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
good deuotions of the soule as the actes of Faith Feare Hope Charity Repentance goe before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more sit to receiue that high grace of iustification The second iustification is when a iust man by the exercise of vertues is made more iust as a Childe newe borne doth by nuriture growe day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. PERKINS first graunteth that good workes doe please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessary to saluation not as the cause thereof but either as markes in away to direct vs towardes saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be just before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteeme much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sins The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeede of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second justification or whether they be only fruits signes or markes of it M. PERKINS pretendes to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our justice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those objections and proposeth them now at large which he made before against the first justification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe 2 Rom. 3. Answere The Apostle there speaketh of the justification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iewe and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and neede the glory of God Wherefore this place appertaynes not vnto the second justification and excludes only either workes of the law as not necessary vnto the first justification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first justification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is justified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of yeares of discretion meerely passiue in that his justification as M. PERKINS very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not onely beleeue but also Hope Loue Repente And this kinde of justification excludeth all boasting in our soules as wel as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their justification that without it they could not be justified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessary that we cannot truly boast 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 father of lightes and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith 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 an other of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that Saint Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he gloryeth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of GOD 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glory in measure and that he might glory in his power And that he was constayned to glory in his visions and reuelations 2. Cor. 12. So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly giftes so it be in measure and due season Acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that eyther GOD needed vs or that our good partes were cause that GOD called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawefull Ephes 2. So that by grace yea are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast himselfe Is nothing against our Doctrine of justification but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it and note also with Saint Augustine that faith is there mentioned Lib. 83. q. 76. to exclude all merites of our workes which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue beene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace and therefore very fondly doth M. PERKINS inferre that in that sentence Saint Paul speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following hee mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kinde of workes signifying the first To be of ourselues The second To proceede from vs as Gods workemanshippe created in CHRIST IESVS and the first he calleth Workes simply the second Good workes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then was it to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 9. you are bound to the whole lawe Hence thus he argueth If a man will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole lawe according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the lawe according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Appollo Saint Paul only saith in these wordes That if you bee circumcised yea are bound to keepe the whole lawe of Moyses M. PERKINS That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the lawe Which are as just as Germains lippes as they say But M. PERKINS sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcided did make himselfe subject vnto the whole lawe of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the lawe because M. PERKINS toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this M. PERKINS third Argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answere That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of
of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnes which is in Christ as the righteousnes of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christs righteousnes we are to vnderstand two thinges first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the lawe both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his bloud to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely be considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which he shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the lawe for vs. 3. Rule That iustification is from Gods mercies and grace procured onely by the merite of Christ 4. Rule That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the hart by the Holy Ghost whereby a sinner laieth holde of Christs righteousnes and applies the same to him selfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can doe this but faith alone now of the Doctrine of the Roman Church Because M. PERKINS settes not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and justification it selfe and that taken out of the Councel of Trent Where the very wordes concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towardes God beleeuing those thinges to be true which God doth reueale and promise â—â—â—â—ely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in CHRIST IESVS And when knowledging them selues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgementes they turne them selues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God will be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountayne of all iustice are there by moued with hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to beginne a new 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 which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glorie of God the glory of Christ and mans owne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious CHRIST IESVS Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onlie formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other giftes of the Holy Ghost powred 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 when a man is justified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the wordes of justice and justification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formall cause of iustification is our iustice and that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight and accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercie through the merits of CHRIST IESVS our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. PERKINS comes to short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs suffringes to obedience whereas obedience if it had beene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods handes And whereas M. PERKINS doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface we make Christ a Pseudochrist we auerre that herein we doe much more magnifie Christ then they doe for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men worthie of the joyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but only that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarywise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestimable merits that we hold them wel able to purchase at Gods handes a farre inferiour justice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man just before God and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued Againe they doe great iniury to Gods goodnes wisedome and justice in their justification for they teach that inward justice or sanctification is not necessary to justification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man Like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers whited on the out side with an imputed justice but within full of iniquity and disorder Then the wisdome of GOD must either not discouer this masse of iniquity or his goodnesse abide it or his justice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnesse to thinke it And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whome he for his sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such justice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be donne as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam in state of innocencie And M. PERKINS seemes to graunt Pag. 77. That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse If then we had no other reason for vs but that our justification doth more exalt the power and goodnes of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and bringeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleage one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our justification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnesse Now to their reasons M. PERKINS first reason is this That which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of
him but what is this to justification by only faith Marry M. PERKINS drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were strong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eye of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similttudes be not in all poynts alike neither must be streatched beyond the very poynt wherein the similitude lyeth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernes stoung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easely rejected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures Gal 2.16 As we are iustified freely not of the lawe not by the lawe not of workes not of our selues not of the workes of the lawe but by faith all boasting excluded Luke 8.50 only beleeue These distinctions whereby works the law are excluded in the worke of justification include thus much that faith alone doth justifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the lawe aswell as any other vertue being as much required by the lawe as any other But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iewe or Gentile did or could bragge of as donne of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtayne this grace through Christ it was not needefull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses lawe as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feastes or fastes nor any such like worke of the lawe which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall workes of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of justification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first justification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iewe and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of justification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of workes and boasting exclude not faith no more doe they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the lawe 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 Now that out of S Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtayne a myracle but not to obtayne justification of which the question only is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the judgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers judgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the lawe De gra lib. aâ—b c 7. thought him to say that faith sufficed a man althoug he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De predest sanct c 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because saith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue justlie are by petition obtayned By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the lawe and the workes donne by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace THAT FAITH ONLY DOTH NOT IVSTIFIE MASTER PERKINS third Argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this ende of apprehending but faith only Amswere Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little But what if that also faile you in this poynt then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man shoulde 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 fitte instrument to apply and drawe these thinges to himselfe as all the worlde sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to bee 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 neede 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 bolde to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applyed 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 shal please him to appoynt is alike apt and so M. PERKINS had small reason to say that faith was the only apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charity doe much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them doe then faith For what faith assureth me of in
vnto a Diuels faith when it is naked and voyde of good workes in two points First in both there is a perfect knowledge of all thinges reuealed Secondly this knowledge shall not stead them any whit but only serue vnto their greater condemnation because that knowing the will of their master they did it not And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together Now there are many points wherein these faithes doe differ but this one is principall That Christians out of a goodly and deuoute affection doe willingly submitte their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith beleeuing thinges aboue humane reason yea such as seeme sometimes contrary to it But the Diuell against his will beleeues all that God hath reuealed Because by his naturall capacity he knowes that God can teach nor testifie any vntruth Againe that faith may be without charity is proued out of these wordes of the same second Chapter Euer as the body without the spirit is dead so also faith without workes is dead Hence thus I argue albeit the body be dead without the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe euen so faith is perfect in the kinde of faith although without charity it auayle not to life euerlasting Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be without charity for they haue seuerall seates in the soule one being in the will and the other in the vnderstanding they haue distinct objectes faith respecting the truth of God and charity the goodnes of God Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charity as charity doth faith for we cannot loue him of whom we neuer heard Neither yet doth charity naturaly flow out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnes of God and of his benefits and loue towardes vs into which good deuout considerations few men doe enter in comparison of them who are led into the broad way of iniquity through their inordinate passiōs This according to the truth yet more different in the Protestants opinion for faith laies hold on Christs righteous receiues that in But charity can receiue nothing in Pag. 85. as M. P. witnesseth But giues it selfe forth in al duties of the first second table Now sir if they could not apply vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first second table they should neuer apply it to them for they hold it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessary lincking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charity is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible then if the assurance of their saluation Rom. 12. must needes be joyned with such an impossibility they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation Let vs annex vnto these playne authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimony of Antiquity That most incorrupt judge S. Augustine saith flatly Lib. 15. de trin c. 17. Con crescen lib. 1. cap. 29. That faith may well he without Charity but it cannot profit vs without Charity And That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charity and that also out of the Church neither therefore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme one immaculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is trulie serued neither in which alone faith is kept but in which only faith is kept with charity So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh Ephes 4. One God one faith may be and is in many without charity The Protestants bolde asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disproouing THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT GOOD WORKES 1. Tim. 5. THE first He that hath not care of his owne hath denied his faith therefore faith includeth that good worke of prouiding for our owne Answ That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all thinges reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptisme which is to keepe all Gods commaundements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that wee haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denyed his faith that is violed his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to witte that one may deny his faith two wayes either in flatte denying any article of faith or by doing some thing 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 Ioh. 6. 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knewe who beleeued and who was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith conteyned in it selfe fidelity This Argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelity and loue alwaies necessarily joyned with it yet falling from faith may well drawe after it hatred and treason yea ordinarely wickednes goeth before falling from faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whome our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with couetuousnes 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 3. They object that Who saith he knowes God and doth not keepe his commaundements is a lyar 1. Ioh. 2. Answere 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 commaundements but to the objection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I knowe yee not that is I loue you not Math. 7. 25. Psal 1. Ioh. 14. Our Lord knowes the way of the just that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God kepes his commaundements as Christ himselfe testifieth If any loue me he will keepe my word And he that loueth me not will not keepe my wordes Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charity Answere That faith in a just man is not without hope and charity by all which conjoyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinnefull and vnjust man without charity who holding fast his former beleefe doth in transgressing Gods commaundements breake the bandes of charity And so it remaynes most certayne that faith may be and too too
for the mastery 2. Tim. 2. is not crowned vnlesse he striue lawfully It is also resembled vnto places of honour Math. 25. Ioh. 14. Mat. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. I will place thee ouer much And I goe to prouide you places Grace is also in many places of Scripture compared to seede For the seede of God tarrieth in him But a little seede cast into good ground and well manured bringeth forth abundance of corne Briefly then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subject and the office betweene him that striueth lawfully and the crowne betweene the seede and the corne is betweene the reward of heauen and the merit of a true seruant of God And thus much of M. PERKINS first Argument more indeede to explicate the nature and condition of merit then that his reason nakedly proposed did require it Exod 20. His second testimony is God will shewe mercy vpon thousandes in them that loue him and keepe his commaundements Hence he reasoneth thus Where reward is giuen vpon mercy there is no merit but reward is giuen vpon mercy as the text proueth ergo Answere That in that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shewe mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall thinges or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestowe the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the party himselfe be first made worthy of it 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 gifts might day by day encrease them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue bin otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better In Inchir cap. 25. And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue bin from Paradise translated aliue into the Kingdome of heauen this by the way Nowe to the thirde Argument Rom. 6. Scripture condemneth merite of workes The wages of sinne is death True But we speake of good workes and not of badde which the Apostle calleth sinne where were the mans wittes but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God 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 De gra li. arb c. 8. 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 repaide for vvorkes and so pursuing the pointes of difficulty at large in the end resolueth that eternall life is most trulie rendred vnto good workes as the due rewarde of them but because those good workes could not haue beene donne 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 wordes Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merittes but for that those merittes to which it is rendred were giuen 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 vvorkes but to holde vs in humility partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation choose 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 fountayne of merit and all good workes Now to those textes cited before about justification Ad Eph. 2. We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue donne Ad Tit. 3. I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes donne by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes donne in and by grace Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillers in this controuersie It is The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory to come Rom. 8. The strength of this objection lyeth in a false translation of these words Axia pros tein doxan equal to that glory or in the misconstruction of them For we graunt as it hath beene already declared that our afflictions and sufferinges be not of equall in length or greatnes with the glory 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 wee teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of GOD doth meritte the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles playne wordes for saith he 2. Cor. 4. That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting weight of glory in vs. The reason is that just mens workes issue out of the fountayne 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 workes are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost 2. Pet. 1. and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh Which addes a worth of heauen to his workes Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attayneth vnto of infinite dignity as M. PERKINS fableth but hath his certayne boundes measure according vnto each mans merittes otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glory for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men doe confesse M. PERKINS 4. reason Whosoeuer will meritte must fulfill the whole law for if we offend in one commandement we are guiltie of the whole lawe but no man can fulfill the whole lawe ergo Answere I denie the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite as by all the properties of meritte may be proued at large and by his owne definition of meritte set downe in tne beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former meritte but recouering grace he riseth to his former meritte as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the
so that God giueth it not vnto all yet doth he certainely giue it to some for otherwise they cannot keepe their Vowes but to the dishonour of God and to their owne damnation should breake them And wee onely teach that some such who haue Vowed chastitie could keepe it so that the argument is verie childish and too too weake to lead any wise man away from the holy and auncient Doctrine of the Church But to the further confirmation of this poynt let vs heare what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibilitie of this Vowe TERTVLLIAN neere the ende expounding these wordes * Lib. de monog Hee that can take let him take * Mat 19. Choose sayeth hee that which is good if thou saye thou canst not it is because thou wilt not for that thou mightest if thou wouldest he doth declare who hath left both to thy choyse ORIGEN vpon the same place * Mat 19. Hee that will take this worde that is set downe of chastitie let him praye for it beleeuing him that saide aske and it shall bee giuen you and hee shall receiue it which doeth plainelie confute Maist Perk. Who sayeth that although wee aske neuer so much wee can not obtayne this gift with ORIGEN agreeth Sainct IEROM vpon the same place who sayeth It is giuen vnto them vvho haue requested it who haue desired it and trauayled that they might receiue it The same Song chanteth GREGORIE NAZIANZ which is of three kindes of Eunuchs * Orat. 3 1. Saint CHRYSOSTOME sayeth it is possible to all them who make choyse of it and further addeth that our Sauiour CHRIST himselfe doeth prooue it there after this sorte Thinke with thy selfe if thou haddest bene by nature an Eunuch or by the malice of men made one what wouldest thou then haue done when thou shouldest both haue bene depriued of that pleasure and yet not haue had any recompence for thy paine Therefore thanke GOD because thou shalt haue a great rewarde and a glyttering Crowne if thou liue so as they must doe vvithout any revvarde yet sayeth hee thou mayest doe it more easelie safelie and pleasantlie both because thou art fortifyed with hope of recompence and also comforted with a vertuous conscience Wee will wrappe vp this poynte with Saint AVGVSTINE who directlie confuteth M. Perk. by many reasons and examples Lib. 2. De adulterinis coniug cap. 12. Et de bono viduit cap. 20. And vpon the Psalme an hundreth thirtie seauen he yeeldeth an other reason why God will more reallie assist them saying Hee that exhorteth thee to Vowe vvill helpe thee to fulfill it All which heauenly Doctrine because it is spirituallie judged as the Apostle speaketh the Carnall man cannot vnderstande And therefore M. P. being perswaded that few can liue chastly except they marrie avoucheth that this Vowe doeth bring foorth innumerable abhominations in the Worlde Not the hundreth parte so manie as the fleshlie Heretikes imagine and out of flying and lying tales reporte and bruite abroade Naie I dare affirme that let the authenticall Recordes of our Realme bee well perused and you shall finde more lewde filthie Lecherie to haue bene practised by Ministers and their Wiues this last age than was in a thousand yeare before by all the Catholike Priestes and Religious persons of the Land This may serue for a reproofe of al that M. P. objecteth against the Vowe of chastity afterward the man would somwhat reason the matter by shewing howe hee condemneth not chastitie yet sayeth that Marriage is better than it in two respects If IOVINIAN was reputed by the learnedst an holiest Fathers a Christian Epicure and a Monster because he durst make marriage equall with Virginitie What shall this man be who sayeth it is better His reasons are so childish that by the like you may prooue durt to be better then gold wherefore I will not stand vpon them He neuerthelesse afterwarde concludeth that one may purpose constantly with himselfe to leade a single life but so as he may change vpon occasion and this to be a councell of expedience but not of perfection Lastly that if any hauing the gifte of continencie doe Vowe and afterwarde Marrie the gift remayning they haue sinned which is flat against his owne second rule which prohibites vs to leese our libertie and to make any thing vnlawfull in conscience which Christian religion leaueth at libertie Now libertie supposeth M. P. his default who was accustomed to rehearse although many times vntowardly yet lightly alwaies some reasons for the Catholike partie which in this question he hath whollie omitted I wil briefely prooue by an argument or two that it is both lawful verie commendable for men and women of ripe yeeres and consideration hauing wel tryed their own aptnesse to Vow virginitie if by good inspirations they be thereunto inwardly called My first reason is this that which is more pleasant and grateful vnto God may verie well be Vowed to him but Virginitie is more acceptable to God than Marriage The first proposition is manifest and hath no other exception against it but that which before is confuted to wit if we be able to performe it The second is denyed by them which we prooue in expresse tearmes out of S. PAVL * 1. Cor. 7. He that ioyneth his Virgin doth well but he that ioyneth her not doth better and againe of Widdowes * Esa 56. They shall be more happie by S. PAVLS iudgement if they remaine vnmarried This may be confirmed out of ESAY Where God promiseth the Eunuch that holdeth greatly of the thing that pleaseth him that he will giue him in his houshold and within his walles a better heritage and name than if they had bene called sonnes and daughters I will saith God giue them an euerlasting name And also out of the booke of Wisdome * Cap. 3. Blessed is the Eunuch which hath wrought no vnrighteosnesse c. For vnto him shall be giuen the speciall gift of faith and the most acceptable portion in our Lords Temple for glorious is the fruit of God Which is also plainely taught in the Reuelations * Reuelat. 14. Where it is said that no man could sing that song but 14400 and the cause is set downe These be they which haue not bene defiled with women for they are Virgins To these latter places M. P. answereth pag. 241. that to the Eunuch is promised a greater rewarde but not because of his chastitie but because he keepeth the Lords Saboth and couenant But this is saide vnaduisedlie for to all others that keepe Gods commandements shall be giuen a heauenly reward but why shall they haue a better heritage and more acceptable portion than others but because of their speciall prerogatiue of chastitie M. P. then answereth otherwise here that the single life is better and more happie because it is freer from common cares of this life and yeeldeth vs more bodelie ease and libertie to serue God But 1200. yeares agoe