many saith Saint Iohn as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name In these words to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ are put for one and the same thing Now to receiue Christ is to apprehend and applie him with all his benefits vnto our selues as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell For in the sixt chapter following first of all he sets forth himselfe not only as a Redeemer generallie but also as the bread of life and the water of life secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his bodie and drinkers of his blood and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood and to beleeue in him are all one Now then if Christ be as foode and if to eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ be to beleeue in him then must there be a proportion betweene eating and beleeuing Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall receiuing and apprehending of him And as the bodie hath his hand mouth and stomacke whereby it taketh receiueth and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part so likewise in the soule there is a faith which is both hand mouth and stomacke to apprehend receiue and applie Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule And Paul saith yet more plainely That through â—aith we receiue the promise of the spirit Gal. 3. 14. Now as the propertie of apprehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith so it agreeth not to hope loue confidence or any other gift or grace of God But first by â—aith wee must apprehend Christ and applie him to our selues before we can haue any hope or confidence in him And this applying seemes not to be done by any affection of the will but by a supernaturall act of the mind which is to acknowledge set downe and beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting by the merit of Christ belong to vs particularly To this which I haue saide agreeth Augustine Why preparest thou teeth and bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten And tract 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send vp thy faith and thou laâ—est holde on him And Bernard saith Homil. in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now yet goe to follow him and seeke him beleeue and thou hast found him for to beleeue is to find Chrysost. on Mark homil 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luk. lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched by faith Christ is seene Tertul. de resurrect carnis He must be chewed by vnderstanding and be digested by faith Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that we may yea that we must certainely by faith beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules and therefore wee may and must particularly and certainely by faith beleeue the same The first part of this reason is true and cannot be denied of any The second part is prooued thus Saint Paul saith Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare but the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba father adding further that the same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption the spirit of God and our spirits that is the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost The Papists to elude this reason alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnesse of our adoption by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour being such as are weake and oftentimes deceitfull But by their leaues the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties to put all out of question Bernard saith That the testimonie of the spirite is a most sure testimonie Epist. 107. Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement that we must beleeue but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes and for life euerlasting of this there is no question therfore he is bound to beleeue the same The proposition is most of all doubtfull but it is proued thus In euery petition there must be two things a desire of the things we aske and a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith Whatsoeuer ye desire when you pray beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be giuen vnto you And S. Iohn further noteth out this particular faith calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will And hence it is that in euery petition there must be two grounds a commaundement to warrant vs in making a petition and a promise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof And vpon both these followes necessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God commandeth in the Gospell that a man must and can performe but God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes and life euerlasting and therefore we must beleeue thus much and may be assured thereof This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements of the law and of the Gospell The commandements of the law shew vs what we must doe but minister no power to performe the thing to be done but the doctrine and commaundements of the Gospell doe otherwise and therefore they are called spirit and life God with the commaundement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Now this is a commandement of the Gospell to beleeue remission of sinnes for it was the substance of Christs ministery repent and beleeue the Gospell And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for so the diuels beleeue with trembling but it is particularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour and that the promises of saluation in Christ belong in speciall to me as Saint Iohn saith This is his commaundement that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him which none can doe vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour And therefore in as much as we are enioyned to put our confidence in Christ we are also enioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him which stands in the remission of our sins and our acceptation to life euerlasting
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
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
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
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
can recouer though it liue and bring forth fruites of sinne for the time of our continuance in this mortall carcasse The third poynt Certeintie of saluation I. Our consent speaker W. P. I. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man in this life may be certeine of saluation and the same thing doth the Church of Rome teach and hold II. Conclus We hold and beleeue that a man is to put a certeine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same thing by common consent holdeth the foresaid Church this point maketh not the difference betweene vs. III. Conclus We hold that with assurance of saluation in our harts is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs and we with them speaker A. W. To this conclusion the Papist ansvvers Not so Sir But he shevves not vvhat it is he mislikes in it IV. Conclus They goe further and say that a man may be certeine of the saluation of men or of the Church by Catholike faith and so say we V. Concl. Yea they hold that a maÌ„ by faith may be assured of his own saluation through extraordinary reuelation as Abraham others were and so do we speaker A. W. Here he ads that In this sense only the first conclusion is true viz that there is no assurance but by reuelation We ansvvere that this reuelation is common to all true beleeuers in their seuerall proportions VI. Conclus They teach that we are to be certeine of our saluation by speciall faith in regard of God that promiseth though in regard of our selues and our indisposition wee cannot and in the former point they consent with vs. II. The dissent or difference The very maine point of difference lies in the manner of assurance I. Conclus We hold that a man may be certeine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinary and speciall faith They hold that a man is certeine of his saluation onely by hope both of vs hold a certeinty we by faith they by hope II. Conclus Further we hold and auouch that our certeinty by true faith is vnfallible they say their certeinty is only probable III. Conclus And further though both of vs say that we haue confidence in Gods mercy in Christ for our saluation yet we doe it with some difference For our confidence commeth from certeine and ordinary faith theirs from hope ministring as they say but a coniecturall certeinty Thus much of the difference now let vs see the reasons to and fro III. Obiections of Papists Obiect I. Where there is no word there is no faith for these two are relatiues but there is no word of God saying Cornelius beleeue thou Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued And therefore there is no such ordinary faith to beleeue a mans owne particular saluation Ans. The proposition is false vnlesse it be supplied with a clause on this manner Where there is no word of promise nor any thing that doth counteruaile a particular promise there is no faith But say they there is no such particular word It is true God doth not speake to men particularly Beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued But yet doth he that which is answerable hereunto in that he giueth a generall promise with a commandement to apply the same and hath ordained the holy ministerie of the word to applie the same to the persons of the hearers in his owne name and that is as much as if the Lord himselfe should speake to men particularly To speake more plainely in the Scripture the promises of saluation be indefinitely propounded it saith not any where if Iâ—hn will beleeue he shall be saued or if Peter will beleeue he shall be saued but whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued Now then comes the minister of the word who standing in the roome of God and in the stead of Christ himselfe takes the indefinite promises of the Gospel and laies them to the harts of euery particular man and this in effect is as much as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued Peter beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued speaker D. B. P. Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome giueth the first place to our reasons which he calleth obiections and endeuoureth to supplant them and afterward planteth his owne About the order I will not contend seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none but sets downe things as they came into his head Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation But following his method let vs come to the matter Reply Good Sir seeing euery man is a lyar and may both deceiue and be deceiued and the Minister telling may erre how doth either the Minister know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not when he assureth him of his saluation To affirme as you doe that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie Equalling a blinde and lying creature vnto the wisedome and truth of God If you could shew out of Gods word that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ then had you answered the argument directly which required but one warrant of Gods vvord but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers vvord counteruailes Gods vvord I cannot see vvhat it vvanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate On the otherside to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate as it must be graunted he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter thou art one of the elect iâ— to make him of Gods priuie Councell without any warrant for it in Gods word Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrary in these words The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale our Lord knoweth vvho be his And none else except he reueile it vnto them speaker A. W. You vtterly mistake Master Perkins who doth not say that the Minister is to assure any man of his saluation but to applie the generall promises of Scripture to euery man particularly vpon condition of beleeuing The generall is Whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued the Ministers particular application Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued This is so plainly set downe by Master Perkins that I wonder how you could mistake him and so certainly grounded vpon the generall that there can no question be made of it Neither doth this equall the Minister to Christ but as Master Perkins truly saith is as much in effect as if Christ himselfe should say Cornelius beleeue thou and thou shalt be saued For if it be true that whosoeuer beleeues shall be saued it is as true that Cornelius shall be saued if he
euerlasting for the righteousnesse and merit of Christ. Rule II. That iustification stands in two things first in the remission of sinnes by the merit of Christ his death secondly in the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse which is another action of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnesse which is in Christ as the righteousnesse of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christ his righteousnesse we are to vnderstand two things first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the law both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his blood to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely bee considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which hee shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the law for vs. This point if some had well thought on they would not haue placed all iustification in remission of sins as they doe Rule III. That iustification is from Gods meere mercie and grace procured onely by the merit of Christ. Rule IV. That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the heart by the holy Ghost whereby a sinner lâ—ieth hold of Christ his righteousnesse and applieth the same vnto himselfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can do this but faith alone The doctrine of the Romane Church touching the iustification of a sinner is on this manner I. They holde that before iustification there goes a preparation thereunto which is an action wrought partly by the holy Ghost and partly by the power of naturall free will whereby a man disposeth himselfe to his owne future iustification In the preparation they consider the ground of iustification and things proceeding from it The ground is saith which they define to bee a generall knowledge whereby wee vnderstand and beleeue that the doctrine of the word of God is true Things proceeding from this faith are these a sight of our sinnes a feare of hell hope of saluation loue of God repentance and such like all which when men haue attained they are then fully disposed as they say to their iustification This preparation being made then comes iustification itselfe which is an action of God whereby he maketh a man righteous It hath two parts the first and the second The first is when a sinner of an euill man is made a good man And to effect this two things are required first the pardon of sinne which is one part of the first iustification secondlie the infusion of inward righteousnesse whereby the heart is purged and sanctified and this habit of righteoutnes stands specially in hope and charitie After the first iustification followeth the second which is when a man of a good or iust man is made better and more iust and this say they may proceed from works of grace because he which is righteous by the first iustification can bring forth good works by the merit whereof hee is able to make himselfe more iust and righteous and yet they graunt that the first iustification commeth only of Gods mercie by the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. Because M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I wil helpe him out both with the preparation and iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice vvhen being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued to vvard God beleeuing those things to be true vvhich God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus And vvhen knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgments they turne themselues to consider the mercy of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God vvill be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued vvith hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a nevv life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter vvhich briefly are these The finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and maas ovvne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Jesus Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the only formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charitie vvith the other gifts of the Holy Ghost povvred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes vvhen a man is iustified be pardoned him speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly deliuered the summe of that which you set down out of the Councill of Trent and that more plainly for euery mans vnderstanding than it is in the Councill I. Our consent and difference speaker W. P. Now let vs come to the points of difference betweene vs and them touching iustification The first maine difference is in the matter thereof which shall bee seene by the answere both of Protestant and Papist to this one question What is the very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God and to be accepted to life euerlasting wee answer Nothing but the righteousnesse of Christ which consisteth partly in his sufferings and partly in his actiue obedience in fulfilling the rigour of the law And here let vs consider how neere the Papists come to this answere and wherein they dissent Consent I. They graunt that in iustification sinne is pardoned by the merits of Christ and that none can be iustified without remission of sinnes and that is well II. They graunt that the righteousnes whereby a man is made righteous before God commeth from Christ and from Christ alone III. The most learned among them say that Christ his satisfaction and the merit of his death is imputed to euery sinner that doth heleeue for his satisfaction before God and hitherto we agree The very point of difference is this wee hold that the satisfaction made by Christ in his death and obedience to the law is imputed to vs and becomes our righteousnesse They say it is our satisfaction and not our righteousnes whereby we stand righteous before God because it is inherent in the person of Christ as in a subiect Now the answer of the Papist to the
and more wash vs from our sinnes and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs thus are all Christs riches ours so long as we keepe our selues members of his mysticall body but this is nothing to the point which the argument touâ—…d how one man may formally be made iust by the iustice of another rather then wise by the wisdome of another speaker A. W. The reason why our Sauiour Christs other gifts are not imputed to vs is because we stand not in neede of them for the fulfilling of the law to iustification They also belong to vs as members of his mysticall bodie wee doe not offer them to God but intreate him for his Sonnes sake who was so and so qualified and did such and such things and aboue all who is so beloued to be mercifull vnto vs and to accept vs for his children As for any formall wisedome or iustice which should make any reall change in vs we looke not for it in iustification but in sanctification and that is not Christs but ours personally speaker W. P. Obiect II. If a sinner bee iustified by Christ his righteousnesse then euery beleeuer shall be as righteous as Christ and that can not be Ans. The proposition is false for Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to vs according as it is in Christ neither according to the same measure nor the same manner For his obedience in fulfilling the lawe is aboue Adams righteousnesse yea aboue the righteousnesse of all Angels For they were all but creatures and their obedience the obedience of creatures but Christ his obedience is the obedience or righteousnesse of God so tearmed Rom. 1. 17. 18. 2. Cor. 5. 21. not onely because God accepted of it but because it was in that person which is very God When Christ obeyed God obeyed and when he suffered God suffered not because the God-head suffered or performed anie obedience but because the person which according to one nature is God performed obedience and suffered And by this means his righteousnesse is of infinite value price merit efficacy Hence also it commeth to passe that this obedience of Christ serueth not only for the iustifying of some one person as Adams did but of all and euery one of the elect yea it is sufficient to iustifie many thousand worlds Now to come to the point this righteousnesse ousnesse that is in Christ in this largenes and measure is pertaining to vs in a more narrow skantling because it is onely receiued by faith so farforth as it serueth to iustifie any particular beleeuer But they vrge the reason further saying If Christ his righteousnes be the righteousnesse of euery beleeuer then euery man should be a Sauiour which is absurd Answ. I answer as before and yet more plainely thus Christ his righteousnesse is imputed to the person of this or that man not as it is the price of redemption for all mankind but as it is the price of redemption for one particular man as for example Christ his righteousnes is imputed to Peter not as it is the price of redemption for all but as it is the price of redemption for Peter And therefore Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to any one sinner in that largenesse and measure in which it is in the person of Christ but onely so sarreforth as it serueth to satisfie the lawe for the saide sinner and to make his person accepted of God as righteous and no further speaker D. B. P. That which is applied of Christs iustice to this or that man is either infinite and then the man is as iust as Christ for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kinde Or it is not infinite but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs inâ—nâ—t iustice for all the parts of an infinit thing are infinit according vnto true Philosophy It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of in stice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice and powred into this oâ— that man as in his owne example The light of euery starre is receiued from the Sunne beames Yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sun for one accident cannot be in two subiects so far distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skyes as it is euident but is a far dâ—mmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sun from whence it came Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus certaine beames of particular iustice are conueied into this or that mans soule whereby it is both lightned by faith and inflamed by charity but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne and the light of a starre which S. Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying How much difference there is betvveene the light that doth lighten and that vvhich is sightened that is the sun and the starre light so much difference is there betvveene the iustice that doth iustifie and that iustice vvhich is made by that iustification to wit betvveene the iustice of Christ and that vvhich is in eueâ—… good Christian. speaker A. W. The iustice of Christs humane nature for of that now we speake is not properly infinite but onely in regard of his person Therfore though it were all communicated to some man yet should it not in him be infinite You wholy mistake the matter For Master Perkins doth not meane that there is any part of Christs righteousnes inherently made ours as the light of the starre receiued from the Sunne remaines in it but brings that similitude only to shew that the whole is applied to euery one that is iustified in his seuerall proportion As for inherent righteousnes that is rather an effect than an application of Christs righteousnes It may be also Master Perkins was of opinion that the starres as the Moone haue no light in themselues but only reflect the light of the Sunne shining on them and then it is true that the light which comes from them is the very light of the Sunne varied according to the nature and position of each seuerall starre Austin speakes of iustification and iustice as they are largely taken for sanctification also neither doth hee compare Christs righteousnes as hee is man with ours but shewes how infinitly Gods wisedome and iustice exceede mans as hee doth elsewhere by the same similitude speaker W. P. Obiect III. If we be made righteous by Christ his righteousnesse truly then Christ is a sinner truly by our sinnes but Christ is not indeede a sinner by our sinnes Answ. We may with reuerence to his maiestie in good manner say that Christ was a sinner and that truely not by any infusion of sinne into his most holy person but because our sinnes were laid vpon him speaker D. B. P. The third reason for the Catholike party If men be made truely and really iust by
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
soules when wee are stung to death by sinne there is nothing required within vs for our recouerie but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eie of our faith on Christ and his righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these vvords As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desert so must the Sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by only faith Mary M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stung by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and applie that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be streatched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernesse stung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sinne haue no other remedie then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability speaker A. W. If wee precisely vrge the similitude the latter part of the reddition is no part of the comparison for there is nothing in the proposition to which it answereth But our Sauiour addes the end of lifting vp himselfe to stirre vs vp as it may seeme to a more thorough consideration of the agreement betwixt health by the Serpent and saluation by him And surely it is not without reason to make a likenes in the deliuerance as well as in other points that all men might vnderstand by our Sauiours speech how they should become partakers of that benefit speaker W. P. Reason II. The exclusiue formes of speech vsed in scripture prooue thus much We are iustified freely not of the law not by the law without the law without workes not of workes not according to works not of vs not by the workes of the law but by faith Gal. 2. 16. All boasting excluded onely beleeue Luk. 8. 50. These distinctions whereby workes and the lawe are excluded in the worke of iustification doe include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie speaker D. B. P. It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it self Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other speaker A. W. If they doe not more exclude feare hope and charitie than faith it must be shewed that they are directly or by necessarie consequence required in opposition to the workes of the law For that is very manifest of faith in diuers places By faith without the works of the law Not by the works of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ. By the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law Through faith not of workes But this can neuer be shewed of them By reason of the opposition I speake of faith cannot bee taken for a worke of the law neither is it any worke required by the law to beleeue in Christ for iustification because the law saith Doe this and thou shalt be saued namely as an hired seruant But the Gospell saith i Beleeue and thou shalt haue thy sinnes forgiuen thee by iustification Now the law commands no sute for pardon but calles for either obedience or damnation Hope indeede as I shewed before differs little from faith but depends vpon it feare and loue are proper duties of the law and so alwaies performed speaker D. B. P. But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truely saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desert of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fastes nor any such like worke of the law which the lews reputed so necessary Again that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which works not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them speaker A. W. S. Paul speaketh not of deseruing to be made Christians but of attaining to saluation as it is apparant by his disputation in the Epistle to the Romanes By the workes of the law no man liuing shall be iustified What is iustified shall be made a Christian after your interpretation So afterward a man is iustified that is made a Christian by faith and not by the workes of the law So haue we a new interpretation of iustification by faith Besides it would be remembred that you distinguish betwixt workes of nature and workes of grace denying iustification to them and granting it to these how will this stand with your answere Neither doth the Apostle dispute how they were to attaine to the grace of Christ but how they were to receiue pardon and acceptation to euerlasting life which he truly ascribeth on our part to beleefe in Christ by which wee obtaine both these priuiledges As for meriting of iustification there is not a letter of it in any place of the new or old Testament And though there be no meritorious cause of it in workes before grace yet boasting by your doctrine is not excluded For may I not iustly boast that my selfe being inlightened by Gods spirit and hauing a good motion inspired into me by the power of mine owne free will accepted of the grace of God offered me and so am iustified where my cause of boasting is the greater because many other men who might haue been iustified as well as I haue not imploied their free will so well as I haue done and therfore are damned speaker D. B. P. Yet all this notwithstanding a certainevertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile wherby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue
by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him speaker A. W. None of these hath that aptnes that is in faith For the other haue more shew of desert in man but God purposeth to set out his loue to the soule he saueth Which can be done by no meanes so well as when the party to be iustified doth nothing but rest vpon God to receiue iustification at his mercifull hands Of the difference betwixt faith and hope I haue spoken otherwhere now I say only thus much that to hope without faith is vaine If I beleeue I may not hope alone but be sure I am iustified if I doe not beleeue I may be sure of the contrarie speaker D. B. P. But charitie doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship Amicorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertue we take such hold on Christs merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity speaker D. B. P. This were the way indeed to make God debtor to man and man a more speciall cause of his owne iustification than God yea to make man in equitie at the least deserue his iustification at Gods hands But what Prince would bee so dealt withall by a traytor especially if he meant to manifest the riches of his mercie in affoording fauour Would he trow you haue his traiterous subiect plead an interest to his loue kindnes and bountie by imploying his life and labours to do him seruice and so to receiue all benefits from him as a friend from a friend by the law of mutuall good will who seeth not how directly this runnes against the whole course of the new Testament speaker A. W. Which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying That Charity beginning was Justice beginning Charity encreased vvas Iustice encreased great Charity vvas great iustice and perfect Charity was perfect iustice Austin speakes not of iustification but of walking cheerefully in obedience to Gods commandements after we are iustified which we cannot doe vnlesse the loue wee beare to God make all difficulties that we shall meet with light and easie to vs. In this respect charitie beginning is iustice beginning because he that hath begun to loue hath also begun to walke in the way of righteousnes making light of all hindrances by reason of his loue and as his loue groweth so doth his righteousnes in his whole conuersation speaker W. P. Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke done iniquities are remitted and sinne couered no workes or repentance required of them but onely that they beleeue And cap. 3. Neither working any thing nor requiting the like are they iustified but by faith alone through the gift of God And 1. Cor. 1. this is appointed of God that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without any worke by faith alone freely receiuing remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. To these and such like words I answere First that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses speaker A. W. You that could so confidently thrust vpon vs those Commentaries on the Reuelation for Ambroses which were neuer heard of till within these last 80. yeres should not haue made a doubt of these on the Romanes that haue been receiued for his so many hundreds of yeeres But I will not striue about the matter Once this is out of doubt that they are very ancient and generally held to be orthodoxall speaker D. B. P. Secondly that that Author excludeth not repentance but only the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessary as circumcision and such like see the place and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke vpon the fourth to the Hebrews where he hath these vvords Faith is a great thing and vvithout it it is not possible to be saued but faith alone doth not suffice but it is necessary that faith worke by charitie and conuerse worthie of God speaker A W. Not repentance he names it expresly No workes or repentance required of them But he meanes not workes of the Ceremoniall law onely He meanes both Ceremoniall and Morall That law which the Gentiles had by nature which if a man keepe he shall liue Abraham had not whereof to boast because he was circumcised or because he abstained from sinne but because he beleeued To him that worketh that is to him that is subiect to the law of Moses or of nature To him that worketh not that is to him that is guiltie of sinne because he doth not that which the law commaunds In that place vpon the Hebrues he speaketh not of iustification as in the other but of our entring into rest or heauen to which no man shall come that doth not liue holily beautifying as he there speaketh his faith with workes speaker W. P. August There is one propitiation for all sinnes to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc on Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. Grace which is of mercie is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins next authoritie is gathered out of S. Augustine There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ True but where is it that we need nothing else but to beleeue 3. Hesychius saith Grace vvhich is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of vvorkes that is vve doe not merit by our vvorks done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification speaker A. W. This testimonie of Austin and the next of Hesychius are answered by roate and not by iudgement For they are both misquoted which he must needes haue obserued and then would haue reprooued if he had lookt for them in the places cited The former I cannot finde and therefore let it passe without any answere If this interpretation may goe for currant I know not what may be refused as counterfeit Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes that is say you wee doe not merit by our workes done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification Hesychius saith that grace is apprehended by faith alone you make him say that we receiue both faith and iustification of Gods mercy he speaketh of attaining to grace by faith you expound him of receiuing faith by Gods mercie But indeed Hesychius in his owne
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
Hilary expounding that exhortation of our Sauiour seeke ye first the kingdome of God and his righteousnes counsailes men to seeke it with the labour of their life and this saith he is the reward for there is but one word merces of them that liue well and perfitly he saith not that any mans worke is perfit inough truly and wholie to deserue it speaker A. W. Saint Ambrose Is it not euident that there remaineth after this life either revvard for merits or punishment Ambrose speakes not of the valew of good works but labours to take away that offence that commonly troubles men when they see that euill men fare better then good in this world he answers that in the world to come the case shall be altered the one shall be rewarded and the other punished for their works which he calls merits speaker D. B. P. Saint Hierome Novv after Baptisme it appertaineth to our trauailes according vnto the diuersity of vertue to prepare for vs different rewards speaker A. W. You might as well haue left out Ieromes testimonie as you do the quoting of it for it makes nothing for you nor against vs that wee are to prepare different rewards for our selues according to the diuersitie of vertue what if he had said merit do we not graunt it But where is deseruing euerlasting life in Ieromes words speaker A. W. Saint Bernard Prouide that thou haue merits for the vvant of them is a pernitions pouertie Penury of works saith Bernard is dangerous pouerty who denyes it it followes but presumption of spirit is deceitfull riches who presumes if he do not that thinks himselfe absolutely worthie of heauen as wages speaker D. B. P. Briefly that this was the vniuersall Doctrine of all good Christians aboue a thousand yeares past is declared in the Councell of Arausicane Revvard is debt vnto good vvorkes if they be done but grace vvhich vvas not debte goeth before that they may be done These testimonies of the most auncient and best learned Christians may suffice to batter the brasen forehead of them that affirme the Doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church The Councell of Orenge saith nothing that was not said before in the testimonies of the Fathers neither needs any other answer The doubt is not whether reward be due to good works but by what right it is due whereof the Councell saith nothing expresly The doctrine of merits as it was held and taught by the auncient Christians before the discouerie of your Romish Antichrist we acknowledge and embrace howsoeuer perhaps some particular men may haue gon a little too farre in their amplifications But the doctrine that is maintained by your Church and Councell of Trent we disclaime and detest as the principall meanes next to direct Pelagianisme to puffe vp the pride of mans heart and to take away true thankfulnes and trust in God that is to ouerthrow the Gospell the end whereof is beleeuing in Christ to iustification and saluation For if as by your doctrine it must needs be man do at the first by the good vse of his freewill receiue grace and by the same freewill though in both cases inlightened and inspired merit his saluation truly and wholie as the day labouring man doth his wages what glory can God haue or what thanks doth Christ deserue for any particular mans saluation he prouided the meanes you will say that Peter for example might be saued if he would So did he that Iudas might be He offered the meanes to Peter to Iudas too How chance Peter receiued this grace and Iudas did not you answer because Peter would and Iudas would not But how came it to passe that Peter would and Iudas would not Here is the first difference was it because God of his loue to Peter wrought in his heart by his spirit so that it could not come to passe but he should beleeue and left Iudas to himselfe who so left would neuer beleeue so we teach according to the truth of the Gospell But you perswade your people that it was Peter that made the difference betwixt himselfe and Iudas not God who left the matter to the free will of both alike that either or neither of them might be saued as pleased them But what is Peter by this beleeuing in Christ an heire of heauen no only he is now in such an estate as that he may if he will earne euerlasting life as the hire and wages of his works I appeale now to any Christian soule that hath but the least desire to aduance Gods glory aboue his owne to giue sentence of this matter out of the truth of his heart what doth God by the doctrine of popery but only prouide that men may come to heauen if they will And how forsooth vpon our Sauiour Christs deserts he is content to giue men grace whereby they may be able to merit their owne saluation But he will giue this grace to no man who shall not first vpon good motions inspired prepare himselfe of his owne free will by faith feare hope loue repentance to the receiuing of it hauing receiued it he must now by good works to which he is enabled deserue euerlasting life so fully as that God should be vniust if he should not giue it him for the worthines of the worke he hath done For whereas he made a promise of a reward it was no more then he was bound to do in true iustice our works without his promise deseruing the reward truly and wholie This is the doctrine of your Church touching faith and works which Master Perkins iustly calls a satanicall inuention because it ouerthrowes the glory of Gods mercy to establish the pride of mans free will Now whereas we teach that our works do not by their worth deserue euerlasting life what hurt is it if it were false but only that it were false to make men thinke themselues wholie bound to God for their iustification and glorification for we vrge necessitie of works and assurance of reward as well as you though not to merit euerlasting glory by them If any man be so thankeles or so proude that he will not worke vnlesse he may merit by working he neuer felt himselfe to be a sonne and shall receiue the wages of seruants the iust hire of his sinnes damnation The sixth poynt Of Satisfaction Our consent speaker W. P. Conclus I. First we acknowledge and hold Ciuill or Politike satisfaction that is a recompence for iniuries and damages offered any way to our neighbours This Zacheus practised when at his conuersion he restored foure-fold things gotten by forged cauillation Againe by ciuill satisfaction I vnderstand the imposition of fines mulcts and penalties vpon offenders and the inflicting of death vpon malefactors For all these are satisfactions to the lawe and societies