A09376:83
A cloud of faithful witnesses, leading to the heavenly Canaan, or, A commentary upon…A cloud of faithfull witnesses, leading to the heauenly Canaan, or, A commentarie vpon…
A cloud of faithful witnesses, leading to the heavenly Canaan, or, A commentary upon the 11 chapter to the Hebrews preached in Cambridge by that godly, and judicious divine, M. William Perkins ; long expected and desired, and therefore published at the request of his executors, by Will. Crashawe and Tho. Pierson, preachers of Gods Word, who heard him preach it, and wrote it from his mouth.A cloud of faithfull witnesses, leading to the heauenly Canaan, or, A commentarie vpon the 11 chapter to the Hebrewes preached in Cambridge by that godly, and iudicious divine, M. William Perkins ; long expected and desired, and therefore published at the request of his executours, by Will. Crashawe and Tho. Pierson, preachers of Gods Word, who heard him preach it, and wrote it from his mouth.
London: printed by Humphrey Lownes for Leo. Greene, 1607London: printed by Humfrey Lownes for Leo. Greene, 1607
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
This doctrine first confuteth the error of some gross Papists, who hold and write that many Philosophers for their good use of the light of Nature, for their deepness of learning, and for their civill lives, are now Saints in heaven: a most manifest and shameful untruth, and here as manifestly confuted: for was Solomon not accepted, for all his wisdom, and shall Socrates? was Moses not accepted for all his learning, how then should Aristotle? if faith made all of them accepted, and nothing but faith; how is it possible they should be accepted, which never heard of faith? nay I say more: If many a man that liveth in the Church, as deep (it may be) in humane learning as they, and of great knowledge also in the whole doctrine of Religion (which they never knew) and yet could not, nor ever shall be accepted of God only for want of this saving faith; How absurd is it […] imagine salvation for them, which neither had spark of faith nor knowledge of Christ? Let us then hold, that as there is no name whereby to be saved, but only the name of Christ: so no means to be saved by that Christ,1 but only faith, even that faith, for which these Elders were accepted of God.
This doctrine first confuteth the error of some grosse Papists, who hold and write that many Philosophers for their good vse of the light of Nature, for their deepenesse of learning, and for their ciuill liues, are now Saints in heauen: a most manifest and shamefull vntruth, and here as manifestly confuted: for was Salomon not accepted, for all his wisedome, and shall Socrates? was Moses not accepted for all his learning, how then should Aristotle? if faith made all of them accepted, and nothing but faith; how is it possible they should be accepted, which neuer heard of faith? nay I say more: If many a man that liueth in the Church, as deepe (it may be) in humane learning as they, and of great knowledge also in the whole doctrine of Religion (which they neuer knew) and yet could not, nor euer shall be accepted of God onely for want of this sauing faith; How absurd is it 〈…〉 imagine saluation for them, which neither had sparke of faith nor knowledge of Christ? Let vs thē hold, that as there is no name whereby to be saued, but onely the name of Christ: so no meanes to be saued by that Christ,1 but onely faith, euen that faith, for which these Elders were accepted of God.