OVR CONSENTS. M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION.

Pag. 28. THEY say, naturall corruption after Baptisme is abolissed, and so say we: but let vs see, how farre forth it is abolissed. In ori­ginall sinne are three thinges. First, the punishment: which is the first and second death: second, guiltines, which is the bin­ding vp of the creature vnto punishment: third, the fault, or the offending of God: vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence, as also the corruption of the hart, which is a naturall inclination and pro­nesse [Page 25] to any thing that is euill, or against the law of God. For first we say that after Baptisme in the regenerate, the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away:Rom. 8.1. For there is no condemnation (saith the Apostle) to them that are in CHRIST IESVS.

For the second, that is guiltines, we further condescend and say, that it is also taken away in them that are borne anewe. For considering there is no condemnation to them, there is nothing to binde them to punishment. Yet this caueat must be remembred, namely, that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate, but not from the sinne in the person. But of this more hereafter.

Thirdly, the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned. And touching the corruption of the hart, I auouch two thinges. First, that the very power and strength, whereby it raigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate. Secondly, that this corruption is abolished (as also the fault of euerie a­ctuall sinne past.) So farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whome it is. In deede it remaines till death, and it is sinne, considered in it selfe, so long as it remaines; but it is not imputed to the person. And in that respect, is as though it were not, it being pardoned. Hitherto M. PER.

Annotations vpon our Consent.

First, we say not, that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it, or any part of it, but rather a due correction, and as it were an expulsion of it: this is but a peccadilio: but there lurketh a Serpent in that caueat; that the guiltines of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate, but not from the sinne in the person. The like he saith afterward of the fault, that it is a sinne still in it selfe remayning in the man till death, but it is not imputed to him, as being pardoned. Here be quillets of very strange Do­ctrine: the sinne is pardoned, and yet the guiltines of it, is not taken away. Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned, all bond of pu­nishment due vnto it, and consequently all guiltines belonging to it? Who can denie this, vnlesse he knowe not, or care not what he say: If then O­riginall sinne be pardoned, the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe. Againe, what Philosophy, or reason, alloweth vs to say, that the offen­dour being pardoned for his offence, the offence in it selfe remayneth guilty? as though the offence seperated from the person, were a substance, subject to lawe, and capable of punishment: can Originall sinne in it selfe die the first and second death, or be bound vp to them? What sencelesse imaginations be these? Againe, how can the fault of Originall sinne re­mayne in the man renewed by Gods grace, although not imputed? can there be two contraries in one part of the subject at once? can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding, vertue and vice in the will at the same instant? can the soule be both truely conuerted to God, and as truely [Page 26] auerted from him at one time? is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial? and the holy Ghost content to inhabite a body subject to sinne? all which must be graunted contrary to both, Scripture, and natural sence, if we ad­mitte the fault and deformity of sinne to remayne in a man renewed, and indued with Gods grace: vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subjects, but were drawne thence, and penned vp in some other odde corner.

Remember also gentle Reader, that here Master PERKINS affirmeth the power, vvhereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate: which is cleane contrarie vnto the first proposition, of his first reason following, as shall bee there proued.

OVR DISSENT.

LET vs nowe come vnto the difference, which is betweene vs. The Catholikes teach, that Originall sinne is so farreforth taken away by Baptisme, that it ceaseth to bee a sinne properly: the effectes of it remayning, are an inperfection and weakenesse, both in our vnderstanding, and will, and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferiour appetite vnto reason, as was, and would haue beene, in Originall iustice: which make the soule apt and ready to fall into sinne, like vnto tinder, which although it bee not fire of it selfe, yet is fit to take fire: yet say they, that these reliques of Originall sinne be not sinnes properly, vnlesse a man doe yeelde his consent vnto those euill motions: Master PERKINS teacheth other­wise. That albeit Originall sinne bee taken away in the regenerate in sundry re­spectes, yet doth it remayne in them after Baptisme, not onely as a want, and weake­nesse, but as a sinne, and that properly, as may be proued by these reasons, Saint Paul saith directly:1. Rom. 7. It is no more I, that doe this, but sinne that dwelleth in me, that is Originall sinne; The Papists answere, That it is called there, sinne im­properly, because it commeth of sinne, and is an occasion of sinne. I approue this interpretation of Saint Paul, as taken out of that auncient and fa­mous Papist Saint Augustine: Li. 1. cont. duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de nuptiis & Concup. cap. 23. who saith expresly: Concupiscence, (where­of the Apostle speaketh) although it be called sinne, yet is it not so called, because it is sinne, but for that it is made by sinne: as writing is called the hand, because it is made by the hand. And in an other place repeating the same, addeth. That it may also be called sinne, for that it is the cause of sinne: as cold is called sloathfull, because it makes a man sloathfull: so that the most pro­found Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. PER­KINS, and shall be as well coursed for it by the playne circumstances of the place: For saith he, that Saint Paul there takes sinne properly, [Page 27] appeares by the wordes following, That this sinne dwelling in him, made him to doe the euill which he hated. Howe proues this, that sinne there must be taken properly: it rather proues, that it must be taken improperly: for if it made him doe the euill, which he hated: then could it not bee sinne properly, for sinne is not committed, but by the consent and li­king of the will: But Saint Paul did not like that euill, but hated it, and thereby was so farre off from sinning, that he did a most vertuous deede in resisting and ouercomming that euill. As witnesseth Saint Augustine, saying: Reason sometimes resisteth manfully, Lib. 2 de Gen. cont. Manich. cap. 14. and ruleth raging concupiscence; which being done, wee sinne not, but for that conflict are to bee crowned.

This first circumstance then alleaged by M. PERKINS, doth rather make against him, then for him. Now to the second.

O wreatched man that I am, who shall deliuer me from this body of death? Here is no mention of sinne: howe this may be drawne to his purpose, shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it: so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can finde, to proue Saint Paul to take sinne there properly: Nowe I will proue by diuers, that he speakes of sinne improperly.

First, by the former part of the same sentence: It is not I that doe it: All sinnes is done and committed properly by the person in whome it is: but this was not done by Saint Paul. ergo.

Second, out of those wordes, I knowe there is not in me that is in my flesh, anie good: And after. I see an other lawe in my members, resisting the lawe of my minde. Thus: sinne properly taken is seated in the soule: but that was seated in the flesh, ergo it was no sinne properly.

The third and last, is taken out of the first wordes of the next Chap­ter: There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in CHRIST IE­SVS, that walke not according to the flesh, &c. Whence I thus argue: there is no condemnation to them, that haue that sinne dwelling in them, if thy walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it: therefore it is no sinne properly: For the wages of sinne is death, this is eternall damnation:Rom. 6. Nowe to M. PERKINS Argument in forme as he proposeth it. That which was once sinne properly, and still remayning in man, maketh him to sinne, and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne, and makes him miserable, that is sinne pro­perly: But Originall sinne doth all these. ergo.

The Maior, which (as the learned knowe) should consist of three wordes, contaynes foure seuerall pointes, and which is worst of all, not one of them true.

To the first; that which remayneth in man after Baptisme, common­ly called Concupiscence, was neuer a sinne properly: but onely the ma­teriall [Page 28] part of sinne, the formall and principall part of it, consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice, and a voluntary auersion from the lawe of GOD, the which is cured by the Grace of GOD, giuen to the baptised, and so that which was principall in Originall sinne, doth not remayne in the regenerate: neither doth that which remayneth, make the person to sinne, (which was the second point.) vnlesse he willingly con­sent vnto it, as hath beene proued heretofore: it allureth & intiseth him to sinne, but hath not power to constrayne him to it, as M. PERKINS also himselfe before confessed. Nowe to the third, and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne: howe doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sinne; If all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person, as you taught before in our Consent. Mendacem memorem esse oportet: Either confesse that the guilt of Originall sinne is not taken away from the regenerate, or else you must vnsay this, that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne: nowe to the last clause that the reliques of Origi­nall sinne make a man miserable, a man may be called wreatched and mi­serable, in that he is in disgrace with God, and so subject to his heauy dis­pleasure: and that which maketh him miserable in this sence, is sinne: but S. Paul taketh not the word so here, but for an vnhappy man exposed to the danger of sinne, and to all the miseries of this world, from which we should haue beene exempted, had it not beene for Originall sinne, after which sort he vseth the same word.1. Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ, we were more miserable then all men: not that the good Christians were far­thest out of Gods fauour, and more sinnefull then other men: but that they had fewest worldly comforts, and the greatest crosses, and thus much in confutation of that formall argument. Now to the second.

Infantes Baptised, die the bodely death before they come to the yeares of discre­tion: but there is not in them anie other cause of death, besides Originall sinne, for they haue no actuall sinne: Rom. 5. & Rom. 5. and death is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith, death entred into the world by sinne.

Answere. The cause of the death of such Innocentes, is either the distem­perature of their bodies, or externall violence: and God who freely be­stowed their liues vpon them, may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them, especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting. True it is, that if our first parentes had not sinned, no man should haue died, but haue beene both long preserued in Paradise, by the fruit of the wood of life, and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen: and therefore is it said most truely of S. Paul. death entred into the world by sinne. Rom. 5. But the other place,Rom. 6. the wages of sinne is death, is fouly abused, for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation, as appeareth by the opposition [Page 29] of it to life euerlasting: and by sinne there meaneth not Originall, but Actuall sinne, such as the Romans committed in their infidely, the wagis where of if they had not repented them, had bin hell fire: now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death, for Originall sinne re­mayning in them: because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne, is either to shewe great wante of judgement, or else very strangelie to preuert the wordes of Holy scripture. Let this also not be forgotten, that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent: that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate: howe then doth he here say, that he doth die the death for it?

M. PERKINS third reason: That which lusteth against the spirite, and by lusting tempteth, and in tempting intiseth and draweth the hart to sinne, is for nature sinne it selfe: but concupiscence in the regenerate is such: ergo.

Answere. The first proposition is not true: for not euery thing that inti­seth vs to sinne, is sinne: or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne, had beene by nature sinne: and euery thing in this world one way or an other tempteth vs to sinne: according vnto that of S. Iohn. All that is in the world, 1. Epl. 2. is the Concupiscence of the flesh, and the Concupiscence of the eyes, and Pride of life: So that it is very grosse to say, that euery thing which allureth to sinne, is sinne it selfe, and as wide is it from all morall wisedome to affirme, that the first motions of our passions be sins. For euen the very heathen Phi­losophers could distinguish, betweene sodaine passions of the minde and vices: teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding, and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason, and so made ver­tues rather then vices. And that same text which M. PERKINS brin­geth to perswade these temptations to be sinnes, proues the quite contra­ry. God tempteth no man; but euerie man is tempted, Iacob 1. when he is drawen away by his owne concupiscence, and is allured: afterward when concupiscence hath conceaued, it bringeth forth sinne: Marke the wordes well. First, Concupiscence tempteth, and allureth by some euill motion, but that is no sinne, vntill afterward it doe conceiue, that is, obtayne some liking of our will, in giuing eare to it, and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie: the which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine, sifteth out very profoundly in these wordes.Lib. 6. in Iul. cap. 5. When the Apostle Saint Iames saith, euery man is tempted, being drawne away and allured by his Concupiscence, and afterward Concupiscence, when it hath conceiued, bringeth forth sinne: Trulie in these wordes, the thing brought forth is distinguished, from that which bringeth it forth. The damme is concupiscence, the fole is sinne. But con­cupiscence doth not bring sinne forth, vnlesse it conceiue, (so then it is not sinne of it selfe) and it conceiueth not, vnlesse it drawe vs, that is, vnlesse it obtayne the consent of our will, to commit euill. The like exposition of the same place, [Page 30] and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting, that runneth before, and the sinne which followeth after, Vnlesse we resist manfully, may be seene in S. Cirill, Lib. 4. in Iohan. ca. [...]1. so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers, that text of S. Iames cited by M. PERKINS, to proue concupiscence to be sinne, disputeth it very soundly: to that reason of his, Such as the fruit is, such is the Tree: I answere, that not concupiscence, but the will of man is the Tree: which bringeth forth, either good, or badde fruit, according vnto the disposition of it: concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde.

Lib. 5 con. Iulianum cap. 3.But S. Augustine saith, That concupiscence is sinne, because in it there is disobe­dience against the rule of the minde, &c. I answere, that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his workes teacheth expresly, that concupiscence is no sinne, if sinne be taken properly: wherefore, when he once calleth it sinne, he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth, not onely all sinne, but also all motions and intisements to sinne; in which sence concupis­cence may be tearmed sinne: but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine, but more commonly an euill,Lib. 6. cap. 5. as in the same worke, is to be seene euident­ly: where he saith; That grace in Baptisme doth renewe a man perfectly, so farre­forth as it appertayneth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne; but not so, as it freeth him from all euill: so that concupiscence remayning after baptisme, is no manner of sinne, in S. Augustines iudgement: but may be called euill, because it prouoketh vs to euill, to this place of S. Augustine I will joyne that other like,Tract. 41. in Iohan. which M. PER. quiteth in his 4. reason: where he saith, that sinnes dwelleth alwayes in our members. The same answere serueth that sinne there, is taken improperly: as appeareth by that he seates it in our mēbers: for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned, the subject of sinne being properly taken, is not in any part of the body, but in the will and soule, and in the same passage he signifieth plainly, that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away, and that there is left in the regenerate, onely an infirmity or weakenes.

M. PERK. 4. reason is taken from the record of the auncient Church: Charity in some is more, Aug. Epis. [...]9. in some lesse, in some none, the highest degree of all which cānot be increased, is in none, as long as a man liues vpon earth: and as long as it may be in­creased, that which is lesse then it should be, is in fault: by which fault it is, that there is no iust man vpon earth, that doth good and sinneth not, &c. For which also though we profit neuer so much, it is necessary for vs to say, forgiue vs our debtes, though all our worst deedes and thoughts be already forgiuen in Baptisme. Answere. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence, or to proue originall sinne to re­mayne after baptisme, which is in question: but onely that the best men for want of perfect Charity, doe often sinne venially, which we graunt. M. PER. hauing thus strongly (as you see) fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine (which hath also nothing for his purpose) in [Page 31] steede of all antiquity: confesseth ingenuously, that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sin: but expoundes him to meane, that it is not sinne in that person, but in it selfe: which is already confuted: for sinne that it is an accident, and so properly inherent in his subject, cannot be at all, if it be not in some person, and the sinne of the same person. But if the protestant reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustines opinion in this point: let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it: where thus he writeth.Lib. 3. In­stit. cap. 3 num. 10. Neither is it needefull to labour much in searching out what the old writers thought of this point, when one Augustine may serue the turne: who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences. Let the readers therefore take out of him, if they desire to haue anie certainty of the iudgement of antiquity. Hi­therto somewhat honestly: What followeth? Moreouer betweene him and vs, this is this difference: that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sinne, but to expresse it, is content to vse the word of infirmity, then loe doth he say, that it is made sinne, when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it. But we hold that very thing to be sinne, wherewith a man is in any sort tickled. Obserue first, good Reader, that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquity: Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them. Secondly, that he is flatly on our side: teaching concupiscence not to be sinne, vn­lesse we doe consent vnto it. Lastly, learne to mislike the blinde boldnes of such Masters: who hauing so highly commended S. Augustines iudge­ment in this very matter, and aduised all men to followe it: Doth not­withstanding flie from it himselfe. Presuming that some would bee so shalowe-witted as not to espie him, or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit, then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers. For a tast of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question, I will here put the sentences of some fewe, that I neede not hereafter returne to rehearse them.

S. Chrisostome saith, Passions be not sinnes of themselues, Homil. 11. in epist. ad Rom. but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes: And that I may for example sake touch one of them: concu­piscence is not a sinne; but when passing measure it breakes his boundes, then loe it is adulterie; not in regard of concupiscence, but in respect of the excessiue and vn­lawfull riot of it.

S. Bernard (whome M. PERKINS often citeth against vs, and these may sometimes be alleadged for vs) hath these wordes: Sinne is at the dore, Serm. de sex tribul. but if thou doe not open it, it will not enter in: lust tickleth at the hart; but vnlesse thou willingly yeeld vnto it, it shall doe thee no hurt: withholde thy consent, and it pre­uayleth not.

S. Aug. and S. Cirill, haue beene cited already, S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter: who with the confession of Caluin, may serue sufficently to proue, that approued antiquity is wholy for vs. And if any desire to know [Page 32] the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point: let him reade the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient & holy Bishoppe Epiphanius: where he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectary to haue taught, that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme, but are onely couered, which is as much to say, as sinne remayneth still in the person regenerate, but is not impu­ted to him. Which is just M. PERKINS, and our Protestants position.

Now let vs come vnto the argumentes, which the Church of Rome (as M. PERKINS speakes) alleageth to proue Concupiscence in the regenerate, not to be sinne properly.

1. Objection. In Baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute remission of sinne: Which being pardoned, is taken quite away, and therefore after Baptisme, cea­seth to be sinne: M. PERKINS answereth, that it is abolished in regard of imputation, that is, is not imputed to the person, but remaines in him still. This answere is sufficiently (I hope) confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent: in confirmation of our Argument, I will adde some textes of holy Scripture:Iohan. 13. First, He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feete, for he is wholy cleane. Take with this, the exposition of Saint Gre­gory the great,Lib. 9. Ep. 39. our Apostle; He cannot (saith he) be called wholie cleane in whome anie part or parcell of sinnes remayneth. But let no man resist the voice of truth, who saith, he that is washed (in Baptisme) is wholy cleane: there­fore, there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him, whom the cleanser himselfe, doth professe to be wholy cleane. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme:Epist. ad Oceanum. Psal. 50. saying. How are we iustified and sanctified, if anie sin be left, remayning in vs? Againe if holy king Dauid say. Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter then snowe: how can the blackenes of hell still remayne in his soule? briefly it cannot be but a notorious wronge vnto the pretious bloud of our Sauiour, to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne, as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly, that we recouer more by Christs grace,Rom. 5. then we lost through Adams fault, in these wordes: But not as the offence, so also the gift, for if by the offence of one, manie died; so much more the grace of God, and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ, hath abounded vpon many. If then we through Christ, receiue more abundance of grace, then we lost by Adam, there is no more sin left in the newlie baptised man, then was in Adam in the state of innocencie, albeit other defectes, and infirmi­ties doe remaine in vs, for our greater humiliation, and probation: yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules, by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme: and so our first Argument stands insoluble. Now to the second.

2. Object. Euery sinne is voluntary, and not committed without the consent of man: but this concupiscence whereof we talke, hath no consent of man, but riseth [Page 33] against his will: therefore is no sinne. M. PERKINS answereth; That such actions as are vsed of one man towardes an other, must be voluntary, but sinne towards God, may be committed without our consent. For euery want of conformity vnto the lawe euen in our body, although against our will, be sinnes in the Court of conscience. Reply: full litle knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of con­science: there secret faultes in deede be examined, but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that faculty, which is done without a mans free consent: all of them holding with S. Augustine. Lib. 3. de lib. arb. cap 17. That sinne is so volunta­rie an euill, that it cannot be sinne, which is not voluntary: And to say with M. PERKINS that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne, is so absurd: that a man might (that were true) be damned from a dreame, how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe: if he chaunce to dreame of vncleannes, whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh. This pa­radoxe of sinning without a mans consent is so contrary vnto both, natu­rall, and supernaturall reason that S. Augustine auerreth.Li. de vera Relig. c. 14. Neither any of the smale number of the learned, nor of the multitude of the vnlearned to hold, that a man can sinne without his consent. What vnlearned, learned men then are start vp in our miserable age, that make no bones to denie this, and greater matters too.

The third reason for the Catholikes is this: Where the forme of anie thing is taken away, there the thing it selfe ceaseth: but in baptisme, the forme of ori­ginall sinne is taken away: ergo. M. PERKINS shifteth in assigning a wronge forme: affirming vs to say, that the forme of originall sinne is the guiltines of it: which we hold to be neither the forme, nor matter of it, but as it were the proper passiō following it. See S. Thomas: 1. 2. q. & art. 3. who deliuereth for the forme of originall sinne, the priuation of originall justice, which justice made the will subject to God.

The deordination then of the will, Mistres & commaunder of all other points in man, made by the priuation of originall justice: is the forme of originall sinne, and the deordination of all other parts of man, (which by a common name is called concupiscence, as that learned Doctor noteth,) is but the materiall part of that sinne, so that the will of the regenerate be­ing by grace through Christ rectified, and set againe in good order to­wardes the lawe of God, the forme of originall sinne, which consisted in deordination of it, is taken quite away by baptisme, and so consequently the sinne it selfe, which cannot be without his proper forme, as the argu­ment doth conuince.

4. Object. Lastlie saieth M. PERKINS for our disgrace they alleadge that we in our Doctrine teach, that originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the heare of a mans head, whose rootes remayne in the flesh, growing and encreasing after they be cut as before. His answere is, that they teach in the very first instant of [Page 34] the conuersion of a sinner, sinne to receiue his deadly wound in the roote, neuer after to be recouered. Conferre this last answere with his former Doctrine (good Reader,) and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters: no more constant then the winter. Here sinne is deadly wounded in the roote, there it remayneth still with all the guiltines of it, although not imputed, there it still maketh the man to sinne, intangleth him in the punishment of sinne, and maketh him miserable: All this he comprehended before in this first reason, and yet blusheth not here to conclude, that he holdeth it at the first: Neither clipped nor pared, but pulled vp by the rootes: In deede they doe him a fauour, who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped, and as it were razed, for albeit haire razed grow out againe, yet is there none for a season: but this originall sinne of his is alwayes in his regenerate, in vigour to corrupt al his workes, and to make them deadly sinnes. But let this suffice for this matter.

OVR CONSENTS. M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION.

Pag. 37. WE hold and beleeue, that a man in this life, may be certayne of saluation: and the same doth the Church of Rome teach.

M. P. 2. Conclu. We hold, that a man is to put certayne affiance in Gods mercy, in Christ for the saluation of his soule: and the same holdeth the aforesaid Romane Church.

M. P. 3. Conclu. We hold, that with assurance of saluation in our hartes 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. Not so Sir.

M. P. 4. Conclu. They goe further and say, that a man may be certayne of the saluation of men, and of the Church, by Catholike faith: and so say we.

M. P. 5. Conclu. They hold, that a man by faith may be assured of his owne sal­uation, through extraordinary reuelation: In this sence onely the first conclu­sion is true.

M. P. 6. Conclu. The sixt, and second be all one: that we may be assured of our saluation, in regard of God that promiseth it: though in regard of our selues, and our owne indispotion we cannot.

THE DISSENT.

1. WE hold, that a man may be certayne of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life, and that by an ordinarie and speciall saith. They hold, [Page 35] that a man is certayne, of his saluation, only by hope, both hold a certayntie, we by faith, they by hope.

2. We say our certayntie is infallible: they, that it is onely probable.

3. Our confidence in Gods mercy, in Christ commeth from certayne and ordinarie faith, theirs from hope: false. Thus much of the difference, now let vs come to the reasons, too and fro.

Here M. PERKINS contrary to his custome, giueth the first place to our reasons, which he calleth objections, and endeuoureth to sup­plant them: and afterward planteth his owne. About the order I will not contend, seing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none, but set downe thinges as they came into his head. Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation. But following his method, let vs come to the matter.

The first Argument for the Catholike partie is this.

1. Objection. Where is no word of God, there is no faith, for these two are Rela­tiues. But there is no word of God: saying, Cornelius beleeue thou Peter, beleeue thou that thou shalt be saued: therefore there is no such ordinary faith, for a man to beleeue his owne particular saluation.

M. PERKINS answere.

Although there be no word of God to assure vs of our particular saluation: Yet is there an other thing as good, which counteruailes the word of God, to witte, the Mini­ster of God applying the generall promises of saluation vnto this and that man. Which when he doth, the man must beleeue the Minister, as he would beleeue Christ himselfe, and so assure himselfe by faith of his saluation.

Reply. Good Sir, seing euery man is a lyar, and may both deceiue, and be deceiued, and the Minister telling may erre: how doth either the Mi­nister knowe, that the man to whome he speaketh is of the number of the elect? or the man be certayne 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 him selfe, is playne blasphe­mie. Equalling a blinde and lying creature, vnto the wisedome and truth of God. If you could shewe 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 word: but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers word counteruailes Gods word, I can not see what it wanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate. On the other side 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 hee saith to Peter, thou art one of the elect,) is to make him of GODS priuie Councell, without anie warrant for it in Gods word: Yea Saint Paul not obscurely signifying the contrarie in these wordes. [Page 36] The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale: Tim. 2.13 our Lord knoweth who be his. And none else, except he reueale it vnto them. M. PERKINS then flieth from the assurance of the Minister, and leaues him to speake at randon, as the blind man casts his clubbe; and attributeth all this assurance vnto the partie himselfe, who hearing in Gods word, Seeke yee my face, in his hart answereth. Lord I will seeke thy face: And then hearing God say, Thou art my people, saith againe. The Lord is my God. And then loe without al doubt he hath assurance of his saluation. Would yee not thinke that this were ra­ther some seely old Womans dreame, then a discourse of a learned Man? How knowe you honest man, that those wordes of God spoken by the Prophet 2000. yeares past, to the people of Israell, are directed to you? Mine owne hart, good Sir, telles me so. How dare you build vpon the perswasion of your owne hart any such assurance? When as in holy writ it is recorded. [...]etem. 17. Wicked is the hart of man, & who shall knowe it? Are you ignorant how Saul before he was S. Paul, being an Israelit, to whome those wordes appertayned, perswading himselfe to be verie assured of his faith, was not­withstanding fouly deceiued, and why may not you farre more vnskilfull then he be in like manner abused. Moreouer suppose that this motion commeth of the holy Ghost, and that he trulie sayeth, The Lord is God, how long knoweth he that he shall be able to say so truly? When our Sauiour CHRIST IESVS assureth vs that many be called,Math. 22. but fewe of them are chosen to life euerlasting. How knoweth he then assuredly, that he being once called, is of the predestinate? M. PERKINS sayeth, that he who beleeueth, knoweth that he beleeueth. Be it so; if he beleeue aright, and medle no further then with those thinges, which be comprehended with­in the boundes of faith: But that the certayntie of saluation is to be belee­ued, is not to be begged, but proued, being the mayne question, he sayeth further that he who trulie repēteth, knoweth that he repenteth: he know­eth in deede by many probable conjectures, but not by certaintie of faith: as witnesseth that holy person.Job. 9. If God come to me, (as he doth to all repen­tant sinners,) I shall not see him, and if he depart away from me, I shall not vnder­stand it: Which is sufficient to make him thankefull, yea if he receiued no grace at all, yet were he much beholding vnto God, who offred him his grace, and would haue freely bestowed it vpon him, if it had not beene through his owne default. And thus our first Argument stands in his full strength and vertue, that no man can assure himselfe by faith of his salua­tion, because there is no word of God that warranteth him so to doe.

The second is. It is no article of the creede, that a man must beleeue his owne saluation, and therefore no man is bound thereunto.

M. PERKINS answereth. That euerie article of the Creede contaynes this particular faith of our owne saluation, namely three: First (saith he) to beleeue in [Page 37] God, is to beleeue that God is our God, and to put our trust in him for our saluation. Answere. I admitte all this, and adde more (that M. PERKINS be no longer ignorant of the Catholike knowledge of the creede,) that we must also loue him with all our hart and strength: thus we vnderstand it more fully then he: Yet finde not out that thirteenth article, Thou must beleeue thine owne particular saluation. For albeit, I beleeue and trust in God, yet not being sure of my loue towardes him, I am not assured of saluation, for as S. Iohn testifieth. He that loueth not, abideth in death. 1. Iohn. 3.

So I answere to the second article, named by M. PERKINS, that is, I beleeue that God of his infinite mercie, through the merits of Christs passion doth pardon all those, who being hartely sorry for their sinnes, doe humbly confesse them, and fully purpose to leade a newe life: that I my selfe am such a one, I doe verely hope, because I haue as farreforth as I could, to my knowledge performed those thinges, which God requires of me, but because I am but a fraile creature, and may perhaps not haue done all that so well as I ought, or am not so well assured of that, which by Gods helpe I haue done, I can not beleeue it, for in matter of faith (as you shall heare shortly,) there can be no feare or doubt.

The like answere is giuen to the article of life euerlasting. I beleeue that I shall haue life euerlasting,Math. 19. if I fulfill that which our Sauiour taught the younge man, demaunding what he must doe to haue life euerlasting: to witte, if I keepe all Gods commaundements, but because I am not assured that I shall so doe (yea the Protestants (though falsely,) assure vs that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can so doe.) I remayne in feare. But (saieth M. PERKINS) the Diuell may so beleeue the articles of the creede, vnlesse we doe apply those articles to our selues. First, I say the Diuell knowes to be true all that we doe beleeue, and therefore are said by Saint Iames to beleeue, but they want a necessarie condition of faith, that is a Godly and deuout submission of their vnderstanding vnto the obedience of faith, and so haue no faith to speake properly. Againe they trust not in God for saluation, nor indeuour not any manner of way to obtayne sal­uation, as Christians doe, and so there is greate difference betweene their beleefe in the articles of the creede, and ours.

M. PERKINS in his first exception grauntes.Pag. 54. That commonly men doe not beleeue their saluation, as infallibly as they doe the articles of the faith (yet saith he) some speciall men doe.

Whereof I inferre by his owne confession, that our particular saluation is not to be beleeued by faith: for whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith, is as in­fallible as the word of God, which assureth vs of it. Then if the common sort of the faithfull doe not beleeue their saluation, to be as infallible as the articles of our creede, yea as Gods owne word, they are not by faith assu­red [Page 38] of it. Now that some speciall good men, either by reuelation from God, or by long exercise of a vertuous life, haue a great certainty of their saluation, we willingly confesse: but that certainty doth rather belong to a well grounded hope, then to an ordinary faith.

The third reason for the Catholikes, is, that we are bidden to pray daily for the remission of our sinnes.Mat. 6. But that were needelesse, if we were before assured, both of pardon and saluation.

M. PERKINS answereth, First, that we pray daily for the remission of new sinnes committed that day. Be it so. What needes that, if we were be­fore assured of pardon? Marry (saith he) because our assurance was but weake and small, our prayer is to encrease our assurance. Good Sir, doe you not see how you ouerthrowe your selfe? If your assurance be but weake and small, it is not the assurance of faith, which is as great, and as strong, as the truth of God.

We giue God thankes for those giftes, which we haue receaued at his bountifull handes, and desire him to encrease, or continue them, if they may be lost. But to pray to God to giue vs those thinges we are assured of by faith, is as fond, and friuolous, as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne, or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen, of which they are in full and assured possession. And so these three Arguments by M. PERKINS propounded here for vs, are verie substantiall and sufficient, to assure euery good Christian, that he may well hope for saluation doeing his dutie, but may not without great pre­sumption, assure him by faith of it. To these I will adde two or three others, which M. PERKINS afterwardes seekes to salue, by his excep­tions as he tearmes them. To his first exception, I haue answered be­fore. The second I will put last for orders sake, and answere to the third first, which is:

Pag. 56. The Catholikes say, we are indeede to beleeue our saluation on Gods part, who is desirous of all mens saluation, very rich in mercy, and able to saue vs, but our feare riseth in regard of our selues, because the promises of remission of sinnes de­pend vpon our true repentance: Luke 13. Vnlesse you doe penance, ye shall all perish. And the promises of saluation, is made vpon condition of keeping Gods commande­ments. Mat. 19. 2. Tim. 2. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements. Againe, No man shall be crowned, except he combat lawfully. Now we not knowing whether we shall well performe these thinges required by God at our handes, haue iust cause to feare, lest God do not on his part, performe that which he promiseth vpon such conditions. To this M. PERKINS answereth, That for faith, and true repentance, euery man that hath them, knoweth well that he hath them. To which I reply, that for faith being rightly taken, it may be knowne of the party that hath it, be­cause it is a light of the vnderstanding, and so being like a lampe, may be [Page 39] easely seene: but true repentance requires besides faith, both hope, and charitie, which are seated in the darke corners of the will, and can not by faith be seene in themselues, but are knowne by their effects: which be­ing also vncertayne doe make but conjectures and a probable opinion, so that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith.2. Cor. 13. Proue your selues whe­ther you be in faith or no. Because we accord that it may be tryed by vs, whe­ther we haue faith or no: although I knowe well, that S. Paules wordes carry a farre different sence. But let that passe as impertinent. To the o­ther. That we haue receiued the spirit, which is of God, 1. Cor. 2.12. that we might know the thinges which are giuen of God. What thinges these are which the spirit reuealeth to vs, S. Paul teacheth in the same place, That which the eye hath not seene, nor eare hath heard, &c. God hath prepared for them, that loue him: but to vs, God hath re­uealed by his spirit: All this is true: but who they be that shall attayne to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared, God onely knoweth, & by his spi­rit reuealeth it to very fewe. And will you learne out of S. Ierome that aun­cient Doctor, the cause why:In 3. caput. Ione. Therefore (saith he) it is put ambiguous and left vncertayne, that while men are doubtfull of their saluation, they may doe penance more manfully, and so may moue God to take compassion on them.

An other reason of this vncertayntie,De cor. & gra. cap 13. yeeldeth Saint Augustine in these wordes: In this place of temptation, such is our infirmity, that assurednes, might en­gender pride. To this agreeth S. Gregory, saying:Lib. 9. mo­ral. cap. 17. If we knowe our selues to haue grace, we are proude. So that to strike downe the pride of our harts, and to humble vs, and to make vs trauaile more carefully in the workes of morti­fication, God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their owne sal­uation: but to cheere vp their hartes on the other side, doth put them in great hope of it, like to a discreet and good Lord, who will not at the first entrance into his seruice; infeafe his seruant in the fee simple of those lands, which after vpon his good deserts he meaneth to bestowe on him. This is an other kinde of Doctrine, then that which M. PER. in his last supply deliuereth, to witte: That if we regard our owne indisposition, we must despaire, be­cause we be not worthy of his mercie. Not so good Sir. Because we knowe that he bestoweth mercy vpon the vnworthie, at the first justification of a sin­ner, but will not admitte into the Kingdome of heauen any vnworthy, but giues men grace while they liue to worke, that they are made worthy of his heauenly Kingdome according to that: They shall walke with me in whites, Apoc. 3.4. because they are worthie, but of this more fully in the chapter of merits.

The fift reason for our opinion is taken out of M. PER. second excep­tion, to witte; howsoeuer a man may be assured for his present state, yet no man is certaine of his perseuerance to the end. And therefore, although we might be assured of our Iustification, yet can we not be certaine of our Saluation. For he only that perseuereth to the end, shall be saued. M. PERK. [Page 40] answere is, that prayer doth assure vs to perseuer to the end: for God biddes vs pray, that we fall not into temptation, and promiseth an issue forth:1. Cor. 10. So then the assurance dependes vpon prayer, and not vpon our former faith. What then if we doe not pray so as we should? may not the enemy then, not only wound, but kill vs to? it cannot be denyed: and therein, as in diuers other workes of pietie, many haue bin too too slacke, as the pitifull fall of thousands haue taught vs. Oh saith M. PERKINS, it cannot be, that he which was once a member of Christ, can euer after be wholy cut off. O shamelesse assertion, and contrary to many playne textes, and ex­amples of holy Scriptures: Doth not our Sauiour say in expresse words, That euery branch in me not bearing fruit, Ioh. 15. he will take it away? And againe, If any abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as the branch, and shall wither, and be cast into the fire: which doth demonstrate, that some which were members of Christ, be wholy cut off, and that for euer. Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our aduersaries owne confession? and doth not our blessed Sauiour say,Luke 8. expounding the parable of the sower, That the seede which fell vpon the rocke, doth signifie them, who with ioy receiue the word, and these (saith he) haue no roote, but for a time they beleeue, and in time of temptation, reuolt. 1. Tim. 1.19. 1. Tim. 4. 2. Tim. 6. Doth not Saint Paul in expresse tearmes say, That some hauing faith and good conscience, expelling good conscience, haue made shipwracke of their faith: of whome were by name, Hymenaeus, and Alexander. The like, That in the the last dayes, some shoulde reuolt from the faith: Againe, That some for co­uetuousnesse sake, had erred from the faith. And for example amongst other, take Saul the first King of Israell, who was at his election (as the holy Ghost witnesseth) so good a man,1. Reg. 19. that there was no better then he in Isra­ell, and yet became reprobate, as is in the Scripture signified. The like is probable of Salomon, 2. Reg. 15. & 16. and in the newe Testament of Iudas the traytor, and Simon Magus whome S. Luke saith, that he also himselfe beleeued, and after be­came an Arch-heretike,Act. 8. and so died: the like almost may be verefied of all Arch-heretikes, who before they fell, were of the faithfull.

But what neede we further proofe of this matter, seeing that this is co­sen german, if not the very same, with one of that infamous heretike Io­uinians erronious articles,Heres. 82. Li. 2. cont. Iouin. condemned, and registred by S. Hierome, and S. Augustine, who held, that just men after Baptisme could not sinne, and if they did sinne, they were indeede washed with water, but neuer receiued the spirit of grace: his ground was, that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace, could not sinne after, which is just M. PERKINS pro­position: so that to vpholde an errour, he falleth into an olde condem­ned heresie. And which is yet more absurd, in the next confirmation, he letteth slippe at once a brace of other heresies, these be his wordes. And if by sinne one were wholy seuered from Christ for a time, in his recouery he is to be bap­tised [Page 41] the second time. Where you haue first rebaptizing, which is the princi­pall error of the Anabaptists, and withall the heresie of the Nouatians, who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme, there was no remedie left in Gods Church, for their recouerie: but must be left to God; so saith M. PERKINS, for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo: so that the common saying is, verified in him, (one ab­surdity being graunted, a thowsand followe after.) But doth he knowe no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ? hath he forgot­ten that corrupted sentēce of the Prophet, wherewith they beginne their common prayer? What houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne, &c. With them repentance, and with vs the Sacrament of Penance, serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ.

But we must answere vnto that of S. Iohn. They went out from vs, 1. Ioan. 2. but they were not of vs, for if they had beene of vs, they would haue continued with vs. I ans­were. If they went out from vs, they were before with vs: which confir­meth our assertion, that men may departe from their faith, and Christes profession: but such men were not indeede of the number of the elect, of which S. Iohn was, for then either they would haue continued with them in the Christian faith, or else by hartie repentance would haue returned vnto it, backe againe, which is S. Augustines owne exposition.De bono perse. c. 8. And these be the Arguments for the Catholikes, which M. PERKINS through his confused order toucheth here, and there. To which I will adde, one taken out of the wordes of S. Paul. But thou by faith dost stand, be not to highly wise, Rom. 11.20. Phil. 2.12. but feare, if God hath not spared the naturall boughes lest perhaps he will not spare thee neither. And againe. Worke your saluation, with feare and trembling. There be a­boue an hundred such textes in holy write, wherein the Holy Ghost ex­horteth vs to stand in feare of our saluation, out of which I thus frame my argument.

No man must stand in feare of that, of which he is by faith assured. But the faith­full must stand in feare of their saluation. Ergo, they be not assured of it by faith.

The Minor or second proposition is playnlie proued by these places, ci­ted before the Maior is manifest: there is no feare in faith, he that feareth, whether the thing be assured or no, can not giue a certayne assent there­unto: Dubius in fide infidelis est. Put the case in an other article, to make it more euident: He that feareth, whether there be a God or no, doe we e­steeme that he beleeueth in God. So he that feareth whither IESVS CHRIST be God? is he a Christian? hath he a true faith? You must needes answere no. So he that feareth whether he shall be saued or no, can haue no faith of his saluation.

To these inuincible reasons grounded vpon Gods word, let vs joyne some playne testimonies, taken aswell out of the holy Scripture, as out [Page 42] of the auncient Fathers. First, what can be more manifest to warrant vs, that the faithfull haue not assurance infallible of their saluation, then these wordes of the Holy Ghost.Eccles. 9. There be iust (and therefore faithfull) and wise men, and their workes be in the hand of God, and neuerthelesse a man doth not knowe whether he be worthy of hatred or loue, but all thinges are kept vncertayne for the time to come. Where is then the Protestants certayntie. And because one here­tike cauilleth against the Latine translation, saying that a word or two of it may be otherwise torned, heare how S. Ierome, who was most cunning in the Hebrewe text,Coment. in [...]unc lo­ [...]um. doth vnderstand it. The sence is, (saith he) I haue found the workes of iust men, to be in the hand of God, and yet themselues not to knowe, whether they be loued of God or no.

An other playne testimonie is taken out of S. Paul, where he sheweth that it is not in vs to judge of our owne justice, but we must leaue to God the judgement of it, [...]. Cor. 4. these be the wordes. I am not guiltie in conscience of any thing, but I am not iustified herein, but he that iudgeth me is our Lord, therefore iudge not before the time vntill our Lord doe come, who also will lighten the hidden thinges of darknes, and will manifest the councell of the hart, and then the prayse shall be to eue­ry man, of God. So that before Gods judgement by Saint Paules testimonie, men may not assure themselues of their owne justice, much lesse of their saluation, how innocent soeuer they finde themselues in their owne con­sciences.Serm. 5 in Psal. 118. De consti­tut. monas. c. 2. See vpon this place S. Ambrose, S. Basill, Theodoret on this place, who al agree, that men may haue secret faults, which God onely seeth, & there­fore they must liue in feare, and alwayes pray to be deliuered from them. For the rest let Saint Augustines testimonie, (whome our aduersaries ac­knowledge to be the most diligent and faithfull register of all antiquity) be sufficient. This most iudicious, and holy Father thus defineth this matter:De verb. Domini. ser. 35. De ciuit. Dei lib. 11. c. 12. As long as we liue here, we our selues can not iudge of our selues, I doe not say what we shall be to morrowe, but what we are to day. And yet more directly. Albeit holy men are certayne of the rewarde of their perseuerance, yet of their owne perseuerance, they are found vncertayne. For what man can knowe that he shall per­seuer, and hold on in the action and encrease of iustice vntill the end, vnlesse by some reuelation he be assured of it from him, who of his iust, but secret iudgement doth not enforme all men of this matter, but deceiueth none: So no iust man is assured of his saluation by his ordinarie faith: by extraordinarie reuelation, some man may be assu­red, the rest are not. Which is just the Catholike sentence. And because S. Bernard is by our aduersaries, cited for them in this point, take his testimo­nie in as precise tearmes as any Catholike at this time speaketh. Thus he writeth.Serm. 1. de Septuag. Who can say, I am one of the elect, I am one of the predestinat to life, I am one of the number of the children? Who (I say) can thus say, the scripture crying out against him. Eccles. 9. A man knoweth not, whether he be worthy of loue or hatred. Therefore we haue no certayntie, but the confidence of hope doth comfort vs, that we be not [Page 43] vexed at all with the perplexitie of this doubt. The word of GOD (accor­ding to Saint Bernard,) cryeth out against all them, that certaynlie assure them selues of their saluation: whereon then doe they build their faith that beleeue it.

If it may be permitted to joyne moderne opinions with auncient, badde men, with good, I could proue by the testimonie of euery principall sect of this time, that all other sectaries were deceiued in this their perswasion of their saluation. For both, Lutherans, Caluinists, and Anabaptists (to omitte the rest) doe hold euerie one of themselues assured of their salua­tion, and yet each sect holdeth euery one not of his owne band assured of damnation: so that by the sentence of the Lutherans, all Caluinists, and Anabaptists, are miserably deceiued when they assure themselues of their saluation: In like manner if the Anabaptists be true censurers, both Lu­therans, and Caluinists and all other, not of their heresie, erre fouly, when they beare themselues in hand that they shall be saued. Certayne it is therefore by the consent of all the world, that very manie who assure themselues of saluation, are in deede assured of damnation.

With the testimonies of the auncient Doctors for vs, I pray thee gentle Reader,Pag. 57. conferre those which M. PERKINS in his sixt reason allead­geth against vs. First, Saint Augustine in these wordes. Of an euill seruant, De verb. Domini. serm. 28. thou art made a good child, therefore presume not of thine owne doing, but of the grace of Christ. It is not arrogancy, but faith to acknowledge, what thou hast recei­ued, it is not pride, but deuotion. What word is here of certayntie of salua­uation? but that it belongeth to a faithfull man, to confesse himselfe much bound to God, for calling of him to be his. Which euery Chri­stian must doe, hoping himselfe so to be, and being most certayne, that if he be not in state of grace, it is long of himselfe, and no want on Gods parte. The second place hath not so much as any shewe of wordes for him, thus he speaketh. Let no man aske an other man, Tract. 5. in Epis. Ioan. but returne to his owne hart, and if he finde Charity there, he hath securitie for his passage, from life to death. What neede was there to seeke charity in his hart, for security of his saluation, if his faith assured him thereof, therefore this text maketh flat against him.

The next Author he citeth is Saint Hylarie in these wordes.Sup. 5 cap. Mat. The King­dome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in him selfe, his will is that it be hoped, for without any doubtfulnes of vncertayne will (at all, is an addition) otherwise there is no iustification by faith, if faith it selfe be made doubtfull. First, he saith, but as we say, that the Kingdome of heauen is to be hoped for, without anie doubtfulnesse; for wee professe certayntie of hope, and deny onely certayntie of faith, as M. PERKINS confesseth before. And as for faith, we say with him also it is not doubtfull, but very certaine. What ma­keth [Page 44] this to the purpose, that a man must beleeue his owne saluation when S. Hilary speaketh there of faith of the resurrection of the dead. His last Author is S. Bernard: Epist. 107. Who is the iust man, but he that being loued of God, loues him againe? which comes not to passe but by the spirit, reuealing by faith the eternall promise of God, of his saluation to come, which reuelation is nothing else, but the infusi­on of spirituall grace, by which the deedes of the flesh are mortified, the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen, together receiuing in one spirit, that, whereby he may pre­sume, that he is loued, and loues againe. Note that he saith the reuelation of the spirit, to be nothing else, but the infusion of spirituall graces, and com­fort, whereby a man hath some feeling of Gods goodnesse towardes him, by which (as he saith) he may presume, but not beleeue certainlie, that he is loued of God. But let S. Bernard in the same place interpret himselfe, there he speaketh thus, as I cited once before. It is giuen to men to tast before hand, somewhat of the blisse to come, &c. Of the which knowledge of our selues now in part perceiued, a man doth in the meane season glory in hope, but not yet in security. His opinion then is expresly, that for all the reuelations of the spirit made by faith vnto vs, we are not assured for certainty of our saluation, but feele great joy, through the hope we haue hereafter to receiue it.

This passage of testimonies being dispatched, let vs now come vnto the fiue other reasons which M. PERKINS produceth in defence of their opinion.

The first reason is, That in faith there are two thinges, the one is an infallible assurance of those thinges which we beleeue: This we graunt, and therehence proue (as you heard before) that there can be no faith of our particular saluation, because we be not so fully assured of that, but that wee must stand in feare of losing of it,Apoc. 3. according to that, Holde that which thou hast; least perhaps an other receiue thy crowne. But the second poynt of faith, puts all out of question. For (saith M. PERKINS) it doth assure vs of remission of our sinnes, and of life euerlasting in particular. Proue that Sir, and we neede no more.Iohn. 1. It is proued out of S: Iohn: As many as receiued him, he gaue them pow­er to be made the sonnes of God, namely, to them that beleeue in his name. This text commeth much too short: he gaue them power to be the sonnes, that is, gaue them such grace, that they were able, and might if they would, be sonnes of God, but did not assure them of that neither, much lesse that they should so continue vnto their liues end. I omitte his vnsauoury dis­course of eating, and beleeuing Christ, and applying vnto vs his benefittes, (which he might be ashamed to make vnto vs, that admitte no part of it to be true.) I confesse that therein faith hath his part, if it be joyned with charity, and frequentation of the Sacraments. This is it which S. Paul teacheth,Gal. 3. That not by the workes of Moyses lawe, but by faith in Christ Iesus we receiue the promises of the spirit, and shall haue hereafter the performance, if we ob­serue [Page 45] those thinges which Christ hath commaunded vs. But what is this to cer­tainty of Saluation? But (saith he) it is the property of faith, to apply Christ vn­to vs, and proues it out of S. Augustine, Beleeue and thou hast eaten: Againe, Send vp thy faith, and thou maist holde Christ in heauen: &c. To which,Tract. 25. in Ioh. and such like authorities, I answere, that we finde Christ, we holde Christ, we see Christ, by faith, beleeuing him to be the sonne of God, and redee­mer of the world, and Iudge of the quicke and the dead: and wee vn­derstand, and disgest all the mysteries of this holy worde. But where is it once said, in any of these sentences, that we are assured of our salua­tion? we beleeue all these poyntes and many more: but we shall be ne­uer the neare our saluation, vnlesse we obserue Gods commaundements, The seruant which knowes his Masters will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12. Ioh. 15. Then you are my friends (saith our Sauiour) when you shall doe the things which I commaund you: which we being vncertaine to performe, assure not our selues of his friendship, but when to our knowledge we goe as neare it as we can, and demaund pardon of our wantes, wee liue in good hope of it.

The second reason is, Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs, that certain­ly by faith we must beleeue: but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our saluation: ergo, the first proposition is true. The second is proued thus, S. Paul saith, the spirit of God beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the children of God. The Papists to elude this reason, alleage, that it doth indeede witnesse our adoption, Rom. 8. by some comfortable feeling of Gods fauour towarde vs, which may often be mistaken, whereof the Apostle warneth vs when he saith, beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spi­rits, whether they be of God or no. But (saith M. PERKINS) by their leaue, 1. Ioh. 4. the testimonie of the spirit, is more then a bare feeling of Gods grace. For it is called the pleadge and earnest of Gods spirit in our harts. And therefore it takes away all doubting, as in a bargaine, the earnest giuen, puts all out of question. 1. Cor. 1. I answere first out of the place it selfe, that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed, which M. PERKINS thought wisedome to conceale. For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirits, that we are the sonnes of God, and coheires of Christ, with this condition, If yet we suf­fer with him, that we may be glorified with him. So that the testimonie is not absolute, but conditionall, and then if we faile in performance of the con­dition, God standes free of his promise, and will take his earnest backe a­gaine. And so to haue receaued the earnest of it, will nothing auaile vs, much lesse, assure vs of saluation.

This is the direct answere to that place, although the other be very good, that the testimonie of the spirit, is but an inward comfort and joy, which breedeth great hope of saluation, but bringeth not assurance there­of. This M. PERKINS would refute, by the authority of S. Bernard, [Page 46] in the place before cited,Epist. 107. see the place, and my answere there.

The third reason is, That which we must pray for by Gods commaūdement, that we must beleeue: but euery man must pray for saluation, therefore we must beleeue that we shall haue saluation. The proposition he confirmeth thus: in euery petition must be two thinges, one a desire of the thing we aske, an other a particular faith to obtaine it, which is proued by Christs wordes: What­soeuer you shall request when you pray, Marke 11. beleeue that you shall haue it, and it shall be done.

This Argument is so proper for their purpose, that we returne it vpon their owne heades: We must pray for saluation, therefore we are not yet as­sured of it: For who in his wittes prayeth God to giue him that, whereof he is assured already? And a godly act of faith it is, in that prayer to be­leeue that God will giue that, which he is assured of before hand: such foolish petitions cannot please God, and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied, that any faithfull man may pray for his saluatiō, but rather thanke the Lord for it. But to answere directly, he who prayeth, must be­leeue he shall obtayne that which he prayeth for, if he obserue all the due circumstances of prayer, which be many, but to this purpose, two are re­quired necessarily: the one that he who prayeth be the true seruāt of God, which first excludeth all those that erre in faith, touched in these wordes. What you of the faithfull shall desire when you pray, shall be giuen you: The other is, when we request matters of such moment, that we perseuer in prayer, & continue our suite day by day, of these suites of eternall saluation, we must take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken.Luke 18. We must alwayes pray, and ne­uer be wearie. And then no doubt, but we shall in the end receiue it. But be­cause we are in doubt, whether we shal obserue those necessarie circūstan­ces of prayer or no, therefore we can not be so wel assured to obtayne our suite, although we be on Gods parte most assured, that he is most bounti­full, and readier to giue them, we are to aske.

1. Ioan 5.But saith M. PERKINS, S. Iohn noteth out this particular faith, cal­ling it, Our assurance, that God will giue vnto vs, whatsoeuer we aske according to his will. But where finde we that it is Gods will, to assure euerie man at the first entrance into his seruice, of eternall saluation? is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it, vpon his faithfull seruice and good be­hauiour towardes him?

The fourth reason is, Whatsoeuer God commaundeth, that a man must and can performe. But God commaundeth vs to beleeue our saluation: ergo, we must beleeue it.

The proposition is true, yet commonly denyed by all Protestants, for God commaundes vs to keepe his commaundements, and they hold that to be impossible: but to the assumption: That God commaundes vs to [Page 47] beleeue our saluation, is proued (saith M. PERKINS) by these wordes: Repent and beleeue the Gospell: Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis amici: Where is it written in that Gospel, beleeue your owne particular saluation? shew vs once but one cleare text for it, and we will beleeue it. I doe beleeue in Christ, and hope to be saued, through his mercy and merits, but knowe well, that vnlesse I keepe his wordes, I am by him likened to a foole, Math. 7. Math. 26. Math. 25. that built his house vpon the sandes. He commaundes me to watch and pray, least I fall into temptation: and else where, warneth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming, or else I am most certayne to be shut out with the foolish Virgins. An hundred such admonitions finde we in holy Scriptures, to shake vs out of this security of our saluation, and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie, and diligent to trayne our selues in godly exercises of all vertue.

The fift and last reason is this, The Papists teach assurance of hope, Rom. 5. euen hence it followeth, that he may be infallibly assured, for the property of a true and liuely hope is neuer to make a make a man ashamed. Answere, hope indeede of heauen makes a man most couragiouslie beare out all stormes of persecution, and not to be ashamed of Christs Crosse, but to professe his faith most bold­ly before the most bloudy tyrants of the world, our harts being by cha­rity fortified and made inuincible. And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place: and saith before,Ver. 2. that the faithfull glory in the hope of the sonnes of God. And doe not vaunt themselues of the certainty of their saluation. This certainty of hope, is great in those that haue long liued vertuously, specially when they haue also endured manifolde losses, much disgrace, great wronges and injuries for Christs sake, for he that cannot faile of his word, hath promised to requite all such with an hundred folde: But what is this to the certainty of faith, which the Protestants will haue euery man to be endued with at his first entrance into the seruice of God. When as S. Paul insinuateth, that godly men partakers of the holy Ghost,Heb. 6 yea after they haue tasted the good word of God, and the power of the world to come, that is, haue receiued besides faith, great fauours of Gods spirit, and felt as it were the joyes of heauen, haue after all this so fallen from God, that there was small hope of their recouerie.

M. PERKINS.

Pag. 60. FIRST, I will set downe the Doctrine on both partes, that it may be seene how farreforth we agree.

Secondly, The mayne differences, wherein we are to stand against them, euen to death.

Our Doctrine touching the iustification of a sinner, I propound in foure rules.

The first Rule. That iustification is an action of God, whereby he absolueth a sinner, and accepteth him to life euerlasting for the righteousnes, and merits of Christ.

2. Rule. That iustification stands in two thinges: First, in the remission of sinnes by the merite of Christs death: Secondly, in the imputation of Christs righteousnes, which is an other action of God, whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnes which is in Christ, as the righteousnes of that sinner, which beleeueth in him: By Christs righteousnes we are to vnderstand two thinges: first, his sufferings specially in his death and passion: secondly, his obedience in fulfilling the lawe: both which goe together; for Christ in suffering obeyed, and obeying suffered. And the very shedding of his bloud, to which our saluation is ascribed, must not onely be considered, as it is passiue, that is a suffering, but also as it is actiue, that is an obedience, in which he shewed his excee­ding loue, both to his father, and vs, and thus fulfilled the lawe for vs.

3. Rule. That iustification is from Gods mercies and grace, procured onely by the merite of Christ.

4. Rule. That man is iustified by faith alone: because faith is that alone instru­ment created in the hart by the Holy Ghost, whereby a sinner laieth holde of Christs righ­teousnes, and applies the same to him selfe. There is neither hope, nor loue, nor any o­ther grace of God within man, that can doe this, but faith alone, now of the Doctrine of the Roman Church.

Because M. PERKINS settes not downe well the Catholikes opinion, I will helpe him out, both with the preparation and justification it selfe, and that taken out of the Councel of Trent. Where the very wordes con­cerning preparation are these.Sess. 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice, when being stirred vp, and helped by Gods grace, they conceiuing faith by hearing, are freely moued towardes God, beleeuing those thinges to be true, which God doth reueale and promise, [...]ely, that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption, that is in CHRIST IESVS. And when knowledging them selues to be sinners, through the feare of Gods iudgementes, they turne them selues to consider the mercie of God, are lifted vp into hope, trusting that God will be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake: and beginning to loue him as the fountayne of all iustice, are there by moued with [Page 49] hatred and detestation of all sinnes. Finally they determine to receiue baptisme, to be­ginne a new 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, which briefly are these. The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner, is the glorie of God, the glory of Christ, and mans owne iustification: the efficient is God, the meritorious, CHRIST IESVS Passions, the instrumentall, is the Sacrament of Baptisme, the onlie formall cause, is inherent iustice, that is, Faith, Hope, and Charity, with the other giftes of the Holy Ghost, powred 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, when a man is justified, be pardoned him.

The point of difference is this: that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs, becommeth our righteousnes: (for the wordes of justice and justification, they seldome vse,) and not any righteousnes, which is in our selues. The Catholikes affirme, that those vertues powred 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, we hold that God of his meere mercie through the me­rits of CHRIST IESVS our Sauiour, hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. PERKINS comes to short in his second rule, when he attributeth the merits of Christs suffringes to obedience; whereas obedi­ence if it had beene without charity, would haue merited nothing at Gods handes.

And whereas M. PERKINS doth say, that therein we raze the foun­dation, that is as he interpreteth it in his preface, we make Christ a Pseu­dochrist, we auerre, that herein we doe much more magnifie Christ, then they doe, for they take Christs merits to be so meane, that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne, and make men worthie of the joyes of heauen. Nay it doth not serue the turne, but only that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarywise, doe so highly esteeme of our Sa­uiours inestimable merits, that we hold them wel able to purchase at Gods handes, a farre inferiour justice, and such merits as mortall men are ca­pable of, and to them doe giue such force and value, that they make a man just before God, and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen, as shall be pro­ued. Againe, they doe great iniury to Gods goodnes, wisedome, and ju­stice, in their justification, for they teach, that inward justice, or sanctifica­tion, is not necessary to justification; Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith. That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer, (except he refuse to beleeue) lose their [Page 50] saluation. Wherein, first they make their righteous man, Like (as our Sa­uiour speaketh) to sepulchers whited on the out side, with an imputed justice, but within, full of iniquity, and disorder. Then the wisdome of GOD must either not discouer this masse of iniquity, or his goodnesse abide it, or his justice either wipe it away, or punish it: But (say they) he seeth it well enough, but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse. Why? can any thing be hid from his sight? it is madnesse to thinke it. And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it, and wipe it cleane away, and adorne with his grace that soule, whome 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 infinite value of his me­rits. Or is it, for that God cannot make such justice 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 donne, as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam, in state of innocencie. And M. PERKINS seemes to graunt,Pag. 77. That man in this life at his last gaspe, may haue such righteousnesse. If then we had no other reason for vs, but that our justification doth more exalt the power, and goodnes of God, more magnifie the value of Christs merits, and bringeth greater dignity vnto men: our doctrine were much better to be liked, then our aduersaries, who cannot alleage one expresse sentence, either out of holy Scriptures, or auncient Fathers, teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs, to be our justification as shall be seene in the reasons following, and doe much abase both Christs merits, and Gods power, wisdome, and goodnesse. Now to their rea­sons.

M. PERKINS first reason is this, That which must be our righteousnesse be­fore God, must satisfie the iustice of the lawe, which saith, doe these thinges and thou shalt liue, Gal. 5. but there is nothing that can satisfie that iustice of the lawe, but the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ. ergo.

This reason is not worth a rush, for when he requireth that our justice must satisfie the justice of the lawe, I demaund what lawe he meaneth? If Moyses lawe:Gal 5. Gal. 5. of which those wordes, Doe this and thou shalt liue, are spoken. Then I answere with the Apostle. That you are euacuated, or abolished from Christ, that are iustified in the lawe. that is, he is a Iewe and no Christian, that would haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moyses lawe.

If M. PER. would only that men justified, must be able to fulfil Christs lawe, I then graunt, that they so be, by the helpe of Gods grace, which wil neuer faile them, before they faile of their duties. But saith M. PER. That iustice of man is vnperfect, and cannot satisfie the iustice which God requires in his lawe, and proues it out of Esay, who saith, All our righteousnesse is as a men­struous, Isay. 64 or defiled cloath. I answere that the holy Prophet speaketh those [Page 51] wordes in the person of the wicked, and therefore are maddely applied vnto the righteous. That he speaketh of the the wicked, of that nation, and of that time: appeareth playnlie by the text it selfe. For he saith be­fore, But loe thou hast beene angrie, for we haue offended, and haue beene euer in sinne, and after; There is no man that calleth vpon thy name, and standeth vp to take hold by thee. And although the wordes be generall, and seemes to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also, yet that is but the manner of preachers, and specially of such as become Intercessors for others, who vse to speake in the persons of them, for whome they sue: for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number, he had lyed, when he said: There is none that call vpon thy name, when as he immediately calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercy, all which the best learned among them marking,Lu [...] Ca [...] thi [...] confesse that this sentence can not be alleadged against the vertue of good workes. Hence, gather how dexterously M. PERKINS handleth Holy Scripture. That which the Prophet spake of some euill men, of one place, and at one time: that he applyeth vnto all good men, for all times, and all places.

But he will amend it in the next, where he proues out of Saint Paul, 1. [...] that a cleare conscience (which is a great part of inherent justice,) can nothing helpe to our iustification. I am priuie to nothing by my selfe, and yet I am not iustified thereby. Here is a very prety peece of cousinage. What, doth the Apostle say that he was not iustified by his cleare con­science, nothing lesse: but that albeit, he sawe nothing in himselfe to hinder his iustification, yet GOD who hath sharper ey-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 other fault in mee in GODS sight, then I can finde by mine owne insight, I am iustified, because I am guiltie of nothing, and so the place proueth rather the vncertayne knowledge of our iustification, as I haue before shewed.

But M. PERKINS addeth, that we must remember, that we shall come to judgement, where rigour of justice shall be shewed. We knowe it well, but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from originall sinne, as he confesseth himselfe,P [...] the Apostle to teach in our consents, about originall sinne, what then needeth any iusti­fied man greatly feare, the rigorous sentence of a just judge. And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the just: That he had ranne a good race, &c. and therefore, there was a crowne of iustice laid vp for him, by that iust iudge, and not only to him, but all them that loue Christs comming. And concerning both, in­herent iustice, and the ability of it, to fulfill the lawe. And what lawe,S [...] d [...] heare this one sentence of S. Augustine.

He that beleeueth in him, he hath not that iustice, which is of the lawe, albeit the lawe be good, but he shall fulfill the lawe, not by iustice which he hath of himselfe, but which is giuen of God, for charity is the fulfilling of the lawe, and from him is this cha­rity powred into our hartes, not certaynlie by our selues, but by the Holy Ghost which is giuen vs. Now to the second argument.

He which knew no sinne, was made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righ­teousnes of God, [...]. Cor. 5. which is in him: Hence M. PERKINS reasoneth thus. As Christ was made sinne for vs, so we are made the righteousnes of God in him: but Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes, he being most holy: Therefore a sin­ner is made righteous, in that Christs righteousnes is imputed vnto him. I deny both propositions, the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our justification, 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 just. That is then M. PER. vayne glosse, without any likelyhood in the text. The other proposition is also false, for Christ was not made sin by imputation, for sinne in that place is taken fi­guratiuely, and signifieth according to the exposition of auncient Fathers, An hoste or Sacrifice for sinne: Which, Christ was truly made: his body being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne, and not by imputation.

How these wordes of the Apostle, Iustice of God, are to be vnderstood, see Saint Augustine. Tract. 26. in Ioan. I­tem Epist. 120. ad ho­norat. cap. 30. Item in Psal. 30. Conc. 1. De spirit. & lib. c. 9. One place I will cite for all. The iustice of God (saith he) through the faith of CHRIST IESVS, that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ: for as that faith is called Christs, not by which Christ beleeues, so that Iustice is called Gods, not whereby God is iust, both of them, faith and iustice, be ours, but there­fore they are tearmed Gods, and Christs, because through their liberality they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of Saint Chrysostome, which M. PERKINS citeth, saying: It is called Gods Iustice, because it is not of workes, but of his free gift. So that it is, not that which is in God himselfe, but such as he bestoweth vpon vs. And that iustice of it selfe is pure, and wanteth no vertue to worke that, for which it is giuen, to wit, to make a man righteous. S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catho­like Arch-bishoppe of ours shall be answered, when the place is quoted.

Rom. 5.M. PERKINS third reason. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous, marke here a compa­rison betweene the first and second Adam, hence I reason thus; As by the disobedience of Adam men were made sinners, so by the obedience of Christ, are they made righ­teous: but men are made sinners by imputation of Adams sinne vnto them, and not only by propagation of naturall corruption, ergo: by imputation of Christs iustice we are made righteous.

Answere. The comparison I allowe, because it is the Apostles, and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault. And say that e­uery [Page 53] one descended of Adam by naturall propagation, hath his owne per­sonall iniquity sticking in them, which is commonly called Originall sin, and an high point of Pelagianisme is it, to deny it. For albeit we did not taste of the forbidden fruit in proper person, yet receiue we the nature of man, polluted with that infection really, and not by imputation. And so the comparison serues not at all M. PERKINS turne, but beareth very strongly against him, it being thus framed: As by Adams disobedience many were made sinners, euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified: This is his Maior. Now to the Minor. But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners, by drawing from him, euery one his owne proper inherent iniquity, in like manner we are iustified by Christ, not by imputation of his iustice, but by our inherent iustice, which is powred into our soules, when we are in Baptisme borne a new in him. See what penurie of poore arguments they haue, that to make some shew of store, are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them.

His fourth reason. The Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction, but satis­faction is equall to iustice, therefore they must make it aswell their iustice as satisfaction. For the Maior he citeth Bellarmin. I haue read the Chapter,Lib. [...] Iusti [...] & finde no such wordes, further I say, there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes, and justification: for satisfaction can not be done by vs; for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite, being against an infinite Ma­jestie, and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it: wherefore the infinite valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required, who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment, due to sinnes, leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall payne of it, as shall be in his due place, declared more at large.

Againe, a man must needes haue his sinnes pardoned, and grace giuen him, before he can make any kinde of due satisfaction, for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie, wherfore he must needes flie to the benefit of Christs satisfaction: There is nothing like in justification, for first to make a man just in Gods sight, requires no infinite perfection, but such as a meere man is very well capable of, as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocencie, and of all the blessed Soules in heauen who be just in Gods sight. Neither is it necessary to be infinite, for to be worthy of the joyes of heauen, which be not infinite as they are enjoyed of Men or Angels, either who haue all thinges there in number, weight, and measure. Briefly, it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of an other, but one man can not bestowe his wisedome or justice on an other, and not credible, that God (whose judgement is according to truth) will repute a man for just, who is full of iniquity: no more then a simple man will take a Black-moore for white, although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell.

M. PERKINS last reason, is taken from the consent of the auncient Church, And yet citeth (sauing one two liues) nothing out of any auncient writer, nor out of any other, but out of only S. Bernard, who liued 1000. yeare after Christ, so that he signifieth that there is litle releefe to be had in Antiquity. Which Caluin declareth more playnlie, for he commonly set­ting light by all other in this question, rejecteth also S. Augustine saying. Yea not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter, Li. 3. instit. ca. 11. num 15. who attri­buteth our sanctification to grace, wherewith we are regenerate in newnes of life by the spirit. And Kennitius in the first parte of his examination of the Councell of Trent, saith: We contend not how the Fathers take iustification, and a litle after. I am not ignorant that they spake otherwise then we doe of it. Therefore M. PERK. had reason to content himselfe with some fewe broken sentences of later writers. But was S. Bernard trowe you in this one point a Protestant? No­thing lesse his wordes be these.Epist. 190. The iustice of another is assigned vnto man, who wanted his owne: man was indebted, and man made payment, &c. But better let his owne reason there cited, serue for exposition of his former wordes, which is this. For why may not iustice be from an other, aswell as guiltines is from an other: Now guiltines from Adam is not by imputation, but euery one con­tractes his owne, by taking flesh from him, euen so justice is from Christ powred into euery man, that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost. In the second place he saith: That mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God: that is, by Gods free grace and mercy it is bestowed vpon vs. With S. Bernard in the third place, we acknowledge that we haue no justice of our owne, that is from our selues, but from the goodnes of God, through the merits of our bles­sed Sauiours passion, read his first sermon, vpon these wordes of the Pro­phet Isaie. Ser. 1. su­per Isaiam. Vidi Dominum, &c. There you shall see him speake playnlie of inherent justice, and how it is a distinct thing from the justice of Christ. An other broken peece of a sentence, there is cited out of S. Augustine. Christ made his iustice our iustice. In psal. 22. Tract. 27. in Ioan. That is, by his justice, he hath merited justice for vs, as he expoundeth himselfe. What is this, the iustice of God, and the iustice of man? The justice of God is here called that, not whereby God is just, but that which God giueth to man, that man may be just through God.

Now let vs come to the reasons of Catholikes, which M. PERKINS calling the objections, proposeth for them, to proue, that the justice which God bestoweth vpon vs, is inherent, and not imputed.

OF INHERENT IVSTICE.

FIrst object. As one man can not be made wise, valiant, or continent by the wisedome, valure, or continencie of an other, so one man can not be made iust, by the iustice of an other, M. PERKINS answereth, That one mans iustice cannot be made an others, no more then life or health, but Christs iustice may, who by coue­nant [Page 55] of grace is made euery mans owne, with all his giftes.

Reply. This answere solueth not the difficultie any whit at all, for Christs wisedome, power, and other gifts are not imputed vnto vs, as it is euident. Why thē is his justice more then the rest, we confesse that in a good sence all Christs gifts are ours, that is, they were all employed to purchase our redemption, & we doe dayly offer them to God that he wil for his Sonnes sake more 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 misticall body, but this is nothing to the point which the argument touched, how one man may formally be made just by the justice of an other, rather then wise, by the wisdome of an other.

2. Object. If we be righteous, or iust by the righteousnes of Christ imputed vnto vs, then is euery iust man as righteous as Christ himselfe, hauing the same iustice his, which is Christs, but that is too too absurd, ergo: M. PERK. answere. Christs righteous­nes is not applied vnto vs in the same measure, as it is in Christ, in him it is infinit, but of it so much is applied to this, or that man, as will serue for his iustification. And to helpe this answere foreward, I will adde his marginall note, euen as any starre partakes the whole light of the Sunne, with the rest so farreforth as the light makes it to shine.

Reply. That which is applied of Christs justice, to this, or that man; is ei­ther infinite, & then the man is as just as Christ: for there can be no grea­ter then infinit in the same kinde. Or it is not infinit, but in a certayne mea­sure as he seemeth to graunt, and then it is no part of Christs infinit justice, for all the partes of an infinit thing, are infinit: according vnto true Phi­losophy. It remayneth then that a certayne limited portion of justice is de­riued out of Christs infinit justice, and powred into this, or 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 subjects so far distant, neither is it of like vertue to ligh­ten the skyes, as it is euident: but is a farre dimmer light, somewhat like vnto that of the Sunne from whence it came. Euen so in our justification from the Sonne of justice CHRIST IESVS, certayne beames of particular justice are conueyed into this, or that mans soule, whereby it is both ligh­ned by faith, and inflamed by charitie: but there is exceeding difference betweene their two justices, more then there is betweene the light of the sunne, & the light of a starre; which S. August. in expresse tearmes deliue­reth, saying. How much differēce there is betweene the light that doth lighten, Li. 12. conf. cap. 15. & that which is lightened, that is the sun & the starre light, so much difference is there between the iustice that doth iustifie, & that iustice which is made by that iustification: to wit, betweene the justice of Christ, and that which is in euery good Christian.

The third reason for the Catholike partie. If men be made trulie and really just by Christs justice, imputed vnto them, in like manner Christ [Page 56] should be made really vnjust, by the iniquity and sinnes of men imputed vnto him. For there is no reason to the contrary, but one may aswell be made vnjust by imputation, as just; especially considering that euill is made more easelie, and more wayes then good. M. PERKINS answere is, that we may say Christ was a sinner trulie, not because he had sinne in him, but because our sinnes were laide on his shoulders. That reason is naught, for he is not trulie a sinner, that paies the debt of sinne, which an innocent and most just person may performe: but he that either hath sinne trulie in him, or is so by imputation stroken, that the sins are made his owne really, and he in all cases to be delt with all, as if he sinned him­selfe: as they holde that one justified by imputation of Christs justice, is really in Gods sight just, and is both loued in this life, and shall be rewar­ded in the next, as if he were trulie just indeede: But to auouch our Sa­uiour Christ to be so a sinner, is to say that he was auerted from God, the slaue of the Diuell, and sonne of perdition, which is playne blasphemy. That sentence out of the Prophet,Isay. 53. He was counted with sinners, is expoun­ded by the Euangelists, that he was so taken indeede, but by a wicked Iudge, and a reprobate people. And therefore if you allowe of their sen­tence, range your selfe with them, as one of their number. S. Chrysostome by him produced, confirmeth the same, saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner, not that he was one trulie. Christ I knowe is called sinne by S. Paul, but by a figure, signifying that he was a sacri­fice for sinne, as hath beene before declared. The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly,Heb. 4 affirmeth in playne tearmes, that Christ was tempted like vnto vs, in all thinges excepting sinne.

4 Obiect. If a man be righteous only by imputation, he may together be full of iniquity, whereupon it must needes followe, that God doth take for iust and good, him that is both vniust and wicked: but that is absurd, when Gods iudgment is according to truth. Here M. PERKINS yeeldeth, That when God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man, he doth together sanctifie the partie, giuing original sinne a dead­ly wounde. Of orig. sin. pag. 31. And yet else where he said, That originall sinne, which remayned af­ter iustification in the partie, did beare such sway, that it infected all the workes of the said partie, and made him miserable. &c. But it is good hearing of amend­ment, if he will abide in it: Let vs goe on.

5 Obiect. or fift reason, is inuented by M. PERKINS, but may bee rightly framed thus. Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall, but by him we lost inhehent iustice, ergo By him we are restored to inherent iustice. The Maior is gathered out of S. Paul, Rom. 5. who affirmeth, that we receiue more by Christ,Lib. 3. c. 20. li. 6. de gen. 24. 26. 26. then we lost by Adam: And is S. Ireneus, and S. Augustines most expresse doctrine, who say, How are we said to be renewed, if we receiue not a­gaine which the first man lost. &c. Immortality of body we receiue not, but we receiue [Page 57] iustice from the which he fell through sinne.

The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is, The iustice, of the faithfull is eter­nall, dureth after this life, and is crowned in heauen, but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life. ergo.

M. PERKINS answereth. First, that imputed righteousnes continu­eth with vs for euer, and that in heauen, we shall haue no other. Secondly, that perhaps in the end of this life, inward righteousnes shall be perfect, and then without perhaps it shall be most perfect in heauen. So that one part of this answere, ouerthroweth the other. Wherefore I need not stand vpon it, but will proceede to fortifie our partie, with some authorities, ta­ken both forth of the Holy scriptures, and auncient Fathers: The first place I take out of these wordes of S. Paul. And these thinges certes, were you, 1. Cor. 6. (Dronkers, Couetous, Fornicators, &c.) But you are Washed, you are Sanctified, you are Iustified in the name of our LORD IESVS CHRIST, and in the spirit of our Lord: Here iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined,S. Chrysos Ambro. & Theophil in hunc lo­cum. Tit. 3. to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sinnes, and of infusion of Gods Holy giftes by the holy Ghost in the name, and the sake of CHRIST IESVS.

The like description of our iustification is in S. Paul. Of his mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration, and renuinge of the Holy Ghost, whome he hath powred into vs abundantly, through IESVS CHRIST our Sauiour, that being iustified by his grace, we may be heires in hope (and not in certayntie of faith) of life euerlasting. Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace, declareth that in the words before he had described the same iustification, to consist in our new birth of Baptisme, and the renewing of our soules, by the infusion of his heauenly giftes, which God of his mercy did be­stowe vpon vs for his Sonne Christs sake. Many other places I omitte for breuitie sake, and will be content to cite fewe Fathers, because the best learned of our aduersaries doe confesse that they be all against them, as I haue shewed before.

First, S. Augustine saith, That this iustice of ours, De peccat merit. & re miss. cap. 15 Epist. 85. Lib. 12. de Trinit. cap 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit. (which they call righte­ousnes) is the grace of Christ, regenerating vs by the Holy Ghost; And is a beautie of our inward man. It is the renuing of the reasonable part of our soule. And twenty other such like, whereby he manifestly declareth, our justice to be inhe­rent, and not the imputed justice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers. And S. Cyrill for the Greekes, who of our iustification writeth thus. The spirit is a heate, who as soone as he hath powred charity into vs, and hath with the fire of it, inflamed our mindes, we haue euen then obtayned iustice,

THE SECOND DIFFERENCE ABOVT THE MAN­ner of Iustification.

WE all agree in generall, that faith concurreth to our justification, but differ in three poyntes. 1. How faith is to be taken. 2. How it worketh in our justification. 3. Whether it alone doth justifie.

Concerning the first poynt, Catholikes holde a justifying faith, to be that Christian faith, by which we beleeue the articles of our Creede, and all other thinges reuealed by God. The Protestants auerre it to be a par­ticular faith, whereby they apply to themselues the promises of righte­ousnesse, and of life euerlasting by Christ. This to be the true justifying faith, M. PERKINS saith he hath proued already: he shoulde haue donne well, to haue noted the place, for I knowe not where to seeke it: but he will here adde a reason or twaine.

1 Reason. The faith whereby we liue, is the faith whereby we are iustified: but the faith whereby we liue, is a particular faith, whereby we apply Christ to our selues, as Paul saieth,Gal. 2.20. I liue, that is spiritually, by the faith of the sonne of God: which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ, in the wordes following: Who hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me particularly.

Answere. The Maior I admitte, and deny the Minor: and say that the proofe is not to purpose. For in the Minor he speaketh of faith, wherby we apply Christs merits vnto our selues, making them ours, in the proof S. Paul saith only, that Christ died for him in particular. He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice, and making of it his owne, which are very distinct thinges. All Catholikes beleeue with S. Paul, that Christ died, as for all men in generall: so for euery man in particular, yea and that his loue was so exceeding great, towardes mankinde, that he would willingly haue bestowed his life, for the redemption of one only man. But hereupon it doth not followe, that euery man may lay handes vpon Christs righteousnes, and apply it to himselfe (or else Turkes, Iewes, He­retikes, and euill Catholikes, might make very bolde with him) but must first doe those thinges which he requires at their handes, to be made per­takers of his inestimable merits: as to repent them hartely of their sins, to beleue and hope in him, to be baptized, and to haue a full purpose to ob­serue all his commaundements. Which M. PER. also confesseth that all men haue not only promised,Pag. 152. but also vowed in Baptisme. Now because we are not assured that we shall performe all this, therefore we may not so presumptuously apply vnto our selues, Christs righteousnes, & life euer­lasting, although we beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular. That which followeth, M. PER. hath no colour of probability: that S. Paul in this manner of beleefe, that is, in applying to himselfe Christs me­rits: [Page 59] was an example vnto all that are saued.1. Tim. 1 16 Phil. 3.15. See the places good Rea­der, and learne to beware the bolde vnskilfulnesse of sectaries. For there is not a worde sounding that way, but only how he hauing receiued mer­cy, was made an example of patience.

M. PERKINS 2. Reason. That which we must aske of God in prayer, that we must beleeue shall be giuen vs: but in prayer me must aske the merits of Christes righteousnesse to our selues. ergo.

Answere. Of the Maior much hath beene said before, here I admitte it, all due circumstances of prayer being obserued, & deny that we must pray, that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular, for that were greatly to abase them: but good Christians pray, that through the infinite value of those his merits, our sinnes may be forgiuen, & a ju­stice proportionable vnto our capacity, may be powred into our soules, whereby we may leade a vertuous life, and make a blessed end. But it is goodly to beholde, how M. PERKINS proueth that me must pray, that Christs righteousnes may be made our particular justice, because saith he, We are taught in the Pater noster, to pray in this manner: forgiue vs our debts, and to this we must say Amen, which is as much to say as our petition is graunted. I thinke the poore mans wits were gonne a pilgrimage, when he wrote thus. Good Sir, cannot our sinnes or debts be forgiuen, without we apply Christs righteousnes to vs in particular? we say yes. Doe not then so sim­ply begge that which is in question, nor take that for giuen, which will neuer be graunted. But a word with you by the way. Your righteous man must ouer-skippe that petition of the Pater noster (forgiue vs our debts) for he is well assured, that his debts be already pardoned. For at the very first in­stant that he had faith, he had Christs righteousnes applyed to him, and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes, and of life euerlasting. Wherefore he can not without infidelity, distrust of his former justifica­tion, or pray for remission of his debts: but following the famous example of that formall Pharise, in liew of demaunding pardon, may wel say.Luc. 18. O God I giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, vniust, aduouterers, as also these Papists: Fearing the remission of my sinnes, or the certayntie of my saluation, but am well assured thereof, and of Christs owne righteous­nes too, and so forth. But to goe on with M. PERKINS discourse. Here we must note, that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principall dutie of faith, for in faith (saith M. PERKINS) are two thinges: first, knowledge reuealed in the word, touching the meanes of saluation: Secondly, an applying of thinges, knowne vnto our selues, which some call affiance: the first they acknowledge. So then by M. PERKINS owne confession, Catholikes haue true knowledge of the meanes of saluation; (then he and his fellowes erre miserable.) The second which is the substance and principall they denie.

Answere. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope, and a great confidence of obtayning saluation, through the mercy of God, and me­rits of Christs Passion. So they performe their dutie towardes God, and their neighbour, or else die with true repentance. But for a man at his first conuersion, to assure himselfe by faith of Christs righteousnes, and life e­uerlasting; without condition of doing those thinges, 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,See S. Tho 22. q. 21. [...]rt. 1. neither in this life, nor in the world to come.

M. PERKINS third reason, is drawne from the consent of the aun­cient Church, of which for fashion sake to make some shewe, he often speaketh, but can seldome finde any one sentence in them, that fits his purpose, as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine, cited by him. Augustine saith.De verbis Domini. [...]erm. 7. I demaund nowe, doest thou beleeue in Christ, O sinner? thou saiest I beleeue: what beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him, thou hast that which 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 M. PERKINS. But S. Bernard saith playnlie: That we must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe, he addeth conditions on our party, which M. PERK. craftely concealeth. For S. Bernard graunteth that we may be­leeue our sins to be forgiuen, if the truth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs, for in the same place he hath these wordes: 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 truly bewaile our sinnes and confesse them, and afterward follow holines of life and peace. All which M. PERKINS did wisely cut off, because it dashed cleane the vayne glosse of the former wordes.

His last authority is out of S. Cyprian, who exhorteth men, passing out of this life, not to doubt of God promises, but to beleeue that we shall come to Christ with joyfull security.

Answere. S. Cyprian encouradgeth good Christians dying, to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ, and so doe all Catholikes, and bidde them be secure too on that side, that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise, but say that the cause of feare lyes on our owne infirmities: And yet biddes them not to doubt, as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued, but animates them, and puts them in the good way of hope, by twenty kindes of reason.

M. PERKINS hauing thus confirmed his owne partie, why doth he [Page 61] not after his manner confute those reasons, which the Catholikes alleadge in fauour of their assertion? Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter? Nothing lesse: It was then belike, because he knew not how to answere them. I will out of their stoare take that one princi­pall one, of the testimony of holy Scripture, And by that alone sufficient­ly proue, that the faith required to justification, is that Catholike faith, whereby we beleeue all that to be true, which by God is reuealed, and not any other particular beleeuing Christs righteousnes to be ours. How can this be better knowne then if we see, weigh, and consider well, what kinde of faith that was which all they had, who are said in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith.

S. Paul saith of Noe, That he was instituted heire of the iustice, which is, by faith.Heb. 11.7. What faith had he? That by Christs righteousnes he was assured of sal­uation? No such matter, but beleeued that God according to his word and justice, would drowne the world, and made an Arke to saue himselfe, and his familie, as God commaunded him.

Abraham the Father of beleeuers, and the Paterne and example of ju­stice by faith, as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans:Rom. ca. 4. What faith he was iustified by. Let S. Paul declare, who of him and his faith, hath these wordes. He contrary to hope beleeued in hope, that he might be made the Father of manie Nations, according to that which was said vnto him. So shall thy seede be as the starres of heauen, and the sands of the Sea: and he was not weakned in faith, neither did he consider his owne body, now quite dead, whereas hee was almost an hundred yeares old, nor the dead Matrice of Sara, in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust, but was strengthned in faith, giuing glorie to God, most fully knowing, that whatsoeuer he promised, he was able also to doe, therefore was it reputed to him to iu­stice. Loe, because he glorified God in beleeuing, that old and barren per­sons might haue children, if God said the word, and that whatsoeuer God promised, he was able to performe, he was justified. The Centurions faith was very pleasing vnto our Sauiour, who said in commendation of it, That he had not found so great faith in Israell? What faith was that? Marry, that he could with a word cure his seruant absent.Math. 8. Say the word onely (quoth he) & my seruant shall be healed.

S. Peters faith so much magnified by the auncient Fathers, and highlie rewarded by our Sauiour, was it any other, Then that our Sauiour was Christ, Math. 16 the Sonne of the liuing God? And briefly let S. Iohn that great secretarie of the Holy Ghost, tell vs what faith is the finall end of the whole Gospell.Ioh, 20. These thinges, (saith he) are written that you may beleeue that IESVS is CHRIST the Sonne of God, and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name. With the E­uangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well, saying:Rom. 10. This is the word of faith which we preach, for if thou cōfesse with thy mouth our Lord IESVS CHRIST, [Page 62] and shalt beleeue in thy hart that God raised him from death, thou shalt be saued. And in an other place. [...]. Cor. 15. I make knowne vnto you the Gospell, which I haue preached, and by which you shall be saued, vnlesse perhaps you haue beleeued in vayne. What was that Gospell? I haue deliuered vnto you that which I haue receiued, that Christ died for our sinnes, according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose againe the third day, &c. So by the verdite of S. Paul, the beleefe of the articles of the creede, is that justifying faith, by which you must be saued. And neither in S. Paul, nor any other place of Holy Scriptures is it once taught, that a particular faith whereby we applie, Christs righteousnes to our selues, & assure our selues of our saluation, is either a justifying, or any Christian mans faith, but the very naturall act, of that ougly Monster presumption: Which be­ing layd as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion, what mo­rall and modest conuersation, what humility and deuotion can they build vpon it.

The second difference in the manner of justification, is about the for­mall act of faith, which M. PERKINS handleth as it were by the way, cuttedly I will be as shorte as he, the matter not being great. The Catho­likes teach as you haue heard out of the Councell of Trent, in the begin­ning of this question, that many actes of faith, feare, hope, and charity doe goe before our justification, preparing our soule to receiue into it from God, through Christ that great grace.

M. PERKINS Doctor like resolueth otherwise, That faith is an instru­ment, created by God in the hart of man, at his conuersion, whereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes, for his iustification.

This joylie description is set downe without any other probation, then his owne authority that deliuered it: and so, let it passe as already suffici­ently confuted. And if there needed any other disproofe of it, I might ga­ther one more out of this owne explication of it, where he saith that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs, by the word of God, and by the Sacraments. For if faith created in our hartes, be the only sufficient supernaturall instrument, to apprehend that couenant of grace, then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose, and consequently I would fayne know by the way, how litle infants, that can not for want of judgement, and discretion haue any such act of faith, as to lay hold on Christ his ju­stice, are justified? Must we without any warrant in Gods word, contrary to all experience, beleeue that they haue this act of faith, before the come to any vnderstanding.

But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith, M. PER. findes two faults with it, one that we teach faith to goe before justificati­on, whereas by the word of God (saith he) at the very instant, when any man beleeueth first, he is then both, justified and sanctified. What word [Page 63] of God so teacheth? Marry this. He that beleeueth, eateth and drinketh the bo­dy and bloud of Christ, and is already passed from death to life. Io. 6.54. I answere that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing, but of eating his body in the blessed Sacrament, which who so receiueth worthely, obtayneth thereby life euerlasting, as Christ saith expressely in that place. And so this proofe is vayne.

Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures, that faith goeth before justification, first by that of S. Paul. Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord, Rom. 10. shall be saued, but how shall they call vpon him, in whome they doe not beleeue, how shall they beleeue without a preacher, &c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto justification. First, to heare the preacher, then to beleeue afterwardes to call vpon God for mercy, and finally mercy is graunted & giuen in justification: so that prayer goeth betweene faith and justifica­tion. This S. Augustine obserued, when he said. Faith is giuen first, De prede [...] sanct. ca. 7 De spirit. & lit. cap. 30 by which we obteyne the rest. And againe: By the lawe is knowledge of sinne, by faith we obtayne grace, and by grace our soule is cured. If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy write, read the second of the actes, and there you shall finde, how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon, were stro­ken to the hartes and beleeued, yet were they not straight way justified, but asked of the Apostles what they must doe, who willed them to doe penance, and to be baptized, in the name of IESVS, in remission of their sinnes, & then loe, they were justified, so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith, and their justification.

In like manner Queene Candaces Eunuch, hauing heard S. Philippe, an­nouncing vnto him Christ, beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God (no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnes,) yet was he not justified, before descending out of his cha­riot he was baptized.Act. 8. And three dayes passed betweene S. Paules con­uersion and his justification, as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion.Act. 9.

The second fault he findeth with our faith, is that we take it to be no­thing else, but an illumination of the minde, stirring vp the will, which be­ing so moued and helped by grace, causeth in the hart many good spiri­tuall motions. But this (sayes M. PERKINS) is as much to say, that dead men only helped, can prepare themselues to their resurrection. Not so good Sir, but that men spiritually dead, being quickned by Gods spirit, may haue many good motions, for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bo­dies; so the spirit of God by his grace animateth, and giueth life vnto our soules. But of this it hath beene once before spoken at large, in the que­stion of free will.

Pag. 84.THE THIRD DIFFERENCE CONCERNING FAITH, IS this. The Papists say, that man is iustified by faith, yet not by faith alone, but also by other vertues, as the feare of God, hope, loue, &c. The reasons which are brought to maintayne their opinion, are of no moment: well let vs heare some of them, that the indifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. M. PERKINS first Reason.

Luke 7.47.MANY sinnes are forgiuen her, because she hath loued much: whence they ga­ther that the woman there spoken of, had pardon of her sinnes, and was iustifi­ed by loue. Answere. In this text, loue is not made an impulsiue cause, to moue God to pardon her sinnes, but only a signe, to shew that God had already pardoned them.

Reply. Obserue first, that Catholikes doe not teach, that she was par­doned for loue alone, for they vse not (as Protestants doe) when they finde one cause of justification, to exclude all, or any of the rest: But considering that in sundry places of holy write, justification is ascribed vnto many seuerall vertues, affirme that not faith alone, but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto justification, and as mention here made of loue, excludeth not faith, hope, repentance, and such like: so in other places, where faith is only spoken of, there hope, charity, and the rest, must not also be excluded. This sinner had assured beleefe in Christes power to remitte sinnes, and great hope in his mercy that he would for­giue them, great sorrowe and detestation of her sinne also she had, that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete, to wash them with her teares, and to wipe them with the haires of her head. And as shee had true repentance of her former life, so no doubt but shee had also a firme purpose, to leade a newe life. So that in her conuersion, all those vertues mette together, which we holde to concurre to justifica­tion, and among the rest, the preheminence worthely is giuen to loue, as to the principall disposition. She loued our Sauiour as the fountayne of all mercies, and goodnes, and therefore accounted her pretious oynte­ments 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 charity which she bare him. Which noble af­fection of hers, towardes her diuine Redeemer, no question, was most ac­ceptable vnto him, as by his owne word is most manifest: for he said, That many sinnes were forgiuen her, because she loued much. But M. PERKINS saith, that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her, but only a signe of pardon giuen before: which is so contrary to the text, that a man not past all shame, would blush once to affirme it. First Christ saith ex­preslie, that it was the cause of the pardon: Because shee had loued much. [Page 65] Secondly, that her loue went before, is as playnlie declared, both by men­tion of the time past: Because she hath loued, and by the euidence of her fact of washing, wiping, and anoynting his feete: for the which saith our Sa­uiour, then already performed: Manie sinnes are forgiuen her. So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine, so clearly deliuered by the holy Ghost, vnlesse one will be so blindly ledde by our new Masters, that he will beleeue no wordes of Christ, be they neuer so playne, otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them. And this much of the first of those reasons, which M. PERKINS said were of no moment.

2. Reason. Neither Circumcision, nor prepuce, auayleth any thing, Gal. 5.6. but faith that worketh by charity. Hence Catholikes gather, that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to saith, he meanes not faith alone, but as it is ioyned with charity, and o­ther like vertues, as are requisite to prepare the soule of man, to receiue that complete grace of iustification. M. PERKINS answereth that they are joyned toge­ther. But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnes, and maketh it ours. It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table, but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification.

Reply. That it hath the chiefest part, and that faith is rather the instru­ment and hand mayd of charity. My proofe shall be out of the very text alleadged, where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity, as the greeke word Energoumene being passiue, doth playnlie shewe, that faith is moued, led, and guided by charity. Which S. Iames doth demonstrat most mani­fest, saying that. Euen as the body is dead without the soule, so is faith without cha­rity: Making charity to be the life, and as it were the soule of faith: Now no man is ignorant, but it is the soule that vseth the body, as an instrument, euen so then it is charity, that vseth faith as her instrument and inferiour, and not contrarywise: which S. Paul confirmeth at large in a whole chap­ter, prouing charity to be a more excellent gift then faith, or any other, concluding with these wordes. Now there remayneth faith, hope, and charity, 1. Cor. 13. these three, but the greater of these is charity? Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus. Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auaylable, Li. de Tri­nit. cap. 18. for faith (saith he) may be without charity, but it can not be auaylable without it: So that first you see that charity is the mouer, and commaunder, and faith, as her instrument, and hand mayde.

Now that in the worke of justification, it hath the chiefe place, may be thus proued, I demaund whether that worke of justification by faith be done, for the loue of God, and to his honour or no? If not, as it is voyd of charity, so it is a wicked and sinnefull act, no justification, but infection, our owne interest being the principall end of it: now if it comprehend & conclude Gods glory, and seruice in it, that is, if they apply Christs righ­teousnes [Page 66] to them, to glorifie God thereby, then hath charity the principall part therein: for the directing of all, to the honour and glory of God, is the proper office and action of charity. All this reason that charity both concurreth to justification, and that as principall, S. Augustine confirmeth in these wordes:Serm. 22. de verbis Apostol. The house of God, (that is, a righteous and Godly soule,) hath for his foundation faith, hope is the walles of it; but charity is the roofe and perfe­ction of it.

The third of these trifling reasons, is peruersly propounded by M. PER. thus. Faith is neuer alone, therefore it doth not iustifie alone: That this argument is fondly framed, appeereth playnlie in that, that Catholikes doe not deny, but affirme that faith may be without charity, as it is in all sinnefull Catholikes, we then forme the reason thus. If faith alone be the whole cause of justification, then if both, hope and charity were remoued from faith (at least by thought, and in conceipt,) faith would neuerthelesse ju­stifie. But faith considered without hope, & charity will not justifie: ergo, it is not the whole cause of justification. The first proposition can not be denyed of them, who knowe the nature and proprietie of causes, for the entire and total cause of any thing, being (as the Philosophers say) in act, the effect must needes followe, 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 was not the whole cause of that worke.

Now to the second proposition. But their imagined faith can not apply to themselues, Christs righteousnes without the presence of hope and charity. For else he might be justified without any hope of heauen, and without any loue to­wardes God, and estimation of his honour, which are thinges most ab­surd in themselues: but yet very well fitting the Protestants justification, which is nothing else but the playne vice of presumption, as hath beene before declared: Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great, M. PE. graunteth that both, hope and charity must needes be present at the justifi­cation, but doe nothing in it, but faith doth all, as the head is present to the eie, whē it seeth, yet it is the eie alone that seeth. Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy, that the eie alone doth see, whereas in truth it is but the instru­ment of seing, 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 presence of the whole cause, & not only of the instrumen­tall cause. And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe, as the eie cannot see without the head, because it receiueth influence from it, before it cā see, so cannot faith justifie without charity, because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it, before it can doe any thing acceptable in Gods sight.

The fourth reason, if faith alone doe justifie, then faith alone will saue, [Page 67] but it will not saue, ergo. M. PERKINS first denyeth 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 justified, shall he not be sa­ued for want of any thing? I hope you will say yes: euen so any man that is justified, if he depart in that state, no man makes doubt of his saluation, therefore this first shift was very friuoulous. Which M. PERKINS per­ceiuing flies to a second, that for faith alone we shall also be saued, & that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement. Then must those wordes of the holy Ghost so often repeted in the Scriptures be razed out of the text. God at that time will render vnto euery man, according to his workes. But of this more amply in the question of merits.

5. Reason. There be many other vertues, vnto which justification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word: therefore faith alone sufficeth not. The Antecedent is proued, first of feare it is said. He that is without feare, Ecclesias. 1. Rom. 8. Luc. 13. 1. Ioan. 3. cannot be iustified. We are saued by hope. Vnlesse you doe penance, you shall all in like sort perish. We are translated from death to life, (that is justified) because we loue the brethren. Againe of baptisme. Vnlesse you be borne againe of water, and the holy Ghost, you cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen: Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues.Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death, that as Christ is risen from the dead, &c. So we may al­so walke in newes of life: To all these and many such like places of Holy Scripture, it pleased M. PERKINS to make answere in that one.Rom. 8. You are saued by hope: to wit; that Paules meaning is only, that we haue not as yet saluation in possession, but must wayte patiently for it, vntill the time of our full deliuerance, this is all. Now whether that patient expectation, which is not hope, but issueth out of hope, of eternall saluation, or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation, he sayeth neither yea nor nay, & leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe. S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation, it is best to beleeue him: & so neither to exclude hope or charity, or any of the foresaid vertues, from the worke of justification, hauing so good warrant as the word of God, for the confirmation of it.

To these authorities and reasons, taken out of the holy Scriptures, let vs joyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church, reseruing the rest vnto that place, wherein M. PER. citeth some for him. The most aun­cient and most valiant Martir S. Ignatius, of our justification writeth thus.Epist. ad Philip. The beginning of life is faith, but the end of it is charity, but both vnited and ioyned to­gether, doe make the man of God perfect.

Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith. Faith goeth before, Libr. 2. strom. but feare doth build, and charity bringeth to perfection.

Saint Iohn Chrysostome, Patriarch of Constantinople hath these wordes: [Page 68] Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued,Hom. 70. in Mat.he disputeth of the punishment of euill men, and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith, and the faithfull to liue well.

Lib. 3. hy­pognost.S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants, and saith: Heare O foolish Heretike, and enemy to the true faith. Good workes, which (that they may be donne, are by grace prepared, and not of the merits of free will) we condemne not: be­cause by them, or such like, men of God haue beene iustified, are iustified, and shall be iustified. De side & oper. c. 14. And, Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the harts of the faith­full: Least by euill security they lose their saluation, if they shall thinke faith alone, to be sufficient to obtayne it.

Now the doctrine which M. PERKINS teacheth, is cleane contrary. For (saith he) A sinner is iustified by faith alone, that is, nothing that man can doe by nature or grace, concurreth thereto as any kind of cause, but faith a lone. Farther he saith, That faith it selfe is no principall, but rather an instrumentall cause, whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification. So that in fine, we haue that faith so much by them magnified, and called the only and whole cause of our justification, is in the end become no true cause at all, but a bare condition, without which we cannot be justified. If it be an instrumentall cause,Conditio sine qua non. let him then declare what is the principall cause, whose instrument faith is? and choose whether he had leifer to haue charity, or the soule of man without any helpe of grace.

But to come to his reasons. The first is taken out of these wordes. As Moyses lift vp the serpent in the desart, Ioh. 3. 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 justificati­on by only faith? Marry M. PERKINS drawes it in after this fashion. As nothing was required of them who were strong 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 eye of faith vpon Christs righteousnes, and apply that to himselfe in particular. But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text. Similttudes be not in all poynts alike, neither must be streatched beyond the very poynt wherein the similitude lyeth, which in this matter is, that like as the Israelites in the Wildernes stoung with ser­pents, were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent: so men infected with sin, haue no other remedy, 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 easely rejected by vs, as it is by him obtruded without any authority, or probability.

His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches (as he speaketh) vsed in Scriptures.Gal 2.16. As we are iustified freely, not of the lawe, not by the lawe not of workes, [Page 69] not of our selues, not of the workes of the lawe, but by faith: all boasting excluded: Luke 8.50: only beleeue. These distinctions whereby works & the law are excluded in the worke of justification, include thus much, that faith alone doth justifie.

It doth not so: for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare, hope and charity, more then they exclude faith it selfe. Which may be called a worke of the lawe, aswell as any other vertue, being as much required by the lawe as any other. But S. Paules meaning in those places is, to ex­clude all such workes, as either Iewe or Gentile did, or could bragge of, as donne of themselues, and so thought that by them, they deserued to be made Christians. For he truly 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 desart of their owne: And that to obtayne this grace through Christ, it was not needefull, nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses lawe, as Circumcision, the obseruation of any of their feastes, or fastes, nor any such like worke of the lawe, which the Iewes reputed so necessary. Againe, that all mo­rall workes of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace, which workes 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 justification, and consequently, all their boasting of their owne forces, their first justification being freely bestowed vpon them. Yet all this notwithstanding, a certaine vertuous disposition is re­quired in the Iewe and Gentile, whereby his soule is prepared to re­ceiue that great grace of justification: that say we, is faith, feare, hope, loue, and repentance, that (say the Protestants) is faith only. Wherefore say we as the excluding of workes, and boasting exclude not faith, no more doe they exclude the rest, faith being as well our worke, and a worke of the lawe 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. Now that out of S Luke, beleeue only, is nothing to the purpose. For he was bid beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life, and not that Christs righteousnes was his: and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtayne a myracle, but not to obtayne justification, of which the question only is.

Consider now good Reader, whether of our interpretations agree bet­ter, with the circumstances of the text, and the judgement of the auncient Fathers. The texts see thou in the Testament. Take for a taste, of the Fa­thers judgement, S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul, of one of the chiefest of which, thus he speaketh. Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith, We esteeme a man to be iustified without the lawe, De gra. & lib. a [...]b. c 7. thought him to say, that faith sufficed a man althoug he liued euill, and had no good workes: which God forbid, that the vessell of election should thinke. And againe.

De predest. sanct. c 7. Therefore the Apostle saith, that a man is iustified by faith, and not of workes, be­cause saith is first giuen, and by it the rest (which are properly called workes, and in which we liue justlie) are by petition obtayned.

By which it is manifest, that S. Paul excluding the workes of the lawe, and the workes donne by our owne only forces, doth not meane to ex­clude good workes, which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace

THAT FAITH ONLY DOTH NOT IVSTIFIE.

MASTER PERKINS third Argument. Very reason may teach vs thus much: that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner, sauing faith, loue, hope, feare, repentance, haue their seuerall vses, but none of them serue for this ende of apprehending, but faith only.

Amswere. Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith, and he that hath no better an instructor in such high misteries, must needs know little. But what if that also faile you in this poynt? then euery man can­not but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability. I say then, that reason rather teacheth the contrary. For in common sence, no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing, by beleeuing that he hath it. For if a man shoulde 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 fitte instrument to apply and drawe these thinges to himselfe, as all the worlde sees. How then doth reason teach me, that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to bee 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 neede 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 bolde to say, that any other vertue is as proper as faith, to haue Christ ap­plyed 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 shal please him to appoynt, is alike apt: and so M. PERKINS had small reason to say, that faith was the only apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse.

Moreouer, true diuine reason teacheth me, that both hope and charity, doe much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits, and make them doe then faith: For what faith assureth me of in generall, that hope [Page 71] applyeth 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. But charity 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 lawe of friendshippe: Amicorum omnia sunt communia. And there­fore in true reason, neither by faith, nor any other vertue, we take such holde on Christs merittes, nor haue such interest in his inestimable trea­sures, as by charity: which S. Augustine vnderstoode well, when he made it the modell, and measure of justification: saying, That Charity beginning, De nat. & gra. c. vlt. was Iustice beginning: Charity encreased, was Iustice encreased: great Charity, was great Iustice: and perfect Charity, was perfect Iustice.

M. PERKINS fourth Reason, is taken from the iudgement of the auncient Church: They are blessed, to whome without any labour or worke donne, Ambros. in Rom. 4. iniquities are remitted. So no workes or repentance is required of them, but only that they beleeue. To these and such like wordes, I answere.

First, that it is very vncertaine, whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses.

Secondly, that, that Author excludeth not repentance, but only the workes of Moyses lawe, which the Iewes helde 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 Hebrewes: where hee hath these wordes. Faith is a great thing, and without it, it is not possible to be saued, but faith alone doth not suffice: but it is necessary, that faith vvorke by charity, and conuerse worthy of God.

M. PERKINS next authority is gathered out of S. Augustine. De verb. Ap. ser. 40. There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ; True, but where is it, that we neede nothing else, but to beleeue.

Hesichius saith, Grace which is of mercy, is apprehended by faith alone, Leuit. li. 1. cap. 2. and not of workes: that is, we doe not meritte by our workes done before grace, anything at GODS hand, but of his mercy receiue both, faith and iustification.

4. Bernard hath: Whosoeuer thirsteth after righteousnes: let him beleeue in thee: Sup. cant. serm. 22. that being iustified by faith alone, he way haue peace with God.

Answere. By faith alone, he excludeth all other meanes, that either Iewe, or Gentile required, but not charity: Which his very wordes in­clude for howe can wee abhorre sinne, and thirst after justice, without charity: and in the same worke:Serm. 24. He declareth playnely that he com­prehendeth alwayes charity, when hee speakes of a justifying faith: saying. A right faith doth not make a man righteous, if it worke not by [Page 72] Charity. And againe: Neither workes without faith, nor faith without workes is sufficient to make the soule righteous.

Gal. 3.5. Chrysostome they said, he who rested on faith alone, was accursed: but Paul sheweth, that he is blessed who rested on faith alone. Answere. He speakes of the Iewes who held Christians accursed, because resting on the faith in Christ would not obserue withall Moyses law: the Apostle contrary wise denoun­ceth them accursed,Gal. 5. who would joyne the ceremonies of Moyses lawe, with Christian religion, and so faith alone, there excludeth onely the old lawe, not the workes of charity, so he mangleth pittifully a sentence of S. Basils, saying:De humil. Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice, and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ: If a man knowe him selfe iustified by faith in Christ, howe can he acknowledge that hee wants true justice? His wordes tru­ly repeted are these. Let man acknowledge that hee is vnworthie of true iu­stice: and that his iustification comes not of his desert, but of the meere mercy of GOD through Christ. So that by faith alone S. Basill treating of humility, excludes all merite of our owne, but no necessary good disposition, as you may see in his Sermon, de fide, where he proues by manie textes of Holy Scripture, that charity is as necessary as faith.

Rom. 3.M. PERKINS last testimony is out of Origen: Who proues (as M. PER. said) that onely beleeuing without workes iustifieth, by the example of the Theefe on the Crosse, of whose good workes there is no mention.

Answere. Origen excludeth no good disposition in vs to justification but saith, that a man may be saued, without doing outwardly any good workes; If he want time and place: as the Theefe did, who presently vp­on his conuersion was put to death, which is good Catholike Doctrine: but that you may perceiue how necessary the good dispositions before mentioned, be to justification, you shall finde if you consider well all cir­cumstances, not one of them to haue beene wanting in that good Theefes conuersion. First, that he stood in feare of Gods just judgement, appeares by these his wordes, to his fellowe, Doest thou not feare God, &c. He had hope to be saued by Christ, out of which he said: O Lord remember me, when thou comest into thy Kingdome: By both, which speeches is shewed also his faith both in God, that he is the gouuernour and just judge of the world, and in Christ, that he was the Redeemer of mankinde. His repentance and con­fession of his fault, is laid downe in this: And we truly suffer worthely: His charity towardes God and his neighbour, in reprehending his fellowes blasphemie, in defending Christs innocency: and in the middest of his greatest disgraces, and raging enemies, to confesse him to be King of the world to come: out of all which we 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 the lacked not [Page 73] any one of those dispositions, which the Catholike Church requires to justification. Now that, that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualities out of the companies of faith; is apparant: by that which he hath written on the next Chapter: where he saith.Rom. 4. That faith cannot be imputed to iustice, to such as beleeue in Christ, vnlesse they doe withall put of the old man, and a little before more playnlie saying: I thinke that faith is the first beginning of saluation, hope is proceeding in the building, but the toppe and perfe­ction of the whole worke, is charity.

THE THIRD DIFFERENCE ABOVT IVSTIFICATION, howe farre forth good workes are required thereto.

MASTER PERKINS saith,Pag. 91. That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kindes of iustification: the first, when of a sinner one is made iust: the which is of the meere mercy of God, through Christ, without any merit of man, one­ly some certayne good deuotions of the soule, (as the actes of Faith, Feare, Hope, Cha­rity, Repentance) goe before, to prepare as it were the way, and to make it more sit to receiue that high grace of iustification.

The second iustification is, when a iust man by the exercise of vertues, is made more iust: as a Childe newe borne, doth by nuriture growe, day by day bigger: of this in­crease of grace, Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause.

M. PERKINS first graunteth, that good workes doe please God, and haue a temporall reward.

2. That they are necessary to saluation, not as the cause thereof, but ei­ther as markes in away to direct vs towardes saluation: or as fruites and signes of righteousnes, to declare one to be just before men: all which he shuffleth in, rather to delude our arguments, then for that they esteeme much of good workes, which they hold to be no better then deadly sins.

The maine difference then betweene vs, consisteth in this, whether good workes be the true cause indeede, of the increase of our righteous­nes, which we call the second justification, or whether they be only fruits, signes, or markes of it.

M. PERKINS pretendes to proue, that they are no cause of the in­crease of our justice: and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose: but repeates those objections, and proposeth them now at large, which he made before, against the first justification: the which although impertinent to this place, yet I will solue them first, and then set downe our owne.

We conclude that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the lawe. 2 Rom. 3. Answere. The Apostle there speaketh of the justification of a sinner: for he saith before, that he hath proued, both Iewe, and Greeke, to be vnder [Page 74] sinne; and that all haue sinned, and neede the glory of God: Wherefore this place appertaynes not vnto the second justification: and excludes on­ly either workes of the law, as not necessary vnto the first justification of a sinner: against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary: or else against the Gentils any worke of ours, from being any meritorious cause of that first justification: for we acknowledge very willingly (as you haue heard often before) that euery sinner is justified freely of the meere grace of God, through the merit of Christ onely, and without any merit of the sinner himselfe: and yet is not a sinner (being of yeares of discreti­on,) meerely passiue in that his justification, as M. PERKINS very ab­surdly saith: for in their owne opinion he must beleeue (which is an a­ction:) and in ours not onely beleeue but also, Hope, Loue, & Repente: And this kinde of justification excludeth all boasting in our soules, as wel as theirs. For as they must graunt, that they may not bragge of their faith, although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their justification, that without it, they could not be justified: euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations, which we hold to be necessary, that we cannot truly boast of them, as though they came of our selues, but we confesse all these good inspirations, as all other good, to descend from the bounteous liberality of the father of lightes: and for the yeelding of our consent to them; we can no more vaunt, then of consenting vnto faith, all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake, and vnable of himselfe to get out, would be content that an other of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it. Yet obserue by the way: that Saint Paul for­biddeth not all glorying or boasting:Rom. 5. For he gloryeth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of GOD,2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations: Againe. He defineth that we may glory in measure, and that he might glory in his power. And that he was constayned to glory in his visions and reuelations: 2. Cor. 12. So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord, and in his heauenly giftes, so it be in measure, and due season. Ac­knowledging them from whence they come. But to boast and say that eyther GOD needed vs, or that our good partes were cause, that GOD called vs first to his seruice, is both false, and vtterly vnlawe­full.

Ephes. 2. So that by grace yea are saued through faith, and that not of your selues, it is the gift of God: not of workes least any man should boast himselfe. Is nothing a­gainst our Doctrine of justification, but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it: and note also with Saint Augustine, that faith is there men­tioned,Lib. 83. q. 76. to exclude all merites of our workes, which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue beene some cause why God be­stowed his first grace vpon vs: but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace: and therefore very fondly doth [Page 75] M. PERKINS inferre, that in that sentence Saint Paul speaketh of workes of grace: because in the text following hee mentioned good workes. Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kinde of workes, signifying the first: To be of ourselues. The se­cond, To proceede from vs as Gods workemanshippe, created in CHRIST IESVS, and the first, he calleth Workes simply: the second, Good workes, prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification. What grosse ignorance then was it, to take these two so distinct manner of workes, for the same, and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it.

Now to his second reason. If you be circumcised, Gal. 9. you are bound to the whole lawe. Hence thus he argueth: If a man will be iustified by workes, he is bound to fulfill the whole lawe, according to the rigour of it. That is Paules ground: But no man can fulfill the lawe, according vnto the rigour of it: ergo. No man can be iustified by workes. He can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument. Erit mihi magnus Appollo: Saint Paul only saith in these wordes: That if you bee circumcised, yea are bound to keepe the whole lawe of Moyses. M. PERKINS, That if a man will be iustified by workes, he must fulfill the rigour of the lawe: Which are as just as Germains lippes, as they say: But M. PERKINS sayes that it is Saint Paules ground: but he is much deceiued, for the Apostles ground is this. That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme, and therefore he that would be circumcided, did make himselfe subject vnto the whole lawe of the Iewes. Of the possibilities of fulfilling the lawe, because M. PERKINS toucheth so often that string, shall be treated in a distinct question, as soone as I haue dispatched this.

M. PERKINS third Argument. Election to saluation is of grace without workes: wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes: because election is the cause of iustification.

Answere. That election is of grace without workes, done of our owne simple forces, or without the workes of Moyses lawe: but not without prouision of good workes issuing out of faith, and the helpe of Gods grace, as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits.

OF THE SECOND IVSTIFICATION.

THE fourth argument. A man iust be fully iustified, before he can doe a good worke: and therefore good workes can not goe before iustification. True, not before the first justification of a sinner. But good Sir, you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second justification: And hauing before discussed the first, [Page 76] and the second now remayning, and expecting you, why did you not say one word of it, the matter being ample and well worthy the handling? albeit you will not willingly confesse any second justification as you say: Yet had it beene your part at least to haue disproued such arguments, as we bring to proue a second justification: Yee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification: But these degrees must be made downeward of euill, worser and worst: for if all our sanctification and best workes be like vnto defiled cloutes, and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold, and else where,Pag. 76. let any wise man judge what degrees of goodnes can be lodged in it. Againe, how absurd is that position, that there is but one ju­stification, whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnes, which can neuer after, be either loosed or increased. Why then doe you with your brother Iouinian, maintayne, that all men are equally righteous? If it so be:Lib. 2. con Iouin. Epist 81. Epist 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. let him that desireth to see you well coursed, read. S. Hier. S. Amb. S. August. S. Greg. At least we must needes vphold that a man is as just and righteous at his first conuersion, as at his death, how Godly a life soeuer he lead: against which I will put downe these reasons following.

First that of the reuelations. Let him that is iust be yet iustified: or as your text hath it.Cap. 22. He that is righteous, let him be more righteous: and that of, feare not to be iustified euen vntill death: Eccles. 18. doe conuince, that there are more justifica­tions then one, and that a man may increase in justification, and righteous­nes vntill death. Which is confirmed, where it is said: That the path of a iust man proceedeth, Prob. 4. as the light doth vntill it be perfect day; Which is degrees more & more: And S. Paul teacheth the same, where he saith to men that giue almes plentifully.2. Cor. 9. That God will multiply their seede, and augment the increases of the fruits of their iustice. Further, S. Iames doth most effectually proue this increase of righteousnes, and the second iustification, in these wordes. Abraham our father was he not iustified by workes, offering Isaac his Sonne vpon the Aultar. Cap. 2. 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 & entire­ly beloued Sonne,Genes. 15. Rom. 4. his iustice was much augmented. And the Apostle himselfe seemeth to haue forseene all our aduersaries cauillation, and to haue so longe before preuented them: First, that common shift of theirs (that this worke was a signe, or the fruit onely 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 worke, and joyning them both in this act of justification, attributeth the better part of it, vnto his worke: thus; Seest thou that faith did worke with his workes, and by the workes the faith was consummate and made perfect. Which he doth after fitly declare by a similitude, comparing faith to the body, and good workes to the [Page 77] soule: which giue life and lustre to faith, otherwise faith is of litle value & estimation with God. Which S. Paul also teacheth at large, among other speeches including this: That if he should haue all faith, and wanted charity, 1. Cor. 13 he were nothing: And comparing faith & charity together, defineth expresly, that charity is the greater vertue: Which charity is the fountayne of all good workes. And so by this preferring these workes of charity, before faith, he doth stop the other starting hole of the Protestants, that Abra­ham forsooth was justified before God, by onely faith: but was declared just before men by his workes: For if God esteeme more of charity, then of our faith, a man is more justified before God by charity, then by faith: Againe, in the very place where this noble fact is recorded, to shew how acceptable it was to God himselfe, it is said in the person of God:Gen. 22. Nowe I knowe 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 workes, and that the worke made his faith perfect: which conjunction of both of them together, doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his justification before God: adding also, That he was therefore called the friend of God. Which could not haue beene, if thereby he had beene only declared just before men, & thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles, S. Paul, & S. Iames, which seeme contrarie. S. Paul saying that a man is iustified by faith, without workes, and S. Iames, that a man is iustified by workes, and not by faith onely. That S. Paul speaketh of workes, which goe before faith, such as we of our owne forces, without the helpe of grace are able to doe: and such he saith not to deserue our first iustification. But S. Iames disputeth of workes, which followe faith, and issue out of our soules, nowe garnished with grace, and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by, that is, made more and more iust: See the place. He saith directly,L. 83. quest q. 76. Serm. 16. de verb. Apos. that we are iusti­fied, and that this justice doth increase, whiles it doth proceede and profit.

Nothing then is more certaine and cleare, then that there our justifica­tion may daylie be augmented: and it seemeth to me, that this also bee graunted in their opinion: For they holding faith to be the only in­strument of justification, cannot deny, but that there are many degrees of faith, it is so plainely taught in the worde: O yee of little faith. Math. 8. Luc. 19. And then a little after, I haue not founde so great faith in Israell: And O Lord in­crease our faith: and many such like, where many different degrees of faith are mentioned. How then can the justification which dependes vpon that faith, not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith, but all one?Pag. 54. Againe, M. PERK. deliuereth plainly, That men at the first, are not so well assured of their saluation, as they are afterward; If then in the certainty of their saluation, which is the prime effect of their justification they put degrees, they must perforce allowe them in the justificatiō it selfe. And thus much of this question:Pag. 200. the objections which M. PERKINS makes for vs in [Page 78] this Article: doe belong either to the question of merits, or of the possi­bility of fulfilling the lawe, or to the perfection of our justice: and there­fore I remitte them to those places: and will handle the two latter poynts, before I come to that of merits.

WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR A MAN IN GRACE, to fulfill Gods lawe.

Pag. 95. Gal. 5.MASTER PERKINS argueth, that it is vnpossible: First, for that Paul tooke it for his ground, that the lawe could not be fulfilled. Admitte it were so. I then would answere, that he meant, that a man helped on­ly with the knowledge of the lawe, cannot fulfill the lawe: but by the ayde of Gods grace, he might be able to doe it. Which I gather out of S. Paul, Rom. 8. where he saith, That, that which was impossible to the lawe, is made by the grace of Christ possible.

2 Object. The liues and workes of most righteous men, are imperfect and stayned with sinne; ergo quid? Of this, there shall be a seuerall Article.

3 Object. Our knowledge is imperfect, and therefore out faith, repentance, and sanctification is answerable. I would to God all our workes were answera­ble to our knowledge, then would they be much more perfect then they are, but this Argument is also impertinent, and doth rather proue it pos­sible to fulfill the lawe, because it is possible to knowe all the lawe: Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge: we may also ful­fill it.

4 Object. A man regenerate, is partly flesh, and partly spirit, and therefore his best workes, are partly from the flesh. Not so, if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit,Rom. 8.13. as the Apostle exhorteth. But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question. I will helpe M. PERKINS to some better, that the matter may be more throughly examined. Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes, Act. 1.15. which neither we, nor our Fathers were able to be are? these wordes were spoken of the lawe of Moyses: there­fore we were not able to fulfill it.

I answere first, that, that lawe could not be fulfilled by the only helpe of the same lawe, without the further ayde of Gods grace.

Secondly, that it was so burdensome and comberous, by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices, Sacraments, and Ceremonies, that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace: and in that sence, it is said to be such a yoke, as we were not able to beare. Because thinges very hard to be donne, are now and then, called impossible. Now that Iosue, Ios. 11.3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. 4. Reg. 23. Luke 1. Dauid, Iosias, Zachary, Elizabeth, and many others, did fulfill all the lawe, is recorded in holy Scripture: Wherefore it is most manifest, that it might be kept.

To will is in me, but I finde not how to performe. Rom. 7. If S. Paul could not performe that which he would, how can others?

Answere. He speakes there of auoyding al euil motions, and temptations, which he would willingly haue donne, but he could not: Marry he could well by the assistance of Gods grace, subdue those prouocations to sinne, and make them occasions of vertue: and consequently, keep all the com­maundements, not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them. The like answere we make vnto that objection, that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbors goods, his wife, or seruants, which as they say is impossible: but we holde, that it may be well donne, vnderstanding the commaundement rightly, which prohibiteth not to haue euill motions of couetuousnes and lechery: but to yeelde our consent vnto them. Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refrayne his consent from such wicked temptations,Libr. 10. conf c. 7. Iac. 3.2. 1. Ioan. 1. that S. Au­gust thinketh it may be donne of a mortified vertuous man, euen when he is a sleepe. And testifieth of himselfe, that waking he performed it. Wee doe all offend in many thinges. And if we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues. But if we could obserue all the lawe, we should offend in nothing, nor haue any sinne. ergo.

Answere. I graunt that we offend in many thinges: not because it is not possible to keepe them, but for that we are fraile, and easely ledde by the craft of the Diuell into many offences which we might auoyde, if wee were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be: againe, although wee cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences, yet may wee fulfill the lawe, which is not transgressed and broken, vnlesse we committe some mortall sinnes. For veniall sinnes, either for the smalnesse of the mat­ter, or want of consideration, are not so opposite to the lawe, as that they violate the reason, and purport of it, although they be somewhat dis­agreeing with it. But of this matter more fully in some other place.

Lastly, it may be objected that the way to heauen is straite, & the gate narrowe: which is so true, that it seemeth impossible to be kept by flesh and bloud: but that which is impossible to men of themselues, is made possible, and easie too, by the grace of God: which made S. Paul to say, I can doe all thinges in him, that strengthneth and comformeth me: Philip. 4. Psal. 118, And the Pro­phet Dauid, after thou O Lord hadest dilated my hart (and with thy grace set it at liberty) I did runne the waies of thy commaundements: that is, I did readely, and willingly performe them. Of the loving of GOD vvith all our hart, &c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of justice.

Hauing nowe confuted all that is commonly proposed to proue the impossibility of keeping Gods commaundements, let vs now see what [Page 80] we can say in proofe of the possibility of it: First, S. Paul is very playnlie for it,Rom. 8. saying. That which was impossible to the lawe, in that is weakned by the flesh, God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh, of sinne, damned sinne in the flesh, that the iustification of the lawe might be fulfilled in vs, who walke not according to the flesh; but according vnto the spirit. See how formally he teacheth, that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne, purchased vs grace to fulfill the law, which be­fore was impossible vnto our weake flesh. Againe, how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion, of thinking Gods commaundements to be impossible, may appeare by that Epistle.cap. 5. lath. 11. And his commaundements be not heauy. Which is taken out of our Sauiours owne wordes. My yoke is sweete, and my burthen is light. The reason of this is, that although to our corrupt frailty, they be very heauy: Yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our hartes by the holy Ghost, then loe, doe we with delight fulfill them. For as the A­postle witnesseth.Rom. 13. Charity is the fulnes of the lawe. And, He that doth loue his neighbour, hath fulfilled the lawe: Which Christ himselfe teacheth, when he affirmeth, [...]lath. 22. That the whole lawe, & Prophets depend vpon these two commaundements, 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 Charity: we hold it to be the principall part of inherent justice: they say that their justifying faith can neuer be seperated from it: So that a righteous man, being also indued with charity, is able thereby to fulfill the whole lawe. Let vs adjoyne vnto these Authorities of holy write, the testimony of one auncient Father or two,Serm. in il­ [...]ud, Atten­ [...]ie tibi De nat. & gra. cap. 69. S. Basil affirmeth. That it is im­pious and vngodly, to say that the commaundements of the spirit be vnpossible.

S. Augustine defineth, That we must beleeue firmely, that God being iust & good, coulde not commaunde thinges that be impossible for vs to fulfill: The reason may be, that it is the part of a tyrant, and no true lawemaker, to commaund his subjectes to doe that vnder payne 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 just) but snares to catch the most diligent in, and to binde them vp to most assured perdition. Wherefore it was after­ward decreed in an approued Councell of Aransican,2. Can. vlt. as an article of faith in these wordes. This also we beleeue according to the Catholike faith, that all men baptised by grace there receiued, with the helpe and cooperation of Christ, both can, & ought to keepe and fulfill those thinges, which belong to saluation. The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the com­maundements.Math. 19. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commaundements.

This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the lawe.

THAT GOOD WORKES BE NOT STAYNED WITH SINNE.

NOVV that just mens workes be not sinnes: which I proue first, by some workes of that patterne of patience, Iob. Of whome 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, Cap. 2. and preseruing his innocency. If he continued and innocent, he sinned not: Againe, if in all these instigations to impatience, he remayned patient: these his workes were perfect. For S. Iames saith, Esteeme it my brethren, Cap. 1. all ioy, when you shall fall into diuers temptations: knowing that the probation of your saith, worketh patience: And let patience haue a perfect worke, that you may be per­fect and entire, fayling in nothing.

2 King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast (O Lord) proued my hart, thou hast visited me in the night, Psal. 16. thou hast tried me in fire, and there was no iniquity founde in me. It must needes then be graunted, that some of his workes at least were free from all sinne and iniquity. And that the most of them were such, if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it, I hope you will beleeue it: reade then, where it is of recorde, That Dauid did that, 3. Reg. 15. which was right in the sight of our Lord (and not on­ly in the sight of men) and turned from nothing that he commaunded him, all the dayes of his life, except only the matter of Vrias the Hethite.

3 The Apostle affirmeth,1 Cor. 3. That some men doe builde vpon the only foundation Christ Iesus, golde, siluer, and pretious stones: that is, being choyce members of Christes Catholike Church, doe many perfect good workes, such as be­ing tried in the fornace of Gods judgement, will suffer no losse or detri­ment, as he there saith expresly: Wherefore they must needes be pure, and free from all drosse of sinne, otherwise hauing beene so proued in fire, it would haue beene found out.

4 Many workes of righteous men please God.Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 2. Make your bodies a quicke sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God: the same offering spirituall sacrifices ac­ceptable to God: And S. Paul, calleth almes bestowed on him in prison, Phil. 4. an acceptable sacrifice of sweete sauour, and pleasing God. But nothing infected with sinne (al which he hateth deadly) can please God and be acceptable in his sight: God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sinne, or as the Prote­stants speake, not impute it to the person: but to say that a sinfull worke is of sweete sauour before him, and a gratefull sacrifice to him, were blas­phemy: wherefore we must needes confesse, that such workes which so well pleased him, were not defiled with any kinde of sinne.

Finally, many workes in holy write be called good, as,Math. 5. 1. Tim. 6. Ephes 2. That they may see your good workes: to be rich in good workes: Wee are created in CHRIST IESVS [Page 82] to good workes: but they could not trulie be called good workes, if they were infected with sin. For according to the judgement of all learned Di­uines, it can be no good worke, that fayleth either in substance, or cir­cumstance, that hath any one fault in it: For, Bonum ex integra causa ma­lum, exquolibet defectu. Wherefore we must either say, that the H. Ghost calleth euill good, which were blasphemy, or else acknowledge, that there be many good workes free from all infection of sinne.

In lieu of the manifolde testimony of Antiquity, which doth nothing more then recommend good workes, and paint out the excellencie of them: I will set downe one passage of S. August. wherein this very con­trouersie is distinctly declared, and determined: thus he beginneth: The iustice (through which the iust man liueth by faith) because it is giuen to man by the spiritte of grace is true iustice: Li. 3. cont. duas epist. Felag. c. 7. the which although it be worthely called in some men perfect, according to the capacitie of this life, yet it is but small in compari­son of that greater, which man made equall to Angelles shall receiue. Which (hea­uenly iustice) he that had not as yet said himselfe to be perfect, in regard of that iu­stice that was in him; and also imperfect; if it be compared to that which he wanted. But certainely this lesser iustice, or righteousnesse, breedeth, and bringeth forth merittes, and that greater, is the rewarde thereof. Wherefore he that pursueth not this, shall not obtayne that: Hitherto S. Augustine. Note first, that he defi­neth the justice which we haue in this life, to be true justice, which is pure from all injustice and iniquity: Then, that it is also perfect, not fayling in any dutie, which we be bound to performe. Lastly, that it bringeth forth good workes, such as merit life euerlasting. True it is also, that this justice although perfect in itselfe, so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permitte: yet being compared vnto the state of justice which is in heauen, it may be called imperfect, not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods lawe: but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne: and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath.De spir. & lit. vlt. cap. S. Augustine hath the like discourse, where he saith directly, that it appertaines to the lesser justice of this life, not to sinne. So that we haue out of this oracle of Antiquity: that many workes of a just man are without sinne.

To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures, and partly out of the record of Antiquity, let vs joyne one or two drawne from the absur­dity of our aduersaries doctrine, which teacheth euery good woorke of the righteous man to be infected with mortall sin: Which being graun­ted, it would followe necessarily, that no good worke in the world, were to be donne vnder paine of damnation: thus: No mortall sinne is to be donne vnder paine of damnation: Rom. 6. for the wages of sinne is death: but all good works are stay­ned with mortall sinne. ergo no good worke is to be donne vnder paine of damnation. [Page 83] It followeth secondly, that euery man is bounde to sinne deadly. For all men are bounde to performe the duties of the first and second table: but euery performance of any dutie is necessary linked with some mortall sinne: therefore euery man is bounde to committe many mortall sinnes: and consequently to be damned. These are holy and comfortable con­clusions, yet inseparable companions, if not sworne brethren of the Pro­testants doctrine. Now let vs heare what Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity.

THAT GOOD WORKES BE FREE FROM SINNE.

FIRST they alleadge these words, Enter not O Lord, Psal 141. into iudgement with thy seruāt, because no liuing creature shal be iustified in thy sight. If none can be ju­stified before God, it seemes that none of their works are just in his sight. Answere. There are two common expositions of this place, among the auncient Fathers: both true, but far from the Protestants purpose. The former is S. Augustines, S. Hieromes, De perfect iustitie. Epistol. ad Otesiph. S. Gregories in his Commentaries vpon that place: who say, that no creature ordinarily liueth without many ve­niall sinnes, for the which in justice they may be punished sharply, either in this life, or else afterward in Purgatory. Wherefore the best men doe very prouidently pray vnto God, not to deale with them according vn­to their deserts: for if he should so doe, they cannot be justified and clea­red from many veniall faultes. And therefore they must all craue pardon for these faultes, or else endure Gods judgements for them, before they can attayne vnto the reward of their good deedes. The second expositi­on is more ordinary, with all the best writers vpon the Psalmes: as S. Hi­lary, S. Hierome, S. Arnobius, S. Euthimius, and others:Li. ad Cro­sium c. 10. Lib. 9. mo­ral cap. 1. Which is also S. Au­gustines, S. Gregory. All these say, that mans justice, in comparison of the justice of God, will seeme to be no justice at all: and so take these words, No creature, neither man nor Angell, shall be iustified in thy sight: that is, if his justice appeare before thine, and be compared to it. For as the starres be bright in themselues, & shine also goodly in a cleare night: yet in the pre­sence of the glittering sun beames, they appeare not at all: euen so mans justice, although considered by it selfe, it be great and perfect in his kind, yet set in the sight and presence of Gods justice, it vanisheth away, and is not to be seene. This exposition is taken out of Iob, where he saith:Iob. 9. I know truly it is euen so, that no man compared to God, shall be iustified. Take the wordes of the Psalme in whether sence you list (that either we haue many veniall faultes, for which we cannot be justified in Gods sight, or else that in the sight of Gods most bright justice, ours will not appeare at all) & it cannot bee thereof justly concluded, that euery worke of the righteous man is stayned with sinne. And consequently, the place is not to purpose.

Esay 64.One other ordinarie hackney of theirs, is that out of the Prophet. All our righteousnes is as a menstruous or defiled cloath. The which I haue already ridde to death in the beginning of the question of justification, where it was alledged: The answere is briefly, that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people, speaketh in the person of the sinnefull. Such as the common sort of them were, who had more sinnes then good workes, and so their righteousnes was like vnto a spotted and stayned cloath. Now this disproueth not, but that their good workes although but fewe, yet were free for all spottes of iniquity: it onely proueth, that with their fewe good, they had a great number or euill, which defiled their righteousnes, and made it like a stayned cloath.

3. There is not a man, who doth not sinne: And, blessed is the man, whose sinnes be not imputed to him. And such like, I answere that the best men sinne ve­nially, and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned: but all this is cleane besides this question, where it is onely enquired, whether the good workes that the just doe, be free from sinne, and not whether they at other times doe sinne, at the least venially. This is all, which M. PERKIN'S here and there objecteth against this matter: but because some others doe alleadge also, some darke places out of the fathers, I thinke it not amisse, to solue them here together.

S. Cyprian saith: That the beseiged minde of man, can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie: for when couetuousnes is ouerthrowen, vp starts lechery and so forth. Answere. All this is true, that the life of man is a perpetuall warefare: yet man assisted with the grace of God, may performe it most valiantly, and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies: although through his owne frailty he may be sometimes foyled.

Dial. 1. cap. Pelag.S. Hierome affirmeth: That then we are iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners.

Answere. That all just men confesse themselues to sinne venially: but neither of these places come neare the point in question, that not one good deede of the just man, is without some spot or stayne of sinne.

Epis. 29.S. Augustine hath these wordes: Most perfect charity, which cannot be increa­sed, is to be found in no man in this life: and as long as it may be increased, that which is lesse then it ought to be is faulty, of which fault it proceedeth, that there is no man who doth good, and doeth not sinne. All this we graunt to be true: that no man hath so perfect charity in this life, but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to doe: and consequently doth not so well, but that nowe and then he sinneth at the least venially, and that therefore the said holy Do­ctor had just cause to say.Li. 9. con­fess. c. 13. Woe be to the laudable life of a man, if it be examined without mercy. Al which notwithstanding just men may out of that charity, which they haue in this life doe many good workes, which are pure from [Page 85] all sinne as hath beene proued. They alleadge yet another place out of S. Augustine. That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iustman, Lib. 3. conduas Epist. Pelag. c. 7. to knowe in truth his imperfection, and in humility to confesse is. True: that is as he teacheth else where. First, that the perfection of this life is imperfection, being compa­red with the perfection of the life to come. Againe, that the most perfect in this life, hath many imperfections, both of witte and will, and thereby many light faultes.

Now come we vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle, out of whose sweet wordes ill vnderstood, they seeme to haue sucked this their poison.Lib. 9. mo­rall. cap. 1. He saith. The holy man Iob, because he did see all the merit of our vertue to be vice, if it be straightly examined of the inward iudge doth rightly adde, if I will contend with him, I cannot answere him one for a thowsand.

I answere that by our vertue in that place is to be vnderstood, that ver­tue which we haue of our owne strength, without the aide of Gods grace; which we acknowledge to be commonly infected with some vice, that S. Gregory so tooke it, appeares by the wordes, both going before and fol­lowing: before he writeth thus. A man not compared to God, receiued iustice: but compared vnto him, he leeseth it. For whosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the au­thor of all good, leeseth that good which he had receiued: for he that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe, doth sight against God, with his owne giftes: And after thus. To contend with God, is not to giue to God the glory of his vertue, but to take it to himselfe. And so all the merit of this our vertue, which commeth not of God, but is attributed vnto our selfe, as proceeding onely from our selues, is the very vice of pride, and cannot be prejudiciall vnto true good workes, al which we acknowledge to proceede principally from the grace of God, dwel­ling in vs. He saith further with S. Augustine that in this life we cannot at­tayne vnto perfect purity, such as shall be in heauen, read the beginning of his first and second booke of Morales, and there you shall finde him commending Iob to the skyes, as a good and holy man, by his temptati­ons not foyled, but much aduanced in vertue.

Now before I depart from this large question of justification, I will handle yet one other question, which commonly ariseth about it: it is.

WHETHER FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT CHARITY.

I PROVE that it may so be: first out of these wordes of our Sauiour. Many shall say vnto me in that day, Lord, Lord,Math. 7. haue we not prophecied in thy name, haue we not cast out Diuels, haue we not done many miracles, to whome I will confesse, that I neuer knewe you depart from me, all yee that worke iniquitie. That these men beleeued in Christ, and perswaded themselues assuredly to be [Page 86] of the elect appeareth, by their confident calling of him, Lord, Lord, and the rest that followeth: Yet Christ declareth manifestly that they wan­ted charity, in saying that they were workers of iniquity.

Math. 22.2. When the King went to see his guestes. He found there a man not atti­red in his wedding garment: and therefore commaunded him to be cast into vtter dark­nes. This man had faith, or else he had not beene admitted vnto that table which signifieth the Sacraments: yet wanted charity, which to be the wedding garment, besides the euidence of the text is also proued, where in expresse tearmes.Apoc. 19. The garments of Christs Spouse is declared to be the righteous­nes and good workes of the Saintes. And that with great reason: for as S. Paul teacheth.1. Cor. 13. Faith shall not remayne after this life: With what instrument then (trow you) will the Protestants lay hold on Christs righteousnes.

That charity is that wedding garment, S. Hierome vpon the same place doth witnesse, saying: That it is the fulfilling of our Lordes commaundements. And S. Gregory doth in expresse wordes define it.Hom. 38. in Euang. What (saith he) must we vnder­stand by the wedding garment, but charity: So doe S. Hilary, and Origen: and S. Chrysostome vpon that place.Can. 22. in Math. Tract. 20. in Math. Math. 25.

3. The like argument is made of the foolish Virgins. Who were part of the Kingdome of God, and therefore had faith, which is the gate & en­trance into the seruice of God. Yea in the house of God, they aspired vn­to more then ordinary perfection. Hauing professed Virginity, yet either caried away with vayne glory, as S. Gregory takes it. Or not giuing them­selues to the workes of mercy, spirituall, and corporall, as S. Chrysostome expoundes it: briefly not continuing in their former charity (for faith once had, cannot after the Protestants doctrine be lost) were shut out of the Kingdome of heauen, albeit they presumed strongly on the assurance of their saluation, as is apparant: By their confident demaunding to be let in, for they said. Lord, Lord, open vnto vs.

Ioh. 12.4. Many of the princes beleeued in Christ, but did not confesse him, for they loued more the glory of men then the glory of God. What can be more euident, then that these men had faith: whē the H. ghost saith expresly that they beleeued in christ which is the onely act of faith. And yet were destitute of charity, which preferreth the glorie and seruice of God, before al things in this world.

Cap. 2.5. This place of S. Iames. (What shall it profit my bretheren if any man say that he hath faith, but hath not workes: what, shall his faith be able to saue.) Supposeth very playnlie, that a man may haue faith without good workes, that is, without charity, but that it shall auayle him nothing: Caluin saith that the Apostle speakes of a shadowe of faith, which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our creede, but not of a justifying faith. Without doubt he was litle acquainted with that kinde of faith, by which Protestants be justified: but he directly speakes of such a faith, as Abraham was justified by: saying. [Page 87] That that faith did worke with his workes, and was made perfect by the workes. Was this but a shadowe of faith: but they reply that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell, and therefore cannot be a justifying faith: that fol­loweth not, an excellent good thing, may be like vnto a badde in some thinges, as Diuels in nature are not only like, that the very same as Angels be: euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a Diuels faith, when it is naked and voyde of good workes in two points: First, in both there is a perfect knowledge of all thinges reuealed: Secondly, this know­ledge shall not stead them any whit, but only serue vnto their greater con­demnation, because that knowing the will of their master, they did it not. And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together: Now there are ma­ny points wherein these faithes doe differ, but this one is principall. That Christians out of a goodly and deuoute affection, doe willingly submitte their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith, beleeuing thinges aboue hu­mane reason, yea such as seeme sometimes contrary to it. But the Diuell a­gainst his will, beleeues all that God hath reuealed: Because by his natu­rall capacity he knowes that God can teach, nor testifie any vntruth. A­gaine that faith may be without charity is proued out of these wordes of the same second Chapter. Euer as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without workes is dead. Hence thus I argue: albeit the body be dead without the soule: yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe, euen so faith is perfect in the kinde of faith, although without charity it auayle not to life euerla­sting. Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be without chari­ty, for they haue seuerall seates in the soule, one being in the will, and the other in the vnderstanding: they haue distinct objectes, faith respecting the truth of God, and charity the goodnes of God. Neither doth faith ne­cessarily suppose charity, as charity doth faith, for we cannot loue him of whom we neuer heard. Neither yet doth charity naturaly flow out of faith, but by due consideration of the goodnes of God, and of his benefits and loue towardes vs, into which good & deuout considerations, few men doe enter, in comparison of them who are led into the broad way of iniquity through their inordinate passiōs. This according to the truth, & yet more different in the Protestants opinion: for faith laies hold on Christs righte­ous, & receiues that in. But charity can receiue nothing in,Pag. 85. as M. P. witnes­seth. But giues it selfe forth in al duties of the first & second table. Now sir, if they could not apply vnto themselues Christs righteousnes, without ful­filling all duties of the first & second table: they should neuer apply it to them, for they hold it impossible to fulfill all those duties, so that this ne­cessary lincking of charity with faith: maketh their saluation not only ve­ry euill assured, but altogither impossible, for charity is the fulnes of the law, which they hold impossible, & then if the assurance of their saluation,Rom. 12. [Page 88] must needes be joyned with such an impossibility, they may assure them­selues, that by that faith, they can neuer come to saluation.

Let vs annex vnto these playne authorities of holy Scripture, one eui­dent testimony of Antiquity: That most incorrupt judge S. Augustine saith flatly,Lib. 15. de trin. c. 17. Con cres­cen lib. 1. cap. 29. That faith may well he without Charity, but it cannot profit vs without Charity. And, That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church, but that vnskilfully, yet is it he. Also that one faith is had without charity, and that also out of the Church, neither therefore is not faith: For there is one God, one Faith, one Baptisme, & one immaculate Catholike Church: in which God is not serued only, but in which only, he is trulie serued: neither in which alone, faith is kept; but in which only, faith is kept with charity. So that faith, and that only true faith, of which the Apo­stle speaketh,Ephes. 4. One God, one faith, may be, and is in many without cha­rity.

The Protestants bolde asseuerations, that they cannot be parted, are great: but their proofes very slender, and scarce worth the disproouing.

THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOVT GOOD WORKES.

1. Tim. 5.THE first, He that hath not care of his owne, hath denied his faith: therefore faith includeth that good worke, of prouiding for our owne:

Answ. That faith there seemes to signifie, not that faith whereby we be­leeue all thinges reuealed, or the Protestants the certainty of their salua­tion: but for fidelity, and faithfull performance, of that which we haue promised in Baptisme, which is to keepe all Gods commaundements: one of the which, is to prouide for our children, and for them that wee haue charge of: so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge, hath denyed his faith: that is, violed his promise in Baptisme. There is also another ordinary answere supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beleefe, to witte, that one may deny his faith two wayes: either in flatte denying any article of faith, or by doing some thing that is con­trary to the doctrine of our faith. Now he that hath no care of his owne, doth not deny any article of his faith, but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith: so that not faith, but the doctrine of faith, or our promise in Baptisme, includeth good workes.

Ioh. 6.2 There are among you that beleeue not; for he knewe who beleeued, and who was to betray him: Opposing treason to faith, as if he had said: faith contey­ned in it selfe fidelity. This Argument is farre fetched, and little worth. For albeit faith hath not fidelity and loue alwaies necessarily joyned with it, yet falling from faith, may well drawe after it, hatred and treason: [Page 89] yea ordinarely wickednes goeth before falling from faith, and is the cause of it: which was Iudas case, whome our Sauiour there taxed, for he blin­ded with couetuousnes, did not beleeue Christs Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament, and by incredulity opened the diuell a high way to his hart, to negotiate treason in it.

3. They object that. Who saith he knowes God, and doth not keepe his com­maundements is a lyar. 1. Ioh. 2.

Answere. He is then a lyar in graine who professing the only true know­ledge of God, yet blusheth not to say, that it is impossible to keepe his commaundements: but to the objection, knowing God in that place, is taken for louing of God, as. I knowe yee not: that is, I loue you not. Math. 7. & 25. Psal. 1. Ioh. 14. Our Lord knowes the way of the just: that is approues it, loues it, so he that knowes God, kepes his commaundements, as Christ himselfe testifieth. If any loue me, he will keepe my word. And he that loueth me not, will not keepe my wordes.

Lastly, they say with S. Paul. That the iust man liueth by faith. But if faith giue life, then it cannot be without charity.

Answere. That faith in a just man is not without hope and charity, by all which conjoyned he liueth, and not by faith alone. But faith is in a sinnefull and vnjust man, without charity: who holding fast his former beleefe, doth in transgressing Gods commaundements, breake the bandes of charity. And so it remaynes most certayne, that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charity.

CHAPTER. 5. OF MERITTES.

MASTER PERKINS saith. By meritte vnderstand any thing or worke, whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured, and that for the dignity and excellency of the worke, or thing done, or a good worke binding him that receiueth it, to repay the like.

Obserue that three thinges are necessary to make a worke meritorious. First, that the worker be the adopted Sonne of God, and in the state of grace. Secondly, that the worke proceede from grace, and be referred to the honour of God. The third, is the promise of God through Christ, to reward the worke. And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice doe slaunder this our Doctrine, in saying vntruely, that we trust not in Christs merittes, nor neede not Gods mercy for our saluation, but will purchase it by our owne workes: I will here set downe what the Councell of Trent doth teach, concerning merittes.Sess 6. cap. vlt. Life euerlasting is to be [Page 90] proposed to them that worke well, and hope well to the end: both as grace, of mercy promised to the Sonnes of God through CHRIST IESVS, and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their workes and merittes. So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace, aswell in respect of Gods free promise through Christ, as also for that the first grace (out of which they issue) was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in justice, due partly by the promise of God, and in part for the dignity of good workes. Vnto the worker, if he perseuer and hold on vnto the end of his life, or by true repentance rise to the same estate againe. In infantes bap­tised there is a kinde of meritte, or rather dignity of the adopted Sonnes of God, by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme, whereby they are made heires of the Kingdome of heauen, but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion, must by the good vse of the same grace either meritte life, or for want of such fruit of it, fall into the miserable state of death.

OVR CONSENTS.

WITH this Catholike Doctrine M. PER. would be thought to a­gree in two points. First, That merits are necessary to saluation. 2. That Christ is the roote & fountayne of all meritte. But soone after like vnto a shrewd cowe, ouerthrowes with his heele the good milke he had giuen before. Renouncing all merits in euery man, sauing onely in the person of Christ: whose prerogatiue (saith he) it is, to be the person alone, in whome God is well pleased: Then he addeth, that they good Protestants, by Christs merittes really imputed to them, doe merit life euerlasting. Euen as by his righteousnes imputed vnto them, they are justified and made righteous.

To which I answere that we most willingly confesse our blessed Saui­ours merittes to be infinite, & of such diuine efficacy that he hath not one­ly merited at his Fathers handes. Both pardon for all faultes, and grace to doe all good workes: but also that his true seruantes workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting, as for the reall imputation of his meritte to vs, wee esteeme as a fayned imagination, composed of contrarieties: For if it be really in vs, why doe they call it imputed, and if it be ours only by Gods imputation, then is it not in vs really. Further to say that he only is the person in whome God is well pleased, is to giue the lye vnto many playne textes of holy Scriptures. Abraham was called the friend of God: therefore God was wel pleased in him.Iac. 2. Moyses was his beloued. Dauid was a man according vnto his owne hart.Eccles. 45. Act. 13. Ioh. 16. Rom. 1. God loued Christs Disciples, be­cause they loued him. Briefly all the Christians at Rome, were truly cal­led of S. Paul, the beloued of God. And therefore although God be best pleased in our Sauiour, and for his sake is pleased in all others, yet is he not onely pleased in him, but in all his faithfull seruantes. Now to that which [Page 91] he saith that they haue no other meritte then Christs imputed to them, as they haue no other righteousnes, but by imputation, I take it to be true: and therefore they doe very ingenuously and justly, renounce all kinde of merittes in their stayned and defiled workes. But let them tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth. It is; that as they haue no righ­teousnes nor meritte of heauen, but only by a supposed imputation, so they must looke for no heauen, but by imputation: for God as a most vp­right judge wil in the end repay euery man, according to his worth: wher­fore not finding any reall worthines in Protestants, but only in conceipte: his reward shall be giuen them answerably, in conceipte only: which is e­uidently gathered out of S. Augustine, where he saith.Lib. 1. de morib. Ec­cles cap. 25 That the reward cannot goe before the merite, nor be giuen to a man before he be worthy of it: for (saith he) what were more iniust then that, and what is more iust then God. Where he con­cludeth that we must not be so hardy as once to demaund, much lesse so impudent as to assure our selues of that crowne, before we haue deserued it. Seing then that the Protestants by this their proctour renounce all such meritte and desart, they must needes also renounce their part of heauen, & not presume so much as once to demaund according vnto S. Augustines sentence: vntill they haue first renounced their erronious opinions.

But M. PERKINS will neuerthelesse proue, and that by sundry rea­sons, that their doctrine is the truth it selfe, and ours falshood.

First, by a sorry short sillogisme cōtayning more then one whole page. It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious worke: Which must be (saith he) four. First, That the worke be done of ourselues, without the helpe of ano­ther. Secondly, That it be not otherwise due debt. Thirdly, That it be done to the be­nefit of an other. Fourthly, That the worke and reward be equall in proportion. These proprieties he sets downe pithagorically without any proofe. But infer­reth thereon, as though he had proued them inuincibly, that Christs man­hood seperated from the Godhead cannot meritte: because whatsoeuer he doth, he doeth it by grace receiued, & should be otherwise due. He might in like manner as truly say, that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merite neither: for he receiued his Godhead from his father, & whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt. And so the good man, if he were let alone, would disapoint vs wholy of all merites, aswell the imputed of Christs, as of all ours done by vertue of his grace. Where­fore we must a little sift his foure forged proprieties of merit: and touch­ing the first. I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift, merit and deserue much euen at his handes that gaue it. For example the Father bestowes a farme vpon his Son freely: Who may by often pre­senting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same, deserue his further fauour: Yea, he may by the commodities, reaped out of that farme, [Page 92] buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale, as well as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift. Which is so common a case, and so sensible, that euery man of meane witte, may easely reach vnto it: euen so by good manuring the giftes which God freely bestow­eth vpon vs, we may both merit the increase of them, and according to his owne order and promise, purchase thereby the kingdome of heauen, which is plainely proued by that parable,Mat. 25. Of the talents giuen by a King to his seruants; the which they imploying well, and multiplying, were there­fore esteemed worthy of farre greater, and withall to be made pertakers of their Lordes joyes.

M. PERKINS then was not a little ouerseene, to put for the first pro­priety of merit, that it must be donne by a man, and of a man himselfe.

The second, That a man must doe it of his owne free will and pleasure, and not of due debt: carrieth in shewe an opposition. but in deede there is no contra­diction in it: for a man may, and euery honest man doth, of his owne free will and pleasure, pay his due debt: but let vs pardon the disorder of wordes: his meaning being nothing else, but that the payment of that which is otherwise due debt, cannot be any meritorious worke, to which S. Augustine doth answere in these wordes.Serm. 3. de verb Apost O great goodnesse of God, to whome when we did owe seruice by condition of our estate, as bond-men doe to their Lord, yet hath he promised againe and againe, the rewarde of friendes. In which there is couched a comparison, which being laide in the light, will much helpe to the vnderstanding of this matter. He that hath a slaue, or bond-man, may lawfully exact of him all kinde of seruice, without any wages: Bread and a whippe (saith a Philosopher) serue for a slaue: Now suppose the Master to be soueraigne gouernour of a state: then if it please him to make his man free, and withall a member of his common weale, the same man by per­forming many good offices to the state, may justly deserue of his prince as great rewarde and promotion, as any other of his subjects: and yet may his Lord and olde Master say trulie to him, all this that thou hast donne, or couldst doe, is but due debt vnto me, considering that thou wast my bond man. so fareth it with vs in respect of God: all that we can doe, is due debt vnto him, because he hath made vs, and endowed vs, with all that we either be, or haue: yet it hath pleased him, as a most kinde Lord, to set vs at liberty through Christ, and to make vs Citizens of the Saints, and as capable of his heauenly riches, as the Angelles, if wee will doe our endeuour to deserue them: and whereas hee might haue exacted all that euer we could doe, without any kinde of recompence: yet hee of his inestimable goodnesse towardes vs, doth neither binde vs to doe all we can doe; and yet for doing that little which he commaundeth, hath by promise bound himselfe to repay vs a large recompence: by which wee [Page 93] may well vnderstand those wordes of our Sauiour:Luke 17. When you haue donne all these thinges that are commaunded you, say that you are vnprofitable seruantes: we haue donne that we ought to doe. True. By our natiue condition we were bounde to performe, not only all these thinges, that be now commaun­ded, but whatsoeuer else it should haue pleased God to commaund: and this we must alwaies confesse, to preserue true humility in vs: yet God hath bettered our estate through Christ, and so highly aduaunced vs, that we not only be Citizens of the Saints, but his sons and heires, and there­by in case to deserue of him, a heauenly crowne, and this is S. Ambrose ex­position vpon the place. S. Chrysostome pondering these wordes let vs say, taketh it for a holsome counsaile for vs to say, that we be vnprofitable seruants, least pride destroy our good workes: and then God will say, that we be good and faithfull seruants, as it is recorded.Mat. 25. vers. 21.

Againe, we may truly say, when we haue donne all thinges commaun­ded, that we are vnprofitable seruants, as venerable Bede our most lear­ned countriman interpreteth: Because of all that we doe, In Luc. 17. no commodity riseth vnto God our Lord in himselfe: who is such an infinite ocean of all goodnesses, that he wanteth nothing: Whereupon Dauid saith, That thou art my God, because thou standest in neede of no good that I can doe. Psal. 15.

And thus we fall vpon the third property of M. PERKINS merito­rious worke. Which is, That it be donne to the profit of another: and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit, by our workes: yet doth he in the administration of his holy common weale the Church, wherein good mens seruices doe much pleasure him. Andin this sence is it said of S. Paul, That by cleansing our selues from wicked workes, 2. Tim. 2. Math. 5. Ioh. 15. v. 8. we shall become vesselles sanctified, and profitable vnto our Lord. Againe, God is glorified by our good workes, That seeing your good workes, they may glorifie your father which is in heauen. Finally, God doth reioyce at the recouery of his lost children. Luke 15. If then good men trauayling painefully in Gods Vine-yarde, doe yeelde him outwardly both honour, joy, and commodity: that may suffice to make their worke meritorious.

M. PERKINS fourth property is, That the worke and rewarde, be equall in proportion: If he vnderstande Arithmeticall proportion, that is, that they be equall in quantity, to witte, the one to be as great, or of as long continuance as the other: then we deny this kinde of equality to bee requisite to meritte: there is another sort of proportion, called by the Philosopher S. Athic. Geometricall: and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vnto the other: as when a good office is giuen vnto a Citizen of desart, it may be, that the ho­nour and commodity. of the office is farre greater, then was the me­ritte of the man: yet he being as well able to discharge it as another, [Page 94] and hauing better deserued it, is holden in true justice vvorthy of it: In like manner in a game where masteries are tryed, the prize is gi­uen vnto him that doeth best, not because the value of the rewarde, is just as much worth, as that act of the man who winneth it: but for that such actiuity is esteemed worthy of such a recompence. Now the crowne of heauenly glory,1. Cor. 9. is likened by Saint Paul, vnto a Garland in a game: where he saith, That we all runne, but one carrieth away the prize. And He that striueth for the mastery, 2. Tim. 2. is not crowned, vnlesse he striue lawfully. It is al­so resembled vnto places of honour.Math. 25. Ioh. 14. Mat. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. I will place thee ouer much. And I goe to prouide you places.

Grace is also in many places of Scripture, compared to seede: For the seede of God tarrieth in him. But a little seede cast into good ground, and well manured, bringeth forth abundance of corne. Briefly, then such e­quality as there is betweene the well deseruing subject, and the office, be­tweene him that striueth lawfully, and the crowne, betweene the seede, and the corne, is betweene the reward of heauen, and the merit of a true seruant of God.

And thus much of M. PERKINS first Argument, more indeede to explicate the nature and condition of merit, then that his reason nakedly proposed, did require it.

Exod 20.His second testimony is, God will shewe mercy vpon thousandes, in them that loue him, and keepe his commaundements. Hence he reasoneth thus: Where re­ward is giuen vpon mercy, there is no merit: but reward is giuen vpon mercy, as the text proueth, ergo.

Answere. That in that text is nothing, touching the reward of heauen, which is now in question: God doth for his louing seruants sake, shewe mercy vnto their children or friends, either in temporall thinges, or in calling them to repentance, and such like: but doth neuer for one mans sake; bestowe the kingdome vpon another, vnlesse the party himselfe be first made worthy of it.

That confirmation of his, that Adam by his continuall and perfect o­bedience, could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour, is both besides the purpose, and most false: for as well he, as euery good man sithence, by good vse of Gods gifts, might day by day, encrease them: And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue bin otherwise, S. Augustine saith expresly, That in the felicity of Paradise, righteousnes preserued, should haue ascended into better. In Inchir. cap. 25. And Adam finally, and all his posterity (if he had not fallen) should haue bin from Paradise translated aliue into the Kingdome of heauen: this by the way. Nowe to the thirde Argu­ment.

Rom. 6. Scripture condemneth merite of workes: The wages of sinne is death. True. [Page 95] But we speake of good workes, and not of badde, which the Apostle calleth sinne: where were the mans wittes? but it followeth there, That e­ternall life, is the grace or gift of God. This is to purpose: but answered 1200. yeares past, by that famous Father S. Augustine, in diuers places of his most learned workes. I will note one or two of them.

First, thus here ariseth no small doubt,De gra. & li. arb. c. 8. which by Gods helpe I will now discusse. For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes, as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach (note) how then can it be cal­led grace: when grace is giuen freely, and not repaide for vvorkes: and so pursuing the pointes of difficulty at large, in the end resolueth: that eternall life is most trulie rendred vnto good workes, as the due re­warde of them: but because those good workes could not haue beene donne, vnlesse God had before freely through Christ, bestowed his grace vpon vs, therefore the same eternall life, is also truly called grace: because the first roote of it, was Gods free gift.

The very same answere doth he giue, where he hath these wordes.Epist. 106. E­ternall life is called grace, not because it is not rendred vnto merittes: but for that those merittes to which it is rendred, were giuen, in which place he crosseth M. PERKINS proportion most directly, affirming, that S. Paul might haue said truly, eternall life is the pay or wages of good vvorkes: but to holde vs in humility partly, and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation, and damnation, choose rather to say, that the gift of God, was life eternall: because of our damnation, we are the whole and only cause, but not of our saluation, but principally the grace of God, the only fountayne of merit, and all good workes.

Now to those textes cited before about justification,Ad Eph. 2. We are saued free­ly, not of our selues, or by the workes of righteousnesse, which we haue donne. Ad Tit. 3. I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes donne by our owne forces, without the helpe of Gods grace: and therefore they can­not serue against, workes donne, in, and by grace.

Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest, although it deserued a better place, being one of their principall pillers in this controuersie: It, is The sufferings of this life, are not worthy of the glory to come. Rom. 8. The strength of this objection, lyeth in a false translation of these words, Axia pros tein doxan, equal to that glory, or in the misconstruction of them: For we graunt (as it hath beene already declared) that our afflictions and sufferinges be not of equall in length, or greatnes, with the glory of hea­uen: for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life, and they can­not be so great, as will be the pleasure in heauen, notwithstanding, wee teach, that this shorter, and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man, in the seruice of GOD, doth meritte the other greater, and of [Page 96] longer continuance: and that by the said Apostles playne wordes, for (saith he.2. Cor. 4.) That tribulation which in this present life, is but for a moment and light, doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting weight of glory in vs. The rea­son is, that just mens workes issue out of the fountayne of grace, which gi­ueth a heauenly value vnto his workes. Againe, it maketh him a quicke member of Christ, and so receiuing influence from his head, his workes are raised to an higher estimate: it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost,2. Pet. 1. and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh. Which addes a worth of heauen to his workes. Neither is that glory in heauen, which any pure creature attayneth vnto of infinite dig­nity, as M. PERKINS fableth; but hath his certayne boundes & mea­sure, according vnto each mans merittes, otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glory: for there can be no greater then infinite, as all learned men doe confesse.

M. PERKINS 4. reason: Whosoeuer will meritte must fulfill the whole law: for if we offend in one commandement, we are guiltie of the whole lawe, but no man can fulfill the whole lawe. ergo.

Answere. I denie the first proposition: for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite, as by all the properties of meritte may be proued at large: and by his owne definition of meritte set downe in tne beginning. Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne, he leeseth his former meritte: but recouering grace, he riseth to his former meritte, as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour, in the per­son of the good Father.Luc. 15. Doe on him (that is on his prodigall sonne returning whome) his former garment. His second proposition is also false as hath bin proued at large in a seueral question. To that of S. Iames, although it be­long not to this matter, I answere that he who offendeth in one, is made guiltie of all: that is, he shall be as surely condemned, as if he had broken all;Epis 29. ad [...]lieron. See S. Augustine.

His 5. reason. We are taught to pray on this manner. Giue vs this day our day­ly bread: where we acknowledge euery morsell of bread, to be the meere gift of God: much more must we confesse heauen to be.

Answere. M. PERKINS taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer: but he handleth the matter so handsomely, that a man may thinke him to be so profoūdly learned, that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster: for who taketh our daylie foode to be so meerely the gift of God, that we must not either make it ours with our peny, or trauaile, we must not looke to be fedde from heauen by miracle, by the mere gift of God: but according vnto S. Paules rule, either labour for our liuing in some ap­proued sort, or not eate. Yet because our trauailes are in vaine, vnlesse God blesse them, we pray to God daily to giue vs our nuriture, either by [Page 97] sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth, or by prospering our labours with good successe: or if they be men who liue of almes, by stirring vp the charitable to relieue them. So we pray, and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life: Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordayne, one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes, which God hath appointed vs to walke in, to deserue it. And it cannot but sauour of a Satannicall spirit, to call it a Satannicall insolency (as M. PERKINS doth) to thinke that eternall life can be merited: when S. Augustine and the best spirit of men, since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes.

But let vs heare his last argument, which is (as he speaketh) the consent of the auncient Church: and then beginneth with S. Bernard, who liued 1000. yeares after Christ: He (in I knowe not what place, the quotation is so doudtfull) saith. Those thinges which wee call merittes, are the way to the Kingdome, but not the cause of raigning. I answere, that merittes be not the whole cause, but the promise of God through Christ, and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs, out of which our merittes proceede. Which is Bernards owne doctrine.Serm. 68 in Cantica. Manuali. c. 22.

Secondly, he citeth S. Augustine. All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my meritte. True in a good sence: that is, by the vertue of his death, and passion, my sinnes are pardoned, and grace is bestowed on me to doe good workes, and so to meritte.

3. Basil. Eternall life, is reserued for them that haue striuen lawfully, In Ps. 114. not for the meritte of their doing, but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God. These wordes are vntruly translated: for first, he maketh with the Apostle, eter­nall life to be the prize of that combate, and then addeth that it is not gi­uen according vnto the debt, and just rate of the workes, but in a suller measure, according vnto the bounty of so liberall a Lord: Where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence. That God punisheth men vnder their deserts, but rewardeth them aboue their merittes.

4. M. PERKINS turnes backe to Augustine vpon the:Psal. 120. Where he saith (as M. PERKINS reporteth.) He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his owne giftes, not thy merittes.

Answere. S. Augustine was to wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his penne: What congruity is in this. He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his owne giftes, not thy merittes. It had beene better said: He crowneth thee not, &c. But he mistooke belike this sentence of S. Augustines. When God crowneth thee, he crowneth his giftes, not thy merittes. Which is true, being taken in that sence, which he himselfe declareth. To such a man so thinking (that is,De grat. & l b. arb. c. 6. that he hath merittes of him selfe, without the grace of God,) it may be most truly said: God doth crowne his owne giftes, not thy merittes. If thy merittes [Page 98] be of thy selfe, and not from him: but if we acknowledge our merittes to proceede from grace working with vs, then may we as truly say, that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merittes.

Psal. 142.His other place on the Psalme, is not to this purpose: but appertaynes to the first justification of a sinner, as the first word, quicken and re­uiue mee sheweth playnelie: nowe wee confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued, not for any desert of his owne, but of Gods meere mercy.

Hauing thus at length answered, vnto all that M. PERKINS hath alleaged against merittes: Let vs see what can be said for them, following as neare as I can M. PERKINS order.

Obiections of Papists, so he tearmeth our reasons.

First, in sundry places of Scripture, promise of reward is made vnto good workes.Genes. 4. Prouer 11. Eccles. 18. Math. 5. If thou doe well, shalt thou not receiue. To him that doeth well there is a faithfull rewarde. Feare not to be iustified vnto death, because the rewarde of God remayneth for euer; and. When you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake, reioyce, for great is your reward in heauen. And a hundreth such like: there­fore such workes doe meritte heauen, for a reward supposeth that there was a desart of it.

M. PERKINS answereth first, that the reward is of meere mercy without any thing donne by men. But this is most apparantly false: for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward: Againe, a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure, which is rewarded, otherwise it were to be called a gift, and not a reward: and much more the Latin, and Greeke word, Misos, Merus, which rather signifie a mans hier and wagis, then a gift or rewarde: Wherefore M. PERKINS skippes to a second shift: that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance, but not a re­ward.

Reply. We knowe well that it is an inheritance, because it is onely due vnto the adopted Sonnes of God: but that hindreth not it to be a reward, for that it is our heauenly fathers pleasure, that all his Sonnes comming to the yeares of discretion, shall by their good carriage either deserue it, or else for their badde behauiour be disinherited.

M. PERKINS hauing so good reason to distrust his two former ans­weres, flies to a third: and graunteth that eternall life is a reward, yet not of our workes, but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs: This is that Castle wherein he holdes himselfe safe from all Canon shotte, but he is fouly a­bused, for this answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest, as being furthest off from the true sence of the Scripture: examine any one of the places, and a babe may discouer the incongruity of it. Namely Christ [Page 99] saith that great is their reward, who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake. Assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribu­lation for Gods sake; and not to his owne merittes imputed, and if you desire a formall sentence, fitting this purpose, take this.1. Cor. 3 Euery man shall re­ceiue his reward, according vnto his owne proper labour: And not according to Christs merittes imputed vnto him. So a doer of the worke shall be blessed in his deede. And not in the imputation of an others deede.Iacob. 1.

In stead of our second reason, blindly proposed by M. PERKINS, I will confirme the first with such textes of Holy write, as specifie playnelie our good workes to be the cause of eternall life.Math. 25 Come vnto me yee blessed of my father, possesse a Kingdome prepared for you: And why so? For when I was hungry, yee gaue me meate. And so forth: the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants, who imployed well their talentes: for their Lord said vnto them. Because you haue beene faithfull in fewe thinges, I will place you ouer many. And many such like; where good workes donne by the parties themselues are expresly said to be the very cause, why God re­wardeth them with the Kingdome of heauen: Therefore he must needes be holden for a very wrangler, that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches, and would make the simple beleeue, that the cause there for­mally specified, is not to be taken for the cause, but doth onely signifie an order of thinges. But if any desire besides the euidence of the text, to see howe the auncient Fathers take it. Let him reade Saint Augustine: Where he thus briefly handleth this text. Come yee blessed of my Father, In psal. 49 re­ceiue: What shall we receiue? A Kingdome. For what cause? Because I was hungry, and you gaue me meate, &c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merittes, there vvas no tydinges in those dayes: And that iuditious Doctor, found that good workes was the cause of receiuing the King­dome of heauen. Here by the way Master PERKINS redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs: that we take away a part of Christs media­tion. For saith he, if Christs merittes were sufficient, what neede ours? It hath beene often told them, but they will neuer learne to vnderstand it: I will yet once againe repeate it. We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value, and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessinges, which hath or shall be bestowed vpon all men, from the beginning of the world vnto the end of it: yet his diuine will and order, is that all men of discre­tion, hauing freely receiued grace from him, doe meritte that crowne of glory, which is prepared for them, not to supply the want of his merittes, which are inestimable, but being members of his misticall body, he would haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting: and further desi­rous to trayne vs vp in all good works, he best knewe, that there could be no better spur to pricke our dull nature forward, then to ordayne and pro­pose [Page 100] such heauenly rewardes vnto all them, that would diligently ende­uour to deserue them. The man seemes to be much ignorant in the mat­ter of Christes mediation: I will therefore helpe him a little. It consi­steth in reconciling man to God: which he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes, in purchasing vs Gods fauour, and in ordayning meanes how all mankinde might attayne to eternall life: in the two first poynts, we doe for the most part agree: to witte, that our sinnes are free­ly pardoned through Christes passion: and that we are as freely justifi­ed, and receiued, first into Gods grace and fauour: although we require other preparation then they doe, yet we as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either, as they doe. Marry about the meanes of attayning to heauen, we differ altogether: for they say that God requires no justice in vs, nor merit at all on our partes, but only the disposition of faith, to lay holde on Christes righteousnes and merittes: but we say that Christes righteousnes and merit, are incommunicable vnto any meere creature: but that through his merittes, God doth powre into euery true Christian, a particular justice, whereby he is sanctified, and made able to doe good workes, and to merit eternall life. Which ability we receiuing of Gods free gift, through Christes merits, doth much more magnifie both Gods grace, and Christes merittes: for the greater that the gift is, the greater is, the glory of the giuer. And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits, whith he hath appoynted to be very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs, is indeede vnder colour of magnify­ing Christs merittes, to vndermine, and blowe out all the vertue of them. But saies M. PERKINS, what should we talke of our merittes, who for one good worke we doe, committe many bad, which deface our merits, if we had any.

True it is, as it was once before said, that euery mortall sinne, blotteth out all former justice and merit: but by repentance, both are recouered againe: but must we not speake of any good, because we may happe to doe euill? that is a faire perswasion, and well worthy a wise man.

Let vs to our third Argument? God hath by couenant and promise, bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting: Therefore good workes doe in justice deserue it: for faithfull promise maketh due debt.Math. 20. The couenant is plainely set downe: where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen, for a penny a day: that is, to giue them life euerlasting for trauayling in his seruice during their life time, as all auncient interpretours expound it. Whereupon Saint Paul inferreth,Heb. 6. that God should be vnjust, if he should forgette their workes, who suffered persecution for him:2. Thes. 1. And saith, If it be just with God, to render tribulation to them that persecute you, and to such as are perse­cuted, [Page 101] rest with vs: Vpon the same ground S. Hierome saith,Li. 2. cont. Iouin. c. 2. Great truly were the iniustice of God, if he did only punish euill workes, and would not as well re­ceiue good workes. To all these, and much more such like, M. PERKINS answereth, that couenant for workes was in the olde Testament, but in the newe, the couenant is made with the workman, not with the worke.

Reply. All that I cited in this Argument, is out of the newe Testament, where expresse couenant is made for working, and workes, as you haue heard. And as it was said in the olde lawe,Math 19. Doe these thinges and thou shalt liue: so is it said in the newe, If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commaunde­ments: and life eternall, is the hire, and wages, for labouring in Gods vine-yard, and not of the imputed justice, or merittes of Christ: but looke about you, and beholde the goodly marke which M. PERKINS sets vp: Marke saith he, that it is said, God will render vnto euery man according to his workes: not to the worke, or for the worke. O sharpe and ouer-fine witte? doth he render according to the workes, and doth he not render for the workes? if the rate of the workes be the measure of the rewarde, that for fewer or lesser workes, there is a lesser reward, and for many and worthier, a greater: surely, in my simple vnderstan­ding, he that giueth according vnto the workes, giueth for the workes that other addle inuention (that workes are there mentioned, not be­cause they are rewarded, but because they are tokens, that the doer is in CHRIST, for whose obedience God promiseth the crowne of life) is not worth the confuting, it is so flat contrary to the text: which ascribeth distinctly that reward vnto the workman for his workes, and not for Christs obedience imputed vnto him.

M. PERKINS fourth objection for vs, is proposed vnskilfully, yet could he not answere it, but by relying vpon that which is most vntrue, that forsooth no one action of the best man is vvithout fault: which hath beene already confuted, and might be by instances of A­brahames oblation of his sonne, S. Iohn Baptists preaching, and reprehen­ding of Herode [...] Stephens martirdome, with infinite such like, in which M. PERKINS, nor any else will be able to shewe in particular, what fault there was: Againe, our Sauiour saith: That if the eye bee simple, the whole body is lightsome, not hauing any part of darknesse in it: Mat. 6. Luke 11. and very reason teacheth vs, that a mans action, for substance and all due circumstan­ces, may be perfect. It was then a verie seelie shift to say, that ne­uer any man did any one action, with all his due circumstances.

But in steede of that fourth Argument, I will put this: If a greater rewarde be due vnto them that doe better workes, then a reward is due vnto them that doe good workes, which is euident in reason: But a grea­ter rewarde is prouided for them that doe better as S. Augustine groun­ded [Page 102] vpon Gods word, proueth in sundry places: namely, vpon that, For starre differeth from starre in glory, Serm. 46. de verbis Dom. 1. Cor. 15. Serm. 95. Li. de virg. cap. 44. so shall be the resurrection of the dead: specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort, chastity in wedlocke after another, and holy widdowhood yet after another: all (saith he) shall be there, but they shine diuerslie: And of the same worke affirmeth, That martyrdome, shall be higher rewarded, then any other worke. The like doth he vpon those words, One ground shall yeelde thirty folde, another threescore folde, an other an hundred folde: Comparing chastity in wedlocke to the thirtie, in widdowes to the sixtie, and in virgins to the hundred. But most directly in his sixtie seauen treatise vpon Saint Iohns Gospell vpon this verse: In my fathers house are many mansions: where he saith, that albeit some be holier, juster, and more va­liant then others, yet there shall be fit roomes for them all, where euery one is to receiue his place according vnto his merit. That penny spo­ken of (by which saith he is signified eternall life) shall be giuen to euery man equally:Math. 20. because euery one shall liue for euer, and not one longer then another: but many mansions doe signifie the different dignities of merits in the same euerlasting life.

And S. Gregory in most expresse tearmes, doth teach the same doctrine, saying:Li. 4. mor. cap. 42. Because in this life there is a difference of workes amongst vs, there shall be in the other life without all doubt a distinction of dignities: that as one here excee­deth another in meritte, so there one surpasseth another in rewarde. Finally, S. Augustine, De heres. her. 82. Li. 2 cont. Iouin. and S. Hierome, condemne it as an heresie, to holde that there is diuersity of merittes in this life, and rewardes in the next: Whereon fol­loweth most manifestly, that there be merittes and rewardes.

The first reason is taken out of those textes, which teach that men are worthy of eternall life:Apoc. 3. Sap. 3. 2. Thes. 1. Luk. 20 35 They shall walke with me in whites, because they be worthy. God proued them, and found them worthy of himselfe. That you may be esteemed worthy of the Kingdome of God: Now if men be worthy of eter­nall life, it must needes be graunted, that they haue deserued it.

M. PERK. answereth: that they were indeede worthy, but not for their owne merittes, but for Christes imputed vnto them. This is his on­ly refuge, yet hath he not, nor cannot shewe any one text in Scripture that speaketh so. But to refell him, turne only to the places, and there you shall finde, that this worthinesse rose of good workes, as Christ saith: I knowe thy workes, Apoc. 3. and finde them not full: yet there be some amongst you, who haue not desiled their garments (but haue their workes full) they shall walke with me in whites, 2. Thes. 1. because they be worthy: And By sustayning persecutions, they were made worthy of that kingdome. And in the wordes following, the Apo­stle signifieth, that it is as just for God to requite good workes vvith the joyes of heauen, as he doth punnish wicked, with the paines of hell.

The sixt reason M. PERKINS deliuereth thus:2. Tim. 4 Eternall life is tear­med a crowne, and a crowne of righteousnesse to bee giuen by a just judge: therefore in this life it must be justly deserued, otherwise it were not well called a crowne of justice, nor could be said to be rendred by a just judge. M. PERKINS answereth, that it is called a crowne by re­semblance, because it is giuen in the end of the life, as the crowne is gi­uen in the end of the race.

Reply. If that were all the cause, and that there were no respect to be had to former desartes, it might then as well be called a halter by resem­blance, because that also is giuen in the end of life: and in their opinion, more properly: because all their workes are defiled like a menstruous cloath: and a halter is the end of such wicked workes. But as a halter is due to a theefe, so is a crowne of glory the just reward of the righteous man.

Secondly he answereth, that it is called a crowne of justice, because God hath bound himselfe by his promise to giue it: here then at length we haue by his owne confession, that by Gods promise, eternall life is due debt vnto the righteous: but as hauing ouer-shot himselfe, he addes, not for any desart of theirs, but only for the promise sake. But as you haue heard before, out of S. Matthew, Mat. 20. that promise was made for working the time of our life in his vine-yard, and so there was some desart on their part: and, the seruants were rewarded,Mat. 25. because they imployed their ta­lents well: and in this very place, S. Paul reckoneth vp his good serui­ces, for which the just judge would render him a crowne of justice: and therefore the justice is not only in respect of Gods promise. And if you will not beleeue me, prouing that I say out of the very text, rather then M. PERKINS on his bare word, let S. Augustine be arbitrator betweene vs: who most deepely considereth of euery worde in this sentence: Let vs heare (saith he) the Apostle speaking, Li. 50. hom Hom. 4. when he approached neare vnto his pas­sion, I haue (quoth he) fought a good fight, I haue accomplished my course, I haue kept the faith: concerning the rest, there is laide vp for me a crowne of iustice, which our Lord will render vnto me in that day, a iust iudge: And not only to meet, but to them also that loue his comming: He saith that our Lord a iust iudge will render vnto him a crowne: he therefore doth owe it, and as a iust iudge will pay it. For the worke being regarded, the rewarde cannot be denyed. I haue fought a good fight, is a worke: I haue accomplished my course, is a worke: I haue kept the faith, is a worke. There is laide vp for me a crowne of iustice, this is the rewarde. So that you see most clearly by this most learned fathers judgement, that the reward is due for the worke sake, and not onely for the promise of God See him vpon that verse of the Psalme. I will sing vnto thee O Lord, Psal. 100. mercy and iudgement. Where he concludes, that God in judgement will out of his ju­stice [Page 104] crowne those good workes, which he of mercy had giuen grace to doe. And that the reader may vnderstand, that not onely Saint Augustine doth so confidently teach this doctrine of merittes, (which M. PERKINS blushed not to tearme the inuention of Satan.) I will fold vp this question with some testimonies of the most auncient and best Authours.

Epist. ad Roman.S. Ignatius the Apostles auditour saith. Giue me leaue to become the foode of beastes, that I may by that meanes meritte and winne God.

Apolog. 2. [...]ntemed. Iustine a glorious Martir of the next age hath these wordes, speaking in the name of all Christians. We thinke that men who by workes haue shewed them selues worthy of the will, and counsaile of God, shall by their merittes liue and raigne with him, free from all corruption, and perturbation.

Lib. 4. con. [...]erel c 72.S. Ireneus saith. We eesteme that crowne to be pretious, which is gotten by com­bate and suffering for Gods sake.

Ora in ini­ [...]ium prou. Li de Spir. [...]ancto c. 24S. Basil. All we that walke the way of the Gospell, as Marchants doe, buy & gette the possession of heauenly thinges, by the workes of the commaundements. A man is sa­ued by workes of iustice.

Serm. de eleemos. [...]nsine.S. Cyprian. If the day of our returne shall finde vs vnloaden, swift, and running in the race of workes, our Lord will not faile to reward our merittes. He will giue for workes, to those that winne in peace, a white crowne, and for Martirdome in persecu­tion, he will redouble vnto them a purple crowne.

C [...]n. 5. in M [...]th.S. Hilarie. The Kingdome of heauen, is the hier and reward of them that liue well and perfectly.

Lib. 1. de offic. c. 15.S. Ambrose. Is it not euident, that there remayneth after this life, either reward for merittes, or punishment.

S. Hierome. Now after baptisme it appertayneth to our trauails, according vnto the diuersity of vertue to prepare for vs different rewardes.

Serm. 68. [...]n Cant.S. Bernard. Prouide that thou haue merittes, for the want of them is a pernitious pouertie.

Briefly that this was the vniuersall Doctrine of all good Christians, a­boue a thousand yeare past, is declared in the Councell of Aransicane. Reward is debt vnto good workes, Can 18. if they be done, but grace which was not debt, 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 merittes, to be a Satannicall inuention, and to settle al them that haue care of their saluation, in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church.