soules when wee are stung to death by sinne there is nothing required within vs for our recouerie but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eie of our faith on Christ and his righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these vvords As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desert so must the Sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by only faith Mary M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stung by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and applie that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be streatched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernesse stung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sinne haue no other remedie then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability speaker A. W. If wee precisely vrge the similitude the latter part of the reddition is no part of the comparison for there is nothing in the proposition to which it answereth But our Sauiour addes the end of lifting vp himselfe to stirre vs vp as it may seeme to a more thorough consideration of the agreement betwixt health by the Serpent and saluation by him And surely it is not without reason to make a likenes in the deliuerance as well as in other points that all men might vnderstand by our Sauiours speech how they should become partakers of that benefit speaker W. P. Reason II. The exclusiue formes of speech vsed in scripture prooue thus much We are iustified freely not of the law not by the law without the law without workes not of workes not according to works not of vs not by the workes of the law but by faith Gal. 2. 16. All boasting excluded onely beleeue Luk. 8. 50. These distinctions whereby workes and the lawe are excluded in the worke of iustification doe include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie speaker D. B. P. It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it self Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other speaker A. W. If they doe not more exclude feare hope and charitie than faith it must be shewed that they are directly or by necessarie consequence required in opposition to the workes of the law For that is very manifest of faith in diuers places By faith without the works of the law Not by the works of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ. By the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law Through faith not of workes But this can neuer be shewed of them By reason of the opposition I speake of faith cannot bee taken for a worke of the law neither is it any worke required by the law to beleeue in Christ for iustification because the law saith Doe this and thou shalt be saued namely as an hired seruant But the Gospell saith i Beleeue and thou shalt haue thy sinnes forgiuen thee by iustification Now the law commands no sute for pardon but calles for either obedience or damnation Hope indeede as I shewed before differs little from faith but depends vpon it feare and loue are proper duties of the law and so alwaies performed speaker D. B. P. But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truely saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desert of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fastes nor any such like worke of the law which the lews reputed so necessary Again that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which works not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them speaker A. W. S. Paul speaketh not of deseruing to be made Christians but of attaining to saluation as it is apparant by his disputation in the Epistle to the Romanes By the workes of the law no man liuing shall be iustified What is iustified shall be made a Christian after your interpretation So afterward a man is iustified that is made a Christian by faith and not by the workes of the law So haue we a new interpretation of iustification by faith Besides it would be remembred that you distinguish betwixt workes of nature and workes of grace denying iustification to them and granting it to these how will this stand with your answere Neither doth the Apostle dispute how they were to attaine to the grace of Christ but how they were to receiue pardon and acceptation to euerlasting life which he truly ascribeth on our part to beleefe in Christ by which wee obtaine both these priuiledges As for meriting of iustification there is not a letter of it in any place of the new or old Testament And though there be no meritorious cause of it in workes before grace yet boasting by your doctrine is not excluded For may I not iustly boast that my selfe being inlightened by Gods spirit and hauing a good motion inspired into me by the power of mine owne free will accepted of the grace of God offered me and so am iustified where my cause of boasting is the greater because many other men who might haue been iustified as well as I haue not imploied their free will so well as I haue done and therfore are damned speaker D. B. P. Yet all this notwithstanding a certainevertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile wherby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue
espy and amend his owne eâ—ror These principall pillers of Christs Church were in darknes belike as Protestants must needes say and that proud Persian and most wicked heretike Manes of vvhom the Manichees are named vvho first denied free vvill began to broach the true light of the nevv Gospell Iustin speakes of naturall actions not of spirituall for these were vtterly vnknowne to the Emperour being a heathen He speakes also perhaps against the imputation of fatall necessitie wherewith the Christians were charged in those times Irenaeus giues a man that freedome which is contrarie to constraint God saith he made man free from the beginning c. not constrained by God Cyprian speakes of vsing or not vsing the outward meanes such as following Christ to heare the word of him whereof the Euangelist there entreates Now that this is in mans power and that it is a meanes to procure saluation or damnation who denies But Cyprian doth not say that it is in a mans power by nature to consent to Gods motion for his conuersion speaker D. B. P. It cannot reasonably be denied that in the point of free will some of the ancient writers before Austin spake liker Philosophers than Diuines and gaue both occasion to Pelagius of his error though they fauoured it not and also aduantage for the confirming of it as the place of the Centuries alleaged by you plainly prooues Other of them also spake not so plaine as it was to be wished they had done so that Austin hath much adoe to defend them against Pelagius and in the entrance to his defence is faine to lay this foundation that he holds himselfe free for yeelding to any writings of men whatsoeuer Here I vvould make an end of citing Authorities vvere it not that Caluin saith that albeit all other auncient vvriters be against him yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth is clearely for him in this point but the poore man is fouly deceiued asvvell in this as in most other matters I vvill briefly proue and that out of those works which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote for in his others Caluin acknowledgeth him to haue taught free vvill Of our freedome in consenting to Gods grace he thus defineth to consent to Gods calling or not to consent lyeth in a mans ovvne vvill Againe VVho doth not see euery man to come or not to come by free vvill but this free vvill may be alone if he doe not come but it cannot be but holpen if he doe come In another place that vve vvill doe vvell God vvill haue it to be his and ours his in calling vs ours in follovving him Yea more To Christ vvorking in him a man doth cooperate that is vvorketh vvith him both his ovvne iustification and life euerlasting will you heare him speake yet more formally for vs We haue dealt vvith your brethren and ours as much as vve could that they vvould hold out and continue in the sound Catholike faith the vvhich neither denieth free vvill to euill or good life nor doth attribute so much to it that it is vvorth any thing vvithout grace So according to this most worthy Fathers iudgement the sound Catholike faith doth not deny free will as the old Manichees and our new Gospellers do nor esteeme it without grace able to doe any thing toward saluation as the Pelagians did And to conclude heare S. Augustines answere vnto them vvho say that he when he commendeth grace denyeth free will Much lesse vvould I say that vvhich thou lyinglie dost affirme me to say free vvill to be denied if grace be commended or grace to be denied if free vvill be commended speaker A. W. Caluin doth not without cause affirme that Austin is for him not onely in his writings after the Pelagian heresie but in those before it also though in the former he speak not so warily as in the latter yet his iudgement was all one Austin saith no more but that assenting or dissenting when God calles is an action of mans will That the difference betwixt man and man why one beleeues and another doth not proceedes from the diuers worke of Gods spirit not from the choise of the parties he speakes most plainly in the same place God workes in a man the very willing to beleeue and yet more nay If any man will draw vs to the searching of that depth why this man is so perswaded that hee yeelds he is not there are onely two things which I thinke good to answere O the depth of the riches And is there iniquitie with God Let him whom this answere mislikes seeke for some that are more learned but let him take heede that he finde not some that are more presumptuous Imagine then what Austin thinkes of you Papists who confidently affirme that the reason of this difference proceedes from the good vse of free will in the beleeuer not that you are more learned but that you are more presumptuous If you had added the words that follow immediatly in Austin you should haue needed no further answere Free will if a man come to Christ cannot be but holpen and so holpen that not onely he must know what is to be done but doe that he knowes and therefore when God teaches not by the letter of the law but by the spirit of grace he teaches so that a man doth not onely see by knowledge that which he hath learned but also desire it by willing and performe it by doing And by this diuine manner of teaching euen the will and worke it selfe not onely the naturall possibilitie of willing and working is holpen For if onely our power were helpt by this grace the Lord would thus speake Euery one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned can come to me But he said not so but euery one which hath heard of my Father and learned doth come to me To haue power to come Pelagius ascribes to nature or as of late he hath begun to speake to grace what grace soeuer he meane by which as he saith our possibilitie is helped but to come is in will and worke It followes not that he which can come comes vnlesse he will and doe so but euery one that hath learned of the Father not onely can come but comes I haue set downe these words of Austin at large as well that it may appeare with what conscience this man cites the Fathers as that S. Austins iudgement of this point may be fully knowne to all men There is great reason that wee should expound such short sentences as this by such large discourses as the former but if we knew not that this place makes nothing against vs for we haue graunted already that to will is our worke but wee say further that Gods calling as his teaching in that other place of Austin works in vs not only to be able to
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
being in it selfe neither actiue nor passiue This latter contradiction is indeede like the former that is no contradiction at all For hee doth rightly expound that place of a pronenes to that which is as ill and to nothing that is fully good not simply excluding that which is ciuilly good but that onely which is properly referred to God himselfe the soueraigne good and the other in regard of it perfect goodnes II. The difference or dissent speaker W. P. The point of difference standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans wil in spiritual matters which concerne the kingdome of God The Papists say mans will concurreth and worketh with Gods grace in the first conuersion of a sinner by it selfe and by it owne naturall power and is onely helped by the holy Chost We say that mans will worketh with grace in the first conuersion yet not of it selfe but by grace Or thus They say will hath a naturall cooperation we denie it and say it hath cooperation onely by grace beeing in it selfe not actiue but pasâ—… willing well onely as it is mooued by grace whereby it must first be acted and mooued before it can act or will And that wee may the better conceiue the difference I will vse this comparison The Church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condition of a prisoner and so doe wee marke then the difference It supposeth the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foote with chaines and fetters and withall to bee sicke and weake yet not wholy dead but liuing in part it supposeth also that beeing in this case he stirreth not himselfe for any helpe and yet hath ability and power to stirre Hereupon if the keeper come and take away his bolts and fetters and hold him by the hand and helpe him vp hee can and will of himselfe stand and walke and goe out of prison euen so say they is a sinner bound hand and foote with the chaine of his sinnes and yet he is not dead but sick like to the wounded man in the way betweene Iericho and Ierusalem And therefore doth he not wil and affect that which is good but if the holy Ghost come and doe but vntie his bands and reach him his hand of grace then can he stand of himselfe and will his owne saluation or any thing else that is good We in like manner graunt that a prisoner fitly resembleth a naturall man but yet such a prisoner must he be as is not only sicke weake but euen starke dead which cannot stirre though the keeper vntie his bolts and chaines nor heare though he sound a trumpet in his eare and if the said keeper would haue him to moue and stirre he must giue him not onely his hand to helpe him but euen soule and life also and such a one is euery man by nature not onely chained and fettered in his sinnes but starke dead therein as one that lieth rotting in the graue not hauing any ability or power to moue or stirre and therefore he cannot so much as desire or doe any thing that is truelie good of himselfe but God must first come and put a new soule into him euen the spirit of grace to quicken and reuiue him and then being thus reuiued the will beginneth to will good things at the very same time wheÌ„ God by his spirit first infuseth grace And this is the true difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome in this point of free will speaker D. B. P. See how vncertaine the steppes be of men that walke in darkenes or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknes For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church For he putting downe the point of difference saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs only in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in graunting this liberty of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne words For saith he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that Mans vvill worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully For we say that Mans will then only concurreth with Gods grace vvhen it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that Mans vvill by his ovvne naturall action doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of Man But we farther say that this action proceedeth principally of grace whereby the will was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring forth such spirituall fruit And thâ—… I take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can acte or will He mistookâ—… thinking that we required some outward helpe only to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but a it were vntie the chaynes of sin wherein our will was â—…eted anâ— tâ—en will could of it selfe turne to God Noâ— vnderstanding how Catholikes take that parable of the man wounded in the way betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists only say but as the holy Ghost â—aith leâ—te halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all Mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all Supernaturall riches spoiled of all his originall Iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all natural truth or to performe all morall duty Novv touching supernaturall vvorkes because he lost all povver to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sense may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that vvay of grace and so in holy Scripture the Father said of his prodigall Son he was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though vvounded also in them as not being able to acte many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of free vvill capable of grace and also able being first both outvvardly moued and fortified invvardly by the vertue of grace to affect and do any vvorke appertaining to saluation vvhich is asmuch as M. Perkins affirmeth speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake the matter he speakes not of will
example a crab-tree â—…ocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring forth apples and therefore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruit Yet let a sianâ—e of apples be gaâ—ted into it and it wil be are apples euen so albeit our sower corrupt naure of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing reâ—iued into it the heauenlie graft of Gods grace it is inabled to produce he sweete fruit of good workes to which alludeth Saint Iames. Receâ—e the ingrafted vvord vvhich can saue our soules againe what more dâ—d then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring forth aâ—… beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by â—ur Sauiour himselfe vnto seede and our harts vnto the earth that receiâ—ed it what meruaile then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuelyeed do yeeld plentie of pleasing fruit speaker A. W. The question is not whether God can maâ—e a man able to doe good workes or no for of that no mandoubts but what a man can doe by nature to his owne coâ—…ersion Master Perkins saith he is spiritually dead and thereâ—…re can do nothing You answere that he can doe something when God hath quickened him But what can hee doâ— to the quickening of himselfe giue his free consent you say Then it must needes follow that he hath power by naâ—…e to will his owne conuersion for as yet hee hath receiued no grace but onely hath had a good motion made to him or inspired into him by God of which by his owne free wilâ— he takes a liking and so attaines to iustifying grace speaker D. B. P. Hauing hitherto explicated the state of the question and solued such obiections as may be gathered out of Master Perkins against it before I come to his solution of our arguments I will set downe some principall places both out of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers in defence of our Doctrine because he proposeth but few for vs and misapplieth them too God hath appointed to bring them to chuse and like of saluation 〈…〉 Christ. speaker D. B. P. Vnto these 〈…〉 of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the â—…er vnder Moyses law let vs couple two more out of the new Testament The first may be those kind words of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Jerusalem Jerusalem c. how often vvould I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickâ—â—s vnder her vvings and thou vvouldest not Which doth plainely demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing and withstanding Gods grace as these words of Christ doe plainely witnes and thou vvouldest not The last testimony is in the Reuelat where it is said in the person of God I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voice and open the gates I vvill enter in to him and vvill suppe vvith him and he vvith me Marke well the words God by his grace knocks at the dore of our harts he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace speaker A. W. We acknowledge that the fault is wholy in euery man that is not saued but wee denie that therefore he hath power by nature to chuse life when it is offered he failes indeede in doing of that which hee might doe and ought to doe for his owne furtherance to this choise as the Iewes did in refusing to heare to meditate to yeeld to the miracles wrought by our Sauiour Christ and to beleeue the doctrine which they could in no reasonable sort gainsay It was voluntas signi not beneplaciti God offered them the outward meanes of his word not the inward meanes of his spirit for their conuersion which Lydia had To breake open the doore were to vse compulsion to knock is to vse the outward meanes of conuerting a man or if you will to inspire a good purpose vpon which if any man open out of doubt Christ will enter But this doth no prooue that a man vpon this motion can yeeld by the strength of his owne free will which is the point in question speaker D. B. P. To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs ioyne the testimony of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The fiâ—â—â— shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Aatonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by free vvill could she from soule dishonest deeds and follovv those that be faire and good he vvere vvithout fault as not being cause of such things as vvere done But vve Christians teach that mankind by free choise and free vvill doth both doe vvell and sinne To him we will ioyne that hâ—ly Bishop and valiant Martyr Jreneus who of free will writeth thus not only in vvorkes but in faith also our Lord reserued liberty and freedome of vvill vnto man saying be it done vnto thee according to thy faith speaker A. W. I will adde to that worthie company Saint Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauiour vvill you also depart discourseth thus Our Lord did not bitterly inâ—â—igh against them vvhich forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles vvill you also goe your vvay and vvhy so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by vvhich man left vnto his liberty and put vnto his free choise might deserue vnto himselfe either damnation or saluation These three most auncient and most skilfull in Christian Religion and so zealous of Christian truth that they spent their blood in confirmation of it may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church concerning this article of free wl specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse all Anâ—â—quitie excepting only S. Augustine to haue beleeued and taught free will Heare the words of one for all Mathias Illyricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching free will the testimonies of Iustine Ireneus and others saith mannerâ—lement â—lement Patriarch of Alexandria doth euery vvhere teach free vvill that it may appeare say these Lutherans not only the Doctors of that age to haue been in such darknes but also that it did much encrease in the ages follovving See the wilfull blindnes of heresie Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church to haue taught free will yet had rather beleeue them to haue bin blindly led by the Apostles and then best Schollers who were their Masters then to
this recorded in holy writ read the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were stroken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must doe who willed them to doe penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then loe they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification speaker A. W. Those men S. Luke there speaks of were not yet come to a iustifying faith when they askt the Apostle what they should doe no nor to the knowledge of the Gospell but onely to a sight of their owne sinnes in consenting to the murthering of Christ. speaker A. W. In like manner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that Iesus Christ was the Sonne of God no talke in those daies of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnes yet was he not iustified before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three daies passed betweene S. Paules conuersion and his iustification as doth euidently appeare by the history of his conuersion speaker D. B. P. The Eunuch had heard the Gospell expounded out of Esay and namely that men were to be iustified by the acknowledging of Christ his desire of baptisme was a proofe of his faith according to that he had learned and baptisme the seale of his pardon or iustification vpon that his beleefe of forgiuenes by Christs sufferings It appeares by the storie that there were three daies betwixt the vision and the baptisme of the Apostle but it is not any way shewed that hee had iustifying faith the first day and yet was not iustified till the third day it is but your conceit that tie iustification to baptisme speaker W. P. The second is that faith being nothing else with them but an illumination of the minde stirreth vp the will which being mooued and helped causeth in the heart many spirituall motions and thereby disposeth man to his future iustification But this indeede is as much as if wee should say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their future resurrection For we are all by nature dead in sinne and therefore must not onely bee inlightened in minde but also renewed in will before wee can so much as will or desire that which is good Now we as I haue said teach otherwise that faith iustifieth as it is an instrument to apprehend and applie Christ with his obedience which is the matter of our iustification This is the truth I prooue it thus In the Couenant of grace two things must be considered the substance thereof and the condition The substance of the couenant is that righteousnesse and life euerlasting is giuen to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is that wee for our parts are by faith to receiue the foresaid benefits and this condition is by grace as well as the substance Now then that wee may attaine to saluation by Christ hee must bee giuen vnto vs really as hee is propounded in the tenour of the foresaid Couenant And for the giuing of Christ God hath appointed speciall ordinances as the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments The word preached is the power of God to saluation to euery one that beleeues and the end of the Sacraments is to communicate Christ with all his benefits to them that come to bee partakers thereof as is most plainely to bee seene in the supper of the Lord in which the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and blood with all his merits vnto them And this giuing on Gods part cannot bee effectuall without receiuing on our parts and therfore faith must needs bee an instrument or hand to receiue that which God giueth that wee may finde comfort by this giuing speaker D. B. P. The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this sayes M Perkins is as much to say that dead men only helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath been once before spoken at large in the question of free will speaker A. W. Is not the latter your doctrine also that a man vpon those good motions inspired disposeth himselfe to iustification by the good vse of his free will let the Councill of Trent be iudge as your selfe alleaged it before speaker W. P. The III. difference concerning faith is this the Papist saith that a man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as hope loue the feare of God c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Reason I. Luke 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much Whence they gather that the woman here spoken of was iustified and had the pardon of sinnes by loue Ans. In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to mooue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew and manifest that God had alreadie pardoned them Like to this is the place of Iohn who saith 1. Ioh. 3. 14. Wee are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren where loue is no cause of the change but a signe and consequent thereof speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundrie places of holy write iustification is ascribed vnto many seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is only spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beleefe in Christs power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercie that hee would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assemblie did so humblie prostrate her selfe at Christs feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to lead a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues meete
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
though not meritoriously by our holy actions which make vs euery day more and more fit to serue and please God But Master Perkins vnderstanding your opinion better than your selfe will be knowne to doe frames his reason against this position That workes are part of that righteousnes which we must pleade before God for the deseruing of euerlasting life or that our iustification before God is partly of workes and partly of faith which is the doctrine of your Church howsoeuer by you it be blanched Our reasons speaker W. P. I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Some answer that ceremoniall workes bee excluded here some that morall workes some works going before faith But let them deuise what they can for themselues the truth is that Paul excludeth all workes whatsoeuer as by the text will appeare For vers 24. hee saith We are iustified freely by his grace that is by the meere gift of God giuing vs to vnderstand that a sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue that is doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. Ans. The Apostle there speakes of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glory of God Wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either workes of the law as not necessarie vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary of else against the Gentiles any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for vve acknovvledge veâ—â—e willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only and without any merit of the sinner himselfe speaker A. W. Your answere of the second instification is idle because the distinction as I haue shewed is vaine Master Perkins prooueth that iustification is wholy of faith because the Apostle excludeth workes from it whereas you teach that faith and workes together make vp that iustice or righteousnes whereby a man is iustified before God speaker D. B. P. And yet is not a sinner being of yeares of discretion meerely passiue in that his iustification as M Perkins very abâ—urdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repeet speaker A. W. Master Perkins makes not a sinner meerely passiue in his iustification but in receiuing the gift of faith and in being stirred vp to beleeue And yet is he not in these neither passiue as fondly you imagine we say for he heares and sometimes meditates feares hopes c. but in this respect he is said to bee passiue because his yeelding to beleeue proceedes not from any strength of his free will vpon the good motion inspired but from the spirit of God inclining him ineuitably to beleeue freely speaker W. P. And vers 27. he saith iustification by faith excludeth all boasting and therefore all kind of workes are thereby excluded and speciallie such as are most of all the matter of boasting that is good works For if a sinner after that hee is iustified by the merit of Christ were iustified more by his owne workes then might hee haue some matter of boasting in himselfe speaker D. B. P. And this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our selues as well as theirs For as they must giant that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessaâ—ily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truely bpast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberality of the â—ather of lights and For the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto â—aith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it speaker A. W. From this ariseth the true difference betwixt you and vs concerning boasting that we haue nothing left vs to brag of because not onely the abilitie but the very act of beleeuing is brought to passe by Gods spirit inâ—uitably but your many actions of fearing hoping repenting louing beleeuing are caused by your owne free will without any certaintie of euent on Gods part as a cause thereof speaker D. B. P. Yet obserue by the way that S. Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting For he â—orieth in the hope of glorie of the Sonne of God and in his tribulations Againe He defiueth that vveâ— may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power And that he vvas constrained to glory in his visions and reuolations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure and due season Acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull speaker A. W. The Apostle excludes no boasting but in a mans selfe and all that he must needs shut out if he will reserue Gods glorie entire to him For he that may truly say that he is beholding to his own free will for his iustification as he may who by the good vse of it at his choise without being certainly inclined thereto by the spirit procured his own iustification hath cause to boast of his owne goodnes not caused by God in respect of the act of beleeuing Now he that boasts of the inheritance of heauen which God onely hath prouided for him and fitted him to boasteth not of himselfe though in the middest of tribulations he breake out into this boasting But how proouâ—â— this that therefore all boasting is not forbidden in the matter of iustification To which the next place alleaged no way belongs being spoken by the Apostle of himselfe in respect of those gifts that God had bestowed vpon him for the worke of his ministerie The last being of the same nature is so farre from prouing the lawfulnes of boasting that the Apostle is saine to excuse himselfe for it as a thing inexpedient But howsoeuer it can by no meanes prooue that the Apostle shuts not all boasting out of iustification speaker W. P. And that wee may not doubt of Pauls meaning consider and read Eph 2. 8. 9. By grace saith he you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of
out of the sinceritie of his heart whether our doctrine or yours be more to Gods glory speaker D. B. P. The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christs mediation I vvill therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God vvhich he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordaining meanes hovv all mankind might attaine to eternall life in the tvvo first points vve do for the most part agree to vvit that oursinnes are freely pardoned through Christs passion and that vve are as freely iustified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although vve require other preparation then they doe yet vve as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either as they doe Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen vve differ altogether for they say that God requires no iustice in vs nor merit at all on our parts but only the disposition of faith to lay hold on Christs righteousnes and merittes but vvesay that Christs righteousnes and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merits God doth povvre into euery true Christian a particular iustice vvhereby he is sanctified and made able to doe good vvorks and to merit eternall life Which ability vve receiuing of Gods free gift through Christ merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christs merits for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glorie of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits vvhich hee hath appointed to bee the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeed vnder colour of magnifying Christs merits to vndermine and blovv out all the vertue of them speaker A. W. Though you denie all merit in the first iustification yet you make euery mans free will the cause that hee particularly is iustified and so make him more beholding to himselfe then to God because he hath from God that he may be saued if he wil from himself that he wils and so is saued It is a greater gift to vouchsafe vs euerlasting life without our desert then to make vs able to deserue it and more for Gods glory that we should haue it of his free gift then of our deseruing by his gift since the abilitie only to vse the gift well is from him but the vsing of it from our owne free will as before speaker D. B. P. But saies M. Perkins vvhat should vve talke of our merittes vvho for one good vvorke vve doe commit many bad vvhich deface our merits if vve had any speaker A. W. True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit but by repentance both are recouered againe but must we not speake of any good because we may happe to doe euill that is a faire perswasion and well vvorthy a wise man Of this iest whereby merit is made to rise and fall I spake a little before and shewed how vniust impossible it was You may speake of and do what good you will but not pleade desert because you haue so many sinnes to condemne you speaker W. P. Obiect III. Our workes merit by bargaine or couenant because God hath promised to rewarde them Ans. The worde of God sets downe two couenants on Legall the other Euangelicall In the legall couenant life euerlasting is promised to works for that is the condition of the law Do these things and thou shalt liue But on this manner can no man merit life euerlasting because none is able to doe all that the law requires whether we respect the manner or the measure of obedience In the Euangelicall couenant the promises that are made are not made to any worke of vertue in man but to the worker not for any merit of his owne person or worke but for the person and merit of Christ. For example it is a promise of the Gospell Be faithfull vnto death and I will giue thee the crowne of life Reuelat. 2. 10. Here the promise is not made to the vertue of fidelitie but to the faithfull person whose fidelitie is but a token that he is in Christ for the merit of whose obedience God promiseth the crowne of life speaker D. B. P. Let vs come to our third Argument God hath by couenant and promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting Therefore good workes do in iustice deserue it for faithfull promise maketh due debt The couenant is plainly set downe where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen for a peny a day that is to giue them life euerlasting for trauailing in his seruice during their life time as all auncient interpretours expound it speaker A. W. The antecedent being granted that God hath promist to reward our works your prouing that might haue bin spared especiallie being such as it is fetched from a parable not expounded any where in the scripture Yea the Fathers themselues haue obserued something in the parable as that of their murmuring who had wrought all day which will not be handsomely expounded of the reward giuen in heauen as any man may perceiue by the diuers expositions that are vsed to help the matter by Chrysostome Gregory Ierome Hillary and the author of your ordinarie glosse Therefore Lyra doubts not to say plainely that the literall sense is that in the beginning of the Church the Iewes that were conuerted murmured because the Gentiles obtained like fauour to them which he prooues out of the Acts. And indeed that seemes to haue bin the end of the parable to shew the reiection of the Iewes who were the first and the receiuing of the Gentiles who were the last To which purpose Ierome saith that the Iewes which were the head shall be turned to the taile and the Gentiles who were the taile shall be changed to the head And for the penny he seemes to expound that of grace rather then glory A penny saith he hath the figure of the king thou hast therefore receiued the reward I promised that is my image and likenes which was also Cyprians opinion as it appeares in his epistle to Magnus speaker D. B. P. Whereupon S. Paul inferreth that God should be vniust if he should forget their workes who suffered persecution for him And saith If it be iust with God to render tribulation to them that persecute you and to such as are persecuted rest with vs Vpon the same ground S. Hierome saith Great truly were the iniustice of God if he did only punish â—â—â—ll works and vvould not as well receiue good workes To all thâ—se and much more such like M. Perkins answereth that couenant for workes was in the old Testament but in the new the couenant is made with the workman not with the worke speaker A. W. Reply All that I cited in this Argument is out of the new Testament