth his wages so after men haue lead their liues and finished their course in keeping faith and good
conscience as dutifull children God giueth them eternall life And hereupon it is termed a reward speaker D. B. P. Wherefore M. Perkins skippes to a second shift that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance but not a reward Reply We know well that it is an inheritance because it is only due vnto the adopted Sonnes of God but that hindereth not it to be a reward for that it is our heauenly fathers pleasure that all his Sons comming to the yeares of discretion shall by their good carriage either deserue it or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited speaker A. W. An inheritance is not due to the sonne onely because none except hee bee a sonne can haue it but is his proper right because he is a sonne And therfore it is vnreasonable both in Diuinitie and Law that the sonne should be bound to purchase that by his labour to which by a naturall right he hath full interest This is our case for though we are not sonnes by nature but by adoption yet being sonnes and heires yea ioynt heires with Christ the naturall sonne of whose bodie we are members the very nature of our sonneship or being sonnes conueies vnto vs a sufficient and certaine title to the inheritance It is indeed the pleasure of God our Father that we should labour to expresse our thankfulnes by all holy obedience to him that hath adopted vs for his children and that we after this labour should receiue the inheritance not deserue that by our labour to which wee haue alreadie a farre better claime by being sonnes speaker W. P. Thirdly if I should graunt that life euerlasting is a deserued reward it is not for our workes but for Christs merit imputed to vs causing vs thereby to merit and thus the relation stands directly between the Reward and Christs Merit applied vnto vs. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answeres flies to a third and graunteth that eternal life is a reward yet not of our workes but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs This is that Castle wherin he holds himselfe safe from all Canon shotte but he is fouly abused for this answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture examine any one of the places and a babe may discouer the incongruity of it Namely Christ saith that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake Assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake and not to his owne merits imputed and if you desire a formall sentence fitting this purpose take this Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his ovvne proper labour And not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him So a doer of the vvorke shall be blessed in his deed And not in the imputation of anothers deed speaker A. W. Master Perkins did not nor needed mistrust either of his former answers but because he knew that diuers men were moued with diuers reasons he added this third to see if by Gods blessing this might giue satisfaction where the other were not fully vnderstood It is not Master Perkins meaning to say that in these our works there is desert by Christs merit imputed but that if the children of God must needes be thought to receiue euerlasting life as of merit the merit is properly Christs imputed to them speaker W. P. Obiect II. Christ by his death merited that our workes should merit life euerlasting Answ. That is false all we find in Scripture is that Christ by his merit procured pardon of sinne imputation of righteousnesse and life euerlasting and it is no where said in the word of God that Christ did merit that our workes should merit it is a dotage of their owne deuising He died not for our good workes to make them able to satisfie Gods anger but for our sinnes that they might be pardoned Thus much saith the Scripture and no more And in that Christ did sufficiently merit life eternall for vs by his owne death it is a sufficient proofe that hee neuer intended to giue vs power of meriting the same vnlesse wee suppose that at some time hee giues more then is needefull Againe Christ in the office of mediation as he is a King Priest and Prophet admitteth no deputie or fellow For he is a most perfect Mediatour doing all thinges by himselfe without the helpe of any And the Ministers that dispence the word are not his deputies but reasonable and voluntarie instruments which he vseth But if men by workes can merit increase of grace and happinesse for themselues then hath Christ partners in the worke of redemption men doing that by him which hee doth of himselfe in procuring their saluation Nay if this might stand that Christ did merit that our workes should merit then Christ should merit that our stained righteousnesse beeing for this cause not capable of merit should neuerthelesse merit I call it stained because we are partly flesh and partly spirit and therfore in our selues deseruing the curse of the law though wee bee regenerate Againe for one good worke wee doe wee haue many euill the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes and makes them too light in the ballance of the law speaker D. B. P. Insteed of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins I vvill confirme the first with such texts of holy writ as specifie plainly your good workes to be the cause of eternall life speaker A. W. The second reason is so cleerely set downe that me thinkes you dare not looke vpon it for feare of hauing your eyes dazled by the brightnes of it A sillie shift to auoid an argument which you cannot answere speaker D. B. P. Come vnto me yee blessed of my Father possesse a Kingdome prepared for you And why so For vvhen I vvas hungry yee gaue me meate And so foorth the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants who imployed well their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue been faithfull in fevv things I vvill place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly saide to be the very cause why God rewardeth them with the kingdome of heauen Thorefore he must needs be holden for a very vvrangler that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches and vvould make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth only signifie an order of things speaker A. W. The places you bring to prooue that good workes are the cause of eternall life proue not that the things that were done did truly and wholy deserue such a reward which is the question No more doth Austins exposition Wee are iudged according to our workes so that if any man should wonder why these are receiued into heauen those cast
into hell rather than those into heauen these into hell our Sauiour tels them that hee doth not erre in the difference hee makes which must be according to workes These haue done well and therefore are they that must be saued Those euill and therefore are the men that must be condemned So that his iudgement is right because it is according to works though workes bee not the meritorious cause of life trulie and wholie speaker D. B. P. But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it Let him read S. Augustine Where he thus briefly handleth this text Come yee blessed of my Father receiue VVhat shall vve receiue A Kingdome For vvhat cause Because I vvas hungrie and you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there vvas no tydings in those daies And that iudicious Doctor found that good vvorkes vvas the cause of receiuing the kingdome of heauen speaker A. W. In this and such like sentences of the Fathers we must remember that obseruation of Sixtus Senensis a learned Papist and not presse their words to the vttermost It followes in Austin immediatly what is so little worth what so earthly as to breake bread to the hungry That is the price of the kingdome of heauen Now will any man be so absurd as to imagin that Austin thought that the giuing of a peece of bread to a poore body was in deede the price of heauen by which it might be truly and wholie bought If it be of no greater value it was scarse worth the purchasing with the blood of the Sonne of God The reuerend Father rhetorically amplifies the point to inforce his exhortatiō to works of charity which is also our Sauiours reason in that parable Now that the reward we receiue is not truly and wholie deserued by the works there mentioned it may appeare because Chrysostome and Theophylact stand so precisely vpon the manner of speach He saith not Take it say they but possesse it as an inheritance whereas you say it is both an inheritance and a reward Besides another saith That God did not make the kingdome of heauen of no greater value then mans righteousnes could deserue and after not according to the narrownes of mans righteousnes And lastly God saith he appointed not the reward of the saincts according to the reward of men but according to his owne bountie speaker D. B. P. Here by the vvay M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that vve take avvay a part of Christs mediation For saith he if Christs merits vvere sufficient vvhat need ours It hath been often told them but they vvil neuer learne to vnderstand it I vvil yet once againe repeate it We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings vvhich hath or shall be bestovved vpon all men from the beginning of the vvorld vnto the end of it yet his diuine vvill and order is that all men of diseretion hauing freely receiued grace from him doe merit that crovvne of glorie vvhich is prepared for them not to supply the vvant of his merits which are inestimable but being members of his mystical body he vvould haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good vvorkes he best knevv that there could be no better spurre to pricke our dull nature forvvard then to ordaine and propose such heauenly revvards vnto all them that vvould diligently endeuour to deserue them speaker A. W. Master Perkins truly chargeth you to make your selues partners with Christ in the worke of your saluation for he that is by his owne works a deseruer of euerlasting life is in some part at least a sauiour of himselfe so that howsoeuer you magnifie in words the infinitnes of Christs satisfaction and merits yet in truth you make it either not sufficient or not effectuall to the sauing of them who must by their works truly and wholie merit euerlasting life and receiue it not as ioint heirs with Christ by the right of sonnes but as hirelings for wages due to their works If you would graunt vs an assured interest to heauen by vertue of our being sonnes and claime no more of God but increase of glorie vpon his promise according to our works without pleading desert you and we should agree in this point neither should we be driuen either to ouer valew our owne righteousnes by thinking it deserues heauen or to despaire altogether of saluation because we cannot do such works as do truly and fully merit heauen That God would haue vs like vnto his Sonne in true obedience and patient suffering we finde in the scriptures and beleeue that we should also be like him in meriting when you prooue by the same authoritie we will beleeue In the meane while giue vs leaue rather to rest vpon Christ only and his merits the sufficiencie whereof we certainely know then to trust to our owne deserts which when they are at the best seeme to vs worthie of damnation rather then reward which notwithstanding we assuredly looke for vpon Gods promise and acceptation not vpon our desert or perfection which comes alwayes short of that which is inioyned vs. But it is Gods purpose to traine vs vp in good works it is so out of question for we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them And is there no sufficient meanes thinke you to prick vs forward to do good works vnlesse we may perswade ourselues we shal merit heauen by them See the difference betwixt children and seruants And yet forsooth you would beare the world in hand that you do all of pure loue to God whereas indeed you would do nothing at all but that your pride is satisfied for the present by the perswasion of the good vse of your free will and your hope fed with opinion of euerlasting life to be paid you hereafter as the deserued hire of your worthie works we on the other side being led with the affection of children pricked on with the feeling of Gods incomprehensible mercie incouraged by his gratious promises of accepting our poore indeuours to do him seruice rauisht with the expectatiō of such a reward as is assured vs though without desert ashamed in our selues euery day of our vnkindnes and vnthankfulnes in doing no more yea condemned in our owne hearts for doing our best works so vnperfitly yet by the blessing of God and assistance of his spirit presse forwards to the reward that is prepared for vs through the way of good works which our father hath set vs in I haue bin caryed on in this course farther then I purposed Let euery man that hath a true desire to glorifie God more than himselfe iudge betwixt vs and you
out of the sinceritie of his heart whether our doctrine or yours be more to Gods glory speaker D. B. P. The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christs mediation I vvill therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God vvhich he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordaining meanes hovv all mankind might attaine to eternall life in the tvvo first points vve do for the most part agree to vvit that oursinnes are freely pardoned through Christs passion and that vve are as freely iustified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although vve require other preparation then they doe yet vve as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either as they doe Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen vve differ altogether for they say that God requires no iustice in vs nor merit at all on our parts but only the disposition of faith to lay hold on Christs righteousnes and merittes but vvesay that Christs righteousnes and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merits God doth povvre into euery true Christian a particular iustice vvhereby he is sanctified and made able to doe good vvorks and to merit eternall life Which ability vve receiuing of Gods free gift through Christ merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christs merits for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glorie of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits vvhich hee hath appointed to bee the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeed vnder colour of magnifying Christs merits to vndermine and blovv out all the vertue of them speaker A. W. Though you denie all merit in the first iustification yet you make euery mans free will the cause that hee particularly is iustified and so make him more beholding to himselfe then to God because he hath from God that he may be saued if he wil from himself that he wils and so is saued It is a greater gift to vouchsafe vs euerlasting life without our desert then to make vs able to deserue it and more for Gods glory that we should haue it of his free gift then of our deseruing by his gift since the abilitie only to vse the gift well is from him but the vsing of it from our owne free will as before speaker D. B. P. But saies M. Perkins vvhat should vve talke of our merittes vvho for one good vvorke vve doe commit many bad vvhich deface our merits if vve had any speaker A. W. True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit but by repentance both are recouered againe but must we not speake of any good because we may happe to doe euill that is a faire perswasion and well vvorthy a wise man Of this iest whereby merit is made to rise and fall I spake a little before and shewed how vniust impossible it was You may speake of and do what good you will but not pleade desert because you haue so many sinnes to condemne you speaker W. P. Obiect III. Our workes merit by bargaine or couenant because God hath promised to rewarde them Ans. The worde of God sets downe two couenants on Legall the other Euangelicall In the legall couenant life euerlasting is promised to works for that is the condition of the law Do these things and thou shalt liue But on this manner can no man merit life euerlasting because none is able to doe all that the law requires whether we respect the manner or the measure of obedience In the Euangelicall couenant the promises that are made are not made to any worke of vertue in man but to the worker not for any merit of his owne person or worke but for the person and merit of Christ. For example it is a promise of the Gospell Be faithfull vnto death and I will giue thee the crowne of life Reuelat. 2. 10. Here the promise is not made to the vertue of fidelitie but to the faithfull person whose fidelitie is but a token that he is in Christ for the merit of whose obedience God promiseth the crowne of life speaker D. B. P. Let vs come to our third Argument God hath by couenant and promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting Therefore good workes do in iustice deserue it for faithfull promise maketh due debt The couenant is plainly set downe where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen for a peny a day that is to giue them life euerlasting for trauailing in his seruice during their life time as all auncient interpretours expound it speaker A. W. The antecedent being granted that God hath promist to reward our works your prouing that might haue bin spared especiallie being such as it is fetched from a parable not expounded any where in the scripture Yea the Fathers themselues haue obserued something in the parable as that of their murmuring who had wrought all day which will not be handsomely expounded of the reward giuen in heauen as any man may perceiue by the diuers expositions that are vsed to help the matter by Chrysostome Gregory Ierome Hillary and the author of your ordinarie glosse Therefore Lyra doubts not to say plainely that the literall sense is that in the beginning of the Church the Iewes that were conuerted murmured because the Gentiles obtained like fauour to them which he prooues out of the Acts. And indeed that seemes to haue bin the end of the parable to shew the reiection of the Iewes who were the first and the receiuing of the Gentiles who were the last To which purpose Ierome saith that the Iewes which were the head shall be turned to the taile and the Gentiles who were the taile shall be changed to the head And for the penny he seemes to expound that of grace rather then glory A penny saith he hath the figure of the king thou hast therefore receiued the reward I promised that is my image and likenes which was also Cyprians opinion as it appeares in his epistle to Magnus speaker D. B. P. Whereupon S. Paul inferreth that God should be vniust if he should forget their workes who suffered persecution for him And saith If it be iust with God to render tribulation to them that persecute you and to such as are persecuted rest with vs Vpon the same ground S. Hierome saith Great truly were the iniustice of God if he did only punish â—â—â—ll works and vvould not as well receiue good workes To all thâ—se and much more such like M. Perkins answereth that couenant for workes was in the old Testament but in the new the couenant is made with the workman not with the worke speaker A. W. Reply All that I cited in this Argument is out of the new Testament
euery one shall liue for euer and not one longer then another but many mansions do signifie the different dignities of merits in the same euerlasting life speaker A. W. And Saint Gregorie in most expresse tearmes doth teach the same doctrine saying Because in this life there is a difference of vvorkes amongst vs there shall be in the other life vvithout all doubt a distinction of dignities that as one here exceedeth another in merit so there one surpasseth another iâ— revvard Finally S. Augustine and S. Hierome condemne it as an heresie to hold that there is not diuersitie of merits in this life and revvards in the next Whereon follovveth most manifestly that there be merits and revvards Al this labour of heaping vp needlesse testimonies might well haue been spared especially since they proue not that which you should haue assumed That greater reward is due but that which you did assume That greater reward is prouided Wherefore letting passe the three former which are nothing to the purpose to the last I answere that by merits good works are meant as by meriting working not that which is truly and properly desert Beside it is expresly set downe in that testimony out of Gregory wherein that which is termed worke in the former part of the sentence in the latter is called merit The same answere I make to the other two testimonies of Austin and Ierome granting a diuersitie of reward according to the diuers dignitie and number of good workes speaker W. P. Obict V. Christ saith Reuel 3. 4. that the faithfull in the Church of Sardis shall walke with him in white for they are worthie therefore beleeuers merit Answ. Euery beleeuer is worthie to walke with Christ yet not worthie in himselfe but in Christ to whom he is vnited and made bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh And by reason of this coniunction it is that men are said to be worthie because they are inriched with Christs merits and righteousnesse speaker A. W. The fift reason is taken out of those texts vvhich reach that men are vvorthy of eternall life They shall walke with me in whites because they be vvorthy God proued them and found them vvorthy of himselfe That you may be esteemed vvorthie of the kingdome of God Novv if men be vvorthy of eternall life it must needs be graunted that they haue deserued it I denie the consequence of the proposition First because infants at the least in your doctrine are worthie of euerlasting life and yet it were hard to say they haue deserued it Secondly in that we are the sonnes of God we haue a certaine worthinesse of our inheritance yet haue we not truly and wholy deserued euerlasting life Thirdly there is also a worthinesse in Gods acceptation whereof the Apostle speakes That you may be esteemed worthie and our Sauiour They that shall be esteemed worthie Fourthly they that are iustified shall haue a speciall worthinesse in themselues when they come to receiue their inheritance because they shall be truly and fully sanctified speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that they were indeed worthy but not for their owne merits but for Christs imputed vnto them This is his only refuge yet hath he not nor cannot shew any one text in Scripture that speaketh so speaker A. W. Master Perkins rightly vnderstanding the question that it is of such a worthinesse as truly and fully deserues euerlasting life for wages denies that they of Sardis were in that sort worthie of heauen by any other thing than by being members of Christs mysticall bodie and so partakers of his worthinesse in their measure Which Master Perkins proues though he name not the place by shewing that we are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh receiuing as our resurrection so euerlasting life by and with him our head speaker D. B. P. But to refell him turne only to the places and there you shall finde that this worthinesse rose of good workes as Christ saith I knovv thy vvorkes and find them not full yet there be some amongst yoâ— vvho â—aue not defiled their garments but haue their workes full they shall vvalke vvith me in whites because they be vvorthy speaker A. W. That this worthinesse is not such as the Councill of Trent speakes of that truly and wholy deserues heauen as wages it may easily appeare because the holie Ghost giues this commendation rather for refraining from those sinnes whereof the Sardians generally were guiltie than for any principall workes of obedience Now whereas you adde but haue their workes full it is without authoritie from the text though it be in the second verse Yea the change of the phrase in this verse may cause vs to think that by that want in the former verse some actuall transgressions are signified by which their garments were defiled as the holie Ghost here speakes So that this worthinesse was by Christs acceptation and in comparison of the rest of the Sardians speaker D. B. P. And By susteining persecutions they vvere made vvorthy of that Kingdome And in the words following the Apostle signifieth that it is as iust for God to requite good workes with the ioyes of heauen as he doth punish wicked with the paines of hell speaker A. W. That which I said of the Sardians is euident as I shewed before of the Thessalonians who were esteemed worthie for their workes Yet not precisely for the value of them being such as they were bound to doe and could not without sinne leaue vndone The iustice of God which you vrge out of the Apostle prooues nothing but this that in iustice the persecutors are to be punished and the persecuted relieued But it doth not prooue an equalitie of desert on each side because to suffer for Christ if occasion be is a dutie and many imperfections ouertake the best in suffering and ouerthrow all true merit speaker W. P. Obiect VI. 2. Tim. 4. 8. Euerlasting life is termed a crowne and a crowne of righteousnes to be giuen of a iust iudge therfore maÌ„ for his part by his works deserues the same Answ. Euerlasting life is called a crowne onely in resemblance For as hee which runneth a race must continue and runne to the ende and then be crowned euen so must we continue to walke in good workes vnto the end and then receiue eternall life speaker D. B. P. The sixt reason M. Perkins deliuereth thus Eternall life is tearmed a crowne and a crowne of righteousnes to be giuen by a iust iudge therfore in this life it must be iustly deserued otherwise it were not well called a crowne of iustice nor could be saide to be rendred by a iust iudge speaker A. W. It should seeme you like the deliuering of it well enough or else it is to be presumed you would haue mended it or blamed it whereof you make a shew by your preface to it The proofe of the consequence which
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
your Maiesties recorded in the aforesaid Conference speaker A. W. I doubt not but if those learned treatises you bragge of be come to his Maiesties hands either they haue had or shal ere long receiue sufficient answere In the meane while let vs consider these your reasons speaker D. B. P. And because that argument is as most sensible so best assured which proceedeth from a principle that is either euident in it selfe or else granted and confessed for true My first proofe shall be grounded vpon that your Maiesties owne resolute and constant opinion as it appeareth in the said Conference to wit That no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the Church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremonie then she hath departed from her selfe vvhen she vvas in her flourishing and best estate From whence I deduce this reason The principall Pillers of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in all poynts of Religion the same Doctrine that she now holdeth and teacheth and in expresse tearmes condemneth for error and heresie most of those Articles which the Protestants esteeme to be the principall parts of their reformed Gospell Therefore if your Maiestie will resolutely imbrace and constantly defend that doctrine which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate you must forsake the Protestant and take the Catholike into your Princely protection speaker A. W. The most flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome is that out of question of the sinceritie whereof wee haue witnes in the Scripture from which no Church ought or may depart not because they may not dissent from the Church of Rome but because they must hold the true faith for which the Apostle commends the Church of Rome that then was The antecedent of your reason is false The Church of Rome in the Apostles time did not teach many of those points that the Popish Romish Church now holds witnes the Epistle to the Romanes wherein diuers maine matters of her faith are recorded speaker D. B. P. To demonstrate vnto your Maiestie that we now hold in all poynts the very same Doctrine which the most approoued auncient Doctors and holy Fathers held and deliuered Because it is too long for an Epistle I reserue it to the booke it selfe for the poynts it handleth and will here briefly note out of it some such old reprooued errors that the Protestants doe reuiue receiue and auowe as the very sinnewes of their Gospell speaker A. W. The most approued ancient Doctors holy fathers were the Apostles with whom how you shew your agreement in the points this booke handles wee shall see in the particulars All other writers haue those properties in a farre inferiour degree from among whom if I would deale strictly with you I might pick the Fathers of the Greeke Churches and all those of the Latin that were not members of the Romane as it was a distinct Church from all other For so is the Romane Church conceiued and spoken of by his Maiestie But I will not presse you so hard though I may chance to put you in minde of it now and then All points that haue been reprooued by some of the ancient writers are not errors and many times the same words haue not the same meaning speaker D. B. P. Martin Luther the ring-leader of the new pretended reformation layeth for the ground-worke of his Religion That man is iustified by only saith and in this he is applauded and followed of all Protestants and yet as testifieth the most sound witnes of antiquitie S. Austin that only faith is sufficient to Saluation was an error sprung vp in the Apostles dayes against which the Catholike Epistles of S. Peter and S. Iames and S. Iohn were principally directed And the author of that error was that infamous Sorcerer Simon Magus as the blessed Martyr Ireneus hath recorded in his first booke against heresies speaker A. W. For the doctrine of iustification by faith onely I referre the reader to the article of iustification That we are vnlike the heretikes of whom S. Augustine speakes it may thus apâ—… The faith they so magnified was a dead faith The Apostle 〈◊〉 Austin in refutation of them speaks not of euery kind â—… by which we beleeue in God but of that wholesome and truly â—…angelicall faith the workes whereof proceede from loue And againe How long therefore will they be deceiued that promise themselues euerlasting life by a dead faith Besides they despised good workes as needles either before or after iustification They thought saith Augustine that Paul wild vs to doe euill that good might come of it But it was not the Apostles meaning saith he that by the professing and inioyning of faith good workes of righteousnes should be despised But that euery man might know that he may be iustified though he haue not done the workes of the Law before For they follow him that is iustified not goe before him that is to be iustified Yea Simon the Sorcerer doubted not blasphemously to affirme that the commandements of holy life were giuen by the Angels that made the world who thereby brought men into slaâ—â—rie Of whom Theodâ—ret saith that because men are saued by grace and faith therefore he gaue by all meanes 〈◊〉 to commit wickednes speaker A. W. An other principall piller of Fryer Luthers Religion conâ—… niall of free will wherein he iumpeth with the olde rotten 〈…〉 Manes of whom the Maniâ—d cans were named Manes so denied free will that he tooke away all assent of the will in mens daily sinnes making the necessitie of sinning naturall from the creation as proceeding from the euill god or beginning which he blasphemously and absurdly deuised He saith Augustine made two diuers beginnings each contrary to other and both eternall And from these two natures and substances of good and euill so that he ascribed the beginning of sinne not to the freedome of will but to the substance of the aduerse faction Yea so faire proceeded the Manichees that they affirmed saith the same Augustine that euery liuing creature had two soules one from light another from darknes Manes brought in fatall necessitie saith Socrates and tooke away free will We contrariwise acknowledge that there is but one God or author of all things created that he made vs in our kinde perfectly good That sinne came in first by freedome of will both in men and Angels and that by free will without any necessitie of constraint it is daily committed It appeares further to our comfort in that place of S. Hierome that the Catholikes or true Christians in his time were in like sort charged by the Pelagians with the Manichees error in denying free will because they would not confesse that a man may be without sinne if he will which is one point of difference betwixt vs and the Papists speaker D. B. P. One Proâ—lus an erronius
example a crab-tree â—…ocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring forth apples and therefore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruit Yet let a sianâ—e of apples be gaâ—ted into it and it wil be are apples euen so albeit our sower corrupt naure of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing reâ—iued into it the heauenlie graft of Gods grace it is inabled to produce he sweete fruit of good workes to which alludeth Saint Iames. Receâ—e the ingrafted vvord vvhich can saue our soules againe what more dâ—d then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring forth aâ—… beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by â—ur Sauiour himselfe vnto seede and our harts vnto the earth that receiâ—ed it what meruaile then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuelyeed do yeeld plentie of pleasing fruit speaker A. W. The question is not whether God can maâ—e a man able to doe good workes or no for of that no mandoubts but what a man can doe by nature to his owne coâ—…ersion Master Perkins saith he is spiritually dead and thereâ—…re can do nothing You answere that he can doe something when God hath quickened him But what can hee doâ— to the quickening of himselfe giue his free consent you say Then it must needes follow that he hath power by naâ—…e to will his owne conuersion for as yet hee hath receiued no grace but onely hath had a good motion made to him or inspired into him by God of which by his owne free wilâ— he takes a liking and so attaines to iustifying grace speaker D. B. P. Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such obiections as may be gathered out of Master Perkins against it before I come to his solution of our arguments I will set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers in defence of our Doctrine because he proposeth but few for vs and misapplieth them too God hath appointed to bring them to chuse and like of saluation 〈…〉 Christ. speaker D. B. P. Vnto these 〈…〉 of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the â—…er vnder Moyses law let vs couple two more out of the new Testament The first may be those kind words of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Jerusalem Jerusalem c. how often vvould I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickâ—â—s vnder her vvings and thou vvouldest not Which doth plainely demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing and withstanding Gods grace as these words of Christ doe plainely witnes and thou vvouldest not The last testimony is in the Reuelat where it is said in the person of God I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voice and open the gates I vvill enter in to him and vvill suppe vvith him and he vvith me Marke well the words God by his grace knocks at the dore of our harts he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace speaker A. W. We acknowledge that the fault is wholy in euery man that is not saued but wee denie that therefore he hath power by nature to chuse life when it is offered he failes indeede in doing of that which hee might doe and ought to doe for his owne furtherance to this choise as the Iewes did in refusing to heare to meditate to yeeld to the miracles wrought by our Sauiour Christ and to beleeue the doctrine which they could in no reasonable sort gainsay It was voluntas signi not beneplaciti God offered them the outward meanes of his word not the inward meanes of his spirit for their conuersion which Lydia had To breake open the doore were to vse compulsion to knock is to vse the outward meanes of conuerting a man or if you will to inspire a good purpose vpon which if any man open out of doubt Christ will enter But this doth no prooue that a man vpon this motion can yeeld by the strength of his owne free will which is the point in question speaker D. B. P. To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs ioyne the testimony of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The fiâ—â—â— shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Aatonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by free vvill could she from soule dishonest deeds and follovv those that be faire and good he vvere vvithout fault as not being cause of such things as vvere done But vve Christians teach that mankind by free choise and free vvill doth both doe vvell and sinne To him we will ioyne that hâ—ly Bishop and valiant Martyr Jreneus who of free will writeth thus not only in vvorkes but in faith also our Lord reserued liberty and freedome of vvill vnto man saying be it done vnto thee according to thy faith speaker A. W. I will adde to that worthie company Saint Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauiour vvill you also depart discourseth thus Our Lord did not bitterly inâ—â—igh against them vvhich forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles vvill you also goe your vvay and vvhy so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by vvhich man left vnto his liberty and put vnto his free choise might deserue vnto himselfe either damnation or saluation These three most auncient and most skilfull in Christian Religion and so zealous of Christian truth that they spent their blood in confirmation of it may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church concerning this article of free wl specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse all Anâ—â—quitie excepting only S. Augustine to haue beleeued and taught free will Heare the words of one for all Mathias Illyricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching free will the testimonies of Iustine Ireneus and others saith mannerâ—lement â—lement Patriarch of Alexandria doth euery vvhere teach free vvill that it may appeare say these Lutherans not only the Doctors of that age to haue been in such darknes but also that it did much encrease in the ages follovving See the wilfull blindnes of heresie Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church to haue taught free will yet had rather beleeue them to haue bin blindly led by the Apostles and then best Schollers who were their Masters then to
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
speech maketh a distinction affirming of grace that it is giuen vs viz. on Gods behalfe of mercie and compassion and is receiued on our part by faith alone and not by workes Bernard Whoseeuer is pricked for his sinnes and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifieth a sinner and beeing iustified by Faith alone hee shall haue peace with God speaker D. B. P. 4. Bernard hath VVhosoeuer thirsteth after righteousnes let him beleeue in thee that being iustified by faith alone he may haue peace with God Ans. By faith alone he excludeth all other meanes that either levv or gentile required but not charity Which his very words include for how can we abhorre sin and thirst after iustice vvithout charitie and in the same worke he declareth plainely that he comprehendeth alwaies charitie vvhen he speakes of a iustifying faith saying A right faith doth not make a man righteous if it vvorke not by Charitie And againe Neither workes vvithout faith nor faith without vvorkes is sufficient to make the soule righteous speaker A. W. The chiefe thing the Iewes stood vpon was charitie which they knew the law especially required and therefore to leaue that in was to aduance the righteousnes of the Iewes at the least in their opinion We may abhorre sinne for feare of punishment and thirst for righteoosnes for desire of glorie without any respect of loue but to our selues In those places you bring he sheweth what faith hee meaneth euen as we doe who say that no faith can iustifie but that which workes by loue not in the very act of iustifying but in the course of our conuersation Therfore in the former place when he hath said that being iustified by faith alone we shall haue peace with God he doth afterward distinguish iustification from sanctification They therefore that being iustified by faith desire and resolue to follow after holines c. And in the latter he saith that faith without workes is dead to seuer loue from faith is to kill it But none of these things prooue that Bernard gaue the habit or the act of loue any place of a cause in our iustification or any respect with God to our iustification For then how could hee haue said by faith onely speaker W. P. Chrysost. on Gal. 3. They said he which resteth on faith alone is cursed but Paul sheweth that hee is blessed which resteth on faith alone speaker D. B. P. He speakes of the Iewes who held Christians accursed because resting on the faith in Christ would not obserue withall â—oses law the Apostle contrariwise denounceth them accursed who would ioyne the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvith Christian religion and so faith alone there excludeth only the old lavv not the vvorkes of charity speaker A. W. That Chrysostome speaketh of the Morall law any man may see that markes how he vrgeth the Apostles reason to prooue them accursed who will ioyne the law with faith to iustification namely that they are accursed because they cannot fulfill euery part of the morall law for of it is that sentence vttered speaker W. P. Basil. de Humil. Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. So he mangleth pittifully a sentence of S. Basils saying Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified only by faith in Christ If a man knovv himselfe iustified by faith in Christ hovv can he acknovvledge that he vvants true iustice His vvords truly repeated are these Let man acknovvledge that he is vnvvorthy of true iustice and that his iustification comes not of his desert but of the meere mercy of God through Christ. So that by saith alone S. Basill treating of humilitie excludes all merit of our ovvne but no necessary good disposition as you may see in his Sermon de fide vvhere he proues by many texts of holy Scripture that charity is as necessary as faith speaker A. W. That is saith Basil perfect and full reioycing in Gods sight when a man is not lifted vp no not for his owne righteousness but acknowledgeth himselfe indeed to be destitute of true righteousnes and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ. Basil in that place speaketh of faith as it is an assent to those things that are taught by the grace of God requiring workes not to iustification but in our cariage here to saluation speaker W. P. Origen on cap. 3. Rom. Wee thinke that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and he saith that iustification by faith alone sufficeth so as a man onely beleeuing may be iustified And Therefore it lieth vpon vs to search who was iustified by faith without workes And for an example I thinke vpon the theefe who being crucified with Christ cried vnto him Lord remember me when thou commest into thy kingdome and there is no other good worke of his mentioned in the Gospell but for this alone faith Iesus saith vnto him This night thou shalt be with me in paradise speaker D. B. P. Origen excludeth no good disposition in vs to iustification but saith that a man may besaued vvithout doing ourvvardly any good vvorkes If he vvant time and place as the Theefe did vvho presently vpon his conuersion vvas put to death vvhich is good Catholike Doctrine but that you may perceiue hovv necessary the good dispositions before mentioned be to iustification you shall find if you consider wel al circumstances not one of them to haue bin wanting in that good Theefes conuersion First that he stood in feare of Gods iust iudgment appeares by these his vvords to his fellovv Doest thou not feare God c. He had hope to be saued by Christ out of vvhich he said O Lord remember me vvhen thou commest into thy Kingdome By both vvhich speeches is shevved also his faith both in God that he is the gouernour and iust iudge of the vvorld and in Christ that he vvas the Redeemer of mankind His repentance and confession of his fault is laid dovvne in this And vve trulie suffer vvorthilie His charity tovvards God and his neighbour in reprehending his fellovves blasphemie in defending Christs innocency and in the middest of his greatest disgraces and raging enemies to confesse him to be King of the vvorld to come out of all vvhich vve may gather also that he had a full purpose to amend his life and to haue taken such order for his recouery as it should please Christ his Sauiour to appoint So that he lacked not any one of those dispositions vvhich the Catholike Church requires to iustification speaker A. W. Your discourse of the theeues vertues and good workes doth not refute the truth of Master Perkins allegation but if it doe any thing condemnes Origens iudgement of him As for the dispositions you often mention doubtlesse if Origen had thought that any such had been
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
1 the Apostle may be applied to the proposition because they that would be circumcised would be iustified by the workes of the law Whereupon it followeth that he that will be iustified by workes is bound to keepe the whole law For so the Apostle saith of them that will be iustified by circumcision speaker W. P. III. Election to saluation is of grace without workes therefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes For it is a certaine rule that the cause of a cause is the cause of a thing caused Now grace without works is the cause of election which election is the cause of our iustification and therefore grace without workes is the cause of our iustification speaker D. B. P. Ans. That election is of grace vvithout vvorkes done of our ovvne simple forces or vvithout the vvorks of Moses lavv but not vvithout prouision of good vvorkes issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits speaker A. W. This answere is not only against the Apostle Paul and Austins exposition of him but also contrarie to Lombard Thomas Bellarmine and generally the learnedst Papists as it shall appeare if this writer giue occasion speaker W. P. IV. A man must first be fully iustified before he can doe a good worke for the person must first please God before his works can please him But the person of a sinner cannot please God till he bee perfectly iustified and therefore till he bee iustified hee cannot doe so much as one good worke And thus good works cannot be any meritorious causes of iustification after which they are both for time and order of nature In a word whereas they make two distinct iustifications wee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification yet so as iustification is onely one standing in remission of sinnes and Gods acceptation of vs to life euerlasting by Christ and this iustification hath no degrees but is perfect at the very first OF THE SECOND IVSTIFICATION speaker D. B. P. THe fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can doe a good vvorke and therefore good vvorkes cannot goe before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification And hauing before discussed the first and the second novv remaining and expecting you vvhy did you not say one vvord of it the matter being ample and vvell vvorthy the handling speaker A. W. He that denieth a second iustification and hath disprooued it neede not stand vpon a deuice of yours how worthy the handling soeuer you thinke it speaker D. B. P. Albeit you vvill not vvillingly confesse any second iustification as you say Yet had it been your partat least to haue disproued such arguments as vve bring to proue a second iustification Ye acknovvledge that there be degrees of sanctification But these degrees must be made dovvnevvard of euill vvorser and vvorst for if all our sanctification and best vvorkes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold else vvhere let any vvise man iudge vvhat degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it speaker A. W. But that you knew none of your side doe vse to reade our bookes nor dare without your licence neither you nor other of your Popish complices would for shame write in this sort You haue been often answered that wee acknowledge inherent righteousnesse and labour for and by the grace of God attaine to the increase of it in some measure from day to day speaker A. W. Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnes which can neuer after be either lost or increased Why then doe you with your brother Jounuan maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you wel coursed read S. Hierome S. Amorose S. Augustine S. Gregorie speaker D. B. P. We maintaine that all men are equally righteous in regard of iustification but vnequally in respect of sanctification Iouinian is rather one of your brood who hold that a man being iustified is wholy without sin euen in Gods iudgement At least you must needs vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against vvhich I vvill put dovvne these reasons follovving speaker A. W. First that of the reuelations Let him that is iust be yet iustified or as your text hath it He that is righteous let him be more righteous speaker D. B. P. He that is iustified is as righteous at the first as at the last in respect of iustification but not inherent righteousnes or sanctification of which the places you alleage are meant and therefore need no further answere But that you may the rather see our desire to satisfie you I will speake a little of them Iustified in that place signifieth to proceede in doing iustly as Ribera the Iesuite proueth by the opposition in the other part of the sentence Let him that hurteth hurt still that is goe forward in your hurting saith he and so let him that hurteth no bodie but giueth euery man his due goe forward in so doing Let him that doth good saith your glosse yet doe good more abundantly Let him that is righteous saith Cyprian in two places doe yet more righteous things and him that is holy more holy The Greeke Scholiast reade it thus Let him that is righteous yet worke righteousnes And so doe the Greeke Testaments printed by Plantin and the Interlinear Bible too so that there is not so much as the word iustified in some of your owne Greeke copies And that feare not to be iustified euen vntill death do conuince that there are more iustifications then one and that a man may increase in iustification and righteousnes vntill death speaker A. W. That of Ecclesiasticus would haue been spared till you haue proued that booke to be canonicall which you know we deny and that as we are sure with the consent of the auncient Church at least you should not haue alleadged it with so grosie an error in the translation The Greek is differ not The old Latin was in all likelyhood Be not forbidden or hindered as it may appeare by Vatablus edition of it by Robert Stephens that of Antwerpe and that with the glosse where Lyra expounds it ne prohibearis Andradius deliuers it thus Let there be nothing that may hinder thee from praying alwaies or may let thee from being iustified euen vntill death Some ignorant writer that copied out the booke finding ne veteris be not let and mistaking t for r writ ne
issue out of our soules now garnished vvith grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directhe that we are iustified and that this iusuce doth increase whiles it doth proceed and profit speaker A. W. This labour might haue bin saued For we grant that Abraham by this glorious fact was iustified euen before God that is was knowne to be iustified or to haue true faith as he was known to feare God by it not that God was ignorant before either of his faith or feare but because it pleased him by this deed to take as it were speciall notice of them both as men doe That righteousnes is increased by holie actions I shewed before and that therefore we are iustified by them that is more sanctified speaker D. B. P. Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion for they holding faith to be the only instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O yee of little faith And then a little after I haue not found so great faith in Israell And O Lord increase our saith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith but all one Againe M. Perkins deliuereth plainly That men at the first are not so vvell assured of their saluation as they are aftervvard If then in the certainety of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe speaker A. W. Degrees of faith we deny not but increase of iustification thereupon except it be in our feeling In which respect it receiueth continuall growth but in it selfe it cannot because God doth account faith to vs for righteousnes and forgiue our sinnes not by halues but fully vpon the least measure of true beleeuing Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid bee iudged according to his righteousnesse then may hee be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnesse and therefore he was iustified thereby Answ. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnesse of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this Psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnesse of the action or innocencie of his cause in that hee was falslie charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psalm 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnesse not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glorie Obiect II. The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commaundements Yet is he not blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whom he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof Obiect III. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by prayer and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Answ. Indeed men that truly humble themselues by prayer and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merites of Christ in whom the Father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. Obiect IV. Sundrie persons in Scriptures are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all bee perfect and where there is any perfection of works there also workes may iustifie Answ. There bee two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in parts is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in all and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degree is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the very rigor therof in the highest degree Now then whereas we are commaunded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commaundements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in partes and not of perfection in degrees which cannot bee attained vnto in this life though we for our parts must dailie striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can Obiect V. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our momentarie afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Answ. Afflictions work saluation not as causes procuring it but as a meanes directing vs thereto And thus alwaies must we esteeme of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certaine way or a marke therein directing vs to glorie not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are via regni non causa regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there Obiect VI. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Answ. The proposition is false for iudgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is alreadie iust and iustification is an other act of God whereby hee maketh him to bee iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life Obiect VII Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Answ. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good worke of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie Obiect VIII To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by all the workes of
so much as allude to the Psalm but onely say according to that text of Iob which he there expounds that man compared to God cannot be counted righteous That place of Iob hath the doctrine which you would wring out of the Psalme but where is the proofe that because it is there therfore also it is here But let me also shew that this which you rest vpon cannot bee the meaning of the Psalme Which I take to be plaine because if we vnderstand it so it is no reason to moue God not to enter into iudgement For what though no man bee so righteous as God If he be so rigeteous as God requires such a creature should be it can neuer hurt him though God enter into iudgement with him a thousand times So the sentence should be vaine there being no occasion of it Now the conclusion wee make out of these and such like places is that no man should fancie to himselfe a possibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements when the holiest men that euer were dare not stand before Gods iudgement seate to giue account of those things they haue done since they were iustified and as the Papists say receiued this grace speaker D. B. P. One other ordinary hackney of theirs is that out of the Prophet All our righteousnes is as a menstruous or defiled cloath The which I haue already ridde to death in the beginning of the question of iustification whereit was alleadged The answere is briefly that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people speaketh in the person of the sinfull Such as the common sort of them were who had more sins then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stained cloath Now this disproueth not but that their good workes although but few yet were free for all sportes of iniquity it only proueth that with their few good they had a great number of euill which defiled their righteousnes and made it like a stained cloath speaker A. W. I will let passe your lewd allegorie and your coleworts twice sod referring the reader to my former answere Only this I will adde that the Prophet may well bee thought to refuse your exposition because he speakes in the plurall speaker D. B. P. All our righteousnesses or rather to make English of it all our good deedes 3 There is not a man who doth not sinne And blessed is the man whose sinnes be not imputed to him And such like I answere that the best men sinne venially and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned but all this is cleane besides this question where it is only enquired vvhether the good workes that the iust doe be free from sinne and not whether they at other times doe sin at the least venially This is all vvhich M. Perkins here and there obiecteth against this matter speaker A. W. Neither the former nor the latter can reasonably be applied to veniall sinne that being Salomons in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple praying for the people in regard of such sinnes as should prouoke God to deliuer them into their enemies hands The other Dauids after those great sinnes of murther and adulterie Of that idle distinction of veniall sinne it is needlesse to say any thing till it be better prooued speaker D. B. P. But because some others doe alleadge also some darke places out of the Fathers I thinke it not amisse to solue them here together S. Cyprian saith That the beâ—eiged mind of man can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie for when couetousnes is ouerthrowen vp starts lechery and so forth Ans. All this is true that the life of man is a perpetuall warfare yet man assisted with the grace of God may performe it most valiantly and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies although through his â—vvne â—…tie he may be sometimes foyled S. H. 〈◊〉 affirmeth That then vve are iust vvhen vve confesse our selues to be sinners Ans. That all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially but neither of these places come neare the point in question that not one good deede of the iust man is without some spot or staine of sinne S. Augustine hath these wordes Most perfect charitie which cannot be increased is to be sound in no man in this life and as long as it may bee increased that â—hich is lesse then it ought to be is faultie of which fault it proceedeth that there is no man vvho doth good and doth not sinne All this we graunt to be true that no man hath so perfect charitie in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to doe and consequently doth notso well but that now and then he sinneth at the least veniallâ— and that therefore the said holy Doctor had iust cause to say Vâ—oe be to the laudable life of a man if it be examined without mercie All which notwithstanding iust men may out of that charity which they haue in this life doe many good workes which are pure from all sinne as hath beene prooued They alleadge yet another plase out of S. Augustine That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iust man to know in truth his imperfection and in humility to confesse it True that is as he teacheth else where First that the perfection of this life is imperfection being compared with the perfection of the life to come Againe that the most perfect in this life hath many imperfections both of wit and will and thereby many light faultes Novv come vve vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle out of vvhose svveete vvords ill vnderstood they seeme to haue sucked this their poison He saith The holy man Iob because hee did see all the merit of our vertue to bee vice if it bee straightly examined of the invvard iudge doth rightly adde if I vvill contend vvith him J cannot ansvvere him one for a thousand I ansvvere that by our vertue in that place is to be vnderstood that vertue vvhich vve haue of our ovvn strength vvithout the aide of Gods grace vvhich vve acknovvledge to bee commonly infected vvith some vice that S. Gregorie so tooke it appeares by the vvordes both going before and follovving before he vvriteth thus A man not compared to God receiued iustice but compared vnto him he leeseth it For vvhosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the author of all good leeseth that good vvhich he had receiued for be that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe doth fight against God vvith his evvne gifts And after thus â—o contend vvith God is not to giue to God the glorie of his vertue but to take it to himselfe And so all the merit of this our vertue vvhich commeth not of God but is attâ—â—buted vnto our selfe as proceeding onely from our selues is the very vice of pride and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good vvorks all vvhich vve acknovvledâ—e to proceede principally from the grace of God dvvelling in vs. He saith
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
you aske where I will shew you God willing in another treatise For the answering of these arguments is nothing to Master Perkins reformed Catholike nor the reason of any moment but as it may well be suspected of your owne deuising that you might make babies to dallie with all speaker D. B. P. 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knovv vvho beleeued and vvho was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith conteined in it selfe fidelitie This Argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelitie and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it yet falling from faith may well draw after it hatred and treason yea ordinarily wickednes goeth before falling from faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whom our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with coueâ—ousnesse did not beleeue Christs Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament and by incredulity opened the Diuell a high way to his hart to negotiate treason in it speaker A. W. First I demaund in what the doctrine of the Sacraments could hinder Iudas from growing rich that the fault of his not beleeuing it should lye vpon his couetousnes Secondly I wonder how it can be proued that Iudas did not beleeue it If you ground your conceipt vpon that of Iohn as it is likly you do first proue that our Sauiour spake there of the Sacrament Thirdly it is not plaine by anie place of Scripture that Iudas vnbeleefe in that doctrine opened the way to the Diuell nay rather the text laies the blame vpon his couetousnes and malice stirred vp by our Sauiours defect of Mary against him when she had bestowed such costlie oyntments vpon him in Bethania speaker D. B. P. 3 They obiect that VVho saith bee knovves God and doth not keepe his commandements is a lyar Ans. He is then a lyar in graine who professing the only true knowledge of God yet blusheth not to say that it is impossible to keepe his commandements but to the obiection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I knovv ye not that is I loue you not Our Lord knowes the way of the iust that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God keepes his commandements as Christ himselfe testifieth Jf any loue me he vvill keepe my vvord And he that loueth me not vvill not keepe my vvords Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charity speaker A. W. Ans. That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity by all which conioyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinfull and vniust man without charitie who holding fast his former beleefe doth in transgressing Gods commaundements breake the bands of charitie And so it remaines most certaine that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charitie These obiections were not worth the making neither will I wast time and paper in examining your answeres to them The fifth poynt Of Merits speaker W. P. By merit vnderstand any thing or any worke whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured and that for the dignitie and excellencie of the worke or thing done or a good worke done binding him that receiueth it to repaie the like speaker D. B. P. Obserue that three things are necessarie to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted Sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the worke proceed from grace and be referred to the honor of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the worke And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our Doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but will purchase it by our owne workes speaker A. W. We charge you and that trulie without ignorance or slaunder and according to your doctrine of merits that you need neither Christs merits nor Gods mercie for so much of your purchase of euerlasting life as is made by good workes For if your workes be such as that in the rigour of iustice they deserue euerlasting life as wages what neede they either Christs blood or Gods mercie to make them meritorious The vse of Christs blood is to wash away sinne Where there is no sin what should Christs blood doe Now to him that workes the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt speaker D. B. P. I will here set downe what the Councell of Tâ—ent doth teach concerning merits Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that vvorke vvell and hope well to the end both as grace of mercy promised to the Sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their vvorkes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace aswell in respect of Gods gree promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part of the dignity of good workes Vnto the worker if he perseuere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by truerepentance lise to the same estate againe speaker A. W. The Councell of Trent hath as much as well it could made a shew of some reformation but indeed retained for the most part the former errours of her Antichristian Church you also to mend the matter according to the policie of the craftie Councell picke out a sentence and propound it as the whole doctrine of the Councell concerning merits The same afterward you expound but so as that neithe text nor the glosse are sufficient to make your whole doctrine knowne to vs. For whereas you claime heauen of God as wages due to the deserts of your workes here is no mention but only of reward yet somwhat is slipt from you whereby the Councels dealing may well grow into suspition For whereas that sayes no more but that it is a reward by the promise of God to be faithfully rendred to their workes and merits you tel vs that it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good works Where I would faine know of you how you part this debt what part is due vpon promise what vpon desert For it may wel be though the reward be due vpon promise now God hath promised that it was simplie due for the dignitie of the worke whether God had promised it or no And then it was a small fauour of God to make vs a promise of that to which we had full interest by desert before this promise so that he could not in iustice but pay vs our wages for our
with such or such a carriage of the bodie without any kinde of stay or treading a haires breadth out of a path appointed with other like circumstances I grant that hee which obserues all these conditions exactly may bee said in some good sense to haue deserued the hire that he laboured for though it were farre greater than such a race could truly and properly merit But if this man should faile in many or any of these circumstances though he came neerer the performance of the whole than any other man did might he in iustice claime the prize as due to him vpon desert This is our case in the point of merit There is no man but he failes very much and often in his best workes some lesse some more but euery one more or lesse So that no man had any cause to accuse God of iniustice though he should denie all men the reward due to the keepers of his Commandements speaker W. P. Reason II. Exod. 20. 8. And shew mercie vpon thousands in them that loue me and keepe my commaundements Hence I reason thus where reward is giuen vpon mercie there is no merit but reward is giuen of mercie to them that fulfill the law therefore no merit What can we any way deserue when our full recompence must be of mercie speaker D. B. P. In that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shew mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall things or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestow the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the partie himselfe be first made worthy of it speaker A. W. What though he doe not and yet it must needes be implied in the text if your interpretation be true For to whomsoeuer God giues true repentance which is neuer without faith to him he will certainly giue the kingdome of heauen But the reason is strong by a comparison from the lesse to the greater For if these outward fauours which God bestowes vpon them that keepe his Commandements be of mercie how should heauen be of debt speaker W. P. And this appeares further by Adam if hee had stood to this day he could not by his continuall and perfect obedience haue procured a further increase of fauour at Gods hand but should only haue continued that happy estate in which he was first created speaker A. W. That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods giftes might day by day encrease them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue been otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue been from Paradise translated aliue into the kingdome of heauen this by the way speaker A. W. It is not beside the purpose because it prooues the question thus If Adams continuall and perfect obedience could not deserue increase of fauour then our interrupted and imperfect obedience cannot But his could not therefore ours cannot Your answere is little to the purpose For Master Perkins speakes not of Adams increasing his owne righteousnes but of procuring or rather deseruing a more happie estate whereof the testimonie alleaged out of Austin saith nothing And surely vnlesse men will needes be wiser in this point than the Scripture can make them it is not possible for them to know any such thing touching Adam For the Scripture only sets down a penalty that should ensue vpon the breach of the commandement that was giuen him and neither makes mention nor giues signification of any reward at all much lesse vpon desert speaker W. P. Reason III. Scripture directly condemneth merit of workes Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. The proportion of the argument required that S. Paul should haue said The reward of good works is eternall life if life euerlasting could bee deserued which cannot because it is a free gift speaker D. B. P. True But wee speake of good workes and not of bad which the Astle calleth sinne where were the mans wits but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God speaker A. W. Nay where was your conscience when you cauild so against your knowledge Master Perkins reciteth the former part of that text to shew what the proportion of the argument required namely that the wages of good workes is euerlasting life as the wages of sinne is death And thus without question would the Apostle haue spoken to make his exhortation to holines of life more effectuall if euerlasting life could be deserued speaker D. B. P. This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father S. Augustine in diuers places of his most learned workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repaid for workes and so pursuing the points of the difficulty at large in the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue been done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answere doth he giue where he hath these words Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred vvere giuen speaker A. W. S. Austin in the places alleaged by you neither expounds that text nor speakes of any proportion betwixt the desert of death by sinne and life by good workes But because I am not ignorant that it is his opinion that euerlasting life is due to good workes if you will giue me leaue I will salue the matter by fetching this due from the promise of God not from the dignitie of the worke which I thinke to haue been his meaning because he speakes so often and so much of the imperfection of our workes If to countenance your owne error you will needes haue Austin thought to haue erred which is not impossible at the least shew some good reason why the holie Apostle should forbeare to say Euerlasting life is the wages of good works when it would so fitly haue serued his turne for exhortation and when the nature of the sentence
where expresse couenant is made for working and workes as you haue heard And as it was said in the old law Doe these things and thou shalt liue so is it said in the new If thou vvill enter into life keepe the Commaundements and life eternall is the hire and wages for labouring in Gods vineyard and not of the imputed iustice or merits of Christ Vpon what doth S. Paul inferre that not vpon that parable and much lesse vpon the expositions of it which then were not hatcht but vpon the promises of God made to them which through faith and patience attaine to the inheritance of those promises And this is that iustice the Apostle speaks of hauing no ground but Gods gratious promise to accept and reward our workes though their worth deserue no such recompence Which Chrysostom signifieth in his Commentarie vpon the other place where he saith The reward shall be greater than the worke not onely in continuance whereof also he speaketh but in the measure too He ioynes them saith Chrysostome in respect of their crownes with those who haue done farre greater things than they So that euerlasting life is not truly and properly deserued by works but is giuen by promise to them that doe worke If you will vrge the point of iustice I answere the Apostle speaketh according to the common speech of men who count it a matter of iniustice not to doe well to them that doe well and ill to them that doe ill And in this generall respect God indeede deales iustly punishing them that haue behaued themselues lewdly and wickedly and rewarding them that haue liued righteously and vertuously So that herein stands his iustice in giuing euery man according to his own works without the following of which course there cannot be ordinarily any iustice And therefore Ierome truly saith that God doth both punish euill workes and receiue or accept of good workes but not as if there were an equalitie of merit in either sort of workes to the punishment or reward he giues onely as he saith there because he would haue none that are fallen despaire of Gods mercie he thus amplifies his regard of them as though it were an vniust thing for God as Chrysostome speakes to contemne and forget them that haue exercised themselues in workes of charitie You haue brought no place of any expresse couenant but that which being allegoricall and as I said before not expounded in the Scripture can hardly affoord any certain proofe and none at all of the matter for which you bring it Whereas if the point were so cleere as you would make it being of so great importance doubtlesse it would haue more direct confirmation in Scripture than by allegories and exhortations But it seemes you doe not rightly vnderstand Master Perkins distinction who denies not that a reward is promised for working and workes euen in the new couenant but makes this difference that by the couenant of the law the wages is due to him that workes vpon the value of his worke but by the couenant of the Gospell the reward is giuen not for the worth of the deede but because the worke is accepted for the workmans sake who by faith is the sonne of God Neither of those speeches are any part of the new couenant though they be recorded in the new Testament And the latter was our Sauiours own speech to beate down the pride of him that would be iustified by the law but of this before The parable is often vrged but nothing prooued out of it He that will haue euerlasting life as hire of his trauaile proclaimeth himselfe to be a hireling not a sonne speaker W. P. And therefore Christ saith further I come quickly and will giue to euery man according to his workes marke hee saith not to the worke or for the worke but to the worker according to his workes And thus the bond of all other promises of the Gospell in which God willingly binds himselfe to reward our workes doe not directly concerne vs but haue respect to the person and obedience of Christ for whose sake alone God binds himselfe as debter vnto vs and giues the recompence or rewarde according to the measure of our faith testified by our workes And therefore it cannot be truely gathered that workes do merit by any promise or couenant passed on Gods part to man speaker D. B. P. But looke about you and behold the goodly marke which M. Perkins sets vp Marke saith he that it is said God will render vnto euery man according to his workes not to the worke or for the worke O sharpe and ouer fine witte doth he render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes if the rate of the workes be the measure of the revvard that for fevver or lesser vvorkes there is a lesser revvard and for many and vvorthier a greater surely in my simple vnderstanding he that giueth according vnto the vvorks giueth for the vvorks speaker A. W. We denie not that the reward is to and for the worke but that the value of the worke deserues it which worth being wanting the reward is bestowed vpon the partie according to his worke not for the desert of it In another sense it is all one to say according to the worke or for the worke As in generall he rewards them that doe well because they doe well and he punisheth them that doe ill because they doe ill and so giues to both according or for their workes speaker W. P. Some may say if workes merit not why are they mentioned in the promises I answere not because they merit but because they are tokens that the doer of the worke is in Christ for whose merit the promise shall be accomplished speaker D. B. P. That other addle inuention that vvorkes are there mentioned not because they are revvarded but because they are tokens that the doer is in Christ for vvhose obedience God promiseth the crovvne of life is not vvorth the confuting it is so flat contrarie to the text vvhich ascribeth distinctly that revvard vnto the vvorkman for his vvorkes and not for Christs obedience imputed vnto him speaker A. W. What text meane you Sure neither of both those to which Master Perkins answers hath any such direct ascribing of the reward to the workman for his works But it is the latter I thinke you speake of which you haue laboured to confute what is there in that but that Christ wil giue to euery man according to his worke That is as the verse next before shewes to punish the vniust and filthie and to reward the righteous and holie speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Good works are perfect and without fault for they are the workes of the holy Ghost who cannot sinne therefore they merit Ans. If workes did proceede onely and immediately from the holy Ghost there could not be any fault in them but our works come from the holy Ghost in and by
the will and vnderstanding of man and by this meanes they are tainted with sinne as water in the fountaine is both cleare and sweete yet the streames thereof passing through the filthie channell are defiled thereby Againe they reason thus That which we are bound to doe hath no fault in it but we are bound to doe good workes therefore they are perfect Answ. The proposition must be expounded that which we are bound to doe in it selfe according to the intention of the commander hath no fault or that which we are bound to doe according as we are bound to doe it hath no fault yet in regard of the intention of the doer or in regard of our manner of doing it may bee faultie speaker A. W. M. Perkins fourth obiection for vs is proposed vnskilfully yet could he not ansvvere it but by relying vpon that vvhich is most vntrue that forsooth no one action of the best man is vvithout fault vvhith hath bin alreadie confuted and might be by instances of Abrahams oblation of his Sonne S. Iohn Baptists preaching and reprehending of Herode Stephens martyrdome vvith infinite such like in vvhich M. Perkins nor any else vvill be able to shevv in particular vvhat fault there vvas Will this shifting neuer be left What want of skill finde you in propounding the obiection If you could haue told we should haue been sure to heare of it Well let reasonable men iudge There lackes only the proposition which any man may supplie and the assumption wherein the doubt lies is prooued by a further reason speaker D. B. P. What meanes this yet as if he had propounded it vnskilfully that he might answere it the easier Is not his answere plaine and direct to the proofe of the assumption in which the strength of the argument consists But you say his answere hath been alreadie confuted I replie that the confutation hath been alreadie answered And to the instances you now bring I adde further that howsoeuer wee cannot alleage any particular faults in the worthie actions of some extraordinarie men yet we intreat you to remember that they were men hauing the flesh in them lusting against the spirit naturall corruption not wholy abolished to taint their workes and that God can see an error or want where men thinke the thing cannot be bettered Againe our Sauiour saith That if the eye be simple the vvhole body is lightsome not hauing any part of darknes in it and very reason teacheth vs that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances may be perfect speaker A. W. I would faine heare what you would conclude vpon that place of the eyes simplenes If by the eye you vnderstand the heart and thinke to proue that mens actions are good because the heart is good either your consequence of the proposition is naught if by heart you meane intent for a good intent makes not by and by a good worke or else your assumption will be false imagining such a measure of purenes in the heart as is not in this life to be found Your Glosse vpon the place referres it to the intention but argues not from thence any perfection If thou do good works with as pure intention as thou are able they are the works of light though it seeme not so to the world And another Glosse saith that by the intent works are discerned whether they be works of light or of darkenes not as you say whether they be perfit or vnperfit A third Glosse restraines it more saying it is a metaphoricall speach as if he should haue said as thy bodily eye directs thy bodily actions so the eye of the mind by a right intention directs humane actions as farre as concernes the nature of morall goodnes If the intent of the mind be right the whole heape of thy actions shall be good and belie so that the worke be lawfull for the kind of it I will adde no more let all men iudge what truth there is like to be in that doctrine that can find no better warrant of scripture speaker A. W. It vvas then a very seely shift to say that neuer any man did any one action vvith all his due circumstances Whose shift is this sure not Master Perkins in this answere But why is it a shift because you say that reason teacheth vs that a mans actions for substance and all due circumstances may be perfit I dare not take it for true vpon your word in morall actions according to the light of nature and if it were true in them I should not be resolued that therefore it were also true in them according to the law of God speaker D. B. P. But insteed of that fourth Argument I vvill put this If a greater revvard be due vnto them that do better workes then a reward is due vn-them that do good workes vvhici is euident in reason But a greatot revvard is prouided for them that doe better speaker A. W. He that considers this reason of yours would thinke there was small cause why you should condemne Master Perkins for want of skill in propounding the last argument for you to mend the matter first bring vs out a false syllogisme and then conclude that which we denie not your syllogisme is false because the assumption is not taken out of the proposition as it should be but is a new matter as it were a fourth terme brought in for your assumption should be But a greater reward is due in steed whereof you say a greater is prouided Now to be prouided and to be due is not all one because many things are prouided for meere gifts whch are no way due your conclusion must be Therefore a reward is due to them which do good works who saith otherwise but this due is of promise not of desert speaker D. B. P. As S. Augustine grounded vpon Gods vvord proueth in sundry places namâ—ly vpon that For starre dissereth from starre in glory so shall be the resurrection from the dead specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort chastity in vvedlocke after another and holy vviddovvhood yet after another all saith he shall be there but they shine diuersly And of the same vvorke affirmeth That martyrdome shall be higher revvarded then any other vvorke The like doth he vpon those vvords One ground shall yeeld thirty fold another threescore folde another an hundred folde Comparing chastity in vvedlocke to the thirtie in vviddovves to the sixtie and in virgins to the hundred But most directly in his sixtie seauen treatise vpon S. Iohns Gospell vpon this verse Jn my Fathers house are many mansions vvhere he saith that albeit some be holier iuster and more valiant then others yet there shall be fit roomes for them all vvhere euery one is to receiue his place according vnto his merit That peny spoken of by vvhich saith he is signified eternall life shall be giuen to euery man equally because
you adde will be discust in your answers speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is called a crowne by resemblance because it is giuen in the end of the life as the croâ—ne is giuen in the end of the race speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the Enthymem viz. that therefore euerlasting life must be deserued because it is called a crowne He addes the reason of his deniall That it is called a crowne not because it is deserued but because it is giuen as a reward after we are come to the end of our race as the Apostle shewes plainly I haue fought a good fight and haue finished my course I haue kept the faith hencefoorth is laid vp for me a crowne of righteousnes he saith not therefore I haue deserued the crowne speaker A. W. If that were all the cause and that there were no respect to be had so former deserts it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance because that also is giuen in the end of life and in their opinion more properly because all their workes are defiled like a menstruous cloath and a halter is the end of such wicked workes But as a halter is due to a theefe so is a crowne of glory the iust reward of the righteous man That I may omit your lewd dallying in saying that euerlasting life might in that respect as well be called a halter consider whether your answer be not absurd For that which is giuen vpon continuance of walking in good workes as Master Perkins saith the crowne is cannot in any reason be as well termed a halter as a crowne though there be not in the workes the true and whole nature of merit to deserue the crowne Euerlasting life saith your glosse is as it were the reward of faith and God seemes to pay it as it were debt speaker W. P. And it is called a crowne of righteousnes not because it belongs to any man by due and desert but because God hath bound himselfe by a promise to giue it in performing whereof he is tearmed iust and by vertue of this promise it is obtained and no otherwise These are the principall obiections by which we may iudge what the rest are And thus we see what is the truth namely that merit is necessarie to saluation yet neither merit of mans worke or person but the merit of Christ imputed to vs whereby we being in him doe procure and deserue the fauour of God and life eternall speaker D. B. P. Secondly he answereth that it is called a crowne of iustice because God hath bound himselfe by his promise to giue it here then at length we haue by his owne confession that by Gods promise eternall life is due debt vnto the righteous but as hauing ouer-shot himselfe he addes not for any desert of theirs but only for the promise sake But as you haue heard before out of S. Matthew that promise was made for vvorking the time of our life in his vine yard and so there was some desert on their part and the seruants were rewarded because they imployed their talents well speaker A. W. Needes it any defence to say it is due debt by promise but not vpon desert Who knowes not that for the most part these two are if not contrary at the least diuers Therefore rather you shoote beyond true reason than Master Perkins ouershot himselfe That which you repeate out of Saint Matthew was answered before speaker D. B. P. And in this very place S. Paul reckoneth vp his good seruices for which the iust iudge would render him a crowne of iustice and therfore the iustice is not only in respect of Gods promise speaker A. W. S. Paul reckons vp his good seruices and good reason for the reward is not due to any by promise but to them that doe good workes For else what should be rewarded But why should it be called a crowne of iustice Because it is giuen to the iust saith Thomas according to their iust works And in that respect God is called a iust Iudge in giuing this crowne because he giues good for good Yea that very iustice whereby good is giuen for good is not without mercie saith the glosse and Lombard speaker D. B. P. And if you will not beleeue me prouing that I say out of the very text rather then M Perkins on his bare word let S. Augustine be arbitrator betweene vs who most deepely considereth of euery word in this sentence Let vs heare saith he the Apostle speaking vvhen he approached neere vnto his passion J haue quoth he fought a good fight J haue accomplished my course J haue kept the faith concerning the rest â—there is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice vvhich our Lord will render vnto me in that day a iust iudge And not only to me but to them also that loue his comming He saith that our Lord a iust iudge will render vnto him a Crovvne he therefore doth owe it and as a iust iudge will pay it For the vvorke being regarded the revvard cannot be denied I haue fought a good fight is a vvorke I haue accomplished my course is a vvorke J haue kept the faith is a worke There is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice this is the reward So that you see most clearely by this most learned Fathers iudgement that the reward is due for the worke sake and not only for the promise of God speaker A. W. This place of Austin is brought as a proofe that a man hath nothing of himselfe which hee hath not receiued Whereas if your doctrine of merit and free will were true a man hauing grace from God whereby hee is enabled to worke might of his owne free will so vse this grace that euerlasting life should be due to him as wages for his work But if these good workes proceed from grace not onely in respect of our abilitie to doe them but of the particular actions what true merit can there bee in them Immediatly after the words you alleage it followes in Austin In the reward thou doest nothing in the work nothing alone The crowne is from him the worke from thy selfe yet not without his helpe Which helpe we must vnderstand to be more than an abilitie to worke or else as I said our free will shall haue the chiefe commendation in all our good workes But to the testimonie we graunt that the reward is due to the worke which is your conclusion out of Austin but wee denie that it is due vpon desert of the worke For neither doth the worke if it were perfectly done truly and properly deserue the reward because it is a matter of duty and but one work whereas many thousands are due to make vp true merit by workes and being imperfect as all our best workes are it is so farre from deseruing euerlasting life that it rather might increase our
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
will doubtles in short time loath it As for example I hat it is as good and godly by eating to feede the bodie as to chastize it by fasting That it is as holy to fulfill the fleshly desires of it by Mariage as by Continencie to mortifie them yea that it is flat against the word of God to vow Virginitie And also contrarie to his blessed will to bestowe our goods on the poore and to giue our selues wholy to prayer and fasting All which this Aduocate of the English Congregation teacheth expressâ—e Is this the puritie of the Gospell Or is it not rather the high way to Epicurisme and to all worldly vanitie and iniquitie speaker A. W. To chastice the bodie by fasting wee hold it not only good but of tentimes necessary though we acknowledge neither merit nor satisfaction in it which accompanie your popish fasts Mortification of all kindes of lusts not only that one we account a necessarie part of sanctification neither doe wee allow mariage to fulfill the lust of the flesh but to remedie it vowing of virginitie we approoue not because a man cannot be sure that he shall keepe his vow alwaies though for a time he be able besides all lawfull vowes being things indifferent charitie must giue iudgement of excediencie in making thâ—n To make prayer and fasting our whole worke is to liue in the world without a calling To giue away our goods to the poore so to become chargeable to others is to tempt God and burthen the Church to doe it with opinion of merit is popish pride against Gods glorie speaker D. B. P. I neede not ioyne hereunto that they teach it to be impossible to keepe Gods Commaundements and therefore in vaine to goe about it And faâ—ther that the best worke of the righteous man is defiled with sinne Wherefore as good for him to leane all vndone as to doe any Nay if this position of theirs were true it would to low necessarilie that all men were bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doe any good deede to long as they liue for that their good deede being stayned with sinne cannot but deserue the hyre of sinne which according to the Apostle is Death euerlasting If your Maiesties important affaires would once permit you to consider maturely of these impieties and many other like absurdities wherewith the Protestant Doctrine is stuffed I dare be bold to say that you would speedely either commaund them to reforme themselues and amend their errors or fairely giue them their Congie speaker A. W. We say it is impossible to keepe Gods commandements perfectly to iustification but wee denie that therefore it is in vaine to goe about it Yea we truly affirme that we are bound to doe our best endeuour and shall haue acceptation and reward of our workes from God though not vpon any desert of ours That our best workes are tainted with imperfections we professe plainly That they are therefore to be left vndone neither we say nor you can prooue The imperfection that cleaues to them is by all good meanes to be auoyded but the workes to be performed for it is not the worke but the imperfection in it that is forbidden speaker D. B. P. I will close vp this my second reason with this Epiphoneme That it is impossible for a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his ovvne Religion to hope for any saluation For they doe and needes must graunt that no man can be saued without a liuely faith and also that a liuely faith cannot be without charitie for otherwise it were dead Now then to the purpose No Protestant can haue charitie for as witnesseth Saint Iohn This is the charitie of God that vve keepe his commaundements But it is impossible according to the Protestants to keepe the commandements therfore also impossible to haue charitie VVhich is the â—ulnes of the lavve and consequently impossible to haue a liuely faith which cannot be without charitie And so finally through want of that lâ—uely feeling faith whereby they should lay hold on Christs righteousnesse to hale and apply that vnto themselues they can haue no hope at all of any fauour and grace at Gods hands Without which they must needes assure themselues of eternall damnation in steede of their pretended certainâ—… of saluation speaker A. W. True charitie though not perfect may be had in this life and by it the commandements of God may bee and are kept though not perfectly so that a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his religion may yet hope for saluation speaker D. B. P. To these two arguments gathered out of the treatise following I adde a third collected from these your owne memorable wordes related in the aboue named conference viz. Are wee now come to that passe that we must appeache Constantine of Poperie and superstition Which argueth that your Maiestie iudgeth them to haue little regard of either piety or ciuility that would admit such a thought into their minde as that the first Christian Emperour our most renowned countriman should bee nousled and brought vp in superstition wherein your Maiestie hath great reason for he was most carefully instructed and taught the Christian Religion by such holy Confessors whose sinceritie in faith had bin tried in the hotte furnace of many strange persecutions And he farther had the good happe to see and heare together in the first generall Councell of Nice many of the holiest and best learned Bishops of Christendome Therefore is it most vnlikely that so Royall a Person deuoted to Religion add hauing so good meanes to attayne to the perfect knowledge thereof as no man could haue better should neuerthelesse in the purest time of it be mis-ledde into errour and superstition If then it may be prooued that this most Christian Emperour the glittering ornament of our noble Iland did beleeue such articles of the present Roman Church as the Protestants teach not to be beleeued Will not your Maiestie rather ioyne in faith with so peeâ—les a Prince who by the consent of all antiquitie was for certaine right well enformed then with these whome doubtles most men deeme to be pittifullie deceiued ' Now that Constantine was of the same opinion in matter of Religion with the present Church of Rome may euidently bee gathered out of this that followeth speaker A. W. He that denies Constantine to haue been a worthie a singular instrument of God for the good of his Church wrongs the worthie Emperour and sinnes against God But the triall of doctrine is to be fetched not from the opinions and examples of men though neuer so holie but from the Holie of Holies It may not seeme strange if superstition were crept into the Church before Constantines time when the Apostle witnesses that euen in his daies the mysterie of iniquitie was alreadie begun speaker D. B. P. First he was so affectionate vnto the signe of the Crosse that hee
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
ioyne with the Papists and teach that in sinnes or euill actions man hath freedome of will Some paraduenture will say that wee sinne necessarily because hee that sinneth cannot but sinne and that free will and necessitie cannot stand together Indeed the necessitie of compulsion or coaction and freewill cannot agree but there is another kinde of necessitie which may stand with freedome of will for some things may be done necessarily and also freely A man that is in close prison must needs there abide and cannot possibly get forth and walke where he will yet can he mooue himselfe freely and walke within the prison so likewise though mans will be chained naturally by the bonds of sinne and therefore cannot but sinne and thereupon sinneth necessarily yet doth it also sinne feely speaker D. B. P. Annot. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose for it puts necessitie in one thing and liberty in an other The solution is that necessarily must be taken for certainly not that a man is at any time compelled to sinne but his weakenes and the crafte of the Diuell are such that he is very often ouer reached by the Diuell and induced to sinne but with free consent of his owne will speaker A. W. The example is to the purpose as he that is in prison if he will walke must of necessitie walke in the prison and yet walkes freely there because he may chuse whether he will walke or no so he that is chained by sinne may chuse whether hee will doe such an action or no but if hee doe it he shall necessarily sinne in doing of it and thus necessitie and libertie are alike in both parts of the similitude There is nothing in your solution that was not in Master Perkins distinction saue that you haue put it in other words you say certainly he infallibly you say man sinnes with free consent and is not compelled he saies he sinnes freely and not of compulsion speaker W. P. V. Conclus The second kind of spirituall actions or things concerne the kingdome of God as repentance saith the conuersion of a sinner new obedience and such like in which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans free will concurs with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some fort For in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required the word Gods spirit and mans will for mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule When any man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willi gly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he wills his conuersion To this end said Augustine He which made thee without thee will not saue thee without thee Againe that is certaine that our will is required in this that we may doe any good thing well but we haue it not from our owne power but God works to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giueth a will to desâ—â—e and will the same grace as for example when God works faith at the same time he works also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in men goe together yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church touching Free will neither may we proceede further with them speaker D. B. P. Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of will in ciuill and morall workes in the state of corruption and all good workes in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renued or as we speake iustified there is liberty of grace that is grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spiritual works as God requireth at his hands Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing he doth in shew of words contradict both these points in another place For in setting downe the disference of our opinions hee saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a litle before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainelie man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to doe or not to do the acts of wisedome Iusâ—ce Temperance c and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentiles so did Yet in his first reason he assirmeth as peremptorily out of the 8. of Genisis that the whole frame of mans heart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall duty speaker A. W. It is neither the principall point in controuersie nor any controuersie at all according to Master Perkins whether man haue freedome of will in morall workes before grace and in all good workes after grace For of the former Master Perkins makes no question but onely giues a caueat of the feeblenes of the will and dimnes of the vnderstanding in such matters with the latter he deales not at all professedly restraining the question to our dissent about the second estate Libertie in the state of grace to will spirituall good wee thankfully acknowledge but neither is it of so large extent as your exposition makes it and without the speciall worke of Gods spirit by it selfe it brings no good thing to passe He doth not say simply that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue Of which his other speech is not a contradiction but rather a confirmation That mans will concurres with Gods grace as a co-worker in some sort and a little after mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion of the soule Now what action it hath and in what respect it is actiue and passiue he shewes presently after the words are falsely alleadged by you viz. that it wils well onely as it moued by grace
being in it selfe neither actiue nor passiue This latter contradiction is indeede like the former that is no contradiction at all For hee doth rightly expound that place of a pronenes to that which is as ill and to nothing that is fully good not simply excluding that which is ciuilly good but that onely which is properly referred to God himselfe the soueraigne good and the other in regard of it perfect goodnes II. The difference or dissent speaker W. P. The point of difference standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans wil in spiritual matters which concerne the kingdome of God The Papists say mans will concurreth and worketh with Gods grace in the first conuersion of a sinner by it selfe and by it owne naturall power and is onely helped by the holy Chost We say that mans will worketh with grace in the first conuersion yet not of it selfe but by grace Or thus They say will hath a naturall cooperation we denie it and say it hath cooperation onely by grace beeing in it selfe not actiue but pasâ—… willing well onely as it is mooued by grace whereby it must first be acted and mooued before it can act or will And that wee may the better conceiue the difference I will vse this comparison The Church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condition of a prisoner and so doe wee marke then the difference It supposeth the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foote with chaines and fetters and withall to bee sicke and weake yet not wholy dead but liuing in part it supposeth also that beeing in this case he stirreth not himselfe for any helpe and yet hath ability and power to stirre Hereupon if the keeper come and take away his bolts and fetters and hold him by the hand and helpe him vp hee can and will of himselfe stand and walke and goe out of prison euen so say they is a sinner bound hand and foote with the chaine of his sinnes and yet he is not dead but sick like to the wounded man in the way betweene Iericho and Ierusalem And therefore doth he not wil and affect that which is good but if the holy Ghost come and doe but vntie his bands and reach him his hand of grace then can he stand of himselfe and will his owne saluation or any thing else that is good We in like manner graunt that a prisoner fitly resembleth a naturall man but yet such a prisoner must he be as is not only sicke weake but euen starke dead which cannot stirre though the keeper vntie his bolts and chaines nor heare though he sound a trumpet in his eare and if the said keeper would haue him to moue and stirre he must giue him not onely his hand to helpe him but euen soule and life also and such a one is euery man by nature not onely chained and fettered in his sinnes but starke dead therein as one that lieth rotting in the graue not hauing any ability or power to moue or stirre and therefore he cannot so much as desire or doe any thing that is truelie good of himselfe but God must first come and put a new soule into him euen the spirit of grace to quicken and reuiue him and then being thus reuiued the will beginneth to will good things at the very same time wheÌ„ God by his spirit first infuseth grace And this is the true difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome in this point of free will speaker D. B. P. See how vncertaine the steppes be of men that walke in darkenes or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknes For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church For he putting downe the point of difference saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs only in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in graunting this liberty of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne words For saith he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that Mans vvill worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully For we say that Mans will then only concurreth with Gods grace vvhen it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that Mans vvill by his ovvne naturall action doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of Man But we farther say that this action proceedeth principally of grace whereby the will was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring forth such spirituall fruit And thâ—… I take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can acte or will He mistookâ—… thinking that we required some outward helpe only to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but a it were vntie the chaynes of sin wherein our will was â—…eted anâ— tâ—en will could of it selfe turne to God Noâ— vnderstanding how Catholikes take that parable of the man wounded in the way betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists only say but as the holy Ghost â—aith leâ—te halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all Mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all Supernaturall riches spoiled of all his originall Iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all natural truth or to performe all morall duty Novv touching supernaturall vvorkes because he lost all povver to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sense may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that vvay of grace and so in holy Scripture the Father said of his prodigall Son he was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though vvounded also in them as not being able to acte many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of free vvill capable of grace and also able being first both outvvardly moued and fortified invvardly by the vertue of grace to affect and do any vvorke appertaining to saluation vvhich is asmuch as M. Perkins affirmeth speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake the matter he speakes not of will
in the state of grace but in the state of nature namely in the first conuersion of a sinner as his plaine words are in this place The difference stands in the cause of freedome for it is impossible that a man should beleeue without freedom of will beleeuing being an action of the will But the question is whether the will work with Gods grace by it selfe by it owne naturall power or haue this operation from grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue And this is the very opinion of Luther Caluin and generally all Protestant Diuines who in this point thus dissent from you that they ascribe the very act of the will in repenting beleeuing c. to the especiall worke of Gods spirit in their hearts that repent and beleeue whereas you contrariwise hauing furnisht man with freedome of will by nature or I know not what grace make his assent for I must speake of faith as you doe to proceede not from the spirit of God inclining him certainly to beleeue but from the good vse of his free will yeelding of it selfe to the good motion of Gods spirit yet so as that it might for all the motion and operation of Gods spirit forbeare to assent if it were not led to it by the goodnes of free will In a word you ascribe no more to God but the power that the will hath to will that which is good wee acknowledge that the very act of willing well both before and after grace is caused by the spirit of God to and in euery good desire that wee bring well to passe It is more than Master Perkins affirmes that the will being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified with the vertue of grace is able to effect and doe any worke appertaining to saluation For this vertue is not of such strength but that it needes the particular assistance of Gods spirit to incline and frame it to euery good worke of that nature speaker D. B. P. And this to be the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent vvhere in the sixt Session are first these vvords in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Ievves by the letter of Moses lavv could arise out of that sinfull state After it shevveth hovv our deliuerance is vvrought and hovv freedome of vâ—ill is recouered in special and vvherin it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Jesus Christ that is from his vocation vvhereby vvithout any desert of ours vve are called that vve vvho vvere by our sinnes turned avvay from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our ovvne Justification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and vvorking vvith it So as God touching the hart of man by the light of the Holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration vvho might also refuse it neither yet can he vvithout the grace of God by his free vvill moue himselfe to that vvhich is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that vvhich vvas taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme See vvhat Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath vvritten of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these vvords of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father dravv him He concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God moouing him inwarâ—ly therevnto speaker A. W. The Councill of Trent as closely as it carries matters could not but bewray it selfe in this point wherein it leaues to the will of man inlightened by the holie Ghost the act of refusing and receiuing grace Which must needs be naturall because there was no former worke of God whereby this power to receiue grace was bestowed vpon it And this doth Thomas by you alleaged make more plain denying that there is any grace in the will of man as from God for the preparing of himselfe to receiue habituall grace because then we should need another grace for the former and another for that before the former and so without end What then doth God in this case He moues the heart inwardly saith Thomas or he breathes into vs a good purpose A man would thinke that Thomas hereby acknowledged the receite of some speciall grace but it is not so he meanes no more but this that God puts a good motion into vs for the receiuing of habituall grace which it is in the power of our will by nature either to receiue or refuse So that still in the matter of iustification the reason that this man is iustified that is not shall be from man and not from God Are they not in the middest of darknes that write such things III. Our reasons speaker W. P. Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold namely that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of himselfe by nature either in whole or in part but by grace wholy and alone these reasons may be vsed The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption which may be distinguished into two parts The first is the want of that originall righteousnes which was in man by creation the second is a pronenes and inclination to that which is euill and to nothing that is truly good This appeareth The frame of mans heart saith the Lord is euill euen from his childhood that is the disposition of the vnderstanding will affections with all that the heart of man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholly euill And Paul saith The wisdome of the flesh is enmity against God Which words are very significant for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated wisdome signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires affections and indeauours that be in any naturall man euen those that come most neare to true holines are not only contrary to God but enmitie it selfe And hence I gather that the very hart it selfe that is the will and mind from whence these desires and thoughts doe come are also enmity vnto God For such as the action is such is the facultie whence it proceedeth such as the fruit is such is the tree such as the braunches are such are the rootes By both these places it is euident that in man there is not only a want absence or depriuation of originall righteousnes but a pronenes also by nature vnto that which is euill which pronenes includes in it an inclination not to some few but to all and
euerie sin the very sinne against the holy Ghost not excepted Hence therefore I reason thus If euery man by nature doth both want originall iustice and be also prone vnto all euill then wanteth he naturall free will to will that which is truely good But euery man by nature wants originall iustice and is also prone vnto all euill Ergo Euery man naturallie wants free will to will that which is good Reason II. 1. Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnesse vnto him neither can know them because they are spiritually discerned In these words S. Paul sets downe these points I. that a naturall man doth not so much as thinke of the things reuealed in the Gospell II. that a man hearing and in mind conceiuing them cannot giue consent vnto them and by naturall iudgement approue of them but contrariwise thinketh them to be foolishnesse III. that no man can giue assent to the things of God vnlesse he be enlightened by the spirit of God And hence I reason thus If a man by nature doth not know and perceiue the things of God and when he shall knâ—w them cannot by nature giue assent vnto them then hath he no power to will them But the first is euidently true Ergo. For first the mind must approue and giue assent before the will can choose or will and when the mind hath not power to conceiue or giue assent there the will hath no power to will Reason III. Thirdly the holy Ghost auoucheth Eph. 2. 2. Coloss. 2. 13. that all men by nature are dead in sinnes trespasses not as the Papists say weak sicke or halfe dead Hence I gather that man wanteth naturall power not to will simplie but freelie and frankly to wil that which is truely good A dead man in his graue cannot stirre the least finger because he wants the very power of life sense and motion no more can he that is dead in sinne will the least good nay if he could either will or doe any good he could not be dead in sinne And as a dead man in the graue cannot rise but by the power of God no more can he that is dead in sinne rise but by the power of Gods grace alone without any power of his owne Reason IV. Fourthly in the conuersion and saluation of a sinner the scripture ascribeth all to God and nothing to mans free will Iohn 3. 3. Except a man be borne againe he cannot see the kingdome of God Ephes. 2. 10. We are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus to good works And chap. 4. vers 24. The new man is created to the image of God Now to be borne again is a worke of no lesse importance then our first creation and therefore wholy to be ascribed to God as our creation is Indeede Paul Phil. 2. 12. 13. biddeth the Philippians worke out their saluation with feare and trembling not meaning to ascribe vnto them a power of doing good by themselues And therefore in the next verse he addeth It is God that worketh both the will and the deede directly excluding all naturall free will in things spirituall and yet withall he acknowledgeth that mans will hath a worke in doing that which is good not by nature but by grace Because when God giues man power to will good things then he can will them and when he giueth him a power to doe good then he can doe good and he doth it For though there be not in mans conuersion a naturall cooperation of his will with Gods spirit yet is there a supernaturall cooperation by grace enabling man when he is to be conuerted to will his conuersion according to which S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 15. 10. I haue laboured in the faith but least any man should imagine that this was done by any naturall power therefore he addeth yet not I that is not by any thing in me but Gods grace in mee inabling my will to doe the good I doe Reason V. The iudgement of the auncient Church August The will of the regenerate is kindled onely by the holy Ghost that they may therefore bee able because they will thus and they will thus because God workes in them to will And Wee haue lost our freewill to loue God by the greatnesse of our sinne Serm. 2. on the wordes of the Apostle Man when hee was created receiued great strength in his free will but by sinning he lost it Fulgentius God giueth grace freely to the vnworthy whereby the wicked man beeing iustified is inlightened with the gift of good will and with a facultie of doing good that by mercy preuenting him he may begin to will well and by mercie comming after he may doe the good he will Bernard saith It is wholy the grace of God that wee are created healed saued Concil Arausic 2. cap. 6. To beleeue and to will is giuen from aboue by infusion and inspiration of the holy Ghost More testimonies and reasons might bee alleaged to prooue this conclusion but these shall suffice now let vs see what reasons are alleaged to the contrarie speaker D. B. P. And this is all vvhich M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons follovving the vvhich I vvill omitte as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him read the most learned vvorkes of that famous Cardinall and right Reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine speaker A. W. You should at the least haue propounded his reasons that all men might haue seene whether they make for you or against you but you tooke a wiser course for your own credit Yet giue me leaue to shew that his conclusions are directly against you He that hath naturally free will to receiue a good motion inspired by God hath naturally free will to will that which is good for to receiue such a motion is to will that which is good But euery man according to Thomas and the Councill of Trent hath naturally free will to receiue a good motion inspiried by God for else he cannot receiue any or must haue some habituall grace to prepare him for the receiuing of it Therefore euery man hath naturally free will to will that which is good This is your conclusion to which his are contrarie viz. Euery man naturally wants free will to will that which is good Secondly Man by nature hath no power to will the things of God Thirdly Men naturally haue no power to will the least good Fourthly Man cannot naturally will his owne conuersion The testimonies alleaged need neither confirmation nor explication Bellarmines disputation shall be examined if it please God to giue leisure and opportunitie speaker D. B. P. Novv the very point controuersed concerning free vvill M. Perkins hath quite omitted vvhich consisteth in these tvvo points expressed in the Councell First vvhether vve doe freely assent vnto the said grace
vvhen it is offered vs that is vvhether it lie in our povver to refuse it And secondly vvhen vve concurre and vvorke vvith it vvhether vve could if vve listed refuse to vvorke vvith it In both vvhich points vve hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of vvhich our Authour is silent only by the vvay in his fourth reason toucheth tvvo texts out of S. Paul vvhich are commonly alleaged against free vvill The firâ—â— I haue saith he laboured more abundantly then all they yet not I but the grace of God vvhich is in me attributing the vvhole vvorke to grace To vvhich I briefely ansvvere that they doe corrupt the text to make it seeme more currant for them the Greeke hath only He sun emoi vvhich is vvith me not vvhich is in me so that the vvord in true construction makes much more for vs then against vs Saint Paul affirmeth the grace of God vvhich vvas vvorking vvith him to haue done these things And so Saint Augustine vvhom they pretend to follovv most in this matter expoundeth it Yet not I but the grace of God vvith me that is not I alone but the grace of God with me And by this neither the grace of God alone neither he alone but the grace of God vvith him thus Saint Augustine The like sentence is in the booke of Wisdome Send that vvisdome from thy holy heauen that it may be vvith me and labour vvith me speaker A. W. Master Perkins tooke that as the most principall point which doth most diminish the glorie of God the end of all true religion Now what opinion is more derogatorie to Gods glorie than that which giues mans will a power by nature to receiue grace ofered vpon an inward motion of God without any incliniâ—g of the will by him And this answers your former quesion denying that it lies in our owne power to refuse graâ—e though we freely assent vnto it There is a necessity of inâ—…llibilitie so that it cannot come to passe that a man inclinâ—d by Gods spirit should not receiue grace there is notwthstanding a freedome of will because the will is not compelled to assent The second question is like the former and answered in like sort viz. that we might refuse in reâ—…ect of the nature of our will which is not forced to the choise that in the euent we cannot refuse because God frames our will ineuitably to make that choise You saw it was not for you to deale with Master Perkins reasons as they were set downe by him for then it would haue been looked for that yoâ— should haue answered directly to all the places of Scripâ—ure hee brings against the strength of frâ—â—will by nature Therefore you shift off the matter and outof nine texts alleaged in this question you chuse onely thâ—e Against which you thinke you are able to say somewhâ— And what is it you say That Master Perkins attributes he whole to grace vtterly vntrue For hee saith plainly â—at there is a supernaturall cooperation of mans will with Gods sâ—rit by grace enabling him to will his conuersion And addes fterwards Not I that is I by any thing in me but Gods grace â—…e enabling my will to doe that good I do If that translation â—rrupt the text Hierome corrupted it not we and to sayâ—e truth it is all one to vs whether you reade in me or whâ—me so you acknowledge the strength whereby the Apole workes to be of God and not of nature But for the prase the grace of God in the Scripture signifies either the loue and fauour of God which is wholy without a man or some gift of his which is a qualitie in the soule Now it is a great deale more likely that the Apostle speakes of some gift of God within him whereby hee is made able to labour than of the fauour of God without him wherby his labour is blessed We subscribe to S. Austin That in all our good workes we have a part or rather that the worke it selfe is wholieours though both the grace whereby we are enabled to do it and the inclination whereby we are brought to doe iâ— proceede from the spirit of God speaker D. B. P. The second text is It is God that woreth in vs both to vvill and to accomplish We graunt that it is God buâ—ot he alone without vs for in the next words before Saint Paul saith Worke your saluation vvith feare and trembling So that God worketh pincipally by stirring vs vp by his grace and also helping forward our wil to accomplish the worke but so sweetly and conâ—ormablie to our naure that his working taketh not away but helpeth forward our will toconcurre with him Againe the whole may be attributed vnto God considering that the habits of grace infused be from him as sole efficient cause of them our actions indued also with grace being onely disposiâ—ons and no efficient cause of those habits but this is an high point of â—choole Diuinitie very true but not easily to be conceiued of the vnleaâ—ed speaker A. W. We also grant as I haue said that it is God with vs herein wee differ that you ascribe no more to God in our first conuersion but a stirring of vs vp and helpng forward of our will leauing the euent to our choise anâ— so vncertaine we affirme that God doth so work that he â—…clines the will so that the euent shall in fallibly ensue therâ—…on The whole may not be attributed to God though the habits of grace infused be from him as a sole efficient case of them For the question is not how we come by theseâ—abits but whether the actions done when we haue the hbits be ours or no speaking of good workes after iustifiâ—tion If the question be of our first conuersion we say â— tâ—… act of beleeuing is ours but the grace by which we are eabled to beleeue is giuen by God and made effectual 〈◊〉 made to produce this effect of beleeuing by God also speaker D. B. P. One other obiection may be collected ouâ— of 〈◊〉 Perkins third reason against free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words VVhen vve vvere dead in sinnes If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Ansvvere Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickned and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath been said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath free will in naturall and ciuill actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good workes necessarie to life euerlasting As for
will but to will indeede I say of this as of the former that it is not contrarie to our doctrine for we acknowledge that in our iustification and saluation after election we worke with God but not as I haue often answered by any naturall power of our free will nor by any choyse of our owne to which we are not inclined and brought by Gods spirit We say with S. Austin both in words and meaning that true religion neither denies free will either to a good or bad life nor giues so much to it that it should be of any force without grace and we adde that therefore your religion is false because it affirmes that the will of man can by nature assent to a good motion inspired So to commend free will is indeede to deny grace but to holde them both as I haue proued Austin did out of these very places which you alleage for your opinion and as we doe going not an haires breadth from him in this question is to glorifie Gods mercie and confesse our owne weaknes which is the end of his loue to vs in the whole worke of our saluation III. Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. First they alleadge that man by nature may doe that which is good and therefore will that which is good for none can doe that which hee neither willeth nor thinketh to doe but first wee must will and then doe Now say they men can doe good by nature as giue almes speake the trueth doe iustice and practise other duties of ciuill vertue and therefore will that which is good I answer that a naturall man may doe good workes for the substance of the outwarde worke but not in regarde of the goodnesse of the manner these are two diuers things A man without supernaturall grace may giue almes doe iustice speake the truth c. which bee good things considered in themselues as God hath commaunded them but he cannot doe them well To thinke good things and to doe good things are naturall workes but to thinke good things in a good manner and to doe them well so as God may accept the action done are workes of grace And therefore the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne in respect of the doer because it failes both for his right beginning which is a pure heart good conscience and faith vnfained as also for his end which is the glory of God speaker D. B. P. Novv in fevv vvords I vvill passe ouer the obiections vvhich he frameth in our names But misapplieth them First Obiection That man can doe good by nature as giue almes do Iustice speake the truth c. And therefore vvill them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue liberty of wil in ciuil and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it An â—his answere here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the worke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure hart and a faith vnfeined and also in the end wâ—ich is not the glory of God Ansvvere It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the hart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to relieue the poore mans necessity God his Creator Master is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed tovvards him vvhen the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto speaker A. W. Master Perkins as any man may see grants a freedome of will in morall actions but denies those actions to be good in regard of the goodnes of the manner and afterward A man may giue almes c. which are good things considered as they are commanded of God but hee cannot doe them wel that is so as God may accept of the action done If you will replie vpon M. Perkins you must proue that such workes of a naturall man will be accepted of God but that you cannot do For the person must be accepted before the worke and without faith he cannot be accepted nor haue faith being a naturall man The summe of the answere is if it be not done as the law requires it is not a good worke if it be it is meritorious and so must be accepted of God speaker W. P. Obiect II. God hath commaunded all men to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof beeing helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue and repent Ans. This reason is not good for by such commaundements God shewes not what men are able to doe but what they should doe and what they cannot doe Againe the reason is not well framed it ought rather to bee thus because God giues men commaundement to repent and beleeue therefore they haue power to repent and beleeue either by nature or by grace and then we hold with them For when God in the Gospel commandeth men to repent and to beleeue at the same time by his grace he inableth them both to will or desire to beleeue and repent as also actually to repent and beleeue speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect God hath commaunded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that God being a good Lord will not commaund any man to doe that which he is no way able to doe Ans. M. Perkins ansvvereth in effect for his vvords be obscure that God commaundeth that vvhich we be not able to performe but that which we should doe Then I hope he vvill admitte that he vvill enable vs by his grace to doe it or else hovv should vve doe it God surely doth not bind vs by commandement to any impossible thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweet and his burthen easie And S. John vvitnesseth that his commaundements are not heauy He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tye any man by lavv to doe that which he was altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the enthymem viz. That therefore men haue free will to beleeue and repent because God commands them to beleeue and repent you to helpe the matter giue a reason of the consequence God being a good Lord will not command any man to do that which he is no way able to do therefore since God commands men to beleeue and repent they haue free will to beleeue and repent Here the
euerlasting for the righteousnesse and merit of Christ. Rule II. That iustification stands in two things first in the remission of sinnes by the merit of Christ his death secondly in the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse which is another action of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnesse which is in Christ as the righteousnesse of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christ his righteousnesse we are to vnderstand two things first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the law both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his blood to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely bee considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which hee shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the law for vs. This point if some had well thought on they would not haue placed all iustification in remission of sins as they doe Rule III. That iustification is from Gods meere mercie and grace procured onely by the merit of Christ. Rule IV. That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the heart by the holy Ghost whereby a sinner lâ—ieth hold of Christ his righteousnesse and applieth the same vnto himselfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can do this but faith alone The doctrine of the Romane Church touching the iustification of a sinner is on this manner I. They holde that before iustification there goes a preparation thereunto which is an action wrought partly by the holy Ghost and partly by the power of naturall free will whereby a man disposeth himselfe to his owne future iustification In the preparation they consider the ground of iustification and things proceeding from it The ground is saith which they define to bee a generall knowledge whereby wee vnderstand and beleeue that the doctrine of the word of God is true Things proceeding from this faith are these a sight of our sinnes a feare of hell hope of saluation loue of God repentance and such like all which when men haue attained they are then fully disposed as they say to their iustification This preparation being made then comes iustification itselfe which is an action of God whereby he maketh a man righteous It hath two parts the first and the second The first is when a sinner of an euill man is made a good man And to effect this two things are required first the pardon of sinne which is one part of the first iustification secondlie the infusion of inward righteousnesse whereby the heart is purged and sanctified and this habit of righteoutnes stands specially in hope and charitie After the first iustification followeth the second which is when a man of a good or iust man is made better and more iust and this say they may proceed from works of grace because he which is righteous by the first iustification can bring forth good works by the merit whereof hee is able to make himselfe more iust and righteous and yet they graunt that the first iustification commeth only of Gods mercie by the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. Because M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I wil helpe him out both with the preparation and iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice vvhen being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued to vvard God beleeuing those things to be true vvhich God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus And vvhen knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgments they turne themselues to consider the mercy of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God vvill be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued vvith hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a nevv life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter vvhich briefly are these The finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and maas ovvne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Jesus Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the only formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charitie vvith the other gifts of the Holy Ghost povvred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes vvhen a man is iustified be pardoned him speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly deliuered the summe of that which you set down out of the Councill of Trent and that more plainly for euery mans vnderstanding than it is in the Councill I. Our consent and difference speaker W. P. Now let vs come to the points of difference betweene vs and them touching iustification The first maine difference is in the matter thereof which shall bee seene by the answere both of Protestant and Papist to this one question What is the very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God and to be accepted to life euerlasting wee answer Nothing but the righteousnesse of Christ which consisteth partly in his sufferings and partly in his actiue obedience in fulfilling the rigour of the law And here let vs consider how neere the Papists come to this answere and wherein they dissent Consent I. They graunt that in iustification sinne is pardoned by the merits of Christ and that none can be iustified without remission of sinnes and that is well II. They graunt that the righteousnes whereby a man is made righteous before God commeth from Christ and from Christ alone III. The most learned among them say that Christ his satisfaction and the merit of his death is imputed to euery sinner that doth heleeue for his satisfaction before God and hitherto we agree The very point of difference is this wee hold that the satisfaction made by Christ in his death and obedience to the law is imputed to vs and becomes our righteousnesse They say it is our satisfaction and not our righteousnes whereby we stand righteous before God because it is inherent in the person of Christ as in a subiect Now the answer of the Papist to the
to your owne merits proceeding from your will which grace as you say hath wholy freed But of this also I spake before and must say more hereafter speaker W. P. Now let vs see by what reasons wee iustifie our doctrine and secondly answere the contrarie obiections Our reasons Reason I. That very thing which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of the law which saith Doe these things and thou shalt line Now there is nothing can satisfie the iustice of the law but the righteousnes or obedience of Christ for vs. If any alleage ciuil iustice it is nothing for Christ saith Except your righteousnesse exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen speaker D. B. P. This reason is not worth a rush for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law I demaund what law he meaneth If Moses law of which those words Doe this and thou shalt liue are spoken Then I answere with the Apostle That you are euacuated or abolished from Christ that are iustified in the lavv That is he is a Iew and no Chri stian that wuld haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified must be able to fulfill Christs law I then graunt that they so be by the helpe of Gods grace which will neuer faile them before they faile of their duties speaker A. W. He is neither Christian nor Iew but worse than either that abolisheth the moral law by the Gospel The Apostle speakes of ioyning the law with Christ to iustification not of making Christian iustice answerable to Moses law But is there any likelihood that hee which came to bring perfect righteousnes would destroy the law of righteousnes Are you they that finde fault with vs because wee say it is impossible for vs to keepe the Commandements so fully as God requireth Doth Moses law containe any other or greater righteousnes than the perfect loue of God and of our neighbour Is it not your common doctrine that faith makes vs able to keepe the law Nay doe you not teach that our Sauiour hath propounded greater perfection to his followers than was required by the law of Moses Beside is not the law the very law of nature And can any man bee righteous that keepes not the law of nature You must prooue that God by Christ hath either abrogated the morall law or dispensed with Christians for the breaches of it not by pardoning of them as the Apostle teacheth but by freeing them from obedience to it If this be false then whosoeuer will be iustified by any law must fulfill Moses law to which onely the promise is made Doe this and thou shalt liue speaker W. P. What shall we say that workes doe make vs iust that cannot be for all mens workes are defectiue in respect of the iustice of the law Shall we say our sanctification whereby we are renewed to the image of God in righteousnes and true holinesse that also is imperfect and cannot satisfie Gods iustice required in the law as Isai hath said of himselfe and the people All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous cloath speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins That iustice of man is vnperfect and cannot satisfie the iustice vvhich God requires in his lavv and proues it out of Esay who saith All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath I answere that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous That he speaketh of the wicked of that nation and of that time appeareth plainly by the text it selfe For he saith before But loe thou hast been angry for vve haue offended and haue been euer in sinne and after There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold by thee And although the words be generall and seeme to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also yet that is but the manner of preachers and specially of such as become Intercessors for others who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lyed when he said There is none that call vpon thy name when as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercy all which the best learned among them marking confesse that this sentence cannot be alleadged against the vertue of good works Hence gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture That which the Prophet spake of some euil men of one place and at one time that he applieth vnto all good men for all times and all places speaker A. W. It is no proofe that the Prophet speakes not of himselfe as well as of the people because Preachers sometimes doe not in the like speeches For sometimes also they doe Neither had the Prophet lied as you grosly speake if hee had meant himselfe For it is not his purpose to denie that God had been called vpon but so called vpon as hee ought to haue been The Prophet speakes of their actions which had some shew of goodnes els he would not say our righteousnes besides he speakes not of that which he presently was to doe as a Prophet but of that which ordinarily he and other did with the infirmitie of men Luther and Caluin are of opinion that the place doth not properly belong to the proofe of this doctrine but they denie not that the Prophet speakes of the faithfull and their works Yea Caluin plainly affirmes that he doth speake of them The faithfull saith he goe forward in their complaint And The faithfull must confesse their guiltines So doth Caietan vnderstand the place alluding to it Christ merit is called our righteousnes because it is true righteousnes before Gods iudgement seate to make a difference betwixt it and our righteousnes which at Gods iudgement seate is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman Our humble righteousnes if it be any is true perhaps saith Bernard but not pure vnlesse perchance we thinke our selues better than our fathers who no lesse truly than humbly said All our righteousnes is as the cloutes c. Therefore Bernard and Caietan expound this place of the righteousnes of iustified men as Master Perkins doth speaker W. P. To haue a cleare conscience before God is a principall part of inward righteousnesse and of it Paul in his owne person saith thus I am priuie to nothing by my selfe yet am I not iustified thereby 2. Cor. 4. 4. Therefore nothing can procure vnto vs an absolution and acceptance to life euerlasting but Christs imputed righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But he will amend it in the next where he proues out of S. Paul that a cleare conscience which is a great part of inherent iustice can nothing helpe to our iustification I am priuie to nothing by my selfe and yet J am not iustified
as you haue heard out of the Councell of Trent in the beginning of this question that many actes of faith feare hope and charity do goe before our iustification preparing our soule to receiue into it from God through Christ that great grace speaker A. W. If the matter be not great it was but a small fault to be short in it yea the contrarie had been a fault indeed It is not handled by the way but propounded in plaine tearmes as a second difference betwixt vs and you speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins Doctor like resolueth otherwise That faith is an instrument created by God in the hart of man at his conuersion vvhereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes for his iustification This ioyly description is set downe without any other probation then his owne authoritie that deliuered it and so let it passe as already sufficiently confuted And if there needed any other disprofe of it I might gather one more out of his owne explication of it where he saith that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs by the word of God and by the Sacraments For if faith created in our harts be the only sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend that couenant of grace then there needs no Sacraments for that purpose and consequentlie I would faine know by the way how little infants that cannot for want of iudgement and discretion haue any such act of faith as to lay hold on Christ his iustice are iustified Must we without any warrant in Gods word contrary to all experience beleeue that they haue this act of faith before they come to any vnderstanding speaker A. W. If it would haue serued your turne to cauil at you would haue found Master Perkins reason and not haue iested at his authoritie I will plainly propound it for all men to iudge of your dealing That whereby Christ is to be receiued is an instrument to applie Christ. But faith is that whereby Christ is to be receiued Therefore faith is an instrument to applie Christ. To this you answere nothing but frame an argument against the question as you would haue it thought out of Master Perkins his owne explication of it Your argument is If faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there need no Sacraments You should adde as supernaturall instruments to that purpose But there is need of the Sacraments Therefore faith is not the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace First there is more in your conclusion than in the question The question is whether faith be a supernaturall instrument created to that purpose or no your conclusion is that faith is not that onely supernaturall instrument Secondly I denie the consequence of your proposition you may as well say for that Master Perkins sets downe too that if faith be the onely instrument then the word is needlesse The Word and Sacraments applie Christ outwardlie as meanes on Gods part faith receiues it in on our part the holie Ghost inlightening and inclining our hearts thereunto Little infants in my poore opinion haue no act of faith but are iustified without any thing done by them God for Christs sake according to his euerlasting election forgiuing their sinnes and adopting them for sonnes and heires of glorie speaker W. P. In this their doctrine is a twofold error I. that they make faith which iustifieth to go before iustification it selfe both for order of nature and also for time whereas by the word of God at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then iustified and sanctified For he that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life Ioh. 6. 54. speaker D. B. P. But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M Perkins finds two faults with it one that we teach faith to goe before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Marry this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answere that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthely obtaineth therby life euerlasting as Christ saith expressely in that place And so this proofe is vaine speaker A. W. If you had meant plainly you should haue reported Master Perkins reproofe of your opinion truly as he hath deliuered it that you make faith goe before iustification not onely in order of nature onely which we grant but in time also which we denie If I should onely say the contrarie that our Sauiour doth not speake there of the Sacraments I might conclude by as good reason as you doe and so this answere is vaine But I oppose to your authoritie not mine owne which is nothing worth but your owne writers yea the Councill of Trent which leaues it free to al men to expound that chapter either of the spirituall eating of Christ by faith only or of eating him really in the Sacrament And this libertie is grounded vpon the diuersitie of opinions among the Fathers concerning the sense of that chapter This is sufficient to make Master Perkins reason good against your deniall speaker D. B. P. Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification first by that of S. Paul VVhosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in vvhom they doe not beleeue hovv shall they beleeue vvithout a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterwards to call vpon God for mercy and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification speaker A. W. Prayer commeth betweene in nature but not in time for hee that rests vpon God for saluation in Christ doth withall call vpon God for pardon of his sinnes whereupon iustification followes immediatly though not alwaies in a mans owne feeling speaker A. W. This S. Augustine obserued when he said Faith is giuen first by which vve obtaine the rest And againe By the lavv is knovvledge of sâ—nne by faith vve obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured The rest that Austin speakes of are graces of sanctification or as he calles them there good workes in which we liue and these are supplied euery day by God or at least the increase and vse of these vertues whereby wee liue godly in the world such is the cure of the soule by grace to the louing of righteousnes and doing the works of the law speaker D. B. P. If we list to see the practise of
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
alone we shall also be saued and that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time vvill render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits speaker A. W. His second answere is that the assumption is false vpon this distinction that by sauing wee vnderstand being brought into the state of saluation For that is performed on our part by beleeuing onely Now in this case wee are said to bee saued because whosoeuer is once iustified by saith shall certainly haue other things ministred vnto him by which God hath appointed to bring him to saluation It is your slander not Master Perkins error that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement speaker W. P. Reason V. We are saued by hope therefore not by faith alone Answ. We are saued by hope not because it is any cause of our saluation Pauls meaning is onely this that wee haue not saluation as yet in possession but waite patiently for it in time to come to be possessed of vs expecting the time of our ful deliuerance that is all that can iustly be gathered hence speaker D. B. P. There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first offeare it is said He that is vvithout feare cannot be iustified VVe are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe psnance you shall all in like sort perish VVe are translated from death to life that is iustified because vve loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of vvater and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our evil liues For vve are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen againe from the dead c. Sâ— vve may also vvalke in nevvnes of life speaker A. W. Master Perkins answered as much as hee propounded that which you haue brought I will examine and I trust satisfie He that is without feare cannot be iustified It is a strange course of prouing to bring that against vs for scripture which you know wee denie to be scripture and that with the consent of the ancient writers and your owne of late Arias Montanus and they that ioyned with him haue left all the Apocryphall out of the Interlinear Bible The Greeke which is the originall is farre otherwise An angrie man and so it is translated in the great Bible set out by Arias Montanus and before that by Pagnin who also interpreteth it shall not be iustified cannot be thought iust referring it to mans iudgement rather than to Gods Vatablus also so translateth it and addes in the margin that some copies reade vniust anger and for your being iustified he translateth as Pagnin doth cannot be counted iust Besides I denie the consequence he that is without feare cannot be iustified therefore iustification is ascribed in Gods word to some other vertue and not to faith onely For though a man that is without feare cannot be iustified yet he is not iustified in respect of his feare To omit the absurditie of the translation doe penance for repent who makes any doubt that they shall perish that repent not What will you conclude thence Therefore repentance iustifieth and not faith onely I denie your consequence see the reason in the former section The Apostle makes not the loue of our brethren the cause but the proofe of our iustification as it is apparant by his words We know we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren he that loueth not his brother abideth in death We are not translated by reason of our louing for indeed we must be translated before we can loue them but we know by louing them that we are translated And that is the scope of the Apostle In this are the children of God knowne and the children of the diuell whosoeuer doth not righteousnes is not of God neither he that loueth not his brother Let vs not loue in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth For thereby wee know that we are of the truth and shall before him assure our hearts First you take that as granted which is full of doubt that our Sauiour Christ speaketh in that place of baptisme Secondly admitting that I denie absolute necessitie of baptisme as well as of the other Sacrament for which in your iudgement those words are as strong Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Thirdly I say we are iustified by baptisme as Abraham was by Circumcision Fourthly I denie the consequence here also None can enter into heauen except they be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Therefore not onely faith but also some other vertues are respected by God in our iustification The end of baptisme is our sanctification by dying to sinne and liuing to righteousnes therefore iustification and saluation are ascribed to other vertues beside faith I denie the consequence For though we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our liues yet God doth not iustifie vs in regard that we haue such a purpose but only in respect of our beleeuing neither to speake truly doth this purpose goe before iustification but follow it speaker D. B. P. To all these and many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answere in that one You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must waire patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternal saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to think as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it speaker A. W. S. Paul doth not affirme that it is any cause of saluation but onely saith as Master Perkins hath truly answered that we must come to the possession of saluation by continuing our hope of it with patience To which purpose the Apostle saith that we had need of patience that after wee haue done the will of God we may receiue the promise Neither is the question of saluation but of iustification so that here the consequence may iustly be denied we are saued by
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being asvvell our vvorke and a vvorke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe speaker A. W. There is no vertuous disposition required of the one or the other in respect whereof he shall be iustified Onely the acknowledgment of sinne and such like are vsed as meanes by God to bring a sinner to beleeue in Iesus Christ to iustification yet so as that neither these dispositions proceed from the free will of man but from the spirit of God inclining them that God will iustifie to these actions nor any of these but onely beleeuing is respected of God on mans part to his iustification speaker D. B. P. Now that out of S. Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bidde beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtâ—aine a miracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question on y is speaker A. W. That place of Luke sheweth thus much as also the ordinarie course of the old Testament doth that the thing God regardeth and requireth of man to the obtaining of any fauour is resting vpon him for that he stands in neede of Fasting praying and such like exercises are meanes to make a man discerne truly of his owne vnworthines and so the rather to trust to Gods mercie and power but the thing respected by God is resting on him and referring himselfe wholy to his will and pleasure Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the iudgment of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers iudgment S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that vvhich the Apostle saith VVe esteeme a man to be iustified vvithout the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke speaker A. W. They that so vnderstand the Apostle as the Gnostickes did vtterly mistake him We are altogether of S. Austins opinion that faith cannot iustifie him that liues euilly and hath no good workes For as he truly saith Though they goe not before iustification yet they accompanie it euery iustified man being also sanctified Neither is the faith he speaketh of such a faith as we vnderstand because it workes not by loue but such as the diuell hath who saith Austin in the same place hath not the faith by which the iust man liues which workes by loue that God may giue him life euerlasting according to his workes speaker D. B. P. And againe Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained speaker A. W. In this place Austin takes iustification for the whole fitting of a Christian to a holy conuersation to which iustification indeede is but a foundation the building being finished by sanctification speaker D. B. P. By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceed from the helpe of Gods grace He must of necessitie according to his course of disputing exclude good workes from that iustification hee there speakes of but not from the life of a Christian man speaker D. B. P. Reason III. Very reason may teach thus much Mans reason is but a blind mystris in matters of faith and he â—hat hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little speaker A. W. Mans reason is not of it selfe sufficient to determine of truth and falsehood in Diuinitie but being inlightened by the spirit of God with the knowledge of faith it may easily see the diuers vse of that from other graces and vertues speaker W. P. For no gift in man is apt and fitte as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner but faith speaker D. B. P. But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kind of probabilitie I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrarie For in common sense no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to applie and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what need we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to applie to vs Christs righteousnes speaker A. W. Reason perceiuing that the Scripture ordinarily ascribeth iustification to beleeuing and maketh beleeuing in Christ the receiuing of Christ which is not granted to any other of those vertues may well conclude that faith onely is the spirituall hand to take hold of Christ and his righteousnes by and not feare loue hope or repentance speaker W. P. Indeede loue hope the feare of God and repentance haue their seuerall vses in men but none serue for this ende to apprehend Christ and his merits none of them all haue this receiuing propertie and therefore there is nothing in man that iustifieth as a cause but faith alone speaker D. B. P. Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more applie vnto Christians all Christs merits and make them ours then faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular
by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him speaker A. W. None of these hath that aptnes that is in faith For the other haue more shew of desert in man but God purposeth to set out his loue to the soule he saueth Which can be done by no meanes so well as when the party to be iustified doth nothing but rest vpon God to receiue iustification at his mercifull hands Of the difference betwixt faith and hope I haue spoken otherwhere now I say only thus much that to hope without faith is vaine If I beleeue I may not hope alone but be sure I am iustified if I doe not beleeue I may be sure of the contrarie speaker D. B. P. But charitie doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship Amicorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertue we take such hold on Christs merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity speaker D. B. P. This were the way indeed to make God debtor to man and man a more speciall cause of his owne iustification than God yea to make man in equitie at the least deserue his iustification at Gods hands But what Prince would bee so dealt withall by a traytor especially if he meant to manifest the riches of his mercie in affoording fauour Would he trow you haue his traiterous subiect plead an interest to his loue kindnes and bountie by imploying his life and labours to do him seruice and so to receiue all benefits from him as a friend from a friend by the law of mutuall good will who seeth not how directly this runnes against the whole course of the new Testament speaker A. W. Which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying That Charity beginning was Justice beginning Charity encreased vvas Iustice encreased great Charity vvas great iustice and perfect Charity was perfect iustice Austin speakes not of iustification but of walking cheerefully in obedience to Gods commandements after we are iustified which we cannot doe vnlesse the loue wee beare to God make all difficulties that we shall meet with light and easie to vs. In this respect charitie beginning is iustice beginning because he that hath begun to loue hath also begun to walke in the way of righteousnes making light of all hindrances by reason of his loue and as his loue groweth so doth his righteousnes in his whole conuersation speaker W. P. Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke done iniquities are remitted and sinne couered no workes or repentance required of them but onely that they beleeue And cap. 3. Neither working any thing nor requiting the like are they iustified but by faith alone through the gift of God And 1. Cor. 1. this is appointed of God that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without any worke by faith alone freely receiuing remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. To these and such like words I answere First that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses speaker A. W. You that could so confidently thrust vpon vs those Commentaries on the Reuelation for Ambroses which were neuer heard of till within these last 80. yeres should not haue made a doubt of these on the Romanes that haue been receiued for his so many hundreds of yeeres But I will not striue about the matter Once this is out of doubt that they are very ancient and generally held to be orthodoxall speaker D. B. P. Secondly that that Author excludeth not repentance but only the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessary as circumcision and such like see the place and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke vpon the fourth to the Hebrews where he hath these vvords Faith is a great thing and vvithout it it is not possible to be saued but faith alone doth not suffice but it is necessary that faith worke by charitie and conuerse worthie of God speaker A W. Not repentance he names it expresly No workes or repentance required of them But he meanes not workes of the Ceremoniall law onely He meanes both Ceremoniall and Morall That law which the Gentiles had by nature which if a man keepe he shall liue Abraham had not whereof to boast because he was circumcised or because he abstained from sinne but because he beleeued To him that worketh that is to him that is subiect to the law of Moses or of nature To him that worketh not that is to him that is guiltie of sinne because he doth not that which the law commaunds In that place vpon the Hebrues he speaketh not of iustification as in the other but of our entring into rest or heauen to which no man shall come that doth not liue holily beautifying as he there speaketh his faith with workes speaker W. P. August There is one propitiation for all sinnes to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc on Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. Grace which is of mercie is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins next authoritie is gathered out of S. Augustine There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ True but where is it that we need nothing else but to beleeue 3. Hesychius saith Grace vvhich is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of vvorkes that is vve doe not merit by our vvorks done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification speaker A. W. This testimonie of Austin and the next of Hesychius are answered by roate and not by iudgement For they are both misquoted which he must needes haue obserued and then would haue reprooued if he had lookt for them in the places cited The former I cannot finde and therefore let it passe without any answere If this interpretation may goe for currant I know not what may be refused as counterfeit Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes that is say you wee doe not merit by our workes done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification Hesychius saith that grace is apprehended by faith alone you make him say that we receiue both faith and iustification of Gods mercy he speaketh of attaining to grace by faith you expound him of receiuing faith by Gods mercie But indeed Hesychius in his owne
though not meritoriously by our holy actions which make vs euery day more and more fit to serue and please God But Master Perkins vnderstanding your opinion better than your selfe will be knowne to doe frames his reason against this position That workes are part of that righteousnes which we must pleade before God for the deseruing of euerlasting life or that our iustification before God is partly of workes and partly of faith which is the doctrine of your Church howsoeuer by you it be blanched Our reasons speaker W. P. I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Some answer that ceremoniall workes bee excluded here some that morall workes some works going before faith But let them deuise what they can for themselues the truth is that Paul excludeth all workes whatsoeuer as by the text will appeare For vers 24. hee saith We are iustified freely by his grace that is by the meere gift of God giuing vs to vnderstand that a sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue that is doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. Ans. The Apostle there speakes of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glory of God Wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either workes of the law as not necessarie vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary of else against the Gentiles any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for vve acknovvledge veâ—â—e willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only and without any merit of the sinner himselfe speaker A. W. Your answere of the second instification is idle because the distinction as I haue shewed is vaine Master Perkins prooueth that iustification is wholy of faith because the Apostle excludeth workes from it whereas you teach that faith and workes together make vp that iustice or righteousnes whereby a man is iustified before God speaker D. B. P. And yet is not a sinner being of yeares of discretion meerely passiue in that his iustification as M Perkins very abâ—urdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repeet speaker A. W. Master Perkins makes not a sinner meerely passiue in his iustification but in receiuing the gift of faith and in being stirred vp to beleeue And yet is he not in these neither passiue as fondly you imagine we say for he heares and sometimes meditates feares hopes c. but in this respect he is said to bee passiue because his yeelding to beleeue proceedes not from any strength of his free will vpon the good motion inspired but from the spirit of God inclining him ineuitably to beleeue freely speaker W. P. And vers 27. he saith iustification by faith excludeth all boasting and therefore all kind of workes are thereby excluded and speciallie such as are most of all the matter of boasting that is good works For if a sinner after that hee is iustified by the merit of Christ were iustified more by his owne workes then might hee haue some matter of boasting in himselfe speaker D. B. P. And this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our selues as well as theirs For as they must giant that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessaâ—ily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truely bpast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberality of the â—ather of lights and For the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto â—aith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it speaker A. W. From this ariseth the true difference betwixt you and vs concerning boasting that we haue nothing left vs to brag of because not onely the abilitie but the very act of beleeuing is brought to passe by Gods spirit inâ—uitably but your many actions of fearing hoping repenting louing beleeuing are caused by your owne free will without any certaintie of euent on Gods part as a cause thereof speaker D. B. P. Yet obserue by the way that S. Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting For he â—orieth in the hope of glorie of the Sonne of God and in his tribulations Againe He defiueth that vveâ— may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power And that he vvas constrained to glory in his visions and reuolations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure and due season Acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull speaker A. W. The Apostle excludes no boasting but in a mans selfe and all that he must needs shut out if he will reserue Gods glorie entire to him For he that may truly say that he is beholding to his own free will for his iustification as he may who by the good vse of it at his choise without being certainly inclined thereto by the spirit procured his own iustification hath cause to boast of his owne goodnes not caused by God in respect of the act of beleeuing Now he that boasts of the inheritance of heauen which God onely hath prouided for him and fitted him to boasteth not of himselfe though in the middest of tribulations he breake out into this boasting But how proouâ—â— this that therefore all boasting is not forbidden in the matter of iustification To which the next place alleaged no way belongs being spoken by the Apostle of himselfe in respect of those gifts that God had bestowed vpon him for the worke of his ministerie The last being of the same nature is so farre from prouing the lawfulnes of boasting that the Apostle is saine to excuse himselfe for it as a thing inexpedient But howsoeuer it can by no meanes prooue that the Apostle shuts not all boasting out of iustification speaker W. P. And that wee may not doubt of Pauls meaning consider and read Eph 2. 8. 9. By grace saith he you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of
God not of works least any man should boast himselfe Here Paul excludes al and euery worke and directly workes of grace themselues as appeares by the reason following For wee are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them Now let the Papists tell me what bee the workes which God hath prepared for men to walke in and to which they are regenerate vnlesse they bee the most excellent workes and let them marke how Paul excludes them wholy from the worke of iustification and saluation speaker D. B. P. Ephes. 2. is nothing against our Doctrine of iustification but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it and note also vvith S. Austin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our workes which vvent before and might seeme to the simple to haue been some cause vvhy God bestovved his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace speaker A. W. What ignorance or malice there is in alleaging this text against your doctrine of iustification it shal appeare by and by in the meane time I answere concerning Austin first that in the place you name there is neuer a word of the sentence in question Secondly that his scope in that treatise is no more but to shew that they falsely vnderstood such places of the Apostle as speake against iustification by workes who thinke that when once they haue beleeued in Christ they shall be saued by faith though they liue neuer so wickedly Thirdly to refuâ—e that lewd conceit Austâ—… addes that the Apostle rather therefore saith that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law because he would haue no man imagine that he hath obtained iustification by faith vpon the merit of his former workes This we grant to be true but not all that the Apostle intendeth For it cannot be doubted but that he confuteth the opinion of the Iewes and Heathen concerning iustification as it is plaine by the three first chapters Now they did not make account to deserue the grace of iustification at Gods hands by their holy and vertuous liuing but to inherit heauen by it Neither could they that did beleeue so much flatter themselues as to dreame that their good deeds in particular had procured that fauour when it was easie for them to see that many thousands both Iewes and Gentiles as good or better than diuers of themselues for vertuous behauiour notwithstanding attained not to this iustification Besides if we mark the reasons by which the Apostle beates down their pride they are such as generally concerne all both Iewes and Gentiles Adde hereunto that Austin speakes no further for the vse of good works but to shew that they are necessarie for a Christian man as without which his faith is voide and idle and that no man may dreame that if hee beleeue it pertaines not to him to worke well which are the words that immediatly goe before these you bring speaker D. B. P. And therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paul speaketh of vvorkes of grace because in the text follovving he mentioned good vvorkes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betvveene those tvvo kinde of vvorks signifying the first To be of ourselues The second â—o proceede from vs as Gods vvorkmanshâ—o created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth VVorkes simplie the second Good vvorkes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then vvas it to take these tvvo so distinct manner of vvorkes for the same and to ground himself so boldly vpon it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith that the Apostle barres all workes before and after grace He prooues it by the very text it self The reason may be thus more plainly propounded We are not saued by works saith the Apostle that no man may boast His proofe followeth For good workes are appointed by God for vs to walke in for which purpose he hath made vs anew in Iesus Christ. That this tenth verse is a proofe of the former the coniunction for declares But how it can serue to that purpose if the two verses speake of diuers kindes of works some iustifying some not iustifying neither I see nor I thinke you can shew me What though he call the former workes simply the latter good workes are not the former those workes which the law morall and naturall require and are not they in their nature good workes But who knoweth not that by workes without any addition workes of grace after iustification are signified let the Apostle Iames speake who intreating of such workes and naming them almost in euery verse doth not once call them good workes but workes simply speaker W. P. II. Gal. 5. 3. If ye be circumcised ye are bound to the whole law and ye are abolished from Christ. Here Paul disputeth against such men as would be saued partly by Christ and partly by the workes of the law hence I reason thus If a man will be iustified by works he is bound to fulfil the whole law according to the rigour thereof that is Pauls ground I now assume no man can fulfill the law according to the rigour thereof for the liues and works of most righteous men are imperfect and stained with sinne and therefore they are taught euery day to say on this manner forgiue vs our debts Again our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable And lastly the regenerate man is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh and in part onely spirituall Thus then for any man to be bound to the rigour of the whole law is as much as if hee were bound to his owne damnation speaker D. B. P. If he can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Appollo S. Paul onely saith in these vvords That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the vvhole lavv of Moses M. Perkins That if a man vvill be iustified by vvorkes he must fulfill the rigour of the lavv Which are as iust as Germaines lippes as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is S. Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it vvere a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that vvould be circumcided did make himselfe subiect vnto the vvhole lavv of the Ievves Of the possibilities of fulfilling the lavv because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this speaker A. W. Master Perkins vnderstood his owne minde in this and other arguments better than I can doe and so could haue affoorded better answers for his defence Yet thus much I may say that the text of
vereris feare not barbarously against true Grammar Latin But the sense also not onely the words is misconceiued For the meaning is that we should not put off honestie or good conuersation to our last end Put not off till death to prooue thy selfe a righteous man saith Vatablus a Papist very skilfull in the tongues and sometimes Hebrue Reader in Paris where you haue the very word which Bellarmine condemnes in Caluin ne differas Which also Pagnin vseth a notable Linguist and a Papist Put not off thy honestie Arias Montanus hath the sense though not the word waight not Stapleton applieth it to the first iustification Bellarmine to the second whose reasons I will answere otherwhere It is enough for the present that a second iustification cannot be prooued out of these two places speaker A. W. Which is confirmed vvhere it is said that the path of a iust man proceedeth as the light doth vntill it be perfect day Which is by degrees more and more And S. Paul teacheth the same vvhere he saith to men that giue almes plentifully That God vvill maltiplie their seede and augment the increases of the fruits of their iustice This place proueth not that there is a second iustification but either that the light of the righteous continueth or at the most that it increaseth to the end which we denynot And this much lesse where the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians to cheerefulnesse in liberalitie to the poore assuring them that God will make them more able to bring forth such fruites of righteousnesse by multiplying their seede and their store Ye shall giue them bread to eate saith Caietan and seede wherewith to sowe againe and iust or honest gaine whereas the gaine that the wicked make is vniust speaker D. B. P. Further S. Iames doth most effectually proue this increase of righteousnes and the second iustification in these vvords Abraham our Father was he not iustified by vvorkes offering Isaac his sonne vpon the Altar That he speaketh of the second iustification is euident for Abraham was iustified before Isaac was borne as it is most manifest by the Scripture it selfe and by that heroicall act of not sparing his onely and entirely beloued Sonne his iustice vvas much augmented And the Apostle himselfe seemeth to haue foreseene all our aduersaries cauillation and to haue so long before preuented them First that common shift of theirs that this worke vvas a signe or the fiuit only of his faith and no companion of it in the matter of iustification is formally confuted for the holy Ghost speaking distinctly of both his faith and work and ioyning them both in this act of iustification attributeth the better part of it vnto his vvorke thus Seest thou that faith did worke vvith his vvorkes and by the vvorkes the saith vvas consummate and made perfect Which he doth after fitly declare by a similitude comparing faith to the body and good vvorkes to the soule vvhich giue life and lustre to faith othervvise faith is of little value and estimation vvith God speaker A. W. Though there is enough said before for the cleering of this place yet perhaps it shal not be amisse to follow him in these seueral poynts That he speaketh not of the same iustification which Paul doth it is plaine but not that he meaneth your second iustification whereby the former is made perfit to deserue euerlasting life When we say works are no companions of faith in iustification we do not say they are not present but that they do not iustifie neither speak we of testifying our iustification by workes as the Apostle here doth but of that which you call the first iustification to which questionlesse this fact of Abraham in your own iudgment did not appertaine But he ioyneth faith and workes together How should they be seuered when there is no holy action performed in any part of our life but proceedeth from faith which of it owne nature worketh by loue now faith is not said to be perfited by workes as if it did iustifie a man by them for then had it not iustified Abraham till this great worke was wrought but because the act is the proose of the perfection of the vertue Wherupon it followeth in the text That by this worke the Scripture was fulfilled which had testified that Abraham was iustified by faith For now it manifestly appeared that the testimony was true Abraham making it cleare to all the world that he had true faith indeed that is saith Caieton such a faith as would not refuse but was reâ—die to bring forth good workes And in his opinion this is that which Iames saith that we are not iustified by a barren faith but by a faith fruitfull in good workes speaker D. B. P. Which S. Paul also teacheth atlarge among other speeches including this That if he should haue all faith and vvanted charitie he vvere nothing And comparing faith and charity together defineth expresly that charitie is the greater vertue Which charity is the fountaine of all good vvorkes And so by this preferring these vvorks of charity before faith he doth stop the other starting hole of the Protestants that Abraham forsooth vvas iustified before God by only faith but vvas declared iust before men by his vvorkes For if God esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified before God by charity then by faith speaker A. W. God esteemeth more of Charity for the vse of our conuersation amongst men but of faith for our iustification And indeed it is a greater honor to God for a man wholy to renounce himselfe and rest vpon him for iustification then to loue God in hope of such a fauour to be receiued vpon our being so prepared speaker D. B. P. Againe in the very place where this noble fact is recorded to shevv how acceptable it was to God himselfe it is said in the person of God Now I know that thou louest me and to conuince all obstinate cauilling is it not said that his faith did in this very fact cooperate with his works and that the worke made his faith perfect which coniunction of both of them together doth demonstrate that he speaketh oâ— his iustification before God adding also That he vvas therefore called the friend of God Which could not haue been if thereby he had been only declared iust before men and thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles S. Paul and S. Iames which seeme contrary S. Paul saying that a man is iustified by faith vvithout vvorkes and S. Iames that a man is iustified by vvorks and not by faith only That S. Paul speaketh of works vvhich goe before saith such as vve of our owne forces vvithout the helpe of grace are able to doe and such he saith not to deserue our first iustification But S. Iames dispâ—teth of workes vvhich sollovv faith and
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh speaker A. W. I shewed the true meaning of the place before that God by his Sonne hath iustified vs which the law could not doe because we were vnable to keepe it Now the end of this iustification is that wee should walke after the spirit whereby we fulfill the law though not perfectly yet performing the same duties the law requires but not in the same measure speaker D. B. P. Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commandements to be impossible may appeare by that Epistle And his commandements be not heauy Which is takē out of our Sauiours own words My yoke is sweet and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailtie they be very heauy Yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our harts by the holy Ghost then loe doe we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charitie is the fulnes of the lavv And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the vvhole lavv and Prophets depend vpon these tvvo commandements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charitie we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it So that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law speaker A. W. You haue giuen the true meaning of S. Iohn for therefore are Gods Commandements said not to be heauie because our loue to God who hath giuen vs the assurance of his loue to vs in Iesus Christ maketh vs goe willingly and cheerefully about them for all those incumbrances wee finde by the world the flesh and the diuell And in that respect we are said to fulfill the law by charitie because the obedience we performe weake and slender though it be proceedeth from the loue of God and of our neighbour which is the very summe of the law vpon which both the law and the Prophets depend And all this prooueth not perfect but onely true obedience which all that are iustified performe howsoeuer they faile much in the particulars of that measure the law exacteth speaker D. B. P. Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimony of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly to say that the commandements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That vve must beleeue firmely that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant no true law-maker to commaund his subiects to doe that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe For those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to binde them vp to most assured perdition speaker A. W. The sayings of the Fathers are to be vnderstood according to the Scriptures of possibilitie to performe true obedience which without grace no man can doe not of perfect keeping the law which yet by our creation wee were sufficiently enabled to performe So that God not onely may not but reasonably cannot be suspected of iniustice if hee require that at our hands which he made vs able to doe as with Austin we confesse he did Basil speaketh not of our abilitie to keepe the Commandements but onely sheweth that the charge of looking to our selues belongeth to the contemplation of the minde not to the eyes of the bodie because if it did it were giuen in vaine no man being able to see the hinder parts of his bodie nor his face nor his inwards Therefore the holie Ghost who doth not command things vtterly impossible will haue this precept of looking to our selues to be vnderstood of the searching of our heart not of the viewing of our bodie speaker A. W. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approued Councell of Arausican as an article of faith in these words This also vve beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued vvith the helpe and cooperation of Christ both can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things vvhich belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commandements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements He may doe them without doubt as I haue often said truly and acceptably to God yet not so fully as he ought because our corruption will not suffer vs to labour faithfully without intermission or infirmitie which the Councill requireth and you aduisedly leaue out That speech of our Sauiour is not the voyce of the Gospell though that also requires obedience and allowes a reward for it but of the law fit to be vttered to him that came to our Sauiour full fraught with the conceit of his owne righteousnes not so much with a desire to learne of him saith Hierome as to trie his skill And this our Sauiour spake of the iustification which is of the law without faith As it appeareth by Beda Lyra the ordinarie glosse and Remigius THAT GOOD WORKS BE NOT stained with sinne speaker D. B. P. NOw that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I proue first by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob. Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the Diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single harted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocency If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy vvhen you shall fall into diuers temptations knovving that the probation of your faith vvorketh patience And let patience haue a perfect vvorke that you may be perfect and entire fayling in nothing speaker A. W. This as the last point is a matter belike that this man thinkes himselfe well prepared for and therefore he runnes a course of his own in them hauing no such occasion giuen him by Master Perkins yet let vs follow him step by step By Iobs innocencie continued nothing else is meant but that he had not as Satan had affirmed he would vttered any blasphemie against God But by this it cannot be prooued that there was no taint of sinne in his patience As for his sinceritie and vprightnes they are vertues that alwaies accompanie true Christians and without which all is hypocrisie That perfection or perfect worke is the proouing that his faith is perfect because it ouercommeth as your
glosse expounds it and he is counted a perfect man but not simply without any spot in this patience speaker D. B. P. 2 King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there vvas no iniquity found in me It must needs then be granted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinnes and iniquitie And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you vvill beleeue it read then vvhere it is of record That Dauid did that vvhich vvas right in the sight of our Lord and not only in the sight of men and turned from nothing that he commaunded him all the daies of his life except only the matter of Vrias the Hethite speaker A. W. Dauid in that place doth not cleare himselfe of all sinne but only protesteth his innocency in respect of any hurt intended by him against Saul and the rest of his persecutors Dauid meaneth not saith Lyra to say that he is free from all sin but that he had committed no euill against Saul for which he should persecute him It was one thing for Dauids workes to be righteous in Gods sight an other thing for them to be perfect The former we graunt the later you can no way proue That commendation the holy Ghost giues to his works must needs be spoken in comparison as Lyra affirmeth because it is certaine he wronged Mephthosheth and numbred the people but these sins were not comparable to that against Vrâ—ah especially for the dishonouring of God by it in the account of the heathen This deed saith Nathan hath caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme speaker D. B. P. 3 The Apostle affirmeth That some men doe build vpon the only foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choyce members of Christs Catholike Church doe many perfect good vvorks such as being trâ—â—d in the fornace of Gods iudgement vvill suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherfore they must needs be pure and free from all drosse of sinne othervvise hauing been so proued in fire it vvould haue been found out speaker A. W. The Apostle doth not say so but this onely that if any man build on this foundation gold siluer precious stones timber hay or stubble euery mans worke shall be made manifest But put case he had said so he speaketh of doctrine built vpon the true foundation as the whole allegory proues especially vers 10. As a skilfull master builder I haue laid the foundation and an other builds vpon it now in good works one man layeth not the foundation and another buildeth vpon it but euery man begins and ends his owne worke himselfe Farther vers 9. The Ministers are said to be Gods labourers the people not euery mans worke Gods husbandrie and Gods building because he builds them vp by their labour This place is applied by you Papists to proue Purgatory euen by Bellarmine himself but with what successe let any man iudge that either reads our answeres to him or considers the text speaker D. B. P. 4 Many vvorkes of righteous men please God Make your bodies a quicke sacrifice holy and acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God And S. Paul calleth almes bestovved on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of svveet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected vvith sinne all vvhich he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his fight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sinne or as the Protestants speake not impure it to the person but to say that a sinful vvorke is of svveet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him vvere blasphemie vvherefore vve must needs confesse that such vvorks vvich so vvell pleased him vvere not defiled vvith any kind of sinne speaker A. W. Your Reason is thus framed No workes infected with sinne please God Many workes of righteous men please God Therefore many workes of righteous men are not infected with sinne I graunt your assumption though the proofe of it by the first testimony is insufficient for it doth not follow that we can do this or that because we are exhorted to the doing of it Your proposition I deny no sin can please God nor any action as it is sinfull but God both can and doth pardon the faultines of his childrens workes and accept the worke it selfe in Christ yea and reward it too with increase of glorie speaker D. B. P. Finally many vvorkes in holy vvrite be called good as That they may see your good works to be rich in good vvorks VVe are created in Christ Iesus to good vvorkes but they could not truly be called good vvorkes if they vvere infected vvith sin For according to the iudgement of all learned Diuines it can be no good vvorke that fayleth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it For Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore vve must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good vvhich vvere blasphemy or else acknovvledge that there be many good vvorkes free from all infection of sinne speaker A. W. No workes infected with sinne can be truly called good Many workes are called good in Scripture Therefore many workes are not infected with sinne Here is the same fault againe Your assumption is true but your proofe naught For the places you alleage proue no more but that the works which we should do are good not that they are good as we doe them Your proposition is false as the other was For the works enioyned by God are very good but they haue some allay and abasement by our doing of them which argueth not that they are not truely but that they are not perfectly good speaker D. B. P. In lieu of the manifold testimonies of Antiquitie which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellency of them I will set downe one passage of S. Augustine wherein this verie controuersie is distinctly declared and determined thus he beginneth The iustice through vvhich the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the vvhich although it be vvorthilie called in some men perfect according to the capacity of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater vvhich man made equall to Angels shall receiue VVhich heauenly iustice he that had not as yet saide himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that vvas in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that vvhich he vvanted But certainely this lesser iustice or righteousnes breedeth and bringeth forth merits and that greater is the revvard thereof VVherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that
〈◊〉 ther vvith S. Augustine that in this life vve cannot attaine vnto 〈◊〉 puritie such as shall be in heauen read the begâ—…ing of his first and second booke oâ— Morals and there you shall find him commending Iob to the skyes as a good and holy man by his temptations not soyled but much â—…anced in vertue speaker A. W. These places for ought I know are of your owne deuising to be thus applied and there fore I will neuer striue about them though when occasion shal serue it will appeare that your answers to Austins and Gregories testimonies are but shifts speaker D. B. P. Novv before I depart from this large question of iustification I vvill handle yet one other question vvhich commonly ariseth about it it is WHETHER FAITH MAY BE without Charitie I Prooâ—e that it may so be first out of these vvordes of our Sauiour Many shall say vnto me in that day Lord Lord haue vve not propâ—â—cied in thy name haue vve not cast out Diuels haue vve not done many miracles to vvhom J will confesse that I neuer knevve you depart from mee all yee that vvorke iniquitie That these men beleeued in Christ and persvvaded themselues assuredly to be of the elect appeareth by their confident calling of him Lord Lord and the rest that follovveth Yet Christ Declareth manifestly that they vvanted charity in saying that they vvere vvorkers of iniquitie speaker A. W. Your proofe that they had a iustifying faith is too slender They called him Lord. What if they had called him Sauiour must they needs therefore haue had saith The rich man in hell calles vpon Abraham by the name of father shall I conclude as you doe speaker D. B. P. 2. When the King went to see his guestes He found there a man not attired in his wedding garment and therefore commanded him to be cast into vtter darknes This man had faith or else he had not been admitted vnto that table which signifieth the Sacraments yet wanted charitie which to be the wedding garment beside the euidence of the text is also prooued where in expresse tearmes The garments of Christs Spouse is declared to be the righteousnesse and good vvorkes of the Saintes And that with great reason for as S. Paul teacheth Faith shall not remaine after this life With what instrument then trow you will the Protestants lay hold on Christs righteousnesse speaker A. W. That charitie is that wedding garment S. Hierome vpon the same place doth witnesse saying That it is the fulfilling of our Lords commandements And S. Gregorâ—e doth in expresse wordes define it VVhat saith he must vve vnderstand by the vvedding garment but charitie So doe S. Hilarie and Origen and S. Chrysostome vpon that place Parables are no further any proofes than the meaning of them is certainly knowne but all your expositions of this are at least vncertaine The table signifieth the Sacraments What Baptisme too and your other fiue or how many and what Sacraments Besides your consequence is very feeble Was no man euer admitted to the Sacraments that made shew of faith when indeed he had none Your ordinarie glosse expounds it of being in the Church Chrysostome of the Scriptures which sit at the table of the Scriptures Gregory of the Church He commeth into the mariage saith Gregorie but without a wedding garment that hath faith in the Church but not charitie I might in like sort examine the rest of the parable and finde great diuersities of opinions as in such cases there must needs be But to the poynt First I say many hypocrites are in the Church that haue not so much as a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture and so absolutely want their mariage garment Secondly I adde that this man and many other might haue a generall beleefe and yet not rest vpon God for iustification by Christ without which faith there is no place for any man in heauen Thirdly let it be granted that charitie is the mariage garment what get you by it vnlesse you can prooue that the faith this man had was a true iustifying faith which you can neuer possibly doe The generall meaning of the parable seemes to be no more but this that many men thrust into the Church who when the day of trial comes will be found to haue no interest to the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiours conclusion shewes Many are called but few are chosen I denie not that sentence shall be giuen according to workes but that they which want workes haue faith This is the poynt in question and this can neuer be prooued by this parable speaker D. B. P. 3. The like argument is made of the foolish Virgins Who were part of the Kingdome of God and therefore had faith which is the gate and enterance into the seruice of God Yea in the house of God they aspired vnto more then ordinary perfection Hauing professed Virginitie yet either carried away with vaine glorie as S. Gregorie takes it Or not giuing themselues to the workes of mercy spirituall and corporall as S. Chrysostome expoundes it briefely not continuing in their former charitie for faith once had cannot after the Protestants doctrine bee lost were shut out of the Kingdome of heauen albeit they presumed strongly on the assurance of their saluation as is apparant By their confident demaunding to bee let in for they said Lord Lord open vnto vs. speaker A. W. The very like indeede and as vncertaine as the former These Virgins were part of Gods kingdome in profession but not in election and therefore neuer had iustifying faith The perfectioÌ„ you fancie might well be attained to without true faith especially the profession of such perfection which is all that they had for ought that can be proued by the text If you vnderstood the Protestants doctrine as well as you would seeme to doe you would know that we hold it as vnpossible to lose Charitie as to lose Faith affirming that he which hath not both to the end neuer had either Their confident demaunding to be let in shewes rather their desire than their hope and yet how many hope without true faith in Christ Is it not generally the case of all you Papists speaker D. B. P. 4. Many of the princes beleeued in Christ but did not confesse him for they loued more the glory of men then the glory of God What can bee more euident then that these men had faith when the holy Ghost saith expresly that they beleeued in Christ which is the onely acte of faith And yet were destitute of charitie which preferreth the glory and seruice of God before all things in this world speaker A. W. They might rest vpon him as the Messiah and yet not to iustification for who knowes not that the Iewes and especially the princes or chiefe men amongst them lookâ— for the Messiah as a temporall deliuerer not as a spirituall Sauiour Beside they
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
is othervvise due debt cannot be any meritorious vvorke speaker A. W. Is there not a contradiction in the meaning your selfe confesse it by and by where you expound it Disorder in words is when they are not set in such order as they should be here is no such fault If there bee any it is that he might haue spoken plainer But any man know his meaning by his words well enough speaker D. B. P. To vvhich S. Augustine doth ansvvere in these vvords O great goodnes of God to vvhom vvhen vve did ovve seruice by condition of our estate as bond men do to their Lord yet hath he promised againe and againe the reward of friends speaker A. W. S. Austin answers nothing against vs or for you It is free for God to promise a reward as wee gladly acknowledge he doth euen to those workes that are due But an action of dutie cannot be made to put on the true and whole nature of merit which is the question speaker D. B. P. In vvhich there is couched a comparison vvhich being laide in the light vvill much helpe to the vnderstanding of this matter He that hath a slaue or a bond-man may lavvfully exact of him all kind of seruice vvithout any vvages Bread and a vvhippe saith a Philosopher serue for a slaue Novv suppose the Master to be soueraigne gouernour of a state then if it please him to make his manfree and vvithall a member of his common vveale the same man by performing many good offices to the state may iustly deserue of his Prince as great revvard and promotion as any other of his subiects and yet may his Lord and old Master say truly to him all this that thou hast done or couldest do is but due debt vs to me considering that thou vvast my bond-man So fareth it vvith vs in respect of God all that vve can do is due debt vnto him because he hath made vs and endovved vs vvith all that vve either be or haue yet it hath pleased him as a most kind Lord to set vs at liberty through Christ and to make vs Citizens of the Saints and as capable of his heauenlie riches as the Angels if vve vvill do our endeuour to deserue them and vvhereas he might haue exacted all that euer vve could do vvithout any kind of recompence yet he of his inestimable goodnes tovvard vs doth neither bind vs to do all vve can do and yet for doing that little vvhich he commandeth hath by promise bound himselfe to repay vs a large recompence The cōparison you shew vs is fained by you not intended by Austin and if it be granted you makes nothing to the purpose No more indeede doth the conclusion of your whole discourse for it saith no more than wee yeeld that God wil recompence those seruices which are debt on our part and that exceeding bountifully but not vpon their desert speaker D. B. P. By which we may well vnderstand those words of our Sauiour VVhen you haue done all these things that are commanded you say that you are vnprofitable seruants vve haue done that vve ought to doo True By our natiue condition we were bound to performe not only all these things that be now commaunded but whatsoeuer else it should haue pleased God to command and this we must alwaies confesse to preserue true humility in vs yet God hath bettered our estate through Christ and so ◅ighly aduaunced vs that we not only be Citizens or Saints but his sonnes and heires and thereby in case to deserue of him a heauenlie crowne speaker A. W. It hath no shew of reason in it that our Sauiour should teach his Apostles whom hee had truly freed that they should say they are vnprofitable seruants because they doe that which they were once bound to doe but now are not as if a man that was once bound to pay double custome because he was a stranger should count himselfe vnprofitable to the King though being absolutely freed he pay the same custome still because once forsooth he was by dutie to pay so much I would faine know what dutie we were bound to doe in our naturall estate from which wee are freed in our spirituall for to my seeming our bond is doubled both in equitie because we haue receiued so vndeserued kindnes and in Gods intent who hath giuen vs his grace that wee might doe him better seruice speaker A. W. And this is S. Ambrose exposition vpon the place That Ambrose giueth no such exposition his own words shall testifie Therefore saith Ambrose as thou doest not onely not say to thy seruant sit downe but requirest further seruice of him so neither doth God content himselfe with one work or labour of thine because while we liue we must alwaies work Therefore acknowledge thy selfe to be a seruant bound to very many seruices doe not extoll thy selfe because thou art called the sonne of God his fauour is to be acknowledged but thy nature not to be vnknowne neither bragge if thou hast serued well which thou wert bound to doe These are his words out of which no man can wring any such interpretation We owe seruice though we be sonnes for it is plaine Ambrose speaks of our seruice after we are regenerate First because he saith we must worke alwaies Secondly because he mentions hauing serued well which befalles no man in his naturall estate before grace speaker D. B. P. Saint Chrysostome pondering these words let vs say taketh it for a holsome counsaile for vs to say that we be vnprofitable seruants least pride destroy our good workes and then God will say that we be good and faithfull seruants as it is recorded Againe we may truly say when we haue done all things commaunded that we are vnprofitable seruants as venerable Bede our most learned countriman interpreteth Because of all that vve doe no cammoditie riseth vnto God our Lord in himselfe vvho is such an infinite ocean of all goodnesses that he vvanteth nothing Whereupon Dauid saith That thou art my God because thou standest in need of no good that I can doe speaker A. W. You should haue quoted the place Chrysostome in his homily vpon that chapter saith no such thing But wheresoeuer he saith it if he say it at all it cannot prooue that we are not bound to doe good seruice in the state of grace nor that wee can merit at Gods hands nor that you interpret S. Luke aright wherefore then is it alleaged Theophylact who followes Chrysostome euery where expounds it of our seruice after grace and concludes vpon it that we may not for the doing of any worke necessarily require reward or honour For it shall be of the Lords bountie if he bestow any thing vpon vs for it and woe be to vs if we doe not our dutie And Cyrill is wholy of the same opinion who also denies that which before you affirmed that subiects can deserue any
sinnes if God should strictly in iustice examine it speaker D. B. P. See him vpon that verse of the Psalme J vvill sing vnto thee O Lord mercy and iudgement Where he concludes that God in iudgement will on t of his iustice crowne those good workes which he of mercy had giuen grace to doe speaker A. W. We doe wholy subscribe to S. Austin That God cannot but reward our workes because of his promise and because they are such for the substance of them as he hath enioyned And so as I haue said often in generall iustice they that doe well must haue well But we adde hereunto first that these works did not by their due worth wring this promise from God as if he had been vniust vnlesse he had made it Which must haue been if they be truly and wholy such merits that euerlasting life is necessarily due to them as wages Secondly the promise being made we say further that none of our works are so exactly performed according to the rule of Gods iustice but that hee might iustly denie vs the reward promised Thirdly we affirme that it is not euerlasting life or the kingdome of heauen properly taken which God hath promised and owes to our workes but onely the measure of glorie in heauen The kingdome is due to vs as an inheritance by the right of sonnes the diuers measure of glorie is met out to euery one according to his workes and for his workes yet not vpon their desert but vpon Gods gratious promise and mercifull acceptance pardoning our sinnes and rewarding vs aboue our deserts speaker D. B. P. And that the reader may vnderstand that not only S. Augustine doth so confidently teach this doctrine of merits which M. Perkins blushed not to tearme the inuention of Satan I will fold vp this question vvith some testimonies of the most auncient and best Authours speaker A. W. Saint Ignatius the Apostles auditour saith Giue me leaue to become the foode of beastes that I may by that meanes merit and vvinne God For answer to the testimonies of the ancient writers we must remember that to merit doth signifie in them to worke and to obtaine and that very commonly and in like sort merits are ordinarily taken for good works Beside their testimonies for the most part intreat of reward not of wages and we deny not that God will reward euery least good worke of his children Now to the seuerall allegations we may easily obserue in this Ignatius that oueruehement desire of martyrdom that caryed away very many as it appeares by Gregory Nazianzen who commends Basils father because he had no such zeale without knowledge and condemnes though not by name this counterfaite Ignatius who is so hot vpon martyrdom that he sayeth he will prouoke the wild beasts to teare him in peeces if they as sometimes it fell out questionles by Gods great prouidence should refraine to fasten on him Now if this man should somewhat ouerprize his deserts I thinke it were no great wonder but I had rather excuse him if you wil let me and say he meanes by meriting nothing but enioying God which he was to obtaine after this life and therefore so much longed for his dissolution As for the other word winne it is your addition to make the allegation the more likely If you will not allow of this excuse I say plainely this mans testimonie is nothing worth because he was of little iudgement in diuinitie as it is euident by his whole epistle and especiallie by this absurd sentence Whosoeuer saith he doth not fast euery Lords day or Sabbath except Easter day only is a murderer of Christ but he may serue your turne for number though not for waight speaker A. W. Iustine a glorious Martyr of the next age hath these vvords speaking in the name of all Christians We thinke that men vvho by vvorkes haue shevved themselues worthy of the vvill and counsaile of God shall by their merits liue and raigne vvith him free from all corruption and perturbation Iustin neither speakes nor thinks in that place of the question in hand but writing to a heathen Emperour tels him that Christians hold this doctrine That they which shew themselues conformable or fitted to Gods will by their works shall be vouchsafed his company and raigne with him free from corruption and passion If you will haue the word translated thought worthy it is all one though the latin be otherwise and the meaning of the other word as the case in the greeke shewes and the translation both being the Datiue howsoeuer you mistooke the latine which is not the Ablatiue case as you translate it speaker A. W. Saint Ireneus saith VVe esteeme that crovvne to be pretious vvhich iâ— gotten by combate and suffering for Gods sake Irenaeus teâ—s vs that the Apostle Paul exhorts to striue or fight that we may thinke the crowne pretious for indeede as he saith there we make most account of those things which we hardliest come by so that the more paines we take in striuing the more pretious shall wee thinke the crowne to be this is Irenaeus true meaning as any man may see that will looke on the place But what is this to proue that our works deserue euerlasting life for wages as for the suffering for Gods sake it is of your deuising and adding not of Irenaeus writing speaker D. B. P. Saint Basill All we that vvalke the vvay of the Gospell as Marchants doe buy and get the possession of heauenly things by the vvorkes of the commaundements A man is saued by vvorkes of iustice We acknowledge a comparison of likenes betwixt Marchants and Christians but we denie an equalitie of valew in the commodities we are to vtter which we do the rather because in those parables to which Basil in this place alludes Though the field and the pearle are said to bee bought yet no man imagins that the price paid for them is of equall worth to the purchase neither doth it follow that if as Basil saith a man be saued by the righteousnes of works then his works are of full valew to the saluation he obtaines by them speaker D. B. P. Saint Cyprian If the day of our returne shall finde vs vnloaden svviâ—t and running in the race of workes our Lord will not faile to reward our merits He vvill giue for workes to those that vvinne in peace a white crowne and for martyrdome in persecution he vvill redouble vnto them a purple crovvne speaker A. W. What saith Cyprian but that God if we perseuere to the end in well doing will reward our works according to the diuersitie of them with lesse or more glory we say as much But the question is whether our works fully deserue euerlasting life or no. speaker A. W. Saint Hilarie The kingdome of heauen is the hier and revvard of them that liue vvell and perfectly
he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of them makes some satisfaction vvhich satisfaction is vnperfect and yet cannot be called no satisfaction at all as euery child may see speaker A. W. Satisfaction is a full discharge of the debt so that the bond thereupon is voide but hee that paies halfe or three quarters of his debt if he pay not all in such sort as the bond requireth hath the bond still against him in ful strength and vertue so that though hee hath paid part of his principall debt he hath made no satisfaction at all speaker W. P. Learned Papists make answere that Christs satisfaction and mans may stand well together For say they Christs satisfaction is sufficient in it selfe to answere the iustice of God for all sin and punishment but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applied and it must bee applied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporall punishment of our sinnes But I say againe that mans satisfaction can bee no meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ and I prooue it thus The meanes of applying Gods blessings and graces vnto man are twofold some respect God himselfe and some respect man Those which respect God are such whereby God on his part doth offer and conuey his mercies in Christ vnto man of this sort are the preaching of the worde baptisme and the Lords supper and these are as it were the hand of God whereby he reacheth downe and giueth vnto vs Christ with all his benefites The other meanes of applying on mans part are those whereby the saide benefits are receiued Of this sort there is onely one namely faith whereby we beleeue that Christ with all his benefits belong vnto vs. And this is the hand of man whereby he receiueth Christ as he is offered or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments As for other meanes beside these in Scripture we finde none Foolish therfore is the answere of the Papists that make mens satisfactions meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ vnto vs for by humane satisfactions Christ is neither offered on Gods part nor yet receiued on mans part let them prooue it if they can speaker A. W. His second is as vntrue but mans satisfaction is not to supplie the vvant of Christs satisfaction but to applie it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his vvill and ordinance First the speech is beyond any ordinarie mans vnderstanding to make satisfaction is to applie another mans satisfaction to vs. Secondly to make satisfaction is to deserue that because of our satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to our sinnes Christs satisfaction for the eternall may be auailable to vs. Thirdly if mans satisfaction be not to supplie the want of Christs satisfaction either there is no temporall punishment belonging to sinne or Christ hath made satisfaction for that as well as for the eternall and then God cannot require any satisfaction of vs because he is alreadie satisfied both for the eternall and temporall punishment Fourthly if wee doe nothing by our satisfaction but applie Christs satisfaction to vs which is onely for the eternall punishment the temporall remaines wholy without satisfaction made for it speaker D. B. P. God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sinnes and taketh fully avvay all paine due to sinne so that he vvho dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if vve doe aftervvard vngratefully forsake God and contrary to our promise transgresse against his commaundements then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauour But he vpon our repentance pardoning the sinne and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euerie man a temporall satisfaction ansvverable vnto the fault committed not to supplie Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall But that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoide sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Euery man do beare his ovvne burden speaker A. W. Here is a long discourse to little purpose neither answering any part of Master Perkins syllogisme nor defending any point of your owne answere but onely affirming that which before was said that God exacts a temporall satisfaction and affoording vs some reason to confute your opinion by in this sort If Christs satisfaction was sufficient more easily to take away the temporall punishment than the eternall how will you prooue it did not It stands you vpon to shew vs good euidence out of the record of Scripture that God agreed with Christ not to take the full desert of his sufferings and satisfaction but to leaue man still indebted to him though in truth the debt were paid If no such agreement can be shewed for my part I see not how God in iustice can aske the same debt twice being once fully satisfied That which you adde is wholy our doctrine viz. that God by smart and griefe would feare vs from sinning and make vs conformable to his Sonne our Sauiour But you teach that he punisheth vs and so takes satisfaction for sins past as if he were to be reuenged on vs at least by temporall punishment for our sinnes committed You repeate your conclusion but with no dependance vpon your former matter or proofe from that which followes where the Apostle tels the Galathians that they may not be alwaies finding fault with other men and so grow into a conceit of their owne goodnes but looke to themselues because euery man must giue an account to God for his owne sinnes and not for another mans If you will needs abuse the Apostle and applie his words to that he thought not on why doe you not by the same reason lay the eternall punishment vpon vs too for that was our burthen as well as the temporall speaker W. P. Others not content with this their former answer say that our satisfactions doe nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ because our workes haue their dignitie and merit from Christs satisfaction he meriting that our works should satisfie Gods iustice for temporal punishment But this is also absurd and false as the former was For if Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie then Christ doth make euery beleeuer to be a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer and a priest in the same order with his owne selfe But to make sinful man his own redeemer though it be but from temporall punishments is a doctrine of diuels For the holy Ghost teacheth that the
to them whereas if your doctrine of satisfaction should be receiued for all our comming to Christ by faith and true repentance we might and ought stand in feare of grieuous punishment for many yeares in Purgatory Neither doth it follow that if by seruing God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes then such seruice doth satisfie for by true repentance we may be put out of feare of eternall damnation and yet no man will say that therefore true repentance doth satisfie for eternall paine speaker W. P. Hierome saith in Psalm 31. The sinne that is couered is not seene the sinne that is not seene is not imputed that which is not imputed is not punished speaker D. B. P. To vvit vvith hellfire vvhich is the due punishment of such mortall sinne vvhereof he speaketh or sinne may bee said to bee couered when not only the fault is pardoned but all punishment also due vnto it is fully paide speaker A. W. If it be not imputed how can it be punished for punishment is laid vpon a man in respect of sinne which he is charged with neither can any thing be iustly punished with any kind of paine eternall or temporall but only sinne Your second answere is wholie for vs for if sinne be then said to be couered when the fault and the punishment are forgiuen doubtles he that is iustified is freed from both witnes Paul and Dauid who auouch that iustification couers sinne and suffers it not to be imputed speaker D. B. P. So doth S. Ambrose take that vvord couered saying The Prophet calleth both them blessed as well him vvhose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme as him vvhose sinnes are couered vvith good vvorkes For he that doth penance must not only vvash avvay his sinnes vvith teares but also with better vvorkes couer his former sinnes that they be not imputed vnto him speaker A. W. If S. Ambrose take the word couered in that sense as indeed he and all men else do that speake of couering sin iustification takes away the fault and punishment of all sin so that he which is iustified needs make no farther satisfaction speaker W. P. Chrysostome on Matth. hom 44. Among all men some indure punishment in this life and the life to come others in this life alone others alone in the life to come others neither in this life nor in the life to come There alone as Diues who was not Lord so much as of one drop of water Here alone the incestuous man among the Corinthians Neither here nor there as the Apostles and Prophets as also Iob and therest of this kinde for they indured no sufferings for punishment but that they might bee known to be conquerours in the fight speaker D. B. P. Novv vve must backe againe vnto Chrysostome belike he had forgotten this vvhen he cited the other or else this vvas reserued to strike it deed Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures vvere not for their sinnes for they committed but ordinary light offences for vvhich their ordinary deuotions satisfied abundantly the great persecutions vvhich they endured vvere first to manifest the vertue and povver of God that made such fraile creatures so inuincible then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth and vvithall to animate and encourage his follovvers Finally that they like conquerours triumphing ouer all the torments of this life might enter into possession of a greater revvard in the kingdome of heauen All this is good doctrine but nothing against satisfaction that their surpassing suffering vvere not for their ovvne sins and thus much in ansvvere vnto M. Perkins Arguments against satisfaction speaker A. W. You that are so desirous to find faults would not haue let Master Perkins scape without reproofe if you had lookt this place in Chrysostome and found it to haue bin misquoted though it was most like to haue bin the Printers fault In stead of answering to this testimonie you fall a discoursing of the end of the persecutions of holie men whereas many of them were not persecuted at all and Chrysostome speaks generally of sufferings not of persecutions But this must be obserued in your discourse that howsoeuer you mince the matter of their ordinatie light offences yet they themselues had another opinion of their sinnes If thou Lord saith one of them strictly marke what is done amisse who shall stand In another place one cryes to God not to enter into iudgement with his seruant because in his sight no man liuing shall be iustified Yea Daniel that beloued man confesseth his owne and his peoples sinnes to God as matters that deserue no small punishment yea there is almost no mans story set downe any thing at large in the scripture that hath not some speciall sinne obserued and recorded which notwithstanding if their sufferings were not punishments to satisfie how do you teach that all sinnes must be satisfied for by vs in part Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. Leuit. 4. Moses according to Gods commaundement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons and they were meanes of satisfaction for the temporall punishments of their daily sinnes Answ. Those sacrifices were onely signes and types of Christs satisfaction to be offered to his father in his alone sacrifice vpon the crosse and whosoeuer offered any sacrifice in the olde testament did thus and no otherwise esteeme of it but as a type and figure of better things Secondly the said sacrifices were satisfactions to the Church whereby men did testifie their repentance for their offences and likewise their desire to bee reconciled to God and men And such kinde of satisfactions wee acknowledge speaker D. B. P. Novv to the reasons vvhich he produceth for it And albeit he like an euil master of the campe range our Arguments out of order placing that in the sore-front of our side vvhich Caluin presseth out against vs yet vvill I admit of it rather then breake his order speaker A. W. How good a master of a camp soeuer he were he were of no great discretion that hauing the marshalling of his enemies battaile in his hands would not order it most for his owne aduantage But to Master Perkins it was all one which was first which last if you thinke him beholden to you for your kindnes he hath fully paid you in bearing with your reciting of this and diuers other his reasons speaker D. B. P. 1. Moses according to Gods commandement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for the sins of seuerall persons and ordeined that they should be of greater and lesser prices according vnto the diuersitie of the sinnes Whence we argue thus These mens faults vpon their true repentance ioyned vvith faith and hope in Christ to come vvere pardoned Therfore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull vvorkes done to appease Gods iustice vvere vvorkes
from the purpose for if as you confesse they did not lay hold on the Messiahs satisfaction how could they by this repentance of theirs applie this satisfaction of his to the purchasing of Gods fauour which as you taught vs before is the vse of your satisfaction Secondly if they had not true saith in the Messiah their eternall punishment was vnsatisfied for and we speake of that satisfaction which is made for the temporall after the eternall is discharged From this and such like examples wee may conclude that God sometimes for beares to lay outward iudgements vpon sinners when and because they humble themselues but that these men made satisfaction to God either by applying Christs satisfaction to themselues or by redeeming the temporall punishment remaining after the pardon of the eternall or by making God amends for their former sinnes neither can it be prooued nor I thinke you vpon better aduice will affirme speaker W. P. Obiect V. Dan. 4. 24. Daniel giueth this counsell to Nabuchadnezar redeeme thy sinnes by iustice and thine iniquities by almes deedes Behold say they almes deedes are made meanes to satisfie for mans iniquities speaker D. B. P. If by such good deeds our sinnes may be redeemed as Holy writ doth testifie then it followeth that such workes yeeld a sufficient satisfaction for them for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended as well as satisfaction speaker A. W. This example of Nebuchadnezzar is no more to purpose than that of the Niniuites For the satisfaction we dispute of cannot be performed by any but him that hath his sinnes forgiuen in respect of the eternall punishment by the satisfaction of Christ such as this King at the least at this time of the Prophets counsell was not speaker W. P. Answ. The word which they translate to redeeme as the most learned in the Chaldie tongue with one consent auouch doth properly signifie to breake off as if the Prophet should say O King thou art a mightie Monarch and to inlarge thy kingdome thou hast vsed much iniustice and crueltie therefore now repent of thine iniquitie and breake off these thy sinnes testifie thy repentance by doing iustice and giue almes to the poore whom thou hast oppressed Therefore here is nothing spoken of satisfaction for sinne but onely of testification of repentance by the fruites thereof speaker D. B. P. To Authours in the aire without any pressing of the propriety of the word no answere can be giuen speaker A. W. Either your knowledge and reading is lesse than you would haue it thought to be or you knew this answere to be true and did but shift it off that you might not seeme to be ouercome The word indeed is hebrew signifying to rub and so to breake off by rubbing It is properly spoken of cattell which being yoked rub against a tree or wall or some other hard thing till they haue fretted their yoke in sunder and so freed themselues Hence is that speech of Isaac to Esau Thou shalt rub his yoke off thy necke And from hence it is that the word signifies to redeeme or deliuer yet not by making satisfaction but by breaking the bonds in sunder Seruants haue ruled ouer vs saith the Prophet and there is no man that rids vs out of their hands So Aaron bids the people to take or breake off their eare-rings viz. by opening the ring by which they were fastned Agreeably hereunto the Prophet in this place aduiseth the King to breake off his sinnes which held him captiue and so to free himself from them And this is the first sense of the word as it appeares also in the Hebrew Concordance and Dictionaries Beside the onely way for him to escape the iudgement threatned which was temporall was to giue ouer those sins for which it was denounced in which sense hee might bee said to redeeme his sinnes in respect of the punishment to come that is to auoide and free himselfe from the euill which else would fall vpon him speaker D. B. P. But let vs admit that it be broken off his sinne not being coâ—etousnes but pride and lacke of acknowledging al Kingdomes to depend vpon God as the text it selfe doth specifie To breake off this sin by almes and compassion of the poore is nothing else but by such workes of charitie in some sort to satisfie Gods iustice thereby to moue him to take compassion of him speaker A. W. The chiefe sinne was pride of his owne estate the next to it and issuing from it oppression of many people of that the Prophet spake in expounding the vision here hee deales with him about the other willing him to practise the contrarie vertues that hee might so escape the destruction that was threatned for the Prophet knew that it was possible euen for wicked men to auoide punishment denounced vpon the forsaking of their outward sinnes whereby they had prouoked the Lord to vse those threatnings And that by almesdeeds we are cleansed from our sinnes our Sauiour himselfe doth teach saying Giue almes and behold all things are cleane vnto you speaker A. W. That almes should be of force to clense men from their sinnes and sinnes of a different nature from the contrarie to almes giuing is a matter that hath no likelihood of truth in it And much lesse can it be proued by that place of S. Luke where our Sauiour reproouing the hypocrisie of the Pharisies in washing so carefully before meats as if they thought themselues otherwise cleane when they respected not what wrong they did and what extortion they vsed exhorts them rather to purge their hearts of their couetousnes and to giue to the poore and then all these outward things meate drinke and such like should bee cleane and â—it for them without such superstitious washing speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Matth. 3. 2. Doe penance and bring forth fruits worthy of penance which say they are workes of satisfaction inioyned by the Priest speaker A. W. Our sixt Bring forth the vvorthy fruits of penance That is doe such workes as become them who are penitent Iohn seeing the Pharisies come to his baptisme exhorts them not onely to make shew of repentance but to bring foorth fruites be seeming or worthie of them that repent The same is otherwise thus exprest To repent and turne to God and to doe workes worthie repentance to walke worthie of their calling But for the interpretation we agree in sense speaker D. B. P. Which as S. Chrysostome expoundeth are He that hath stolen avvay another mans goods let him now giue of his owne he that hath committed fornication let him abstaine from the lavvfull company of his ovvne vvife and so forth Recompensing the works of sinne with the contrary works of vertue The same exposition giueth Saint Gregorie and to omit all others venerable Bede interpreteth them thus Mortifie your sinnes by doing the worthie fruits of penance
to wit by afflicting your selues so much for euery offence as vvorthy penance doth require which vvill be a sacrifice of iustice that is a most iust sacrifice speaker A. W. So do we acknowledge the exposition which the auncients giue of it though we thinke the exhortation to be somewhat larger then they seeme in the words alleaged to make it for it comprehends all kind of holie conuersation not only the change of the grosse outward sinnes which we doubt not was their meaning also as it is manifest by Chrysostome in that place you bring who describes the repentance that he speakes of to be not only a leauing of our former sinnes but a fulfilling of good works which he proues by that place of the Psalme Eschue euill and do good and expounding those words bring forth fruits c. It is not enough saith Iohn to flie from naughtines vnlesse we betake our selues to the practice of well doing You see what he saith quoth Theophylact that we must not only auoid euill but also bring forth the fruit of vertue To which he addes for proofe that place of the Psalme Yea we refuse not that of Bede for it is indeed a sacrifice fit for vs in iustice to offer that our repentance be answerable in proportion to our sinnes But what is all this to prooue that there remaines tempo all paine to be endured whereby Gods wrath may be satisfied especially when as Chrysostome saith plainely that Iohn perswading the people to repentance did it not that they might be punished but that being made humble by repenting and condemning themselues because of their sinnes they might come to the gift of pardon speaker W. P. Answ. This text is absurd for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth thus much change your mindes from sinne to God and testifie it by good workes that is by doing the duties of the morall lawe which must bee done not because they are meanes to satisfie Gods iustice for mans fine but because they are fruites of that faith and repentance which lies in the heart speaker D. B. P. Reply His answere is most absurd for we argue out of these words VVorthy fruits of penance And he answereth to the word going before repent which we vse not against them and for his glose or testifying our repentance is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alleaged speaker A. W. Surely a reasonable man might well thinke that you that hold a necessitie of satisfaction and bring that text did ground your argument vpon Iohns charge to do penance The authors alleaged do not confute that interpretation by bringing another which is not 〈◊〉 â—…ty to it at the least we denie your consequence vpon their words And S. Iohn expresly maketh them the meanes to escaâ—… wrath of God saying that the 〈◊〉 was set to the â—…ose of the â—rie and vn lesse by worthy fruits of penanâ—… they 〈◊〉 God they 〈◊〉 â—e 〈◊〉 vp and cast into hell fire and 〈◊〉 hâ—… confute the â—aying â—…d on Christs satisfaction by faith saying 〈◊〉 wâ—â—l not helpe you to say thâ—â— yee are the Sonnes of Abraham wâ—o was â—…her of all true beleeueis as much as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off yee generation of vipers For notwithstanding yee be the Sonnes of the faithfull vnlesse yee amend your liues and for the euill works which ye haue denoâ—… tofore make recompence and satisfie the iustice of God with good yâ—â— shall be cast into hell fire speaker A. W. Neither doth Iohn speake of any satisfaction for the temporall punishment after the pardon of the eternall but threatens them with euerlasting damnation except they bring forth the fruits of repentance as well as make a profession of it by being baptised so that if satisfaction be required in those words dâ—â—btles it is that satisfaction which may free them from hell fire but that you confesse is not to be performed by euery man for himselfe but by Christ for all that trust in him To whom seemes he to confute the very matter of all his preaching not to Bede who in the place alleaged by you tels vs that Iohn exhorts the Pharises to humilitie who were so proude because they were Abrahams children that they would not confesse themselues to be sinners nor to Lyra who writes thus Because the Pharises Lawyers refused Abrahams faith of Christ therefore they lost the name of Abrahams sonnes And certainely it had bin against reason for Iohn to haue disswaded the Saduces and Pharises from trusting in Christ as well because it was his especiall commission to perswade men by all meanes to beleeue in Christ as also for that there was not the least cause of suspition that they would be too forward to trust in him who had so strong a perswasion of their owne righteousnes that they could find no want of his help speaker W. P. Obiect VII 2. Cor. 7. 10. Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof the last is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues thereby to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes Answ. A repentant sinner must take reuenge of himselfe and that is onely to vse all meanes which serue to subdue the corruption of his nature to bridle carnall affections and to mortifie sinne and these kind of actions are restrainments properly and not punishments and are directed against the sinne and not against the person speaker D. B. P. The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth dovvne sundry fruits of repentance vvhereof one is reuenge vvhereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sins M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainements properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments only from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must doe Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We grant that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his body and mind too as S. Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians speaker A. W. If he vnderstood not his owne words he is like to haue small help of you who either cannot or will not conceiue his meaning aright The reuenge that a sinner must take of himselfe is saith Master Perkins to vse all good meanes which serue to subdue his corruption but this is not properly a punishment of
downe He shewes saith Lyra the insufficiencie of the Scripture in respect of Christs excellencie in worke and doctrine speaker D. B. P. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith vve shall be saued but beleeuing vve should haue saluation in his name vvhich he clipped off speaker A. W. What saith Master Perkins more than your glosse doth acknowledge That faith may be anowed by which life may be had And another glosse expounds that beleeuing of faith formed by charitie which you grant iustifies It helpes vs nothing at all to leaue out those words in his name and therefore there was no clipping in it speaker D. B. P. Thirdly remember to vvhat faith S. John ascribes the meanes of our saluation not to that vvhereby vve applie vnto our selues Christs righteousnes but by vvhich vve beleeue Jesus to be Christ the Messias of the Ievves and the Sonne of God vvhich M. Perkins also concealed speaker A. W. The faith spoken of in this text is not properly iustifying faith but that is signified in the latter part of the verse where it is said that we haue life in his name that is by resting vpon his power to saue vs. The concealing of those words doth more hurt than helpe vs. speaker W. P. If it bee said that this place must bee vnderstood of Christs miracles onely I answere that miracles without the doctrine of Christ and knowledge of his sufferings can bring no man to life euerlasting and therefore the place must bee vnderstood of the doctrine of Christ and not of his miracles alone as Paul teacheth Gal. 8. 1. If we or an Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing beside that which wee haue preached let him bee accursed And to this effect hee blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught 1. Tim. 1. 3. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell vvere vvritten that vve might beleeue Iesus to be the Son of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the vvritten vvord containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Ans. S. Iohn speaks not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiencie of Doctrine out of him is not to care vvhat one saith But M. Perkins foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles vvithout the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting True and therefore that text speaking only of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiency of the vvritten Word Christs miracles vvere sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias But that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all Doctrine needfull to saluation For many other points of faith must be beleeued also speaker A. W. Master Perkins prooues that the Euangelist speakes not only of miracles because he speakes of such a faith as will bring a man to euerlasting life which the faith that comes by miracles only will not doe You offer not to answere his reason which stands still in force against you but denie the conclusion that he speakes not onely of miracles This reason wee haue confirmed as also the interpretation by that place of Austin Iohn the Euangelist saith â—ustin witnesseth that our Lord Christ both said and did many things that are not written But those things were chosen out to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the beleeuers And whereas you would restraine the text only to the proofe of Christs being the Messiah Lyra may teach you that in this conclusion the profit also of the doctrine is declared And Hugo Cardinalis saith that in these words specially the intent of the booke but generally the end of all the Scripture is declared Now the end of the Scripture is our saluation To the same purpose writes Cyrill All things that our Lord did are not written but those that the writers thought to be sufficient for manners and doctrine that we glistering with true faith good workes and vertue might come to the kingdome of heauen speaker D. B. P. And if it alone be sufficient vvhat neede vve the other three Gospels the Actes of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Johns Reuelations speaker A. W. There are some that thinke and the opinion is not vnlikely that the Euangelist speakes of all the bookes of the new Testament which hee saw before his writing of this Gospell vnlesse perhaps the reuelation were penned by him afterward But the obiection shewes it selfe to be vaine by my former answer to the like about the fiue bookes of Moses speaker D. B. P. Finally admit that S. Johns Gospell vvere all-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine tearmes that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but they as then being not able to beare it he reserueth that to be deliuered vnto them aftervvard of vvhich high mysteries S. John recordeth not much in his Gospell after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnvvritten speaker A. W. First if it be granted that our Sauiour had at that time some new matter to deliuer which they had not heard of what get you by it It will not follow thereupon either that all things necessarie to saluation are not contained in the scriptures or that your traditions are the things that our Sauiour meant for as Austin truly affirmeth since Christ hath not signified any where in scripture what they were it is rashnes for any man to presume to say they were such or such things No man saith your Glosse may determine what they were Secondly there is no shew of consequence in your reasoning Christ had many things to say not long before his death Therefore though the Gospell be all sufficient yet there are many things not written which were needfull to be beleeued Because they were afterward to be spoken therefore were they not written at all by the Apostles and Euangelists sure Christ forbad not the writing of them in those words Thirdly this is the place which heretikes abuse to the countenancing of their traditions as you do of yours All foolish heretikes saith Austin that will haue themselues counted Christians indeuour to colour their bold fantasticall inuentions with that sentence of the Gospell I haue yet many things to say to you Lastly I answere that those many things of which Christ speakes were the same that before he had taught them which they partly vnderstood not and partly remembred not I prooue it thus Our Sauiour said before that he had taught them all things which he had heard of his father and promised to send them the holie ghost that should teach them and cause them to remember whatsoeuer he had said to them whereof we haue a worthie example in that speech
of Christ concerning building the temple againe This saith the Gospell the disciples then vnderstood not but after his resurrection they came to the true vnderstanding of it We say not that our Sauiour deliuered to them euery point of doctrine distinctly but that he furnished them with so much knowledge as that they might easily by that light gather and write whatsoeuer was needfull to be beleeued to the penning whereof they had the speciall direction of the spirit both for matter and maner Iansenius Bishop of Gaunt is wholie of the same opinion affirming that those many things were not diuers from those which he had taught them before but a more plaine exposition of them and to that purpose he alleages very fitly that place of the Apostle I could not speake to you as vnto spirituall men but as it were vnto carnall men to little ones in Christ. Didymus about the yeare 580. expounded the place thus This he saith that his auditors had not yet conceiued all things which he had told them that afterward they were to suffer for his name sake And afterward as yet also saith Didymus being vnder the type of the law and shadowes they could not discerne of the truth the shadow whereof the law caryed speaker D. B. P. This place of S. Iohn M. Perkins patcheth vp vvith another of S. Paul If vve or any Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing besides that vvhich we haue preached let him be accursed And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that vvhich he had taught Ans. Now we must looke vnto the Gentlemans fingers There were three corruptions in the text of S. Iohn here is one but it is a foule one Insteed of preaching vnto them another Gospell he puts preach vnto them any other thing when there is great difference betweene another Gospell and any other thing The Gospell comprehendeth the principall points of faith and the whole worke of Gods building in vs which S. Paul like a wise Architect had laide in the Galathians others his fellow workemen might build vpon it gold siluer and pretious stones with great merit to themselues and thanks from S. Paul Marry if any should digge vp that blessed and only foundation would lay a new one him S. Paul holdeth for accursed So that that falsification of the text is intolerable and yet when all is done nothing can be wringed out of it to proue the written word to comprehend all doctrine needfull to saluation for S. Paul speaketh there only of his Gospell that is of his preaching vnto the Galathians and not one word of any written Gospell No more doth he in that place to Timothy And so it is nothing to purpose speaker A. W. The Greeke is word forword if we or an angell from heauen shall preach vnto you beside that which we haue preached let him be accursed Your vulgar Latine all one with it in a maner praeterquam quod for praeter id quod as it is in the next verse where the greeke is all one your interlinear praeter quod in both verses You will haue the Apostle meane another gospell and so will Master Perkins for by another thing he vnderstands such another thing as shall be necessarie to saluation and yet diuers from that which the Apostle had deliuered And what is that else but another Gospell You tell vs the gospell comprehends the principall points of faith whereas before in this point you giue no more to the whole scripture but that some principall points may be gathered out of it this would haue made a contradiction in Master Perkins But is there any thing necessarie to saluation that is not a principall point of faith Is not that a principall point without which a man cannot be saued But if as you adde the gospell comprehend also the whole worke of Gods building in vs either I conceiue not what you meane by those words or else he that teacheth any other course of Gods building in vs then the gospell prescribes preacheth another gospell which doctrine will go neere to ouerthrow the greatest part of your will worship You proceed and say that the Apostle speakes of such a doctrine as digs vp the foundation What is the foundation If it be not digged vp as long as Christ is held to be the Messiah and that without him there is no saluation as you commonly expound the gospell of faith in Christ questionles the Apostle speakes not of ouerthrowing the foundation because the Galathians against whom he writes did not think that any saluation could be had without Christ but that the law morall and ceremoniall was to be ioyned with Christ to iustification If the foundation may be razed though those points be not denyed and if to ioyne the law with Christ be to lay another foundation and to preach another gospell how can your popish synagogue be a true member of Christs Church in which the foundation is shaken in coupling the law with Christ and another Gospell preached by teaching such points of doctrine for matter necessarie to saluation as the Apostles neuer deliuered Master Perkins therefore vnderstanding by any thing only things that make another Gospell as the question in hand and the other place alleaged shew A diuers doctrine may neither be charged with nor suspected of false dealing Bellarmine a Cardinall and a man of as great iudgement as you affirmes that the Apostle in that place speakes both of the written and vnwritten word not as you would haue it only of the gospel preached And Austin applies the text to the scripture of the law and of the gospell other then that which you haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures that is in the old and new Testament Basill also saith the like of the same matter that the hearers must examin those things that are deliuered by their teachers and receiue those that are agreeable to the Scripture and reiect those that are diuers which he prooues by that place to the Galathians And whereas Bellarmine would haue their testimonies vnderstood of things contrary only the very words refute him But it is apparant that all that Paul preached is in the scriptures for out of them doth he still confirme his doctrine They of Berea found that which hee taught them to agree with the scriptures and himselfe auoucheth before Festus that he preached nothing but that which Moses and the Prophets had taught And so both these places are to purpose speaker W. P. Testimonie IV. 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God is profitable to teach to improoue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute beeing made perfect vnto euerie good worke In these wordes be contained two arguments to prooue the sufficiencie of the Scripture
without vnwritten verities The first that which is profitable to these foure vses namely to teach all necessarie trueth to confute all errours to correct faults in manners and to instruct in righteousnesse that is to informe all men in all good duties that is sufficient to saluation But scripture serueth for all these vses and therefore it is sufficient and vnwritten traditions are superfluous speaker D. B. P. In these words are contained saith M. Perkins two arguments to proue the sufficiencie of Scripture The first that which is profitable to these foure vses to teach all necessary truth is not in the text to confute errors to correct faults in manners to instruct all men in all dutie is M. Perkins his addition to the text that is sufficient to saluation But the Scriptures serue for all these vses c. Ans. This text of holy Scripture is so farre from yeelding our aduersaries two Arguments that it affoordeth not so much as any probable colour of halfe one good argument In searching out the true sense of holy Scriptures we must obserue diligently the nature and proper signification of the words as M. Perkins also noteth out of S. Augustine in his sixt obiection of this question which if the Protestants did here performe they would make no such account of this text for S. Paul saith only that all Scripture is profitable not sufficientâ— to teach to proue c. How are they then carried away with their owne partiall affections that cannot discerne betweene profitable and sufficient Good Timber is profitable to the building of an house but it is not sufficient without stones morter and a Carpenter Seed serues well yea is also necessary to bring forth corne but will it suffice of itself without manuring of the ground and seasonable weather And to fit our purpose more properly good lawes are very profitable yea most expedient for the good gouernment of the common-vvealth But are they sufficient vvithout good customes good gouernours and iudges to see the same law and customes rightly vnderstood and duly executed Euen so the holy Scriptures S. Paul affirmeth are very profitable as contayning very good and necessarie matter both to teach reproue and correct but he saith not they are sufficient or that they do containe all doctrine needfull for these foure ends And therefore to argue out of S. Paul that they are sufficient for all those purposes vvhen he saith only that they are profitable to them is plainly not to knovv or not to care vvhat a man â—…h And to presse such an impertinent cauil so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do is nothing else but to bevvray vnto the indifferent reader either their extreame ignorance or most audacious impudency that thinke they can face out any matter be it neuer so impertinent speaker A. W. The text was set downe before without any addition now Master Perkins shewes how he gathers his argument out of the text without adding to it at all but interpreting it Now whereas hee saith all necessarie truth how much lesse affirmes Lyra when he addes to teach the truth for if by that word he should meane no more but some truth it were but a bare exposition but that he vnderstands by it all truth I gather out of his other exposition that followes for which also you blame Master Perkins to instruct all men in all dutie The word is in all righteousnes that is to make him righteous with legall righteousnes saith Lyra which is all or euery vertue That the profitablenes of the Scripture to those purposes argues a sufficiencie it is the iudgement of the best Interpreters There is no sicknes of the soule saith Cyprian for which the Scripture of God affoords not a present remedie He proues it by the place of Timothy Ierome saith The Scripture was giuen to teach vs that doing all things by the aduice thereof we might doe iust things iustly Chrysostome is yet more plaine If we be to learne or to be ignorant of any thing there we shall learne it if to conuince falsehood thence we shall fetch it if we be to correct or chastice for exhortation if any comfort be wanting which must be had out of the Scripture we shall learne it And vpon those words That the man of God may be perfit Therefore without the Scripture hee cannot bee made perfect In steed of me saith Paul thou hast the Scriptures if thou desire to learne any thing thence thou shalt or there thou maist haue it The Scripture saith Theophylact is profitable to vs teaching vs if any thing be to be learned For there is nothing that cannot be answered by the holy Scripture If vaine and false things be to be reprooued thence also it may be done if any thing be to be corrected if any man be to be instructed that is to be taught to righteousnes that is that he he may do that which is righteous this also is ready for thee in the Scripture And afterward he makes the Apostle speake thus to Timothy If thou wilt be perfect and holy c. let the Scriptures be thy Counsellors in steed of me And vpon these words Perfect to euery good worke Not simply saith Theophylact partly fitted to good workes but perfect not so that he shall be fitted to this and not to that but to euery good worke That he may be perfect to euery good worke saith Peter Lombard expounding the word instructus which is in your vulgar translation Thomas goes further to euery good worke Not onely to those workes which are for necessitie of saluation but to those also that are of supererogation And a little before If the effect of holy Scripture be fourefold to teach the truth to conuince falsehood for speculation to draw from euill and bring to good for practise the last effect of it is that it brings men to perfection For it doth not make a man good in part but perfectly It is proper to the holy Scripture saith Caietan to teach the igrant and that he may be perfect in all things that belong to the perfecting of a man of God And afterward See whether the profit of the holy Scripture teads to the perfection of the man of God that is of him who giues himselfe whâ—ly to God to such a perfection I say that he may be perfect to the practisâ— of eâ—ery good worke I haue been somâ— what the larger in this because this Papist chargeth vs so hard not to know or not to â—…e what wee say And yet what say we that hath not been said before by the ancient writers and many Papiâ—…s themselues Now for the further confirmation of this exposition though against a Papist there needes no further wee may obserue out of Chrysostome and Theophylact that the Apostle Paul being as he saith afterwards shortly to be offered vp commends the Scriptures to Timothy for instructers
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
very sufficiently though euery man cannot reade his disputation because it is latine but for the matter in hand concerning traditions it falls not into this question to be disputed what is scripture and what is not For it is presupposed that the Scriptures are the word of God and thereupon this doubt ariseth whether the word of God conteine all things necessarie to saluation or no. If that be doubted of it is idle and absurd to enquire whether there be besides that another word of God diuers from it though not contrarie which is not written but only as men haue now and then set downe some part of it in their writings so then leauing this point let vs come to those which follow speaker W. P. Obiect III. Some bookes of the canon of the Scripture are lost as the booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. The booke of the iust Iosu. 10. 13. the bookes of Chronicles of the Kinges of Israel and Iuda 1. King 14. 19. the bookes of certaine Prophets Nathan Gad Iddo Ahiah and Semiah and therfore the matter of these bookes must come to vs by tradition Answ. Though it be graunted that some bookes of Canonicall Scripture bee lost yet the Scripture still remaines sufficient because the matter of those bookes so farforth as it was necessarie to saluation is contained in these bookes of Scripture that are now extant speaker D. B. P. The two next arguments for Traditions be not well propounded by M. Perkins The third is to be framed thus Either all the bookes of holy Scripture conteine all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine of them without the rest not some of them without the rest for then the other should be superfluous which no man holdeth therfore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue been loâ—t therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written Word and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. Perkins answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answere supposeth speaker A. W. Because you thinke the reason makes for your aduantage as you haue framed it your selfe I will follow your steps and leaue his argument as you do That I may answere orderly I deny your assumption All things necessarie to saluation are conteined in some certaine bookes of the scripture so that although the rest were wanting we should haue sufficient to saluation for the matter To your reason I say farther that the consequence is naught if some certaine are sufficient to saluation the rest are superfluous for first it cannot be superfluous to haue any booke of Gods word kept for the vse of the Church though the matter of it be in some other Secondly if your consequence be good it is also superfluous to haue the same psalme or story recorded in two places of the scripture especially the later But to say so were to condemne the holy ghost of hauing taken superfluous paines to no purpose which were blasphemie I prooue it by these particulars for example Psal. 18. is in the booke of Psalmes and in the second booke of Samuell The history of Ezechiah is 2. Reg. 29. and so forward and Isai 36. 37. 38. The like I might bring out of the bookes of Kings and Chronicles Thirdly though the matter be all fully and perfectly in certaine bookes yet euery point is not so plaine in one booke as in another and therefore it is not superfluous to haue all these bookes though all matter necessarie to saluation be comprised in some few of them Fourthly the purpose of the holy ghost in penning the scriptures was not only to teach matters necessarie to saluation but to set forth the glorie of God in his prouidence iustice mercie wisdome and such like to afford vs examples of diuers kinds of vertues to exhort vs to faith and good works and in a word to prouide for Gods glorie by vs heere as well as for our glorifying by him in heauen to which there is no booke nor sentence of scripture but serues more or lesse and therefore no booke of it can be thought supersluous though the necessarie matters belonging to saluation be conteined in certaine of them very sufficiently speaker W. P. Againe I take it to bee a truth though some thinke otherwise that no part of the Canon is lost for Paul saith Whatsoeuer things were written aforetime were written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures c. Rom. 15. 4. where he takes it for granted that the whole Canon of holie Scripture was then extant For if he had thought that some bookes of Scripture had beene lost hee would haue said whatsoeuer was written and is now extant was written for our learning and comfort For bookes that are lost serue neither for learning nor comfort Againe to hold that any bookes of Scripture should be lost calls into question Gods prouidence and the fidelitie of the Church who hath the bookes of God in keeping and is therfore called the pillar and ground of truth And touching the bookes before mentioned I answere thus The booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. might bee some short bill or narration of thinges done among the Israelites which in the daies of Moses went from hand to hand For sometime a booke in Scripture signifieth a roule or Catalogue as the first chapter of Matthew which containeth the genealogie of our Sauiour Christ is called the booke of the generation of Iesus Christ. Againe the booke of the iust and the books of Chronicles which are said to be lost were but as the Chronicles of England are with vs euen politicke records of the acts and euents of things in the kingdome of Iuda and Israel out of which the Prophets gathered things necessarie to be knowne and placed them in holy Scripture As for the bookes of Iddo Ahiah Semiah Gad and Nathan they are contained in the bookes of the Kinges and Chronicles and in the bookes of Samuel which were not written by him alone but by sundrie Prophets 1. Chro. 29. 29. as also was the booke of Iudges As for the bookes of Salomon which are lost they did not concerne religion and matters of saluation but were concerning matters of Philosophie and such like things speaker D. B. P. Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrarie vnto the plaine Scriptures as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be proued out of the historie of Paralâ—pomeneon which they translate Chronicles
6. cap. 6. * Particula non causalis sed illatiua vel rationalis D. B. P. He proueth that many sins vvere forgiuen her he doth not shevv vvhy they vvere forgiuen t 1. Ioh. 3. 14. u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 x Luc. 7. 41 42 Vers. 43. Vers. 44. Vers. 47. y Basil. de baptismo Vers. 47. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Gal. 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Rom. 7. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 2 Cor. 4. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d Ephes. 3. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Col. 1. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f Effiâ—ax g Agens h Theophyl ad Gal 5. 6. i Viuax efficax commonstrari * Lombard Thomas Caietan Catharin D. B. P. The place is of vvorkes not of charity k Iam. 2. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l Sine operibus m Spiritus n Sinon spirat o Sinon parit opus p Iam. 2. 17. 20 q Concomitantia fidem r Iam. 2. 17. 1. Cor. 13. Lib. de Trinit cap. 18. s 1. Cor. 13. 1. 2. A senselesse question t Ioh. 6. 29. u Rom. 4. 5. D. B. P. Serm. 22. de verbis Apostol x Aug. de verbis Apostoli Ser. 20. D. B. P. You haue suited them with ansvveres accordingly This assumption is a great deale scanter then the former And before ansvvered y Rom. 4. 3. 5. z Rom. 8. 33. a Rom. 4. 3. 5. b Rom. 8. 30. M. Perk. hath not a vvord of not regarding vvorkes Ecclesias 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioan. 3. Rom. 6. c Ecclesiastic 1. 28. d Interlin Bibl. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iracundus f Bibl. Reg. Hispan g Paâ—nin h Non poterit censeri iustus i Vatablus k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l Luk. 13. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m 1. Ioh 3. 14. Vers. 10 〈◊〉 Vers. 18. 19 n Ioh. 3. 5. o Ioh. 6. 5â— p Rom. 4. 10. 1â— q Rom. 6. 4 5. Rom. 8. Hee ansvvered all he propounded r Rom. 8. 24. s Heb. 10. 36. Epist. ad Philip t Ignatius ad Philip. D. B. P. Libr. 2. strom u Clemens Stromat lib. 2. Hom. 70. in Math. x Chrysost. in Math. hom 70. Lib. 3. hypognost y Hypognost lib. 3. z Iam. 2. 21. D. B. P. De fide oper c. 14. a Aug. de fide oper cap. 14 b August de doctr Christ. cap. 13. c Persidiae It is no vvhere so called by vs. D. B. P. Conditio sine qua non Neither of them Ioh. 3. d Rom. 3. 28. e Gal. 2. 16. f Ephes. 2. 8. g Vers. 9. h Leuit. 18. 5. Rom. 10. 5. A nâ—… of inâ—…cation Boasting is not excluded by Popish iustification k Rom. 3. 19. l Rom. 3. 28. m Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 3. 26. n Act. 2. 28. 16. 30. o Luk. 8. 50. De gra lib. arb cap. 7. p Rom. 2â— q Hypognost lib 3. * De side oper cap. 14. De predest sanct cap. 7. r Aug. de side oper cap. 14 Not from the conuersation of a Christian but from his iustification W. P. â—… Hope more particular then faith is vaine s 12. Art part 〈◊〉 Art 1. This is to pleade deâ—eâ—t not mercie t Ex congrâ—o u Rom. 5. 10. D. B. P. De nat gra cap. vlt. x Aug. de natur grat cap. vlt. y True for doctrine z Ambros. ad Rom 4. vers 7. Nulla ab his requisita poe nitenâ—iae opera a Ad vers 2. b Ad vers 3. c Ad vers 4. d Ad vers 5. Obâ—…oxius pâ—ccaâ—is e Ambros. ad Hebr. cap. 4. * De verbis Dom. serm 40 De verb. Ap. serm 40. Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. f Hesych in Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 14. g Praebetur * Supra Canâ— ferm 22. Sup. Cant. â—eâ—m 22. Serm. 24. h Bernard in Cant. ser. 24. i Bernard in Cant. ser. 24. k Desiderant deliberantque â—â—ctari Gal. 5. l Chrysost. ad Gal. 3. m Deut. 27. 26. De humil Hovv I pray you n Basil. in Ascet de fide Fides est aâ—â—esus indubitatus ad eaâ—quae aâ—…tur Rom. 4. Temporall is of your foysting in as if we denied good works revvarded in heauen o Pag. 93. 88. p 12. Art part 2. art q Sander de iustif lib. 6. c. 4. pag. 647. r Andrad Orthod e plic lib. 6. pag. 462. s Stapleton promptu Cathol ad Ioa. 8. 57. See the point of freevvill t Rom. 3. 28 Rom. 5. 2. Cor. 10. 2. Cor. 12. u Rom. 5. 23. x 2. Cor. 10. â—3 y 2. Cor. â—… z Vers. 1. 5. 1. Lib. 83. q. 76. a Aug. lib. qq 83. q. 76. b Rom. 3. 27. 28. c Ad hoc potius d Rom. 1. 2. 3. e 1. Cor. 6. 10. 11. f Rom. 1. 2. 3. g Vacuam esse sideÌ„ si non bene operetur h Non ad eum pertineat bene operari i Eph. 2. 7. 8. Vers. 9. Vers. 10. k Iam. 2. 14. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. 24. 25. 26. S. Paul knevv no other lavv hut that of Moses to iustification Gal. 5. 3. m Rom. 9. 10 11. n Aug. Epist. 106. o Lombard lib. 1. dist 41. p Thomas 1. q 23. art 5. in 1 senten dist 41. q. 1. art 3. qq disp q 6. de praed art 2. ad Rom. 9. q Bellarm. de gra lib. arb lib. 2. c. 10. 11. seqq He shewed your distinction he made none This slaunder hath bin often disproued Pag. 76. D. B. P. Lib. 2. con souin Epist. 81. Epist 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. r Hieron contra Iouin Cap. 22. â—ccles 18. s Reuel 22. 11. t Ribera in Apoc 22. 11. u Glossa interlin x Impensiùs inferat y Cyprian de bono patient cap. 13. testimon ad Quiri lib. 3. cap. 23. z Aretas Apoc 22. 11. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Testam Graec. Plantin c Interlin Bib. d Eccl. 18. 22. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f Ne veteris g Vatabl◠〈◊〉 pe Roâ—er Steph. h Anâ—uerp a pud â—iduam Stelsij anno 1572. i Biblia cum gloss 1506. k Lyra ne prohibearis l Andâ—ad Orthod explic lib. 6. pag. 446. m Prohibeat n Ne vereaâ—â—s o Ne differas iustum probare te Vatablus p Bellarm. dâ— iustiâ— lib. 4. cap. 19. q Nec tuam probâ—tatem differas r Arias Montanus ne expectes s Stapleton de iustif proleg 2. aâ— lib. 5. t Bellarm. de iust vbi supra Prob. 4. 2. Cor. 9. u Prou. 4. 18. x 2. Cor. 9. 10. y Caietan ad 2. Cor. 9 10. z Deut. 28. 11. Cap. 2. * Not his iustification Genes 15. Rom. 4. a Iam. 2. 21. b Suapte natura Caietan ibi c Iam. 2. 23. d Non renuentem sed paâ—atam operaâ— Caietan ibi 1. Cor. 13. Gen. 22. VVe graunt he doth Lib. 83. quaest q. 76. Serm. 16. de verb. Apos e Gen. 22. 12. Math. 8. Luk. 19. Pag. 54. f