worke speaker A. W. I denie the consequence of your proposition For though saith alone be the whole cause of iustification yet not euery faith but such an one as is accompanied with hope and charitie To your proofe I answere that such a faith is neither the whole nor any cause of iustification and so though that be as you say in act yet no such effect will follow speaker D. B. P. Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot applie to themselues Christs righteousnes vvithout the preseace of hope and charitie For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honor which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing els but the plaine vice of presumption as hath been before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie when it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophie that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sence and reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the prefence of the whole cause and not only of thâ— instrumentall cause speaker A. W. To the assumption I answere Faith considered without any act of hope or charitie to iustification doth iustifie but faith that is without these doth not iustifie To your proofe I say further that to our iustification God accounteth for righteousnes neither our hope of heauen nor our loue towards himselfe nor our estimation of his honour but onely our beleeuing in Iesus Christ. The similitude is true and fit True because the eye doth see though as an instrument fitted to that office by God and thus Philosophers Poets Orators and all kinde of people doe speake He that would be more curious than wise might finde fault with you also and say that the act of seeing also is mans and the soule the instrustrument whereby he doth see as the hand is the instrument with which he reacheth The fitnes of the similitude appeareth thus It is man that beleeueth as it is man that seeth The generall instrument as I may speake for both these actions is the soule though by diuers faculties the particular for sight is the eye for beleeuing faith outwardly there is none The eye seuered from the head seeth not and yet it is the eye that seeth and not the head so saith that is without hope and charitie iustifieth not and yet hope and charitie doth not iustifie You answere that it is not to purpose because wee require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall But you deceiue your selfe for the question is not of the whole cause or principall efficient which is God for it is he onely that iustifieth but of the instrument if wee may so call it To speake plainly the matter is as I haue often said what it is that God respects in vs to our iustification We say it is onely our beleeuing in Christ you say it is our beleeuing louing and hoping because we teach that together with faith by which on our part we are iustified we receiue hope charitie and other graces of sanctification which are all present in the heart when it beleeueth to iustification but are no way any causes of it speaker D. B. P. And to returne your similitude vpon yourselfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight speaker A. W. I denie your similitude as faultie in the reddition or latter part of it For faith receiueth no influence from any other vertue whereby it hath life to worke acceptably in Gods sight but the acceptablenes of faith proceedes from the meere acceptation of God counting it for righteousnes And whereas wee say that such a faith onely iustifieth as hath hope and loue for companions it is not our meaning that these make saith acceptable but that hee which beleeueth and hath not these vertues idly presumes of faith when he hath it not because the spirit of God together with true faith powreth these graces also into our soules But of this whole point of iustification I shall one day if it please God write more distinctly and fully speaker W. P. Reason IV. If faith alone doe iustifie then wee are saued by faith alone but we are not saued by faith alone and therfore not iustified by faith alone Answ. The proposition is false for more things are requisit to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes speaker D. B. P. The fourth reason if faith alone doe iustifie then faith alone vvill saue but it will not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition and saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an Innocent babe dye shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuolous speaker A. W. It had been the part of a scholler to haue refuted his reason as well as to condemne his answere But indeede the reason is sound that iustification being but the subordinate meanes to the maine end saluation more is required to this than to that not that any man can faile of saluation which hath attained to iustification but because God hath appointed to make supplie of other graces that we may come by degrees to glorification Your reason is nothing worth For the comparison of equalitie and likenes is insufficient For though infants need no more to saluation yet men of discretion doe I appeale to your owne doctrine Doe not you teach that good workes are necessarie to saluation and yet you grant that infants may be saued without them yea and men of yeres too if they haue no time to doe them after their first iustification Therefore more may bee required to saluation than to iustification though infants want nothing after they are once iustified yea infants are iustified without faith as many as are iustified speaker W. P. And the assumption is false for we are saued by faith alone if wee speake of faith as it is an instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation speaker D. B. P. Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
not the Virgin Mary in your seruice called the promise of the Prephets the Queene of the Patriarkes the schoolmistris of the Euangelists the teacher of the Apostles the comforter of the quick and the dead Who thâ—… saios deuoutly this short prayer daily saith the Rubrick shall not depart out of this world without penance and ministration of the holy Sacrament In another prayer in the same booke shee is called the most true schoolmistris of the Euangelists the most wise teacher of the Apostles The booke was printed at Paris by Francis Regnault 1526. What profound piercing into such naturall affection can exccuse these speeches what French phrase can warrant it But what should we striue about the forciblenes of her prayers when it is not nor can be prooued that she prayes at all speaker W. P. Therefore we haue good cause to blesse the name of God that hath freed vs from the yoke of this Roman bondage and hath brought vs to the true light and libertie of the Gospell And it should be a great height of vnthankfulnesse in vs not to stand ouer against the present Church of Rome but to yeelde ourselues to plots of reconciliation To this effect and purpose I haue penned this little Treatise which I present to your worship desiring it might be some token of a thankfull minde for vndeserued loue And I craue withall not onely your Worshipfull which is more common but also your learned protection being well assured that by skill and arte you are able to iustifie whatsoeuer I haue truelie taught Thus wishing to you and yours the continuance and the increase of faith and good conscience I take my leaue Cambridge Iune 28. 1597. Your W. in the Lord VVilliam Perkins Wherefore to conclude this Epistle if there be no waightier cause then this by you here produced vvhy you and your adherent doe not reconcile your selues vnto the Church of Rome you may shortly by Gods grace become nevv men for vve are so farre off from making our Sauiour Christ a Pseudochâ—â—st or from dravving one iote of excellencie from his soueraâ—gne povver merits or dignitie that vve in the very points by you put downe doe much more magnifie him then you doe For in maintaining the authority by him imparted vnto his deputies our spirituall Magistrates and of their merits and satisfaction We first say that these his seruants prerâ—… be his hee gifts of 〈…〉 grace bestovved on vvhom he pleaseth vvhich is no finall praise of his great liberality And vvithall affirme that there is an infinite difference betvveene his ovâ—ne povver merits and satisfaction and ours Wherein his soueraigne honour is preserued entire to himselfe vvithout any comparison Novv you make Christs authoritie so base his merits and satisfaction so meane that if he â—…part any degree of them vnto his seruants he looseth the honour of all from himselfe Whereupon it follow eth inuinciblie if you vnfeignedly seeke Christ Iesus his true honour and vvill esteeme of his diuine giftes vvorthelie you must hold out no longer but vnâ—te your selfe in these necessarie heades of Religion vnto the Catholike Church of Rome which so highly exalted him both in his owne excellencie and in his singular giftes to his subiects speaker A. W. The least of these is cause sufficient to withhold vs from ioyning with the Church of Rome at least in that point The Kings authoritie is not abased because he cannot communicate any of his royalties to his subiects That Christ must needes lose by it I shewed before for it argues an insufficiencie in his satisfaction speaker W. P. THE AVTHOR TO THE CHRISTIAN READER BY a Reformed Catholike I vnderstand any one that holds the same necessarie heades of religion with the Roman Church yet so as he pares off and reiects all errours in doctrine whereby the said religion is corrupted How this may be done I haue begun to make some little declaration in this small Treatise the intent whereof is to shew how neere we may come to the present church of Rome in sundrie points of religion and wherein we must for euer dissent My purpose in penning this small discourse is threefold The first is to confute all such Politikes as hold and maintaine that our religion that of the Roman Church differ not in substance and consequently that they may be reconciled yet my meaning is not here to condemne any Pacification that tends to perswade the Roman Church to our religion The second is that the Papists which thinke so basely of our religion may be won to a better liking of it when they shall see how neere we come vnto them in sundrie points The third that the common Protestant might in some part see conceiue the point of difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome and know in what manner and how farre forth we condemne the opinions of the said Church I craue pardon for the order which I vse in handling the seuer all points For I haue set them downe one by one as they came to minde not respecting the lawes of Method If any Papist shall say that I haue not alleadged their opinions aright I answere that their bookes be at hand and I can iustifie what I haue said Thus crauing thine acceptation for this my paines and wishing vnto thee the increase of knowledge and loue of pure and sound religion I take my leaue and make an ende speaker D. B. P. AN ANSWERE TO THE Preface VPON your preface to the Reader I will not stand because it toucheth no point of controuersie let it be declared in your next what you meane when you desire your reformed Catholike to hold the same necessarie heades of Religion with the Romane Church for if the Romane Church doth erre in the matter of faith and iustification in the number and vertue of the Sacraments in the bookes and interpretation of the word of God if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist and an Idoll to omitte twenty other eâ—rors in substantial points of faith as in this your small discourse you would perswade there will remaine verie few necessarie heades of Religion for them to agree in And be you well assured that you are so wide from winning Catholikes by this your worke to a better liking of your Religion that you haue taken the high way to lead them to a farre greater dislike of it by teaching that in so many materiall points it differeth so farre from theirs For all Catholikes hold for most assured that which the most auncient learned and holie Doctor Athanasius in his creede deliuereth in the 2. vers VVhich Catholike faith vnlesse euery man obserue wholy and inuiolably not omitting or shrinking from any one article of it vvithout doubt he shall perish euerlastingly If S. Basil that reuerent and blessed Father of the Church doth hold it the dutie of euerie good Christian rather to loose his life then to condescend to the alteration
a sentence of his in commendation of Pope Eugenius which is so full of flatterie that I say not impietie that it can carrie no credit with any modest Christian. It should seeme you saw so much your selfe and therefore craftily left out these absurd and vile speeches viz. Thou art Abel in primacie Noah in gouernment in Patriarkship Abraham in order Melchisedech in authoritie of iudging Samuel in vnction that is either in annoynting or in being annoynted Christ. If this be not a blinde sentence on Bernards part and a broken sentence on yours there is nothing but may abide the light be it neuer so false and be accounted whole be it neuer so mangled It is rather grosse ignorance in you to finde fault with that you vnderstand not Master Perkins neither saith nor meanes that there were many Bishops of Rome at once and yet there haue been three Popes together but according to the Canon cals the Cardinals Bishops of Rome referring this word of Rome not to Bishops simply but to Cardinall Bishops Now all Cardinals were Cardinals of Rome or of the Romish Church The Canon indeede puts not in those words of Rome but the sense is nothing altered by the adding of them For the cleere vnderstanding of the matter we are to know that all Cardinals are either Cardinall Bishops whom the Canon appoints first to consult about electing of the Pope or Cardinall Clerkes that is of some inferiour order of the Clergie the general name wherof is Clerke whether it be Priesthood Deaconship c and these must in the second place be called to the election Now let men iudge whether Master Perkins or you are in fault This Canon is brought to prooue the former proposition that he is no lawfull Pope who is chosen only by the Cardinals and not also by the consent of the rest of the Clergie and people If you had been as carefull to auoide slandering as that reuerend and learned writer was to take heede of vntruths you would neuer haue raised such a suspition of him in this point For the cleering of him let his owne desence against Master Hardings reproches speake For the present Roger Houeden who liued in that time records the historie and sets downe Ioachims words to King Richard That Antichrist was alreadie borne in the citie of Rome and that he should be exalted into the Apostolike seate But you except against Ioachim as an heretike so doth not Bellarmine but onely denies that he writ any such thing It is true that the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocent the third condemned a certaine booke that Abbat Ioachim writ against Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris commonly called the Master of the Sentences concerning the vnitie or essence of the Trinitie but it did not reiect him as an heretike yea the Councell specially addes that they will not by their sentence any way derogate from the Abbey of Florence whereof he was the orderer as well because the orders in it were good as also for that he had submitted all his writings to the Apostolike see Therefore Iodocus Coccius makes him one of his Latin Doctors out of whom he confirmes your Popish doctrine And Trithemius saith that he was a man studious and exercised in the Scriptures and that he writ many things against the Iewes and other aduersaries of the Catholike faith Petrark one of the lights of his age for learning wrote about 250. yeeres since that Rome was become Babylon and not onely Babylon but false and wicked Babylon Further in the same place he calles her The fountaine of griefe the lodge of wrath the schoole of error the temple of heresie a shamelesse strumpet which hauing been founded in chastitie humilitie and pouertie hath lifted vp her hornes against her founders the Emperours In another place he calles her couetous Babylon that hath filled vp the measure of Gods wrath with impious and wicked vices so that it runnes ouer In a third he termes her impious Babylon from whom all shame is fled the lodge of griefe and mother of errors in whom there is no goodnes I set not down all he speakes against her somewhat I haue touched that I might see how easily you will answere his words but I thinke he that hath read Bellarmine of this point may gesse before hand what you can say in the matter Irenaeus as you truly say determines not what shall be Antichrists name and leanes more to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet neither doth he allow of that because a man as hee saith may with likelihood gather by many things that his name perhaps shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirmes that it is very likely and giues his reason of it because the most true kingdome had that name Master Perkins expounded it not as a proper name but as an appellatiue because neither the Euangelist nor Irenaeus doe intend to shew Antichrists proper name but to make knowne the name of the Beast which Antichrist should make all take Now the Beast being the Romane or Latin state the name also must be sutable thereunto as wee see it is our Papists calling themselues Romane that is Latin Catholikes I will not fall into exhortation hereupon only I desire all men that haue care of their saluation to consider without preiudice whether it be not euident that the state of Rome whereof the Pope is head is the whore of Babylon prophecied of by S. Iohn Reuelat 17. speaker W. P. Againe this commandement must not so much be vnderstood of a bodily departure in respect of cohabitation and presence as of a spirituall separation in respect of faith and religion And the meaning of the holy Ghost is that men must depart from the Romish Church in regard of Iudgement and doctrine in regard of their faith and the worship of God Thus then we see that the words containe a commaundement from God inioyning his Church and people to make a separation from Babylon Whence I obserue That all those who will bee saued must depart and separate themselues from the faith and religion of this present church of Rome And whereas they are charged with schisme that separate on this manner the truth is they are not schismatiks that doe so because they haue the commandement of God for their warrant and that partie is the schismatike in whom the cause of this separation lieth and that is in the Church of Rome namely the cup of abomination in the whores hand which is their heretical and schismaticall religion speaker D. B. P. And because I purpose God willing not only to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholike doctrine but some what also in euerie Chapter to fortifie and confirme it I will here deliuer what some of the most auncient most learned
infallible as the articles of our creede yea as Gods owne word they are not by faith assured of it Now that some speciall good men either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of a vertuous life haue a great certainty of their saluation we willingly confesse but that certainty doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinary faith Your answere vpon Master Perkins grant is insufficient Commonly saith Master Perkins men do not beleeue their saluation as they doe the Articles of faith Therefore say you by his owne confession our particular saluation is not to be beleeued by faith I denie the consequence your conclusion is not rightly inferred men doe not commonly therefore they are not bound to doe or therefore it is not possible they should Either of both the meanes you name is sufficient to breed assurance of faith For the former who euer durst imagine that reuelation from God breedes not certaintie of faith The latter also passeth hope for a life truly vertuous argues true sanctification and that iustification which is not attained to but by true faith and whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued As for falling away from faith it is impossible as if neede be shall be prooued when occasion is offered speaker W. P. Object III. We are taught to pray for the pardon of our sinnes day by day Matth. 6. 12. and all this were needelesse if wee could be assured of pardon in this life Ans. The fourth petition must be vnderstood not so much of our old debts or sins as of our present and new sinnes for as we goe on from day to day so we adde sinne to sinne and for the pardon of them we must humble our selues and pray I answere againe that wee pray for the pardon of our sinnes not because wee haue no assurance thereof but because our assurance is weake and smal wee grow on from grace to grace in Christ as children doe to mans estate by little and little The heart of euery beleeuer is like a vessell with a narrow necke which being cast into the sea is not filled at the first but by reason of the straight passage receiueth water droppe by droppe God giueth vnto vs in Christ euen a sea of mercie but the same on our parts is apprehended and receiued onely by little and little as faith groweth from age to age and this is the cause why men hauing assurance pray for more speaker D. B. P. Good Sir doe you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe If your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and as strong as the truth of God We giue God thankes for those giftes which we haue receiued at his bountifull hands and desire him to encrease or continue them if they may be lost But to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by faith is as fond and friuolous as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen of which they are in full and assured possession And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for vs are very substantiall and sufficient to assure euery good Christian that he may well hope for saluation doing his duty but may not without great presumption assure him by faith of it speaker A. W. It is necessarie for vs daily to craue pardon although before we were assured of it in some measure first because we haue a commandement which must be simply obeyed secondly because we must renew our repentance as we renew our sinnes Our assurance though it be weake is the assurance of faith failing not in truth for the nature of it but in quantitie for the measure it should be without doubt but it is not speaker A. W. To these I will adde two or three others which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions as he tearmes them â—o his first exception I haue answered before The second I will put last for orders sake and answere to the third Master Perkins hauing answered the popish obiections propounded by him proceeds to confirme our doctrine by sixe reasons whereof the fiue first are drawne from the Scriptures Against which the Papists except three waies To those exceptions Master Perkins answeres in their order and place That order this Papist alters and to serue his own turne answers the exceptions before he propound the reasons to which they are taken Afterward he shifts off the reasons as well as he can The plainest course for me is to set downe Master Perkins words and by A. B. C. to referre the reader to the Papists answers and replies as they belong to Master Perkins disputation Our reasons to the contrarie speaker W. P. Reason I. The first reason may bee taken from the nature of faith on this manner True faith is both an vnfallible assurance and a particular assurance of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainely and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting And therefore by this faith a man may bee certainly and particularly assured of the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting That this reason may bee of force two things must bee prooued first that true faith is a certaine assurance of Gods mercie to that partie in whom it is Secondly that faith is a particular assurance thereof For the first that faith is a certaine assurance Christ saith to Peter Matthew 14. 31. O thou of little faith wherefore diddest thou doubt Where he makes an opposition betweene faith and doubting whereby giuing vs directly to vnderstand that To be certaine and to giue assurance is of the nature of faith Rom. 4. 20. 22. Paul saith of Abraham that he did not doubt of the promise of God through vnbeleefe but was strengthened in faith and gaue glorie to God beeing fully assured that hee which had promised was able to doe it where I obserue first that doubting is made a fruit of vnbeleefe and therfore vnfallible certainty and assurance being contrary to doubting must needes proceede from true faith considering that contrary effects come of contrary causes and contrary causes produce contrarie effects Secondly I note that the strength of Abrahams faith did stand in fulnes of assurance for the text saith hee was strengthened in the faith beeing fully assured and againe Heb. 11. 1. true sauing faith is said to bee the ground and subsistence of things hoped for and the euidence or demonstration of things that are not seene but faith can be no ground or euidence of things vnles it bee for nature certaintie it selfe and thus the first point is manifest The second that sauing faith is a particular assurance is proued by this that the property of faith is to apprehend and applie the promise and the thing promised Christ with his benefits Ioh. 1. 12. As
euerlasting for the righteousnesse and merit of Christ. Rule II. That iustification stands in two things first in the remission of sinnes by the merit of Christ his death secondly in the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse which is another action of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnesse which is in Christ as the righteousnesse of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christ his righteousnesse we are to vnderstand two things first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the law both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his blood to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely bee considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which hee shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the law for vs. This point if some had well thought on they would not haue placed all iustification in remission of sins as they doe Rule III. That iustification is from Gods meere mercie and grace procured onely by the merit of Christ. Rule IV. That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the heart by the holy Ghost whereby a sinner lâ—ieth hold of Christ his righteousnesse and applieth the same vnto himselfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can do this but faith alone The doctrine of the Romane Church touching the iustification of a sinner is on this manner I. They holde that before iustification there goes a preparation thereunto which is an action wrought partly by the holy Ghost and partly by the power of naturall free will whereby a man disposeth himselfe to his owne future iustification In the preparation they consider the ground of iustification and things proceeding from it The ground is saith which they define to bee a generall knowledge whereby wee vnderstand and beleeue that the doctrine of the word of God is true Things proceeding from this faith are these a sight of our sinnes a feare of hell hope of saluation loue of God repentance and such like all which when men haue attained they are then fully disposed as they say to their iustification This preparation being made then comes iustification itselfe which is an action of God whereby he maketh a man righteous It hath two parts the first and the second The first is when a sinner of an euill man is made a good man And to effect this two things are required first the pardon of sinne which is one part of the first iustification secondlie the infusion of inward righteousnesse whereby the heart is purged and sanctified and this habit of righteoutnes stands specially in hope and charitie After the first iustification followeth the second which is when a man of a good or iust man is made better and more iust and this say they may proceed from works of grace because he which is righteous by the first iustification can bring forth good works by the merit whereof hee is able to make himselfe more iust and righteous and yet they graunt that the first iustification commeth only of Gods mercie by the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. Because M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I wil helpe him out both with the preparation and iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice vvhen being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued to vvard God beleeuing those things to be true vvhich God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus And vvhen knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgments they turne themselues to consider the mercy of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God vvill be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued vvith hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a nevv life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter vvhich briefly are these The finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and maas ovvne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Jesus Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the only formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charitie vvith the other gifts of the Holy Ghost povvred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes vvhen a man is iustified be pardoned him speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly deliuered the summe of that which you set down out of the Councill of Trent and that more plainly for euery mans vnderstanding than it is in the Councill I. Our consent and difference speaker W. P. Now let vs come to the points of difference betweene vs and them touching iustification The first maine difference is in the matter thereof which shall bee seene by the answere both of Protestant and Papist to this one question What is the very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God and to be accepted to life euerlasting wee answer Nothing but the righteousnesse of Christ which consisteth partly in his sufferings and partly in his actiue obedience in fulfilling the rigour of the law And here let vs consider how neere the Papists come to this answere and wherein they dissent Consent I. They graunt that in iustification sinne is pardoned by the merits of Christ and that none can be iustified without remission of sinnes and that is well II. They graunt that the righteousnes whereby a man is made righteous before God commeth from Christ and from Christ alone III. The most learned among them say that Christ his satisfaction and the merit of his death is imputed to euery sinner that doth heleeue for his satisfaction before God and hitherto we agree The very point of difference is this wee hold that the satisfaction made by Christ in his death and obedience to the law is imputed to vs and becomes our righteousnesse They say it is our satisfaction and not our righteousnes whereby we stand righteous before God because it is inherent in the person of Christ as in a subiect Now the answer of the Papist to the
the soule but the breath And he fitly compareth workes to breath for as the body of a liuing creature if it breathe not is dead so faith if it bring foorth no workes is dead for breathing is an effect of a liue bodie and likewise working is the proper effect of a liuing faith whereby it appeareth saith he in what sense the Apostle said aboue that faith without workes was dead not because hee thought that works were the forme of faith but because he thought that works accompany faith as the breath accompanieth the life of the bodie You see both his iudgement and his reason which is confirmed by that the Apostle said before Faith if it haue not workes is dead So that the meaning is faith without workes that is faith that hath not workes is dead speaker D. B. P. Which S. Paul confirmeth at large in the vvhole Chapter prouing charitie to be a more excellent gift then faith or any other concluding vvith these vvords Novv there remaineth faith hope and charity these three but the greater of these is charitie Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auaileable for faith saith he may be vvithout charity but it cannot be auailable vvithout it So that first you see that charitie is the mouer and commaunder and faith as her instrument and handmaid speaker A. W. The Apostle speaketh not of that faith by which wee beleeue in God to iustification but of that by which miracles are wrought Besides it doth not follow that loue vseth faith as an instrument to iustifie vs because in some respect it is superiour namely in the present vse for the good of our brethren to which the Apostles exhortation tends as it ◅y appeare by his discourse both in that chapter and in the 12. going before and the 14. that followeth Austin bringing the Apostles words speaketh of the same faith that hee meant which may be indeed without charitie and cannot rise to the height of a iustifying faith but must needs be accompanied by charitie without which it is dead speaker D. B. P. Now that in the worke of iustification it hath the chiefe place may be thus proued I demaund whether that worke of iustification by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no If not as it is void of charity so it is a wicked and sinfull act no iustification but infection our owne interest being the principall end of it now if it comprehend and 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 therin for the directing of all to the honor and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity speaker A. W. There is neither reason in your question nor strength in your argument the worke of iustification by faith is Gods action iustifying a sinner that beleeueth in Iesus Christ. What sense then is there in this question I demaund whether that work of iustificatiō by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no. That which followeth in respect of God is blasphemous at least absurd That the worke of iustification is a wicked act To your reason It is no wicked act to beleeue in God for iustification by Christ though in the particular act of beleeuing we thinke not vpon the glorifying of God but onely respect our owne saluation For to beleeue in Christ is no act enioyned by the law of nature or of Moses whereby we should iustifie our selues but an extraordinarie matter appointed by God who respects nothing in it on our parts but that wee beleeue Not as if we might therefore neglect the glorie of God but that we may afterward giue so much the more glorie to him the lesse cause there was he should pardon vs there being such a defect against our generall dutie in that act of beleeuing Further if it were true that we desired to glorifie God by beleeuing in Christ and that that desire proceeded from loue yet had not loue either the principall or any part in procuring our iustification Because God doth not iustifie vs for seeking to glorifie him by beleefe which is simply a worke of the law but onely accepteth our beleeuing for working and as the Apostle speaketh counts faith to vs for righteousnes speaker A. W. All this reason that charity both concurreth to iustification and that as principall S. Augustine confirmeth in these words The house of God that is a righteous and godly soule hath for his foundation faith hope is the vvalles of it but charitie is the roofe and perfection of it Austin speaketh not of iustification onely but of the whole building of Gods house in the soule of man which saith he is built with singing founded with beleeuing set vp with hoping perfected with louing The end of our election iustification and sanctification is holinesse without which a man is no true Christian but iustification is not the building of the soule speaker W. P. Reason III. Faith is neuer alone therfore it doth not iustifie alone Answ. The reason is naught and they might as well dispute thus The eie is neuer alone from the heade and therfore it seeth not alone which is absurd And though in regard of substance the eye be neuer alone yet in regard of seeing it is alone and so though faith subsist not without loue and hope and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all speaker A. W. The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it dothnot iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes doe not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes The argument is framed vpon our opinion who maintaine that a iustifying faith is neuer without hope and charitie Hence it may seeme to follow that it doth not iustifie alone but because you disclaime this reason I will let it passe speaker D. B. P. We then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature and propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow 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 vvas not the whole cause of that
alone we shall also be saued and that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time vvill render vnto euery man according to his workes But of this more amply in the question of merits speaker A. W. His second answere is that the assumption is false vpon this distinction that by sauing wee vnderstand being brought into the state of saluation For that is performed on our part by beleeuing onely Now in this case wee are said to bee saued because whosoeuer is once iustified by saith shall certainly haue other things ministred vnto him by which God hath appointed to bring him to saluation It is your slander not Master Perkins error that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement speaker W. P. Reason V. We are saued by hope therefore not by faith alone Answ. We are saued by hope not because it is any cause of our saluation Pauls meaning is onely this that wee haue not saluation as yet in possession but waite patiently for it in time to come to be possessed of vs expecting the time of our ful deliuerance that is all that can iustly be gathered hence speaker D. B. P. There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not The Antecedent is proued first offeare it is said He that is vvithout feare cannot be iustified VVe are saued by hope Vnlesse you doe psnance you shall all in like sort perish VVe are translated from death to life that is iustified because vve loue the brethren Againe of baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of vvater and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our evil liues For vve are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen againe from the dead c. Sâ— vve may also vvalke in nevvnes of life speaker A. W. Master Perkins answered as much as hee propounded that which you haue brought I will examine and I trust satisfie He that is without feare cannot be iustified It is a strange course of prouing to bring that against vs for scripture which you know wee denie to be scripture and that with the consent of the ancient writers and your owne of late Arias Montanus and they that ioyned with him haue left all the Apocryphall out of the Interlinear Bible The Greeke which is the originall is farre otherwise An angrie man and so it is translated in the great Bible set out by Arias Montanus and before that by Pagnin who also interpreteth it shall not be iustified cannot be thought iust referring it to mans iudgement rather than to Gods Vatablus also so translateth it and addes in the margin that some copies reade vniust anger and for your being iustified he translateth as Pagnin doth cannot be counted iust Besides I denie the consequence he that is without feare cannot be iustified therefore iustification is ascribed in Gods word to some other vertue and not to faith onely For though a man that is without feare cannot be iustified yet he is not iustified in respect of his feare To omit the absurditie of the translation doe penance for repent who makes any doubt that they shall perish that repent not What will you conclude thence Therefore repentance iustifieth and not faith onely I denie your consequence see the reason in the former section The Apostle makes not the loue of our brethren the cause but the proofe of our iustification as it is apparant by his words We know we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren he that loueth not his brother abideth in death We are not translated by reason of our louing for indeed we must be translated before we can loue them but we know by louing them that we are translated And that is the scope of the Apostle In this are the children of God knowne and the children of the diuell whosoeuer doth not righteousnes is not of God neither he that loueth not his brother Let vs not loue in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth For thereby wee know that we are of the truth and shall before him assure our hearts First you take that as granted which is full of doubt that our Sauiour Christ speaketh in that place of baptisme Secondly admitting that I denie absolute necessitie of baptisme as well as of the other Sacrament for which in your iudgement those words are as strong Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Thirdly I say we are iustified by baptisme as Abraham was by Circumcision Fourthly I denie the consequence here also None can enter into heauen except they be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Therefore not onely faith but also some other vertues are respected by God in our iustification The end of baptisme is our sanctification by dying to sinne and liuing to righteousnes therefore iustification and saluation are ascribed to other vertues beside faith I denie the consequence For though we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our liues yet God doth not iustifie vs in regard that we haue such a purpose but only in respect of our beleeuing neither to speake truly doth this purpose goe before iustification but follow it speaker D. B. P. To all these and many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answere in that one You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is only that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must waire patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternal saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to think as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it speaker A. W. S. Paul doth not affirme that it is any cause of saluation but onely saith as Master Perkins hath truly answered that we must come to the possession of saluation by continuing our hope of it with patience To which purpose the Apostle saith that we had need of patience that after wee haue done the will of God we may receiue the promise Neither is the question of saluation but of iustification so that here the consequence may iustly be denied we are saued by
by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him speaker A. W. None of these hath that aptnes that is in faith For the other haue more shew of desert in man but God purposeth to set out his loue to the soule he saueth Which can be done by no meanes so well as when the party to be iustified doth nothing but rest vpon God to receiue iustification at his mercifull hands Of the difference betwixt faith and hope I haue spoken otherwhere now I say only thus much that to hope without faith is vaine If I beleeue I may not hope alone but be sure I am iustified if I doe not beleeue I may be sure of the contrarie speaker D. B. P. But charitie doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship Amicorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertue we take such hold on Christs merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity speaker D. B. P. This were the way indeed to make God debtor to man and man a more speciall cause of his owne iustification than God yea to make man in equitie at the least deserue his iustification at Gods hands But what Prince would bee so dealt withall by a traytor especially if he meant to manifest the riches of his mercie in affoording fauour Would he trow you haue his traiterous subiect plead an interest to his loue kindnes and bountie by imploying his life and labours to do him seruice and so to receiue all benefits from him as a friend from a friend by the law of mutuall good will who seeth not how directly this runnes against the whole course of the new Testament speaker A. W. Which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying That Charity beginning was Justice beginning Charity encreased vvas Iustice encreased great Charity vvas great iustice and perfect Charity was perfect iustice Austin speakes not of iustification but of walking cheerefully in obedience to Gods commandements after we are iustified which we cannot doe vnlesse the loue wee beare to God make all difficulties that we shall meet with light and easie to vs. In this respect charitie beginning is iustice beginning because he that hath begun to loue hath also begun to walke in the way of righteousnes making light of all hindrances by reason of his loue and as his loue groweth so doth his righteousnes in his whole conuersation speaker W. P. Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke done iniquities are remitted and sinne couered no workes or repentance required of them but onely that they beleeue And cap. 3. Neither working any thing nor requiting the like are they iustified but by faith alone through the gift of God And 1. Cor. 1. this is appointed of God that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without any worke by faith alone freely receiuing remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. To these and such like words I answere First that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses speaker A. W. You that could so confidently thrust vpon vs those Commentaries on the Reuelation for Ambroses which were neuer heard of till within these last 80. yeres should not haue made a doubt of these on the Romanes that haue been receiued for his so many hundreds of yeeres But I will not striue about the matter Once this is out of doubt that they are very ancient and generally held to be orthodoxall speaker D. B. P. Secondly that that Author excludeth not repentance but only the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessary as circumcision and such like see the place and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke vpon the fourth to the Hebrews where he hath these vvords Faith is a great thing and vvithout it it is not possible to be saued but faith alone doth not suffice but it is necessary that faith worke by charitie and conuerse worthie of God speaker A W. Not repentance he names it expresly No workes or repentance required of them But he meanes not workes of the Ceremoniall law onely He meanes both Ceremoniall and Morall That law which the Gentiles had by nature which if a man keepe he shall liue Abraham had not whereof to boast because he was circumcised or because he abstained from sinne but because he beleeued To him that worketh that is to him that is subiect to the law of Moses or of nature To him that worketh not that is to him that is guiltie of sinne because he doth not that which the law commaunds In that place vpon the Hebrues he speaketh not of iustification as in the other but of our entring into rest or heauen to which no man shall come that doth not liue holily beautifying as he there speaketh his faith with workes speaker W. P. August There is one propitiation for all sinnes to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc on Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. Grace which is of mercie is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins next authoritie is gathered out of S. Augustine There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ True but where is it that we need nothing else but to beleeue 3. Hesychius saith Grace vvhich is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of vvorkes that is vve doe not merit by our vvorks done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification speaker A. W. This testimonie of Austin and the next of Hesychius are answered by roate and not by iudgement For they are both misquoted which he must needes haue obserued and then would haue reprooued if he had lookt for them in the places cited The former I cannot finde and therefore let it passe without any answere If this interpretation may goe for currant I know not what may be refused as counterfeit Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes that is say you wee doe not merit by our workes done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification Hesychius saith that grace is apprehended by faith alone you make him say that we receiue both faith and iustification of Gods mercy he speaketh of attaining to grace by faith you expound him of receiuing faith by Gods mercie But indeed Hesychius in his owne
speech maketh a distinction affirming of grace that it is giuen vs viz. on Gods behalfe of mercie and compassion and is receiued on our part by faith alone and not by workes Bernard Whoseeuer is pricked for his sinnes and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifieth a sinner and beeing iustified by Faith alone hee shall haue peace with God speaker D. B. P. 4. Bernard hath VVhosoeuer thirsteth after righteousnes let him beleeue in thee that being iustified by faith alone he may haue peace with God Ans. By faith alone he excludeth all other meanes that either levv or gentile required but not charity Which his very words include for how can we abhorre sin and thirst after iustice vvithout charitie and in the same worke he declareth plainely that he comprehendeth alwaies charitie vvhen he speakes of a iustifying faith saying A right faith doth not make a man righteous if it vvorke not by Charitie And againe Neither workes vvithout faith nor faith without vvorkes is sufficient to make the soule righteous speaker A. W. The chiefe thing the Iewes stood vpon was charitie which they knew the law especially required and therefore to leaue that in was to aduance the righteousnes of the Iewes at the least in their opinion We may abhorre sinne for feare of punishment and thirst for righteoosnes for desire of glorie without any respect of loue but to our selues In those places you bring he sheweth what faith hee meaneth euen as we doe who say that no faith can iustifie but that which workes by loue not in the very act of iustifying but in the course of our conuersation Therfore in the former place when he hath said that being iustified by faith alone we shall haue peace with God he doth afterward distinguish iustification from sanctification They therefore that being iustified by faith desire and resolue to follow after holines c. And in the latter he saith that faith without workes is dead to seuer loue from faith is to kill it But none of these things prooue that Bernard gaue the habit or the act of loue any place of a cause in our iustification or any respect with God to our iustification For then how could hee haue said by faith onely speaker W. P. Chrysost. on Gal. 3. They said he which resteth on faith alone is cursed but Paul sheweth that hee is blessed which resteth on faith alone speaker D. B. P. He speakes of the Iewes who held Christians accursed because resting on the faith in Christ would not obserue withall â—oses law the Apostle contrariwise denounceth them accursed who would ioyne the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvith Christian religion and so faith alone there excludeth only the old lavv not the vvorkes of charity speaker A. W. That Chrysostome speaketh of the Morall law any man may see that markes how he vrgeth the Apostles reason to prooue them accursed who will ioyne the law with faith to iustification namely that they are accursed because they cannot fulfill euery part of the morall law for of it is that sentence vttered speaker W. P. Basil. de Humil. Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. So he mangleth pittifully a sentence of S. Basils saying Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified only by faith in Christ If a man knovv himselfe iustified by faith in Christ hovv can he acknovvledge that he vvants true iustice His vvords truly repeated are these Let man acknovvledge that he is vnvvorthy of true iustice and that his iustification comes not of his desert but of the meere mercy of God through Christ. So that by saith alone S. Basill treating of humilitie excludes all merit of our ovvne but no necessary good disposition as you may see in his Sermon de fide vvhere he proues by many texts of holy Scripture that charity is as necessary as faith speaker A. W. That is saith Basil perfect and full reioycing in Gods sight when a man is not lifted vp no not for his owne righteousness but acknowledgeth himselfe indeed to be destitute of true righteousnes and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ. Basil in that place speaketh of faith as it is an assent to those things that are taught by the grace of God requiring workes not to iustification but in our cariage here to saluation speaker W. P. Origen on cap. 3. Rom. Wee thinke that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and he saith that iustification by faith alone sufficeth so as a man onely beleeuing may be iustified And Therefore it lieth vpon vs to search who was iustified by faith without workes And for an example I thinke vpon the theefe who being crucified with Christ cried vnto him Lord remember me when thou commest into thy kingdome and there is no other good worke of his mentioned in the Gospell but for this alone faith Iesus saith vnto him This night thou shalt be with me in paradise speaker D. B. P. Origen excludeth no good disposition in vs to iustification but saith that a man may besaued vvithout doing ourvvardly any good vvorkes If he vvant time and place as the Theefe did vvho presently vpon his conuersion vvas put to death vvhich is good Catholike Doctrine but that you may perceiue hovv necessary the good dispositions before mentioned be to iustification you shall find if you consider wel al circumstances not one of them to haue bin wanting in that good Theefes conuersion First that he stood in feare of Gods iust iudgment appeares by these his vvords to his fellovv Doest thou not feare God c. He had hope to be saued by Christ out of vvhich he said O Lord remember me vvhen thou commest into thy Kingdome By both vvhich speeches is shevved also his faith both in God that he is the gouernour and iust iudge of the vvorld and in Christ that he vvas the Redeemer of mankind His repentance and confession of his fault is laid dovvne in this And vve trulie suffer vvorthilie His charity tovvards God and his neighbour in reprehending his fellovves blasphemie in defending Christs innocency and in the middest of his greatest disgraces and raging enemies to confesse him to be King of the vvorld to come out of all vvhich vve may gather also that he had a full purpose to amend his life and to haue taken such order for his recouery as it should please Christ his Sauiour to appoint So that he lacked not any one of those dispositions vvhich the Catholike Church requires to iustification speaker A. W. Your discourse of the theeues vertues and good workes doth not refute the truth of Master Perkins allegation but if it doe any thing condemnes Origens iudgement of him As for the dispositions you often mention doubtlesse if Origen had thought that any such had been
necessarie or respected by God in the iustification of that theefe he would neuer haue said that he was iustified without workes that did so many good workes in so short a time speaker D. B. P. Novv that that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualites out of the companies of faith is apparant by that vvhich he hath vvritten on the next Chapter vvhere he saith That faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they doe withall put off the old man and a little before more plainely saying I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation hope is proceeding in the building but the toppe and perfection of the whole worke is charitie speaker A. W. Neither doe we meane to exclude such qualities For they come together but are not of like vse nor to the same purpose Both the sentences you alleage out of him wee approoue that faith which is without sanctification cannot instifie that faith is not all that is required to saluation but all graces of regeneration are to be laboured for and obtained before wee can come to heauen And by this wee may see that as the Fathers so Origen also makes a difference betwixt iustification where faith onely is respected and saluation to which all vertues are required III. Difference speaker W. P. The third difference about iustification is concerning this point namely how far forth good workes are required thereto The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there be two kinds of iustification the first and second as I haue said The first is when one of an euill man is made a good man and in this workes are wholy excluded it being wholy of grace The second is when a man of a iust man is made more iust And this they will haue to proceede from workes of grace for say they as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man though he could not at the first make himselfe a man euen so a sinner hauing his first iustification may afterward by grace make himselfe more iust Therefore they hold these two things I. That good works are meritorious causes of the second iustification which they tearme Actuall II. that good workes are meanes to increase first iustification which they call Habituall Now let vs see how far forth we must ioyne with them in this point Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God and are approoued of him and therefore haue a reward II. Good workes are necessarie to saluation two waies first not as causes thereof either conseruant adiuvant or procreant but onely as consequents of faith in that they are inseparable companions and fruits of that faith which is indeede necessarie to saluation Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way and as the way it selfe directing vs vnto eternall life III. Wee hold and beleeue that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by works for so the holie Ghost speaketh plainely and truely Iam. 2. 21. That Abraham was iustified by workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins first graunteth that good vvorkes doe please God and haue a temporall revvard 2. That they are necessary to saluation not as the cause thereof but either as markes in a vvay to direct vs tovvards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnesse to declare one to be iust before men all vvhich he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteeme much of good vvorkes vvhich they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes speaker A. W. This is no good dealing to foyst in temporall as if you would haue men suspect that we allow good workes no reward in heauen It had been enough for you to leaue out his words as you doe and thrust in your owne without adding at your pleasure But these are popish shifts Whereof you presently affoord vs another example by putting in these words Before men to make the world beleeue that we giue no place to good works in the sight of God whereas Master Perkins professeth that Abraham was iustified by works euen before God not onely before men as you write speaker A. W. To this you adde in the third place a shamelesse slander against your owne knowledge that we hold good workes to be no better than deadly sinnes whereas wee teach that those that are indeed good workes are able to iustifie a man perfectly in the presence of God and to deserue euerlasting life Yea we maintaine that the imperfect workes of the regenerate are brought foorth by the grace of Gods spirit and for all their imperfection are accepted and shall be rewarded by God our Father in heauen speaker W. P. Thus farre we ioyne with them and the very difference is this They say we are iustified by works as by causes thereof wee say that wee are iustified by works as by signes and fruites of our iustification before God and no otherwise and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstood that Abraham was iustified that is declared and made manifest to bee iust indeede by his obedience and that euen before God Now that our doctrine is the truth it will appeare by reasons on both parts speaker D. B. P. The maine difference then betvveene vs consisteth in this vvhether good vvorkes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes vvhich vve call the second iustification or vvhether they be onelie fruits signes or markes of it speaker A. W. The maine difference as Master Perkins propounds it is whether we be iustified by works as by causes meritorious of our iustification not whether they bee the true cause of our second iustification which he denies wholy as a deuice of yours And indeede they that haue more neerely sifted this branne haue found that there is but one iustification because faith and workes make one righteousnes begun by â—aith and increased and perfected by workes Iustification saith Andradius the great champion of the Councill of Trent consists of two parts forgiuenes of sinnes and obedience to the law Stapleton speakes more plaine The Catholikes say that a man is iustified by faith and workes as by the formall cause So that according to your popish diuinitie workes are not onely the meritorious efficient cause of our iustification but the formall cause also as Stapleton directly affirmes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which he made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set dovvne our owne speaker A. W. This pretence is none of his who would neuer denie that our inherent righteousnes is increased
God not of works least any man should boast himselfe Here Paul excludes al and euery worke and directly workes of grace themselues as appeares by the reason following For wee are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them Now let the Papists tell me what bee the workes which God hath prepared for men to walke in and to which they are regenerate vnlesse they bee the most excellent workes and let them marke how Paul excludes them wholy from the worke of iustification and saluation speaker D. B. P. Ephes. 2. is nothing against our Doctrine of iustification but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it and note also vvith S. Austin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our workes which vvent before and might seeme to the simple to haue been some cause vvhy God bestovved his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace speaker A. W. What ignorance or malice there is in alleaging this text against your doctrine of iustification it shal appeare by and by in the meane time I answere concerning Austin first that in the place you name there is neuer a word of the sentence in question Secondly that his scope in that treatise is no more but to shew that they falsely vnderstood such places of the Apostle as speake against iustification by workes who thinke that when once they haue beleeued in Christ they shall be saued by faith though they liue neuer so wickedly Thirdly to refuâ—e that lewd conceit Austâ—… addes that the Apostle rather therefore saith that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law because he would haue no man imagine that he hath obtained iustification by faith vpon the merit of his former workes This we grant to be true but not all that the Apostle intendeth For it cannot be doubted but that he confuteth the opinion of the Iewes and Heathen concerning iustification as it is plaine by the three first chapters Now they did not make account to deserue the grace of iustification at Gods hands by their holy and vertuous liuing but to inherit heauen by it Neither could they that did beleeue so much flatter themselues as to dreame that their good deeds in particular had procured that fauour when it was easie for them to see that many thousands both Iewes and Gentiles as good or better than diuers of themselues for vertuous behauiour notwithstanding attained not to this iustification Besides if we mark the reasons by which the Apostle beates down their pride they are such as generally concerne all both Iewes and Gentiles Adde hereunto that Austin speakes no further for the vse of good works but to shew that they are necessarie for a Christian man as without which his faith is voide and idle and that no man may dreame that if hee beleeue it pertaines not to him to worke well which are the words that immediatly goe before these you bring speaker D. B. P. And therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paul speaketh of vvorkes of grace because in the text follovving he mentioned good vvorkes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betvveene those tvvo kinde of vvorks signifying the first To be of ourselues The second â—o proceede from vs as Gods vvorkmanshâ—o created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth VVorkes simplie the second Good vvorkes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then vvas it to take these tvvo so distinct manner of vvorkes for the same and to ground himself so boldly vpon it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith that the Apostle barres all workes before and after grace He prooues it by the very text it self The reason may be thus more plainly propounded We are not saued by works saith the Apostle that no man may boast His proofe followeth For good workes are appointed by God for vs to walke in for which purpose he hath made vs anew in Iesus Christ. That this tenth verse is a proofe of the former the coniunction for declares But how it can serue to that purpose if the two verses speake of diuers kindes of works some iustifying some not iustifying neither I see nor I thinke you can shew me What though he call the former workes simply the latter good workes are not the former those workes which the law morall and naturall require and are not they in their nature good workes But who knoweth not that by workes without any addition workes of grace after iustification are signified let the Apostle Iames speake who intreating of such workes and naming them almost in euery verse doth not once call them good workes but workes simply speaker W. P. II. Gal. 5. 3. If ye be circumcised ye are bound to the whole law and ye are abolished from Christ. Here Paul disputeth against such men as would be saued partly by Christ and partly by the workes of the law hence I reason thus If a man will be iustified by works he is bound to fulfil the whole law according to the rigour thereof that is Pauls ground I now assume no man can fulfill the law according to the rigour thereof for the liues and works of most righteous men are imperfect and stained with sinne and therefore they are taught euery day to say on this manner forgiue vs our debts Again our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable And lastly the regenerate man is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh and in part onely spirituall Thus then for any man to be bound to the rigour of the whole law is as much as if hee were bound to his owne damnation speaker D. B. P. If he can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Appollo S. Paul onely saith in these vvords That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the vvhole lavv of Moses M. Perkins That if a man vvill be iustified by vvorkes he must fulfill the rigour of the lavv Which are as iust as Germaines lippes as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is S. Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it vvere a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that vvould be circumcided did make himselfe subiect vnto the vvhole lavv of the Ievves Of the possibilities of fulfilling the lavv because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this speaker A. W. Master Perkins vnderstood his owne minde in this and other arguments better than I can doe and so could haue affoorded better answers for his defence Yet thus much I may say that the text of
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
you aske where I will shew you God willing in another treatise For the answering of these arguments is nothing to Master Perkins reformed Catholike nor the reason of any moment but as it may well be suspected of your owne deuising that you might make babies to dallie with all speaker D. B. P. 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knovv vvho beleeued and vvho was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith conteined in it selfe fidelitie This Argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelitie and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it yet falling from faith may well draw after it hatred and treason yea ordinarily wickednes goeth before falling from faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whom our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with coueâ—ousnesse did not beleeue Christs Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament and by incredulity opened the Diuell a high way to his hart to negotiate treason in it speaker A. W. First I demaund in what the doctrine of the Sacraments could hinder Iudas from growing rich that the fault of his not beleeuing it should lye vpon his couetousnes Secondly I wonder how it can be proued that Iudas did not beleeue it If you ground your conceipt vpon that of Iohn as it is likly you do first proue that our Sauiour spake there of the Sacrament Thirdly it is not plaine by anie place of Scripture that Iudas vnbeleefe in that doctrine opened the way to the Diuell nay rather the text laies the blame vpon his couetousnes and malice stirred vp by our Sauiours defect of Mary against him when she had bestowed such costlie oyntments vpon him in Bethania speaker D. B. P. 3 They obiect that VVho saith bee knovves God and doth not keepe his commandements is a lyar Ans. He is then a lyar in graine who professing the only true knowledge of God yet blusheth not to say that it is impossible to keepe his commandements but to the obiection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I knovv ye not that is I loue you not Our Lord knowes the way of the iust that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God keepes his commandements as Christ himselfe testifieth Jf any loue me he vvill keepe my vvord And he that loueth me not vvill not keepe my vvords Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charity speaker A. W. Ans. That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity by all which conioyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinfull and vniust man without charitie who holding fast his former beleefe doth in transgressing Gods commaundements breake the bands of charitie And so it remaines most certaine that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charitie These obiections were not worth the making neither will I wast time and paper in examining your answeres to them The fifth poynt Of Merits speaker W. P. By merit vnderstand any thing or any worke whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured and that for the dignitie and excellencie of the worke or thing done or a good worke done binding him that receiueth it to repaie the like speaker D. B. P. Obserue that three things are necessarie to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted Sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the worke proceed from grace and be referred to the honor of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the worke And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our Doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but will purchase it by our owne workes speaker A. W. We charge you and that trulie without ignorance or slaunder and according to your doctrine of merits that you need neither Christs merits nor Gods mercie for so much of your purchase of euerlasting life as is made by good workes For if your workes be such as that in the rigour of iustice they deserue euerlasting life as wages what neede they either Christs blood or Gods mercie to make them meritorious The vse of Christs blood is to wash away sinne Where there is no sin what should Christs blood doe Now to him that workes the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt speaker D. B. P. I will here set downe what the Councell of Tâ—ent doth teach concerning merits Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that vvorke vvell and hope well to the end both as grace of mercy promised to the Sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their vvorkes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace aswell in respect of Gods gree promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part of the dignity of good workes Vnto the worker if he perseuere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by truerepentance lise to the same estate againe speaker A. W. The Councell of Trent hath as much as well it could made a shew of some reformation but indeed retained for the most part the former errours of her Antichristian Church you also to mend the matter according to the policie of the craftie Councell picke out a sentence and propound it as the whole doctrine of the Councell concerning merits The same afterward you expound but so as that neithe text nor the glosse are sufficient to make your whole doctrine knowne to vs. For whereas you claime heauen of God as wages due to the deserts of your workes here is no mention but only of reward yet somwhat is slipt from you whereby the Councels dealing may well grow into suspition For whereas that sayes no more but that it is a reward by the promise of God to be faithfully rendred to their workes and merits you tel vs that it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good works Where I would faine know of you how you part this debt what part is due vpon promise what vpon desert For it may wel be though the reward be due vpon promise now God hath promised that it was simplie due for the dignitie of the worke whether God had promised it or no And then it was a small fauour of God to make vs a promise of that to which we had full interest by desert before this promise so that he could not in iustice but pay vs our wages for our
you adde will be discust in your answers speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is called a crowne by resemblance because it is giuen in the end of the life as the croâ—ne is giuen in the end of the race speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the Enthymem viz. that therefore euerlasting life must be deserued because it is called a crowne He addes the reason of his deniall That it is called a crowne not because it is deserued but because it is giuen as a reward after we are come to the end of our race as the Apostle shewes plainly I haue fought a good fight and haue finished my course I haue kept the faith hencefoorth is laid vp for me a crowne of righteousnes he saith not therefore I haue deserued the crowne speaker A. W. If that were all the cause and that there were no respect to be had so former deserts it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance because that also is giuen in the end of life and in their opinion more properly because all their workes are defiled like a menstruous cloath and a halter is the end of such wicked workes But as a halter is due to a theefe so is a crowne of glory the iust reward of the righteous man That I may omit your lewd dallying in saying that euerlasting life might in that respect as well be called a halter consider whether your answer be not absurd For that which is giuen vpon continuance of walking in good workes as Master Perkins saith the crowne is cannot in any reason be as well termed a halter as a crowne though there be not in the workes the true and whole nature of merit to deserue the crowne Euerlasting life saith your glosse is as it were the reward of faith and God seemes to pay it as it were debt speaker W. P. And it is called a crowne of righteousnes not because it belongs to any man by due and desert but because God hath bound himselfe by a promise to giue it in performing whereof he is tearmed iust and by vertue of this promise it is obtained and no otherwise These are the principall obiections by which we may iudge what the rest are And thus we see what is the truth namely that merit is necessarie to saluation yet neither merit of mans worke or person but the merit of Christ imputed to vs whereby we being in him doe procure and deserue the fauour of God and life eternall speaker D. B. P. Secondly he answereth that it is called a crowne of iustice because God hath bound himselfe by his promise to giue it here then at length we haue by his owne confession that by Gods promise eternall life is due debt vnto the righteous but as hauing ouer-shot himselfe he addes not for any desert of theirs but only for the promise sake But as you haue heard before out of S. Matthew that promise was made for vvorking the time of our life in his vine yard and so there was some desert on their part and the seruants were rewarded because they imployed their talents well speaker A. W. Needes it any defence to say it is due debt by promise but not vpon desert Who knowes not that for the most part these two are if not contrary at the least diuers Therefore rather you shoote beyond true reason than Master Perkins ouershot himselfe That which you repeate out of Saint Matthew was answered before speaker D. B. P. And in this very place S. Paul reckoneth vp his good seruices for which the iust iudge would render him a crowne of iustice and therfore the iustice is not only in respect of Gods promise speaker A. W. S. Paul reckons vp his good seruices and good reason for the reward is not due to any by promise but to them that doe good workes For else what should be rewarded But why should it be called a crowne of iustice Because it is giuen to the iust saith Thomas according to their iust works And in that respect God is called a iust Iudge in giuing this crowne because he giues good for good Yea that very iustice whereby good is giuen for good is not without mercie saith the glosse and Lombard speaker D. B. P. And if you will not beleeue me prouing that I say out of the very text rather then M Perkins on his bare word let S. Augustine be arbitrator betweene vs who most deepely considereth of euery word in this sentence Let vs heare saith he the Apostle speaking vvhen he approached neere vnto his passion J haue quoth he fought a good fight J haue accomplished my course J haue kept the faith concerning the rest â—there is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice vvhich our Lord will render vnto me in that day a iust iudge And not only to me but to them also that loue his comming He saith that our Lord a iust iudge will render vnto him a Crovvne he therefore doth owe it and as a iust iudge will pay it For the vvorke being regarded the revvard cannot be denied I haue fought a good fight is a vvorke I haue accomplished my course is a vvorke J haue kept the faith is a worke There is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice this is the reward So that you see most clearely by this most learned Fathers iudgement that the reward is due for the worke sake and not only for the promise of God speaker A. W. This place of Austin is brought as a proofe that a man hath nothing of himselfe which hee hath not receiued Whereas if your doctrine of merit and free will were true a man hauing grace from God whereby hee is enabled to worke might of his owne free will so vse this grace that euerlasting life should be due to him as wages for his work But if these good workes proceed from grace not onely in respect of our abilitie to doe them but of the particular actions what true merit can there bee in them Immediatly after the words you alleage it followes in Austin In the reward thou doest nothing in the work nothing alone The crowne is from him the worke from thy selfe yet not without his helpe Which helpe we must vnderstand to be more than an abilitie to worke or else as I said our free will shall haue the chiefe commendation in all our good workes But to the testimonie we graunt that the reward is due to the worke which is your conclusion out of Austin but wee denie that it is due vpon desert of the worke For neither doth the worke if it were perfectly done truly and properly deserue the reward because it is a matter of duty and but one work whereas many thousands are due to make vp true merit by workes and being imperfect as all our best workes are it is so farre from deseruing euerlasting life that it rather might increase our
first reason is this that vvhich is more pleasant and gratefull vnto God may verie vvell be Vovved to him but Virginitie is more acceptable to God then marriage The first proposition is manifest and hath no other exception against it but that vvhich before is confuted to vvit if vve be able to performe it The second is denied by them vvhich vve proue in expresse tearmes out of S. Paul He that ioyneth his Virgin doth vvell but he that ioyneth her not doth better and againe of Widdowes They shall be more happie by S. Pauls iudgement if they remaine vnmarried This may be confirmed our of Esay Where God promiseth the Eunuch that holdeth greatlie of the thing that pleaseth him that he vvill giue him in his houshold and vvithin his vvalles a better heritage and name than if they had bin called sonnes and daughters I vvill saith God giue them an euerlasting name And also out of the booke of Wisdome Blessed is the Eunuch which hath vvrought no vnrighteousnesse 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 plainlie taught in the Reuelations Where it is said that no man could sing that song but 14400. and the cause is set dovvne These be they vvhich haue not been defiled vvith vvomen for they are Virgins To these latter places M. Perkins anivvereth page 24â— that to the Eunuch is promised a greater revvard but not because of his chastity but because he keepeth the Lords Sabbath and couenant but this is said vnaduisedly for to all others that keepe Gods commanments shall be giuen a heauenly revvard but vvhy shall they haue a better heritage and more acceptable portion than others but because of their speciall prerogatiue of chastity speaker A. W. What needs that be prooued which wee graunt it is questionles lawfull for such as being free find themselues fitted by God to single life to resolue vpon the continuance of it as long as they shall be in that case But I doubt your reasons are scarce good The first hath a suspitious assumption because it implies that single life of it selfe should please God better then marriage which I haue shewed to be false To your proofe I answere that the happines the Apostle speakes of is that which Theodoret names viz. being without care and hauing more free liberty to serue God as he prooues out of the Apostle himselfe who sheweth by his whole discourse that he prefers that single life before the married only in regard of the present times and opportunitie of seruing God generally This saith he is good for the present necessitie vers 26. such shall haue trouble in the flesh I would haue you without care The vnmarried careth for the things of the Lord. That of Esay prooues nothing to the purpose for the Prophet speakes not of them that had made any vow of continencie but of such as were made Eunuches by men against their wils to whom he makes promise not for their continencie which was no way voluntary but for their keeping of his Sabbaths and choosing the thing that pleaseth him and taking hold of his couenant The Eunuch and the Gentile saith Lyra comming to faith shall obtaine as much grace and glory other things alike Now these young Widdows if the Protestants doctrine were true not hauing the gift of continencie did very well to marrie and were in no sort bound to keepe their Vowes which vvas not in their povver But the Apostle doth not acquit them of their Vow but teacheth that they were bound to keepe it in that he pronounceth damnation to them if they marry speaker A. W. It must be prooued that there was such a vow made to Christ before it can be truly affirmed that the Apostle speakes of it in this place The first faith or vow of a Christian to God is that generall promisse of obedience in Baptisme or the vndertaking of the profession of Christianitie as it appeareth by Ierome speaking of Marcion and Basilides two infamous hereticks they are not worthie of credit saith Ierome they haue forsaken their first faith But if you will needs referre this to the matter there particularly in question the fault is not leauing to be a widow but forsaking the calling in the Church which they had of their own will vndertaken This necessarily ensued vpon their marriage because only widowes had that office of looking to the poore and diseased It is farther to be obserued that the Apostle seemes to lay the fault vpon their wilfull wantonnes and not to graunt that there was any necessitie of vsing marriage for a remedie when such a case falls out it is the iudgement of the auntient writers that it is better to marry then to continue in vncleanes Wee must saith Ierome plainely charge vowed virgins whose behauiour defames and shames the holy purpose of virgins and the glory of the heauenly and angelicall family that either they marry if they cannot conteine or conteine if they will not marry They marry not saith Austin because they cannot without rebuke yet better were it for them to marry then to burne It may happen saith Thomas that in some case a vow may be either vtterly ill or vnprofitable or an hinderance vnto some other good thing of greater waight And therefore it must of necessitie be determined that in such a case a vow ought not to be kept An adulterers case saith Cyprian is worse then his that hath betrayed the faith And Ambrose when he had said that a vowed virgin if she haue a mind to marry committeth adultery and is made the handmaid of death yet addes afterwards that she is twice an adulteresse which is defiled with secret and priuie filthines faining her selfe to be that which indeed she is not speaker D. B. P. Thirdly the example of our heauenly Sauiour who would neuer marrie and of the blessed Virgin S. Mary vvho Vovved perpetuall Virginitie And of the glorious Apostles as who S. â—rome vvitnesseth vvere in part Virgins and all after their follovving of Christ abstained from the company of their Wiues And of the best Christians in the purest antiquitie vvho as Iustinas one of the auncientest Greeke Authors among Christians And Tertullian his peere among the Latins doe testifie did liue perpetuall Virgins Out of these examples vve frame this Argument Our Captaines and ring-leaders vvho knew well which vvas the best vvay and whose examples vve are to follovv as neere as vve can Vovving Virginity vve must needs esteeme that state for more perfect speciallie vvhen as the single man careth only hovv to please God that to be holy in bodie and mind as the Apostle writs vvhen as the married are choked vvith cares of this vvorld And vnlesse a man had made a league vvith hell or vvere as blind as a Beetle hovv can