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
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
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
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
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
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
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
former question is on this manner The thing saith hee that maketh vs righteous before God and causeth vs to bee accepted to life euerlasting is remission of sinnes and the habite of inward righteousnes or charitie with the fruites thereof We condesend and graunt that the habite of righteousnesse which wee call sanctification is an excellent gift of God and hath his reward of God and is the matter of our iustification before men because it serueth to declare vs to be reconciled to God and to bee iustified yet wee denie it to bee the thing which maketh vs of sinners to become righteous or iust before God speaker D. B. P. The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes vvhich is in our selues The Cathòlikes affirme that those vertues povvred into our soules speaking of the formall cause of iustification is our iustice and that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight and accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before vve hold that God of his mecre mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freetie beâ—lovved that iustice on vs. speaker A. W. The word iustification wee vse continually the cauill about our not vsing iustice but righteousnes for our aduantage is sufficiently answered by Doctor Fulke against Gregory Martin and the Rhemists The true reason why our translators chose rather to say righteous and righteousnes than iust and iustice was because the former words are more generall the latter for the most part restrained in common vse to one particular vertue betwixt man and man We denie not that Christians being iustified are truly righteous by inherent righteousnes but that wee are to pleade our owne imperfect righteousnes before God to our iustification speaker D. B. P. Note that M. Perkins comes to short in his second rule vvhen he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience vvhereas obedience if it had been vvithout charity vvould haue merited nothing at Gods hands speaker A. W. Master Perkins comes as neere the marke as you acknowledging the loue of Christ in his obedience distinctly both to God and vs. And indeed it were ridiculous to imagine obedience without loue though the Apostle mentions the one without the other speaker W. P. And this is the first point of our disagreement in the matter of iustification which must be marked because if there were no more points of difference betweene vs this one alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting of our religions for hereby the Church of Rome doth race the very foundation speaker D. B. P. And vvhereas M. Perkins doth say that therein vve raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface vve make Christ a Pseudochrist vve auerre that herein vve doe much more magnifie Christ then they do for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they do but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men vvorthie of the ioyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but onely that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarivvise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestâ—mable merits that vve hold them vvell able to purchase at Gods hands a farre inferiour iustice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man iust before God and vvorthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued speaker A. W. This slander was answered before We acknowledge the power of Christs death as to iustification for the forgiuenes of sinnes so to sanctification for inherent righteousnes and that such righteousnes as is sufficient to make vs pure and holie in the sight of God though we attaine not to the perfection of it as long as we liue in this mortall bodie speaker D. B. P. Againe they do great iniurie to Gods goodnes wisdome and iustice in their iustification for they teach that inward iustice or sanctification is not necessary to iustification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man Like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers vvhited on the out side with an imputed iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder Then the wisdome of God must either not discouer this masse of iniquitie or his goodnes abide it or his iustice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it vvith the mantle of Christs righteousnes Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnes to thinke it speaker A. W. We doe God no wrong in maintaining his truth that sanctification followes iustification in nature though in time they come together Luther saith as the truth is that he which beleeues shal be saued and that faith is not destroyed by any sinne but infidelitie A man iustified as I haue said often is righteous by inherent righteousnes and therefore not like a whited sepulchre Our corruptions and sins God seeth and mislikes but hauing punisht them in Christ he laies them not to our charge speaker D. B. P. And why doth he not for Christs sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whom he for his sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infnite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such iustice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be done as we confesse that such vertue was in our first Father Adam in state of innocency And M. Perkins seemes to graunt That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnes If then we had no other reason for vs but that our iustification doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and brigeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleadge one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnes vnto vs to be our iustification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnes speaker A. W. It is enough for vs to know what God doth without inquiring curiously into the reason of it Yet in this case wee may answere that God doth not make vs perfectly righteous at once that wee may continually depend vpon him and not thinke too highly of our selues as you by reason of that conceit doe ascribing the best part of your second iustification
thereby Here is a very prety peece of cousinage What doth the Apostle say that he was not iustified by his cleere conscience nothing lesse but that albâ—it he saw nothing in himselfe to hinder his iustification yet God who hath sharper eye-sight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no oâ—her fault in me in Gods 〈◊〉 then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am 〈◊〉 of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our iustification as I haue before shewed speaker A. W. If the Apostle were not iustified by the law who can be That he was not himselfe saith Master Perkins confesseth euen then when he was not pâ—â—uie to himselfe of any grosse breach thereof This is Master Perkins reason to which you answere nothing but frame another argument to your selfe out of the Apostles speech speaker W. P. And this will appeare if wee doe consider how wee must come one day before Gods iudgement seat there to be iudged in the rigour of iustice for then we must bring some thing that may counteruaile the iustice of God not hauing onely acceptation in mercie but also approbation in iustice God being not onely mercifull but also a iust iudge speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins addeth that we must remember that we shall come to iudgement where rigour of iustice shall be shewed We know it well but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from originall sin as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about originall sinne what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had ranne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice laid vp for him by that iust Iudge and not only to him but all them that loue â—Crists comming speaker A. W. Indeede he that is iustified needes not feare condemnation but the question is whether he can be iustified in Gods iust iudgement who brings imperfect righteousnes to iustifie himselfe withall which S. Paul doth not but being iustified by faith in Christ lookes for a reward of his holie labours according to the promise of God speaker D. B. P. And concerning both inherent iustice and the ability of it to fulfill the law And what Iaw heare this one sentence of S. Augustine He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the lavv albeit the lavv be good but he shall fulfill the lavv not by iustice vvhich he hath of himselfe but vvhich is giuen of God for charity is the fulfilling of the lavv and from him is this charity povvred into our barts not certainlie by our selues but by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. speaker A. W. There needes no mans authoritie to prooue that hee which is iustified hath inherent righteousnes For the Apostle saith Christ is made sanctification to vs and that by him we are sanctified neither doe we denie that this inherent righteousnes is such as might enable vs to keepe the law and shall when it is perfect but to keepe the law is not onely to haue charitie or righteousnes but to vse it as the law commands Righteousnes saith Austin is nothing els but not to sinne not to sinne is to keepe the commandements of the law that is as himselfe presently expounds it to do none of those things that are forbidden and to doe all those things that are commanded But the chiefe point is what law he meanes out of doubt the law of Moses which is alwaies meant when it is put alone without any addition or explication as it is here What law vnderstands he when he saith that iustice which is of the law Of the same he saith he shall fulfill the law it selfe besides what law doth charitie fulfill questionlesse the law of Moses the summe whereof is the loue of God and man speaker W. P. Reason II. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God which is in him Whence I reason thus As Christ was made sin for vs so are we made the righteousnesse of God in him but Christ was made sin or a sinner by imputation of our sinnes he being in himselfe most holy therefore a sinner is made righteous before God in that Christs righteousnesse is imputed and applied vnto him Now if any shall say that maÌ„ is iustified by righteousnes infused then by like reason I say Christ was made sinne for vs by infusion of sinne which to say is blasphemie speaker D. B. P. I denie both propositions the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our iustification with the sinne which Christ was made for vs for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne as we are made iust That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse without any liklyhood in the text The other proposition is also false for Christ was not made sinne by imputation for sin in that place is taken figuratiuely and signifieth according to the exposition of auncient Fathers An host or sacrifice for sinne Which Christ was truely made his body being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne and not by imputation speaker A. W. That there is some comparison of likenes implied by the Apostle it appeares by Austin He therefore was made sinne that we might be made righteousnes not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he made shew of sinne not of his owne but of ours not resting in him but in vs. speaker W. P. That interpretation indeed is generally best liked of because of the Hebraisme but yet the place may also be expounded otherwise as your owne writers shew He made him to be counted a sinner saith Thomas and Catharin more fully He laid vpon him the sinnes of vs all and especially that originall sinne out of which as out of a roote the other spring And the exposition of this place by S. Hierome is not to be despised Christ saith he beeing offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that we might bee made the righteousnesse of God in him Not ours nor in vs. If this righteousnesse of God be neither ours nor in vs then it can bee no inherent righteousnesse but must needes be righteousnes imputed And Chrysost on this place saith It is called Gods righteousnes because it is not of workes and because it must be without all staine or want and that cannot bee inherent righteousnes Anselme saith He is made sinne as wee are made iustice not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he is made sinne not his owne but ours not in
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
not haue any poore cottage of his own so much as to rest his head in but would wholy liue of almes and come vnto his heauenly doctrine He teacheth a yong man whom he loued in flat words That if he would be perfect he should go and sell all he had and giue it to the poore and come and follow him and then should haue a treasure in heauen These words are so expresse and euident that there can be but one way to shift from them which M. Perkins flâ—eth vnto pag 244. to wit that these words were only meant vnto that young man and not to be applied vnto any others no more than those words to Abraham of sacrificing his sonne Isaac But this seely shift of our poore Protestants is confuted manifestly in the same Chapter of S. Matthew where a little after S. Peter saith Lord behold we haue left all things and haue followed thee what reward shall we therefore haue We haue done as S. Ierome expoundeth it and the very sequele of the text doth plainly require that which thou commandest in the words before to that yong man What answere made our Sauiour That his commandement was only meant vnto that young man and that they had done foolishly in so doing nothing lesse but promiseth that they shall therefore sit with him in twelue seats iudging the twelue tribes of Israel And that whosoeuer would forsake Father Mother Lands Goods c. for his sake should receiue an hundreth fold and possesse life euerlasting Can any thing be more plaine out of the word of God it selfe than that not this or that man but whosoeuer shall forsake all for Christ doth verie blessedly speaker A. W. If this be the best supplie that can be made who can iustly blame Master Perkins for saying nothing in defence of your Popish partie For if all you offer to prooue were granted you all were nothing to the purpose Say it bee gratefull to God to sell all and giue it to the poore doth it follow hereupon that therefore it is lawfull to vow wilfull pouertie as a state of perfection I trow not But that is the question betwixt vs. You might haue done well to omit it indeede being so little to the matter For what kinde of conclusion call you this Our Sauiour would not haue any poore cottage of his owne Therefore pouertie may be vowed as a state of perfection or therefore it is greater perfection to haue no house than to haue one Our Sauiour being to trauell from place to place both for the preaching of the Gospell and his owne safetie thought it not conuenient to haue any certaine dwelling place yet your Monkes Friers and Nunnes haue and those the pleasantest and richest for the soile and ayre that can be found in the whole countries where they are But what did our Sauiour sell that he might thereby fall into wilfull pouertie His example helps you not let vs see his doctrine he teacheth a yong man you say whom he loued that if he would be perfect he should sell all he had and giue it to the poore and follow him and then he should haue treasure in heauen First for our Sauiours louing him which yet Matthew records not but Marke who leaues out that clause of being perfect it is more then plaine that this cannot be vnderstood of any speciall loue For neither did the man beleeue in him as the Messiah and he was falsely conceited of his owne righteousnes than which nothing is a greater hinderance to saluation and therefore nothing lesse beloued by our Sauiour Christ. This loue therefore signifies not an approbation of his vaine brag or a desire of making him perfit but either a pittying of his conceit or some kind gesture vsed towards him which later signification especially both the Greeke and Syriake words will well admit Secondly I answere that our Sauiour doth not intend to shew him how he may be perfect but by vrging him to sell that he had meanes to discouer his want of loue to God and his neighbour That he meant not to perswade him to any perfection it is euident First because no man without true faith which this Iusticiary wanted can come any thing neere to perfection Secondly for that a man may sell all that he hath c. and yet not be perfect For single life in your account is a matter of no small perfection But our Sauiour would make his vanitie in the opinion of his owne righteousnes apparant to him and other as it fell out indeed For refusing to obey him in that matter he bewrayed his couetousnes which he preferd before following our Sauiour whom he acknowledged to be a worthie teacher and before the loue of his brethren Lastly I say the chiefe point of perfection here mentioned is not selling of our goods but following of Christ which is a dutie belonging to all Christians so that without it no man is a Christian. In the following of Christ by the works of charity saith your glosse perfection consists principally in wilfull pouertie but as in the beginning by way of renouncing that which hinders and disposing of vs because by it the care of temporall things is taken away which hinders the soule from the loue of God and the soule is fitted to free contemplation of God To sell all and giue to the poore sufficeth not to perfection saith Ierome vnlesse after the despising of riches we follow Christ that is leauing euill do good And after Many leaue riches but not follow our Lord. He followes our Lord who doth imitate him and treads in his steps And againe afterward Because it sufficeth not to leaue he addes that which is perfect and haue followed me So that this is no state of perfection but rather a remedie against our being drawen away from following Christ which was as necessary to saluation both before and vnder the law as it is now in this light of the Gospell and if without wilfull pouerty it cannot be done doubtles neither those worthies of the former ages Abraham Moses Dauid c. could follow Christ in duties of charitie and we not only may but must sell all we haue that we may follow him It was spoken and intended only to that yong man neither doth Peter say that the Apostles had sold all and giuen it to the poore which is no where recorded of them in the scriptures but that they had forsaken all and followed him that is had left their ordinarie callings by which in likelyhood they might haue thriuen to attend vpoÌ„ our Sauiour and to be employed in his seruice And to the following of Christ either only or specially doth that of Ierome belong Peter speakes confidently saith Ierome we haue left all And because it is not sufficient only to leaue he addes that which is perfect And haue followed thee we haue done that thou commaundest that is we haue giuen ouer the hope of