so wicked a man should rule ouer so good Ouer what then but he shall rule ouer sinne See how manifestly that worthie Doctor hath preuented their cauill And if it were neede I might joyne with him that most skilfull Father in the Hebrue text S. Ierome In quest Hebraice who in the person of God expoundeth it thus Because thou hast free will I admonish and warne thee that thou suffer not sinne to ouercome thee but doe thou ouercome sinne The second is taken out of this text of Deut. Cap. 30.19 I call this day sayeth Moyses heauen and earth to witnes that I haue set before you life and death benediction malediction therefore choose life that thou maist liue and thy seede Which words were spoken in vayne if it had not beene in their power by the grace of God to haue made choise of life or if that grace would haue made them doe it infallibly without their consent Vnto these two places of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the other vnder Moyses law let vs couple two more out of the newe Testament The first may be those kinde wordes of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Math. 23. Ierusalem Ierusalem c. how often would I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickens vnder her winges thou wouldest not Which doe playnlie demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods help 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 wordes of Christ doe playnlie witnes and thou wouldest not The last testimony is in the Reuelat. where it is said in the person of God I stande at the dore and knocke Cap. 3. if any man shall heare my voyce and open the gates I will enter in to him and will suppe with him and he with me Marke well the wordes God by his grace knockes at the dore of our hartes 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 giftes 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 To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs joyne the testimonie of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The first shall be that excellent learned Martir Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Antonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by free will could flie from foule dishonest deedes and follow those that be faire and good he were without fault as not being cause of such thinges as were done But we Christians teach that mainkinde by free choise and free will doth both doe well and sinne To him we will joyne that holy Bishoppe and valiant Martir Ireneus who of free will writeth thus not only in workes but in faith also Lib. 4. c. 72. our Lord reserued liberty and freedome of will vnto man saying be it done vnto thee according to thy faith I will adde to that worthy companie S. Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauiour will you also depart discourseth thus Ioan. 6. Lib. 1. Ep. 3 Our Lord did not bitterly inueigh against them which forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles will you also goe your way and why so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by which 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 bloud 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 will specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse al Antiquity excepting only S. Augustine to haue beleeued taught free wil. Heare the wordes of one for all Mathias Illyricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching free will the testimonies of Iustine Ireneus and others Cent. 2. c. 4. col 59. saith In like manner Clement Patriarch of Alexandria doth euery where teach free will that it may appeare say these Lutherans not only the Doctors of that age to haue beene in such darknes but also that it did much encrease in the ages following 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 beene blindly ledde by the Apostles and their best Schollers who were their Masters then to espy amend his owne error These principall pillers of Christs Church were in darknes belike as Protestants must needes say that proude Persian most wicked heretike Manes of whome the Manichees are named who first denyed free will beganne to broach the true light of the newe Gospell Here I would make an end of citing Authorities were it not that Caluin sayeth 2. Iust. ca. 2. q. 4. that albeit al other auncient writers be against him yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth is clearly for him in this point but the poore man is fouly deceiued aswell in this as in most other matters I will briefly proue and that out of those workes which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote for in his others Caluin acknowledgeth him to haue taught free will Of our freedome in consenting to Gods grace he thus defineth De spirit lit 34. De gra Chri. 14. Ad simpli q. 2. Tract 72. in Ioan Ep 47. to consent to Gods calling or not to consent lyeth in a mans owne will Againe Who doth not see euery man to come or not to come by free will but this free will may be alone if he doe not come but it cannot be but holpen if he doe come In an other place that we will doe well God will haue it to be his and ours his in calling vs ours in following him Yea more To Christ working in him a man doth cooperate that is worketh with him both his owne iustification and life euerlasting will you here him speake yet more formally for vs. We haue dealt with your brethren and ours as much as we could that they would hold out and continue in the sound Catholike faith the which neither denieth free will to euill or good life nor doth attribute so much to it that it is worth any thing without grace So according to this most worthy Fathers iudgement the sound Catholike faith doth not deny free will as the old Manichees and our newe Gospellers doe nor esteeme it without grace able to doe any thing toward saluation as the Pelagians did And to conclude heare S. Augustines answere vnto them who say
is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde c. I answere that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his workes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly wherefore when he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and intisements to sinne in which sence concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill Lib. 6. cap. 5. as in the same worke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renewe a man perfectly so farreforth as it appertayneth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remayning after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euill to this place of S. Augustine I will joyne that other like Tract 41. in Iohan. which M. PER. quiteth in his 4. reason where he saith that sinnes dwelleth alwayes in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our meÌ„bers for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subject of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainly that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is left in the regenerate onely an infirmity or weakenes M. PERK 4. reason is taken from the record of the auncient Church Charity in some is more Aug. Epis â—9 in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which caÌ„not be increased is in none as long as a man liues vpon earth and as long as it may be increased that which is lesse then it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not c. For which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessary for vs to say forgiue vs our debtes though all our worst deedes and thoughts be already forgiuen in Baptisme Answere That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue originall sinne to remayne after baptisme which is in question but onely that the best men for want of perfect Charity doe often sinne venially which we graunt M. PER. hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose in steede of all antiquity confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sin but expoundes him to meane that it is not sinne in that person but in it selfe which is already confuted for sinne that it is an accident and so properly inherent in his subject cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person But if the protestant reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it where thus he writeth Lib. 3. Instit cap. 3 num 10. Neither is it needefull to labour much in searching out what the old writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turne who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue anie certainty of the iudgement of antiquity Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs this is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sinne but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmity then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hold that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquity Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is flatly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we doe consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blinde boldnes of such Masters who hauing so highly commended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to followe it Doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe Presuming that some would bee so shalowe-witted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some fewe that I neede not hereafter returne to rehearse them S. Chrisostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues Homil. 11. in epist ad Rom. but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that I may for example sake touch one of them concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his boundes then loe it is adulterie not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlawfull riot of it S. Bernard whome M. PERKINS often citeth against vs and these may sometimes be alleadged for vs hath these wordes Sinne is at the dore Serm. de sex tribul but if thou doe not open it it will not enter in lust tickleth at the hart but vnlesse thou willingly yeeld vnto it it shall doe thee no hurt withholde thy consent and it preuayleth not S. Aug. and S. Cirill haue beene cited already S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter who with the confession of Caluin may serue sufficently to proue that approued antiquity is wholy for vs. And if any desire to know the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him reade the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient holy Bishoppe Epiphanius where he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectary to haue taught that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme but are onely couered which is as much to say as sinne remayneth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is just M. PERKINS and our Protestants position Now let vs come vnto the argumentes which the Church of Rome as M. PERKINS speakes alleageth to proue Concupiscence in the regenerate not to be sinne properly 1. Objection In Baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute remission of sinne Which being pardoned is taken quite away and therefore after Baptisme ceaseth to be sinne M. PERKINS answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent in confirmation of our Argument I will adde some textes of holy Scripture Iohan. 13. First He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feete for he is wholy cleane Take
the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in man goe togither Yet in regarde 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 Roman Church touching free will neither may we proceede farther with them Hitherto M. PERKINS Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of wil in ciuill and morall workes in the state of corruption and all good works 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 justified there is libertie of grace that is grace enableth mans will to doe if it please such spirituall workes as God requireth at his handes Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing Pag. 16. he doth in shewe of wordes contradict both these points in an other place For in setting downe the difference of our opinions he 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 playnlie man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to doe or not to doe the acts of wisedome Iustice Temperance c. Pag. 19. and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentils so did Yet in his first reason he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the 8. of Genesis that the whole frame of mans hart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no naturall strength to performe any part of morall dutie See how vncertayne the steps be of men that walke in darknes 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 Page 1 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 wordes For saieth he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that Mans will 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 when it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that Mans wil by his owne naturall actions 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 fruite And this I take to be that which M. PERKINS doth meane by those his wordes that the will must bee first moued and acted by grace before it can acte or will Hee mistooke vs thinking that we required some outward helpe only to the will to joyne with it or rather that grace did but as it were vntie the chaynes of sinne wherein our will was fettered And then will could of it selfe turne to God Luc. 10. Not 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 saieth lefte halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all Mankinde had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of al Supernaturall riches spoyled of all his originall Iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and will and therein lefte halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all naturall truth or to performe all morall dutie Now touching supernaturall workes because he lost all power to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sence may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one singer that way of grace Luc. 15. 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 wil after the fal of Adam continued some what free in actions conformable to the nature of man though wounded also in them as not being able to acte many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of free will capable of grace also able being first both outwardly moued and fortified inwardly by the vertue of grace to effect and doe any worke appertayning to saluation which is asmuch as M. PERKINS affirmeth And this to be the verie Doctrine of the Church of Rome Cap. 1. is most manifestlie to be seene in the Councell of Trent where in the Session are first these wordes in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euerie man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane sinnefull that neither the gentils by the force of nature nor the Iewes by the letter of Moyses lawe could arise out of that sinnefull state After it sheweth howe our deliuerance is wrought and howe freedome of will is recouered in speciall and wherein it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through IESVS CHRIST that is from his vocation whereby without any desert of ours we are called that we who were by our sinnes turned away from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our owne Iustification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and working with 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 who might also refuse it neither yet can he without the grace of God by his free will moue himselfe to that which is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that which was taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme
1.2 q. 109. art 6. See what Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath written of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these wordes of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father drawe him He concludeth it to be manifest Ioan. 6. that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God mouing him inwardly thereunto And this is all which M. PERKINS in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons following the which I wil omitte as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him reade the most learned workes of that famous Cardinall and right Reuerend Archbishoppe Bellarmine Nowe the very point controuersed concerning free will M. PERKINS hath quite omitted which consisteth in these two points expressed in the Councell First whether we doe freely assent vnto the said grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it And secondly when we concurre and worke with it whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of which our Authour is silent only by the way in his fourth reason toucheth two textes out of Saint Paul which are commonly alleadged against free will The first I haue saith he laboured more abundantly then all they yet not I 1. Cor. 15 but the grace of God which is in me attributing the whole worke to grace To which I briefly answere that they doe corrupt the text to make it seeme more currant for them the greeke hath only He sun emoi which is with me not which is in me so that the word in true construction make much more for vs then against vs Saint Paul affirming the grace of God which was working with him to haue done these thinges And so Saint Augustine whome they pretend to follow most in this matter expoundeth it Yet not I but the grace of God with me that is not I alone Degra lib. arb ca 15. but the grace of God with me And by this neither the grace of God alone neither he alone but the grace of God with him thus Saint Augustine The like sentence is in the booke of wisdome Send that wisdome from thy Holy heauen that it may be with me Cap. 9. and labour with me The second text is It is God that worketh in vs both to will and to accomplish Phil. 2. v. 13. We graunt that it is God but not he alone without vs for in the next wordes before Saint Paul sayeth Worke your saluation with feare and trembling So that GOD worketh principally by stirring vs vp by his grace and also helping foreward our will to accomplish the worke but so sweetely and conformably to our nature that his working taketh not away but helpeth foreward our will to concurre 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 only dispositions and no efficient cause of those habits but this is an high point of schoole Diuinitie very true but not easely to be conceiued of the vnlearned One other objection may be collected out of Master PERKINS third reason against free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these wordes When we were dead in sinnes Ad Ephes 2.2 If a man by sinne become like a dead man he can not concurre with GOD in his rising from sinne Answere Sure it is that he can not 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 beene 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 as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre worke with grace to faith all good workes necessarie to life euerlasting As for example a crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring forth apples therefore may be tearmed dead in that kinde of good fruit Yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so albeit our sower corrupt nature of it self be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly grafte of Gods grace it is inabled to produce the sweete fruit of good workes Cap. 1. to which alludeth S. Iames. Receiue the ingrafted word which can saue our soules againe what more dead then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring forth and beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seede Math. 13. and our hartes vnto the earth that receiued it what meruaile then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely seede doe yeelde plenty of pleasing fruit Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such objections as may be gathered out of M. 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 fewe for vs misapplieth them too Genes 4. First then God sayeth to Cain If thou doe well shalt thou not receiue a reward But if thou doe euill thy sinne will presently be at the gates but the appetit of it shall be vnder thee thou shalt beare dominion ouer it Here is playne mention made of the power which that euill disposed man Cain had not to sinne if he had listed which was no doubt by the assistance of Gods grace and on the other side that grace did not infallibly drawe him to good but left it to his free choise whether he would follow it or no. And because they who seeke out all manner of starting holes wrest these wordes of ruling and bearing sway as spoken of his brother Abel and not of sinne first to see their iniquity marke the text where is no mention of Abel neither in that verse nor in the next before but expresse mention is made of sinne in the next wordes before therefore those pronounes that are to be referred to the wordes next before must needes in true construction be referred to sinne and not to his brother Besides this playne construction of the text Saint Augustine followeth Lib. 15. de ciuit c 7. saying as it were to Cain Hold thy selfe content for the conuersion of it shall be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it What saith he ouer his brother God forbidde that
Luke 7.47 MANY sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much whence they gather that the woman there spoken of had pardon of her sinnes and was iustified by loue Answere In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but only a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes doe not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants doe when they finde one cause of justification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy write justification is ascribed vnto many seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto justification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is only spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beleefe in Christes power to remitte sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrowe and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires of her head And as shee had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but shee had also a firme purpose to leade a newe life So that in her conuersion all those vertues mette together which we holde to concurre to justification and among the rest the preheminence worthely is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountayne of all mercies and goodnes and therefore accounted her pretious oyntements best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towardes her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. PERKINS saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but only a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expreslie that it was the cause of the pardon Because shee had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as playnlie declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anoynting his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Manie sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearly deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly ledde by our new Masters that he will beleeue no wordes of Christ be they neuer so playne otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. PERKINS said were of no moment 2. Reason Neither Circumcision nor prepuce auayleth any thing Gal. 5.6 but faith that worketh by charity Hence Catholikes gather that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to saith he meanes not faith alone but as it is ioyned with charity and other like vertues as are requisite to prepare the soule of man to receiue that complete grace of iustification M. PERKINS answereth that they are joyned together But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnes and maketh it ours It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification Reply That it hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and hand mayd of charity My proofe shall be out of the very text alleadged where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the greeke word Energoumene being passiue doth playnlie shewe that faith is moued led and guided by charity Which S. Iames doth demonstrat most manifest saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charity Making charity to be the life and as it were the soule of faith Now no man is ignorant but it is the soule that vseth the body as an instrument euen so then it is charity that vseth faith as her instrument and inferiour and not contrarywise which S. Paul confirmeth at large in a whole chapter prouing charity to be a more excellent gift then faith or any other concluding with these wordes Now there remayneth faith hope and charity 1. Cor. 13. these three but the greater of these is charity Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auaylable Li. de Trinit cap. 18. for faith saith he may be without charity but it can not be auaylable without it So that first you see that charity is the mouer and commaunder and faith as her instrument and hand mayde Now that in the worke of justification it hath the chiefe place may be thus proued I demaund whether that worke of justification by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no If not as it is voyd of charity so it is a wicked and sinnefull act no justification but infection our owne interest being the principall end of it now if it comprehend conclude Gods glory and seruice in it that is if they apply Christs righteousnes to them to glorifie God thereby then hath charity the principall part therein for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity All this reason that charity both concurreth to justification and that as principall S. Augustine confirmeth in these wordes Serm. 22. de verbis Apostol The house of God that is a righteous and Godly soule hath for his foundation faith hope is the walles of it but charity is the roofe and perfection of it The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. PER. thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeereth playnlie in that that Catholikes doe not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinnefull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of justification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse justifie But faith considered without hope charity will not justifie ergo it is not the whole cause of justification The first proposition can not be denyed of them who knowe the nature and proprietie of causes for the entire and total cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needes followe and very sence teacheth the simple that if any thing
be set to worke and if it doe not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith can not apply to themselues Christs righteousnes without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be justified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towardes God and estimation of his honour which are thinges most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants justification which is nothing else but the playne vice of presumption as hath beene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. PE. graunteth that both hope and charity must needes be present at the justification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie whē it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see whereas in truth it is but the instrument of seing 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 presence of the whole cause not only of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it cā see so cannot faith justifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can doe any thing acceptable in Gods sight The fourth reason if faith alone doe justifie then faith alone will saue but it will not saue ergo M. PERKINS first denyeth 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 justified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is justified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuoulous Which M. PERKINS perceiuing flies to a second that for faith alone we shall also be saued that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement Then must those wordes of the holy Ghost so often repeted in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time will render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which justification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare Ecclesias 1. Rom. 8. Luc. 13. 1. Ioan. 3. cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is justified because we loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. So we may also walke in newes of life To all these and many such like places of Holy Scripture it pleased M. PERKINS to make answere in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wayte 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 eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he sayeth neither yea nor nay leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him so neither to exclude hope or charity or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of justification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs joyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. PER. citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martir S. Ignatius of our justification writeth thus Epist ad Philip. 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 Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Libr. 2. strom but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these wordes Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued Hom. 70. in Mat. he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well Lib. 3. hypognost S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes which that they may be donne are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue beene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified De side oper c. 14. And Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill security they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtayne it 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 a lone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply 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 justification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be justified If it be an instrumentall cause Conditio sine qua non let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose whether he had leifer to haue charity or the soule of man without any helpe of grace But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these wordes As Moyses lift vp the serpent in the desart Ioh. 3. so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth