not thus haue sayd with so great faith and humilitie saith S. Austin but that he did alreadie beare Christ in his heaâ—â— Wâ— doubt not but he had conceiued of Christ that he was the Sonne 〈◊〉 God the Sauiour of the world and with this faith came vnto 〈◊〉 The profession of his faith is here mentioned according to the present occasion It followeth not that because the act of faith is no further expressed here therefore there was nothing further in his faith for his iustification towards God Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say that he could be iustified without beleeuing the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ which yet is not expressed here and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring vs this example to shew what is meant by iustifying faith In the other places as touching beleeuing that d Mat. 16 16. Ioh. 20.32 Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God the question is what is meant by beleeuing that Iesus is Christ If no more but an act of vnderstanding barely to assent vnto it then the diuels professe as much e Mar. 1.24 O Iesus of Nazaret I know thee who thou art euen the holy one of God But that we may not make that beleefe a matter common to the diuell we must vnderstand it to be a compounded action not of the vnderstanding onely but of the heart of the will and affections as appeareth by the third place which to this purpose he citeth f Rom. 10.9 If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued for with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse c. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized Philip saith g Act. 8.37 If thou beleeue with all thine heart thou mayest I beleeue saith he that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God Beleefe therefore in these speeches importeth such a beleefe as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we beleeue him to be whereby we beleeue to our owne vse and comfort that which we beleeue It is such a faith as desireth seeketh embraceth holdeth ioyeth in that which it beleeueth because therein it seeth and apprehendeth peace whereby we so beleeue that Iesus is Christ as that according to that we beleeue him to be we beleeue in him and put our trust and confidence in him This is implied in the words that Iesus is Christ that is the promised Messias and Sauiour in whom is promised vnto vs and in whom we looke to find blessing peace immortalitie and euerlasting life Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith h August in Psal 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum non quomodo daemones creâ—ebant sed non diligebaÌ„t Christum ideo quamuis crederent dicebant Quid nobis tibi est fili Dei Nos autem sic credamus vt in ipsum credamus diligentes eum non dicamus Quid nebis tibi est sed potius diâ—amus Ad te pertinemus tu redimisti nos Omnes qui sic credunt tanquaÌ„ lapides sunt viui de quibus templuÌ„ Dei ad fiâ—aâ—um est tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus arâ—a illa compacta est quae in diluuâ—o merge non potuit This is to beleeue in Christ euen to loue Christ not as the diuels beleeued and loued not and therefore albeit they beleeued yet said What haue we to do with thee thou sonne of God But let vs so beleeue as that we beleeue in him louing him and let vs not say What haue we to do with thee but rather let vs say We belong to thee thou hast redeemed vs. All that thus beleeue are as liuely stones of which the temple of God is builded and as those neuer putrifying plankes and timber whereof the Arke was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood Such a faith must M. Bishop confesse to be meant in the places by him alledged that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of diuels By this the answer is plaine to the last place which mentioneth only the subiect and matter of the Gospell but of the manner of beleeuing expresseth nothing Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sinnes there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospell we beleeue as where the same Apostle saith i Rom. 4.25 He was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification which we cannot be sayd truly to beleeue vnlesse we beleeue our selues to be redeemed and iustified from our sinnes by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ Now then we deny not but that the beleefe expressed in the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which we must be saued yet not according to that historicall meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them but according to that true meaning of beleeuing in God which the Scripture teacheth whereby a man can truly say I beleeue in God which M. Bishop cannot tell whether he can say or not and therefore we are sure that he cannot say But though he cannot say it yet let him not repine at vs that can and if he list not to haue any part in that faith whereby he should apply to himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ to the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life let him leaue it vnto vs and we will ioy therein and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion because thereby Iesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone of whom we presume all things towards God who can presume nothing of our selues But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile where mentioning this faith layed as the corner stone of our religion which the sycophant as the Popes parrot to speake what he teacheth him termeth irreligion he inferreth this being so what morall or modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it It made me call to mind the morall and modest conuersation of their Popes the humilitie and deuotion of the most of their Cardinals and Bishops the sweet and cleanly life of their Votaries both religious and secular and by them to consider what good fruits M. Bishops faith hath brought forth amongst them It made me remember a storie that I haue heard out of Boccace of a conuerted Iew of whom he that conuerted him would by no meanes heare that he should go to Rome fearing that the sight of the behauiour that he should see there would make him renounce Christianitie againe It made me thinke of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon who seeing enormous behauiours so to abound at Rome refused to become Christians saying k Mâ—t. Parisan Henrico 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates dicebant Quomodo ex vno fonte aequa dulcis salsa poterit emanare Vbi
Christiani fonteâ— iustitiae ha erirâ— tenentuâ— inâ—eniunt la â—c m toxicatum How can water both sweet and salt flow out of one fountaine Where Christians are bound to draw at the fountaine of iustice there they find a poysoned brooke It made me call to mind the good vsage and behauiour of the Spaniards in the west Indies where by their extreme villanies and cruelties they haue made the name of Christian religion to stinke amongst those poore and vnbeleeuing soules It made me consider the humilitie and deuotion and great vertue that the Iesuits and Seculars bewrayed the one of the other in the late contentions that were amongst them It put me in mind of the morall and modest conuersation of Weston the Iesuite and his fellows in hunting the diuell in Sara Williams and many pretie trickes about that matter Surely M. Bishop if the faith and religion which we professe did bring forth such vgly monsters as your Popes haue bene or did nourish such execrable villanies and filtheries as are practised amongst you we might iustly grow suspicious of it But thankes be to God that though our fruits be not such as they ought to be yet the face and state of our Church and common wealth is such as that we may boldly tell you that it is not for a harlot to compare with an honest matrone nor for you to make comparison betwixt vs and you 19. W. BISHOP The second difference in the manner of iustification is about the formall act of faith which M. Perkins handleth as it were by the way cuttedly I will be as short 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 acts of faith feare hope and charity do go before our iustification 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 heart of man at his conuersion whereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse for his iustification This ioyly description is set downe without any other probation then his owne authoritie that deliuered it and so let it passe as alreadie sufficiently confuted And if there needed any other disproofe of it I might gather one more out of his owne explication of it where he saith that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs by the word of God and by the Sacraments For if faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend that couenant of grace then there needs no Sacraments for that purpose and consequently I would faine know by the way how little infants that cannot for want of iudgement and discretion haue any such act of faith as to lay hold on Christ his iustice are iustified Must we without any warrant in Gods word contrarie to all experience beleeue that they haue this act of faith before they come to any vnderstanding R. ABBOT By those acts of faith feare hope charitie going before iustification the Councell of Trent doth expresly consort it selfe with Pelagius the heretike This faith feare hope charitie we must know not to be the effects or workes of any infused grace which before iustification is none but they are the proper actes of mans free will onely assisted by some externall or outward grace as they by collusion call it which as I haue shewed before in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will Pelagius the heretike affirmed and graunted as well as they But hereby they directly crosse the rule of S. Austine that b August de fide oper cap. 14. Sequuntâ—r iustificatum â—on praecedunt iustificandum good workes follow in a man being iustified but they go not before iustification He saith they do not go before they say they do go before onely they are not properly meritorious Meritorious they are also c Bellarm de iustific lib. 1. ca 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissioneÌ„ peccatorum in some sort but not properly meritorious ex condigno as the new faith hope and charitie are in the iustified man Let the Reader well obserue it that there is one faith hope and charitie before iustification another faith hope and charitie infused when a man is iustified But of that we shall heare more anone Here the speciall matter is as touching M. Perkins his description of faith to be an instrument supernaturall created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion whereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnesse for his iustification This M. Bishop saith is set downe without anie proofe and is alreadie sufficiently confuted but where Surely we haue seene much for proofe on M. Perkins side but M. Bishops confutation yet we haue not seene Yea where M. Perkins did notably demonstrate this act of faith out of the Gospell M. Bishop passed it ouer without anie further answer but onely to say d Chap. 3. sect 16 He might be ashamed to vse this discourse to vs who admit no part of it to be true in which sort he might easily answer any thing that he list not to admit for truth But what is it that he would haue to be proued For that faith is an instrument to apprehend and receiue it is plaine because it is e Aug. in Ioan. tract 50. Quomodo tenebo absentem quomodo in coelum manuÌ„ mittam vt ibi sedentem teneam fidem mitte tenuisti the hand which we stretch to heauen to take hold of Christ and to hold him sitting there it is the mouth whereby we eate and drinke Christ because f Ibid. tract 26. Qui credit manducat to beleeue is to eate it is the stomach wherby we digest him for g Tertul. de resur carn fide digerendus he is to be digested by faith it is h Bernard in Cant. ser 32. In bonis Domini quatenus fiduciae pedem pâ—rrexeris eatenus possidebis the foot wherby we enter possession of the benefites of Christ and possesse so farre as we stretch the same it is i Idem in Annunc ser 3. Dominus oleum misericordâ—ae nisi in vase fiduciae non ponit the vessell whereinto God putteth the oyle of his mercy k Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 33. Fide illum accipimus By faith saith Austin we receiue Christ it is l Ambros in Psâ—l 43. Fidei tactus est quo tangitur Christus by faith saith Ambrose that we touch Christ and m Cyprian lib. 2. epist 2. Quatum fidei capacâ— afferimus tantum gratiae inundanin haurimus looke how much faith we bring to receiue saith Cyprian so much we draw of the abundant grace of God This being plaine the question then must be of the thing that is to be receiued Now the thing to be receiued is the thing wherby we are to be iustified The thing whereby
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de â—bitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ„ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâ—iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. 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 maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ„ there spokeÌ„ of had pardoÌ„ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow 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
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification 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 works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified 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 years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well 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 iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot 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 liberalitie of the Father of lights 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 another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene 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 M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following he mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes signifying the first to be of our selues the second to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth Works 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 R. ABBOT The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded how farre foorth good workes are required to iustification namely before God which he determineth thus that they are required not as causes for which we are iustified either in the beginning of grace or in the proceeding thereof but onely as effects and fruites of iustification Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said of being iustified by faith alone yet neither as touching first nor second iustification is directly handled by M. Perkins but only in this place Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof and bringeth his arguments directly to that point First the Apostle saith a Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law M. Bishop excepteth against this place as meant of the first iustification of a sinner not appertaining to the second iustification But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule both beginning and continuing in faith for being still sinners so long as here we liue it must needes be that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it For he writeth these things to the Romaines to the Galathians which long before had beleeued and bene baptized and yet now still informeth them that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law still he saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law Christ dyed in vaine yea he proueth by the Prophets words not that the sinner onely but c Cap. 3.11 the iust shall liue by faith as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words d Psal 55.7 vulg Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos He will saue them for nothing addeth e Hieron aduer Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei salâ—aÌ„tur clementia No doubt but he meaneth the iust who are not saued by their owne merit but by the mercie of God But it is further to be noted that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid a man according to Gods owne hart who from his childhood had bene called of God yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in the f Rom. 4.6 Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient and that not only at a mans first entraÌ„ce into the state of grace which he calleth the first iustificatioÌ„ but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification His acknowledgement that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only without any merit of the sinner himselfe is a meere collusion and mockerie For if a man be iustified by workes then it is not by meere grace He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified and determineth still that hope feare repentance charitie concurre as causes thereof Yea but saith he they are no meritorious causes there is the merit of Christ onely and no merit of the sinner himselfe So then iustification is by workes but not by merits But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes of merits he saith nothing he speaketh of that that is not of that that cannot be workes there may be but merit there can be none as is afterwards to be declared See then the madnesse of these men the Apostle saith h Gal. 2.16 Ephes 2.9 Not by workes yes say they it is by works but it is not by merits the Apostle saith i Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes yes say they it is both by grace and by workes but it is not by merits Thus impudently they confront the Apostle and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith They will seeme to vphold grace by excluding merit when as the Apostle testifieth they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes because as hath bene before alledged out of Austin grace is not grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit but affirme the same k Bellar. de iust lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort euen in their first iustificatioÌ„ as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine Thus they play fast and loose and wold faine say but cannot well tell what to say With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God and yet they so teach it as that they make it of no effect Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God therefore M. Perkins saith that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue meaning that we do nothing at all wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God M. Bishop saith that this is absurd because a man must beleeue and to beleeue is an action But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man who vnderstandeth not what he readeth To beleeue is an action but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand if ignorance had not blinded him that we place no part of righteousnesse in the very act of faith but in the thing receiued thereby Christ onely is our righteousnesse and him we receiue by faith God iustifieth we are iustified God imputeth righteousnesse to vs it is imputed God then is the agent we the subiect whereon he worketh patients receiuers and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine For although they say that by faith hope charitie repentance which are actions they obtaine
and frailty it becommeth defectiue and faulty if God call it to precise and strict examination iudgement Euen as elsewhere he saith againe y Ibid cap. 11. Omnis humana iustitia iniustitia esse câ—nuincitur si districtè iudicetur Prece ergò post iustitiaÌ„ indâ—get vt quae succumbere discussa poterat ipsa iudicis pietate conualescat All the righteousnesse of man is conuicted to be vnrighteousnesse if it be strictly iudged it needeth therefore praier after righteousnesse that that which being sifted might quaile by the meere piety of the Iudge may go for good Where I hope that M. Bishop though he will say much yet will not say that Gregory meant that we should pray that the righteousnesse which we do of our owne strength by the piety and clemencie of the Iudge may stand for good And if he dare not so say then it followeth that of that righteousnesse which in this life we attaine to by the gift of God Gregory saith that it is found to be defectiue and to come short of perfect righteousnesse and thereby to be vnrighteousnesse if seuere and strict account be taken of it which more peremptorily he affirmeth elsewhere saying z Ibid. ca. 18. Si remota pietate discutimur opus nostrum paena dignuÌ„ est quod remunerari praemijs praestolamur c. Restat vt postquaÌ„ bonuÌ„ opus agitur lachrymae expiationis exquâ—raÌ„tur quatenus ad aeterna praemia meritum recti operis subuebat humilitas postulationis If we be iudged without mercy our worke is worthy to be punished which we expect to haue rewarded Therefore the teares of expiation as he speaketh are required that humble praier may lift vp the merit of our good worke to the obtaining of eternall reward So that howsoeuer he commend Iob as well he might sure I am that both Iob and he condemne M. Bishop as a proud Pharisee maintaining the righteousnesse of man against the righteousnesse of God to the impeaching of the glory of God Which he doth also by his quillet of attributing good workes principally to the grace of God not wholy but principally that so he may reserue some place at least to the free will of man because he cannot endure that no part of glory should redound to man To be short it appeareth both by that that is said here and that that hath bene a Sect. 4.44 45. before alledged that Gregory doth not bereaue man only of that perfection that shall be in heauen but also of that that is required by duty ought to be in him here vpon the earth 50. W. BISHOP Now before I depart from this large question of iustification I will handle yet one other question which commonly ariseth about it it is Whether Faith may be without Charity I prooue that it may so be first out of these words of our Sauiour Manie 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 whom I wil confesse that I neuer knew you depart from me all yee that worke iniquity That these men beleeued in Christ and perswaded themselues assuredly to be 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 2. When the King went to see his guests Math. 22. He found there a man not attired in his wedding garment and therfore commanded him to be cast into vtter darknesse This man had faith or else he had not bene 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 termes Apoc. 1â— The garments of Christs Spouse is declared to be the righteousnesse and good works of the Saints And that with great reason for as S. Paul teacheth 1. Cor. 13 Faith shall not remaine after this life With what instrument then trow you will the Protestants lay hold on Christs righteousnesse That charity is that wedding garment S. Hierome vpon the same place doth witnesse saying That it is the fulfilling of our Lords commandements And S. Gregory doth in expresse words define it Hâ—m â—8 in Euang. Can. â—2 in Mat. Tract â—â—m Maâ—â— Math. 25. What saith he must we vnderstand by the wedding garment but charity So do S. Hilary and Origen and S. Chrysostome vpon that place 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 and entrance into the seruice of God Yea in the house of God they aspired vnto more then ordinarie perfection hauing professed Virginitie yet either caried away with vaine glorie as S. Gregory takes it or not giuing themselues to the workes of mercy spirituall and corporall as S. Chrysostome expounds it briefly not continuing in their former charitie 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 apparent by their confident demaunding to be let in for they said Lord Lord open vnto vs. Iohn 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 when the holy Ghost saith expresly that they beleeued in Christ which is the onely act of faith and yet were destitute of charitie which preferreth the glorie and seruice of God before all things in this world R. ABBOT That there may be faith without charitie we make no question but the question is of that faith whereby we are iustified or wherin standeth our iustification before God It is to be knowne that faith is of diuers sorts there is a faith which is called a Tit. 1.1 the faith of the elect as being peculiar vnto them and for which men are called b Ephe. 1.1 faithfull and there is a faith by which the c Iam. 2.19 diuels also are said to beleeue and yet are not to be called faithfull There is a faith whereby we d Ibid. beleeue that there is one God and there is another faith whereby e Iohn 14.1 we beleeue in God There is a faith whereby Simon Magus f Act 8.13.21 beleeued whose heart was not right in the sight of God and there is a g Act. 15.9 faith whereby God purifieth the heart There is a h Iam 2 20. dead faith and there is a i Gal. 2.20 faith whereby we liue and Christ liueth in vs. There is a k 1 Tim. 1.5 faith vnfained and thereby we vnderstand that there is also a fained faith There is a faith that consisteâ—h in l
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments 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 towards 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 onely 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 expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine 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 R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ„ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nâ—n sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
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 contrariwise 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 words 1. Cor. 13. Now there remaineth faith hope and charity these three but the greater of these is charity Whereupon S. Augustine resolueth thus Nothing but charity maketh faith it selfe auailable Li. de Trinit cap. 18. for faith saith he may be without charity but it cannot be auailable without it So that first you see that charity is the mouer and commaunder and faith as her instrument and handmayd Now that in the worke of iustification it hath the chiefe place may be thus proued I demaund whether that worke of iustification by faith be done for the loue of God and to his honour or no If not as it is void of charity so it is a wicked and sinfull act no iustification but infection our owne interest being the principall end of it now if it comprehend and conclude Gods glory and seruice in it that is if they apply Christs righteousnesse 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 iustification and that as principall S. Augustine confirmeth in these words The house of God that is a righteous and godly soule Serm. 22. de vâ—rbis Apostol hath for his foundation faith hope is the walles of it but charity is the roofe and perfection of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop was loth to trouble himselfe too much with M. Perkins answer who truly obserueth the difference betwixt faith charity that the proper act of faith is to take receiue to vs the proper act of loue to giue our selues forth to others Seeing theÌ„ that iustificatioÌ„ is a thing to be receiued the same must needs be performed properly by faith but not by charity because charity is no instrumeÌ„t to receiue But yet faith receiuing all of God vseth charity as the meanes to make returne of it selfe to God againe and by charity as a working hand performeth all the duties commaunded of God to the honour and glory of God This therefore the Apostle intendeth in the place alledged that faith hauing alone iustified vs by receiuing the gift of righteousnesse which is by the merit of Iesus Christ doth not stay there but goeth forth by charity to serue God to serue one another and to shew our selues thankfull vnto God And wonder it were that the Apostle hauing before professedly disputed the matter of iustification and referring the same wholy to faith should here crosse all that he hath before said and tell vs that not onely faith but loue also must concurre to make vp our iustification before God Marke it well gentle Reader that where the Apostle purposely speaketh of the meanes of iustification M. Bishop can finde nothing to proue that we are iustified by loue nothing pleaded but onely faith but here where the Apostle describeth only the condition of the faith by which we are iustified here he will finde somewhat whereby to plead against the Apostles former doctrine yea and will proue that loue hath not onely a part but the chiefest part in our iustification and that faith is rather the instrument or handmaid of charity How much is he beholding to his Maister Bellarmine that hath taught him such a trick and furnished him with a deuice which neuer any Father Greeke or Latine neuer any translatour could light vpon till his admirable wit had found it out We may well thinke that such a head could not but deserue a Cardinals hat Forsooth the text proueth that life and motion is giuen to faith by charity But how so a Bellarm. de iustific lib. 2. cap. 4. Marry the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity But what must we M. Bishop vpon Bellarmines word and yours take this without any further authority or warrant so to do Indeede it is true that the Greeke word sometimes is taken passiuely but by the Apostle is more often vsed in the actiue signification and in this place was neuer before by any Father Greeke or Latine taken otherwise Yea the spite is that the vulgar Latine interpreter to whom they are tied by the Councell of Trent crosseth this deuice for he readeth as we do Fides quae per charitatem operatur faith which worketh by loue But there is a tricke to salue that to for saith Bellarmine b Jllud operatur passiuè accipiendum est non aâ—â—iuè the word operatur must be taken passiuely not actiuely Now what blockheads were the Diuines of Rhemes that could not see so much or would omit so materiall a proofe against the heretikes for they haue translated as we do faith which worketh by loue But they were bashfull they thought Bellarmine could carie out the matter with his name and countenance but it would be condemned for a great fault in them Better it is for some man to steale a horse then for another to looke ouer the hedge They knew well that euerie child would crie out vpon them for lewd men if they had translated operatur passiuely in as much as neither their owne interpreter in any other place nor any other Latine author hath euer vsed it in that sort Againe they saw that a very grosse and palpable absurdity would thereupon haue ensued which on their owne part cannot be denied For if they had translated faith which is wrought by loue then it would haue followed that loue by which faith is wrought must needes be before faith whereas they all acknowledge that faith hath the first being according to that which M. Bishop a little c Sect. 20. Ex August de praedest sanct ca. 7. before alledged out of Austine faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest Which being a principle in diuinitie and accorded on both sides they could not tell how to make good if they should haue said that faith is wrought by loue Now M. Bishop though for the rest he would aduenture vpon his Maisters credit yet durst not follow him so farre as to translate operatur passiuely but onely beateth about the bush and telleth vs that the Greeke sheweth that faith is moued led and guided by charity Wherein he doth wrong to the Rhemists his country-men to whom for countries sake he should haue done that honour to stand to their translation Yea and he abuseth his Reader in that he doth not directly translate the place which if he had done he durst not translate it to giue that meaning that
f Aug. in Psa 83 Fides nidus est pullorum tuoruÌ„ in hoc nido operare opera tua the nest wherein we are to lay our workes that we may hatch them vnto God Faith is g Prosp de voc gen l. 1 c. 8. Fides bonae voluntatis iustae actionis est genitrix the mother of a good will and iust and righteous conuersation Our faith in Christ is h Aug. in Ps 120 Christus in corde vestro fides est Christ in vs and i Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 21. Mihi sol ille caelestis mea fide vel minuttur vel augetur that heauenly Sunne is either impaired or increased vnto me saith Ambrose according to my faith In a word S. Austin telleth vs that k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Vnde mors in anima Quia fides noÌ„ est Ergo animae tuae anima fides est faith is the soule of our soule what is that to say but the life of all our life It is faith then and not charitie that giueth influence to all the rest euen to charitie it selfe as faith increaseth so other graces are increased as faith decreaseth so other graces decrease the life of faith is our life the strength of faith is our l Cyprian ad Quirinum lib. 3. cap. 43. Tantum possumus quantum credimus strength if our faith be weake there is nothing else wherby we can be strong Therfore M. Bishop goeth much awry yet no otherwise then he is wont to do in assigning to charitie to giue the spirit of life and influence to faith when as it is by faith that we m Galath 3.14 receiue the spirit which is the author of all spiritual life and grace on which all our state dependeth towards God 24. W. BISHOP The fourth reason if faith alone do iustifie then faith alone will saue but it wil not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition 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 die shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shal he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therfore this first shift was very friuolous Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith alone we shal also be saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time wil reÌ„der vnto euery man according to his works But of this more amply in the question of merits R. ABBOT Tertullian rightly saith a Tertul. de poenit Horum bonorum vnus est â—itulus salâ—s hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione praemissa the saluation of man is the one title of all the benefites of God forgiuenesse of sinnes being put in the first place If saluation be the whole and iustification but a part then more is required to saluation then to iustification because more is required to the whole then to a part Vnder saluation we comprehend both iustification and sanctification in this world life and blisse eternall in the world to come The first act of our saluation is our iustification but God hauing by iustification reconciled vs vnto him goeth forward by sanctification b Col. 1 12. to make vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light To iustification belongeth only faith to sanctification all other vertues and graces wherein consisteth that c Heb. 12.14 holinesse without which no man shall see the Lord. His exception as touching infants dying after baptisme is very idle They are not onely iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctified by the spirit of grace neither is there any man iustified to the title of eternall life but the same is together also sanctified to the possession thereof and therfore hath more to saluation then onely iustification But as touching the verie point his minor proposition is false We say that we are saued also by faith onely according to that that before I alledged out of Origen that d Origen in Ro. cap. 3 sup sect 21 for faith only Christ said to the woman Thy faith hath saued thee Hath saued thee saith he as a thing alreadie done according to the vsuall phrase of the Scripture in that behalfe For so it is said of Zacheus e Luk. 19.9 This day saluation is come to this house So saith the Apostle f 2. Tim. 1.9 He hath saued vs and called vs with a holy calling g Tit. 3.5 of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. The reason whereof is because in iustification as I haue sayd our saluation is begun and in that we are iustified we are saued Christ therein being giuen vs and in him the interest and title of eternall life thenceforth by that right onely to be continued and performed vnto vs. Being then iustified by faith alone we are saued by faith alone the gift of sanctification to holinesse and good works being necessarily coÌ„sequent not as by vertue wherof we are to be saued whom the Scripture pronounceth to be already saued but as the processe of Gods worke for accomplishment of that saluation whereto in iustification we are begotten and in way of inheritaÌ„ce intitled by faith alone We are saued by faith alone saith M. Perkins because faith alone is the instrument whereby we apprehend Christ who onely is our saluation Where obserue gentle Reader what M. Bishop maketh of that speech that for faith alone we are saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Os impudens Where doth M. Perkins say that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement What a Doctor of diuinitie to lye wilfully to lye What is this but meere varletrie to abuse his Reader not being carefull haply to looke into M. Perkins booke but taking it vpon his word But if thou haue M. Perkins booke I pray thee to looke to the obiections and answers set down in the end of this question of Iustification which M. Bishop hath vnhonestly left out and there in the answer to the sixt Obiection thou shalt find these words In equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life By which words thou mayest esteeme how little faith or credite is to be yeelded to this wretched man who doubteth not here with manifest falshood to affime that M. Perkins saith that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement And by the same words the solution is
being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen 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 as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
necessarie as faith Be it so yet he doth not say that we are iustified by charity We say as he there saith that Å¿ Basil ser de fide Character insigne Christianorum loue is the badge and cognizance of Christian men much commended vnto vs by our Sauior as a marke whereby he will haue vs to be knowne to be his disciples We say further that it is as necessarie as faith to the full perfection of a Christian man and yet we say it hath nothing to do in the act of iustification To his question as touching the words alledged If a man know himselfe iustified by faith in Christ how can he acknowledge that he wants true iustice I answer him that a man acknowledgeth himselfe to want in himselfe true inherent iustice confessing himselfe to be sinfull and corrupt when yet he wanteth not that iustice or righteousnesse of which S. Paule saith t Rom. 4.5 To him that worketh not that is u Oecumen in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus fiduciaÌ„ non habet who hath no confidence by workes but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is reputed for righteousnesse and so as Basil saith he is iustified by faith alone x Bern. in Cant. ser 23. Charitas patris ipsoruÌ„ cooperit multitudinem peccatorum Et ser 61. Iustitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum the loue of the Father and the righteousnesse of Christ the Sonne couering the multitude of his sinnes so that they are as if they had neuer bin and he as if he had offended nothing as before hath bene declared Origens testimonie which is the last of all declareth plainly the same that Basils doth that y Orig. in Rom. cap. 3. Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credeÌ„s tan tummodo quis iustificetur etiaÌ„si nihil ab eo operis fueriâ— expletum the iustification of faith alone is sufficient so that a man onely beleeuing is iustified though there haue bene no good worke performed by him For example hereof he alledgeth the Thiefe on the crosse z Pro sola fide aâ— ei Iesus AmeÌ„ dâ—cot tâ—bi c. to whom for faith alone Christ said This day shalt thou be with me in paradise M. Bishop answereth againe that Origen excludes no good disposition in vs to iustification A strange matter that these Fathers should haue so little discretion still to be vrging faith alone faith alone and yet should meane to leaue a place to M. Bishops good dispositions whereby faith alone is ouerthrowne But he addeth out of his maister Bellarmine that faith is opposed to outward workes so that Origens meaning is that a man may be saued without doing outwardly any good workes if he want time and place And what are those outward workes Forsooth Bellarmine nameth to fast and to giue almes Absurd Friar as if there were no outward good workes to be done but onely fasting and giuing of almes M. Bishop here vnder the name of dispositions setteth forth vnto vs many good works of the theefe in that short time of his being vpon the crosse the feare of God hope faith repentance confession of sinnes loue towards God and his neighbor in reprehending his fellowes blasphemie and defending Christs innocencie and yet of him Origen affirmeth the same that Chrysostome did before of Abraham that not for any workes but he was iustified by faith alone a Super hoc non requisiuit Dominus quid priùs oporatus esset nec expectauit quid operis cùm credidisset explesset sed sola confessione iustificatum comitem sibi Paradisum in gressurus assumpsit Christ did not enquire concerning him saith he what he had wrought before nor did looke what worke he performed when he had beleeued but being to go into Paradice tooke him to accompany him being iustified onely by his confession that is by his faith which he vttered and shewed by his confession of Christ The other example there alledged by Origen maketh the matter as plaine which is of the woman in the Gospell that washed Christs feet with her teares and wiped them with the haires of her head whose good workes M. Bishop hath noted also b Sect. 21. before to whome notwithstanding c Origen ibid. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide not for any worke of the law but for faith only saith Origen Iesus said Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee Yea but Origen faith d Idem in ca. 4. that faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they do withall put off the old man And we say no lesse that iustification cannot be separated from sanctification but where the one is there is the other also and yet it is distinctly to be considered what belongeth to the one and what belongeth to the other He correcteth the opinion of them who thinke profession of faith to be faith and thereupon saith as we do that to such their faith because indeed it is no true faith cannot be reputed for righteousnesse Therefore of faith he said before e Jbid Ne putes quòd si quis habeat talem fidem ex qua iustificatus habeat gloriaÌ„ apud Deum possit simul cum ea habere iniustitiam si enim quâ— credit quòd Iesus est Christus ex Deo natus est qui natus est ex Deo non peccat manifestuÌ„ est quia qui credit Jesu Christo non peccat quòd si peccat certum est quia non creditet c Certum est eum qui verè credit opus fidei iustitiae operari totius bonitatis Do not thinke that he that hath such a faith as whereby being iustified he hath to reioyce with God can together therewith haue vnrighteousnesse For if he that beleeueth that Iesus is Christ be borne of God and he that is borne of God sinneth not it is manifest that he that beleeueth in Iesus Christ sinneth not and if he do sinne that is giue himselfe to sinne it is certaine that he beleeueth not Certaine it is that he that truly beleeueth doth worke the worke of faith and righteousnesse and of all goodnesse Thus he saith as we do that true faith cannot be separated from godly life so that a man cannot haue fellowship with Christ by iustification who by sanctification also hath not fellowship with him But the roote of all is faith by which alone we are iustified and so the barre of sinne is taken away that diuided before betwixt God and vs that so the sanctifying spirit of God may haue accesse vnto vs to worke in vs the good worke of God and so to prepare vs to that inheritance to the hope wherof he hath called vs. As for the other place that he citeth it is the same in effect with that of Ignatius f Sect. 26. before alledged and containeth nothing
but what we also teach as hath bene declared there 31. W. BISHOP The third Difference of Iustification is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification the first when of a sinner one is made iust the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ without any merit of man onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of Faith Feare Hope Charitie Repentance go before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more fit 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 child new borne doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. Perkins first granteth that good workes do please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessarie to saluation not as the cause therof but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be iust before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteem much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second iustification or whether they be onely fruites signes or markes of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop it seemeth did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong to make her better then indeed she is for whereas he had said that they exclude all workes from the first iustification and confesse it to be wholly of grace M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding that certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of faith feare hope charitie repentance go before to prepare the way to iustification all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud First we graunt that good workes do please God and are approued of him and therefore haue reward which we intend both temporall and eternall but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other but only temporall reward Secondly we say that they are necessarie to saluation not as causes either conseruant adiuuant or procreant but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation or as markes in a way or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation Thirdly we say that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes that is declared and made manifest to be iust And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith albeit we forbeare so to speake both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification properly vnderstood in the sight of God and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point sounds another way This last M. Bishop here cōcealeth fearing lest it should preuent him of some of his cauils but that which he doth alledge he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments then that we esteeme much of good workes which he saith we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part still peruerting sometimes our saying sometimes our meaning Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach he will make his Reader beleeue that we meane not as we say We see no such difference betwixt them and vs betwixt their liues and ours but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes as much as they do We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops nay as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be Whereas he saith that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes he very impudently falsifieth that which we say We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake being done in his name and offered vpon the altar of faith in him The imperfection thereof is accidentall and taketh not away the nature of a good worke but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same which he doth not but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake Seeing then the blemish set aside we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke being the worke of the grace of God to be accepted and rewarded of God with what conscience doth this brabler say that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes As touching the question propounded by him it consisteth of two parts the one of the increase of righteousnesse the other of the cause of that increase We say that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God admitteth no increase because it must be perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili if any thing be taken from it it is not perfect and if it be not perfect it cannot iustifie before God Now by M. Bishop it appeareth that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification is vnperfect because it remaineth afterwards to be increased Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day but hence we argue that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God for the defect that is thereof is not by a meere priuation but by admixtion of the contrarie a August Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of some corruption as S. Austin saith Yea b Idem de perf iustit Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet there is sinne as he againe saith when charitie that is inhernt iustice is lesse then it ought to be But where sinne is a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God no nor by their second iustification because it neuer groweth to that but that it is still capable of increase It remaineth therefore that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ which is without increase being
Iustification as M. Perkins saith we make but one but yet we make degrees of sanctification not euill worse and worst as this cauiller fondly dreameth but good and better and best according to the measure of Gods spirit bestowed vpon vs but yet so as that to the good better and best that is in this life there cleaueth a blemish and staine which would cause the worke to be condemned but that it is graciously accepted and the imperfection thereof mercifully pardoned for Christes sake as shall appeare in the handling of that matter He calleth the affirming of one iustification perfect at first and not after to be lost an absurd position but it is not absurd but to absurd men to whom the truth it selfe is absurd There is in the sight of God but one iustification onely by faith in Christ vnder the couerture whereof we stand thenceforth acceptable vnto God both in our persons and in our workes of obedience vnto euerlasting life In that sence as to present vs iust before God there is no other iustification That that is further is but declaratiua a iustification so called whereby we are iustified and declared to be iustified men The true iustification properly so called cannot be lost because a Rom. 8.30 whom God iustifieth he also glorifieth nor increased because the righteousnesse of Christ is alwaies vniforme and alike By this righteousnesse being the same to all all are equally righteous but by the different grace of sanctification in inherent righteousnesse some are more righteous some lesse and if Iouinian maintained the contrary he erred and therefore those Fathers whom M. Bishop citeth do not course vs at all but say the same that we do and we that they neither is it any other but his grosse ignorance so absurdly to mistake one thing for another We say that there is equality of righteousnesse in one respect and he bringeth the Fathers affirming against Iouinian what we cōfesse that there is difference of righteousnesse in another respect According to that former righteousnesse by imputation of the merit and obedience of Christ a man is as righteous the first day of his conuersion as he is in the end of his life howsoeuer as touching sanctification and inherent righteousnesse he grow much and therin be renewed from day to day 36. W. BISHOP First that of the Reuelations Let him that is iust be yet iustified or as your text hath it He that is righteous Cap. 22. let him be more righteous and that of feare not to be iustified euen vntill death Eccles 18. do conuince that there are more iustifications then one and that a man may increase in iustification and righteousnesse vntill death Which is confirmed where it is said That the path of a iust man proceedeth Prou. 4. as the light doth vntill it be perfect day which is degrees more and more And S. Paule teacheth the same where he saith to men that giue almes plentifully That God will multiply their seed 2. Cor. 9. and augment the increases of the fruites of their iustice Further S. Iames doth most effectually proue this increase of righteousnesse and the second iustification in these words Abraham our father was he not iustified by workes Cap. 2. offering Isaac his sonne vpon the altar That he speaketh of the second iustification is euident for Abraham was iustified before Isaac was borne as it is most manifest by the Scripture it selfe and by that heroicall act of not sparing his onely and intirely beloued Sonne his iustice was much augmented Gen. 15. Rom. 4. And the Apostle himselfe seemeth to haue foreseene all our aduersaries cauillation and to haue so long before preuented them First that common shift of theirs that this worke was a signe or the fruite 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 ioyning them both in this act of iustification 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 works to the soule which giue life and lustre to faith otherwise faith is of litle value and estimation with God Which S. Paule also teacheth at large among other speeches including this That if he should haue all faith 1. Cor. 13. and wanted charitie he were nothing And comparing faith and charitie together defineth expresly that charitie is the greater vertue which charitie is the fountaine of all good workes And so by this preferring these works of charity before faith he doth stop the other starting hole of the Protestants that Abraham forsooth was iustified before God by onely faith but was declared iust before men by his works For if God esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified 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. Now I know that thou louest me and to conuince all obstinate cauilling is it not said that his faith did in this very fact cooperate with his workes and that the worke made his faith perfect which coniunction of both of them together doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his iustification before God adding also That he was therefore called the friend of God which could not haue bene if thereby he had bene onely declared iust before men and thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles S. Paul and S. Iames which seeme contrary S. Paul saying that a man is iustified by faith without workes and S. Iames that a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely That S. Paul speaketh of works which go before faith such as we of our owne forces without the helpe of grace are able to do and such he saith not to deserue our first iustification But S. Iames disputeth of workes which follow faith and issue out of our soules now garnished will grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by Lib. 83. Quest q. 76. Ser. 16. de verb. Apost that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directly that we are iustified and that this iustice doth increase whiles it doth proceede and profit R. ABBOT The exhortation of S. Iohn is that he that hath walked in righteousnesse and innocencie and thereby approoued his profession of the faith of Christ should still continue his course and go forward to iustifie and approoue himselfe to the consciences of all men by the same vertuous and godly life The words haue their reference to outward conuersation iustification is to be vnderstood of the same that S. Iames speaketh of and that is before men and in
distinction is very plainly intimated by S. Paul when he saith r Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioice but not with God He denieth not but Abraham was iustified by workes and that he had wherein to glory and to stand vpon his iustification but yet not with God He might do it in respect of men but with God he could not do it So saith Origen vpon those words hauing first put difference betwixt iustification by faith seene onely to God and iustification by works which may be approoued of men ſ Origen in Rom. ca. 4. Abraham si ex operibus iustificatus est habet quidem gloriam ex operibus venientem sed non illam quae apud Deum est If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath the glory which commeth by works but not that which is with God And this distinction is apparant also by S. Austine who speaking as touching inherent iustice and righteousnesse of workes saith t Aug. de Temp. ser 49. Quamdiu viuitur in hac vita nemo iustificatus est sed In conspectu Dei. Nō frustrae addidit In conspectu tuo nisi quia potest esse iustificatus in cōspectu hominū Referet in conspectu Dei Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens So long as we liue in this life no man is iustified but in the sight of God Not without cause was it that Dauid added In thy sight For it may be that a man may be iustified in the sight of men but let him speake as touching Gods sight and no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Where sith S. Austine as touching iustification by workes denieth that any man in this life is iustified in the sight of God it must necessarily follow that that iustification which is by workes must not be vnderstood in the sight of God but onely in the sight of men Now then to speake of iustification before men as S. Iames doth it is true that both faith and workes do concurre and ioine in the act of iustification The faith that inwardly in the heart iustifieth to God and is outwardly professed with the mouth to men is not sufficient to approoue a man outwardly to men and to the Church of God to the sight and conscience whereof euery faithfull man is bound to acquit and cleare himselfe vnlesse it be accompanied and adorned with vertuous and vpright conuersation In this respect therefore it may be said that the better part in some sort is attributed to workes that faith is made perfect by workes that faith is as the body and good workes as the soule and that faith without workes is dead euen as the body is dead without the soule Men specially haue an eie to workes and thereto attribute more then to words He is taken for a halting and halfe Christian that maketh shew of faith and liueth not accordingly Men account him as a carion a dead carkasse lothsome detestable he is euery mans byword as I said before and his name continually carieth reproch with it Hereby it appeareth also that faith though haply it be in the heart yet is here respected onely as it is professed to men For it cannot be that the worke of the hand should giue life to the faith of the heart but rather receiueth life from it Yea M. Bishop himselfe telleth vs that charity within is the life of faith within and therefore workes which are without cannot be said to be the life of faith but as faith it selfe also is without There may be workes whereby a man outwardly may u Luk. 16.15 iustifie himselfe to men as the Pharisees did which yet are dead workes because there is neither faith nor charity to giue them life from the heart Now S. Iames must so be vnderstood as that not charity which is habitually and inuisibly within but works which are outward and apparent must be the life of faith He speaketh therefore of faith as it is outwardly professed which hath it life and grace and honour amongst men by the outward fruites of good workes correspondent to it selfe Very guilefully therefore doth M. Bishop turne his speech from workes whereof S. Iames speaketh to charity there being here so different a consideration to be had of the one and of the other yea he himselfe naming charity the fountaine of good workes and thereby importing that charity as the fountaine differeth from the good workes that issue therefrom The place that he alledgeth to the Corinthians x 1. Cor. 13.2 Though I haue all faith c. is nothing to this purpose because we speake here of a faith that is common to all the faithfull but the Apostle there speaketh of a faith that is peculiar onely to some whereof he hath said the chapter going before y Cap. 12.9.10 To one is giuen the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledge to another is giuen faith meaning the faith whereby miracles are wrought as he himselfe addeth Though I haue all faith so that I could remooue mountaines c. His purpose is to teach men not to be proud of speciall gifts of the spirit but to respect the end and vse thereof which is performed by loue without which they are onely idle shewes As touching the comparison of faith and charity there hath bene enough said z Sect. 22. before For our present state faith hath the preferment and all in all hangeth vpon our faith which is the heart and life of whatsoeuer else is in vs towards God It is faith that giueth God his glory that acknowledgeth him to be that that he is that so setteth him before vs as to draw all our affections vnto him our loue our feare our hope our delight our selues wholy both body and soule The promises of God in speciall manner are made to them that beleeue and trust in him Therefore that God esteemeth more of our charity then of our faith is not the Apostles assertion but M. Bishops fond collection and that which the whole course of Scripture doth gainsay But supposing it to be so the consequence that M. Bishop draweth therefrom is very ridiculous If God esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified by charity then by faith As if he should say A man esteemeth more of his eies then of his eares therefore he heareth better with his eies then with his eares A thing may simply absolutely be preferred before another and yet the other in some respect vse may be preferred before it Thus may it very well be said as touching this comparison of faith with charity as before is said Further he alledgeth that God to shew how acceptable Abrahams fact was to him saith Now I know that thou louest me The true text is a Gen. 22.12 Now I know that thou fearest me but thus M. Bishop shufleth and shifteth the best he can to gaine somewhat to charity against faith
by he saith very vntruly and absurdly for S. Iames bringeth the example of the true and liuely and workfull faith of Abraham as opposite to that idle and dead faith concerning which he propounded that question of faith and workes Yea of Abrahams faith he sheweth that it was said e Ver. 23. Abraham beleeued God and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse which was neuer said of any man for saying that he had faith for beleeuing that there is one God for that faith that consisteth onely in profession before men Now the faith of Abraham which f Ver. 22. wrought with his workes and was made perfect by his workes g Beda in Epist Iac. cap. 2. that is saith Beda was proued by the performance of workes to be perfect in his heart this faith of Abraham I say is it whereby the Protestants hope to be iustified in the sight of God as Abraham was because h Rom 4.23 it was not written for him onely that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse but also for vs to whom it shall be imputed beleeuing in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead We alledge further that the faith whereof S. Iames speaketh is likened to the faith of diuels and therefore that it cannot be the same with that which the Scripture nameth for a iustifying faith M. Bishop answereth that that followeth not and for auouching thereof maketh Abrahams faith not onely the same with the faith of hypocrites and false Christians but also with the faith of diuels He would qualifie the matter in shew but in truth maketh no difference An excellent good thing may be like vnto a bad in some things saith he True but yet the bad cannot be like the good in that wherin standeth the goodnesse and excellencie of the good Now he maketh the Hypocrites faith if we consider the very act of faith the same that Abrahams faith was which was reputed vnto him for righteousnesse and for which the Scripture setteth him foorth as an excellent patterne of faith to be followed of all beleeuers But to auoyde the odiousnesse hereof he sophisticateth the matter and so much as in him lyeth blindeth his reader They are like saith he in two points where in the first point he comprehendeth the fulnes and perfection of that which he calleth Catholike and Christian faith consisting as here absurdly he saith in the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed as if euery one that hath their Catholike faith haue the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed but as more plainly he hath deliuered his mind before i Sect. 18. in beleeuing all to be true that God hath reuealed No more is there in Abrahams faith if we keepe within the compasse of the nature of faith no lesse in the diuell the same in euery Catholike Christian and so the diuel is become a Catholike whether he wil or not Come on M. Bishop rid vs of this doubt for we cannot find by you but that the diuell by Catholike faith is become a Catholike He goeth on Secondly this knowledge shal not steed them any whit But that is nothing to the very nature of faith whether is steede or not steed The essence act of faith whether it steed or not steed is no more but this to beleeue generally all to be true which God hath reuealed and therefore whether with good works or without the faith of the Catholike Christian in the act of faith is no other but the diuels faith Now albeit he say that these faiths differ in many points yet of those many he nameth but onely one and that nothing to the purpose For if he will shew a difference of faith betwixt Christians and diuels he must take it from faith it selfe and not from those things which to the nature of faith are meerely accidentall Christians saith he out of a godly and deuout affection do willingly submit their vnderstanding to the rules of faith But this is not to make a difference but to adde charity vnto faith This godly and deuout affection and willing submission is an act of charity and not of faith an act of the wil and affection wherein charity is seated not of the vnderstanding wherin he saith is the seat of faith And in this affection and submission faith it selfe still is no more then it was before to beleeue all to be true that God hath reuealed The diuel then still pleadeth for himselfe that if the Catholike faith which M. Bishop hath described do make a Catholike there is no reason to except against him for being a Catholike because he beleeueth all to be true which God hath reuealed Or if he wil say that true Christian faith doth alwaies actually necessarily imply this godly deuout affection and willing submission of the vnderstanding to the rules of faith then because this cannot be without charity let him grant the question let vs trauell no further about this point but let him say as we say that the true Christiā faith wherby it is said we are iustified cā neuer be separate frō charity good works Thus he casteth himself into he knoweth not what Labyrinths mazes cannot tell how to get out How much better were it for to acknowledge the simple and plaine truth of God then to intricate himselfe in these perplexities wherin he can find no place to stand secure But yet out of the words of S. Iames As the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead he will further prooue that faith may be without charitie and yet perfect in the kind of faith Now this is it that hath bene said that in the kind of faith considering faith intirely in it selfe he maketh Abrahams faith and the diuels faith to be all one As touching the words of S. Iames sufficient hath bene said before If faith be considered as outwardly professed to men as he intendeth it good workes are the life of faith If it be considered as it is inward in the heart to God good workes cannot be the life thereof because that which is without cannot giue life to that that is within Whereas he turneth workes into charitie he playeth the Sophister for it is one thing to talke of charitie another thing to talke of workes the one being in habite the other in act the one inward the other outward the one the tree the other the fruite the one the spring the other the streame But letting this passe as handled before let vs see how he argueth from the place of Iames Albeit the body be dead without the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe But that is not true for a true naturall body is that onely which hath the true members and parts of a naturall bodie which a dead bodie hath not k Arist Polit. lib. 1. cap. 1 When the body is dead saith Aristotle there shall be neither foote nor hand but onely by
sedulò vt quae tibi lex facienda praescripsit opere expleas diligentèr certus opperitor iucundissimaÌ„ fruitionem repositoruÌ„ tibi bonoruÌ„ c. Bonis perfruâ— siquidem desideres quae praescripta sunt mandata opere exequitor which God hath giuen as to guide vs by the hand to direct vs the way Wilt thou then saith he be certainly perswaded what shall hereafter befall thee Prouide diligently to do the things which the law coÌ„mandeth thee to do and waite assured of the most ioyfull fruition of the good things which are prouided for thee If thou desire to enioy good things performe the commandements that are prescribed vnto thee By Basils iudgement then it is plaine that the words haue further meaning then to refer theÌ„ to the law concerning that one particular of consulting wizards But Hierome goeth yet further tels vs the meaning of the Prophet in this sort e Hieron in Esa cap 8. lib. 3. Si de aliquo dubitaris c. si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt maÌ„gis vos legi et testimonijs tradite scripturarum If ye doubt of any thing if ye would know the things that ye doubt of referre your selues to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures What wil M. Bishop say now wil he cal Hierom a wizard as he hath done M.P. for saying the Prophets meaning to be that the Scripture the written word shold resolue theÌ„ of al that they doubted towards God Yea the law it self sufficiently warranteth vs so to coÌ„ceiue f Deut. 12.32 Whatsoeuer I coÌ„mand you take heed you do it saith Moses thou shalt put nothing therto nor take ought therefroÌ„ Those words M. Bish vulgar Latin expoundeth thus g Quod praecipio tibi hoc tantùm facito Domino What I coÌ„mand thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto c. Now we haue seene before that Moses committed to writing whatsoeuer he commaÌ„ded If then nothing were to be done to the Lord but what Moses commanded and all that Moses commanded was written then by the written word all doubts were to be resolued as touching those things that were to be done to the Lord and nothing to be done but that that was written But saith M. Bishop what need we then the Prophets what need we the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles I haue answered him before but yet let me tell him here that Faustus the Maniche denying God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ to be the author of the old Testament when he was vrged that Christ approueth the same in saying I came not to destroy the lawe but to fulfill it replied that it could not be that Christ should say so because the author of the Law had said that nothing should be added to the law nor taken from it Saint Austine answereth him that h August cont Faust Manich. lib. 17. cap. 6. Venit legem adimplere non vi legi adderentur quae decrant sed vt fierent quae scripta erant quod ipsa eius verba iestantur Non enim ait Joâ—a vnum aut vnus apex non transiet à lege donec addantur quae desunt sed donec omnia fiant Christ came to fulfill the Law not as that any thing should be added which was wanting to the law but that the things should be done which are written therein as his words saith he do shew for he doth not say Not one iot or title of the law shall passe till the things be added which are wanting but till all things be done Hence therefore we answer M. Bishop once againe that the Prophets writings were no additions of doctrine but onely explanations of the law and so likewise that the writings of the new Testament do adde nothing to the law but onely do further declare and withall set foorth the accomplishment of those things that were foreshewed prophecied in the law And therefore Paul in preaching the Gospell professeth i Act. 26.22 to say no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come so that to vse the distinction that Vincentius Lyrinensis vpon other occasion vseth though the Euangelists and Apostles spake in a new manner yet they spake k Vincent Lyr. Eadem quae didicisti doce vt cùm dicas nouè non dicas noua no new matter or to allude to Saint Austines words though they varied in the tense yet they differed not in the signification of the word but in both times or in all times the same doctrine was preached the same faith continued the latter affirming nothing but what was confirmed by the writings of them that went before 7 W. BISHOP 3. Testimony * Ioh. 20.31 These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ in beleeuing might haue life euerlasting Here is set downe the ful end of the Gospell that is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation to which the whole Scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions Answ Here are more faults then lines first the text is craftily mangled things being put instead of miracles For S. Iohn saith Many other miracles Christ did c. but these were written c. Secondly S. Iohn saith not that for faith we shall be saued but beleeuing we shold haue saluation in his name which he clipped off thirdly remember to what faith S. Iohn ascribes the means of our saluation not to that wherby we apply vnto our selues Christs righteousnesse but by which we beleeue Iesus to be Christ the Messias of the Iewes and the Sonne of God which M. Perkins also concealed Now to the present matter S. Iohn saith that these miracles recorded in his Gospell were written that we might beleeue Iesus to be the Sonne of God and beleeuing haue saluation in his name c. Therefore the written word containes all doctrine necessary to saluation Answ S. Iohn speakes not a word of doctrine but of miracles and therfore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him is not to care what one saith But M.P. foreseeing this saith it cannot be vnderstood of miracles only for miracles without the doctrine of Christ can bring no man to life euerlasting true and therefore that text speaking onely of miracles proueth nothing for the sufficiencie of the written Word Christs miracles were sufficient to proue him to be the Sonne of God and their Messias but that proueth not S. Iohns Gospell to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation for many other points of faith must be beleeued also And if it alone be sufficient what need we the other three Gospels the Acts of the Apostles or any of their Epistles or the same S. Iohns Reuelations Finally admit that S. Iohns Gospell were al-sufficient yet should not Traditions be excluded for Christ saith in it in plaine termes * Ioh. 16. that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but
they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward of which high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnwritten R. ABBOT More faults then lines saith M. Bishop but very slender proofe doth he bring of any fault First he cauilleth that the text is mangled and things put in instead of miracles The words are thus a Ioh. 20.30 Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God and that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Where we translate the Greek relatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in the neuter gender these things because it hath not reference only to miracles mentioned in the former verse but to the matter of the whole book S. Iohn here intending to set foorth the end purpose of all that he hath written For being b Hier. Proem in Matth. Cum esset in Asia tam tunc haereticorum seminae pullularent Cerinthi Hebionis caeteroruÌ„ qui negant Christum in carne venisse coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis multaruÌ„ Ecclesiarum legationibus de diuinitate saluatoris altiùs scribere in Asia as Ierome saith and the seeds of heretickes beginning to grow of Cerinthus Ebion and others denying Christ to haue come in the flesh he was forced by almost al the bishops of Asia and by messages from other churches to write more deeply then the other Euangelists had done of the diuinity of our Sauior Christ Here then he signifieth that he hath so done these things saith he are written that ye may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God Therefore Cyrill saith hereof c Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem EuaÌ„gelij manifestat As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written he manifesteth the intent of his Gospell The first fault then pretended by M. Bishop is no fault because the relatiue implieth generally what the Euangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospell The second fault is ridiculously alledged for wheÌ„ M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saued how doth he meane it or how doth any man meane it but d Acts. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ As touching the third point it hath bene e Of Iustification Sect. 18. before declared that to beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God importeth the applying vnto vs of the merit and righteousnes of Christ For as a man may f Thom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art 2. ad 3. Credere Dâ—uÌ„ non conuenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat beleeue that there is a God or that God is and yet be still an infidell wanting that beleefe therof which is properly the act of faith as Thom. Aquinas noteth so a man may in some sort beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God yet not so beleeue it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of iustifying faith because he beleeueth it not vnder such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith If it be taken only for an act of vnderstanding as the Papists take it a maÌ„ may beleeue it without any fruit because the diuels so beleeue but the beleefe of the heart which the Scripture intendeth importeth affiance and trust and inward feeling and comfort of that which it beleeueth whilst therby we apply vnto our selues the benefite of the merit passion of Christ expecting therby the remission of our sins But now froÌ„ noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a finall answer that because S. Iohn speaketh of miracles not of doctrine therefore these words proue nothing for the sufficiency of the written word Where M. Perkins exception still standeth vnremoued that because by miracles without doctrine we caÌ„not attaine to that faith wherby we beleeue that Christ is the Son of God therfore the words of the Euangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only For others did miracles as great yea g Ioh. 14.12 greater then Christ did as by example we see when h Act. 5.15 by the shadow of Peter and by i Chap. 19.12 napkins and handkerchifes from Paules body the sicke are healed which we reade not of Christ himselfe By miracles therfore Christ is not discerned vnlesse by doctrine accoÌ„panying the same he be made known vnto vs therefore the words of the Euangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make vse of the miracles of Christ So S. Austin referreth the words both to those things which Christ did and said k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Sanctus Euangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt Electa sunt auteÌ„ quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur The holy Euangelist testifieth that Christ both did and said many things which are not written and for the ouerthrowing of M. Bishops answer and iustifying of our assertion he addeth but those things were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue Cyril speaketh more expresly l Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 68. Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata vt recta fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum coeloruÌ„ perueniamus Al things which Christ did are not writteÌ„ but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conuersation as doctrine that shining with right faith and vertuous works we may attaine to the kingdom of heauen It is not then our collection only but thus these ancient Fathers conceiued that of the miracles doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct vs to faith to the attainment of euerlasting life And this is plainly deliuered in the words of S. Iohn who could not say These things are written that ye may beleeue and beleeuing may haue eternall life if there be not that written by the beleefe whereof we may obtaine eternall life Therefore as touching Saint Iohns Gospell containing all things needfull to saluation we answer him first that indeed we affirme that there is no article of faith necessarie to saluation which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospell of S. Iohn Secondly there is no cause so to restraine the words as if Saint Iohn would meane onely in his Gospell to comprehend all that should be needfull for the instruction of the Church Nay he hath a plaine reference to those things
may conceiue or mind one of these without hauing consideration of the rest Now if M. Bishop by negatiue separation do remoue hope charity frō faith so as that his meaning is that if faith alone do iustifie thē though there be neither hope nor charity yet faith will neuerthelesse iustifie his maior proposition is false For though it be true that the totall cause of any thing being in act the effect must needs follow yet from the totall cause can we not separate those things together with which it hath in nature his existēce and being and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect though they conferre nothing thereto because that is to denie the being of it and the destroying of the cause But if his meaning be that if faith alone do iustifie then though we consider not hope and charitie as concurring therewith yet it selfe doth iustifie we graunt his maior proposition for true but his minor is not true We say that faith considered without hope and charitie that is hope and charitie not considered with it doth iustifie Then saith he a man may be iustified without any hope of heauen and without anie loue towards God or estimation of his honour True say I if his meaning be that the hope of heauen or loue of God and estimation of his honour be excepted onely priuatiuely and only not considered with faith as causes of iustification But if his meaning be as it is that a man then is iustified without hauing any hope of heauen or loue towards God or estimation of his honour he playeth the part onely of a brabler inferring a reall separation of those things in the subiect which the argument supposeth onely respectiuely separated in the vnderstanding Here is then no presumption in the Protestants iustification but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption that hauing left his head at Rome and broken his braines in contending against the Iesuites he would notwithstanding take vpon him to be a writer and do it so vainely and idlely as he hath done According to that that hath bene said M. Perkins answereth that though faith be neuer subsisting without hope and loue and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all euen as the eye in regard of substance and being is neuer alone yet in respect of seeing it is alone for it is the eye onely that doth see Here is saith M. Bishop a worthie peece of Philosophy that the eye alone doth see Why I pray what is the default Marrie the eye is but the instrument of seeing saith he the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense and reason But did not your sense and reason serue you to vnderstand that M. Perkins meant accordingly that the eye alone doth see that is that the eye alone of all the mēbers parts is the instrument of seeing and proportionably that faith alone of all the vertues and graces of the soule is the instrument of iustification As the soule then seeth onely by the eye so the soule spiritually receiueth iustification by faith alone If his head had stood the right way he might verie easily haue conceiued that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see did not meane to exclude the soule that seeth by the eye but onely all other parts of the bodie from being consorted with the eye in the soules imployment seruice for that vse And that that M. Perkins saith therein is directly to the purpose because the question is not here of the whole cause of iustification but onely of the instrumentall cause Of the efficient and finall cause of iustification there is no question which is God in Iesus Christ for our saluation and the glorie of his name The materiall cause we say and haue proued to be the merite and obedience of Christ The formall cause is Gods imputation apprehended and receiued by vs. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone which is the verie point here disputed of But here he will returne the similitude vpon vs the eye cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from the head before it can see Be it so no more can faith iustifie without Christ without God whose ordinance and gift it is of whom it hath it force and power being by him as peculiarly appointed to iustifie as the eye is to see The eye is a naturall instrument receiuing his influence frō the head wherof it is naturally a member and part but faith is an instrument supernaturall not any naturall part or power and facultie of the soule but the instinct and worke of God and therefore receiueth all the force and influence that it hath from the spirit of Iesus Christ But he maketh other application hereof So cannot faith iustifie without charitie because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life frō it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight So then charitie is the head and faith the eye and we must needs take it so because M. Bishop hath told vs that it is so But if it be so then it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charitie as it is to see an eye without a head as strange that charitie being extinguished and gone there should remaine a faith whereby to beleeue as that the head being dead there should remaine an eye whereby to see But that that giueth influence and life to another thing must needs haue a prioritie to that that receiueth it Charitie hath no prioritie to faith but charity it selfe is obtained by faith For a Eccles 25 13. faith is the beginning to be ioyned vnto God b Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 7. Fides prima daetur ex qua impetrentur caetera Faith is first giuen by which the rest is obtained c Prosp de voc gent. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur which being first giuen vnrequested at the request thereof all other benefites or good things do ensue and follow d Aug. in Psal 31. Laudo superaedificationē boni operis sed agnosco fidei fundamentum fidei radicem Nec bona illa opera appellauerim quādiu non de radice bona procedant Faith is the roote and foundation of good works from which vnlesse they grow they are not to be called good euen e Origen in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo vt surgantromi qui fructus operū ferant illa scil radix iustitiae qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus that root of righteousnes wherby the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works which receiuing the deaw or showre sticketh in the groūd that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works Faith is
iustification yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God and not the act of man himselfe Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue not actiue in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh onely a receiuer and not at all a worker thereof But now he telleth vs that the iustification which they so teach wrought and procured by hope feare loue c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours But that cannot be for the Apostle telleth vs that l Rom. 3.27 boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe we haue somewhat to glorie in as that by our workes and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue The Apostle saith that m Rom. 4.2 if Abraham were iustified by workes he had whereof to glorie or reioyce and therefore it is not true that iustification being attributed to workes we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all that we cannot boast of those preparations as though they came of our selues because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God n Luc. 18.11 August in Psal 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi fatebatur ab illo se â—â—cepisse quod habebat Hieron aduer Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo quia ipsius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines c. O God I thanke thee saith he that I am not as other men are But by his words of these good inspirations descending froÌ„ the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader dealing onely colourably as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do For they make God the occasion only and not the true cause of them They make him externally an assistant to them but the internall producing and proper originall of them is of the Free will of man which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatioÌ„ not to be meritorious as they say those are that follow after For if they made them essentially the workes of grace they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one and to deny it to the other Yea M. Bishop himselfe apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification the first grace as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools wheras these workes are said to go before to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe for that howsoeuer being helped of God yet he doth somewhat himselfe for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God Yea but a man saith he can no more vaunt of consent to these workes then of consent to faith true and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe he hath somewhat whereof to boast M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes as that all is nothing but by the free wil of man Now we on the other side together with the auncient Church o Fulgen. ad Monim lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus immo salâ—briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quà m in nostrâ— opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare suffer not nay we vtterly forbid that either in our faith or in our worke we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God only for his owne sake not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded By the doctrine of iustification by workes mans boasting is not excluded Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works is not the true doctrine of iustification As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake and content that another should helpe him out it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe whereas the Scripture affirming vs to be p Ephe. 2.1 dead in trespasses and sinnes bereaueth vs altogether of all either will or power whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues But the same is also otherwise vnfit because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it wherein he is to bestow his labour and paines to deserue well as M. Bishop saith at his hands whose seruant he is and by couenant to merit heauen Hereto he worketh partly by grace as he saith and partly by free will and therefore hauing merited and deserued he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce whereas the course that God taketh is q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt sâ—iamâ—â— in dâ—e illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae feâ—imus nos sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit that we may know at that day as S. Bernard saith that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle and we may alwaies fully know that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone But M. Bishop telleth vs that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden and we acknowledge the same for else the Apostle wold not haue said r 1. Cor. 1.31 He that glorieth let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse and to the magnifying of him and not of our selues He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God reioyceth against God But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes he attributeth not all vnto God
it true of the scriptures now that they are able so to do when as by the new Testament so much light is added for the cleering of the old The doctrine which the Apostles preached in the new Testament they confirmed by the old They taught no other faith but what was contained therein onely the faith was more plainely and cleerly deliuered by them because as S. Austin saith ſ August de catech rud In veteri testamēto est ocultatio noui in nouo testamento est manifestatio veteris in the old Testament the new is hidden and in the new Testament is the manifesting of the old t Idem in Ioan. tra 45. Tempora variata sunt nō fides c. Eadem fides vtrosque contungit The times saith he are diuers but the faith is one Seeing then the old Testament was sufficient to instruct men to the faith of Christ and the instruction thereof notwithstanding is much more manifestly deliuered in the new and no other faith is taught in the new Testament then is contained in the old who doth not see that the conclusion standeth strong on our part that much more the scripture now containeth all doctrine necessary to instruct vs to the faith of Christ Albeit it is not true which M. Bishop saith that S. Paul meaneth here only the scriptures of the old Testament For although when Timothy was a child there were no other scriptures but onely of the old Testament yet when Paul wrote these words to Timothy the greatest part of the books of the new Testament were extant He wrote this epistle newly before his death as appeareth by that he saith u 2. Tim. 4.6 I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departing is at hand He had then writtē all the rest of his epistles as we may easily conceiue neither is it likely but that the gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke with the Acts of the Apostles were written before that time the first by S. Mathew being testified to be written at the time of Pauls first imprisonment at Rome x Jren. li. 3. ca. 1. Matth. Hebraeis in ipsorū lingua scripturā edidit Euangelij cum Petrus et Paulus Romae euangelizarent et fundarent Ecclesiam founding the Church there where S. Luke makes an end of the history of the Acts of the Apostles after which being not lōg after the beginning of the raigne of Nero the Apostle liued for the space of 12. or 13. yeares being put to death in the y Func Chronol 14. yeare of the same Nero. Of S. Marks Gospel it is also manifest because he died z Hierō in Catal. Mortuus est 8. Neronis anno sepultus Alexandriae in the 8. yeare of Nero as Hierome testifieth six yeares before S. Pauls death and therfore before the writing of this epistle The like also is plaine of the former epistle of S. Peter as appeareth for that his second epistle was written about the same time that S. Paul wrote this secōd epistle to Timothy S. Peter being put to death at the same time as S. Paul was and saying as he doth in the same second epistle a 2. Pet. 1.14 I know that the time is at hand that I must lay downe this my tabernacle Now therefore so many of the books of the new Testament being extant at that time who can doubt but that the Apostle naming all Scripture did speake of those bookes vnlesse he will be so mad as to say that at that time they were no Scriptures And as when we say that a man hath known the laws frō a child we do not meane to restraine his knowledge only to those laws which were when he was a child but will signifie his knowledge also of such lawes as haue bin since made euen so when the Apostle saith that Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child he would giue to vnderstād that he was conuersant not only in the Scriptures that then were but also in such other as frō time to time thenceforward were written for the same vse Nay who would make question but that the Apostle setting downe by the direction of the holy Ghost this commendation of all Scripture would hereby giue vs to vnderstand what to conceiue of other scriptures also that were to be published afterwards Therefore M. Bishop hath hitherto answered nothing to take away the euidence of the argument taken out of the words of the Apostle and the Protestants Achilles is stronger then that he may take vpon him the part of Hector to encounter therewith But yet well fare a good stomacke for though he haue said as good as nothing yet he setteth a good face vpon the matter and concludeth this point with an inuincible argument like the inuincible nauie of Spaine Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture Very true But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needful to saluation as hath bene proued But that is not true the proofes that it doth so are pregnant and cleere but his proofes to the contrary are childish and vaine and therefore his conclusion cannot hold In steed therefore of his presumed and inuisible argument we wish him to consider of this Whatsoeuer the written word teacheth vs of it selfe that is necessary to be beleeued But the written word teacheth vs concerning it selfe that it is able to make vs wise to saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus It is necessarie therefore for vs to beleeue that it can so and therefore to reiect all doctrine that cannot be approoued and warranted thereby 10. W. BISHOP And by the same principle I might reiect all testimonie of Antiquity as needlesse if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold Yet let vs heare what testimonie M. Perkins brings out of antiquitie in fauour of his cause Tertullian * De resur carni◠saith Take from heretikes the opinions which they defend with the Heathens that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand Answ Here Scripture alone is opposed as euery one may see vnto the writings of heathen authors and not to the traditions of the Apostles and therefore maketh nothing against them Againe saith M. Perkins out of the same author We need no curiositie after Iesus Christ nor inquisition after the Gospell when we beleeue it we desire to beleeue nothing besides it for this we must beleeue that there is nothing else which we may beleeue Answer By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onely the written word of the foure Euangelists else we should not beleeue the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles no more then traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If any man