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
false or not to the purpose Your proposition hath two faults the one that in stead of saying All that is sinne properly is done c. You say All that is sinne is done properly applying properly to the committing of sinne and not to the nature of it The other fault is that the matter of your proposition is vntrue For there is some sinne namely originall which is not done by him in whom it is but is bred with him If in your assumption you meane that the Apostle doth not properly doe the euill which he hates you are deceiued For whether it be an inward action of the minde or an outward of the bodie it must needes be performed by some nature that hath a true being but there is no third nature in man besides the soule and bodie and what is done by either of these is done by the man of whom they are parts If you say it is done by a vicious qualitie in man that qualitie hauing subsistence in man as in the subiect of it is not properly the doer of the action but the facultie by which a man is fitted for the doing of it To your proofe I answere that the Apostle consefleth he did it I allow not that which I doe What I hate that doe I. I doe that which I would not The euill which I would not that doe I. And at last he concludes I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne Where he teacheth vs to expound his doing or not doing I doe not the euill which I hate that is in my minde or in respect of my regeneration I doe that is in regard of my corruption In my minde I my selfe serue the law of God in my flesh I my selfe serue the law of sinne I doe both my selfe but the one in my minde regenerate the other in my flesh vnregenerate If you will conclude for that you leaue at large in this reason it should seeme of purpose because in the other two you set downe your conclusion expressely Therefore it is not properly sinne your conclusion is false because it containes more than is in the antecedent If your meaning be either that originall corruption is not sinne or that the euill which S. Paul hates is not sinne as one of these two you must needes meane your conclusion is from the purpose For the question is not whether originall sinne be sinne which both parts grant but whether it be properly sinne or no neither doe you vndertake to prooue that the euill which the Apostle did with hatred of it is not sinne So that this first proofe of yours is neither for you nor against vs. speaker A. W. Secondly out of those vvords I know there is not in me that is in my flesh any good And after I see an other law in my members resisting the lavv of my mind Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that vvas seated in the flesh ergo it vvas no sinne properly Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule But that was not seated in the soule but in the flesh Therefore it was no sinne properly As the image of God after which wee were created was though principally yet not onely in the soule so the corruption of nature wherby that image is defaced hath place both in soule and bodie and therefore your proposition is not simply true But your assumption is simply false For by saying it was seated in the flesh you must needs denie that it was seated in the soule or else your syllogisme will be nothing worth Now by flesh the Apostle meanes nature vnregenerate both soule and bodie The wisedome of the flesh is â—nmitie against God signifying the very best part of a mans soule Hence it is that he calles a naturall man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animalem and wils vs to be renewed in the spirit of our mind affirming that some are puft vp with their fleshly minde and I pray you consider whence these workes of the flesh arise Idolatrie witchcraft hatred debate heresies c. The Apostle saith Austin ascribes those sinnes to the flesh which beare principallsway in the diuell who it is certaine hath no flesh for he saith enmitie contention emulation enuie are workes of the flesh the head and fountaine whereof is pride which raigneth in the diuell though he haue no flesh Yea Bellarmine himselfe grants though with much ado that concupiscence though it be as he saith principally in the sensuall part yet hath place also in the minde speaker D. B. P. The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter There is novv therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that vvalke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dvvelling in them if they vvalke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sin properly For the vvages of sin is death that is eternall damnation speaker A. W. If say you there be no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it then it is not properly sinne But there is no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it Therefore it is not sin properly If by these words there is no condemnation you meane they shall not be condemned I denie the consequence of your proposition For it may be properly sinne though they in whom it is haue it not imputed to them to condemnation I denie your assumption whether you meane they are not condemned de facto or they deserue not condemnation de iure In the former sense you teach that all infants which die vnbaptized are shut out of heauen and yet none of them walke according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne In the latter sense we and you are wholy of opinion that originall sinne is a iust cause of condemnation euen to infants who actually sinne not The place alleaged by you serues not to prooue either of your propositions as you haue set them downe for the Apostle saith not that there is no condemnation to them which walke not according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne but to them which are in Christ Iesus I grant that all but they which are in Christ doe walke according to such desires yet it is not all one to say the one and the other For you seeme to bring that as a reason why there is no condemnation to them whereas the Apostle addes these words to shew that they which are in Christ do not walk after the flesh but after the spirit therein concluding his former disputation of iustification and sanctification speaker W. P. Thence I reason thus That which once was sinne properly and still remaining in
might haue a true iustifying faith and loue too and yet be led away in this point by vaine glorie or feare as Nicodemus was who came to Christ by night and Peter who denied his Sauiour by swearing and cursing and yet lost not either his faith or charitie by it though he sinned grieuously against both faith and charitie in that fearefull deniall speaker A. W. 5. This place of S. Iames. What shall it profit my brethren if any man say that he hath faith but hath not vvorkes what shall his faith be able to saue Supposeth very playnelie that a man may haue faith without good workes that is without charitie but that it shall auaile him nothing You suppose that which will neuer be prooued that the Apostle takes works for charitie Doe you thinke that they against whom the Apostle writes would grant that they were without the loue of God The Gnosticks were neuer so absurd But the question was whether a man that profest Iesus Christ to bee the Sauiour of the world were not by this saued how lewdly soeuer he demeaned himselfe speaker D. B. P. Caluin saith that the Apostle speakes of a shadow of faith which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our creed but not of a iustifying faith Without doubt hee was little acquainted with that kinde of faith by which Protestants be iustified but he directly speakes of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by saying That that faith did worke vvith his vvorkes and vvas made perfect by the vvorkes Was this but a shadow of faith speaker A. W. Caluin saith truly that the Apostle speaks of a dead faith which we say can iustifie no man and of faith in profession not in truth The former is plaine Faith if it haue no workes is dead in it selfe Faith without workes is dead The latter appeares thus Though a man saâ— he haue faith Shew me thy faith by thy workes You answere he was little acquainted with our kinde of faith When you can prooue he tolde you so I will beleeue you But you adde further That he speakes directly of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by True for of such a faith these men did make profession Therefore the Apostle shewes that this faith of Abraham was a liuing faith that wrought by charitie and was acknowledged by God himselfe to be such in regard of the workes issuing from it such as theirs is not if it haue no workes which are the euidences of a true faith as breathing is a certaine proofe of life speaker D. B. P. But they reply that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell therefore cannot be a iustifying faith that followeth not for an excellent good thing may be like vnto a badde in some things as diuels in nature are not onely like but the very same as Angels bee euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a diuels faith when it is naked and voyd of good works in tvvo points First in both there is a perfect knovvledge of all things reuealed Secondly this knovvledge shall not stead them anie vvhit but onely serue vnto their greater condemnation because that knovving the vvill of their master they did it not And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together Now there are many pointes vvherein these faiths doe differ but this one is principall That Christians out of a goodly and deuoute affection doe vvillinglie submitte their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith beleeuing things aboue humane reason yea such as seeme sometimes contrarie to it But the diuell against his vvill beleeues all that God hath reuealed Because by his naturall capacitie he knovves that God can teach nor testifie any vntruth speaker A. W. We do not say that it is likened to the Diuels faith but that the Apostle shevves them how insufficiently they reason from the beleeuing the truth of God to iustification For the Diuels saith he beleeue also yea more then beleeue say I haue one of your preparatory works euen feare of damnation speaker D. B. P. Againe that faith may bee vvithout charitie is proued out of these vvords of the same second Chapter Euer as the body vvithout the spirit is dead so also faith without vvorkes is dead Hence thus I argue albeit the body be dead vvithout the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe euen so faith is perfect in the kind of faith although vvithout charitie it auayle not to life euerlasting speaker A. W. I answered you before out of Cardinall Caietan that the Apostle speakes not of the soule but of breath so that the comparison stands thus As the bodie that breathes not is dead so faith that brings not forth good works is dead speaker A. W. Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be vvithout charity for they haue seuerall seates in the soule one being in the vvill and the other in the vnderstanding they haue distinct obiectes faith respecting the truth of God and charitie the goodnes of God Your reason is without truth They haue diuers seats in the soule and distinct obiects therefore the one may be without the other First I deny the Antecedent in respect of the former part thereof For faith that iustifies is not in the vnderstanding but in the will secondly I deny your consequence altogether because it proues no more but only that there is no naturall necessity of their being together in regard of each other Our doctrine is that they are alwaies ioyned because the spirit that giues a man faith to iustification doth also giue him true inherent righteousnes together with that faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charitie as charitie doth faith for vve cannot loue him of vvhom vvee neuer heard Neither yet doth charitie naturally flovv out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnes of God and of his benefits loue towards vs into which good and deuoute considerations fevv men doe enter in comparison of them vvho are led into the broade vvay of iniquity through their inordinate passions This according to the truth and yet more different in the Protestants opinion for faith laies hold on Christs righteousnes and receiues that in But charitie can receiue nothing in as M. Perkins witnesseth But giues it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table speaker A. W. The like answer I make to the other two points that follow Faith doth not say you necessarily suppose charity as charitie doth faith neither doth charity naturally flow out of faith What then therefore is not euery man sanctified that is iustified I deny the consequence he that beleeues in Christ hath the spirit of Christ and where he is there is sanctification That with you adde of the impossiblity of our saluation if I rightly vnderstand it which I can hardly do it is so confused is not to
his Maiesties gouernment with persecution and that of mens studies with persecuting heauily the sincere professors of the onely true Catholike faith with molesting grieuously great numbers of most ciuill biects with mingling his gouernment with bitter stormes of persecution to threaten him with feare of rebellion or treason Indeede I must needes say you vnfold your selfe perhaps more than you would For whereas your desire is to lie hid vnder the cloake of commending his Maiestie for exceeding mildnes clemencie affabilitie c. before you are aware the truth of your opinion breakes out and bewraies it selfe to all the world speaker D. B. P. Finally for a proofe of my sinceritie affection and dutifull loue towards your Maiestie this may I iustly say that in time of vncertaine fortune when assured friends are most certainely tried I both suffered disgrace and hinderance for it being stiled in Print A Scotist in faction therein farther employing my pen in Atvvo-solde discourse which I hope hath been presented to the view of your Maiestie the one containing a defence of your Highnes honour the other of your title and interest of the Crowne of England And if then my zeale and loue of truth and obligation to your Maiestie drew me out of the compasse of mine owne profession to treate of law courses I trust your benigne Grace will now licence me out of the same fountaine of â—â—ruencie and like zeale vnto Gods tâ—uth no lesse respecting your Maiesties eternall honour and heauenly inheritance something to say in matters of diuinitie hauing been the best part of my studie for more then thrise seuer yeares speaker A. W. The late quarrels betwixt the professed and secret traitors the Iesuites and Priests haue made all men of any iudgement able to discerne what disgraces and hinderances either part hath by other when both parts can so easily and suddenly agree with the good liking of your lay-Papists The best seruice you doe his Maiestie in this book is that you confesse so plainly that both his honour and his title to the Crowne of England were not onely called into question but iniured and denied by your Popish saction And yet this intelligence you giue him is no newes for it was discouered before out of a letter of Parsons in the Iesuites defence against the Secular Priests speaker D. B. P. Whereinto I may conueniently enter with that golden sentence with which your Maiestie began the Conference holden in Iaâ—…y last betweene certaine of your â—…cts about some controueâ—sie 〈◊〉 Râ—ligion A Ioue principium conformable to that in holy writ I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ—d Omega that is The begianing and the end saith our Lord And â—…ying it vnto Princes I may be bolde to say that nothing is more expedient and necessarie for Kings nothing more honourable and of beâ—… assurance for their estate then that in the very beginning of their â—aâ—gne they take especiall oâ—der that the supreaâ—ne and most puâ—ssaâ—t Mâ—narch of heauen and earth be purely and vprightly serued aswell in their owne exemplar liues as throughout their Dominions For of Almighty God his meere bouncde and great grace they receiue and holde their Dâ—adems and â—…cely Seepâ—ers and cannot possesse and enioy them their mighty Forces and most prudent Counsailes notwithstanding one day longer then during his dâ—…e will and pleasure Which that wise King witnesseth speaking in the person of Gods wisedome Per me Reges regnant By me Kings doe raigne And Nabuchodonozer sometime King of Babilon was turned out to grase with beasts for seuen yeeres and made to know and confesse that the highest doth commaâ—…d ouer the kingdomes of men and disposeth of them as pleaseth his dâ—uine wisedome But I neede not stand vpon this poynt being to well knowne and duely confessed by your Maâ—esâ—â—e speaker A. W. His Maiestie wisely and fitly applied the saying of the Poet to signifie that whatsoeuer we vndertake must be begun in the name of God with desire and trust of his blessing But what conformitie hath that of Christ either with the Poets sentence or his Maiesties purpose or your owne application Our Sauiour truly professes of himselfe that he is Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending which is which was and which is to come the first and the last that is eternall Neither the Poet nor the King our of the Pâ—â—t intend to speake any thing of Gods eternitie Neither can you reasonably apply that speech of our Sauiour to secure Princes in their estate if they begin their gouernment with Prouiding for obedience to God by true religion But how little agreement there is betwixt Christs speech and the Poets it may easily appeare by this that if his Maiestie in stead of Abs loue Principiuâ— should haue said I am Alpha and Omega or Christ is Alpha and Omega no man could haue vnderstood his meaning by his words speaker D. B. P. But â—â—thence there be in this our most miserable age great diuersities of Religions and but one onely wherewith God is truely serued and pleased as saith the Apostle One body one Spirit as you are called into one hope of your vocation one Lord one Faith one Baptisme My most humble suite and supplication to your high Maiestie is that you to your eternall good will imbraâ—e maintaine and set forth that onely true Catholike and Apostolike faith wherein all your most royall progenitors liued and died or if you cannot be wonne so soone to alter that Religion in which it hath been your misfortune to haue been bred and brought vp That then in the meane season you will not so heauily persecute the sincere professors of the other speaker A. W. It is an easie matter to perswade his Maiestie to maintaine and set foorth the onely true Catholike and Apostolike faith that is to doe that he doth alreadie But the Romane religion hath neuer an one of these properties as it will appeare in the suruay of your reformation Diuers of his Maiesties progenitors liued and died in the profession of true religion many yeeres before a number of your Popish heresies were hatcht Neither doth hee now maintainc it because by Gods speciall prouidence he hath been brought vp in it but for that as it appeares in the â— Confession of Scotland after long and due examination his Maiestie is thoroughly resolued in the truth by the word and spirit of God Who would thinke that hee which a little before iustlie commended his Maiestie for exceeding clemencie mildnes louingnes and affablenes should now challenge him for persecuting heauily the sincere professors of the onely true Catholike and Apostolike faith speaker D. B. P. Very many vrgent and forâ—ible reasons might be produced in fauour and deâ—eâ—ce of the Catholike Romane Religion whereof diuers haue bin in most learned treatises tendered to your Maiestie already Wherefore I will onely touch three two of them chosen out of the subiect of this booke The third selected from a sentence of
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
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
the purpose yet we may conclude out of the former part of the discourse as before Faith receiues in charitie doth not therefore they are not alwaies together The consequence is naught as if vertues of diuers effects could not be giuen by the spirit at one time and alwaies keepe together in the soule iustified and sanctified speaker D. B. P. Now Sir if they could not applie vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the first and second table they should neuer applie it to them for they hould it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessarie linking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogither impossible for charitie is the fulnes of the law which they hold impossible and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibilitie they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation speaker A. W. I will do the best I can to vnderstand and examine what you say in this discourse wherein me thinkes you would perswade vs that this linking of faith and charity together makes our saluation altogether impossible because it requires of vs the fulfilling of the law that we may thereby applie Christs righteousnes to our selues which we hold to be impossible Now vpon this impossibilitie it should follow in your opinion that we may assure our selues we can neuer come to saluation by this faith All the matter lies in this proposition that the ioyning of these vertues exacts the fulfilling of the law to applie Christ by which hath no kind of truth in it for first the hauing of charitie doth not bind vs to keepe the law but enables vs in some measure to that dutie which we were bound to before Secondlie it is not the lincking of these two that doth enable vs but the hauing of charitie that is of iustifying grace Lastlie though they come and stay together yet haue they as their seuerall natures and effects so their seuerall ends also faith seruing to obtaine iustification charity to cause a holy conuersation If I haue mistaken you it is against my willâ— if there be any thing else in it that may make for you or against vs let me know it and I will yeeld to it or answere it speaker D. B. P. Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of Antiquitie That most incorruptiâ—… S. Augustine saith flatly That faith may well be vvithout charitie but it cannot profile vs vvithout charitie And That one God is vvorshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therfore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one iâ—â—aculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued only but in which only he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept â—…n which only faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is an many without charitie speaker A. W. In the former place alleaged Augustine hath no such word and if he had the answere is easie that he speakes not of that faith wherby we trust in God for iustification but of that which is onelie an acknowledgement of the truth of Scripture In the later thus he writes As one God is worshipped ignorantly euen out of the Church neither therefore is not he so one faith is had without charity euen out of the Church neither therefore is not it For there is one God one faith one Baptisme one incorrupt Catholike Church not in which alone God is worshipped but in which alone one God is rightly worshipped nor in which alone one faith is held but in which alone one faith with charity is held nor in which alone one Baptisme is had but in which alone one Baptisme is healthfully had In which discourse any man may see that Austin speakes of such a faith as beleeues the truth of Scripture To which purpose a little before he shewed that the Diuels also had the same faith or at least beleeued the same things of Christ that we doe in the Church And this faith which is indeed the same the Apostle speakes of may be and is often without charitie And yet by your leaue a man may reasonablie doubt whether this assent to the Scripture be wrought by the spirit of God in euery one that professeth religion according to the truth of his perswasion and be not rather in many an opinion receiued from meÌ„ as for the most part amongst you Papists who rest vpon the authoritie of men vnder the name of the Church in this very point speaker D. B. P. The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing speaker A. W. It becomes a Christian to be bold in matters of faith especiallie when it is gaine-said What our proofes are it shall better be seene hereafter if it please God In the meane while how strong yours are set euery man iudge with indifferencie THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT good Workes speaker D. B. P. THe first He that hath not care of his ovvne hath denied his faith therfore saith includeth that good vvorke of prouiding for our owne Ans. That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certainty of their saluation but for fidelity and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptiâ—me which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe to wit that one may deny his faith two waies either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing something that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes speaker A. W. These reasons are such as to my best remembrance I neuer read in any Protestant to this purpose if you haue you should haue quoted the places But howsoeuer I thinke neither we nor you will be bound to maintaine all the arguments that haue been brought in all questions to proue the doctrines we seuerally hold If it had bin your purpose to deale throughly in this point you might haue found out better reasons then these though not better for your turne If
would answere at aduenture I could say that God exhorts none to this vow but them on whom he hath bestowed the gift and they haue his helpe to fulfill that they haue vowed We enuie not this your speciall iudgement nor respect your slanderous challenge onely this I answere that if all the Ministers and their wiues had been as lewd as your malice can imagine they could not haue come neere the thousand part of that filthines which your Bishops Priests Friers and Nunnes committed in this land by record of popish histories Yea let iust triall be made and we will aduenture our liues that time for time there haue been since the renewing of the Gospell more and more beastly vncleane persons among your Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes Friers and Nunnes in that one Citie of Rome than among al the Ministers and their wiues in this whole realme of England speaker W. P. Yet here marke in what manner we doe it First of all though wee mislike the vowe yet wee like and commend single life Marriage indeed is better in two respects first because God hath ordained it to bee a remedie of continencie to all such persons as cannot containe secondly because it is the seminarie both of Church and Common-wealth and it bringeth forth a seede of God for the inlarging of his kingdome Yet single life in them that haue the gift of continencie is in some respects to bee preferred First because it brings libertie in persequution Thus Paul saith 1. Cor. 7. 26. I suppose it to be good for the present necessitie for a man so to bee Secondly because it frees men from the common cares molestations and distractions that bee in the familie vers 2. 28. Such shall haue trouble in the flesh but I spare you Thirdly because single parties doe commonly with more bodilie ease and libertie worship God it beeing still presupposed that they haue the gift of continencie vers 34. The vnmarried woman careth for the things of of the Lord that shee may be holy both in bodie and spirit Againe though wee mislike the vowe yet wee hold and teach that men or women being assured that they haue the gift of continencie may constantly resolue and purpose with themselues to liue and lead a single life 1. Cor. 7. 38. Hee that standeth firme in his owne heart that hee hath no neede but hath power of his owne will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keepe his virginitie he doth well And wee imbrace the saying of Theodoret on 1. Tim. cap. 4. for he doth not saith he blame single life or continencie but he accuseth them that by law enacted compel men to follow these And men made themselues chast for the kingdome of heauen Matth. 19. 12. not by vowe but by a purpose of heart which is farre lesse then a vow and may be changed vpon occasion where as a vow cannot vnlesse it doe euidently appeare to bee vnlawfull Thirdly for such persons as are able to containe to liue single for the endes before named indeede we hold it to bee no counsell of perfection yet doe wee not denie it to bee a counsell of expedience oâ— outward ease according to that which Paul saith vers 25. I giue mine aduise and 35. I speake this for your commoditie not to intangle you in a snare Lastly we thinke that if any hauing the gift of continencie doe make a vow to liue single and yet afterward marrie the said gift remaining they haue sinned Yet not because they are married but because their vowe is broken And thus said Augustine of widowes that married after their vow lib. de bono viduit c. 9. speaker D. B. P. This may serue for a reproofe of all that M. Perkins obiecteth against the Vovv of chastitie aftervvard the man vvould somewhat reason the matter by shevving hovv he condemneth not chastitie yet saith that Marriage is better than it in two respects If Iouinian was reputed by the learnedst and holiest Fathers a Christian Epicure and a Monster because he durst make marriage equall vvith Virginitie What shall this man be who saith it is better His reasons are so childish that by the like you may proue durt to be better then gold vvherefore I vvill not stand vpon them He neuerthelesse aftervvard concludeth that one may purpose constantly vvith himselfe to lead a single life but so as he may change vpon occasion and this to be a counsell of expedience but not of perfection Lastly that if any hauing the gift of continencie do Vovv and atfervvard marâ—ie the gift remaining they haue sinned vvhich is flat against his ovvne second rule vvhich prohibits vs to leese our libertie and to make any thing vnlavvfull in conscience vvhich Christian Religion leaueth at libertie Novv to supplie M. Perkins his default vvho vvas accustomed to rehearse although many times vntowardly yet lightlie alvvaies some reasons for the Catholike partie vvhich in this question he hath vvholie omitted speaker A. W. He that will but reade what Master Perkins writes and what you answere shall see a true image of popish dealing whereby you slubber ouer the matter to which you know not what to say Is it a wrong to single life or virginitie to hold that marriage in some respect is better then it I will go further then Master Perkins hath done and not doubt to affirme that it is simply better then virginitie my reason is that it belongs to the perfection of humaine nature that there should be continuance and multiplying of the kind by propagation beside God appointed it as an especiall blessing for Adam when he was in Gods especiall fauour But if that estate be worse then the single life in which he liued before God did not blesse but punish him rather by that change therefore marriage simply is better But that virginitie might haue his due Master Perkins sets downe presently after three respects wherein it is to be preserred before marriage all which you do not once name Those Christian Fathers dealt vnchristianly with Iouinian who ascribed as much to virginitie as our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles gaue to it in any place of Scripture according to that conclusion of Theodoret who ends his discourse of virginitie with these words Such things we haue receiued being appointed and decreed by men endued with the knowledge of heauenly things which are such as do not accuse marriage but exhort vs to a life void of cares This Iouinian acknowledged and worthily denied all difference of merit betwixt a married and single life which no enemy of Iouinian can disproue no more can you Master Perkins reasons though you disgrace them all you can speaker D. B. P. I vvill briefelie proue by an argument or tvvo that it is both lavvfull and verie commendable for men and vvomen of ripe yeeres and consideration hauing vvell tried their ovvne aptnesse to Vovv virginitie if by good inspirations they be thereunto invvardly called My
together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthelie is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition Shee loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnes and therfore accounted her precious oyntments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charitie which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his ovvne vvord is most manifest for he said That many sinnes vvere forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue vvas no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before vvhich is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame vvould blush once to affirme it speaker A. W. In stead of answering your long discourse grounded vpon meere coniectures for the most part which for the womans sake I will not examine let me put you in minde that if all this you report of her were true she was iustified before these actions which could not proceede but from a great measure of grace especially such an inward burning charitie as is not easily to be found in many a one that hath been iustified a long time speaker A. W. First Christ saith expresly that it vvas the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins hath answered you that our Sauiour saith not so and hath prooued his answere by the like place of S. Iohn where the same word is vsed and no cause propounded but a signe onely Would you not haue taken away this answer if you had could But the text it self cleeres the matter first by the parable propounded with Simons answer and our Sauiours approbation then by the application of it lastly by the general doctrine gathered out of it to whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little To this purpose Basil saith That he that owes much hath much forgiuen him that he may loue much more Secondly that her loue vvent before is as plainelie declered both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the â—â—â—dence of her fact of vvashing wiping and anoynting his feete for â—hâ— vvhich saith our Sauiour then already performed Many siâ—… are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearely deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one vvill bee so blindly ledde by our nevv Masters that he vvill beleeue no vvords of Christ be they neuer so plaine othervvise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said vvere of no moment speaker A. W. The mention of the time past is too weake a reason to ouerthrow so certaine proofe out of the whole course of the text especially since that notable conclusion is deliuered immediatly vpon the former words in the present time to whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little Neither doth our Sauiour tie the pardon of her sinnes to that present time but then giueth her knowledge of that which was done before saying first to Simon Many sinnes are forgiuen her and then to her selfe Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker W. P. Reason II. Gal. 5. 6. Neither circumcision nor vncircumcision auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by loue Hence they gather that faith doth iustifie together with loue Ans. The propertie of true faith is to apprehend and receiue something vnto it selfe and loue that goes alwaies with faith as a fruite and an vnseparable companion thereof is of an other nature For it doth not receiue in but as it were giue out it selfe in all the duties of the first and second table towards God and man and this thing faith by it selfe cannot doe and therefore Paul saith that faith worketh by loue The hand hath a property to reach out it selfe to lay hold of any thing and to receiue a gift but the hand hath no propertie to cut a peece of wood of it selfe without saw or knife or some like instrument and yet by helpe of them it can either deuide or cut Euen so it is the nature of faith to goe out of it selfe and to receiue Christ into the heart as for the duties of the first and second table faith cannot of it selfe bring them forth no more then the hand can deuide or cut yet ioyne loue to faith and then can it practise duties commanded concerning God and man And this I take to be the meaning of this text which speaketh not of iustification by faith but onely of the practise of common duties which faith putteth in execution by the helpe of loue speaker D. B. P. Reply That charity hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and hand maâ—id of charity My proofe shall be out of the very text alleadged vvhere life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke vvord Euergoumene being passiue doth plainely shevv that faith is moued led and guided by charity speaker A. W. The Greek word is not of the passiue but of the middle voyce as it is in many other places of Scriptures The affections of the flesh did worke in our members operabantur in your own translation Death workes in vs but life in you operatur According to the power that worketh in vs operatur According to his working which he worketh in me quam operatur in me And in this very place operatur which cannot be taken passiuely as euery Grammar scholler knoweth In the Interlinear faith which is effectuall Pagnin working by loue Faith saith Theophylact on that place workes by loue that is saith he ought alwaies to be shewed to be aliue and effectuall by loue to Christ. And a little after Learne therefore that faith worketh by charitie that is saith he is shewed to be aliue The best of your owne writers expound it as we doe speaker A. W. Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifest saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith vvithout charity Making charitie to be the life and as it vvere the soule of faith Novv no man is ignorant but it is the soule that vseth the body as an instrument euen so then it is charity that vseth saith as her instrument and inferiour and not contrarivvise First the word in that place doth not signifie the soule but breath as Caietan saith Secondly the Apostle saith not without charitie as you doe but without workes which cannot be taken for the life of faith but are onely effects of it Thirdly for the meaning of the place let vs here your owne Cardinall Caietan speake By the name of spirit saith Caietan he vnderstands not
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