illa finiretur poena the punishment is continued longer then the sinne lest the sinne should be esteemed but small if the punishment should be ended together with it And this M. Perkins well obserueth in generall concerning that example of the Israelites that God though his iudgment proceeded not one way yet would haue it to be seene another way though not for punishment to them that repented and beleeued yet for example to future times to take heed of cutting themselues off by vnbeleefe and disobedience from the heauenly rest as these had done from the seale and Sacrament thereof the Apostle to that purpose saying k 1. Cor. 10.11 These things came to them for ensamples and are written to admonish vs vpon whom the ends of the world are come Now as we conceiue in generall of the faithfull of that people so we do in particular of Moses and Aaron M. Bishop vrgeth it set downe that therfore they entred not because they trespassed because they were disobedient And who maketh doubt but that their trespasse and disobedience was the originall cause of the debarring of them But stil we say that the cause of this debarring of them being forgiuen the effect still continued for other vse which in them was not onely morall but also mystical God willing thereby to giue to vnderstand that the Law which was giuen by Moses and the Priesthood that was executed by Aaron could not bring vs to that eternall inheritance which was figured by the land of Canaan but onely Iesus who was figured by Iosuah could yeeld vnto vs the possession thereof Thus S. Austin maketh mysticall and spirituall application thereof affirming that l August contra Faust Man lib. 16. cap. 19. Non introducebat populum in terram promissionis ne videlicet lex per Mosen non ad saluandum sed ad conuincenduÌ„ peccatorem data introducere putaretur Ita Tertulaâ—iuer Marcionem lâ—b 3. Moses did not bring the people of Israel into the land of promise lest the law which was giuen by Moses not to saue but to conuict the sinner shold be thought to bring vs into the kingdome of heauen But fully to answer this point and to stop M. Bishops mouth let vs take that which the same S. Austin saith in another place m Idem in Psa 98. Quaerimus vindictam in Moyse propè nullam habet nisi quòd ad extremuÌ„ aâ—t illi Deut Ascende in montem morere Aâ—t seni Morere tam peregeras â—etates suas nunquid nunquam erat moriturus Quaelis illa vindicta Ostendit ibi vindictam suam vt diceret Non intrabis in terraÌ„ promissionis quaÌ„ intraturus erat populus QuandaÌ„ figuram quorundam gerebat Moyses Nam qui in regnum coeloruÌ„ intrauit magna illa poena crat adieâ—ram illam non venire qua ad tempas erat promissa vt vmbram osteude ret transiâ—eâ—â— Nonne mulit perfiâ—â—ntrauerunt in illam terram Nonne in illa terra viuentes multa mala feceruÌ„t Deum offenderunt Nonne idolotriam secuti sunt in terra illa Magnum erat non dedisse terram istam Moysi sed Moses voluit gestare figuram eorum qui sub lege erant quia per Moysen data est lex ostendit eos qui sub lege esse vellent sub gratia esse nollent non intraturos interram promisâ—ionis Ergo illud quod dictum est Moysi figura erat non poena Seâ— mers quae poena Non intrare in illam terram quae poena quo intrauerunt indigni We seeke Gods punishment in Moses saith he and he had in a manner none but that God at last saith to him Go vp into the hill and die He saith to an old man Go die he had now finished his yeares what shold he neuer die what punishment is this He shewed him there his punishment in that he said Thou shalt not enter into the land of promise to which the people was to enter Moses did here beare a figure of some for he being to enter into the kingdome of heaueÌ„ was it a great punishment not to come to that land which was promised for a time to cary a shadow and so to passe away Did not many vnfaithfull men enter into that land did not they that liued in that land commit many euils and offend God did they not follow idolatry in that land A great matter it was not to giue this land vnto Moses but Moses was to beare a figure of them which are vnder the law because the law was giuen by Moses and he sheweth that they which would be vnder the law and would not be vnder grace should not enter into the land of promise Therefore that which was said to Moses was a figure not a punishment what punishment was it to an old man to die what punishment was it not to enter into that land into which vnworthy men did enter Here then it is plaine that the not suffering of Moses to enter into the land of Canaan was not a matter of punishmeÌ„t but a matter of figure God took the occasion therof of his trespasse but the trespasse being remitted it was turned from being a punishment to him to be a mystery of faith both to him and vs. But it were woorth the while here to question with M. Bishop how he should make the not entring of all these into the land of Canaan to be any satisfaction for their sins what did they or suffered they that might carie the name of a satisfaction Did any thing herein befall them but what befell to many iust and godly Fathers before that time He saith their dayes were shortened but how were the dayes of Moses and Aaron shortened when the one liued to n Deut. 34.7 120. and the other to o Numb 33.39 123. yeares almost double to that nuÌ„ber of yeres which Moses noted for the ordinary time of the life of man p Psal 90.10 The dayes of our age are threescore yeares and ten Yea Moses was so old as that he said q Deut. 31.2 I am a hundred and twentie yeare old I can no more go in and out Againe we wonder whereas M. Bishop hath told vs before that such excellent holy personages by their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly for their sinnes how it came to passe that all Moses deuotions for the space of r Deut. 2.14 eight and thirty yeares after could not satisfie for that one sinne of his but that it still hindred him froÌ„ entring into the promised land Surely M. Bishop cannot well tell vs how these things hang together But to conclude this point M. Perkins had set downe by the words of the holy Ghost the vse of Gods chastisements towards his children and M. Bishop as loth to be acquainted therwith saith nothing of it Å¿ 1. Cor. 11.32 When we are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world
of her my people Forsake the enemies of the Romane Church And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours who drew out her most pure bloud so let vs flie in matters of faith and religion from all heretikes that of late also spared not to shed abundance of the same most innocent bloud vnlesse to your greater condemnation you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes and receiue of her plagues And because I purpose God willing not onely to confute what M. Perkins bringeth against the Catholike doctrine but somewhat also in euery Chapter to fortifie and confirme it I will here deliuer what some of the most ancient most learned and most holy Fathers doe teach concerning ioyning with the Church and Pope of Rome from whose societie Protestants labour tooth and naile to withdraw vs. And because of this we must treat more amply in the question of supremacie I will vse here their authoritie onely whom M. Perkins citeth against vs. S Bernard is cited alreadie S. Irenaeus Scholer of S. Policarpe and he of S. Iohn the Euangelist of the Church of Rome writeth thus To this Church Lib. 3. cap. 3◠by reason of her more mightie principalitie it is necessarie that euerie Church that is the faithfull on all sides do condescend and agree in and by which alwayes the tradition of the Apostles hath bene preserued by them that be round about her Saint Ierome writing to Damasus Pope of Rome saith I following none as chiefest but Christ do in participation ioyne with thy blessednesse that is with the chaire of Peter I knowe the Church to be builded vpon that Rocke Whosoeuer doth eate the Paschall Lambe out of this house is a profane fellow hee that is not found within the Arke of Noe shall when the flouds arise perish And a little after I know not Vitalie I refuse Meletius I take no notice of Paulinus he that gathereth not with thee scattereth that is he that is not with Christ is with Antichrist Marke and embrace this most learned Doctors iudgement of ioyning with the See of Rome in all doubtfull questions he would not trust to his owne wit and skill which were singular nor thought it safe to rely vpon his learned and wise neighbours he durst not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus who was a man of no meane marke but the Patriarke of Antioch but made his assured stay vpon the See of Rome as vpon an vnmoueable Rocke with which saith he if we do not communicate in faith and Sacraments we are but profane men voide of all Religion In a word we belong to Christ but be of Antichrists traine See how flat contrarie this most holy ancient Father is to M. Perkins M. Perkins would make vs of Antichrists band because we cleaue vnto the Bishop of Rome Whereas S. Hierome holdeth all to appertaine to Antichrist who be not fast lincked in matters of Religion with the Pope and See of Rome And so to conclude with this point euery true Catholike must say with S. Ambrose Lib 3 de Sacra cap. 1. I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome And thus much of his prologue Afterward he taketh vpon him to prescribe and shewe vs how farre foorth wee may ioyne with the Church of Rome by proposing many points in controuersie betweene vs and them and in each shewing in what points wee consent together and in what we differ I meane by Gods grace to followe him step by step although he hath made many a disorderly one as well to discouer his deceits and to disproue their errors as also to establish the Catholike doctrine the which I will endeuour to performe by the helpe of God with all simplicitie of language and with as much breuitie as such a weightie matter will permit Yet I hope with that perspicuity as the meaner learned may vnderstand it and with such substance of proofe both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers as the more iudicious to whose profite it is principally dedicated may not contemne it R. ABBOT What the dealing of M. Perkins and M. Bishop on each part hath bene I leaue it to the Reader to iudge by examining of both who I doubt not will acknowledge M. Perkins fidelitie of allegations true construction of holy Scriptures and sufficient argument to make all men iealous of the Church of Rome And seeing Hierom of old hath giuen light as before hath bene shewed that of Rome it is said Go out of her my people and there can be thencefoorth no other Rome to which we may apply it but onely the corrupted state of the Church of Rome therefore he will take it I presume as a warning from God to take heed of and to eschue the filthy fornications idolatries and abominations of that vncleane strumpet and will deride the sillinesse of those collections whereby M. Bishop laboureth to perswade the contrarie As for that which he saith of vs vnder the name of heretikes that of late we spared not to shed abundance of their most innocent bloud it setteth foorth the singular impudencie and remorselesse malice of these notorious hypocrites For whereas he talketh of abundance of bloud he well knoweth that in fiue and fortie yeares of Queene Elizabeth there was not so much bloud of theirs shed by vs as was of ours by them in fiue yeares of the raigne of Queene Mary And whereas he calleth it innocent bloud they themselues M. Bishop I meane and his fellow Seculars by their Proctor a Watsons Quodlibet◠Watson haue cleared the State as hauing iust cause to proceed against thē that were put to death against the Iesuites as immediate actors of treason against the Priests as being employed by them for the effecting thereof It pleased God by that quarrell of theirs against the Iesuites to make them witnesses of the innocencie of the State in the shedding of their bloud and by their owne mouth to make it knowne that the Iesuites were still deuising practising for the death of the Queen and for the ruine and ouerthrow of the Realme and that the Priests were vsed by them as instruments for the compassing and atchieuing of their traiterous designes so that the nature of their fact could be no lesse then treason and therefore what conscience may we thinke there is in this leud hireling contrarie to their owne cōfession to renew a complaint against the State of shedding innocent bloud as if there had bene no cause but meerely Religion towards God why they were put to death But if that had bene the quarrell many more would haue bene in like sort to be touched being openly knowne to be professors of that Religion who notwithstanding as we know saue onely for a pecuniarie mulct for trespassing the law liued at their owne libertie and fully with vs enioyed the benefite of the State To let this passe M. Bishop will now tel vs somwhat out of the Fathers to warrant our ioyning with
In this respect was it that Luther said that Free will is Res de solo titulo a matter of name only and a bare title because of man himselfe it is nothing and by it or in it there can nothing be attributed vnto him For a August de bono perseu cap. 13. cont 2. ep Pelag lib. 4. ca. 6. we will indeed it is true but God worketh in vs to will we worke but it is God that worketh in vs to worke we walke but he causeth vs to walke we keepe his commaundements but he worketh in vs to keepe his commandements so that nothing is ours of our selues but all is his onely And this M. Bishop in some shew of words here seemeth to affirme but indeed he wholy ouerthroweth it He saith that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace when it is first stirred and holpen by grace and therefore that M. Perkins either doth not vnderstand them or else doth wrongfully accuse them in that he chargeth them to say that mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power But M. Perkins vnderstood them well enough and doth no whit wrongfully accuse them For Andradius the expounder of the riddles of the councell of Trent doth plainely tell vs b Andrad orthodoxar explicat lib. 4. Libere nostri arbitrij motto atque ad institiam apâ—licatio non magis a gratia Deipendet quam à diuina virtute stipitis exultio c. Cum diuina gratia iacentem libertatem erigat confirmet viresque illi addat quibus oblata iustitiae ornamentae complecti possit non secus quidem sui ad iustitiam applicationis causa efficiens dicenda est ac ea quae natura constant earum omnium operationum ad quas naturae impulsione feruntur that the motion of Free will and applying of it felfe to righteousnesse doth no more depend vpon the grace of God then the fires burning of the wood doth depend vpon the power of God that grace lifteth it vp being fallen downe and addeth strength vnto it but that it is no lesse the efficient cause of applying it selfe to grace then other naturall things are of all those operations whereto by force of nature they are caried Therefore he compareth c Ibid. Non secus ac ligneis soleâ— deuincti qui incedendiquidem facultatem habent etsi ingredi nullo modo possit ni vincula rumpantur priùs quae motum reprimunt ac retardam Free will to a man made fast in the stockes who hath a power and ablenesse in himselfe to go if he be let go out of the stockes and the bonds be broken that held him before that he could not stirre Whereby he giueth vs to vnderstand their mind that as the fire and other naturall things being by the power of God vpholden in that which naturally they are do of themselues worke their proper and naturall effects and as a man vnbound and let go out of the stockes walketh and goeth not by any new worke that is wrought in him but by his owne former naturall power so Free will though entangled in the delights of sinne and bound with the bonds thereof yet hath a naturall power whereby it can apply it selfe to righteousnesse if grace by breaking the bonds and abating the strength of sinne do but make way for it to vse and exercise it selfe so that grace hauing wrought what concerneth it they leaue it to the will by it selfe and by it owne naturall power to adioyne it selfe to worke therewith And this Bellarmine plainely testifieth when he affirmeth d Bellarm de grat lib. arb lib 6 cap 15. Sicut auxilium generale ita concurrit cum omnibus rebus in actionibus naturalibus vt tameÌ„ non impediat libertatem contiâ—geÌ„tiam ita speciale auxil um adâ—â—uans ita concurrit ad omnes actiones supernaturales vt non impediat hominis libertatem quoniam eodeÌ„ prorsus modo auxilia ista concurrunt that grace doth no otherwise concurre to supernaturall actions then vniuersall causes do to naturall so that it doth no more in the worke of righteousnesse then the Sunne and heauenly powers do in the act of generation or the producing of other naturall effects yeelding an influence and inclination but leauing the very act to the will and worke of man All which in effect M. Bishop himselfe afterwards expresseth teaching that man after the fall of Adam hath still a naturall facultie of Free will which being first outwardly moued and inwardly fortified by the vertue of grace is able to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation therby giuing to vnderstand that there is still an abilitie left in nature howsoeuer for the present ouerwhelmed and oppressed which being excited and stirred vp though in it selfe it be not sufficient to produce the effects of spirituall actions yet hath a sufficiencie to apply it selfe to grace for the producing thereof Which Costerus the Iesuite declareth by the similitude of e Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Sit quispiam lapsus in foueam tenebricosam ex qua neque cogitete gredinec exire solus possit sed in ea securus obdormiat accedat ad eum amicus qui hominis miserius de somno exertatum ad egressum moneat multisque rationibus vt assintiatur inducat tum ei manum vel funem potrigat simul coâ—antem educat in lumen a man fallen into a darke and deepe pit whence he cannot get out by himselfe nor hath care to get out but sleepeth securely therein till his friend come who awaketh him out of his sleepe and wisheth him to get out and by reasons perswadeth him to be willing thereto and so giueth him his hand or reacheth to him a cord which he taketh and layeth fast hold on it and yeeldeth his owne vttermost strength that he may be pulled out To which purpose also he vseth another example of a man f Ibid. Homo languidus qui ab igne vel à lumine solis facie auersus se ipse solus non potest coÌ„uertere sed si accedat amicus qui iuuet languidus ipse conatum aliquens adhibeat sit tandem vt conuersus calore solis aut ignis fruatur extremely faint and weake lying with his face turned away from the fire or the Sunne who is not able to turne himselfe to the fire or the Sunne but if he haue one to helpe him vseth his owne strength also for the turning of himselfe about to enioy the warmth thereof Which comparisons do plainely shew that they attribute vnto Free will a proper and seuerall worke beside that that is done by the grace of God Whereby we see how guilefully M. Bishop speaketh when he saith that the wil is made able by grace to bring forth spiritual fruit being of it self vtterly vnable therto because he meaneth not hereby that grace doth worke in the wil that whole ability that it hath but that to
purpose but expecteth our will to make good that grace to our selues he confesseth that God stirreth and helpeth forward our will but cannot endure to say that it is God that worketh in vs to will He answereth yet further that the whole may be attributed to God because the habits of grace infused be froÌ„ him as sole efficient of theÌ„ our actioÌ„s endued also with grace being onely dispositions no efficient cause of those habits But herein he absurdly trifleth by altering the state of the questioÌ„ For the controuersie is not of the efficient cause of infused grace but of the efficient cause of our receiuing that grace We say that the holy Ghost worketh the same immediatly in our will they say that the grace of God and the Free will of man make h Andrad Orth. explicat li. 4 Ex gratia libero arbitrio vnica causa conflatur nostrae ad iustiuaÌ„ applicationis one efficient cause of the receiuing thereof They say that God offereth his grace with condition if we wil but we say that God without putting vs to condition of our wil worketh in vs to will and where he expresseth a condition doth himself performe the same i Aug. Confess lib. 10. ca. 29. Da quod â—ubes giuing what he commandeth and k De Praedest sanct cap. 11. Deus facit vt illa faciamus himselfe making vs to do what he requireth to be done The words of the Apostle are plain for vs and as plaine against theÌ„ But I take it to be but a point of M. Bishops cunning thus to speake yet his learning will gaine but small credit thereby 9. W. BISHOP One other obiection may be collected out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words When we were dead in sinnes Ad Ephes 2.2 If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Answ Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giues his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuil actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting As for example a Crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring foorth apples therfore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so albeit our soure corrupt nature of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace it is enabled to produce the sweete fruite of good workes to which alludeth S. Iames Cap. 1. Receiue the ingraffed word which can saue our soules Againe what more dead then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring foorth and beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seed Mat. 13. and our hearts vnto the earth that receiued it what maruel then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely feed do yeeld plenty of pleasing fruite R. ABBOT This obiection M. Bishop saith he collecteth out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will whereas it is indeed the whole matter of that third reason He wold haue kept due order and haue answered the rest as well as this but that he doubted he should haue answered the rest as badly as he hath done this He propoundeth the obiection at his owne liking and cutteth off what he list If man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne For this the words of the Apostle are alledged by M. Perkins a Ephes 2.1 When we were dead in sinnes M. Bishop answereth sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent Which answer who is so blind as that he cannot see how absurdly it crosseth it selfe Man must giue his free consent to grace that he may be quickened thereby and yet man cannot consent or concur with God before he be quickened by grace If man cannot consent or concurre with God before he be quickened then the consent of of his owne Free will cannot be the efficient cause of his quickening because that that cometh after cannot be the cause of that that necessarily goeth before and the effect is neuer the cause of it owne cause And this is indeed the very truth iustified by M. Bishops owne words against his will But his whole discourse driueth the other way that a man not yet quickened must by Free will giue consent to grace and concurre with God that he may be quickened because though grace be offered yet it taketh no effect vntill our Free will do make way for it and do adde it owne indeauour and helpe to the worke thereof Which is all one as to require of a dead bodie to giue consent and to put to it owne helpe for the restoring of it selfe to life againe Yet he thinketh to cleare the matter of all impossibilitie for asking the question againe How can that be namely that man should giue his free consent to grace if he were then dead he answereth Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuill actions But what is this to the purpose seeing that spiritually he still continueth a dead man Yea but this will of his being fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting Where he doth but runne in a ring and in other words repeateth the same answer still sticking fast in the briars wherein he was tangled before For how is this will to be fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection He hath told vs before by grace and that to grace man must giue his free consent So then he telleth vs that Free will cannot concurre and worke with grace except by grace it be first fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection and yet it cannot be fortified by grace and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection except it first concurre with grace I may here againe iustly returne vpon him his owne words See how vncertaine the steppes are of men that walke in darknesse c. Now the Reader will obserue that the obiection is
no sinne and we do not therein deceiue our selues and though we die yet it is not by reason of sin that we die but either by the disteÌ„perature of our bodies or externall violence But if M. Perkins had sayd as he might haue sayd Infants after Baptisme are subiect to distemperature of body and externall violence and death following all which are the proper effects of sinne therefore they are not without sinne in what a wofull case had M. Bishop bene and how had he bene put to his shifts to deuise an answer Surely S. Austin saith that b Auâ—ust in Psal 37. Non aliquid patimur in ista vita n si ex illa morte quaÌ„ mâ—ruimus primo peccato we suffer not any thing in this life but by reason of that death which we deserued by the first sinne And so saith Origen verie rightly that c Origen in Leuit hom 3. Nobis hominiâ—us vel mors velreliqua omnis fragilitas in carne ex piccati conditione superducta est death and all other frailtie in the flesh was brought vpon vs by the condition or state of sin Therfore distemperature and weaknesse and sicknes and suffering of externall violence are no lesse arguments of sinne then death it selfe and how then doth he make these the causes of death without sinne when they are no otherwise the causes of death but by reason of sinne But he addeth further that God who freely bestowed their liues on them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them But yet if there be no sin and if it be as the Trent Councell saith that there is nothing in them that God hateth nothing that hindereth them from entring into heauen why then doth God without cause take away their life and not rather without death receiue them vnto himselfe why doth he not immediatly d 2. Cor. 5 4. cloth them vpon that mortality may be swallowed vp of life This is a mysterie to M. Bishop he cannot tel what to say therof But the dying of baptized infants sheweth that there is still in theÌ„ a corruption of flesh and bloud by which the sentence of the Apostle taketh hold of them e 1. Cor. 15.50 flesh and bloud cannot inherite the kingdome of God neither shall corruption inherite incorruption The cause of their death is the putting off of this corruptioÌ„ the dissolution full mortification of the body of sin that this slough being cast off and mortalitie changed into immortalitie corruption into incorruption they may be fit for the inheritance of the kingdome of God Thus Epiphanius bringeth in Methodius disputing against Proclus the Origenist that f Epiphan haer 64. ex Methodiâ— In auxiliaris medicamenti moduÌ„ ab auxiliatore nostro verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumptae est mors c. Instar medicamentariae purgationis mortem Deus benè inuenit quo sic omnino inculpabiles innoxij inueniamur c. videtur velut siquis summus opifex statuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia à se constructam rursus conflet mutilatam repentè conspicatus à pessimo quodam homine c. God as the true Physition hath appointed death for a medicinable purgation for the vtter rooting out and putting away of sinne that we may be made faultlesse and innocent and that as a goodly golden image sightly and seemely in all parts if it be broken and defaced by any meanes must be new cast and framed againe for the taking away of the blemishes and disgraces of it euen so man the image of God being maimed and disgraced by sinne for the putting away of those disgraces and the repairing of his ruines and decayes must by death be dissolued into the earth thence to be raised vp againe perfect and without default Now if M. Bishop will not learne it of vs yet let him learne it of these ancient Fathers that sin is the cause of death euen in them to whom notwithstanding it is forgiuen pardoned for Christs sake But he goeth further True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but both haue bene long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the kingdome of heauen But since they haue sinned what Marry it is most truly said by S. Paul Death entred into the world by sinne Well then if it entred by sin into the world doth it continue in the world by any other thing then by which it first entred Nay as it entred by sinne so sinne is the onely cause of the continuing of it and without sinne there is no death in the failing of the cause must needs be a surceasing of the effect Now to shew that death is the proper effect of sin M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death But M. Bishop saith that this place is foully abused by him And why so Forsooth the Apostle here by death meaneth eternall damnation And what then Doth he therfore not meane bodily death also Surely the Apostle alludeth to that that God sayd to our father Adam in the beginning g Gen. 2.17 In the day that thou shalt eate of that forbidden tree thou shalt die the death thereby threatning vnto him both the first and second death And in that meaning hath the Apostle spoken of death in the chapter going before that by sinne came death c. Therefore M. Bishops great maister Thomas Aquinas telleth him that when the Apostle immediatly before saith the end of those things is death he meaneth by death h Tho Aquin. in Rom. cap 6. Peccata â—e se nata sunt inâ—iucere mâ—â—tem teÌ„poralem eternaâ—â— Et â—o â—arg finis peccati mori tam temporalis quà m aeterna both temporall and eternall death Another exception is that sinne is here taken onely for Actuall sinne which is a fiction meerly absurd and vaine For it is a proposition vniuersall concerning all sinne and so vsed vniuersally by all writers and if it be true of Actuall sinne that the wages of sinne is death much more is it true of Originall sinne which is the filthie and corrupt fountaine whence all actuall sins do spring And that we may know that M. Bishop himselfe is of no other mind he himselfe hath vsed it in the section next saue one before this concerning Originall sinne arguing that if Originall sinne were properly sinne in the regenerate then it should cause death vnto them because the wages of sinne is death Whereby it appeareth that he speaketh but at all aduenture and to serue the present turne without any conscience or regard of that he speaketh whether it be true or false He hath bene brought vp in Bellarmines schoole and of him hath learned to care no further but onely to say somewhat though it be starke naught Now for conclusion of this
them will loue him more He saith the Pharisee to whom he forgaue most Here is loue expresly set downe as a thankfulnesse following after in respect of a forgiuenesse gone before Christ then in effect inferreth thus Thou hast giuen me smal tokens of thy loue since my entring into thy house but thus and thus hath she shewed her loue What is the cause h August hom 23. O Pharisaee ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris non quia parum dimittitur sed quia parum putas esse quod dimiâ—ttiur O thou Pharisee therefore thou louest little because thou thinkest that little is forgiuen thee not because it is little but because thou thinkest it to be but little But this woman knoweth that much hath bene forgiuen her therefore she loueth much And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth To whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little which if we will fit to the words going before Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much we must make the meaning of these former words to be this But she loueth much it is a signe therefore that much hath bene forgiuen her In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles i Ambros de Tobia cap. 22 Pluâ— remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat sed ipsa plus soluit c. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit quâ— plura meruissâ—t to which there was more forgiuen because she was indebted more but being mindfull of this grace hath paied so much the more in loue by how much the greater mercy she had obtained And to the same sence doth he expound it k In Luc. cap. 7. writing vpon the place euen as Basil also doth when alluding to that place he saith l Basil exhort ad baptism Plâ—s debenti plus remittitur vt vehementius amet To him that oweth more more is forgiuen that he may loue the more So doth Hierome take it saying m Hieron adu Iouin lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat Vnde saluator ait c. Of two debters to whom more is forgiuen he loueth more thereupon our Sauiour saith Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much which cannot hang together if loue be taken for an effect of forgiuenesse in the one speech and a cause thereof in the other But now we expect that Maister Bishop so peremptorily reiecting that exposition should giue vs some great reason of the denying of it First saith he Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon because she had loued much But his learning should teach him that the word because doth not alwaies note an antecedent cause but sometimes a succeeding effect or signe As where our Sauiour Christ saith of the diuell n Iohn 8.44 he abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him he did not meane to say that the cause of his not abiding in the truth was because now there is no truth in him but that hereby as by an effect and signe it appeareth that he abode not in the truth So where he saith o Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I haue called you friends because all things that I haue heard of the Father I haue made knowne vnto you he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause but a token of accounting them his friends Which being euident and plaine M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing but that Christes words may well be vnderstood that he nameth the womans loue onely as a signe and token of many sinnes to be forgiuen vnto her And to take it otherwise as he doth ouerthroweth the rule that is deliuered by S. Austine p August epist 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur non quia praecesseruÌ„t iustificamur Good works begin from the time that we are iustified we are not iustified for any good works that go before His second reason is lesse worth and he sheweth therein either his ignorance or his negligence For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses that her loue is expressed by the time past she hath loued much and her forgiuenesse by the time present Many sinnes are forgiuen her importing that the former cannot be the signe and therefore must needes be the cause of that that followeth if he had bene so carefull as to looke into the Greeke text he should haue found that her forgiuenesse of sinnes is expressed also by the time past by the Atticke preter perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many sinnes haue bene forgiuen her because she hath loued much albeit it should not haue noted necessarily a present act but a continuation of the benefit if it had bene expressed in the present tense The exposition therefore alledged being direct and arising simply out of the text it selfe what reason hath M. Bishop to force another which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith Thy faith hath saued thee To conclude let him take for his reproofe that which Origen saith q Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam Remittuntur c. For no worke of the law and therefore not for her loue but for faith onely doth Christ say to the woman Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee and let him learne to condemne his owne presumption in that he taketh vpon him so rashly to define that which he is not able by reason to make good As for the Ministers they are very simple men if they cannot better approoue their expositions and doctrines then he hath done 22. W. BISHOP Gal. 5.6 2. Reason Neither Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by charity Hence Catholikes gather that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to faith he meanes not faith alone but as it is ioyned with charity and other like vertues as are requisite to prepare the soule of man to receiue that coÌ„plete grace of iustification M. Perkins answereth that they are ioyned together But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnesse and maketh it ours It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification Reply That it hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and handmayd of charity my proofe shall be out of the very text alledged where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke word Energoumene being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifestly saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charity Making charity to be the life and
glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
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
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
this our vertue which commeth not of God but is attributed vnto our selfe as proceeding onely from our selues is the very vice of pride and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good workes all which we acknowledge to proceede principally from the grace of God dwelling in vs. He saith further with S. Augustine that in this life we cannot attaine vnto perfect purity such as shall be in heauen reade the beginning of his first and second booke of Morals and there you shall finde him commending Iob to the skies as a good and holy man by his temptations not foiled but much aduaunced in vertue R. ABBOT These arguments the most of them are foisted in of his owne head there being none of ours that alledgeth them to that purpose to which he produceth them But thus because he would be taken for a valiant warriour he maketh himselfe a man of straw to fight with and with all his might bestirreth himselfe against a shadow But the worth of his answers is first to be seene in that which he saith to the words of the Apostle a Psal 32.2 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne The best men sinne venially saith he and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned Now the Apostle expoundeth the forgiuenesse or not imputing of sinne there spoken of to be the imputation of righteousnesse But the forgiuenesse of their veniall sinnes is not the imputation of righteousnesse because without any forgiuenesse of veniall sinnes a man continueth righteous and iust as wherein there is no breach of iustice and righteousnesse and notwithstanding the same a man is iust in the sight of God as out of the Romish doctrine was shewed in the section last sauing one Therefore forgiuenesse of sinnes spoken of in that place cannot be vnderstood of veniall sinnes Againe he maintaineth in the question of Satisfaction that forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh not away the temporall punishment of sinne How then is a man happie when those veniall sinnes be pardoned if for want of satisfaction he remaine still to pay deare for them as he speaketh in his Epistle in Purgatory fire He bringeth in a place of Cyprian as idlely as he did the former texts To that which he saith we answer him that it is by the grace of Christ through the forgiuenesse of sins that the wounds which the faithfull man receiueth be not mortall His foiles and wounds of themselues are such as that he must say with Dauid b Psal 130.3 If thou O Lord be extreame to marke iniquities who can stand c Aug. in Psal 129. Vidit propè totaÌ„ vitaÌ„ humanaÌ„ circuÌ„latrari peccatis suit accusari omnes coÌ„scientias cogitationibus suis non inueniri castum cor praesumens de iustitia sua Si ergo cor castuÌ„ non potest inuenirs quod praesumat de sua iustitia prasumat omnium cor de miserecordia Dei dicat si c. He saw saith S. Austine the whole life of man in a manner to be barked at on euery side with his sinnes all consciences to be accused by their owne thoughts that there is not a cleane heart found that can presume of it owne righteousnesse If then therâ— cannot be found a cleane heart which may presume of it owne righteousnesse let the hearts of all presume vpon the mercy of God and say If thou markest iniquities O Lord who shall abide it Let Maister Bishop marke it well that in this warfare there is no heart cleane that can presume of it owne righteousnesse and that we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely Gods mercy To the place of Hierome he saith that all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially But iust men confesse their sinnes in the same meaning as they say Forgiue vs our trespasses They say Forgiue vs our trespasses as S. Austin saith the Apostles did as we heard before for those sinnes for which they say also Enter not into iudgement with thy seruants for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified They confesse therefore such sinnes as hinder them from being iustified in the sight of God which M. Bishop saith his veniall sinnes do not The repeating of the whole sentence of Hierome is a sufficient answer to him the latter part whereof he concealeth because it taketh away his glose vpon the former d Hieron cont Pelag li. 1. Tunc iusti â—umus quaÌ„do nos peccatores fatemur et iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit miserecordia Then are we iust when we coÌ„fesse our selues to be sinners and our righteousnesse standeth not vpon our owne merit but vpon the mercy of God If our righteousnesse consist in the acknowledgement of our sinnes and in the mercy of God pardoning and forgiuing the same then is there in vs no such perfection as M. Bishop speaketh of neither can any worke come from vs that can haue the title of absolute and perfect righteousnesse before God And this will be yet more by that that in the next place is alledged out of Saint Austine who noting diuers degrees of charity saith that e Aug. epist 29. Plenissima charitas qua iaÌ„ augeri non potest quamdiu hìc homo vinit est in nemine QuaÌ„diâ— autem augeri potest profectò quicquid minus est quà m â—ebet ex vitio est the most perfect charity no further to be increased is in no man so long as he liueth here and so long as it may be increased that that is lesse then it ought to be is by reason of a corruption or default Now hereto Saint Austine addeth not onely that which Maister Bishop mentioneth though he mention it also by halfe f Ex quo vitio 〈◊〉 est iustuâ— c. By reason of which g Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio Aug. de li. aâ—â—iâ— lib 3. cap. 14. corruption there is not a man iust vpon earth which doth good and sinneth not but also another sentence which he concealeth h Ex quo vitio non iustificaâ—â—tur c. By reason of which corruption no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God Now if by reason of a corruptioÌ„ remaining in vs there be such an imperfection of charity which is the substance of inherent iustice as that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight then can no good worke proceede from vs which can be said to be perfectly and entierly goâ—d For from an vnperfect cause cannot come a perfect effect i Bern in Cant. ser 71. Si radix in vitio ramus If the roote be faulty the braunch also must be so A lame legge cannot yeeld an vpright and stedfast gate Therefore needes must there be a lamenesse and blemish in all the good workes that issue from vs. For charity is not such as it ought to be till we loue the Lord our God with all our soule But k Aug. de perfect iustit
that righteousnesse to which the stipend and wages of righteousnesse should be due But let vs here consider the reasons which M. Bishop setteth downe in S. Austines name why he did not say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life partly saith he to hold vs in humility Well but yet it was not S. Austins meaning that the Apostle wold keep vs in humilitie by coÌ„cealing that that is true but by withholding vs from conceiuing proudly of our selues that that is not true n Ne iustitia de humano se extolleret bono merito lest saith S. Austin righteousnesse should aduance it selfe as of any merit that man should haue thereby Againe partly saith he to put difference betweene saluation and damnation This reason he maketh of his owne S. Austin hath it not but what is that difference Obserue it well gentle Reader for herein is the secret and thou shalt see the lewdnesse of there wretched men in abusing the name of S. Austin to the colouring of their falshood We are forsooth the whole and onely cause of our damnation but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God The grace of God he saith is principally the cause of our saluation but not the whole and onely cause for we must vnderstand that we our selues by our Free will are a part of the cause of our saluation Yea vpon Free will they hang the effect of the grace of God and from thence do they deriue vnto man that merit wherby he doth deserue eternall life For they know well that man cannot be said to merit any thing by that that is wholy the gift of God and therefore for the vpholding of merit and desert they are so eager and earnest for the maintenance of free will They walke in this behalfe in the very steppes of the Pelagian heretickes who as Prosper recordeth alledged for defence of Free will o Prosper de li. arbit Asserunt nec laudem ha bâ—re eos nec meritum qui ex dono gratiae sunt fideâ—es that men can haue no commendation nor merit who are faithfull by the gift of grace So S. Hierome bringeth in the Hereticke saying resolutely p Hâ—â—râ—n aduer Pelagâ—â— Mihi â—ullus â—nfâ—â—re peâ—erit arbitrij libertatem ne si in operibus mâ—s Deus adiutor extuâ—rit noÌ„ mihi debeatur merces sed ei qui in me operatus est No man shall take away from me free will lest if God be my helper in my workes the reward be not due to me but to him that worketh in me Euen so Popish merit standeth vpon free will for q Rhemish Annot in Rom. 9.14 men say the Rhemists worke by their owne Free will and thereby deserue their saluation So saith Alphonsus de Castro r Alphons de Castro adu haere lib. 7 in Gratia Ex hoc quòdnos monitioâ— illius consentimus qui tamen dissentire poteramus debetur nobis merces praemium inde meritum nostrum In that we by free will consent to Gods monition who yet had it in our power to dissent a reward and wages is due vnto vs and thence is our merit In like sort Andradius telleth vs that Å¿ Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 6. Nostra merita dicuntur quia liberè spontè illas actiones suscipimus quibus apud Deum promeremur they are called our merits because we freely and voluntarily vndertake those actions whereby we merit with God Now of this poisonfull doctrine whereby man is made partaker with God in the glorie of our saluation they would make S. Austine a partaker and patron with them who in condemning the Pelagian heresie condemned the same and challengeth our good workes which he calleth merits wholy and onely vnto God So he saith that t August Epist 105. Omne bonuÌ„ meritum nostruÌ„ non in nobis facis nisi gratia all our good worke or merit is wrought vnto vs by grace onely that u Jdem Hyâ—og lib. 3. Iustorum per totam seculi vitam meritum emâ—â— est grâ—tia all the merit of the iust through the whole life of this world is grace x De veâ— Dom. Sâ—rm 7. Totum reputa quòd iustus es pietati That thou art iust saith he repute it wholy to mercie y De verb. Apost Ser. 16. Totum quòd sumus quòd habemus boni ab illo habemus That that we are and haue in goodnesse we haue it wholy of him To that purpose he alledgeth against the Pelagians a speech of Cyprians requiring that z Idem de boâ—o perseu cap. 6 ex Cypriano de Orat. Dom. Nequis sibi superbè arroganterque aliquâ—d assumas nequis aut confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam dicat c. vt dum praecedit humilis submissa confessio datur totum Deo quâ—cquid suppliciter cum Dei timore petitur ipsius pretate praestetur no man proudly and arrogantly assume any thing to himselfe nor call the glorie of confessing or suffering his owne that whilest humble and lowly confession goeth before and all wholy is yeelded vnto God it may be granted vnto vs by his mercie whatsoeuer we humbly request in the feare of God Now according to those words of yeelding or attributing all wholy vnto God he saith in the same place a Jbid Tutiores viuimus si totum Deodâ—â—â—us non nos illi ex parte notis ex parte committimus We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God and do not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues For reason whereof he saith anone after that b Jbid cap. 7. Post casum hominis nonnifi ad gratiam suam Deus pertinere voltus vt homo accedat ad eum neque nisi ad gratiam suam pertinere volunt vt homo non recedat ab eo after the falâ— of man God would not haue it belong to any thing but to his grace that we come vnto him nor wold haue it to belong to any thing but his grace that we do not depart from him And to those words of Cyprian he alludeth in diuers and sundry places as namely where he saith that c Enchir. cap. 32 Proptereà dictuÌ„ NoÌ„ volentis c. vt detur totum Deo See of Free-will Sect 15. therefore the Apostle saith It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercie that all wholy may be attributed vnto God discoursing at large that our willing and our running is not to be diuided betwixt the will of man and the mercie of God because then as it is said on the one side It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercie because the will of man alone suffiseth not so on the other side it may be said It is not of God that sheweth mercie but of him that willeth and him that runneth
added for the producing of the effect must necessarily be holden to be added for a supply of that that it wanteth Seeing then to the satisfaction of Christ as not being a totall and perfect cause our satisfactions are added for the producing of the effects of grace and glorie it cannot be denied but that our satisfactioÌ„s are a supply of somwhat wanting to the satisfaction of Christ To this acknowledgment taken out of their owne bookes why doth M. Bishop answer nothing but that in his conscience he knoweth that they are guilty of that wherwith they are charged Yea and the thing is very apparent of it selfe for if they held the satisfaction of Christ to be a totall and perfect satisfaction then they must needs confesse that in the nature of a satisfaction nothing else should be needfull for vs. But they require somwhat else as needfull in the nature of a satisfaction Therfore they do not confesse the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction for it implieth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a totall cause and yet to require another cause as necessary for the same effect M. Bishop telleth vs that the vse of our satisfactions is to apply vnto vs Christs satisfaction and to fulfil his will and ordinance A goodly and witty deuice I haue a medicin fully sufficient and auaileable for the curing healing of my wound I must haue another medicin for the healing of the same wound which I must apply and lay to the former medicine My surety hath fully and perfectly discharged my debt and I must my selfe pay the debt againe that my sureties paiment may stand good for me A satisfaction to apply a satisfaction is a toy so improbable senslesse as that we may thinke them miserably put to shifts that could find no better cloke to hide their shame Yet this is the couer of al their poisoned cups They multiply their witchcrafts and sorceries without end bring into the Church what they list lewdly to deuise and then tell vs that these things serue to apply vnto vs the merit passion of Christ The sacrifice of the Masse is the propitiation for our sins but it applyeth vnto vs the sacrifice of the crosse of Christ The bloud and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are auaileable for the forgiuenesse of sins but they apply vnto vs the vertue of the bloud and sufferings of Christ But here M. Perkins noted that the meanes of application consist in Gods offering to vs and our receiuing of him God offereth Christ vnto vs by the word SacrameÌ„ts we receiue him by faith He required it to be proued that by satisfactions Christ is either offered on Gods part or receiued on our part Why did M. Bishop omit to do this why doth he neither bring reason example nor authority to shew vs that satisfaction hath any such nature or vse of application or in what sort it should be said to apply We haue shewed e Of Iustification Sect. 19. 29. before that faith is as it were the hand of the soule an instrument properly seruing for apprehending receiuing laying hold of and applying to our selues why doth not he make the same appeare to vs concerning satisfaction But why do we require him to do more then he can do But here is a secret gentle Reader which I wish thee to take knowledge of and if thou be acquainted with him aske him if occasion serue the solution of this doubt He telleth vs through all this discourse that the vse of Christs satisfaction is to take away the guilt of sin the eternal punishment therof that this we obtain in the forgiuenes of our sins But now after the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactions remaine to be performed by vs. If this be so if the vse of Christs satisfaction be determined in the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactioÌ„s follow after how or to what vse do these satisfactions apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ As for example M. Bishop giueth a man absolution before he dieth he hath therupon his sins forgiuen him a release froÌ„ eternall punishment but yet being not yet throughly scoured to Purgatory he must go Now then in what sort and to what end doth Purgatorie apply vnto him the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ For the satisfaction of Christ medleth not with temporall punishments he hath left the kingdome of temporall satisfactions the whole reuenew thereof to the Pope What do we here then with applying the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ Riddle this riddle he that can for M. Bishop cannot do it yet he telleth vs further that our satisfactioÌ„s are to fulfill the wil and ordinance of Christ and hereupon he entreth into a goodly tale to declare vnto vs this ordinance But his declaratioÌ„ is such as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretikes f Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis vt virut falsitatis intrâ—â—at They thrust in words of truth that the poison of their falshood may find entrance It fitteth them which Tertullian said of the Valentinians g Tertul. aduers Valent. Sanctis nominibus titulis argumentis verae religionis vanissima turpissima sigmenta coâ—figurant They fashion their most vaine filthy deuices to the holy names and titles and arguments of true religion He telleth vs that God in Baptisme for Christs sake both pardoneth all sin and taketh fully away all paine due to sin But where I maruell hath he seene this miracle wrought That God in Baptisme giueth full forgiuenesse of sins we acknowledge but yet did we neuer find but that baptisme for pain outward grieuances leaueth a man the same that it found him sicke and diseased before sicke and diseased still lame before lame still blind before blind still We see that infants baptized who he saith haue no sin to satisfie for yet haue many pangs and frets and sicknesses and how then doth baptisme take away al paine due to sin He who dieth in that state saith he goeth presently to heauen but he who dieth in that state dieth he without pain We see he talketh at randon wholy by fancy not by reason neither do his eyes look which way his feet go Well let this passe What after baptisme If after we transgresse saith he then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor Why but the Apostle S. Iohn saith to them that are baptized h 1. Ioh. 22. If any man sin we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation or satisfaction for our sins What is the difference then if both in baptisme and after baptisme Christ be the attonement satisfaction for our sinnes Yea saith M. Bishop God vpon our repentance pardoneth the sinne and eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ but doth
exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable to the fault committed But this cannot be i Hieron in Esa cap. 53 lib. 14. Ne exparte veritas ex parte mendaciū◠eredatur in Christo least as S. Hierome saith in another case it be partly a truth and partly a lye which we beleeue in Christ For then as touching eternall punishment it shall be a truth that Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes but as touching temporall satisfactions it shall be a lye and we shall be said to be the propitiation and attonement for our owne sinnes Which because it is blasphemous and wicked to affirme neither hath the Scripture taught vs any such diuision betwixt Christ and vs therfore we must confesse that in name of satisfaction for reconcilement vnto God we do nothing for our selues but Christ only both temporally and eternally is the satisfaction for our sinnes Christ did not onely beare the infinite wrath of God to acquit vs of eternall punishment but according to the words of the Prophet cited by the Euangelist k Esa 53.4 Math. 8.17 He tooke vpō him our infirmities and beare our sicknesses that is our temporall punishments which what doth it import but that in respect of temporall punishments also Christ is our Redeemer Christ is our satisfaction vnto God And if not so why do we then pray to God to be deliuered from temporall calamities and afflictions for Christes sake Nay see how wickedly this deuice is framed The bloud of Christ serueth not to acquit vs from temporall punishments but the bloud of S. Peter doth and the bloud of Paul and the bloud of the Martyrs these all are helpfull to free vs from temporall satisfactions They pray by one Saint against the toothach by another against the falling sicknesse by another against the plague c. their merits are auaileable in this behalfe but the merit of Christ auaileth nothing And yet they tell vs that the conclusion of all their praiers is Per Christum Dominum nostrum through Christ our Lord. But why do they thus bring in the mediation of Christ if Christ in this respect haue done nothing for vs If Christ haue left the burden of temporall satisfactions to lie wholy vpon vs why do they pray by him and through him to be disburdened thereof This the Church of the faithfull hath alwaies done and in all times The Church of Rome therefore dealeth vnfaithfully to retaine the words of the faithfull and to giue checke to the meaning of them by denying Christ to be our Redeemer from that wrath of God whereby temporall afflictions and punishments are laid vpon vs. As for vs we resolue that as the disobedience of the first Adam brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments but also temporall so the obedience and merit of the second Adam to answer that in sauing which the other had done in destroying hath made satisfaction to God for both so that the faithfull penitent soule beleeuing receiuing in Christ forgiuenesse of sinnes beleeueth it selfe to be perfectly reconciled vnto God reckoneth not of any further satisfaction to be made vnto him Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth that Christes satisfaction is of infinite value therfore that our satisfactiō is not to supply his But if it be of infinite value why doth he restraine abridge the effect thereof in respect of them to whom the infinite value of it doth belong why doth he make the value therof in respect of the temporall punishments of sin altogether idle of no vse and if it might haue freed vs from doing satisfaction for our selues why doth it not He giueth vs reasons that by the smart therof we may be feared and made carefull to auoid sin that by suffering we may be cōformed as mēbers to Christ our head You say wel M. Bishop but yet we heare nothing here concerning satisfaction We require a reason of the assertion of our satisfactions for that Christ we say hath yeelded a full satisfaction for vs you tell vs of being frighted from sin made cōformable vnto Christ which are things that stand very well without any matter of satisfaction The Scripture teacheth vs these vses of the sufferings of the faithfull but it saith nothing to vs concerning satisfaction But for the better vnderstanding of this whole matter it is to be obserued that the temporal calamities euils of this life are of thēselues and in their own nature the punishments of sin the effects of Gods curse the beames of his euerlasting fury wrath the forerunners of his dreadful iudgment preparations to death death it self the vpshot of all the rest as it were a gulfe swallowing vs vp into feareful darknesse and vtter destruction both of body soule Now Christ being l Iohn 1.29 the lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world in taking away our sins taketh away consequently the effects of sin because the cause being remoued the effects cannot remaine But in sin as hath bene before declared we are to consider both the corruption and the guilt of which the guilt being taken away the corruption may stil remaine and the effects of sinne haue reference to both these Being then reconciled vnto God through Iesus Christ by the not imputing of our sins we see that the temporal afflictions and grieuances of this life are stil continuing lying vpon vs. Hereupon the question is our sins being forgiuen in what nature they continue We say not as satisfactions to the wrath of God in respect of the guilt of sin but as cautions and prouisions of his loue for the destroying of the corruption of it The guilt of sinne is the foundation of satisfaction and where no guilt is there is no satisfaction to be demaunded When therefore forgiuenes hath taken away the guilt there can be no requiring of satisfaction the afflictions thenceforth lying vpon vs are of another nature and to other ends vses then that either we should be said thereby to satisfie God or that God should be said thereby to satisfie himselfe of vs. The vses thereof the Scripture noteth m Rom. 6.6 the destroying of the body of sin n Heb. 12.10 the making of vs partakers of his holinesse o 2. Cor. 4.16 the renewing of the inner man from day to day p Col. 1.12 the making of vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light q 1. Cor. 11.32 We are chastened of the Lord when we are iudged that we should not be cōdemned with the world r Aug. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 15. Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt vel ad emendanda peccata velad exercendam probandamque iustitiam vel ad demōstrandā vitae huius miseriā vt illa vbi erit beatitudo vera atque perpetua desideretur ardenriùs instantiùs inquiratur Vide in Ioan. tract 124. They serue saith Austine
the fire but still we say what is this to satisfaction We still require his proofe that for the vertue and woorth of these fruites it is that God is appeased towards vs. But that cannot be for a man cannot bring forth good fruite except first of all he be made a good tree for e Chap. 7.17 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruite then God must first be appeased towards him which is by the faith of Iesus Christ f Rom. 3.25 whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or attonement through faith in his bloud Our good fruites then are not the causes but the effects of Gods being appeased towards vs. If we haue none we are sure that we are in state of iudgement and damnation and the sentence of Saint Iohn taketh hold of vs but if we haue them we are not to account them the redemption of our sinnes but testimonies of the remission and forgiuenesse thereof Yea but Saint Iohn saith M. Bishop seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Where or in what words Marry because he saith Say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face whē he wrote this that the paper might not see him blush Why what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Forsooth he saith to them it will not helpe you to say that ye are the sonnes of Abraham who was father of all true beleeuers Well but what is this yet to laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith It is as much saith he as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off ye generation of vipers This is a strange construction that say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father should be as much as to say Trust not to your faith But it grew at Rome and we know that things farre fetched are woont to be very strange As for vs we conceiue in our simplicity that Iohns meaning was to reprooue them for flattering themselues for that carnally they were the seede of Abraham as if that were sufficient security for them towards God when as in the meane time they neglected the repentance and faith and workes of Abraham The true children of Abraham are they g Rom. 4.12 who walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham and h Iohn 8.39 do the workes of Abraham which they not regarding could not be accounted the sonnes of Abraham whose of-spring was reckoned according to the spirit not according to the flesh Thus doth our Sauiour testifie of them that they beleeued not saying vnto them i Math. 21.31 Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdome of God For Iohn came vnto you in the way of righteousnesse and ye beleeued him not but Publicans and harlots beleeued him and ye though ye saw it were not moued with repentance afterward that ye might beleeue him Now is it not a wonder that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith yet Iohn Baptist should say vnto them Trust not to your faith Well all this is nothing he cannot serue the Popes turne that will not notably cogge and lye The rest of his commentarie accordeth with this where he foisteth in the satisfying of Gods iustice there being nothing in the words of S. Iohn that foundeth to that effect 14. W. BISHOP Cor. 7.10 The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof one is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainments properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments onely from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must do Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We graunt that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his bodie and mind too as Saint Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians but this sorow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chastisement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished for where there is no feare of paines much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester sort And an emulation and desire to flie as farre from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs frō that sorow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul R. ABBOT The Greeke fathers Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius and Hierome amongst the Latines do referre the reuenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the lawes of God But we further very willingly yeeld that by reuenge is also meant a wreaking of a mans anger as I may terme it vpon himselfe being offended and grieued at himselfe for the sinne that he hath done and therefore bending himselfe to crosse and thwart those desires by which he was led vnto it This the Scripture teacheth vs by the termes of a Math. 16.24 denying our selues b Col. 3.5 mortifying our earthly members c 1. Pet. 4.1 suffering in the flesh d Gal. 5.24 crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it and e Rom. 6.6 destroying of the body of sinne Thus men occasion requiring giue themselues ouer to fasting and weeping and mourning and forbearing of accustomed delights yea and to open rebuke and shame with men hauing by publike offence made themselues a scandall to the Church This reuenge we denie not we say that hereby we testifie both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we haue taken against our selues we teach others to take heed and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we haue fallen we labour hereby that the tēptations of sin may no more in the like sort preuaile against vs but we are still
the commandement of offering his sonne And to this effect Clemens Alexandrinus vnderstandeth it saying e Clem. Alexan. stromat lib. 3. CuÌ„ dixit si vis perfectus esse c. refella eum qui gloriatur quòd omnia à iuueÌ„tute praecepta seruauerit non enim impleuerat illud Diliges proximuÌ„ c. Tunc autem vt qui à Domino perficeretur docebatur coÌ„municare impertiri per charitatem Pulchrè ergo non prohibuit esse diuitem iniustè inexplebilitèr When Christ saith If thou wilt be perfect sell what thou hast and giue to the poore he disproueth him that glorieth that he hath kept all the commaundements from his youth for he had not fulfilled the commaundement Thou shalt loue thy neighbor as thy selfe But then as being to be perfected by the Lord he was taught charitably to communicate and bestow Notably therefore he forbiddeth not to be rich but to be rich vniustly and vnsatiably Clement then saith as M. Perkins saith that the words are directed to a particular occasion and had their speciall vse in respect of him to whom they were spoken to discouer his erronious conceit and opinion of himselfe This is not then a silly shift of the poore Protestants but the true exposition of an auncient and learned Father But what doth he alledge for the confuting of this silly shift Marry that f Ver. 27. S. Peter a little after saith Lord we haue forsaken all and haue followed thee what reward shall we haue And what is that We haue done saith he that which thou commandedst in the words before to the yong man But that is not so for we do not find that they sold all to giue to the poore as he was commaunded to do much lesse that they vowed neuer after to haue any thing as M. Bishop would proue by it For it is apparent that though the Apostles then had left the care and the vse yet they had not left the proprietie right of all They medled not with any thing they had they attended not to any businesse of their owne they gaue ouer their nets and their ships the following of all worldly affaires that they might wholy follow Christ but yet that they had stil their owne it appeareth by the words of Christ g Iohn 16.32 Ye all shall be scattered euery man to his owne and shall leaue me alone So is it said of Iohn that when Christ said to him Behold thy mother meaning it of the blessed virgin h Chap. 19.27 he thenceforth tooke her to his owne home Yea and by the last chapter of his Gospell it may wel be conceiued that they had still their ships and their nets to go a fishing as they had before But howsoeuer that be these words make nothing against M. Perkins answer because the disciples had had a like speciall calling to follow Christ as this yong man had and they do hereby but professe their yeelding themselues to that speciall calling of Christ as this yong man shold haue done to this calling directed particularly to him Albeit therfore this commaundement were here intended onely to the yong man yet there was no cause why Christ should say that they had done foolishly in doing that they had done because they had receiued the like commaundement in effect before and by vertue therof had before this forsaken all and followed him Now as those callings of the disciples and Christs commandements to them of following him were particular to themselues and not common to al nor could be vnderstood as belonging to this yong man so neither can this commaundement to the yong man be vnderstood here as spoken in coÌ„mon to the disciples or belonging vnto vs. In a word Christ called him to be one of his disciples as the rest were and his calling caÌ„not be vnderstood to belong vnto vs any more then their calling doth Now as Christ saith peculiarly to the disciples that they hauing left all at his commaundement and followed him shall sit vpon twelue seates to iudge the twelue tribes of Israel so he maketh a common and general promise to all that whosoeuer for his names sake and for the Gospâ—ls sake shal forsake all that is shal be content to yeeld all into the persecutors hands and to loose all rather then to denie the name of Christ and to forsake his Gospell he shall now receiue an hundred fold and in the world to come eternall life This is true we doubt not hereof but M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse that this maketh nothing at all to prooue that the former words spoken to the yong man do belong to vs. For that forsaking of all which Christ here speaketh of for his names sake and for the Gospels sake is a necessary dutie without the performance whereof i Luke 14.26 a man cannot be Christs disciple k Marke 8.35 Whosoeuer in this case will saue his life saith Christ shall lose it and whosoeuer shall lose his life for my sake and for the Gospels sake he shall saue it But M. Bishop telleth vs that that selling of all and giuing to the poore is no commandement but a counsell a matter not necessary but voluntary which a man may chuse whether he will do or not He that forsaketh not all in such sort as Christ speaketh thereof in the latter words sinneth grieuously against Christ but M. Bishop saith that a man may forbeare to sel all and giue to the poore and yet sinneth not Here by then we may see how vntowardly he dealeth in taking from one of these a confirmation of the other and so it appeareth that hitherto M. Perkins answer standeth good that those words of our Sauiour Christ to the yong man were intended onely in particular to him and concerne no other in proper meaning but onely such to whom they were in particular directed as they were to him But yet that M. Bishop may know that we haue somewhat more to say then M. Perkins hath said and can make it good that they most wickedly abuse this place to the maintenance of their vowes and opinion of perfection I will somewhat more fully examine the circumstances thereof I shall seeme haply here to go against the streame and to be somewhat preiudicated by the opinion of sundry of the Fathers but yet gentle Reader let not names of men carry thee away from that which thou thy selfe canst manifestly discerne to be the truth Remember what hath bene already said that the words of Christ literally and in proper vnderstanding belonged peculiarly to the yong man but yet we deny not but that as the calling of the rest of the Apostles so the calling of this yong man by deduction and moralization is to be applied vnto vs onely the question is in what meaning it doth concerne vs. Let it be obserued what meaning M. Bishop intendeth of it that Christ here recommendeth a matter of counsell not necessary for
adde a supply of humane satisfaction ergo they make it no satisfaction at all Answ This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon which hath both propositions false The first is childish for he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of theÌ„ makes some satisfaction which satisfaction is vnperfect yet cannot be called no satisfaction at al as euery child may see His second is as vntrue mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction but to apply it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his will and ordinance God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sins and taketh fully away all paine due to sinne so that he who dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if we do afterward vngratefully forsake God and coÌ„trary to our promise transgresse against his commandements then lo the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor but he vpon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable vnto the fault committed not to supply Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall but that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoyd sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Gal. 6. Euery man do beare his owne burden R. ABBOT M. Bishop well knew that M. Perkins speech importeth no contradiction because in the one he intendeth that euery man is to make satisfaction for his sins either by himselfe or by a Mediator and in the other denieth that any man maketh this satisfaction or any part thereof by himself Though the phrase were not so easie of our making satisfaction when he meant it by another yet his meaning was very plaine There must be a satisfaction yeelded to the iustice of God which is done onely in Iesus Christ a Rom. 3.25 whom God himselfe hath set foorth to be an attonement or reconciliation through faith in his bloud Here is therefore no broken rubbish but a sure foundation laid and the building setled vpon it standeth firme and fast the wind wherwith M. Bishop hath blown against it being only his owne breath And because b 1. Cor. 3.11 there is no other foundation to be laid but only that which he hath laid which is Iesus Christ therefore not like a blind man but vpon good discernement and sight he hath made the outcry that the Papists laying another foundatioÌ„ in the merits and satisfactions of men do erre in the very foundation and life of Christian faith To shew this he argueth in this sort A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they adde a supply of humane satisfactions therefore they make Christs satisfaction no satisfaction at all A substantial argument saith M. Bishop well if it be not so we expect that M. Bishop make it appeare to vs by a very substantiall answer He telleth vs that both the propositions are false yea the first saith he is childish but well we wot that he hath giuen vs a very childish reason why he so saith He that satisfieth for halfe his debts or any part thereof saith he makes some satisfaction But we tell him that therein he fondly misapplyeth the name of satisfaction which is a word of perfection and therfore cannot be rightly vsed of that that is vnperfect It importeth the doing of that that is sufficient and enough to giue full contentment to the party to whom it is done and fully to quit the offence and wrong that is done vnto him Therefore no man but M. Bishop is so mad as to say that by the tender of a penny a man offereth a satisfaction when the debt or damage is an hundred pounds Yea and howsoeuer the name of satisfaction may be abused in party-payment for matters of meere debt yet he should remember that in their schooles it is resolued that because Satisfaction as here it is spoken of is c Thom. Aquin. Supplement q. 14. art 1. c. Cùm per satisfactioneÌ„ tolli debeat offensa praecedentis peccati offensae autem ablatio sit amicitiae diuinae restitutio quaeper quoduis peccatuÌ„ impeditur sieri non potest vt homo de vno peccato satisfaciat alto retento Vide in corpâ—art the taking away of displeasure and offence and the taking away of offence is the restitution of friendship and loue and there cannot be restitution of friendship and loue so long as any impediment therof coÌ„tinueth therfore there can be no satisfaction for one sin that is for one part of a mans debt so long as there is a remainder of another M. Bishop might very well conceiue that God receiueth not recompence of his wrongs by pence and halfpence nor doth account the sacrifice of a sheep to be some satisfaction towards the sauing of a soule But it is the 2. proposition that specially concernes the point To that he answereth that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction Where we see it to be with them as Tertullian mentioneth of the Valentinian heretickes d Tertullian aduers Valent. Nihil magis curant quà m occultare quod praedicant si tamen praeditant qui occuliant c. Negant quicquid agnoscum They care for nothing more then to hide that which they preach if at least they preach who conceale and hide they deny it howsoeuer they well know it They do indeed make the satisfaction of Christ vnperfect our satisfactions to be the supply of his want but yet because that soundeth odiously they will not haue it knowne or taken that they do so Yet M. Perkins brought proofe thereof out of one of their great Schoolemen Gabriel Biel who plainly saith that although the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which is conferred grace and the opening of the kingdome and glory yet it is neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause It is manifest saith he because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke as the merit of congruitie or condignitie of him that receiueth grace or glorie if he be of yeares and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason Here it is expresly affirmed that the passion of Christ is not a totall meritorious cause and if it be not a totall cause then it wanteth a supply that that is