as you haue heard out of the Councell of Trent in the beginning of this question that many actes of faith feare hope and charity do goe before our iustification preparing our soule to receiue into it from God through Christ that great grace speaker A. W. If the matter be not great it was but a small fault to be short in it yea the contrarie had been a fault indeed It is not handled by the way but propounded in plaine tearmes as a second difference betwixt vs and you speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins Doctor like resolueth otherwise That faith is an instrument created by God in the hart of man at his conuersion vvhereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes for his iustification This ioyly description is set downe without any other probation then his owne authoritie that deliuered it and so let it passe as already sufficiently confuted And if there needed any other disprofe of it I might gather one more out of his owne explication of it where he saith that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs by the word of God and by the Sacraments For if faith created in our harts be the only sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend that couenant of grace then there needs no Sacraments for that purpose and consequentlie I would faine know by the way how little infants that cannot for want of iudgement and discretion haue any such act of faith as to lay hold on Christ his iustice are iustified Must we without any warrant in Gods word contrary to all experience beleeue that they haue this act of faith before they come to any vnderstanding speaker A. W. If it would haue serued your turne to cauil at you would haue found Master Perkins reason and not haue iested at his authoritie I will plainly propound it for all men to iudge of your dealing That whereby Christ is to be receiued is an instrument to applie Christ. But faith is that whereby Christ is to be receiued Therefore faith is an instrument to applie Christ. To this you answere nothing but frame an argument against the question as you would haue it thought out of Master Perkins his owne explication of it Your argument is If faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there need no Sacraments You should adde as supernaturall instruments to that purpose But there is need of the Sacraments Therefore faith is not the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace First there is more in your conclusion than in the question The question is whether faith be a supernaturall instrument created to that purpose or no your conclusion is that faith is not that onely supernaturall instrument Secondly I denie the consequence of your proposition you may as well say for that Master Perkins sets downe too that if faith be the onely instrument then the word is needlesse The Word and Sacraments applie Christ outwardlie as meanes on Gods part faith receiues it in on our part the holie Ghost inlightening and inclining our hearts thereunto Little infants in my poore opinion haue no act of faith but are iustified without any thing done by them God for Christs sake according to his euerlasting election forgiuing their sinnes and adopting them for sonnes and heires of glorie speaker W. P. In this their doctrine is a twofold error I. that they make faith which iustifieth to go before iustification it selfe both for order of nature and also for time whereas by the word of God at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then iustified and sanctified For he that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life Ioh. 6. 54. speaker D. B. P. But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M Perkins finds two faults with it one that we teach faith to goe before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Marry this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answere that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthely obtaineth therby life euerlasting as Christ saith expressely in that place And so this proofe is vaine speaker A. W. If you had meant plainly you should haue reported Master Perkins reproofe of your opinion truly as he hath deliuered it that you make faith goe before iustification not onely in order of nature onely which we grant but in time also which we denie If I should onely say the contrarie that our Sauiour doth not speake there of the Sacraments I might conclude by as good reason as you doe and so this answere is vaine But I oppose to your authoritie not mine owne which is nothing worth but your owne writers yea the Councill of Trent which leaues it free to al men to expound that chapter either of the spirituall eating of Christ by faith only or of eating him really in the Sacrament And this libertie is grounded vpon the diuersitie of opinions among the Fathers concerning the sense of that chapter This is sufficient to make Master Perkins reason good against your deniall speaker D. B. P. Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification first by that of S. Paul VVhosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in vvhom they doe not beleeue hovv shall they beleeue vvithout a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterwards to call vpon God for mercy and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification speaker A. W. Prayer commeth betweene in nature but not in time for hee that rests vpon God for saluation in Christ doth withall call vpon God for pardon of his sinnes whereupon iustification followes immediatly though not alwaies in a mans owne feeling speaker A. W. This S. Augustine obserued when he said Faith is giuen first by which vve obtaine the rest And againe By the lavv is knovvledge of sâ—nne by faith vve obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured The rest that Austin speakes of are graces of sanctification or as he calles them there good workes in which we liue and these are supplied euery day by God or at least the increase and vse of these vertues whereby wee liue godly in the world such is the cure of the soule by grace to the louing of righteousnes and doing the works of the law speaker D. B. P. If we list to see the practise of
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
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
satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires at our hands is accepted of God as iustice it selfe But Christs obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires Therefore Christs obedience is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe Vpon this he concludes yet further If the Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction why should they not make it their iustice The reason of the proposition is because God accepts such satisfaction for iustice But they make Christs obedience their satisfaction Therefore why should they not make it their iustice Your answere must be applied to the consequence of the proposition the proofe whereof as I haue shewed is fetcht from the former syllogisme to which you answer nothing at all But let vs take it as it is and it is thus much in effect that you haue neede of Christs satisfaction but no neede of his iustice So then belike you will not accept of his righteousnes as yours because you are loth to be any more beholding to him than needs you must That you need it not you prooue because a meere man is capable of sufficient lighteousnes to iustification But that will not serue the turne vnlesse also he haue as much as he is capable of to which estate no man attaines in this life by your confession who admit an increase of iustice euery day speaker D. B. P. Briefly it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of an other but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on an other and not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquity no more then a simple man will take a Black moore for white although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell speaker A. W. Secondly you take it not as yours because Christ cannot bestow it on you What not so much as to haue it imputed to you why not as well as Adams sinne is mads ours by imputation But God you say whose iudgement is according to truth will not repute a man iust who is full of iniquitie Indeede God cannot be deceiued to hold a man not to be wicked that is wicked but God can iustifie that is forgiue and acquite him though he know him to be wicked and can take him for righteous in Christ of whom he is a member though in himselfe he be not righteous So may the man that will not take a blacke Moore for white accept of him as if he were white without any error speaker W. P. Reason V. The consent of the auncient Church Bernard saith epist. 190. The iustice of an other is assigned vnto man who wanted his owne man was indepted and man made paiment The satisfaction of one is imputed to all And why may not iustice be from an other as well as guiltinesse is from another And in Cant. serm 25. It sufficeth me for all righteousnesse to haue him alone mercifull to me against whom I haue sinned And Not to sinne is Gods iustice mans iustice is the mercifullnesse of God And serm 61. Shall I sing mine owne righteousnesse Lord I will remember thy righteousnesse alone for it is mine also in that euen thou art made vnto me righteousnesse of God What shall I feare least that one bee not sufficient for vs both it is a short cloke that cannot couer two it will couer both thee and me largely beeing both a large and eternall iustice speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins last reason is taken from the consent of the auncient Church And yet citeth sauing one two lines nothing out of any auncient writer not out of any other but out of only S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ so that he signifieth that there is little releefe to be had in Antiquity speaker A. W. What reliefe there is for vs touching this point in the Fathers shall appeare more fully hereafter if it please God in another treatise In the meane while take a taste by these who acknowledge their righteousnes imperfect and vnable to abide Gods iudgement This saith Basil is perfect and sound reioycing in God when a man doth not bragge no not of his righteousnes but knowes himselfe vnworthie of true righteousnes and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. And in another place Euerlasting rest remaines for them which in this life haue striuen lawfully not for the desert of their workes but by the fauour of the most bountifull God in whom they haue hoped Charitie saith Austin in some is greater in some lesse in other none at all but so great charitie as cannot be increased is in no man so long as he liues here Now so long as it may be increased surely that which is lesse than it should be is faultie By reason of which fault there is not a righteous man vpon earth that doth good and sinnes not by reason of which fault no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God because of this fault if we say we haue no sinne the truth is not in vs and for this also how much soeuer we haue done it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts were forgiuen in baptisme I will not boast saith Ambrose because I am righteous but because I am redeemed I will boast not because I am voide of sinnes but because my sinnes are forgiuen me speaker D. B. P. Which Caluin declareth more plainely for he commonly setting light by all other in this question reiecteth also S. Augustine saying Yea not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter vvho attributeth our samctification to grace wherewith we are regenerate in newnes of life by the spirit And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Councell of â—rent saith VVe contend not how the Fathers take iustification and a little after I am not ignorant that they spake othervvise then we doe of it Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himselfe with some few broken sentences of later vvriters speaker A. W. Caluin doth not commonly reiect the Fathers in this point but both he and Chemnitius alleage diuers things out of them in this question of iustification For Chemnitius looke in the place you haue named in his disputation of iustification Caluins words will cleere him sufficiently if they be truly reported Yea not the sentence of Austin himselfe or at the least not his manner of speech is in all sorts to be receiued For although he notably spoyle man of all commendation of righteousnes and passe ouer all to Gods grace yet he referres grace to sanctification whereby we are regenerate into newnes of life through the spirit Indeed it is vsuall with Austin and the Latin Fathers to speake of iustification as the word seemed to leade
sanctification be perfect in the world to come yet shall it not iustifie for wee must conceiue it no otherwise after this life but as a fruit springing from the imputed righteousnes of Christ without which it could not be And a good childe will not cast away the first garment because his father giues a second And what if inward righteousnesse be perfect in the ende of this life shal we therefore make it the matter of our iustification God forbid For the righteousnesse whereby sinners are iustified must be had in the time of this life before the panges of death speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall â—uieth after this life and is â—…ned in beaâ—en but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life eigo M. Perkins answereth First that imputed righteousnes continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we all haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life in ward righteousnes shall be perfect and then without perhaps it shal be most perfect in heauen So that one part of this answere ouerthroweth the other Wherfore I need not stand vpon it but will proâ—eed to fortifie our partie with some authorities taken both forth of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers speaker A. W. There are many pitifull shifts in this answere First Master Perkins denies the assumption which you leaue so ouerthrowne and runne to fortifie your owne partie Secondly he giueth the reason of his deniall That acceptation of vs as righteous and forgiuenes of sinnes shall be continued in heauen Thirdly he saith not that wee shall haue no other righteousnes in heauen but the quite contrarie viz. sanctification which is inherent righteousnes here imperfect Fourthly he puts it not to perhaps but resolutly affirmes that sanctification shall be perfect in the end of this life Fiftly there is not in his speech so much as a shew of any contradiction which ariseth wholy from that clause foysted in by you we shall haue no other Lastly as any man may discerne you change Master Perkins conclusion and so his whole reason speaker D. B. P. The first place I take out of these words of S. Paul And these things certes vvere you Dronkers Couetous Fornicators c. But you are VVashed you are Sanctified you are Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the spirit of our Lord Here iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sins and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name and the sake of Christ Iesus speaker A. W. First I answere as before that the Fathers often take iustification for sanctification also Secondly I say Bellarmine out of whom you take this hath deceiued you Chrysostome doth not make iustification consist in those actions of washing c. his words are these God hath washed vs and not that onely but hath sanctified vs neither that onely but hath iustified vs. Now if washing and sanctifying be iustifying in Chrysostoms iudgement how doth he rise from one to another as diuers things Theophylact makes them diuers at least in nature God hath clensed you from them saith Theophylact yea and sanctified you How By iustifying you faith he for he hath washed you then afterward iustifying he hath sanctified you Theodoret expounds the place of forgiuenes of sins in baptisme Your ordinarie glosse applies washing to baptisme sanctifying to the holy Ghost giuen vs that wee may worke well and iustifying to our working well Ambrose saith that in baptisme he that beleeues is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and is adopted a sonne to God by the spirit of our God But neuer a one of these saith that iustification consists in these actions of washing and infusion of Gods gifts speaker D. B. P. The like description of our iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost vvhom he hath povvred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace vve may be heires in hope and not in certainety of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the â—enewing of oursoules by the infusion of his heauenly giftes vvhich God of his mercy did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Chrsts sake This is but your glosse For the grace of God in that place signifies the fauour of God as otherwhere the same phrase doth or the loue of Christ who as Lyra there saith makes vs the adopted sons of God Caietan makes an opposition betwixt Gods grace and our workes as the Apostle doth If it be of grace it is no more of workes So doth Chrysostom and Theophylact vnderstand it of fauour not of debt For if he saued vs by fauour When we were desperate and cast away much more saith Theophylact shall he giue vs those good things to come now we are iustified as the Apostle saith If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall be saued by his life speaker A. W. Many other places I omit for breuity sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before First S. Augustine saith That this iustice of ours which they call righteousnes is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost And is a beautie of our invvard man It is the renuing of the reasonable part of our soule And twenty other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers And S. Cyrill for the Greekes who of our iustification writeth thus The spirit is a heate vvho as soone as he hath povvred charity into vs and hath vvith the fire of it inflamed our minds vve haue euen then obtained iustice In the first place alleaged by you there is no such matter onely Austin proues against the Pelagians that we are not sinners from Adam by imitation alone because then we should also be righteous from Christ by nothing but imitation In the Epistle to Consentius he speakes not of that righteousnes whereby wee are iustified but of that which is inherent What other thing saith he is iustice in vs or any other vertue by which we liue orderly and wisely than the beautie of the inward man This is true of those graces we receiue by sanctification He doth not say that the grace by which we are iustified is the renewing of the reasonable
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
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
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
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
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
1 the Apostle may be applied to the proposition because they that would be circumcised would be iustified by the workes of the law Whereupon it followeth that he that will be iustified by workes is bound to keepe the whole law For so the Apostle saith of them that will be iustified by circumcision speaker W. P. III. Election to saluation is of grace without workes therefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes For it is a certaine rule that the cause of a cause is the cause of a thing caused Now grace without works is the cause of election which election is the cause of our iustification and therefore grace without workes is the cause of our iustification speaker D. B. P. Ans. That election is of grace vvithout vvorkes done of our ovvne simple forces or vvithout the vvorks of Moses lavv but not vvithout prouision of good vvorkes issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits speaker A. W. This answere is not only against the Apostle Paul and Austins exposition of him but also contrarie to Lombard Thomas Bellarmine and generally the learnedst Papists as it shall appeare if this writer giue occasion speaker W. P. IV. A man must first be fully iustified before he can doe a good worke for the person must first please God before his works can please him But the person of a sinner cannot please God till he bee perfectly iustified and therefore till he bee iustified hee cannot doe so much as one good worke And thus good works cannot be any meritorious causes of iustification after which they are both for time and order of nature In a word whereas they make two distinct iustifications wee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification yet so as iustification is onely one standing in remission of sinnes and Gods acceptation of vs to life euerlasting by Christ and this iustification hath no degrees but is perfect at the very first OF THE SECOND IVSTIFICATION speaker D. B. P. THe fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can doe a good vvorke and therefore good vvorkes cannot goe before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification And hauing before discussed the first and the second novv remaining and expecting you vvhy did you not say one vvord of it the matter being ample and vvell vvorthy the handling speaker A. W. He that denieth a second iustification and hath disprooued it neede not stand vpon a deuice of yours how worthy the handling soeuer you thinke it speaker D. B. P. Albeit you vvill not vvillingly confesse any second iustification as you say Yet had it been your partat least to haue disproued such arguments as vve bring to proue a second iustification Ye acknovvledge that there be degrees of sanctification But these degrees must be made dovvnevvard of euill vvorser and vvorst for if all our sanctification and best vvorkes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold else vvhere let any vvise man iudge vvhat degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it speaker A. W. But that you knew none of your side doe vse to reade our bookes nor dare without your licence neither you nor other of your Popish complices would for shame write in this sort You haue been often answered that wee acknowledge inherent righteousnesse and labour for and by the grace of God attaine to the increase of it in some measure from day to day speaker A. W. Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnes which can neuer after be either lost or increased Why then doe you with your brother Jounuan maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you wel coursed read S. Hierome S. Amorose S. Augustine S. Gregorie speaker D. B. P. We maintaine that all men are equally righteous in regard of iustification but vnequally in respect of sanctification Iouinian is rather one of your brood who hold that a man being iustified is wholy without sin euen in Gods iudgement At least you must needs vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against vvhich I vvill put dovvne these reasons follovving speaker A. W. First that of the reuelations Let him that is iust be yet iustified or as your text hath it He that is righteous let him be more righteous speaker D. B. P. He that is iustified is as righteous at the first as at the last in respect of iustification but not inherent righteousnes or sanctification of which the places you alleage are meant and therefore need no further answere But that you may the rather see our desire to satisfie you I will speake a little of them Iustified in that place signifieth to proceede in doing iustly as Ribera the Iesuite proueth by the opposition in the other part of the sentence Let him that hurteth hurt still that is goe forward in your hurting saith he and so let him that hurteth no bodie but giueth euery man his due goe forward in so doing Let him that doth good saith your glosse yet doe good more abundantly Let him that is righteous saith Cyprian in two places doe yet more righteous things and him that is holy more holy The Greeke Scholiast reade it thus Let him that is righteous yet worke righteousnes And so doe the Greeke Testaments printed by Plantin and the Interlinear Bible too so that there is not so much as the word iustified in some of your owne Greeke copies And that feare not to be iustified euen vntill death do conuince that there are more iustifications then one and that a man may increase in iustification and righteousnes vntill death speaker A. W. That of Ecclesiasticus would haue been spared till you haue proued that booke to be canonicall which you know we deny and that as we are sure with the consent of the auncient Church at least you should not haue alleadged it with so grosie an error in the translation The Greek is differ not The old Latin was in all likelyhood Be not forbidden or hindered as it may appeare by Vatablus edition of it by Robert Stephens that of Antwerpe and that with the glosse where Lyra expounds it ne prohibearis Andradius deliuers it thus Let there be nothing that may hinder thee from praying alwaies or may let thee from being iustified euen vntill death Some ignorant writer that copied out the booke finding ne veteris be not let and mistaking t for r writ ne
vereris feare not barbarously against true Grammar Latin But the sense also not onely the words is misconceiued For the meaning is that we should not put off honestie or good conuersation to our last end Put not off till death to prooue thy selfe a righteous man saith Vatablus a Papist very skilfull in the tongues and sometimes Hebrue Reader in Paris where you haue the very word which Bellarmine condemnes in Caluin ne differas Which also Pagnin vseth a notable Linguist and a Papist Put not off thy honestie Arias Montanus hath the sense though not the word waight not Stapleton applieth it to the first iustification Bellarmine to the second whose reasons I will answere otherwhere It is enough for the present that a second iustification cannot be prooued out of these two places speaker A. W. Which is confirmed vvhere it is said that the path of a iust man proceedeth as the light doth vntill it be perfect day Which is by degrees more and more And S. Paul teacheth the same vvhere he saith to men that giue almes plentifully That God vvill maltiplie their seede and augment the increases of the fruits of their iustice This place proueth not that there is a second iustification but either that the light of the righteous continueth or at the most that it increaseth to the end which we denynot And this much lesse where the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians to cheerefulnesse in liberalitie to the poore assuring them that God will make them more able to bring forth such fruites of righteousnesse by multiplying their seede and their store Ye shall giue them bread to eate saith Caietan and seede wherewith to sowe againe and iust or honest gaine whereas the gaine that the wicked make is vniust speaker D. B. P. Further S. Iames doth most effectually proue this increase of righteousnes and the second iustification in these vvords Abraham our Father was he not iustified by vvorkes offering Isaac his sonne vpon the Altar That he speaketh of the second iustification is euident for Abraham was iustified before Isaac was borne as it is most manifest by the Scripture it selfe and by that heroicall act of not sparing his onely and entirely beloued Sonne his iustice vvas much augmented And the Apostle himselfe seemeth to haue foreseene all our aduersaries cauillation and to haue so long before preuented them First that common shift of theirs that this worke vvas a signe or the fiuit only of his faith and no companion of it in the matter of iustification is formally confuted for the holy Ghost speaking distinctly of both his faith and work and ioyning them both in this act of iustification attributeth the better part of it vnto his vvorke thus Seest thou that faith did worke vvith his vvorkes and by the vvorkes the saith vvas consummate and made perfect Which he doth after fitly declare by a similitude comparing faith to the body and good vvorkes to the soule vvhich giue life and lustre to faith othervvise faith is of little value and estimation vvith God speaker A. W. Though there is enough said before for the cleering of this place yet perhaps it shal not be amisse to follow him in these seueral poynts That he speaketh not of the same iustification which Paul doth it is plaine but not that he meaneth your second iustification whereby the former is made perfit to deserue euerlasting life When we say works are no companions of faith in iustification we do not say they are not present but that they do not iustifie neither speak we of testifying our iustification by workes as the Apostle here doth but of that which you call the first iustification to which questionlesse this fact of Abraham in your own iudgment did not appertaine But he ioyneth faith and workes together How should they be seuered when there is no holy action performed in any part of our life but proceedeth from faith which of it owne nature worketh by loue now faith is not said to be perfited by workes as if it did iustifie a man by them for then had it not iustified Abraham till this great worke was wrought but because the act is the proose of the perfection of the vertue Wherupon it followeth in the text That by this worke the Scripture was fulfilled which had testified that Abraham was iustified by faith For now it manifestly appeared that the testimony was true Abraham making it cleare to all the world that he had true faith indeed that is saith Caieton such a faith as would not refuse but was reâ—die to bring forth good workes And in his opinion this is that which Iames saith that we are not iustified by a barren faith but by a faith fruitfull in good workes speaker D. B. P. Which S. Paul also teacheth atlarge among other speeches including this That if he should haue all faith and vvanted charitie he vvere nothing And comparing faith and charity together defineth expresly that charitie is the greater vertue Which charity is the fountaine of all good vvorkes And so by this preferring these vvorks of charity before faith he doth stop the other starting hole of the Protestants that Abraham forsooth vvas iustified before God by only faith but vvas declared iust before men by his vvorkes For if God esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified before God by charity then by faith speaker A. W. God esteemeth more of Charity for the vse of our conuersation amongst men but of faith for our iustification And indeed it is a greater honor to God for a man wholy to renounce himselfe and rest vpon him for iustification then to loue God in hope of such a fauour to be receiued vpon our being so prepared speaker D. B. P. Againe in the very place where this noble fact is recorded to shevv how acceptable it was to God himselfe it is said in the person of God Now I know that thou louest me and to conuince all obstinate cauilling is it not said that his faith did in this very fact cooperate with his works and that the worke made his faith perfect which coniunction of both of them together doth demonstrate that he speaketh oâ— his iustification before God adding also That he vvas therefore called the friend of God Which could not haue been if thereby he had been only declared iust before men and thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles S. Paul and S. Iames which seeme contrary S. Paul saying that a man is iustified by faith vvithout vvorkes and S. Iames that a man is iustified by vvorks and not by faith only That S. Paul speaketh of works vvhich goe before saith such as vve of our owne forces vvithout the helpe of grace are able to doe and such he saith not to deserue our first iustification But S. Iames dispâ—teth of workes vvhich sollovv faith and
will doubtles in short time loath it As for example I hat it is as good and godly by eating to feede the bodie as to chastize it by fasting That it is as holy to fulfill the fleshly desires of it by Mariage as by Continencie to mortifie them yea that it is flat against the word of God to vow Virginitie And also contrarie to his blessed will to bestowe our goods on the poore and to giue our selues wholy to prayer and fasting All which this Aduocate of the English Congregation teacheth expressâ—e Is this the puritie of the Gospell Or is it not rather the high way to Epicurisme and to all worldly vanitie and iniquitie speaker A. W. To chastice the bodie by fasting wee hold it not only good but of tentimes necessary though we acknowledge neither merit nor satisfaction in it which accompanie your popish fasts Mortification of all kindes of lusts not only that one we account a necessarie part of sanctification neither doe wee allow mariage to fulfill the lust of the flesh but to remedie it vowing of virginitie we approoue not because a man cannot be sure that he shall keepe his vow alwaies though for a time he be able besides all lawfull vowes being things indifferent charitie must giue iudgement of excediencie in making thâ—n To make prayer and fasting our whole worke is to liue in the world without a calling To giue away our goods to the poore so to become chargeable to others is to tempt God and burthen the Church to doe it with opinion of merit is popish pride against Gods glorie speaker D. B. P. I neede not ioyne hereunto that they teach it to be impossible to keepe Gods Commaundements and therefore in vaine to goe about it And faâ—ther that the best worke of the righteous man is defiled with sinne Wherefore as good for him to leane all vndone as to doe any Nay if this position of theirs were true it would to low necessarilie that all men were bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doe any good deede to long as they liue for that their good deede being stayned with sinne cannot but deserue the hyre of sinne which according to the Apostle is Death euerlasting If your Maiesties important affaires would once permit you to consider maturely of these impieties and many other like absurdities wherewith the Protestant Doctrine is stuffed I dare be bold to say that you would speedely either commaund them to reforme themselues and amend their errors or fairely giue them their Congie speaker A. W. We say it is impossible to keepe Gods commandements perfectly to iustification but wee denie that therefore it is in vaine to goe about it Yea we truly affirme that we are bound to doe our best endeuour and shall haue acceptation and reward of our workes from God though not vpon any desert of ours That our best workes are tainted with imperfections we professe plainly That they are therefore to be left vndone neither we say nor you can prooue The imperfection that cleaues to them is by all good meanes to be auoyded but the workes to be performed for it is not the worke but the imperfection in it that is forbidden speaker D. B. P. I will close vp this my second reason with this Epiphoneme That it is impossible for a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his ovvne Religion to hope for any saluation For they doe and needes must graunt that no man can be saued without a liuely faith and also that a liuely faith cannot be without charitie for otherwise it were dead Now then to the purpose No Protestant can haue charitie for as witnesseth Saint Iohn This is the charitie of God that vve keepe his commaundements But it is impossible according to the Protestants to keepe the commandements therfore also impossible to haue charitie VVhich is the â—ulnes of the lavve and consequently impossible to haue a liuely faith which cannot be without charitie And so finally through want of that lâ—uely feeling faith whereby they should lay hold on Christs righteousnesse to hale and apply that vnto themselues they can haue no hope at all of any fauour and grace at Gods hands Without which they must needes assure themselues of eternall damnation in steede of their pretended certainâ—… of saluation speaker A. W. True charitie though not perfect may be had in this life and by it the commandements of God may bee and are kept though not perfectly so that a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his religion may yet hope for saluation speaker D. B. P. To these two arguments gathered out of the treatise following I adde a third collected from these your owne memorable wordes related in the aboue named conference viz. Are wee now come to that passe that we must appeache Constantine of Poperie and superstition Which argueth that your Maiestie iudgeth them to haue little regard of either piety or ciuility that would admit such a thought into their minde as that the first Christian Emperour our most renowned countriman should bee nousled and brought vp in superstition wherein your Maiestie hath great reason for he was most carefully instructed and taught the Christian Religion by such holy Confessors whose sinceritie in faith had bin tried in the hotte furnace of many strange persecutions And he farther had the good happe to see and heare together in the first generall Councell of Nice many of the holiest and best learned Bishops of Christendome Therefore is it most vnlikely that so Royall a Person deuoted to Religion add hauing so good meanes to attayne to the perfect knowledge thereof as no man could haue better should neuerthelesse in the purest time of it be mis-ledde into errour and superstition If then it may be prooued that this most Christian Emperour the glittering ornament of our noble Iland did beleeue such articles of the present Roman Church as the Protestants teach not to be beleeued Will not your Maiestie rather ioyne in faith with so peeâ—les a Prince who by the consent of all antiquitie was for certaine right well enformed then with these whome doubtles most men deeme to be pittifullie deceiued ' Now that Constantine was of the same opinion in matter of Religion with the present Church of Rome may euidently bee gathered out of this that followeth speaker A. W. He that denies Constantine to haue been a worthie a singular instrument of God for the good of his Church wrongs the worthie Emperour and sinnes against God But the triall of doctrine is to be fetched not from the opinions and examples of men though neuer so holie but from the Holie of Holies It may not seeme strange if superstition were crept into the Church before Constantines time when the Apostle witnesses that euen in his daies the mysterie of iniquitie was alreadie begun speaker D. B. P. First he was so affectionate vnto the signe of the Crosse that hee
ioyne with the Papists and teach that in sinnes or euill actions man hath freedome of will Some paraduenture will say that wee sinne necessarily because hee that sinneth cannot but sinne and that free will and necessitie cannot stand together Indeed the necessitie of compulsion or coaction and freewill cannot agree but there is another kinde of necessitie which may stand with freedome of will for some things may be done necessarily and also freely A man that is in close prison must needs there abide and cannot possibly get forth and walke where he will yet can he mooue himselfe freely and walke within the prison so likewise though mans will be chained naturally by the bonds of sinne and therefore cannot but sinne and thereupon sinneth necessarily yet doth it also sinne feely speaker D. B. P. Annot. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose for it puts necessitie in one thing and liberty in an other The solution is that necessarily must be taken for certainly not that a man is at any time compelled to sinne but his weakenes and the crafte of the Diuell are such that he is very often ouer reached by the Diuell and induced to sinne but with free consent of his owne will speaker A. W. The example is to the purpose as he that is in prison if he will walke must of necessitie walke in the prison and yet walkes freely there because he may chuse whether he will walke or no so he that is chained by sinne may chuse whether hee will doe such an action or no but if hee doe it he shall necessarily sinne in doing of it and thus necessitie and libertie are alike in both parts of the similitude There is nothing in your solution that was not in Master Perkins distinction saue that you haue put it in other words you say certainly he infallibly you say man sinnes with free consent and is not compelled he saies he sinnes freely and not of compulsion speaker W. P. V. Conclus The second kind of spirituall actions or things concerne the kingdome of God as repentance saith the conuersion of a sinner new obedience and such like in which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans free will concurs with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some fort For in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required the word Gods spirit and mans will for mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule When any man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willi gly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he wills his conuersion To this end said Augustine He which made thee without thee will not saue thee without thee Againe that is certaine that our will is required in this that we may doe any good thing well but we haue it not from our owne power but God works to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giueth a will to desâ—â—e and will the same grace as for example when God works faith at the same time he works also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in men goe together yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church touching Free will neither may we proceede further with them speaker D. B. P. Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of will in ciuill and morall workes in the state of corruption and all good workes in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renued or as we speake iustified there is liberty of grace that is grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spiritual works as God requireth at his hands Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing he doth in shew of words contradict both these points in another place For in setting downe the disference of our opinions hee saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a litle before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainelie man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to doe or not to do the acts of wisedome Iusâ—ce Temperance c and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentiles so did Yet in his first reason he assirmeth as peremptorily out of the 8. of Genisis that the whole frame of mans heart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall duty speaker A. W. It is neither the principall point in controuersie nor any controuersie at all according to Master Perkins whether man haue freedome of will in morall workes before grace and in all good workes after grace For of the former Master Perkins makes no question but onely giues a caueat of the feeblenes of the will and dimnes of the vnderstanding in such matters with the latter he deales not at all professedly restraining the question to our dissent about the second estate Libertie in the state of grace to will spirituall good wee thankfully acknowledge but neither is it of so large extent as your exposition makes it and without the speciall worke of Gods spirit by it selfe it brings no good thing to passe He doth not say simply that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue Of which his other speech is not a contradiction but rather a confirmation That mans will concurres with Gods grace as a co-worker in some sort and a little after mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion of the soule Now what action it hath and in what respect it is actiue and passiue he shewes presently after the words are falsely alleadged by you viz. that it wils well onely as it moued by grace
euerie sin the very sinne against the holy Ghost not excepted Hence therefore I reason thus If euery man by nature doth both want originall iustice and be also prone vnto all euill then wanteth he naturall free will to will that which is truely good But euery man by nature wants originall iustice and is also prone vnto all euill Ergo Euery man naturallie wants free will to will that which is good Reason II. 1. Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnesse vnto him neither can know them because they are spiritually discerned In these words S. Paul sets downe these points I. that a naturall man doth not so much as thinke of the things reuealed in the Gospell II. that a man hearing and in mind conceiuing them cannot giue consent vnto them and by naturall iudgement approue of them but contrariwise thinketh them to be foolishnesse III. that no man can giue assent to the things of God vnlesse he be enlightened by the spirit of God And hence I reason thus If a man by nature doth not know and perceiue the things of God and when he shall knâ—w them cannot by nature giue assent vnto them then hath he no power to will them But the first is euidently true Ergo. For first the mind must approue and giue assent before the will can choose or will and when the mind hath not power to conceiue or giue assent there the will hath no power to will Reason III. Thirdly the holy Ghost auoucheth Eph. 2. 2. Coloss. 2. 13. that all men by nature are dead in sinnes trespasses not as the Papists say weak sicke or halfe dead Hence I gather that man wanteth naturall power not to will simplie but freelie and frankly to wil that which is truely good A dead man in his graue cannot stirre the least finger because he wants the very power of life sense and motion no more can he that is dead in sinne will the least good nay if he could either will or doe any good he could not be dead in sinne And as a dead man in the graue cannot rise but by the power of God no more can he that is dead in sinne rise but by the power of Gods grace alone without any power of his owne Reason IV. Fourthly in the conuersion and saluation of a sinner the scripture ascribeth all to God and nothing to mans free will Iohn 3. 3. Except a man be borne againe he cannot see the kingdome of God Ephes. 2. 10. We are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus to good works And chap. 4. vers 24. The new man is created to the image of God Now to be borne again is a worke of no lesse importance then our first creation and therefore wholy to be ascribed to God as our creation is Indeede Paul Phil. 2. 12. 13. biddeth the Philippians worke out their saluation with feare and trembling not meaning to ascribe vnto them a power of doing good by themselues And therefore in the next verse he addeth It is God that worketh both the will and the deede directly excluding all naturall free will in things spirituall and yet withall he acknowledgeth that mans will hath a worke in doing that which is good not by nature but by grace Because when God giues man power to will good things then he can will them and when he giueth him a power to doe good then he can doe good and he doth it For though there be not in mans conuersion a naturall cooperation of his will with Gods spirit yet is there a supernaturall cooperation by grace enabling man when he is to be conuerted to will his conuersion according to which S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 15. 10. I haue laboured in the faith but least any man should imagine that this was done by any naturall power therefore he addeth yet not I that is not by any thing in me but Gods grace in mee inabling my will to doe the good I doe Reason V. The iudgement of the auncient Church August The will of the regenerate is kindled onely by the holy Ghost that they may therefore bee able because they will thus and they will thus because God workes in them to will And Wee haue lost our freewill to loue God by the greatnesse of our sinne Serm. 2. on the wordes of the Apostle Man when hee was created receiued great strength in his free will but by sinning he lost it Fulgentius God giueth grace freely to the vnworthy whereby the wicked man beeing iustified is inlightened with the gift of good will and with a facultie of doing good that by mercy preuenting him he may begin to will well and by mercie comming after he may doe the good he will Bernard saith It is wholy the grace of God that wee are created healed saued Concil Arausic 2. cap. 6. To beleeue and to will is giuen from aboue by infusion and inspiration of the holy Ghost More testimonies and reasons might bee alleaged to prooue this conclusion but these shall suffice now let vs see what reasons are alleaged to the contrarie speaker D. B. P. And this is all vvhich M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons follovving the vvhich I vvill omitte as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him read the most learned vvorkes of that famous Cardinall and right Reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine speaker A. W. You should at the least haue propounded his reasons that all men might haue seene whether they make for you or against you but you tooke a wiser course for your own credit Yet giue me leaue to shew that his conclusions are directly against you He that hath naturally free will to receiue a good motion inspired by God hath naturally free will to will that which is good for to receiue such a motion is to will that which is good But euery man according to Thomas and the Councill of Trent hath naturally free will to receiue a good motion inspiried by God for else he cannot receiue any or must haue some habituall grace to prepare him for the receiuing of it Therefore euery man hath naturally free will to will that which is good This is your conclusion to which his are contrarie viz. Euery man naturally wants free will to will that which is good Secondly Man by nature hath no power to will the things of God Thirdly Men naturally haue no power to will the least good Fourthly Man cannot naturally will his owne conuersion The testimonies alleaged need neither confirmation nor explication Bellarmines disputation shall be examined if it please God to giue leisure and opportunitie speaker D. B. P. Novv the very point controuersed concerning free vvill M. Perkins hath quite omitted vvhich consisteth in these tvvo points expressed in the Councell First vvhether vve doe freely assent vnto the said grace
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
will but to will indeede I say of this as of the former that it is not contrarie to our doctrine for we acknowledge that in our iustification and saluation after election we worke with God but not as I haue often answered by any naturall power of our free will nor by any choyse of our owne to which we are not inclined and brought by Gods spirit We say with S. Austin both in words and meaning that true religion neither denies free will either to a good or bad life nor giues so much to it that it should be of any force without grace and we adde that therefore your religion is false because it affirmes that the will of man can by nature assent to a good motion inspired So to commend free will is indeede to deny grace but to holde them both as I haue proued Austin did out of these very places which you alleage for your opinion and as we doe going not an haires breadth from him in this question is to glorifie Gods mercie and confesse our owne weaknes which is the end of his loue to vs in the whole worke of our saluation III. Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. First they alleadge that man by nature may doe that which is good and therefore will that which is good for none can doe that which hee neither willeth nor thinketh to doe but first wee must will and then doe Now say they men can doe good by nature as giue almes speake the trueth doe iustice and practise other duties of ciuill vertue and therefore will that which is good I answer that a naturall man may doe good workes for the substance of the outwarde worke but not in regarde of the goodnesse of the manner these are two diuers things A man without supernaturall grace may giue almes doe iustice speake the truth c. which bee good things considered in themselues as God hath commaunded them but he cannot doe them well To thinke good things and to doe good things are naturall workes but to thinke good things in a good manner and to doe them well so as God may accept the action done are workes of grace And therefore the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne in respect of the doer because it failes both for his right beginning which is a pure heart good conscience and faith vnfained as also for his end which is the glory of God speaker D. B. P. Novv in fevv vvords I vvill passe ouer the obiections vvhich he frameth in our names But misapplieth them First Obiection That man can doe good by nature as giue almes do Iustice speake the truth c. And therefore vvill them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue liberty of wil in ciuil and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it An â—his answere here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the worke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure hart and a faith vnfeined and also in the end wâ—ich is not the glory of God Ansvvere It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the hart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to relieue the poore mans necessity God his Creator Master is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed tovvards him vvhen the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto speaker A. W. Master Perkins as any man may see grants a freedome of will in morall actions but denies those actions to be good in regard of the goodnes of the manner and afterward A man may giue almes c. which are good things considered as they are commanded of God but hee cannot doe them wel that is so as God may accept of the action done If you will replie vpon M. Perkins you must proue that such workes of a naturall man will be accepted of God but that you cannot do For the person must be accepted before the worke and without faith he cannot be accepted nor haue faith being a naturall man The summe of the answere is if it be not done as the law requires it is not a good worke if it be it is meritorious and so must be accepted of God speaker W. P. Obiect II. God hath commaunded all men to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof beeing helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue and repent Ans. This reason is not good for by such commaundements God shewes not what men are able to doe but what they should doe and what they cannot doe Againe the reason is not well framed it ought rather to bee thus because God giues men commaundement to repent and beleeue therefore they haue power to repent and beleeue either by nature or by grace and then we hold with them For when God in the Gospel commandeth men to repent and to beleeue at the same time by his grace he inableth them both to will or desire to beleeue and repent as also actually to repent and beleeue speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect God hath commaunded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that God being a good Lord will not commaund any man to doe that which he is no way able to doe Ans. M. Perkins ansvvereth in effect for his vvords be obscure that God commaundeth that vvhich we be not able to performe but that which we should doe Then I hope he vvill admitte that he vvill enable vs by his grace to doe it or else hovv should vve doe it God surely doth not bind vs by commandement to any impossible thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweet and his burthen easie And S. John vvitnesseth that his commaundements are not heauy He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tye any man by lavv to doe that which he was altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the enthymem viz. That therefore men haue free will to beleeue and repent because God commands them to beleeue and repent you to helpe the matter giue a reason of the consequence God being a good Lord will not command any man to do that which he is no way able to do therefore since God commands men to beleeue and repent they haue free will to beleeue and repent Here the
man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly speaker D. B. P. But originall sinne doth all these Ergo. Novv to Master Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That vvhich vvas once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo speaker A. W. The Maâ—or vvhich as the learned knovv should consist of three vvords containes foure seuerall points and vvhich is vvorst of all not one of them true If you meane three words as Grammar speaks of words that you say is false for any proposition may containe three hundred such words and yet not offend against Logike If you vnderstand three words as a Logician there may be fourtie seuerall points in a proposition and yet but three words viz. The antecedent part or subiect secondly the consequent part predicate or attribute and thirdly the bond by which they are coupled together So that herein you haue shewed either little skill or little honestie to blame him for foure seuerall points in stead of three words as if his syllogisme had as Logicians speake foure termes and so were false in the forme of it The foure seueral points are these 1. That which was once sinne properly 2. makes him to sinne 3. intangles him in the punishment of sinne 4. makes him miserable all which make the first word or antecedent of the proposition the consequent is sinne properly the 3. bond that ties these two together the verbe is Now let both learned and vnlearned iudge whether the fault be in Master Perkins or in your ignorance or cauilling speaker D. B. P. To the first that vvhich remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence vvas neuer a sinne properly but only the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lavv of God the vvhich is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that vvhich vvas principall in Originall sinne doâ—h not remaine in the regenerate speaker A. W. It hath alreadie been prooued that it is sinne properly euen after Baptisme if you meane that concupiscence the Apostle speakes of against the commandement If you do not what haue we to doe with it in this question Concupiscence or the facultie of desiring is no otherwise affected to sinne than reason is but the blindnes of the vnderstanding and the vitiousnes of the will which the Apostle cals concupiscence are part of originall sinne The naturall faculties are not the parts but rather the seate of it or the subiect which in some respect may be said to be the matter Sure the forme is as of all sinnes in general the aberration from or the contrarines of it to the law of God The depriuation you should say the absence of originall iustice is comprised in the aberration I spake of and so is that voluntarie auersion from God and goodnes besides which there is also an euill qualitie I know not how else to call it whereby we incline to that which is against the law of God This we call originall sinne or naturall corruption because we haue it from Adam the originall of all mankinde and that from our first being together with our nature and in our nature though by creation it was not in our nature This is helped by the power of Gods spirit through the grace of sanctification both in the principall point and in the accessories yet is not the concupiscence wholy taken away but being deadly wounded dies by little and little in the children of God as they are assured it shall by the outward and inward baptisme through the power of Christs death and resurrection Notwithstanding as long as wee liue in this world it remaines the same thing it was before baptisme euen sinne properly but the hurt it hath is vnrecouerable and the strength abated speaker D. B. P. Neither doth that vvhich remaineth make the person to sin vvhich vvas the second point vnlesse he vvillingly consent vnto it as hath bin proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sin but hath not povver to constraine him to it as Master Perkins also himselfe before confessed speaker A. W. I deny your consequence it makes him to sinne though it doe not constraine him as the spirit of God makes vs beleeue though he inforce vs not to it speaker D. B. P. Novv to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne hovv doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin if all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Original sinne is not taken avvay from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne speaker A. W. This doubt is alreadie answered that it intangles him because it makes him doe that by which he is guiltie of sin and deserues punishment howsoeuer the Lord pardons his sinne in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinen make a man miserable a man may be called vvretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace vvith God and so subiect to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sense is sin but S. Paul taketh not the vvord so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this vvorld from vvhich vve should haue been exempted had it not been for Originall sinne after vvhich sort he vseth the same vvord If in this life only we vvere hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fevvest vvorldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument speaker A. W. It is strange you should so confidently set downe an vntruth in writing whereof you may so easily and certainely be conuinced The Apostle doth not vse the same word but another that signifies to be pitied We were of all men most to be pitied But that the Apostle complaines of miserie in respect of sinne by that word the vse of it otherwhere may prooue The holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea that she was miserable and wretched the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there either the miserie of sinne or pitie for that miserie and beggerly and blinde and naked Houle yee rich men saith S. Iames for the miseries that shall come vpon you The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries as you expound him but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne which he
beleeue So that your discourse of the Ministers knowledge and the mans election is nothing to Master Perkins answere speaker W. P. It is answered that this applying of the Gospell is vpon condition of mens faith and repentance and that men are deceiued touching their owne faith and repentance and therefore faile in applying the word vnto themselues Answ. Indeed this manner of applying is false in all hypocrites heretikes and vnrepentant persons for they applie vpon carnall presumption and not by faith Neuerthelesse it is true in all the elect hauing the spirit of grace and prayer for when God in the ministerie of the word being his owne ordinance saith Seeke ye my face the heart of Gods children truly answereth O Lord I will seeke thy face And when God shall say Thou art my people they shall say againe The Lord is my God speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins then flieth from the assurance of the Minister and leaues him to speake at â—andon as the blind man casts his clubbe and attributeth all this assurance vnto the partie himselfe who hearing in Gods word Seeke yee my face in his hart answereth Lord I vvill seeke thy face And then hearing God say Thou art my people saith againe The Lord is my God And then loe without all doubt he hath assurance of his saluation Would ye not thinke that this were rather some seely old Womans dreame then a discourse of a learned Man How know you honest man that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000. yeares past to the people of Israell are directed to you Mine owne hart good Sir tells me so How dare you build vpon the perswasion of your owne hart any such assurance When as in holy writ it is recorded VVicked is the hart of man and who shall know it Are you ignorant how Saul before he was S. Paul being an Israelite to whom those words appertained perswading himselfe to be very assured of his faith was notwithstanding fouly deceiued and why may not you farre more vnskilfull then he be in like manner abused Moreouer suppose that this motion commeth of the holy Ghost and that he truly saith The Lord is God how long knoweth he that he shall be able to say so truly When our Sauiour Christ Iesus assureth vs that many be called but few of them are chosen to life euerlasting How knoweth he then assuredly that he being once called is of the predestinate speaker A. W. Your question in skorne to the honest man is nothing to Master Perkins answere he doth not say that those places of the Prophet belong to euery man but that all the elect yeeld obedience to God in the ministerie of the word beleeuing as he commands them and so vpon the knowledge of their beleefe come to the assurance of their saluation As for the doubt that a man may be called and be none of the predestinate he that truly beleeues the Scripture casts it quite away hauing learned of God that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued which could not bee true if it were possible that a man should beleeue and not be predestinate And it is a truth of God that he which beleeueth knoweth that he beleeueth and he that truly repenteth knoweth that he repenteth vnlesse it be in the beginning of our conuersion and in the time of distresse and temptation Otherwise what thankfulnes can there be for grace receiued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins saith that he who beleeueth knoweth that he beleeueth Be it so if he beleeue aright and meddle no further then with those things which be comprehended within the bounds of faith But that the certainty of saluation is to be beleeued is not to be begged but proued being the maine question he saith further that he who truly repenteth knoweth that he repenteth he knoweth indeed by many probable coniectures but not by certainly of faith as witâ—â—lâ—â—h that holy person If God come to me as he dot◠〈◊〉 all repentant sinneâ—â— I shall not see him and if he depart away from me I shall not vnderstand it Which is sufficient to make him thankefull yea iâ— he receiued no grace at all yet were he much beholding vnto God who offered him his grace and would haue freely bestowed it vpon him if it had not been through his owne default And thus our first Argument stands in his full strength and vertue that no man can assure himselfe by faith of his saluation because there is no word of God that warranteth him so to doe speaker A. W. If he that beleeues aright know he beleeues and withall is sure that no man doth beleeue but he that is predestinate because that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued and none shall be saued but they that are predestinate it is out of doubt that assurance of saluation by faith may and must be had Now why or how should it be more impossible to know we repent truly then that wee beleeue truly especially since that and this necessarily and certainly goe together Euery man that hath true faith and no man but he that hath true faith doth repent truly That of Iob is not spoken of mans repentance but of his inabilitie to comprehend the workes of God as the whole discourse shewes neither are the words If ye come to me but as also Arias Montanus and Pagnine expound them Behold he passeth by Vatablus vnderstands the place of not knowing God by his workes Master Perkins asks what thankfulnes there can be for grace receiued if a man cannot know that he hath receiued any As for the coniecture you speake of it is likelier to breed feare than thankfulnes being so vncertaine or at the least thankfulnes by halues because wee can be but halfe perswaded that we haue receiued grace speaker W. P. Obiect II. It is no article of the Creede that a man must beleeue his owne saluation and therfore no man is bound thereto Ans. By this argument it appeares plainly that the very pillars of the Church of Rome doe not vnderstand the Creed for in that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed euery article implieth in it this particular faith And in the first article I beleeue in God are three things contained the first to beleeue that there is a God the second to beleeue the same God is my God the third to put my confidence in him for my saluation and so much containe the other articles which are concerning God When Thomas said Ioh. 20. 20. My God Christ answered Thou hast beleeued Thomas Where we see that to beleeue in God is to beleeue God to be our God And Psal. 78. 22. to beleeue in God and to put trust in him are al one They beleeued not in God and trusted not in his helpe speaker A. W. I aâ—mit all this and adde more that M. Perkins be no loÌ„ger ignorant 〈◊〉 Catholike knowledge of the creede that we must also loue him wiâ—â— a 〈◊〉
many saith Saint Iohn as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name In these words to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ are put for one and the same thing Now to receiue Christ is to apprehend and applie him with all his benefits vnto our selues as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell For in the sixt chapter following first of all he sets forth himselfe not only as a Redeemer generallie but also as the bread of life and the water of life secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his bodie and drinkers of his blood and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood and to beleeue in him are all one Now then if Christ be as foode and if to eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ be to beleeue in him then must there be a proportion betweene eating and beleeuing Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall receiuing and apprehending of him And as the bodie hath his hand mouth and stomacke whereby it taketh receiueth and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part so likewise in the soule there is a faith which is both hand mouth and stomacke to apprehend receiue and applie Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule And Paul saith yet more plainely That through â—aith we receiue the promise of the spirit Gal. 3. 14. Now as the propertie of apprehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith so it agreeth not to hope loue confidence or any other gift or grace of God But first by â—aith wee must apprehend Christ and applie him to our selues before we can haue any hope or confidence in him And this applying seemes not to be done by any affection of the will but by a supernaturall act of the mind which is to acknowledge set downe and beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting by the merit of Christ belong to vs particularly To this which I haue saide agreeth Augustine Why preparest thou teeth and bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten And tract 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send vp thy faith and thou laâ—est holde on him And Bernard saith Homil. in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now yet goe to follow him and seeke him beleeue and thou hast found him for to beleeue is to find Chrysost. on Mark homil 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luk. lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched by faith Christ is seene Tertul. de resurrect carnis He must be chewed by vnderstanding and be digested by faith Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that we may yea that we must certainely by faith beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules and therefore wee may and must particularly and certainely by faith beleeue the same The first part of this reason is true and cannot be denied of any The second part is prooued thus Saint Paul saith Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare but the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba father adding further that the same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption the spirit of God and our spirits that is the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost The Papists to elude this reason alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnesse of our adoption by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour being such as are weake and oftentimes deceitfull But by their leaues the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties to put all out of question Bernard saith That the testimonie of the spirite is a most sure testimonie Epist. 107. Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement that we must beleeue but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes and for life euerlasting of this there is no question therfore he is bound to beleeue the same The proposition is most of all doubtfull but it is proued thus In euery petition there must be two things a desire of the things we aske and a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith Whatsoeuer ye desire when you pray beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be giuen vnto you And S. Iohn further noteth out this particular faith calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will And hence it is that in euery petition there must be two grounds a commaundement to warrant vs in making a petition and a promise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof And vpon both these followes necessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God commandeth in the Gospell that a man must and can performe but God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes and life euerlasting and therefore we must beleeue thus much and may be assured thereof This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements of the law and of the Gospell The commandements of the law shew vs what we must doe but minister no power to performe the thing to be done but the doctrine and commaundements of the Gospell doe otherwise and therefore they are called spirit and life God with the commaundement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Now this is a commandement of the Gospell to beleeue remission of sinnes for it was the substance of Christs ministery repent and beleeue the Gospell And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for so the diuels beleeue with trembling but it is particularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour and that the promises of saluation in Christ belong in speciall to me as Saint Iohn saith This is his commaundement that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him which none can doe vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour And therefore in as much as we are enioyned to put our confidence in Christ we are also enioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him which stands in the remission of our sins and our acceptation to life euerlasting
Reason V. Whereas the Papists teach that a man may be assured of his saluation by hope euen hence it followes that he may be vnfalliblie assured therof For the property of true and liuely hope is neuer to make a man ashamed Rom. 5. 5. And true hope followeth faith and euer presupposeth certeintie of faith neither can any man truly hope for his saluation vnlesse by faith he be certeinly assured thereof in some measure Exception I. The Popish Doctors take exception to these reasons on this manner First they say it cannot be proued yâ— a man is as certaine of saluation by faith as he is of the articles of the creed I answere First they proue thus much that we ought to be as certâ—ine of the one as of the other For looke what commandement we haue to beleeue the articles of our faith the like we haue inioâ—ning vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sins as I haue proued Secondly these arguments proue it to be the nature or essential property of faith as certeinly to assure man of his saluation as it doth assure him of the articles which he beleeueth And howsoeuer commonly men do not beleeue their saluation as vnfallible as they do their articles of faith yet some speciall men doe hauing Gods word applied by the spirit as a sure ground of their faith whereby they beleeue their owne saluation as they haue it for a ground of the articles of their faith Thus certeinly was AbrahaÌ„ assured of his owne saluation as also the Prophets and Apostles and the Martyrs of God in all ages whereupon without doubting they haue bin content to lay downe their liues for the name of Christ in whom they were assured to receiue eternall happines And there is no question but there be many now that by long and often experience of Gods mercy and by the inward certificate of the holy Ghost haue attained to full assurance of their saluation II. Exception Howsoeuer a man may be assured of his present estate yet no man is certeine of his perseuerance vnto the end Ans. It is otherwise for in the sixt petition lead vs not into temptation we pray that God would not suffer vs to be wholy ouercome of the diuell in any temptation and to this petition we haue a promise answerable 1. Cor. 10. That God with temptation will giue an issue and therefore howsoeuer the diuell may buffit molest and wound the seruants of God yet shall he neuer be able to ouercome them Againe hee that is once a member of Christ can neuer be wholy cut off And if any by sinne were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time for baptisme is the sacrament of initiation or ingrafting into Christ. By this reason we should as often be baptized as we fall into any sinne which is absurd Againe Saint Iohn saith 1. Iohn 2. 19. They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had been of vs they would haue continued with vs. Where he taketh it for graunted that such as be once in Christ shall neuer whâ—ly bee seuered or fall from him Though our communion with Christ may be lessened yet the vnion and the bond of coniunction can neuer be dissolued III. Exception They say we are indeede to beleeue our saluation on Gods part but wee must needes doubt in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sinnes are giuen vpon condition of mans faith and repentance Now we cannot say they be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that indeed which we suppose our selues to haue Answ. I say againe he that doth truly repent and beleeue doth by Gods grace know that he doth repent and beleeue for else Paul would neuer haue said Prooue your selues whether you be in the faith or not and the same Apostle saith 2. Cor. 12. We haue not receiued the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God which things are not onely life euerlasting but iustification sanctification and such like And as for secret sinnes they cannot make our repentance void for he that truly repenteth of his knowne sinnes repenteth also of such as be vnknowne and receiueth the pardon of them all God requireth not an expresse or speciall repentance of vnknowne sinnes but accepts it as sufficient if we repent of them generally as Dauid saith Psal. â—9 Who knowes the errors of this life forgiue me my secret sinnes And whereas they adde that faith and repentance must be sufficient I answere that the sufficiencie of our faith and repentance stands in the trueth and not in the measure or perfection thereof and the trueth of both where they are is certainely discerned Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church August Of an euill seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith to acknowledge what thou hast receiued is not pride but deuotion And Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne heart if he finde charitie there he hath securitie for his passage from life to death Hilar. in Matth. 5. The kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his will is that it must be hoped for without any doubtfulnesse of vncertaintie will at all Otherwise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull Bernard in his epist. 107. Who is the iust man but he that being loued of God loues him againe which comes not to passe but by the spirit reuealing by Faith the eternall purpose of God of his Saluation to come Which reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by which when the deedes of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen Together receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and also loue againe To conclude the Papists haue no great cause to dissent from vs in this poynt For they teach and professe that they doe by a speciall faith beleeue their owne saluation certainely and vnfallibly in respect of God that promiseth Now the thing which hindreth them is their owne indisposition and vnworthinesse as they say which keepes them from being certaine otherwise then in a likely hope But this hinderance is easily remoued if men will iudge indifferently For first of all in regard of our selues and our disposition we cannot be certaine at all but must despaire of saluation euen to the very death We cannot bee sufficiently disposed so long as wee liue in this world but must alwaies say with Iacob I am lesse then all thy mercies Gen. 32. and with Dauid Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for none liuing shall bee iustified in thy sight and with
seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ. Jt is not arrogancy but faith to acknovvledge vvhat thou hast receiued it is not pride but dâ—uâ—tion What vvord is here of certeinty of saluation but that it belongeth to a faithfullman to confesse himselfe much bound to God for calling of him to be his Which euery Christian must doe hoping himselfe so to be and being most certeine that if he be not in state of grace it is long of himselfe and no vvant on Gods part The second place hath not so much as any shevv of vvords for him thus he speaketh Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne hart and if he find Charity there he hath security for his passage from life to death What need vvas there to seeke charity in his hart fer security of his saluation if his faith assured him thereof therefore this text maketh flat against him speaker A. W. There is this for certaintie of saluation that it is no presumption or a man to know he hath receiued the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith not pride but deuotion whereas you say it is presumption arrogancie and pride Can any thing be more contrarie Not so much as a shew of words yet is there substance of matter for if charitie be a securitie for passage from life to death and if a man may know whether it be in his heart or no doubtlesse there is assurance of saluation to be had But you will say not by faith else what neede he seeke for charitie as if it were amisse to haue more proofes than one He that hath tried the diuels temptations knowes that all is little enough But this assurance by charitie is assurance by faith because it prooues wee haue such a faith as shall certainly bring vs to euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. The next Author he citeth is S. Hilarie in these words The Kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his vvill is that it be hoped for vvithout any doubtfulnes of vncertaine vvill at all is an addition othervvise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull First he saith but as we say that the Kingdome of heauen is to be hoped for without any doubtfulnes for we professe certainty of hope and deny only certainty of faith as M. Perkins confesseth before And as for faith we say with him also it is not doubtfull but very certaine What maketh this to the purpose that a man must beleeue his owne saluation when S. Hilary speaketh there of faith of the resurrection of the dead Hilary requires such a hope as is grounded vpon faith and hath the same nature with faith but that it particularly respects the time to come whereas faith rests absolutely vpon God for the present also Neither speakes hee of the resurrection from the dead in particular but of euery mans trust concerning his own enioying of all heauenlie felicitie speaker D. B. P. His last Author is S. Bernard VVho is the iust man but he that beâ—â—g loued of God loues him againe vvhich comes not to passâ— but by the sâ—…t reuealing by faith the eternall promise of God of his saluation to come vvhich reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by vvhich the deeds of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the Kingdome of heauen togither receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and loues againe Note that he saith the reuelation of the spirit to be nothing else but the infasion of spirituall graces and comfort whereby a man hath some feeling of Gods goodnesse towards him by which as he saith he may presume but not beleeue certainely that he is loued of God But let S. Bernard in the same place interpret himself there he speaketh thus as I cited once before It is giuen to men to tast before hand somewhat of the blisse to come c. Of the which knowledge of our selues novv in part perceiued a man doth in the meane season glorie in hope but not yet in security His opinion then is expressely that for all the reuelations of the spirit made by faith vnto vs we are not assured for certainty of our saluation but feele great ioy through the hope we haue hereafter to receiue it speaker A. W. Would Bernard haue a man presume that God loues him without warrant or would he haue him not beleeue the testimonie of the spirit which assures him of that loue by such a pledge Austin taught vs before that it is no arrogancie but faith to know what we haue receiued and Bernard teacheth vs now that the end of receiuing is that we may presume we are beloued of God that is that wee may know it by faith He addes further afterward that this is the holy and secret counsell of God which the Sonne hath receiued from the Father by the holy Ghost and communicates to those that be his so that they begin to know as they are knowne it being granted to them to feele before hand somwhat of their blessednes to come as it hath been hidden from all eternitie in him that did predestinate and shall appeare more fully in him when he shall make vs blessed We beleeue with Bernard that we haue here but a taste of the ioy to come and that our securitie is not ordinarily without doubting So that the certaintie he speakes of and that we say Christians haue is all one speaker D. B. P. This passage of testimonies being dispatched let vs now come vnto the fiue other reasons which M. Perkins produceth in defence of their opinion The first reason is this That in faith there are two things the one is an insallible assurance of those things which vve beleeue This we grant and there hence proue as you heard before that there can be no faith of our particular saluation because we be not so fully assured of that but that we must stand in feare of losing of it according to that Hold that which thou hast least perhaps another receiue thy crovvne speaker A. W. Faith in it selfe is a full assurance but hath not this full worke in euery one that truly beleeues and therefore your proofe is insufficient speaker D. B. P. But the second point of faith puts all out of question For saith M. Perkins it doth assure vs of remissission of our sinnes and of life euerlasting in particular Proue that Sir and we need no more It is proued out of S. Iohn As many as receiued him he gaue them poeer to be made the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name This text commeth much too short he gaue them power to be the sonnes that is gaue them such grace that they were able and might if they would be sonnes of God but did not assure
Christs iustice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vniust by the iniquitie and sinnes of men impuâ—ed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrary but one may aswell be mande vniust by imputation as iust especially considering that euill is made more easilie and more vvaies then good M. Perâ—… ansvvere is that vve may say Christ vvas a sinner truely not because he had sinne in him but because our sinnes vvere laide on his shoulders That reason is naught for he is not truly a sinner that paies the debt of sinne vvhich an innocent and most iust person may performe but he that either hath sinne truly in him or is so by imputation stroken that the sins are made his ovvne really and he in all cases to be dealt vvithall as if he sinned himselfe as they hold that one iustified by imputation of Christs iustice is really in Gods sight iust and is both loued in this life and shall be revvarded in the next as if he vvere truly iust indeed But to auouch our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner is to say that he was auerted from God the slaue of the diuel sonne of perdition which is plaine bâ—aâ—â—hemie speaker A. W. He is truly a debtor that bindes himselfe to pay the debt by that meanes taking it vpon him as if hee were hee that principally owes the money It is no blasphemie at all to auow that our Sauiour Christ hauing taken our sinnes vpon him was in that respect to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Doth not the Apostle say that Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law becomming a curse for vs speaker W. P. Thus saith the holie Ghost hee which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs and he was counted with sinners Isa. 53. 13. yet so as euen then in himselfe he was without blot yea more holy then all men and Angels On this manner said Chrysostome 2. Cor. 3. God permitted Christ to be condemned as a sinner Again He made the iust one to be a sinner that he might make sinners iust speaker D. B. P. That sentence out of the Prophet He vvas counted â—vith sinners is expounded by the â—uangâ—lists that he was so taken indeede but by a wicked Iudge and a reprohate people And theefore if you allow of their sentence range yourselfe with them asoneof their number S. 〈◊〉 by him produced confirmeth the same saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner not that he was one truly Châ—… I know is called sinne by S. 〈◊〉 but by a figure â—…ng that he as a sacrifice for sinne as hath been before declared The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly affirmeth in plaine tearmes that Christ was tempted like vnto vs in all things excepting sinne speaker A. W. The wicked Iewes accounted him to be sinfull in himselfe that blasphemie wee disclaime and hold him to haue been alwaies most pure and holy saue onely for our sinnes charged vpon him as the sinnes of the people were in a type laid on the scape goate speaker W. P. Obiect IV. If a man be made righteous by imputation then God iudgeth sinners to bee righteous but God iudgeth no sinner to bee righteous for it is abhomination to the Lord. Answ. When God iustifieth a sinner by Christ his righteousnes at the same time he ceaseth in regard of guiltinesse to bee a sinner and to whom God imputeth righteousnesse them hee sanctifieth at the very same instant by his holy Spirit giuing also vnto originall corruption his deadly wound speaker D. B. P. If a man be righteous onely by imputation he may together be full of iniquitie vvhereupon it must needs follovv that God doth take for iust and good him that is both vniust and vvicked but that is absurd vvhen Gods iudgement is according to truth Here M. Perkins yeeldeth That vvhen God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man he doth together sanctifie the partie giuing originall sinne a deadly vvound And yet else where he said That originall sinne vvhich remained after iustification in the party did beare such svvay that it infected all the vvorkes of the said party and made him miserable c. But it is good hearing of amendment if he wil abide in it speaker A. W. It is a good shift to multiplie words when you know not what to say Master Perkins obiection and answere are almost in as few words as you make the obiection Is this to pare off superfluitie Here is nothing altered that before was deliuered originall sinne remaines the same it was and so defiles our actions still but it hath not the same strength speaker W. P. Obiect V. That which Adam neuer lost was neuer giuen by Christ but he neuer lost imputed righteousnesse therefore it was neuer giuen vnto him Ans. The proposition is not true for sauing faith that was neuer lost by Adam is giuen to vs in Christ and Adam neuer had this priuiledge that after the first grace should follow the second and thereupon beeing left to himselfe hee fell from God and yet this mercie is vouchsafed to all beleeuers that after their first conuersion God wil stil confirme them with new grace and by this meanes they perseuere vnto the ende And whereas they say that Adam had not imputed righteousnesse I answere that hee had the same for substance though not for the manner of applying by imputation speaker D. B. P. The fift reason is inuerted by M. Perkins but may be rightly framed thus Christ restored vs that iustice vvhich vve lost by Adams fall but by him vve lost inherent iustice ergo By Christ vve are restored to inherent iustice The Maior is gathered out of S. Paul who affirmeth that we receiue more by Christ then we lost by Adam And is Saint Jreneus and Saint Augustines most expresse doctrine who say Hovv are vve saide to be renevved if vve receiue not againe vvhich the first man lost c Jmmortality of body vve receiue not but vve receiue iustice from the vvhich he sell through sinne speaker A. W. Master Perkins conclusion was to the purpose though one of the propositions as he hath prooued and you grant by not answering was false But the reason as you frame it is nothing at all against vs for we denie not that we receiue inherent iustice by Christ but that to bee iustified is to bee righteous in Gods fight by inherent righteousnes speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Iustification is eternall but the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse is not eternall for it ceaseth in the ende of this life therefore it is not that which iustifieth a sinner Answ. The imputation of Christs righteousnesse is euerlasting for he that is esteemed righteous in this life by Christ his righteousnes is accepted as righteous for euer and the remission of sinnes granted in this life is for euer continued And though
part of our soule but that the renewing of Gods image in vs is the renewing of that part Now this is done by sanctification not by iustification properly taken I can finde no such thing in that booke of Cyrill but if euer he spake so what is that against vs who easily grant that we are inherently righteous as soone as the sanctifying spirit of God hath kindled the fire of loue in our hearts II. Difference about the manner of Iustification speaker W. P. All both Papists and Protestants agree that a sinner is iustified by faith This agreement is onely in worde and the difference betweene vs is great in deede And it may be reduced to these three heads First the Papist saying that a man is iustified by faith vnderstandeth a general or a Catholike faith whereby a man beleeueth the articles of religion to bee true But we hold that the faith which iustifieth is a particular faith whereby we applie to our selues the promises of righteousnesse and life euerlasting by Christ. And that our opinion is the truth I haue proued before but I will adde a reason or twaine Reason I. The faith whereby we liue is that faith whereby we are iustified but the faith whereby we liue spiritually is a particular faith wherby we apply Christ vnto our selues as Paul saith Gal. 2. 20. I liue that is spiritually by the faith of the sonne of God which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ in the very wordes following who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me particularly and in this manner of beleeuing Paul was and is an example to all that are to be saued 1. Tim. 1. 16. and Phil. 3. 15. speaker D. B. P. Ans. The â—aior I admit and deny the Minor and say that the proofe is not to purpose For in the Minor he speaketh of faith vvhereby vve apply Christs merits vnto ourselues making them ours in the proofe S. Paul saith only that Christ died for him in particular He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice and making of it his owne which are very distinct things All Catholikes beleeue with Saint Paul that Christ dyed as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular yea and that his loue vvas so exceeding great tovvards mankind that he vvould vvillingly haue bestovved his life for the redemption of one only man But hereupon it doth not follovv that euery man may lay hands vpon Christs righteousnes and apply it to himselfe or else Tuâ—…s Iovves Heretikes and euill Catholikes might make verie bold with him but must first doe those things vvhich he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent them hartely of their sins to beleeue and hope in him to be baptized and to haue a full purpose to obserue all his commandements Which M. 〈◊〉 also confesseth that allmen haue not only promised but also â—ovâ—ed in Baptisme Novv because vve are not assured that vve shall performe all 〈◊〉 therefore vve may not so presumptuously apply vnto ourselâ—es Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting although vve beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular speaker A. W. That vvhich follovveth in M. Perkins hath no colour of probability that S. Paul in this manner of beleefe that is in applying to himselfe Christs merits vvas an example to all that are saued See the places good Reader and learne to bevvare the bold vnskilfulnes of sectaries For there is not a vvord sounding that vvay but only hovv he hauing receiued mercy vvas made an example of patience Master Perkins prooues his minor thus The faith by which Paul liued was a particular faith whereby he applied Christ to himselfe But the faith by which we liue is the faith by which Paul liued Therefore the faith by which we liue is a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues The proposition Master Perkins prooues by the Apostles testimonie where he doth particularly apply Christ to himselfe as hauing loued him and died for him You answere that S. Paul makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice no more doth Master Perkins in his proposition But the Apostle mentions such a particular faith as Master Perkins speakes of viz. a perswasion that Christs benefits belong to him in particular and that Christ hath particularly loued him which is to apprehend Christ. And this is another manner of matter than to hold that Christ died for euery particular man which the diuels no doubt doe acknowledge The assumption is euident of it selfe for there is no question but that all which are iustified haue and liue by the same faith But Master Perkins sets out the matter by two places of scripture in the former whereof the Apostle propounds himselfe to all men as an example of Gods mercie that they may assure them selues that if they will beleeue in Christ as hee did they should haue forgiuenes of their sinnes as he had In the latter hauing shewed that he cast off all confidence in his owne righteousnes and accounted it as dung resting onely vpon God for his righteousnes by faith in Iesus Christ he exhorts all men to follow his example both in faith and holinesse speaker W. P. Reason 11. That which we are to aske of God in prayer wee must beleeue it shall be giuen vs as wee aske it but in prayer wee are to aske the pardon of our owne sinnes and the merit of Christs righteousnesse for our selues therefore wee must beleeue the same particularly The proposition is a rule of Gods word requiring that in euery petition wee bring a particular faith whereby wee beleeue that the thing lawfully asked shall bee giuen accordingly Mark 11. 24. speaker D. B. P. Of the Maior much hath been said before here I admit it all due circumstances of prayer being obserued and deny that vve must pray that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular for that vvere greatly to abase them but good Christians pray that through the infinite value of those his merits our sinnes may be forgiuen and a iustice proportionable vnto our capacity may be powred into our souls vvhereby vve may leade a vertuous life and make a blessed end speaker A. W. It is no abasing of our Sauiours merits that is of his obedience to the morall law and his suffrings that they should be communicated to euery member of his mysticall body for their iustification as long as the worke of redemption remaines proper to him speaker W. P. The minor is also euident neither can it be denied for we are taught by Christ himselfe to pray on this manner Forgiue vs our debts and to it we say Amen that is that our petitions shall without all doubt bee graunted vnto vs. August serm de temp 182. speaker D. B. P. But it is goodly to behold hovv Master Perkins proueth that vve must pray that Christs righteousnes
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
and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being asvvell our vvorke and a vvorke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe speaker A. W. There is no vertuous disposition required of the one or the other in respect whereof he shall be iustified Onely the acknowledgment of sinne and such like are vsed as meanes by God to bring a sinner to beleeue in Iesus Christ to iustification yet so as that neither these dispositions proceed from the free will of man but from the spirit of God inclining them that God will iustifie to these actions nor any of these but onely beleeuing is respected of God on mans part to his iustification speaker D. B. P. Now that out of S. Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bidde beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtâ—aine a miracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question on y is speaker A. W. That place of Luke sheweth thus much as also the ordinarie course of the old Testament doth that the thing God regardeth and requireth of man to the obtaining of any fauour is resting vpon him for that he stands in neede of Fasting praying and such like exercises are meanes to make a man discerne truly of his owne vnworthines and so the rather to trust to Gods mercie and power but the thing respected by God is resting on him and referring himselfe wholy to his will and pleasure Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the iudgment of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers iudgment S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that vvhich the Apostle saith VVe esteeme a man to be iustified vvithout the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke speaker A. W. They that so vnderstand the Apostle as the Gnostickes did vtterly mistake him We are altogether of S. Austins opinion that faith cannot iustifie him that liues euilly and hath no good workes For as he truly saith Though they goe not before iustification yet they accompanie it euery iustified man being also sanctified Neither is the faith he speaketh of such a faith as we vnderstand because it workes not by loue but such as the diuell hath who saith Austin in the same place hath not the faith by which the iust man liues which workes by loue that God may giue him life euerlasting according to his workes speaker D. B. P. And againe Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained speaker A. W. In this place Austin takes iustification for the whole fitting of a Christian to a holy conuersation to which iustification indeede is but a foundation the building being finished by sanctification speaker D. B. P. By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceed from the helpe of Gods grace He must of necessitie according to his course of disputing exclude good workes from that iustification hee there speakes of but not from the life of a Christian man speaker D. B. P. Reason III. Very reason may teach thus much Mans reason is but a blind mystris in matters of faith and he â—hat hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little speaker A. W. Mans reason is not of it selfe sufficient to determine of truth and falsehood in Diuinitie but being inlightened by the spirit of God with the knowledge of faith it may easily see the diuers vse of that from other graces and vertues speaker W. P. For no gift in man is apt and fitte as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner but faith speaker D. B. P. But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kind of probabilitie I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrarie For in common sense no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to applie and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what need we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to applie to vs Christs righteousnes speaker A. W. Reason perceiuing that the Scripture ordinarily ascribeth iustification to beleeuing and maketh beleeuing in Christ the receiuing of Christ which is not granted to any other of those vertues may well conclude that faith onely is the spirituall hand to take hold of Christ and his righteousnes by and not feare loue hope or repentance speaker W. P. Indeede loue hope the feare of God and repentance haue their seuerall vses in men but none serue for this ende to apprehend Christ and his merits none of them all haue this receiuing propertie and therefore there is nothing in man that iustifieth as a cause but faith alone speaker D. B. P. Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more applie vnto Christians all Christs merits and make them ours then faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular
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
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
to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh speaker A. W. I shewed the true meaning of the place before that God by his Sonne hath iustified vs which the law could not doe because we were vnable to keepe it Now the end of this iustification is that wee should walke after the spirit whereby we fulfill the law though not perfectly yet performing the same duties the law requires but not in the same measure speaker D. B. P. Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commandements to be impossible may appeare by that Epistle And his commandements be not heauy Which is takē out of our Sauiours own words My yoke is sweet and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailtie they be very heauy Yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our harts by the holy Ghost then loe doe we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charitie is the fulnes of the lavv And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the vvhole lavv and Prophets depend vpon these tvvo commandements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charitie we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it So that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law speaker A. W. You haue giuen the true meaning of S. Iohn for therefore are Gods Commandements said not to be heauie because our loue to God who hath giuen vs the assurance of his loue to vs in Iesus Christ maketh vs goe willingly and cheerefully about them for all those incumbrances wee finde by the world the flesh and the diuell And in that respect we are said to fulfill the law by charitie because the obedience we performe weake and slender though it be proceedeth from the loue of God and of our neighbour which is the very summe of the law vpon which both the law and the Prophets depend And all this prooueth not perfect but onely true obedience which all that are iustified performe howsoeuer they faile much in the particulars of that measure the law exacteth speaker D. B. P. Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimony of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly to say that the commandements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That vve must beleeue firmely that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant no true law-maker to commaund his subiects to doe that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe For those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to binde them vp to most assured perdition speaker A. W. The sayings of the Fathers are to be vnderstood according to the Scriptures of possibilitie to performe true obedience which without grace no man can doe not of perfect keeping the law which yet by our creation wee were sufficiently enabled to performe So that God not onely may not but reasonably cannot be suspected of iniustice if hee require that at our hands which he made vs able to doe as with Austin we confesse he did Basil speaketh not of our abilitie to keepe the Commandements but onely sheweth that the charge of looking to our selues belongeth to the contemplation of the minde not to the eyes of the bodie because if it did it were giuen in vaine no man being able to see the hinder parts of his bodie nor his face nor his inwards Therefore the holie Ghost who doth not command things vtterly impossible will haue this precept of looking to our selues to be vnderstood of the searching of our heart not of the viewing of our bodie speaker A. W. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approued Councell of Arausican as an article of faith in these words This also vve beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued vvith the helpe and cooperation of Christ both can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things vvhich belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commandements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements He may doe them without doubt as I haue often said truly and acceptably to God yet not so fully as he ought because our corruption will not suffer vs to labour faithfully without intermission or infirmitie which the Councill requireth and you aduisedly leaue out That speech of our Sauiour is not the voyce of the Gospell though that also requires obedience and allowes a reward for it but of the law fit to be vttered to him that came to our Sauiour full fraught with the conceit of his owne righteousnes not so much with a desire to learne of him saith Hierome as to trie his skill And this our Sauiour spake of the iustification which is of the law without faith As it appeareth by Beda Lyra the ordinarie glosse and Remigius THAT GOOD WORKS BE NOT stained with sinne speaker D. B. P. NOw that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I proue first by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob. Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the Diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single harted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocency If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy vvhen you shall fall into diuers temptations knovving that the probation of your faith vvorketh patience And let patience haue a perfect vvorke that you may be perfect and entire fayling in nothing speaker A. W. This as the last point is a matter belike that this man thinkes himselfe well prepared for and therefore he runnes a course of his own in them hauing no such occasion giuen him by Master Perkins yet let vs follow him step by step By Iobs innocencie continued nothing else is meant but that he had not as Satan had affirmed he would vttered any blasphemie against God But by this it cannot be prooued that there was no taint of sinne in his patience As for his sinceritie and vprightnes they are vertues that alwaies accompanie true Christians and without which all is hypocrisie That perfection or perfect worke is the proouing that his faith is perfect because it ouercommeth as your
glosse expounds it and he is counted a perfect man but not simply without any spot in this patience speaker D. B. P. 2 King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there vvas no iniquity found in me It must needs then be granted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinnes and iniquitie And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you vvill beleeue it read then vvhere it is of record That Dauid did that vvhich vvas right in the sight of our Lord and not only in the sight of men and turned from nothing that he commaunded him all the daies of his life except only the matter of Vrias the Hethite speaker A. W. Dauid in that place doth not cleare himselfe of all sinne but only protesteth his innocency in respect of any hurt intended by him against Saul and the rest of his persecutors Dauid meaneth not saith Lyra to say that he is free from all sin but that he had committed no euill against Saul for which he should persecute him It was one thing for Dauids workes to be righteous in Gods sight an other thing for them to be perfect The former we graunt the later you can no way proue That commendation the holy Ghost giues to his works must needs be spoken in comparison as Lyra affirmeth because it is certaine he wronged Mephthosheth and numbred the people but these sins were not comparable to that against Vrâ—ah especially for the dishonouring of God by it in the account of the heathen This deed saith Nathan hath caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme speaker D. B. P. 3 The Apostle affirmeth That some men doe build vpon the only foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choyce members of Christs Catholike Church doe many perfect good vvorks such as being trâ—â—d in the fornace of Gods iudgement vvill suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherfore they must needs be pure and free from all drosse of sinne othervvise hauing been so proued in fire it vvould haue been found out speaker A. W. The Apostle doth not say so but this onely that if any man build on this foundation gold siluer precious stones timber hay or stubble euery mans worke shall be made manifest But put case he had said so he speaketh of doctrine built vpon the true foundation as the whole allegory proues especially vers 10. As a skilfull master builder I haue laid the foundation and an other builds vpon it now in good works one man layeth not the foundation and another buildeth vpon it but euery man begins and ends his owne worke himselfe Farther vers 9. The Ministers are said to be Gods labourers the people not euery mans worke Gods husbandrie and Gods building because he builds them vp by their labour This place is applied by you Papists to proue Purgatory euen by Bellarmine himself but with what successe let any man iudge that either reads our answeres to him or considers the text speaker D. B. P. 4 Many vvorkes of righteous men please God Make your bodies a quicke sacrifice holy and acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God And S. Paul calleth almes bestovved on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of svveet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected vvith sinne all vvhich he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his fight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sinne or as the Protestants speake not impure it to the person but to say that a sinful vvorke is of svveet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him vvere blasphemie vvherefore vve must needs confesse that such vvorks vvich so vvell pleased him vvere not defiled vvith any kind of sinne speaker A. W. Your Reason is thus framed No workes infected with sinne please God Many workes of righteous men please God Therefore many workes of righteous men are not infected with sinne I graunt your assumption though the proofe of it by the first testimony is insufficient for it doth not follow that we can do this or that because we are exhorted to the doing of it Your proposition I deny no sin can please God nor any action as it is sinfull but God both can and doth pardon the faultines of his childrens workes and accept the worke it selfe in Christ yea and reward it too with increase of glorie speaker D. B. P. Finally many vvorkes in holy vvrite be called good as That they may see your good works to be rich in good vvorks VVe are created in Christ Iesus to good vvorkes but they could not truly be called good vvorkes if they vvere infected vvith sin For according to the iudgement of all learned Diuines it can be no good vvorke that fayleth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it For Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore vve must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good vvhich vvere blasphemy or else acknovvledge that there be many good vvorkes free from all infection of sinne speaker A. W. No workes infected with sinne can be truly called good Many workes are called good in Scripture Therefore many workes are not infected with sinne Here is the same fault againe Your assumption is true but your proofe naught For the places you alleage proue no more but that the works which we should do are good not that they are good as we doe them Your proposition is false as the other was For the works enioyned by God are very good but they haue some allay and abasement by our doing of them which argueth not that they are not truely but that they are not perfectly good speaker D. B. P. In lieu of the manifold testimonies of Antiquitie which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellency of them I will set downe one passage of S. Augustine wherein this verie controuersie is distinctly declared and determined thus he beginneth The iustice through vvhich the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the vvhich although it be vvorthilie called in some men perfect according to the capacity of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater vvhich man made equall to Angels shall receiue VVhich heauenly iustice he that had not as yet saide himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that vvas in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that vvhich he vvanted But certainely this lesser iustice or righteousnes breedeth and bringeth forth merits and that greater is the revvard thereof VVherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that
he was not to be restored but vpon earnest repentance at Gods good pleasure speaker D. B. P. We deny not but the punishment of one is a warning and admonition vnto another to take heed of the like so may not they deny but that correction is to the party himselfe as an admonition to beware afterward so a correction and punishment of the fault past Which S. Augustine vpon this verse of the Psalme Thou hast loued truth teacheth most plainely saying Thou hast not left their sins vvhom thou didest pardon vnpunished for thou before diddest so shevv mercy that thou mightest also preserue truth thou doest pardon him that confesseth his fault thou doest pardon him but so as he do punish himselfe and by that meanes both mercy and truth are preserued speaker A. W. That punishment of a mans self which Austin speaketh of is not to make satisfaction but to shew repentance as it may well be gathered because it is ioyned to forgiuenes which can haue no place where the debt is paid If I make satisfaction God forgiues me not If God forgiue me what doe I satisfie for Therefore the griefe and humiliation of a sinner is not to satisfie God that he neede not be forgiuen but to repent that hee may be forgiuen So farre is Dauid from pleading satisfaction by punishing himselfe that hee intreates for pardon vpon confession of his fault Because saith the Glosse out of Cassiodorus he had told the truth by confessing which God desires more than sacrifice therefore he intreates for helpe speaker W. P. Obiect IV. The Prophets of God when the people are threatned with the plague famine sword captiuitie c. exhort them to repent and to humble themselues in sackcloth and ashes and thereby they turned away the wrath of God that was then comming forth against them Therefore by temporall humiliation men may escape the temporall punishments of the Lord. Answ. Famine sworde banishment the plague and other iudgements sent on Gods people were not properly punishments of sinne but onely the corrections of a father whereby hee humbled them that they might repent speaker D. B. P. Our fourth reason the Prophets of God when the people were threatned with Famine the Sword the Plague or such lâ—ke punishments for their sinnes did commonly exhort them to works of penance as fasting prayer haire-cloath and the like to appease Gods wrath iustly kindled against them which being performed by them God was satisfied So for example sake the Niniuits at Ionas preaching doing penance in sack-cloath and ashes turned away the sentence of God against them M. Perkins answereth that famine the plague and such like scourgeâ— of God were not punishments of sins but corrections of a Father Reply This is most flat against a thousand expresse texts of the Scripture which declare that for the transgressions of Gods commaundements he hath sent those punishments vpon the people of Israell And what is the correction of a Father but the punishing of a shrewde sonne for some fault committed yet in a milde sort Or doth the Schoolmaster which is Caluins example whip the Scholler or strike him with the fâ—â—ula but to punish him for some fault So that great Rabbins seeme not to vnderstand what they say themselues when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father but not the punishment for a fault As though Fathers vsed to correct those sonnes who neuer offended them Or Masters to beat such Scholers as commit no faults speaker A. W. It is against neuer a one of those places if there were ten thousand of them Sinne was the occasion of those punishments but they were not properly punishments for sinne to any of the people who were pardoned by resting vpon Christs satisfaction through faith and manifested their true repentance by their humiliation And such is the correction of a father oftentimes perhaps more seuere than some punishment of a Magistrate yet not for reuenge and satisfaction but properly for correction and admonition You much mistake the matter when you thinke we denie that they are laid vpon vs for sinne and because of your owne error condemne our writers of not vnderstanding what they say Correction is for the fault but not to satisfie for it speaker W. P. Oâ— thus they were punishments tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins these punishments be tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction what senselesse ryming is this By due correction of the fault the party is satisfied in iustice and when he that hath offended doth abide such punishment as the grieuousnes of his offence did require there is both due correction of the offendour and due satisfaction vnto the party offended speaker A. W. A professed scholler might know how to make difference betwixt rymes figures of Rhetorike Did you neuer heare of Epistrophe when the like sound is repeated in the clauses of sentences It is very like Master Perkins did not regard the figure but hit vpon it as it were by chance Howsoeuer it is not a ryme because the vowels in the syllables which haue the accent are diuers Well for the matter you answer That a punishment may be both for satisfaction and correction What then Therfore these are so I denie the consequence because if I may repeate the same answere as oft as you bring the same obiection satisfaction is in this case made alreadie by Christ for as many as truly beleeue in him speaker W. P. And the punishments of God are turned from them not because they satisfie the iustice of God in their owne sufferings but because by faith they lay hold on the satisfaction of the Messias and testifie the same by their humiliation and repentance speaker D. B. P. As we first grant that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God dwelling in vs which is giuen vs for Christs sake so to say that Christs satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction is iust to begge the principall point in question and therefore an old triuants tricke to giue that for a finall answere which was set in the beginning to be debated speaker A. W. The answerer is not said to begge the question but the replier For to begge the questioÌ„ is to take that for a proofe which is in question Now it belongs not to the answerer to proue but to the replier whose person in this argument not Master Perkins but you sustaine speaker D. B. P. Looke vpon the forenamed example of the Niniuits of whom it is not certaine that they had any expresse knowledge of the Messias and therefore were farre enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction But most certaine and euident it is in the text that God vpon the contemplation of their workes of penance tooke compassion on them and was satisfied as by turning away the threatned subuersion is most manifest speaker A. W. The example of the Niniuites is
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
them and so to comprise vnder it sanctification also In which respect Caluin and Chemnitius say they are the lesse to be receiued But as for iustification they spake ordinarily as you heard before when they speak properly acknowledging euen the charitie of men regenerate as I shewed out of Austin by which the law is fulfilled to be imperfect and vnable to iustifie vs in the sight of God speaker D. B. P. But was S. Bernard trow you in this one point a Protestant Nothing lesse his words be these The iustice of another is assigned vnto man vvho wanted his own man vvas indebted and man made payment c. But let his owne reason there cited serue for exposition of his former words which is this For vvhy may not iustice be from another aswell as guiltines is from another Now guiltines from Adam is not by imputation but euery one contracts his owne by taking flesh from him euen so iustice 〈◊〉 from Christ powred into euery man that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost In the second place he saith That mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God that is by Gods free grace and mercy it is bestovved vpon vs. speaker A. W. Your answere to the first place of Bernard was refuted before when I prooued that Adams sinne was made ours by imputation How will that agree with the former part of the sentence The iustice of God is not to sinne but the iustice of man is bestowed by Gods free mercie There is a poore difference betwixt these two when as God may bestow such righteousnes vpon a man that he shall be free from sinning But thus stands the opposition not to sinne is Gods righteousnes not to haue sinne imputed through Gods mercie is mans righteousnes speaker D. B. P. With S. Bernard in the third place we acknowledge that we haue no iustice of our owne that is from our selues but from the goodnesse of God through the merits of our blessed Sauiours Passion read his first sermon vpon these words of the Prophet Jsaie Vid◠Dominum c. There you shall see him speake plainely of inherent iustice and how it is a distinct thing from the iustice of Christ. speaker A. W. How vaine and sleight an answere this is the very words will shew Thou art made vnto me righteousnes of God he speakes of such a righteousnes as is both his and Christs Shall I feare saith he least that one be not sufficient for vs both It is not a short cloake that cannot couer it will couer both thee and me largely being both a large and eternall iustice In the place by you quoted he speakes not a word of any righteousnes but in the fifth sermon vpon that text he compares the righteousnes of men and Angels with Gods not inherent with imputed But what if he speake of inherent righteousnes as he doth in many places doe we deny it or is there because of that none imputed or is that inherent righteousnes sufficient to iustifie vs in Gods sight Let Bernard speake for himselfe Our humble righteousnes if there be any is true perhaps but not pure vnlesse perchance saith Bernard vpon that very place of Esay we thinke our selues better than our fathers who said no lesse truly than humbly All our righteousnes is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman For how can there be pure righteousnes whereas yet there cannot be fault wanting It is no marueile then if you now make light of Bernard whom otherwise you magnifie His testimonie must needes bee accounted of that is so plaine for vs and against you whereas he was a member of your owne Church and erred with you in many points of Antichristianisme speaker W. P. August on Psal. 22. He prayeth for our faults and hath made our fault his faults that he might make his iustice our iustice speaker D. B. P. Another broken peece of a sentence there is cited out of S. Augustine Christ made his iustice our iustice That is by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vs as he expoundeth himselfe What is this the iustice of God and the iustice of man The iustice of God is here called that not whereby God is iust but that which God giueth to man that man may be iust through God speaker A. W. What a forced interpretation is this Christ saith Austin made his iustice our iustice that is say you by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vs. He hath made his ours that is he hath by his purchased other for vs. Who can beare such an exposition Sure the words will not nor the sense For how shall we expound the former part of the sentence which you craftily leaue out He hath made our sinnes his sinnes Haue our sinnes merited sinne for him If this be absurd as it is how shall your interpretation be auowed the latter part depending vpon the former As for the exposition you bring out of another place where the iustice of God is said to be that which God giueth man this proues that which before I deliuered that the Fathers sometimes make iustification to comprehend sanctification too but where they speake properly of iustification there they teach as we doe Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiections of the Papists proouing inherent righteousnesse to bee the matter of our iustice before God are these Obiect I. It is absurd that one man should bee made righteous by the righteousnesse of an other for it is as much as if one man were made wise by the wisedome of another Answ. It is true that no man can bee made righteous by the personall righteousnesse of another because it pertaines onely to one man And because the wisedome that is in one man is his altogether wholly it cannot be the wisdom of another no more then the health and life of one bodie can bee the health of 〈◊〉 But it is otherwise with the righteousnesse of 〈◊〉 it is his indeede because it is inherent in him as in a subiect it is not his alone but his and ours together by the tenour of the Couenant of grace Christ as he is a Mediatour is giuen to euery beleeuer as really and truely as land is giuen from man to man and with him are giuen all things that concerne saluation they being made ours by Gods free gift among which is Christ his righteousnesse By it therefore as being a thing of our owne wee may bee iustified before God and accepted to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. This answere solueth not the difficulty any whit at all for Christs wisedome power and other giftes are not imputed vnto vs as it is euident Why then is his iustice more then the rest we confesse that in a good sense all Christs gifts are ours that is they were all employed to purchase our redemption and we doe dayly offer them to God that he will for his Sonnes sake more
issue out of our soules now garnished vvith grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directhe that we are iustified and that this iusuce doth increase whiles it doth proceed and profit speaker A. W. This labour might haue bin saued For we grant that Abraham by this glorious fact was iustified euen before God that is was knowne to be iustified or to haue true faith as he was known to feare God by it not that God was ignorant before either of his faith or feare but because it pleased him by this deed to take as it were speciall notice of them both as men doe That righteousnes is increased by holie actions I shewed before and that therefore we are iustified by them that is more sanctified speaker D. B. P. Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion for they holding faith to be the only instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O yee of little faith And then a little after I haue not found so great faith in Israell And O Lord increase our saith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith but all one Againe M. Perkins deliuereth plainly That men at the first are not so vvell assured of their saluation as they are aftervvard If then in the certainety of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe speaker A. W. Degrees of faith we deny not but increase of iustification thereupon except it be in our feeling In which respect it receiueth continuall growth but in it selfe it cannot because God doth account faith to vs for righteousnes and forgiue our sinnes not by halues but fully vpon the least measure of true beleeuing Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid bee iudged according to his righteousnesse then may hee be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnesse and therefore he was iustified thereby Answ. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnesse of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this Psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnesse of the action or innocencie of his cause in that hee was falslie charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psalm 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnesse not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glorie Obiect II. The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commaundements Yet is he not blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whom he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof Obiect III. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by prayer and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Answ. Indeed men that truly humble themselues by prayer and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merites of Christ in whom the Father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. Obiect IV. Sundrie persons in Scriptures are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all bee perfect and where there is any perfection of works there also workes may iustifie Answ. There bee two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in parts is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in all and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degree is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the very rigor therof in the highest degree Now then whereas we are commaunded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commaundements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in partes and not of perfection in degrees which cannot bee attained vnto in this life though we for our parts must dailie striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can Obiect V. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our momentarie afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Answ. Afflictions work saluation not as causes procuring it but as a meanes directing vs thereto And thus alwaies must we esteeme of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certaine way or a marke therein directing vs to glorie not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are via regni non causa regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there Obiect VI. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Answ. The proposition is false for iudgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is alreadie iust and iustification is an other act of God whereby hee maketh him to bee iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life Obiect VII Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Answ. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good worke of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie Obiect VIII To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by all the workes of