Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence was neuer a sinne properly but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lawe of GOD the which is cured by the Grace of GOD giuen to the baptised and so that which was principall in Originall sinne doth not remayne in the regenerate neither doth that which remayneth make the person to sinne which was the second point vnlesse he willingly consent vnto it as hath beene proued heretofore it allureth intiseth him to sinne but hath not power to constrayne him to it as M. PERKINS also himselfe before confessed Nowe to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne howe doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sinne If all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Originall sinne is not taken away from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne nowe to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinne make a man miserable a man may be called wreatched and miserable in that he is in disgrace with God and so subject to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sence is sinne but S. Paul taketh not the word so here but for an vnhappy man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this world from which we should haue beene exempted had it not beene for Originall sinne after which sort he vseth the same word 1. Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinnefull then other men but that they had fewest worldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument Now to the second Infantes Baptised die the bodely death before they come to the yeares of discretion but there is not in them anie other cause of death besides Originall sinne for they haue no actuall sinne Rom. 5. Rom. 5. and death is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith death entred into the world by sinne Answere The cause of the death of such Innocentes is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God who freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parentes had not sinned no man should haue died but haue beene both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therefore is it said most truely of S. Paul death entred into the world by sinne Rom. 5. But the other place Rom. 6. the wages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but Actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidely the wagis where of if they had not repented them had bin hell fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Originall sinne remayning in them because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne is either to shewe great wante of judgement or else very strangelie to preuert the wordes of Holy scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate howe then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it M. PERKINS third reason That which lusteth against the spirite and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the hart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate is such ergo Answere The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had beene by nature sinne and euery thing in this world one way or an other tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. Iohn All that is in the world 1. Epl. 2. is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing which allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as wide is it from all morall wisedome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sins For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sodaine passions of the minde and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text which M. PERKINS bringeth to perswade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite contrary God tempteth no man but euerie man is tempted Iacob 1. when he is drawen away by his owne concupiscence and is allured afterward when concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the wordes well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it doe conceiue that is obtayne some liking of our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie the which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine sifteth out very profoundly in these wordes Lib. 6. in Iul. cap. 5. When the Apostle Saint Iames saith euery man is tempted being drawne away and allured by his Concupiscence and afterward Concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne Trulie in these wordes the thing brought forth is distinguished from that which bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sinne of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it drawe vs that is vnlesse it obtayne the consent of our will to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Vnlesse we resist manfully may be seene in S. Cirill Lib. 4. in Iohan. ca. â—1 so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers that text of S. Iames cited by M. PERKINS to proue concupiscence to be sinne disputeth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I answere that not concupiscence but the will of man is the Tree which bringeth forth either good or badde fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde Lib. 5 con Iulianum cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence
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
person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remayning in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltines of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltines belonging to it Who can denie this vnlesse he knowe not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be pardoned the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe Againe what Philosophy or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendour being pardoned for his offence the offence in it selfe remayneth guilty as though the offence seperated from the person were a substance subject to lawe and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in it selfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What sencelesse imaginations be these Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remayne in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed can there be two contraries in one part of the subject at once can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the will at the same instant can the soule be both truely conuerted to God and as truely auerted from him at one time is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost content to inhabite a body subject to sinne all which must be graunted contrary to both Scripture and natural sence if we admitte the fault and deformity of sinne to remayne in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subjects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other odde corner Remember also gentle Reader that here Master PERKINS affirmeth the power vvhereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrarie vnto the first proposition of his first reason following as shall bee there proued OVR DISSENT LET vs nowe come vnto the difference which is betweene vs. The Catholikes teach that Originall sinne is so farreforth taken away by Baptisme that it ceaseth to bee a sinne properly the effectes of it remayning are an inperfection and weakenesse both in our vnderstanding and will and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferiour appetite vnto reason as was and would haue beene in Originall iustice which make the soule apt and ready to fall into sinne like vnto tinder which although it bee not fire of it selfe yet is fit to take fire yet say they that these reliques of Originall sinne be not sinnes properly vnlesse a man doe yeelde his consent vnto those euill motions Master PERKINS teacheth otherwise That albeit Originall sinne bee taken away in the regenerate in sundry respectes yet doth it remayne in them after Baptisme not onely as a want and weakenesse but as a sinne and that properly as may be proued by these reasons Saint Paul saith directly 1. Rom. 7. It is no more I that doe this but sinne that dwelleth in me that is Originall sinne The Papists answere That it is called there sinne improperly because it commeth of sinne and is an occasion of sinne I approue this interpretation of Saint Paul as taken out of that auncient and famous Papist Saint Augustine Li. 1. cont duas Epist Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de nuptiis Concup cap. 23. who saith expresly Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet is it not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne as writing is called the hand because it is made by the hand And in an other place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as cold is called sloathfull because it makes a man sloathfull so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. PERKINS and shall be as well coursed for it by the playne circumstances of the place For saith he that Saint Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the wordes following That this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated Howe proues this that sinne there must be taken properly it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not bee sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will But Saint Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby was so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deede in resisting and ouercomming that euill As witnesseth Saint Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully Lib. 2 de Gen. cont Manich. cap. 14. and ruleth raging concupiscence which being done wee sinne not but for that conflict are to bee crowned This first circumstance then alleaged by M. PERKINS doth rather make against him then for him Now to the second O wreatched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne howe this may be drawne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can finde to proue Saint Paul to take sinne there properly Nowe I will proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence It is not I that doe it All sinnes is done and committed properly by the person in whome it is but this was not done by Saint Paul ergo Second out of those wordes I knowe there is not in me that is in my flesh anie good And after I see an other lawe in my members resisting the lawe of my minde Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was no sinne properly The third and last is taken out of the first wordes of the next Chapter There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in CHRIST IESVS that walke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dwelling in them if thy walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sinne properly For the wages of sinne is death this is eternall damnation Rom. 6. Nowe to M. PERKINS Argument in forme as he proposeth it That which was once sinne properly and still remayning in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo The Maior which as the learned knowe should consist of three wordes contaynes foure seuerall pointes and which is worst of all not one of them true To the first that which remayneth in man after
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
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